Contradictory Evidence
to my Integer Count Theory
n the past few years some apparent experimental evidence has come to light which casts some measure of doubt on my basic premise that the universe is little more than the embodiment of a simple integer count. The main problems are:
 Failure to detect a change in the Gravitational Constant
 Apparently detected Accelerated Expansion of the Universe
 Probable Detection of a change in the Fine Structure Constant
which is inconsistent with theory
 Possible AntiGravity Effects
(as yet unverified by independent experiment)
No Change in "G"?
Radar ranging of Mars (supposedly an extremely precise measurement) over a period of years has shown no diminution in the gravitational constant which would show up as an increase in the orbital radius of Mars. Since the gravitational constant is compared to the measure of other forces (electromagnetic, nuclear, weak), the result is a pure number derived from a ratio of two of them. Hence, all dimensiona cancel out leaving only a number.
It is therefore logically necessary that one detect a change in that number over time since we observe a variance now, i.e. if we take the strength of the electromagnetic force as "1" and the gravitational force at 10^{39}, it is necessary that the two obtained to this difference over time. Therefore, we must necessarily see the change taking place as a continuous process.
I can only attribute the absence of change as being due to the smallness of the change and ... most importantly ... to the presence of a "compression" of the galaxy (and thus the solar system) by the vacuum which passes for the "dark matter". Thus, we don't see the expected change because the outward slide is presently offset by the inward push (compression). Nevertheless, a change in the gravitational force should be apprehended by some other method as yet unknown.
My theory predicts that the rate of change is such that when the universe is twice as old as it is now, that force will be about 1/3 of its present value (actually the inverse of two to the 3/2 power). And this relationship must hold always (though there may be some small divergence in the early universe due to unsettled miscellaneous "other" factors like a change in the orderly "clumping" of matter).
Accelerated Expansion?
If the universe is indeed undergoing accelerated expansion then ... I am totally in error. For if so, there would be less and less matter in the visible universe, i.e. the "count" would diminish rather than increase ... subtraction instead of addition.
One should bear in mind that no acceleration can be detected in principle from one set of measurements. We must have two widely spaced measurements to show clear evidence of a "rate". The present measurements show an indication of acceleration when interpreted in the light of present theory, i.e. they guess it is accelerating "if" their present understanding is reasonably correct.
To detect a real acceleration would require another set of measurements say, 1,000,000 years from now. I mean here that we must wait some time so that the universe has changed sufficiently so the we can see the acceleration unambiguously. In the same way, we don't actually detect the expansion of the universe. We merely take a "snapshot" of the present condition of the universe and extrapolate from theory that it is accelerating. We can't wait a million years to "be certain" ... we make a guess about what the data means based on our other experience with day to day phenomena which we can see changing in realistic amounts of time.
I am not terribly worried about this particular contradiction because it is a "new" idea and hasn't yet been completely confirmed. If it is confirmed I will reassess my position and their's as well to see what the hell is wrong to cause such a discrepancy. Of course, I won't capitulate since I am 53 years old now and can't start over. I'll just die wrong ... thinking I was right ... somehow.
*The matter above (cosmological accelerated expansion) was resolved by me (February 2002) by the means given in accelexp.htm
A Changing Fine Structure Constant?
When I first heard of the detection of a change in the FSC, I was quite pleasantly surprised until I discovered that the change was about 100 times too small ... AND ... in the wrong direction (the FSC should have been greater then than now). I went to the horses mouth to read their paper but you have to pay to read so I must pass on it for now. I wanted to find out exactly what they were measuring ... or ... calculating.
By my theory the FSC must change though at a far slower pace than the gravitational constant. I take it as the measure of the "elasticity" of space, i.e. there is a mathematical relationship between the positional field which corresponds to the mass of the particle and the isotropic field which corresponds to an electromagnetic field. The energy of mass must be equivalent to the energy of an electromagnetic field modified by some "constant", i.e. so much electromagnetic field is equal to how much mass? I find this relationship to be defined by probability applied to the e/P mass ratio and FSC in the hydrogen ground state (the simplest or basic arrangement of these two factors).
Since there are many other things changing at the same time as the FSC, it may be that the difference detected is just what's left over after they have made their calculations based on their theoretical ideas. If so, a calculation based on my theoretical ideas might just change the end result completely in my favor. Can't wait to see their paper ... or ... somebody's lucid explanation of it.
One thing is certain. No matter what theorycalculations they make, they are making the same set of calculations in the same way for the experimental data from now and from then ... and ... comparing these two calculations they've come up with a net change. That's the absolute significance here. Change! I'll hold my breath on this one.
My answer to this one (^ changing FSC ^) ... 040134
The equation from which is derived is e^{2}/h c^{2} where e is the electrostatic constant, h is hbar (Planck's constant divided by 2pi) and c is the speed of light.
Now, it is clear from this that if the speed of light decreases, will get bigger since "c" is in the denominator. That's the opposite of what my theory predicts. I require (absolutely) a diminishing . An increasing one (as has been observed  tentatively) is death to my ideas. Therefore, it is my supposition that does indeed decrease but its value has been increased temporarily by the lessening speed of light due to the "clumping" of matter given in the above explanation of the "accelerated expansion of the universe".
After this major initial clumping phase, should resume its regular decrease making it roughly equivalent to R^{1/12}. Thus, when the radius of the universe was 1/10 its present radius the FSC would have been 1/10 ^{1/12}
= ~ 1.21 times greater than now giving it a then value of about 1/113 instead of 1/137 (its present value) ... whereas, the recent observation is that the FSC was then about 1/[137+a tiny bit] instead of 1/137.
One other factor may be involved. The actual case may be that the FSC should be added to "1" so that the actual value of the "tension of the vacuum" is 1 + 1/137. If this is a valid approach, the percent difference (in my theory) is much smaller from then until now. It would be 1 + 1/113 divided by 1 + 1/137 =
about a 1 part in 500 change instead of 1 part in 5.
In any case, I have no way at present to calculate how the "clumping of matter" raises the FSC by lowering the velocity of light and simultaneously lowers the FSC by lessening the mass of elementary particles across the board to ~ 1/(R^{1/2}). There must be some gross statistical function to describe these two clumping parameters which together yield the observed value of 1/[137+].
AntiGravity?
There is another possible problem (an exciting one at that!). It revolves around the possible detection of a little "antigravity" pulse in some low temperature superconductivity experiments. Seems that a test object held above a magnetic field at superconductiong temperatures exhibited some anomalous behavior ... or so they say (more data is required since this is truly radical). The establishment is currently turning a deaf ear to this possible watershed experiment and I can understand why.
If you put a piece of matter in a state "Q" and hold it there ... and ... state Q is independent of the gravitational field in which it occurs ... and ... the object starts to "rise" ... it invalidates the 1st law of thermodynamics, energy conservation). Obviously, if it costs "x" amount of energy to put the object in state Q and no more ... and the object rises (as in a thought experiment) ... then all we have to do is wait for it to rise to height sufficient to more than pay for the state Q energy and ... drop the sucker and collect the Q energy to raise it again, plus some extra energy to sell to ConEd. It's hasta la vista energy conservation ... ola, perpetual motion machine.
Of course, if the energy cost of state Q is "ongoing" and a function of the gravitational field through which the object rises ... then ... that would be OK. We pay for what we get (minus a little as waste) in keeping with known conservation laws.
But the big issue here is ... obviously to the UFO believer ... a mechanism for travelling through the galaxy without carrying all that fuel with the spaceship (off which we must "push" in order to go forward).
Think about it.
We pay out a constant energy bill to create the state Q which "warps" the gravitational field so we fall up ... without the necessity of an exhaust ... and ... without worrying about exhaust velocity. We can throw out the prohibitive rocket equations which have been in use for decades and apply a new set of equations without exhaust terms. We move from star to star by pushing off on the gravitational field of the star which we are leaving, i.e. the star goes back a millimeter and we go forward 4 light years. Steady, even, continuous and strong acceleration to reasonable fractions of light speed in short time periods.
The problem here is warping the Gfield. How would you do that? Well, there is only one known candidate for this job ... the electromagnetic field ... and by my theory such fields MUST affect the gravitational field ... but ... there is a huge problem. The electromagnetic field comes in "pairs". For every (+) there is a () ... for every (N) there is a (S). Hence, any desired change in a gravitational field must be accompanied by an equal but opposite undesired change leaving the whole enterprise stuck on the ground.
If such antigravity pulses have really been detected (not yet conclusive by a long shot), we may be on the brink of a "really big shew".
Ebtx Home Page
