Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - One universe from the alpha 1/N

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Astrophysics

Gravity & Relativity

One universe from the alpha 1/N

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

Quantoken

USA
19 Posts

Posted - 01 Dec 2004 : 20:07:22

I am going to show that the whole universe can be derived from one single dimentionless physics constant, the fine structure constant, and nothing else. I will show the exactly size, mass-energy and entropy of the universe. I will show the exact CMB temperature to be 2.7243K, I will show the solar constant to be exactly 1360 W/m^2 at earth distance. All using just one fine constant.

But first let me adopt a set of natural unit, the unit is derived by setting HBAR and C to be exactly one, and assuming the electron mass is alpha, the fine structure constant, when measured in the natural unit:

m0 = Me/alpha = 1.2483x10^-28 kgs
E0 = m0*C^2 = 1.121928x10^-11 Joules
r0 = (HBAR*C)/E0 = 2.81794x10^-15 meters
t0 = r0/C = 9.39964x10^-24 seconds

r0 happen to be the classical electron radius, but don't read too much into it. There is nothing classical.

Now, in the natural unit set, let the Newton gravitational constant G be defined as:

G = 1/(2*N)

N is a dimentionless number. Since G is not known very precisely, the precise value of N is given by:

N = PI* exp(2/(3*alpha))
N = 1.48982536x10^40

If you use the accepted value of G=6.674x10-11 to calculate N, it will be about 2% bigger. But I attribute it to the fact that we are measuring G within the gravitational field of the solar system so our measurement is slightly smaller than the true value. That also explains the Pioneer 10/11 abnormality perfectly. I will talk about that when I have time.

Anyway N is calculated from alpha, G is simply the inverse of 2N, so we have associated G with the fine structure constant. That's what Eingstein had tried unsuccessfully: to associate gravity with electromagnetic force in some form.

But our story does not stop there. Using N, we can get all parameters of the scale of the universe:

Radius of the universe Ru = PI * N
Age of the universe Tu = PI * N
Mass of the universe Mu = PI * N^2
Energy of the universe Eu = PI * N^2
Hawking Entropy of the universe Su = PI * S4(N)

Here S4 means the 3-D surface area of a 4-D spacetime sphere of radius N: S4(N) = 2*PI^2*N^3

Isn't it elegant? Everything of the uinverse is simply a PI times a power of N. Based on that formular, the age of the universe is
Tu = PI*N

Convert it to the SI unit:
Tu = PI*N*t0
Tu = 3.1416 * 1.48982536x10^40 * 9.39964x10^-24
Tu = 4.4x10^17 seconds
Tu = 4.4x10^17/31557825 sec/year (year)
Tu = 13.94 billon years

The Tu I obtained agrees perfectly with the accepted observational age of the universe of between 13.7 and 14.0 billion years!!! I obtained this number using only the fine structure constant!!! Actually I believe my result is more precise than the observational data.

But there are more. I will derive the precise CMB (cosmological microwave background) temperature.

Larry Burford

USA
1355 Posts

Posted - 02 Dec 2004 : 09:04:23

Quantoken,

Suggestion - if you want to be taken seriously with a topic like this, you are going to have to explicitly show units after each occurance of a number. (You can do physics without numbers, but not without units.)

For example, you say "... the accepted value of G [is] 6.674x10-11 ... "

This is not correct. The accepted value of G is 3.44 x 10^-8.

===

And assume that most readers DON'T know about a short cut that you do know about. (IOW, show your work.)

Regards,
LB

Quantoken

USA
19 Posts

Posted - 02 Dec 2004 : 10:36:18

It would be nice to always list units each step of the calculation. But physicists rarely do that because the units are obvious and if you always insert units in formulas it make it very hard to read. For example Einstein's
E=MC^2
would become
E Joules = M kg * (C M/sec)^2
Very ugly isn't it?

The unit I used is either the natural unit, which I defined, or the SI units, where kilogram, meter, second are used. I said it clearly that in most steps I used natural units, except in the final steps I need to convert back to SI unit to compare with measured values which are in SI units.

The gravity constant is measured to be 6.674x10^-11 in SI unit. See:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html

I do not know where you get 3.44x10^-8, but it does not look like any of the known physics constants, certainly not G.

Larry Burford

USA
1355 Posts

Posted - 02 Dec 2004 : 12:10:04

quote:

Originally posted by Quantoken

It would be nice to always list units each step of the calculation. But physicists rarely do that because the units are obvious and if you always insert units in formulas it make it very hard to read.

Sometimes the units are obvious. Sometimes not. You are right that physicists often leave them out. When they make mistakes, it often involves such an omission.

quote:

For example Einstein's
E=MC^2
would become
E Joules = M kg * (C M/sec)^2
Very ugly isn't it?

I suppose. It is the price one must sometimes pay to be understood. Especially when first attempting to explain a new theory.

Since that is what you are doing (making a first attempt to sell a new theory), it behooves you to avoid causing confusion and/or doubt in my mind about the exact meaning of each thing you say.

Later, when you have convinced me that your argument has some merit, you can begin taking some shortcuts. To do so at this stage is a waste of YOUR time. (I'll just go sit at the bar and watch you fumble around.)

quote:

The unit I used is either the natural unit, which I defined, or the SI units, where kilogram, meter, second are used. I said it clearly that in most steps I used natural units, except in the final steps I need to convert back to SI unit to compare with measured values which are in SI units.

The gravity constant is measured to be 6.674x10^-11 in SI unit. See:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html

"in SI unit" doesn't tell me what I need to know.

6.674 x 10^-11 (meters/second) is "in SI unit". But I'm pretty sure this is not what you mean. (Am I being picky? Some might say yes. Most wouldn't. Please find a way to make me stop.)

quote:

I do not know where you get 3.44x10^-8, but it does not look like any of the known physics constants, certainly not G.

It is straight out of Halliday and Resnick. But it is not in SI units. You are missing my point. If you don't explicitly say what units you are using for each number, (not the same as saying what system of units you are using) the number has no meaning IN PHYSICS.

Regards,
LB

Larry Burford

USA
1355 Posts

Posted - 02 Dec 2004 : 12:18:39

You say

"G = 6.674 x 10^-11" (no dimensions given)

FYI, the dimensions for G [in the SI system of units] are (nt * m^2 / kg^2)

Then you say

"G = 1 / (2 * N)" (no dimensions given)

where N = 1.48982536x10^40 (dimensionless)

That makes G (your G, not the real G) dimensionless as well. In physics, a dimensionless number cannot be equal to a dimensioned quantity.

6.674x10^-11 (dimensionless) <> 6.674x10^-11 (nt*m^2/kg^2)

===

On the other hand

6.674x10^-11 (nt*m^2/kg^2) = 3.44x10^-8 (lb*ft^2/slug^2)

is a valid equation.

Regards,
LB

Larry Burford

USA
1355 Posts

Posted - 02 Dec 2004 : 12:22:41

It would be interesting to know what happens if you redo all of your calculations, from the beginning of course, in the engineering system of units.

LB

Quantoken

USA
19 Posts

Posted - 02 Dec 2004 : 14:49:22

I found it hard to discuss with you. I said again and again I am using the natural units I defined. and I gave the definition of my natural units. You keep taking my words out of context. For example. I said

Now, IN THE NATURAL UNIT SET...
G = 1/(2N)

Clearly I am talking about G's value when expressed in natural units in the above formula. Later when I talk about measured G = 6.674x10^-11, any one has the basic knowledge of common physics constants should know I mean SI unit. You have to convert from SI units to natural units before plugging it into G = 1/(2N) and get N.

The SI units have names, like mass is kilogram, length is meter, time is second. Unfortunately the natural units I defined do NOT have names yet. Their English names have not been invented. So it is impossible for me to spell out the natural unit names in my formula in plain English. But it is not necessary, all I need to tell you is it';s in natural units, and you should be able to do the same calculation.

If you do not know how to convert numbers from one set of units to another set of units, then too bad, it's impossible for you to under any physics then.

Look, there are important physics here. I have a brand new theory which resolves problems like the cosmological constant problem, the Planck Scale problem, the vacuum energy problem, and ultimately the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics into one unified theory. But if we have to dwindle on small details like the exactly unit names, then it is impossible for me to even start to talk about my theory.

Do you at least accept the fact that All stars do radiate energy like our Sun, and the star radiations give the correct amount of radiation energy that do fills the space of the universe, which is the cosmological microwave background we observed? And it is a fact that we do observe this CMB radiation and we do see that stars shine? Do you accept those things we see day and night as facts, not illusions?

If you do accept and acknowledge that stars shine and their radiation energy do not just go away, then we can continue. Otherwise we are not talking about physics.

QUANTOKEN

Larry Burford

USA
1355 Posts

Posted - 04 Dec 2004 : 08:12:40

quote:
[Quantoken]
The SI units have names, like mass is kilogram, length is meter, time is second. Unfortunately the natural units I defined do NOT have names yet. Their English names have not been invented. So it is impossible for me to spell out the natural unit names in my formula in plain English.

What do you mean your natural units don't have names yet? What do you think "m0" is? Or "E0"? These look like names to me.

Maybe what you mean is you don't LIKE these names? I agree, but they are still useable for teaching your idea to others.

Here is a suggestion: since you call your unit system "natural units", make a prefix from the initials and call your stuff names like "nuMeter"and "nuSecond". Then your conversion table will look like this:

* 1 (nuGram) = 1.2483x10^-25 (gram)
* 1 (nuJoule) = 1.121928x10^-11 (joule)
* 1 (nuMeter) = 2.81794x10^-15 (meter)
* 1 (nuSecond) = 9.39964x10^-24 (second)

(Abbreviations? nuGr, nuJ, nuM, nuS)
(Standard prefixes? 1000 nuMeter => 1 kiloNuMeter, or 1 kNuM)

quote:
[Quantoken]
But it is not necessary, all I need to tell you is it's in natural units, and you should be able to do the same calculation.

I guess you must be smarter than I am. Hmmm, maybe an example will help. Would you show me how to calculate N from G? (Please show your work so I can follow along.)

Regards,
LB

Quantoken

USA
19 Posts

Posted - 04 Dec 2004 : 11:04:24

OK, let me give you the example of how to calculate N from G using natural unit.

Find physics constant values from:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html

In SI unit:
G = 6.6742 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

Here the dimentions meter, kg, second all needs to be converted to natural units. Let me call the natural length, mass, time units
nuLength, nuMass, nuTime, or nL, nM, nT:

1 nuLength [nL] = r0 = 2.81794x10^-15 meter
1 nuMass [nM] = m0 = 1.2483x10^-28 kg
1 nuTime [nT] = t0 = 9.39964x10^-24 second

Correspondingly:
1 meter = 1/2.81794x10^-15 = 3.5487x10^14 nL
1 kg = 1/1.2483x10^-28 = 8.011x10^27 nM
1 second= 1/9.39964x10^-24 = 1.06387x10^23 nT

So:
G = 6.6742 x 10-11 * (meter^3) / ((kg^1) * (second^2))
= 6.6742x10^-11 * (3.5487x10^14 nL)^3 /((8.011x10^27 nM) * (1.06387x10^23 nT)^2)
= 6.6742x10^-11 * (3.5487x10^14)^3 /(8.011x10^27 * (1.06387x10^23 )^2) [nL^3 nM^-1 nT^-2]
= 3.2896x10^-41 [nL^3 nM^-1 nT^-2]

Correspondingly:
G = 1/(2N)
N = (1/2)/G = 0.5 * G^-1 nL^3 nM^-1 nT^-2
= 0.5 / 3.2896x10^-41
= 1.52x10^40

Remember N is dimentionless (unit-less). The N from G is slightly larger than the N derived from alpha, the fine structure constant. I attribute it to we do not know the precise measurement of G, due to our technology limitation or the fact that we measure G in the gravitational field of the solar system and the galaxy.

The important thing to remember is I obtained the exact CMB temperature from alpha, matching CMB temperature to an accuracy of 0.025% is an undisputable success of my theory. Since alpha would not change. CMB temperature would not change over time either.

Larry Burford

USA
1355 Posts

Posted - 04 Dec 2004 : 14:31:21

quote:

[Quantoken]
So:
G = 6.6742 x 10-11 * (meter^3) / ((kg^1) * (second^2))
= 6.6742x10^-11 * (3.5487x10^14 nL)^3 /((8.011x10^27 nM) * (1.06387x10^23 nT)^2)
= 6.6742x10^-11 * (3.5487x10^14)^3 /(8.011x10^27 * (1.06387x10^23 )^2) [nL^3 nM^-1 nT^-2]
= 3.2896x10^-41 [nL^3 nM^-1 nT^-2]

Correspondingly:
G = 1/(2N)
N = (1/2)/G = 0.5 * G^-1 nL^3 nM^-1 nT^-2

Your meaning in the last line above is not clear. It is reasonable to assume that you mean for the units of G to move with G to the denominator as it changes sides.

Suggestion - to minimize ambiguity, use parenthetical grouping like you would in a computer program (you are already doing this occasionally, so just do it more):

N = (1/2)/G = 0.5 * (G [nL^3 nM^-1 nT^-2])^-1

or

N = (1/2)/G = 0.5 / (G [nL^3 nM^-1 nT^-2])

quote:

[Quantoken]
= 0.5 / 3.2896x10^-41
= 1.52x10^40

Remember N is dimentionless (unit-less).

???

What did you do with the units? You can't just throw them out.

At this stage of the calculation the RHS of the equation ( 1/2G ) has units of [nM*nT^2/nL^3]. The only way for the equation to balance is if the LHS ( N ) has the same units as the RHS.

N = 0.5 / ( 3.2896x10^-41 [nL^3 nM^-1 nT^-2] )

N = 1.52x10^40 [nM*nT^2/nL^3]

Regards,
LB

Quantoken

USA
19 Posts

Posted - 05 Dec 2004 : 12:02:01

The unit is not important. You can use the British unit sets of foot and pound, or the SI unit of meter and kilogram. There will be no physics by picking up another arbitrary unit sets.

What's important is I discovered the correct NATURAL unit set. The keyword is NATURAL, not "unit". The natural unit set naturally leads to HBAR and C's numerical value equals to one, and it tells us the scale at which time and space becomes discrete. This is not an arbitrary unit set. This is the unit the nature uses.

The establishment science community has their natural unit set, which is called Planck Scale, which is obtained by setting the numerical value of HBAR and C as well as G equal to one. Unfortunately it's totally wrong. And that mistake leads to the so called cosmological constant problem: No matter what way or how they tried, their calculation always leads to a result some 120 orders of magnitude too larger than the actual value. Throughout human history of calculation, there hasn't been another case where one's calculation is off by a bigger margin of discrepancy.

It's perfectly right to set HBAR and C to one in order to try to obtain the natural unit, since these two are true microscopic physics constants. But it is wrong to set G to one, because G is a macroscopic parameter, not a microscopic constant.

To see why it's wrong, let see we create a "natural" set of units by setting HBAR, C, and the height of Quantoken to be exactly one. You would say: no, why should Quantoken's height be used, why not Larry's height. It's irrational. Try to replace it with the diameter of the earth, it is just as irrational. That's because all those parameters are macroscopic numbers and they have no significance in the microscopic world.

Same is true with G. You would thought G is real microscopic constant reflecting how small particles like electron and proton attracts each other gravitationally, on top of other interactions. But that's wrong. G is NOT a microscopic constant. Gravity is a manifestation effect by the whole mass of the universe. So gravity is really NOT a constant, but merely a parameter that could tell us how big the universe is.

Which we could see from the fact that the big number N gives us everything of the universe: The radius or the age of the universe is PI times N. The mass/energy is PI times N squared. The Hawking entropy is PI times the 4-D sphere surface area, which is proportional to N cubic. Mean while, G is the inverse of 2N. Clearly, G reflects the overall space time curvature of the universe.

There are so many "coincidences" that needs serious explanation: Why the radius and age happen to be PI times N while at the same time the mass/energy hapen to PI times N's second power, instead of something like PI*N^1.353285795? Why G happen to be the half of the inverse of the same N. And why the N is associated with fine structure constant alpha in such a simple relationship:
N = PI * exp (2/(3*alpha))
And, finally, why another constant g, which is associated with alpha as well, gives the exact baryon density of the universe (5.4383%). And together they leads to a CMB temperature value which matches perfectly with the precise measured value? And why they leads to the correct value of the Sun's radiation strength as well? At the mean time, calculation using the Sun's radiation as an average also leads to the correct CMB temperature.

All those are NOT coincidences. I have a whole new theory that explains everything naturally, and makes predictions which other theories can not, and which can be and have been precisely verified by experimental data. And my theory explains the cosmologocal constant and the vacumm energy problems that existing science can not explain, among other things.

And I haven't even started to talk about my theory yet. I just gave out a few of my precise calculations here. They don't just come out of a wild guess, they are the naturally and uniquely derived result from my theory.

My theory, I call The "Generalized Universal Information Theory And Relativity" (GUITAR), is based on the belief that the fundamental element of existance in the universe is quantum information, not mass, energy, charge, etc. And even space and time are no longer fundamental. The only fundamental thing is quantum information, which is a finite and conserved quantity in the universe. Spacetime, mass, energy, etc, are all statistical properties. The statistical nature of most physics quantities leads to the uncertainty principle and other oddity in quantum physics.

My theory, GUITAR, has successfully resolves the conflict between gravity and quantum effects. It will naturally leads to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics at macroscopic scale and microscopic scale, respectively. It's the true theory of everything.

To establishment scientists, at this moment, I have just one advice: Gravity does NOT occur and does NOT exist in the microscopic world, nor does spacetime continuum at scale smaller than the radius of electrons. So be careful do NOT use G in any theory related to microscopic quantum efects. Both superstring theory and loop quantum gravity are bound to fail at the end, as long as you continue to use G in your calculations.

Quantoken

Larry Burford

USA
1355 Posts

Posted - 05 Dec 2004 : 16:50:09

N = 1.52x10^40 [nM*nT^2/nL^3]
N <> 1.52x10^40

Topic

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

This page was generated in 0.98 seconds.