Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

## Saturday, February 18, 2006

Full heuristic interpretation of quantum field theory.

The 2.Pi factor in the Schwinger 1st coupling correction of the magnetic moment of the electron, in 1 + 1/(2.Pi.137) Bohr magnetons is almost certainly due to the spin effect shielding.

Physically, the core of the first electron has a magnetic moment of 1 Bohr magneton because the polarised vacuum around the electron core only reduces the radial electric field and transverse magnetic field, not the polar magnetic field vector which is of course parallel to the radial electric field at the poles.

The electric field of the core is reduced by a factor of 137 by the polarised virtual charge surrounding it in the vacuum. The real core couples up with a particle (virtual positron?) in the vacuum which adds to the magnetic moment by aligning with the magnetic axis of the electron core. This is the reason for the 137 factor in Schwinger correction for the first coupling effect, the 1/(2.Pi.137) = 0.00116 term added to Dirac's 1 Bohr magneton.

The 2.Pi is an additional shielding factor, and is due to geometry. The 2.Pi factor is heuristically explainable in terms of the geometry which stems from the aligned real electron core and the virtual particle which is aligned with it to add to its magnetic moment. The vacuum is full of virtual particles, but because they are normally orientated randomly, their magnetic fields cancel each other out as seen on a macroscopic scale.

Now, the virtual electron which is outside the polarised shield surrounding the real electron core, and which adds 1/(2.Pi.137) Bohr magnetons to the magnetic moment of the latter, itself has the same effect on another vacuum particle! So there is another correction, which is even smaller, by another 137 factor, and another geometric factor... and so on.

This is how you heuristically explain the extra couplings required for more decimals than 1.00116 Bohr magnetons. Also, you need to take account of different vacuum particles, as occurs with the magnetic moment of the muon, which is slightly different to that from the electron.

At 9:04 AM,  Anonymous said...

New Scientist's editor Jeremy says where interviewed by the Hindu newspaper (where he gets his photograph published) http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/2004/12/16/stories/2004121600111500.htm , that: ‘Scientists have a duty to tell the public what they are doing... Today scientists themselves are unable to talk with each other… Our job is to make it simple… Physics is … truly mind-boggling.’

From: Jeremy.Webb@rbi.co.uk [mailto:Jeremy.Webb@rbi.co.uk]
Sent: Mon 30/08/2004 11:29
To: ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk; Cook, Nigel B
Cc: Jeremy.Webb@rbi.co.uk
Subject: RE: Catt and New Scientist

Dear Ivor and Nigel
If this is mediation, I'm a Dutch uncle. I have no idea how we got here, but it is not somewhere I want to be... Gribbin hasn't worked for NS for eight years (though I think he may have written us a book review since we parted company). Hawking and Penrose are well regarded among their peers. I am eager to question their ideas but I cannot afford to ignore them. Any physicist working today would be daft to do so. Nevertheless, neither makes regular appearances in the magazine. Paul Davies writes for us between zero and three times a year, writing as much about biology these days as he does about physics. He is invited to write. He does not have an open door to the magazine...

Yours
Jeremy

Nigel Cook edited ‘Science World’ research journal, ISSN 1367 6172, in 1997.

MAJOR ON-LINE REFERENCES

www.ivorcatt.org (Catt’s free online book DIGITAL HARDWARE DESIGN, plus reprinted Wireless World articles dealing with the nature of energy and the fabric of space since the element of logic in a computer is energy guided at light speed for the dielectric of the circuit; note it contains many errors, for details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ivor_Catt )

Electronics World articles:

N. Cook, Catt's 377ohm space predicts G to within 1.7%, Electronics World, Oct. 2004, p52

N. Cook, Electron Mysteries, Electronics World, July 2004, p52

N. Cook, Throwing stones in glass houses II, Electronics World, Feb. 2004, p46

N. Cook, Electronic Universe, Electronics World, April 2003, p47 (6 pages)

N. Cook, Electronic Universe, Electronics World, August 2002, p46 (4 pages)

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook.htm

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook1.htm

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook2.htm

CERN Internet Paper on Correcting a Problem in General Relativity, by Nigel Cook: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?f=author&p=Cook%2C+N

At 4:34 AM,  nige said...

Hi anonymous/Ivor Catt,

Notice that Wikipedia now had an article about Ivor Catt at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Catt

I (Nigel Cook) can also confirm that email, as I received a copy and have it filed.

More humour on Jeremy Webb, editor of New Scientist:

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/11/has_climate_science_converged.php

Has climate science converged (enough)?
Category: climate communication
Posted on: November 15, 2006 12:33 PM, by William M. Connolley

Nude Scientist (thanks Eli) has a feature on wot bits of AR4 will be controversial. …

The editor of Nude Scientist, Jeremy Webb, has no qualms over pro-doomsday bias. See http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000002D081.htm

"Eco-evangelism

by Helene Guldberg

"... The headline read 'New Scientist presents: Judgement Day - the Global Environment Roadshow'. It went on: 'Find out how wholly unexpected forces, such as global warming, pollution, ozone-layer destruction, water shortages and soil degradation could combine in new and terrifying ways to produce global nightmares nobody predicted.'

"... Webb asked - after the presentations - whether there was anybody who still was not worried about the future. In a room full of several hundred people, only three of us put our hands up. We were all asked to justify ourselves (which is fair enough). But one woman, who believed that even if some of the scenarios are likely, we should be able to find solutions to cope with them, was asked by Webb whether she was related to George Bush!

"When I pointed out that none of the speakers had presented any of the scientific evidence that challenged their doomsday scenarios, Webb just threw back at me, 'But why take the risk?' What did he mean: 'Why take the risk of living?' You could equally say 'Why take the risk of not experimenting? Why take the risk of not allowing optimum economic development?' But had I been able to ask these questions, I suppose I would have been accused of being in bed with Dubya."

Posted by: nc | November 17, 2006 06:01 AM

ADDITIONAL COMMENT BY ME TO THAT BLOG (IN MODERATION BY STOAT):

Stoat, the author of that slightly slanted article is Fred "doomsday" Pearce, a long-term Nude Scientist author who writes endless pro-Greenpeace copy (always skewed), he is author of numerous books about climatic disasters, human-made horrors of dam building (a nicely titled book: "The Dammed"), and so on.

Other Nude Scientist writers with similar slants (always portraying straw-man arguments as the enemies of the propaganda) include Rob "anti-nuclear" Edwards and ex-editor Dr Alun "icecap meltdown" M. Anderson. I've written many times to correct factual errors, but have always been censored. Jeremy Webb, Nude Scientist's current editor, finally emailed me a long email on 30 August 2004, defending speculation to sell the magazine. See http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15886166&postID=114026442749854376

See also the Daily Telegraph article by Roger Highfield http://www.science-writer.co.uk/news_and_pr/announcements/2005a_announcements.html which states:

"Prof Heinz Wolff complained that cosmology is "religion, not science." Jeremy Webb of New Scientist responded that it is not religion but magic. ... "If I want to sell more copies of New Scientist, I put cosmology on the cover," said Jeremy."

So it's just about what makes the most cash, that's all! Notice http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html claims:

"Since 1982 A-level physics entries have halved. Only just over 3.8 per cent of 16-year-olds took A-level physics in 2004 compared with about 6 per cent in 1990.

"More than a quarter (from 57 to 42) of universities with significant numbers of physics undergraduates have stopped teaching the subject since 1994, while the number of home students on first-degree physics courses has decreased by more than 28 per cent. Even in the 26 elite universities with the highest ratings for research the trend in student numbers has been downwards."

[NOTE: Fred Pearce is listed by http://www.fni.no/YBICED/summaries.html as New Scientist’s “environment consultant”:

“Greenpeace: Storm-Tossed on the High Seas, by Fred Pearce (New Scientist, UK)
New Scientist's environment consultant, Fred Pearce, provides an account of the fluctuating position Greenpeace has held over the last twenty years in international environmental relations. Pearce examines how Greenpeace manages to profile itself as the only green organization capable of mounting campaigns before a global audience, such as the Brent Spar campaign and their actions in the Mururoa atoll, in spite of the considerable amount of internal tension.

The full article download is http://www.fni.no/YBICED/96_07_pearce.pdf which is an article written by Fred Pearce for the GREEN GLOBE YEARBOOK 1996, pages 73-79, which states:

“Greenpeace: Storm-Tossed on the High Seas

“Fred Pearce [GREEN GLOBE YEARBOOK 1996, pages 73-79]

“In mid-1994, Greenpeace International was in crisis. With membership and income falling, its leaders had fired one executive director, Paul Gilding, and were attempting to sack staff.1 Angry messages across its sophisticated internal communications system accused its leaders of conducting a
‘reign of terror’. An anonymous press release from its headquarters in Amsterdam told journalists that ‘Greenpeace is now spending more time and money on its own internal wars than on fighting for the environment. If Greenpeace’s own supporters knew what was going on internally they would soon stop sending in subscriptions, the life-blood of the organization.’2 Greenpeace, in its twenty-fifth year appeared to be suffering a major mid-life crisis. …

“But for the public at large, the organization’s success over Brent Spar (notwithstanding its own goal over the lab analysis of samples), and its heroic failures in the South Pacific raised the organization’s profile once again as the only green organization capable of mounting such campaigns before a global audience.”

ANOTHER POST BY “STOAT” ( DR WILLIAM M. CONNOLLEY ):

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/11/monckton_and_monbiot_in_the_gr.php

Monckton and Monbiot in the Grauniad
Category: septic tripe
Posted on: November 15, 2006 5:31 AM, by William M. Connolley

Todays grauniad has a piece by Monckton, "This wasn't gibberish. I got my facts right on global warming". Its in the "response" column, where people get a chance to reply. Sadly its all more gibberish. …

Stoat, if I may destroy this thread by launching into a rudely off-topic discourse on my pet theory of why global warming predictions are a load of {hot CO2 or methane}, we're running out of oil which is the main source of CO2 so this global warming won't last forever anyhow, see censored string theorist Tony Smith's graph here: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/futureHist.html#durationcheapoil
[There is plenty of coal. No one really thinks we will run out of fossil fuels to pump out CO2 with -W]
Posted by: nc | November 15, 2006 05:46 PM

nc, have you ever heard of coal? Coal contributes, on a global scale, as much CO2 as oil and will increase its share in the future.
Ian Forrester
Posted by: Ian Forrester | November 15, 2006 09:49 PM

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/futureHist.html#durationcheapoil includes coal! Both oil and coal will be eliminated as polluters long before the last drop / lump is burned, because of price rises making them unaffordable expensive, so demand will drop long before then disappear.
About 50% of global oil production is near the gulf:

"The oil coming out of Saudis biggest oil fields now contains more than 50% water, and they are injecting 3 barrels of sea water to get one barrel of this mixed liquid out. That's a fact, not fiction. How much longer do you think the oil can continue to flow from the ground?" - Quantoken, comment on: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/meeting-quantoken.html

More on the alleged looming "peak oil" price flip / economic crisis: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/futureHist.html#durationcheapoil and http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ also see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BOR410A.html and http://www.thepropheticyears.com/reasons/World%20debt.HTM
Posted by: nc | November 17, 2006 05:52 AM

Whoops - wrong graph! There's another which plots coal reserves, which won't last forever either, believe it [or] not.
Posted by: nc | November 17, 2006 05:53 AM

At 6:13 AM,  nige said...

Copy of a comment of mine about environmentalist short-sighted fascism and ignorance:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/11/record-cold-in-australia.html