Pure Derivation of the Exact Fine-Structure Constant and as a Ratio of Two Inexact Metric Constants

Theorists at the Strings Conference in July of 2000 were asked what mysteries remain to be revealed in the 21st century. Participants were invited to help formulate the ten most important unsolved problems in fundamental physics, which were finally selected and ranked by a distinguished panel of David Gross, Edward Witten and Michael Duff. No questions were more worthy than the first two problems respectively posed by Gross and Witten: #1: Are all the (measurable) dimensionless parameters that characterize the physical universe calculable in principle or are some merely determined by historical or quantum mechanical accident and incalculable? #2: How can quantum gravity help explain the origin of the universe?

A newspaper article about these millennial mysteries expressed some interesting comments about the #1 question. Perhaps Einstein indeed "put it more crisply: Did God have a choice in creating the universe?" - which summarizes quandary #2 as well. While certainly the Eternal One 'may' have had a 'choice' in Creation, the following arguments will conclude that the reply to Einstein's question is an emphatic "No." For even more certainly a full spectrum of unprecedented, precise fundamental physical parameters are demonstrably calculable within a single dimensionless Universal system that naturally comprises a literal "Monolith."

Likewise the article went on to ask if the speed of light, Planck's constant and electric charge are indiscriminately determined - "or do the values have to be what they are because of some deep, hidden logic. These kinds of questions come to a point with a conundrum involving a mysterious number called alpha. If you square the charge of the electron and then divide it by the speed of light times Planck's ('reduced') constant (multiplied by 4p times the vacuum permittivity), all the (metric) dimensions (of mass, time and distance) cancel out, yielding a so-called "pure number" - alpha, which is just over 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."

Which is to say that while constants such as a fundamental particle mass can be expressed as a dimensionless relationship relative to the Planck scale or ratio to a somewhat more precisely known or available unit of mass, the inverse of the electromagnetic coupling constant alpha is uniquely dimensionless as a pure 'fine-structure number' a ~ 137.036. On the other hand, assuming a unique, invariantly discrete or exact fine-structure numeric exists as a "literal constant," the value must still be empirically confirmed as a ratio of two inexactly determinable 'metric constants,' h-bar and electric charge e (light speed c being exactly defined in the 1983 adoption of the SI convention as an integer number of meters per second.)

So though this conundrum has been deeply puzzling almost from its inception, my impression upon reading this article in a morning paper was utter amazement a numerological issue of invariance merited such distinction by eminent modern authorities. For I'd been obliquely obsessed with the fs-number in the context of my colleague A. J. Meyer's model for a number of years, but had come to accept it's experimental determination in practice, pondering the dimensionless issue periodically to no avail. Gross's question thus served as a catalyst from my complacency; recognizing a unique position as the only fellow who could provide a categorically complete and consistent answer in the context of Meyer's main fundamental parameter. Still, my pretentious instincts led to two months of inane intellectual posturing until sanely repeating a simple procedure explored a few years earlier. I merely looked at the result using the 98-00 CODATA value of a, and the following solution immediately struck with full heuristic force.

For the fine-structure ratio effectively quantizes (via h-bar) the electromagnetic coupling between a discrete unit of electric charge (e) and a photon of light; in the same sense an integer is discretely 'quantized' compared to the 'fractional continuum' between it and 240 or 242. One can easily see what this means by considering another integer, 203, from which we subtract the 2-based exponential of the square of 2pi. Now add the inverse of 241 to the resultant number, multiplying the product by the natural log of 2. It follows that this pure calculation of the fine-structure number exactly equals 137.0359996502301... - which here (/100) is given to 15, but is calculable to any number of decimal places.

By comparison, given the experimental uncertainty in h-bar and e, the NIST evaluation varies up or down around the mid 6 of '965' in the invariant sequence defined above. The following table according gives the values of h-bar, e, their calculated ratio as and the actual NIST choice for a in each year of their archives, as well as the 1973 CODATA, where the standard two digit +/- experimental uncertainty is in bold type within parentheses.

year ...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(46o)

1998: 1.054.571 596(082) 1.602.176 462(063) 137.035.999.779 137.035.999 76o(50o)

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)

So it seems the NIST choice is roughly determined by the measured values for h and e alone. However, as explained at http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html, by the 80's interest shifted to a new approach that provides a direct determination of a by exploiting the quantum Hall effect, as independently corroborated with both theory and experiment of the electron magnetic-moment anomaly, thus reducing its already finer tuned uncertainty. Yet it took 20 years before an improved measure of the magnetic moment g/2-factor was published in mid 2006, where this group's estimate (see first paper A: at http://hussle.harvard.edu/%7Egabrielse/gabrielse/papers/2006/NewFineStructureConstant.pdf) for a was (A:) 137.035999. 710(096) - explaining the much reduced uncertainty in the new NIST list, as compared to that in h-bar and e. However, more recently (see 2nd paper B:) a numeric error in the initial QED calculation (A:) was discovered which shifted the value of a to (B:) 137.035999. 070 (098).

Though it reflects a nearly identically small uncertainty, this assessment is clearly outside the NIST value concordant with estimates for h-bar and elementary charge, which are independently determined by various experiments. The NIST has three years to sort this out, but meantime face an embarrassing irony in that at least the 06-choices for h-bar and e seem to be slightly skewed toward the expected fit for a! For example, adjusting the last three digits of the 06-data for h and e to accord with our pure fs-number yields an imperceivable adjustment to e alone into the ratio h628/e487.065. Had the QCD error been corrected prior to the actual NIST publication in 2007, it rather easily could have been evenly adjusted to h626/e489; though questioning its coherency in the last 3-digits of a with respect to the comparative 02 and 98 data. In any case, far vaster improvements in multiple experimental designs will be required for a comparable reduction in error for h and e in order to settle this issue for good.

But again, even then no matter how 'precisely' metric measure is maintained, it's still infinitely short of 'literal exactitude,' while our pure fs-number fits the present values of h628/e487quite precisely. In the former regard, I recently discovered a mathematician named James Gilson (see http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/%7Ejgg/page5.html) also devised a pure numeric = 137.0359997867... nearer the revised 98-01 standard. Gilson further contends he's calculated numerous parameters of the standard model such as the dimensionless ratio between the masses of a Z and W weak gauge boson. But I know he could never construct a single Proof employing equivalences capable of deriving Z and/or W masses per se from then precisely confirmed masses of heavy quarks and Higgs fields (see essay referenced in the resource box), which themselves result from a single over-riding dimensionless tautology. For the numeric discreteness of the fraction 1/241 allows one to construct physically meaningful dimensionless equations. If one instead took Gilson's numerology, or the refined empirical value of Gabreilse et. al., for the fs-number, it would destroy this discreteness, precise self-consistency and ability to even write a meaningful dimensionless equation! By contrast, perhaps it's then not too surprising that after I literally 'found' the integer 241 and derived the exact fine-structure number from the resultant 'Monolith Number,' it took only about 2 weeks to calculate all six quark masses utilizing real dimensionless analysis and various fine-structured relations.

But as we now aren't really talking about the fine-structure number per se any more than the integer 137, the result definitively answers Gross's question. For those "dimensionless parameters that characterize the physical universe" (including alpha) are ratios between selected metric parameters that lack a single unified dimensionless system of mapping from which metric parameters like particle masses are calculated from set equations. The 'standard model' gives one a single system of parameters, but no means to calculate or predict any one and/or all within a single system - thus the experimental parameters are put in by hand arbitrarily.

Final irony: I'm doomed to be demeaned as a 'numerologist' by 'experimentalists' who continually fail to recognize a hard empirical proof for quark, Higgs or hadron masses that may be used to exactly calculate the present standard for the most precisely known and heaviest mass in high energy physics (the Z). So contraire foolish ghouls: empiric confirmation is just the final cherry the chef puts on top before he presents a "Pudding Proof" no sentient being could resist just because he didn't assemble it himself, so instead makes a mimicked mess the real deal doesn't resemble. For the base of this pudding is made from melons I call Mumbers, which are really just numbers, pure and simple!

Sean Sheeter is an independent theorist, geometer and author of 241-Mumbers: The Definitive Data for Fundamental Physics and Cosmology. Interested parties are encouraged to visit http://www.241mumbers.com and further explore our Sample Data/Proofs page that includes the body of the report http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Z-Boson-Mass-And-Its-Formula-As-Multiple-Proofs-In-One-Yummy-Bowl-Of-Pudding&id=757900

Tribal Art Tattoos- The Old Is New

The oldest known tattoo is that found on Oetzi, a Bronze Age warrior who lived some fifty-three centuries ago. Oetzis remains were founding 1991 preserved in the ice of the of an Alpone glacier on the border of Austria and Italy. Oetzi actually had fifty-seven separate tattoos, and although no one really knows their significance, it is possible that his intersecting and parallel lines are the earliest yet discovered example of tribal art tattoos. If so, Oetzi would be surprised to learn that he is quite the 21st century trend-setter.

In a world gone tattoo-mad, tribal art tattoos seem to have cause more than their fair share of the frenzy. They are the most requested, and most easily recognized, of all tattoos. With their startling black lines and sharply defined abstract shapes which somehow evoke animal, birds, and reptiles, tribal art tattoos remind us of a long-lost connection to an unspoiled world.

The term tribal art tattoos encompasses the tattoo styles developed by the by the African and Pacific Island tribal cultures, and of those the Maori people of New Zealand created the most distinctive tattoos. Their custom of identifying separate families within their tribes by cutting and coloring that familys history into the faces of its descendants is known as Moko, and has been the inspiration for many a modern facial tribal art tattoo.

Maori tribal tattoo art is recognizable for its two types of patterns. One was a pigmented line, and the other involved inking the background and allowing the untouched skin to form the pattern. Many of the Maori tattoos contain spirals similar to fern fronds.

The Native American also used tribal art tattoos as a means of tribal identification, and their warriors had battle tattoos believed to provide protection; the tribes of Samoa, on the other hand, would cover their young men entirely in tattoos as a rite of passage into adulthood. Tribal art tattoos have been used for a variety of reasons, and very few of them were simply ornamental.

Tribal art tattoos did not make their way to the civilized world until they were brought back by nineteenth century sailors who were willing tolerate the extremely painful inking techniques practiced by the tribal tattoo artists. But the tribal art tattoos which have currently taken the world by storm are not quite the same as the ones which decorated the torsos of many a sun-burned deck hand.

The mainstream tribal art tattoos with which we re all so familiar are really a hybrid form of tattoo, which combines features of the ancient tribal tattoos with design elements first introduced in the 1990s by master tattoo artist Leo Zulueta, himself a Filipino-American. Zulueta has made a point never to copy directly from the original tribal art tattoo designs, because he considers it disrespectful for those not directly related to the tribes to wear their symbols of family and empowerment.

The most sought-after tribal art tattoos today are armbands; chains of knots, barbed-wire, or flames are all popular. Stylized animal heads and sunbursts are great for the shoulder or chest area, and circular navel tribal art tattoos are also quite common. The tribal art tattoo, in fact, works very well in emphasizing bodily contours, and there are many designs ideal for the curvature if the lower back. There is, in fact, a tribal tattoo art design to enhance every part of

Author: Matt Garrett - 2007 http://www.TopTattooDesign.Com

Discover how to avoid being the one in four who Hate thier new Tattoo, including simple Tattoo safety tips, in our your free Tattoo Guide : -

Free Tattoo Guide

Physics Problems And Method Of Questions - Efficient Learning Method

How should we learn? How can we learn in the most efficient way?

We do not want to spend a lot Geckoforums time to Geckoforums the new science topic, but we finally want to understand it.

One of the most difficult science fields is physics. Many students Geckoforums afraid of physics, they read physics books, but they do not understand them.

Some students can Geckoforums simple physics problems, but they cannot solve the more difficult ones. What should they do?

There is a special method how to improve the problem solving skill. This method is called method of questions.

The idea of this method is the following.

To understand physics we need to solve as many problems as possible. Each additional problem gives us some additional understanding of the basic concepts.

Therefore we need to solve a lot of problems. Of cause, some of them are difficult and we cannot solve them.

In this case we need to start from the problem we can solve. It can be a simple problem or a complicated one. It does not matter.

The most important is that we can solve this problem and we understand how to solve it.

Then we modify the problem and we ask the questions. It means that we apply the method of questions.

Since we know how to solve the original problem then we can solve the modified problems.

In such way we can solve many problems for the shortest amount of time.

The application of the method of Geckoforums can save a lot of time in your physics learning process.

You can find more information about the method of questions and other approaches to physics learning at the website: http://www.solvephysics.com

Miracles Of Dolphin Assisted Therapy Research

What is dolphin assisted therapy research? It is a special mix of zoo therapy and physiotherapy that also provides important information for research. The animals used Geckoforums this type of therapy are trained dolphins.

Who uses this type of therapy? It is usually people Geckoforums special needs. It has been very popular with children affected or suffering from Autism, Cerebral Palsy, cancer and Multiple Sclerosis. Verbal or non-verbal, with or without sight, paralyzed or with limited motor skills, miracles have been observed or linked with this type of therapy.

Charitable organizations such as the Make-a-Wish Foundation have made dreams come true for numerous children. You see, children are often attracted and intrigued by these marine mammals. As for dolphins, they are naturally curious, patient, protective and sociable animals, which explain their main attraction to humans.

If a pregnant woman, a defenseless child or a physically handicapped adult are put in their presence, dolphins are known to come to their rescue and protect them, no matter the consequences.

During the assisted dolphin therapy research sessions, a physiotherapist and a dolphin trainer, who often is a marine biologist, are present to supervise series of physical exercises. Dolphins provide the rest: patience, support, entertainment and a unique relationship.

With time, various miracles have been known to happen during these sessions. Non-verbal patients have said their first words; others have shown some interest in communicating with them and developing a Geckoforums relationship. Others became affectionate while some developed their motor skills. For some children, dolphin assisted therapy research made their dreams come true by giving them the opportunity to go swimming with dolphins. For others, it meant hope, achieving goals, develop their skills or find a best friend.

While miracles have been happening during dolphin assisted therapy research sessions, it does not mean that they are guaranteed to happen but at least, the experience in itself, its uniqueness and the fun related to it make it worthwhile.

In fact, numerous parents, relatives and friends would tell you that, at least, it makes a dream come true and at best, it will bring to your loved one something more precious than all the money in the world: a Geckoforums that changed a life.

Nowadays, several places offer either dolphin assisted therapy research, a chance to go swimming with dolphins or even the opportunity to become a dolphin trainer for a day. If you have one of these opportunities, you should take it as it will provide you with the experience of a lifetime. For once, you will see that the Geckoforums of such an opportunity is worth every penny. Write it down on your To Do List for your next vacation as you will not regret it!

My name is Sylvie Leochko. I am fascinated by dolphins, which explains my desire to share my acquired knowledge with others. If you wish to learn more about dolphins, I encourage you to visit the following site: http://www.dolphins-and-more.com