In former discussion journal: wbabin.net , list of authors Nikos Alexandris ,and in this site , we have seen : 1)the structure of proton constant : 0,225x3x2^5 2)Using the length 7.25fermi in 0,20hc/l energy without 2π , arises energy 44,4MeV/c2 and 2,1MeV/c2 3)From fine structure of electron , the electron is divided in 5 parts and from the proton structure constant , the proton is divided in 3 parts (quarks?) 4)From the approximation in index particles ( journal: wbabin.net , list of authors Alexandris Nikos )and the universe model , it seems that positron and electrons organise the material deeper in nuclear paricles. An interesty calculation is that 21x44,4=932MeV/c2 , 21 is the number of structure constant of proton (21,8) What is 0.225fermi? from the last discusion (in particle index ) and paper (application in unified theory , fine structure and proton : journal : wbabin.net ) arises that : Lp/np=2π.0,225fermi=1,41f= 10π.meg.λplank/mp , np=1 with 2π also 0,225fermi=7,25fermi/(2^5) so mp.7,25f=5x(2^5).meg.λplank and a.mp.(7,25/2π)fermi=(1/2π).(7/6).meg.λplank , a=1/137,035 and we gave the ypothesis that 1/a=(6/7)x5x(2^5) The approximation of this aquation is 1 if fermi is 0,93fermi Also 1,075fermi gives the particles in order 3,5,7,9 in index particles . So the diverse or fermi is 0,007f and fermi is 1f -+ 0,007f The 0,93fermi gives E0=161MeV/c2 in particle index and proton arises 938MeV/c2 it seems that 7.25/2π=7/6 so 1/2π=1/6,28 must be a foundamental structure constant of space as fine structure and proton constant structure . The GEOMETRY meets the MATERIAL The form of this constant must be : 2π=(2^5)/5-0,12 0,12 gives an emmition or particle 0,12.hc/lg This must be the graviton in order to exist Material in a point of space with efclidhian geometry . A philosophy conclusion is that the efclidhian geometry is a limit convience and stable for material. The extension of universe gives the free space in Material to exist in a efclidhian space as in our life . ALEXANDRIS NIKOS
I think you are just playing with numbers and looking for patterns. This works really well for pure mathematics, but not so well for physics. Dirac is the only mathematician that could create particles just by fiddling with equations. Now, such pursuits give us bunk like String Theory and Wormholes. Oh, and your comma usage seems oddly familiar. Strange, but familiar.
http://www.theobjectiveobserver.com/articles/science08.shtml Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Wron.../105-9075951-7144407?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books A recent conference of physicists called out String theorists and demanded that they start making testable claims. String theory is complete bunk. Blackboard manipulations that look pretty, so are assumed to be true. The tragedy is that the glory of a unified theory is creating a brain-drain in physics. We lost the last decades of Einstein's contributions to science chasing this glory-hound, and now we are wasting entire lives to it. If ST is correct, it will be determined one day to be correct. But right now, it doesn't even have enough testable claims to qualify for being "wrong". It is just a bunch of nonsense built around a few equations that were forced into compliance. We need our students to be wide-thinking on these issues, and not believing in the rightness of a theory which has exactly ZERO evidence for.
SWIVEL, ABSOLUTLY RIGHT.... we need... as a species... NEED more time in the lab.... and less time, day dreaming about the endless unknown. i myself have a unifying field theory.... and while i push it sometimes.... i know... the effort is mostly useless. what i, as a wanna-be scientist should be doing... is focusing on my lab, and the testing and prototyping that all my wacko theories say i should do. to much time is spent discussing what we should or could do. and not enough time is spent on what we can do. YOU ARE RIGHT. -MT
Do you have any opinions that are your own? Or are you just going to go around and regurgitate the arguments that other people, smarter than yourself, have developed?
Of course, I am assuming you are making such statements based on having studied the problem in some detail? Or are you just shitting from your mouth? It's really hard to tell on this end...maybe you could clarify.
You know, the more I think about this, the more pissed I get. Please give a reference for this statement. Or rescind it. Please validate this statement by explicitly showing some phenomena which cannot be predicted by string theory, or a mathematical inconsistency in its formalism. Please give evidence to support this, and explicitly show where equations were "forced into compliance".
Even if Gravitons existed, they would explain Nothing, just as Photons explain Nothing about "electromagnetism", because they're Empty particles, words.
So the QED lagrangian isn't \(\mathcal{L} = \bar{\psi}\partial\cdot\gamma \psi - ieA\cdot\gamma \bar{\psi}\psi + \frac{1}{4}F^2\)???? And the constant e hasn't been measured to 13 decimal places, constituting the most accurately measured number in all of physics? What have they been teaching me?
What I mean is that photons don't explain why magnetism attracts and repels, hence they explain nothing about it. Einstein probably knew that nothing can explain gravity either, that's why he created his imaginary spacetime curvature.
The fact that the photon is a spin one boson explains that electromagnetic forces can attract or repel. Spin two bosons, like gravitons, can only attract. Hence, everything is explained by looking at the spin of the propogator.
the reason it doesn't explain it is that it doesn't explain why spin one bosons can attract and repel. and no one can know if such small particles spin or not.
wrong on both accounts. It is well known that photons have spin one, and that gravitons have spin two.
