quantoken

Do away with Dark Energy by Space Dusts

2005-04-04T18:41:00.000-07:00

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:
http://www.seds.org/nineplanets/nineplanets/meteorites.html

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.

Quantoken

Vacuum energy and Casimir Effect

2005-03-22T20:35:00.000-08:00

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.

Quantoken

Evidence for "Accelerating Universe" Questionable

2005-03-16T16:12:00.000-08:00

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:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104455

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:

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0104/03supernova/

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?

Quantoken

Mass of Top Quark calculated

2005-03-06T00:17:00.000-08:00

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:

http://quantoken.blogspot.com/2005/02/proton-and-neutron-mass-from-guitar.html

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:
http://www.superstringtheory.com/experm/exper2a.html

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.

Quantoken

Don't become a scientist

2005-03-04T11:49:00.000-08:00

I originally posted this on Peter Woit's BLOG. But I figure I want to keep a copy here in case it's lost or be deleted.

Peter is one of those few scientists "in the circle" who is able to speak out about something wrong with the state of theoretical physics research nowadays. For that I admire him. But while he sees problems with the establishment theories. I am a bit take back that he is NOT willing to look at some alternative approaches and make some judgement. In another word, just like one of his criticizer criticized, he has nothing to add or offer on top of criticizing string theory.

Petro:

You are going to have a miserable life with little achieved, if you want to get into the field of theoretical physics research. As the state it is it is unlikely going any where until something is changed. You can not afford to waste your life on a pursuit that every indications show it's not going any where within your limited lifespan.

Please read this:

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2004/12/dont-become-scientist.html

And read this:

http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html

And this, too, to open your mind a bit:

http://www.suppressedscience.net

And this, to see what exile scientists are like:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

It is completely possible to make a much easier and more comfortable living on something more connected to reality, while at the same time pursuit some interests in fundamental physics research, with total freedom of mind, like I do. Einstein was a very young (26) amateur "crackpotist" who barely graduated from college, and would be unable to publish anything on today's ARXIV, when he made some of the greatest discovery in human history, within a period of just one year. Relatively, his professional career in his second half of lifetime achieved virtually nothing. See my blog:
http://quantoken.blogspot.com

Quantoken

GUITAR prediction of He4 Abundance in the Universe

2005-03-02T23:45:00.000-08:00

The Big Bang theory claims the calculation of He4 abundance in the universe as one of the three pillars supporting the BB theory. They further claim that virtually all of the He4 in the universe was synthesised within the first 3 minutes of the Big Bang, and that He4 synthesised during thermal nuclear reactions in stars does not constitute a significant amount.

Nothing could be further from truth. The existence of supernova explosions along tells you that a significant stars could exhaust almost all hydrogen and synthesised a big portion of He4 by the time of supernova erruption.

I will show here how the correct amount of abundance of He4 in the universe can be obtained from thermal nuclear processes in stars, therefore leaving zero percent of He4 to be explained by the BigBang.

I will start with the same g factor I derived a while ago, which was used to obtain the correct baryon density, the correct CMB temperature, and the correct solar radiation constant. Basically:
g = (2/PI)*sqrt(alpha), alpha = fine structure constant.
We know:
(Baryon density)/(Critical density) = g = 5.4383%
(CMB energy density)/(Critical density) = g^3/PI = g^2/PI * 5.4383%

So the ratio of radiation energy (CMB) to luminant mass (baryon density) is
g^2/PI = (4/PI^3)*alpha

Now, let's start with all hydrogens, and allow a certain percentage (p) of hydrogen to synthesis into He4. During this process a certain amount of mass turns into the energy. Let see how much that amount is.

The thermal nuclear process goes like 4 hydrogens turn into one He4 plus some energy release. Look up the atomic weight of Hydrogen and He4:

Hydrogen: 1.008
He4: 4.0026

The loss of mass, which is converted into energy, during this process is:
Delta E = Delta M = 1.008 * 4 - 4.0026 = 0.0294

Compare this mass change (energy release) with the mass of hydrogen:
0.0294/(4 * 1.008) = 0.007292

Please note how extremely that ratio is close to alpha (1/137.036). Actually it should be exactly alpha if it were not for the uncertainty of atomic weights.

So when hydrogen is turned into He4, alpha of the total mass is turned into energy.

Half of that energy will be carried away by the neutrino, and the other half released as radiation. So

(P: Percentage of Hydrogen converted) * 0.5 * alpha = CMB/Baryon
(P/2)*alpha = g^2/PI = (4/PI^3)*alpha

Therefore we get p, which is the percentage of Hydrogen converted into He, which is also the He abundance in the universe:

(P/2) = 4/PI^3
P = (2/PI)^3
P = 25.8%

So we obtained He abundance of 25.8%, which agrees perfectly with the observed value of one quarter.

This falsifies the Big Bang completely, just as the star radiation energy falsifies CMB as Big Bang remains. The problem is we KNOW thermal nuclear reactions happen in stars. So stars do radiate the right amount of energy for CMB, as well as generate the right amount of He4 in the process to account for the 1/4 He4 abundance.

The problem for Big Bang is we have to attribute 100% of the observed amount of He4 as generated by stars, that leaves no He4 to be generated in the first 3 minutes of Big Bang. Like wise we have to attribute 100% of CMB energy to star radiation energy, which again leaves 0% to be atrributed as remains of Big Bang.

And the third pillar of Big Bang, the Hubble redshift, has successfully been explained as the universal relativity, due to limited and closed spacetime of the universe. So that's a complete success on the GUITAR part and complete failure of the Big Bang model.

This absolutely is NOT numerology! The g was exactly derived from first principle in GUITAR, when I have time I will show exactly where that (2/PI) factor came from, and the same g is used to obtain baryon density, CMB temperature, solar radiation constant, and He4 abundance. The same g = (2/PI)*sqrt(alpha)!

Quantoken

Great Blunders of the Great Bohr-Einstein Debate

2005-03-01T23:32:00.000-08:00

The Bohr Einstein debate of the light box gedanken experiment was probably one of the best well known scientific debates. But rarely any one noticed that both of these two great men made fatal mistakes in the logoc of their argument.

Bohr's detailed recount of the debate can be read here:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/dk/bohr.htm

In summary, Einstein proposed a light box in which a fast acting shuttle releases a photon at a very precise moment. Before and after the release of the photon, the total weight of the light box can be weighed arbitrarily accurately to deduce the exactly mass-energy of the photon release. Therefore, both the photon's emitting time and mass-energy can be known to arbitrary precision, hence break the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which says the time and energy can not both be known precisely.

Bohr could not dispute Einstein's arguments. He could not sleep and spent the whole night desperately trying to find an argument to disprove Einstein. Next morning he did figure out a way to rescue the uncertainty principle, using time dilation of Einstein's own General Relativity. Einstein never thought his own theory will be used against his arguments. So Einstein was defeated.

But what Einstein never realized was that Bohr's logic was frauded. Intentionally or un-intentionally, he confused two completely different logical concept. One is the uncertainty of time measurement, Delta T, which should be the time internal during which the shuttle is open. Another concept, also expressed using the same symbol Delta T, is the time difference caused by time dilation due to general relativity.

See equation (7). The Delta T there was general relativity time dilation. It is definite, know, precisely calculable quantity. It is the difference between two clocks and has absolutely nothing to do with uncertainty of time measurement.

Bohr successfully confused Einstein by using the same symbol to represent both the time dilation and time uncertainty, two different quantities, and treat them as if they are the same thing. A confused Einstein got lost and could not see that Logic Fraud.

But certainly, Einstein's argument was also frauded, but for a totally different reason that Bohr also failed to see. That is, a photon of certain energy has a certain frequency and wavelength. If you open the shuttle for too short a time, shorter than one period of oscillation of the photon's frequency, then you would not be able to release a full photon. You would have choped a whole wavelength of the photon in halfs. Therefore, you either have not release a photon of the expected frequency, or you have released a photon who has a shorted wavelength and higher frequency.

In any case, the emitted photon would have a wavelength shorted than the distance light can travel within the short time interval that the shuttle is opened. So the uncertainty principle is still exactly true.

Quantoken

Millenium Math Problem; Existence of Mass Gap in Yang Mills Theory

2005-02-23T17:24:00.000-08:00

The problem of existence of mass gap in the Yang Mills Theory is one of the 7 Millenium Math Problems of the Cray Institute.

My research has solved the mass gap problem! The answer, surprisingly, is that the mass gap does NOT exist in Yang-Mills theory. Not only I have proved positively that in mathematics, Yang-Mills theory does not yield a definite mass gap, I have also proved that even if Yang Mills Theory does yield a definite mass gap mathematically, it still does NOT result in the physical mass gap we see in the real world.

My conclusion is that the mass gap DOES EXIST in the physical world. But also that the physical mass gap does NOT come from Yang Mills Theory, which is a theory based on infinite spacetime.

The real physical mass gap arises from the FINITENESS of spacetime, i.e., it is only because our universe is finite and enclosed, that we observe a mass gap, and strong and weak interactions therefore has a limited range.

The proof that mass gap does not exist in Yang Mills theory is actually extremely simple. All you need to do is a little bit scale transformation. i.e., try to like say scale space coordinates X into beta*X, you will find that the beta can lump into a separable coefficient and be removed, so you result in exactly the same Yang Mills Theory. But the original Yang Mills theory would lead to a mass gap of Delta, and the new form of Yang Mills Theory will lead to (Delta/beta), with everything else equal. So Delta = Delta/beta for arbitrary beta, therefore Delta === 0.

The insight of why Yang Mills, or for that purpose ANY existing theory, does NOT yield a mass gap, is that all of these theories lack of an essential constant without which it is impossible to lead to a definite calculation of the value of a mass gap, therefore they can not possibly lead to a definite and none-zero mass gap.

Yang Mills and all existing quantum theory takes these two constants as input: light speed C, and Planck constant hbar. It is very easy to show that using just these two constants, there is NO way you can put up a formula which combines these two constants and calculates a value of the unit of mass, or energy.

You need a further input into the theory, a characteristic mass, or a characteristic length scale, to be able to arrive at a definite mass gap value. GUITAR is the only theory capable of doing it.

Quantoken

GUITAR Predictions of Muon Mass

2005-02-23T01:15:00.000-08:00

Previously I disclosed that GUITAR leads to precise prediction of neutron to electron mass ratio, accurate to 10 decimal places and agrees with the experimental value completely. See:
http://quantoken.blogspot.com/2005/02/proton-and-neutron-mass-from-guitar.html

The same reasoning connecting decay lifetime to particle mass can be applied to Muon as well, and it also leads to amazingly precise results.

Before we start let me emphasis again that I am using the natural unit set where hbar = c = 1, and electron mass Me = alpha. In the natural unit, one time unit is
T0 = 9.399637148x10^-24 seconds

Also, recall that the observational "age" of the universe is:
Tu = PI*N
with
N = PI * exp(2/(3*alpha)) = 1.4898x10^40

First, the Muon decay lifetime is:
ln (Tau) = 40 - alpha, with alpha = fine structure constant.
Which gives:
Tau = exp(40-alpha) = exp (40 - 1/137.03599911) = 2.3367383x10^17
Certainly, keep in mind our results are in natural unit set, to convert back to MKS unit:
Tau = 2.3367383x10^17 * T0 = 2.3367383x10^17 * 9.399637148x10^-24 seconds
Tau = 2.19645 x10^-6 seconds
That agrees excellently wiht experimental value of Tau = 2.19703x10^-6 seconds.

Now let's calculate the Muon mass:

Mu = beta,
with
beta^2 = ln (Tu)/ln(PI*Tau)
beta^2 = ln (PI*N) /ln (PI*2.3367383x10^17)
beta^2 = ln (PI*1.4898253x10^40)/ln(PI*2.3367383x10^17)
beta^2 = 2.27645
So
beta = sqrt(2.27645) = 1.5088
So
Mu = 1.5088

That is it. That is the result. We have found the Mu mass to be 1.5088.

How come? remember we are using the natural unit set, in which Me = alpha.
So:
Mu/Me = 1.5088/alpha = 1.5088 * 137.03599911 = 206.760

The most precise experimental value of muon to electron mass ratio is:
Mu/Me = 206.768
(See: http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mmusmesearch_for=muon+mass)

So my theoretical value of muon mass has at least 6 effective decimal places. Not bad at all.

Quantoken

Lee Smolin, Surely You Were Wrong

2005-02-11T04:40:00.000-08:00

There have been a heated discussion by Marcus et al:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=61041
Which is about these paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501191
And an earlier one by Lee Smolin:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0311163

What interested those people are the claim that they obtained a dimensionless coupling constant, which equals G*Lambda, i.e., gravity constant times the cosmological constant, the number is claimed to be very small, 10^-120, so that "it becomes amenable for perturbation theory which doesn't break general covariance".

These folks have been completely wrong in this and I am going to talk about why. To start, let me re-write their dimensionless coupling constant in a more explicit form, so omitted parameters like hbar and C can be properly recognized.

In their foot note they said:
"We work in units where c and 16*PI*hbar = 1, so G means 16*PI*hbar*G = lp^2 which is the Planck length"

So, they are claiming a coupling constant:
alpha_g = lp^2/L^2, with lp the Planck length and L the radius of the universe.
Or in another note:
alpha_g = G * hbar /(C^3*L^2)
The units indeed work out to cancel each other to yield a dimensionless number, and that number can be convenient calculated using my natural unit sets:
G = 1/(2N), L = PI*N, hbar = C = 1, N ~= 1.5x10^40
alpha_g = (1/(2N)) /(PI*N)^2 = 1/(2*PI^2*N^3) = 1.5x10^-122
That agrees with their estimate of 10^-120, though they are off by two oders of magnitude. But that small discrepancy is NOT what I am talking about why they were wrong.

The form of
alpha_g = G * hbar /(C^3*L^2) (1)
is wrong, and the result is off by 80 orders of magnitude!!!

Comparing with the EM fine structure constant
alpha = e^2/(hbar*C)
We would expect the gravity coupling constant to take the form
alpha_g = G*M^2/(hbar*C) (2)
Where M is an appropriate characteristic mass.

So far, both the super string camp and LQG camp took the Planck Scale for granted. So they would naturally use M = planck mass as the characteristic mass. You immediately see that that is wrong and is not going any where, since once you plug it in, alpha_g=== 1, which trivializes it to a meanless parameter!!!! The Planck Scale is wrong and leads both camp to no where!

Now, let's see what is the characteristic mass, in the new claim of alpha_g = 10^-120:
alpha_g = G*hbar/(C^3*L^2) = G*M^2/(hbar*C)
M^2 = hbar^2/(C^2*L^2)
or
M*C^2 = hbar * (C/L) = hbar * frequency
We immediately recognize what it is: the characteristic mass energy equals to the mass-energy of a photon, whose wavelength is about equal to the radius of the universe, or in another word, whose period is not 10^-14second, but about equal to the age of the universe!!!! The EM wave corresponding to such a photon are of such low frequency that it has NOT finished oscillation of a single cycle yet since the "birth" of the universe!!!!

What a ridiculously small characteristic mass. No wonder their alpha_g is wrong.

Why do theoretical physicists have to go extreme? They either use the Planck mass, which is ridiculously too high. Or they use the mass-energy of a photon which oscillate at the cycle of age of the universe, which is ridiculously too small!!!

Can't they use a characteristic mass which MAKES SENSE? Such a characteric mass should be the mass scales of elementary particles. My theory says it should be the unit of natural mass unit, which is about 137.036 times the mass of an electron.

Using that correct characteristic mass, the correct alpha_g coupling constant should be
alpha_g = G = 1/(2N) = 3.3x10^-41

Quantoken

Eddington and Other Scientific Frauds

2005-02-10T07:34:00.000-08:00

The science community needs to set its record straight! It has been brain-washing the young generations by glorifying scientific frauds committed in the history, some by the most distinguished scientists.

The so called Eddington 1919 solar eclipse experiment is one of those frauds. It allergedly claimed to have confirmed the prediction of Einstein's general relativity. Many people have repeated pointed out that under Eddington's experimental condition, it is simply impossible to obtain any data that is accurate and credible to show the GR light bending, because the effect is just too small to be observed.

But students were continuously taught that the 1919 experiment was one of the greatest experiments and it "convincingly" verified the GR prediction. It's not just in textbooks. The most respected scientists today also repeated torted the Eddington's 1919 experiment as a great success, see http://relativity.livingreviews.org/

Why the scientists refuse to set the hostoric record straight?!

I do not doubt the validity of the GR theory and probably believe it even if there hasn't been no experiemental support, as logn as there is no experiments contradicting it either. But whether an experiment is credible or not should not be biased by one's prejudice regarding theories! I carefully reviewed more than a dozen different experiments "confirming" GR, and concluded none of them are any more credible than the Eddington 1919 experiment. Not even the binary pulsar experiment, for which the researchers were awarded the Nobel Prize, was credible. The onlything that can claim tje credibility of data accuracy is the perihelious precession of the Mercury, which unfortunately has been given alternative explanations which are just as accurate.

The so called Casimir Effect experiment was also a fraud. Casimir force could not have been measured using a balanced torque experiment, due to the reason that the Casimir force is extremely sensitive to distance: it is inverse porportion to the FOURTH POWER of the vacuum gap (distance). You CAN NOT find another force which is as sensitive and allow the system to reach a stable equilibrium between the attractive force of Casimir and the balancing repulsive force. See this about Casimir Effect:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/6

The widespread of scientific fraud in today's scientific community is evident once you study the incidence around the so called "cold fusion" a few years ago. We now know it was a complete fraud. But at that time, many, not one group, but HUNDREDS of research groups claimed to have reproduced the effect. Were not because there were still a few honest people remaining in the scientific camp, who dared to question it at all, were it not for those honest people, probably the "cold fusion" would have become a widely accepted scientific "fact" already.

The Big Bang Theory is one such a crackpot theory that gets wide acceptance. Eddington played another infamous role in pushing for its acceptance. We know the Eddington calculated star radiation a long time before CMB was discovered, and he correctly PREDICTED the existence of CMB with an accurate 3K temperature figure. However, later one, for the purpose of promoting the Big Bang theory, which fits the needs of Eingstein's GR theory, Eddington choose to SUPPRESS his own scientific discovery, and never meantioned his star radiation calculation any more!!!

[Note: See this for a detailed description why Big Bang is wrong:]
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

As I showed, I obtained the completely correct CMB temperature of 2.724K, well within experimental error, since the observed data is 2.725+-0.005K. I used nothing but the assumption that CMB energy came from star radiation energy. Any one who wants to explain CMB as anything other than star radiation, must explain away where does the energy radiated by stars go!!!

Quantoken

Proton and Neutron Mass from GUITAR

2005-02-06T06:05:00.000-08:00

Once we have discovered the natural unit set, which is also the scale of natural discreteness of spacetime. Now let's try to figure out the mass of proton and mass of neutron.

Actually, the mass of proton and mass of neutron, expressed in terms of kilogram, are in factor mass ratio of these particles against that standard one kilogram alloy metal chuck, whose mass is really not very precise known due to the limitation of technology. I would rather talk about the mass ratio between these particles against the mass of electron. That mass ratio is more precisely known.

From particle collider experiments, we know there must be a 3 fold microstructure within the proton. Gell-man used that 3-fold structure discovery to construct a model of quarks of 3 different flavors, to describe that 3-fold structure. Which is OK. But for now let's forget about quarks, and think about what that 3-fold structure tells us.

It is a structure unknowable to us, you can never disasseble that structure, and exam an individual quark. But we may be able to figure out how many distinguishable different ways that 3-fold structure can be constructued. That would tell us the entropy. With that we can calculate the mass.

I am not going to reveal all the details, But I find that given if the structure is constructed using a building element of 3 different flavors, there is exactly one way of forming one solid piece, and exact one way when all three pieces are separated from each other. And there are 3 ways one separate from the group of the other two. That's (1, 3, 1). When I futher study how many different ways within each scenary they can interact with each other, there are (1, 5!,7!) ways respectively.

So the total number of intrisic states are:

Wi = (1,3,1) * (1,5!7!) = (1x1 + 3*5! + 1*7!) = 1 + (3*5!) + 7!

Isn't that elegant? Now don't forget that externally, for proton, it has a spin up and spin down state. That's two different states. The total number of states would then be two multiplied by the intrisic number of states above:
W = Wspin * Wi = 2x(1+3*5!+7!)
The entropy then would be
S = ln(Wi)
The simplest structure has two states, 0, 1, and the entropy is ln(2).

So that's it. We have obtained the proton mass! Since proton is considered a point particle so far and NO geometric factor is involved, it's entropy from interla states corresponds to its mass linearly:

Mp = S/ln(2) = ln(W)/ln(2) = ln(2*(1+3*5!+7!))/ln(2)
Mp = ln(10802)/ln(2) = 13.39901083

That is the proton mass! Although we have used some simplicifications so far. It agrees with experimental value excellently!

How come? Remember we are using the natural units so far. In the matural unit set, the electron mass is:
Me = alpha * M0 = alpha = 1/137.03599911 = 7.297352568x10^-3

Let's see the mass ratio between proton and electron:
Mp/Me = 13.39901083/7.297352568x10^-3
Mp/Me = 1836.146836

My calculation matches excellently with the accepted value of 1836.15, See
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mpsmesearch_for=proton+mass

The discrepancy is 3x10^-6, i.e., three parts out of a million. The actual value is slightly higher than my calculation. I believe this is due to the fact that protons may decay, slightly raise the mass, although the mass raise is so small, that the delay must be outrageously slow to be detectable at all.

My speculation is confirmed in the case of neutron, whose delay time is known. And I obtained a glorious success in obtaining the neutron mass, which agrees with experimental value completely, and so confirms my speculation that limited delay life really do increase the mass slightly.

Neutron can be considered as simply a proton combined with an electron. So it's mass could have been simply the theoretical proton mass calculated above, plus the electron mass. The presumed electric interaction energy between the positively charged proton and negatively changed electron, shall not be counted, because externally, electric field resulting from such interaction is none-observable. So it does not exist as long as it is not observable.

However, the electron mass within a neutron is not the regular electron mass we know. It has a limited lifespan staying within the neutron (it can decay and be emitted out), so the delay mean lifetime increases the mass by a factor of beta^2, with beta related to the delay lifetime, compared to the "age of the universe".

We have:

Mn - Mp = Me * beta^2,

with

beta = ln (Tu/sqrt(PI)) / ln((sqrt(2)/PI) * Tau/sqrt(PI))

where Tu is the age of the universe, and Tau is the neutron decay mean lifetime.

Keep in mind we are using the natural unit set, discussed in my previous message on this BLOG. In which the unit of time:
T0 = time for light to go across the length of one classical electron radius
T0 = 9.399637148(94)x10^-24 second

And Tu, in natural unit set, is simply:
Tu = PI*N,
with N = PI*exp(2/(3*alpha)),
alpha = fine structure constant = 1/137.03599911(46)

The neutron delay mean lifetime can be found here:
http://www.physi.uni-heidelberg.de/physi/publications/ckm_hartmann.pdf

The most precise result found in the paper is 885.4 +- 0.4 seconds. The author averages all accurate and inaccurate results and obtained 885.7 +- 0.8 seconds, which is also what the internationally accepted value of 885.7 +- 0.8 seconds. I think it is wrong to dilute the accuracy by averaging in inaccurate results. So I simply use the most accurate one, 885.4 +- 0.4 seconds.
If any one wants to use 885.7+-0.8 seconds, OK, and the end conclusion is still the same.

Based on the above Tu and Tau, any one with a good calculator can calculate beta, and then the correction of neutron mass from proton mass from beta^2:

Beta = 93.07442757(31) / 58.43688(50)
Beta = 1.592734(14)
Beta^2 = 2.536802(46)

So:

Mn/Me = (Mp/Me) + beta^2
Mn/Me = 1836.1468368(60) + 2.536802(46)

Mn/Me = 1838.683638(46)

Or in another way, Mn/Me is between
1838.683592 to 1838.683684

The large argin of error is due to the inaccuracy of known neutron delay lifetime, 885.4 +- 0.4 seconds.

Compare my result with the accepted value:
Mn/Me = 1838.6836598(13)
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mnsmesearch_for=neutron+mass

My result agrees with the accepted value completely within margin of error, with 10 effective decimal places!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quantoken

Predictions of the GUITAR theory

2005-02-05T04:42:00.000-08:00

The GUITAR theory, Generalized Universal Information Theory And Relativity, is based on a well established quantum mechanical principle, expanded to the whole universe. In quantum mechanics, you can not go from a pure state to mixed states, nor can you go from mixed states to a pure state. What it says is the conservation of quantum information.

One of the fundamental principle of GUITAR is that the total quantum information of the universe, is a discrete, finite, and conserved quantity. Quantum information can not be created nor be destroyed.

The discreteness of quantum information leads to the uncertainty principle and other quantum mechanics principle. The finiteness of universal quantum information leads to a finite and enclosed spacetime of this universe, and results in the gravity we observe, which can be described as the curvature of spacetime. So GUITAR theory not only explains QM, it explains GR as well.

I am going to show some very specific and very accurate calculation results derived from GUITAR. All of them achieved amazing accuracy when compared against best known experimental results. Especially the calculation of neutron to electron mass ratio, accurate to 10 (TEN) decimal places.

I will show how these parameters are calculated: the effective "age" of the universe, the CMB temperature, the baryon density in the universe, the expectant value of the solar constant, the Pioneer Anormality Acceleration, and the proton and neutron mass.

All calculations will be based solely on the fine structure constant, alpha, and known parameters of an electron, and nothing else. Actually only alpha is truely needed, the electron is only needed because I needed to define the unit set to be able to make contact with the usual form of physics unit systems, i.e., I need a ruler to measure the quantity of time, length, mass, and energy.

The natural unit system is constituted by:
M0 The natural mass unit
E0 The matural energy unit
R0 The natural length unit
T0 The natural time unit

GUITAR predicts that in a given universe, the electron mass, which is the mass equivalent of the energy of the electron's field, extending to the whole universe, is inverse proportional to the logarism of the radius of the universe. That quantity is also known as the coupling constant of the electromagnetic force:
Me = alpha * M0

Since we know electron mass Me and the alpha, we can easily figure out M0. Once we have M0, the unit of energy E0 is simply mass times light speed squared: M0*C^2.

The Planck constant tells us how to fix the time unit T0:
E0 * T0 = Hbar
So, given Hbar and already knowing E0, we can figure out T0.

Once T0 is known, the natural length unit R0 is calculated by R0 = T0*C.

We list the numerical values of those units here, for later calculations:
M0 = 1.24831335(21)x10^-28 Kg
E0 = 1.12192809(19) x10^-11 Joules
R0 = 2.819740325(28)x10^-15 Meter
T0 = 9.399737148(94)x10^-24 Second

Please note, using the natural unit set: Hbar = C = 1. That makes the calculation real easier.

Previously I meantioned that the coupling constant alpha is inversely proportional to the logarithm of the radius of the universe. We can define a dimentionless constant N to describe the size of the universe:
N = PI * exp ((D-1)/D * (1/alpha)),
with D the dimention of space.
We know that the electric field is inverse proportional to the square of distance (d-1 ==2), and the space is 3-D, so D = 3:
N = PI * exp ((D-1)/D * (1/alpha))
= PI * exp (2/3 * 137.03599911)
N = 1.48982536x10^40

N is the large number Paul Dirac was searching for!!! N, which tells how big the universe is, is directly responsible for how weak the coupling of electromagnetic force is!!! Later I will also show it also tells us how weak the gravity force is!!!

With N known, parameters of the universe can be calculated (all results are in natural units)
Age Tu = PI * N
Radius = PI * N
Mass = PI * N^2
Energy = PI * N^2
Entropy = PI * S4(N) = 2*PI^3*N^3

Note here S4(N) is the 3-D surface area of a 4-D spacetime sphere, of radius equals N. Note how it is different from the Hawking blackhole entropy which says 1/4 of the 2-D space surface area of the 3-D space sphere of the blackhole, measured in Planck length unit.

From above, the density of the universe is:
P = 3*M/(4*PI*R^3) =( 3/4*PI^3) *(1/N)

Using the Einstein 's famous universe equation and:
P(critical density) = 3H^2/(8*PI*G) = 3/(8*PI*G*R^2)
P = 3/(8*PI^3)*(1/N)*(1/G)

Compare the two density expression, we get:

G = 1/(2*N)
(in natural units, certainly)

Numerical calculation verifies that indeed G=1/(2N) gives the correct value of G.

This is the first success of GUITAR, in explaining both alpha and G as related to the size of the universe, N.

What about baryon density? My derivation, which I do not intend to show here, pending a chance to properly publish my theory, would lead to the conclusion that:

1.Vast majority of the energy of the universe is known whose definite space location and time could not be detected. Only the space curvature effects can be detected. This we call dark energy or dark matter.

2.A small portion, g^Dt, constitute the baryon matter, who has a definite space location but whose existence expands the whole axis of time. Dt is the time dimention. Dt = 1, of course.

3.An even smaller portion, equal to g^Ds/PI, constitute the matter that do have a definite time (time is freezed for them) but whose existence expands the whole space). We know the dimention of space Ds = 3. This we call photons. The factor PI is a factor contributed by the geometric factor.

Therefore, the radiation energy density equals g^Ds/PI = g^3/PI, times the critical density, which we already know to be
P(critical) = (3/(4*PI^3)) * (1/N)

So
P(radiation) = P(critical) * g^3/PI = 3*g^3/(4*PI^4) * 1/N

My derivation of the g factor is:
g = 2/PI*sqrt(alpha) = 0.054383 = 5.4383%

g is also the baryon density as discussed above. g = 5.4383% matches the current accepted baryon density estimate of about 5% to 6%!!! Another success of GUITAR in explaining the baryon density of the universe.

Now, with g known, any one can calculate the density of radiation, which is also the density of CMB radiation. Once you obtain the density, using the Stephan-Boltzmann formula, you can calculate the CMB temperature. I leave it as a math homework for the readers to do the calculations, and to convert it from natural units to the standard units.

This web page may help relating radiation energy density to temperature:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/raddens.html

My calculation gives
T(cmb) = 2.7243 K

Which is amazingly accurate, consider the best measured value is 2.725+-0.005K. My result is well within the margin of experimental error.

With the CMB energy density known and the baryon density known. We can attempt to calculate how much energy the Sun radiates, assuming the Sun is typical in the universe, and radiations from all stars contributes to CMB. The total baryon mass divided by the mass of the Sun is the number of stars in the universe. That number times the radiation power of the Sun is the total radiation power of the universe. That quantity times the age of the universe, equals to the total CMB energy of the universe, divide by volume and you get CMB energy density. Reverse the calculation process, and you get the radiation power of the Sun instead.

Again I leave that calculation as math exercise, though I may discuss it in detail later. These numbers may help: The earth-sun distance is 1.496x10^11 meter. The mass of the sun is 1.98x10^30 kg. Solar constant equals the total radiation power of the sun divided by the surface area of the sphere centered at the sun and reaching the earth orbit.

My calculation of the Solar constant leads to 1359.6Watts/(m^2*sec), which is amazingly accurate, considering the accepted value of solar constant is 1360W/(m^2*sec)!!!!

Enough for now for you guys to punch calculators to verify my numbers. I will talk about Pioneer anormality and the Proton and Neutron mass later. For that you will need a better calculator. At least an accuracy of 12 or more decimal places is required. Don't use a cheap crap calculator of just 8 decimal places accuracy!!!

Quantoken

Blackhole Entropy, LQG and Super String

2005-02-01T01:55:00.000-08:00

There is recently a heated debate between the super string camp, Lubos et al, the loop quantum gravity (LQG) camp, Smolin et al, and the Other, Peter Woit et al, triggered by this review paper by Hermann Nicolai, Kasper Peeters, Marija Zamaklar:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501114
See:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/01/troubled-loop-gravity.html
and:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000145.html

Note that both the super string camp and the LQG camp claimed their derivations of the Bekenstein-Hawking black hole entropy as their biggest success of their theories. In my judgement, claiming the derivation of Bekenstein Hawking entropy, such a trivial feat, as their biggest success, is completely "childish" and only shows the lack of "innate" ability on the part of each camp to comprehend what is the REAL physics behind the blackhole entropy!

I am going to show one very trivial derivation of the black hole entropy and how it is proportional to the event horizen surface area divided by Planck area. One that is different from Hawking's but much simpler.

But first, one has to realize two things:
1.Hawking entropy is not an empirical experimental evidence, but merely the result of a gedanken "experiment", e.g., mind exercise.
2. The entropy is a DIMENTIONLESS physical quantity.

Since Hawking entropy is just a mind exercise instead of empirical experimental result. Any claim of deriving the same result as Hawking merely shows that your theory does not have any logical inconsistency or conflict against the line of logic that Hawking's gedanken mind exercise. That's all. You still have not made any connection with the physics reality, unless, of course, that the Hawking formula is confirmed by a REAL experiment, not a gedanken one.

So, if a theory is able to derive Hawking entropy, it's good but really not a big deal. But if it can not, then there is a huge trouble in that it is logically inconsistent with Hawking's reasoning and what Hawing based his reasonings on.

Actually, any consistent theory at all will always leads to the Hawking formula, give or take a trivial numerical factor which is of the order of one, a numerical factor that both LQG and super string had struggled a bit to get right.

Now back to the dimentionless-ness of entropy. Given some basic physics quantities and known physics constants for a black hole, how would you construct an entropy formula that gives a dimentionless quantity? To construct such a formula, all the units should cancel out. That gives you pretty good clue to almost certainly arrive at the only correct answer.

We are given:
1.G, the gravity constant that is involved in any thing related to gravity
2.hbar, anything that envolved entropy needs to count quantum micro states.
3.C, light speed is certainly involved in anything related to spacetime.
4.M, the mass of black hole. We certainly need that.

There is nothing more we need. How would you construct a dimentionless number out of these 4 quantities? An immediate possibility is similar to the electromagnetic coupling constant, the fine structure constant, we can construct a gravity coupling constant here using:

S = G*M^2/(hbar*C) (1)

And that is the Hawking entropy formula, give or take a numerical factor!!! Actual it is only bigger than the Hawking entropy by a factor of 4*PI. Actually that is the only simple way to get a dimentionless number out of the 4 quantities!!!

How come? We know the radius of a black hole is proportional to its mass:
R = 2*G*M/C^2 (2)
So:
M = R*C^2/(2*G) (3)
So the (1) becomes:
S = (1/4)*R^2/(G*hbar/C^3) = (1/4) * R^2/lp^2 = (1/(4*PI)) * (1/4) * A/lp^2 (4)

So it differ from Hawking formula by 1/(4*PI).

Now, let me try to use a totally different but much simpler gedanken experiment to derive an entropy formular similar to Hawkings. It's trivial. Any one can think out a hundred different gedanken experiments, all arrive at the same result, differing by only a numerical factor.

Let's start with a black hole of almost zero mass, and gradually increase its size by throwing in photons in appropriate wavelength.

We do not want to throw in photons whose wavelength is much smaller than the size of the blackhole, since they will lose a great portion of their energy by gravity red-shift, and we do not know how much the mass of blackhole is increase. We do not want to throw in photons of wavelenth much larger than the blackhole size either, since then the photo will diffract around the blackhole completely, without absorbtion.

Let's choose photo wavelength
Lambda = diameter of blackhole = 2*R (5)

Such photons will be absorbed with its energy largely unchanged, increasing the blackhole mass by the equivalent mass of the photon energy. The increase of mass is:
delta M = delta E * C^-2 = 2*PI*hbar * C^-1/lambda = 2*PI*hbar*C^-1/(2*R) (6)

We know that each photon carries an entropy of exactly one, regardless of the photon's energy, so the increase of black hole entropy for each photon is one:
delta S = 1 (7)

Therefore:
dM = PI*hbar*C^-1/R * dS (8)
dS = 1/(PI*hbar) * C * R * dM (9)

Now, since
R = 2*G*M/C^2, which is M = C^2 * R/(2G) (10)
dM = C^2/(2G) * dR (11)

Put it into equ. (9):
dS = 1/(2*PI*G*hbar) * C^3 * R * dR (12)

Integrate equ. (12) from zero:

S = (1/(4*PI)) * R^2/ (hbar*G/C^3) (13)
S = (1/4*PI^2)^2 * (1/4)* A / lp^2 (14)

Again we ontained virtually the same Hawking entropy, except for a small numerical factor. I could easily get the factor correct if I am willing to try a little bit numerology like the LQG and super string camp did in their crackpot theories.

So you see it is really not a big deal at all to have derived the black hole entropy proportional to horizen area divided by Planck area.

Quantoken

The Harvard Tower Experiment Was Frauded

2005-01-27T15:33:00.000-08:00

The Harvard Tower Experiment, done in the early 1960's on the Harvard University campus, was hauled as one of the most precise experiments confirming Einstein's General Relativity. See
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html#c2

But I want to point out this is but another typical example where scientists, for all kinds of told or untold reasons, manipulate their data to get the result they want. Progress of science relys on none-biases and objective observation of the nature. When the credibility of specific experiments are seriously questionable, the science community must set the record straight and disclose any potential fraud committed.

Before I continue, I must emphasis it has nothing to do with the correctness of GR, and I personally believe the GR is a correct theory. However it is wrong to manipulate data to yield desired result, when the precision of the experiment itself is questionable.

In the Harvard Tower experiment, the energy of a gamma photon, which is around 14.4KeV, is modified by a very small amount, 3.5x10^-11 eV, when it drops a height of 22.6 meter in the earth's gravity, according to the calculation of GR. The Harvard group claimed to have measured that 3.5x10^-11 eV displacement of energy level, and matched it to withing 1% of the predicted value. That would require the measurement of the 3.5x10^-11 eV displacement, to the precision of better than 1.4x10^-12 eV.

The question to asked is whether an experiment precision of 1.4x10-12 eV, or even 3.5x10^-11 eV, out of a photo energy of 14400 eV, is possible or not. My answer is it is impossible based on quantum mechanics, specifically, based on the uncertainty principle.

First, the source of gamma photo, Iron-57, has a natural line width of about 10^-8 eV, due to the short life time of decaying, and the uncertainty principle. See
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossfe.html#c1

That means you can not detect a photo energy change much smaller than the natural line width of 10^-8 eV. The claimed 1% precision (it was actualy 4%, based on the 5.1 versus 4.9 figure) would require a measurement precision of 1.4x10^-12 ev, which is 4 orders of magnitude narrower than the natural line width. Impossible to measure.

Second, it took a very short travel time for the gamma photon to travel the 22.6 meter distance. The time is 7.5x10-8 second. The photon existed for a very brief lifetime of just 7.5x10^-8 sec, from the time it was emitted to being absorbed. Based on uncertainly principle, this short lifetime brings about an uncertainly in the energy level of
0.5*hbar/t = 0.5*6.582x10^-16 eV*sec/(7.5x10^-8sec)
= 4.388x10^-9 eV

So the measurement precison of the energy level could never be better than 4.388x10^-9 eV. The GR effect is only 3.5x10^-11 eV, a quantity more than 100 times too small to be measured!!!

Third, even if such a miniscure amount is measured, any possible doppler shift due to relative movement of the source and detector will subject the data to question. To shift the energy level 3.5x10^-11 eV, out of a total of 14400 eV, by doppler effect, all it take is a relative speed of

V = C * 3.5x10^-11 eV / 14400 eV = 7.3 x10^-7 meter/second = 0.73 micro-meter/second

The Mossbauer Effect would only be sensitive enough to detect doppler shift of speeds down to milimeters per second. Speeds of 0.73 micro meters per second, which is roughly 2 to 3 milimeter per hour, is far below that measurable sensitivity of Mossbauer Effects.

Fourth, the equivalent doppler shift speed, 0.73 micrometer per second, or 2.6 milimeter per hour, is far smaller than any thermal expansion rate of the building, at a height of 20+ meters, during the sunshine and sunset of the day/night change.

There are solid and undeniable evidence that there is simply no way the researchers could have obtained the claimed the result at claimed precision. Any reasonable person would have to conclude that the data is probably doctored.

Quantoken

Cosmic Strings - Super String Theoreticians Become Desperate

2004-12-18T07:53:00.000-08:00

Regarding the "cosmic string" Lubos meantioned. It merely shows how desperate super string theoriticians are in trying to find some observational evidence, any thing, that may remotely justify their stuff. When you have that kind of desperation, you tend to OVER-INTERPRET your data.

See this link from where I quoted Lubos:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/12/astronomers-prove-string-theory.html

Lubos said: "The team has observed a pair of galaxies 10 billion light years away and gravitational lensing is supposed to be the origin. The angular separation of the pair is roughly 2 arc-seconds."

Note the two key numbers, 10 billion (10^10) light years distance and 2 arcseconds (9.7x10^-6 radian angle) angular separation. At that distance and that angular separation, if these are two galaxies their center barely separated by 9.7x10^4 light years.

A typical galaxy like our galaxy, has a diameter of 2x10^5 light years. If what they observed are two images of a typical size galaxy, they barely separate half of their diameters.

i.e, what they observe is instead one concrete image from the two half of the same galaxy, but be mis-interpretted as two images. It's that simple!

The distance from the center of one half of the galaxy to the other half happen to be about 1x10^5 light years, which is the angular "separation" they reported.

How desperate they have become? They reported that with an area of the sky merely 16 square arc seconds (4 arcseconds x 4 arcseconds) they found 11 pairs of such identical galaxy images. That visual size is barely only the size of one galaxy at a distance of 10 billion light years. They must have counted each individual photons received as individual images :-)

Quantoken

Grand Unification Theory of the Universe

2004-12-10T13:29:00.000-08:00

From today on I will be posting about my physics grand unification theory. Not only is my theory based on solid experimental evidences, I have made precise predictions that have been verified by experimental data, for example I obtained the exact cosmological microwave background radiation temperature, based on nothing but the fine structure constant.

Come back for more later.

Quantoken