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

[Hans van Leunen]

Some of you like to reinvent physics. That is unnecessary. It is obvious that mainframe physics suffices to let applied physics flourish. It is also clear that mainframe physics contains several flaws in its theoretical support. This makes it impossible to explain the origin of several subjects, such as the the origin of gravitation, the origin of electrical charge, the origin of color charge, the origin of entanglement, the shortlist of electrical charges, color confinement, particle-wave duality, the begin of the universe, the expansion of the universe, black holes, dark matter objects, dark energy objects, the origin of the wavefunction, the modular design of all creatures, and so on.
Several indications exist that physical reality is based on a purely mathematical foundation. However, only a few scientists dare to explore that inroad. One of the reasons is that the expertise of most physicists in mathematics is very low. Those that take this inroad are astonished that physical reality uses only a very small piece of mathematics to construct its foundation. A hierarchy of mathematical structures exists that evolves from a simple foundation in which the members emerge from the lower-level members, such that the extension is restricted by mathematical rules. The top-level structure of this hierarchy shows all phenomena that are listed above as unexplained characteristics of current physics. Already a small paper covers this hierarchy and the required mathematics. See
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339744488_Representing_basic_physical_fields_by_quaternionic_fields
The paper includes the mathematical and experimental underpinning of the presented mathematical model of physical reality.


 
> Op 2 mei 2020 om 9:03 schreef Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com>:
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics