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

[mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk]

Ilja,

You said "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."

(Apologies but I don't know how to exactly quote in the way that is 
usually done.)

I'm not sure exactly who you were aiming this at, but if I may mention 
that my work does explain why we have three fermion families and most of 
their sizes.

When an unmerging event happens (an excess of energy of motion within 
the background centred on some specific point), followed by inflation, 
the loops formed during the unmerging inflate along the only three 
spatial dimensions that exist. Each dimension inflates by different 
amounts. Loops will end up aligned along one of the three dimensions, 
and will take values which depend on their initial relative angles to 
each of those dimensions. So the loops, which all started at around the 
Planck energy will have sizes group into sets of three. By trial and 
error it is possible to replicate 9 of the 12 fermion sizes using 
different inflation amounts for three dimensions. Since I have not yet 
been able to replicate all twelve (and the quark sizes are suspect 
anyway) I have never published this.

On colour, this is easily explained. Loops stack to form composites like 
protons, neutrons, pions, photons and hadrons generally. To remain 
within a stack, the asymmetries within the asymmetric loops (the quarks) 
must balance up the stack. It is like balancing a car wheel. If it is 
out of balance, we put weights on to bring it into balance. In quark 
loops, they are unbalanced (by charge position and value) and need to be 
balanced by another quark in the stack that has a suitable imbalance 
itself. Since there are three particle/anti-particle pairs in our matter 
loops, there are three lines of asymmetry possible. So in a long stack 
like a proton, there needs to be three quarks, each with the appropriate 
asymmetry.  For shorter stacks, like pions, they only need the quark and 
opposite asymmetry anti-quark, whichever is the symmetry line of the 
first quark.  Obviously it is easier to describe these asymmetries as 
‘colour’, but I have not used that here. So there is no ‘colour force’ 
as such, just an inability to form stacks that do not contain the 
correct mix of asymmetries, and a strong preference for retaining a 
stack with the correct asymmetries together.

Once more, apologies for using words rather than equations, but I am 
sure you will appreciate the difficulty in recreating my formulae here.

Cheers
Mike



On 2020-04-28 18:08, Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics