You are searching about Which One Of The Following Is Not An Empirical Formula, today we will share with you article about Which One Of The Following Is Not An Empirical Formula was compiled and edited by our team from many sources on the internet. Hope this article on the topic Which One Of The Following Is Not An Empirical Formula is useful to you.
Pure Derivation of the Exact Fine – Structure Constant and As a Ratio of Two Inexact Metric Constant
At the Strings Conference in July 2000, theorists were asked what mysteries remained unsolved in the 21st century. Participants were invited to help formulate the ten most important unsolved problems in fundamental physics, which were ultimately selected and ranked by a distinguished committee of David Gross, Edward Witten, and Michael Duff. No question was worth more than Gross and Witten’s first two issues: #1: Are all (measurable) dimensionless parameters that characterize the physical universe in principle computable, or are some simply determined by historical or quantum mechanical accident and uncomputable? #2: How can quantum gravity help explain the origin of the universe?
A newspaper article about these millennial secrets made some interesting comments about question #1. Perhaps Einstein said it more clearly: Did God have a choice in creating the universe?” – which also sums up difficulty #2. While there certainly may have been a “choice” in the Eternal “creation”, the following arguments conclude that the answer to Einstein’s question is an emphatic “no”. The full spectrum of unprecedented, precise fundamental physical parameters are provably calculable a one-dimensional universal system which of course includes the literal “A monolith.”
The article also asked whether the speed of light, Planck’s constant, and electric charge are arbitrarily determined — or must the values be what they are because of some deep hidden logic. Such questions come to a point, a puzzle involving a mysterious number called alpha. If you put the square of the electron charge squared and you divide it times the speed of light by Planck’s (“reduced”) constant (multiplied by 4p to the permeability of the vacuum), all (metric) dimensions (mass, time and distance) cancel out, yielding the so-called “pure number” – alpha, which is just over 1/137. But why isn’t it exactly 1/137 or some other value entirely? Physicists and even mystics have tried in vain to explain why.”
This means that while constants such as the fundamental mass of a particle can be expressed as a dimensionless relation to the Planck scale, or as a relation to a somewhat more precisely known or accessible unit of mass, the inverse of the electromagnetic coupling constant alpha is uniquely dimensionless. how clean ‘fine structure number’ a ~ 137.036. On the other hand, assuming a unique, unchanging discrete or exact fine-structured numbers exist as “word constants”, the value still needs to be empirically confirmed as a ratio of two inaccurately determine the “metric constants”, h-bar and electric charge e (the speed of light c is exactly defined When the SI convention was adopted in 1983 as a whole number of meters per second.)
Although this mystery has been deeply puzzling almost from its beginning, my impression on reading this article in the morning paper was utter astonishment that the numerological problem of immutability deserved such distinction by eminent modern authorities. Because for several years I was obliquely obsessed with the fs number in the context of my colleague AJ Meyer’s model, but settled for its experimental determination in practice, periodically pondering the dimensionless problem in vain. Gross’s question was thus the catalyst for my satisfaction; recognizing the unique position of being the only man who can give a categorically complete and consistent answer in the context of Meyer’s main basic parameter. Still, my pretentious instincts led me to a stupid intellectual pose for two months until I sensibly arranged a simple procedure I had researched a few years earlier. I just watched result using the 98-00 CODATA value aand the next solution immediately hit with full heuristic force.
For the fine structure ratio effectively quantifies (via the h-bar) the electromagnetic coupling between a discrete unit of electric charge (e) and a photon of light; in the same sense an is an integer discreetly “quantized” compared to the fractional continuum between it and 240 or 242. It’s easy to see what this means if we consider another integer, 203, from which we subtract the base-2 exponential of 2pi squared. Now add the reciprocal of 241 to the resulting number by multiplying the product by the natural logarithm of 2. It follows that this pure calculation of the fine structure number is exactly equal to 137.0359996502301… – which here (/100) is given to 15, but can be calculated with any decimal precision.
In comparison, given the experimental uncertainties in h-bar and e, the NIST estimate varies by about 6 in the middle of the invariant sequence ‘965’ defined above. The following table shows the values of h-bar, e, their calculated ratio as, and the actual NIST selection a in each of their archival years, as well as the 1973 CODATA, where the standard two-digit +/- experimental uncertainty is in bold in parentheses.
year…h- = Nh*10^-34 Js…… e = Ne*10^-19 C….. h/e^2 = a =….. NIST value & ±(SD):
2006: 1,054,571,628(053) 1 602 176 487 (040) 137 035 999.661 137 035 999 679 (094)
2002: 1,054,571,680(18x) 1 602 176 53o(14o) 137,035,999.062 137 035 999 11o(46o)
1998: 1,054,571,596(082) 1 602 176 462 (063) 137 035 999.779 137 035 999 76o(50o)
1986: 1,054,572 66x(63x) 1 602 177 33x(49x) 137,035.989 558 137 035 989 5xx(61xx)
1973: 1,054,588 7xx(57xx) 1 602 189 2xx (46xx) 137.036.043,335 137,036. 04x(11x)
Thus, the NIST selection appears to be roughly determined by the measured values h and e alone. However, as explained at http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html, in the 1980s interest shifted to a new approach that gives a direct determination of a using the quantum Hall effect, which is independently confirmed by both electron magnetic moment anomaly theory and experiment, thus reducing its already fine-tuned uncertainty. Yet it took 20 years before a better measurement of the magnetic moment was obtained g/2 factor was published in mid-2006, where the first estimate by this group (led by Gabrielse for Hussle at Harvard.edu a was (A:) 137.035999. 710(096). h– bar and e. However, a numerical error was recently discovered in the original QED calculation (A:) (we refer to it as the 2nd paper B:) which shifted the value of a to (B:) 137.035999. 070 (098).
Although it reflects an almost identically small uncertainty, this estimate is clearly outside the NIST value, which is consistent with h-bar and elementary charge estimates determined independently by different experiments. NIST has three years to sort this out, but in the meantime faces the embarrassing irony that at least the 06 choices for h-bar and e seem to be slightly skewed toward the expected fit. a! For example, adjusting the last three digits of the 06 data for h and e with our pure fs number yields a negligible correction for e only with a ratio of h628/e487.065. If the QCD bug had been fixed before the actual NIST publication in 2007, it could have been uniformly adjusted to h626/e489 quite easily; though questions its coherence with the last 3 issues a compared to the data of 02 and 98. In any case, much larger improvements are needed to reduce the h and e error to a comparable extent to finally solve this problem.
But even then, no matter how closely metric is kept, it still falls infinitely short of literal accuracy, while our pure fs number matches the current values of h628/e487 quite closely. Related to the above, I recently discovered that a mathematician named James Gilson (see http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/%7Ejgg/page5.html ) also developed a pure number = 137.0359997867… more corrected 98. -01 standard . Gilson further claims to have calculated numerous parameters of the standard model, such as the dimensionless ratio between Z and W weak-gauge boson masses. But I know he would never be able to produce any evidence using equivalent powers deriving from this precisely the masses of Z and/or W per se confirmed heavy masses quarks and Higgs fields (see the essays cited in the resource box), which themselves derive from one overwhelming dimensionless tautology. For fractional numerical discreteness, 1/241 allows to construct physically meaningful dimensionless equations. If we take Gilson’s numerology or Gabreil’s et. refined empirical value. al., for the fs number, this would destroy the discreteness, exact self-consistency, and ability to converge write meaningful dimensionless equation! In contrast, perhaps not too surprisingly then, after I literally found the integer 241 and derived the exact fine structure number from the resulting monolith number, it only took about 2 weeks to calculate the mass of all six quarks using the actual dimensionless mass. analysis and various finely structured relationships.
But since we are not now talking about the fine structure number per se any more than the integer 137, the result is answers definitively Gross question. These “dimensionless parameters characterizing the physical universe” (including alpha) are ratios between selected metric parameters that lack a unified dimensionless mapping system from which metric parameters such as particle masses are calculated from set equations. The “standard model” provides a single parameter system, but no means to calculate or predict any and/or all in one system – so test parameters are entered manually at random.
The ultimate irony: I am destined to be denigrated as a “numerologist” by “experimentalists” who consistently fail to recognize the hard empirical proof of quark, Higgs, or hadron masses that could be used to accurately calculate the current standard for the most precisely known. and the heaviest mass in high-energy physics (Z). So, conversely, silly ghosts: empirical confirmation is just the final cherry on top of the chef before presenting “Proof of the Pudding”. Because the base of this pudding is made from melons that I call Mumber, which are actually numbers, pure and simple!
Video about Which One Of The Following Is Not An Empirical Formula
You can see more content about Which One Of The Following Is Not An Empirical Formula on our youtube channel: Click Here
Question about Which One Of The Following Is Not An Empirical Formula
If you have any questions about Which One Of The Following Is Not An Empirical Formula, please let us know, all your questions or suggestions will help us improve in the following articles!
The article Which One Of The Following Is Not An Empirical Formula was compiled by me and my team from many sources. If you find the article Which One Of The Following Is Not An Empirical Formula helpful to you, please support the team Like or Share!
Rate Articles Which One Of The Following Is Not An Empirical Formula
Rate: 4-5 stars
Search keywords Which One Of The Following Is Not An Empirical Formula
Which One Of The Following Is Not An Empirical Formula
way Which One Of The Following Is Not An Empirical Formula
tutorial Which One Of The Following Is Not An Empirical Formula
Which One Of The Following Is Not An Empirical Formula free
#Pure #Derivation #Exact #Fine #Structure #Constant #Ratio #Inexact #Metric #Constant