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...:) 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


Post a Comment