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

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2020-05-02 2:19 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 5:37 PM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess, ultimately, our differences lie mostly in what we trust the
> most. You seem to primarily trust "hard" data and want to produce
> equations which produce the right numbers and make as much sense as
> possible, while I seem to rely much more on my intuition.

Yes. If your intuition is not guided by hard data, you have no chance.

> So far, Einstein's "instinctive attitude" with respect to "the Quantum
> Theory" has not been proven correct, but like him I have no doubt the
> day Einstein foresaw will come, one day.

Today, Einstein would probably accept a hidden preferred frame, simply
because the alternative, to give up realism and causality, would be
completely unacceptable to him.

>> I don't ignore your claim, I openly reject it as plainly wrong.
>
> Yep, that much is clear. :)
>
> I'm left with the question of "why?"

You have, first, to learn elementary electrodynamics. On the
elementary school level. Starting with what is observable - the fields
E and B - and what can be used to measure them.

Once you have accepted that one can simply measure E and B, then you
should understand that to distinguish the theory without the dB/dt
term from the Maxwell theory can be done in a quite elementary way, by
creating some variable magnetic field (simply a rotating magnet) and
measuring the E field. And that the result of such measurements was
quite clear, and in favor of the Maxwell equations.

> It really beats me how one could possibly reject this, since for me it
> speaks for itself. Thus, the human mind remains to be mysterious.

Physicists simply rely on the facts which can be easily measured.

>> My proposal for cooperation is not about who is right and who is
>> wrong. Of course, you will continue to think you are right, and I will
>> continue to think I'm right. Never seen something different.
>
> Yep. Remarkable that two rational thinking people cannot come to an
> agreement about what should be considered to be an absolute truth.
> Apparently, even math does not have enough power to bridge the gap,
> which is very unfortunate. I guess we have no other option but to
> agree to disagree.

We have, you should simply learn elementary electrodynamics from the
start, not based on your intuitive ether ideas. There are simple hard
facts, the E and B fields which you can measure. And if you (different
from me) don't believe the mainstream experimenters of the last
centuries, ok, then measure yourself what you can measure with your
$1000.

The point being that the E and B fields are well-defined things one
can measure in the real world. And that such measurements can show you
that they follow the Maxwell equations - in the form without any use
of potentials. That means, you should understand that the Maxwell
equations are about hard facts about real things, and that you have
simply no freedom to change them in your theoretical speculations.

> Yep, I see that, too. But at the end of the day, I see no other option
> but to conclude we are, indeed, divided.
>
> And the problem is, we have a fundamental difference of opinion and at
> this moment I don't see it happen that we can bridge the gap, even
> though from my point of view that would be entirely possible.

Science does not care, finally, about opinions. First of all, it cares
about hard observable facts. (Einstein has, BTW, never questioned the
facts of QT.)

>> But I see myself in a quite good position to gain a particular
>> victory, say, taking a town near my border given that I have gained
>> the control of the mountain near that town. But alone I cannot take
>> it.

> Problem is I cannot defend a theory which foundation is incompatible
> with my ideas on a fundamental level, even though I have no reason to
> doubt your theory is a lot better than what the main stream has to
> offer.

You don't have to defend it as true. Defend it as better in some
aspects. And force them to defend their own much weaker theories.

> I take your word for it that it's much simpler and
> understandable, but as long as it's fundamentally built upon "gauge
> freedom", I cannot defend it. Sorry.

My approach here is quite different from the mainstream approach too.
The mainstream rejects the gauge freedom as unphysical and invents
complicate constructions to get rid of them (Faddejev-Popov ghosts).

My approach is much simpler. I start with the Maxwell equations. Then
I accept that the potentials are the things which describe reality,
even if I can measure only E and B but not A and Phi.  But I can make
a reasonable guess about their equations, and this reasonable guess is
they all move with the same c, which is the Lorenz gauge. No
fundamental role for gauge symmetry.  The Lorenz gauge is simply a
nice guess which gives nice and simple equations for A and Phi which
are compatible with the Maxwell equations.

> I'm afraid I can't do much. I'm mostly at home and don't speak many
> people, especially not scientists. And I really wouldn't know what to
> say, because of our fundamental difference in point of view.

You can simply ask "what's wrong with that theory" questions.

I do similar things myself. Say, I have not liked many aspects of the
Bohmian interpretation of QT. But I support it whenever there is a
discussion between Bohm theory defenders and Copenhagen or many world
defenders.

If we cooperate, you can tell me which parts of my pages you can
understand and which not, I could try to improve them. Then, if you
have, as a result of this, some pages which you understand well
enough, then you can try to some scientists in forums or so and ask
them those "what's wrong" questions pointing to these pages.

> It's always a good idea to choose your battles.
> I like to lay low until I'm fully armed and ready with a surprise.

Fine.

>> I take only the unproblematic parts from gauge fields, not the
>> ideology that this symmetry is somehow fundamental or similar
>> stupidity.
>>
>> The unproblematic part is that what we can measure - E and B - is
>> clearly not all, because of Aharonov-Bohm we need the potentials A
>> Phi.  The rest follows from the Maxwell equations (which are fine).
>
> Will have to agree to disagree on this one, too. Can't understand why
> you apparantly can't follow my arguments, so the gap cannot be
> bridged. It is what it is.

I have not yet given up, you acknowledge a lot of different points, so
the discussion seems not hopeless.

So, let's clarify where exactly you disagree. The first central point
is here that E and B are some really existing fields which can be
measured with real well-defined measurement devices.

>> Of course, it does not solve your problem, and has no intention to do
>> this. Your interest would be a different one: This is a playing field
>> where alternative physics can win against the mainstream.  All what is
>> necessary for this victory is already reached.  It remains the
>> sociological problem of fighting the wall of ignorance.
>>
>> If this attack against the mainstream will be successful, you will be
>> in a much better position to help with your ideas the US to regain Air
>> superiority.
>
> “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
> ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Which is what I have tried many years now. But without fighting, the
method chosen by the mainstream - complete ignorance - will win
without a fight.

>> So you think you can exclude the possibility that human observers are
>> sometimes unable to distinguish by observation states which are really
>> different?  I see no base for such claims of human ability to observe
>> everything.
>
> I just don't see the point in consciously creating fields that are by
> definition unobservable because they cannot have any physical effect
> according to elemental vector analysis.

The fields A and Phi obviously have observable consequence, they
define the E and B completely, and those are observable directly. So,
the only question is if they are better or worse than using E and B
directly. There are two strong arguments in favor of the potentials,
namely the Aharonov-Bohm effect as well as the straightforward,
simplest way to introduce a charge into the Dirac equation.

But, I suggest you to think first about the E and B fields as things
which can be explicitly measured, and that this allows you to measure
them in situations which allow you to test if and how the dB/dt term
changes the E field.

After this, you can either do such experiments yourself. I restrict
myself to knowing that this can be done in principle, and with
sufficiently simple tools.  Take a rotating magnet, a wire nearby, and
measure the voltage at the ends of the wire.  The question is if the
rotation of the magnet somehow influences this voltage and how. As
well how this voltage depends on the direction of the wire relative to
the rotating magnet. And then think about the question if all this is
correctly described by the Maxwell equations for E and B or not.

This intentionally avoids all references to your ether model or any
fluid dynamics. That's important, given that you should understand
that E and B are well-known to exist and their equations are
well-established without even thinking about such models.