An ether model which gives the Standard Model of particle physics

[Schmelzer]

Perhaps you are overstating these field regularities.

Perhaps, but try to have a look at them.

There are three so-called generations of fermions. They have different masses, but otherwise these three gerenations are completely identical. The same number of particles, and exactly the same charges, and this holds for all three forces. So, the analogical particles in different generations have not only the same EM charge, but also the same strong charge and the same weak charge. And there are three such generations, not two, not four or five, or an infinite series, exactly three. Without any explanation.

Then, they are the right-handed neutrinos. They appear also in all three generations once. And they are remarkably inert: They have zero EM chanrge, zero weak charge, zero strong charge. And they have also a much smaller mass than all other particles.

Then, electroweak pairs. Fermions appear only in pairs of Dirac fermions. Initially it was thought that there can be also other types of fermions, so-called Weyl fermions, which are left-handed or right-handed, but without the corresponding right-handed (left-handed) partner which then forms a Dirac fermion which can have a mass, or Majorana fermions. Neutrino oscillations have excluded the variant of the neutrino being only left-handed Weyl fermion. So, there have to be these totally inert right-handed parts of the neutrinos. There remains also the theoretical possibility that the mass term for neutrinos is of a different form, a Majorana mass. But most think is is a usual Dirac mass. In the case of a majorana mass, the SM would be a bit less regular - one type of electroweak pair with one Dirac and one Majorana particle (leptons) and another with two Dirac particles (quarks). I prefer the variant which is more regular, the one where all electroweak pairs are pairs of Dirac particles.

So, the regularity is that fermions appear only in doublets, pairs, and the weak group acts on these pairs, and acts on all these pairs in exactly the same way.

I think all these regularities cry for explanation. And my ether model gives an explanation.

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.

You have, of course, the right to prefer a theory or interpretation for purely subjective criteria like beauty.

But let's note here that there is a difference between the Lorentz ether and SR (which is the only objection I have to make to Fednis48). If one adds causality, in particular with Reichenbach's common cause principle, or realism, then in combination with SR one can prove Bell's inequalities. The Lorentz ether is not sufficient to prove them - because causality in the Lorentz ether is classical causality, as defined by absolute time, and some hidden FTL causal influences are not forbidden. But Bell's inequalities can be tested, have been tested and falsified. So, if one prefers SR, one has to pay for this by giving up causality (especially Reichenbach's common cause principle) and realism.

 

[Schmelzer]

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

This is what I have done. I have derived the Lagrangian of my theory from my assumptions. It appeared to be the GR Lagrangian with two additional terms. That means, in the limit where the two additional terms become zero, the Lagrangian becomes the Lagrangian of GR. Everything else follows from the Lagrangian.

In particular, the Lagrangian for matter fields is covariant even with the two additional terms. This is all one needs to derive all the GR results for matter fields, and, in particular, the result that clocks measure GR proper time.

 

[Schmelzer]

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.

My ether theory of gravity is a continuous ether theory, similar to GR. It has a no gravity limit, where it corresponds to a static, incompressible ether with homogeneous density. This is exactly equivalent to the Lorentz ether. The atomic ether is another point. I do not think that a continuous ether theory will be correct for arbitrary small distances. So, the Lorentz ether and atomic ether are simply two different limiting situations - the Lorentz ether is no gravity but large distances, the atomic ether is small distances.

Essentially after the success of GR ether models have not been discussed. That there exists a simple Lorentz ether interpretation for GR was simply unknown, therefore there was no ether model for relativistic gravity, thus, no base for discussing it.

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

This is only of historical interest, my ether theory of gravity is already much better. It has, in particular, a Lagrange formalism, and a derivation of the Lagrangian. And at that time the ether interpretation was only partially understood, there is the formula $$v^i=g^{0i}/g^{00}$$ but no formula for ether density and the stress tensor.

But your description of this early version is inaccurate. The gravitational field is not Newtonian. Even if some Newtonian concepts are revived, it is not the scalar Newtonian gravitational field which is revived.

BTW, if you think that some of my theorems published in my published papers are wrong, you have a chance to get an own paper published in the same journals.

 

[Farsight]

Schelzer: this looks interesting. I'll take a proper look and get back to you. Apologies on behalf of physics for some of the negative vibes you've heard here. I agree that light is something like sound, as per Robert Close's The Other Meaning of Special Relativity. As for the speed of light and ether, I don't see the problem. I'm John Duffield by the way.

 

[Farsight]

I took a look. I think this shows promise, but needs more work. IMHO you need to start with photons.

 

[Layman]

From your post #22 I stopped reading...

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.

One could probably develop a model using Minkowski spacetime...

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

The Michelson Morley experiment simply proved that the measurement of the speed of light doesn't depend on the frame of reference of the observer. The fact that the speed of light is always measured to be the same speed no matter what velocity the experimenter is traveling, in itself disproves the aether theory. If there was an aether, the changes of an objects velocity could influence the measured speed of light just like it would measuring the speed of any other object. It would be impossible to develop any type of gauge theory that is accurate enough to describe bosons like the standard model assuming anything otherwise. It is the fundamental basis of gauge theory.

"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.

Particle-wave duality is simply a description of the effects discovered from the two slit experiment. The particles act like they are a wave when they are not observed, and they act like particles when they are observed or measured. That description still holds today.

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.

You speak as though Hawking Radiation has been proven, but it has never been tested. Technically, it could not even be considered to be actual science, as it is missing a few steps in the scientific process.

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.

It would be completely dumbfounding to find out that was true and it ever became a part of mainstream science. Especially since, the discoverer is so completely inapt at learning fundamental physics principals. It really raises the question of how someone could bring a better understanding of the standard model when they don't even completely understand a lot of the principals that came before it. It is a problem a lot of people have on these types of forums, and it is a cancer that is holding back the progress of science itself.

 

[The God]

You speak as though Hawking Radiation has been proven, but it has never been tested. Technically, it could not even be considered to be actual science, as it is missing a few steps in the scientific process.

This is blasphemy on this forum ! The resident custodian of mainstream on his way.....watch out.

 

[Layman]

This is blasphemy on this forum ! The resident custodian of mainstream on his way.....watch out.

You never heard of the black hole wars? It is the most popular theory that has been heavily disputed against in recent physics. Last time I checked, Hawking retracted his theory, due to Susskind saying that information is stored on the skin of a black hole and it is not actually able to go in.

 

[Schmelzer]

One could probably develop a model using Minkowski spacetime...

Feel free to try it. The ideas of my ether theory you will be, with high probability, unable to use. Too much 3D specifics.

The Michelson Morley experiment simply proved that the measurement of the speed of light doesn't depend on the frame of reference of the observer. The fact that the speed of light is always measured to be the same speed no matter what velocity the experimenter is traveling, in itself disproves the aether theory. If there was an aether, the changes of an objects velocity could influence the measured speed of light just like it would measuring the speed of any other object. It would be impossible to develop any type of gauge theory that is accurate enough to describe bosons like the standard model assuming anything otherwise. It is the fundamental basis of gauge theory.

Claims based on nothing. On my side, there is the mathematics of the Lorentz ether, which is identical to the mathematics of SR, thus, does predict that the speed of light, as measured with rulers and clocks based on Einstein synchronization, will be always the same. So, the Lorentz ether is simply a counterexample to your claim. Your impossibility claim about gauge theories is also false, falsified by my paper where such a gauge theory is derived.

Particle-wave duality is simply a description of the effects discovered from the two slit experiment. The particles act like they are a wave when they are not observed, and they act like particles when they are observed or measured. That description still holds today.

Nice for you if you like such verbal descriptions from the time of early quantum theory. But for scientists this is irrelevant.

You speak as though Hawking Radiation has been proven, but it has never been tested. Technically, it could not even be considered to be actual science, as it is missing a few steps in the scientific process.

Irrelevant. I do not believe in HR. This remark about HR was directed toward a guy who thinks it has been proven, despite my objections that it is pseudoscience.

It would be completely dumbfounding to find out that was true and it ever became a part of mainstream science. Especially since, the discoverer is so completely inapt at learning fundamental physics principals. It really raises the question of how someone could bring a better understanding of the standard model when they don't even completely understand a lot of the principals that came before it. It is a problem a lot of people have on these types of forums, and it is a cancer that is holding back the progress of science itself.

As if you would be able to evaluate this. It is you who doesn't even know trivial facts about elementary Lorentz ether theory which already Lorentz and Einstein have known 1905.

BTW, the black hole wars are about something completely different. They are not about the question if there is some Hawking radiation, and even less about quantum field theory. It is about some extrapolation toward quantum gravity.

 

[paddoboy]

This is blasphemy on this forum ! The resident custodian of mainstream on his way.....watch out.

Take it easy my son, you need to forget me once in a while.
Blasphemy? Not at all...rubbish? pseudoscience? crank nonsense? or probably all three. In fact as I tell you often, these forums, and this one in particular, are the only outlet you cranks have, and we seem to be having a gathering of the clan in this thread.
Now that will make Schmelzer happy! not!

 

[Schmelzer]

Now that will make Schmelzer happy! not!

What would make me happy would be arguments about the content of this thread.

 

[The God]

Take it easy my son, you need to forget me once in a while.
Blasphemy? Not at all...rubbish? pseudoscience? crank nonsense? or probably all three. In fact as I tell you often, these forums, and this one in particular, are the only outlet you cranks have, and we seem to be having a gathering of the clan in this thread.
Now that will make Schmelzer happy! not!

And here he comes with a charged look, one more word against mainstream and I take out my bludgeon.

 

[paddoboy]

And here he comes with a charged look, one more word against mainstream and I take out my bludgeon.

No charge needed, no cudgel needed. Yours is a masochistic type self flagellation scenario.

 

[Farsight]

... The fact that the speed of light is always measured to be the same speed no matter what velocity the experimenter is traveling, in itself disproves the aether theory. If there was an aether, the changes of an objects velocity could influence the measured speed of light just like it would measuring the speed of any other object. It would be impossible to develop any type of gauge theory that is accurate enough to describe bosons like the standard model assuming anything otherwise. It is the fundamental basis of gauge theory...

You don't know what you're talking about:

 

[Daecon]

If I post a photocopy of a Harry Potter book, does that mean magic is real?

 

[exchemist]

If I post a photocopy of a Harry Potter book, does that mean magic is real?

Actually the same quotation, so tortuously presented here, can be found on the Wiki article on aether: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

However what Einstein then immediately goes on to say (FS snips the extract, excluding it) : "But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

This was Einstein in 1920, please note, so fairly early on in the process of digesting what GR really implied. Historically, the concept of aether gradually withered, degenerating into what we now call spacetime - which in effect is what Einstein is saying in this quotation.

He's advocating the radical concept that spacetime has mathematical properties influenced by mass, so to that extent "empty space" is not just a neutral void, as people had always assumed must be the case if there was no aether. Calling those properties a kind of aether was, for the time, a very good way of communicating that novel concept.

We are always in danger of reading history backwards. We've all grown up with GR and spacetime - it's even made it into popular sci-fi.But in 1920 this was a mind-bending concept, very hard for people to take in.

 

[PhysBang]

Yes, as people have pointed out to Farsight many times, Farsight is lying to people by only selectively quoting Einstein.

Much sadder, however, is that Farsight apparently is lying to himself, since he refuses to read to himself anything else from his (supposedly) beloved Einstein.

 

[Layman]

Yes, as people have pointed out to Farsight many times, Farsight is lying to people by only selectively quoting Einstein.

Much sadder, however, is that Farsight apparently is lying to himself, since he refuses to read to himself anything else from his (supposedly) beloved Einstein.

I agree, and he also doesn't realize what it means when someone says, "in a sense" or "in this sense". Unfortunately, the ether or aether theory had to be thrown out, because it predicted the speed of light to be variable. In modern science, they now just call something that is "in a sense aether", Minkowski spacetime, which sound much more professional than making up your own version of ether...

 

[Schmelzer]

Fortunately, real science does not have to care about what "sounds more professional".

 

[Layman]

Claims based on nothing. On my side, there is the mathematics of the Lorentz ether, which is identical to the mathematics of SR, thus, does predict that the speed of light, as measured with rulers and clocks based on Einstein synchronization, will be always the same. So, the Lorentz ether is simply a counterexample to your claim. Your impossibility claim about gauge theories is also false, falsified by my paper where such a gauge theory is derived.

Apparently you didn't get the memo which said the reason why the ether theory was done away with about 100 years ago. The ether theory didn't predict the consistency of the speed of light. Basically, you just told me that you used a theory that predicts the speed of light is variable, and used it to show that the speed of light is constant. It makes absolutely no sense. Today, physicist that actually know what they are doing just call it spacetime or Minkowski spacetime, not ether or aether. The only requirement for it to fall into this category is that the theory uses the speed of light to measure distances in space.

Nice for you if you like such verbal descriptions from the time of early quantum theory. But for scientists this is irrelevant.

It would be far more relevant than someone that considers himself a professional which still uses the term ether, which is the slang use of the word aether, which actually is a completely outdated concept...

As if you would be able to evaluate this. It is you who doesn't even know trivial facts about elementary Lorentz ether theory which already Lorentz and Einstein have known 1905.

Almost every book for laymen on theoretical physics will go into this topic which I have done a heavy amount of research on from works of Ph.D.'s. I would recommend you read at least a couple of descriptions of this part of our history so you don't end up just making a fool out of yourself. It is no wonder why you had to mention that people easily dismiss your work at the beginning of your paper. This is a big part of the reason why...

BTW, the black hole wars are about something completely different. They are not about the question if there is some Hawking radiation, and even less about quantum field theory. It is about some extrapolation toward quantum gravity.

It would be very difficult for me to believe something this outlandish from you without any evidence considering your other viewpoints in physics.