Response to comments on "Electron Charge from Cosmological Parameters"

Dear All,
I have received through various channels six objections/criticisms
regarding my claim to discovery reported a week ago at:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...6f11e4ce80f8ec

and about a year earlier at:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...b0d0ec34c3e273

I shall summarize these objections and my response to them below:

Objection #1:
You discovered nothing, it's an old game of numerology. The ratio of
any two arbitrary combination of physical quantities with the same
physical dimensions is equal to a non-dimensional multiplier and then
that multiplier could be approximated to any desired precision by
using beautiful looking formulae involving purely mathematical
expressions. This has nothing to do with physics though it may look
like physics to the untrained eye. See the following references:
(a) http://www.aspden.org/books/Asp/1013.htm
(b) Numerology of the Constants of Nature, G. Gamow, Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol.
59, No. 2 (Feb. 15, 1968), pp. 313-318
(c) http://www.amazon.com/Constants-Natu.../dp/0375422218

Response #1:
All such exercises involve certain degree of "trial and error". My
derivation has absolutely no trial and error. It is a straight forward
application of statistical mechanics to an as yet unknown aether.
Therefore it is physics and not "numerology".

Objection #2:
Aether is a superfluous and discredited concept proven to be untenable
because of various reasons including the possibility of a preferential
state of motion that is at rest with respect to the aether.

Response #2:
Dirac and more recently others [a],[b] have considered the possibility
of aether as a superfluid state of fermion and antifermion pairs,
describable by a macroscopic wave function[a]. The vacuum state of
this superfluid pervades the entire universe and may account for the
missing matter. The visible matter in the universe appears as
excitations from the underlying superfluid vacuum.
(a) "Aether as a superfluid state of particle-antiparticle" Sinha, K.
P.; Sivaram, C.; Sudarshan, E. C. G. (Found. Phys., Vol. 6, p. 65 -
70)
(b) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0212/0212319v1.pdf

Objection #3:
You have discovered neither the left hand side nor the right hand side
of the equation.

Response #3:
Neither did Maxwell when he discovered that c =SQRT(1/(epsilon x mu)).
He basically calculated the right hand side as 310,740,000 m/s for
electromagnetic waves and concluded that the agreement of this result
with the then known value of speed of light (298,000,000 m/s) seems to
show that light and magnetism are affections of the same substance,
and that light is an electromagnetic disturbance propagated through
the field according to electromagnetic laws. The error in his results
was about 1% as opposed to 0.1% in my result. He had absolutely no
more evidence to conclude that light is physically the same as
electromagnetic waves than I have to consider my discovery as
physically true.

Objection #4:
But Maxwell had a theory and you don't.

Response #4:
Maxwell used a new theory together with some old facts (experimental
results by Michael Faraday, André-Marie Ampère, and others). I have
used an old theory (statistical mechanics) with some relatively
modern observations (Hubble's expansion H, background radiation
temperature T, and the density of the universe being close to the
critical value). Using an old theory is not the same as "not having a
theory"

Objection #5:
Dead on arrival. You understand, of course, that the background
radiation temparature T is a decreasing function of time and Hubble's
constant (H) is also a function of time, and varies from near zero to
values much higher than we have now. Only true *today*, fails
miserably in ages past,
whereas observations of the fine structure constant have less than 1
part in 10^8 change in 12 or so billion years.

Response #5:
If you examine my equation closely you find that T and H are the only
time varying quantities. They appear as (T^4/H^2) corresponding to a
ratio of the density of radiation energy to the critical density of
the universe. This ratio would be a constant for all epochs of the
expansion of the universe as explained below.

It is well accepted that the radiation energy density decreases with
time as if it is a gas with adiabatic constant 4/3. If the critical
density of the universe also decreases similarly, then their ratio
will remain a constant. Since most of the critical density comes from
the aether, it is enough if the aether behaves like a gas with an
adiabatic constant of the same value (i.e., 4/3= (n+2)/n where n is
the number of available degrees of freedom of motion associated with
the internal energy. This implies the aether particles should have 6
degrees of freedom (as in 3 translational and 3 rotational).This is
possible if the aether particles consists of an assembly (conceptually
similar to a molecule) with three or more components (conceptually
similar to atoms). This is entirely consistent with all known physics
once you assume the existence of aether.

Objection #6:
You can stop right there, it's not a discovery but an admitted
hypothesis (of aether)

Response #6:
Making a hypothesis and testing it by actual or thought experiments is
the essence of the scientific method. It is the beginning of any
creative act in science. Saying that a hypothesis is "false" just
because it is a hypothesis is nonsense. However it is entirely
acceptable to say that the hypothesis should be considered false until
proven otherwise. The proof comes from either a physical consequence
of an appropriately designed experiment or a logical consequence of a
thought experiment. Physical and/or thought experiments should be
designed such that the "true" or "false" nature of the consequences
can be made more obvious than that of the original hypothesis.
In addition one could conceive a million hypotheses but only a handful
of them can yield useful or interesting results. We like to keep them
as an important part of science.

In my case I have chosen a thought experiment to test my aether
hypothesis. I have intentionally and meticulously applied only the
19th century physics (pre-relativity and pre-quantum mechanics). I
have obtained a very interesting result that has never been derived by
anyone before. That result is:
The charge of the electron is a function of the background radiation
temperature and Hubble's expansion rate.

CONCLUSION:
I have thought of a potentially useful hypothesis and used it to
discover an interesting fact in science that could not otherwise be
discovered. I personally cannot imagine anyone waking up on a fine
morning and setting out to calculate the charge of an electron as a
function of the temperature and expansion rate of the universe. I
could achieve it only by a logical application of the scientific
method.

Dear Ranjit:

"Ranjit" wrote in message
ups.com...

Objection #5:
Dead on arrival. You understand, of course, that the
background radiation temparature T is a decreasing
function of time and Hubble's constant (H) is also a
function of time, and varies from near zero to values
much higher than we have now. Only true *today*,
fails miserably in ages past, whereas observations
of the fine structure constant have less than 1
part in 10^8 change in 12 or so billion years.

Response #5:
If you examine my equation closely you find that T
and H are the only time varying quantities.

Right.

They appear as (T^4/H^2) corresponding to a
ratio of the density of radiation energy to the critical
density of the universe. This ratio would be a
constant for all epochs of the expansion of the
universe as explained below.

It is not constant. It is multi-valued, and it is not
"monotonic".

It is well accepted that the radiation energy density
decreases with time as if it is a gas with adiabatic
constant 4/3. If the critical density of the universe
also decreases similarly,

Not according to your relation, no.

then their ratio will remain a constant. Since most
of the critical density comes from the aether, it is
enough if the aether behaves like a gas with an
adiabatic constant of the same value (i.e., 4/3=
(n+2)/n where n is the number of available degrees
of freedom of motion associated with the internal
energy.

No such relation can exist, and agree with observations already
made.

This implies the aether particles should have 6
degrees of freedom (as in 3 translational and 3
rotational).This is possible if the aether particles
consists of an assembly (conceptually similar to
a molecule) with three or more components
(conceptually similar to atoms). This is entirely
consistent with all known physics once you
assume the existence of aether.

No, it actually flies in the face of most of known physics, which
is why I responded as I did. And that you proceed to believe
that you need to beat your chest and trumpet that *this* was an
answer is positively hilarious. Please come back again in a few
months. After I pay for Christmas presents, I will need cheering
up.

David A. Smith

On Sep 26, 5:29 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Ranjit:

"Ranjit" wrote in message

ups.com...



Objection #5:
Dead on arrival. You understand, of course, that the
background radiation temparature T is a decreasing
function of time and Hubble's constant (H) is also a
function of time, and varies from near zero to values
much higher than we have now. Only true *today*,
fails miserably in ages past, whereas observations
of the fine structure constant have less than 1
part in 10^8 change in 12 or so billion years.
Response #5:
If you examine my equation closely you find that T
and H are the only time varying quantities.

Right.

They appear as (T^4/H^2) corresponding to a
ratio of the density of radiation energy to the critical
density of the universe. This ratio would be a
constant for all epochs of the expansion of the
universe as explained below.

It is not constant. It is multi-valued, and it is not
"monotonic".

Please provide an expression for this value or give a reference.
Without such information, you should hold your opinion until after you
read my subsequent explanation.

It is well accepted that the radiation energy density
decreases with time as if it is a gas with adiabatic
constant 4/3. If the critical density of the universe
also decreases similarly,

Not according to your relation, no.

Please provide an expression for this value or give a reference.
Without such information, you should hold your opinion until after you
read my subsequent explanation. You seem to have ignored the "If" in
my staement.

then their ratio will remain a constant. Since most
of the critical density comes from the aether, it is
enough if the aether behaves like a gas with an
adiabatic constant of the same value (i.e., 4/3=
(n+2)/n where n is the number of available degrees
of freedom of motion associated with the internal
energy.

No such relation can exist, and agree with observations already
made.
Please provide a summary of the observations or give a reference.
Again, you seem to have ignored the "If" in my staement.

This implies the aether particles should have 6
degrees of freedom (as in 3 translational and 3
rotational).This is possible if the aether particles
consists of an assembly (conceptually similar to
a molecule) with three or more components
(conceptually similar to atoms). This is entirely
consistent with all known physics once you
assume the existence of aether.

No, it actually flies in the face of most of known physics, which
is why I responded as I did.

Are you implying one or more of the following:
(1) the (hypothetical) assumed aether particles cannot have three or
more components? (If so, I wonder how you know that?)
(2) If they have three or more components, the degrees of freedom
cannot be 6? (If so, how mnay degrees do you think it would have?)
(3) If they have 6 degrees of freedom, the adiabatic constant is not (n
+2)/n = 4/3? (If so, what would that be and what would be the correct
formula for the decrease of the density)?
(4) The radiation energy density does not decrease with time as if it
is a gas with adiabatic constant 4/3? (If so, please provide the
correct formula or reference).

And that you proceed to believe
that you need to beat your chest and trumpet that *this* was an
answer is positively hilarious.

I apologize for the "chest beating" part, but I do believe that I have
provided the proper answer(s).

Please come back again in a few
months. After I pay for Christmas presents, I will need cheering
up.

I have already spent 15 months critically examining my equation(s). I
shall be very grateful if you can take the time to provide me with
either answers to the above questions or appropriate references.

Thank you very much for the time you have already spent to comment on
my message.

Ranjit

Dear Ranjit:

"Ranjit" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 26, 5:29 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
....
Objection #5:
Dead on arrival. You understand, of course, that the
background radiation temparature T is a decreasing
function of time and Hubble's constant (H) is also a
function of time, and varies from near zero to values
much higher than we have now. Only true *today*,
fails miserably in ages past, whereas observations
of the fine structure constant have less than 1
part in 10^8 change in 12 or so billion years.
Response #5:
If you examine my equation closely you find that T
and H are the only time varying quantities.

Right.

They appear as (T^4/H^2) corresponding to a
ratio of the density of radiation energy to the critical
density of the universe. This ratio would be a
constant for all epochs of the expansion of the
universe as explained below.

It is not constant. It is multi-valued, and it is not
"monotonic".

Please provide an expression for this value or give
a reference. Without such information, you should
hold your opinion until after you read my
subsequent explanation.

Read. "Explanation" wasn't an explanation, but a discussion of
how useful this "swiss army knife" of yours was going to be.

I used google to help you find references on Hubble, since you
seem unwilling to find holes in your "theory".
http://www.openquestions.com/oq-co008.htm
.... down to the paragraph that starts "How much expansion?"

It is well accepted that the radiation energy density
decreases with time as if it is a gas with adiabatic
constant 4/3. If the critical density of the universe
also decreases similarly,

Not according to your relation, no.

Please provide an expression for this value or give a
reference. Without such information, you should
hold your opinion until after you read my subsequent
explanation. You seem to have ignored the "If" in
my staement.

Energy density, according to your relation, is in deep trouble.
Not that it varies.

then their ratio will remain a constant. Since most
of the critical density comes from the aether, it is
enough if the aether behaves like a gas with an
adiabatic constant of the same value (i.e., 4/3=
(n+2)/n where n is the number of available degrees
of freedom of motion associated with the internal
energy.

No such relation can exist, and agree with
observations already made.

Please provide a summary of the observations
or give a reference. Again, you seem to have
ignored the "If" in my staement.

Aether that agrees with experiment, is completely transparent to
motion. Which means it does not either accept or deliver
momentum. Therefore, no changes in this Universe derive from the
separate actions of "aether", eithre on its own, or after having
been stirred by matter.

This implies the aether particles should have 6
degrees of freedom (as in 3 translational and 3
rotational).This is possible if the aether particles
consists of an assembly (conceptually similar to
a molecule) with three or more components
(conceptually similar to atoms). This is entirely
consistent with all known physics once you
assume the existence of aether.

No, it actually flies in the face of most of known
physics, which is why I responded as I did.

Are you implying one or more of the following:
(1) the (hypothetical) assumed aether particles
cannot have three or more components? (If so, I
wonder how you know that?)

It has *no known properties* other than it is fully undetectable.

(2) If they have three or more components, the
degrees of freedom cannot be 6? (If so, how
mnay degrees do you think it would have?)

As many as necessary to stay entirely out of sight.

(3) If they have 6 degrees of freedom, the
adiabatic constant is not (n +2)/n = 4/3? (If so,
what would that be and what would be the correct
formula for the decrease of the density)?

There are a host of such expressions that do not start with
aether in their derivation. Perhaps you can use Google to find
them?

(4) The radiation energy density does not
decrease with time as if it is a gas with adiabatic
constant 4/3? (If so, please provide the
correct formula or reference).

You can do google yourself. I recommend:
expression "hubble constant" "energy density"

And that you proceed to believe that you need
to beat your chest and trumpet that *this* was an
answer is positively hilarious.

I apologize for the "chest beating" part, but I do
believe that I have provided the proper answer(s).

You blew completely by every point raised, and proceeded directly
to what you saw as a finish line. Unfortunately, your car did
not make the trip, because you have 5 flat tires up to my
response.

Please come back again in a few
months. After I pay for Christmas presents, I will
need cheering up.

I have already spent 15 months critically examining
my equation(s). I shall be very grateful if you can
take the time to provide me with either answers to the
above questions or appropriate references.

Just because you have invested time in it, does not make it more
than an "artifact". If it has some correlation to Nature, it can
be a "tool". So far, it only serves to waste your time.

Thank you very much for the time you have already
spent to comment on my message.

I wish I thought it did any good.

David A. Smith

On Sep 27, 6:28 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Ranjit:

"Ranjit" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Sep 26, 5:29 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"

wrote:
...
Objection #5:
Dead on arrival. You understand, of course, that the
background radiation temparature T is a decreasing
function of time and Hubble's constant (H) is also a
function of time, and varies from near zero to values
much higher than we have now. Only true *today*,
fails miserably in ages past, whereas observations
of the fine structure constant have less than 1
part in 10^8 change in 12 or so billion years.
Response #5:
If you examine my equation closely you find that T
and H are the only time varying quantities.

Right.

They appear as (T^4/H^2) corresponding to a
ratio of the density of radiation energy to the critical
density of the universe. This ratio would be a
constant for all epochs of the expansion of the
universe as explained below.

It is not constant. It is multi-valued, and it is not
"monotonic".

Please provide an expression for this value or give
a reference. Without such information, you should
hold your opinion until after you read my
subsequent explanation.

Read. "Explanation" wasn't an explanation, but a discussion of
how useful this "swiss army knife" of yours was going to be.

I used google to help you find references on Hubble, since you
seem unwilling to find holes in your "theory".http://www.openquestions.com/oq-co008.htm
... down to the paragraph that starts "How much expansion?"

David,
I have checked the web some time ago. For example see:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...expand.html#c3

In particular see the relationship between the Temparature and
Density:
Density for matter is proportional to T^3. The exponent depends on
the adiabatic constant Gamma and is given by Gamma/(Gamma-1).
For matter Gamma is taken as 1.5 since matter is assumed to be
a mix of diatomic molecules of Hydrogen (Gamma=1.4) and
Helium atoms (Gamma= 1.66).

There is nothing that prevents the hypothetical aether from being
a rigid assembly (like a molecule) of 3 or more particles ( like
atoms).
Then Gamma for aether would be 1.33. Substituting this in
the appropriate formula, the density of aether would be
proportional to T^4.

Again based on the above referenced web site, the density of
radiation would be proportional to T^4. Hence my formula for
the charge of an electron would be a constant.

I like to point out that this idea of aether as
"a rigid assembly of 3 components"
was not at all necessary for the derivation of my formula.
I developed it just as an "after the fact" defence of the formula
against those who argue against it using generalities
and refuse to provide a line-by-line review of my derivation.

It is well accepted that the radiation energy density
decreases with time as if it is a gas with adiabatic
constant 4/3. If the critical density of the universe
also decreases similarly,

Not according to your relation, no.
My proof above shows that it is a constant.

Please provide an expression for this value or give a
reference. Without such information, you should
hold your opinion until after you read my subsequent
explanation. You seem to have ignored the "If" in
my staement.

Energy density, according to your relation, is in deep trouble.
Not that it varies.

According to the above referenced web site,
the radiation energy density is proportional to T^4.
based on that, I do not understand your comment.

then their ratio will remain a constant. Since most
of the critical density comes from the aether, it is
enough if the aether behaves like a gas with an
adiabatic constant of the same value (i.e., 4/3=
(n+2)/n where n is the number of available degrees
of freedom of motion associated with the internal
energy.

No such relation can exist, and agree with
observations already made.
Please provide a summary of the observations
or give a reference. Again, you seem to have
ignored the "If" in my staement.

Aether that agrees with experiment, is completely transparent to
motion. Which means it does not either accept or deliver
momentum. Therefore, no changes in this Universe derive from the
separate actions of "aether", eithre on its own, or after having
been stirred by matter.

Here, I have to confess that my hypothetical aether differs from
generally accepted concept of free space.
In fact I hypothesized an aether that obeys statistical mechanics.
I made no other assumption in my derivation. However, I have used
the following two corrollaries of this assumption.
(a) aether is in thermal equilibrium with the background radiation.
(b) most of the critical density arises from the aether.
(c) with a kinetic energy of kT, they are small enough to move
at speeds comparable to light
Based on the above, I concluded that the aether particles
are approximately 10^-9 times as heavy as an electron.
In the process of assessing their interaction as (kT times mean time
between interactions), accidentally I derived an expression for the
Planck's constant in terms of T, H and alpha. Then substituting the
formula for alpha, I obtained the expression for q that I reported in
my first message.

I like to assure that I have used only 19th century (pre-relativity,
pre-quantum mechanics) statistical mechanics in this derivation.

This implies the aether particles should have 6
degrees of freedom (as in 3 translational and 3
rotational).This is possible if the aether particles
consists of an assembly (conceptually similar to
a molecule) with three or more components
(conceptually similar to atoms). This is entirely
consistent with all known physics once you
assume the existence of aether.

No, it actually flies in the face of most of known
physics, which is why I responded as I did.

This has been answered above in the current response.

Are you implying one or more of the following:
(1) the (hypothetical) assumed aether particles
cannot have three or more components? (If so, I
wonder how you know that?)

It has *no known properties* other than it is fully undetectable.


As I confessed above, my aether is different from the conventional
concept.
I have proven (not in this message, but in the course of my derivation
of the formula) that it is detectable as the quantum mechanical
uncertainty.

(2) If they have three or more components, the
degrees of freedom cannot be 6? (If so, how
mnay degrees do you think it would have?)

As many as necessary to stay entirely out of sight.
At the macro scopic level we agree. If not 6 degrees of freedom, the
charge of the electron would not be a constant and we shall detect
that.At the microscopic level, we see it as quantum mechanical
uncertainty.

(3) If they have 6 degrees of freedom, the
adiabatic constant is not (n +2)/n = 4/3? (If so,
what would that be and what would be the correct
formula for the decrease of the density)?

There are a host of such expressions that do not start with
aether in their derivation. Perhaps you can use Google to find
them?


This is obsolete in the light of my current response.

(4) The radiation energy density does not
decrease with time as if it is a gas with adiabatic
constant 4/3? (If so, please provide the
correct formula or reference).

You can do google yourself. I recommend:
expression "hubble constant" "energy density"


This is obsolete in the light of my current response.

And that you proceed to believe that you need
to beat your chest and trumpet that *this* was an
answer is positively hilarious.

I apologize for the "chest beating" part, but I do
believe that I have provided the proper answer(s).

You blew completely by every point raised, and proceeded directly
to what you saw as a finish line. Unfortunately, your car did
not make the trip, because you have 5 flat tires up to my
response.


This is obsolete in the light of my current response.



Please come back again in a few
months. After I pay for Christmas presents, I will
need cheering up.

I have already spent 15 months critically examining
my equation(s). I shall be very grateful if you can
take the time to provide me with either answers to the
above questions or appropriate references.

Just because you have invested time in it, does not make it more
than an "artifact". If it has some correlation to Nature, it can
be a "tool". So far, it only serves to waste your time.


I certainly hope that it will be a "tool".

Thank you very much for the time you have already
spent to comment on my message.

I wish I thought it did any good.

This is certainly the first time I have set to paper
that my expression for the charge of an electron is a constant.

Thanks again for your thoughtful challenge.

Ranjit

David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Ranjit:

"Ranjit" wrote in message
ps.com...
....
And that you proceed to believe that you need
to beat your chest and trumpet that *this* was an
answer is positively hilarious.

I apologize for the "chest beating" part, but I do
believe that I have provided the proper answer(s).

You blew completely by every point raised, and
proceeded directly to what you saw as a finish line.
Unfortunately, your car did not make the trip,
because you have 5 flat tires up to my response.

This is obsolete in the light of my current response.

No, but it does not surprise me that you glossed over the link
you asked for, that showed you are *fundamentally wrong*, pulling
instead from one that talks only about *what we measure in teh
current epoch*. Like everything else, you merely posture here
for purposes unknown.

And I no longer care. Goodbye.

David A. Smith