An ether model which gives the Standard Model of particle physics

[exchemist]

All I did was provide mathematical proof with an explanation of why there is no need for some kind of hidden variable theory to explain quantum mechanics which has a preferred frame of reference, contrary to your proposals. Didn't Galileo go through enough being killed for his findings by the Catholic Church? The man gave his life for the name of science, and you would expect us to go re-write the history books saying he was wrong?

Ahem. Let's not get carried away with Galileo being some sort of secular martyr for science. He died, at home, of a fever, at the age of 77. He had been found guilty of heresy and was put under a form of house arrest, that's all.

P.S. Wrote this before seeing see Schmelzer has just made the same observation.

 

[Layman]

No, this was nor an old question, nor a solution of something worth to be solved, sorry.

The light clock problem has an inaccurate solution, $$t'=\frac{t}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$$. The solution for the proper time has never been able to be solved in the same manner. The correct solution to this problem is said to provide insight about the true nature of time.

As a consequence, it is no longer a valid reference frame, thus one cannot use it for any reasonable physical argument. How to deal in mathematics with zero is very clear and well-known. And all this has nothing to do with the violation of Bell's inequality (except that one can confuse everything, including the violation of BI, by dividing by zero).

Exactly, therefore, Bell's Theorem is correct, and your theory is wrong, which violates Bell's Theorem.

Sorry, but all you have provided was nonsense. And, BTW, Galileo was not killed by the Catholic Church, and it is already standard relativity which tells us Galileo was wrong, and has replaced the Galilean symmetry group by the Lorentz group.

Hello? Are we still talking about Galileo here, which said that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Then they killed him, because they believed that the Earth was the center of the universe from the teachings of the Catholic Church? The theory of relativity adopted Galilean Relativity to prove all of it's theorems, which was credited mostly to Einstein.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_group

Under the Lorentz transformations, these laws and equations are invariant:

• The kinematical laws of special relativity
• Maxwell's field equations in the theory of electromagnetism
• The Dirac equation in the theory of the electron

Therefore, the Lorentz group expresses the fundamental symmetry of many known fundamental laws of nature.

 

[Layman]

Ahem. Let's not get carried away with Galileo being some sort of secular martyr for science. He died, at home, of a fever, at the age of 77. He had been found guilty of heresy and was put under a form of house arrest, that's all.

P.S. Wrote this before seeing see Schmelzer has just made the same observation.

I guess it didn't matter that they decided to not make a martyr out of him. I had seen a show about that recently too, but I had heard otherwise before...

 

[Layman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

In a theory in which parameters are added to quantum mechanics to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote. Moreover, the signal involved must propagate instantaneously, so that a theory could not be Lorentz invariant.

"Bell's theorem, derived in his seminal 1964 paper titled On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox,[4] has been called, on the assumption that the theory is correct, "the most profound in science".[15]Perhaps of equal importance is Bell's deliberate effort to encourage and bring legitimacy to work on the completeness issues, which had fallen into disrepute.[16] Later in his life, Bell expressed his hope that such work would "continue to inspire those who suspect that what is proved by the impossibility proofs is lack of imagination."

 

[Schmelzer]

Exactly, therefore, Bell's Theorem is correct, and your theory is wrong, which violates Bell's Theorem.

Bell's theorem is, of course, correct, so learn the difference between Bell's theorem and Bell's inequality, and learn if Bell's inequality is fulfilled or not. Then, just for your information, theories do not violate theorems, and my theory has no problem at all with Bell's theorem, instead, can use it as a powerful argument. But I see you have already tried:

No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
In a theory in which parameters are added to quantum mechanics to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote. Moreover, the signal involved must propagate instantaneously, so that a theory could not be Lorentz invariant.

So, you understand? Such a theory cannot be Lorentz invariant, it needs a preferred frame. My theory has a preferred frame, thus, everything is fine for my theory. And if somebody argues "it is bad that your theory has a preferred frame", I can use this as an argument - there must be such a faster than light causal mechanism.

Hello? Are we still talking about Galileo here, which said that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Then they killed him, because they believed that the Earth was the center of the universe from the teachings of the Catholic Church? The theory of relativity adopted Galilean Relativity to prove all of it's theorems, which was credited mostly to Einstein.

Galileo continued to receive visitors until 1642, when, after suffering fever and heart palpitations, he died on 8 January 1642, aged 77. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Death He was only under house arrest.

 

[PhysBang]

Ok, in this case, reference to some details about this. Some online available source like arxiv would be preferable. I also do not understand your use of "metric" vs. "model" in your claim.

Look, you really need to get a basic text on cosmology like James Rich's Fundamentals of Cosmology. You are trying to make claims about cosmology but you haven't studies it, so you are making false claims.

One can use Freidmann-Lemaitre models without using the Robertson-Walker metric.

The point being? Additional metaphysical principles sounds quite horrible, but isn't. Such principles impose further restrictions, thus, usually give additional predictive power, which makes them preferable given Popper's principle of empirical content. In case of ether metaphysics, the additional predictions are a trivial topology of space as well as spacetime, and no closed causal loops.

Your "additional predictions" are things that we cannot detect. It may very well be that there is some physical principle that makes these things impossible, but we can't argue in favor of a claim just because it has some outcome that we like.

Moreover, your claim is wrong, my ether can have measurable effects but also match observations. For $$\Upsilon>0$$, it predicts inflation (in the sense a''(tau)>0) which replaces the Big Bang by a Big Bounce. Pure GR, without some otherwise nontrivial inflation theory based on particle physics, predicts no inflation. There is sufficient evidence for inflation, in particular the cosmological horizon problem: The size of inhomogeneities of the background radiation is far too large to be explained by a common cause in the past in an expanding universe without inflation. As far as I know, the usual, particle-theory based inflation theories do not give a Big Bounce instead of a BB. So, the prediction is in any way really different. The difference with pure GR gives observable differences, and is solved in favour of my theory.

You are speaking of things for which we cannot actually get empirical evidence. Your theory may predict a "Big Bounce", but we have no evidence for this. As it stands, your ether theory must either predicts no differences in what we are able to currently observe or be false.

There is the gravitational field itself, $$g_{mn}(x,t)$$, which is not the energy-momentum tensor of matter, and there is no other stress-energy tensor in GR.

The gravitational field is determined by the stress-energy tensor. That's what the equal sign is for.

 

[paddoboy]

It would be good style not to make such personal remarks, or, if you think they are somehow necessary, to support them with quotes and arguments. I know that polite behavior is not fashionable today, and sometimes I also give impolite answers if my opponent shows impolite behavior. But is it really a good idea to give up politeness completely?

I didn't really make any personal remarks, other than in reference to your posts and how I am interpreting them.
I do though see some of your posts as just an effort in trying to get out from under in relation to some of your claims and interpretations.
Your theory is yours...it is your baby, and yes, it is understanable how you will go to great lengths to protect it.
[Nice job though in how you directly quote what you have a problem with, other than the episode with regard to our divine friend in the Eddington/gravitational lensing thread]

Nor wormholes, nor causal loops have been observed yet. Wormholes and causal loops are related with a theory - GR - which cannot be quantized, because of deep conceptual problems. Which are, BTW, related with them. A viable alternative theory which does not have them has been presented. So, there is also no theoretical necessity for them. So, to name them purely theoretical speculation, even, in a polemical mood, sci-fi nonsense, is justified.

Sci/fi certainly, but nonsense no. They are allowed for within GR.
On the other hand, I may claim an ether as nonsense, since it is neither allowed for or is evident, or is even needed.

You have a point that the ether has not been observed too. So, I can claim that there is at least some theoretical necessity of the ether. A necessity which, of course, presupposes that one accepts a necessity to solve these problems. If you see no problem with correlations unexplained by causal influences, or of a lot of fields with strange regularities simply being postulated without any explanation, there is also no such necessity for the ether.

That appears as if your are having $2 each way.

What is your problem? I present my own theories, and, given that these theories are not preferred today by the mainstream, the reasons to prefer my theories are usually my opinion, and not yet shared by the mainstream. Of course, I also very often make claims which are in full agreement with the mainstream. Where I see the danger of confusion, I use "IMHO" to clarify this. If I don't, and you do not understand if this is mainstream opinion or my opinion, feel free to ask.

I have no problem. And yes, you do also make claims aligning with mainstream, but sometimes [as I have indirectly mentioned] you need to have your arm twisted to do that.
And yes, you certainly are entitled to your own theories, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Perhaps sometimes more use of the IMHO is necessary.

 

[Schmelzer]

Look, you really need to get a basic text on cosmology like James Rich's Fundamentals of Cosmology. You are trying to make claims about cosmology but you haven't studies it, so you are making false claims.
One can use Freidmann-Lemaitre models without using the Robertson-Walker metric.

A horrible book. No wonder that you sound confused to me. So what is this "use of Friedmann-Lemaitre model without using Robertson-Walker metric"? The one of formula (4.23)? In this case, sorry, but this is what is usually named the FLRW metric in other (non-comoving) coordinates. To name this a different metric is confusing. If not, what else?

Your "additional predictions" are things that we cannot detect. It may very well be that there is some physical principle that makes these things impossible, but we can't argue in favor of a claim just because it has some outcome that we like.

The additional predictions are claims which can be falsified, by observing what these principles forbid. If the space would be, for example, topologically nontrivial, say, $$S^3$$, this could be observable, at least in principle. Not that this would be easy, but under certain circumstances it would be observable. Thus, in principle it is observable. Which is the point.

And if there is a principle, what matters is not that we like it, or that it has some outcome that we like, but that we have not observed yet any violation of the principle, but, if it would be false, this could be, in principle, observable.

You are speaking of things for which we cannot actually get empirical evidence.

No. We even have strong evidence that in the early universe we have $$a''(\tau)>0$$. Which excludes the simple Friedman solutions of GR. There is no usual matter which could give this.

Ok, inflation theory has managed to construct such matter models, using scalar fields with a change of the vacuum state. But if one allows arbitrary matter models, the Einstein equations of GR predict nothing at all. Indeed, if we observe, instead of the Einstein equations, $$ G_{mn}(x) = T_{mn}(x) + Err_{mn}(x)$$ with some arbitrary symmetric $$Err_{mn}(x)$$, all one needs is to name $$ T^{dark}{mn}(x) = Err_{mn}(x)$$ for some unconventional dark matter and we have agreement with GR. So, GR is a predictive, falsifiable theory only if one adds some nontrivial assumptions about matter fields and their stress-energy tensor. From this point of view, without making theoretical assumptions about the non-existence of certain types of dark matter, dark energy, or other dark things we are never in a situation that we can decide between theories empirically.

The gravitational field is determined by the stress-energy tensor. That's what the equal sign is for.

No. There are a lot of different vacuum solutions. They have quite different metrics, but the stress-energy tensor of matter is zero in all of them. To illustrate the quality of your book p.157:

We will soon see that the Riemann tensor is determined by the energy-momentum tensor via the Einstein equation.

The Riemann tensor is $$R_{abcd}$$, the Einstein equations are $$G_{mn} = R_{mn} - \frac12 g^{ab}R_{ab} = T_{mn}$$ which depend only on (and therefore defines only) the Ricci tensor $$R_{cd}=g^{ab}R_{abcd}$$. So the Riemann tensor has much more components than equations to define him, only a few linear combinations are determined by the Einstein equations.

 

[Layman]

Bell's theorem is, of course, correct, so learn the difference between Bell's theorem and Bell's inequality, and learn if Bell's inequality is fulfilled or not. Then, just for your information, theories do not violate theorems, and my theory has no problem at all with Bell's theorem, instead, can use it as a powerful argument. But I see you have already tried:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

"Bell showed that if a local hidden variable theory holds, then these correlations would have to satisfy certain constraints, called Bell inequalities. However, for the quantum correlations arising in the specific example considered, those constraints are not satisfied, hence the phenomenon being studied cannot be explained by a local hidden variables theory. However, there's a tentative explanation for this, which is that entangled particles communicate through another dimension, as shown in Figure 1."

All I was trying to explain to you was that there is no need for extra dimensions in order to describe entanglement. If, like you say, you are using a Lorentz group to predict the motion of particles traveling the speed of light, then you are violating Bell's Theorem. Like I tried to explain to you before, spacetime would contract to zero. Therefore, it cannot be done. Then the spacetime contraction of that frame would be the casual mechanism by which entangled particles can communicate. The four dimensions of spacetime would, in a sense, be curled up allowing for it in another frame of reference, which is equally valid. The only assumption I am making here is that relativistic effects apply to particles, which has been proven to occur in muon experiments.

The values of time in your derivations would be equal to zero and result in infinities. Then they would be invalid mathematical operations. A lot of particles travel at or close to the speed of light...

So, you understand? Such a theory cannot be Lorentz invariant, it needs a preferred frame. My theory has a preferred frame, thus, everything is fine for my theory. And if somebody argues "it is bad that your theory has a preferred frame", I can use this as an argument - there must be such a faster than light causal mechanism.

You're talking in circles. So I guess you retract your claim that spacetime or this ether of yours needs to have a preferred frame in order to be Lorentz invariant? This is really just a straw man argument. In no way, shape, or form have you described anything that closely resembles how a preferred frame of reference allows for a faster than light causal mechanism. All it could mean is that you only got drunk at wild parties in your first few years of college when you earned your degree...

 

[Schmelzer]

So I guess you retract your claim that spacetime or this ether of yours needs to have a preferred frame in order to be Lorentz invariant?

I cannot retract nonsense I have never claimed. My ether theory is not Lorentz invariant, because it has a preferred frame.

If, like you say, you are using a Lorentz group to predict the motion of particles traveling the speed of light,

Learn to read. (Internet slang for learn to correctly interpret the texts which you read.) And, until you have learned this, give an explicit quote for every statement you attribute to me.

Your remaining text was complete nonsense.

 

[Layman]

I cannot retract nonsense I have never claimed. My ether theory is not Lorentz invariant, because it has a preferred frame.

Learn to read. (Internet slang for learn to correctly interpret the texts which you read.) And, until you have learned this, give an explicit quote for every statement you attribute to me.

Your remaining text was complete nonsense.

The title of this thread is complete nonsense, and it belongs in the pseudoscience forums. By the way, the phrase, "internet slang for learn", makes completely no sense at all whatsoever. It sounds like it was written by a two year old. It is a wonder how you even graduated. I wasn't aware that literacy problems existed at that high of a level of education. I would go as far to say that you are an impostor! I am just trying to translate your gibberish to the best of my abilities. Every time I confront you with a serious questions about how your theory doesn't conform to actual science, you just back peddle and avoid the question. The only thing your theory proves is that, just because a theory is in a peer reviewed journal, it doesn't have to be based on any scientific truths or facts. If your theory had any merit to it at all, I wouldn't even be chatting with you here. I would be watching you on the tonight show, announcing your incredible breakthrough. I think we all already know that is never going to happen, and you will never gain any true understanding of quantum mechanics.

 

[paddoboy]

The only thing your theory proves is that, just because a theory is in a peer reviewed journal, it doesn't have to be based on any scientific truths or facts. If your theory had any merit to it at all, I wouldn't even be chatting with you here. I would be watching you on the tonight show, announcing your incredible breakthrough. I think we all already know that is never going to happen, and you will never gain any true understanding of quantum mechanics.

There are many many arXiv speculative papers on many issues such as "time travel" "wormholes" pre BB speculation, "string hyperdimensions".
It's fun speculating as long as one recognises it is just speculation.
And yes, correct on the last two points also, with regards to the fact that many scientific papers languish in cyber space forever without one citation, and if there was any substance of any sort in this hypothetical paper, it would obviously be open for discussion in academia in general.

 

[brucep]

A horrible book. No wonder that you sound confused to me. So what is this "use of Friedmann-Lemaitre model without using Robertson-Walker metric"? The one of formula (4.23)? In this case, sorry, but this is what is usually named the FLRW metric in other (non-comoving) coordinates. To name this a different metric is confusing. If not, what else?

The additional predictions are claims which can be falsified, by observing what these principles forbid. If the space would be, for example, topologically nontrivial, say, $$S^3$$, this could be observable, at least in principle. Not that this would be easy, but under certain circumstances it would be observable. Thus, in principle it is observable. Which is the point.

And if there is a principle, what matters is not that we like it, or that it has some outcome that we like, but that we have not observed yet any violation of the principle, but, if it would be false, this could be, in principle, observable.

No. We even have strong evidence that in the early universe we have $$a''(\tau)>0$$. Which excludes the simple Friedman solutions of GR. There is no usual matter which could give this.

Ok, inflation theory has managed to construct such matter models, using scalar fields with a change of the vacuum state. But if one allows arbitrary matter models, the Einstein equations of GR predict nothing at all. Indeed, if we observe, instead of the Einstein equations, $$ G_{mn}(x) = T_{mn}(x) + Err_{mn}(x)$$ with some arbitrary symmetric $$Err_{mn}(x)$$, all one needs is to name $$ T^{dark}{mn}(x) = Err_{mn}(x)$$ for some unconventional dark matter and we have agreement with GR. So, GR is a predictive, falsifiable theory only if one adds some nontrivial assumptions about matter fields and their stress-energy tensor. From this point of view, without making theoretical assumptions about the non-existence of certain types of dark matter, dark energy, or other dark things we are never in a situation that we can decide between theories empirically.

No. There are a lot of different vacuum solutions. They have quite different metrics, but the stress-energy tensor of matter is zero in all of them. To illustrate the quality of your book p.157:

The Riemann tensor is $$R_{abcd}$$, the Einstein equations are $$G_{mn} = R_{mn} - \frac12 g^{ab}R_{ab} = T_{mn}$$ which depend only on (and therefore defines only) the Ricci tensor $$R_{cd}=g^{ab}R_{abcd}$$. So the Riemann tensor has much more components than equations to define him, only a few linear combinations are determined by the Einstein equations.

Word salad bullshit Schmelzer. You're one obfuscating crank.

 

[Schmelzer]

brucep and Layman write a purely aggressive text without any scientific arguments, thus, nothing worth to be answered. Of course, I'm not a native speaker, so some of my texts may be misunderstood, may sound like google translations from German, sorry. Despite this, I doubt the accusation "word salad" is justified.

Paddoboy, my papers are published and open for discussion in academia. If the academia prefers to ignore it - probably afraid that association with the e-word decreases the chances of being published - it is their choice. But this silence also gives some information: If there would be errors, or some obvious weak points, it would be easy game to publish a refutation. I have used myself such a chance to get a publication in the "Annalen der Physik" (which is quite prestigious given its history) which has made the error to publish some anti-Bell-theorem paper. This is how peer-review errors are corrected.

 

[PhysBang]

A horrible book.

Really? You're going to call a textbook published by Springer a "horrible book"?

This really puts you squarely in the crank pile. Rather than address cosmology as practiced, you are going to insult any legitimate source presented without actually engaging in content.

 

[Schmelzer]

Really? You're going to call a textbook published by Springer a "horrible book"?

Why not? There are much better books. The standard book about gravity is Misner,Thorne,Wheeler, Gravitation, I can also recommend Landau Lifschitz Field theory. For cosmology, Trodden, Carroll, TASI Lectures seems ok. I have learned cosmology from review articles, not textbooks, so cannot tell much about cosmology textbooks, but this is clearly much better than your.

This really puts you squarely in the crank pile. Rather than address cosmology as practiced, you are going to insult any legitimate source presented without actually engaging in content.

Something new - not to like a certain textbook makes you a crank. Sorry, but the aim was certainly not to insult "legitimate" sources - the sources I recommend are certainly more legitimate from the mainstream point of view. And my "insult" was supported with evidence, namely an errorneous claim.

 

[paddoboy]

probably afraid that association with the e-word decreases the chances of being published - it is their choice.

Sorry Schmelzer as you know, I'm not one for conspiracies.

But this silence also gives some information: If there would be errors, or some obvious weak points, it would be easy game to publish a refutation.

I can't answer that, other than to say, imvho the ether is a superfluous scenario and is simply not needed.

 

[Schmelzer]

Sorry Schmelzer as you know, I'm not one for conspiracies.
I can't answer that, other than to say, imvho the ether is a superfluous scenario and is simply not needed.

It is not a conspiracy, but a recommendation I have heard several times from different people - I would have a greater chance to publish my papers if I would avoid the e-word.

The problems ether theory solves are well-known, accepted problems of fundamental physics.

String theories only "big success", a quantization of gravity, becomes trivial in ether theory. The explanation of the SM is an acknowledged open problem too, string theory tries, other competitors try, something comparable to my results nobody has published yet:

The problem of how to choose one physical universe out of a large number of mathematically possible universes is a problem that any attempt to provide a final theory is going to have confront. Why do we appear to live in just four dimensions? Why is the number of fundamental forces the four of gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear? Why are there just three families of quarks and leptons? These riddles are not unique to string theory and at the moment none of the alternative theories has any answers to them.

writes Duff in http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.0788v3 obviously without knowing my theory which answers these questions (except that about four dimension - this is simply taken as a fact).

 

[paddoboy]

It is not a conspiracy, but a recommendation I have heard several times from different people - I would have a greater chance to publish my papers if I would avoid the e-word.

It damn well is a conspiracy!
and I have also heard from different people that NASA did not go to the Moon, and that 9/11 was a put up job, and many other political conspiracies, some put by yourself, to justify your scientific and political outlook.

The problems ether theory solves are well-known, accepted problems of fundamental physics.

And yet here you are...stuck on a science forum, with two threads promoting your ether, against mostly lay people. One could legitimately ask, why would that be.

String theories only "big success", a quantization of gravity, becomes trivial in ether theory. The explanation of the SM is an acknowledged open problem too, string theory tries, other competitors try, something comparable to my results nobody has published yet:

And for obviously good reasons.


There are problems in physics schmelzer, but those problems will not be fixed with a superfluous ether that cannot be detected, nor by any other crank that spends his or her time trying to change 21st century cosmology from an armchair and a computer tuned to sciforums. Collectively this lot, [and we have a few] are inhibited by inflated egos and delusions of grandeur.
If it wasn't, you [and they] would not be here.

I have a great deal of hope and faith in our mainstream scientific giants that will one day solve the existing problems.

 

[brucep]

It damn well is a conspiracy!
and I have also heard from different people that NASA did not go to the Moon, and that 9/11 was a put up job, and many other political conspiracies, some put by yourself, to justify your scientific and political outlook.

And yet here you are...stuck on a science forum, with two threads promoting your ether, against mostly lay people. One could legitimately ask, why would that be.

And for obviously good reasons.


There are problems in physics schmelzer, but those problems will not be fixed with a superfluous ether that cannot be detected, nor by any other crank that spends his or her time trying to change 21st century cosmology from an armchair and a computer tuned to sciforums. Collectively this lot, [and we have a few] are inhibited by inflated egos and delusions of grandeur.
If it wasn't, you [and they] would not be here.

I have a great deal of hope and faith in our mainstream scientific giants that will one day solve the existing problems.

There really isn't any problems in modern physics. There's stuff we can discover. Some stuff we discover will probably be empirically impossible to falsify. Making it to such a domain is pretty impressive in my opinion. Some folks want to make it look in critical condition. Maybe so folks will return to the days when most folks thought light, and everything else, needed a medium to propagate.