[Physics] Compatibility with and/or the properties of the Standard Model (SM)

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2020-04-28 17:53 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 8:01 PM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com>
>> Whatever, it is the simplest thing we have which is compatible with
>> all the particle accelerator data.
>
> The fundamental problem is that Maxwell's equations are in violation
> of the fundamental theorem of vector calculus.

They are not. Point.

>> That's wrong, they violate nothing. To put it simply, one cannot
>> violate theorems in mathematics.
>
> Look, you can play word games if you like, you can get emotional, all
> fine. Part of the game, it happens.
>
> The human mind does not like to be confronted with information that
> does not align with one's belief system.

This has nothing to do with my belief system, it is simply fact that
your belief system is wrong about this. I have shown you that your
formulas make no sense, you refuse to accept this, that's your
personal problem.

> At the end of the day, there is no denial that there is something
> seriously wrong with Maxwell's equations and there really is no
> denying that Maxwell's curl [E] = -d[B]/dt is something completely
> different than the curl [E] = 0 we find in the fundamental theorem of
> vector calculus.

Of course there can be no denial of claims which are plainly wrong.

There is no theorem of the vector calculus which says that curl [E] = 0
holds for a general vector field E.  It holds for gradient fields, but E is
a gradient only in the static case.

So, please don't present things you simply have not understood as if
they were simply truths. These things are, of course, simple, but they
are simple errors from your side.

>> Do you want to invent nice-sounding fairy tales or a theory which has
>> something to do with reality?  In the last case, you have no choice
>> but to use the SM together with GR as the starting points.
>
> When one finds a bug that has so many consequences as this one, one
> has no choice but to fix it and then to figure out what the
> consequences actually are and how to correct these as well.

Irrelevant given that you haven't found any bug in the quite trivial
physics of the Maxwell equations.

> Yet another point is that Maxwell does not predict Tesla's
> faster-than-light longitudinal wave. Even though there is no
> conclusive evidence for these to exist, there are quite a few data
> points which, when taken together, leave little doubt in my mind these
> actually do exist and do propagate FTL.

Once there is no evidence for them, forget about them.

> The evidence includes a/o
> "fast light" anomalies discovered with optical fibers, such as by
> Stenner and Wang:
>
> http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/
> http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/Wang%20et%20al%20-%20Gain-assisted%20superluminal%20light%20propagation.pdf

Sounds impressive, but such experiments are games with inappropriate
definitions of velocities, which differ from the one which is relevant
for Einstein causality.

>> The design of software has not much to do with the search for a theory
>> of physics. You sound again like one who wants to design a nice
>> fundamental theory without caring about any real data.
>
> The design of software has everything to do with the search for a
> theory of physics. At the end of the day, one will have to build
> simulators in order for the theory to be useful. Simulators for the EM
> fields as wel as fluid dynamics are in essence nothing but evaluations
> of the (vector) math using discretized approximations and that goes
> for all field simulator software, as far as I can tell.

This is the job for programmers. They will find ways to do this. It is
nothing one has to care about if one develops new theories.  In this
case, the main point is if the predictions have something to do with
reality, which one can usually establish by comparing the theory with
existing established theories which have a lot of experimental
support, like the SM.

>> This is yet another simple dream theory, which has nothing to do with
>> the reality described by the SM and GR.
>
> At least Mike does think about what the fields actually describe,
> thinks about what that means and considers the dimensionality (units
> of measurement) of the fields involved. The foundation of his analysis
> is the use of the charge-mass qm rather than q as the unit of
> electromagnetism, which teached him quite a lot.

Be happy about what Mike thinks.  I couldn't care less, sorry Mike.
What I care about is if the resulting theory has a chance to predict
something similar to the SM.

> However, because the introduction of the quantity of charge as a
> fundamental quantity introduces circular logic, it is clear that the
> real answer is to start out with the use of mass m, rather than the
> charge-mass.

And because of this nonsense argument about circularity you end up
with no charges at all and no connection with physics where we have
charged particles, with even several different charges.  Instead, my
model computes all the charges of the fermions of the SM, and even how
many different charges there are.

> Are you still living with the illusion that abstract fields rather
> than the real fields of force as defined by Laplace yield anything
> resembling actual understanding?

LOL, abstract fields vs. real fields. Sounds like you have rejected
complex fields because they are too complex or so.

> Freeman Dyson explained very nicely how it came to be that abstract
> fields are the false prophet of modern science:

Modern physics is indeed wrong about fields being fundamental, they
paid for this a quite horrible price having to understand all this
renormalization game.  Until Wilson teached them that renormalization
is as useful in condensed matter physics, and how it has to be really
handled, namely by accepting that continuous field theories are only
large distance approximations of some yet unknown theories valid for
small distances.

> Yep, Occam had a point.

Occam's razor contains the part "without necessity".  If you ignore
the real experiments which have supported the SM, and feel no
necessity to explain them, ok, play around with your liquid ether
defined by a simple velocity field. I feel such a necessity, so I care
about ether models which recover the SM and GR.