[Physics] Cubic Atomic Model + Theory

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2020-05-07 16:19 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 8:18 AM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com>
>> Given the SM, it seems quite strange to think that the EM field is
>> somehow fundamental.
>
> Given the original idea that the aether behaves like a fluid, it seems
> quite strange it has not been described as such.

No. You have to start from the fields seen in nature. They are the
starting point. That's the SM and GR. Even if one turn this around and
starts with wishful thinking (means, start with a vague idea about the
ether theory) one would better chose a field with a more exceptional
role as fundamental. That would be the gravitational field.

> But you have a point, one can indeed disagree about the closeness of
> the two models, and it is rather interesting to note that different
> perspectives lead to different conclusions:
>
> 1) From the perspective that the aether fundamentally behaves like a
> fluid and should be described as such, one comes to the conlusion that
> Maxwell was pretty close, but deviated from this fundamental idea and
> therefore this disrepancy should be fixed.

That's again wishful thinking. Maxwell described with his equations
some really existing field. The equations are well-tested. If a
theoretical construction fails to describe that really existing field,
it has to be thrown away.

> 2) From the perspective that the predictions from Maxwell's equations
> match extremely well with observations, obviously the aether does not
> really behave like a fluid. All one needs to do is consider Faraday's
> law to see that in the case where the fields are changing, there is a
> relationship that must hold, otherwise you destroy Maxwell's model and
> therefore you would fail to reproduce it's predictions.

> Obviously, only one of these two lines of thought can be objectively
> true. Either the aether really behaves like a fluid, or it doesn't and
> eventually the score must be settled by experiment.

Yes. And in the actual situation we already have such an experiment,
namely Faraday's.

> I think that the amount of available data around the detection of
> anomalous faster than light signals clearly favors my perspective, but
> conclusive evidence must still be obtained in order to settle the
> score once and for all.

No. A single experiment which your theory cannot explain in principle
is enough to reject it. This experiment exists, the results are
well-known.  So your ether theory is already dead.  If Maxwell's
theory will be killed by some FTL signals remains at least unclear, to
put it mildly.

>> No, this is not the question.  The first question is if curl E = 0 is
>> viable at all given Faraday's experiment.
>
> Ok, let's put the question the other way around:
>
> Is it absolutely necessary to have curl E = -dB/dt in order to be able
> to explain Faraday's experiment?

No, you can have, as well, curl E = -dB/dt + hbar^2 d^5B/dt^5 + many
other small terms. Feel free to modify it in other ways.  But somehow
you have to make sure that if dB/dt =/= 0 then curl E =/= 0 too,
because the experiment measures a particular integral over curl E and
gains a non-zero result. You have also to be sure that the experiment
has been done in many variants, in particular with different dB/dt to
see how this changes curl E. So, if you hope to reach a viable theory,
better don't modify it too much.

> If not, is Faradays law a law that should be included at the
> fundamental level in the model?

No, what is fundamental decides the theory, not any experiment.

> And that is indeed the question if curl E = 0 is viable at all.
>
> I think it is viable, because when we fundamentally describe the
> dynamics of the aether with fluid dynamics vector theory, we by
> definition include all phenomena that can be described within the FD
> domain within our model. Only the scale factor and speeds are
> different, but theoritcal considerations, such as about vortex
> behavior, can all be applied.

You have not yet a theory with your angels (sorry, vortices) described
in a precise way

> And because we can explain Faradays experiment with vortex physics, it
> seems clear that curl E = 0 is viable indeed.

No. If you have those vortex physics as a physical theory, it should
describe some object, say, Vortexmar(x), and its relations with dB/dt
and curl E.  If the resulting equations give curl E = 0, then this
vortex theory is dead too. If not, then curl E is not viable because
of your vortex theory.

> It seems you have trouble accepting the idea that the magnetic field
> really is a vortex.

No, I simply don't care about such verbal descriptions. And I don't
have to. I care about the equations proposed for observable entities.
The curl E = 0 is such an equation, and if measured in Faraday's
experiment, it appears to be wrong. Fairy tales about vortices are not
interesting for me.

> So, let's consider another experiment.

What would be the point?  We have a nice experiment which falsifies
your curl E = 0 theory, let's finish this point by admitting that and
throwing away that theory.  It will not be safed by any other
experiment.

> But the fact of the matter is, the idea that magnetic field really
> describes rotatinal motions of the aether sticks it's head out of the
> mud everywhere. The curl operator is all over the place in the theory
> descibing the magnetic field.
>
> So, is it really that far fetched to suggest magnetism is all about
> fluid dynamics vortex physics when we start out at the radical idea
> that the aether behaves like a fluid and should therefore be described
> as such?

Feel free to suggest whatever you like in some "there be dragons" regions.

> To me, that conclusion is inevitable, given the fundamental idea we
> started out with.

Who cares, as long as that idea has not been transformed into viable
sets of equations?  curl E = 0 is not viable.

>> Before caring about the
>> fundamental level, one has to accept that there should be some limit
>> where Faraday's law holds. This rules out curl E = 0.
>
> Faraday's law holds because (~irrotational) vortices imply a pressure
> gradient in practice (aka E field) because an incompressible medium
> does not exist in practice.  So, Faraday's law is the result of fluid
> dynamics vortex physics and does NOT describe something that belongs
> in a model describing the dynamics of the medium itself.

Ok, describe your ether with something else, instead of B and E
fields. Then you have to make sure that your fundamental Vortexmar(x)
field defines the observable E and B fields and the resulting
observable relations between these E and B fields remember the Maxwell
equations.

Else your theory remains in fantasy land.

> So, it is fluid dynamics that on the one hand rules out curl E =/= 0
> and on the other hand is perfectly capable of explaining the
> experiment.

No, that's a contradiction in itself. If the E field does not belong
to your model at all, that model cannot predict anything about curl E.
If it belongs to the model, then the Faraday experiment shows that
curl E =/= 0, and your theory is simply dead.

> So, stick to the radical idea that the aether behaves like a fluid and
> should therefore be described as such, and vortex physics are not only
> inevitable, they are needed in order to come to a deeper understanding
> whereby cause and effect are actually understood, rather than just
> phenomenologically described.

That would be, if correct, the end of ether theory.  That's all. It is
not, ether theory is alive and compatible with the Maxwell equations,
as you can see from my theories.

> Again, there is no argument that Faraday's law doesn't hold within the
> scale limit of a typical low frequency experiment nor within the
> two-wire distributed parallel LC network paradigm our electronics and
> radio equipment is based on.

Simple logic: If Faraday's law holds for that region, then curl E = 0
is dead for that region, and it follows that curl E = 0 is dead as a
general theory too, because a general theory should describe that
region too.

>> They must not.
>
> So, why would it be warranted to theoretically force them to be
> perpendicular in the dynamic case by writing:
>
> curl E = -dB/dt ??

This equation does not force them to be perpendicular.

> This is what forces the theoretical model to only predict "transverse"
> waves and rules out Tesla's longitudinal wave, which he has observed
> in practice when experimenting with his magnifying transmitter.

That means, some particular type of solutions (waves in a vacuum
without sources) will have this perpendicularity. Not the general
solution.

> Sure, there's a lot of mysticism around that out there as well, but the fact
> of the matter is that he measured a propagation speed of 471240 km/s:

And the other fact is that the professional world of physics was not
impressed. And I see no reason to care much about such results from
outsiders. They could be correct, they could be wrong, I don't know
and I cannot know.

> So, here you have two data points that prove that Faraday's law does
> not always hold and therefore it has to be described somewhere else in
> the model. So, the dB/dt term *has* to be moved from the fundamental
> medium model to where it belongs:

Sorry, nobody cares where whatever equations are placed in some
fundamental model. What matters are the resulting equations for
observable things. Once the resulting equation for the observable
thing E is curl E = 0, the theory is empirically falsified by
Faraday's experiment. Point.

> It is viable, because Faraday's law is the result of vortex physics
> and does not belong in the model at a place that should only describe
> the dynamics of the medium itself.

If the E in curl E = 0 is not the E which is measured, then blame
yourself for using misleading notations. Describe your theory by, say,

curl E_fundi = 0,
Vortexmar = Vortextheory(dB/dt) ~ dB/dt,
E_observable = E_fundi + Vortexmar.

> The point is that the predictions of such a simple aether model are
> not in conflict with the predictions of Maxwell's equations, because
> Faraday's law follows naturally from the simple model by considering
> vortex physics.

Nothing follows from fairy tales about vortices.

> The problem is that when one fundamentally considers the aether to
> behave like a fluid, that "gauge freedom" no longer exists.

That's not a problem at all. In my theory, there is no fundamental
gauge freedom too. To gain gauge freedom in some approximation is
quite easy.

> So, what it comes down to is that the development of the SM was guided
> by a mathematical artifact that would not have existed if Maxwell
> would not have made the mistake of including Faraday's law at the
> wrong place in the model.

Nonsense. Kepler's laws were guided by a particular heliocentric
astrological nonsense. Nobody cares about what guided those who have
made an invention.  What matters is that the equations work.

>> The Maxwell equations, as equations for E and B, predict a lot of
>> things about observables, and these predictions have been tested a lot
>> of times. This agreement between the theory and observation is
>> certainly not just an illusion, it is a very strong hard fact.
>
> Yep.

>> This fact is so hard that you are essentially forced, if you modify
>> the Maxwell equations, to show that in the region where it has been
>> well-tested they hold approximately.
>
> Yep. They hold in all situations whereby the two-wire distributed
> parallel LC transmission line principle applies, which is the case in
> virtually everything we do that involves electronics and the EM waves
> we are familiar with.

And, even more, they hold in some regions where we have no wires at
all but measure the E field in other ways. For example, by looking at
the trajectories of charged particles. (All those nice pictures from
those Wilson chambers used in particle physics accelerators. Or in my
simple proposal to look at charged kork balls.)

There will be always some untested regions, but this is irrelevant,
since you have anyway large regions where you have to recover the full
Maxwell equations as an approximation.

> We have Maxwell's equations that already describe half of the
> Helmholtz decomposition correctly. Define what charge is and move
> Faraday's law somewhere else in the model and you are already damn
> close to integrate fluid dynamics with the electromagnetic domain in a
> way that makes sense.

But Faraday's law is there in reality, it does not go away. If I move
it to somewhere else, the result is a theory which does not fit the
experiment.

>> But it is at a place where you can explicitly make predictions about
>> observables, and then measure these observables, as Faraday has done.
>
> Yep, so it has to remain intact within a certain limit, but one is
> allowed to move it somewhere else in the model, such as by considering
> it to be a result of vortex physics rather than a fundamental property
> of the fields describing the dynamics of the medium itself.

What matters is that the "somewhere else" place is also described with
equations.

In a wider sense everything you describe with equations is also inside
your model, so in this wide sense it has to remain inside the model.

Else, you have some ether theory which can describe some particular
hypothetical waves claimed to have been observed by Tesla and friends,
but unable to explain elementary EM theory as measured already by
Faraday.

>> The electric field predicted for Faraday's experiment would be
>> curl-free, and, therefore, would be unable to create a current in a
>> closed loop.

> Were it not that the very definition of current according to Ampere's
> original law does not involve the electric field at all:
>
> J = curl B.

Makes no sense. Newton's law of gravity does not involve the
electrical field at all too. So what? Measure the E field with kork
balls, without any wires and currents, if you have a problem with
Faraday's original variant.

>> So what? It does not matter, given that we have devices which measure E
>> and B.

> It matters from a theoretical point of view. As long as we don't have
> a definition for what it actually is, we are forced to resort to
> phenomenological descriptions incorporating abstract fields, which
> severely limits our ability to gain a deeper understanding of the
> mechanisms that cause the fields to behave as is being observed.

Yes, that's why we are interested in such deeper understanding. But
for comparison with observation this does not matter at all.  We have
Maxwell equations, for E and B, and can measure both.

> Yep, so if we want to make a step forward, we are free to introduce
> causal relations such that they fit with the established
> phenomenological theory within certain limits. We just have to make
> sure the relations we introduce are correct and lead to a better
> description and deeper understanding of physical reality.

Fine. Unfortunately your equation curl E = 0 fails to fit with the
established phenomenological theory.

> Again, the fundamental separation between the fields as established
> mathematically by LaPlace / Helmholtz correspond to two idealized
> components that match with this fundamental separation:

Again, who cares?  You have to fit the established phenomenological theory.

>> No, that's not the point.  It is quite sufficient to have a _single_
>> experiment where curl E = -dB/dt =/= 0 to show that the theory that
>> curl E = 0 is dead. And this is the point I care about here and now.
>
> Curl E = 0 is required, because otherwise you ruin the fundamental
> decomposition into the two fields for which superposition holds.

Means, your whole approach is inapplicable to the EM field.

> An experiment wherein curl E = -dB/dt happens to hold does not explain
> the causality of why that is and therefore no experiment can reveal
> that causal relation for the simple reason we cannot perform
> experiments with ideal components.

The point of an experiment is not to reveal causal explanations, but
to falsify particular theories. Your ether theory is falsified by
Faraday's experiment, point.

>> Before caring about such speculative questions, one has to get the
>> equations straight.  And to reject nonsense like curl E = 0 as a
>> general equation once we have found situations where curl E = -dB/dt
>> =/= 0.

> The two go hand in hand. Without an answer to the question of what
> charge is, we can't establish causal relationships and thus we cannot
> get the equations straight in such a way that we don't break anything.

I can guess the equations, I can have an epiphany moment, whatever.
Then I can test the guessed equations and reject those who have
failed.

>> We don't care about ideal coils, we care about Faraday's experiment.

> We care about establishing equations in such a way that the correct
> causal relationships are established AND existing experiments are
> predicted correctly as well.

Yes. And once your model fails to reach the latter, we have to care
now about the latter.

>> Whatever, once we have found situations where curl E = -dB/dt =/= 0
>> the theory curl E = 0 is dead.
>>
>> What's the problem with acknowledging this?

> The theory where curl E = 0 is required at that place within the model
> in order to maintain the fundamental decomposition given by Helmholtz
> / LaPlace.

Once it is required, and once it failed to meet the experiment, means
the whole approach who required that is dead. Such is life.

>> Yes. The starting point would be to accept the Maxwell equations as
>> they are, as phenomenological equations for E and B.

> Yep, within their limit of applicability: the "transverse" half of the
> Helmholtz decomposition.

No. Limits of applicability are defined not from your model, but from
the reality where the phenomenological equations work nicely. So,
Faraday's experiment is described nicely. That's the reality. If that
is part of some, however defined, "transverse" or otherwise perverse
part of your theoretical construction I don't know and don't have to.

> Well, at the fundamental "idealized" level curl E = 0 must be applied,
> but that in no way rules out the possibility of reaching curl E =
> -dB/dt in particular situations involving an idealized magnetic field
> that has to remain balanced in practice by a "parasitic" electric
> field.

That's nonsense. Either curl E = 0 is an equation of your theory, then
it holds always. Or not. An equation can have a limited domain of
applicability if it is not fundamental, but an approximation.  So,
curl E = 0 can hold (and does) in the electrostatic approximation. But
then it is not fundamental.

curl E = -dB/dt can be an approximation, but not of curl E = 0.

>> > Faraday's experiment can be fully explained using physics based on the
>> > assumption of the existence of a fluid-like aether and therefore there
>> > is no actual conflict.
>>
>> No. You have not given such a full explanation.
>
> Well, I explained the principles involved.

Your theory may, of course, contain internal contradictions. In this
case one can derive curl E = -dB/dt for Faraday's experiment together
with curl E = 0 always, because one can derive everything.

> As always, the devil is in the details. The experiment is a practical
> application whereby a specific combination of the idealized fields is
> required in order to come to a full analysis of what is going on.

The details are all known and on the table, you have Faraday's
experiment, you have my proposal for the variant with charged kork
balls, you have the SI definitions for all the involved units.

>> It does not matter at all to write down the units. What the SI defines
>> is how these things are measured.  So learn how the SI works, what it
>> defines and how, namely be defining particular measurement procedures
>> for each unit.
>
> What matters is that these units are only defined in relation to one
> another and therefore we are free to introduce a deeper causal
> relationship and see where that brings us.

You are, of course, free to speculate about something deeper, but in
your experiments you would better follow the SI.

>> Your proposal seems unaware of those basic ideas of the SI system, so
>> I will simply ignore it.
>
> Don't you see that the proposal to define charge along the proposal
>
> f = q/m
>
> and the proposal to define current in [Hz] doesn't change anything to
> the SI units, other than resulting in a *single* constant that maps
> the old Ampere unit to a frequency unit resulting in units of
> measurement that are 100% the same as in fluid dynamics for both the
> [E] and [B] fields?

Once I don't look at your deeper speculations, I don't see there anything.

>> No. We have no circuit here, we have charged kork balls and an
>> electric force acting on them.

> An electric force that is the result of vortex physics, because in
> practice balance must be maintained within a rotating magnetic vortex
> and therefore an electric field is there.

So what? It can be measured by the force acting on the kork balls.

You have no freedom to reject experiments accusing the E fields being
bewitched by evil vortex physics.

>> About mathematical theorems you have to care if you invent an ether
>> theory.  If they tell you that in your ether theory you cannot obtain
>> the Maxwell equations, that's bad luck for your ether theory. Not for
>> the Maxwell equations.

> Well, a single constant, probably with a value equal to elemental
> charge e, is all that separates a FD aether theory from Maxwell.

No, actually it is the equation curl E = 0 which makes the difference.

> And then suddenly mathematical theorems do matter.

They matter, but before you start looking at experiments. If your
theory is in conflict with math, it is dead without a single
experiment.

>> You are NOT free to change equations for well-defined observables like
>> E and B which have been well-tested.  EXCEPT if you are able to show
>> that in some limit these equations will be recovered.

> So far, we haven't changed any equation.

????????????  You have changed curl E = -dB/dt  to curl E = 0.

>> > I think I've made quite a step in that direction with the definitions
>> > proposed above.
>>
>> I'm not sure. I have yet to wait for your acknowledging that curl E =
>> 0 is dead.
>
> I'm afraid you're not going to get that.

That would mean that you don't understand even the basics of physics,
namely how experiments allow to falsify wrong theories.

The funny thing is that you don't even question the falsifying
experiment itself.

> In fact, I say they don't have to be and that would be just one reason
> for removing the term dB/dt.

????????????? I have explained you that they don't have to be
perpendicular even with the dB/dt term. So why this would suggest to
remove it?