Physics does not explain why astro bodies spin or rotate which points out the fakeness of Big Bang and General Relativity; the Atom Totality theory however does explain the origins of rotation

On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 18:21:34 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 08:31:12 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
...
On 1 Dec 2006 11:45:56 -0800, "a_plutonium"

wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 30 Nov 2006 19:42:42 -0800, "a_plutonium"

wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
(snipped)

Dirac deduced a sea of electrons simply from the minus sign in
the
total energy equation. He did very little with it.

John Polasek

You meant to say "sea of positrons".

No I meant a sea of electrons, look it up in Eisberg for example.
An
electron, when removed, left a "hole".


Well that is your logical error isn't it. Dirac's Sea was logical
inference from available knowledge-- Maxwell Equations, Schrodinger
and
Dirac Equations, Energy formulas.

We are arguing history here, but the Maxwell equations etc. did not
inspire Dirac with his sea of electrons. His total energy equation
purported to describe the total energy of electrons and to quantize
their energies, (again see Eisberg), and, seeing the minus sign next
to the radical, decided to do something about it.
I went after the vacuum to see how it could possibly have
8.8uuF/meter
and as a result, I have the vacuum entirely blueprinted.

Sorry, John. You don't have it entirely blueprinted. You entirely
ignore the QCD "vacuum". But your approach is on the right track.

Sure I do Fredi. My pair cell is alpha times the Compton wavelength
and when its electron escapes and expands by 1/alpha or, cubed, by 2.5
million, its density becomes equal to that of iron. Electrons out of
pairspace expand with enough energy to support the density of iron at
the velocity of light. In Ch. 13 of the book I show how the continuing
emission of electrons to make stars generates a CMBR temperat;ure of
2.557K vs the "book" 2.724.
What's QCD?

Quantum ChromoDynamics. ;-)

Dirac did not go further than monopole and Dirac Sea and positrons,
because he did not have a Atom Totality theory.

As for yours, well, it is not science theory, it is not science
hypothesis, it is merely a "complaint". You do not even list your
basis
theory for which you think you have something new to say to physics.
Apparently your base theory is the Big Bang but you do not even
credit
Big Bang, perhaps because you are scared that the Big Bang will fall
also.

You did not look at my #1 paper at my website. It explains exactly
how
the vacuum is constructed. There are 16 equations or equation
groups.
Pick one and tell what's wrong with it.
My theory does away with the Big Bang but you would not know that;
it's in the book.

Your density is way too low. ;-) Include the QCD "vacuum" and you
will
find a much higher density.

Pairspace density is 4.1x10^10 kg/m^3.

What is your density? Looking at your papers, I don't see the word
density and I don't see any numbers at all, just formulas without
units. In cgs you have to be careful, because the units were wrecked
by the Visigoths who threw out eps0 and mu0. (You can't use coulombs
or volts or farads).

What is your QCD density, numbers and equation?
Now don't forget I am talking about pairspace, the land of the
uncreated, whose electrons after N billion years become our periodic
table and a lot of cooking will have ocurred to make all those
hadrons. Apples and oranges maybe.

We had this discussion before and I think I gave you a rough estimate
that was about 10^18 greater than your pairspace density.

My cell Lambda (or L) is 3.5e-14m. See my Eq. 5-35 where I derive eps
in 7 different ways. This one has only L as an unknown:
eps0 = e^2/Lmc^2 so that
e^2/eps0*L = mc^2 = potential energy of electron at L radius
The cell contains mc^2. (The 4pi is missing because this is a cubic
cell not a spherically symmetric case). the electron is still
"virtual" (uncreated) here. The density m/L^3 = 4e10 kg/m^3 has plenty
of authenticity.

Do a
googlegroup search on my handle and your name. You should be able to
figure it out from the vacuum expectation value of about 246 GeV.

"The vaccum expectation value" is defined how?
Is that the discussion where I mentioned that you might be confusing
246GeV of effort with 246GeV of results? That still goes. As I showed,
total energy can be factored into
TE = Mc*sqrt(v^2 + c^2) = mc* BIGC
to make clear where gamma applies and it is to make a velocity (BIGC)
greater than c, and in the 246GeV case, vastly larger than c. A big M
can help, but it's still bogus. You can't expect very much of the
246GeV to be effective if the target is nearly at the speed of light.

Dual Space theory and common sense say this can't happen. But you and
QCD think it can.
FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
John Polasek

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 18:21:34 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 08:31:12 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
m...
On 1 Dec 2006 11:45:56 -0800, "a_plutonium"

wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 30 Nov 2006 19:42:42 -0800, "a_plutonium"

wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
(snipped)

Dirac deduced a sea of electrons simply from the minus sign
in
the
total energy equation. He did very little with it.

John Polasek

You meant to say "sea of positrons".

No I meant a sea of electrons, look it up in Eisberg for
example.
An
electron, when removed, left a "hole".


Well that is your logical error isn't it. Dirac's Sea was logical
inference from available knowledge-- Maxwell Equations,
Schrodinger
and
Dirac Equations, Energy formulas.

We are arguing history here, but the Maxwell equations etc. did
not
inspire Dirac with his sea of electrons. His total energy equation
purported to describe the total energy of electrons and to
quantize
their energies, (again see Eisberg), and, seeing the minus sign
next
to the radical, decided to do something about it.
I went after the vacuum to see how it could possibly have
8.8uuF/meter
and as a result, I have the vacuum entirely blueprinted.

Sorry, John. You don't have it entirely blueprinted. You entirely
ignore the QCD "vacuum". But your approach is on the right track.

Sure I do Fredi. My pair cell is alpha times the Compton wavelength
and when its electron escapes and expands by 1/alpha or, cubed, by
2.5
million, its density becomes equal to that of iron. Electrons out of
pairspace expand with enough energy to support the density of iron
at
the velocity of light. In Ch. 13 of the book I show how the
continuing
emission of electrons to make stars generates a CMBR temperat;ure of
2.557K vs the "book" 2.724.
What's QCD?

Quantum ChromoDynamics. ;-)

Dirac did not go further than monopole and Dirac Sea and
positrons,
because he did not have a Atom Totality theory.

As for yours, well, it is not science theory, it is not science
hypothesis, it is merely a "complaint". You do not even list your
basis
theory for which you think you have something new to say to
physics.
Apparently your base theory is the Big Bang but you do not even
credit
Big Bang, perhaps because you are scared that the Big Bang will
fall
also.

You did not look at my #1 paper at my website. It explains exactly
how
the vacuum is constructed. There are 16 equations or equation
groups.
Pick one and tell what's wrong with it.
My theory does away with the Big Bang but you would not know that;
it's in the book.

Your density is way too low. ;-) Include the QCD "vacuum" and you
will
find a much higher density.

Pairspace density is 4.1x10^10 kg/m^3.

What is your density? Looking at your papers, I don't see the word
density and I don't see any numbers at all, just formulas without
units. In cgs you have to be careful, because the units were wrecked
by the Visigoths who threw out eps0 and mu0. (You can't use coulombs
or volts or farads).

What is your QCD density, numbers and equation?
Now don't forget I am talking about pairspace, the land of the
uncreated, whose electrons after N billion years become our periodic
table and a lot of cooking will have ocurred to make all those
hadrons. Apples and oranges maybe.

We had this discussion before and I think I gave you a rough estimate
that was about 10^18 greater than your pairspace density.

My cell Lambda (or L) is 3.5e-14m. See my Eq. 5-35 where I derive eps
in 7 different ways. This one has only L as an unknown:
eps0 = e^2/Lmc^2 so that
e^2/eps0*L = mc^2 = potential energy of electron at L radius
The cell contains mc^2. (The 4pi is missing because this is a cubic
cell not a spherically symmetric case). the electron is still
"virtual" (uncreated) here. The density m/L^3 = 4e10 kg/m^3 has plenty
of authenticity.

Do a
googlegroup search on my handle and your name. You should be able to
figure it out from the vacuum expectation value of about 246 GeV.

"The vacuum expectation value" is defined how?

From the Fermi Coupling Constant,

G_F/(hbar*c)^3 = 1.16637 ×10^-5 GeV^-2

Your theory so far totally ignores this constant. It can't be ignored
in any sensible theory that deals with the "vacuum". There is more to
the "vacuum" than just eps0 and mu0. The Fermi Coupling Constant is
proof of that.

Is that the discussion where I mentioned that you might be confusing
246GeV of effort with 246GeV of results? That still goes. As I showed,
total energy can be factored into
TE = Mc*sqrt(v^2 + c^2) = mc* BIGC
to make clear where gamma applies and it is to make a velocity (BIGC)
greater than c, and in the 246GeV case, vastly larger than c. A big M
can help, but it's still bogus. You can't expect very much of the
246GeV to be effective if the target is nearly at the speed of light.

Dual Space theory and common sense say this can't happen. But you and
QCD think it can.

What you are doing above has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
Get yourself a good particle physics textbook.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

John C. Polasek wrote:
On 29 Nov 2006 20:34:48 -0800, "a_plutonium"
wrote:


Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:


You've ignored this "does not annihilate" stance in my first question.
But since I find it here I now have to ask you is the positron that you
speak of the same as the positron that wiki speaks of?

"The positron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of
the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1, a spin of 1/2,
and the same mass as an electron. When a low-energy positron collides
with a low-energy electron, annihilation occurs, resulting in the
production of two gamma ray photons (see electron-positron
annihilation)."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron


I have not ignored your annihilation quandry. There is a huge
difference between production of positrons in a accelerator and then
annihilation with an electron. That is particle physics.

The positrons I speak of is from the Dirac Sea. Wikipedia has an
excellent page on it where I quote the first paragraph:
--- quoting Wikipedia on Dirac Sea ---
Dirac sea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea
of particles possessing negative energy. It was invented by the British
physicist Paul Dirac in 1930 to explain the anomalous negative-energy
quantum states predicted by the Dirac equation for relativistic
electrons. The positron, the antimatter counterpart of the electron,
was originally conceived of as a hole in the Dirac sea, well before its
experimental discovery in 1932. Dirac, Einstein and others recognised
that it is related to the 'metaphysical' aether [1]:

... with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have
an aether. - P.A.M. Dirac, 'Is There An Aether?,' Nature, v.168,
1951, p.906.

The equation relating energy, mass and momentum in special relativity
is:

E2 = p2c2 + m2c4,

In the special case of a particle at rest (ie p = 0, ) the above
equation reduces to E2 = m2c4, which is usually quoted as the familiar
E = mc2. However, this is a simplification because, while x*x = x2, we
can also see that (-x)*(-x)= x2. Therefore, the correct equation to use
to relate energy and mass in the Hamiltonian of the Dirac equation is:

E = ± mc2.

Here the negative solution is antimatter, discovered by Carl Anderson
as the positron. The interpretation of this result requires a Dirac
sea, showing that the Dirac equation is not merely a combination of
special relativity and quantum field theory, but it also implies that
the number of particles cannot be conserved
--- end quoting ---

The sense in which I speak of positrons is the sense of Dirac's Sea.
Where SPACE is the same as a sea or ocean of positrons. And this space
does not annihilate with the electrons of ordinary matter. Why? I
really have no great answer as to why. Perhaps particles and
antiparticles can exist in a state in which they are stable and
co-mingled without annihilation. This is how a Monopole would act,
according to Dirac on pages 45,46 of this Directions in Physics book.

So in answer to your question, Space full of positrons, or Sea of
Positrons or Ocean of Positrons is very different from a positron
produced in a experimental accelerator lab which annihilates a
electron.

It has been proven by experimental physicists that the vacuum of Space
is loaded with positrons and these are called "holes". So Space is not
empty and not a vacuum but can be drawn out of as many positrons as one
desires to have positrons.

Dirac never had the Atom Totality theory to work with. But if you put
the Dirac Sea of Positrons with the Atom Totality theory then you solve
what gravity is.

Have a look at the Wikipedia page on Dirac Sea for it has alot more
information about Space being positrons.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies


If you want to see the content of "quantum vacuum" see my paper #1 on
http://www.dualspace.net
Dirac deduced a sea of electrons simply from the minus sign in the
total energy equation. He did very little with it.
My analysis demanded to know how empty space could have 8.8uuF/m. The
results are amazing, a dozen significant values compared to Dirac's
"hole or electron going backward".
Vastly stiffer than steel, transmission velocity = c, cell size is
Compton WL x alpha.
I'm sorry it requires a fair amount of study. The stars of the
universe came from expelled electrons at speed of light. The expansion
by 1/alphacubed = 2.5 million reduces the density to that of iron. The
energy density expands to iron's density at the speed of light.
Excuse the turgid exposition.
(I don't buy the one big atom, though).
John Polasek

I took a look at your paper John.

From plutonium to iron.... there's irony in that.

Have you ever considered a point capacitor?
The necessity of a conductive plate would go away.
Yet this discrete form at a critical distance could be interesting.
Such a capacitor would take just one charge right?
I used to try dual spaces but more like YxY where Y is a plane so
yielding a spacetime model.

I have been working with spatial exclusion at a minimal distance 'a'
and that is somewhat like your capacitor model but in a point form. So
I wonder what your thoughts are on that.

-Tim

On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 13:28:23 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 18:21:34 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

choppo
Do a
googlegroup search on my handle and your name. You should be able to
figure it out from the vacuum expectation value of about 246 GeV.

"The vacuum expectation value" is defined how?

From the Fermi Coupling Constant,

G_F/(hbar*c)^3 = 1.16637 ×10^-5 GeV^-2

Your theory so far totally ignores this constant. It can't be ignored
in any sensible theory that deals with the "vacuum". There is more to
the "vacuum" than just eps0 and mu0. The Fermi Coupling Constant is

Fredi I gave it a shot, looked up Fermis CC and find no substantive
description of its function. Of course first I had to find out what Gf
was and could not find it so I solved for it:
Gf = 1.378e-62 J m^3= 8.6*10^-53 m^3 GeV
What do you make of this?
Always something interesting going on in QED, but unfortunately not
science. .

proof of that.
Is that the discussion where I mentioned that you might be confusing
246GeV of effort with 246GeV of results? That still goes. As I showed,
total energy can be factored into
TE = Mc*sqrt(v^2 + c^2) = mc* BIGC
to make clear where gamma applies and it is to make a velocity (BIGC)
greater than c, and in the 246GeV case, vastly larger than c. A big M
can help, but it's still bogus. You can't expect very much of the
246GeV to be effective if the target is nearly at the speed of light.

Dual Space theory and common sense say this can't happen. But you and
QCD think it can.

What you are doing above has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
Get yourself a good particle physics textbook.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
John Polasek

a_plutonium wrote:
[...]
Can you see the difference between your ruminations on the vacuum and
mine.

Mine says these things:
(1) Atom Totality is correct, Big Bang is a sham
(2) Maxwell Equations change, especially Faraday's Law
(3) The monopoles Dirac was looking for are two: (i) Space as a sea of
positrons collectively charged + (ii) the collective mass and matter
form the second monopole
charged -
(4) General Relativity becomes subsumed in the Sea of Positrons where
Space = sea of positrons = force of gravity
(5) explains quasar energy [...]

Yes, but is Atom Totality testable?

Is it refutable?

Does it give correct results?

And does it explain something which is clearly wrong with established
physics?

If the answers to all these questions are not YES, then you're wasting
your time.

--- Christopher Heckman

In article om,
Proginoskes wrote:

a_plutonium wrote:
[...]
Can you see the difference between your ruminations on the vacuum and
mine.

Mine says these things:
(1) Atom Totality is correct, Big Bang is a sham
(2) Maxwell Equations change, especially Faraday's Law
(3) The monopoles Dirac was looking for are two: (i) Space as a sea of
positrons collectively charged + (ii) the collective mass and matter
form the second monopole
charged -
(4) General Relativity becomes subsumed in the Sea of Positrons where
Space = sea of positrons = force of gravity
(5) explains quasar energy [...]

Yes, but is Atom Totality testable?

Is it refutable?

Does it give correct results?

And does it explain something which is clearly wrong with established
physics?

If the answers to all these questions are not YES, then you're wasting
your time.

--- Christopher Heckman

No, he's having fun.

He may not be having as /much/ fun as JSH, but then he may have a more
sedate temperament.

--
Chris Henrich
http://www.mathinteract.com
God just doesn't fit inside a single religion.

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 13:28:23 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 18:21:34 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

choppo
Do a
googlegroup search on my handle and your name. You should be able
to
figure it out from the vacuum expectation value of about 246 GeV.

"The vacuum expectation value" is defined how?

From the Fermi Coupling Constant,

G_F/(hbar*c)^3 = 1.16637 ×10^-5 GeV^-2

Your theory so far totally ignores this constant. It can't be ignored
in any sensible theory that deals with the "vacuum". There is more to
the "vacuum" than just eps0 and mu0. The Fermi Coupling Constant is
proof of that.

Fredi I gave it a shot, looked up Fermis CC and find no substantive
description of its function. Of course first I had to find out what Gf
was and could not find it so I solved for it:
Gf = 1.378e-62 J m^3= 8.6*10^-53 m^3 GeV
What do you make of this?
Always something interesting going on in QED, but unfortunately not
science. .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi's_interaction

If you had yourself a good particle physics book, you would know what to
make of it. But since you might be trying, here it is. You will have
to swallow the cgs pill as I am not going to convert it to SI. You can
do that on your own. If you get stuck, ask for help.

G_F is pretty much obtainable from the decay of a muon and muon mass and
lifetime. The muon lifetime equation is,

tau = 192*pi^3*hbar^7/(G_F^2*m_u^5*c^4)

Where tau is the muon lifetime and m_u is muon mass. The rest are
obvious. Since the muon's mass and lifetime are determined
experimentally, we can plug those values in and obtain a value for
Fermi's constant, G_F. The Wiki page is in natural units and has left
out the (hbar*c)^3. In cgs it is,

G_F = sqrt(2)/8 (g_w/M_W*c^2)^2 (hbar*c)^3 ~= 1.28E-52 m^3 GeV

You must have made a mistake in your calc above. Since the mass of the
W boson is known, then the weak coupling constant can be computed from
the above expression. It comes out that g_w ~= 0.66. But anywise, what
does this all have to do with the "vacuum"? Well, it is easy to see in
the expression above that we have (hbar*c)^3 which is quantum "vacuum"
charge, sqrt(hbar*c), to the sixth power! So it must be related to the
quantum "vacuum". The "vacuum" is not just electromagnetic. It is
"electroweak". If you really have the gumption, you could get
corresponding "vacuum" constant values for the electroweak "vacuum" for
what eps0 and mu0 would be in SI units. Then after you do that, the QCD
sector should also have corresponding "vacuum" constants also. Then you
will have a more complete picture of the quantum "vacuum".

Your lesson for today: Now see if you can find out how G_F is related
to the vev = 246 GeV. It is posted online in quite a few places. I
will continue with it tomorrow if you get stuck.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:17:40 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 13:28:23 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 18:21:34 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

choppo
Do a
googlegroup search on my handle and your name. You should be able
to
figure it out from the vacuum expectation value of about 246 GeV.

"The vacuum expectation value" is defined how?

From the Fermi Coupling Constant,

G_F/(hbar*c)^3 = 1.16637 ×10^-5 GeV^-2

Your theory so far totally ignores this constant. It can't be ignored
in any sensible theory that deals with the "vacuum". There is more to
the "vacuum" than just eps0 and mu0. The Fermi Coupling Constant is
proof of that.

Fredi I gave it a shot, looked up Fermis CC and find no substantive
description of its function. Of course first I had to find out what Gf
was and could not find it so I solved for it:
Gf = 1.378e-62 J m^3= 8.6*10^-53 m^3 GeV
What do you make of this?
Always something interesting going on in QED, but unfortunately not
science. .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi's_interaction

If you had yourself a good particle physics book, you would know what to
make of it. But since you might be trying, here it is. You will have
to swallow the cgs pill as I am not going to convert it to SI. You can
do that on your own. If you get stuck, ask for help.

G_F is pretty much obtainable from the decay of a muon and muon mass and
lifetime. The muon lifetime equation is,

tau = 192*pi^3*hbar^7/(G_F^2*m_u^5*c^4)

Where tau is the muon lifetime and m_u is muon mass. The rest are
obvious. Since the muon's mass and lifetime are determined
experimentally, we can plug those values in and obtain a value for
Fermi's constant, G_F. The Wiki page is in natural units and has left
out the (hbar*c)^3. In cgs it is,

G_F = sqrt(2)/8 (g_w/M_W*c^2)^2 (hbar*c)^3 ~= 1.28E-52 m^3 GeV

You must have made a mistake in your calc above. Since the mass of the
W boson is known, then the weak coupling constant can be computed from
the above expression. It comes out that g_w ~= 0.66. But anywise, what
does this all have to do with the "vacuum"? Well, it is easy to see in
the expression above that we have (hbar*c)^3 which is quantum "vacuum"
charge, sqrt(hbar*c), to the sixth power! So it must be related to the
quantum "vacuum". The "vacuum" is not just electromagnetic. It is
"electroweak". If you really have the gumption, you could get
corresponding "vacuum" constant values for the electroweak "vacuum" for
what eps0 and mu0 would be in SI units. Then after you do that, the QCD
sector should also have corresponding "vacuum" constants also. Then you
will have a more complete picture of the quantum "vacuum".

Your lesson for today: Now see if you can find out how G_F is related
to the vev = 246 GeV. It is posted online in quite a few places. I
will continue with it tomorrow if you get stuck.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

Thanks Fredi, I worked your
tau = 192*pi^3*hbar^7/(G_F^2*m_u^5*c^4)
as tau = 2.9us vs 2.2us using my bogus value for GF. I didn't want
you to go through all that work. I like to work from scratch and I'm
danged if I would continue if I started wading into terms like pi^3,
hb^7, mu^5 and c^4. I'd be too suspicious.
I like the 192 though. We could maybe salvage something there.
John Polasek

FrediFizzx wrote:
"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
(huge snips)
Then after you do that, the QCD
sector should also have corresponding "vacuum" constants also. Then you
will have a more complete picture of the quantum "vacuum".

Your lesson for today: Now see if you can find out how G_F is related
to the vev = 246 GeV. It is posted online in quite a few places. I
will continue with it tomorrow if you get stuck.

FrediFizzx

a_plutonium wrote:

If you try it John, you will have to come up with some Equinumerous
Parity argument. An argument that the Sun and planets contain X number
of electron mass particles and thus a magnetic monopole composed of X
number of electrons. Now suppose the Space wherein the Sun and planets
reside is composed of an equal number of positrons. And does this match
the dictum of General Relativity-- "mass bends space and other mass
follows the curvature of that bent space"

So if the X number works out correctly and matches Newton's Law of
Gravity, then it is going to be very convincing that Space is Dirac's
Sea of Positrons and that gravity is a magnetic phenomenon of positrons
of Space attracting mass/matter.

In other words, we have finally integrated gravity into quantum
mechanics.


Let us make the assumption that the cosmos has 10^80 protons and 10^80
electrons and that is the sum total of mass in the Cosmos. And let us
suppose that Space is a Sea of Positrons and not a vacuum. And thereby
10^80 positrons go into making up Space. And we can calculate some
averaged out density of galaxies. So the question is, whether this
density of positrons to compose Space matches the gravity force
strength compared to Coulomb at 10^40.

Another argument is take the cubic volume of space of the entire Solar
System, i.e., a cube that encloses everything from Sun to Pluto. And
compute the number of protons and electrons inside this cube. Let us
say it is 10^40 protons and 10^40 electrons inside this cube. Let us
assume the Sea of Positrons inside this cube is 10^40 positrons. Would
those numbers deliver a force of gravity of magnetic attraction of the
mass inside the cube attracted to the magnetic field of Positrons,
assuming the mass is all that of a electron from the Atom Totality?


Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

The title pretty much says all the thought I am trying to convey.
People are dumbfounded when they are explained the Atom Totality theory
because all the stars and galaxies are tiny pieces of the last six
electrons of 231Pu. How could an electron be composed of 10^40 atoms or
more? How could a subatomic particle such as an electron or a proton be
composed of millions and billions of atoms? How could a quark be merely
a composition of atoms?

Well, that is pretty tough for a average mind, average intelligence to
come to reason.

But then you tell them that physics experiments have proven, beyond
doubt that the vacuum of Space contains enormous amounts of energy.
That whenever you impose energy onto the vacuum of space you end up
with positrons.

So, Space is not some empty container but is a physical entity of
Positrons.

So if Space is 10^40 positrons and not some empty container, then it
should be easy for any person with a mind to think, that a electron or
proton or quark is full of atoms. If empty Space is full of positrons,
then it is easy by logic to understand that a proton or electron is
full of atoms.

And to say otherwise or to deny these assertions would be tantamount to
denying the Experimental Physicists who in there experiments with the
vacuum routinely come up with the Sea of Positrons.


Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies