[Physics] Do longitudinal FTL "Tesla" waves exist and, if yes, how should they be modelled?

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2020-04-29 17:04 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 4:09 AM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Maxwell equations have been well-tested already in the
>> pre-relativistic pre-quantum times. There is simply no room for
>> correcting there something.
>
> Well, there's a lot more to the history of radio than meets the eye,

As usual. And as usual the first experiments which were considered
sufficient by the mainstream of that time will appear, if one looks at
them carefully, quite weak.  But this is the normal way.  They are
quite weak because this was the actual frontline of what could have
been reached with the techniques available at that time. Some years
later the same experiments can be repeated with much better devices
and give much more certain results, which already leave no room for
the alternatives which were considered seriously at that time.  But
these better experiments don't make it into the news. A big new
experiment, but the result is nothing new, these century-old theories
of GR, Maxwell, Schroedinger and so on have been corroborated once
again, big deal.

The reaction from mainstream scientists to outsiders who question
those original famous experiments is, therefore, complete ignorance,
and this ignorance is justified.  Because the best, most accurate
experiments are the latest, actual ones, those not even known by the
outsiders if they don't read the mainstream reviews about the actual
state of confirmation of the existing theories.

My "justified" means it would happen even if science would work in an
ideal way (which it does not, as I know well, but that's another
question).  So, this is not a point which makes the mainstream
behavior somehow suspect.

So, what would one have to do if one would nonetheless support that
age-old theory rejected at that time?  One would have to check that it
is not only compatible with the few weak experiments used at that time
to favor the theory which is mainstream now, but also all the other,
later, experiments which have given only a few lines in a review
article that experiment X has tested effect Y and reached an increase
of accuracy by reducing the error bars by a factor 2 or so,  There are
a lot of them, hundreds, thousands, it depends.  Feel free to start
this.

Not interested, too many of them, and you have no resources to counter
them with equally accurate own experiments?  Ok, then there is a way
to handle them all at once, namely, design a theory which predicts the
same as the mainstream theory for all those experiments. In this case,
you can ignore them - they predict the same as my new theory, thus,
they cannot decide between our two theories.  This is my approach.

So, before considering historical experiments, you should make a
choice of your general strategy.  If you want to make own experiments
at home, with investing some $100 000 or so, and hope to beat an
industry which controls particle accelerators and spaceships which
cost billions with many thousands of employees, I wish you luck but
will not contribute even a single cent.  Sorry.

> Quite a lot of info to digest, but note how this story is closely
> related to the way Maxwell's equations compare to the general case as
> defined by Laplace / Helmholtz, which includes a fundamental
> distinction between an irrotational, compressible field [E] and a
> rotational, incompressible field [B].

This is not the general case, but, as even wikipedia explains correctly:

"In other words, a vector field can be constructed with both a
specified divergence and a specified curl, and if it also vanishes at
infinity, it is uniquely specified by its divergence and curl. This
theorem is of great importance in electrostatics, since Maxwell's
equations for the electric and magnetic fields in the static case are
of exactly this type."

Remember, if you accept that light waves and radio waves are those
transversal Hertz waves, you already accept some part of the
electrodynamics, even if you like to add those Tesla waves.  So, what
are your equations for electrodynamics?  And do they allow for those
transversal Hertz waves? Up to now, I see no nice way how you can
reach this. If you simply remove the dB/dt term from the Maxwell
equations, you destroy them too.

> Yes, the Hertzian wave predicted by Maxwell has been well-tested and
> is well predicted, so that part matches and is pretty much OK.

Do they exist in your equations?  Do changing magnetic fields, those
dB/dt terms, have an influence on electric fields or not?

> The FTL longitudinal wave, however, not so much. This is not so
> strange, given that Maxwell does not predict these, so one has almost
> nothing to work with. As a result, virtually no (quality) research has
> been done on this subject, so if one wants to do so, one finds himself
> pretty much alone in the desert, without hardly any map nor guidance
> to speak of,

Fine. So, start with equations which allow for your longitudinal FTL
waves, but which also allow for the Hertz waves travelling with c.

That means, you have to give up your modification of the Maxwell equations.

There is place for longitudinal waves given the gauge freedom.

> What is the Lorentz gauge, really, in essence?

The simple way to have the simple wave equation

\square A^m = j^m

for the four potentials  compatible with the Maxwell equations.

> Note the word "symmetrizing".
>
> What does this really mean, "introducing a retardation effect to the
> Coulomb force"?

It means, once you have that gauge freedom, the equations for  E and B
don't define the potentials completely.  You can add to the A_m which
give E and B some \partial_m \omega(x,t) with arbitrary \omega(x,t)
and get the same fields E and B. Once you can measure only E and B,
but not the A, but think that the A are nonetheless real fields, you
have to make a guess about the  equations for the A.

> IMHO, what you are looking at is on the one hand an effort to explain
> the propagation of the electric field trough time (since Coulomb
> assumed an infinite speed) and on the other hand the "symmetrizing" of
> a set of equations, Maxwell's, which are apparently not symmetric
> already.

Maxwell has also used potentials, but used another way than Lorenz.
If you want the longitudinal wave travelling at a  different speed
than c, you can try to look at other gauge conditions too.

> So, what happened is that the propagation speed of Herzian transverse
> waves, c, has been taken as an absolute fact, and the electric field
> has been artificially enforced to propagate at that speed also, even
> though quite a lot of evidence supports the idea that this is not the
> case and a FTL longitudinal wave aka "the electric field" exists.

No. The Maxwell equations as given in E and B - that means the
equations where all terms can be tested because E and B can be
measured - have not been forced into anything.  It is these equations
which have been taken as an absolute fact, once all the terms have
been tested with sufficient accuracy.

Once the potentials cannot be measured, there is freedom in the choice
of equations for the potential.   The Lorenz gauge is one possibility,
and it indeed leads to the potential following a wave equation with
speed c too.  In the Coulomb gauge, used by Maxwell, the potentials
would be distributed, instead, immediately, with infinite speed, like
the Newtonian gravitational potential.

So, by choosing the gauge condition, you are free to modify the speed
of the longitudinal waves.

This freedom you have in the actual mainstream interpretation of the
Maxwell equations too.   The reason why the mainstream does not
consider them is that they don't have any influence, because they
don't interact with other matter, with the charged particles.  In the
Lorenz gauge they travel with c through the world, not bothering
anybody because nobody can see them.  They are positivists, thus,
unobservable things are anathema to them, they should be excluded from
the theory at arbitrary costs.

>> > So, perhaps the question is: why is it so hard for you to accept option
>> > 2?
>>
>> I see clear errors in your justification.
>
> Maybe the above helps clearing things up.

Maybe. I will look at your reaction.

>> I'm not that anti-mainstream.  I think the experimenters make their
>> job, and the experimental clothes are quite fine. If not, I have no
>> chance to correct them anyway.
>
> I've become quite skeptical about the mainstream. In general, they
> have a very arrogant attitude, while in reality they act pretty much
> like a cult, worshipping the idols of relativity and quantum
> weirdness, forcefully rejecting any attempt to even question these two
> theories.

My point is that we have no chance to question the experimental
results.  But we are free to develop alternatives which give the same
predictions as the mainstream theories, or are at least sufficiently
close to them, so that all their references to experiments can be
easily answered.

I think there is a good chance to fight those mystical interpretations
of relativity and quantum theory.  To present the world a simple,
realistic, non-mystical interpretation of relativity, of quantum
theory, of the SM, of GR.  We don't have to fight these theories -
they are fine, sufficiently well tested, and unproblematic in
themselves.  But we can reject the relativistic mysticism, all these
wormholes, causal loops in Goedel universes, all this creation out of
nothing mystery, all this quantum mysticism, rejection of realism and
even causality, and, moreover, all this string theory nonsense.

> To a rational thinker, the supposed "dark matter" saga shows
> that in actual fact "a variety of astrophysical observations,
> including gravitational effects cannot be explained by accepted
> theories of gravity" aka GR and therefore something is seriously wrong
> somewhere.

Dark matter is a way to solve these problems without rejecting GR.
Alternatives which modify, instead, GR to solve these problems can be
proposed and have been proposed.  You should take into account here
that the standard cold dark matter is a quite simple theory, all you
need is a single massive particle which does not interact with other
matter.  As long as this simple theory is sufficient to explain what
is observed, alternative theories of gravity have a hard job.

>> Where the mainstream fails is metaphysics.  This is the part where
>> they even refuse to discuss anything, based on positivist nonsense
>> ideas that metaphysics are worthless and should not be discussed -
>> which only protects the established metaphysics against criticism.
>
> I have no opinion on metaphysics, don't know enough about the subject
> to say anything sensible about it.

It is all this related with the interpretation of the equations.  Does
this field g_mn(x,t) describe some mystical curved spacetime or simply
density, velocity, and stress tensor of an ether?  Do quantum systems
have some configuration even if they are not measured?  Are the
potentials really existing, or only mathematical tools of no
fundamental importance?  These things are not about God, ghosts and so
on, they are about physics, but those parts of physics which one
cannot simply test in some simple experiments, because different
theories make essentially the same predictions for those experiments.

This is the weak place of the mainstream physics.  Here they prefer
the most mystical variants, variants which give them the aura of some
superheros able to understand things no normal human is able to
understand, like curves spacetimes, spaces with higher dimensions,
causal loops, wormholes, and all the quantum strangeness.  But while
they care a lot about experiments - and have a clear advantage here
over outsiders, given the costs for them paid by taxpayers - they
don't care about better interpretations.

And even if they would find better (simpler, easier to understand for
laymen) interpretations, they would prefer the established mystical
interpretations.  Simply because they are more attractive to them.
But they have no arguments to fight them.  All they can do is to
ignore them, to censor them in forums, and so on.  And this is
something a few outsiders can fight against.  Distribute the knowledge
about the alternative interpretations in the net.  Make them popular
enough so that the mainstream can no longer completely ignore them.

As long as you question their experiments, your chances are miserable,
and they would be miserable even if you were right about it. Because
they have very strong weapons, in form of particle colliders, large
telescopes and space stations, and big supercomputers to compute what
they need, and a lot of scientists working there.

But we can fight them on a place where they have no defenses. They
have none because they think it is not worth to fight there. Their
misguided positivism tells them not to care about this. Here we can be
stronger.

And this is the place where I'm strong. I have now a theory of
gravity, of the SM, I know how to interpret quantum theory is a simple
way.  So, regarding the scientific content, everything is already
finished, or almost finished.

My weak place is that I have no supporters. Those who would distribute
my results to break through the wall of ignorance.  And not because
there is some error in my theories, but for purely sociological
reasons:

The mainstream scientists have no chance, they live in a "publish or
perish" competition, and to publish progress in ether theory is
extremely hard.  So they have to follow the mainstream fads even if
they would like otherwise, simply to survive, to get yet another
grant.

I have had some hope that some alternative physicists could help, but
they have all their own pet theories and will never give them up.  If
they would be ready to give them up if they see a better theory, they
would already have done this and they would support the mainstream.
They are like me - lone fighters. Else they would have given up
developing alternatives long ago.  They will be unable to support me
by their nature.

How one could solve this problem?  I don't know.  Maybe some
alternative physicists could accept some sort of compromise - they
continue to develop their own pet theories, but recognize the general
situation as described above, recognize that my theories have a much
better chance to beat the resistance of the mainstream given that all
the experimental support for the mainstream theories does not give
anything, and support my theories for a purely pragmatical reason?

The pragmatical reason is quite obvious for those who support common
sense. The world of physics becomes simple again, with absolute space,
absolute time, an ether following classical condensed matter
equations, the quantum mystery is reduced to some Brownian motion, the
configurations have some continuous trajectory without quantum jumps,
the wave function describes only incomplete knowledge.

Wouldn't this be already a great thing, if the mainstream would be
forced to accept this, even if your own pet theory is much better?
Wouldn't it become much easier to develop your own pet theory if the
mainstream would have changed by rejecting the curved spacetime and
quantum mystery nonsense and switched to that common sense
interpretation of the established theories? Last but not least, simply
because developing ether theories would become acceptable mainstream
science, and because early supporters (you?) would almost
automatically become accepted, established mainstream scientist too?

So, simply think about supporting my theories for such purely
pragmatic reasons.  Note the advantages of my theories if the aim is
to win the mainstream: These are already finished theories, they are
published in accepted mainstream journals, they don't question even a
single experimental result reached by the mainstream, their
established theories, GR and the SM, remain intact and unquestioned,
only their mystical interpretations have to be rejected. So that the
standard mainstream attacks against alternative science all fail.
Their only argument is ignorance and censorship. Which they apply
successfully up to now, but which is obviously quite weak.

All one needs to overcome it is some community which supports it,
which distributes the knowledge about it, which attacks the mainstream
mystics everywhere, so that they cannot ignore it anymore. As long as
I'm a lone fighter, ignorance is sufficient to beat me. But if there
would be some community supporting my theories, this would be much
harder.

Think about it.