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

[Arend Lammertink]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 4:02 PM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Yes, they are. Get used to it.

>
> >> 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.

You have done no such thing.

>
> > 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.

The point is that the fundamental theorem of vector calculus defines
exactly how a given vector field [F] should be decomposed in an
irrotational, compressible component [E] and a rotational,
incompressible component [B] for which superposition holds and thus
one gets an additional, as of yet undefined field [X] = [E] + [B].

There's just nothing static about fluid dynamics, so it's absolute
nonsense this *fundamental* theorem would only apply to 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.

No, they are not. I've checked things out and shown you the evidence I
base my assumption of the existence of FTL longitudinal waves on.

Bottom line is this: if you do not understand the difference between
Tesla's single wire transmission line concept and the common two-wire
transmission line, the only one that can be properly analysed with the
current Maxwell equations, you do not understand Maxwell's equations
nor why they are incorrect.


>
> >> 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.

Yep, I did. I've shown it over and over. You just think you know
better and won't accept the obvious, that's all.

>
> > 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.

There's a difference between "no evidence" and "no conclusive evidence".

>
> > 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.

Point is: faster than light phenomena have been measured, actually
already since 1834 when Charles Wheatstone measured the velocity of
electricity with nothing but spark gaps, a bunch of wires and Leyden
yars:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/WheatstoneExperimentsToMeasureTheVelocityOfElectricity

Quite an interesting experiment. Note how he measured the rotation
frequency of his mirror, literally by ear:

"The difficulty was at last overcome by employing the arm Q itself to
produce the sound. A small slip of paper was held to it ; and as at
every revolution a blow was given to the paper, its rapid recurrence
gave rise to a sound the pitch of which varied with the velocity of
the motion. When the machinery was put in motion with the maximum
velocity I employed in my experiments, the sound G#4 was obtained,
indicating 800 revolutions of the mirror in a second. I am not aware
that anything can have interfered with the accuracy of this result ;
the same sound was heard when different pieces of paper or card were
used ; and on moderating the velocity, the sound descended through all
the degrees of the scale below it, until distinct percussions were
perceived"


>
> >> 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.

Well, it seems we agree on something for a change, other than that it
can't hurt to be aware of the fact that one's formula's are actually a
kind of programming, too. It's just at a higher abstraction level than
"actual" programming languages, but in essence it's just an expression
of one and the same concept in another language.

>
> >> 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.

Well, I don't see why a reworked/rebased SM would not 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.

No, you end up with an actual understanding of what charge is: an
oscilation which involves compression/decompression of the "charged"
particle at hand, which results in said particle to emit a
longitudinal wave with a frequency that matches it's characteristic
oscillation frequency, given by:

f  = q/m  (eq. 25 in https://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237 )

>
> > 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.

No, I reject them as being fundamental, because they introduce the
problem of having to figure out how they are supposed to propagate
trough the medium. If you don't know how your field is supposed to
propagate trough the medium, you have no idea what it is you're
actually describing. Then it's just math which happens to predict a
number of outcomes correctly, but you cannot determine the limits of
applicability of such a model and you run into all kinds of problems,
like anomalies and singularities.


>
> > 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.

I really do prefer a single (properly decomposed) field based on
fundamental math and a physical aether, which is known to be
consistent and has no singularities and therefore one avoids the whole
renormalization problem alltogether.

>
> > 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.

Yep, agree to that, too.

As argued, there is no reason why the SM couldn't be revised such that
it's base with multiple abstract fields would be replaced with a
single field that is properly defined along the fundamental theorem of
vector calculus, which is undoubtly called "fundamental" for a reason.

In other words: I do feel the necessity to explain them and that's why
I care about extending our basic medium model with the knowledge
currently in the SM, and GR too, for that matter.

All I really disagree with is: what should be the model for the aether itself?

I believe the logical and proper description of the medium would be a
fluid dynamics model, which would actually be very close to Maxwell's.
Just remove Faraday's law and worry about that later, AFTER a particle
model based on revision of the SM has been completed. Then what's left
is a simple model that matches 1:1 to a common fluid dynamics model,
whereby you have a unit of measurement in [m/s] for both the [E] and
[B] fields of force.

In the end, the inclusion of Faraday's law at the wrong level in the
model is all that stands in between a real understanding of the aether
and having actual fields of force that make sense and the need to
formulate a ton of abstract fields in a thusfar fruitless attempt to
straigthen out Maxwell's bug.

I mean, 150+ years later we still have no decent description of what
gravity is, nor what charge is, other than what Stowe has taught us
from just the idea that the aether should be described as an ideal,
Newtonian fluid.