An ether model which gives the Standard Model of particle physics

[paddoboy]

The crux of the matter is [1] the ether is not needed, and [2] Michelson/Morley showed it didn't exist. Add that to the fact that the duel nature of light [particle and wave] means that light does not need any medium to travel in, [light acting as a particle would not need any medium] and in effect just needs to do exactly what spacetime tells it to do.
The belief in any universal cosmic fluid goes back to ancient times. Didn't our ancient Greek friends believe that the ether was the "special air" breathed by the Gods?
I believe we have come a long way since those times.

 

[Schmelzer]

The crux of the matter is [1] the ether is not needed,

It is needed to explain the properties of the SM. If you are comfortable with the SM as it is, a lot of fields with strange unexplained regularities, fine, in this case you don't need an ether. If not, you need an ether. At least no other attempt to explain the SM has given anything close to an explanation.

and [2] Michelson/Morley showed it didn't exist.

Simply false. Michelson Morley falsified some primitive ether models. Already the Lorentz ether is not falsified by Michelson Morley.

Add that to the fact that the duel nature of light [particle and wave] means that light does not need any medium to travel in, [light acting as a particle would not need any medium] and in effect just needs to do exactly what spacetime tells it to do.

"Particle-wave duality" is some naive informal old quantum talk with no relevance. It is from times when quantum theory was only badly understood, if understood at all. I would recommend you to ignore it.

The modern quantum theory is the SM, which is a quantum field theory. Thus, the base is a field. Particles are simply quantum effects of the field. It is, by the way, the theoretical apparatus of Hawking radiation which shows that the field picture is the fundamental one, not the particle picture.

Anyway, it would be meaningless as an argument against the ether, because the same mathematics of quantum field theory can be an is used on classical condensed matter theory, and leads to so-called phonons - "particles" related with sound waves.

 

[paddoboy]

It is needed to explain the properties of the SM. If you are comfortable with the SM as it is, a lot of fields with strange unexplained regularities, fine,

Perhaps you are overstating these field regularities.

Simply false. Michelson Morley falsified some primitive ether models. Already the Lorentz ether is not falsified by Michelson Morley.

It is not possible to distinguish between Lorentz ether and SR by any experiment. It is only an assumption. I prefer the spacetime and non absolute nature of space and time.

"Particle-wave duality" is some naive informal old quantum talk with no relevance. It is from times when quantum theory was only badly understood, if understood at all. I would recommend you to ignore it.

I don't believe that for one instant, and besides, it certainly does not go back as far as the ancient Greeks as does the imaginary ether.

 

[Fednis48]

Got back from Thanksgiving break and found Schmelzer getting kind of dogpiled in this thread, so I thought I'd lend some support.

It is not possible to distinguish between Lorentz ether and SR by any experiment. It is only an assumption. I prefer the spacetime and non absolute nature of space and time.

I think that's kind of his point, paddoboy. The Lorentz ether is one example of an ether that is not in conflict with experiment. If I understand correctly, it offers no predictions that differ from relativity, so it's usually rejected by convention and/or aesthetic preference. Schmelzer's ether is another ether model that is not in conflict with experiment. Unlike the Lorentz ether, it does make some predictions that differ from GR, but Schmelzer's calculations show that the differences should not be noticeable in the contexts where we've tested GR, such as in GPS satellites. As a result, his ether model is functionally like GR plus the standard model, but with three key differences:

-It offers an underlying framework to explain the standard model's particle zoo.
-It makes some different predictions regarding cosmology, notably including an attractive candidate for dark matter.
-It may make some different predictions about the behavior of what the standard model describes as the Higgs field.

Of course, the math of relativity is generally beyond my grasp, so I can't say whether the model is sound, but it certainly feels well-motivated, and the fact that it's been published tells me that others more qualified than myself found it reasonable at first blush. Also, the mere fact that there are concrete equations describing it puts it in a tier above several of the crank models we see regularly around here. So in short, this research has piqued my interest, and I think it deserves a little more credit than people have been giving it.

Schmelzer: Hope you don't mind me speaking for you, and please correct any errors/omissions in my summary. In particular, I'd be curious to hear what kinds of cosmological predictions your model would change; is it just the extra scalar term stuff, or would there be changes to (for example) the models for calibrating ultra-long-distance standard candles?

 

[paddoboy]

I think that's kind of his point, paddoboy. The Lorentz ether is one example of an ether that is not in conflict with experiment.

Hmmm, that sort of reminds me of those that want to invoke a deity to explain the BB. Why add another unexplained step? Why doesn't the Universe/space/time suffice since light being a particle needs no medium to traverse in, and just has space/time telling it what to do [what geodesic path to take]

If I understand correctly, it offers no predictions that differ from relativity, so it's usually rejected by convention and/or aesthetic preference. Schmelzer's ether is another ether model that is not in conflict with experiment.

Funny, I was just about to post another "theory/hypothesis"I came across, but wasn't sure about whether to post it in science or alternative theories.
I'll put it here as an example of the other so called theories that supposedly also mimic GR.
Like you, the maths is also beyond my grasp...Anyhow, I would like to hear what others think of the following.

Yes, I also had to blink twice when I came across this, mainly because I had never heard of it.
I have heard of things like "Autodynamics"and "Cosmic Commode" as crank alternative to GR and present accepted cosmology, but never this.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0625.pdf

:Lovelock gravity is equivalent to Einstein gravity coupled to form fields:

Abstract:
Lovelock gravity is a class of higher-derivative gravitational theories whose linearized equations of motion have no more than two time derivatives. Here, it is shown that any Lovelock theory can be effectively described as Einstein gravity coupled to a p-form gauge field. This extends the known example of an f(R) theory of gravity, which can be described as Einstein gravity coupled to a scalar field.


In summary, we have shown that any of the Lovelock higher-derivative gravity theories has an effective description as Einstein gravity non-minimally coupled to a (D − 2)-form field-strength tensor. So that, just as an f(R) theory is Einstein gravity coupled to a scalar, any higher-derivative unitary theory of gravity is Einstein gravity coupled to a (D − 3)-form gauge field. The implication is that, for all practical purposes, Einstein’s is the single unitary theory of gravity. Our constructions would fit in naturally with the myriad of string-theory models that include such higher-form gauge fields.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

[danshawen]

The facts about GPS I know. And I can keep the most important calculations of GR, because I have derived the equation of my theory from my first principles, and, then, have proven a theorem that in the limit $$\Xi, \Upsilon \to 0$$ the equations of my theory become the Einstein equations of GR in harmonic coordinates, and made some other computations which show that these parameters should have so small values that the modifications play no role at all in any Solar system measurements.

So, I do not simply think that they can somehow be equivalent, but I have proven theorems about this.

You can't "keep the most important theorems of GR" while the rest of your model trashes the assumptions used to derive them.

I'd tell you to consult a colleague about it, but in your case, this would probably not be a wise move.

Your attitude about this reminds me rather strongly of discussions with David de Hilster, a lunatic who also co-opts important results of relativity and then swears he can derive them all from a single observer. Trust me, you can't. It earned De Hilster a well deserved spot in the encyclopedia of American loons.

At least, I understand that you do not doubt the existence of neutrinos.

Nevertheless, if you are not prepared to accept the assumptions made to derive a bit of math, you must either be able to derive equivalent results with different assumptions, or else you cannot use them. You understand that math only works if you follow ALL THE RULES, right?

 

[brucep]

Got back from Thanksgiving break and found Schmelzer getting kind of dogpiled in this thread, so I thought I'd lend some support.

I think that's kind of his point, paddoboy. The Lorentz ether is one example of an ether that is not in conflict with experiment. If I understand correctly, it offers no predictions that differ from relativity, so it's usually rejected by convention and/or aesthetic preference. Schmelzer's ether is another ether model that is not in conflict with experiment. Unlike the Lorentz ether, it does make some predictions that differ from GR, but Schmelzer's calculations show that the differences should not be noticeable in the contexts where we've tested GR, such as in GPS satellites. As a result, his ether model is functionally like GR plus the standard model, but with three key differences:

-It offers an underlying framework to explain the standard model's particle zoo.
-It makes some different predictions regarding cosmology, notably including an attractive candidate for dark matter.
-It may make some different predictions about the behavior of what the standard model describes as the Higgs field.

Of course, the math of relativity is generally beyond my grasp, so I can't say whether the model is sound, but it certainly feels well-motivated, and the fact that it's been published tells me that others more qualified than myself found it reasonable at first blush. Also, the mere fact that there are concrete equations describing it puts it in a tier above several of the crank models we see regularly around here. So in short, this research has piqued my interest, and I think it deserves a little more credit than people have been giving it.

Schmelzer: Hope you don't mind me speaking for you, and please correct any errors/omissions in my summary. In particular, I'd be curious to hear what kinds of cosmological predictions your model would change; is it just the extra scalar term stuff, or would there be changes to (for example) the models for calibrating ultra-long-distance standard candles?

He calls it an atomic ether. That's not the Lorentz ether. Maybe he misspoke but I doubt it. The Lorentz ether theory makes the exact predictions that SR makes. The Lorentz ether is physically undetectable. Schmelzer ether theory of gravity doesn't make the exact predictions of GR. Einstein rejected the theoretical Lorentz ether as unnecessary to describe the physics. Since then a disagreement about the effectiveness of ether models has continued. With the ether models on the short end. I was looking for any evidence for a Gravastar and I came across this power point on theoretical models of the theoretical object Gravastar. Pretty interesting. No reference to ether models.
http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/luis.beca/phisky/PhiSky Wiltshire.pdf

 

[danshawen]

He calls it an atomic ether. That's not the Lorentz ether. Maybe he misspoke but I doubt it. The Lorentz ether theory makes the exact predictions that SR makes. The Lorentz ether is physically undetectable. Schmelzer ether theory of gravity doesn't make the exact predictions of GR. Einstein rejected the theoretical Lorentz ether as unnecessary to describe the physics. Since then a disagreement about the effectiveness of ether models has continued. With the ether models on the short end. I was looking for any evidence for a Gravastar and I came across this power point on theoretical models of the theoretical object Gravastar. Pretty interesting. No reference to ether models.
http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/luis.beca/phisky/PhiSky Wiltshire.pdf

That all looks fine, brucep. I yield to your superior literacy on cosmology (and this is not sarcasm).

Over decades, I've just become sensitized to techniques used by relativity deniers, and wholesale adoption of GRs results without a care about any underlying assumptions associated with how it was derived is an old favorite. SR and GR are both great, but they both make assumptions, and unless you buy those, an extension based on a set of different assumptions is not going to make sense. If someone brings back an aether in some manner, it either has to make predictions using the SAME assumptions GR does (very unlikely), or else it needs to be able to derive everything GR does on its own under any assumptions that are different. This isn't what Schmelzer seems to be doing.

What he is doing with GR is logically indefensible and dishonest, intellectually and academically. I've never seen anything worse that was not actually prosecuted as fraud. I'd retract that paper if my career depended on it.

 

[brucep]

In this 'Post relativistic hidden variable theory of general relativity'. The hidden variables are absolute space, absolute time, and the ether. So we have absolute time, absolute space, filled with an ether so we can quantize the Newtonian gravitational field.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9605013
Contrivance. The author should quit conflating this bullshit with relativistic theory.

 

[zgmc]

I'm sure this has been said, but couldn't the ether be another dimension? Isn't that what it implies anyway?

 

[The God]

The modern quantum theory is the SM, which is a quantum field theory. Thus, the base is a field. Particles are simply quantum effects of the field. It is, by the way, the theoretical apparatus of Hawking radiation which shows that the field picture is the fundamental one, not the particle picture.

Thats precisely the reason you are facing the abusive flak here, most of the guys (that includes yours truly as well) do not understand the Quantum Filed Theory, the concept known to most on matter wave is undergraduate level not beyond Debroglie.....Now I understand your immediate objection to association of particle / anti particle popular science with Hawking Radiation in those threads on HR.

I have seen your endorsement, my concern is that you started with GR equations to give an alternative to GR, and still remaining reverential towards GR. Your paper may or may not succeed but it is a grand attempt, that shows your grasp on the subject across spectrum. You could not have been foolish to push the aether, the way it is being objected. But this is also a fact that despite prolonged & useless argument with paddoboy earlier on the subject, you have not been able to sell your ether properly, rename it.

 

[paddoboy]

But this is also a fact that despite prolonged & useless argument with paddoboy earlier on the subject, you have not been able to sell your ether properly, rename it.

You really are totally incapable of helping yourself my friend. I must be your worst nightmare.
I am at a loss somewhat as your posts appear to be supporting GR, yet your same posts are so ignorant of so many facts concerning it [GR]. The Schwarzchild radius and total compulsory collapse being the most obvious....Or perhaps by pretending to support it, you are again trying to "closet" your religious agenda that was exposed.

 

[The God]

You really are totally incapable of helping yourself my friend. I must be your worst nightmare.
I am at a loss somewhat as your posts appear to be supporting GR, yet your same posts are so ignorant of so many facts concerning it [GR]. The Schwarzchild radius and total compulsory collapse being the most obvious....Or perhaps by pretending to support it, you are again trying to "closet" your religious agenda that was exposed.

I am very capable and you know nothing about my capabilities....almost unlimited, infact you are not capable enough to assess my capabilities..... You are a 'fun' not nightmare, my dear paddoboy. I support truth. Just because Schmelzer gave an alternative to GR, it does not mean that I will support that whole heartedly, I found some issues, I put them objectively, some are cleared and some are not cleared and they will remain so till I spend some time with QFT........I am not anti mainstream as you are trying to establish about me, I am anti nonsense which is away from reality and which is prevailing in certain aspects of science.

 

[Fednis48]

Hmmm, that sort of reminds me of those that want to invoke a deity to explain the BB. Why add another unexplained step? Why doesn't the Universe/space/time suffice since light being a particle needs no medium to traverse in, and just has space/time telling it what to do [what geodesic path to take]

Yeah, a lot of pet theories seem to violate Occam's Razor just because the author doesn't like the simplest interpretation. I know you're talking about GR alternatives, but I often notice the same thing from people who are uncomfortable with quantum mechanics. In this case, though, Schmelzer's theory actually does go beyond the predictions of GR (by providing a framework for the standard model), so the argument doesn't apply.

You can't "keep the most important theorems of GR" while the rest of your model trashes the assumptions used to derive them.
...
Nevertheless, if you are not prepared to accept the assumptions made to derive a bit of math, you must either be able to derive equivalent results with different assumptions, or else you cannot use them. You understand that math only works if you follow ALL THE RULES, right?

[emphasis added] This post strikes me as really unfair. As you correctly note, any theory that starts with different assumptions from GR must re-derive any results from GR before using them. As far as I can tell, this is exactly what Schmelzer does, and the fact that he has published two papers tells me that the re-derivations are probably sound. To say that Schmelzer is just keeping end-result theorems from GR and/or not "following all the rules" in his math is unjustified. Of course, if someone who understood this stuff (brucep, maybe) actually looked through Schmelzer's math and pointed out a mistake, that would be a pretty strong argument. But I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you haven't actually read either paper.

He calls it an atomic ether. That's not the Lorentz ether. Maybe he misspoke but I doubt it. The Lorentz ether theory makes the exact predictions that SR makes. The Lorentz ether is physically undetectable. Schmelzer ether theory of gravity doesn't make the exact predictions of GR. Einstein rejected the theoretical Lorentz ether as unnecessary to describe the physics.

I guess I'm a little confused about what you're trying to argue here. I agree that Schmelzer's ether is not the Lorentz ether, nor did he intend for it to be; the Lorentz ether is just one especially well-known example of an ether that does not conflict with experiment, and Schmelzer's is another such ether. Einstein (and most others) rejected the Lorentz ether because it didn't add any predictive power, but Schmelzer's ether actually does have experimental significance, so it can't be rejected for the same reason.

 

[paddoboy]

I am very capable and you know nothing about my capabilities....almost unlimited, infact you are not capable enough to assess my capabilities.....

Correct. I am though aware of your incapabilities and they are many.

You are a 'fun' not nightmare, my dear paddoboy. I support truth. Just because Schmelzer gave an alternative to GR, it does not mean that I will support that whole heartedly, I found some issues, I put them objectively, some are cleared and some are not cleared and they will remain so till I spend some time with QFT........I am not anti mainstream as you are trying to establish about me, I am anti nonsense which is away from reality and which is prevailing in certain aspects of science.

To the contrary in near total. And in fact one of your threads attest to your fanatical anti mainstream bias, your crank nature and your delusions of grandeur. You are most certainly anti mainstream without any doubt.
The problem is that your delusions, your inflated ego, and your vain efforts to regain some lost credibility, has you slightly back peddling.

 

[paddoboy]

I am very capable and you know nothing about my capabilities..

I believe the following threads prove your rather weird and anti science stance quite admirably.......
Of course it was moved to pseudoscience

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/co...tering-the-reality.153132/page-7#post-3343854
With due permission from resident die hard mainstream supporters, I would like to list few of theories/propositions/Ideas which are expected to be taken off the shelf in a decade or so, and they are.....The list is quite restricted.

1. Black Hole Theory

This has gotten a cult status thanks to Sir Hawking, I must admit he has very limited materialstic requirements, an otherwise inspirational guy, but he has made an Industry out of Black Hole for others to benefit. We will never get an answer whether he knew from day one about the cult status which Black Hole would acquire one day. "The Detailed History of Time" also will not be able to tell us about this. I have already taken a copyright on this title....."The Detailed Histroy of Time".

Other demises : ThermoD of BH, Worm Hole, White Hole, Singularity etc.

2. Spacetime (Flat & Curved)

A massive mathematical jugglery. Everyone admits (even the scientists) that there is no physical thing called spacetime, but it bends, it distorts, it has curvature and lo behold the curvature of the spacetime is Gravity. The greatest contribution of this spacetime is enhancement of our knowledge on complex mathematics. No one can explain to others what is 'curved spacetime' and what is 'curvature of spacetime' but these two are the highest used terms in the last hundred years of cosmology.

Other Demises : Frame Dragging (in present form), Geodetic, Geodesic

3. Inflation

Already out, what massive joke it is / was. Tell me how can such thing become digestible even to a die hard mainstream follower. We can digest that we had no Physics before t = 0, but once t = 0 is taken in, then give a chance to Physics, not to some funny idea. Physics is not something which is evolving.

Other Demises : Dark Energy (in present form), expansion faster than light, eternal inflation.

4. General Relativity

This is a gone case. It will be a scientific mystery how this theory survived for more than a century in an era wherein we had great resources and great minds. The root cause of most of the problems, but the brighter side is that mathematics benefitted.

Other Demises : It will hit the 10K limit.

Now, the point is what next ? Physics will take over once again. Few centuries ago Physics was in the clutches of pops and philosophers, they were crushed on the point, now for last few decades this has been gripped by Industrialized Scientists (a la funding dependent scientists), this will also go away and true Physics will win. Time has come, all on Board with their genuine ideas. Please lets stick to explainable science. What is the use if we cannot explain infinite mass density, infinite spacetime curvature, bending of spacetime, exponential expansion within 10^-36 to 10^-30...this is no Physics.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

And a more recent one illustrated here.....

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gr...dington-experiment.153174/page-3#post-3344362

Guilty as charged.

 

[The God]

Correct. I am though aware of your incapabilities and they are many.


To the contrary in near total. And in fact one of your threads attest to your fanatical anti mainstream bias, your crank nature and your delusions of grandeur. You are most certainly anti mainstream without any doubt.
The problem is that your delusions, your inflated ego, and your vain efforts to regain some lost credibility, has you slightly back peddling.

The thread has good discussions, I do not wish to trash the thread by indulging into your games....period

Enjoy...You can call me the archbishop of St Patrick's Cathedral....I don't care.

 

[paddoboy]

Yeah, a lot of pet theories seem to violate Occam's Razor just because the author doesn't like the simplest interpretation

That's why I posted that alternative "Lovelock Gravity"paper.
There are many alternatives, and each of their creators, loves their own theory like a Mum loves a Bub...It's natural, and that's part of my argument. Schmelzer gives so much certainty to his paper and really, in effect, it should be others singing its praises or otherwise.
Sure, he has plenty on me: I have never posted a scientific paper. And for that I do respect him to some degree and have told him that.
Many many papers exist on arXiv that offer alternatives. They are probably good reading in part and excellent learning material for graduate students.
With regards to your first post and your thoughts on him being given a hard time.... Believe me he gives as good as he gets, and you must remember that forums such as this, with its comparative lax rules of engagement, and being open to all, is a hive of attraction for all the cranks, nuts and pseudoscience pushers that abound out there. We have had since my time two that claim to have a TOE......we have others with outstandingly stupid claims that have been cesspooled, others linger in the alternative sections...They all have two things in common...they all see themselves as a Saviour of 20th/21st century cosmology and they are all afflicted with delusions of grandeur.

 

[paddoboy]

The thread has good discussions, I do not wish to trash the thread by indulging into your games....period

Enjoy...You can call me the archbishop of St Patrick's Cathedral....I don't care.

I don't need to call you anything my friend. Your own posts [particularly in pseudoscience, speak for themselves

 

[brucep]

Yeah, a lot of pet theories seem to violate Occam's Razor just because the author doesn't like the simplest interpretation. I know you're talking about GR alternatives, but I often notice the same thing from people who are uncomfortable with quantum mechanics. In this case, though, Schmelzer's theory actually does go beyond the predictions of GR (by providing a framework for the standard model), so the argument doesn't apply.
[emphasis added] This post strikes me as really unfair. As you correctly note, any theory that starts with different assumptions from GR must re-derive any results from GR before using them. As far as I can tell, this is exactly what Schmelzer does, and the fact that he has published two papers tells me that the re-derivations are probably sound. To say that Schmelzer is just keeping end-result theorems from GR and/or not "following all the rules" in his math is unjustified. Of course, if someone who understood this stuff (brucep, maybe) actually looked through Schmelzer's math and pointed out a mistake, that would be a pretty strong argument. But I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you haven't actually read either paper.
I guess I'm a little confused about what you're trying to argue here. I agree that Schmelzer's ether is not the Lorentz ether, nor did he intend for it to be; the Lorentz ether is just one especially well-known example of an ether that does not conflict with experiment, and Schmelzer's is another such ether. Einstein (and most others) rejected the Lorentz ether because it didn't add any predictive power, but Schmelzer's ether actually does have experimental significance, so it can't be rejected for the same reason.

It's clearly rejected. For many reasons not the least the necessity for an absolute ether frame to quantize the Newtonian gravitional field. It's a contrivance in my opinion and it's not GR and to keep intimating it is is bullshit. If there was some experimental significance associated with predictions of his work then we would have heard about it by at least one citation that takes his hidden variable ether theory seriously in the last 20 + years.