*'Unified force theory' frauds*With such a dramatic lack of experimental support, string theorists often attempt to make an aesthetic argument, professing that the theory is strikingly "elegant" or "beautiful." Because there is no well-defined theory to judge, it's hard to know what to make of these assertions, and one is reminded of another quotation from Pauli. Annoyed by Werner Heisenberg's claims that, though lacking in some specifics, he had a wonderful unified theory (he didn't), Pauli sent letters to some of his physicist friends each containing a blank rectangle and the text, "This is to show the world that I can paint like Titian. Only technical details are missing." Because no one knows what "M-theory" is, its beauty is that of Pauli's painting. Even if a consistent M-theory can be found, it may very well turn out to be something of great complexity and ugliness. - Dr Peter Woit,

*'Is string theory even wrong?',*American Scientist, March-April 2002, http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18638/page/2#19239

*The illustration above is the anti-Heisenberg campaign of exclusion-principle discoverer, Wolfgang Pauli. It reads: 'Comment on Heiseberg's Radio advertisement. This is to show the world that I can paint like Titian. Only technical details are missing. W. Pauli.'*

*http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/11/14/our-first-guest-blogger-lawrence-krauss/:*

The whole basis of the energy-time version of the uncertainty principle is going to be causal (random interactions between the gauge boson radiation, which consititues the spacetime fabric).

Heuristic explanations of the QFT are required to further the basic understanding of modern physics. For example, 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). This inverse-square law is 137 times Coulomb’s law of electromagnetism.

*So surely the heuristic explanation of this 137 anomaly is just the shielding factor by the polarised vacuum?*‘All charges are surrounded by clouds of virtual photons, which spend part of their existence dissociated into fermion-antifermion pairs. The virtual fermions with charges opposite to the bare charge will be, on average, closer to the bare charge than those virtual particles of like sign. Thus, at large distances, we observe a reduced bare charge due to this screening effect.’ – I. Levine, D. Koltick, et al.,

*Physical Review Letters,*v.78, 1997, no.3, p.424.

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).(137/2)n(N + 1) = 35n(N + 1) Mev, where 0.511 Mev is the electron mass. Thus we get everything from this one mass plus integers 1,2,3 etc, with a mechanism.

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)

HADRONS

Mesons (contain n=2 quarks):

Pions (N=1): 140 Mev (139.57 and 134.96 actual)Kaons (N=6): 490 Mev (493.67 and 497.67 actual)Eta (N=7): 560 Mev (548.8 actual)

Baryons (contain n=3 quarks):Nucleons (N=8): 945 Mev (938.28 and 939.57 actual)Lambda (N=10): 1155 Mev (1115.60 actual)Sigmas (N=10): 1155 Mev (1189.36, 1192.46, and 1197.34 actual)Xi (N=12): 1365 Mev (1314.9 and 1321.3)

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 strong evidence that this heuristic interpretation is on the right lines.

The problem is that people are used to looking to abstruse theory due to the success of QFT in some areas, and looking at the data is out of fashion. If you look at history of chemistry there were particle masses of atoms and it took school teachers like Dalton and a Russian to work out periodicity, because the bigwigs were obsessed with vortex atom maths, the ’string theory’ of that age.

Eventually, the obscure school teachers won out over the mathematicians, because the vortex atom (or string theory equivalent) did nothing, but empirical analysis did stuff.

*Mesons*

Pions = 1.99 (charged), 1.93 (neutral)Kaons = 7.05 (charged), 7.11 (neutral)Eta = 7.84

*Baryons*

Nucleons = 13.4Lambda = 15.9Sigmas = 17.0 (positive and neutral), 17.1 (negative)Xi = 18.8 (neutral), 18.9 (negative)Omega = 23.9

The masses above for all the major long-lived hadrons are in units of (electron mass)x137. A statistical Chi-squared correlation test confirms they are close to integers. 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 that much too.

Leptons and nucleons are the things most people focus on, and are not integers when the masses are in units of (electron mass)x137. The muon is about 1.5 units on this scale but this can be explained by a coupling of the core (mass 1) with a virtual particle of similar size for an average of half the time, just as the electron couples increasing its magnetic moment to 1 + 1/(2.Pi.137). The mass increase of the muon is 1 + 1/2 because the Pi is due to spin and the 137 shielding factor doesn’t apply to bare cores in proximity. [More at http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/]

## 0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home