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.



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.

Post a Comment