# Copies of my recent comments to Kea’s Arcadian Functor and Louise Riofrio’s blog

So they don’t get lost, here are copies of my recent comments:

The amount of variation that even Murphy is claiming for alpha is only 4.4 parts per million.

The time period over which this variation is supposed to occur is a large fraction of the age of the universe. Bohr’s original theory of atomic quantum mechanics made alpha the ratio of the orbital speed of an electron v in the ground state of hydrogen to the velocity of light c (Sommerfeld first defined alpha in 1916):

v/c = 1/137.036… = alpha.

So a change in alpha would need to be accompanied by a reason why the ratio of electron speed in atoms to the velocity of light should be varying.

Maybe an interesting observation is that it seems to be the ratio between Coulomb’s law for the force between two electrons and the fundamental force predicted by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle for virtual particles.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (momentum-distance form):

ps = h-bar (minimum possible uncertainty, there can be other sources of uncertainty in momentum p and distance s)

For relativistic particles the momentum p ~ mc, and distance s ~ ct.

h-bar = ps
= (mc)*(ct)
= (t)*(mcc)
= (t)*(mc^2) = tE = h-bar

This is the well-known energy-time form of Heisenberg’s law. Now for the fun stuff.

E = h-bar/t
= h-bar*c/s
= Fs (work energy equals force multiplied by distance moved in direction of force)

F = h-bar*c/s^2

This force due to virtual particles is an inverse square law force (the 1/s^2 term). It is also different from the Coulomb force law by a factor of alpha!

(Penrose’s book Road to Reality gives a misleading suggestion that the observed charge in low energy physics for an electron is not alpha times the unobserved high energy bare core charge, but the square root of alpha, i.e. Penrose suggests there that the core charge of an electron is only 11.7 times the low energy observed charge. This comes from a naive argument that alpha is proportional not to charge but to the square of charge, so that charge is proportional to the square-root of alpha. The idea that alpha is proportional to the square of charge comes from the relation: alpha = (e^2)/[4*Pi*c*(h-bar)*Permittivity]. Although this includes e^2 in the numerator, there are several othyer factors in the denominator which together can be a function of e, so Penrose can’t claim a direct proportionality between alpha and e^2 just by picking e^2 out in the numerator. E.g., by analogy Newton’s law for force between masses m and M is F = mMG/r^2. This suggests that F is directly proportional to m and also directly proportional to M. But if we deal with gravity between two equal (e.g. fundamental particle) masses m = M, we then get something like F = (m^2)G/r^2, and using Penrose’s argument we could falsely conclude that F is directly proportional to the square of mass, instead of concluding as we did previously that F was proportional to mass. So Penrose’s argument that the ratio of observed electron charge to bare core charge is the square root of alpha is deeply flawed.)

So alpha is the ratio of observed electron charge to bare-core charge. The observed electric charge of the electron is 137.036 times smaller than it’s bare core charge, which is only observable at very high energy (the black hole event horizon radius from an electron, which is smaller than the Planck scale and thus requires energy beyond the Planck scale).

However this isn’t untested speculation: a 7% increase in the electron’s electric charge has been experimentally observed in 90 GeV collisions (I. Levine, D. Koltick, et al., Physical Review Letters, v.78, 1997, no.3, p.424), confirming the coupling or alpha value runs or increases at high energy, due to seeing less core charge shielding from the polarized vacuum which is partially penetrated when particles approach very closely in high-energy collisions.

So alpha in QFT seems physically to be the electron core charge to long ranges charge ratio, the dimensionless shielding factor by vacuum polarization. There is no strong physical mechanism apparent for this ratio to vary.

So maybe the best places to look for variations are not dimensionless numbers like alpha (or other ratios without any dimensionful units, e.g. the ratio of electron mass to proton mass) but alleged constants which do have units such as the velocity of light c, and the absolute strength of gravity and electromagnetism (or dimensionful measures of each).

It annoyed a while back to read in New Scientist the careless claim by some people investigating alpha, that, because alpha can be written to include light velocity c, it follows that the observational limits on alpha variation impose similar limits on c variation. That’s totally incorrect, because c alone does not determine alpha

alpha = 1/137.036…

= (e^2)/[4*Pi*c*(h-bar)*Permittivity]

So if c was falling while the vacuum permittivity increased, alpha would remain constant. Altermatively, other kinds of changes to electron charge e and h-bar could occur without alpha changing.

However, the fact that alpha appears to show very little if any change over a large fraction of the age of the universe is still interesting for Louise’s suggestion that c may fall with time.

Louise’s equation GM = tc^3 suggests a couple of possibilities, including:

c = (GM/t)^{1/3}.

This is a large variation in c (a variation inversely proportional to the cube-root of the age of the universe), compared to Murphy’s argument for a 4.4 parts per million variation in alpha.

E.g., for a time variation of half the age of the universe, Louise’s suggestion c = (GM/t)^{1/3} leads to a factor of 2^{1/3} = 1.26, or 260,000 parts per million.

Taking Sommerfeld’s v/c = alpha, the relatively little (or no) change in alpha compared to a massive change in c would suggest that v is changing in almost (or exactly) the same way as c is changing, in other words the speed of electrons in orbit may fall inversely in proportion to the cube root of the age of the universe for consistency between the alpha studies and Louise’s c variation suggestion. I hope it gets more investigation.

http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com/2008/07/water-on-moon.html

Thanks for this post Louise. I remember the news about water found at the Moon’s poles in 1999. …

The case for explaining the lunar recession test varying velocity of light is very clear:

“As mentioned before, the Moon has been slowly drifting away. The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment from 1969 measures the recession rate as 3.82 cm/yr. Geology and paleontology disagree, measuring recession as about 2.9 +/- 0.6 cm/yr. How can two such precise measurements disagree? If the speed of light is slowing, that will increase the time for light signals to return each year, making the Moon appear to recede faster as seen by LLRE. Starting with GM = tc^3, the prediction is 0.935 cm/yr, precisely accounting for the discrepancy.”

c = (GM/t)^{1/3}

t = 13,700,000,000 years.

So an increase of 1 year (1 part in 13,700,000,000) will cause the velocity of light to fall according to the equation above by the factor (13,700,000,001/13,700,000,000)^{1/3} = 1.0000000000243. Because the mean distance from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the Moon is 376,000 km, the annual apparent change in distance will be 0.0000000000243*37,600,000,000 = 0.914 cm/year.

This is slightly different from your calculation of 0.935 cm/yr, probably because we took different figures for the Earth-Moon distance. Some sources give the mean distance from the centre of the Moon to the centre of the Earth, others subtract from that the Moon’s radius and the Earth’s radius. The exact distance depends on where on the Moon the Apollo astronauts left the reflecting mirror in 1969, and where on the Earth the laser pulses are fired from.

It’s interesting that there are several pieces of evidence that you have for the velocity of light falling inversely with the cube root of the age of universe.

I hope that you can add this fresh evidence to your main paper on supernovas. It will make it harder to ignore the theory.

http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com/2008/07/andromeda.html

Nice post. Andromeda is very interesting, since it’s relatively nearby and is a rare blue-shifted galaxy, due to the fact that the Milky Way is being attracted to it so the two galaxies are approaching, not receding as is the case with other galaxies.

I love the fact that black holes exist in the centre of galaxies.

“If Black Holes seeded formation of these stars, their continued presence would keep the stars stable.”

Presumably the first stars that began shortly after the big bang grew very large because there were massive really clouds of hydrogen gas which collapsed to form them.

They fused hydrogen into heavier elements quickly, then exploded as supernovae (such as the one which created all the heavy elements in the solar system’s planets) or collapsed into black holes, which then seeded galaxy formation.

I realise that you are busy with spacesuit design and that other people like Kea and Carl Brannen are busy with Category Theory and Mass Operators/Koide formula theory development, but may I just summarise here some evidence about the possibility of fundamental particle cores being black holes and Hawking radiation as a gauge theory exchange radiation?

1. A black hole with the electron’s mass would by Hawking’s theory have an effective black body radiating temperature of 1.35*10^53 K. The Hawking radiation is emitted by the black hole event horizon which has radius R = 2GM/c^2.

2. The radiating power per unit area is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant multiplied by the kelvin temperature raised to the fourth power, which gives 1.3*10^205 watts/m^2. For the black hole event horizon spherical surface area, this gives a total radiated power of 3*10^92 watts.

3. For an electron to keep radiating, it must be absorbing a similar power. Hence it looks like an exchange-radiation theory where there is an equilibrium. The electron receives 3*10^92 watts of gauge bosons and radiates 3*10^92 watts of gauge bosons. When you try to move the electron, you introduce an asymmetry into this normal equilibrium and this is asymmetry felt as inertial resistance, in the way broadly argued (for a zero-point field) by people like Professors Haisch and Rueda. It also causes compression and mass increase effects on loving bodies, because of the snowplow effect of moving into a radiation field and suffering a net force.

When the 3*10^92 watts of exchange radiation hit an electron, they each impart momentum of absorbed radiation is p = E/c, where E is the energy carried, and when they are re-emitted back in the direction they came from (like a reflection) they give a recoil momentum to the electron of a similar p = E/c, so the total momentum imparted to the electron from the whole reflection process is p = E/c + E/c = 2E/c.

The force imparted by successive collisions, as in the case of any radiation hitting an object, is The force of this radiation is the rate of change of the momentum, F = dp/dt ~ (2E/c)/t = 2P/c = 2*10^84 Newtons, where P is power as distinguished from momentum p.

So the Hawking exchange radiation for black holes would be 2*10^84 Newtons.

Now the funny thing is that in the big bang, the Hubble recession of galaxies at velocity v = HR implies an outward acceleration of either

a = v/t = (HR)/(R/c) = Hc

or else

a = dv/dt = d(HR)/dt = H*dR/dt + R*dH/dt = Hv + R*0 = Hv = RH^2.

For distances near the horizon radius of the universe R = ct, both of these estimates for a are the same, although they differ for smaller distances.

However, since most of the mass is at great distances, an order of magnitude estimate is that this acceleration causes an outward force of

F = ma = Hcm = 7*10^43 Newtons.

If that outward force causes an equal inward force which is mediated by gravitons (according to Newton’s 3rd law of motion, equal and opposite reaction), then the cross-sectional area of an electron for graviton interactions (predicting the strength of gravity correctly) is the cross-sectional area of the black hole event horizon for the electron, i.e. Pi*(2GM/c^2)^2 m^2. (Evidence here.)

Now the fact that the black hole Hawking exchange radiation force calculated above is 2*10^84 Newtons, compared 7*10^43 Newtons for quantum gravity, suggests that the Hawking black hole radiation is the exchange radiation of a force roughly (2*10^84)/(7*10^43) = 3*10^40 stronger than gravity.

Such a force is of course electromagnetism.

So I find it quite convincing that the cores of the leptons and quarks are black holes which are exchanging electromagnetic radiation with other particles throughout the universe.

The asymmetry caused geometrically by the shadowing effect of nearby charges induces net forces which we observe as fundamental forces, while accelerative motion of charges in the radiation field causes the Lorentz-FitzGerald transformation features such as compression in the direction of motion, etc.

Hawking’s heuristic mechanism of his radiation emission has some problems for an electron, however, so the nature of the Hawking radiation isn’t the high-energy gamma rays Hawking suggested. Hawking’s mechanism for radiation from black holes is that pairs of virtual fermions can pop into existence for a brief time (governed by Heisenberg’s energy-time version of the uncertainty principle) anywhere in the vacuum, such as near the event horizon of a black hole. Then one of the pair of charges falls into the black hole, allowing the other one to escape annihilation and become a real particle which hangs around near the event horizon until the process is repeated, so that you get the creation of real (long-lived) real fermions of both positive and negative electric charge around the event horizon. The positive and negative real fermions can annihilate, releasing a real gamma ray with an energy exceeding 1.02 MeV.

This is a nice theory, but Hawking totally neglects the fact that in quantum field theory, no pair production of virtual electric charges is possible unless the electric field strength exceeds Schwinger’s threshold for pair production of 1.3*10^18 v/m (equation 359 in Dyson’s http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0608140 and equation 8.20 in Luis Alvarez-Gaume, and Miguel A. Vazquez-Mozo’s http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0510040). If you check out renormalization in quantum field theory, this threshold is physically needed to explain the IR cutoff on the running coupling for electric charge. If the Schwinger threshold didn’t exist, the running coupling or effective charge of an electron would continue to fall at low energy instead of becoming fixed at the known electron charge at low energies. This would occur because the vacuum virtual fermion pair production would continue to polarize around electrons even at very low energy (long distances) and would completely neutralize all electric charges, instead of leaving a constant residual charge at low energy that we observe.

Once you include this factor, Hawking’s mechanism for radiation emission starts have a definite backreaction on the idea, and to modify his mathematical theory. E.g., pair production of virtual fermions can only occur where the electric field exceeds 1.3*10^18 v/m, which is not the whole of the vacuum but just a very small spherical volume around fermions!

This means that black holes can’t radiate any Hawking radiation at all using Hawking’s heuristic mechanism, unless the electric field strength at the black hole event horizon radius 2GM/c^2 is in excess of 1.3*10^18 volts/metre.

That requires the black hole to have a relatively large net electric charge. Personally, from this physics I’d say that black holes the size of those in the middle of the galaxy don’t emit any Hawking radiation at all, because there’s no mechanism for them to have acquired a massive net electric charge when they formed. They formed from stars which formed clouds of hydrogen produced in the big bang, and hydrogen is electrically neutral. Although stars give off charged radiations, they emit as much negative charge as electrons and negatively charged ions, as they emit positive charge such as protons and alpha particles. So there is no way they can accumulate a massive electric charge. (If they did start emitting more of one charge than another, as soon as a net electric charge developed, they’d attract back the particles whose emission had caused the net charge and the net charge would soon be neutralized again.)

So my argument physically from Schwinger’s formula for pair production is that the supermassive black holes in the centres of galaxies have a neutral electric charge, have zero electric field strength at their event horizon radius, and thus have no pair-production there and so emit no Hawking radiation whatsoever.

The important place for Hawking radiations is the fundamental particle, because fermions have an electric charge and at the black hole radius of a fermion the electric field strength way exceeds the Schwinger threshold for pair production.

In fact, the electric charge of the fermionic black hole modifies Hawking’s radiation, because it prejudices which of the virtual fermions near the event horizon will fall into. Because fermions are polarized in an electric field, the virtual positrons which form near the event horizon to a fermionic black hole will on average be closer to the black hole than the virtual electrons, so the virtual positrons will be more likely to fall in. This means that instead of virtual fermions of either electric charge sign falling at random into the black hole fermion, you instead get a bias in favour of virtual positrons and other virtual fermions of positive sign being more likely to fall into the black hole, and an excess of virtual electrons and other virtual negatively charged radiation escaping from the black hole event horizon. This means that a black hole electron will emit a stream of negatively charged radiation, and a black hole positron will emit a stream of positively charged radiation.

Although such radiation would appear to be massive fermions, because there is an exchange of such radiation in both directions simultaneously once an equilibrium of such radiation is set up in the universe (towards and away from the event horizon), the overlap of incoming and outgoing radiation will have some peculiar effects, turning the fermionic sub relativistic radiation into bosonic relativistic radiation.

The reason why a fermion differs from a boson is down to spin and can be grasped by the example of an electron and a positron annihilating into gamma rays and vice versa. When the fermionic 1/2-spins of an electron and positron are combined, you get bosonic 1-spin radiation. Physically what happens can be understood in terms of the magnetic field curls you get when electric charge propagates through space.

There is a backreaction effect called self-inductance which arises when an electric charge is accelerated. The magnetic field produces a force which opposes acceleration. The increased inertial mass can be considered an ellect of this. A massless charged radiation would have an infinite self-inductance, and wouldn’t be able to propagate.

However, if you have two fermionic electric charges side by side, as in all examples of electricity, you get the emergence of a special phenomenon whereby energy propagates like bosonic radiation. E.g., the TEM wave logic step of electricity requires that you have two parallel conductors in a power ‘transmission line’. At any moment where electric power is propagative, the electric charge in one conductor of the transmission line is opposite to that in the other conductor immediately adjacent. The mechanism for what happens is simply that the magnetic curl around the negative conductor is in the opposite direction to the magnetic curl of around the positive conductor, so that the superimposed curls cancel each other, cancelling out the magnetic inductance and therefore allowing electric power to cease behaving line sub-relativistic massive fermions and to instead behave as light velocity bosonic radiation: the electric light-velocity power transmission is a case of two oppositely charged fermions (one in each conductor) combining in such a way that together they behave as a boson for the purpose of allowing light velocity transmission of electric power. (This is clear to me from Catt’s research in transmission lines, e.g. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4039191.)

Other examples of this kind of superposition are well known. For example, superconductivity occurs for exactly the same reason, you get Cooper pairs of electrons forming which behave as photons. Generally, in condensed matter physics (low temperature phenomena generally) pairs of half integer spin fermions can associate to produce composite particles that have the properties of integer spin particles, bosons.

This is the mechanism by which Hawking gauge theory exchange radiations, while overlapping in space in the process of going to and coming from the event horizons of black holes, behave as bosons rather than as fermions.

The diagram here: https://nige.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/fig5.jpg?w=702&h=1065 shows in terms of electromagnetic field strengths the difference between Maxwell’s imaginary photon, the real transverse path integral-suggested photon of QED, and the exchange radiation composed of two fermion-like charges superimposed which occurs in the case of both light-velocity electricity power transmission and the exchange of Hawking radiation I’ve described above.

The diagram here: https://nige.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/fig4.jpg?w=505&h=548 shows how all the long-range forces (gravity and electromagnetism) arise physically from exchange radiations. E.g., why universal attraction comes from gravity, why like charges repel and unlike charges attract with the same force for unit charges as the repulsion of like charges. My current effort to distinguish what is correct from what is incorrect in quantum field theory is site, including calculations for quantum gravity. However, it’s again in need of rewriting, updating and improving. (It’s just as well that virtually everybody is negative about it, because if there was a fanfare of interest I’d probably soon be locked down to the theory in a particular state, and unable to keep reformulating it, finding out new details and problems and tackling them in my leisure time. It would be more stressful to have to work full-time on this. I’m developing an SQL database and ASP website at the moment, which is a welcome change from this crazy-looking but factually surprisingly solid physics.)

## 3 thoughts on “Copies of my recent comments to Kea’s Arcadian Functor and Louise Riofrio’s blog”

1. nige cook says:

Louise has an amazing new post about magnetic galaxies:

http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com/2008/07/magnetic-galaxies.html

My comment:

That’s fascinating news! Usually the mechanism for magnetic fields is the circulation of electric charge, otherwise magnetic particles would soon disappear as the organization of magnetic dipoles disappeared.

Because electromagnetism is a strong fundamental force compared to gravity, and because gravity seems to dominate in the structure of the solar system, galaxies and the universe, it’s clear that any net electric charges on large objects like stars are relatively small.

One approach to the problem of whether stars are electrically charged is to examine the contents of the solar wind which they emit. If there is an excess of negative over positive charges escaping from the sun, then the sun will be left with an electric charge.

However, both electrons and protons form the solar wind. It’s obvious that if the sun allowed mainly electrons to escape (because they’re lighter and for a given velocity in the ionized plasma at the sun’s surface they have less weight binding them to the sun by gravity than protons), then that excess of electrons escaping would leave the sun with a net positive charge.

This would eventually start to pull back electrons, while some protons would start to escape far more easily because they’d be repelled away from the positive charged sun (despite their large mass). Hence, there is an automatic mechanism in place whereby any net electric on a star will soon be cancelled out, and after a few oscillations between negative and positive net charge, a star will settle down in an electrically neutral equilibrium.

It’s similar with planets. If gravity draws more of the heavy protons in the solar wind to a planet than light electrons, the the planet will acquire a positive electric charge.

But as that occurs, the planet will become repulsive to protons and very attractive to electrons! So it will soon stop attracting so many heavy protons by gravity, and start instead attracting an excess of electrons due to the positive charge it has!

So it will rapidly become electrically neutral.

This simple mechanism means that you should expect all stars and other objects like planets in space to be electrically neutral.

So the idea that the magnetic fields in a galaxy are due to electrically charged circulating stars and planets is wrong.

So I think it’s fascinating that supermassive black holes are responsible for those magnetic fields!

“More and more evidence indicates that supermassive Black Holes are primordial, formed from quantum fluctuations shortly after the Big Bang.”

That’s a very interesting idea! I wonder exactly what the mechanism is for the magnetic field? If the black hole is electrically charged and is spinning, then it would have a magnetic field?

One observed feature of a black hole is the effect of gravity, so that in the mainstream model of quantum gravity (exchange of spin-2 gravitons between mass-energy regions), gravitons must be able to escape from a black hole gto cause gravitational effects.

By analogy to this escape gravitons to cause gravitational effects, electromagnetic gauge bosons would also be able to escape from a black hole in the same way, causing external magnetic fields as a result of the spinning charged matter inside the black hole!

If so, maybe we could calculate the amount of electric charge inside the black hole that is required to produce the observed magnetic field outside the black hole? Or is there another mechanism involved? Rotating neutron stars like pulsars are surrounded by very strong magnetic fields, too.