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

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2020-05-01 7:35 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:45 PM Ilja Schmelzer
> <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If there is a significant difference, why are you sure that the
>> prediction about those longitudinal Tesla waves is the same?
>
> What aether theory do you know of which is compatible with Maxwell AND
> predicts longitudinal Tesla waves?
> Might have missed it, but I know of none.

Me too.  The point being?  Maxwell does not predict them, the ether
theories you know don't predict them, so what is the reason why you
believe that age-old theory?

>> But you don't have such an experiment.
>
> Yet.

So what?  My bet is that you will never have one.

>> 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.

> Time will have to tell.

Ok, but these are dreams only.

>> No. You reject one of the well-established equations, the Maxwell
>> equations.
>
> Yep, and for very good reasons, math being one of them.

No.

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

> Ok, I agree, there is a difference between "preserving all the
> equations" and preserving the predictions made by the theory as a
> whole as much as possible in some limit.

Yes, there is a difference, in principle.  But preserving the
equations in some limit is certainly the cheapest way to preserve the
predictions in that limit.  The cheapest as for oneself developing the
theory, as for the computing the predictions (one can simply refer to
the existing derivations of the predictions for the preserved
equations).

And, given the many many predictions which have been tested
successfully, there is essentially no hope for some really different
equations getting the same predictions.

> Ok, you have a point. This is still abstract math that has many
> applications, including fluid dynamics.

Fine.

> No need to write the terms out once again, it's clear that this
> equation can be used to establish fundamental relations between an [E]
> and a [B] field.

First, you need some hypothesis that these fields are somehow
connected with the ether fluid. This would be a non-trivial
hypothesis, which could fail.

In my theory, I was successful with identifying the relation
g^{0i}/g^{00} with the ether velocity.

> But, you have a point, you need more than just that single equation,
> you also need the fluid dynamics parameters and other well known math
> in order to turn this equation into something that is an evolution
> equation.

First of all, you need some time derivative.

> So, the point is: *given* the fluid dynamic domain, it is this
> equation that defines how the velocity field of a compressible,
> rotational fluid can be related to a unique vector field 𝐅=0, which
> establishes a decomposition into two related fields [E] and [B], each
> describing a simplification of the original velocity field, while
> superposition may be used to obtain said original, overall velocity
> field.

So, ok, you have the hypothetical ether fluid, which is described by
the ether velocity, and use the Helmholtz theorem to decompose it into
two fields.  Then you try to identify the two fields with E and B.
But this fails, because the E and B fields constructed in this way do
not follow the Maxwell equations, and the Maxwell equations have very
good direct experimental support.  For all the terms involved.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_and_Eulerian_specification_of_the_flow_field
> "In the Eulerian specification of a field, it is represented as a
> function of position x and time t. For example, the flow velocity is
> represented by a function
> v(x,t)"
> So, when you consider [E] and [B] to be velocity fields with a unit of
> measurement in [m/s], there's your Lagrangian.

This is not the Lagrangian.

Lagrange was a big scientist, and has made many contributions.  One is
the Lagrange formalism to obtain equations of motion from some minimum
principle.   Another one are equations for fluid dynamics.  Euler gave
a different one. What you have quoted is Euler's proposal.  The
proposal named Lagrangian specification of the flow field is a
different one, and it is unrelated to the methods to derive evolution
equations from minimum principles.

> So yes, you need a bit more, but the equation given defines a
> relationship between such (velocity) fields [E] and [B] that is
> fundamental and should not be broken, not even if your name is Maxwell
> or Einstein.

Nobody breaks anything.  It is your hypothesis that the fields E and B
measured as the strength of electric and magnetic force have something
to do with a velocity of some ether.  This is a quite nontrivial
hypothesis.

>> 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.
>
> Did you notice I collected a few papers around "near field anomalies",
> like these?

Fine. You know the way anomalies are handled in science?  Someone
observes something which seems in contradiction with the established
theory.  He publishes the result, and this is named an anomaly.
Anomalies are something interesting, behind them there may be new
theories, but in any way those experimenters who make decisive
experiments to find out if there is really something wrong with the
theory or this anomaly was simply an inaccurate observation becomes
famous in the former case and an established good professional in the
latter.  So, anomalies are attractive to experimenters.
Unfortunately, usually the result is boring, and nothing new appears.
One makes a better experiment, with better devices and more
professional care about all those possible distortions, and the
anomaly disappears.

So, to look for old papers about anomalies is not really a good idea.
Scientists usually care about the latest papers about anomalies.

> These are anomalies, esactly because they contradict Maxwell's equations.

Yes. That's why they are named anomalies.  There will be always a lot
of anomalies.

> In other words: there are definitely observations whereby people have
> seen something that is in contradiction with Maxwell's equations. And
> the interesting thing is: these have to do with the observation of
> faster than light phenomena.

Anomalies have to do with many different things. They are simply
experiments which seem to falsify established theories, which makes
them attractive for experimenters.

In fact, a single experiment is not sufficient to falsify an
established theory, simply for pragmatical reasons: there are always
too many other things which can distort the experiment and lead to the
anomalous result.   The theoretical problem behind this is that a
single theory is usually not sufficient to predict the outcome of an
experiment - you also need a lot of other theories, like theories
about the accuracy of the measurement devices and so on.  So, a single
falsification falsifies only that combination of theories.  Which of
the theories involved has to be blamed for the falsification?  This is
not obvious.

And therefore an experiment which seems to be in conflict with a given
theory is not yet considered as a falsification, it is only an
anomaly.  And other experimenters come to see if there is really a
problem, some simply repeat the experiment themselves, others try to
do this with other, especially with better devices.  Most of the time,
the anomaly goes away.  Such is life.  The single experiment which
falsifies a theory is only an idealization (you can read about this in
Popper's work too).

> And these are anomalies, because Maxwell's equations do not predict
> the propagation speed of the electric field. That has been added later
> via the backdoor known as the "Lorentz gauge", as discussed before.

No. The propagation speed of the electric field is well-defined and c.
The gauge freedom is about the potential.  If one uses the Coulomb
gauge the speed of information transfer via the potential would be
infinite.  But that's not observable anyway.  In the Lorenz gauge, it
would be c too.

> Yep same problem, need to move from abstract math to physics by
> incorporating the velocity field and such from continuum fluid
> dynamics.

In the case of the Maxwell equations, it would be better for you do
start with the physics immediately, in the form related to experiment.
E is, last but not least, the electric force, that means, it gives a
force on a charged object.  There are simple ways to have charged
objects.  To measure the size of the charge is also not that
complicate.  The same holds for the magnetic field B. Then, look at
how they interact, how a changing electric field influences the
magnetic field, and how a changing magnetic field influences the
electric field. You can check in this way that the Maxwell equations
are fine, that all the terms are necessary, and that, in particular, a
changing magnetic field influences the electric field.

Here you have direct contact with physics, the fields E and B are
observable fields, how they change in space and time you can measure.
Not much theory necessary (certainly no particular ether theory which
identifies E and B with some velocities).

> Yes, the near field can be obtained by evaluating Maxwell's equations,
> but you can't directly compute the far field, which is described by a
> single wave equation:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation
>
> How come there is only one wave equation, yet we have two wave phenomena?

In the near field, the initial and boundary conditions are more
complicate.  In the far field, they are, instead, simple.

> How come this wave equation describes a continuous wave, while the far
> field has been found to be quantized?

The near field is also quantized.

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

But they are not observable, so different potentials may give the same
observable effects.

> We've been over this multiple times. Gauge freedom makes no sense at
> all, since no resulting forces.

If you want to restrict yourself to the fields E and B, you will be
unable to describe the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

> How obvious can it be?

Your "makes no sense" claim is indeed quite obviously wrong.

Nature is not obliged to make everything observable to human
scientists.  So it is not nonsensical at all that there may be
different real configurations which we cannot distinguish by
observation.

>> No, this term allowed for wave solutions.

> Nope, this term restricts the number of possible wave solutions to
> only one, a continous transverse wave that is not quantized and
> therefore does not match observations in the far field.

Maxwell's theory is a classical theory, thus, not obliged or expected
to predict quantum effects correctly.

But the quantum effects are essentially straightforward applications
of standard quantization procedures.  This is nothing different from
the energy levels in the atoms.  Those continuous waves appear in
quantized energy levels.

>> 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.
>
> It would match observation better than Maxwell's eq, because it would
> result in a "real" transverse wave for the near field AND some kind of
> vortex phenomena for the far field, which would be quantized and would
> therefore actually match observation in both cases.

Ah, you take this quantization with vortices nonsense seriously?
Sorry, forget about it.

>> Nonsense. Some charged test particle allows to measure the electric
>> field by the force which acts on that test particle.
>
> How many charged particles can you mention that do not also produce a
> magnetic field, as in: do not have a magnetic moment?

In those macroscopic things you can buy for $1000 this does not matter
at all. You can have a small ball electrically charged, but if it is
not magnetized the magnetic field it creates will be negligible.

>> 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.
>
> There's also the scalar potential Phi.
>
> But you are right: we cannot measure all properties of the EM field
> defined by Maxwell, because Maxwell violates the math defined in the
> Laplace operator because of the term dB/dt (and units of measurement
> as well), and therefore the uniqueness you do find in the Laplace
> operator has been lost.

No. The fields E and B we can measure completely.  We cannot measure
the potentials A and Phi.

> Had Maxwell used the Laplace operator, we would not have had that
> problem and we would not have had the whole fantasy land built on top
> of the whole "gauge freedom" idea that is totally unwarranted, given
> that Maxwell started out from an aetheric paradigm and mechanical
> models.

But he would have had a problem with the correspondence of his
equations with the observable reality, which can be observed by
measuring E and B fields.

>> > 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)
>
> Please explain.
>
>> it is based on the assumption that there exists some such
>> medium.
>
> Well, it's based on the assumption that the behavior of the medium can
> be described using continuum fluid dynamics, since the medium is
> 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.
> What more does one need?

Not only that there exist some such medium (it exists in my ether
theory too, which contains also the Maxwell equations),  but also
because you propose out of your fantasy a particular identification of
the objective measurable fields E and B with some velocity components
of your personal ether theory.

That means, it is based on an ether theory which can be wrong.

>> So you have to assume your ether theory is true. If some
>> contradiction follows, you have shown that your own theory is
>> nonsense.
>
> Yes, IF.

It is your claim that there is some contradiction.

> So far, I've found none, but quite a lot in Maxwell's:

No. Maxwell's theory in itself is about the observable fields E and B
which have nothing to do with any theories about fluids.

> *) circular logic, because the concept of charge is taken as a
> fundamental quantity in violation of wave/particle duality;

Nobody cares about Bohr's nonsensical wave/particle duality, and
nobody bases anything on it, so no circular logic is visible.
Moreover, Maxwell theory is classical, and has nothing to do with
quantum theory.

> *) only one wave equation, yet two wave phenomena;

which are described by very different initial and boundary conditions.
Of course, in different situations the same equation will give
different solutions.

> *) no prediction of propagation speed of the electric field, later
> bolted on in contradiction to measurements by Wheatstone and Tesla;

Wrong, the speed of the electric and magnetic field is c in Maxwell's theory.

> *) contradiction with LaPlace / Helmholtz b/c not uniquely defined
> potentials;

Nonsense.

> *) quite a lot of "anomalies" involving FTL phenomena

Not more than usual.

>> > 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.

> Seen that, no valid experimental verification. Theory vs. "physically
> realizable".

???? The Aharonov-Bohm effect was confirmed experimentally.

After this, to get rid of the potentials, you have to introduce quite
artificial constructions.

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

> It does depend on what you want to accomplish/measure.

I want to accomplish something which can be accomplished with what we
already have. Something were all we have to reach is to destroy the
wall of ignorance, which is something which can be reached if there is
a sufficiently large group of people who distribute the knowledge we
already have now.

What you have is a research program, and in fundamental physics even
the best research programs will fail with more than 99% certainty.
Look at the failure of all the research programs of mainstream physics
beyond the SM or for quantum gravity.  Moreover, I see serious
problems in your understanding of physics, thus, this reduces the
chances for success by another large factor.

I have already reached a lot, and the only remaining problem is the
sociological one, that the results are simply ignored. This is a
problem which I cannot solve myself, once it is intentional ignorance,
not simply absence of knowledge, which creates the problem.

But the problem is pure sociology, to solve it no deep, special
knowledge of physics is even necessary, simply laymen interest in the
foundations is necessary. In fact, not even support of the ether
theories I have proposed, but simply interest in who is right, the
mainstream or that outsider, and what are the arguments of the
mainstream against that version of the ether.  To find enough people
asking the physicists about this.

So, this is a solvable problem, with a much better chance of success
than your program.

>> 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.
>
> Bear in mind that this is an effect that is not predicted by Maxwell
> BUT has been observed before by a/o Tesla,  Dollard and the Erdmann
> brothers AND has a completely different character than the electric
> phenomena we are familiar with.

And popularized at that time under names like "anomaly".

> Even the US Air Force considers the existence of FTL waves proven,

Military commanders may be competent in killing people, or, at best,
in protecting own forces.  But in science they are incompetent.

Moreover, the US military is quite suspect in the question of
competence in investing money, given that they have 10 times the
Russian budget but are at best equal on the field of top level
weapons.

> Everything after Maxwell
> leads back to Maxwell's original bug, especially relativity and the
> "gauge fields" that have crept in all over the place.

Maxwell made no bug.  Point.

>> 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.
>
> Did you notice one can just as well say it actually follows from the
> parameters of the medium?

Of course, some parameters have to be measured.  The equations
themselves contain only some symbols for constants, like c or the
charge, and one has to measure these constants to define the theory in
a form that allows to make predictions.

> But I was specifically refering to the propagation speed of the
> electric field, NOT the waves predicted by Maxwell.

And the point being?

> Why the need for retarted potentials if Maxwell's equations already
> predict the propagation speed of the electric field?

The retarded potentials are useful tools to compute solutions.

> Maxwell's equations are differential equations, in which the
> propagation speed of both the electric as the magnetic field is
> assumed to be infinite, a la Coulomb and Ampere.

In many such differential equations there is no upper bound for causal
influences.  But for the Maxwell equations, there is.

> Because of Maxwell's bug, ...

Because of ghosts and dragons killing honest scientists ...   Sorry,
don't talk about your fantasies as if they were facts, once you know
that I don't accept your claim.

>> Nonsense. First, it does not violate anything related with quantum
>> theory, second, this "duality" is vague Copenhagen nonsense and not
>> something well-established.
>
> It's still only invented in order to straighten things out. The
> logical conclusion is that something is seriously wrong somewhere.

The Copenhagen interpretation of QT contains a lot of nonsense. Nothing new.

> Could be, but I haven't seen an institute like the USAF stating that
> the existence of "ghosts" has been proven.

I have seen such claims on esoteric pages.  Who cares?

>> There is no mysticism build upon Maxwell, his equations are simple,
>
> Well, the "retarded potential" trick is what led to the universal
> constant c being further abused and his failure to define his
> potentials uniquely has led to even more mysticism.

The retarded potential "trick" is simply some mathematical trick to
compute solutions. Once it works, fine.

>> 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.
>
> It's just as easy to show that they violate elemental math.

Nonsense.

> Well, you need to fill in the detail that the equation applies to FD
> and then it does.

Once the ghosts fill in the details, then everything will be fine.

>> This is the main difference. I was talking about what I have already
>> reached. You are talking about your personal dreams.
>
> I guess it's a matter of perspective what one considers dreaming.
> IMHO, the existence of the phenomenon I want to measure is well
> supported by evidence, most notably by the USAF.

LOL.  But, whatever: You have not yet reached anything which would
have a single chance in physics, even if everything (peer review and
so on) would be ideally fair.  I have reached in the domain of theory
all I have dreamed about, and even much more.  The theories are even
published in established mainstream journals.  And the remaining
problem is pure sociology, nothing related to physics itself.

You see the difference?

>> No. ∇²𝐅 = 0 describes at best something static, given that it
>> contains no time derivatives. So it cannot describe any behavior.
>
> Nope, not when applied to a velocity field in [m/s].

Velocity fields can be static too.  This is the point of view that the
river is yet the same as yesterday.