Saturday, December 22, 2007

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

Naughty or Nice
I was a good boy...:)

Gave you my best thoughts

The Concept of Coherent Nuclear Fusion

which I promise is not an illusion...

An idea that can save many lives...

As a Christmas Gift,

I only have one wish..:)

Allow me a posting at the Cornell-Los Alamos Arxives..:)

Merry Christmas to you all...:)

MP



Santa (Paul Ginsparg) checked my Blog twice yesterday...:)



Location
Warszawa, Poland
Albuquerque, NM, United States
Harold Wood, United Kingdom
, , United States
Pensacola, FL, United States
San Antonio, TX, United States
Eau Claire, WI, United States
Raleigh, NC, United States
Haddon Heights, NJ, United States
Slingerlands, NY, United States
Ithaca, NY, United States
Ithaca, NY, United States
Ripe, United Kingdom
Erindale, ON, Canada
Montevideo, Uruguay
Gilbert, AZ, United States

Cheers,

MP

Friday, December 14, 2007

An Infinite Source of Energy

Coherent Nuclear Fusion -
The Path to Infinite and Safe Energy

----------------------------------------------

The Energy Book is available for download here
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------

I wrote short blog about Coherent Nuclear Fusion sometime ago. As anything, one only pays attention to form (properly marketted ideas) as oppose to ideas simply told straight-up.

I had my equation for epsilon0, mu0 and G and any other derived cosmological constant since the beginning of times in my papers...:) I believe that only when I was able to create a picture of that equation in the forefront of my blog (right in front of your face) that that salient point was noticed.

It took time to realize that people are impervious to anything that doesn't hit them in the face..>:)

I decided to refresh another salient point or conclusion derived from my theory. I proposed the means to create an infinite source of energy in another of my postings: Coherent Nuclear Fusion.

Up to now, people have been colliding particles and trying to understanding what happens from those collisions.

That is a good start...:)

The problem with that is that this has been done in the dark and that should not be the case after I wrote my theory.

I proposed the experiment for the Large Hadron Collider: Collide particles which are traveling in the same direction, using a focusing magnetic lens... :)

This is a tremendous change in paradigm since a collider normally uses head-on collisions to maximize the collision energy...:)

This paradigm finesses the procedures used to create knowledge and nuclear fusion..>:)

The dilator paradigm and the Hypergeometrical Standard Model creates the ideological (theoretical) basis for this new kind of experimentation.

Having a focused beam of Deuterium and polarizing magnetic lensing should lead to coherent nuclear fusion processes with extremely high yield and achieved at much lower collision energy.

Needless to say, this should open a window into a new future, distant from the one we are rushing into now. Currently we are just going to extract all underground carbon and burn it...:) Any carbon taken from the ground makes Earth warmer and life worse.

Most likely I should make a picture of a beam and a two set of magnetic lenses: one to focus the beam and create fusion and another to redirect the beam back into the accelerator path.

Coming in a separable angle would be the products of the nuclear fusion. Of course, the same process could be used for coherent nuclear fission...:)

There are other sources of energy that I can envision and many unimaginable innovations (gravitational shielding, direct manipulation of the Fabric of Space, superluminal traveling, the ability to create non-interacting matter, etc)...

It will take time for me to explain everything since I can't find a single human that shows a basic understanding of this theory..>:) Maybe only the Aliens from Area 51 or those crafty scientists from Livermore..>:)



My goal is always To Serve Humans >:)

Cheers,

MP

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Some Signs of Intelligence

Some Signs of Intelligence


----------------------------------------------

The Quantization in Astrophysics Book is here

The Energy Book is available for download here
----------------------------------------------
Finally some criticism, albeit unsupported...:)

It could be, but... said...

From an early post: "...but I will be glad to see anything relevant on my mailbox."Here goes 'anything'

A well-known (and sadly deceased) scientist once said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I have taken the time to read your foundation papers and to skim your blog from the bottom up, getting only to the aptly-named August 14th, 2006 entry.

I then followed your suggestion to examine the yahoo group of the same name. One word from that group’s page jumped right out at me and confirmed my growing opinion of what I was reading: “Metaphysics”.

Since metaphysics is defined as a philosophical discipline, it is uninhibited by science’s burden of the requirement of verifiable, reproducible proof. Freed from that burden, anyone can create a theory of the universe that sounds reasonable and good – the penultimate requirement of metaphysics – and from there extrapolate a universe-view where all problems are solved, all questions are answered and – satisfying the ultimate requirement of metaphysics – can’t be proven by any scientific means. At this point, I wonder if you’re still reading.

Hopefully you are. It would be easy to dismiss my writings as the rant of another dogmatic scientific disbeliever stuck in his cave as it were. While easy and convenient, it would also evade the real-world issue of why so few people are paying attention to your work. Earlier I made what may have seemed like a sarcastic reference to your August 14th 2006 entry “Field of Dreams.”

Einstein had a dream too. But what set him on the path from philosopher/metaphysicist to become a true theoretician is that he created (or discovered if you’d rather) the mathematical equations to explain his universe-view. These equations made predictions that were put to the test and verified empirically and validated mathematically. This is indeed how “Science is done.” You present some interesting ideas that would turn the world science on its ear – just like Einstein did – if, and only if, your core assumptions are true. If you can prove this, you’ll be remembered for all time in the same breath as Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg and others. If not, your ideas carry no more weight than the (flat) Earth resting on the back of a gigantic turtle, which also sounded reasonable and good to a rather large group of people. Without any cynicism or contempt and with the best will in the world, I wish you good luck. And I’ll keep an eye out for your name in the science headlines just in case!

This is a well written and quasi-thoughful criticism which I, of course, welcome. I did the same in the past for Dr. Zaius and others. I agree with everything you say other than your conclusion...:)

Normally I don't publish meaningless comments. Since I don't see your prior comment and don't remember it, most likely it didn't have any substance. This one is also empty but I am hoping for a follow-up.

Needless to say, it is a strong claim to call a theory metaphysical. Of course, strong claims require strong evidence..>:) which, ironically, you did not provide any...

Quoting dead scientists or Einstein is always a crowd pleaser and a sure way to acquire unwarranted credibility. I would expect and normally demand that one obtain that credibility by providing a solid argument or a question. You didn't provide any one of those requirements.

This blog will remain for a few more days and after that I will delete it since I will conclude that you really didn't have anything to say other than a baseless opinion.

I would like to ask you the great favor of allowing me to dissect your argument for the methaphysical character of my theory...:)

By the way, if you read that Field of Dreams blog you should had realized that what I said is correct. In a purelly geometric theory, in an unconstrained space, there should be only traveling metric deformations with characteristic frequencies and a propagation velocity. This is the simple basis for my criticism to a pillar of science: The Concept of Field.

My "criticism" was directed towards the lack of understanding by all scientific community (and that includes your dead scientist) of the implicit hypothesis associated with the concept of field. In a geometrical universe, a working concept of field would imply the existence of a Cosmological Coherence and of my Quantum Lagrangian Principle.

I should not have to remind you that a geometrical representation of the Universe is a lofty goal of science and that General Relativity was only a partially successful attempt at that goal.

I wrote a prior blog aptdly named The Silence of the Lambs, with 25 or so claims that can be used as a guide for criticism. Let's chat about any one of them which might have raised your suspection of unsuported science.

If you prefer, we can start with the main paper.

By the way, the reason why I am confined to this little blog in the hyperspace is not because I take comfort in writing my "metaphysics" far from criticism. It is exactly the opposite. The theory has a revisionist character and it is broad and supported by fields ranging from particle physics to cosmology. It also has the claim of being the Theory of Everything while having no Strings, Branes or any other superior concepts...:) (superiorly complicated)...:)

The paper is more than 80 pages long and I cannot shrink it and still make sense. Thus it cannot be published in a standard journal (current chicken editors tremble at the sight of a paper with anything that resembles classical physics) and at last but not least, Paul Ginsparg censored its posting in the Cornel-Los Alamos Arxives.

By the way, your assumption that my science has not achieve a wider audience is not correct. First book reached 1000 scientists per week for some weeks. The second book is reaching 1000 scientists per day. A far wider audience than most papers.

Not unlike yourself, other scientists - including Paul Ginsparg - are shy and did not present a palpable argument of any kind.

I will be anxiously awaiting the continuation of your critique.

Cheers,

MP

PS-The Yahoo Group associated site has not been updated for the longest time. The most reliable source of information about the theory are the papers, books and blogs. Some blogs (like the one about the Meaning of Existence) have not been updated for historical reasons. In the meaning of existence, I mentioned the example of the Amonia Maser as a model for a quantized existence. Later I realized that I could use Newton's Gravitational Law and the pseudo-time quantization to better explain the Quantization (Intemittence) of Existence.

The spinning fundamental dilator intersects the Fabric of Space at specific phases where its volume (3DMass) is maximum. Only on those phases matter interacts and thus only on those phases we de facto exist....:) I interact (here and there), therefore I exist (every so often).

Sunday, November 25, 2007

An Infinite Source of Energy

Coherent Nuclear Fusion -
The Path to Infinite and Safe Energy

----------------------------------------------

The Energy Book is available for download here
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------

I wrote short blog about Coherent Nuclear Fusion sometime ago. As anything, one only pays attention to form (properly marketted ideas) as oppose to ideas simply told straight-up.

I had my equation for epsilon0, mu0 and G and any other derived cosmological constant since the beginning of times in my papers...:) I believe that only when I was able to create a picture of that equation in the forefront of my blog (right in front of your face) that that salient point was noticed.

It took time to realize that people are impervious to anything that doesn't hit them in the face..>:)

I decided to refresh another salient point or conclusion derived from my theory. I proposed the means to create an infinite source of energy in another of my postings: Coherent Nuclear Fusion.

Up to now, people have been colliding particles and trying to understanding what happens from those collisions.

That is a good start...:)

The problem with that is that this has been done in the dark and that should not be the case after I wrote my theory.

I proposed the experiment for the Large Hadron Collider: Collide particles which are traveling in the same direction, using a focusing magnetic lens... :)

This is a tremendous change in paradigm since a collider normally uses head-on collisions to maximize the collision energy...:)

This paradigm finesses the procedures used to create knowledge and nuclear fusion..>:)

The dilator paradigm and the Hypergeometrical Standard Model creates the ideological (theoretical) basis for this new kind of experimentation.

Having a focused beam of Deuterium and polarizing magnetic lensing should lead to coherent nuclear fusion processes with extremely high yield and achieved at much lower collision energy.

Needless to say, this should open a window into a new future, distant from the one we are rushing into now. Currently we are just going to extract all underground carbon and burn it...:) Any carbon taken from the ground makes Earth warmer and life worse.

Most likely I should make a picture of a beam and a two set of magnetic lenses: one to focus the beam and create fusion and another to redirect the beam back into the accelerator path.

Coming in a separable angle would be the products of the nuclear fusion. Of course, the same process could be used for coherent nuclear fission...:)

There are other sources of energy that I can envision and many unimaginable innovations (gravitational shielding, direct manipulation of the Fabric of Space, superluminal traveling, the ability to create non-interacting matter, etc)...

It will take time for me to explain everything since I can't find a single human that shows a basic understanding of this theory..>:) Maybe only the Aliens from Area 51 or those crafty scientists from Livermore..>:)



My goal is always To Serve Humans >:)

Cheers,

MP

Friday, November 23, 2007

Epsilon Revisited

Epsilon Revisited

I had enough time to think about what my friend said about mu0 being exact and defined. That definition eventually leads to the relationship between epsilon0, mu0 and c (the speed of light).

I presented my results for the calculation of "Cosmological Constants Epsilon0 and Mu0" in this Blog. I presented the results for the calculation of another cosmological constant (The Gravitational Constant) here.

Implications of the Gravitational Constant formula included a stronger Gravitation in the past and a vanishing Gravitation in the future. It changes the way we can understand the events in the Cosmos and how we see the future of the Universe and its recurrence.

I originally had given the following explanation for the 0.8% epsilon calculation discrepancy. This means that the volume associated with an electron or proton in contact with the Fabric of Space is slightly different from the volume that state has when it is perpendicular to the Fabric of Space.
The calculated vacuum permittivity and magnetic susceptibility error is zero since we used it to obtain the best estimate of the electron (proton) 4DMass. The very small discrepancy (0.8%) is attributed at this time to the inherent anisotropy of the hyperspherical expansion, the inherent error associated with the assumption that one is at rest with respect to the Fabric of Space...:)
I thought that this would be enough as a first possible description of a potential cause for the discrepancy, after all, this is a simple Theory of Everything. Further improvement can be done after people starts thinking about it...:)

There might be other causes.

I mentioned the possibility of a systematic error in the creation of electrostatics (Gauss Law) and magnetism (Biot-Savart Law). These two perspectives of Electromagnetism are strongly linked together and potentially could suffer from a systematic error since the measurement of a charge and of a current are interconnected, being the charge of an electron is the ultimate result of all those measurements. Of course, the systematic error of 0.8% in epsilon0 corresponds to a systematic error of 0.4% in the charge of an electron.

Since there is a relationship between epsilon0, mu0 and c, the discrepancy could also be attributed to a systematic error in the measurement of the speed of light. It is known that Gravitation changes the speed of light (e.g. gravitational lensing). Speed of light measurements are always made around material bodies, so one might expect that the measured value will not be a perfect match to the speed of light in vacuum. This would mean that the vacuum index of refraction close to Earth would be different from the index of refraction on truly empty space.

I don't know if there is such a systematic error, but that is one of the valuable contributions of an independent model. One can kick the tires and check for possible fractures in our scientific edifice.

There are model related sources of error. As I mentioned, the simple equations for Electrostatics (Gauss Law) and Magnetism (Biot-Savart Law) were derived in the regimen of ZERO DEFORMATION OF THE FABRIC OF SPACE. If there is a certain amount of local deformation of the fabric of space that should modify the equations slightly and might account for the discrepancy...:)

As you can see, there is always some insight to be derived from any discrepancy and mostly from finding a model that eliminates all "Cosmological Constants" other than Planck's Constant and the speed of light.

Nobody would ask Sir Isaac Newton:
Sir, what is the use of a Gravitational Model when we already know Evangelist Torricelli's equation and that g=9.81 m/s^2!!!!
At that time, small g was a "Cosmological Constant". Something defined experimentally and set in stone...:) or whatever they used at the time...:)

Newton's Gravitational Law allow us to understand the Music (and Dance) of the Celestial Spheres as it could never be done otherwise.

A new insight in G can further improve upon that.

My theory does just that.

Cheers,

MP

---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Please, if you consider this theory worthy of attention and discussion, write an email to Paul Ginsparg, The National Academy of Science saying so or contact me to express your support.

Stand up against Censorship in Physics.

Double click the Bird below to read the exchanged emails and discussion.



Tuesday, November 20, 2007

HAPPY THANKSGIVING


HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!!

My friend wrote:


And why did you dressed up that poor man as a chicken??


To be factual this is not a chicken..:)

As much as I am sympathetic with my fellow human, sometimes some silly gimmick has to be used just to emphasize some horrible event taking place under our noses...

Paul Ginsparg visits my site frequently, in fact, he visited it yesterday...:)


Location Time
United Kingdom Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:27:52 -0600
Ithaca, NY, United States Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:06:59 -0600

and so did Stephen Hawking...:)

Well, well... I can't really be sure that that happened, but just the possibility is something to be thankful for anyway...:)

Cheers,

MP

Monday, November 19, 2007

The Land of The Brave

The Land of The Brave

Every so often I make a summary of what the theory is about. Many people join this site every day and they could benefit from a recap.

Some people might mistake that with some sort of bragging..:) That couldn't be farther from the truth...

This theory is only useful or valid if people take their kid gloves and take their best punches at it...:) What my summary provides is a clear target to welcome criticism or peer review...:)

Science is a contact sport... People are allowed to have their opinions and if they are not well grounded, people should get their asses kicked...:) Politely if possible...:) but a bad argument should never be left standing..:)

Here is an example of myself taking it up in the chin...:)


>How is epsilon0 or mu0 related to the charge of an electron or to the Avogrado's number???? (this is my question after my friend told me that epsilon0 >and mu0 had formulas or definitions) It isn't related to qe and Na(apart from the fact that it is in Js2C-2m-1 units) but you have said you are assuming qe. mu0 = 4pi x10^ -7 exactly. That is what it says on my list of fundamental constants courtesy of P.W.Atkins.. Not even Wikipedia can get pi wrong by 0.8% Or have you discovered a new value of pi in your 4D universe? (Annoying smiley deliberately omitted)

Have you been deleted from Wikipedia as well? Probably for taking the name of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus in vain. Ockham's Razor to validade Santa Klaus, Eastern Bunny

>By the way, I value your criticism even when it is half-baked...:) One never knows when a good idea would come out of your mind..:) My aim isn't to have a good idea, it is just to get rid of some of your bad ideas.



The criticism is what I expected and hoped for by placing a theory in the internet. If I wanted to keep a low profile, I would never try to make it understandable...:) That is also a sure way to look good in the scientific community.

The simple rebuttal is that 4PIx1e-7 is a definition and not a measured value. This also means that if c is an experimental value, then epsilon0 is also a defined value.

This means that my "error" of 0.8% should be kept within quote marks because I am comparing a theoretical value with definitions.

The other very important point is that
formulas in my blog are formulas for Cosmological Constants (epsilon0, mu0 and the Gravitational Constant) and that is a significant hurdle for any theory to overcome. No other theory succeeded in overcoming this little hurdle...as far as I know. Please feel free to provide me with formulas if you have.

This is a very important point and one that cannot be dismissed by simply having someone professing that mu0 = 4pi x10^ -7 exactly... Not matter how much confidence that person might have...:)

He is correct to say that my happy faces are annoying...:) But they serve two purposes. One is to convey a sense of fun... I do Science for fun here in my corner of the Hyperspace...:) If it makes people annoyed and that makes people participate, engage in a scientific discussion, then it is a good thing.... Bring it on, tell you your grievances... scientific grievances, please...:)

With respect to Ockham's Razor validating Eastern Bunny ... If the Egg is made of chocolate and you don't know that some place there is a complex industry manufacturing those things, complex distribution system, etc, etc.. If you also don't know if Bunnies lay Eggs or if you don't know all Bunny species out there.. then the existence of one that lays chocolate Eggs is quite a simple explanation...:)
Ockham's Razor

Magic is always the simplest explanation to anything...

The comment about myself being deleted from Wikipedia was a low blow... After all, my attempt there was just an effort to make the theory more debated...:)

I can't be blamed for that... It is not like I am getting a tremendous amount of resistence to my ideas here..:) nor from my friend...:)

People who knows me, knows that I avoid attention, but I will always behave as if I had the right to have a scientific opinion.

At this exact moment, I consider that Physics is not Free. This is not the Home of The Brave nor The Land of the Free.

Scary things haunt our Physics (click the bird below):
I hope you all will someday behave as if you have the right to have a scientific opinion.

Cheers,

MP

ps- For people who doesn't know how to read Wikipedia (like my friend)..

In SI units, permeability is measured in henries per metre, or newtons per ampere squared. The constant value μ0 is known as the magnetic constant or the permeability of vacuum, and has the exact or defined value μ0 = 4π×10−7 N·A−2. ...:)

By the way, a PI in a Physics constant is clearly a sign of tampering with Nature ... It should be clear that it is a give away..:) Unless you have a fully geometrical theory of Nature, like I do...Then your Cosmological Constant will have a PI in it...:)

Cheers,

MP

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

The Silence of The Lambs

The Silence of The Lambs..:)

This blog is about to reach its 9000 unique IP readers...:) Hurray!!!!

I didn't know there were so many cosmologists, string theorists, particle physicists in the planet...:)

There are many reasons to celebrate...

The theory has been published in two books:

  • Quantization in Astrophysics - containing the Grand Unification and New Cosmology Paradigm
  • Hadron Physics New Energy Issues - Containing the Hypergeometrical Standard Model

not that bad for something created in the everyday commuting to work (on a shaking NYC subway..>:)

and also the following crowning achievements...:)

  1. I corrected Newton's equations by eliminating all non-geometrical elements of Classical Mechanics.
  2. I kept the theory relativistic despite of introducing Absolute Time and a Preferential Frame of Reference or at least a preferential direction of reference (R).
  3. Somehow, it seems that I introduced a geometrical interpretation of Lorentz transforms of all things... I did not hear any angry relativistic cosmologists telling me otherwise...which is a surprise... I thought everyone knew that Lorentz transform is a rotation by an imaginary angle...
  4. I introduced a new model for matter... the first non-obvious model. Up to know things were waves, particles or particle-waves...:) The dilator is a wavegenerator that flows like a wave...:)
  5. The Humble Fundamental Dilator shows how a proton and an electron are the same entity and have the same 4D Mass, thus simplifying tremendously the understanding and unification of the Universe.
  6. The Humble Fundamental Dilator is also the hidden variable Einstein tried throoughout his whole life to find. The entity that creates Quantum Mechanics.
  7. I challenged the concept of Field and showed that implicit in it is the existence of a Cosmological Coherence (all dilators in the Universe dilate in synch with their local dilaton fields). Synchronization is evident using absolute time (in the RXYZ frame).
    I Grand Unified all the Forces (Gravitation and Electromagnetism) while providing a replacement for the Gluon-Quark paradigm (the dilator itself) and for the Electroweak force (the advent of nonlinear hadronics)...
  8. In replacing the Gluon-Quark paradigm I modified the symmetry requirements for a Grand Unification or Supersymmetry Theory. The pesky Reciprocal Symmetry is eliminated and with that the need that everything very slow to have the same energy as everything very fast...:) This is an outrageous symmetry... Physicist should be kissing my ring for eliminating such nasty constraint....:)
  9. I proposed the solution for all energy problems in the shape of fusion reactors while produce fusion (or fission) products along a single direction (or cone)...:) Energy is readily extracted through magneto-hydrodynamics means... Charged products make up powerful currents to be slowed down by reversed accelerators...:)
  10. I proposed a now topology for the Cosmos...:) which eliminates the need for Einstein Cosmological Constant, dark energy, inflation... This at a time when inflationary people are adjusting their parameters to explain the whole chimichanga...:) Very unfortunate...:) At least at this time, I would love to say Ockham's Razor... People have already readied their acceptance speeches for the Nobel Ceremony...:) Horrible situation...:)
  11. In creating this new topology, I explained why the speed of light is the limiting speed in our Fabric of Space..(3D Universe)...
  12. I acknowledged that in fact things can move faster than the speed of light by traveling (surfing) along an interference pattern...:) This might be someday used to create superluminal traveling when people learn how to pattern dilaton fields...:) or die waiting to ride a Tachyon driven spacecraft...:)
  13. I provided the equations to Cosmological Constants (vacuum permittivity and magnetic susceptibility).
  14. I also showed that the Gravitational Constant is not constant and scaled down with the inverse of the age of the Universe....:) Earlier times had stronger Gravitational fields..>:)
  15. The Gravitational "constant" dependence provides the blueprint for the demise of the Universe...:) The relaxation of the dilators... A totally new Cosmogony..>:)
  16. I provided an alternative explanation for the Action-At-Distance paradox which bothered Einstein so much and that is the basis for a total delusional state of mind where people throw their hands up and accept anything..:) from time travel to time traveling backwards in Black Holes ... to Black Holes...:)
  17. I also provided an alternative explanation for the Double Slit Experiment. In my theory, dilators (electron included) travel on a four dimensional space at the center of a horospherical reference frame. The waves it creates are the same it surfs, that is, the electron surfs a four-dimensional wave (dilaton field) and by simple projection, it also surfs the 3D projection (de Broglie waves). This means that the de Broglie wave is not a matter wave. Instead, it is a metric deformation wave created by the dilator. The much larger wavelength is due to the way things are projected in an hyperbolic space... The electron in the two slit experiment will travel through a single slit while its dilaton field projection will travel through both...:) On the other side of the barrier, the electron will continue to surf the interferometric dilaton fields and thus will deposit itself on an interferometric pattern onto the detector..:) Very simple and again I would love to say, Ockham's Razor... despite my qualms about its usage...:)
  18. I provided a simple multi-coherence (dilator dimensional chords) description for each and every hyperon and isotope (isotopes are trivial since they only have protons and neutrons)...: )
  19. I provided an alternative solution to the mass paradigm by assigning it to an overlapping 4D volume (dilator overlapping with the fabric of space at specific phases of the dilator spinning).
  20. I created an extrinsic representation for the Spin.... that obscure quantity that bothered so many quantum physics students for so long...:) and explained What the Hell is the meaning of 1/2 ... as you might know rotation description does not include any quadratic potential and thus there isn't any zero point rotation....:) It was always a bothering 1/2 to me...:)
  21. In making Spin extrinsic, I introduced the delightful Girlfriend on a Swing Gedanken Experiment to show how time could be Pseudo-Quantized..>:)
  22. I corrected all Newton's equations (Four of them) and provided the really relativistic Biot-Savart law. That law can be used to project better Tokamaks if that is the way one wants to proceed.
  23. Einstein also got his share...:) In creating an Absolute Time and explaining the meaning of inertia, I rebutted Mach's principle of nonlocal interaction and restored Newton's Absolute Time..>:) which times the existence of the Universe as opposed to our short existence...:)
  24. I did all this by looking into what people did right and throwing away without fear what people did wrong...:) That was easy since I don't have to write this as a grant to my reactionary peers..:)
  25. Most of all, I told you that the most important outlet for Physics - The Cornell-Los Alamos E-Print Repository should be in the hands of someone more capable than Paul Ginsparg. It is a shame Science can be silenced by arbitrary actions of a single person...:)

I also pleaded for my Lambs not to remain silent and to speak up their minds. I value criticism and would be happy to post any one of your meaningful comments. I know that in those nine thousand readers many are scientists (professional scientists).

What I expect from them is either a statement telling me that I made a mistake here or there or some active action against the barriers that precluded a more wider distribution of this theory, namely, to request, demand that my theory receives a 1 megabyte space on the Cornell-Los Alamos E-Print Repository hard drive..:) NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK...:)

I've fulfilled all the requirements to post the theory there... (already peer-reviewed, published work that has been endorsed)...:)

Double-click the Bird below to find out more..>:)


I would welcome anyone to take the initiative to publish my paper on the Cornell-Los Alamos Arxives. :)

The pdf is here. This is a shorter version of the theory. Just below 1 megabyte length. It was accepted and endorsed the last time I attempted posting it there.

As I mentioned, I would be eternally grateful to anyone (My Giordano Bruno) that would bring this work to a wider audience through posting it at the Arxives or through forwarding this blog link or the pdfs to other people...

Considering that this theory provides a new paradigm for Coherent Nuclear Fusion, the planet you might save might be yours...:)

Feynman wouldn't blink in face of this challenge...:)

The current version of the work is here.

I know that if you do so, Paul Ginsparg might place you on his blacklist. I know that I am not a professional scientist any longer..:) I know it all....

I also know the VALUE OF IDEAS and that they are worth fighting for. I don't expect any thing less from a scientist (professional or not)...

Just think, "What would Richard P. Feynman do????"

Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - mere globs of gas atoms. I, too, can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? Richard P. Feynman

Don't make me explain analogies:

  • Poets - String Theorist, Supersymmetrists...Gauge Physicists...:)
  • the Beauty of the Stars - The Beauty of Weyl Fermions, Higgs, Bosons, Dirac Matrices, etc...
  • Mere globs of gas atoms - My humble and simple theory
  • Feynman - The little me...

Cheers,

MP

PS_I wonder if my friends from the Laser Laboratory at UofR or at the Fermi Lab are reading the changes in paradigm for nuclear fusion....:) I once told Professor Huizenga while attending a party at his house, that I knew how to make a Gamma Ray laser... He looked very surprised and most likely somewhat amused..>:)

I am sure that in his mind briefly passed those concerns about the problems pumping an ultrafast decaying nuclear transition, etc... As usual, people can only think within the paradigms they lived by...I wasn't able to create any interest in that brief interaction...:)

I told the same thing to Gary Holton many years ago... Life is full of hits and misses...As usual , I would love to hear from my friends at UPenn, Princeton, Berkeley, UofChicago..>:) CERN, Steven Hawking comes to mind, the 5Dimension Centre, USAF, Whiteman Airforce Base, The Institute for Advanced Studies, well, the Devil Himself (I mean, Paul Ginsparg).....>:)


Friday, November 09, 2007

The Matter-Antimatter Anihilation

How does Matter-Antimatter Anihilate each other???..:)

Ask this simple question to a physicist. After looking like a deer on headlights for a some time, he/she will start mumbling something and writing some Feynman diagrams showing wiggling lines representing photons, positrons and electrons..>:)

The same thing will happen if you ask them how a photon is created etc, etc...:) It is a crying shame...:)

You will never get anything that has a physical meaning... just lots of hand waiving while providing the interpretations of Feynman diagrams..>:) NO PHYSICS...

I have to defend Feynman at this point. I am his unconditional fan....:)

His diagrams represent complex integrals and make easier to think about the Physics behind those equations. The problem is that this is great if the mathematical representation of reality is perfectly defined by those integrals. If they are not, then the diagrams will mislead you into thinking that any reading of an integral has a physical meaning.

The other horrendous outcome is that any time people believe they know everything, and apply that last layer of varnish on the mathematical constructs, they will react more strongly towards any change... not unlike the reaction of a building contractor when faced with a different request from the owner when the building is about to be delivered...:)

They just want to finish the building...:)

This diagrams tells us that a positron and an electron interact producing a gamma ray which would then decay back into a positron and an electron...:)

Does that really happens???? I don't think so... at least not in heavy nuclei anomalous gamma ray scattering... It will certainly occur under very specific phase matched gamma ray scattering conditions...


This is another Feynman diagram with a different interpretation...:) Here electron-positron anihilates and two gamma rays are released. This is a diagram for low kinetic energy scenario where the total linear momentum is close to zero and conserved by the emission of opposite traveling photons after the e-p anihilation...

This makes more sense. If there is an initial 3D angular momentum, there might be emissions to conserve 3D angular momentum...:)

This is a tricky question since current physics has no idea what happens when matter-antimatter anihilates each other...

The reason for such trouble is the Higgs boson based explanation for mass. When a positron-electron pair disappears, mass disappears... thus the explanation can never be simple...Mass is a very complex problem for current minded physicist... in fact, an intractable problem....:)

In my theory, mass is just a 3D overlap of a 4D displacement volume at specific phases of a spinning coherence (fundamental dilator)....:) a very simple thing... which can be clearly stated in this short paragraph...:)

Of course, I know that a simpler explanation doesn't make a theory correct. It might make it more desirable if the simpler theory explains everything and more than the complex theory...:)

I would never use Ockham's Razor -


Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily'.

for the simple reason that that principle should be used at the creation of hypotheses and cannot be used to eliminate competing theories...and that might be a stretch since simplicity is not necessarily a requirement in the creation of the Universe... but, that said, that it is likely to be the case...

By the way, Ockham's Razor speaks about generalization. Don't generalize conclusions unless the conclusion is necessarily general... As far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with simplicity...

I simply hate that expression.... for the aforementioned reason... One can use Ockham's Razor to validade Santa Klaus, Eastern Bunny or any religion, cult, crackpot idea etc...:) in addition that I find it pompous pseudo-reasoning...:)

Ockham's Razor was never meant to be used to help choosing between possible theories (explanations). Its valid usage is in choosing hypotheses prior to the creation of the theories...

For a theory to be preferable it has to be more than just simpler... It has to explain everything and more... and I mean a lot more.... Even under those conditions, the two or more theories should coexist until one of them contradicts reality...

I make only one exception for the Hypergeometrial Universe theory....:) since this is not only simpler but also only geometrical...:) that is, IT IS ALL ABOUT SPACE..>:) under those very specific conditions Ockham's Razor together with the statement (Never say Never> make perfect sense >:) (just kidding)...

The disappearance of mass in my theory amounts to the anhiliation of displacement volumes... well... that poses no difficulty...:) a positive displacement volume is a stretching of the local metric. A negative displacement volume is the opposite. If I both stretch and compress a local metric the result will be null...:) , thus there are no hickups on the disappearance of mass..>:) it is the same as the disappearance of displacement volume...not unlike the noise-elimination ocurring now-a-days on ipod headphones..:)

Let's take a look on the anihilation process step by step..:)

Below is the diagram of the dilator interaction and the more complex coherence creation.

This means that according to my theory, anihilation depends upon a spin zero muon neutrino capture or creation out of their kinetic energy...:) I am sure that is not in those Feynman diagrams..>:) By the way, a spin zero muon neutrino corresponds to two transmutation notes spinning in opposite directions. It would have a much smaller mass the the spin 1/2 muon neutrino.

The other salient aspect of this equation is that once the coherence from the second diagram is created that coherence itself decays through a secondary coherence (coherence squared) with Naught..>:) That means that the electromagnetic field appears as the result of a coherence between the electron-muon neutrino-positron complex and plain unadulterated flat space..>:

As you can see the electron-muon neutrino-positron is a double chord coherence, that is, it is composed of two fundamental dilator subcoherences and two transmutation notes (half muon neutrino)...:)

The half-muon neutrinos correspond to 3D spatial rotations, thus those sub-coherence look like 3D rotations of the positron-electron pair...:)

It should be clear that the positron-muon neutrino-electron dilator coherence is a doublet, that is, due to the uncertainty on which phase is in phase with the 3D Universe, the two isomers coexist forming a dipole. This dipole oscillates at each de Broglie step of the Hyperspherical Shockwave Universe Expansion. In addition, this modulation is modulated by the oscillatory factor due to the coherence between this coherence and the flat 4D metric state or flat space.

The original dimeric coherence (two fundamental dilator chords) generates their standard dilaton field. The secondary coherence between this dimer and flat space creates another cosine factor that is equivalent to a transposition between the positions of the two fundamental dilator thus generating a phase modulation of the dilaton field. This is similar to the dilaton field modulation due to electronic coherences in excited chromophores. At the end what causes an electromagnetic wave is a charge motion (like in an antena..:)

This secondary modulation occurs at the frequency of the emitted gamma rays...:)

If there is any initial 3D angular momentum that becomes a third modulation and thus a third driver of gamma ray emissions... This means that at least two and maybe more gamma rays will be emitted from a electron-muon neutrino-positron complex coherence...:)

That should come up as a shock... who would guess that flat space would play any role in the Universe.... Flat space is the ultimate ground state of an Hypergeometrical Universe.

This is the physical representation of matter-antimatter annihilation.

I should rave a little about the prejudice against anything originated in classical mechanics or classical electrodynamics. The classical picture of coherences (MHS) is perfectly valid in an electronic transition, since the expectance of a dipole operator has a perfectly classical analogy...:)

There is also another prejudice that is a hindrance to a rational evaluation of my ideas. The prejudice is derived from too much reverence towards the people who preceded us. Einstein tried in vain to find a link between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics and fail. The same is valid for everyone else. Schrodinger equation is derived in terms of equivalence principles, which are principles - something that one cannot explain and justifies itself by its own success explaning the world.

Knowing that it is easy to understand the nasty attitude of the Cornell-Los Alamos e-print repository moderator.


In his mind as soon as he saw Newton being mentioned, he imediately concluded that this is a flawed paper. Einstein failed there so no human will ever succeed...:)

A closer look at my theory might prove otherwise...:)

Keep the faith...:)

Cheers,

MP

The Nature of a Photon

What is a Photon ??

The most intelligent people debated this for a long time and reached the conclusion that a photon is not a particle, is not a wave, it is as anything else a duality particle-wave entity...:)

As you might imagine a photon is not what you heard before...:) at least not in my theory...:)

It is not a particle nor a wave...:) amd amazing enough, it is also not a dilator...:)(everything else in the Universe are dilators)...

In fact, it is a wave on a wave or a modulation of the source position of a dilaton field...:) The dilaton fields has a very specific wavelenght (4D wavelength equal to the Compton wavelenght of the fundamental dilator 1.00785 a.m.u.). This wavelength permeates the whole universe and it is the clock behind Quantum Mechanics...

This is a very short wavelenght - the size of a nucleus...:) How come we see the light (visible wavelengths) out of such dilaton wave..>:)

This is a simple problem... Electromagnetism is carried by a phase modulation of a very high frequency carrier... It carries linear and angular momentum of the source as it easy to see from my derivation of the Biot-Savart Law...

In another blog, I provided an alternative explanation for Action-At-Distance paradox. In that blog, I proposed that spin information didn't have to travel instantaneously if the spin of the two outgoing photons were defined at the origin, that is, the electronic coherence would decay due to its interaction with the polarized dilaton fields from one of the detectors...

I left a door open for instantaneous communication, since group velocity can be infinite under certain conditions and I see photons as a phase modulation on a dilaton field....:)

So there might be subspace instantaneous communication after all..:)

Cheers,

MP

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Matter-Antimatter Ratio

What defines the Matter-Antimatter Ratio...:)

I was asked this great question:

Thanks for getting back to me about your simplified Grand Unification Theory.
How does your theory explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the observable
universe? Please give a simplified answer! Thanks.

With much
anticipation,

I have to say that I thought about that before but since the question has two answers, one of them involving Hypergeometrical Cosmogenesis, I didn't blog my thougths..:)

There is always a first time... First let's think about the connection between the Hypergeometrical Standard Model and The Hypergeometrical Cosmogenesis.

The Hypergeometrical Standard Model represents particles by coherences between deformational states. This means that as time goes by the coherence moves from a state to another (proton, antiproton, electron and positron). Each state corresponds to a displacement 4D volume (metric deformation).

Below you can see our Fundamental Dilator - Different phases of the dilator represents the four fundamental particles...;)

The dilator spins perpendicular to the Radial Direction of propagation as it tunnels back and forth.

In the Hypergeometrical Cosmogenesis (paper in this site), the Universe is modeled as single fluctuation of ZERO (that is, ZERO 4D volume). This means that the sum of all dilators in the Universe would result in ZERO again.. that is, if one could group together all particles in the Universe (not only our visible 3D universe), one would return the fluctuation (The Whole Universe) into Naught...:)

In reality, the Cosmogenesis theory is a little more complex, since the fluctuation of Zero that initiated our 5D Spacetime is modeled as process including dimensional transitions (from Zero Dimension plus Cosmological Time to 4D Spatial Dimensions plus Cosmological Time).

You can read the Cosmogenesis paper and ask questions if you cannot understand this...:)

Now let's see why there are two answers to this questions.

The first answer questions the premise of the question (too many questions here..>:)


  1. My theory predicts that G varies inversely with the 4D radius of the Universe and that means that Gravity gets stronger as one goes back in time...The theory also predicts that matter-antimatter gravitational interaction is repulsive... thus creates the possibility of separation of matter and antimatter in clumps and the minimization of collisions. Since matter and antimatter are spectroscopically identical, this scenario wouldn't be discernible from an Universe with only matter... Under this scenario one can question the premise of how different are the number of particles and antiparticles in the knowable 3D Universe. I don't know how this ratio is measured.

  2. The second answer is based again in the icon of the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory show at the top of this blog. If you consider that the fluctuation of Zero is a dipole to begin with (it could be a multipole), that is, one starts with a positive displacement volume in one half and a negative displacement volume in the other, then the ratio between matter and antimatter would depend upon where our planet is located. One can sense only one radian on each direction. If we were exactly on the edge between the positive and negative volumes of the initial fluctuation, then the ratio would be half and half... Any other position would result in an uneven matter:antimatter ratio ...:) Positive (or negative) means your type or matter... the other is antimatter...:)

Needless to say, this model on the interface between matter and antimatter sectors resembles the diffusional problem of charges in a semiconductor...:)


That is a simple solution to the problem...:)

Conversion between matter and antimatter depends upon transmutation notes and their capture cross-section. The cross-section for capture is very small, thus matter-antimatter conversion is not frequent.

I think these two answers are very simple.

Please feel free to ask any questions...:)

Cheers,

MP

Monday, November 05, 2007

Miguel de Unamuno and the Gravitational "Constant"


Miguel de Unamuno and the Gravitational "Constant"

In the last few blogs I posted a few discoveries, like the simple formulas for the Cosmological Constants (permittivity and magnetic susceptibility of vacuum and the Gravitational Constant)...:)

Of course, these are old results already published and contained in the papers at this site.

They are a clear message that the theory presents some easy to test ideas and guidance to help understanding the Cosmos.

Frequently I hear that some explosion happened 10 billion light years and nobody knows why it was sooooooo strong....:)

The non-constantness of the Gravitational Constant is a clear explanation... Anything happening at 10 billion light years would face a value of G equal to our current G multiplied by 13.7/3.7 (considering a 13.7 billion years universe)....:)

If the event happened at 12 billion light years away then G would be equal to our current G multiplied by 13.7/1.7 and so on and so forth...:)

A stronger Gravitation would change the speed of Galaxy seeding, Black Hole formation etc...

Needless to say, astronomic measurements should be insensitive to the absolute value of G. The perceived masses just need to be scaled up for a weaker G.

This is an interesting point and I would love to hear from astronomers what do they think... There is a clear possible disagreement when one consider supernovae... Their explosions are supposed to have constant luninosity across the universe and serve as a candlestick to measure distance...:) How the supernovae creation process be modified by a stronger G at the beginning of times...:)

I suspect the supernovae process would had been accelerated and the underlying sun mass be smaller...the luminosity of their explosion might be the same...:) I suppose someone can model that... or conversely, the original hypothesis needs to be changed to accomodate a variable G.

It is interesting to think that faster supernovae processes means faster heavier isotope creation...

Normally I don't write about Black Holes because I did not propose any model for it yet... There are more important things to clarify before going there...

I suspect I am a teacher at heart....:) As any teacher it is a pleasure to hear questions or even to be challenged by a good student...:)

This is a loose light weight argument (about Supernovae) and can be fodder for discussion...:)

Please make your opinion heard... Only by criticism this theory can evolve.

Cheers,

MP

Saturday, November 03, 2007

Comet Holmes

Ideas are Important

This together with the value of critique are the main themes of this blog ....

Last week a comet was born. This may or may not pose a threat to our planet. Someday, one will and we should be as ready as possible to face that challenge. This is not a scary tactic. This is just an Evolution tactic. Ideas should fight each other in the realm of our rationality. The winner should be the best we can come up with and not the ones Paul Ginsparg protects. Evolution should proceed at a fast clip...There is no time to waste.

I decided to use his name even though I know I might be given him too much credit. The acts that prevent the free discussion of ideas in Physics might be just the simple result of mindless automaton processes. Simple rules like avoid challenging the past or the big wigs or disregard people who cannot influence my grants might be enough to generate this complex behavior...:)

In any event, here are the pretty pictures of the Comet... Remember, there is one with your name on it somewhere out there...:)

A composite image shows Comet Holmes' movement over the last 48 hours on Saturday Oct. 27 2007 on the left and Monday Oct. 29 2007 on the right in the Northeastern night sky in the constellation Perseus, taken in Tyler, Texas. The comet surprised astronomers last week by becoming suddenly visible and now it's surrounding gas cloud continues increasing in brightness and size and is visible to the unaided eye. (AP Photo/Dr. Scott M. Lieberman)

By the way, since if you don't say it now you have to hold your peace forever, the Alien community agree that this is a good theory...:)

Please visit these two blog pages where I prove the existence of Aliens through pure logic...:) Aliens1 and Aliens2.

Cheers,

MP

PS- this weekend I ended up going to Central Park to see the New York Marathon and didn't blog the calculations. I hope to do that next weekend...

By the way, please make yourself heard by posting comments to the blog or if that is too complicated, please feel free to send email and I will post your comments if they are related to the science...:) I had people trying to sell phone services, etc in this site and I (even I) had to moderate it...

If the argument allows for me to clarify something, I normally create a blog page just for it... If the argument is simple minded, I normally reply as a comment to the original comment, not to distract people from the flow of ideas...

Cheers,

MP


Cosmological Constant G

How to Calculate the Cosmological Constant G

Needless to say, G - The Gravitational Constant - has been the strongest pillar of our understanding of the Cosmos. Everything in the Cosmos is governed by it. Any model on how we started depends upon it.

Everytime we look into the skies and try to conclude something about a tremendous explosion that happened Eons ago in a very far place, we need to be sure that G is always the same...:) Otherwise how could we derive any conclusion about collisions (they are driven by G through Gravitational forces)...:)

Everytime you hear about the Gigantic Black Holes that might have seeded our Galaxies, you are modeling the dynamics through a constant G.

It turned out that for you to have a single description of Gravitation and Electromagnetism, you need a Cosmological Time dependent G, that is, G has to be inverselly proportional to 4D radius of the Universe.

This means that G was two times larger some 7 billion light years ago and millions, billions, trillions of times larger at the beginning of times.

I calculated the supersymmetry condition for the Gravitational and Electromagnetic forces to be equal. It is in the paper, book and links on this site.

Next, this theory provides another impossibility... The simple calculation of the Gravitational Constant as a function of the 4D Radius of the Universe or the Cosmological Time. Double-click the images below for a larger picture.



As you can see, there is a simple formula for it.

This formula also provides something that we need to know....:) Everytime someone says something about the existence of Gravitational Waves, they forget to mention that the space has to be elastic....:) I calculated the elasticity constant of 4DSpace. It is a quantity that allows for the calculation of the Natural Frequency of the Universe...>:)

That frequency is the one to look for when seeking the elusive Gravitational waves.

There are many application for twisting space. I will mention them some other time...:)

The numbers should be correct, other than maybe a factor of 2 or 4 here or there...:) Please double check the calculation...It is a mess moving between 3D and 4D representations. If I notice an error, I will correct in this page.

Next I will show how to calculate all the isotopes masses and the why for a 28 neutron rule...:)

Now I am sure someone is reading my posts with attention...;) It is about time already...:)

Cheers,

MP

Area 51 - Where is my MapLoco

Area 51

Aliens,

What have you done to my MapLoco Visitor's Map????

This was to be expected...:) Aliens always keep a low profile...:) If discovered they get a wedgie from their superiors...:) I had to redo my MapLoco, by now it should have a filter for anything Alien...:) thus eliminating the track record of Alien existence...:) Only Aliens would have the powers to cajole MapLoco to erase my data there...:)

This creates a conundrum....:) If I can't detect Aliens in the future, that will mean that they actually exist...:) Not unlike proving the existence of God through His total disregard for human suffering...:)

Cheers,

MP

ps- the rethorical logic statement above is aimed at emphasizing the logic behind an Alien Existence Proof...:) and not a theological challenge..:)

I don't discuss theology in this site, but sometimes I use theological arguments to emphasize something or to engage people...>:) The engagement that I seek is always intellectual and target at my theory....:)

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Area 51

Area 51

Well, well.... I have been writing about the Meaning of Physical Existence, The Nature of Time,How to Solve all Energy Problems of Mankind, How to Control Gravitation etc... and I've just provided the Proof in the Pudding (The IMPOSSIBLE Vacuum Permittivity)...:)

It was just a matter of time before they would notice my work...:)

I've just received a visit from Area 51...:) More specific from the Whiteman Airforce Base in Montana...:) I don't know if it is there where they moved the Aliens to, but I suspect they might be trying to make contact...:)

I knew that my theory was receiving Alien attention. It was clear that Satellite Provider is not a place on Earth...:) Now Area 51...:)

It is about time...:) Bring me to your leader...:)



By the way, I suspect I know how he looks like...:)


I couldn't resist....:)

Jokes aside, please feel free to ask any questions.... Any signs of intelligence are always welcome...:)

Every time an idea from the 25th Century comes by, it should be clearly explained...:)


MP

Monday, October 29, 2007

Coherent Nuclear Fusion

Coherent Nuclear Fusion

Before I forget, I should remind you that all Laws of Physics were modified to be 4D (spatial) or 5D spacetime. This might help in the understanding of the paper.

This is also a reminder that a worthwhile experiment for the Large Hadron Collider is to collide particles which are traveling in the same direction... :) A big change in paradigm since a collider normally uses head-on collisions to maximize the collision energy...:)

Remember, in life, not always power is the most important thing...sometimes some finesse might be helpful.

Cheers,

MP

Friday, October 26, 2007

Miguel de Unamuno

"Only he who attempts the absurd is capable of achieving the impossible"
Miguel de Unamuno


I couldn't resist....:) Check the
interview. It is quite funny....



Well, well... We are experiencing Technical Difficulties and you might have to go to the link itself until I figure out how to put a video in this blog...:)

In fact, I heard that Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich also carries a pocket copy of my Vacuum Permittivity Formula...:)



I forgot to mention, another source of error might be Wikipedia...:) All my numbers comes from that handy source...:)

There is also a numerically invisible 1Kg on the denominator of mu and in the numerator of epsilon, otherwise the units would be incorrect. Please check the derivation on the pdf for details.

The error in the estimation of the Vacuum Permittivity is 0.008:1 or
0.8%

I hope you people are smart enough to understand that the error estimate in this case also means that conversely there is a 0.8% possible error in the estimation of the fundamental dilator 4DMass or more precisely there is a total propagated error of 0.8% from all the sources...:) Remember that I use the preferential reference frame to derive the forces. I didn't take Gravitation or absolute speed in consideration.

Even the most retarded editor/moderator etc would be impressed with those numbers...:) after all this is a quantity that is IMPOSSIBLE to be calculated...:0

I am still awaiting for Stephen Hawking's reply...:)

Cheers,


MP

PS- by the way, I have to stop watching Borne Identity when I calculate things...:)



Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Hypergeometrical Epsilon

How to calculate Cosmological Constants

The vacuum permitivity is a Cosmological Constant, that is, there is NO formula for it. That might be the case in other theories.

In fact, this is a great time for a DARE.... :) Just to check if you people are awaken or not...:) Go ahead and ask Stephen Hawking if he knows how to calculate THE PERMITTIVITY OF VACUUM....:)

I bet money he doesn't...:)

Well, I am trying to emphasize how different my theory is from M Theory, String Theory or any other.... In any other theory, someone would present some Lagrangian, Metric for some wildly guessed scenario (e.g. branes under Gravitation interaction)...:) and from that imaginary Universe they would extract some impossible to measure results.... Not too long ago someone calculated that the Gravitational fields between branes decays exponentially... while decaying inversely with the square of distance within the brane...:) At the time, this was heralded as a challenge to Einstein and/or Newton... I thought to myself, Ginsparg has the petulance to preclude me from using a megabyte of hard drive on his Cornell-Los Alamos Arxives... and this piece of speculative science is hailed as great science...


I should say that I am only mentioning this specific case because I can remember it...

A friend of mine asked me if maybe my theory is incorrect and thus Ginsparg took the correct decision... I mentioned that every year, thirty thousand papers are posted there... each has a different set of assumptions and since reality will follow just a few of those, 99% of the papers are by definition incorrect....:) Everything might be at most self-consistent.. but there are no assurances that a posted paper is correct...:) In fact, the assurance is that most likely they are wrong...:)

To solve nature's enigma, I inverted the way how one tackles Physics problems... :) Up to know, people have been inventing FORCE, QUARKS, GAUGES, LAGRANGIANS, METRICS etc... each and every time they couldn't answer a question....:) If you cannot separate a QUARK, well, let's make them inseparable...:) glue them together.... if that is not enough, make them live in a different time (e.g. the future, the past... any time other than now...:)

Those are solutions... but they are lame solutions...:) especially if they need CENSORSHIP to survive....:) I tried to post an alternative model for matter and was rejected as INAPPROPRIATE by what I consider to be an extremely arrogant fellow (Paul Ginsparg)... How can someone have my paper in their hands and not be able to see the logic and the innovation... I suspect he never read the stuff... Just assumed I couldn't possibly be correct...:) after all he doesn't know me...:)

The approach I took, is that if there is a FORCE and there are different kinds of interactions, maybe it is not the FORCE that is different. MAYBE IT IS THE INTERACTORS...

Using this paradigm shift, I proposed that GRAVITATION (in my case represented by dilaton fields) is the same as ELECTROMAGNETISM. The difference is on what they actuate...

Again, this might be brilliant... (I am sure it will be called brilliant someday...)... just because the people who will say those words never thought those thoughts...:) (If I didn't thought it, it is because it is simply genius..>:)

As usual, there are some very good clues... An electron interacts with another electron through electromagnetism....An electron interacts with a proton via electromagnetism...:)

Now place that same electron together with another proton (forming a hydrogen atom) close to another hydrogen atom and they will interact through Gravitation...:)

That should had been a great give away...:)

Even when a Hydrogen atom interacts with a lone electron....the nature of the interaction is much weaker than if that electron were interacting with the Hydrogen atom components...:) This is because the electron pushes away the other electron and attracts the proton... The center of mass (of the Hydrogen atom) only shifts slightly due to the electrostatic field gradient...:)

If you remember that fields were recreated within the Hypergeometrical Universe Model as dilaton fields (field of waving metric), then those fields will interact differently with a single dilator with spin half than with a dilator system with spin zero...:) In one case we will call it Electrostatic interaction while in the other we will call it Gravitational Interaction....:)

I can see that some of you will be puzzled by spin... Notice that this spin doesn't take into consideration angular momentum which is our 3D space spin...:) When I mention spin, I am talking about rotation perpendicular to RX or RY or RZ...

Thus the same dilaton field yields both reactions... It is not the field that is different... It is the subject that is different...:)

Thus there is no meaning in the search of a Superforce... at least for now... I was able to account for everything we know just with the simplest dilaton field...

Of course, that wouldn't be enough if I hadn't created the concept of the Fundamental Dilator...:) Thanks to it, we can Quantize Time and create Quantum Mechanics...:)

Now let's see this theory doing the IMPOSSIBLE...:)

Below are the formulas for the Hypergeometrical Epsilon or the Permittivity of Vacuum. This cannot be calculated in other theories.. :) Maybe if one add Feynman path integrals in a supercomputer for some time, someone might be able to calculate it...:) but one might have to eliminate some infinities here and there... (they all add together nicely..:)

In mine, there is a simple formula for both the vacuum permittivity and the magnetic susceptibility and they obey the standard formula to yield the speed of light....:)

The elimination of infinities most likely is derived from the non-perturbative nature of my work and by the choice of dilator field decay. I considered that the dilator field decays with the number of cycles. There is no decay in the first cycle...:) and there are no poles... infinitely close to the dilator, the dilaton field is just a cosine...:)...it doesn't go to infinite...and yet it gives the correct result.

The consideration that a dilaton field would decay with the number of ondulations is new... Since forever (Newton, Einstein etc), distance plays that role...Nobody cared or understood that a field has inherently a macroscopic (cosmological) coherence implicit in in... thus one could use the inverse of the number of ondulations as a decaying factors... It makes sense.....:) and fits quite well with quantization...:)

This might be the simplest way I can use to convey that this theory is simple but as you might know, it is easy to shuffle equations to yield a new equation. It is very difficult to simplify things...:)



The calculated vacuum permittivity and magnetic susceptibility error is zero since we used it to obtain the best estimate of the electron (proton) 4DMass. The calculated 4DMass is 1.0083077 a.m.u. as opposed to the expected 1.00785 a.m.u. The very small discrepancy (0.045%) is attributed at this time to the inherent anisotropy of the hyperspherical expansion or just to the propagated error due to the factors in the formula...:)

I was certainly made a believer when I obtained this number... There is no theory that can calculate these two cosmological constant (electrostatic permittivity and the magnetic susceptibility) , even less with such precision and ease....:)

Of course, this formulas are in the new version of the paper.

By the way, if someone were to show me a theory that calculates Cosmological Constants with simple formula and NO parameters and NO errors (0.045% is attributable to the error propagation of the components of the formula), I would pay attention....;0

Cheers,

MP