Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Further developments in causality

Revised http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ as a brief summary, omitting string theory controversy which is on the more complete http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook.

From http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/:

There was a crude empirical equation for ... masses by A.O. Barut, PRL, v. 42 (1979), p. 1251. We can extend the basic idea to hadrons. The muon is 1.5 units on this scale but this is heuristically explained by a coupling of the core (mass 1) with a virtual particle, just as the electron couples increasing its magnetic moment to about 1 + 1/(2.Pi.137). The mass increase of a muon is 1 + 1/2 because Pi is due to spin and the 137 shielding factor doesn’t apply to bare particles cores in proximity, as it is due to the polarised vacuum veil at longer ranges. This is why unification of forces is approached with higher energy interactions, which penetrate the veil. This idea predicts that a particle core with n fundamental particles (n=1 for leptons, n = 2 for mesons, and obviously n=3 for baryons) coupling to N virtual vacuum particles (N is an integer) will have an associative inertial mass of Higgs bosons of: (0.511 Mev).(137)n(N + 1)/2 = 35n(N +1) Mev.

Accuracy tested against data for mass of muon and all ‘long-lived’ hadrons:

LEPTON (n=1)

Muon (N=2): 105 Mev (105.66 Mev measured), 0.6% error!


Mesons (contain n=2 quarks):

Pions (N=1): 140 Mev (139.57 and 134.96 actual), 0.3% and 3.7% errors!
Kaons (N=6): 490 Mev (493.67 and 497.67 actual), 0.7% and 1.6% errors!
Eta (N=7): 560 Mev (548.8 actual), 2% error!

Baryons (contain n=3 quarks):

Nucleons (N=8): 945 Mev (938.28 and 939.57 actual), 0.7% and 0.6% errors!
Lambda (N=10): 1155 Mev (1115.60 actual), 3.5% error!
Sigmas (N=10): 1155 Mev (1189.36, 1192.46, and 1197.34 actual), 3.0%, 3.2% and 3.7% errors!Xi (N=12): 1365 Mev (1314.9 and 1321.3 actual), 3.8% and 3.3% errors!
Omega (N=15): 1680 Mev (1672.5 actual), 0.4% error!

The mechanism is that the charge of the bare electron core is 137 times the Coulomb (polarisation-shielded) value, so vacuum interactions of bare cores of fundamental particles attract 137 times as much virtual mass from the vacuum, increasing the inertia similarly. It is absurd that these close fits, with only a few percent deviation, are random chance, and this can be shown by statistical testing using random numbers as the null hypothesis. So there is empirical evidence that this heuristic interpretation is on the right lines, whereas the ‘renormalisation’ is bogus: http://www.cgoakley.demon.co.uk/qft/

From http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/:

The falsity of mainstream unified field theory (‘string theory’): untestable, multiple universe/dimension fantasy speculation)

Dr Luboš Motl, Harvard University: ‘… quantum mechanics is perhaps the deepest idea we know. It is once again a deformation of a conceptually simpler picture of classical physics.
Dr Peter Woit is a Columbia University mathematician who runs the weblog ‘Not Even Wrong’ about string theory – physicist Pauli deemed speculative belief systems like strings which predict nothing and cannot be tested or checked ‘not even wrong’. He has written a book that will sort out the nonsense in physics.

For problems of speculation in physics about purely mathematical approaches to quantum gravity, see his weblog where Dr Woit concludes:

‘the danger is that there may be lots of ways of "quantizing gravity", and with no connection to experiment you could never choose amongst them. String theory became so popular partly because it held out hope for being able to put the standard model and gravity into the same structure. But there’s no reason to believe it’s the only way of doing that, and people should be trying different things in order to come up with some new ideas.’

Skeptical San Francisco Chronicle newspaper article (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/):

March 14 2005: Today’s San Francisco Chronicle contains an article about string theory entitled ‘Theory of Everything’ Tying Researchers Up In Knots. The lead sentence is:

‘The most celebrated theory in modern physics faces increasing attacks from skeptics who fear it has lured a generation of researchers down an intellectual dead end.’

Davidson contrasts Michio Kaku’s very pro-string theory point of view in his new book Parallel Worlds, with the much more skeptical views of Lawrence Krauss, who has a book entitled Hiding in the Mirror: The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions coming out [on 20 October 2005].
Stanford’s Robert Laughlin makes the point that string theorists are trying to camouflage the theory’s increasingly obvious flaws by comparing the theory to ‘a 50-year-old woman wearing way too much lipstick.’

The article, using Woit's blog for scientific data, pointed out that further problems, concluding: 'it is a disaster for string theory because the sheer number of estimated universes – equal to the number one followed by 500 zeroes – is unimaginably large. If true, it means that string theory is so flexible that it can be used to predict almost any kind of universe you want, no matter how crazy, and hence it predicts nothing specific enough to be scientifically interesting.'

Update: On 20 October 2005, Dr Lawrence Krauss’s book called Hiding in the Mirror about the failure of string theory to do anything scientific came out. He wrote an entertaining and well checked book on ‘Physics of Star Trek’. So perhaps Hollywood will make a film about string theory, a kind of epic tragedy, depicting the collective insanity of the generation of theoretical physicists who ignored Feynman’s warning. Dr Woit himself has an exciting book coming out in March 2006, which digs further into the mathematical frauds than Krauss did. (At the bottom of this page are more details from the Wikipedia encyclopedia entry on Not Even Wrong that is due to be deleted by the philistines.) The Guardian newspaper has now joined the fight for factual physics. Earlier in 2005, I arranged with Melanie Hewitt at News International to publish a page advert in The Times for £4,000. She told me on the phone that it would need to be run past the editor, since it was not very boring. The crank editor censored it, being too paranoid to allow questions to be raised about the funding of crackpottery.

The sound wave has an outward overpressure followed by an equal under-pressure phase, giving an outward force and equal-and-opposite inward reaction that allows music to propagate. Nobody hears the force of music on the eardrum (but they ‘hear’ talk about the equation of a sound ‘wave’!). The outward force phase of a sound wave is like the forward thrust of a rocket in air, while the inward force of sound that follows is like the backward thrust of exhaust. ‘String theory’ cranks suppress all evidence of the outward force of an explosion, because its equal inward reaction by the third law of motion in the case of the big bang is the force of gravity, as proved mathematically on this page.

‘It has been said that more than 200 theories of gravitation have been put forward; but the most plausible of these [the Lesage-Feynman pressure shielding scheme] … had the defect that they lead nowhere and admit of no experimental test.’ - Sir Arthur Eddington, Space Time and Gravitation, Cambridge University Press, 1921, p64. We prove below that LeSage’s push gravity results from a pressure source mechanism in the universe that makes correct predictions of the strength of gravity, etc. Light speed gravitons are force gauge bosons, established in quantum field theory, that can’t fill in shadows. Weblog: http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/

There is little ‘dark matter’ around because the false ‘critical density’ in general relativity is out by a factor e3/2 = 10. The acceleration of the universe implied from supernovae red-shifts is false (since gravity is a response to the surrounding matter, distant galaxies in the explosion are not slowed down by gravity, so there is no need to claim there is an acceleration offsetting a fictitious gravity pull-back). This is completely unique: F = ¾ mM H2/( p r2 r e3) » 6.7 x 10-11 mM/ r2 Newtons! [see http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/ for proper maths symbols which don't come out on this blog]


Electronic Universe. Part 2, Electronics World, N. Cook Electronics World, Vol. 109, No. 1804 (2003), downloads of two articles titled ‘An Electronic Universe’; first part August 2002 and second part April 2003 containing illustrations of the mechanism of the electron and electromagnetic forces ... [http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/ contains this article at the end, which deals with causality in special relativity, etc.]


Post a Comment

<< Home