Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Franklin Nolle Williams on 10/10/2020 13:51:57
-
“Is it possible to derive all the universal constants from a single continuous equation? The fine structure constant, alpha, is an integral part of all constants involving mass and matter, if not in whole then in part or fractional exponents. The only constants lacking the fine structure constant in my new paper are the ‘elementary charge, e,’ and the ‘permeability of a vacuum, μo’, as the alpha factor is included in the pi factors in those equations. It is also apparent that according to the 2014 NIST values for all the universal constants if alpha changes over time then so will all the universal constants change proportionally. The changes range from one tenth to three one-thousandths, or smaller, of one percent of the values found in the 2014 CODATA Bulletin.
In my paper, that was just published in the new journal, the Journal of Modern Cosmology, I demonstrate a method for deriving the fundamental universal constants from three pure non-dimensional numbers. The fine structure constant, α, is shown to be a continuous equation using pi, π, and the square root of ten, √10. Using the fine structure constant, pi, and the square root of ten taken to different exponential values, most, if not all the accepted fundamental universal constants can be found.
I am new here so don’t want to post an outside link, but the new journal is open access and the paper’s Title is “A Mathematical Way to Derive Values for the Universal Constants relating them to the fine structure constant alpha, (α), as a Continuous Equation Involving pi, (π), and the Square Root of 10”, if anyone wants to discuss this.”
-
If I look at that, am I going to think it is numerology, or is there actual science involved?
-
No need to read the entire paper. We know the value of α to 1 part in 1012 and we can calculate π and √10 to any level of precision we want. So if you take your inputs to, say, 1 in 1016, what is your calculated value for α?
Since α = e²/4πε₀ħc by definition, it is difficult to see what physics relates the ratio of independent, dimensioned, experimental quantities to any number of dimensionless mathematical constants.
Methods of "calculating α" have abounded because of its tempting proximity to a rational number, but the experimental discovery that, though dimensionless, α ≠ 1/137, has pretty much put a stop to numerology in this area.
-
am I going to think it is numerology,
has pretty much put a stop to numerology in this area.
Numerology is any belief in the divine or mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events. That is absent here, it is just math.
we can calculate π and √10 to any level of precision we want.
The problem here is that, though this is true, and any 3 values can be manipulated to provide a desired result, it takes a LOT of decimal places in the exponents to achieve that. For instance, to get c from just π and α, just two of his base values, we get:
π21.3493053143 (.007294848617482111096989377680633) = c.
What is notable in his paper is that he needs no more than one decimal point in his exponents to get the result. This seems to indicate that his 3 values are "prime" factors in determining the constants.
-
Funny how it works in base 10.
Either the universe has ten fingers or it's numerology.
-
Funny how it works in base 10
This is because the values of the constants are base 10. We don't use base 3, for example. Would you use a base 3 number and expect a base 10 result?
-
If it's important, it should work in any base.
But lots of numbers don't.
1/3 can't meet this criterion
that he needs no more than one decimal point
So, the fact that his numbers "work" in base ten is suspicious.
-
From the Journal of Modern Cosmology website:
The journal will consider papers on new research and hyptheses that are scientifically grounded. The journal does not consider or accept papers on any aspect of the Big Bang, Lamda/Dark Energy Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) or Cold Dark Matter (CDM) models of Cosmology or the Standard Model of Particle Physics. The position of the Journal of Modern Cosmology is that these models are all incorrect as they try to describe the interactions of individual particle events in what is actually an evolving continuum.
It is also the Journal's position that the Universe is eternal, so papers containing physical "creation events" will also not be considered.
Hmm...
-
What is notable in his paper is that he needs no more than one decimal point in his exponents
Now that stinks a bit. There are a few laws like the Richardson-Dushman equation where an exponent is based on an experimental value but I can't think of any physical law that involves decimal exponents derived from first principles.
And from The Paper
It was only a simple matter of trial and error to work out the final equation.
puts the first nail in that coffin.
Numerology.
-
where an exponent is based on an experimental value
And what experimental value is α based on? We see it everywhere, but one of the most sought after answers is why α has the value it does. As far as anyone knows, it is just because that is what it HAS to be for everything else to work. That's why it is called the God number. That could also be true in Williams' equations.
As per α ≠ 1/137, you are correct. Only astrophysicists use that form, but the denominator has several decimal places so it "equals" the decimal form. It is also an indeterminate, fluctuating value. We know this because the fluctuation is clear at high energies. What Williams is demonstrating is that as α fluctuates, so do all the other constants, which means the universe does not have to be as "fine tuned" as we have thought, so that if any single constant varied, the universe could not exist.
puts the first nail in that coffin.
I would agree if he needed more than one decimal place.
-
Playing with the numbers until you get the value you want is still numerology.
No matter how many places of decimals you get it to agree to.
-
No matter how many places of decimals you get it to agree to
It is not that he is "getting it to agree to". It is that so few decimal places in the exponents are required to get it to agree.
If he got that for just one or two of the constants, that would be "numerology", a term you are misusing. He would simply be using circular reasoning and have happened upon a couple of the constants where only one decimal place was required.
Try any 3 random values and see if you can do any of the constants without really large numbers of decimal places in the exponents. In the example I gave above for c, even if we go for his result instead of c, as I did, you need 7 decimal places,
It also shows an interrelationship between α and π. If π was a rational number, circles would be closed instead of spirals. If Williams' equation is correct, then α appears to represent the distance between the spirals, as it does in determining the distancing of electron shells. The √10 is also irrational and indeterminate. Fluctuations in α based on the energy level are allowed for by the irrational nature of π and the √10.
-
Gentlemen;
In the universal constants they use the least square method to determine the constant. They take their individual experimental results, square each one, add all of them together, divide by the number of results and then take the square root of the average. If that is not trial and error, I don't know what is. It is a little less science and more best guess scenario.
-
I Would like to add, numerology or not, math does not lie. The trial and error I was referring to was figuring out the equation to 31 digits, far beyond the simple 12 digits they promote.
-
They take their individual experimental results, square each one, add all of them together, divide by the number of results and then take the square root of the average.
That's not the "least square" method.
math does not lie.
Nobody was saying maths lied.If that is not trial and error, I don't know what is.
OK, so you don't know what trial and error is.
-
far beyond the simple 12 digits they promote.
Who is "they"?
-
(
... that would be "numerology", a term you are misusing. ...
This is an aside, but no, that term is not misused. Your definition of it is correct; but ignores the very common tendency of groups to develop specialised nuances of language. One such group is members of web forums. In these forums, especially in sections such as this, "numerology" has become a very common term - I've seen it in many forums, over decades. It's a nice shorthand for "fiddling with numbers and math (often without rhyme or reason) and getting excited about coincidences". That meaning was clear.)
-
"numerology" has become a very common term
I stand corrected! :o
-
It took me a while to actually find the paper.
It's here
https://journalofmoderncosmology.com/Williams.pdf
I might decide to delete that link later since I don't want to be seen by any robots as giving it credibility.
The point is that where is says
". Because of some previous research 4.8x10-11
was a number familiar to me. So, I simply divided the exact Planck’s constant by
this number, and it produced 1.380704525 x 10-23. A number so close to the
standard accepted Boltzman’s constant that I believe it to be the correct one."
it's clear that the author is just playing with the numbers to get the right answer.
-
Who is "they"?
CODATA bulletin and NIST
-
The point is that where is says
". Because of some previous research 4.8x10-11
was a number familiar to me. So, I simply divided the exact Planck’s constant by
this number, and it produced 1.380704525 x 10-23. A number so close to the
standard accepted Boltzman’s constant that I believe it to be the correct one."
it's clear that the author is just playing with the numbers to get the right answer.
The research comes from Einstein's own equation where he found 'b' to be equal to 47.999.... I simply rounded up.OK, so you don't know what trial and error is.
I apologize for belittling the least square method, but find the slope of the line and the Y intercept, (y=mx+b), is still finding the overall average of the points above and below the line whether it is straight or a curved line,
-
Who is "they"?
CODATA bulletin and NISTOK, so you don't know what trial and error is.
I apologize for belittling the least square method, but finding the slope of the line and the Y intercept, (y=mx+b), is still finding the overall average of the points above and below the line whether straight or curved.
-
Who is "they"?
CODATA bulletin and NIST
In what way do they "promote" 12 digits?
For example, some of the fundamental ones are only defined to 9 or 10 digits
9 192 631 770 Hz
299 792 458 m/s
Some don't even make 6 digits
6.674 30 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
The research comes from Einstein's own equation where he found 'b' to be equal to 47.999
The problem isn't where the number came from,.
I's that you chose to do this
So, I simply divided the exact Planck’s constant by
this number, and it produced 1.380704525 x 10-23.
Not because there's a theoretciacl justification for it, but simply because it gave you the number you were looking for.
That's what makes it numerology.
Playing with the numbers until you get the one you want.
Can you show us the basis in physics for the decision to do that particular bit of arithmetic?
If so, why didn't you mention it in teh paper?
-
Because of some previous research 4.8x10-11
". Because of some previous research 4.8x10-11
was a number familiar to me. So, I simply divided the exact Planck’s constant by
this number, and it produced 1.380704525 x 10-23. A number so close to the
standard accepted Boltzman’s constant that I believe it to be the correct one."
it's clear that the author is just playing with the numbers to get the right answer.
The previous research was from Einstein's own equation where he derived 47.999... I simply rounded up.
-
Because of some previous research 4.8x10-11
". Because of some previous research 4.8x10-11
was a number familiar to me. So, I simply divided the exact Planck’s constant by
this number, and it produced 1.380704525 x 10-23. A number so close to the
standard accepted Boltzman’s constant that I believe it to be the correct one."
it's clear that the author is just playing with the numbers to get the right answer.
The previous research was from Einstein's own equation where he derived 47.999... I simply rounded up.
Repeating it doesn't help.
The problem isn't where the number came from,.
I's that you chose to do this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 11/10/2020 12:12:31
So, I simply divided the exact Planck’s constant by
this number, and it produced 1.380704525 x 10-23.
Not because there's a theoretciacl justification for it, but simply because it gave you the number you were looking for.
That's what makes it numerology.
Playing with the numbers until you get the one you want.
-
It seems to me that Bored Chemist's posts are about the Avogrado’s number derivation, as that is where the 4.8*10-11 is utilized, for reasons yet to be explained, but not about the derivations based on Williams' π, α, √10 relationships.
I repeat that the fact that his exponents only require a single decimal place to get the desired results seems significant. Can anyone reading this identify any other 3 values that can be utilized to do this with only a single decimal place? I have tried and cannot.
I would also just note that the paper had to pass peer review to be published. I would think qualified reviewers would have caught any numerology aspects.
-
...
I would also just note that the paper had to pass peer review to be published. I would think qualified reviewers would have caught any numerology aspects.
Are you truly independent when claiming that?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72342.msg613649#msg613649
https://journalofmoderncosmology.com/contactJoMC.htm
What is the standing of that journal? (Edit: and the reviewers?)
-
That journal is new and I own it. It was not originally reviewed for my journal, though. It was originally published in the Journal of Cosmology and was reviewed there. At the time, I was acting as webmaster, PIO and an assistant to the editors there, receiving and screening submissions.
It was removed from the Journal of Cosmology by the 84 year-old Executive Editor, who is having "end of life" issues, to be polite, brought to a head, it seems, by the COVID lockdown. If you look at their Vol. 27, which used to contain Williams' and other papers, you will see what I mean. The Editor-in-Chief there has suspended publishing new papers until their issues are resolved. As the Executive Editor owns the webhosting account, his options are limited. http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC27/indexVol27CONTENTS.htm
I know for a fact it was reviewed by 3 people and saw the comments. I was not one of the three. Williams also changed the paper, adding explanatory text the reviewers said it needed, before it was accepted. I don't know why Williams came to use Einstein's number for the Avogrado derivation, and hope he explains it further, but I know the reviewers looked closely at it (the paper) to be sure it was not "numerology".
Another paper in my journal, by Ujvarosy, was also originally in Vol. 27 of the Journal of Cosmology. The version of my paper in my journal is an update of my paper that is in Vol. 26 of the JofC, which was published in July of '19, after which I became active in the journal.
I started my journal because I felt badly for the people who had their papers removed. The jofC wanted the papers back, but neither author wants their paper in the JofC due to the situation with the Executive Editor. I told the Editor-in-Chief they could have them back once their issues are resolved and they resume publishing. I also believe we need a journal for non BB/LCDM/Standard Model theories.
Neither author was charged any fees by me for the publication of their papers. They did pay the required fees at the Journal of Cosmology, which have not been refunded to date.
Thanks for the prod. I just put a lot of that on my "About" page. Helps clarify a lot about why and what...
-
So to be realistic, does "Journal" here mean much more than "some guys with a website"?
And are the reviewers for those journals any better placed to review than participants of this web forum?
(I'm just digging into your claim: "... had to pass peer review to be published", with the implication that those reviewers are more qualified than Bored Chemist.)
-
And are the reviewers for those journals any better placed to review than participants of this web forum?
Those reviewers are all PHD's and published. Who knows who the people here are? I never hide my identity. I am proud of it. Who are you and what are your credentials? And Bored Chemist? Is Bored Chemist an Astrophysicist or Quantum Physicist? Is he published? My credentials are there for all to see.
-
Yes, I have been published, yes I have been a peer reviewer.
It isn't important.
As Albert einstein said.“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book "Hundred Authors Against Einstein"]”.
I don't mind if someone explains that I'm wrong- for example by actually answering my question.
Can you show us the basis in physics for the decision to do that particular bit of arithmetic?
If so, why didn't you mention it in the paper?
But I also don't mind how many people read the paper before me and missed that issue with it.
I'm a chemist and therefore a quantum physicist, but that's not important.
It's not rare for people outside "the field" to ask the most challenging questions ".
-
Yes, I have been published, yes I have been a peer reviewer.
Good. It is nice to know something about who is posting what.
I don't mind if someone explains that I'm wrong
I am with you on that. That is why I do not care if people know who I am. Like you, I am hoping Williams can clarify his Avogrado derivation.
I still would like to hear your reply about the other derivations and the fact that they only need the single decimal point. Can you think of any other 3 values that would allow for this?
Also, as you appear to have the credentials, would be be interested in reviewing future submissions to the journal? I am trying to build a base of reviewers so I don't need to search them out each time a paper is submitted.
-
I still would like to hear your reply about the other derivations and the fact that they only need the single decimal point.
Unless someone convinces me that the stuff which I read isn't numerology, I'm not going to waste my time reading the rest of the stuff.
-
Unless someone convinces me that the stuff which I read isn't numerology, I'm not going to waste my time reading the rest of the stuff.
Well, I think that is ill considered. I, for one, would be interested in your opinion and the derivations are not based on what you found objectionable in the Avogrado part. You are just leaving everyone hanging by, yes, refusing to answer a question.
-
As far as I can tell, it is not a science question.
So it shouldn't be being asked on a science web page.
Good luck with trying to guilt me into answering it.
-
Good luck with trying to guilt me into answering it.
I am not appealing to your sense of guilt. I think you just cannot demonstrate how 3 other values can be used to get the same results. I would think others are also thinking that. Poor form, old chum. Poor form.... :(
In fact, it is a very boring reply. :)
-
I think you just cannot demonstrate how 3 other values can be used to get the same results.
Given that, as I said
Unless someone convinces me that the stuff which I read isn't numerology, I'm not going to waste my time reading the rest of the stuff.
I didn't read it so, yes, you are quite correct I can't demonstrate anything about it.
-
Very boring, indeed. Sad. I would say you should just bow out of this thread now and let someone else who is truely interested pick up your argument, if anyone wants to, as you obviously have no more to say.
-
Very boring, indeed. Sad. I would say you should just bow out of this thread now and let someone else who is truely interested pick up your argument, if anyone wants to, as you obviously have no more to say.
Unless the OP turns up and replies to the questions people have asked there's not much point to this thread continuing anyway,
-
So, for anyone else, can anyone find 3 values, other than α, π and the √10 that Williams uses, that can be utilized to derive all the constants using exponents with no more than 1 decimal place?
-
Bored-chemist
Obviously you did not read my paper because I pointed out in the first paragraph that I could have used numerology to derive the all of the universal constants, if that is what you call it, but chose not too.
"In the online publication of Nature Journal on 23 August 2010 there was an article entitled G-Whizzes Disagree over Gravity. In this article, it states that metrologists are having trouble agreeing over the constant of G in gravity and that a new value may be in the making. The significance of the following paper becomes obvious for setting a standard for all constants to compare with the measured values. For instance, if we accept the value for the fine structure constant as set forth in this paper as 7.294848617… x 10-3, which represents a .034% decrease of the standard accepted value, or by using fractions of π we will find the metrologists’ measured values for G; 6.67234 x 10^-11; 6.67349 x 10^-11; and 6.674215 x 10^-11; to exist between 1/α^.5xB^20.5xπ^1.999826 and 1/α^.5xB^20.5xπ^1.9995814 respectively, which represents a .0198% through a .0479% decrease from their to ours or also by using the fine structure constant, α, similarly 6.674215 x 10^-11 = 1/π^2xB^20.5xα^.5000973789. as compared to G in this paper at 1/α^.5xB^20.5xπ^2 which equals 6.671018003 x 10^-11."
Thank you for the quotes because I did not insist on 12 digits but your numbers can be written differently
In what way do they "promote" 12 digits?
For example, some of the fundamental ones are only defined to 9 or 10 digits
9 192 631 770 Hz, which is 9.192631770 x 10^9 can be written as 9.192631770 x (√10)^18 which still is 9.192631770 x 10^9
and 2.99792458 x 10^8 can be written as easily as 2.99792458x(√10)^16 and gives the same results
299 792 458 m/s
Some don't even make 6 digits
6.674 30 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
, and can be written as 6.67430 x (√10)^-22 which gives 6.674300008 x 10^-11
I didn't give the universe ten fingers, scientific notation did. I used the √10 because changes from Newtons to dynes or Joules to ergs had to give the proper results, which I pointed out in the paper if you had bother to read it.
In what way do they "promote" 12 digits?
Your prejudice let you focus on one thing and your narrow mind studied only on your one tree of numerology and didn't allow you to see the forest of the paper. It was not written to replace the universal constants but to show the nuances, patterns and interconnectivity that all the constants have.
for instance the permeability of space, 4π x 10^-7 can be written as 4π x (√10)^-14,
The ratio of the proton to electron is 6π^5 and the ratio of the neutron to electron is 2.5 + 6π^5
If you had bother t read the paper you would have seen the questions I posed at the end of it.
The only real numerology that took place was to make α on the left side of this equation, α = π^(.02/α) x B^-7, equal α the right side of the equation. All of the other constants fell into place using the CODATA and NIST bulletins when I used this version of α.
You were so prejudiced and focus on your own little tree of numerology you missed everything else.
Don't bother to comment because I already know what you are going to say because you have already said it.
-
Are you really saying that
x^n = √x ^ 2n
is new and important (rather than a statement of the mathematically obvious)?
and can be written as 6.67430 x (√10)^-22 which gives 6.674300008 x 10^-11
changes from Newtons to dynes or Joules to ergs
If you just use one set of consistent units you don't need to do that.
Why did you do it the hard way?
-
Are you really saying that
x^n = √x ^ 2n
is new and important (rather than a statement of the mathematically obvious)?
Quote from: Franklin Nolle Williams on Today at 08:57:26
and can be written as 6.67430 x (√10)^-22 which gives 6.674300008 x 10^-11
Quote from: Franklin Nolle Williams on Today at 08:57:26
changes from Newtons to dynes or Joules to ergs
If you just use one set of consistent units you don't need to do that.
Why did you do it the hard way?
I'm not saying it's new or more important, but just like Einstein adding a factor of a -2k in his General Theory so his equations worked, it made my equations work out better and be more consistent with the CODATA bulletin.
-
And you did it the hard way because...?
-
And you did it the hard way because...?
It allows you to change from Newtons to dynes or Joules to ergs or a larger to a smaller and vice versa by changing the B exponent without affecting the alpha or pi exponents.
-
by changing the B exponent
If I am not mistaken, one of the paper's reviewers called this sliding decimals, a method he uses.
-
does this have anything to do with the E^8 shape? If you do not understand go to howstuffworks/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/theory-of-everything
-
does this have anything to do with the E^8 shape? If you do not understand go to howstuffworks/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/theory-of-everything
No this has nothing at all to do with the E^8 theory of everything.