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

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2020-04-30 18:01 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 9:23 AM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, what would one have to do if one would nonetheless support that
>> age-old theory rejected at that time?
>
> Please do note that there is a significant difference between the
> aether theories that existed "at that time" and ours, if only because
> we fundamentally consider gravity to propagate *trough* the medium
> rather than consider it as a separate force.

If there is a significant difference, why are you sure that the
prediction about those longitudinal Tesla waves is the same?

> Einstein once said: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me
> right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

But you don't have such an experiment.

> Seems more efficient to focus on that single experiment and let others
> do the hard work.

No. A single experiment with affordable devices has quite plausibly no
chance to falsify one of the fundamental theories, neither GR nor the
SM or quantum theory.

>> 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.
>
> Yep, mine too. It's just that I work on the most fundamental level
> possible: the characteristics of the medium itself.

No. You reject one of the well-established equations, the Maxwell equations.

I propose something completely different - a theory which preserves
all the equations of the SM and GR at least in some limit.

>> 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.
>
> General strategy is to formulate an alternative theory using the most
> expressive math available for the task: vector and potential theory.
> This single equation is really all one needs to do so:
>
> ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0

This is not even an evolution equation. There is no derivative in
time. So, the change in time is not restricted at all.

> Literally, everything we know about fluid dynamics can be derived c.q
> follows from this equation, including the EM fields, when applying
> well known FD theory and substituting the charactertics of the aether
> (permittivity, permeability) into the well known FD parameters.

No. In physics, you need some evolution equations. Usually derived
from some Lagrangian.

> Now because Maxwell did things differently, the longitudinal wave is
> what's not being predicted, while it is known from FD how to derive
> equations for the longitudinal wave from this single equation, and it
> is known such "sound" waves propagate faster than a transverse wave by
> a factor of just over 1.5, it is clear what to do:
>
> Experimentally obtain inconclusive evidence longitudinal waves exist
> AND propagate faster than the well known EM waves.
>
> Fortunately, all one needs to be able to do so is a bunch of wires, a
> handful of electronics, a transmitter and some measurement tools. All
> of this can be had for less than $1000.

As explained, you have no chance. All what you can measure with your
$1000 equipment has been measured hundreds of times with much better
devices, and they have seen nothing in contradiction with the Maxwell
equations.

> Everything we know from fluid dynamics can de derived c.q. follows
> from this single equation:
>
> ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0
>
> Everything ties together mathematically in this single equation,
> including the Helmholtz decomposition.

Your equation does not restrict the evolution at all. The Helmholtz
decomposition is a mathematical theorem, not a physical equation,
thus, does not change this.

>> 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.
>
> Yep, I do accept Hertzian waves.

But you have no equations giving them.   ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0
is not an evolution equation.

>> And do they allow for those
>> transversal Hertz waves?
>
> Yep, just a matter of working things out along the FD textbook.

No, there is no necessity to work out anything, the equation is
compatible also with Hertz waves moving with 1.234 c or
0.0000549853495 c or on working days with 5845c and on Sabbath with 0
c. Because it is compatible with every evolution, once it contains no
derivatives in time.

> Nope, one _allows_ all possible harmonic (wave) equations, rather than
> _reducing_ the number of possible solutions to only one: the Hertzian
> transverse wave.

Allowing all equations means predicting nothing.  Thus, it is
unfalsifiable, therefore unscientific, nonsense.

> What the dB/dt term does, essentially, is to artificially tie the
> rotational field [B] to the compressible field [E] in a very specific
> way.

Yes. This makes it a theory which makes empirical predictions.  You
can try it out, take a magnet, move it around, creating in this way
some dB/dt, and then see what happens with the electric field, which
you can measure by the force on something charged.

> Remember my claim a real transverse wave is a combination of
> vortices and a longitudinal wave?

Yes. It is quite meaningless if there are no equations for the
vortices and nothing but a mathematical tautology.

>> Do changing magnetic fields, those
>> dB/dt terms, have an influence on electric fields or not?
>
> Yes, definitely, but these influences follow from the math and physics
> and are not artificially enforced via the dB/dt term.

The physics are evolution equations, like the Maxwell equations.

Your "equation" ist not a physical evolution equation.

>> That means, you have to give up your modification of the Maxwell
>> equations.
>
> Nope, ...
> The difference between the "near" and "far" fields _is_ significant,
> because Maxwell does not predict such a difference, since only one
> resulting wave equation, the one for a not otherwise specified
> "transverse" wave.

Wrong, the near field is described well by the Maxwell equations too.

>> There is place for longitudinal waves given the gauge freedom.
>
> Yep, but that has to go. There can be no gauge freedom in the fields
> describing the behavior of a fluid-like medium.

In the fields which can be measure, E and B, there is no gauge freedom.
The gauge freedom is only in the potentials.

> Were it not that the whole thing is uniquely defined by a single equation:
>
> ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0

No, this equation defines no evolution. Essentially everything would
be possible.

>> Maxwell has also used potentials, but used another way than Lorenz.
>
> Yep, and because of the explicit connection via the term dB/dt he
> messed things up.

No, this term allowed for wave solutions.

>> > 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.
>
> I have little doubt that when one works out "my" equation using
> textbook FD, the exact same wave equation comes out for the transverse
> wave with the exact same propagation speed c, so it should match
> observations.

It would not match observation once it would contradict the Maxwell
equation, in particular the part with the dB/dt term influencing the
electric field.

> And because the main stream doesn't understand Tesla's single wire
> transmission line concept, which has no closed loop (circulation), we
> have no idea how to measure the details of the E field. All we can
> measure at the moment are the "transverse" surface waves propagating
> along our wires.

Nonsense. Some charged test particle allows to measure the electric
field by the force which acts on that test particle.

> And we're back at square one: there cannot be "gauge freedom" in a
> medium that behaves like a gas/fluid.

So what? I don't claim gauge freedom is something fundamental. But if
we can measure only E and B, but describe the EM field by the
potential A, it means that we cannot measure all properties of the EM
field.

>> 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.
>
> The reason why they are in fantasy land is because in order to have an
> actual influence, not only *must* a resulting force be obtained, the
> fields *must* also propagate trough the medium in one way or the other
> and therefore *must* be described in terms of the elemental fields [E]
> and [B] as defined by LaPlace / Helmholtz.

Completely meaningless. Even if the reasoning itself would be correct
(it is not) it is based on the assumption that there exists some such
medium. So you have to assume your ether theory is true. If some
contradiction follows, you have shown that your own theory is
nonsense.

> Then may be someone should explain to them that "virtual" fields and
> photons and what have you are by definition unobservable and should
> therefore be excluded from the theory at any cost.

Forget about these virtual particles. This is all complete confusion
in popularizations.

> Note that "unobservable" implies "not measurable" and thus implies
> "unfalsifyability", the very criterium Karl Popper used to discrimate
> "science" from "pseudoscience". ^_^

This applies only to theories as a whole.  But gauge theory as a whole
makes a lot of predictions, namely the same as Maxwell theory
formulated in E and B.  But it is mathematically simpler, and in the
quantum domain there even is no formulation in terms of E and B alone.
See Aharonov-Bohm.

>> 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.
>
> Yep, completely agree.

Fine.

>> I think there is a good chance to fight those mystical interpretations
>> of relativity and quantum theory.
>
> Yep.
>
>> 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.
>
> Don't have to fight these theories, indeed.

> All we need to do is experimentally verify the existence of FTL
> "Tesla" waves.

But this is exactly the approach I reject - to try to compete with the
mainstream doing experiments with $1000 equipment.

Of course, in principle one cannot exclude that you somehow measure
something noboby else has measured before and observe there an effect
which is in contradiction with the Maxwell equations, despite the many
multi million dollar experiments the mainstream has done. But in
reality you simply have no chance.

Whatever, I have no objection if you would do such experiments some
time. As long as you don't ask for support from my side.

>> Dark matter is a way to solve these problems without rejecting GR.
>
> It is also an excuse to deny the fact that this _is_ one of those
> "single" experiments which proves GR wrong.

Nobody denies the fact that GR without cold dark matter is wrong.

> I would think that after 150+ years of trying to find additional
> equations, it may be time to try something else.

CDM was not a long period of trying to find additional equations. It
was the simplest, most straightforward choice of an equation for
additional matter which we simply don't see. (Ok, the second after
massless dark matter, named Hot Dark Matter (HDM).)

>> Alternatives which modify, instead, GR to solve these problems can be
>> proposed and have been proposed.
>
> Here we have a proposal that modifies the very reason for it's
> existence: the failure by Maxwell to predict the propagation speed of
> the electric field.

Nonsense. The propagation speed of the waves follows from Maxwell's
equations. It appeared to be the speed of light. Nobody but historians
care much of who has found this first.
>
>> 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.
>
> Which violates the well established "wave-particle" duality principle.

Nonsense. First, it does not violate anything related with quantum
theory, second, this "duality" is vague Copenhagen nonsense and not
something well-established.

> Yep. Until proven wrong by providing conclusive evidence for the
> existence of FTL longitudinal waves, as predicted by Laplace /
> Helmholtz in combination with Stowe's proposal to model the medium as
> an ideal, Newtonian fluid.

I do not object if you throw away your money searching for such
age-old speculations. You can as well look for ghosts in haunted
houses, that's fun too, and would also prove wrong a lot of mainstream
science.

> Isn't it interesting that the ultimate reductionalism yields both the
> simplicity and the understandability needed to put an end to all off
> the mysticism built opon Maxwell?
>
> ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0

There is no mysticism build upon Maxwell, his equations are simple, it
is easy to present the experiments which show that all the terms in
that equation are necessary, even in simple presentations for school
children.

> The beauty of "my" equation is that it's all very simple to explain,
> so the irony is that ordinary people have no problem understanding
> what I'm saying, because we have all these analogies people are
> familiar with that we can use to illustrate things.

The problem is that your equation explains nothing.

> Isn't it interesting that ordinary people have no problem
> understanding "my" equation, while the "superheros" have no clue?

Ordinary people, if they have told you that they understand this, have
simply talked nonsense.

> Isn't it also interesting that researching radio waves costs next to
> nothing?

Visiting haunted houses is also cheap.

> Eventually, the truth speaks for itself and cannot be stopped.

It can be simply ignored. That's what I have learned during the last years.

> And prove the mainstream wrong beyond any doubt, by conclusive
> experiments that pretty much everyone can repeat, once success has
> been achieved.

This is the main difference. I was talking about what I have already
reached. You are talking about your personal dreams.

> Well, you are still fighting "my" equation:
>
> ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0,

It is not even an evolution equation.  And it does not even have a
definition of the measureable fields E and B.

> Your weak place, as far as I can tell, is that you don't have a
> proposal for a single experiment that can prove the very foundation of
> the "superheros" theories wrong.

Such a proposal would give me nothing. I cannot do experiments myself,
and my proposals would be ignored by the mainstream anyway.

>> 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.
>
> Yep, you have a point here, very aware of that myself.
>
> But also do take a look in the mirror....
>
> You see, I don't have a complete theory. All I have is a bug and the
> fundamental solution of said bug:
> ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0,

There is no bug, and that equation is not even an evolution equation,
it solves nothing.

> May be you're the one that could accept some sort of compromise?
> Take
> ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0,
> and RUN with it!

It is not even an evolution equation. It gives nothing.

> You understand how the SM works and how they did it, I don't.
> You can understand "my" equation, too, like ordinary persons can. It's
> just simple math that describes the behavior of a fluid. That's ALL
> there is to it!

No. ∇²𝐅 = 0 describes at best something static, given that it
contains no time derivatives. So it cannot describe any behavior.

> So, here's my proposal for a compromise:
> You worry about the particle model,
> I worry about the experimental proof that longitudinal FTL waves exist.
> Deal?

No.

I propose to look at what has been actually reached.

On my side there is a complete ether theory of gravity and an ether
model for the SM, both published in peer-reviewed mainstream journals.
And there are interpretations of QT (Caticha's entropic dynamics) and
the GR equations (from the GR limit of my ether theory) which give a
common sense compatible interpretation of the whole of established
physics.   All this is already here, available.

You have nothing which could be presented as a finished result. You
have a vague hope that your equation gives something, but clearly no
idea how to do this. And you have a vague hope that your experiments
with the $1000 devices gives something completely missed by all those
working with billion dollar devices.

So, we have well-established results vs. vague hopes.

Then, look at the strategic situation. My approach does not question
any experiment, and does not question any established equation, thus,
all the experimental support of modern physics is compatible with this
approach. So, the straightforward objections used by every mainstream
guy against every alternative physicist ("have you published it in a
peer-reviewed journals?", "there is a lot of experimental support for
the established theories, where is the experimental support for your
theories?") fail miserably.  Their only remaining argument is
ignorance.

The superiority of my approach in comparison with the mainstream
approach is in several domains obvious. First in simplicity and common
sense compatibility of the interpretations, then in explanatory power
of the SM (where I compute the gauge group, all three generations of
fermions and all the charges) as well as of GR (where I derive the
EEP).

Instead, with what you have now you have no chance at all. Vague
dreams do not count at all, at least not in discussions with the
mainstream.

So, on my side there is, quite objectively, a reasonable chance to win
based on what has been already reached alone. We would not have to
rely on vague hopes that something will succeed. On your side, there
is nothing.

Then, are you able to contribute?  Yes, you are. What is necessary is
the distribution of knowledge about my theories among the scientists.
This can be done even by laymen who don't understand all parts of the
theory, in principle everybody can do it. Say, visiting some popular
lecture and asking "Here, I have read in the net such an
interpretation of modern physics which is completely compatible with
common sense, see here. Can you tell me what is wrong with this?"
Given that the theories themselves are quite easy to understand (much
easier than GR and SM themselves) because of their common sense
compatibility, it is not that difficult to learn some parts of it. In
this case, one could even meet some of the straightforward and
standard objections.

So, actually you can already do something reasonable and important,
namely distribute knowledge about the existence of my theories. If
this would be successful, it would help you too, as explained. And you
can do it now, immediately. You don't have to wait until something not
yet finished is finished.

> Gotta have experimental proof....

We have none. (Ok, I have some hopes, see
https://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/. But this is not what I hope for.)

> Change does not come from within, has to come from the outside.

Of course, we would introduce it from outside.

>> 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?
>
> Again, gonna have to hit them where it hurts:
> Experimental verification of longitudinal waves.

But this is only a dream. Comparable with the dream of experimental
verification of ghosts. What I have is already available. And I
already know that they have no counterarguments, their only
counterargument is ignorance.

> Well, in order to be able to capitalize on the experimental
> verification I'm working on, someone will have to correct the bug and
> work out the fundamental solution:
> ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0

There is no bug, and your equation does not solve anything. But,
whatever, this is nothing we would have to argue about, I could ignore
this as well as your experiments.

> Please also think about my proposal. We need to get everything perfect
> if we want to have a chance and that means we cannot afford not to fix
> Maxwell's bug.

It is you who thinks there is a bug, but there is none. All the terms
can be and have been tested directly. There is nothing to correct. In
fact, all these terms can be tested already with cheap devices. So,
all I can do for you is to try to explain you your error.