AWT and Maxwell's Equations

[Zephir]

Analogy of Faraday-Lentz force and Newton-Magnus-Robbins force by AWT.

 

 

The magnetic field transforms the vacuum into field of many tiny vortices, through which the charged particle with spin is moving along curved path, being dragged by vortex field.

[Zephir]

Well, back to physics. In fact, the connection between fluid vorticity and electromagnetism is known for years. Whole the Maxwell's theory was based on inertial fluid concept, which Maxwell has used for explanation of his displacement current concept. No wonder, Maxwell's equations are all isomorphous with Navier-Stokes equations. The most pronounced analogy we can met at the case of hydrodynamic analogy of Biot-Savart law.

 

 

Richard Cunningham Patterson Jr.: If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

 

Well, the vacuum is probably a dense fluid. Which fluid? A fluid composed of its own scale invariant vortices as a boson condensate. But this concept explains just a hydrodynamic properties of vacuum, its vorticity in particular, which can be described by tensor fields. Therefore it belongs into realm of relativity theory, the LQG and twistor theory in particular.

 

For explanation of quantum mechanics properties of vacuum we are forced to adhere on foam model of vacuum. Only one real-life system covers both aspects of vacuum by analogy: its a condensing supercritical fluid, which can be described both fluid, both foam at the same moment. And this is where the AWT has started after one hundred years, when it was left abandoned by Sir Oliver J. Lodge, who had proposed it in 1904.

[Klaynos]

________________________________________________________

 

Well, back to physics. In fact, the connection between fluid vorticity and electromagnetism is known for years.

 

Yep. I know, interesting....

 

Whole the Maxwell's theory was based on inertial fluid concept, which Maxwell has used for explanation of his displacement current concept.

 

I wouldn't say it was bassed on fluid concepts but it's results do show a stark similarity to fluid equations, mainly imo because flux has the similra laws "what goes in must come out" kinda thing, they're results of the derivation not the method of derivation though.

 

No wonder, Maxwell's equations are all isomorphous with Navier-Stokes equations. The most pronounced analogy we can met at the case of hydrodynamic analogy of Biot-Savart law.

 

 

Richard Cunningham Patterson Jr.: If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

 

Well, the vacuum is probably a dense fluid. Which fluid? A fluid composed of its own scale invariant vortices as a boson condensate. But this concept explains just a hydrodynamic properties of vacuum, its vorticity in particular, which can be described by tensor fields. Therefore it belongs into realm of relativity theory, the LQG and twistor theory in particular.

 

For explanation of quantum mechanics properties of vacuum we are forced to adhere on foam model of vacuum. Only one real-life system covers both aspects of vacuum by analogy: its a condensing supercritical fluid, which can be described both fluid, both foam at the same moment. And this is where the AWT has started after one hundred years, when it was left abandoned by Sir Oliver J. Lodge, who had proposed it in 1904.

 

OK, but I want to know how from AWT you can derive maxwell's equations. I don't want to hear "well they look just like the fluid equations so it must be a fluid".

[Zephir]

...I want to know, how from AWT you can derive maxwell's equations...

I'm interested, how you can derive Maxwell's equations from special relativity? Why do you don't want to hear "they look just like the fluid equations so it must be a fluid"? How do you want to prove, some concept is equivalent to other, after then?

 

After all, currently I've no reason to care about equations of some other theories. The mainstream science is saying, the Aether concept is inconsistent with postulates of mainstream theories. To disprove this I'm not required to derive anything, but these postulates.

[Klaynos]

Sorry I thought you where propossing AWT as how electromagnetism works?

 

Because correlation is not causation.

 

If you can get to the postulates you can get to anything else. Have you gotten anything yet?

[ajb]

As I am sure we all know, it is not Lorentz invariance that is the "defining" property of EM. It is gauge invariance.

 

If we consider the most general gauge invariant action constructed from a u(1) valued one-form on a Riemannian manifold and insist that it has no derivatives higher than 2 (need for renormalisation of the quantum theory) then isn't the only action (up to signs and factors ) the EM action (4d) or abelian Chern-Simmons (3d)?

 

Then looking at the equations of motion gives you Maxwell's equations?

 

So I would say "Special Relativity + Gauge symmetry = EM".

 

(I outline this in my 1st year report which can be found via my website).

[Zephir]

...because correlation is not causation...

You're right, it's just an evidence, no less, no more.

 

After all, this is how the physics is working in the last one hundred years. The simple evidences are both exhausted, both ignored. Just a few experiments can really prove the subject directly, the evidence in most cases remains mediated by many conceptual layers of experiment interpretation.

 

For me the existence of Aether is evident from simple implication: "Energy is spreading in waves through matter in waves. The light energy is spreading in waves through vacuum, therefore the vacuum is matter as well" and I'm not required to prove anything else about it. But the science is claiming (without proof), such simple implication cannot serve as a direct proof of Aether. What else to do, after than?

 

Of course, the number of direct evidences is limited. If you ignore them intentionally, then you're required to consider some other less or more derived correlations.

 

...we all know, it is not Lorentz invariance that is the "defining" property of EM. It is gauge invariance..

You're right, as the SU(2) gauge group invariance is special case of gauge invariance (but the SU(2) group isn't the only result of Maxwell's theory, which is much more richer).

 

This is why I'm saying. the Maxwell's theory itself cannot explain all properties of vacuum, the quantum properties in particular. Literally speaking, the inertial fluid cannot serve as an exact model of nested supercritical foam of AWT. Therefore the Maxwell's equations in its present state have no great meaning in AWT, they're supposed to be only special case of the solution.

[Klaynos]

That's not direct evidence, it's an assumption (that EM waves are the same as say sound waves).

[Zephir]

That's not direct evidence, it's an assumption (that EM waves are the same as say sound waves).

The Maxwell's model as such violates such case. It's easy to derive all these relativistic transforms, based on SU(2) gauge invariance from Maxwell's equations. After all, this is why the Lorentz transforms are named after Lorentz, not after Einstein, who just have used them for derivation of space/time dilatation.

Everybody can see, in the dense elastic fluid the mechanical energy doesn't propagate in sound waves only, i.e. in longitudianal waves. The waves in fluid are always polarized.

 

But the Maxwell's fluid is strange in every extent. It's not just "elastic fluid", it's infinitelly elastic one. It means, every piece of such fluid can be deformed by the same way, like the bulk, ad infinitum. We can observe this by formation of vortex rings in fluid. In just 3D fluid the spirallike vortex rings cannot exist, in vacuum can.

[ajb]

 

You're right, as the SU(2) gauge group invariance is special case of gauge invariance (but the SU(2) group isn't the only result of Maxwell's theory, which is much more richer).

 

You mean U(1).

 

Or you could mean the [math]SO(4) \rightarrow SU(2)\times SU(2)[/math] decomposition in Euclidean 4-d, which would be a global symmetry.

[Zephir]

You mean U(1).

Nope U(1) group only introduces singlets. But the Maxwell's equations are introducing spinor symmetry, bacause the light can have spin.

 

 

you mean the decomposition in Euclidean 4-d.

Yep, exactly - the additional forth dimension is illustrated by red color here.

[ajb]

Well, if we are talking about the gauge group of EM, then it is U(1).

[Zephir]

Well, if we are talking about the gauge group of EM, then it is U(1).

Only for EM wave without spin. U1 cannot have a chiral symmetry.

[ajb]

I am telling you that the gauge group of EM is U(1).

 

I think you are trying to say something about chiral fermions coupled to EM .

[Zephir]

I am telling you that the gauge group of EM is U(1).

Just a circle group can never become chiral, sorry. And the light wave can be chiral w-out problem: we can have left-handed photons and right-handed photons independently, sorry.

 

 

Just show us some chirality on the example of U(1) transform...

[ajb]

Ok Zephir, I give up. I tried but you won. I just can't be bothered any more.

 

I have decided to simply ignore any of your future posts on any thing.

 

Good bye.

[Zephir]

Ok Zephir, I give up. I tried but you one. .

The U(1) group is just an low energy representation of Maxwell's fluid. Try to imagine, you're jumping on thick elastic foamy mattres. Until the frequency of jumps remains low, every piece of foam will move in circles, it belongs into U(1) symmetry group.

 

But if you'll start to jump more intensively, the situation will change: the elastic mattress will not undulate in toroidal way anymore and it will make an spiral-like twisted motion. This is because the torsion ring is behaving like gyroscope, as it's exhibiting a resistance against further motion. After then the elasticity of hidden dimensions will take place. This enables the light wave to undulate perpendicularly to the direction of wave spreading, i.e. to exhibit the spin.

[Motor Daddy]

It's too bad Zephir is banned, I would really like to hear more of his theories.

[ajb]

Trust me on this one MotorDaddy, you don't. It is simply junk. As you can see, he has some strange ideas about some well understood physics.

 

So please, leave it alone.

 

In fact, it makes sense that this thread be locked.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, it does. Let's leave this subject to die.