[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>
> wrote:
>> 2020-04-27 14:49 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
>> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 6:18 PM <mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
> Think what you want, but if a guy like Tesla claims to have
> transmitted waves with a speed vastly exceeding that of light, it may
> be a good idea to pay attention.

Maybe, your choice. Tesla has received enough attention from a lot of
freaks, if there would have been something worth in his research
ignored by the mainstream, it would have been already found and
demonstrated. Last but not least, even freaks have today technical
possibilities much better than Tesla at his time.

> The prediction of "spooky
> action at a distance", requiring not only a force propagating at an
> infinite speed but requiring an infinite magnitude as well, is one of
> those predictions that's obviously incorrect.

The tests of the Bell inequalities are quite accurate now, and require
quantum causal influences having a speed of at least 10^4 c or so. If
you want to join the Bell freaks community too, your choice.

>> Fine, but Paul Stowe is also no authority.  As far as I know, he has
>> failed yet to give a theory which is able to recover the predictions
>> of SM and GR.

> Well, he can explain the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the
> electron as well:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_magnetic_dipole_moment

So he can compute some correction to the standard QED computation
which is more accurate than QED?
Getting not a_{e} = 0.001 159 652 181 643(764) but something closer to
a_{e} = 0.001 159 652 180 73(28)?  That would be impressive, but I doubt.

>> Sounds like a theory which exist in verbal description only.  Such
>> theories are worthless, nobody will even take a look at them.
>
> In a good theory, math is used to expresses the fundamental ideas one
> has such that these ideas form the basis for a quantifiable theory.
> These fundamental ideas should be the master over the math and not the
> other way around.

So use it for this purpose.

> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/EinsteinMaxwellsInfluenceOnTheDevelopmentOfTheConceptionOfPhysicalReality#PartialDifferential
>
> "In a particular area of theoretical physics the continuous
> field appeared side by side with the material point as the
> representative of physical reality. This dualism has to this day not
> disappeared, disturbing as it must be to any systematic mind."

Temperature is understood as defined by the average energy of the
atoms. But for large distances one can approximate it by a continuous
function T(x,y,z,t). So, thermodynamics is, for large distances, also
a field theory. Any problem? No. It should be clarified what is the
more fundamental notion, that's all.

I think that this "dualism" has already disappeared. In QFT, the most
fundamental notion is the field. The particles are only quantum
effects, similar to phonons in quantum condensed matter theory. In my
ether model of the SM, at the foundation is some discrete lattice
structure, so that the continuous fields are only large distance
approximations, nothing fundamental. That's simply the next step.

> It should be possible to refactor the SM such that it is based on the
> notion of the existence of a real, physical medium rather than the
> notion of the existence of a number of abstract fields, for which
> there is no explanation of how these are supposed to propagate trough
> the medium.

In my approach all the fields are properties of the medium itself, and
propagate as waves of the medium through the medium. Having an ether
and additionally all the SM fields or particles or whatever makes not
much sense IMHO.

> The equations are probably OK to a large degree. It's mainly their
> units of measurements which should be adapted to the new model, which
> only has three fundamental dimensions:
>
> 1) length [m]
> 2) mass [kg]
> 3) time [s].
>
> All other quantities can be expressed in these three, which is a
> significant simplification.

This is some unjustified hope. The ether may have a quite complex
structure, and have a lot of different material constants.

> I'm focussing on Tesla's longitudinal waves and single wire
> transmission line technology. That's the nut I want to crack, because
> we need it if we ever want to be able to attach our machinery to the
> very wheelwork of Nature.

I leave Tesla to freaks. My approach was much more successful than
what I have dreamed about when I started to develop ether theory.

> In other words: the SM is what you have to guide you, yes, but that
> does not mean one has to take it completely for granted.

I don't. So I disagree about the Higgs sector.  My ether model
recovers the fermions and gauge fields, and adds some massive scalar
fields (among them some dark matter candidates). Moreover, it adds
longitudinal components to the gauge fields. It also adds two
anomalous gauge fields, which are suppressed as non-renormalizable
fields have to be.

In fact, the mainstream is not happy with the Higgs sector too, all
this talk about non-natural is about the Higgs sector.

>> Don't forget, your ether model does not exist yet as a well-defined
>> physical theory.  A simple liquid described by some velocity is way to
>> primitive to make any nontrivial predictions.
>
> Yep, agree to that. Hence the argument a particle model is needed
> which should be built on top of the medium model by using the SM as a
> guideline.

This will not work. If you use one SM field (the EM field) as the
base, and construct the other fields differently, you have to explain
why the same constant c appears in the equations for all of them in
essentially the same way.

In my ether model, this follows from the start, given that I can prove
the Einstein equivalence principle.

>> Or how does it follow that we have, in the SM, three generations,
>> instead of four or two?  Can the variants of the SM with four or two
>> generations be described by your ether model or not?  If not, fine,
>> this would make three generations a prediction of your ether model.
>> If yes, if your ether model does not restrict the resulting field
>> theories at all, then it is worthless, because it does not make any
>> nontrivial predictions.
>
> The point is that because our aether model does not restrict the
> resulting field theories, those theories can be adapted / refactored
> to incorporate the new found information.

Instead, in my ether model, the three generations are predicted. You
cannot obtain the SM with two or four generations using something
similar to my ether model.  You would have to throw it away and start
to invent something completely different.

> Nope, but again, it allows one to rebase the current model from an
> abstract field model base onto a base wherein two real physical fields
> of force are defined, which are obtained from a fluid dynamics aether
> model. These fields being the irrotatinonal [E] field and the
> incompressible [B] field for which superposition holds, so can add a
> third field [X]=[E]+[B] if one so desires.

Makes no sense.

>> Complete nonsense, the SM gauge fields have well-defined physical effects.
>
> In any case, the effects are not expressed in terms of the real
> physical fields of force they should work trough.
>
> The most direct experimental data which illustrates this is the
> Aharonov–Bohm effect:

The Aharonov-Bohm effect is nice, and shows that one would better use
the gauge potentials as fundamental, instead of the force fields.
Which is what I do anyway. This is done for the EM field as well as
for the other gauge fields.

>> My ether model is already much simpler than the SM, and predicts much
>> of its properties. This is certainly increasing our understanding of
>> the SM.  And once the SM describes what is actually going one in
>> particle physics, it is increasing the understanding of this last
>> thing too.
>
> Increasing our understanding of the SM is a good thing, certainly.
>
> But if you really want to understand what's actually going on, you
> have no choice but to define your fields in such a way that you also
> understand how these fields propagate trough a medium characterized by
> a permittivity 𝞮 of 8.854 pF/m, a permeability 𝞵 of 4𝞹 x 10^-7 H/m
> and a characteristic impedance of 377 𝞨.

I have to take care of many many other physical constants predicted by
the SM. No time to list them all, but no reason to focus my interest
on those parameters related to the EM field.

> But again, in order to make physical predictions, one's theory will
> have to be based on something physical, the aether.

No. The SM is not based on such a physical model, nonetheless it makes
physical predictions.

> There is just no way one can ever achieve a "Theory of Everyting" if
> one starts out by defining abstract fields that cannot be mapped to
> the characteristics of the medium we know to exist.

Nonsense. People have started with abstract fields in thermodynamics,
and then, based on the atomic theory, have learned how these
observable phenomenological fields depend on the properties of the
atomic models.  This research program was successful in thermodynamics
as well as in condensed matter theory.

>> >> > What Helmholtz says is:
>> >> > A vector field 𝐅 exists such that:
>> >> >  𝐅 = −∇Φ + ∇×𝐀
>>
>> No. He says that for every field F there exists potentials \Phi, A
>> with this property.
>> That give some  \Phi, A  there exists also an F with this property is
>> a triviality, all you have to do is to compute the derivatives.  No
>> theorem necessary.
>
> There is one detail to add:
> "if additionally the vector field F vanishes as r → ∞, then F is unique."

Again you confuse theorems. If Φ, A are given (and smooth), then

>> >> >  𝐅 = −∇Φ + ∇×𝐀

is obviously unique. Simply compute the derivatives.

>> Which makes no sense at all.
>
> It's just taking the equation that's given and has been mathematically
> proven to be correct:
>
> ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅)
>
> And substitute
>
> ∇·𝐅  = Φ, and
> ∇×𝐅 = 𝐀

If you take these formulas as definitions for the Φ,A, fine, but the
potentials in Maxwell theory are in no way obliged to follow this
definition.

>  𝐁=∇×𝐀=∇×(∇×𝐅)
>  𝗘=−∇Φ= −∇(∇⋅𝐅)
>
> And because of vector identities, one can also write:
>
>  ∇×𝗘= 0
>  ∇⋅𝐁= 0

That means, if you define  Φ,A in such a way, you will get only a very
restricted subset of the solutions of the Maxwell equations. Those
with a static magnetic field only.

>> Fine, feel free to start this process. Up to now, you have nothing,
>> not even a prediction which could be falsified to identify a bug.
>
> Even though we have not fully worked out the math (wave equations) we
> know longitudinal waves are predicted and not only that, they are
> predicted to propagate faster than light by a factor of either pi/2 or
> sqrt(3). That's what longitudinal waves do, they propagate faster than
> transverse waves trough the same medium.

You would better decide which factor you predict.

>> There is no bug in the Maxwell equations, the bug is in your
>> understanding them.
>
> Failing to predict of Tesla's longitudinal waves is a serious bug in my
> book.

Longitudinal gauge fields are part of my model too, but their speed is
not different from c.

>> Some nice 2D pictures seem to match.  That's nothing.
>
> I think it's quite remarkable that when you throw steal balls into the
> centre of these magnets, as is shown. the steal balls maintain order
> within a certain geometric pattern.  Even addition of more balls does
> not result in balls colliding. All what happens is that a new
> geometric pattern forms, whereby the particles oscillate for a while.

If you think this is remarkable, fine.  I'm not impressed. I have
played around with magnets in my childhood, at that time I was
impressed by such things. Whatever, it has nothing to do with weak and
strong force or gravity.

> There is a prediction, however: the existence of longitudinal
> dieletric waves which propagate faster than light.

Something which has not been observed yet. (I don't care about
conspiracy theories that they already have been observed by some
alternative physicists or Tesla or so.)

>> Sorry, I have a model of the medium and predicted quite a lot of
>> properties of the SM. This is because I have started from the SM.
>> Without starting from the theories supported by a lot of evidence you
>> have no chance.
>
> When your model doesn't predict FTL longitudinal dielectric waves, you
> are going to have a problem once conclusional evidence emerges which
> confirms their existence. Only a matter of time. Tesla has already
> done it and one day, someone else will too.

Yes. So what? The probability for this is close to 0. Your situation
is much worse, the particles of the SM exist, and they are all already
supported by lot of empirical evidence.