Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

## Friday, October 21, 2005

The meaning of everything

Heisenberg's uncertainty (based on impossible gamma ray microscope thought experiment): pd = h/(2.Pi), where p is uncertainty in momentum and d is uncertainty in distance. The product pd is physically equivalent to Et, where E is uncertainty in energy and t is uncertainty in time. Since, for light speed, d = ct, we obtain: d = hc/(2.Pi.E). This is the formula the experts generally use to relate the range of the force, d, to the energy of the gauge boson, E.Notice that both d and E are really uncertainties in distance and energy, rather than real distance and energy, but the formula works for real distance and energy, because we are dealing with a definite ratio between the two. Hence for 80 GeV mass-energy W and Z intermediate vector bosons, the force range is on the order of 10^-17 m.Since the formula d = hc/(2.Pi.E) therefore works for d and E as realities, we can introduce work energy as E = Fd, which gives us the strong nuclear force law: F = hc/(2.Pi.d^2). The range of this force is of course d = hc/(2.Pi.E) .

The above is an extract from an earlier post. On http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ the mechanism for push gravity is proved mathematically, giving a list of predictions (scroll down a bit) that agree with observations very well, and which sort out many outstanding problems in physics, without introducing any extra conflicts! Now let us 'see' a picture of a fundamental particle core: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/Image11.jpg

Surrounding this core is a veil of virtual particles in the spacetime fabric 'quantum foam', with virtual positrons attracted closer to the negative electron core than virtual electrons. Now I've said on Dr Motl's blog that the 1 + 1/(2.Pi.137) = 1.00116 correction of the Dirac magnetic moment of the electron arises because a virtual particle associated with the electron core by Pauli's exclusion (pairing) principle. The 1 is the core magnetism, which is unshielded by the radially polarised veil of virtual charges, but the electric field is attenuated by 137 times, so the virtual particle which pairs with the core is paired with a weakening factor of 137 times, while the 2.Pi factor comes in from the relative spin + orbit speeds involved (or wavelength). I'm still vague. But let's now try to build a physical picture of the polarised shells of aether.

From quantum mechanics, electrons have a magnetic moment and a spin angular momentum of s = half a quantum spin unit [s=0.5h/(2.Pi)]. If the stationary electron spins at light speed as implied by electric energy transfer speed (Electronics World Apr. 03), then s = mcr, where r is the spin radius. So, r = s/mc = h/(2.Pi.mc) ~ 10^-13 m. The model of electron as the negative electric field half of a gamma ray discussed in Electronics World March 05 letters (the full ray is half negative and half positive like a sine wave) implies that gravity confines the energy in a loop of black hole radius (EW Aug. 02), R = 2GM/c^2 ~ 10^-58 m.

Since force is energy per unit distance moved (from E = Fd), the strong force which causes pair production divided by the gravity force proportional to r/R. The electron spin radius is therefore larger than the electron loop core by a factor similar to the ratio of the strong force to the gravitational force (Electronics World Apr. 03). The continuous motion of non-periodic energy in an electron along its electric field lines is the mechanism by which the central core of the electron influences, and is influenced by, the outside.

The last two paragraphs above are in a recent letter from me printed in Electronics World. Here are some further thoughts. First, some of the statements are probably either wrong or inexact. Second, it is better to have an idea that is wrong or inexact than one that is 'not even wrong' (untestable, religion-type speculation). The ideas above can be tested, modified and developed further. For example, the assumption that the speed is c may not apply to the virtual particles, which may orbit the electron core more slowly, which will affect the suggested radii of the electron shells. There could be other errors too. I want a picture for the electron core with the distances of the polarised shells of virtual particles surrounding it.

In the middle is the negative core, the real electron with a bare force 137 times Coulomb's law. Surrounding it is a virtual particle shell with net positive charge, and beyond that is a shell with a net negative charge. The geometric effects of the two shells is to shield the core by a factor of 137. Surely someone like Dr Peter Woit can analyse the available data, the known spin of the electron and the implied shielding factor of 137, to get a physically working model of the polarised dielectric, so we can see what is going on? If it can't be done by geometry and calculus, surely computer calculations can be used to get a model? I first wrote computer programs in 1981 aged 9 to evaluate simple formulas, so why don't I do this? Part of the reason is that something which looks 'dead easy' in retrospect is hard to plan out when it is done for the first time! Basically, you cannot plan such a thing. You just have to play around with it until you find something that works. Who has time to play around in today's world? Even if you do make an advance, what happens then? Who will publish it? How long will it take to overcome ignorance and apathy, or downright hostility and anger, and catch on? Why bother at all?

At 5:44 AM,  nige said...

Some more comments. Although the bare core charge of the electron gives rise to a force equal to that of the strong nuclear force at short ranges, this itself is not a complete unification. If we take the gravity mechanism at http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/, we see that there is an spherically symmetric inward force on the order of 10^43 Newtons which gives rise where shielded by black-hole sized fundamental particles. The pressure of this close to the electron core (pressure = force/area) is immense, and you can be sure that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle arises as a result of collisions in the 'vacuum foam' which create the virtual particles of different masses for the prescribed times. So the uncetainty principle has a physically real mechanism.

The random strikes of particles is the mechanism behind the apparent weirdness of quantum tunnelling and radioactivity.

Dr Woit stated a while back on his blog that the underlying reality of the universe will, in his opinion, be very simple, even more simple than the classical picture of unexplained laws. Undoubtedly he is right, it is a very simple underlying reality with no extra dimensions, no lock ness monster or UFOs. Yet ironically, the underlying reality is somehow ethereal. We all want somekind of ultimate equation or revelation to turn out to be the basis of physics. You don't want it to be very simple.

I notice that Dr John Gribbin, the colourful character who authored the "Jupiter Effect" hoax in the 1970s (he was working at Nature journal and predicted that the planetary line up in 1982 would set off an earthquake and destroy Los Angeles), has a couple of new books out that are nice.

First "Deep Simplicity" which may indicate a move away from horses*** interpretations of quantum mechanics. Gribbin in 1984 wrote "In Search of Schroedinger's Cat" which if I remember correctly is pro-Bohr in general, but he had more sympathy for the "Many Worlds" interpretation than Copenhagen. Now hopefully is is growing up a bit and moving towards chaos. Chaos asserts that the Schroedinger wave equation arises from the 3+ body Poincare effect, where ordinary 2-D closed orbits turn into chaotic 3-D ball-of-yarn type orbits when you add extra particles whose influence continually interfers with the other orbits!

Bohm's "hidden variables" were a mistake, he went in for too complicated guesswork speculations and got infinities, ending up usually wih inelegant models of no use practically.

Chaos arising from a deep simplicity is the way forward.

Another book by Gribbin out recently, of vital importance to us, is a history of the last scientific revolution. On the flyleaf, Gribbin quotes Gilbert's statement which last year appeared as the banner for an Electronics World article by Leslie Green on "Engineering versus Pseudo-science". The quote is given in a longer form by Gribbin, but the brief one is:

"Men [and women!!] are deplorably ignorant with respect to natural things ... They must be made to quit the sort of learning that comes only from books, and that rests only on vain arguments from probability and upon conjectures."

- William Gilbert of Colchester (where I live now by coincidence), De Magnete, 1600 AD.