ArticlePDF Available

QED, Theory of Everything -THE MATH 07.10.2016

Authors:

Abstract

In this Paper, I develop the idea of massless physics further. I find the atom diameter through Boltzmann constant and gas-theory. I test its universality with the observations from other planets. Supported by these observations, I conclude that molecules have a universal diameter . I use this through the ideas provided by Froude’s law. Its implementation is straightforward; I use Metric-unit for Planck-constant to simplify its dimensions. Then the most suitable area moment of Inertia is tested and I see immediately that it is successful. Thus, I use the ideas of structural engineering further to complete the math. As area moment of inertia is normally used to calculate structural deflection, I use this similar exponentially (natural logarithm e, 2.718…) successfully. I found an Extreme simple equation to define Planck’s constant, it’s simultaneously logical, provides correct unit and accurate result. Its simplest form is written; $\frac{2h}{\pi}=(\frac{e^1}{2c})^4$ It also explains me logically the reason for Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. I expect to found also clear answer for Elementary charge through this, but though I found few intersting ideas, I fail to to found a completely satisfactory explanation, and can only show possible directions
QED, Theory of Everything
- THE MATH.
Jouni Jokela
jouni@jokela-turbine.ch
ABSTRACT
In this Paper, I develop the idea of massless physics further. I find the atom diameter
through Boltzmann constant and gas-theory. I test its universality with the observations
from other planets. Supported by these observations, I conclude that molecules have a
universal diameter
mxd
9
103.3
=
. I use this through the ideas provided by Froude’s law.
Its implementation is straightforward; I use Metric-unit for Planck-constant to simplify its
dimensions. Then the most suitable area moment of Inertia is tested and I see immediately
that it is successful. Thus, I use the ideas of structural engineering further to complete the
math. As area moment of inertia is normally used to calculate structural deflection, I use
this similar exponentially (natural logarithm e, 2.718…) successfully. I found an Extreme
simple equation to define Planck’s constant, it’s simultaneously logical, provides correct
unit and accurate result. Its simplest form is written;
4
2
2
=c
eh
π
It also explains me logically the reason for Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. I expect to
found also clear answer for Elementary charge through this, but though I found few
intersting ideas, I fail to to found a completely satisfactory explanation, and can only show
possible directions.
Content;
Abstract
Introduction,
1. Phases of matter, state of matter.
1.1 Grand unification of Avogadro’s number, Gas constant and Boltzmann constant
1.2 Vapor-liquid equilibrium in Venus.
1.3 Phases of Matter, conclusions.
1.4 Kinetic theory of gases, Without mass, with Froude-number.
2. Planck’s constant h, calculated through the speed of light, c=299 792 458 m/s
2.1 Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
2.2 Fine structure constant, Boltzmann constant.
2.2.1 With numerology
2.2.2 With old value of planck
2.2.3 With Natural logarithm
2.2.4 With Old gas constants
2.2.5 With new gas constants
2.2.6 Conclusions
2.3 Elementary charge, Gravitational constant.
2.3.1 Some material for new ideas
Conclusions.
INTRODUCTION
This paper is based on my previous paper [1] from Feb, 2016 and can’t be fully understood
without it. This paper mainly focuses on “Calculating the consequences” which follows
from the conceptual ideas presented before. The guiding light here is Richard Feynman’s
Messenger Lection, where he clearly defined “The Key to Science”;
The main Flaw of my prev. paper [1] is that it cannot really explain the Natural constants.
Thus, with this paper I continue further and replace its Chapter 5.2 and forward. I have also
published my hand written papers to make it easier to follow the development of my
thoughts. However, in this paper I really want to complete the statement that the speed of
light is the only universal constant there is. The way to this goes through states of matter.
1. Phases of matter, state of matter.
I want to start with asking the very fundamental question. How many phases of matter there
is? The most common answer is “Three”; Solid-Liquid-Gas. Then some of us have more
advanced understanding and answer “Four”, because of Plasma, so their answer basically
describes the Classical elements from Ancient Greece; “Earth, Water, Air, Fire” or “Solid,
Liquid, Gas, Plasma” respectively. Now the people, who have studied quantum mechanics,
may answer “Five”, and name additionally the Einstein-Bose-condensate. This actually
opens a Pandora’s box. Thus, these are already called a “state of matter” to separate it from
the Phases of matter. Indeed, there is a lot of them. There is for example 17 known solid
crystalline phases of water depending on the Pressure and Temperature.
This means that the phase’s (or states) of Matter are not defined universally. If you ask
exact definition between solid and liquid, you don’t get any answer. Studying the chemical
element’s shows that, there are cases, where these phases do not exist, in any temperature &
pressure combination. Helium is never solid, and Carbon is “never” liquid, because it’s
triple point is at 10.8 ± 0.2 MPa and 4,600 ± 300 K. All material has such a triple point,
meaning that with certain pressure/temperature combination they are only solid or gas. –Or
in the case of Helium liquid or Gas. Even Helium has such a “triple-point”, it is called
“Lambda-point”. Thus, liquid and solid, are only various states of matter, without being
fundamental phases. Thus, I can conclude that there is only two fundamental phases of
matter. 1. A state where atoms are bound together. (Solid/liquid)
2. A state where atoms are not bound together. (Gas/plasma)
The difference of these two phases is thus the answer on the question; “Can the Kinetic
theory of gases be applied?” This question asks practically, if the particle are colliding as a
single molecule, or if they are forming an object, considered a single unit of many
molecules. This is the ultimate limit for attract and repel, and thus the size of a molecule.
1.1 Grand unification of Avogadro’s number, Gas constant and Boltzmann constant
My claim is that everything is light, and thus all physical constants can be found from the
physical properties of light. Thus, these constants of the Kinetic theory of gases cannot be
an exception. This idea came originally from the observation, that “each liter of gas at a
pressure of one atmosphere and temperature of 0°C contains roughly 27.000 billion billion
(27×10
21
) molecules” [2] The exact calculation is;
325
233
/1068678.2
15
.
273
/
3144598
.
8
/110022140857.61101325 mmoleculesx
K
J
molxmPa
RT
PVN
A
=
×
××
=
Which is the same value as the speed of light to the third power;
33253
/10694400.2 smxc =
The difference is only 0.28%. This gives me an idea, that a
single molecule has a diameter of
sxcm
9
1033564.3/1
=
, when it is in Vapor-liquid
1. Theory /
Physical Law
2. Calculating the
consequences
3. Comparing to
Observations
equilibrium. (“VLE”) The time unit I interpret here as one light second, so time has here the
geometric unit of length. In addition, the molecule diameter I interpret from the idea that
light travels through every molecule diameter undisturbed with the speed of light. As if
there is more molecule-diameter-lengths in one unit of length, then the light must travel a
longer distance, as it must travel the same distance two time if two molecules are
completely overlapped. This also gives me idea why refractive index of gases are such that
the speed of light has typically factor 1.0003, but the fluids/solids have mostly a factor in
range 1.3-1.7. Water having interestingly “exactly” 4/3=1.333. -This cannot be just a
coincidence.
I notice that the amount of molecules according to the old constants is less than the
theorized value, which would mean completely transparent gas, but the refractive index of
air is still higher, which means it should have more molecules than the theorized value. The
reason is of course, that reality is a chaos, and the air is partially fluid, partially gas, and is
continuously transforming between these two stages. The sound is advancing in the “fluid
lumps”, but these are not completely continuous, other vice the gas would conduct
electricity. Indeed, when the gas is in condensing conditions. This perfect match is
occasionally established, and lightning’s occurs. These can then conduct even electrons up
to 160 000 km/sec; up to 0.53 x speed of light. The formation of lightning supports this
theorem; Stepped leader (~100 segments, each step approx. 50 m long) has a propagation
velocity of 150 km/sec (100 - 2600 km/sec). The “lumps” are connecting. Then comes the
dart leader, which propagates with velocity of 2000 km/sec (1000-2600 km/sec), the
molecules are “fine-tuned”. This is followed finally by the 1-26 return Strokes (typically 3-
4) and a velocity of 80 000 km/sec (20 000-160 000 km/sec), the conductor is in “solid
state”. This idea is quite revolution;
atmospheric pressure is depending
from kinetic energy, and not from
gravity. This picture shows how
Vapour-liquid equilibrium follows a
certain bubble/dew point curves,
which are defined through
temperature. The following
interpretation might be just
numerology, but it’s indeed very
interesting thema and the values are
amazingly close to observations.
First, we look the Boltzmann-
constant. It’s defined to be “Energy
at the individual particle level with
temperature.” Thus it’s unit is
actually
×particleK J
k
B
;
If we use this observed metrics to the Boltzmann constant, that the V=1 m3 has N=c
3
molecules (note;unit is particles/m
3
) we have a following number;
KmJkc
B33
/002.372=
or with “old”
KmJk
B325
/95.3701068678.2 =×
, both
numbers being very close the boiling point of water in Kelvins. They are actually exactly in
the boiling point of water, if the pressure on 345 m height is used (650 m for old.) These
both values might represent the average height of the bottom of a cumulus cloud. It can be
noted, that multiplying this “boiling point” temperature with “freezing point”
33
/10132515.273/95.370 mJKKmJ =×
gives pressure and even the unit’s are
then correct; as energy density = Pressure;
PamNmNmmJ ===
233
///
.
I am not quite clear with this subject, and this might be only numerology. I ie. think the “g”
or G, or generally the “gravity-field” is missing from here, and thus this temperature rule is
not universal, but only valid in Earth. If the c
3
for defining the fundamental two phases of
matter is universal, it must give same results in other planets.
1.2 Vapor-liquid equilibrium in Venus.
The atmosphere of Venus has a pressure of 9.2 MPa, it’s mostly Carbon dioxide, and has a
temperature of around 740 K. The air density is 67 kg/m
3
. So, the question is, if this is the
solid/liquid “surface” of Venus? It’s not so obvious. The density of fluid carbon dioxide is
713 kg/m
3
@ 25°C, And the Coefficient of thermal Expansion of Liquid @ 25 °C is
0.02066 1/°C. Thus with ΔT of 467 K, the volume of this liquid will change with a factor of
9.648 and 713/9.648 = gives 73.0 kg/m
3
which compared to 67 kg/m
3
is in the right order.
The most probable cause for this
9% variation is that the Expansion
coefficient is not constant. As the
troposphere of Venus seems like a
liquid (reduced visibility
compared to gas) behaves like a
liquid (flow velocities are in same
range as in the ocean currents of
Earth), and it’s physical properties
are similar to liquid, I assume it is
a liquid in the sense we are
talking here. Thus the Surface of
Venus, must be there where the
visible surface of this liquid is.
According to this picture, it’s also
in Venus about there where the
pressure is 1 bar. The temperature
at this point is approx. 350 K. The
“water” in Venus seems to be
“Sulfuric acid”, H
2
SO
4
It’s
Melting point is 283 K, and
boiling point 610 K at 1 atm.
Careful analysis with the
Wikipedia-data places the “c
3
-
point” to 48.65 km height, with a
pressure of 133000 Pa and
357.5K. A paper “Venus Cloud
Structure and Radiative Energy
Balance of the Mesosphere” from
Yeon Joo Lee,2012 Page 14 fig.
1.3 supports this idea. Quick wiev,
to other planets supports this too;
The cloud bottoms are
approximately on these
conditions; Jupiter; 49 kPa-132K.
Saturn; 33.5 kPa-90K. The data I
found for Uranus and Neptunus is
approximate, but it seems that
these values might suit;
Uranus 35 kPa-94 K,
Neptunus 13 kPa-35 K
1.3 Phases of Matter, conclusions.
So I conclude, that the there is only two fundamental phases of matter, and the difference of
these two phases can be very simply defined through the speed of light.
[
]
33
/mMoleculesGasKineticcFluidSolid >>
This means, that ideal gas law, becomes a clear limit for maximum applicable particle
amount;
3
3
1
(max) m
c
Tk
P
B
=
and the maximum pressure / temperature ratio in atmosphere
for ideal gas can be defined.
KmJKmNkc
T
P
B323
/372/002.372 ===
This is
specific value for the gas in the atmospheres in our solar system. It can be noted, that this is
actually the same as the specific gas constant divided with density
3
3
3
/296.1 /372
/058.287 mkg KmJ
kc
kgKJ
m
k
M
R
R
BB
specific
=====
ρ
1.4 Kinetic theory of gases, without mass, with Froude-number.
According to Boyle’s law,
.const
V
P=
when Temperature is constant.
According to the Charles’s Law,
.const
T
V=
Meaning that these two are directly related.
Thus, the temperature can be seen as a Volume-factor.
.constTV
×
=
The words of Gay-
Lussac’s “"All gases have the same mean thermal expansivity at constant pressure over the
same range of temperature" closes the circle, as it means, that also
.const
T
P=
So this all
means
TVP
And as the Kinetic theory of gases states
k
ET
Or more precisely,
N
PV
Tk
mv
E
Bk
2
3
2
3
2
2
===
This all must be possible to reduce to a kinetic energy of
single particle. I also notice how Froude-law arises here on sight, only the length is missing.
So I want to reduce all this kinetic theory to a single particle, with a diameter of
mxcd
9
1033564.3/1
==
and calculate this with Froude’s law-idea.
al
v
Fr
2
=
However, this “l” is the characteristic length in 2-Dimensional case, and applying the
Froude law correctly needs the full understanding about its character. What is Froude-
number? What it means that Froude number is unity? It is the balance of inertia and field.
Wikipedia explanation says that it is the “flow inertia” and “external field”. I must reduce
this to fundamental Froude-law; The nature seeks the balance between Inertia and Field,
and any system, where these are in balance, is stable. What is inertia? -It is the resistance of
an object against the change in its state of motion. In the structural engineering, this
resistance is used to calculate the deflection of an object under load. The calculation of
deflection is purely geometrical analysis, and should not be mixed with the moment of
inertia, though both are using “I” as describing letter. The Moment of inertia
2
mrI =
has
again mass in its calculations, and is thus unusable in Fundamental physics as I see it. The
“Second moment of Area” is also known as “area moment of inertia”. “I” for an axis and
“J” for an axis perpendicular to the plane. This is the correct tool for analysis. It’s 2-
Dimensional, but it’s unit is length to fourth power; L
4
.
2. Planck’s constant h, calculated through the speed of light, c=299 792 458 m/s
The metric unit of Planck constant?
Jsxh
34
10626.6
=
-Energy x time.
Energy is one meter of work pushed against force; Energy x time = Force x length x time.
And as force is acceleration x mass; Energy x time = mass x acceleration x length x time.
And as acceleration is velocity per time, and velocity is length per time, then
Energy x time = mass x length / time / time x length x time
And as Mass = volume = length x length x length, then
Energy x time = length x length x length x length / time / time x length x time,
And as time = length thus
Energy x time = length x length x length x length / length / length x length x length
Thus, Energy x time = length x length x length x length = L
4
So Planck-constant might indeed be the area moment of
Inertia of light. (Second moment of area.) For circular
area these moments are;
44
64
4
drI
x
π
π
==
44
64
4
drI
y
π
π
==
44
32
2
drI
z
π
π
==
I calculate
4354
1021539.1/1
32
mcI
z
×==
π
and I notice, that this is very close to
the value of Planck, but it is not the correct value. It would be easy to start to play with
π
2
h
=h
and so on. But, as
hfE
=
and f is frequency; 1/time, then There is no
geometrical explanation for any such 2 π’s. Thus, the solution must be found elsewhere;
from Structural engineering. As we are actually calculating deflection, thus we need to
think how this deflection might happen. Simple
cantilever beam with the force on the free end;
Cantilever beams have one end fixed, so that the
slope and deflection at that end must be zero.
The angle of deflection ϕ in radians is calculated
EI
FL
2
2
=
φ
which can be simplified
I
L
2
=
φ
This gives me the idea about the shape of the deflection; it is exponential. The inverse
function of exponential function is logarithm. Without trying to claim that I understand it
completely, it is easy to notice, that the difference
4
35
34
59815.544log51787.54
1021539.1
10626.6 e
x
I
h
e
z
===
×
=
Thus this above gives very plausible explanation how I can calculate the Planck constant
only through the speed of light;
434
4
4
1054726358263138.6
32
m
c
e
h
×=
×
×
=
π
This varies from the measured value only 0.147%.
2.1 Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
This answer immediately explains me what Reduced Planck constant is. Or rather; “Why
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle?”
2
h
px
σσ
when
π
2
h
=h
as
4
1
2
2
=c
eh
π
and thus
h2
2
4
4
1
=
=c
e
px
σσ
The reason is obviosly simple; We have four dimenstion, but we can’t measure all four
simultanously as the time is absolute. The measurement itself needs time, and this time
corrupts the measurement in at least one dimension.
pxpxpxpxpx
σσσσσσσσσσ
4
44332211
=+++
cause we can observe only 3-D, thus
the measurable result is always
pxpxpxpx
σσσσσσσσ
3?
332211
=+++
-incomplete.
2.2 Fine structure constant, Boltzmann constant.
The next step after Planck’s constant is to explain the Fine Structure constant. It’s claimed
to be “ a fundamental physical constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic
interaction between elementary charged particles. It is related to the elementary charge
(the electromagnetic coupling constant) e, which characterizes the strength of the coupling
of an elementary charged particle with the electromagnetic field, by the formula 4πε
0
ħcα =
e2”
2.2.1 With numerology, I can solve that fine structure constant equation could be
eV
c
e
e
eV
c
ce
e
d
eV
h
×
×
×
=
×
×
×
××
=
×
×
=
2
3
14
24
12
32
32
1
ππ
α
=136,940
With value
J 1053501.60217656= eV
-19
×
and with new value for planck’s constant.
2.2.2 With old value of Planck it would be
739.136
1
12
=
×
×
=
e
d
eV
h
α
2.2.3 With Natural logarithm; This must be difficult to measure. If the smaller value got
by measurements (shown at Chap 2.0) is used,
71728.251787.54log
4
=
e
in these
calculations, then the result is
991.136
1=
α
2.2.4 With Old gas constants; The remaining deviation can be traced to Boltzmann
constant. (Shown at Chap 1.1). Defining the atom diameter
d
through the
c
got through old
gas constants;
KmJk
B325
/950.3701068678.2 =×
The relevant “old” speed of light can be defined;
smx
Tk
PV
RT
PVN
B
A
/9.2995096071068678.2
3 25
3
3
===
Which gives
994.370
2
=
×
eV
ch
with the old constants and
531.136
71728
.
2
2
=
××
eV
ch
With the smaller value of e.
2.2.5 With new gas constants; The “new gas constant” divided with natural logarithm
gives;
852.136
1
3
=
e
kc
B
2.2.6 Conclusions The average of these five + the original gives 136.848, which is almost
the same as the value calculated with new gas constants in 2.2.5. This is not so surprising,
as it includes the old Boltzmann-constant, which is said to be “the bridge between
macroscopic and microscopic physics”, and quite easy to define exactly.
2.3 Elementary charge, Gravitational constant.
The metric unit of elementary charge.
JxeV
19
106021766208,1
=
With the same logic as shown in Chap. 2.0.
The metric unit must be Energy = length x length x length x length / length / length x length
and finally, Energy= length x length x length = L
3
The numerology shown in 2.2.1 supports this view. As the Natural logarithm is on 3
rd
power. The Heisenberg’s uncertainty aspect shows, that the purely 4-dimensional nature of
Plancks constant is
4
1
2
2
=c
eh
π
and thus it might be interesting to prove, if Elementary
charge might be -1 dimensional (negative charge) or 3 dimensional (positive charge), and if
the existence of these charges might be based only for the existence of the ”Gravitational
Field”. The metric-unit of G is 1/L
2
according to my theory, so the 1 dimensional charge
might be pushed to -1 through it, and the 3 dimensional would be pushed to +1. This whole
”pushing” being nothing else than relativistic movement in 4-dimensions.
09
11
19
10400595386.2
10
67408
.
6
106021766208,1
== x
x
x
G
eV
and this seems to be really close
about the value of
09
1
1053360609.4
599584916
7182818.2
2
== x
c
e
Calculating
88853.1
2
1
=
eV
G
c
e
shows that the difference is in order of 2. This could be
easily be exlained from simply by the Newton’s 3rd law.
I must immediately admit, that the clear idea I had for Planck’s constant didn’t made me the
nature of the Elementary charge so obvious and logical, as I was expecting.
2.3.1 Some material for new ideas;
At time of writing, I haven’t been able to completely solve the angular momentum aspects
of the elementary charge. I am though convinced, that the answer will been found from the
angular momentum equations. Just the simple view to the relevant equations were not able
to provide answers. I expect that this must be solved with the full 4-matrix calculations with
Einstein Field equations. First, these equations must be made massless. This way the
presented definition for planck’s constant must be able to expand to explain also all four
quantum numbers. The key to get forward with these, might been found through the Mean
lifetime of Neutron, 881.5 Seconds, with Gravitational constant G, 6.67x10
-11
1/s
2
and the
here found molecule diameter. Maybe the explanation for the four quantum numbers can
been found from the four known fictitius forces; Centrifugal force, Coriolis force, Euler
force and Gravitational force.
Conclusions;
The fundamental idea behind this paper is that everything is light. That mass is a fictitious
like the fictitious forces. The “key to science” presented in the introduction has been my
guiding light here. It’s been really annoying to notice, that though I’ve actually had the
basic idea and supporting observations for quite a while (Since 2012), it has been more than
painful to found the combining math. The math really has infinite possibilities, like n-
dimensions. Thus, it was first at 7.7.2016, when I was convinced about the conceptual idea
of what “Planck’s constant” actually is. I realized that the first thing to do is to define radius
for a sphere. This led me to play quite a lot with numerology. The known proton radius is
9x10
-16
m, Bohr Radius for electron is 5x10
-11
m. But as the Planck’s constants value is
6x10
-34
, it’s only logical to seek some radius which is smaller. Now, when I know the
answer, this struggle makes me laugh. The only think I learned by this search was, that with
numerology you can do anything. Just few Pi’s and exponentials, and you can get any result
you ever want. Therefore, I ended up reading the book of John Gribbin for a second time.
At the first read, I concentrated to learn the logic behind the steps, which has lead us to the
physics we currently have. This first read, was also helpful. Thanks to the statement in page
117 “(remember Dirac’s remark about second-rate physicists doing first-rate work)” I was
able to correct Dirac’s mistake of negative mass concept from “Einstein’s equations”.
Person like Dirac easily does such a mistake. However, it is almost impossible for person
like Einstein to do such without a notice. This is the difference between information and
knowledge. Therefore, the first read helped me to locate the mistake. -You cannot repair
anything without knowing where the problem is. But the second read opened my eyes even
wider. Though Feynman lectures teaches clearly that the problem is that we do not even
know where to search. The page 70 of the book of John Gribbin opened my eyes to seek the
atom size completely freely; “A typical atom is about 10
-10
of a meter across; the nucleus
about 10
-15
m in radius, 10
5
times smaller than the atom. Because volumes go as the cube of
radius, we have to multiply the exponent by three to find that the volume of the nucleus is
10
15
times smaller than the volume of atom.” As I was reading the whole book in just one
day, I immediately turned back to page 21, where the Avogadro’s number explained. This
provided me the way to define the molecule/ atom diameter in the way shown in this paper.
After I got convinced that, we are really dealing with fundamental size. I just need to use
the most obvious equations of structural engineering to get the math immediately right. This
math immediately also explained me the uncertainty principle. So I was convinced that the
work is done.
The Units are correct.
It has a solid theory.
The value is correct.
It explains other questions.
What else can I do, than accept the truth?
Everything is light.
Planck’s constant is
4
1
22
=c
e
h
π
There is only 4 dimension.
Everything is real.
Nothing is dark.
Jouni Jokela, Frutigen, Switzerland 07.10.2016
[1] QED explanation for Gravity and Radioctivity, Theory of everything. Jouni Jokela,
Feb 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294535112
[2] In Search of Schrödinger’s Cat, John Gribbin, 1984, page 21.
The rest of the information is searched mainly from Wikipedia.
I also want to mention Feynman lections, as a source of inspiration.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
The rest of the information is searched mainly from Wikipedia. I also want to mention Feynman lections, as a source of inspiration
In Search of Schrödinger's Cat, John Gribbin, 1984, page 21. The rest of the information is searched mainly from Wikipedia. I also want to mention Feynman lections, as a source of inspiration.