Thursday, February 11, 2016

I am back

OK, I am back after a long hiatus. I just want to see that I can still access my account. Fortunately I do. I almost lost the passwords, having not used them for a long time. Thank God for my memory.

Wednesday, October 09, 2013

I am Vindicated on my Prediction Eight Years Ago

Eight years ago, I predicted that there will be a resonance state at either 6*PI/alpha, or 4*PI/alpha:

It comes out that 4*PI/alpha was correct. LHC claims the Higgs Boson discovery at 120 GeV. That energy level was predicted by me:

The mass was at 4*PI/alpha. Alpha being the fine structure constant: 1/alpha = 137.03599911. So 4*PI/alpha = 1722.045.

The mass unit equals electron mass divided by alpha, or 137.03599911 times electron mass, or 137.03599911 * 0.510999 MeV = 70.0252585 MeV.

Thus the resonance state I predicted was 1722.045 * 70.0252585 MeV = 120.58666 GeV. That’s precisely where the “bump” occurs.

Monday, December 03, 2012

I am back

I am coming back to discuss more of my physics research, after a long hiatus. Staty tuned.


Monday, April 04, 2005

Do away with Dark Energy by Space Dusts

Why do we need dark energy to account for critical density of the universe, which is almost 1? It's true that the matter density accounts for only about 30% of needed critical density to obtain a flat universe. But it is also true that scientists have counted only mass of luminent galaxy clusters when they calculate the matter density.

Could it be possible that the huge void between galaxies, contain the other 70%, not in the form of some sort of dark energy, but in some sort of none-luminent space dust, which is just regular baryon matter. Or, the space dust simply do not emit/absorb/reflect any significant number of photons to be detectable by today's technology at all?

Could it be that "dark energy" is simply space dust of regular matters, hidden in the darkness of the universe? That sounds very plausible, consider how low the critical density of the universe is: It averages no more than the mass of 5 protons per cubic meter volume. It is very possible that the density of inter-galaxy space dusts are so diluted, that a photon emitted from 10 billion years away hardly hit a single grain of space dust, before it arrives at earth, but yet it sums up over the whole volume of the universe to account for 70% of the needed critical density?

Let's look at some example we can observe, the micro-meteorites in the vicinity of the solar system. According to this web page:

There are at least 100 tons of material crashing into the earth atmosphere per day. Most of them are micro-meteorites merely a milimeter in diameter. It was also said that all the minerals and metal contents of the earth came from meteorites since the earth's formation.

Let's do an estimate of the density of meteorites per cubic meter of space in the solar system. It can be calculated by divide the mass of meteorites the earth collect in one day, by the volume that the earth swipe through in one day traveling in the orbit around the sun. We know the earth radius is about 6400 km, and it travels about 30 km per second around the sun:

100x10^3 kg / (PI*(6400km)^2 * 86400 seconds * 30km/sec )
= 3x10^-19 kg/m^3

We know the critical density of the universe is only 9x10^-27 kg/m^3, which is only 3x10^-8 of the density of micro meteorites around the earth. Clearly it does NOT take a lot of space dust to account for the 70% missing mass of the universe.

One thing we know is a considerable number of meteorites the earth receives come from outside the solar system. Clearly billions of years circulating around the sun has exhausted most of the space dusts within solar system that can be captured by the earth. It must be the case that such space dusts are being continuously replenished from the void of the universe.

How visible are such space dusts or meteorites around the the earth? What we know is the Hubble Space Telescope can detect big space rocks like hundreds of meters in diameter. But other than that, real small space dusts, like milimeter meteorites, register absolutely no signal, until they become visible crashing down the earth's atmosphere.

There is absolutely no detectability of micro meteorites around earth. And here we are talking about density of space dusts 3.3x10^7 higher than the critical density of the universe, shined on by very intense sun lights, in the vicinity of the earth.

If there is virtually no detectability of space dusts near the earth. What about space dusts that's 3.3x10^7 times more diluted, shined on by star lights that's much dimmer than the sun light at earth distance, and located billions of light years away, instead of in the vicinity of the earth?

You would have to say it's virtually undetectable if such space dusts exist throughout the universe!

Such space dust would not emit much photon to be detected: they are very cold: at equilibrium with the CMB background temperature. Microwave photons are the only thing they may emit. And energy balance would mean they emit as much energy as they absorb.

Could they be detectable by absorbing and shielding certain percentage of star lights from billions of years away, hence making evident their presence? Let's try to calculate the free path distance that an average star light photon would have to travel, before it hits one grain of star light, and be absorbed.

Let's assume the star dust is radius one milimeter grains, and their density is 5 grams per cubic centimeter. That would be 2x10^-5 kg per grain. And each grain of dust provides a cross section of about 3x10^-6 m^2. The mass per grain divided by the critical density of the universe should give the average volume occupied by each grain, which is 2.2x10^21 m^3, which is huge.

2.2x10^21 m^3 volume per grain of space dust, divided by the cross-section of the grain, should give the free path distance of how far a photon can travel before hitting a space dust. My result is 7.4x10^26 meter free path. That is a huge free path distance.

Converting to light years:
7.4x10^26 meter / (3x10^8 m/sec * 31557825 second/year) = 7.8 x10^10 light years

We know the radius of the universe is only 1.4 x10^10 light years. So the free path of star light photons are several times bigger than even the ratius of the universe.

Which means there is only a fractional chance that photons from stars billions of light years away would ever hit a space dust, and be absorbed, before it can arrive at the earth.

No wonder the space of the universe is SO transparent, despite of all the space dust that constitute 70% of the mass of the universe.


Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Vacuum energy and Casimir Effect

I have to bring people's attention to this paper which just shows up and which meantions your name:

The Jaffe paper

and comments here.

I totally agree with Jaffe, plus some of my own opinions:

1.There is a total lack of experimental evidence for vacuum energy, other than the theoreticalCasimir Effect.

2.There is a total lack of experimental evidence for Casimir Effect, except for the Lamoreaux experiment, and maybe a few variety. The Lamoreaux experiment was admittedly conducted using lab scratch materials no more than $300, and not re-produced by any one.

3.The theoretical Casimir force, being an attractive force inverse proportional to the 4th power of the gap, is EXTREMELY distance sensitive, and could NOT have been measured using a Lamoreaux torque balance method. Since a stable equilibrium of force can not be acquired. (Force from a torque is only proportional to the 1st power of displacement).

4.Whatever microscopic forces Lamoreaux or others have measured. If it is measured correctly it is merely Van de Waals force between surfaces of metal plates.

I might also dare to say that my background allows me to know a bit more about experiments on surfaces of condensed matters, than theoretists who study particles at high energies.


Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Evidence for "Accelerating Universe" Questionable

Theoretists must be careful not to go too far, before coming back to re-exam some of the most crucial experimental evidences presented and see exactly how trust worthy those data are.

The original paper presenting the "most reliable" evidence of an "accelerating universe" is none other than this, if you have the patience to go over 53 pages of technicalities of data filtration and manipulation tricks to extract the useful data:

I must point out the fact that NOT A SINGLE paper has published questioning the validity of the data or the method used in extracting the data. Such a unanimousity of voice regarding a piece of crucial experimental data is dangerous, especially consider how miniscure the data is.

Put it this way: The whole "accelerating universe" idea that the whole science community is talking about, is based on no more than a few dozen stray photons collected over the course of a couple hundred hours exposure time, and extracted from amoung other heavenly photons, using very complicated computation models.

Let's look at two images. First this one is the 1995 image, before the allerged supernova:

This is the 1997 image, where the supernova happened:

Compare the two, you can identify the SAME insignificantly dim yellow dots, seemingly have almost the same brightness, before and after the supernova. (if you have difficulty identifying the dot in the first image, just start from the center and search along the 3 o'clock or 3:30 direction, you will see it).

That tiny little dot is not even the supernova itself. It is merely the remote galaxy the supernova sits in. That dot is almost of the same brightness, meaning that photons attributable to the galaxy ifself far exceeds photons attributable to the supernova.

The whole galaxy is only one dot of no more than a few pixels. How would you extract photos from that supernova, and distinguish them from the background of the galaxy, which is one or two orders more photons. And be able to analysis the spectrum of the supernova, and tell what type it is?

The author claimed the data would require a resolution of better than 1/10 of one pixel, to be able to distinguish SN photons from the (much stronger) background (of the host galaxy). That's a stretch 10 times better than the optical resolution itself, and requires impossible stability of the Hubble to not have shaked a bit during several months of observation.

The photon counts is just too low to be much meaningful, IMO. During hundreds of hours of observation, one stray photons bunced by a space dust is enough to leave a dot on the image.

Why no one has ever raised the question of the credibility of the data?


Sunday, March 06, 2005

Mass of Top Quark calculated

I announce here I have successfully derived the correct mass of top quark, from GUITAR theory.

Before I provide the details, please reference my previous result, where I obtained the correct mass of proton, and the precise mass of neutron, up to 10 decimal places accuracy, using the best known neutron decay lifetime:

As you see in my previous reasoning, the intrinsic mass should equal to the entropy, i.e., the logarithm of number of intrinsic states, divided by ln(2). For proton, it's ln(2*(1*1! + 3*5! + 7!))/ln(2).

For top quark, I figured out due to confinement, it's number of intrinsic states are

Omega = exp(4*PI/alpha), with alpha being the well known fine structure constant.

So the mass of top quark is:

Mt = ln(Omega)/ln(2)

Mt = (4*PI/alpha)/ln(2)

That value agrees with experimental value completely.

Keep in mind I am using the natural unit set in GUITAR, in which the fundamental mass unit M0 equals to electron mass divided by alpha, i.e., about 137 times electron mass.

Mt = (4*PI/alpha)/ln(2) * M0
Mt = (4*PI*137.03599911/ln(2)) * M0
Mt = 2484.386 * M0
Mt = 2484.386 * 137.03599911 * Me
Mt = 340450 * Me

We know Me (electron mass) is 0.511 Mev. So that gives the top quark mass to be:
Mt = 340450 * 0.511 MeV = 173970 MeV.

That completely agrees with the experimentally measured value of 174 GeV, within experimental error! See:

I further predicts that there will be a first excitement state right at
Mt' = (6*PI)/alpha

which figures to about 180.88 GeV.

I shall provide more detail later, plus calculation of other quarks. But any one with a calculate can verify the above result in one minute.