Jump to content

Extended Field Theory


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Axion said:

I was ignored

I tried to give you a short answer regarding your initial question with the intent to initiate some discussion, so far you have ignored that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

! Moderator Note You don't get to say that here unless you can support it, which you've proven you can't. Try to force this assertion again and you can take some time off on susp

I brought certain quotes and question and You didnt answer on them directly just evaded the answer stating magnetic monopoles are not particles, now when I pointed that particle physics is in vacuum Y

true ... defacto the models are derived from and postulated by some theory, thus the same should be measurable so we would say its law, now, as we can see recently measurements got wrong with the stan

7 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I tried to give you a short answer regarding your initial question with the intent to initiate some discussion, so far you have ignored that. 

what to debate about You said "scalar waves does not seem to exist at all in mainstream physics." but my question is not per'se about them ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Axion said:

what to debate about You said "scalar waves does not seem to exist at all in mainstream physics." but my question is not per'se about them ...

and also

16 hours ago, Ghideon said:

The Dirac strings mentioned in the link https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm does not imply that the quote in the opening post is correct

There is room for misunderstanding:

The author of the paper* does not mention Dirac strings.
The discovery made at Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres** does not claim to be discovery of a magnetic monopole resulting in "div B>0" as far as I can tell.
"scalar waves" as referenced in opening post* is not accepted in mainstream models.

It is not clear what is meant by "div B>0" in the paper* when it is stated in the context of concepts outside the mainstream.

 

So clarification may be needed if you want answers that complements those already given by other members.

 

*)The link you gave: https://www.oatext.com/longitudinal-magnetic-waves-trigger-higher-atp-levels-and-extend-the-aging-process-of-plants.php

**) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm

 

Edited by Ghideon
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

probably its easier to say this is not logical as the standard model suggest, but then I posted another link that the standard model is maybe wrong i.e. probably wrong, we need now just scientific consensus by the mainstreamers, but how, that would mean hey yo all you students scientists public we spend so much time money and energy in vain so now You can go and research alternatives too, its almost impossible, unless they dont open the doors for all knowledge eg. that of Tesla and similar silenced scientists, so we can restart the scientific engine on right track! otherwise we will spinn in circles while mainstream scientific elitism is still norm!

Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Are you done trying to present your idea within the rules? I see a great deal of whinging and very little on-topic discussion. Is it time to close this?

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Axion said:

probably its easier to say this is not logical as the standard model suggest, but then I posted another link that the standard model is maybe wrong i.e. probably wrong, we need now just scientific consensus by the mainstreamers, but how, that would mean hey yo all you students scientists public we spend so much time money and energy in vain so now You can go and research alternatives too, its almost impossible, unless they dont open the doors for all knowledge eg. that of Tesla and similar silenced scientists, so we can restart the scientific engine on right track!

I had hoped for some discussion regarding hypothetical elementary particle magnetic monopole vs the condensed-matter physics term “magnetic monopole” and the possible confusion it may have created in this thread and in the linked Meyl paper. You seem to treat the monopoles studied by condensed-matter groups as if they were a new elementary particle rather than an emergent phenomenon in systems of every day standard model particles. 

 

 

Edited by Ghideon
x-post with Phi
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

You seem to treat the monopoles studied by condensed-matter groups as if they were a new elementary particle rather than an emergent phenomenon in systems of every day standard model particles.

no, I proposed just that the particle physics should be exempt from this topic as rule of thumb that GLW cant be changed, thus see magnetic monopoles as probable force or else, for sure I dont claim that GLW is wrong but that it could be extended and ask whether that is probable if magnetic monopoles exist even as force or any other observed phenomenon except particle!

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Axion said:

Tesla and similar silenced scientists

Really, the mainstream silenced Tesla?  It seems like the mainstream honoured Tesla by naming the unit of the magnetic field density a tesla.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Axion said:

no, I proposed just that the particle physics should be exempt from this topic as rule of thumb that GLW cant be changed, thus see magnetic monopoles as probable force or else, for sure I dont claim that GLW is wrong but that it could be extended and ask whether that is probable if magnetic monopoles exist even as force or any other observed phenomenon except particle!

The links you provided in the opening post (a paper about Dirac Strings and a link to a paper with non mainstream topics) were confusing. Let's try to reformulate your question:

A "true"* magnetic monopole would be a new elementary particle, and would violate Gauss's law for magnetism ∇⋅B = 0. A monopole of this kind has never been observed in experiments. If such a monopole was ever observed in an experiment, how would that affect the Gauss's law and the state of the standard model?**

Is the above what you intended to ask? 

 

*) We do not consider monopoles in condensed-matter systems or monopoles in topological interpretations.
**) Some phrases inspired by wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Really, the mainstream silenced Tesla?  It seems like the mainstream honoured Tesla by naming the unit of the magnetic field density a tesla.

actually not just Tesla but any proponent of the aether theory! He was btw brutally distanced from scientific work when his laboratory was burned and all research seized by fbi, if this is not silencing then what!? but now when the standard model is proven as wrong, now what!? think not just aether but also many other theories should be revisited!

in this thread I've just asked simple question what-if  ... would-it-be-then-possible ... and again the debate is focused on SM particle physics altho the same is not anymore valid as could be seen from the proposed video of RI and Tara Shears explanation [1][1]

Quote

Einstein essentially agreed with the findings by stating that by its nature, the ether could not be detected. However, Einstein also upped the ante considerably by also saying that if the ether could be detected then his theory of relativity was in error.5 Einstein further stated that if light could travel like a particle it would not need a medium (i.e., the ether) to travel through. Even though most of the great scientists of the day such as Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin, Fitzgerald and Lorentz all accepted the obvious conclusion that there had to a medium of transfer in space, i.e., the ether, all of this was glossed over. This led to a generally accepted conclusion that the ether did not exist and that is the situation today, a full century later! It would take Einstein 15 years before he addressed this glaring misconception but the damage had already been done. ...

https://marcseifer.com/tesla-vs-enstein.html

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Axion said:

I've just asked simple question what-if  ... would-it-be-then-possible ...

And if my aunt had testicles, she would be my uncle.
( should this be in the transgendered athletes thread ? )

It has been explained numerous times, that if an actual magnetic monopole was ever detected, not simply an 'effect' that acts as a single pole, Maxwell's equation could accomodate that without too much trouble.
There would be big changes to the rest of Physics, however, from the 'standard model' to Cosmology.

But, so far, NONE have been detected/observed, and chances are, they never will be.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MigL said:

But, so far, NONE have been detected/observed, and chances are, they never will be.

probably You are ignoring the fact that the standard model is gone? its just possible theory! I am not so insightful to tell to which extent is done, nevertheless my point is simple many things indeed will change ahead ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard model is NOT gone.
It works very well for some things, but is not applicable to others.

General Relativity works for most things, but fails at extreme energy densities, like the center of a Black Hole, or the Big Band prior to 10-43 sec.
Do you think GR is gone ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Axion said:

You are ignoring the fact that the standard model is gone?

Can you provide some reference supporting your claim? Standard model works well within it's area of applicability and there are known issues with the model. The standard model is not "gone".

Instead of posting speculative unsupported claims, how about discussing the actual question? (See above, my attempt to clarify)

edit: x-post with @MigL

 

Edited by Ghideon
x-post
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Can you provide some reference supporting your claim? Standard model works well within it's area of applicability and there are known issues with the model. The standard model is not "gone".

look if You are not following what I imply or You are lazy to search google what I imply, then please we are enough offtopic, anyway wasted time to reply so here is it ...

https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/particle-model.cfm

Quote
The Standard Model does not allow for lepton flavor universality violation. That is, the lepton number for each kind of lepton (electron, muon, tao) is to be conserved in the Standard Model, but evidence, for example from the LHCb, Belle, and BaBar experiments, has consistently shown this not the case.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Axion said:

but then I posted another link that the standard model is maybe wrong i.e. probably wrong, we need now just scientific consensus by the mainstreamers,

When I learned the particle physics I know most about, the standard model didn't yet exist.

Since that time I have seen it appear in very simple form, grow and change many times as it develops towards greater concurrence with observation.

 

Where have I heard that story before ?

 

Well just over 150 years ago chemists and physicists of that time would have seen the 'periodic table' appear and watched it's subsequent growth, revision and concurrence with observation. There were glitches and inconsistencies along the way (there still are some minor ones) sometimes the table structure helped revise incorrect theory, sometimes observation brought about revision of incoorect table entries.

But no one today (though we now have many versions) would say that the periodic table is wrong or gone becuase there is so much right with it.

Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Axion said:

Thanks for the link, I'll read it later to see if it is relevant to your claims.

 

2 hours ago, Axion said:

You are lazy to search google what I imply, then please we are enough offtopic

It is not laziness, it's conservation of energy. And it's off topic as you say. Please open a separate thread for further discussion. 

Edited by Ghideon
grammar & reference
Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit to be appended to last post I seem to ahve missed the editing deadline.

But no one today (though we now have many versions) would say that the periodic table is wrong or gone because there is so much right with it.

The table of the standard model has a long way to go yet since it is younger.

Incidentally you might like to know that the periodic table was the first really useful demonstration of the then newly discovered mathematical theory of 'mathematical groups in algebra.
They didn't really realise they were doing group theory back then, however in modern times that same group theory muchmore developed has played an very important role in the moulding and remoulding the 'standard model.'

Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites

@studiot hm, the problem with magnetic monopole comes not from particle physics per'se but from the standard model, thus Your proposition that I want to negate the basics is wrong ...

this is why I say maybe in question is some fringe force, or other phenomena, but defacto magnetic monopoles now dont need to be perceived as particles per'se coz the standard model is "I am afraid to say" dead!

 

Quote

If the electromagnetic Maxwell laws are maintained in its classical relativis-tic format, there is no other way than ascribing the origin of this field to an undiscovered particle. But what if the Maxwell laws are not maintained unimpaired? Historically a number of proposals have been put forward to generalize these laws. The most prominent ones are the generalizations 2as put forward by Paul Dirac [7] and Alexandru Proca [8]. Dirac proposed his generalization because of his wonder about an asymmetry in Maxwell’s Equations. His wonder had to do with the absence of magnetic space charge in these equations as a result of a clear absence of it in experimental physics. Driven by his devotion for beauty Dirac symmetrized the equations by the hypothetical existence of a magnetic source, next to the electric source. He made clear that a veri-fied existence of a magnetic monopole would explain the discrete nature of both electric and mag-netic charges. So, a long and still continuing search began in an attempt to find experimental verification of such a magnetic monopole. Dirac himself did not urge the necessity of its exist-ence, but never denied its existence either. Despite of efforts over more that seventy years, the magnetic monopole has not been found. ...

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0811/0811.0286.pdf

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Axion said:

 Your proposition that I want to negate the basics is wrong ...

coz the standard model is "I am afraid to say" dead!

 

Sorry I am not going to play playground politics here.

 

Have a nice day

Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Axion said:

this is why I say maybe in question is some fringe force, or other phenomena, but defacto magnetic monopoles now dont need to be perceived as particles per'se coz the standard model is "I am afraid to say" dead!

Reading the article you provided; https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/particle-model.cfm

Emphasis mine:

Quote

High energy particle physics experiments in the recent past have brought into question certain parts of the model currently used in particle physics. The Standard Model describes how particles interact and provides a framework of conservation rules that give insight into what decays are possible. It has been relied on for decades, but it may be time for an update. Experiments involving decays of the bottom quark show transitions occurring 10% to 20% beyond the predictions of the Standard Model and decays that violate certain rules of the Standard Model.

And

Quote

Although the leptoquark itself has not been observed, modeling the experimental system with leptoquarks works much better than modeling with the Standard Model. Further, there are no contradictions with this theoretical model to the Standard Model.

Leptoquarks have not yet been observed according to your link. And Leptoquarks are encountered in various extensions of the Standard Model. So the standard model is not dead. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ghideon please go consult some particle physicist, there is good comment bellow the video "If Tara wants to retain her job as a physicist and not become a street sweeper, then she has to be careful about her choice of words..."

Beyond The Standard Model Understanding, means standard model dont functions as expected, so suggested above how magnetic monopoles are derived due to it, its clear that the argument divB=0 cant become divB<>0 because mm is not observed particle is not substantial, we can continue with offtopic but that is useless ...
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Axion said:

the standard model is "I am afraid to say" dead!

!

Moderator Note

You don't get to say that here unless you can support it, which you've proven you can't. Try to force this assertion again and you can take some time off on suspension.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Axion said:

@Ghideon please go consult some particle physicist, there is good comment bellow the video "If Tara wants to retain her job as a physicist and not become a street sweeper, then she has to be careful about her choice of words..."

Im sure there are good comments on some videos on YouTube. Personally I prefer to get help from the members here at the forums. 

15 minutes ago, Axion said:

Beyond The Standard Model Understanding, means standard model dont functions as expected, so suggested above how magnetic monopoles are derived due to it, its clear that the argument divB=0 cant become divB<>0 because mm is not observed particle is not substantial

Sorry, your point seems to be lost in translation*.

 

15 minutes ago, Axion said:

we can continue with offtopic but that is useless ...

If my replies are off topic there is a report function you can use to notify the moderators.

 

*) English is not my first language.

 

Edited by Ghideon
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

If my replies are off topic there is a report function you can use to notify the moderators.

the video was once posted as link, then it was overlooked by others too so I pointed again too it, then even that was not enough for You I pointed to other link about the inconsistency of the spm, and again You are bragging about it so I embedded the video part where clearly is pointed Our SPM Is Cracked and still You say my points are lost in translation, this indeed is offtopic pointing again and again that divB>0 cant be perceived from particle perspective ... I am not saying that it must be otherwise, I am just guessing, maybe at all magnetic monopoles dont exist i.e. mm's are just wrong interpretation and its word for fringe force ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.