Friday, November 18, 2005 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Congratulations to Devin Walker

Clifford Johnson at CosmicVariance was thrilled when he learned that he belongs among my favorite people. So let me generate a new thrill. I like Devin Walker, much like many other people like him. We widely expect that tomorrow, he will become the first US-born and US-educated African American to earn a PhD degree from the physics department at Harvard. So let me say in a preliminary fashion: Congratulations, Devin!

Note added later: We had some sparkling wine and cakes. Melissa Franklin, who was on the committee, said "Welcome to the 20th century, Harvard". Of course, the celebration is a fun event with a lot of people attending.

Unfortunately our computer network here is down so we can't do anything that depends on our files etc.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (7) :

reader Quantoken said...

Clifford is the only guy out in CosmicVariance that shows some intelligence no because he is black. But because he is quite aware of the reality. He plant vegetables in his backyard and rides a brompton bicycle, so he may be aware of the pending world energy crisis.

The rest are not very bright. Sean posted about using tiny gravity to deflect asteriods heading the earth's way. It's really refreshing to see such low level of intelligence. A guy who spend his lifetime studying gravity but yet has no idea how weak gravity is. He is clearly unable to do some numerical estimation, and so he can't see why there could be a coule thousand much easier ways to transfer a larger amount of momentum to the asteriod, therefore better deflect its path for a much greater quantity. Simply smash the spaceship onto the asteriod would have achieved a much better result than using the gravity "tug".

Mean while, the natural gas crisis is unfolding. Today the natural gas price goes up another 7-8%, on top of yesterday's 20-40%. Remember, just 4 or 5 years ago, it was only $2 for a thousand cubic feet. Now it's more than $12. By the end of this winter it could be $20.

reader nigel said...


You said here that you can calculate the mass of any particle. You do involke 137 in it, which I'm claiming to prove is the ratio of the core charge of an electron to the shielded strength observed at a distance (the shielding being due to the polarised vacuum).

This way, I get a heuristic explanation for using 137 to predict particle masses. 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.

This formula is right for the muon and all hadrons within a few percent. Statistically, you can test it using Chi-squared or Student's t distribution, with random numbers as null hypothesis, and you get confirmation better than criminal use of fingerprint statistics. It can't be concidence that all those particle masses measured fall so close to the formula. And it has mechanism.

I can't evaluate your GUITAR analysis because you are cagy about the mechanism involved and how you get your formulae.

Are you just doing what Eddington did, when he came up with a quadratic equation containing 10 and 137 which gave roots in the ratio of proton/electron mass? or are you sure it is not coincidence?


reader Quantoken said...

Your theory is a crackpot theory. I have carefully evaluated your web site discussing the 377 Ohm thing. Your whole thing is based on the coincidence that e^3 is approximately 20. That's numerology. Also the inverse of alpha is not 137 and has nothing to do with 137 the prime number. So anything that contains an exact 137 is also numerology.
There are details in my QUITAR theory that I am simply not ready to reveal at this point. Once I am ready to do so people will be forced to take me seriously. If my theory can precisely calculate those misterious constants and show where they come from, you've got to take it seriously.

reader nigel said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

reader nigel said...

As for 137:

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.

reader nigel said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

reader nigel said...

Dear Quantoken,

The effective density of the distant receding universe is higher because we are seeing it when it was younger, and the density was higher at earlier times! However, it is not infinite density at the greatest distances, because the divergence partly offsets the rise in density. Another way to visualise this divergence is the stretching out of gauge bosons coming from earlier times (great distances), in the same way that redshifted light from those distances is just "stretched photons".

The e^3 result is NOT ANY COINCIDENCE, but comes as follows:

Mass continuity equation for the galaxies in the space-time of the receding universe: dρ/dt + div.(ρv) = 0


dρ/dt = -div.(ρv)

dx = dy = dz = dr, where r is radius

Hence divergence (div) term -div.(ρv) = -3d(ρv)/dx

For spherical symmetry

Hubble equation

v = Hr


dρ/dt = -div.(ρv) = -div.(ρHr) = -3d(ρHr)/dr

= -3ρHdr/dr

= -3ρH

So dρ/dt = -3ρH. Rearranging:

-3Hdt = (1/ρ) dρ. Integrating:

-3Ht = (ln ρ1) – (ln ρ). Using the base of natural logarithms (e) to get rid of the ln’s:

e^(-3Ht) = density ratio

Because H = v/r = c/(radius of universe) = 1/(age of universe, t) = 1/t:

e-3Ht = density ratio

= e^[-3(1/t)t] = e^-3 = 1/20

Another way to analyse it is to calculate numerically the gauge boson pressure from increasing shells around the observer, which cause gravity and electromagnetism.

If you look at the actual mechanism by which QFT gauge bosons cause forces, you can get the whole thing from pushing. Similar charges recoil apart since the exchange between them is stronger than the red-shifted gauge bosons from the surrounding universe that are pushing them together, whereas opposite charges shield one another and are thus pushed together. Gravity, as D. R. Lunsford concluded his paper on the subject, is a residual of electromagnetism. Electromagnetism is 10^40 times gravity because the gauge boson exchange between similar charges addes up in a statistical drunkard’s walk, whereby the vector sum is equal to one step times the square root of the total number of steps, and there are 10^80 similar charges in the universe.

It’s obvious that there is no way string theory is going to deal with gravity strength or mechanism, because these numbers can’t come out of any string theory. You have to look at the heuristic explanation of GR and QFT, plus the empirical facts of the big bang (not ‘facts’ derived from naive assumptions that gravity has no mechanism in the universe).

The 377-ohm vacuum impedance discussion has been removed from my page. Everytime someone says there's something on my page which isn't helpful, I remove it.

Your GUITAR may have useful elements in it, but it is likely to be incomplete.

Best wishes,