# Pure Derivation of the Precise Advantageous – Construction Fixed and As a Ratio of Two Inexact Metric Fixed

Theorists on the Strings Convention in July of 2000 had been requested what mysteries stay to be revealed within the twenty first century. Contributors had been invited to assist formulate the ten most essential unsolved issues in basic physics, which had been lastly chosen and ranked by a distinguished panel of David Gross, Edward Witten and Michael Duff. No questions had been extra worthy than the primary two issues respectively posed by Gross and Witten: #1: *Are all of the (measurable) dimensionless parameters that characterize the bodily universe calculable in precept or are some merely decided by historic or quantum mechanical accident and incalculable?* #2: *How can quantum gravity assist clarify the origin of the universe?*

A newspaper article about these millennial mysteries expressed some fascinating feedback concerning the #1 query. Maybe Einstein certainly “put it more crisply: *Did God have a choice in creating the universe?*” – which summarizes quandary #2 as effectively. Whereas actually the Everlasting One ‘might’ have had a ‘alternative’ in Creation, the next arguments will conclude that the reply to Einstein’s query is an emphatic “No.” For much more actually a full spectrum of unprecedented, exact basic bodily parameters are demonstrably calculable inside a *single dimensionless Common system* that naturally includes a literal “*Monolith*.”

Likewise the article went on to ask if the velocity of sunshine, Planck’s fixed and electrical cost are indiscriminately decided – “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 quantity” – 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 whereas constants corresponding to a basic particle mass could be expressed as a dimensionless relationship relative to the Planck scale or ratio to a considerably extra exactly recognized or obtainable unit of mass, the inverse of the electromagnetic coupling fixed alpha is uniquely dimensionless as a pure *‘fine-structure quantity’ a* ~ 137.036. Alternatively, assuming a novel, invariantly discrete or *actual* fine-structure numeric exists as a “literal constant,” the worth should nonetheless be empirically confirmed as a ratio of two *inexactly* determinable ‘metric constants,’ h-bar and electrical cost e (mild velocity c being precisely *outlined* within the 1983 adoption of the SI conference as an integer variety of meters per second.)

So although this conundrum has been deeply puzzling virtually from its inception, my impression upon studying this text in a morning paper was utter amazement a numerological subject of invariance merited such distinction by eminent fashionable authorities. For I might been obliquely obsessive about the fs-number within the context of my colleague A. J. Meyer’s mannequin for a variety of years, however had come to simply accept it is experimental willpower in observe, pondering the dimensionless subject periodically to no avail. Gross’s query thus served as a catalyst from my complacency; recognizing a novel place as the one fellow who may present a categorically full and constant reply within the context of Meyer’s primary basic parameter. Nonetheless, my pretentious instincts led to 2 months of inane mental posturing till sanely repeating a easy process explored a couple of years earlier. I merely **appeared** on the consequence utilizing the 98-00 CODATA worth of *a*, and the next resolution instantly struck with full heuristic power.

For the fine-structure ratio successfully quantizes (through h-bar) the electromagnetic coupling between a discrete unit of electrical cost (e) and a photon of sunshine; in the identical sense an *integer is discretely ‘quantized’* in comparison with the ‘fractional continuum’ between it and 240 or 242. One can simply see what this implies by contemplating one other integer, 203, from which we subtract the 2-based exponential of the sq. of 2pi. Now add the inverse of 241 to the resultant quantity, multiplying the product by the pure log of two. It follows that this pure calculation of the fine-structure quantity precisely equals

**137.0359996502301…**– which right here (/100) is given to fifteen, however is calculable to any variety of decimal locations.

By comparability, given the experimental uncertainty in h-bar and e, the NIST analysis varies up or down across the mid 6 of ‘965’ within the invariant sequence outlined above. The next desk in accordance provides the values of h-bar, e, their calculated ratio as and the precise NIST alternative for *a* in annually of their archives, in addition to the 1973 CODATA, the place the usual two digit +/- experimental uncertainty is in daring kind inside parentheses.

12 months…*h-* = N*h**10^-34 Js…… e = Ne*10^-19 C….. *h/*e^2 = *a * =….. NIST worth & ±(**SD**):

2006: 1.054.571 628(0**53**) 1.602.176 487(0**40**) 137.035.999.**6**61 137.035.999 679(0**94**)

2002: 1.054.571 680(**18**x) 1.602.176 53o(**14**o) 137.035.999.62 137.035.999 11o(**46**o)

1998: 1.054.571 596(0**82**) 1.602.176 462(0**63**) 137.035.999.**7**79 137.035.999 76o(**50**o)

1986: 1.054.572 66x(**63**x) 1.602.177 33x(**49**x) 137.035.9**8**9.558 137.035.989 5xx(**61**xx)

1973: 1.054.588 7xx(**57**xx) 1.602.189 2xx(**46**xx) 137.03**6**.043.335 137.036. 04x(**11**x)

So it appears the NIST alternative is roughly decided by the measured values for *h* and e alone. Nevertheless, as defined at http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html, by the 80’s curiosity shifted to a brand new method that gives a direct willpower of *a *by exploiting the quantum Corridor impact, as independently corroborated with each idea and experiment of the electron magnetic-moment anomaly, thus lowering its already finer tuned uncertainty. But it took 20 years earlier than an improved measure of the magnetic second *g*/2-factor was printed in mid 2006, the place this group’s (led by Gabrielse for Hussle at Harvard.edu) first estimate for *a* was (A:) 137.035999. 710(0**96**) – explaining the a lot diminished uncertainty within the new NIST checklist, as in comparison with that in *h*-bar and e. Nevertheless, extra just lately a numeric error within the preliminary QED calculation (A:) was found (we’ll seek advice from it as 2nd paper B:) which shifted the worth of a to (B:) 137.035999. 070 (0**98**).

Although it displays an almost identically small uncertainty, this evaluation is clearly outdoors the NIST worth concordant with estimates for h-bar and elementary cost, that are independently decided by numerous experiments. The NIST has three years to type this out, however meantime face an embarrassing irony in that no less than the 06-choices for h-bar and e appear to be barely skewed towards the anticipated match for *a*! For instance, adjusting the final 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 previous to the precise NIST publication in 2007, it slightly simply may have been evenly adjusted to h626/e489; although questioning its coherency within the final 3-digits of *a *with respect to the comparative 02 and 98 facts. In any case, far vaster enhancements in a number of experimental designs will likely be required for a comparable discount in error for h and e in an effort to settle this subject for good.

However once more, even then regardless of how ‘exactly’ metric measure is maintained, it is nonetheless infinitely wanting ‘literal exactitude,’ whereas our pure fs-number matches the current values of h628/e487quite exactly. Within the former regard, I just lately found a mathematician named James Gilson (see http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/%7Ejgg/page5.html ) additionally devised a pure numeric = 137.0359997867… nearer the revised 98-01 customary. Gilson additional contends he is calculated quite a few parameters of the usual mannequin such because the dimensionless ratio between the lots of a Z and W weak gauge boson. However I do know he may by no means assemble a single Proof using equivalences able to *deriving Z and/or W lots per se from then exactly confirmed lots of heavy quarks and *

__(see essay referenced within the useful resource field), which themselves consequence from a single over-riding dimensionless tautology. For the numeric discreteness of the fraction 1/241 permits one to__

*Higgs fields*__assemble__

*bodily significant dimensionless equations*. If one as an alternative took Gilson’s numerology, or the refined empirical worth of Gabreilse et. al., for the fs-number, it could destroy this discreteness, exact self-consistency and skill to even

*write*a significant dimensionless equation! Against this, maybe it is then not too stunning that after I actually ‘discovered’ the integer 241 and derived the precise fine-structure quantity from the resultant ‘Monolith Quantity,’ it took solely about 2 weeks to calculate all six quark lots using actual dimensionless evaluation and numerous fine-structured relations.

However as we now aren’t actually speaking concerning the fine-structure quantity per se any greater than the integer 137, the consequence *definitively solutions* Gross’s query. For these “dimensionless parameters that characterize the physical universe” (together with alpha) are ratios between chosen metric parameters that lack a single unified dimensionless system of mapping from which metric parameters like particle lots are calculated from set equations. The ‘customary mannequin’ provides one a single system of parameters, however **no** means to calculate or __predict__ anybody and/or all inside a single system – thus the experimental parameters are put in by hand arbitrarily.

Ultimate irony: I am doomed to be demeaned as a ‘numerologist’ by ‘experimentalists’ who frequently fail to acknowledge a tough empirical proof for quark, Higgs or hadron lots that could be used to precisely calculate the current customary for probably the most exactly recognized and heaviest mass in excessive power physics (the Z). So contraire silly ghouls: empiric affirmation is simply the ultimate cherry the chef places on prime earlier than he presents a “Pudding Proof” no sentient being may resist simply because he did not assemble it himself, so as an alternative makes a mimicked mess the true deal would not resemble. For the bottom of this pudding is constituted of melons I name Mumbers, that are actually simply numbers, pure and easy!