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

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2020-04-28 22:17 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> 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>:
> 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].

The decomposition defines fields [E], [B] for a given [F] so that
[F] = [E] + [B].
But these fields have nothing to do with the fields E and B of Maxwell's theory.

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

The theorem applies to arbitrary fields F, but it has nothing to do
with Maxwell's theory.

> 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.

Ok, feel free to reject Maxwell's theory and to prefer Tesla's theory,
I couldn't care less. I prefer to follow what the mainstream tells me
about the agreement of the SM with observation instead of following a
particular outsider from the last century, even if this outsider is,
for whatever reasons, quite popular in the alternative physics
community.

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

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

Whatever, there is none which counts for me.

> 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:

I couldn't care less. Of course, I cannot exclude a big conspiracy of
mainstream science to hide such things for whatever reasons. But it is
simply my bet that there is no such conspiracy, and that all those
age-old experiments with non-standard results were simply errors.

> 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.

The difference is what we consider to be decisive. IMHO the
correspondece to the SM is decisive. Nice design will be important,
but not decisive.

>> 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.

You have no chance to predict something, like the number of
generations or colors, if you only "rework" the SM. You will have the
same number of parameters which you have to put into the SM by hand.

In comparison, my starting point is a quite simple model which seems
to have nothing to do with the SM. But the SM comes out.  Of course,
with some help from my side - the model was in some quite abstract
sense guided by the SM because I have given up a lot of possibilities
once they did not help me to obtain the SM.

> 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.

You cannot avoid it if you make the computations.

> 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.

It is a nice theorem, but it has nothing to do with the EM field.

> 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.

So your program does not even contain the aim to explain parts of that
knowledge. This is the fundamental difference.

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

I describe it with density, velocity, a stress tensor as the most
fundamental properties - which define the gravitational field - and a
lot of other properties, to be identified with matter fields. So,
there are, from the start, places as for gravity, as for the fields of
the SM.

> 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.

And this is IMHO a quite stupid decision. It is simply taking over the
historical origins of ether theory, when it was only the EM field
described as the ether. But in the SM, the EM field is nothing
special, nothing fundamental. The field which has some special
character is gravity.

(That's beyond the point that your modification of Maxwell's theory is
complete nonsense.)

> 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.

Forget Stowe. He writes

> 1.00116. This is exactly the amount necessary to eliminate the observed anomalous electron Magnetic Moment.

Looks close to the first order approximation

a_{e}= \frac {\alpha }{2\pi } \approx 0.001 161 4

Here is what one has to compare with:
a_{e} = 0.001 159 652 181 643(764)  in theory
a_{e} = 0.001 159 652 180 73(28) in experiment

Moreover, the value for alpha is numerology, alpha = 1/sqrt{3} 8 \pi^2
= 0,007 312 227.  He gives 0,007 3121.
Measurement value is 0.007 297 352 5693(11).  So, quite far away.
Moreover, if one looks at renormalization, then alpha is only an
irrelevant large distance approximation, nothing fundamental.