An ether model which gives the Standard Model of particle physics

[brucep]

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.

Your need to argue with physics illiterates leads to your use of word salad. One weak point. You need to invoke empirically falsified physics as a hidden variable. Absolute time and absolute space and your undetected ether. Another weak point is none of your peers have cited your work during a nineteen year opportunity to do so. Another weak point is your need to argue points in a public science forum populated by numerous cranks and none of your peers. I could give a crap Schmelzer but you just keep making illiterate nonsense with respect to your ether theory of gravity as a hidden variable theory of GR. That's bullshit nonsense. There is no hidden variable theory of GR. Plus you're a big enough crank to complain about your peers ignoring your hidden variable theory of GR by claiming it's a conspiracy against ether physics. Get a clue.

 

[paddoboy]

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.

Totally agree.

 

[Schmelzer]

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.

I have explained it many times. Because there are no grants for research of ether theories. To get a job in physics, I would have to give up my ether theories and switch to some other research direction, which can offer grants. Fortunately I can afford to pay for myself what I need, thus, I'm able to continue to study ether theories myself. But I'm not rich enough to offer own grants to others to study ether theory, nor to participate in scientific conferences, simply because these are too expensive for my budget. The theories I propose have been published, and, given that one needs new results to publish new papers, I cannot (and do not want to) republish already published results once again. Thus, publication of further articles is not an option too.

There are problems in physics schmelzer, but those problems will not be fixed with a superfluous ether that cannot be detected, nor by any [cheap personal attacks]

Who will fix these problems and how is something which science will find out. Prejudices against particular approaches are common, but irrelevant. What is relevant are the results.

Up to now, the only approach which claims some success in explaining the properties of the standard model of particle physics, by predicting the particle content of the fermions and gauge fields as well as their charges, is the ether approach. And the only counterargument proposed by the competitors is ignorance.

 

[Schmelzer]

One weak point. You need to invoke empirically falsified physics as a hidden variable. Absolute time and absolute space and your undetected ether.

To have hidden variables is, indeed, considered as a weak point by many people. I think it is a necessary intermediate step. Atoms have been hidden variables over a very long time. They have, nonetheless, been useful and explanatory already at that time. And atomic theory is one of the greatest things physics has reached.

Another weak point is none of your peers have cited your work during a nineteen year opportunity to do so.

That unpublished papers proposing an ether will be cited is something one cannot reasonably hope for. My theory was published the first time in Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, nr. 1, p. 73 (2009). Thus, only 6 years. But, given the strong prejudice against the ether, I do not really expect that this will change in near future. The ether cranks make this prejudice much stronger.

Another weak point is your need to argue points in a public science forum populated by numerous cranks and none of your peers.

Such is life. What I can do else is to travel through the world, as far as my budget allows it (that means Third World), and to give talks at universities on the road. Which I do. Science forums used by professionals have explicit policies against ether theories, understandable as self-defense against ether cranks, so this is closed too.

I could give a crap Schmelzer but you just keep making illiterate nonsense with respect to your ether theory of gravity as a hidden variable theory of GR. That's bullshit nonsense. There is no hidden variable theory of GR.

The limit $$\Xi,\Upsilon\to 0$$ of my ether theory of gravity is also an ether theory, and the Einstein equations of GR are the equations of this theory. Together with the harmonic condition, which is a known coordinate condition of GR, and locally can be introduced in every solution of the GR Einstein equations.

What makes this different from a hidden variable theory of GR?

Plus you're a big enough crank to complain about your peers ignoring your hidden variable theory of GR by claiming it's a conspiracy against ether physics. Get a clue.

Why you repeat paddoboys nonsensical conspiracy claims?

There is no conspiracy, and I have never claimed there is one. "A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis which suggests that two or more persons, a group, or an organization may have caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

My objection is: A stupid organization of modern science, with short time grants, which gives the complete opposite of independence of science. Even joepistole accepts that giving Supreme Court judges a permanent job is the base for making them independent. So, the connection between a safe job and independence is nothing even controversial. So, is the theory that scientists who have only short time grants are the opposite of independent scientists? That it is reasonable for them, if not necessary to survive in science, to follow directions which have a lot of grants to offer? Please explain me what is wrong with this argument, except naming it "conspiracy theory", which makes no sense.

That there is some, and a quite strong, prejudice in modern physics against the ether seems quite obvious. Not? And this is not even an objection, it is simply a fact of life I have to live with.

And, no, such prejudices do not fit into conspiracy theory too. Because to have prejudices is nor illegal nor harmful if used appropriately - namely as a starting point, which may be changed if one learns more. Then, there is also a rational base for this prejudice - all those ether cranks who do not even understand special relativity and talk about Einstein's logical errors. Then, there is nothing secret in this prejudice - never seen a scientist who has started a conversation with an "I have, of course, no prejudice against the ether, but ...". And those who have prejudices against the ether are clearly not a well-defined group or organization. There are some reasonable arguments against the ether, these objections one learns if one is learning modern physics. That I have been able to present valid counterarguments is not known, because my ether theories are not known. Without knowing these counterarguments, it is quite reasonable to be prejudiced against the ether. I would be too, if I would not have found them.

 

[The God]

That unpublished papers proposing an ether will be cited is something one cannot reasonably hope for. My theory was published the first time in Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, nr. 1, p. 73 (2009). Thus, only 6 years. But, given the strong prejudice against the ether, I do not really expect that this will change in near future. The ether cranks make this prejudice much stronger.

Such is life. What I can do else is to travel through the world, as far as my budget allows it (that means Third World), and to give talks at universities on the road. Which I do. Science forums used by professionals have explicit policies against ether theories, understandable as self-defense against ether cranks, so this is closed too.

Don't you think you should thank me for re-igniting this huge interest in your study on this forum. Anyway leave that aside, you can payback later...

You have failed and failed miserbaly on two accounts, this is not a comment on your theory.

1. Naming this as Ether or Aether.
2. Marketing

You knew very well even before you first proposed this theory that a general abhorrence is developed in the minds of mainstream guys about the english word 'ether'. Any theory which contains the word is rubbished without full reading, the guys who give grant do not understand your field waves , they see oh its ether/aether, get lost. and this is what is happening, on both the threads most of abuses are on account of this ETHER. I think it is not too late, think of some exotic name, say Vacuum Fluctuated Particle AntiParticle Soup or Vacuum Fluctuated Particle antiparticle Spacetime Field or Cold Dark Hot Bright Matter or the simplest Schmelzer Field.....you can coin yourself some exotic name in german, the best part is you can assign any eV, any wavelength, any parameter, you decide...how does it matter already tens of them are there in SM, few more will not matter.

Marketing, well Eddington was an old forgotten case, but you did not get any clue from Mr Black Hole Stephen Hawking, a weak fragile man stole the thunder and pushed the Black Hole inside everyones drawing room, well the man had the gal to give Temperature to this nonsense while maintaining zero motion, r = 0, d = infinity...thats marketing, you should have learnt from him.

Contd...

 

[The God]

Schmelzer,

1. There is a very cute definition of Gravity in both Newtonian and GR, how do you define Gravity cutely in your theory?

2. The orbit of Earth is defined as the warping of spacetime, how do you define the earth orbit in your theory?

3. You claim that you have been able to resolve Quantization Problem in GR, so are saying that we got the QTG in your theory? Put the string guys to dustbin if they are not already?

4. It is not clear how the Gravity is transmitted or coupled in your theory? Care to clarify.

5. GR is extremely complex and non linear when even two masses start warping the spacetime, wave superposition (your theory) is not so complex, so do you think you have simplified the maths?

6. Why do you think GP-B was required, when orbit of any planet (or even satellite) was proving the warping of spacetime, the very spacetime you are debunking by proposing absolute space as background.

 

[Schmelzer]

You have failed and failed miserbaly on two accounts, this is not a comment on your theory.
1. Naming this as Ether or Aether. 2. Marketing
You knew very well even before you first proposed this theory that a general abhorrence is developed in the minds of mainstream guys about the english word 'ether'.

Of course. This is a failure of my scientific education. It was a quite archaic one, with scientists searching for truth and being honest, without hiding something, caring about arguments instead of prejudices and similar archaic nonsense.

I think it is not too late, think of some exotic name, say Vacuum Fluctuated Particle AntiParticle Soup or Vacuum Fluctuated Particle antiparticle Spacetime Field or Cold Dark Hot Bright Matter or the simplest Schmelzer Field.....you can coin yourself some exotic name in german, the best part is you can assign any eV, any wavelength, any parameter, you decide...how does it matter already tens of them are there in SM, few more will not matter.

It is too late, because I have no interest in such things.

I prefer to make the theory easy to understand. Ether is easy to understand: The Lorentz ether is known well enough. That ether theory can be quantized, because we know how to quantize classical condensed matter theories in a Newtonian spacetime is something everybody understands, and with this single line he can go into the next bookshop and buy a book about quantum condensed matter theory to learn how to quantize gravity in the ether theory.

1. There is a very cute definition of Gravity in both Newtonian and GR, how do you define Gravity cutely in your theory?

The most important, most general properties of the ether - those which appear in the conservation laws of energy and momentum (continuity equation and Euler equations) - density, velocity and stress tensor.

2. The orbit of Earth is defined as the warping of spacetime, how do you define the earth orbit in your theory?

By the distortion of ether waves by inhomogeneity and velocity of the ether.

3. You claim that you have been able to resolve Quantization Problem in GR, so are saying that we got the QTG in your theory? Put the string guys to dustbin if they are not already?

Yes. It should be noted that this solution of the problem of QG is the one which GR scientists definitively don't like. Because it rejects one of the fundamental principles of GR, the Strong Equivalence Principle, or the general diffeomorphism invariance. And the ether theory itself, as defined, is only a continuous approximation, thus, becomes invalid for very small distances. So that it is, as a quantum theory, not better, thus, works only for large distances. This is named "effective field theory". The hope of string theory is that it is something better, which works for arbitrary small distances of this 10 or so dimensional background spacetime.

4. It is not clear how the Gravity is transmitted or coupled in your theory? Care to clarify.

The transmission of gravity is defined by field equations. As usual. Roughly, gravitational waves are simply sound waves of the ether.

5. GR is extremely complex and non linear when even two masses start warping the spacetime, wave superposition (your theory) is not so complex, so do you think you have simplified the maths?

No, the mathematical complexity is the same. Sound waves are also linear only in some approximation.

6. Why do you think GP-B was required, when orbit of any planet (or even satellite) was proving the warping of spacetime, the very spacetime you are debunking by proposing absolute space as background.

Why should I think some GP-B or so is required? For what purpose? It may be interesting for falsifying some other alternatives for GR, but for my ether theory it is irrelevant, it makes the same predictions as GR for GP-B.

 

[paddoboy]

Up to now, the only approach which claims some success in explaining the properties of the standard model of particle physics, by predicting the particle content of the fermions and gauge fields as well as their charges, is the ether approach. And the only counterargument proposed by the competitors is ignorance.

Bullshit!

Why you repeat paddoboys nonsensical conspiracy claims?

There is no conspiracy, and I have never claimed there is one. "A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis which suggests that two or more persons, a group, or an organization may have caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

While you pepper this forum with total unsupported, unevidenced and childish political and scientific fairy tales, based on your own delusions and the evil mainstream/politics.
I see a resemblance.

 

[Schmelzer]

Bullshit!

Really? Provide evidence.

That my theory claims, to a certain degree, to have reached this you can read in my published paper which is discussed here. Not completely - the Higgs sector is unclear, there are only a few qualitative results for masses (strong+EM massless, low masses of neutrinos). But the gauge group is derived, the number of fermions and their charges too.

I claim this is the only approach which has reached this level. You can prove this wrong by giving examples of other theories which have reached similar results.

I claim that the only counterargument is ignorance. You can prove this wrong giving examples of papers who have found errors or something objectionable in my approach.

In above cases, the burden of proof is on your side. Because I cannot prove that no competitor exists with similar results. My quote from Duff has shown that he did not know any theory which has reached such results - but he did not know my theory, thus, his claim was wrong. Like Duff, all I can say is that I don't know such a competitor - but I may be as ignorant as Duff was about my theory. I cannot prove it does not exist. Similarly, I cannot prove that there have been no counterarguments. All I can tell you is that they have not reached me.

So, I'm waiting, for interesting links to interesting competing theories and interesting counterarguments against my theory. Feel free to ask scientists for help.

 

[paddoboy]

So, I'm waiting, for interesting links to interesting competing theories and interesting counterarguments against my theory. Feel free to ask scientists for help.

Is this the best you can do Schmelzer?
All I need to point out to you is that your ether paper languishes in oblivion without even one citation, while you are arguing its cause, night and day on a science forum open to all and sundry, including cranks and anti relativists of every persuasion. Really, do better.
Are you too inept, or too ashamed to argue in the proper circles with the proper professionals?

 

[paddoboy]

Don't you think you should thank me for re-igniting this huge interest in your study on this forum. Anyway leave that aside, you can payback later...

You are really really funny...funny peculiar, not funny haha.
Huge Interest? The only interest on this forum are those debunking the ether nonsense....a handful of posters at most.
This forum? And really, how far do you believe this forum reaches? I mean how many reputable mainstream professionals are even aware of it?
This forum is the domain of anti science cranks, and god agendas cranks like yourself in the main, that come here for one purpose and one purpose only.
To try and deride accepted mainstream cosmology.
The nonsense that you have presented here over the last 12/18 months or so, is not making any ripples in proper scientific circles...you know, those circles that really matter. Your stuff my friend is not even a blip on the radar...It is lost forever in cyber space or in your case, cesspool.

 

[Schmelzer]

Are you too inept, or too ashamed to argue in the proper circles with the proper professionals?

As I have explained many times, the proper circles meet at conferences. To participate, you have to fly to nice places, and pay large participation fees, which I cannot afford. Usual scientists don't have to pay all this, because this is what pays the institute (the taxpayer). With my list of publications, I could easily find a job, but then would have to do completely different things, which I don't want, and, moreover, the conferences I could participate would be conferences about quite different questions, I could be happy if they would be about fundamental physics, but in this case they would be mostly about string theory.

Whenever I have the opportunity to argue with scientists, I use it. But I have them very seldom.

 

[paddoboy]

As I have explained many times, the proper circles meet at conferences. To participate, you have to fly to nice places, and pay large participation fees

Whatever.

 

[Farsight]

...Yes. It should be noted that this solution of the problem of QG is the one which GR scientists definitively don't like. Because it rejects one of the fundamental principles of GR, the Strong Equivalence Principle...

I consider myself a "relativist", and I will say this: the principle of equivalence applies only to an infinitesimal region. So it doesn't apply at all. See the second paragraph here. It is is nowhere precisely realized in the real world. You are closer to the true GR than you think, Schmelzer. Don't waste your time talking to people who don't understand gravity and who hurl abuse. Talk to me instead.

 

[Schmelzer]

I consider myself a "relativist", and I will say this: the principle of equivalence applies only to an infinitesimal region. So it doesn't apply at all.

The "Equivalence Principle" has several variants (Weak, Einstein, Strong) and each of them with several formulations, which are not necessarily equivalent. The concept of general covariance has been, essentially, destroyed by Kretschmann's objection that every theory allows a covariant formulation. So, in some sense you seem to have a point.

But in real life, all those theoretical uncertainties have not much value. Despite all these subtleties, it is quite obvious that the rough (even if imprecise) definition of the principles works: SEP: the theory is completely covariant, EEP: the matter Lagrangian is covariant, WEP: nobody really cares because it is even weaker.

Kretschmann's objection that every theory allows a covariant formulation? No problem, take a look at the covariant formulation of my ether theory (modulo constants, because of too high C2H5OH levels): $$S= \int L_{GR} + L_{matter} - \Upsilon g^{mn}T_{,m}T_{,n} + \Xi \delta_{ij}X^i_{,m} X^j_{,n}d^3x dt$$ which depends, in a completely covariant level on some functions $$T(x,t). X^i(x,t)$$ which are simply the preferred coordinates. So, in this case the difference between an arbitrary function and a preferred coordinate makes the difference. You can have standard GR with some four unspecified additional scalar dark matter fields denoted $$T(x,t). X^i(x,t)$$ and you would have the same Lagrangian, but a completely different theory, because an arbitrary field and a global coordinate are quite different things.

But I see, i have moved too far. So, take my definition of SEP and EEP simply as definitions which work globally, and not only infinitesimally. How these formulations are connected with other, local formulations, we can leave to specialists who care about such things. And interpret my second paragraph as an information that there is a well-known and strong objection, and an answer to this objection. So, my summary is that, even if the situation is much more subtle than considered in most standard textbooks, the result is that these principles are nonetheless not meaningless, and their meaning is, for all practical purposes, nicely defined by my global definitions.

 

[paddoboy]

Don't you think you should thank me for re-igniting this huge interest in your study on this forum. .

Don't waste your time talking to people who don't understand gravity and who hurl abuse. Talk to me instead.

As I have explained many times, the proper circles meet at conferences.

Arrogance, pomposity, delusions of grandeur and crankdom......
The gathering of the clan.
[1]the god needs to change handles, claims he is never wrong and has threads shifted to pseudoscience.
[2] Farsight has been banned from that many forums, he is infamous for it. And has a TOE to boot.
[3] Schmelzer claims to be a scientist, has had a paper published although languishing in cyber space without citation, and yet claims his ether is the bees knees.
If it wasn't so pathetic and tragic, it might be funny.

 

[The God]

Of course. This is a failure of my scientific education. It was a quite archaic one, with scientists searching for truth and being honest, without hiding something, caring about arguments instead of prejudices and similar archaic nonsense.

I know the simple and non cunning mindset of scientists, but things have changed. You got to be practical and pragmatic.

It is too late, because I have no interest in such things.

I prefer to make the theory easy to understand. Ether is easy to understand: The Lorentz ether is known well enough. That ether theory can be quantized, because we know how to quantize classical condensed matter theories in a Newtonian spacetime is something everybody understands, and with this single line he can go into the next bookshop and buy a book about quantum condensed matter theory to learn how to quantize gravity in the ether theory.

No its not too late, at the end of the day, you need to see your baby come up.

The most important, most general properties of the ether - those which appear in the conservation laws of energy and momentum (continuity equation and Euler equations) - density, velocity and stress tensor.

By the distortion of ether waves by inhomogeneity and velocity of the ether.

This is not cute, give a simple definition. You can do that.

Yes. It should be noted that this solution of the problem of QG is the one which GR scientists definitively don't like. Because it rejects one of the fundamental principles of GR, the Strong Equivalence Principle, or the general diffeomorphism invariance. And the ether theory itself, as defined, is only a continuous approximation, thus, becomes invalid for very small distances. So that it is, as a quantum theory, not better, thus, works only for large distances. This is named "effective field theory". The hope of string theory is that it is something better, which works for arbitrary small distances of this 10 or so dimensional background spacetime.

So what you are saying that your theory, does not really solve the Quantization Issue where it really matters?

The transmission of gravity is defined by field equations. As usual. Roughly, gravitational waves are simply sound waves of the ether.

No, the mathematical complexity is the same. Sound waves are also linear only in some approximation.

I do not really understand the distortion of ether waves, and that too when you call them sound waves of ether. So it gives rise to couple of easy questions for you..

1. What is the nature of your ether waves in absence of mass ? you know like flat spacetime in case of absence of mass in GR.

2. Spacetime being a geomety can be twisted whichever way maths wants, but in case of ether waves how do you get waves distorted, you must be maintaining some kind of wave symmetry? Say the path of earth in space is like helical, well how do you get a sound wave follow helical path?

Basically you define the wave distortion, pl.

Why should I think some GP-B or so is required? For what purpose? It may be interesting for falsifying some other alternatives for GR, but for my ether theory it is irrelevant, it makes the same predictions as GR for GP-B.

Good, thats the point. Why GR guys wanted GP-B, when the spacetime warping was apparent from orbits itself? Was it for frame dragging only and the geodetic was an added result? That brings another interesting point, How do you account for frame dragging in your theory?

 

[paddoboy]

I know the simple and non cunning mindset of scientists, but things have changed. You got to be practical and pragmatic.

Good, thats the point. Why GR guys wanted GP-B, when the spacetime warping was apparent from orbits itself? Was it for frame dragging only and the geodetic was an added result? That brings another interesting point, How do you account for frame dragging in your theory?

What you fail to recognise is that science is about testing, confirming, more testing, more confirming and even further testing. It still goes on today.
Oh, and yes it was primarily for the Lense Thirring effect so you win the candy bar.

 

[The God]

What you fail to recognise is that science is about testing, confirming, more testing, more confirming and even further testing. It still goes on today.
Oh, and yes it was primarily for the Lense Thirring effect so you win the candy bar.

So why you so vehemently oppose any argument which appears contradictory to your understanding of mainstream? You are being paid like political spokespersons, those morons defend the indefensible.

 

[paddoboy]

So why you so vehemently oppose any argument which appears contradictory to your understanding of mainstream? You are being paid like political spokespersons, those morons defend the indefensible.

For a number of reasons...let me count the ways.
[1]Most alternative nuts are not qualified or credentialed. [you are a good example of that]
[2] Even if they are qualified and credentialed [say Schmelzer] they simply and logically would not be arguing their points on a science forum.
[3] New discoveries/theories and the rewriting of 21st century cosmology, will never be realised on a science forum.
[4] Anyone with anything of substance would be writing a paper and getting appropriate peer review.
[5] Even if [4] was realised, many papers are more speculative such as the ether and the ether man, and are basically accepted for curiosity's sake, to eventually fade into oblivion.
[6] In general, no observational or experimental evidence is available for new alternative nonsense and they are just the figment of a delusional mentality.
[7]No tin pot amateur scientist will invalidate theories that have stood for more than 100 years and been researched by many professional greats.

On me being paid, [nudge, nudge, wink, wink ] My position is clear, I respect and admire the many giants of the present and past, the efforts and research they have put into their work, and the standard and knowledge that we have today because of these greats.
So I react when the smart arses full of themselves and their inflated egos, or when those with their hidden religious agendas or other anti mainstream agendas like the ether, start to present their stuff on forums such as this as a faitre complei certainty to replace incumbent theories, with no evidence, just twisted minds and delusions of grandeur.