How Many Unsolved Math Problems Are There In The World Pure Derivation of the Exact Fine – Structure Constant and As a Ratio of Two Inexact Metric Constant

You are searching about How Many Unsolved Math Problems Are There In The World, today we will share with you article about How Many Unsolved Math Problems Are There In The World was compiled and edited by our team from many sources on the internet. Hope this article on the topic How Many Unsolved Math Problems Are There In The World is useful to you.

Pure Derivation of the Exact Fine – Structure Constant and As a Ratio of Two Inexact Metric Constant

The theorists at the July 2000 String Conference were asked what mysteries remained to be revealed 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 panel of David Gross, Edward Witten and Michael Duff. No question was more worthy than the first two issues raised by Gross and Witten respectively: #1: Are all the dimensionless (measurable) parameters that characterize the physical universe computable in principle or are some simply determined by historical accident or quantum mechanics and incalculable? #2: How can quantum gravity help explain the origin of the universe?

A journal article on these age-old mysteries made some interesting comments about question #1. Perhaps Einstein said it most clearly: Did God have a choice in creating the universe?” – which also sums up dilemma #2. While the Eternal certainly “could” have had a “choice” at Creation, the following arguments will conclude that the answer to Einstein’s question is an emphatic “No “. The full spectrum of unprecedentedly precise fundamental physical parameters can be demonstrated within a Unique dimensionless universal system which naturally comprises a literal “monolith.”

Similarly, the article questioned whether the speed of light, Planck’s constant, and electric charge are determined indiscriminately — “or must the values ​​be what they are because of some deep, hidden logic. This question types come to a head with a conundrum involving a mysterious number called alpha.If you square the electron’s charge and then divide it by the speed of light by the (‘reduced’) Planck’s constant (multiplied by 4p times the permittivity of the vacuum), all (metric) dimensions (of mass, time and distance) cancel out, resulting in the so-called “pure number” – alpha, which is slightly more than 1/137 . But why is it not precisely 1/137 or some other value entirely? Physicists and even mystics have tried in vain to explain why.”

That is, while constants such as a fundamental particle mass can be expressed as a dimensionless relation relative to the Planck scale or a relation to a known or available mass unit with somewhat greater precision, the inverse of the electromagnetic coupling constant alpha is uniquely dimensionless. like a pure ‘fine structure number’ a ~ 137,036. On the other hand, assuming a unique, invariably discrete o exact the fine-structure numeric exists as a “literal constant”, the value of which has yet to be empirically confirmed as a ratio of two inaccurately determinable “metric constants”, h-bar and electric charge e (the speed of light c is exactly defined in the 1983 adoption of the SI convention as an integer number of meters per second.)

So, although this conundrum has been deeply puzzling almost from its inception, my impression upon reading this article in a morning paper was one of total surprise that the numerological question of invariance deserved so much distinction from authorities. eminent moderns Because I had been obliquely obsessed with the fs number in the context of my colleague AJ Meyer’s model for several years, but had come to accept its experimental determination in practice, periodically pondering the dimensionless problem to no avail. Gross’s question thus served as a catalyst for my complacency; recognize a unique position as the only scholar who could provide a categorically complete and coherent answer in the context of Meyer’s main fundamental parameter. Still, my pretentious instincts led to two months of absurd intellectual posturing until I sanely repeated a simple procedure explored a few years earlier. i simply was looking to the result using the value 98-00 CODATA of aand the next solution hit immediately with full heuristic force.

Because the fine structure relation effectively quantifies (through the bar h) the electromagnetic coupling between a discrete unit of electric charge (e) and a photon of light; in the same sense an whole is discreetly ‘quantified’ compared to the “fractional continuum” between this and 240 or 242. It is easy to see what this means if we consider another integer, 203, from which we subtract the exponential based on 2 from the square of 2pi. Now add the inverse of 241 to the resulting number, multiplying the product by the natural logarithm of 2. It follows that this pure calculation of the fine structure number is exactly the same. 137.0359996502301… – that here (/100) is given to 15, but can be calculated with any number of decimals.

In comparison, given the experimental uncertainty in h-bar ie, the NIST estimate varies up or down by about a factor of 6 from ‘965’ in the invariant sequence defined above. The following table provides the values ​​of h-bar, e, their ratio calculated as and NIST’s actual choice for a in each year of their archives, as well as in the 1973 CODATA, where the standard experimental uncertainty of two digits +/- is in bold in parentheses.

course…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(46or)

1998: 1,054,571 596(082) 1,602,176 462(063) 137,035,999.779 137,035,999 76o(50or)

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)

Therefore, it appears that the choice of NIST is roughly determined by the measured values h ie alone However, as explained at, in the 1980s interest shifted to a new approach that provides a direct determination of a by exploiting the quantum Hall effect, as independently corroborated by both theory and experiment of the electron magnetic moment anomaly, thereby reducing its already fine-tuned uncertainty. However, 20 years passed before an improved measurement of the magnetic moment g/2-factor was published in mid-2006, where the first estimate of this group (led by Gabrielse for Hussle at a was (A:) 137.035999. 710 (096) – explaining the greatly reduced uncertainty in the new NIST list, compared to the list h– bar and e. However, more recently a numerical error was discovered in the initial (A:) QED calculation (we will refer to it as the second paper B:) which changed the value of aa (B:) 137.035999. 070 (098).

Although reflecting an almost identical uncertainty, this estimate is clearly outside the NIST value in agreement with bar estimates of the elemental charge, which are determined independently by several experiments. NIST has three years to sort this out, but in the meantime it faces an embarrassing irony because at least the 06 choices for the hi la e bar appear to be slightly biased toward the expected fit for a! For example, adjusting the last three digits of the 06 data for ahie to match our pure fs number produces an unnoticeable ae-only adjustment in the h628/e487,065 ratio. If the QCD error had been corrected before the actual NIST publication in 2007, it could have been adjusted quite easily in h626/e489; although its consistency in the last 3 digits of is questioned a with respect to the comparative data 02 and 98. In any case, much greater improvements in various experimental designs will be required for a comparable reduction in error per ahie in order to resolve this issue definitively.

But again, even then, no matter how “precise” the metric measurement remains, it is still infinitely less than “literal accuracy”, while our pure fs number fits the current values ​​of h628/e487 with pretty accurate On the first aspect, I recently discovered that a mathematician named James Gilson (see ) also came up with a pure numeric = 137.0359997867… closer to the revised 98. -01 standard. Gilson also claims to have calculated numerous parameters of the Standard Model, such as the dimensionless ratio between the masses of a weak-gauge boson Z and W. But I know he could never construct a single demonstration using capable equivalences deriving Z and/or W masses per se from then precisely confirmed heavy masses quarks i Higgs fields (see the essay referenced in the resource box), which themselves result from a single dimensionless tautology. For the numerical discretion of the fraction 1/241 allows build physically meaningful dimensionless equations. If instead Gilson’s numerology was taken, or the refined empirical value of Gabreilse et. al., for the number fs, would destroy this discreteness, precise self-consistency, and the ability to write a meaningful dimensionless equation! Conversely, it is perhaps not too surprising that after literally “finding” the integer 241 and deriving the exact fine structure number from the resulting “monolithic number”, it only took about two weeks to calculate the six quark masses using real dimensionless. analysis and various well-structured relationships.

But since we are not now talking about the fine structure number per se, nor about the whole number 137, the result definitely answer Gross’s question. For those “dimensionless parameters that characterize the physical universe” (including alpha) are ratios between selected metric parameters that do not have a single dimensionless mapping system from which metric parameters such as particle masses are calculated from ‘established equations. The “standard model” offers a single parameter system, however no means to calculate or to predict any and/or all within a single system; therefore, the experimental parameters are set arbitrarily.

Final irony: I am doomed to be degraded as a “numerologist” by “experimentalists” who continually fail to recognize hard empirical evidence of quark, Higgs, or hadron masses that can be used to exactly calculate the current standard for known masses with more precision and the heaviest mass in high-energy physics (the Z). So, you stupid ghouls: empirical confirmation is just the final cherry on top before the chef presents a “Pudding Test” that no sentient being could resist just because he didn’t put it together himself, so, instead it makes a fake mess, the real deal doesn’t. it doesn’t look like Because the base of this pudding is made of melons I call Mumbers, which are really just numbers, pure and simple!

Video about How Many Unsolved Math Problems Are There In The World

You can see more content about How Many Unsolved Math Problems Are There In The World on our youtube channel: Click Here

Question about How Many Unsolved Math Problems Are There In The World

If you have any questions about How Many Unsolved Math Problems Are There In The World, please let us know, all your questions or suggestions will help us improve in the following articles!

The article How Many Unsolved Math Problems Are There In The World was compiled by me and my team from many sources. If you find the article How Many Unsolved Math Problems Are There In The World helpful to you, please support the team Like or Share!

Rate Articles How Many Unsolved Math Problems Are There In The World

Rate: 4-5 stars
Ratings: 8679
Views: 79745940

Search keywords How Many Unsolved Math Problems Are There In The World

How Many Unsolved Math Problems Are There In The World
way How Many Unsolved Math Problems Are There In The World
tutorial How Many Unsolved Math Problems Are There In The World
How Many Unsolved Math Problems Are There In The World free
#Pure #Derivation #Exact #Fine #Structure #Constant #Ratio #Inexact #Metric #Constant


Bài viết đã được tạo 1414

Bài liên quan

Bắt đầu nhập từ khoá bên trên và nhấp enter để tìm kiếm. Nhấn ESC để huỷ.

Trở lên trên