Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Time past T in Hubble's law v = HR = H(cT) is related to time t since the big bang by t + T = 1/H. => v= HcT = Hc[(1/H)-t] = c - (Hct) => a = dv/dt = d[c-(Hct)]/dt = -Hc, the outward acceleration. Force, F = ma. Newton's 3rd law gives a reaction force, inward directed gravitons. Since non-receding nearby masses don't cause this reaction force, they shield graviton exchange with more distant masses in that direction; an asymmetry which produces gravity.

Friday, October 21, 2005

In a real spin ...

Magnetic moment of spinning classical charge, M = (1/2)qs/m

Where q is observed (shielded) electron charge, s is spin (discussed below a couple of posts back), and m is the observed mass of an electron.

Dirac's quantum field theory multiplies this by a factor of 2 to get the proper magnetic moment of an electron. But still it is not very accurate to meet experiment, so we use the 1st Feynman coupling term for virtual charge to give a more precise correction factor, 2[1 + 1/(2.Pi.137)]. (Let's ignore more coupling terms for the moment, as we are happy with accuracy to 6 s.f.)

I'm content now that the veil shield of polarised vacuum leptons (which shields the electric field from the electron core by a factor of just over 137) has no significant effect on the polar magnetic field from the electron core. The full task of identifying the causal process in the quantum 'foam' spacetime fabric which gives rise to each mathematical coupling correction remains ahead.

For the moment, let's worry about the size, shape, and range of the polarised virtual particle shells surrounding the core. An electric field line is defined by convention as an arrow from a positive charge towards a negative one. So we have an inward arrow from the positive virtual charge shell around the negative core, and an outward arrow between the outer negative virtual shell and the inner positive shell. Since the shielding factor is massive, 137, the arrows are pretty similar in length to look at visually. The polarised shells are stopping 99.27 % of the electric field from the core of the electron.

How long will it take to get around to working out the details, the sizes of the shells? No idea. There are actually quite a few unknowns to deal with. We can hope that the assumptions will be few due to the way in which mathematical unknowns can be cancelled out to give a definite answer. (See my home page for the gravity proof which uses this fact.) While there is no evidence that the Great Architect of the universe is a mathematician (J.B.S. Haldane said, by analogy, that God must be a beetle-lover, because of the vast number of beetle species on Earth), the use of mathematics for understanding things easily is essential. Without maths, you would have be be extremely clever to understand the atom or anything else realistically!

Update: Dr Motl reports discovery of extra dimensions in India: http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/10/news-on-string-theory-in-media.html
(Presumably this refers to the warping around the black hole of Calcutta?)

1 Comments:

At 3:52 AM, nige said...: By the way, the factor of 2 multiplication that is given by Dirac is normally attributed vaguely to the effect of relativity.

However, when you look at the abstruse role of relativity mathematically in the Dirac formula, and particularly when you look at what I say about the 'theory of relativity' as perceived by ether-enthusiast Dirac and others (see earlier posts on this blog!), you want a more causal interpretation.

Heuristically, by trial-and-error, we get a model for the electron core (or virtual electron) that looks like this:

Electron core etc

In the older picture, the magnetism arises from the motion of electron spin lines, so with spin around an axis you classically get only half the magnetic field that the heuristic model (and Dirac equation) predicts.

The electric field lines protruding from the poles of the rotating spherical (classical) electron cannot contribute anything at all to the magnetic field. The factor of 2 arises because the real electron core or virtual electron is a TEM wave loop, a negative field part of a light ray. In this situation, E = cB, with E electric field (volts/metre), c light velocity (m/s), and B magnetic field (Teslas). All three things, E, c, and B are at right angles to each other. Naturally, for forces to be physically communicated along electric and magnetic field lines, energy passes along these and is normally in equilibrium (equal energy flows in each direction). Forces occur when circumstances conspire to disturb the equilibrium, such as when some charge blocks an energy exchange route and is thus pushed towards another (by gaining momentum, which is carried by the TEM wave, TEM standing for "transverse electromagnetic").

The 2 factor is the area of a hemisphere divided by the area of a circle with identical radius. (When you have a surface burst nuclear explosion, gamma rays by the Compton effect knock electrons out of air molecules, creating an outward compton current. The net UPWARD compton current in a surface burst is exactly half the total (hemispherical) compton current in the air, because the currents going horizontally along the ground contribute nothing at all. The factor of 2 is either the result of geometrically looking at a picture of the lines and seeing that the net result is the ratio of the area of a circle to a hemisphere, or is the complicated result of using calculus to integrate some finction of cos A, over angles from 0 to 90 degrees.)

Feynman gravity home page

Cheers,
Nigel

Post a Comment

<< Home

Mathematical symbols in this blog: your computer’s browser needs access to standard character symbol sets to display Greek symbols for mathematical physics. If you don’t have the symbol character sets installed, the density symbol "r" (Rho) will appear as "r" and the "p" (Pi) symbol will as "p", causing confusion with the use of "r" for radius and "p" for momentum in formulae. This problem exists with Mozilla Firefox 3, but not with Microsoft Explorer which displays Greek symbols.

‘Dr Edward Teller remarked recently that the origin of the earth was somewhat like the explosion of the atomic bomb...’ – Dr Harold C. Urey, The Planets: Their Origin and Development, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1952, p. ix.

‘But compared with a supernova a hydrogen bomb is the merest trifle. For a supernova is equal in violence to about a million million million million hydrogen bombs all going off at the same time.’ – Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), The Nature of the Universe, Pelican Books, London, 1963, p. 75.

‘In fact, physicists find plenty of interesting and novel physics in the environment of a nuclear explosion. Some of the physical phenomena are valuable objects of research, and promise to provide further understanding of nature.’ – Dr Harold L. Brode, The RAND Corporation, ‘Review of Nuclear Weapons Effects,’ Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Volume 18, 1968, pp. 153-202.

‘It seems that similarities do exist between the processes of formation of single particles from nuclear explosions and formation of the solar system from the debris of a [7*10²⁶ megatons of TNT equivalent, type Ia] supernova explosion. We may be able to learn much more about the origin of the earth, by further investigating the process of radioactive fallout from the nuclear weapons tests.’ – Dr P. K. Kuroda, University of Arkansas, ‘Radioactive Fallout in Astronomical Settings: Plutonium-244 in the Early Environment of the Solar System,’ Radionuclides in the Environment (Dr E. C. Freiling, Symposium Chairman), Advances in Chemistry Series No. 93, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1970, pp. 83-96.

How would a 10⁵⁵ megaton hydrogen bomb explosion differ from the big bang? Ignorant answers biased in favour of curved spacetime (ignoring quantum gravity!) abound, such as claims that explosions can’t take place in ‘outer space’ (disagreeing with the facts from nuclear space bursts by Russia and America in 1962, not to mention natural supernova explosions in space!) and that explosions produce sound waves in air by definition! There are indeed major differences in the nuclear reactions between the big bang and a nuclear bomb. But it is helpful to notice the solid physical fact that implosion systems suggest the mechanism of gravitation: in implosion, TNT is well-known to produce an inward force on a bomb core, but Newton's 3rd law says there is an equal and opposite reaction force outward. In fact, you can’t have a radially outward force without an inward reaction force! It’s the rocket principle. The rocket accelerates (with force F = ma) forward by virtue of the recoil from accelerating the exhaust gas (with force F = -ma) in the opposite direction! Nothing massive accelerates without an equal and opposite reaction force. Applying this fact to the cosmological acceleration of matter in the universe which was predicted accurately in 1996 and later observationally discovered in 1999 (by Perlmutter, et al.), we find an outward force F = ma and inward reaction force by the 3rd law. The inward force allows quantitative predictions, and is mediated by gravitons, predicting gravitation in a checkable way (unlike string theory, which is just a landscape of 10⁵⁰⁰ different perturbative theories and so can’t make any falsifiable predictions about gravity). So it seems as if nuclear explosions do indeed provide helpful analogies to natural features of the world, and the mainstream lambda-CDM model of cosmology - with its force-fitted unobserved ad hoc speculative ‘dark energy’ - ignores and sweeps under the rug major quantum gravity effects which increase the physical understanding of particle physics, particularly force unification and the relation of gravitation to the existing electroweak [SU(2) x U(1)] section of the Standard Model of fundamental forces.

Richard Lieu, Physics Department, University of Alabama, ‘Lambda-CDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence?’, http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462.

A type Ia supernova explosion, always yielding 7*10²⁶ megatons of TNT equivalent, results from the critical mass effect of the collapse of a white dwarf as soon as its mass exceeds 1.4 solar masses due to matter falling in from a companion star. The degenerate electron gas in the white dwarf is then no longer able to support the pressure from the weight of gas, which collapses, releasing enough energy as heat and pressure to cause the fusion of carbon and oxygen into heavy elements, creating massive amounts of radioactive nickel-56. Type IA supernovae occur roughly once every 400 years in the Milky Way galaxy. When the solar system formed 4,540 million years ago, a supernova occurred 100 light years away from the solar system, and the heavy radioactive debris expanded at 1,000 miles/second. On 4 July 1054, Chinese astronomers observed in the sky (without optical instruments) the bright supernova in the constellation Taurus which today is still visible as the Crab Nebula through telescopes. The Crab Nebula debris has a diameter now of 7 light years and is still expanding at 800 miles/second. The supernova shock wave triggers star formation; bright stars are observed in the Orion Halo, the 300 light year diameter remains of a supernova. Essentially all of the heavy elements including iron, silicon and calcium in the Earth are products from a supernova explosion.

: Name: nige

Currently designing secure active server page (ASP) front ends for client SQL databases. In 1982 I began programming in basic, and at college learned Fortran while a physics undergraduate a decade later. Afterwards, I switched from mainstream physics and mathematical education to part-time programming student, while working in a series of jobs including four years in credit control. www.quantumfieldtheory.org http://glasstone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/capabilities-of-nuclear-weapons.html/ http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=273#comment-5322. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=353&cpage=1#comment-8728. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=215#comment-4082.

View my complete profile

Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Friday, October 21, 2005

1 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts