A Practical Guide to SpaceTime Engineering
PART 3
“METRIC ENGINEERING
&
THE QUASIUNIFICATION
OF PARTICLE PHYSICS”
“To Oliya”
RESEARCH NOTES
Key Words: Balmer Series, Bohr Radius, Buckingham Π Theory, Casimir Force, ElectroMagnetics,
Equivalence Principle, Euler’s Constant, Fourier Series, Fundamental Particles, General
Relativity, Gravity, Harmonics, Hydrogen Spectrum, Newtonian Mechanics, Particle Physics,
Physical Modelling, Planck Scale, Polarisable Vacuum, Quantum Mechanics, ZeroPointField.
2nd Edition
Project Initiated: July 1, 1996
Project Completed: October 12, 2005
Revised: Thursday, 24 November 2011
RICCARDO C. STORTI1
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
rstorti@gmail.com
© Copyright 2011: Delta Group Engineering (dgE): All rights reserved.
SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS
The physical characteristics derived herein (from 1st principles), based upon a single paradigm [i.e.
the application of Buckingham “Π” Theory (BPT) and Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT’s)]
may be articulated as follows (many of which are experimentally verified or implied),
1. The spectral quantisation of gravity.
2. The application of the spectral quantisation of gravity to Metric Engineering principles.
3. The experimentally implicit validation of the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model of gravity.
4. The formulation of the ElectroGraviMagnetic (EGM) Spectrum.
5. The experimentally implicit validation of the EGM Spectrum by the calculation of highly
precise physically verified fundamental particle properties.
6. The QuasiUnification of particle physics illustrating that all fundamental particles may be
described as harmonic multiples of each other.
7. The ZeroPointField (ZPF) equilibrium radius.
8. The experimental Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radius of the Proton.
9. The classical RMS charge radius of the Proton.
10. The experimental Proton Electric Radius.
11. The experimental Proton Magnetic Radius.
12. The experimental Mean Square (MS) charge radius of the Neutron.
13. The conversion of the conventional representation of the experimental Neutron “MS” charge
radius to a more intuitively meaningful positive form.
14. The experimental Neutron Magnetic Radius.
15. The precise experimental graphical properties of the Neutron charge distribution.
16. The experimental massenergies and radii of all Quarks and Bosons consistent with the
Particle Data Group (PDG) and ZEUS Collaboration (ZC).
17. The charge radii of all Neutrino’s, consistent with the interpretation of experimental data
from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO).
18. The experimental massenergy of the Top Quark as defined by the DZero Collaboration
(D0C) based upon the observation of Top events.
19. The Photon massenergy threshold consistent with PDG interpretation of experimental
evidence.
20. The Photon and Graviton massenergies and radii consistent with Quantum Mechanical
(QM) expectations.
21. The derivation of the Fine Structure Constant “α” in terms of Electron and Proton radii.
22. The derivation of “α” in terms of Neutron, Muon and Tau radii.
23. The derivation of the Casimir Force based upon the spectral quantisation of gravity.
24. The optimisation of an energy / gravitational experiment associated with the Casimir Force.
25. An experimentally implicit definition of the Planck Scale.
26. An experimentally implicit definition of the Bohr Radius.
27. The experimental Hydrogen atom emission / absorption spectrum (Balmer Series).
28. The prediction of three new Leptons and associated Neutrino's.
29. The prediction of two new Intermediate Vector Bosons (IVB’s).
30. A physically implicit value and limit for “π” at the “QM” level – subject to uncertainty
principles.
31. A physically implicit value and limit for the EulerMascheroni Constant “γ” at the “QM”
level – subject to uncertainty principles.
32. The formulation of a single mathematical algorithm incorporating (1  31).
Note: where possible, calculated results have been compared to physical measurement. Cognisant
of experimental uncertainty, many predictions herein may be considered to be exact.
2
www.deltagroupengineering.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Particle physics is a rapidly expanding and highly dynamic sphere of knowledge supporting
a landscape of constantly changing hues. Experimental boundaries are being shifted with exciting
reductions in uncertainty at a staggering pace. This text develops the ElectroGraviMagnetic
(EGM) construct to define relationships between the distributions of massenergy over spacetime
of fundamental particles. The EGM construct was finalized in 2004 and tested against published
PDG data of the day (i.e. 2005 values).
Particle Data Group (PDG) MassEnergy Ranges (2006)
Annually, the PDG reconciles its published values of particle properties against the latest
experimental and theoretical evidence. The 2006 changes in PDG massenergy range values not
impacting EGM are as follows:
1. Strange Quark = “70 < msq(MeV) < 120”.
2. Charm Quark = “1.16 < mcq(GeV) < 1.34”.
3. “W” Boson = “80.374 < mW(GeV) < 80.432”.
4. “Z” Boson = “91.1855 < mZ(GeV) < 91.1897”.
Electron Neutrino and Up / Down / Bottom Quark Mass
The EGM construct relates “mass to size” in harmonic terms. However, contemporary
Physics is currently incapable of specifying the mass and size of most fundamental particles
precisely and concurrently. Subsequently, EGM is required to approximate values of either mass or
radius to predict one or the other (i.e. mass or size). Hence, the EGM predictions articulated in
Particle Summary Matrix (3.2, 3.4) denote values based upon estimates of either mass or radius.
Consequently, some of these results are approximations and subject to revision as new
experimental evidence regarding particle properties (particularly mass), come to light. The 2006
changes in PDG massenergy values affecting these results are shown below. In this data set, the
EGM radii are displayed as a range relating to its massenergy influence.
Note: the average value of EGM “Up + Down Quark” mass from these tables [i.e. 5.2574(MeV)]
remains within the 2006 average mass range specified by the PDG [i.e. 2.5 to 5.5(MeV)].
Particle
Electron Neutrino (ν
ν e)
Up Quark (uq)
Down Quark (dq)
Bottom Quark (bq)
EGM Radii x1016(cm)
EGM MassEnergy
(utilized)
ren < 0.0811
0.5469 < ruq < 0.7217
0.7217 < rdq < 1.0128
1.0719 > rbq > 1.0863
PDG MassEnergy
Range (2006 Values)
PDG MassEnergy
Range (2006 Values)
men(eV) < 2
1.5 < muq(MeV) < 3
3 < mdq(MeV) < 7
4.13 < mbq(GeV) < 4.27
The predicted radii ranges above demonstrate that no significant deviation from 2005 EGM
values exist. This emphasizes that the EGM harmonic representation of fundamental particles is a
robust formulation and is insensitive to minor fluctuations in particle mass, particularly in the
absence of experimentally determined Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radii.
Therefore, we may conclude that the EGM construct continues to predict experimentally verified
results within the SM to high computational precision.
3
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Top Quark Mass
Dilemma
The Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) and “DZERO” (D0) Collaborations have recently
revised their world average value of “Top Quark” mass (mtq) from “178.0(GeV/c2)” to
“172.0(GeV/c2)” in 2005, [80, 81] to “172.5” in early 2006, then to “171.4” in mid 2006. [85]
Note: since the precise value of “mtq” is subject to frequent revision, we shall utilize the late 2005
value in the resolution of the dilemma as it sits between the 2006 values, resulting in an EGM
construct error of approximately “< 3.640(%)” rather than the “< 0.280(%)” displayed in
“Particle Summary Matrix 3.1”.
Resolution
The EGM method utilizes fundamental particle RMS charge radius to determine mass.
Currently, Quark radii are not precisely known and approximations were applied in the formulation
of “mtq” displayed herein. However, if one utilizes the revised experimental value of “mtq =
172.0(GeV/c2)” to calculate the RMS charge radius of the Top Quark “rtq”, based upon Proton
harmonics, it is immediately evident that a decrease in “rtq” of “< 1.508(%)” produces the new
world average value precisely. The revised radius calculation may be performed simply (the
denominator of the proceeding equation), producing a result of “0.9156x1016(cm)”.
The decrease in “Top Quark” RMS charge radius (relative to its approximated value in
chapter 3.12) based upon the “new world average Top Quark” mass may be determined as follows,
r tq
1 = 1.5076 ( % )
5
GeV
172.
2
c
1 .
r π.
9
mp
140
2
where,
(i) “rπ”, “mp” and “rtq” denote the RMS charge radius and mass of the Proton and the initial
approximation of the RMS charge radius of the “Top Quark” respectively (see chapter 3.12).
(ii) rπ = 830.5957 x1016(cm), mp = 1.67262171 x1027(kg) and rtq = 0.9294 x1016(cm).
Note: the mid 2006 value for revised “mtq” modifies the error defined above to “< 1.65(%)”.
Therefore, since the change in “rtq” is so small and its experimental value is not precisely known,
we may conclude the EGM construct continues to predict experimentally verified results within the
SM to high computational precision.
The revised “Top Quark Mass” presented above is not definitive. Other experimental efforts
have produced slightly different results in favour of the EGM construct. However, this text utilises
the presented measurement as a “quasicertain” boundary limit. Subsequently, the reader is
encouraged to review the latest experimental results utilising the Cornell University Library in [86].
The following “keywords” produce a robust suite of experimentally based scientific papers for the
review of “recent developments”:
i. ALEPH, ALICE, ANTRES, ATHENA, ATLAS, BABAR, BELLE, BES, CCFR,
CDF, CDF II, CKM, CLAS, CLEO, CMD2, CMS, COMPASS, D0 (DZERO),
DELPHI, DISTO, E143, E787, E949, FOCUS, G2, H1, HERAB, HERMES, KLOE,
KTev, L3, LEP, NA48, NA50, NA52, NEMO, New Muon, NOMAD, NuTev, OPAL,
PHENIX, SELEX, SLD, SNO, STAR, Tevatron, TOTEM, TWIST, UA8, ZEUS.
ii. Collaboration, Electroweak, Flavour, Working Group.
4
www.deltagroupengineering.com
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Generally speaking, it is difficult for readers of literature to fully appreciate the effort and
commitment involved in producing a book of any description or function if the reader has not
travelled the publication path. It is a milestone which involves the support of many people, the sum
of professional life experience and a society by which to gain these attributes.
Writing any scientific or engineering text has its unique set of difficulties based upon the
fundamental need for all material contained within it to be factually correct, not simply personal
opinion. In the case of novels, one may extensively draw upon one’s own perceptions and views
without the level of factual scrutiny associated with the scientific method.
In my specific case, this document and the scientific material contained herein could not
have been possible without the support network of many people, both directly and indirectly. For
instance, an author of scientifically based literature requires at least some degree of formal
education. One cannot simply commence writing scientific based literature without knowing and
understanding the facts to be presented.
Firstly, I must acknowledge the enormous and deciding financial scarifies made by my
parents (Alberto and Nives) in providing the academic foundation from which this text is derived.
The years of arduous labour involved in precipitating my skills into this text, would not have been
possible without their help and support. I would not have acquired the tools necessary for
completion of this personal milestone without them.
Secondly, the encouragement provided by my sister (Mary) cannot be overstated. Without
her boundless optimism, I would not have had the stamina to complete this journey. As I mentioned
previously, it is difficult for the nonauthor to fully appreciate the focused psychology required to
complete such a protracted work of completely original content as this text.
Finally, I would like to thank the following list of colleagues, friends and organisations:
Colleagues
A. Prof. P. Jarvis
University of Tasmania
For providing positive feedback on this body of work.
Dr. V. Karmanov
(Lead Researcher)
Lebedev Physical Institute
For persistence in understanding, an open mind, great encouragement,
professional guidance, providing challenges and provoking the
formulation of appendices 3.G and 3.I.
E. Prof. R. Kiehn
University of Houston
For providing great encouragement, recognising the scientific
potential of ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM) and whose thoughts I
value deeply.
Prof. G. Modanese
University of Bolzano
For recognising the scientific potential of the EGM construct.
Dr. H. Puthoff
EarthTech International, Inc.
For providing much of the inspiration for the EGM construct.
Prof. C. Rangacharyulu
University of Saskatchewan
For providing great encouragement, recognising the scientific
potential of EGM and whose thoughts I value deeply.
5
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Publications
Chapters herein have been reprinted with the permission of:
Physics Essays Publication:
2012 Woodglen Cres., Ottawa
Ontario K1J 6G4, Canada
Authors:
Riccardo C. Storti
Todd J. Desiato
The International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE) and are taken from the symposia
proceedings of the 50th SPIE conference: The Nature of Light: What is a Photon? Proceedings
Volume 5866 (pg. 207 – 217)
Authors:
Riccardo C. Storti
Todd J. Desiato
6
www.deltagroupengineering.com
ARTICLE
3.1
OVERVIEW
Albert Einstein: 1879 – 1955
7
www.deltagroupengineering.com
DOCUMENT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
Overall
To derive solutions (from a single paradigm) for the design and construction of localised gravity
modification experiments for application to “offtheshelf” ElectroMagnetic (EM) simulation
packages. The solutions presented are based upon well established engineering principles and tested
against the derivation of fundamental particle property characteristics for validity.
Articles
Article 3.1:
To present an introduction and summary of all the material contained herein.
Article 3.2:
To derive engineering principles for localised gravity modification experiments.
Article 3.3:
To verify the engineering principles derived by application to fundamental questions
in Physics, facilitating the derivation of experimentally verified results from a single
paradigm.
Appendices
App. 3.A:
To present a summary of key equations derived herein.
App. 3.B:
To present the formulations, derivations, characteristics and proofs utilised in the
preceding articles.
App. 3.C:
To present a set of analytical simplifications utilised in the preceding articles.
App. 3.D:
To present a computational subroutine for the numerical derivation of Lepton radii,
complimenting derivations described in preceding articles.
App. 3.E:
To present a computational subroutine for the numerical derivation of Quark and
Boson massenergies and radii, complimenting derivations described in preceding
articles.
App. 3.F:
To visualise the harmonic principles derived and applied to the preceding articles.
App. 3.G:
To present the derivation of certain ElectroMagnetic characteristics of the Neutron
and Proton based upon the outputs of the preceding articles.
App. 3.H:
To present an explanation for the “missing” Neutrino’s associated with the Standard
Model in particle Physics and the lack of detection of the appropriate number of
Solar Neutrino’s.
App. 3.I:
To present a derivation of the emission / absorption spectrum of the Hydrogen atom
based upon the methods developed in the preceding articles.
App. 3.K:
To present a complete computational algorithm / simulation capable of generating all
the results and claims contained within this document. This also confirms the lack of
numerical errors presented in the preceding articles.
App. 3.L:
To present a simplified calculation engine / algorithm based upon the preceding
appendix to reduce computational error and improve accuracy. This also confirms
the lack of numerical errors presented in the preceding articles.
App. 3.M:
To present a simplified calculation engine / algorithm based upon the preceding
appendix to minimise computational error and improve accuracy. This is achieved by
the utilisation of a more advance computational / simulation environment and also
confirms the lack of numerical errors presented in the preceding articles.
8
www.deltagroupengineering.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
Scientific Achievements
Recent Developments
2
3
Article 3.1:
7
8
10
20
21
30
39
40
Chapter 3.0:
Overview
Document Purpose and Objectives
Errata
Errata
Glossary of Terms (by chapter)
Definition of Terms
Spiral Galaxy (Photograph  NASA)
History of the Universe (CERN)
Introduction
1
General
2
EGM Construct Process Summary
3
Particle Summary Matrices
43
65
68
Article 3.2: Derivation of Engineering Principles
Fundamental Engineering – The Pyramids at Giza (Photograph)
Chapter 3.1: Dimensional Analysis
Chapter 3.2: General Modelling and the Critical Factor
Chapter 3.3: The Engineered Metric
Chapter 3.4: Amplitude and Frequency Spectra
Chapter 3.5: General Similarity
Chapter 3.6: Harmonic and Spectral Similarity
Chapter 3.7: The Casimir Effect
83
84
85
97
107
115
125
145
159
Article 3.3: Application of Derived Engineering Principles
Advanced Engineering – Mankind on the Moon (Photograph)
Chapter 3.8: Derivation of the Photon MassEnergy Threshold
Chapter 3.9: Derivation of Fundamental Particle Radii (Electron, Proton and Neutron)
Chapter 3.10: Derivation of the Photon and Graviton MassEnergies and Radii
Chapter 3.11: Derivation of Lepton Radii
Chapter 3.12: Derivation of Quark and Boson MassEnergies and Radii
Chapter 3.13: The Planck Scale, Photons, Predicting New Particles and Designing an
Experiment to Test the Negative Energy Conjecture
167
168
169
175
183
189
195
Appendices
App. 3.A:
App. 3.B:
App. 3.C:
App. 3.D:
App. 3.E:
App. 3.F:
App. 3.G:
Key Artefacts
Formulations, Derivations, Characteristics and Proofs
Simplifications
Derivation of Lepton Radii
Derivation of Quark and Boson MassEnergies and Radii
Harmonic Representations
1
Conversion of the Neutron Positive Core Radius
2
Derivation of the Neutron Magnetic Radius
3
Derivation of the Proton Electric Radius
4
Derivation of the Proton Magnetic Radius
5
Derivation of the Classical Proton RMS Charge Radius
9
205
219
227
243
245
247
251
255
261
262
262
262
www.deltagroupengineering.com
App. 3.H:
App. 3.I:
App. 3.J:
Calculation of L2, L3 and L5 Associated Neutrino Radii
Derivation of the Hydrogen Atom Spectrum (Balmer Series) and an
Experimentally Implicit Definition of the Bohr Radius
Glossary of Terms (alphabetical order)
263
265
269
Bibliography 3
276
Numerical EGM Simulations
App. 3.K:
MathCad 8 Professional (Complete Simulation)
App. 3.L:
MathCad 8 Professional (Calculation Engine)
App. 3.M:
MathCad 12 (High Precision Calculation Results)
279
281
365
387
Experimentally Verified or Implied Algorithms, Calculations and Derivations
1 Derivation of Photon and Graviton MassEnergies and Radii (chapter 3.10)
2 Mathematical Algorithm for the Calculation of All Lepton Radii (App. 3.D)
3 Mathematical Algorithm for the Calculation of All Quark and Boson
MassEnergies and Radii (App. 3.E)
4 Derivation of the Proton Electric and Magnetic Radii and the Neutron Magnetic
Radius (App. 3.G)
5 Derivation of the Hydrogen Atom Spectrum (Balmer Series) (App. 3.I)
6 MathCad 8 Professional (Complete Simulation) (App. 3.K)
7 MathCad 8 Professional (Calculation Engine) (App. 3.L)
8 MathCad 12 (High Precision Calculation Results) (App. 3.M)
255
265
281
365
387
Index
395
Periodic Table of the Elements
402
Notes
183
245
247
42, 64, 82, 96, 105, 106, 124, 143, 144, 157, 158, 173, 174, 188, 194, 203, 204,
242, 254, 264, 268, 280, 282, 364, 366, 388, 393, 394, 405407
ERRATA
10
www.deltagroupengineering.com
2
DETAIL OF CONTENTS
Scientific Achievements
Recent Developments
2
3
Article 3.1:
7
8
10
20
21
Overview
Document Purpose and Objectives
Errata
Errata
Glossary of Terms (by chapter)
Definition of Terms
Alpha Forms
Amplitude Spectrum
Background Field
Bandwidth Ratio
Beta Forms
Buckingham Π Theory
Casimir Force
Change in the Number of Modes
Compton Frequency
Cosmological Constant
Critical Boundary
Critical Factor
Critical Field Strengths
Critical Frequency
Critical Harmonic Operator
Critical Mode
Critical Phase Variance
Critical Ratio
Curl
DCOffsets
Dimensional Analysis Techniques
Divergence
Dominant Bandwidth
EGM
EGM Spectrum
Energy Density
Engineered Metric
Engineered Refractive Index
Engineered Relationship Function
Experimental Prototype
Experimental Relationship Function
Fourier Spectrum
Frequency Bandwidth
Frequency Spectrum
Fundamental Beat Frequency
Fundamental Harmonic Frequency
General Modelling Equations
General Relativity
General Similarity Equations
Gravitons
Graviton MassEnergy Threshold
11
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Group Velocity
Harmonic CutOff Frequency
Harmonic CutOff Function
Harmonic CutOff Mode
Harmonic Inflection Mode
Harmonic Inflection Frequency
Harmonic Inflection Wavelength
Harmonic Similarity Equations
IFF
Impedance Function
Kinetic Spectrum
Mode Bandwidth
Mode Number
Number of Permissible Modes
Phenomena of Beats
Photon MassEnergy Threshold
Polarisable Vacuum
Polarisable Vacuum Beat Bandwidth
Polarisable Vacuum Spectrum
Potential Spectrum
Poynting Vector
Precipitations
Primary Precipitant
Radii Calculations by EGM
Range Factor
Reduced Average Harmonic Similarity Equations
Reduced Harmonic Similarity Equations
Refractive Index
Representation Error
RMS Charge Radii (General)
RMS Charge Radius of the Neutron
Similarity Bandwidth
Spectral Energy Density
Spectral Similarity Equations
Subordinate Bandwidth
Unit Amplitude Spectrum
ZPE
ZPF
ZPF Spectrum
ZPF Beat Bandwidth
ZPF Beat CutOff Frequency
ZPF Beat CutOff Mode
1st Sense Check
2nd Reduction of the Harmonic Similarity Equations
2nd Sense Check
3rd Sense Check
4th Sense Check
5th Sense Check
6th Sense Check
Physical Constants
Mathematical Constants and Symbols
Solar System Statistics
12
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
38
38
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Chapter 3.0:
Spiral Galaxy (Photograph  NASA)
39
History of the Universe (CERN)
40
Introduction and Document Statistics
1
General
1.1
Introduction
Laying the Foundations
43
The EGM Approach
47
EGM Achievements
49
EGM Formulation Tips
52
Tips for Applying EGM to Particle Physics
53
Accidental Particle Property Predictions by EGM 53
1.1.1 Current Problems
1.1.1.1 Physics
54
1.1.1.2 Mathematics
55
1.1.2 How EGM Works
55
1.2
Key Results and Findings
PV and ZPF
61
Photons, Gravitons and Euler's Constant
61
All Other Particles
62
The Casimir Force
63
The Experimentally Implicit Planck Scale
63
The Prediction of New Particles
63
The Experimentally Implicit Bohr Radius
64
1.3
Building an Experiment
64
2
EGM Construct Process Summary
Modelling Foundations
65
The Casimir Force
65
MassEnergy and Radii of Photons and Gravitons
65
MassEnergy and Radii of all other Standard Model Part. 66
The Planck Scale
66
Theoretical Particles Beyond the Standard Model
67
Designing and Constructing an Experiment
67
The Bohr Radius
67
3
Particle Summary Matrices
3.1
Detailed Summary Matrices
68
3.2
Concise Matrix
EGM Harmonic Representation of Particles
79
Refined EGM Ch. Radii and MassEnergies of Part. 79
Periodic Table of Elementary Particles
80
Article 3.2: Derivation of Engineering Principles
Fundamental Engineering – The Pyramids at Giza (Photograph)
Chapter 3.1: Dimensional Analysis
Abstract
Process Flow 3.1
1
Introduction
2
Theoretical Modelling
3
Mathematical Modelling
3.1
Formulation of Π Groupings
3.2
Technical Verification of Π Groupings
4
Domain Specification
4.1
General Characteristics
13
83
84
85
86
87
88
88
89
90
www.deltagroupengineering.com
4.2
Chapter 3.2:
Chapter 3.3:
Chapter 3.4:
Precipitations of the General Form
4.2.1 Frequency Domain Precipitation
4.2.2 Displacement Domain Precipitation
4.2.3 Wavefunction Precipitation
5
Experimental Relationship Functions
6
The Polarisable Vacuum Model
6.1
Refractive Index
6.2
Superposition
6.3
Constant Acceleration
6.4
Complex Fourier Series
7
Conclusions
General Modelling and the Critical Factor
Abstract
Process Flow 3.2
1
Introduction
1.1
Hypothesis to Be Tested
1.2
What Is Derived?
2
Theoretical Modelling
2.1
Primary Precipitant
2.2
Interpretations of the Primary Precipitant
3
Mathematical Modelling
3.1
Separation of Primary Forms
3.2
General Modelling Equations
3.3
Critical Factor
4
Physical Modelling
4.1
Poynting Vector
4.2
Poisson and Lagrange
5
Conclusions
The Engineered Metric
Abstract
Process Flow 3.3
1
Introduction
1.1
Description
1.2
Critical Ratio
1.3
Metric Engineering
2
Theoretical Modelling
2.1
Mathematical Similarity
2.2
Critical Factor
2.3
Critical Ratio
3
Mathematical Modelling
3.1
Engineering the Relationship Functions
3.2
Engineering the Refractive Index
4
Physical Modelling
5
Metric Engineering
5.1
Polarisable Vacuum
5.2
Engineered Metrics
6
Engineered Metric Effects
7
Conclusions
Amplitude and Frequency Spectra
Abstract
Process Flow 3.4
1
Introduction
14
90
90
91
91
92
92
93
94
95
97
98
99
99
100
102
102
103
103
104
104
105
107
108
109
109
109
109
111
111
112
112
113
113
114
114
114
115
116
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Chapter 3.5:
1.1
General
1.2
Harmonics
1.3
Experimentation
2
Theoretical Modelling
2.1
Time Domain
2.2
Displacement Domain
3
Mathematical Modelling
3.1
Constant Acceleration
3.2
Frequency Spectrum
3.3
Energy Density
3.4
Spectral Characteristics
3.4.1 CutOff Mode and Frequency
3.4.2 ZeroPointField
4
Physical Modelling
4.1
Polarisable Vacuum
4.2
Test Volumes
4.3
Test Object
5
Sample Calculations
5.1
Background Gravitational Field
5.1.1 Fundamental Frequency
5.1.2 Frequency Bandwidth
5.2
Applied Experimental Fields
5.2.1 Mode Bandwidth
5.2.2 Engineering Considerations
6
Conclusions
General Similarity
Abstract
Process Flow 3.5
1
Introduction
1.1
General
1.2
Harmonics
2
Theoretical Modelling
3
Mathematical Modelling
3.1
Introduction
3.2
Phenomena of Beats
3.2.1 Frequency
3.2.2 Wavelength
3.2.3 Group
3.2.3.1 Velocity
3.2.3.2 Error
3.2.4 Beat Bandwidth Characteristics
3.2.4.1 Frequency
3.2.4.2 Modes
3.2.4.3 Critical Ratio
3.3
Critical Boundary
3.3.1 Frequency
3.3.2 Mode
3.4
Bandwidth Ratio
4
Physical Modelling
4.1
General Similarity Equations
4.1.1 Overview
4.1.2 GSEx
15
117
117
117
117
118
118
118
119
120
121
121
121
122
122
122
122
123
123
125
126
127
127
127
127
128
129
129
129
130
130
130
131
131
131
132
132
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Chapter 3.6:
Chapter 3.7:
4.2
Qualitative Limits
5
Metric Engineering
5.1
Polarisable Vacuum
5.2
Design Considerations
5.2.1 Range Factor
5.2.2 Sense Checks and Rules of Thumb
6
Engineering Characteristics
6.1
Beat Spectrum
6.2
Considerations
6.3
EGM Wave Propagation
6.4
Dominant and Subordinate Bandwidths
6.5
Kinetic and Potential
7
Conclusions
7.1
Conceptual
7.2
Physical Modelling Characteristics
Harmonic and Spectral Similarity
Abstract
Process Flow 3.6
1
Introduction
1.1
General
1.2
Practical Methods
1.3
Objectives
1.4
Results
2
Theoretical Modelling
3
Mathematical Modelling
3.1
Design Matrix
3.2
Engineering Considerations
4
Physical Modelling
4.1
Harmonic Similarity Equations
4.2
Visualisation of HSEx Operands
4.3
Reduction of HSEx
4.4
Visualisation of HSEx R
4.5
Spectral Similarity Equations
4.6
Critical Phase Variance
4.7
Critical field Strength
4.8
DCOffsets
5
Maxwell’s Equations
5.1
General
5.2
Critical Frequency
6
Conclusions
The Casimir Effect
Abstract
Process Flow 3.7
1
Introduction
2
Theoretical Modelling
3
Mathematical Modelling
4
Physical Modelling
4.1
The Casimir Force
4.2
Cosmological Constant
4.3
Refinement of Classical Casimir Equation
5
Conclusions
16
134
135
136
136
138
138
139
139
140
140
141
145
146
147
147
147
147
148
149
150
150
151
153
153
155
155
156
156
156
157
157
159
160
161
161
163
164
165
166
166
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Article 3.3: Application of Derived Engineering Principles
Advanced Engineering – Mankind on the Moon (Photograph)
Chapter 3.8: Derivation of the Photon MassEnergy Threshold
Abstract
Process Flow 3.8
1
Introduction
2
Mathematical Modelling
3
Physical Modelling
4
Conclusions
Chapter 3.9: Derivation of Fundamental Particle Radii (Electron, Proton and Neutron)
Abstract
Process Flow 3.9
1
Introduction
2
Theoretical Modelling
2.1
Sense Checks and Rules of Thumb
2.2
The Proton
3
Mathematical Modelling
3.1
Derivation of Proton and Neutron Radii
3.1.1 Numerical
3.1.2 Analytical
3.2
Derivation of Electron Radius
3.2.1 Numerical
3.2.2 Analytical
3.3
Derivation of the Fine Structure Constant
3.4
Electron CutOff Frequency
3.5
Refinement of Electron Radius
3.6
Derivation of Electron Scattering Mass
3.7
Harmonic CutOff Frequencies
4
Physical Modelling
4.1
Electron
4.2
Proton
4.3
Neutron
5
Experimentation
6
Conclusions
Chapter 3.10: Derivation of the Photon and Graviton MassEnergies and Radii
Abstract
Process Flow 3.10
1
Introduction
2
Theoretical Modelling
3
Mathematical Modelling
4
Physical Modelling
5
Conclusions
Chapter 3.11: Derivation of Lepton Radii
Abstract
Process Flow 3.11
1
Introduction
2
Theoretical Modelling
3
Mathematical Modelling
3.1
Electron Radius
3.2
Muon  Tau Radii and the Fine Structure Constant
3.3
Neutrino Radii
4
Physical Modelling
17
167
168
169
170
171
171
172
173
175
176
177
177
177
178
178
179
180
180
180
180
180
181
181
181
182
182
182
183
184
185
185
186
186
187
189
190
191
191
191
192
192
193
www.deltagroupengineering.com
5
Conclusions
Chapter 3.12: Derivation of Quark and Boson MassEnergies and Radii
Abstract
Process Flow 3.12
1
Introduction
2
Theoretical Modelling
2.1
Statistical Considerations
2.2
Generalised Similarity
2.3
Relative Similarity
3
Mathematical Modelling
4
Physical Modelling
4.1
Quark Radii
4.2
Quark Mass
4.3
Refinement of Top Quark Radius
4.4
Boson Radii
5
Conclusions
Chapter 3.13: The Planck Scale, Photons, Predicting New Particles and Designing an
Experiment to Test the Negative Energy Conjecture
Abstract
Process Flow 3.12
1
Introduction
2
The Planck Scale
2.1
Convergent Bandwidth
2.2
Planck Characteristics
2.3
Experimental Relationship Functions
2.4
Experimentally Implicit Values of Planck Char.
2.5
Impact of Experimentally Implicit Values
3
Theoretical Modelling
3.1
Background
3.2
Leptons
3.3
Quark / Bosons
4
Mathematical Modelling
4.1
Background
4.2
Bandwidth Ratio
4.3
Optimal Separation
5
Physical Modelling
5.1
Inflection Wavelength
5.2
Critical Field Strengths
5.3
Critical Phase Variance
6
Conclusions
Appendices
App. 3.A:
Key Artefacts
Refractive Index and Experimental Relationship Function
Summation of sinusoids producing a constant function
Critical Factor
General Modelling Equation1
General Modelling Equation2
Critical Ratio
Engineered Relationship Function
Engineered Refractive Index
Gravitational amplitude spectrum
18
193
195
196
197
197
198
198
199
199
200
201
201
202
205
206
207
207
207
209
210
210
211
211
212
212
214
214
214
215
215
216
219
219
219
219
220
220
220
220
220
www.deltagroupengineering.com
App. 3.B:
Gravitational frequency spectrum
Harmonic cutoff mode
Harmonic cutoff function
Harmonic cutoff frequency
Critical Boundary
EGM Wave Propagation
EGM Spectrum
Critical Phase Variance
Critical Field Strengths
Spectral Similarity Equations4,5
DCOffsets
Critical Frequency
Harmonic Inflection Mode
Critical Mode
Harmonic Inflection Frequency
EGM Casimir Force
Photon massenergy threshold
The Fine Structure Constant
Harmonic cutoff frequency
Proton and Neutron radii
The massenergy of a Graviton
The massenergy of a Photon
The radius of a Photon
The radius of a Graviton
Harmonic cutoff frequency ratio
Electron, Muon and Tau radii
Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrino radii
Quark and Boson harmonic representations
Quarks and Bosons as harmonic multiples of the Electron
Planck Scale Experimental Relationship Functions
Approximation of the radius of a free Photon, relating physical
properties of the Lepton family
Theoretical particles (Lepton / Quark / Boson)
The optimal configuration of a Classical Casimir Experiment
to test the negative energy conjecture
Neutron Charge Distribution
Neutron Charge Density Radius Intercept
“To” Neutron Mean Square Charge Radius Conversion Equation
“From” Neutron Mean Square Ch. Radius Conversion Equation
Neutron Magnetic Radius
Proton Electric Radius
Proton Magnetic Radius
Classical Proton Root Mean Square Charge Radius
The 1st Term of the Balmer Series
Formulations, Derivations, Characteristics and Proofs
Chapter 3.2
Chapter 3.3
Chapter 3.4
Chapter 3.5
Chapter 3.6
Chapter 3.7  3.9
19
220
220
220
220
221
221
221
221
221
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
223, 224
223
223
223
223
223
223
223
224
224
224
224
224
225
225
225
225
225
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
227
230
230
234
235
240
www.deltagroupengineering.com
App. 3.C:
App. 3.D:
App. 3.E:
App. 3.F:
App. 3.G:
App. 3.H:
App. 3.I:
App. 3.J:
Simplifications
Harmonic cutoff function
Harmonic cutoff mode
Harmonic cutoff frequency
Derivation of Lepton radii
Derivation of Quark and Boson massenergies and radii
Harmonic Representations
1
Conversion of the Neutron Positive Core Radius
2
Derivation of the Neutron Magnetic Radius
3
Derivation of the Proton Electric Radius
4
Derivation of the Proton Magnetic Radius
5
Derivation of the Classical Proton RMS Charge Radius
Calculation of L2, L3 and L5 Associated Neutrino radii
Derivation of the Hydrogen Atom Spectrum (Balmer Series) and an
Experimentally Implicit Definition of the Bohr Radius
Glossary of Terms (alphabetical order)
243
243
244
245
247
251
255
261
262
262
262
263
265
269
Bibliography 3
276
Numerical EGM Simulations
App. 3.K:
MathCad 8 Professional (Complete Simulation)
App. 3.L:
MathCad 8 Professional (Calculation Engine)
App. 3.M:
MathCad 12 (High Precision Calculation Results)
279
281
365
387
Index
395
Periodic Table of the Elements
402
Notes
42, 64, 82, 96, 105, 106, 124, 143, 144, 157, 158, 173, 174, 188, 194, 203, 204,
242, 254, 264, 268, 280, 282, 364, 366, 388, 393, 394, 405407
ERRATA
20
www.deltagroupengineering.com
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
•
Acronyms
BNL
BPT
CCFR
CERN
CHARMII
D0C
DAT
DELPHI
DONUT
E734
EGM
EM
EP
ERF
FNAL
FS
GME1
GME2
GMEx
GPE
GR
GSE1
GSE2
GSE3
GSE4
GSE5
GSEx
HERA
HSE1
HSE2
HSE3
HSE4
HSE5
HSEx
IFF
IHEP
INFN
LANL
LEP
LHS
MCYT
MEXT
MS
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Buckingham Π Theory
Chicago Columbia FermiLab Rochester
European Organisation for Nuclear Research
Experiment: study of NeutrinoElectron scattering at CERN
DZero Collaboration: an international research effort of leading scientists utilising
facilities at FNAL in Illinois, USA
Dimensional Analysis Techniques
Detector with Lepton, Photon and Hadron Identification
Experiment: a search for direct evidence of the Tau Neutrino at FermiLab
Experiment: a measurement of the elastic scattering of Neutrino's from Electrons and
Protons (at BNL)
ElectroGraviMagnetics: a mathematical method based upon the modification of the
vacuum polarisability by the superposition of EM fields
ElectroMagnetic
Experimental Prototype
Experimental Relationship Function
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FERMILAB)
Fourier Series
General Modelling Equation One
General Modelling Equation Two
Generalised reference to GME1 and GME2
Gravitational Potential Energy
General Relativity
General Similarity Equation One
General Similarity Equation Two
General Similarity Equation Three
General Similarity Equation Four
General Similarity Equation Five
Generalised reference to GSE1, GSE2, GSE3, GSE4 or GSE5
Hadron Electron Ring Accelerator in Hamburg, Germany
Harmonic Similarity Equation One
Harmonic Similarity Equation Two
Harmonic Similarity Equation Three
Harmonic Similarity Equation Four
Harmonic Similarity Equation Five
Generalised reference to HSE1, HSE2, HSE3, HSE4 or HSE5
If and only if
Institute of High Energy Physics
National Institute of Nuclear Physics (Italy)
Los Alamos National Laboratories
Large ElectronPositron storage ring
Left hand side
Ministry of Science and Technology (Spain)
Ministry of Science (Japan)
Mean Square
21
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NIST
NuTeV
PDG
PV
RFBR
RHS
RMS
SK
SLAC
SM
SNO
SSE1
SSE2
SSE3
SSE4
SSE5
SSEx
TRISTAN
US NSF
USDoE
ZC
ZPF
•
General Symbols
Symbol
B
c
E
G
H
h
hbar
i
J
k
L
M
M0
ME
mh
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Neutrino's at the Tevatron
Particle Data Group: an international research effort of leading scientists
Polarisable Vacuum
Russian Foundation for Basic Research
Right hand side
Root Mean Square
SuperKamiokande Collaboration
Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre
Standard Model in particle physics
Sudbury Neutrino Observatory
Spectral Similarity Equation One
Spectral Similarity Equation Two
Spectral Similarity Equation Three
Spectral Similarity Equation Four
Spectral Similarity Equation Five
Generalised reference to SSE1, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4 or SSE5
Particle collider at the Japanese High Energy Physics Laboratory (KEK)
United States National Science Foundation
United States Department of Energy
ZEUS Collaboration: an international research effort of leading scientists utilising
facilities at HERA
ZeroPointField
Description
Units
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector
T
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity:
Ch. 3.2
Velocity of light in a vacuum
m/s
Velocity of light in a vacuum (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity: Ch. 3.1
Energy: Ch. 3.3
J
Magnitude of Electric field vector
V/m
Magnitude of Electric field vector (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity:
Ch. 3.2
Universal Gravitation Constant
m3kg1s2
Hydrogen
Magnetic field strength
Oe
Height: Ch. 3.4
m
Planck's Constant (plain h form)
Js
Planck's Constant (2π form)
Complex number
Initial condition
Vector current density
A/m2
Wave vector
1/m
Length
m
Mass
kg or eV
Zero mass (energy) condition of free space
Mass of the Earth
Planck Mass
22
www.deltagroupengineering.com
MJ
MM
MS
Q
r
RE
RJ
RM
RS
S
t
∆r
α
ε0
λ
λCe
λCN
λCP
λh
µ0
ρ
ω
ωCe
ωCN
ωCP
ωh
•
Mass of Jupiter
Mass of the Moon
Mass of the Sun
Magnitude of Electric charge
Arbitrary radius with homogeneous mass (energy) distribution
Generalised notation for length (e.g. r → λ/2π): Ch. 3.1
Generalised notation for length (locally) in the PV model of gravity: Ch. 3.1
Magnitude of position vector from centre of spherical object with
homogeneous mass (energy) distribution
Reciprocal of the wave number: Ch. 3.1
Mean radius of the Earth
Mean radius of Jupiter
Mean radius of the Moon
Mean radius of the Sun
Poynting Vector
Time
Plate separation of a Classical Casimir Experiment
Practical changes in benchtop displacement values
An inversely proportional description of how energy density may result in an
acceleration: Ch. 3.2
Fine Structure Constant
Permittivity of a vacuum
Wavelength
Electron Compton Wavelength
Neutron Compton Wavelength
Proton Compton Wavelength
Planck Length
Permeability of a vacuum
Charge density
Field frequency
Field frequency (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity: Ch. 3.2
Electron Compton Frequency
Neutron Compton Frequency
Proton Compton Frequency
Planck Frequency
kg or eV
C
m
W/m2
s
m
m/s2
F/m
m
N/A2
C/m3
Hz
Specific Symbols by Chapter
EGM Construct  Ch. 3.1: Dimensional Analysis
Symbol
a
a∞
F(k,n,t)
f(t)
F0(k)
In,P
K0(r,X)
K0(X)
Description
Magnitude of acceleration vector
Mean magnitude of acceleration over the fundamental period in a FS
representation in EGM
Complex FS representation of EGM
Magnitude of the ambient gravitational acceleration represented in the time
domain
Amplitude spectrum / distribution of F(k,n,t)
Macroscopic intensity of Photons within a test volume
ERF by displacement domain precipitation
Generalised ERF
23
Units
m/s2
W/m2
www.deltagroupengineering.com
K0(ω
ω,r,E,B,X) ERF by wavefunction precipitation
K0(ω
ω,X) ERF by frequency domain precipitation
The intensity of the background PV field at specific frequency modes
Kn,P
Refractive Index of PV
KPV
Field harmonic (harmonic frequency mode)
n, N
Polarisation vector
P
Transformed value of generalised length (locally) in the PV model of gravity
rc
Local value of the velocity of light in a vacuum
vc
All variables within the experimental environment that influence results and
X
behaviour including parameters that might otherwise be neglected due to
practical calculation limitations, in theoretical analysis
Dimensional grouping derived by application of BPT
Π
Symbol
a1
a2
ax(t)
B0
c0
D
E0
K1
K2
KC
r0
α1
αx
β
β1
βx
ρ0
ω0
Symbol
BA
BPV
EA
EPV
g00
g11
EGM Construct  Ch. 3.2: General Modelling and the Critical Factor
Description
Acceleration with respect to General Modelling Equation One
Acceleration with respect to General Modelling Equation Two
Arbitrary acceleration in the time domain
Amplitude of applied Magnetic field: Ch. 3.6
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Velocity of light (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Experimental configuration factor: a specific value relating all design
criteria; this includes, but not limited to, field harmonics, field orientation,
physical dimensions, wave vector, spectral frequency mode and
instrumentation or measurement accuracy
Amplitude of applied Electric field: Ch. 3.6
Energy (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Magnitude of Electric field vector (locally) in the PV model of gravity
ERF formed by reinterpretation of the primary precipitant
ERF formed by reinterpretation of the primary precipitant
Critical Factor
Length (locally) in the PV model of gravity
The subset formed, as “N → ∞”, by the method of incorporation
Generalised reference to α1 and α2
A directly proportional description of how energy density may result in an
acceleration
The subset formed, as “N → ∞”, by the method of incorporation
Generalised reference to β1 and β2
Spectral energy density
Field frequency (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Field frequency (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
EGM Construct  Ch. 3.3: The Engineered Metric
Description
Magnitude of applied Magnetic field vector
Magnitude of PV Magnetic field vector
Magnitude of applied Electric field vector
Magnitude of PV Electric field vector
Tensor element
Tensor element
24
W/m2
C/m2
m
m/s
Units
m/s2
T
m/s
V/m
J
V/m
(V/m)2
T2
PaΩ
m
m/s2
Pa/Hz
Hz
Units
T
V/m
www.deltagroupengineering.com
g22
g33
kA
KEGM
kPV
KR
L0
m0
nA
nPV
Ug
Z
∆aPV
∆g
∆K0(ω
ω,X)
∆K1
∆K2
∆ KC
∆t
∆t0
∆ Ug
∆UPV
Tensor element
Tensor element
Harmonic wave vector of applied field
Engineered Refractive Index
Harmonic wave vector of PV
Critical Ratio
Length (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Mass (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Harmonic frequency modes of applied field
Harmonic frequency modes of PV
Initial state GPE per unit mass described by any appropriate method
Impedance function
Change in the magnitude of the local PV acceleration vector
Change in magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration vector
Engineered Relationship Function by EGM
Change in K1 by EGM
Change in K2 by EGM
Change in Critical Factor by EGM
Change in time (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Change in time (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Change in Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) per unit mass induced by
any suitable source
Change in energy density of gravitational field
EGM Construct  Ch. 3.4: Amplitude and Frequency Spectra
Symbol
Description
Magnitude of PV Magnetic field vector
BPV
Amplitude of fundamental frequency of PV (nPV = 1)
CPV(1,r,M)
CPV(nPV,r,M) Amplitude spectrum of PV
Magnitude of PV Electric field vector
EPV
K0(ω
ωPV,r,EPV,BPV,X) ERF equivalent to K0(ω,r,E,B,X)
Permissible mode bandwidth of applied experimental fields
N∆r
Harmonic cutoff mode of PV
nΩ
Poynting
Vector of PV
Sω
Rest massenergy density
Um
Field energy density of PV
Uω
Frequency bandwidth of PV
∆ωPV
Harmonic cutoff function of PV
Ω
Generalised reference to ωPV(nPV,r,M)
ωPV
Fundamental frequency of PV (nPV = 1)
ωPV(1,r,M)
Frequency
spectrum of PV
ωPV(nPV,r,M)
Harmonic cutoff frequency of PV
ωΩ
1/m
1/m
m
kg
(m/s)2
Ω
m/s2
(V/m)2
T2
PaΩ
s
(m/s)2
Pa
Units
T
m/s2
V/m
W/m2
Pa
Hz
Hz
EGM Construct  Ch. 3.5: General Similarity
Symbol
nΩ ZPF
nβ
RError
Stα
Description
ZPF beat cutoff mode
Mode Number (Critical Boundary Mode) of ωβ
Representation error
Range factor
25
Units
%
PaΩ
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Stβ
Stδ
Stε
Stγ
∆GME1
∆GME2
∆GMEx
∆nS
∆UPV
∆vΩ
∆vδr
∆λΩ
∆λδr
∆ωR
∆ωS
∆ωZPF
∆ωΩ
∆ωδr
λPV
ωΩ ZPF
ωβ
1st Sense check
3rd Sense check
4th Sense check
2nd Sense check
Change in GME1
Change in GME2
Generalised reference to changes in GME1 and GME2
Change in the number of ZPF modes
Change in rest massenergy density
Terminating group velocity of PV
Group velocity of PV
Change in harmonic cutoff wavelength of PV
Change in harmonic wavelength of PV
Bandwidth ratio
Similarity bandwidth
ZPF beat bandwidth
Beat bandwidth of PV
Beat frequency of PV
Wavelength of PV
ZPF beat cutoff frequency
Critical boundary
Symbol
BC
Brms
DC
EC
Erms
HSE4A R
HSE5A R
HSEx R
KEGM H
KPV H
KR H
nB
nE
Ug H
∆K0 H
φ
φC
ωB
ωC
ωE
EGM Construct  Ch. 3.6: Harmonic and Spectral Similarity
Description
Critical Magnetic field strength
Root Mean Square of BA
Offset function
Critical Electric field strength
Root Mean Square of EA
Time average form of HSE4 R
Time average form of HSE5 R
Generalised reference to the reduced form of HSEx
Harmonic form of KEGM
Harmonic form of KPV
Critical harmonic operator (based upon the unit amplitude spectrum)
Harmonic Mode Number of the ZPF with respect to BA
Harmonic Mode Number of the ZPF with respect to EA
Harmonic form of Ug
Harmonic form of ∆K0
Relative phase variance between EA and BA
Critical phase variance
Harmonic frequency of the ZPF with respect to BA
Critical frequency
Harmonic frequency of the ZPF with respect to EA
m/s2
Pa
m/s
m
Hz
m
Hz
Units
T
%
V/m
(m/s)2
θc
Hz
EGM Construct  Ch. 3.7: The Casimir Effect
Symbol
A
APP
Description
1st Harmonic term
Parallel plate area of a Classical Casimir Experiment
26
Units
m2
www.deltagroupengineering.com
D
FPP
FPV
KP
NC
NT
NTR
NX
StN
∆ΛPV
ΣH
ΣHR
ωX
Symbol
bq
cq
dq
e, e
g
H
Km
KS
KX
Kλ
Kω
L2
L3
L5
mbq
mcq
mdq
me
men
mgg
mH
mL(2)
mL(3)
mL(5)
mn
mp
mQB(5)
mQB(6)
msq
mtq
muq
Common difference
The Casimir Force by classical representation
The Casimir Force by EGM
A refinement of a constant in FPP
Critical mode
Number of terms
The ratio of the number of terms
Harmonic inflection mode
nth Harmonic term
Change in the local value of the Cosmological Constant by EGM
The sum of terms
The ratio of the sum of terms
Harmonic inflection frequency
Particles Physics: Ch. 3.8  3.13
Description
Bottom Quark: elementary particle in the SM
Charm Quark: elementary particle in the SM
Down Quark: elementary particle in the SM
Charge
Electron: subatomic / elementary particle in the SM
Exponential function: mathematics
Gluon: theoretical elementary particle in the SM
Magnitude of gravitational acceleration vector
Higgs Boson: theoretical elementary particle in the SM
Experimentally implicit Planck Mass scaling factor
Neutron MS charge radius by EGM
Neutron MS charge radius (determined experimentally) in the SM
Experimentally implicit Planck Length scaling factor
Experimentally implicit Planck Frequency scaling factor
Theoretical elementary particle (Lepton) by EGM
Theoretical elementary particle (Lepton) by EGM
Theoretical elementary particle (Lepton) by EGM
Bottom Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Charm Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Down Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Electron rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Electron Neutrino rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Graviton rest mass (energy) by EGM
Higgs Boson rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Rest mass (energy) of the L2 particle by EGM
Rest mass (energy) of the L3 particle by EGM
Rest mass (energy) of the L5 particle by EGM
Neutron rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Proton rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Rest mass (energy) of the QB5 particle by EGM
Rest mass (energy) of the QB6 particle by EGM
Strange Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Top Quark rest mass (energy) according (energy) to PDG
Up Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
27
N
Hz2
Hz
Units
C
m/s2
m2
kg or eV
www.deltagroupengineering.com
mW
mZ
mε
mγ
mγg
mγγ
mµ
mµn
mτ
mτn
n
p
QB5
QB6
rBoson
rbq
rcq
rdq
re
ren
rgg
rH
rL
rp
rQB
rsq
rtq
ru
ruq
rW
rxq
rZ
rε
rγγ
rµ
rµn
rν
rν2
rν3
rν5
rνM
rνx
rπ
rπE
rπM
rτ
rτn
sq
W Boson rest mass according (energy) to PDG
Z Boson rest mass according (energy) to PDG
Electron rest mass (energy) in high energy scattering experiments
Photon rest mass (energy) threshold according to PDG
Graviton rest mass (energy) threshold according to PDG
Photon rest mass (energy) by EGM
Muon rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Muon Neutrino rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Tau rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Tau Neutrino rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Neutron: subatomic particle in the SM
Proton: subatomic particle in the SM
Theoretical elementary particle (Quark or Boson) by EGM
Theoretical elementary particle (Quark or Boson) by EGM
Generalised RMS charge radius of a Boson by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Bottom Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Charm Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Down Quark by EGM
Classical Electron radius in the SM
RMS charge radius of the Electron Neutrino by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Graviton by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Higgs Boson utilising ru
Average RMS charge radius of the rε, rµ and rτ particles
Classical RMS charge radius of the Proton in the SM
Average RMS charge radius of the QB5 / QB6 particles by EGM utilising ru
RMS charge radius of the Strange Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Top Quark by EGM
Heisenberg uncertainty range
RMS charge radius of the Up Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the W Boson utilising ru
Generalised RMS charge radius of all Quarks as determined by the ZC
within the SM
RMS charge radius of the Z Boson by utilising ru
RMS charge radius of the Electron by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Photon by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Muon by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Muon Neutrino by EGM
Neutron RMS charge radius (by analogy to KS)
RMS charge radius of the ν2 particle by EGM
RMS charge radius of the ν3 particle by EGM
RMS charge radius of the ν5 particle by EGM
Neutron Magnetic radius by EGM
Generalised reference to rν2, rν3 and rν5
RMS charge radius of the Proton by EGM
Proton Electric radius by EGM
Proton Magnetic radius by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Tau by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Tau Neutrino by EGM
Strange Quark: elementary particle in the SM
28
kg or eV
m
www.deltagroupengineering.com
〈rBoson〉
〈rQuark〉
〈r〉〉
5th Sense check
6th Sense check
A positive integer value representing the harmonic cutoff frequency ratio
between two proportionally similar mass (energy) systems
Top Quark: elementary particle in the SM
Up Quark: elementary particle in the SM
W Boson: elementary particle in the SM
Z Boson: elementary particle in the SM
RMS charge diameter of the Graviton by EGM
RMS charge diameter of the Photon by EGM
Photon: elementary particle in the SM
Mathematical Constant: EulerMascheroni (Euler's) Constant
Graviton: theoretical elementary particle in the SM
Muon: elementary particle in the SM
Theoretical elementary Neutrino of the L2 particle by EGM
Theoretical elementary Neutrino of the L3 particle by EGM
Theoretical elementary Neutrino of the L5 particle by EGM
Electron Neutrino: elementary particle in the SM
Muon Neutrino: elementary particle in the SM
Tau Neutrino: elementary particle in the SM
Tau: elementary particle in the SM
Average mass (energy) of all Quarks by EGM
Average mass (energy) of all Quarks according to PDG
Average RMS charge radius of all Bosons in the SM utilising ru
Average RMS charge radius of all Quarks by EGM
Average RMS charge radius of all Quarks and Bosons by EGM utilising ru
Symbol
E
mAMC
mx
nq
Qe
rBohr
rx
R∞
∆E
λA
λB
µ
Appendices
Description
Electronic energy level
Atomic Mass Constant
Imaginary particle mass
Quantum number
Magnitude of Electric charge
Classical Bohr radius
Bohr radius by EGM
Rydberg Constant
Change in electronic energy level
1st term of the Balmer Series by EGM
Classical Balmer Series wavelength
Reduced mass of Hydrogen
Stη
Stθ
Stω
tq
uq
W
Z
φgg
φγγ
γ
γ
γg
µ, µν2
ν3
ν5
νe
νµ
ντ
τ, τ〈 mQuark〉
29
m
kg or eV
m
Units
J
kg or eV
C
m
J
m
kg or eV
www.deltagroupengineering.com
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Alpha Forms “αx”
• An inversely proportional description of how energy density may result in acceleration.
Amplitude Spectrum
• A family of wavefunction amplitudes.
• The amplitudes associated with a frequency spectrum.
• See: Frequency Spectrum.
Background Field
• Reference to the background (ambient) gravitational field.
• Reference to the local gravitational field at the surface of the Earth.
Bandwidth Ratio “∆ωR”
• The ratio of the bandwidth of the ZPF spectrum to the Fourier spectrum of the PV.
Beta Forms “βx”
• A directly proportional description of how energy density may result in acceleration.
Buckingham Π Theory (BPT)
• Arrangement of variables determined by DAT's into Π groupings. These groupings
represent subsystems of dimensional similarity for scale relationships.
• Minimises the number of experiments required to investigate phenomena.
• See: DAT's.
Casimir Force “FPP”
• Attractive (nongravitational) force between two parallel and neutrally charged mirrored
plates of equal area.
Change in the Number of Modes “∆nS”
• The difference between the ZPF beat cutoff mode and the Mode Number at the Critical
Boundary as a function of the Critical Ratio.
• See: Mode Number “nβ”.
• See: Critical Ratio “KR”.
Compton Frequency “ωCx”
• The generalised definition of Compton frequency applied globally herein is:
ωCx = mxc2 / hbar = 2πm
2π xc2/ h = 2πc
2π 2/ λCx.
• This is the only equation in which the “hbar” form of Planck's Constant is used.
Cosmological Constant
• A constant introduced into the equations of GR to facilitate a steady state cosmological
solution.
• See: General Relativity.
Critical Boundary “ωβ”
• Represents the lower boundary (commencing at the ZPF beat cutoff frequency) of the
ZPF spectrum yielding a specific proportional similarity value.
• See: ZeroPointField Beat CutOff Frequency “ωΩ ZPF”.
30
www.deltagroupengineering.com
•
See: Critical Ratio “KR”.
Critical Factor “KC”
• A proportional measure of the applied EM field intensity (or magnitude of Poynting
Vectors) within an experimental test volume.
• The ratio of two experimentally determined relationship functions.
Critical Field Strengths “EC and BC”
• RMS strength values of applied Electric and Magnetic fields for complete dynamic,
kinematic and geometric similarity with the background gravitational field.
• See: Background Field.
Critical Frequency “ωC”
• The minimum frequency for the application of Maxwell's Equations within an
experimental context.
Critical Harmonic Operator “KR H”
• A representation of the Critical Ratio at ideal dynamic, kinematic and geometric
similarity utilising a unit amplitude spectrum.
Critical Mode “NC”
• The ratio of the critical frequency to the fundamental harmonic frequency of the PV.
• See: Critical Frequency “ωC”.
• See: Fundamental Harmonic Frequency “ωPV(1,r,M)”
Critical Phase Variance “φC”
• The difference in phase between applied Electric and Magnetic fields for complete
dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity with the background gravitational field.
• See: Background Field.
Critical Ratio “KR”
• A proportional indication of anticipated experimental configurations by any suitable
measure. Typically, this is the magnitude of the ratio of the applied EM experimental
fields to the ambient background gravitational field.
Curl
•
The limiting value of circulation per unit area.
DCOffsets
• A proportional value of applied RMS Electric and / or Magnetic fields acting to offset
the applied function/s.
Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT's)
• Formal experimentally based research methods facilitating the derivation, from first
principles, of any number or combination of parameters considered important by an
experimentalist.
• See: BPT.
Divergence
• The rate at which “density” exits a given region of space.
31
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Dominant Bandwidth
• The bandwidth of the EGM spectrum which dominates gravitational effects.
• See: ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM) Spectrum.
ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM)
• A method of calculation (not a theory) based upon energy density.
• Being a calculation method, it does not favour or bias any particular theory in the
Standard Model of particle physics.
• Developed as a tool for engineers to modify gravity.
• The modification of vacuum polarisability based upon the superposition of EM fields.
ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM) Spectrum
• A simple but extreme extension of the EM spectrum (including gravitational effects)
based upon a Fourier distribution.
Energy Density (General)
• Energy per unit volume.
Engineered Metric
• A metric tensor line element utilising the Engineered Refractive Index.
Engineered Refractive Index “KEGM”
• An EM based engineered representation of the Refractive Index.
Engineered Relationship Function “∆K0(ω,X)”
• A change in the Experimental Relationship Function resulting from a modification in the
local value of the magnitude of acceleration by similarity of applied EM fields to the
background gravitational field.
Experimental Prototype (EP)
• Reference to the gravitational acceleration through a practical benchtop volume of
spacetime in a laboratory at the surface of the Earth.
Experimental Relationship Function “K0(ω,X)”
• A proportional scaling factor relating an experimental prototype (typically herein, it is
the local gravitational field or ambient physical conditions) to a mathematical model.
Fourier Spectrum
• Two spectra combined into one (an amplitude spectrum and a frequency spectrum)
obeying a Fourier Series.
• See: Amplitude Spectrum.
• See: Frequency Spectrum.
Frequency Bandwidth “∆ωPV”
• The bandwidth of the Fourier spectrum describing the PV.
• See: Fourier Spectrum.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).
Frequency Spectrum
• A family of wavefunction frequencies.
• The frequencies associated with an amplitude spectrum.
32
www.deltagroupengineering.com
•
See: Amplitude Spectrum.
Fundamental Beat Frequency “∆ωδr(1,r,∆r,M)”
• The change in fundamental harmonic frequency of the PV across an elemental
displacement.
• See: Fundamental Harmonic Frequency “ωPV(1,r,M)”.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).
Fundamental Harmonic Frequency “ωPV(1,r,M)”
• The lowest frequency in the PV spectrum utilising Fourier harmonics.
General Modelling Equations (GMEx)
• Proportional solutions to the Poisson and Lagrange equations resulting in acceleration.
General Relativity (GR)
• The representation of spacetime as a geometric manifold of events where gravitation
manifests itself as a curvature of spacetime and is described by a metric tensor.
General Similarity Equations (GSEx)
• Combines General Modelling Equations with the Critical Ratio by utilisation of the
Engineered Relationship Function.
• See: Critical Ratio “KR”.
Gravitons “γg”
• Conjugate Photon pairs responsible for gravitation. This is an inherent mathematical
conclusion arising from similarity modelling utilising a Fourier distribution in Complex
form and the PV model of gravity considerate of ZPF Theory (due to harmonic
symmetry about the “0th” mode).
Graviton MassEnergy Threshold “mγg”
• The upper boundary value of the massenergy of a Graviton as defined by the Particle
Data Group.
Group Velocity
• The velocity with which energy propagates.
Harmonic CutOff Frequency “ωΩ”
• The terminating frequency of the Fourier spectrum of the PV.
• See: Fourier Spectrum.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).
Harmonic CutOff Function “Ω”
• A mathematical function associated with the harmonic cutoff mode and frequency.
• See: Harmonic CutOff Mode “nΩ”.
• See: Harmonic CutOff Frequency “ωΩ”.
Harmonic CutOff Mode “nΩ”
• The terminating mode of the Fourier spectrum of the PV.
• See: Fourier Spectrum.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).
33
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Harmonic Inflection Mode “NX”
• The mode at which the phase variance between the Electric and Magnetic wavefunctions
describing the PV in a classical Casimir experiment begins to alter dramatically.
• A conjectured resonant mode of the PV in a classical Casimir experiment.
• See: Casimir Force “FPP”.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).
Harmonic Inflection Frequency “ωX”
• The frequency associated with the harmonic inflection mode.
• See: Harmonic Inflection Mode “NX”.
Harmonic Inflection Wavelength “λX”
• The wavelength associated with the harmonic inflection frequency.
Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSEx)
• A harmonic representation of General Similarity Equations utilising the Critical
Harmonic Operator.
• A family of equations defined by relating the experimental prototype to a mathematical
model (General Similarity Equations).
• See: Critical Harmonic Operator “KR H”.
• See: General Similarity Equations (GSEx).
IFF
•
If and only if.
Impedance Function
• A measure of the ratio of the permeability to the permittivity of a vacuum.
• Resistance to energy transfer through a vacuum.
Kinetic Spectrum
• Another term for the ZPF spectrum.
• See: ZPF Spectrum.
Mode Bandwidth
• The modes associated with a frequency bandwidth.
Mode Number (Critical Boundary Mode) “nβ”
• The ratio of the Critical Boundary frequency to the fundamental frequency of the PV.
• The harmonic mode associated with the Critical Boundary frequency.
Number of Permissible Modes “N∆r”
• The number of modes permitted for the application of Maxwell's Equations within an
experimental context, based upon the harmonic cutoff frequency.
• See: Harmonic CutOff Frequency “ωΩ”.
Phenomena of Beats
• The interference between two waves of slightly different frequencies.
Photon MassEnergy Threshold “mγ”
• The upper boundary value of the massenergy of a Photon as defined by the Particle
Data Group.
34
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Polarisable Vacuum (PV)
• The polarised state of the ZeroPointField due to mass influence.
• Characterised by a Refractive Index.
• Obeys a Fourier distribution.
• A bandwidth of the EGM Spectrum.
• See: ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM).
• See: ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM) Spectrum.
Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Beat Bandwidth “∆ωΩ”
• The change in harmonic cutoff frequency across an elemental displacement.
• See: Harmonic CutOff Frequency “ωΩ”.
• See: Phenomena of Beats.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).
Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Spectrum
• Another term for the Fourier spectrum applied by EGM to describe the PV harmonically.
• A bandwidth of the EGM Spectrum.
• See: ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM).
• See. Fourier Spectrum.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV).
Potential Spectrum
• Another term for the PV spectrum.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Spectrum.
Poynting Vector
• Describes the direction and magnitude of EM energy flow.
• The cross product of the Electric and Magnetic field.
Precipitations
• Results driven by the application of limits.
Primary Precipitant
• The frequency domain precipitation.
• See: Precipitations.
Radii Calculations by ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM)
• Radii calculations by EGM represent the radial position of energetic equilibrium
between the energy density of a homogeneous spherical mass with the ZPF.
• The radii predictions calculated by EGM coincide with the RMS charge radii of all
charged fundamental particles.
• See: ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM).
• See: ZeroPointField (ZPF).
Range Factor “Stα”
• The product of the change in energy density and the Impedance Function.
• An “ataglance” tool indicating the boundaries of the applied energy requirements for
complete dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity with the background field.
• See: Energy Density.
• See: Background Field.
35
www.deltagroupengineering.com
•
See: Impedance Function.
Reduced Average Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSExA R)
• See: 2nd Reduction of the Harmonic Similarity Equations.
Reduced Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSEx R)
• A simplification of the Harmonic Similarity Equations by substitution of RMS
expressions for the time varying representations of applied Electric and Magnetic field
harmonics.
• A simplification of the Harmonic Similarity Equations facilitating the investigation of
the effects of phase variance [on a modal (per mode) basis].
Refractive Index “KPV”
• Characterisation value of the PV.
Representation Error “RError”
• Error associated with the mathematical representation of a physical system.
RMS Charge Radii (General)
• The RMS charge radius refers to the RMS value of the charge distribution curve.
RMS Charge Radius of the Neutron “rν”
• The RMS charge radius of a Neutron “rν” is so termed by analogy to the Neutron Mean
Square charge radius “KX” which is typically represented as a squared length quantity
“fm2”. Therefore, the dimensional square root of “KX” represents “rν” by analogy.
• “rν” represents the crossover radius (the node) on the Neutron charge distribution curve.
Similarity Bandwidth “∆ωS”
• The difference between the ZPF beat cutoff frequency and the critical boundary
frequency.
• A measure of similarity between the background gravitational field spectrum and the
applied field frequencies (commencing at the ZPF beat cutoff frequency).
• See: Background Field.
• See: Critical Boundary “ωβ”.
• See: ZeroPointField Beat CutOff Frequency “ωΩ ZPF”.
Spectral Energy Density “ρ0(ω)”
• Energy density per frequency mode.
Spectral Similarity Equations (SSEx)
• A representation of the complete spectrum of the PV utilising the 2nd Reduction of the
Harmonic Similarity Equations by application of similarity principles.
Subordinate Bandwidth
• The EM spectrum.
• See: Dominant Bandwidth.
• See: ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM) Spectrum.
Unit Amplitude Spectrum
• A harmonic representation of unity (the number one) utilising the amplitude spectrum of
a Fourier distribution.
36
www.deltagroupengineering.com
ZeroPointEnergy (ZPE)
• The lowest possible energy of the spacetime manifold described in quantum terms.
ZeroPointField (ZPF)
• The field associated with ZPE.
ZeroPointField (ZPF) Spectrum
• The spectrum of amplitudes and frequencies associated with the ZPF.
ZeroPointField (ZPF) Beat Bandwidth “∆ωZPF”
• The difference between the ZPF beat cutoff frequency and the fundamental beat
frequency.
• See: Fundamental Beat Frequency “∆ωδr(1,r,∆r,M)”.
• See: ZeroPointField (ZPF) Beat CutOff Frequency “ωΩ ZPF”.
ZeroPointField (ZPF) Beat CutOff Frequency “ωΩ ZPF”
• The terminating frequency of the ZPF spectrum across an elemental displacement.
ZeroPointField (ZPF) Beat CutOff Mode “nΩ ZPF”
• The terminating mode of the ZPF spectrum across an elemental displacement.
1st Sense Check “Stβ”
• A common sense test relating the ZPF beat bandwidth to the Compton frequency of an
Electron.
• See: Compton Frequency “ωCx”.
• See: ZeroPointField (ZPF) Beat Bandwidth “∆ωZPF”.
2nd Reduction of the Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSExA R)
• A time averaged simplification of the Reduced Harmonic Similarity Equations.
2nd Sense Check “Stγ”
• A common sense test relating the PV beat bandwidth to the Compton frequency of an
Electron.
• See: Compton Frequency “ωCx”.
• See: Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Beat Bandwidth “∆ωΩ”.
3rd Sense Check “Stδ”
• A common sense test relating the harmonic cutoff mode across an elemental
displacement.
• See: Harmonic CutOff Mode “nΩ”.
4th Sense Check “Stε”
• A common sense test relating the representation error across an elemental displacement.
• See: Representation Error “RError”.
5th Sense Check “Stη”
• A common sense test relating the harmonic cutoff frequency of a Proton to the
Compton frequency of a Proton.
• See: Compton Frequency “ωCx”.
37
www.deltagroupengineering.com
6th Sense Check “Stθ”
• A common sense test relating the harmonic cutoff frequency of a Neutron to the
Compton frequency of a Neutron.
• See: Compton Frequency “ωCx”.
Physical Constants [1]
Symbol
α
c
G
ε0
µ0
h
hbar
λCe
λCP
λCN
λCµ
λCτ
me
mp
mn
mµ
mτ
re
rp
λh
mh
th
ωh
eV
Description
Fine Structure Constant
Velocity of light in a vacuum
Universal Gravitation Constant
Permittivity of a vacuum
Permeability of a vacuum
Planck's Constant
Planck's Constant (2π form)
Electron Compton Wavelength
Proton Compton Wavelength
Neutron Compton Wavelength
Muon Compton Wavelength
Tau Compton Wavelength
Electron rest mass
Proton rest mass
Neutron rest mass
Muon rest mass
Tau rest mass
Classical Electron radius
Classical Proton RMS charge radius
Planck Length
Planck Mass
Planck Time
Planck Frequency
Electron Volt
NIST value utilised by EGM
7.297352568 x103
299792458
6.6742 x1011
8.854187817 x1012
4π x107
6.6260693 x1034
1.05457168 x1034
Units
None
m/s
m3kg1s2
F/m
N/A2
Js
= h / (me,p,n,µ,τ c)
m
9.1093826 x1031
1.67262171 x1027
1.67492728 x1027
1.88353140 x1028
3.16777 x1027
2.817940325 x1015
0.8750 x1015
= √(Gh/c3)
= √(hc/G)
= √(Gh/c5)
= 1/th
1.60217653 x1019
kg
m
kg
s
Hz
J
Mathematical Constants and Symbols
• EulerMascheroni Constant (Euler's Constant) [2] “γ” = 0.5772156649015328
• “∩” Refers to an intersection.
• “∪” Refers to a union.
• “→” Or “↓” refers to a process: “leads to”.
Solar System Statistics [3]
Symbol
MM
ME
MJ
MS
RM
RE
RJ
RS
Description
Mass of the Moon
Mass of the Earth
Mass of Jupiter
Mass of the Sun
Mean Radius of the Moon
Mean Radius of the Earth
Mean Radius of Jupiter
Mean Radius of the Sun
38
Value utilised by EGM Units
7.35 x1022
kg
24
5.977 x10
1898.8 x1024
1.989 x1030
1.738 x106
m
6.37718 x106
7.1492 x107
6.96 x108
www.deltagroupengineering.com
SPIRAL GALAXY
39
www.deltagroupengineering.com
CERN (http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/cern/others/PHO/photodi/9108002.jpeg)
40
www.deltagroupengineering.com
CHAPTER
3.0
Introduction and Document Statistics
Statistic
Appendices
Significant Equations
Significant Figures
Images
Pages
Tables
Words (approx.)
41
Value
13
458
47
27
407
67
64000
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
42
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
GENERAL
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Laying the Foundations
Since the early 20th century,
gravitational physics has been dominated by
Albert Einstein’s concept of General Relativity
(GR) where spacetime is defined as a manifold
described by geometric events. Gravitational
influence on the manifold is represented by
spacetime curvature and is typically visualised
by analogy to a bowling ball on a trampoline.
The mat deflects under the weight of
the bowling ball and denotes the curvature of
the spacetime manifold actioned by the object.
It is also visualised by the path of light around
a massive gravitational object as being “bent”.
GR has proven to be a useful and reliable tool
by which to map and predict the interaction of
large scale mass systems.
GR has two main issues associated with its
application as a practical engineering tool. Firstly and most
importantly, at least planetary sized masses are required to
affect the state of the manifold in any practical and
meaningful way to engineers. A nonpractical / nonviable
approach is to bombard a region of spacetime with a
sufficient level of ElectroMagnetic (EM) energy, in the
appropriate manner, to alter its geometric state.
The second main issue is
complexity. [4] As can be clearly seen
from the analytical representation of
only a portion of Einstein’s field
equations (left), it is unwieldy and can
only be solved in practical application
terms by numerical methods involving
powerful computers.
Einstein’s equations do have a
shorthand representation utilising
Tensors (e.g. Gµν = 8πTµν), but this is
for scientific communication purposes
and still requires numerical evaluation
43
www.deltagroupengineering.com
by computers in order to visualise the interaction of gravitational systems.
Complexity becomes even more problematic if less idealised systems are considered. That
is, the absence of symmetries in the system under consideration causes the solution to swell into
thousands of terms in each equation.
Hence, it is discouragingly apparent that GR is not an engineering tool of choice by which to
modify the spacetime manifold, in any practical sense, on a laboratory test bench. So what can we
do about it? What can we do to engineer the spacetime manifold, or at the very least, develop
experiments to assess if the spacetime manifold can indeed be modified utilising existing
equipment and engineering methodologies?
To even begin to answer these questions, we must first establish what investigative tools to
use. A thorough search of the scientific literature will find volumes of information stating scientific
opinions of what gravity is based upon personal interpretation by the individual author, but
absolutely no specific literature exists defining what gravity is factually and unmistakably known to
be. This is self evident in the fact that humanity does not currently know how to engineer gravity
beyond physically arranging masses.
Commonsense compels us to establish a way forward based upon the notion that any
practical benchtop experimental configuration would involve applied sinusoidal EM fields.
Unfortunately, there are no other practical and effective methods of delivering energy to a region of
spacetime, so our first decision is actually made for us by the world that we currently live in. By
recognising this boundary, we accept by necessity, the existence of unification between Electric,
Magnetic and gravitational forces. We shall term this unification, ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM).
Given that we have, by necessity, established the existence of EGM, we must also establish
an engineering definition. In order to facilitate this, we should determine if any physical models
exist, other than GR, which are wavefunction based and bias engineering methodologies as our
intention is to investigate gravitational acceleration based upon the superposition of applied
sinusoidal EM fields. An effortless search of the scientific literature reveals that a flat region of
spacetime (a region of zero gravitational strength) may be described by a ZeroPointField (ZPF).
The ZPF may be described as an endless sea of randomly orientated Photons /
wavefunctions at the ZeroPointEnergy (ZPE) ground state (incrementally above zero) in
accordance with Quantum Mechanical (QM) models. The ZPF may be well visualised (below) by
the ripples on a pond during light rain. The ripples are analogous to the Photons / wavefunctions of
the ZPF and the randomly coordinated raindrops are analogous to their orientation. So, how we can
give a ZPF description to gravity at the surface of the Earth?
To answer this question and
facilitate a method by which we can
assign a ZPF description to the surface
of the Earth (which cannot be at the
ZPF ground state of free space
because the gravitational acceleration
is nonzero), we require an additional
model, other than GR and ZPF
Theory.
Again, an effortless search
reveals the Polarisable Vacuum (PV)
model of gravity to be a practical
alternative to GR, at minimum,
isomorphic in the weak field.
Image depicting ZPF analogy to pond ripples,
44
www.deltagroupengineering.com
The PV model of gravity, as the name suggests,
acts to polarise the ZPF analogous to the field lines
produced by a magnet (right). Because the vacuum is
polarised at the surface of the Earth, the orientation of
the gravitational vector is straight down and gravity
may be usefully described as a one dimensional (1D)
phenomenon in human experience.
In other words, gravity in human experience is
not three dimensional (3D). The importance of this
realisation is of paramount significance as it greatly
simplifies the mathematics involved within EGM. So,
between what we understand of ZPF Theory, the PV
model of gravity and the EGM method thus far, we
have partially deduced a suite of tools for investigative
engineering.
Image depicting PV analogy to field lines,
The magnitude of gravitational acceleration
may be usefully approximated to being a constant
mathematical function at all points vertically across
a room. This may be decomposed into a spectral
family of constituent harmonics utilising a simple
Fourier distribution. The lower spectral limit is
termed the fundamental frequency “ωPV(1,r,M)”,
whilst the upper spectral limit is termed the
harmonic cutoff frequency “ωΩ”.
Image depicting Fourier harmonics,
The image above depicts a Fourier representation of a square wave for “ωPV(1,r,M)” and the
first 15 harmonics. A usefully approximate Fourier description of any function involves the near
infinite summation of harmonics. The physical problem that is intended to be described by
application of this method may be over a displacement domain, or simply in the time domain
without any intention to be representative of wave propagation.
In the case of gravity, we may apply a Fourier description to a specific mathematical point
above the surface of the Earth, by considering the wavefunctions at that point as being “pseudopropagating”. That is, we can mathematically regard them as propagating wavefunctions, without
an actual physical requirement to do so.
This concept is reinforced by the fact that the collective behaviour of the entire spectrum of
wavefunctions at the mathematical point under consideration will have a group velocity of zero due
to the mathematical summation at that point to a constant value. That is, the wavefunction
mathematically cannot propagate. This agrees with physical observation since gravitational waves
are not observed to propagate from planetary bodies. Hence, a “pseudopropagating” representation
in the Fourier domain is a useful engineering tool.
Therefore, the magnitude of gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth may be
mathematically described in the Fourier domain by the magnitude of the square wave depicted in
the preceding image. Subsequently, by applying a Fourier series to practical human experience, we
can determine the spectral composition of the polarised state of the ZPF at the surface of the Earth
to great precision. We shall define the resulting Fourier representation as “the PV spectrum”.
The next step in assessing if the spacetime manifold can indeed be modified is to study the
best example of spacetime available to us: the practical volume of spacetime on a laboratory test
bench! To achieve this, we shall reverse engineer the volume utilising Dimensional Analysis
Techniques (DAT’s) and Buckingham Π Theory (BPT).
45
www.deltagroupengineering.com
The following statement is a verbatim quotation from [5, 6]
Dimensional Analysis is a conceptual tool often applied in physics, chemistry, and
engineering to understand physical situations involving a mix of different kinds of physical
quantities. It is routinely used by physical scientists and engineers to check the plausibility of
derived equations. Only like dimensioned quantities may be added, subtracted, compared, or
equated.
When like or unlike dimensioned quantities are multiplied or divided, their dimensions are
likewise multiplied or divided. When dimensioned quantities are raised to a power or a power root,
the same is done to the dimensions attached to those quantities. The dimensions of a physical
quantity is associated with symbols such as “M, L, T” which represent mass, length and time, each
raised to rational powers. For instance, the dimension of the physical variable speed is “distance /
time (L/T)” and the dimension of force is “mass × distance / time² (ML/T²)”. In mechanics, every
dimension can be expressed in terms of distance (which physicists often call “length”), time and
mass, or alternatively in terms of force, length and mass.
Depending on the problem, it may be advantageous to choose one or another set of
dimensions. In ElectroMagnetism, for example, it may be useful to use dimensions of “M, L, T, and
Q”, where “Q” represents the quantity of electric charge. The units of a physical quantity are
defined by convention, related to some standard; e.g. length may have units of meters, feet, inches,
miles or micrometres; but length always has dimension “L” whether it is measured in meters, feet,
inches, miles or micrometres.
In the most primitive form, dimensional analysis may be used to check the “correctness” of
physical equations: in every physically meaningful expression, only quantities of the same
dimension can be added or subtracted. Moreover, the two sides of any equation must have the same
dimensions. For example, the mass of a rat and the mass of a flea may be added, but the mass of a
flea and the length of a rat cannot be added.
Furthermore, the arguments to exponential, trigonometric and logarithmic functions must be
dimensionless numbers. The logarithm of “3(kg)” is undefined, but the logarithm of “3” is “0.477”.
It should be noted that very different physical quantities may have the same dimensions: work and
torque, for example, have the same dimensions, “M L2T2”.
An equation with torque on one side and energy on the other would be dimensionally
correct, but cannot be physically correct! However, torque multiplied by an angular twist measured
in (dimensionless) radians is work or energy. The radian is the mathematically natural measure of
an angle and is the ratio of arc of a circle swept by such an angle divided by the radius of the circle.
The value of a dimensional physical quantity is written as the product of a unit within the
dimension and a dimensionless numerical factor. When like dimensioned quantities are added,
subtracted or compared, these dimensioned quantities must be expressed in consistent units so that
the numerical values of these quantities may be directly added or subtracted. But, conceptually,
there is no problem adding quantities of the same dimension expressed in different units.
BPT forms the basis of the central tool of Dimensional Analysis. This theorem describes
how every physically meaningful equation involving “n” variables can be equivalently rewritten as
an equation of “nm” dimensionless parameters, where “m” is the number of fundamental
dimensions used. Furthermore, and most importantly, it provides a method for computing these
dimensionless parameters from the given variables, even if the form of the equation is still
unknown.
BPT is a systematic method of Dimensional Analysis, whereby variables that are relevant to
a particular situation are formed into dimensionless Π groups. The number of dimensionless groups
equals the original number of variables minus the number of fundamental dimensions present in all
the variables. This analysis reduces the degrees of freedom for a physical situation and can be used
to guide experimental design programs.
Proofs of BPT often begin by considering the space of fundamental and derived physical
units as a vector space, with the fundamental units as basis vectors and with multiplication of
physical units as the “vector addition” operation and raising to powers as the “scalar multiplication”
46
www.deltagroupengineering.com
operation. Making the physical units match across sets of physical equations can then be regarded
as imposing linear constraints in the physical unit vector space.
Two systems for which these parameters coincide are called similar; they are equivalent for
the purposes of the equation and the experimentalist whom wishes to determine the form of the
equation can choose the most convenient one. BPT uses linear algebra: the space of all possible
physical units can be seen as a vector space over rational numbers if we represent a unit as the set of
exponents needed for the fundamental units (with a power of zero if the particular fundamental unit
is not present). Multiplication of physical units is then represented by vector addition within this
vector space. The algorithm of BPT is essentially a GaussJordan elimination carried out in this
vector space.
In 1941, “Sir Geoffrey I. Taylor” used
Dimensional Analysis to estimate the energy
released in an atomic bomb explosion. The first
atomic bomb was detonated in New Mexico on
July 16, 1945. In 1947, movies of the explosion
were declassified, allowing “Sir Taylor” to
complete the analysis and estimate the energy
released in the explosion, even though the
energy release was still classified! The actual
energy released was later declassified and its
value was remarkably close to Taylor's estimate.
Taylor supposed that the explosive
process was adequately described by five
physical quantities, the time “t” since the
detonation, the energy “E” which is released at a single point in space at detonation, the radius
“R” of the shock wave at time “t”, the ambient atmospheric pressure “p” and density “ρ”. There are
only three fundamental physical units in this combination (MLT) which yield Taylor's equation.
Once the radius of the explosion as a function of the time was known, the energy of the explosion
was calculated.
End of verbatim quotation.
The EGM Approach
We shall utilise BPT to relate gravitational acceleration, EM acceleration by the
superposition of applied fields, ZPF Theory and the PV model of gravity via Einstein’s equivalence
principle. Dimensionally, there is no difference between gravitational and EM acceleration. The
equivalence principle provides a well accepted vehicle for the logical application of BPT and
DAT’s to gravity. Much of Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics is built form the application of
BPT and DAT’s. BPT facilitates the ability to string together any number of variables in a way that
permits one to test one’s own idea. So, it is really a mix between science and art. There is nothing
wrong with any grouping formed utilising BPT, it is simply a question of how “well” a grouping
tends to fit physical observation.
The BPT formalism affords an engineer the ability to phrase the dynamics of an
Experimental Prototype (EP) in multiple ways resulting in an equation describing the system
mathematically. BPT provides the mathematical syntax upon which an equation may be
constructed. An engineer designs one yielding a robust depiction of the EP. Parameters may be
included or removed from the construct until an appropriate mathematical model is formulated.
To derive the PV spectrum, we take the standard ZPF spectral energy density equation that
describes the energy density in a region of space as a smooth cubic distribution and combine it with
a Fourier distribution. This yields the beginning and endpoint of the spectrum. In other words,
objects with mass polarise the ZPF which may be described as a Fourier distribution at the surface
of the object. The surface is the equilibrium boundary between the energy contained within the
47
www.deltagroupengineering.com
object and the polarised state of the ZPF surrounding it.
The difference between the EGM, PV and ZPF spectra is that the EGM spectrum
commences incrementally above “0(Hz)” and approaches the Planck Frequency. The PV spectrum
is mass specific and represents a bandwidth of the EGM spectrum commencing at a nonzero
fundamental frequency. The EGM and PV spectra follow a Fourier distribution. The ZPF spectrum
has the same frequency bandwidth of the EGM spectrum, but does not follow a Fourier distribution.
So, the EGM spectrum is the polarised form of the ZPF spectrum, whilst the PV spectrum is an
object specific subset of the EGM spectrum following a Fourier distribution.
Note: the EGM spectrum is a simple, but extreme, extension of the EM spectrum.
ElectroMagnetic spectrum,
DAT’s and BPT bring to the research and design table, the following key elements: [7]
• It helps to assess the reasonableness of a model and which variables it should
contain.
• It reduces the number of variables and parameters to a minimum.
• It reduces the number of needed experiments, on computers as well as in the
laboratory.
• It provides the fundamental theory behind experiments on scale models.
• It is a systematic method for the analysis of problems.
• It forces you to make estimates and to understand the problem.
• It helps you understand what is important and what is not.
• It produces dimensionless equations with small (or large) parameters.
• It facilitates a “reverse engineering” approach to gravity if a region of spacetime on
a laboratory test bench is considered to be the Experimental Prototype (EP) for the
mathematical model produced by the application of DAT’s and BPT. Subsequently,
the mathematical model can be applied to the EP for scaling purposes, leading to
gravity control experiments.
Note: DAT’s and BPT should be applied before numerical computations are done.
We develop a dynamic, kinematic and geometric equivalent of the ZPF, expressed in
Fourier terms, which describes gravity at the surface of the Earth as a PV. The EGM spectrum is a
simple, but extreme, extension of the EM spectrum. In the same way that radio waves, visible light,
ultra violet, xrays and gamma rays exist, gravitational waves exist as a spectrum of frequencies.
The EGM spectrum is in fact the EM spectrum (subject to a Fourier distribution) but with an “end
point” approaching the Planck Frequency at conditions of maximum permissible energy density.
48
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Typically, for the surface of the Earth for example, the vast majority of gravitational waves
exist well above the Terahertz (THz) range. It is extremely important to note that gravity does not
exist as a single wave; it exists as a spectrum of frequencies with a group propagation velocity of
zero. EGM does not differentiate between EM and gravitational spectra but does predict the
endpoint as being far above what we currently measure the EM spectrum to be.
EGM Achievements
We may indirectly test the validity
of the EGM model with respect to gravity
by utilising EGM to determine fundamental
particle properties such as mass and radii.
If we are able to make mathematical
predictions for these characteristics which
can be experimentally verified (as a litmus
test), it follows that the EGM method is
qualitatively and quantitatively validated.
As it turns out, much in terms of
mass and radii that is currently known in
particle physics can be derived from first
principles utilising EGM. In other words,
the mathematical predictions made by the
EGM method with respect to particle mass
and radii have been experimentally
verified, or at the very least (if not yet
experimentally verified), satisfy Particle
Data Group (PDG) massenergy ranges.
We are able to show utilising the EGM method that all
particles (relative to an arbitrary selected base / reference
particle) can be described as harmonic multiples of each other
and indeed, all matter may be described in terms of Photons.
For example, all flavours of Quarks may be described as exact
harmonic multiples of the “Up or Down Quark”.
Alternatively, they may also be described as exact harmonic
multiples of the Electron. None of the particle predictions
made herein, or EGM for that matter, contradict the Standard
Model (SM) of particle physics in any way. Most importantly,
EGM is the simple recognition of a mathematical pattern in
nature.
The amplitude spectrum within a Fourier series is
comprised of an inverted harmonic series. The frequency
spectrum within a Fourier distribution is a typical arithmetic
sequence. If we assume that nature is truly quantum, we are
able to find the fundamental spectral frequency and possess a
method by which to describe the entire spectrum. This results
in a very neat and complete harmonic description of the
Universe. Effectively, the harmonic representation is “the
power of one” (the number “1” represented harmonically with
a Fourier distribution).
It is possible to characterise objects with mass, say
planets, by their spectral signature. This could be either the
49
www.deltagroupengineering.com
terminating or average spectral frequencies. Either way, it is characteristic of a spectral signature.
The EGM model looks at mass and fields as harmonic wavefunction radiators. That is not to say
that the Earth (for example) physically radiates waves because they are not detected radiating from
planetary bodies.
There is a mathematical argument for this as well as a common sense argument. The
common sense argument being that the group velocity of the spectrum must be zero and that is why
we do not detect waves being radiated. The mathematical argument is that because each
mathematical point away from the object / planet is physically known to be in a constant
gravitational state, the summation of a near infinite number of waves under a Fourier distribution
results in a group propagation velocity of zero, which concurs with physical observation.
Consequently, in the fullness of time,
humanity may be able to develop gravitational
telescopes that may be tuned to specific
frequencies relating to masses etc. Alternatively,
if the principle could be proven and the
technology developed, it would be possible to
differentiate between a genuine incoming
ballistic missile threat and a highly reflective
radar decoy with “100(%)” accuracy.
EGM, in effect, means that Electricity,
Magnetism and gravity have been unified from
the subatomic level up to objects “about” the
size of Neutron Stars, with approximately a
“5(%)” error based upon the change in the
Cosmological Constant in terms of energy
density over small practical laboratory benchtop
displacement values.
We apply a calculated value of ZPF beat cutoff frequency “ωΩ ZPF” to derive the Casimir Force to
high computational precision at the surface of the
Earth (physically verified) and illustrate it to be
different in other gravitational fields such as on the
surface of other planets. Currently, its classical
representation depicts its value as being constant
throughout the Universe, independent of gravitational
field strength.
We show that the modes excluded from the
plates (typically more modes are excluded on planets
with lower gravitational field strengths) create a
pressure imbalance that is responsible for the Casimir
Force. This means that planets with greater
gravitational field strengths have a compressed
bandwidth which is shifted toward the upper end of the
EGM spectrum.
Hence, there are fewer low frequency modes
and a greater number of higher frequency modes that
simply pass through the plates, for gravitational fields
of higher strength (its terminating spectral frequency
will be greater).
50
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Note: EGM can also be utilised to produce repulsive Casimir Forces in accordance with current
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) models.
As mass increases, the PV spectrum is
compressed (like a spring) such that the number of
modes within that spectrum approaches unity and
“ωPV(1,r,M) = ωΩ” in the case of a Planck particle.
This was not a design goal in EGM development, it
is a consequence of good mathematical formulation
and has not been preempted in any way.
By contrast, in free space where the spacetime manifold is completely flat (by analogy: the
spring is decompressed due to the absence of
mass), the ZPF is comprised of an infinite number
of modes with “ωΩ” tending towards zero.
That is, the ZPF spectrum is infinitely
broad but bounded by a low frequency endpoint.
This arises from the notion that the fundamental
harmonic frequency of a completely (or nearly
completely) flat spacetime manifold is extremely
low [incrementally above “0(Hz)”].
For the sake of argument, the ZPF “may” have a fundamental frequency of “10N(Hz)”
(where “N” denotes a very large number), in which case if the harmonic cutoff mode “nΩ” was
“near infinite”, say the “10Nth” mode, then “ωΩ” is still only “1(Hz)”! The same method is used to
describe particle properties and to calculate the Casimir Force. Currently, no other methods are
known to exist that can derive the Casimir Force from particle properties or vice versa based upon
ZPF Theory or the PV model of gravity.
One particular mathematical constant used in EGM is called Euler’s
constant “γ” (Leonhard Euler (right): 1707 – 1783). This is a purely
mathematical construct and currently has no physical meaning at the
quantum level. We apply “γ” to calculate “nΩ” and “ωΩ” which is utilised
to produce experimentally verified fundamental particle properties.
Consequently, if the massenergy of a Photon “mγγ” can be
physically verified, the relevant equation may be transposed and solved for
Euler’s Constant. Therefore, it may be possible to determine the natural
physical limit of Euler’s Constant at the quantum level, implying that
mathematics itself has a natural physical limit!
EGM is also able to determine an
experimentally implicit calculation of the Planck
Scale [Max Planck (left): 1858 – 1947]. By EGM
estimation, the Planck Scale is “about 16(%)” too
small and the Bohr radius [Niels Bohr (right):
1885 – 1962] is “about 0.35(%)” too large. The
experimentally implicit calculation of the Bohr
radius is based upon the ZPF equilibrium state of
the Hydrogen atom. This also leads to the first
term of the Balmer series for the emission /
absorption spectrum of the Hydrogen atom and by
inference, the entire series may be derived.
51
www.deltagroupengineering.com
EGM Formulation Tips
Note: apply financial investment logic, i.e. you will only find high return investments if you look
where nobody else is looking to invest.
Therefore, one should keep the following in mind:
1. GR is correct, but it is an ineffective engineering tool.
2. Nature follows basic mathematical patterns.
3. Planetary geometry may be usefully approximated to spherical.
4. Consider a volume of spacetime on a practical laboratory benchtop and reverse engineer
the gravitational contents of that volume.
5. Don’t try to describe what things actually are, only how we perceive them to be.
6. Gravity is a “1D” phenomenon in human experience. No human being has ever directly
experienced gravity as being “3D”, even though astronomical observation shows it to be.
7. Be practical: IFF gravity can be controlled artificially, then by necessity, it must be EM in
nature because ElectroMagnetism is the only practical tool available to us.
8. The EGM formulation process is an engineering approach where useful approximations are
better than unworkable exact statements. “It is better to be approximately correct, than very
precisely wrong.”
9. Imagine that all mass radiates a spectrum of Photons existing as conjugate pairs in
accordance with Fourier mathematics in complex form.
10. Relate gravitational and EM acceleration via the equivalence principle.
11. The equivalence principle is a relativistic manifestation of DAT's and BPT.
12. Gravity arises from a change in energy density and physically manifests in terms of an EM
Poynting Vector.
13. Humanity does not factually know the true nature of EM waves.
14. Recognise that the classical representation of an EM wave (i.e. a sinusoid) is merely a
human representation of observed effects described mathematically.
15. If Electricity, Magnetism and gravity can be unified utilising sinusoidal wavefunctions, then
the relationship between the volume of spacetime to be reverse engineered and the
mathematical model applied to describe it (i.e. sinusoidal wavefunctions), is ideal because it
would actually be relating the same system twice.
16. Assume that unification manifests at the most fundamental level possible in nature such that
all systems may be usefully described as linear at this level.
17. Recognise that, under ideal conditions, the relationship function typically determined
experimentally when applying DAT’s and BPT (i.e. relating the experimental prototype to
the mathematical model) has a value of unity.
18. DAT's and BPT are geometrically based. Since GR is also geometrically based, there is an
obvious connection between GR, DAT's and BPT.
19. Assume that a ZPF equilibrium point exists (the point where the energy inside the object is
in balance with the field energy outside the object).
20. Recognise that everything in nature behaves as a system.
21. Controls systems engineering principles should be considered at all times.
Controls systems engineering is all
about, as the name suggests, controlling
the behaviour of machines, systems or
situations. It is an extremely important
function in the sphere of engineering.
Without such a field of study, we
wouldn’t have much of what we
currently know.
Image depicting feedback control loop,
52
www.deltagroupengineering.com
To exist in steady state is extremely important to nature, engineers and society. Nature itself,
always wants to achieve steady state. Typically, this takes the form of the lowest possible energy
level and the way it achieves this may be represented by negative feedback control loops in many
situations. So, it is really quite important to look at things as systems and the information exchange
between the system elements, feeding back error to achieve steady state.
Tips for Applying EGM to Particle Physics
Image depicting particles in a bubble chamber,
One should keep the following in mind:
1. Recognise that there is no energy in
fundamental particles (at rest) beyond
their mass as is clearly illustrated by
Einstein (E = mc2). There is no charge
term in the equation; therefore, charge
must be a physical manifestation of its
“mass” in some unknown direct or
indirect manner.
2. Spherical particle geometry is the natural
shape of the lowest energy state.
3. If an observer was “on the surface” of a
fundamental particle, it would appear
spherical.
4. Special Relativity (SR) effects may be usefully neglected. If an observer is sufficiently far
away, ellipsoidal distinction in not possible. Considering how small the subatomic scale is
relative to the laboratory test bench and the human observer, supports this contention.
5. The equilibrium point of the ZPF will always be in the same frame of reference as the
particle itself; hence the particle will always be approximately spherical relative to the ZPF
equilibrium radius.
Accidental Particle Property Predictions by EGM
The possibility of the highly precise, experimentally
verified particle mass and radii predictions made by EGM to be
“luck or accidental” should be considered. We may apply common
sense digestion of this possibility as well as develop mathematical
arguments to determine the true likelihood of EGM predictions
being a “fluke”.
For simplicity and brevity, we shall consider the Proton
RMS charge radius “rπ” and the Neutron Mean Square charge
radius “KX” as both are regarded, by the particle physics
community, to have been “precisely measured” [rπ = 0.8307(fm)
and KX = –0.113(fm2)]. It is shown by EGM that “KX” may be
converted to the RMS charge radius [rν = 0.8269(fm)].
Both particle radii predictions by EGM are within experimental uncertainty, so we shall
consider them to be exactly correct physical values. If we consider the radii predictions to be a
string of dimensionless digits based upon conversion of the “fm” scale, probability boundaries may
be conjectured and represented as follows,
• “rπ” becomes “0000000000000008307”
• “rν” becomes “0000000000000008269”
53
www.deltagroupengineering.com
If each digit in the “rπ” string has a “1 in 10” chance of coming up, the probability of getting
a string of “19” numbers correct is “1/10, 19 times”. Hence, the probability of “rπ” being a “fluke
match” with the experimentally verified result is: “Pπ = 1019”.
Moreover, if we consider the Neutron as well, the total probability of both particles being
numerically correct in relation to experimentally verified results, is equal to the probability of both
particles being “fluked” and may be written as: “Pπ+ν = Pπ2 = 1038”.
In addition, if we apply the same rationale to the predictions of Electric and Magnetic radii
of the Proton and the Magnetic radius of the Neutron by EGM, the total probability “PT” of error
becomes even smaller. Furthermore, if we also consider the massenergy predictions of the “Top
Quark” by EGM, then “PT << 1038”.
Note: the total probability of the EGM method being in error and achieving experimentally verified
results by “fluke” is trivial and may be usefully approximated to zero (PT → 0).
1.1.1 CURRENT PROBLEMS
1.1.1.1 PHYSICS
There are several major stops currently facing ZPF Theory and the SM in particle physics
that have been addressed by the development of the EGM construct herein. Some of these may be
articulated as follows:
1. Dilemma: The precise spectral composition of the ZPF is unknown.
•
Resolution: EGM resolves this problem by relating Fourier Harmonics to energy
density via the PV model of gravity. This precisely defines the spectral composition
of the ZPF at the surface of a solid spherical object of homogeneous massenergy
distribution.
2. Dilemma: The SM in particle physics does not allow for the existence of any new
fundamental particles beyond current predictions.
•
Resolution: EGM predicts the existence of three new Leptons (and associated
Neutrino's) and two new Quarks or Bosons. However, it is likely that these are
Intermediate Vector Bosons (IVB’s  force carriers).
3. Dilemma: Particle properties such as massenergy and radii are completely unknown for
many particles.
•
Resolution: EGM facilitates the calculation of massenergy and radii for all
fundamental particles.
4. Dilemma: Particle properties such as massenergy and radii are calculated in different ways,
depending on the particle. That is, there is no uniformity of approach.
•
Resolution: EGM facilitates the calculation of massenergy and radii from a common
footing. That is, a common method of solution is presented for all fundamental
particles.
5. Dilemma: The Solar Neutrino mass detected at laboratories on Earth only accounts for
“about half” of what should be ejected from the Sun according to the SM in particle physics.
•
Resolution: The prediction of additional Leptons and associated Neutrino's by EGM
may account for the absence of Solar Neutrino mass.
54
www.deltagroupengineering.com
6. Dilemma: The Planck Scale is a purely theoretical construct:
•
Resolution: EGM produces an experimentally implicit definition of the Planck Scale.
7. Dilemma: The Bohr radius is a purely theoretical construct:
•
Resolution: EGM produces an experimentally implicit definition of the Bohr radius
based upon the ZPF equilibrium state of the Hydrogen atom. This also leads to the
first term of the Balmer series for the emission / absorption spectrum of the
Hydrogen atom and by inference, the entire series may be derived.
1.1.1.2 MATHEMATICS
The following statement is a verbatim quotation from [2]
The EulerMascheroni Constant (Euler's Constant “γ”) was first defined by Euler in 1735
(using the letter “C”) and stated that it was “worthy of serious consideration” and represents the
limit of a harmonic sequence. The symbol “γ” was first used by Mascheroni in 1790.
It is not known if the constant is irrational, let alone transcendental. It is rumoured that the
famous English mathematician “G.H. Hardy” allegedly offered his chair at Oxford to anyone who
can prove “γ” to be irrational, although no written reference to this quote seems to be known.
“Hilbert” mentioned the irrationality of “γ” to be an unsolved problem that is “unapproachable”.
End of verbatim quotation.
Euler's Constant represents an extremely important characteristic in mathematics and cuts
across many areas including Merten's Theorem and the Reimann Zeta Function. Currently, “γ” is
only known to exist as a purely mathematical construct, therefore:
8. Dilemma: “γ” has no physical meaning:
•
Resolution: EGM facilitates an experimentally implicit calculation of “γ” based upon
the determination that the diameter of a Photon at rest is precisely the Planck Length.
1.1.2 HOW EGM WORKS
To understand the way in which EGM works, one requires a basic knowledge of engineering
principles. Primarily, EGM is a method of calculation (not a theory) based upon fundamental
engineering principles and techniques. It does not compete with or contradict the SM in particle
physics in any manner.
The creation and development of EGM was driven by necessity. A scan of contemporary
approaches in gravitational physics illustrates an obvious lack of mathematical tools facilitating
engineering of the spacetime manifold. Or rather, engineering possibilities are obvious, but require
massive objects on a planetary, stellar or galactic scale.
Therefore, to facilitate gravity control, a new tool is required permitting engineering of the
spacetime manifold. To begin the process, we must first make some basic assumptions based upon
the availability and practicality of existing tools by which we may construct further tools. We shall
use one tool to build another. EGM is nothing more than an engineering tool constructed from other
engineering tools and should be always regarded as such.
Engineering is fundamentally a practical discipline that does not search for highly precise
numerical or exact results. Instead, it aims to achieve physically meaningful quantitative solutions.
Again, practicality and common sense must prevail and, by necessity, must commence with the
assumption that any realistic attempt at gravity control must physically fit on a laboratory test
bench. There is no benefit in developing a tool requiring nonpractical scales of reality.
55
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Einstein brought forth the concept that mass and energy are interchangeable. This is trivially
obvious by virtue of his now famous equation (E = mc2). This, combined with practical thinking,
clearly suggests that EM radiation is the mechanism of choice. Hence, we have established the basic
requirements going forward. That is, we are necessarily bounded in research and design terms by
practical benchtop EM fields.
The next step is to find a tool that facilitates the construction of relationships tying EM
fields to acceleration. For an experienced engineer, the answer is obvious. In situations where little
has been established previously, Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT's) and Buckingham's Π
Theory (BPT) are solid first steps. In addition to being able to connect seemingly unrelated
parameters, it also serves to minimise the number of experiments required to investigate physical
behaviour.
BPT is a similarity method that has been tried and proven experimentally for many years. In
fact, much of present day Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics knowledge may be attributed to
DAT's and BPT. Mainstream understanding of gravity is based upon GR which is a geometric
approach. It describes spacetime curvature as a set of geometric artefacts resulting in what we
experience as gravity.
Assuming Einstein was correct and the enormous collective scientific effort since 1905 has
not been a poor investment, it follows that any geometrically based engineering tool is an excellent
starting point. Deeper understanding of BPT reveals that it is a method based upon dynamic,
kinematic and geometric similarity. Being geometric in nature makes it ideally suited to
gravitational problems in keeping with GR.
However, a strict GR approach is unwieldy and a simpler description would be highly
advantageous. Subsequently, we utilise the PV model of gravity as a substitute to GR, which is
isomorphic in the weak field, is conducive to engineering approaches and facilitates the
development of the EGM construct.
Thus far, we have established several of the baseline elements forming a skeletal EGM
structure. To add flesh, we require a way to relate the geometric output of BPT to the PV model of
gravity. The relationship between the two may be bridged by assuming the equivalence principle
applies cross discipline.
Considering the need for an EM mechanism, we shall assume that the PV model of gravity
denotes a polarised state of the ZPF representing a sinusoidal manifestation of the spacetime
manifold by virtual particles, Photons or wavefunctions. Consequently, it follows that the
representation of gravity at a mathematical point by Fourier Harmonics is a useful tool by which to
represent the ZPF.
Therefore, we may relate the logic of the preceding arguments in a solution algorithm
constituting the EGM construct by five simple steps as follows,
i. Apply DAT's, BPT and similarity principles to combine Electricity, Magnetism and
resultant EM acceleration in the form of Π groupings.
ii. Apply the equivalence principle to the Π groupings formed in (i).
iii. Apply Fourier Harmonics to the equivalence principle.
iv. Apply ZPF Theory to Fourier Harmonics.
v. Apply the PV model of gravity to the ZPF.
These steps may be logically granulated according to the application of basic engineering
principles producing an iterative cascade design approach as follows,
Chapter 3.1:
Application of Dimensional Analysis Techniques and Buckingham Π Theory
The relationship between EM fields and acceleration is demonstrated by the
application of BPT. It is illustrated that, for physical modelling applications,
manipulating the full spectrum of the PV is not required and optimal PV
coupling may exist at specific frequency modes. This dramatically simplifies
the design of experimental prototypes and suggests that the PV may be
usefully approximated to a discrete wave spectrum by applying an intense
56
www.deltagroupengineering.com
superposition of fields within a single frequency mode.
Chapter 3.2:
↓
The development of general modelling equations and the critical factor
Chapter 3.3:
A critical factor, proportional to the Poynting Vector, is identified by
application of similarity principles. This may be determined by direct
measurement of the intensity of the EM field strength at each harmonic
frequency mode.
↓
The development of an engineered metric
Chapter 3.4:
Engineering expressions are developed for experimental investigations
involving coupling between EM fields and gravity that may be characterised
by the magnitude of the superposition of Poynting Vectors. Based upon
dimensional similarity and the equivalence principle, it is concluded that an
engineered acceleration may be used to modify the gravitational acceleration
at the surface of the Earth by an engineered change in the value of the
Refractive Index.
↓
The derivation of gravitational amplitude and frequency spectra
Chapter 3.5:
It is concluded that the delivery of EM radiation to a test object may be used
to alter the weight of the object. If the test object is bombarded by EM
radiation, at high energy density and frequency, the gravitational spectral
signature of the test object may undergo constructive or destructive
interference.
↓
The development of general similarity relationships
It is concluded that the frequency dependent conditions for gravitational
similarity at the surface of the Earth are enormous.
Summarising yields:
i. The ZPF spectrum of free space is composed of an infinite number of
modes, with frequencies tending to “0(Hz)”.
ii. The group velocity produced by the PV at a mathematical point and
across practical values of “∆r” at the surface of the Earth is “0(m/s)”.
Consequently, gravitational wavefunctions are not observed to
propagate from the centre of a planetary body.
iii. Planetary massenergy density is proportional to the spectral energy
density at its surface.
iv. Gravitational acceleration exists (at practical benchtop experimental
conditions / dimensions) as a relatively narrow band of beat frequencies
in the “PHz” [x1015(Hz)] range. Spectral frequency compositions below
this range [approx. less than 42(THz)] are negligible [similarity ≈ 0(%)].
v. General Similarity Equations facilitate the construction of
computational models to assist in designing optimal experiments.
Moreover, they can readily be coded into “offtheshelf3DEM”
simulation tools to facilitate the experimental investigation process.
vi. A solution for optimal experimental similarity utilising EM
configurations exists when Maxwell's Equations at steady state
conditions are observed such that:
(a) The divergence of the applied Electric field and curl of the applied
Magnetic field is maximised.
57
www.deltagroupengineering.com
(b) The magnitude and curl of the applied Electric field is minimised.
Chapter 3.6:
↓
The development of harmonic and spectral similarity relationships
Chapter 3.7:
A number of tools that facilitate the experimental design process are
presented. These include the development of a design matrix based upon the
unit amplitude spectrum, the derivation of Harmonic and Spectral Similarity
Equations, Critical Phase Variance, Critical Field Strengths and Critical
Frequency.
↓
The derivation of the Casimir effect
An experimental prediction is formulated hypothesising the existence of a
resonant modal condition for application to classical parallel plate Casimir
experiments. The resonant condition is subsequently utilised to derive the
Casimir Force to high precision. The results obtained suggest Casimir Forces
arise due to PV pressure imbalance between the plates induced by the
presence of a physical boundary excluding low energy harmonic modes.
Chapter 3.8:
↓
The derivation of the Photon massenergy threshold
It is illustrated that the PV model of gravity based upon the existence of a
spectrum of frequencies makes the following predictions,
i. The Photon massenergy threshold for a mode normalised population of
Photons is believed to be “< 5.75 x1017(eV)”, based upon the physical
properties of an Electron.
ii. Experimental validation of the Photon massenergy boundary predicted
herein may be natural evidence of Euler’s Constant at a quantum level.
Chapter 3.9:
↓
The derivation of fundamental particle radii (Electron, Proton and Neutron)
It is illustrated that the EGM model of gravity predicts experimentally
supported RMS charge radii values of a free Electron, Proton and Neutron
from an almost entirely mathematical foundation. Experimental predictions
have been derived from first principles for the RMS charge radii of a free
Electron, Proton and Neutron to high computational precision. This places
the derived value of Proton radius to within “0.38(%)” of the average
“Simon” and “Hand” predictions, arguably the two most precise and widely
cited references since the 1960's.
Most importantly, the SELEX Collaboration has experimentally verified the
Proton radius prediction derived herein to extremely high precision
{√[0.69(fm2)] = 0.8307(fm)}.
The derived value of Electron radius compares favourably to results obtained
in HighEnergy scattering experiments conducted at “LANL”. It has also
been illustrated that a change in Electron mass of “≈ +0.04(%)” accompanies
the HighEnergy scattering measurements. This suggests that the Electron
radius depends on the manner in which it is measured and the energy
absorbed by the Electron during the measuring process.
The Fine Structure Constant is also derived, to within “0.026(%)” of its NIST
value, utilising the Electron and Proton radii construct herein. In addition, it
is predicted that the terminating gravitational spectral frequency for each
58
www.deltagroupengineering.com
particle may be expressed simply in terms of Compton frequencies.
↓
Chapter 3.10: The derivation of the Photon and Graviton massenergies and radii
The massenergies and RMS charge diameters of a Photon and Graviton are
derived. The results agree with generalised Quantum Gravity (QG) models,
implicitly supporting the limiting definition of Planck length.
↓
Chapter 3.11: The derivation of Lepton radii
The RMS charge radii of all Leptons are derived to high computational
precision; the Fine Structure Constant “α” is also derived to within “7.6 x103
(%)” of its NIST 2002 value.
↓
Chapter 3.12: The derivation of Quark and Boson massenergies and radii
The massenergies and RMS charge radii of all Quarks are derived in
agreement with PDG estimates, experimental observations and
generalisations made by the ZEUS Collaboration (ZC). The “Top” Quark
massenergy derived is shown to be within “0.35(%)” of the value concluded
by the DZero Collaboration (D0C).
The RMS charge radii of the “W”, “Z” and Higgs Boson are also derived and
it is illustrated that all flavours of Quarks and Bosons exist as exact harmonic
multiples of the Electron. The derived harmonic relationships between the
Lepton, Quark and Boson groups, suggests that all fundamental particles
radiate populations of Photons at specific frequencies.
↓
Chapter 3.13: The derivation of an experimentally implicit definition of the Planck Scale,
prediction of new particles and the design of an experiment to test the
negative energy conjecture
This chapter derives:
i. An experimentally implicit increase of the Planck Scale.
ii. An approximation of the RMS charge radius of a free Photon, utilising
physical properties of the Lepton family, specifically all ElectronLike
particles.
iii. The existence of three (3) new particles in the Lepton family.
iv. The existence of two (2) new particles in the Quark / Boson families.
v. The optimal practical benchtop configuration of a Classical Casimir
Experiment to test the negative energy conjecture.
↓
App. 3.D:
Derivation of Lepton radii
A precise numerical result for all Lepton radii is achieved utilising the
analytical representations in chapter 3.1  3.12 as boundary conditions.
App. 3.E:
↓
Derivation of Quark and Boson massenergies and radii
A precise numerical result for all Quark and Boson massenergies and radii is
achieved utilising the analytical representations in chapter 3.1  3.12 as
boundary conditions.
59
www.deltagroupengineering.com
App. 3.G:
1
↓
Conversion of the Neutron Positive Core Radius
2
↓
Derivation of the Neutron Magnetic Radius
3
↓
Derivation of the Proton Electric Radius
4
↓
Derivation of the Proton Magnetic Radius
5
↓
Derivation of the Classical Proton RMS Charge Radius
App. 3.H:
↓
Calculation of L2, L3 and L5 Neutrino radii
App. 3.I:
↓
Derivation of the Hydrogen Atom Spectrum
An essential mathematical subroutine facilitating this process is the derivation of similarity
equations. This is the most complicated procedure undertaken herein, is extremely important and
may be articulated as follows,
Dimensional Analysis Techniques
(DAT's)
↓
Buckingham Π Theory
(BPT)
↓
General Modelling Equations
(GMEx)
↓
Amplitude and Frequency Spectra
(CPV & ωPV)
↓
General Similarity Equations
(GSEx)
↓
Harmonic Similarity Equations
(HSEx)
↓
Reduced Harmonic Similarity Equations
(HSEx R)
↓
2nd Reduction of Harmonic Similarity Equations
(Reduced Average Harmonic Similarity Equations)
(HSExA R)
↓
Spectral Similarity Equations
(SSEx)
↓
Fundamental Particle Properties, the Hydrogen Atom
Spectrum and the Casimir Force
60
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1.2
KEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The most important results determined by the EGM construct may be categorised into five
main areas as follows:
i. Polarisable Vacuum and ZeroPointField.
ii. Photons, Gravitons and Euler's Constant.
iii. All other particles.
iv. The Casimir Force.
v. The Planck Scale and the Bohr radius.
Hence (equation numbers appear on the RHS of the page):
PV and ZPF
•
Gravitational amplitude spectrum “CPV”
G.M .
C PV n PV, r , M
2
r
•
(3.64)
Gravitational frequency spectrum “ωPV”
n PV 3 2 . c . G. M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
π .r
ω PV n PV, r , M
•
2
.
π n PV
(3.67)
Harmonic cutoff frequency “ωΩ”
ω Ω ( r , M ) n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.73)
Photons, Gravitons and Euler's Constant
Note: Euler's Constant “γ” may be calculated by: (i) physical measurement of “mγγ” and (ii), the
assumption that “2 x rγγ” is precisely equal to the experimentally implicit value of the Planck
Length characterised by “Kλ x λh”.
•
The massenergy of a Graviton “mgg”
mgg = 2mγγ
•
The massenergy of a Photon “mγγ”
3
h .
m γγ
re
•
(3.216)
3
π .r e
2 .c .G.m e
.
512.G.m e
2
.
c .π
n Ω r e, m e
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
2
γ
2
(3.220)
The radius of a Photon “rγγ”
5
2
m γγ
r γγ r e .
m e .c
r γγ K ω .
2
(3.225)
G.h . r µ
c
61
3
rτ
(3.274)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
•
The radius of a Graviton “rgg”
5
r gg
4 .r γγ
(3.227)
All Other Particles
•
The Fine Structure Constant “α”
α
rε
2
.e
3
rπ
(3.204)
rµ
α
rε
rτ
.e
rν
•
(3.236)
Harmonic cutoff frequency ratio (the ratio of two particle spectra) “Stω”
2
•
ω Ω r 1, M 1
M1
ω Ω r 2, M 2
M2
5
9
.
9
r2
St ω
r1
(3.230)
Neutron Magnetic Radius “rνM”
r dr
rν
r ν . ρ ch r νM
ρ ch ( r ) d r
rν
•
(3.420)
Proton Electric Radius “rπE”
r dr
r ν . ρ ch r πE
ρ ch ( r ) d r
rν
•
(3.423)
Proton Magnetic Radius “rπM”
∞
r ν . ρ ch r πM
ρ ch ( r ) d r
r dr
rν
•
Classical Proton Root Mean Square Charge Radius “rp”
r P r πE
•
(3.426)
1.
2
r νM
rν
(3.429)
The first term of the Hydrogen Spectrum (Balmer Series) “λA” [by EGM] utilising the Bohr
radius “rBohr” and the fundamental PV wavelength “λPV”
λA
λ PV 1 , K ω .r Bohr , m p
2 .n Ω K ω .r Bohr , m p
62
(3.457)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
•
EGM Prediction versus Experimental Measurement
Particle / Atom EGM Prediction
Experimental Measurement
Proton (p)
rπ = 830.5957 x1016(cm)
rπ = 830.6624 x1016(cm)
rπE = 848.5274 x1016(cm) rπE = 848 x1016(cm)
rπM = 849.9334 x1016(cm) rπM = 857 x1016(cm)
rp = 875.0 x1016(cm)
rp = 874.5944 x1016(cm)
Neutron (n)
rν = 826.8379 x1016(cm)
rX ≈ 825.6174 x1016(cm)
26
2
KS = 0.1133 x10 (cm )
KX = 0.113 x1026(cm2)
rνM = 878.9719 x1016(cm) rνM = 879 x1016(cm)
Top Quark (tq) mtq(GeV) ≈ 178.4979
mtq(GeV) ≈ 178.0
Hydrogen (H)
λA = 657.3290(nm)
λB = 656.4696(nm)
rx = 0.0527(nm)
rBohr = 0.0529(nm)
Particle Summary Matrix 3.1,
(%) Error
< 0.008
< 0.062
< 0.825
< 0.046
< 0.148
< 0.296
< 0.003
< 0.280
< 0.131
< 0.353
Note: “rp = 875.0 x1016(cm)” [i.e. the classical RMS charge radius of the Proton] and “rBohr =
0.0529(nm)” [i.e. the Bohr radius] are not experimental values, they denote the official values
listed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). [1]
The Casimir Force
The Casimir Force by EGM “FPV” is derived to within “0.01(%)” of its historically predicted
value, whilst experimental evidence confirming the existence of the force has a “5(%)” measure of
uncertainty. [8]
F PV A PP , r , ∆r , M
A PP .∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .
N C( r , ∆r , M )
N X( r , ∆r , M )
2
.ln
N X( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
4
(3.179)
The Experimentally Implicit Planck Scale
Experimentally implicit modification factors for the Planck Scale are derived based upon
experimentally verified particle radii predictions and may be articulated as follows:
3
Kω
Kω
Kω
Such that:
i. Planck Frequency becomes:
ii. Planck Length becomes:
iii. Planck Mass becomes:
2
π
(3.270)
1
Kλ
(3.264)
1
Km
(3.265)
Kω x ωh
Kλ x λh
Km x mh
The Prediction of New Particles
EGM predicts the existence of new particles beyond the Standard Model (SM). This
includes, but is not limited to,
i. 3 Leptons with massenergies of “9(MeV), 57(MeV) and 566(MeV)”.
ii. 3 Neutrino's with massenergies approximating the Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrino’s.
63
www.deltagroupengineering.com
iii. 2 Quarks or Bosons with massenergies of “10(GeV) and 22(GeV)”. However, it is
likely that these are Intermediate Vector Bosons (IVB's → force carriers).
The Experimentally Implicit Bohr Radius
An experimentally implicit definition of the Bohr radius is presented in “Appendix 3.I”
based upon exact correlation between the first term of the Hydrogen atom spectrum (Balmer series)
predicted by EGM, to the experimentally verified value.
1.3
BUILDING AN EXPERIMENT
An experimental configuration is presented in chapter 3.13 based upon a Classical Casimir
Experiment. It is suggested that a physical experiment, in accordance with the characteristics
presented in the proceeding table, may reveal new and exciting phenomena for further investigation
and may take several manifestations.
The primary focus of the proposed experiment is to the negative energy conjecture argued to
exist in ZPF Theory. It is currently unknown if energy can be efficiently and usefully extracted
from the ZPF, however, the experiment suggested represents a point of mathematical interest based
upon the derivation of the Casimir Force presented in chapter 3.7.
Alternatively and probably more likely, a carefully configured experiment based upon XRay Laser wavelengths may produce a gravitational effect on a test object. If this can be
experimentally observed and verified, then the EGM construct and the notion that all masses are
wavefunction radiators may be transposed from calculation methodology to physical theory.
Characteristic
∆r
λX
Erms
Brms
φ4,5
Description
Value
Plate separation
≈ 16.5 x103
Inflection wavelength
≈ 1.8 x108
Critical Electric field strength
≈ 550
Critical Magnetic field strength ≈ 1.8 x106
Critical phase variance
= 0, ±π or ±π/2
Design Specification Matrix 3.1,
Units
m
V/m
T
θc
NOTES
64
www.deltagroupengineering.com
2
•
EGM CONSTRUCT PROCESS SUMMARY
Modelling Foundations:
Chapter 3.1  3.5
1. Assume a relationship exists between Electricity, Magnetism and resultant ElectroMagnetic
(EM) acceleration.
2. Apply Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT's) and Buckingham's Π Theory (BPT) to
combine Electricity, Magnetism and resultant EM acceleration.
3. Apply the equivalence principle to the resultant EM acceleration.
4. Assume a ZeroPointField (ZPF) exists in the spacetime manifold.
5. Combine ZPF Theory with the equivalence principle to conclude that gravity is a spectrum of
frequencies that can be investigated at specific conditions satisfying BPT.
6. Assume that the PV model of gravity denotes the polarisation of the ZPF by the presence of
mass.
7. Identify that the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model of gravity is a concise isomorphic
representation of General Relativity (GR) in terms of a Refractive Index.
8. Assume dimensional similarity in accordance with BPT and apply a Fourier representation of a
constant function of a mathematical point to the PV model of gravity (i.e. a gravitational field is
equivalent to a spectrum of frequencies radiating into space).
9. Assume that the radiated spectrum is equivalent to the spacetime manifold described by GR.
10. Assume that the radiant energy is equal to the ZPF spectral energy (the ZPF spectrum is
considered continuous).
11. Consequently, the spectral composition of the PV is derived via an operation analogous to a
gauge transformation (spectral compression) and is determined to be finite and discrete.
12. Assume that the PV spectrum across an elemental displacement forms beats due to the
difference in spectra across the element.
13. Amalgamate the two spectra (PV and ZPF) across the elemental displacement.
•
The Casimir Force:
Chapter 3.6, 3.7
14. Formulate expressions for harmonic similarity between an applied EM field and the
fundamental beat frequency of the PV across an elemental displacement. Subsequently, this
leads to the formulation of expressions for spectral similarity between applied EM fields and the
complete PV spectrum.
15. Identify that the sum of all modes of a doublesided reciprocal harmonic spectrum, about the
“0th” mode, approaches the sum of all modes of a onesided reciprocal harmonic spectrum with
vanishing error.
16. Consequently, the Casimir Force is derived coinciding with experimental measurement.
•
MassEnergy and Radii of Photons and Gravitons:
Chapter 3.8, 3.10
17. Identify that the PV is a doublesided frequency spectrum, extending from negative infinity to
positive infinity.
18. Identify that, in the Complex Frequency domain, either side of the spectrum is a conjugate
representation of the alternate side.
65
www.deltagroupengineering.com
19. Identify that the Real Component of gravitational acceleration in the PV model on the Complex
Plane is always positive.
20. Assume the PV to consist of conjugate Photon pair populations.
21. Identify that Electrons are natural Photon emitters.
22. Assume that Electrons at rest radiate populations of Photons continuously.
23. Assume that an Electron at rest has spherical geometry.
24. Assume that the amplitude spectrum of the Fourier distribution applied to the PV model of
gravity is proportional to the conjugate Photon pair population.
25. Assume that one conjugate Photon pair defines a Graviton.
26. Derive the quantity of gravitational energy being radiated as Gravitons (conjugate Photon pairs)
per fundamental harmonic spectral period.
27. Identify that, due to the mathematical nature of Fourier harmonics for constant functions,
Gravitons only exist at odd frequency modes. The sum of all even modes equals zero.
28. Identify that there are half as many odd modes as there are “odd + even” modes in a Fourier
distribution.
29. Identify that the Graviton to Photon massenergy ratio equates to half the sum of a onesided
reciprocal harmonic spectrum.
30. Consequently, the Photon massenergy threshold is derived coinciding with experimental
observation.
31. Assume the Photon massenergy threshold is accurately calculated.
32. Assume that the terminating spectral frequency of the PV for an Electron is equal to the
frequency of a single Photon.
33. Consequently, the Photon and Graviton massenergies and radii are derived.
•
MassEnergy and Radii of all other Standard Model Particles:
Chapter 3.9, 3.11  3.12
Appendix 3.D, 3.E, 3.G
34. Assuming the spectral distribution derived for the PV model of gravity is correct, it follows that
the ratio of two spectra of two solid spherical masses must be proportionally related by
similarity in accordance with BPT.
35. Identify that, at a fundamental particle level in nature, massenergy is a unifying property.
36. Assume that the terminating spectral frequency of the PV is a proportional measure of the massenergy of a fundamental particle.
37. Formulate a generalised relationship for the ratio of two terminating spectral frequencies.
38. Identify the formation of mathematical patterns.
39. Consequently, all fundamental massenergies and radii may be derived coinciding with
experimental measurement (where applicable).
•
The Planck Scale:
Chapter 3.13
40. Identify the constants used to define Planck Frequency, Length and Mass.
41. Apply standard Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT's) and BPT.
42. Assume the derived spectrum describing the PV is correct.
43. Solve for experimental relationship functions.
44. Consequently, an experimentally implicit Planck Scale is derived.
66
www.deltagroupengineering.com
•
Theoretical Particles beyond the Standard Model:
Chapter 3.13
45. Assume the ratio of two spectra of two solid spherical masses must be proportionally related by
similarity in accordance with BPT.
46. Determine the average Electronlike Lepton radii based upon previous calculations.
47. Determine the average Boson / Quark radii based upon previous calculations and available
experimentally implied or verified data.
48. Solve the spectra ratio equations for massenergy at the appropriate harmonic conditions.
49. Consequently, multiple new particles are theorised beyond the Standard Model.
•
Designing and Conducting an Experiment:
Chapter 3.13
50. Assume an experimental configuration analogous to a classic Casimir experiment.
51. Determine the optimal separation distance.
52. Determine the inflection wavelength and frequency.
53. Determine Critical Field Strengths.
54. Determine Critical Phase Variance.
55. Trap EM energy by reflection at the inflection frequency and Critical Phase Variance inside the
cavity.
56. Permit the Root Mean Square (RMS) intensities of the Electric and Magnetic fields inside the
cavity to attain Critical Field Strength.
57. Ensure that the Electric and Magnetic field vectors are orthogonal inside the cavity.
58. Ensure that a standing wave forms in three dimensions (3D) within the cavity.
59. Ensure any unexpected effects / events are observed.
•
The Bohr Radius:
Appendix: 3.I
60. Assume the Bohr radius defines a usefully approximate position of the ZPF equilibrium radius.
61. Assume that the fundamental wavelength of the PV spectrum of the Hydrogen atom coincides
with the longest wavelength in the Balmer series.
62. Assume that the Hydrogen atom may be usefully represented by an “imaginary particle”
(spherical) of Bohr radius with approximately the mass of the Atomic mass constant.
63. Assume that the ZPF massenergy within this “imaginary particle” (at approximately “rBohr”) is
in equilibrium with the “imaginary field” surrounding the particle. That is, an “imaginary field
exists” at approximately the Bohr radius.
64. Derive the appropriate mathematical relationship.
65. Substitute the experimental value for the first term of the Hydrogen atom spectrum (Balmer
series) into the relationship derived (considering the Planck rescaling factor derived in chapter
3.13).
66. Consequently, an experimentally implicit definition of the Bohr radius is derived.
67
www.deltagroupengineering.com
3
PARTICLE SUMMARY MATRICES
3.1
DETAILED MATRIX  UTILISING 2005 PDG DATA
Existing Particle
Proton (p)
Derived in Ch. 3.9
RMS Charge Radius x1016(cm)
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.212)
5
2
rε
. c .e
r e ω Ce
3
MassEnergy
Harmonic CutOff Freq.
National Institute of Standards & Technology ωΩ(rπ,mp) = 2.6174 x1027(Hz)
(NIST) [1]: mp(MeV) = 938.272029
rπ
2
4
c . ω Ce 27. ω h ω Ce
.
.
3
4 ω
4 . ω CP
32. π
CP
rπ ≈ 830.5952 ± 0.0004
Experimental Measurement: [9]
rp = 830.6624 ± 12
Neutron (n)
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with
experimental measurement.
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.215)
NIST: mn(MeV) = 939.565360
Derived in Ch. 3.9
ωΩ(rν,mn) ≈ ωΩ(rπ,mp)
5
rπ
rε
π
2
4
c . ω Ce 27. ω h ω Ce
.
.
rν
3
4 ω
4 . ω CN
32. π
CN
rν ≈ 826.8898 ± 0.0519
Experimental Measurement: [10]
rν ≈ 825.4152 ± 18.3 (see Appendix 3.G)
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with
experimental measurement.
68
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Existing Particle
Electron (e)
RMS Charge Radius x1016(cm)
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.231)
Derived in Ch. 3.11 Stω = 2
utilising “rπ” from
5
Ch. 3.9
rε rπ.
1
.
St ω
Muon (µ
µ)
me
≈ 11.8024
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with
scattering experiments conducted by Los
Alamos National Laboratory: [11]
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.234)
NIST: mµ(MeV) = 105.6583692
5
1
St ω
Tau (ττ)
.
mµ
2
≈ 8.2122
me
9
Interpretation:
Insufficient scientific opinion available.
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.234)
NIST: mτ(MeV) = 1776.99
ωΩ(rτ,mτ) = 6 ωΩ(rε,me)
ωΩ(rτ,mτ) = 12 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
Derived in Ch. 3.11 Stω = 6
utilising “rε” therein
5
rτ rε.
ωΩ(rµ,mµ) = 4 ωΩ(rε,me)
ωΩ(rµ,mµ) = 8 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
Derived in Ch. 3.11 Stω = 4
utilising “rε” therein
rµ rε.
Harmonic CutOff Freq.
ωΩ(rε,me) = 2 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
2
mp
9
MassEnergy
NIST: me(MeV) = 0.510998918
1
St ω
.
9
mτ
me
2
≈ 12.2407
Interpretation:
Insufficient scientific opinion available.
69
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Existing Particle
RMS Charge Radius x1016(cm)
Electron Neutrino (ν
νe) EGM Prediction: Equation (3.238)
5
Derived in Ch. 3.11
m en
utilising “rε” therein
r en r ε .
≈ 0.0954
ren2 ≈ 9.0971 x103 [x1032(cm2)]
Experimental Measurement:
5.5 ≤ 〈 rA2(νe)[x1032(cm2)] 〉 ≤ 9.8
Where: δm = 10100
Particle Data Group (PDG) Expectation: [12]
men(eV) < 3
Interpretation:
Satisfactory assumption → in agreement with
PDG expectation.
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with
an extensive review of experimental data
by “Hirsch et. Al.”. [13]
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.238)
MassEnergy value utilised for radius calculation:
mµn(MeV) ≈ 0.19  δm
5
Derived in Ch. 3.11
m µn
utilising “rε” therein
r µn r µ .
m
Harmonic CutOff Freq.
ωΩ(ren,men) = ωΩ(rε,me)
ωΩ(ren,men) = 2 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
2
me
Muon Neutrino (ν
νµ)
MassEnergy
MassEnergy value utilised for radius calculation:
men(eV) ≈ 3  δm
ωΩ(rµn,mµn) = ωΩ(rµ,mµ)
ωΩ(rµn,mµn) = 4 ωΩ(rε,me)
2
≈ 0.6552
µ
rµn2 ≈ 4.2933 [x1033(cm2)]
Experimental Measurement:
5.2 ≤ 〈 rA2(νµ)[x1033(cm2)] 〉 ≤ 6.8
PDG Expectation:
mµn(MeV) < 0.19
ωΩ(rµn,mµn) = 8 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
Interpretation:
Satisfactory assumption → in agreement with
PDG expectation.
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with
an extensive review of experimental data
by “Hirsch et. Al.”.
70
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Existing Particle
Tau Neutrino (ν
ν τ)
RMS Charge Radius x1016(cm)
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.238)
5
Derived in Ch. 3.11
m τn
utilising “rε” therein
r τn r τ .
mτ
Harmonic CutOff Freq.
ωΩ(rτn,mτn) = ωΩ(rτ,mτ)
ωΩ(rτn,mτn) = 6 ωΩ(rε,me)
2
≈ 1.9587
rτn2 ≈ 3.8364 [x1032(cm2)]
Experimental Measurement:
8.2 ≤ 〈 rA2(ντ)[x1032(cm2)] 〉 ≤ 9.9
Up Quark (uq)
MassEnergy
MassEnergy value utilised for radius calculation:
mτn(MeV) ≈ 18.2  δm
PDG Expectation:
mτn(MeV) < 18.2
ωΩ(rτn,mτn) = 12 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
Interpretation:
Satisfactory assumption → in agreement with
PDG expectation.
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with
an extensive review of experimental data
by “Hirsch et. Al.”.
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.242)
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.246)
1
Derived in Ch. 3.12
5
2
m
dq
utilising “rε” from Ch. r
3 .r xq. 2
≈ 0.7682
m uq
3.11 and “rπ” from uq
Ch. 3.9
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with
generalised conclusions based upon
experimental data by the ZEUS
Collaboration. [14]
ωΩ(ruq,muq) = 7 ωΩ(rε,me)
ωΩ(ruq,muq) = 14 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
Stω = 7
9
m uq m e . St ω .
r uq
rε
5
≈ 3.5083(MeV)
PDG Expectation:
1.5 < muq(MeV) < 4
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with PDG
expectation.
71
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Existing Particle
Down Quark (dq)
RMS Charge Radius x1016(cm)
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.241)
Derived in Ch. 3.12 Stω = 1
utilising “rε” from Ch.
5
3.11 and “rπ” from
1 . m dq
Ch. 3.9
r dq r uq .
St ω
≈ 1.0136
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with
generalised conclusions based upon
experimental data by the ZEUS
Collaboration.
Strange Quark (sq)
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.244)
Derived in Ch. 3.12 Stω = 2
utilising “rε” from Ch.
5
3.11 and “rπ” from
Ch. 3.9
r sq r uq .
Harmonic CutOff Freq.
ωΩ(rdq,mdq) = ωΩ(ruq,muq)
Stω = 7
ωΩ(rdq,mdq) = 7 ωΩ(rε,me)
2
m uq
9
MassEnergy
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.246)
9
m dq m e . St ω .
r dq
ωΩ(rdq,mdq) = 14 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
5
≈ 7.0166(MeV)
rε
PDG Expectation:
4 < mdq(MeV) < 8
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with PDG
expectation.
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.246)
ωΩ(rsq,msq) = 2 ωΩ(ruq,muq)
ωΩ(rsq,msq) = 14 ωΩ(rε,me)
Stω = 14
1
St ω
.
9
m sq
m uq
2
≈ 0.8879
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with
generalised conclusions based upon
experimental data gathered by the ZEUS
Collaboration.
m sq m e . St ω
9.
r sq
ωΩ(rsq,msq) = 28 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
5
rε
≈ 114.0201(MeV)
PDG Expectation:
80 < msq(MeV) < 130
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with PDG
expectation.
72
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Existing Particle
Charmed Quark (cq)
RMS Charge Radius x1016(cm)
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.244)
Derived in Ch. 3.12 Stω = 3
utilising “rε” from Ch.
5
3.11 and “rπ” from
Ch. 3.9
r cq r uq .
1
St ω
.
9
m cq
≈ 1.0913
m uq
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.244)
Derived in Ch. 3.12 Stω = 4
utilising “rε” from Ch.
5
3.11 and “rπ” from
1 . m bq
Ch. 3.9
r bq r uq .
St ω
9
m uq
Harmonic CutOff Freq.
ωΩ(rcq,mcq) = 3 ωΩ(ruq,muq)
Stω = 21
ωΩ(rcq,mcq) = 21 ωΩ(rε,me)
2
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with
generalised conclusions based upon
experimental data gathered by the ZEUS
Collaboration.
Bottom Quark (bq)
MassEnergy
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.246)
9
m cq m e . St ω .
r cq
ωΩ(rcq,mcq) = 42 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
5
≈ 1.1841(GeV)
rε
PDG Expectation:
1.15 < mcq(GeV) < 1.35
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with PDG
expectation.
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.246)
ωΩ(rbq,mbq) = 4 ωΩ(ruq,muq)
ωΩ(rbq,mbq) = 28 ωΩ(rε,me)
Stω = 28
2
≈ 1.071
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with
generalised conclusions based upon
experimental data gathered by the ZEUS
Collaboration.
m bq m e . St ω
9.
r bq
ωΩ(rbq,mbq) = 56 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
5
rε
≈ 4.1223(GeV)
PDG Expectation:
4.1 < mbq(GeV) < 4.4
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with PDG
expectation.
73
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Existing Particle
Top Quark (tq)
RMS Charge Radius x1016(cm)
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.247)
Derived in Ch. 3.12 Stω = 10
utilising “rε” from Ch.
5
3.11 and “rπ” from
1 . m tq
Ch. 3.9
r tq r uq .
9
St ω m uq
≈ 0.9294
W Boson
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.251)
Derived in Ch. 3.12
Stω = 7
r W r uq
.
1
St ω
.
9
mW
m uq
Harmonic CutOff Freq.
ωΩ(rtq,mtq) = 10 ωΩ(ruq,muq)
Stω = 70
ωΩ(rtq,mtq) = 70 ωΩ(rε,me)
2
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with
generalised conclusions based upon
experimental data gathered by the ZEUS
Collaboration.
5
MassEnergy
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.246)
2
9
m tq m e . St ω .
r tq
rε
ωΩ(rtq,mtq) = 140 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
5
≈ 178.6141(GeV)
DZERO Collaboration: [15]
mtq(GeV) = 178.0 ± 4.3
PDG Expectation:
169.2 < mtq(GeV) < 179.4
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with DZERO
Collaboration and PDG expectation.
MassEnergy value utilised for radius calculation: ωΩ(rW,mW) = 7 ωΩ(ruq,muq)
mW(GeV) ≈ (80.387 + 80.463) / 2 ≈ 80.425
ωΩ(rW,mW) = 49 ωΩ(rε,me)
PDG Expectation:
80.387 < mW(GeV) < 80.463
ωΩ(rW,mW) = 98 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
≈ 1.2835
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with
Heisenberg Uncertainty Range. [16]
Interpretation:
Satisfactory assumption → in agreement with
PDG expectation.
74
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Existing Particle
Z Boson
RMS Charge Radius x1016(cm)
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.251)
Derived in Ch. 3.12
Stω = 8
r Z r uq .
1
St ω
(Theoretical)
Derived in Ch. 3.12
Harmonic CutOff Freq.
ωΩ(rZ,mZ) = 8 ωΩ(ruq,muq)
ωΩ(rZ,mZ) = 56 ωΩ(rε,me)
5
Higgs Boson (H)
MassEnergy
MassEnergy value utilised for radius calculation:
mZ(GeV) ≈ (91.1855 + 91.1897) / 2 ≈ 91.1876
.
9
mZ
m uq
PDG Expectation:
91.1855 < mZ(GeV) < 91.1897
2
ωΩ(rZ,mZ) = 112 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
≈ 1.0613
Interpretation:
Satisfactory assumption → in agreement with
PDG expectation.
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with
Heisenberg Uncertainty Range.
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.251)
MassEnergy value utilised for radius calculation: ωΩ(rH,mH) = 9 ωΩ(ruq,muq)
mH(GeV) ≈ 114.4 + δm
Stω = 9
ωΩ(rH,mH) = 63 ωΩ(rε,me)
PDG Expectation:
5
mH(GeV) > 114.4
2
ωΩ(rH,mH) = 126 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
1 . mH
.
≈ 0.9401
r H r uq
9
Interpretation:
St ω m uq
Satisfactory assumption → in agreement with
PDG expectation.
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with
Heisenberg Uncertainty Range.
75
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Existing Particle
Photon (γγ)
RMS Charge Diam. (Planck Lengths)
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.225)
5
Derived in Ch. 3.8,
m γγ
3.10
2 .r γγ 2 .r e .
2
m e .c
2
≈ Planck Length
Planck Length ≈ 4.0513 x1035(m)
(Plain “h” form)
MassEnergy
EGM MassEnergy Threshold: Equation (3.193)
mγ <
512.h .G.m e
c . π .r e
2
.
Harmonic CutOff Freq.
Not Applicable
n Ω r e, m e
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
γ
mγ < 5.75 x1017(eV)
PDG MassEnergy Threshold:
mγ < 6 x1017(eV)
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → implicitly supports
Interpretation:
theories of Quantum Mechanics.
Satisfactory result → in agreement with PDG
MassEnergy Threshold expectation.
EGM MassEnergy: Equation (3.220)
3
m γγ
h .
re
3
π .r e
2 .c .G.m e
.
512.G.m e
c .π
2
2
.
n Ω r e, m e
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
γ
2
mγγ ≈ 3.2 x1045(eV)
Graviton (γγg)
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.227)
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → in agreement with PDG
MassEnergy Threshold expectation.
Not Applicable
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.216)
(Theoretical)
5
2 .r gg 2 . 4 .r γγ
m gg 2 .m γγ
Derived in Ch. 3.10
≈ 1.5 x Planck Length
≈ 6.4 x1045(eV)
Interpretation:
Interpretation:
Satisfactory result → implicitly supports Insufficient scientific opinion available.
theories of Quantum Mechanics.
76
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Theoretical Particle
L2 (Lepton)
RMS Charge Radius x1016(cm)
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.276, 3.278)
rµ rε rτ
Derived in Ch. 3.13
≈ 10.7518
utilising results from r L
3
Ch. 3.11
MassEnergy
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.279, 3.280)
Harmonic CutOff Freq.
ωΩ(rL,mL(2)) = 2 ωΩ(rε,me)
Stω = 2
ωΩ(rL,mL(2)) = 4 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
9
m e . St ω .
rL
5
Interpretation:
m L St ω
≈ 9(MeV)
rε
Insufficient scientific opinion available.
The Standard Model (SM) in particle
physics does not predict this average Interpretation:
Insufficient scientific opinion available. The SM
value.
in particle physics does not predict the existence
of the L2 particle.
Note:
L3 (Lepton)
It is possible that associated Neutrino's EGM Prediction: Equation (3.281)
ωΩ(rL,mL(3)) = 3 ωΩ(rε,me)
exist for the L2, L3 and L5 particles
Derived in Ch. 3.13 predicted herein.
Stω = 3
ωΩ(rL,mL(3)) = 6 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
utilising results from
Ch. 3.11
In the proceeding Periodic Table of mL(3) ≈ 57(MeV)
Elementary Particles, L2, L3 and L5
Neutrino massenergy values have been Interpretation:
assumed based upon radii calculations Insufficient scientific opinion available. The SM
contained in Appendix 3.H
in particle physics does not predict the existence
of the L3 particle.
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.282)
L5 (Lepton)
ωΩ(rL,mL(5)) = 5 ωΩ(rε,me)
Derived in Ch. 3.13
utilising results from
Ch. 3.11
ωΩ(rL,mL(5)) = 10 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
Stω = 5
mL(5) ≈ 566(MeV)
Interpretation:
Insufficient scientific opinion available. The SM
in particle physics does not predict the existence
of the L5 particle.
77
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Theoretical Particle
QB5
(Quark or Boson)
RMS Charge Radius x1016(cm)
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.284)
MassEnergy
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.283, 3.285)
Harmonic CutOff Freq.
ωΩ(rQB,mQB(5)) = 5 ωΩ(ruq,muq)
rQB = 〈r〉 ≈ 1.0052
Stω = 5
ωΩ(rQB,mQB(5)) = 35 ωΩ(rε,me)
Derived in Ch. 3.12
QB6
(Quark or Boson)
Interpretation:
ωΩ(rQB,mQB(5)) = 70 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
5
r
9 . QB
Satisfactory result → in agreement with m
.
≈ 10(GeV)
QB St ω m uq St ω
r uq
Heisenberg Uncertainty Range, scientific
expectation and experimental evidence to
date. [16]
Interpretation:
Insufficient scientific opinion available. The SM
in particle physics does not predict the existence
of the QB5 particle.
EGM Prediction: Equation (3.286)
ωΩ(rQB,mQB(6)) = 6 ωΩ(ruq,muq)
Stω = 6
ωΩ(rQB,mQB(6)) = 42 ωΩ(rε,me)
mQB(6) ≈ 22(GeV)
ωΩ(rQB,mQB(6)) = 84 ωΩ(rπ,mp)
Derived in Ch. 3.12
Interpretation:
Insufficient scientific opinion available. The SM
in particle physics does not predict the existence
of the QB6 particle.
Particle Summary Matrix 3.2,
78
www.deltagroupengineering.com
3.2
•
CONCISE MATRIX
EGM Harmonic Representation of Particles
Existing and Theoretical Particles Proton Harmonics Electron Harmonics
x ωΩ(rπ,mp)
x ωΩ(rε,me)
Proton (p), Neutron (n)
Stω = 1
Stω = 1/2
2
1
Electron (e), Electron Neutrino (ν
νe )
L2 (Theoretical Lepton)
4
2
L3 (Theoretical Lepton)
6
3
8
4
Muon (µ
µ), Muon Neutrino (ν
νµ)
L5 (Theoretical Lepton)
10
5
12
6
Tau (ττ), Tau Neutrino (ν
ντ )
Up Quark (uq), Down Quark (dq)
14
7
Strange Quark (sq)
28
14
Charm Quark (cq)
42
21
Bottom Quark (bq)
56
28
QB5 (Theoretical Quark or Boson)
70
35
QB6 (Theoretical Quark or Boson)
84
42
W Boson
98
49
Z Boson
112
56
Higgs Boson (H) (Theoretical)
126
63
Top Quark (tq)
140
70
Particle Summary Matrix 3.3,
•
Quark Harmonics
x ωΩ(ruq,muq)
Stω = 1/14
1/7
2/7
3/7
4/7
5/7
6/7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Refined EGM Charge Radii and MassEnergies of Particles (see Appendix 3.D, 3.E)
Existing SM Particle
Proton (p)
Neutron (n)
Electron (e)
Muon (µ
µ)
Tau (ττ)
Electron Neutrino (ν
ν e)
Muon Neutrino (ν
νµ)
Tau Neutrino (ν
ν τ)
Up Quark (uq)
Down Quark (dq)
Strange Quark (sq)
Charm Quark (cq)
Bottom Quark (bq)
Top Quark (tq)
W Boson
Z Boson
Higgs Boson (H)
Photon (γγ)
Graviton (γγg)
EGM Radii
x1016(cm)
rπ = 830.5957
rν = 826.8379
rε = 11.8055
rµ = 8.2165
rτ = 12.2415
ren ≈ 0.0954
rµn ≈ 0.6556
rτn ≈ 1.9588
ruq ≈ 0.7682
rdq ≈ 1.0136
rsq ≈ 0.8879
rcq ≈ 1.0913
rbq ≈ 1.071
rtq ≈ 0.9294
rW ≈ 1.2839
rZ ≈ 1.0616
rH ≈ 0.9403
rγγ = ½Kλλh
rgg = 2(2/5)rγγ
EGM MassEnergy
(computed or utilized)
PDG MassEnergy Range
(2005 Data)
MassEnergy is precisely known by physical measurement
See: National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST)
Note: δm = 10100
men(eV) ≈ 3  δm
mµn(MeV) ≈ 0.19  δm
mτn(MeV) ≈ 18.2  δm
muq(MeV) ≈ 3.5060
mdq(MeV) ≈ 7.0121
msq(MeV) ≈ 113.9460
mcq(GeV) ≈ 1.1833
mbq(GeV) ≈ 4.1196
mtq(GeV) ≈ 178.4979
mW(GeV) ≈ 80.425
mZ(GeV) ≈ 91.1876
mH(GeV) ≈ 114.4 + δm
mγγ ≈ 3.2 x1045(eV)
mgg = 2mγγ
79
men(eV) < 3
mµn(MeV) < 0.19
mτn(MeV) < 18.2
1.5 < muq(MeV) < 4
4 < mdq(MeV) < 8
80 < msq(MeV) < 130
1.15 < mcq(GeV) < 1.35
4.1 < mbq(GeV) < 4.4
169.2 < mtq(GeV) < 179.4
80.387 < mW(GeV) < 80.463
91.1855 < mZ(GeV) < 91.1897
mH(GeV) > 114.4
mγ < 6 x1017(eV)
No definitive commitment
www.deltagroupengineering.com
New Particles
(Theoretical)
L2 (Lepton)
L3 (Lepton)
L5 (Lepton)
ν2 (L2 Neutrino)
ν3 (L3 Neutrino)
ν5 (L5 Neutrino)
QB5 (Quark or Boson)
QB6 (Quark or Boson)
EGM Radii
x1016(cm)
EGM
MassEnergy
mL(2) ≈ 9(MeV)
rL ≈ 10.7518 mL(3) ≈ 57(MeV)
mL(5) ≈ 566(MeV)
rν2,ν3,ν5
mν2 ≈ men
≈
mν3 ≈ mµn
ren,µn,τn
mν5 ≈ mτn
rQB ≈ 1.0052 mQB(5) ≈ 10(GeV)
mQB(6) ≈ 22(GeV)
Particle Summary Matrix 3.4,
PDG MassEnergy
Range or Threshold
Not predicted or considered
where,
(i)
“Kλ” denotes a Planck scaling factor, determined to be “(π/2)1/3” in Ch. 3.13.
(ii)
“λh” denotes Planck length [4.05131993288926 x1035(m)].
(iii) “rL” and “rQB” denote the average radii of SM Leptons and Quark / Bosons (respectively)
utilized to calculate the massenergy of the proposed “new particles”.
Note:
(a) A formalism for the approximation of ν2, ν3 and ν5 massenergy is shown in “Appendix 3.H”.
(b) It is shown in Ch. (3.8, 3.10, 3.13) that the RMS charge diameters of a Photon and Graviton are
“λh” and “1.5λh” respectively, in agreement with Quantum Mechanical (QM) models.
(c) The “new theoretical particles” are believed to be extremely short lived (unstable). Please refer
to Ch. 3.13 for “the answer to some important questions” in this matter. This includes:
(i)
What causes harmonic patterns to form?
(ii)
Why haven’t the “new” particles been experimentally detected?
(iii) Why is EGM a method and not a theory?
(iv)
What would one need to do, in order to disprove the EGM method?
•
Periodic Table of Elementary Particles (utilising 2006 PDG data)
Assuming “QB5,6” to be Intermediate Vector Bosons (IVB's), we shall conjecture that the
Periodic Table of Elementary Particles may be constructed as follows,
Group I
Standard
Model
Leptons
Quarks
Up
14
+2/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
uq
1.5 < muq(MeV) < 3
Down
14
1/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
dq
3 < mdq(MeV) < 7
Electron
2
1,1/2
e
= 0.5110(MeV)
Electron Neutrino 2
0,1/2
νe
< 2(eV)
Types of Matter
Group II
Charm
42
+2/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
cq
≈ 1.1833(GeV)
Strange
28
1/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
sq
≈ 113.9460(MeV)
Muon
8
1,1/2
µ
= 105.7(MeV)
Muon Neutrino
8
0,1/2
νµ
< 0.19(MeV)
80
Group III
Top
140
+2/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
tq
≈ 171.4(GeV)
Bottom
56
1/3,1/2,[R,G,B]
bq
4.13 < mbq(GeV) < 4.27
Tau
12
1,1/2
τ
= 1.777(GeV)
Tau Neutrino
12
0,1/2
ντ
< 18.2(MeV)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
EGM
Leptons
L2
4 L3
1,1/2
L2
≈ 9(MeV)
L2 Neutrino
4
0,1/2
L3
≈ 57(MeV)
L3 Neutrino
6 L5
1,1/2
6
0,1/2
ν3
≈ mµn
Standard Model and EGM Bosons
Photon
N/A Gluon
? QB6
84
1,Colour,1
1,Weak Charge,106
1,Charge,α
gl
QB6
γ
45
< 10(MeV)
≈ 22(GeV)
≈ 3.2 x10 (eV)
Graviton
N/A QB5
70 W Boson
98
39
6
2,Energy,10
1,Weak Charge,10
1,Weak Charge,106
QB5
W
γg
≈
10(GeV)
≈
80.27(GeV)
= 2mγγ
Particle Summary Matrix 3.5,
L5
≈ 566(MeV)
L5 Neutrino
ν2
≈ men
Quarks
Legend
Leptons
10
1,1/2
10
0,1/2
ν5
≈ mτn
Z Boson
112
1,Weak Charge,106
Z
≈ 91.1875(GeV)
Higgs Boson
126
0,Higgs Field,?
H
≈ 114.4(GeV)
Bosons
Name
Stω
Name
Stω
Name
Stω
Charge(e),Spin,Colour
Charge(e),Spin
Spin,Source,SC
Symbol
Symbol
Symbol
MassEnergy
MassEnergy
MassEnergy
Particle Summary Matrix 3.6,
where: (i) “SC” denotes coupling strength at “1(GeV)”. [17]
(ii) The values of “Stω” utilise the Proton as the reference particle. This is due to its RMS
charge radius and massenergy being precisely known by physical measurement.
Note: the theoretical particles predicted may also be interpreted as transient states of Standard
Model particles. Please refer to Ch. 3.13 for a detailed discussion.
****** IMPORTANT ******
The EGM Harmonic Representation of Fundamental Particles (i.e. Particle Summary
Matrix 3.3) is applicable to the size relationship between the Proton and Neutron (i.e. to
calculate “rπ” from “rν” and viceversa utilising “Stω = 1”) as an approximation only. For
precise calculations based upon similar forms, the reader should refer to Ch. 3.9 [Eq. (3.212,
3.215)].
EGM is a method and not a theory because: (i) it is an engineering approximation and (ii),
the mass and size of most subatomic particles are not precisely known. It harmonizes all
fundamental particles relative to an arbitrarily chosen reference particle by parameterising ZPF
equilibrium in terms of harmonic cutoff frequency “ωΩ”.
The formulation of Particle Summary Matrix 3.3 is a robust approximation based upon PDG
data. Other interpretations are possible, depending on the values utilized. For example, if one reapplies the method presented in Ch. 3.12 based upon other data, the values of “Stω” in Particle
Summary Matrix 3.3 might differ. However, in the absence of exact experimentally measured mass
and size information, there is little motivation to postulate alternative harmonic sequences,
particularly since the current formulation fits the available experimental evidence extremely well.
81
www.deltagroupengineering.com
If all mass and size values were exactly known by experimental measurement, the main
sequence formulated in Ch. 3.12 (or a suitable variation thereof) will produce a precise harmonic
representation of fundamental particles, invariant to interpretation. Particle Summary Matrix 3.3
values cannot be dismissed due to potential multiplicity before reconciling how:
i.
“ωΩ”, which is the basis of the Particle Summary Matrix 3.3 construct, produces the
experimentally verified formulation of Eq. (3.212, 3.215) as derived in Ch. 3.9. These
generate radii values substantially more accurate than any other contemporary method. Infact, it is a noteworthy result that EGM is capable of producing the Neutron Mean Square
(MS) charge radius as a positive quantity. Conventional techniques favour the nonintuitive
form of a negative squared quantity.
ii.
“ωΩ” is capable of producing “a Top Quark” mass value – the SM cannot.
iii.
EGM produces the results defined in Particle Summary Matrix 3.1.
iv.
Extremely shortlived Leptons (i.e. with lifetimes of “TΩ”) cannot exist, or do not exist for a
plausible harmonic interpretation.
v.
Any other harmonic interpretation, in the absence of exact mass and size values determined
experimentally, denote a superior formulation.
Therefore, EGM is a method facilitating the harmonic representation of fundamental particles.
NOTES
82
www.deltagroupengineering.com
ARTICLE
3.2
DERIVATION
OF
ENGINEERING
PRINCIPLES
Edgar Buckingham: 1867 – 1940 [18]
83
www.deltagroupengineering.com
FUNDAMENTAL ENGINEERING – THE PYRAMIDS AT GIZA
84
www.deltagroupengineering.com
CHAPTER
3.1
Dimensional Analysis [63]
Abstract
It is hypothesised that coupling exists between ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields and the
magnitude of the local value of gravitational acceleration “g”. Buckingham’s Π Theory (BPT) is
applied to establish a mathematical relationship that precipitates a set of modelling equations
termed Π groupings. The Π groupings are reduced to a single expression in terms of the speed of
light and an experimental relationship function. This function is interpreted to represent the
Refractive Index and is demonstrated to be equivalent to the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Model
representation of General Relativity (GR). Assuming dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity
between the PV and the BPT derivation, it is implied that the PV may also be represented as a
superposition of ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields. It is conjectured that by applying an intense
superposition of fields within a single frequency mode, it may be possible to modify the Refractive
Index within the test volume of an experiment. This may significantly reduce the experimental
complexity and energy requirements necessary to locally affect “g”.
85
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Process Flow 3.1,
86
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
INTRODUCTION
To date, great strides have been made by General Relativity (GR) to our understanding of
gravity. GR is an excellent tool that represents spacetime as a geometric manifold of events, where
gravitation manifests itself as a curvature of spacetime and is described by a metric tensor. [19]
However, GR does not easily facilitate engineering solutions that may allow us to design
electromechanical devices with which to affect the spacetime metric.
If mankind wishes to engineer the spacetime metric, alternative tools must be developed to
compliment those already available. Subsequently, the ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM)
methodology was derived to achieve this goal. EGM is defined as the modification of vacuum
polarisability by applied ElectroMagnetic fields. It provides a theoretical description of spacetime
as a Polarisable Vacuum (PV) derived from the superposition of ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields.
The PV representation of GR is a heuristic tool and is isomorphic to GR by weak field
approximation. utilising EGM, EM fields may be applied to affect the state of the PV and thereby
facilitate interactions with the local gravitational field.
To demonstrate practical modelling methods of the PV, we apply Buckingham's Π Theory
(BPT). BPT is a powerful tool that has been in existence, tried and experimentally proven for many
years. BPT is an excellent tool that may be applied to the task of determining a practical
relationship between gravitational acceleration and applied EM fields. The underlying principle of
BPT is the preservation of dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity between a mathematical
model and an Experimental Prototype (EP). [20]
Historically, BPT has been used extensively in the engineering field to model, predict and
optimise fluid flow and heat transfer. However, in principle, it may be applied to any system that is
dynamically, kinematically and geometrically founded – such as the geometric spacetime
manifold. Typical examples of experimentally verified Π groupings in fluid mechanics are Froude,
Mach, Reynolds and Weber numbers. [20] Thermodynamic examples are Eckert, Grashof, Prandtl
and Nusselt numbers. [21] Moreover, the Planck Length commonly used in theories of Quantum
Gravity shares its origins with the Dimensional Analysis Technique (the foundation of BPT). [22]
The application of BPT is not an attempt to answer fundamental physical questions but to
apply universally accepted engineering design methodologies to real world problems. It is primarily
an experimental process. It is not possible to derive system representations without involving
experimental relationship functions. We represent these functions as “K0(X)”, where “X” denotes
all variables within the experimental environment that influence results and behaviour including
parameters that might otherwise be neglected due to practical calculation limitations, in theoretical
analysis.
Once the Π groupings have been formed, they may be manipulated or simplified as required
to test ideas and determine experimental relationship functions. Ultimately, the relationship
functions validate the system equations developed. For the proceeding BPT construct, we shall
hypothesise that:
Coupling exists between a superposition of EM fields and the local value of gravitational
acceleration.
Ideally, experimental relationship functions possess values of unity relative to the distant
observer. This indicates a lossless relationship between the EP and the mathematical model utilised
to describe the EP. Typically, due to viscous forces and energy loss / transformation effects,
experimental relationship functions take extreme values of magnitude (i.e. large or small).
If we consider the EP to be the ambient gravitational environment (local spacetime
manifold) and the mathematical model to be the PV model of gravity, then we expect all
experimental relationship functions to approach unity, as shall be demonstrated in the proceeding
construct.
87
www.deltagroupengineering.com
The reasons for this are:
i. The true nature of gravity is currently unknown to physics.
ii. The mathematical descriptions used to predict gravitational behaviour are constructed from
observation of effects, not cause.
iii. A mathematical description is nothing more than just that. It is a nonphysical manifestation
of human understanding. For example, GR is a Tensor based mathematical formulation only
 there is no physical evidence to validate the contention that the true nature of spacetime is
physically geometric with Planck Scale grid lines radiating from cosmological objects.
iv. There can be no physical losses between two mathematical representations of the same
thing.
2
THEORETICAL MODELLING
BPT commences with the selection of significant parameters. There are no right or wrong
choices with respect to the selection of these parameters. Often, the experience of the researcher
exerts the greatest influence to the beginning of the process and the choice of significant parameters
are validated or invalidated by experimentation. [22]
When applying BPT, it is important to avoid repetition of dimensions. Subsequently, it is
often desirable to select variables that may be formulated by the manipulation of simpler variables
already chosen. The selected variables used in EGM are shown in table (3.1) of the following
section.
These parameters have been selected to facilitate experiments utilising EM fields and
assume that there is a physical device to be tested, located on a laboratory test bench. The objective
of the experiment is to utilise a superposition of EM fields to reduce the weight of a testmass when
placed in the volume of space located directly above the device. Therefore, the significant
parameters are those factors that may affect the acceleration of the testmass within this volume.
Our selection of significant parameters involves the magnitude of vector quantities and
scalars. This avoids unnecessary repetition of fundamental units in accordance with the application
of BPT methodology. [22] The significant vector magnitude parameters are acceleration, Magnetic
field, Electric field and position. The scalar quantities are Electric charge and frequency.
Since static charge on the device or the testmass may also exert strong Lorentz forces and
therefore accelerations, the scalar value of static charge is included to determine its contribution. If
the device is small then the distance between the surface of the device and the testmass suspended
in the volume above it is trivial and that the magnitude of the position vector is usefully constant.
Mechanical height adjustments and conventional Radio Frequency (RF) test and
measurement equipment may be used to sweep the values of position and frequency in a controlled
manner, throughout a range of practical values.
3
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
3.1
FORMULATION OF Π GROUPINGS
The formulation of Π groupings begins with the determination of the number of groups to
be formed. The difference between the number of significant parameters and the number of
dimensions represents the number of Π groups required (two).
where,
Variable
a
B
E
r
Description
Magnitude of acceleration vector
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector
Magnitude of Electric field vector
Magnitude of position vector
88
Units
m/s2
T
V/m
m
Composition
kg0 m1 s2 C0
kg1 m0 s1 C1
kg1 m1 s2 C1
kg0 m1 s0 C0
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Q
ω
Magnitude of Electric charge
Field frequency
Table 3.1,
C
Hz
kg0 m0 s0 C1
kg0 m0 s1 C0
Note: the traditional representation of mass (M), length (L) and time (T), in BPT methodology has
been replaced by dimensional representations familiar to most readers (kg, m and s). “C” denotes
Coulombs, the MKSA units representing charge.
We may write the general formulation of significant parameters as,
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5
.
.
. .
a K 0( X ) .B
ω
E
r
Q
(3.1)
where, “K0(X)” represents an experimentally determined dimensionless relationship function.
Subsequently, the general formulation may be expressed in terms of its dimensional composition as
follows,
0 1
2 0
kg .m .s .C
1 0
1
K 0( X ) . kg .m .s .C
1
x1
. kg1 .m1 .s 2 .C
x2
1
. kg0 .m0 .s 1 .C0
x3
. kg0 .m1 .s 0 .C0
x4
. kg0 .m0 .s 0 .C1
x5
(Eq. 3.2)
Applying the indicial method [22] yields,
x1
x2 0
x2
x4 1
x1
x1
2 .x 2
x2
x3
2
solve , x 2 , x 3 , x 4 , x 5
x1 x1
2 x1
1 0
x5 0
(3.3)
Substituting the expressions for “xn” into the general formulation and grouping terms yields,
a
r .ω
2
K 0( X ) .
B.ω .r
x1
E
(3.4)
Note: “Q” has evaporated from the general formulation indicating that the acceleration derived is
not to be associated with the Lorentz force.
3.2
TECHNICAL VERIFICATION OF Π GROUPINGS
The formulation of Π groupings may be verified by a simple check of dimensionless
homogeneity as follows,
1
a
r .ω
1
2
2
(3.5)
B .ω .r
E
x1
(3.6)
By inspection  both Π groupings are dimensionless: no technical error has been made in their
formulation. [21]
89
www.deltagroupengineering.com
4
DOMAIN SPECIFICATION
4.1
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
The application of basic assumptions regarding the practical nature of experimental
configurations enables precipitations of the general formulation. Precipitations are defined as results
derived by the application of limits, whereby the value of “x1” may be calculated.
To achieve this, we shall assume that all significant parameters have been selected correctly
and that the relationship between experimental observation and the general formulation is a single
valued function “∞ < K0(X) < ∞”. This assumption does not remove the necessity for experimental
determination, as the form of the experimental relationship function is a consequence of the
precipitation process.
Due to the practical nature of experimental investigation, “ω” and “r” are dominating factors
because; (i) they are repeated in both Π groupings; (ii) numerically, they have the largest relative
contribution to the behaviour of both Π groupings and (iii) experimentally, they are practical
parameters to sweep and modify.
4.2
PRECIPTITATIONS OF THE GENERAL FORM
4.2.1 FREQUENCY DOMAIN PRECIPITATION
For investigations where “0 < ω < ∞”, solving equation (3.4) for “x1” and applying limits
yields,
Low frequency solution,
a
lim
+ . 2
ω 0
rω
B.ω .r
K 0( X ) .
E
solve , x 1
x1
ln( a )
expand
ln K 0( X )
2
ln( ω )
( ln( B)
2 .ln( ω )
ln( r )
ln( r )
ln( E) )
factor
(3.7)
High frequency solution,
lim
ω ∞
a
r .ω
2
B .ω .r
K 0( X ) .
E
solve , x 1
x1
ln( a )
expand
ln K 0( X )
( ln( B)
ln( ω )
ln( r )
2 .ln( ω )
2
ln( r )
ln( E) )
factor
(3.8)
Hence, the precipitated relationship may be expressed in Π form as,
a
r .ω
2
K 0( ω , X ) .
E
.
B ω .r
2
(3.9)
Alternatively, in a general form in terms of the acceleration as,
a K 0( ω , X ) .
1 . E
r B
2
(3.10)
4.2.2 DISPLACEMENT DOMAIN PRECIPITATION
For investigations where “0 < r < ∞”, repeating the procedure defined above yields,
Solution for small “r”,
90
www.deltagroupengineering.com
lim
r
B.ω .r
K 0( X ) .
E
a
0 + r .ω2
x1
solve , x 1
ln( a )
expand
ln K 0( X )
ln( ω )
( ln( B)
2 .ln( ω )
ln( r )
1
ln( r )
ln( E) )
factor
(3.11)
Solution for large “r”,
lim
∞
r
B .ω .r
K 0( X ) .
E
a

r .ω
2
x1
solve , x 1
ln( a )
expand
ln K 0( X )
ln( ω )
( ln( B)
ln( r )
2 .ln( ω )
1
ln( r )
ln( E) )
factor
(3.12)
The precipitated relationship may be expressed in Π form as,
a
r .ω
2
K 0( r , X ) .
E
.
B ω .r
(3.13)
Alternatively, in a general form as,
a K 0( r , X ) .ω .
E
B
(3.14)
4.2.3 WAVEFUNCTION PRECIPITATION
For PV model investigations involving transverse plane wave solutions in a vacuum,
Maxwell’s equations require “E/B = c” when “r → λ/2π” in the frequency range “0 < ω < ∞”,
Low frequency solution,
lim
+
ω 0
lim
r
lim
c
ω
E
a
ω .λ . r .ω2
B
2 .π
B.ω .r
K 0( X ) .
E
x1
solve , x 1
ln( a )
expand
ln K 0( X )
ln( ω )
( ln( B)
ln( r )
2 .ln( ω )
1
ln( r )
ln( E) )
factor
(Eq. 3.15)
High frequency solution,
lim
ω ∞
lim
r
lim
c
ω
E
a
ω .λ . r .ω2
B
2 .π
B.ω .r
K 0( X ) .
E
x1
solve , x 1
ln( a )
expand
ln K 0( X )
( ln( B)
ln( ω )
ln( r )
2 .ln( ω )
1
ln( r )
ln( E) )
factor
(Eq. 3.16)
The precipitated relationship may be expressed in Π form as,
a
r .ω
2
K 0( ω , r , E, B, X ) .
ω .r
c
(3.17)
Alternatively, in general form as,
a K 0( ω , r , E, B , X ) .
5
3 2
ω .r
c
(3.18)
EXPERIMENTAL RELATIONSHIP FUNCTIONS
By application of the forms obtained in the frequency, displacement and wavefunction
domains, we may determine an ideal solution for the experimental relationship functions. Applying
limits corresponding to wavefunction solutions “ω → c/r” and “E → cB” to equation (3.10) and
(3.14) yields,
91
www.deltagroupengineering.com
lim
ω
K 0( ω , X )
2
c .
r
2
1 . E
lim
K 0( ω , X ) .
r B
E c .B
(3.19)
2
E
lim
K 0( r , X ) .ω .
B
c E c .B
c .
K 0( r , X )
r
(3.20)
r
Thus,
K 0( ω , X ) K 0( r , X )
(3.21)
Substituting “ωr = c” into (3.18) yields,
a K 0( ω , r , E, B, X ) .
c
2
r
(3.22)
Therefore, when wavefunction solutions are applied to each precipitation, the relationship
functions are equal “K0(ω,X) = K0(r,X) = K0(ω,r,E,B,X) = K0(X)”. The wavefunction precipitation
we require for investigations involving a superposition of waves may then be represented by,
a K 0( X) .
c
2
r
(3.23)
where, “X” represents all other physical variables not specified in the equation.
6
THE POLARISABLE VACUUM MODEL
6.1
REFRACTIVE INDEX
It is known that for complete dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity between Π
groupings according to BPT, “K0(X) = 1” representing ideal experimental behaviour. Since BPT is
based upon the dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity between a mathematical model and an
EP, we may usefully represent the PV by the general form of equation (3.23).
In the PV model, [23, 24] the vacuum is characterised by the value of the Refractive Index
“KPV”. Subsequently, if we consider “a”, “c” and “r” in the preceding equation to be at infinity, then
“K0(X)” may be expressed locally by “vc” and “rc” such that “a = vc2 / rc”, “c → vc * KPV” and “rc
→ r * √KPV”. Hence, substituting these relationships into equation (3.23) yields an expression for
“K0(X)” explicitly in terms of the Refractive Index in the PV model of gravity as follows,
2
c
a K 0( X ) . substitute , c v c . K PV, r r c . K PV , a
r
vc
2
rc
, solve , K 0( X )
1
3
K PV
2
(3.24)
The equivalence principle indicates that an accelerated reference frame is equivalent to a uniform
gravitational field. Therefore, assuming “a” is equivalent to the magnitude of the gravitational
acceleration vector “g” as in the PV model, we may determine the value of “K0(X)” at the surface
of the Earth by using the weak field approximation to the gravitational potential [23, 24] as follows,
2
K PV K 0( X )
6.2
3
(3.25)
SUPERPOSITION
BPT relates the scale of two similar systems by Π groupings [22] and the PV background
field is assumed derivable from a superposition of applied EM fields. The Π groupings are
92
www.deltagroupengineering.com
compared directly and scaled to determine the required applied fields. The ratio “B1/E1 = 1/c”
represents the velocity of light at ambient background PV conditions within the test volume and the
ratio “B2/E2 = 1/vc” represents the modified velocity of light “vc” within the test volume as
determined by the applied EM fields. Scaling of the Π groupings may be experimentally applied
according to equation (3.26),
B 1 .ω 1 .r 1
E1
x1
B 2 .ω 2 .r 2
E2
x1
substitute , E 1 c .B 1 , E 2 v c .B 2 , r 1 r 2 , solve , v c
ω 2.
c
ω1
(3.26)
“KPV” may then be determined by the ratio of frequency modes between the EM fields of
the PV model and the local gravitational field. Additional notation is required to indicate the
discrete spectrum of the superposition of waves within the test volume. The subscript “n” and “P”
denote the applied spectral frequency modes and polarisation vectors respectively. Substituting a
superposition of wavefunctions, “K0(X)” may be constructed by design according to,
Kn , P
2
K 0( X )
3
c
In , P . ω n , P
( n , P)
Kn , P .ω n , P
vc
( n , P)
(3.27)
where, “In,P” represents the macroscopic intensity of Photons within the test volume and “Kn,P” is an
undetermined relationship function representing the intensity of the PV background field at each
frequency mode.
For the ZeroPointField (ZPF) ground state of the vacuum, predicted by Quantum
Electrodynamics, “Kn,P = ½” and “In,P = 0”. Equation (3.27) implies that, when in a gravitational
field, the vacuum field is not in the ZPF ground state. Therefore, within the test volume at ambient
background conditions, we would generally expect “Kn,P ≠ ½”. Equation (3.27) describes the
relative change in the spectral energy density and thereby represents a modification of polarisability
of the vacuum within the test volume.
6.3
CONSTANT ACCELERATION
Fourier Series (FS), representing the summation of trigonometric functions, may be applied
to define a constant vector field “a” over the period “0 ≤ t ≤ 1/ω”. A constant function is termed
“even” due to symmetry about the “YAxis”, subsequently; the Fourier representation contains only
certain terms and may be expressed in complex form.
We may relate the principles of Complex FS to EGM superposition by the application of
equation (3.10). Let an arbitrary transverse EM plane wave be defined by,
F( k , n , t ) F 0( k ) . e
( π .n .ω .t ) .i
(3.28)
Where: (i) “k” and “n” denote the wave vector and field harmonic respectively, (ii) “ω” denotes the
fundamental field frequency such that,
B( k, n , t ) Re( F( k, n , t ) )
(3.29)
E( k, n , t ) Im( F( k, n , t ) )
(3.30)
Substituting equation (3.29) and (3.30) into equation (3.10) yields,
93
www.deltagroupengineering.com
N
E( k , n , t )
a( t )
K 0( ω , X )
r
2
. n= N
N
B( k , n , t )
2
n= N
(3.31)
Acceleration
It has been numerically simulated that the effect of phase variance between superimposed field
wavefunctions may be usefully approximated to zero, when applied to equation (3.31), for field
harmonic values “N ≥ 20” (approx.) [i.e. as N → ∞, a(t) → constant]. This may be graphically
illustrated by (N = 20),
1
1
2 .ω
ω
a( t )
a∞
t
Time
Figure 3.1,
The mean value “a∞” of equation (3.31) over the fundamental period “1/ω” also represents the
magnitude of the acceleration vector “a” as “N → ∞”. Hence,
1
ω
a∞ ω.
6.4
a( t ) d t
0.( s )
(3.32)
COMPLEX FOURIER SERIES
Equation (3.28) is analogous to a Fourier representation by the term “F0(k)”, which
represents the EM amplitude distribution within the experimental environment. Subsequently, we
may write the direct equivalence of equation (3.28) to Complex FS representation by the following
expression,
1
F 0( k )
ω.
2
ω
f( t )
0. ( s )
e
( π .n .ω .t ) .i
dt
(3.33)
Hence, “F0(k)” may take the form of the complex Fourier coefficient typically denoted as “Cn”. [25]
This correlation may enable the experimentalist to design and control the geometry of forcing
configurations to exact analytical targets.
Therefore, it has been illustrated that we may relate Fourier approximations of a constant
vector field to EGM by the summation of EM wavefunctions representing the superposition of
waves at each frequency mode. This may be accomplished by the determination of the experimental
relationship function “K0(ω,X)”.
94
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Moreover, equation (3.31) represents a useful and practical relationship between
experimental observation and engineering research. By sequentially scanning field harmonics
between “N” and “N”, values of “K0(ω,X)” may be calculated when the localised value of ambient
acceleration has been reduced. Experimental determination of the function “K0(ω,X)” will permit
engineering applications to be developed by direct scaling.
An illustrational Complex FS representation of constant acceleration magnitude “a”, by the
summation of harmonics over the interval “0 ≤ t ≤ 1/ω” may be written as follows, [25]
1
N
a( t )
n= N
ω.
2
ω
0. ( s )
f( t )
e
( π .n .ω .t ) .i
(π
d t .e
.n .ω .t ) .i
(3.34)
Acceleration
And may be graphically illustrated by,
Re( a( t ) )
Im( a( t ) )
f( t )
t
Time
Real Terms (NonZero Sum)
Imaginary Terms (Zero Sum)
Constant Function (eg. "g")
Figure 3.2,
where,
Units
Variable Description
th
n
“n ” harmonic of integer value
None
th
“N
”
Fourier
polynomial
corresponding
to
the
spectral
frequency
mode
such
N
that “∞ < Ν < ∞”  Figure (3.2) displays an illustrational value of “N = 10”
Period over which “a” is constant  Figure (3.2) displays an illustrational
s
1/ω
value of “1/ω = 1(s)”
f(t)
Constant function being represented by the summation of Fourier m/s2
polynomials
Table 3.2,
Important features:
i. The Real Terms are odd numbered harmonics producing a NonZero Sum.
ii. The Imaginary Terms are even numbered harmonics producing a Zero Sum.
7
CONCLUSIONS
The relationship between EM fields and acceleration has been demonstrated by the
application of BPT. Equation (3.26) and (3.27) indicate that, for physical modelling applications,
manipulating the full spectrum of the PV is not required and optimal PV coupling may exist at
specific frequency modes. This dramatically simplifies the design of experimental prototypes and
suggests that the PV may be usefully approximated to a discrete wave spectrum by applying an
intense superposition of fields within a single frequency mode.
95
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
96
www.deltagroupengineering.com
CHAPTER
3.2
General Modelling and the Critical Factor [64]
Abstract
In chapter 3.1, by application of Buckingham’s Π Theory, it was demonstrated how constant
acceleration may be derived from a superposition of ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields. An
experimentally determined relationship function “K0(ω,X)” was predicted which couples
gravitational acceleration to the intensity of an applied EM field, in agreement with the equivalence
principle and the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Model. The EM field was then decomposed into its
constituent frequency modes and their respective intensities to show that their summation results in
constant acceleration as the number of harmonic frequencies in the field tends to infinity. This
chapter is an extension of previous work, intended to present a hypothesis to be tested and to
demonstrate how “K0(ω,X)” may be expressed, by decomposition, as two relationship functions that
may be directly measured by experimentation. This results in two representations that are
proportional to solutions of the Poisson and Lagrange equations. It is demonstrated that the ratio of
the resulting relationship functions is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the resultant
Poynting Vector. This property, in conjunction with the orientation of the resultant Poynting Vector,
may be utilised as a practical design tool for engineering the PV by the application of “offtheshelf” EM modelling software.
97
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Process Flow 3.2,
98
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
HYPOTHESIS TO BE TESTED
It was illustrated in chapter 3.1 that an experimentally determined relationship function
“K0(ω,X)”, may be used to characterise the relationship between the magnitude of the acceleration
vector “a” and the energy densities of discrete frequency modes “N” of an applied ElectroMagnetic
(EM) field. This relationship was shown to be equivalent to the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) Model
approach to General Relativity (GR) [23, 26  30] such that the Newtonian gravitational potential is
approximated by an exponential function [30] and that a weak gravitational field may be
represented by a superposition of EM wavefunctions.
Historically, variations in the energy density are known to result in gravitation from the
solutions of Poisson’s equation in Newtonian gravity. [31] An equivalent result is presented in
terms of the energy densities at the discrete frequency modes of the applied EM field. The
relationship function “K0(ω,X)” may also be derived from the results of experiments that determine
other relationship functions. It is demonstrated how these experimentally determined relationship
functions may be found and used to address experimental design issues. To achieve this,
experiments must be designed that test the following hypothesis,
There are three key factors in achieving a local modification of the magnitude of the
acceleration vector “a” of a gravitational field. These are; (i) an increase in the energy density of
the EM field at specific frequency modes, (ii) the superposition of time varying EM fields at specific
frequency modes and (iii), the equivalence principle, which indicates that an accelerated reference
frame is equivalent to a uniform gravitational field.
It has been conjectured that if the frequency and phase of all modes in the PV where known,
then by application of the appropriate EM fields, the interaction at those modes may facilitate
destructive interference resulting in a complete cancellation of the local value of gravitational
acceleration.
However, in the hypothesis to be tested, it is assumed that it is impossible to decrease the
energy density of a gravitational field by applying an EM field to a region of spacetime. Therefore,
the hypothesis requires that in any practical experiment it is only possible to increase the energy
density at specific frequency modes.
1.2
WHAT IS DERIVED?
This chapter derives three key design considerations. These are,
i. The “α” forms, which are an inversely proportional description of how energy density may
result in an acceleration “ax(t)”.
ii. The “β” forms, which are a directly proportional description of how energy density may result
in an acceleration “ax(t)”.
iii. The Critical Factor “KC”, which is the ratio of the experimentally determined relationship
functions “K1” and “K2” presented in section 3.
The key design considerations are derived from the hypothesis to be tested, which seeks to
couple gravitational acceleration to ElectroMagnetism. Dimensional Analysis was utilised in
chapter 3.1 to demonstrate that coupling may exist between ElectroMagnetism and gravity by the
application of Buckingham’s Π Theory.
Analytical results herein suggest that the square of the magnitude of the resultant Poynting
Vector may be a useful design tool. Calculation and visualisation of the orientation and intensity of
the Poynting Vector is standard functionality in many “offtheshelfEM” simulation products. This
provides a convenient platform from which to design practical laboratory benchtop experiments.
99
www.deltagroupengineering.com
The key design considerations are derived by identifying possible interpretations of equation
(3.31) that impact the hypothesis to be tested, as illustrated in section 2. Equation (3.31) is then
separated into subordinate elements based upon these interpretations, as illustrated in section 3. The
subordinate elements are then used to determine “KC” by solving for the ratio of the experimental
relationship functions, “K1” and “K2” defined in table (3.5).
2
THEORETICAL MODELLING
2.1
PRIMARY PRECIPITANT
The frequency domain precipitation derived in chapter 3.1 may be written as,
N
E( k , n , t )
a( t )
K 0( ω , X )
r
2
. n= N
N
B( k , n , t )
2
n= N
(3.31)
where,
Variable
a(t)
E(k,n,t)
B(k,n,t)
r
ω
n, N
k
K0(ω,X)
Description
Magnitude of acceleration vector
Magnitude of Electric field vector
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector
Magnitude of position vector
Field frequency
Harmonic frequency modes
Magnitude of the harmonic wave vector
Experimental relationship function
Table 3.3,
Units
m/s2
V/m
T
m
Hz
None
1/m
None
Equation (3.31) is termed the primary precipitant and may be manipulated to alternate forms
by incorporation. Incorporation is the redefinition of an as yet undetermined relationship function to
include a variable contained within the equation under consideration {e.g. equation (3.10) may be
written as “a = K0(r,ω,X)(E/B)2”}.
In our case, incorporation is utilised to visualise constant acceleration by the superposition
of EM waves to promote changes in energy density in the local spacetime manifold. Fourier Series
(FS), representing the summation of trigonometric functions, may be applied to facilitate this
change by defining a constant vector field “a” over the period “0 ≤ t ≤ 1/ω”.
A constant function is termed even due to symmetry about the “YAxis”, subsequently; the
Fourier representation contains only certain terms and may be expressed in complex form and
graphically illustrated for “N → ∞”. Firstly, visualising the applied EM forcing function yields,
100
www.deltagroupengineering.com
EM Function
1
2
ω
ω
Re( F ( k , 1 , t ) )
Re( F ( k , 2 , t ) )
Re( F ( k , 3 , t ) )
t
Time
1st Harmonic (Fundamental)
2nd Harmonic
3rd Harmonic
EM Function
Figure 3.3,
1
2
ω
ω
Im( F ( k , 1 , t ) )
Im( F ( k , 2 , t ) )
Im( F ( k , 3 , t ) )
t
Time
1st Harmonic (Fundamental)
2nd Harmonic
3rd Harmonic
Figure 3.4,
EM WaveFunction Superposition
Producing the representation where, “E(t) = ΣE(k,n,t)2” and “ΣB(t)= ΣB(k,n,t)2”.
1
1
2 .ω
ω
ΣE( t )
ΣB( t )
t
Time
Electric Field Magnitude
Magnetic Field Magnitude
Figure 3.5,
101
www.deltagroupengineering.com
In the PV representation, the value of the EM field at infinity replaces the fields in equation
(3.31) according to: “E(k,n,t) → E0(k,n,t)”, “B(k,n,t) → KPVΒ0(k,n,t)”, “r → r0/√KPV” and “ω →
ω0/√KPV” hence,
N
E 0( k , n , t )
a r0
2.2
2
K 0 ω 0, X
. n= N
N
3
r 0 . K PV
2
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
(3.35)
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PRIMARY PRECIPITANT
The primary precipitant is subject to two interpretations. (i) It may be increased or
decreased as a function of the magnitude of “E0(k,n,t)”, or (ii), it may be increased or decreased as a
function of the magnitude of “B0(k,n,t)”. Subsequently, if “E0(k,n,t)” is constant in an experiment
we may incorporate it into the experimental relationship function as follows,
α1
K 1 ω 0, r 0, E 0, D , X
(3.36)
N
3
r 0 . K PV .
B 0( k , n , t )
2
n= N
Incorporating “B0(k,n,t)” represents the second interpretation of the primary precipitant.
β1
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D , X
.
r 0 . K PV
3
N
E 0( k , n , t )
n= N
2
(3.37)
where,
Variable
α1
β1
K1(ω0,r0,E0,D,X)
K2(ω0,r0,B0,D,X)
D
c = c0 / KPV
Description
Units
2
The subset formed, as “N → ∞”, by the method of incorporation m/s
applied to equation (3.35).
The subset formed, as “N → ∞”, by the method of incorporation
applied to equation (3.35).
Experimental relationship function
(V/m)2
Experimental relationship function
T2
Experimental configuration factor: a specific value relating all design None
criteria. This includes, but not limited to, field harmonics, field
orientation, physical dimensions, wave vector, spectral frequency
mode and instrumentation or measurement accuracy.
Velocity of light in the PV
m/s
Table 3.4,
3
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
3.1
SEPARATION OF PRIMARY FORMS
The “α” and “β” forms, equation (3.36) and (3.37) respectively, may be used to generate
subset expressions with respect to the hypothesis to be tested. The subsets have been termed the first
and second alpha subsets (α1,α2) and the first and second beta subsets (β1,β2) to better characterise
anticipated results.
102
www.deltagroupengineering.com
The “αx” and “βx” subsets and experimental relationship functions “K1(ω0,r0,E0,D,X)” and
“K2(ω0,r0,B0,D,X)” may be formulated as follows,
Var. / Eq.
Description
K 1 ω 0 , r 0, E 0, D, X
Eq.(3.36)
αx
α1
Formulation
Formed by incorporation
applied to equation
(3.35) as N → ∞.
N
3
r 0. K PV .
B 0( k, n , t )
2
Units
m/s2
n= N
Eq.(3.38)
Formed by substitution
assuming a transverse
EM wave relationship, c0
= E0/B0 into α1.
2
K ω , r , E , D, X
. 1 0 0 0
N
3
r 0 . K PV
2
E 0( k , n , t )
n= N
c0
α2
Eq. (3.39)
2
Formed by relating α1 to (V/m)
equation (3.35) and
solving.
Formed by incorporation m/s2
applied to equation
(3.35) as N → ∞.
N
K 1 ω 0, r 0, E 0, D, X
K 0 ω 0, X .
E 0( k , n , t )
2
n= N
βx
Eq.(3.37)
β1
N
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D, X
.
E 0( k , n , t )
r 0 . K PV
3
Εq.(3.40)
n= N
.
3
K 2 ω 0, r 0 , B 0 , D , X
Formed by substitution
assuming a transverse
EM wave relationship, c0
= E0/B0 into β1.
Formed by relating β1 to
equation (3.35) and
solving.
N
2
c0
β 2 K 2 ω 0 , r 0 , B 0, D, X .
r 0. K PV
Eq. (3.41)
2
B 0( k, n , t )
2
n= N
K 0 ω 0, X
N
B 0( k , n , t )
2
T2
n= N
Table 3.5,
3.2
GENERAL MODELLING EQUATIONS
The subsets in table (3.5) suggest two experimental avenues with respect to the hypothesis to
be tested. These have been termed General Modelling Equations: GME1 and GME2 as follows,
Description Form
GME1
a1(r0) = ±½(β1 + β2)
GME2
a2(r0) = ±½(β1  β2)
Table 3.6,
3.3
Equation
(3.42)
(3.43)
CRITICAL FACTOR
The resulting relationship functions may be characterised by the Critical Factor “KC”. It
takes the form of a squared term and is a measure of the applied EM field intensity within the
experimental test volume. The Left Hand Side of equation (3.44) “KC2” is an arbitrary definition as
a consequence of its units of measure “(PaΩ)2”.
“KC2” may be derived from the ratio of “K1(ω0,r0,E0,D,X)” to “K2(ω0,r0,B0,D,X)” by taking
the limit as “N → ∞”,
K C K 1, K 2
2
K 1 ω 0, r 0, E 0, D , X
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D, X
N
N
E 0( k , n , t ) .
2
n= N
103
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
2
(3.44)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
The permittivity and permeability of free space, “ε0” and “µ0” respectively, may be included to
express equation (3.44) in units of energy density squared.
4
PHYSICAL MODELLING
4.1
POYNTING VECTOR
Equation (3.44) illustrates that “KC” may be usefully approximated by proportionality to the
magnitude of the resultant Poynting Vector. Assuming a transverse EM wave relationship, the
magnitude of the Poynting Vector at a particular frequency mode is “S = EH” where, “µ0H =
B”. [32]
The intensity of each field mode is the power per unit area and are summed to yield the total
intensity. This indicates the intensity of the field passing through a surface of an experimental test
volume. The resultant Poynting Vector from a benchtop experimental device may be oriented
parallel to the position vector “r” such that the acceleration acts to alter the magnitude of the local
value of gravitational acceleration “g”.
4.2
POISSON AND LAGRANGE
Table (3.6) defines two expressions that may be applied to experimental investigations
illustrating modelling significance,
N
a r0
±
β1
β2
±
2
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D, X
.
2 .r 0 . K PV
3
N
E 0( k , n , t )
N
E 0( k , n , t )
2
2
c0 .
n= N
B 0( k , n , t )
2
±
n= N
2
K 0 ω 0, X
. n= N
N
3
2 .r 0 . K PV
2
B 0( k , n , t )
2
c0
n= N
(Eq. 3.45)
N
a r0
±
β1
β2
2
±
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D, X
.
2 .r 0 . K PV
3
N
E 0( k , n , t )
N
E 0( k , n , t )
2
2
c0 .
n= N
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
2
±
2
K 0 ω 0, X
. n= N
N
3
2 .r 0 . K PV
2
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
(Eq. 3.46)
Equation (3.45) is proportional to a solution of the Poisson equation [31] applied to
Newtonian gravity where the resulting acceleration is a function of the geometry of the energy
densities. Equation (3.46) is proportional to a solution of the Lagrange equation where the resulting
acceleration is a function of the Lagrangian densities of the EM field harmonics in a vacuum. [32]
These demonstrate that “K2(ω0,r0,B0,D,X)” is the same in both instances. This becomes
significant when considering that the EM ZeroPointField (ZPF) of the quantum vacuum is
described in terms of the energy density per frequency mode (Spectral Energy Density) by,
ρ 0( ω )
2 .h .ω
c
3
3
(3.47)
where, “h” denotes Planck’s Constant [6.6260693 x1034(Js)] and “ω” is in “(Hz)”. Therefore, the
functions “E0(k,n,t)2” and “B0(k,n,t)2” are proportional to the applied energy density at each
frequency mode with respect to specific experimental configurations.
104
www.deltagroupengineering.com
2
c0
5
CONCLUSIONS
In an experiment, the value of “KC2” may be determined by direct measurement of the
intensity of the EM field strength at each harmonic frequency mode. If a resulting acceleration
vector is also measured, the hypothesis to be tested as presented in section 1 is validated.
NOTES
105
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
106
www.deltagroupengineering.com
CHAPTER
3.3
The Engineered Metric [65]
Abstract
Engineering expressions are developed for experimental investigations involving coupling
between ElectroMagnetism and gravity. It is illustrated that an accelerated reference frame may be
derived from a superposition of applied ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields and may be characterised by
the magnitude of the Poynting Vectors. Based upon dimensional similarity and the equivalence
principle, the engineered acceleration may be used to modify the gravitational acceleration at the
surface of the Earth. An engineered change in the value of the Refractive Index corresponds to an
incremental change in the gravitational potential energy. The magnitude of this change and the
similarity between an experimental test volume and the local gravitational environment, may then
be characterised by a Critical Ratio “KR” such that the gravitational acceleration is reduced to
“zero” when “KR = 1”. An Engineered Refractive Index equation is derived that may be used for
EM metric engineering purposes. An engineered Polarisable Vacuum (PV) metric line element is
then presented as an example.
107
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Process Flow 3.3,
108
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
DESCRIPTION
To demonstrate practical modelling methods of the Polarisable Vacuum (PV), utilising
Buckingham Π Theory (BPT), experiments must be designed that test the hypothesis stated in
chapter 3.2. Subsequently, three key design considerations were derived and may be characterised
by two system regimes,
i. The Critical Factor “KC”, which is a proportional measure of the magnitude of the applied
Poynting Vectors.
ii. The General Modelling Equations (GMEx).
(a) GME1 is proportional to a solution of the Poisson equation applied to Newtonian gravity
where the resulting acceleration is a function of the geometry of the energy densities. [31]
(b) GME2 is proportional to a solution of the Lagrange equation where the resulting
acceleration is a function of the Lagrangian densities of the ElectroMagnetic (EM) field
harmonics in a vacuum. [32]
1.2
CRITICAL RATIO
Based upon principles of similarity, as defined by BPT, [20  22] an engineering parameter
termed the Critical Ratio “KR” has been formulated to indicate proportional experimental conditions
(section 2.3). It is defined as the ratio of the applied EM fields to the change in the gravitational
field in terms of the change in energy densities.
In addition, it is shown that “KR” may be used to enhance the representation of the changing
experimental relationship function “∆K0(ω,X)” and leads to interactions with the PV as illustrated
in section 3 and 4. “KR” is a dimensionless parameter of the hypothesis to be tested as presented in
chapter 3.2.
1.3
METRIC ENGINEERING
An engineered metric tensor line element is developed in section 5 utilising an Engineered
Refractive Index term constructed in section 3.2. The exponential metric tensor line element as
stated in the PV representation of GR [30] is also presented and a table of metric effects articulated
in section 6.
2
THEORETICAL MODELLING
2.1
MATHEMATICAL SIMILARITY
It has been illustrated in chapter 3.1 that the magnitude of an acceleration vector field “a”,
formed utilising BPT methodology is equivalent to the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration
vector field “g” by dimensional similarity and utilisation of the equivalence principle. In the PV
representation, this may be expressed as “n → ∞” by the more generalised form as follows,
a r0
K 0 ω 0, X ( n , k)
.
r 0 . K PV
E 0( k , n , t )
2
B 0( k , n , t )
3
( n , k)
2
(3.35)
where, “ω0”, “E0”, “B0” and “r0” denote physical properties as “KPV → 1” asymptotically at infinity
such that,
109
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Variable
a(r0)
E0(k,n,t)
B0(k,n,t)
r0
ω0
n
k
KPV
K0(ω0,X)
Description
Magnitude of PV acceleration vector
Magnitude of PV Electric field vector
Magnitude of PV Magnetic field vector
Magnitude of position vector
Field frequency
Harmonic frequency modes of PV
Harmonic wave vector of PV
Refractive Index
Experimental relationship function
Table 3.7,
Units
m/s2
V/m
T
m
Hz
None
1/m
None
By replacing “E0 → EPV”, “B0 → BPV / KPV” and “r0 → r * √KPV”, an engineered change in
“g” may be expressed in local form that may be used to solve for the applied “E” and “B” fields as
“nPV → ∞” according to,
∆g ≡ ∆a PV
∆K 0( ω , X )
.
E PV k PV, n PV, t
2
B PV k PV, n PV, t
2
n PV, k PV
r
n PV, k PV
(3.48)
i
such that, by the application of dimensional similarity and the equivalence principle, the
acceleration may be affected by an applied EM field as follows,
N
E PV k PV, n PV, t
2
n PV, k PV
2
B A k A,n A,t
2
nA= N
B PV k PV, n PV, t
n PV, k PV
EA k A,n A,t
N
2
i
(3.49)
nA= N
where,
Variable
∆g
∆aPV
EPV(kPV,nPV,t)
BPV(kPV,nPV,t)
EA(kA,nA,t)
BA(kA,nA,t)
nPV
kPV
nA
kA
i
∆K0(ω,X)
Description
Change of gravitational acceleration vector
Change in PV acceleration vector
Magnitude of PV Electric field vector
Magnitude of PV Magnetic field vector
Magnitude of applied Electric field vector
Magnitude of applied Magnetic field vector
Harmonic frequency modes of PV
Harmonic wave vector of PV
Harmonic frequency modes of applied field
Harmonic wave vector of applied field
Denotes initial conditions of PV
Engineered relationship function
Table 3.8,
Units
m/s2
V/m
T
V/m
T
None
1/m
None
1/m
None
It shall be illustrated in section 3 that equation (3.48) may be utilised to develop an engineering
solution.
110
www.deltagroupengineering.com
2.2
CRITICAL FACTOR
An engineering solution can be further advanced by application of the Critical Factor “KC”,
which is a measure of the applied EM field intensity within an experimental test volume. Hence, the
Change in Critical Factor “∆KC” (specifically from zero) represents a proportional measure of the
magnitude of the applied Poynting Vectors as “nA → ∞” for the local observer as follows,
∆K C ∆K 1 , ∆K 2
2
∆K 1( ω , r , E, D , X )
N
1
N
.
∆K 2( ω , r , B, D , X ) K
PV
EA k A,n A,t
2
2
nA= N
.
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
2
(3.50)
N
∆K 1( ω , r , E, D , X ) ∆K 0( ω , X ) .
E A k A,n A,t
2
nA= N
(3.51)
∆K 0( ω , X ) .K PV
2
∆K 2( ω , r , B, D , X )
N
B A k A,n A,t
2
(3.52)
nA= N
where,
Variable
∆K1(ω,r,E,D,X)
∆K2(ω,r,B,D,X)
D
2.3
Description
Change in experimental relationship function
Change in experimental relationship function
Experimental configuration factor
Table 3.9,
Units
(V/m)2
T2
None
CRITICAL RATIO
Practical engineering of the hypothesis to be tested may be possible by calculation of the
Critical Ratio “KR”. This may be defined by consideration of the equivalence principle applied to
equation (3.48) as “nPV → ∞”. Complete similarity occurs when “KR = 1” and proportional
similarity at “KR ≠ 1”, therefore it follows that “KR” may be used to represent the proportional
relationships in terms of potential, acceleration, energy densities or any suitable measure as follows,
KR
∆U g ∆a PV ∆K C( ∆r )
Ug
g
∆U PV( ∆r )
.
ε0
µ0
(3.53)
where, the permittivity and permeability of free space, “ε0” and “µ0” respectively, act as the
Impedance Function “Z = √(µ0/ε0)” and is independent of “KPV” in the PV representation.
Variable
Ug
Description
Units
Initial state of Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) per unit mass described (m/s)2
by any appropriate method
Change in “GPE” per unit mass induced by any suitable source
∆Ug
∆KC(∆r) Change in Critical Factor with respect to “∆r”
PaΩ
Pa
∆UPV(∆r) Change in energy density of the gravitational field with respect to “∆r”
Table 3.10,
111
www.deltagroupengineering.com
3
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
3.1
ENGINEERING THE RELATIONSHIP FUNCTIONS
For experimental investigations, we require a model from which to design and predict
behaviour in accordance with the hypothesis to be tested in chapter 3.2. In figure (3.6): (i) the
arrows pointing downwards represent a uniform gravitational field, (ii) the arrows pointing upwards
represent a uniformly applied system field, (iii) the sphere represents the experimental test volume
residing at coordinates (0,0,r) and (iv) the square section represents an EM flux area.
Figure 3.6,
The hypothesis to be tested assumes coupling exists between propagating transverse EM
plane waves and gravity such that the local value of “g” is reduced to zero and complete similarity
is achieved as “[nPV,nA] → ∞”. Substituting “c2 → ΣEPV2/ΣBPV2” into equation (3.48), solving for
“∆K0(ω,X)” and recognising that “∆aPV → g KR” yields,
∆K 0( ω , X )
G.M .
r .g .
KR
KR
2
2
c
r .c
(3.54)
Hence, expressions for all experimental and Engineered Relationship Functions have been
obtained in terms of a scalar multiple of the magnitude of the resultant Poynting Vector and the
magnitudes of the superimposed EM fields.
3.2
ENGINEERING THE REFRACTIVE INDEX
The hypothesis to be tested suggests that “KPV” [30] may be engineered in the same manner
as “∆K0(ω,X)”. Equation (3.54) indicates that “KR = 1” at complete similarity between the applied
EM fields and the local gravitational field. At this condition, the magnitude of “∆KC/Z” is
proportional to the magnitude of “∆UPV” at the surface of the Earth within the test volume.
Utilising the classical weak field exponential approximation of “KPV”, [30] a useful
approximation for practical laboratory benchtop experiments at the surface of the Earth may be
derived as follows,
2.
K PV e
G .M
2
r .c
(3.55)
Therefore, an EM affected representation of “KPV” may be expressed by the Engineered Refractive
Index “KEGM” as follows,
K EGM K PV. e
112
2 . ∆K 0( ω , X )
(3.56)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
4
PHYSICAL MODELLING
The mathematical construct herein is based upon the modification of “g” by similarity of
applied EM fields to the local gravitational environment. Subsequently, we may characterise
physical modelling design criteria by the following engineering functions,
Initial Value
0
Key Characteristics
Range: ∞ < KR < ∞
Engineered Solution
KR
0(T )
.
∆U PV( ∆r )
g
ε0
µ0
N
1. Configuration specific
2. Determined experimentally
2
Ug
∆K C( ∆r )
G.M .
∆K 0( ω , X)
KR
2
r .c
Range: ∞ < ∆K0(ω,X) < ∞
0(V/m)2
∆U g ∆a PV
∆K 1( ω , r , E, D , X ) ∆K 0( ω , X ) .
EA k A,n A,t
2
nA= N
1. Configuration specific
2. Determined experimentally
∆K 0( ω , X ) .K PV
2
∆K 2( ω , r , B , D , X )
N
B A k A,n A,t
2
nA= N
0(PaΩ)2
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
0(m/s2)
Change in Critical Factor
Configuration specific
Key design consideration
Change in GME1
Configuration specific
Key design consideration
∆K C ∆K 1 , ∆K 2
∆K 1( ω , r , E, D , X )
2
∆K 2( ω , r , B, D , X )
N
E A k A,n A,t
∆a 1( r )
∆K 0( ω , X )
2 .r
.
2
nA= N
c
2
c
2
N
B A k A,n A,t
2
E A k A,n A,t
2
nA= N
N
1. Change in GME2
2. Configuration specific
3. Key design consideration
∆a 2( r )
∆K 0( ω , X )
2 .r
.
nA= N
N
B A k A,n A,t
2
nA= N
e
g .r
2.
2
c
KR = 1
Range: KPV ≥ 1
K PV e
KR > 0
Range: KEGM > KPV
G .M
2.
2
r .c
e
K EGM K PV. e
2 .∆K 0 ω , X , K R
2 . ∆K 0( ω , X )
Normal Matter Form
Range: 0 < KEGM < KPV
K PV
K EGM
e
2 . ∆K 0( ω , X )
Exotic Matter Form
Table 3.11,
5
METRIC ENGINEERING
5.1
POLARISABLE VACUUM
The exponential metric tensor line element in the PV representation of GR (in the weak field
limit) may be defined in Spherical Coordinates as follows, [30]
ds
2
µ
υ c .dt
g µυ .dx .dx
K PV
2
2
2
K PV. dr
113
2
2
r .dθ
2
2
2
r .sin ( θ ) .dψ
(3.57)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
where,
g 00
1
K PV
(3.58)
g 11 g 22 g 33 K PV
5.2
(3.59)
ENGINEERED METRICS
The engineered metric tensor line element for weak field approximations using exponential
components may be expressed as,
ds
2
µ
υ
g µυ .dx .dx
2
2
c .dt
K EGM
2
K EGM. dr
2
2
r .dθ
2
2
2
r .sin ( θ ) .dψ
(3.60)
where,
g 00
1
K EGM
(3.61)
g 11 g 22 g 33 K EGM
6
(3.62)
ENGINEERED METRIC EFFECTS
Engineered metric effects may be represented for the “normal matter form” as follows,
Variable
Velocity of Light: vc(KEGM)
Mass: m(KEGM)
Frequency: ω(KEGM)
Time Interval: ∆t(KEGM)
Energy: E(KEGM)
Length Dim.: L(KEGM)
7
Determining Eq.
vc = c / KEGM
m = m0 * KEGM3/2
ω = ω0 / √KEGM
∆t = ∆t0 * √KEGM
E = E0 / √KEGM
L = L0 / √KEGM
Table 3.12,
KEGM > KPV (Engineered Metric)
Velocity of light < c
Effective mass increases
Redshift toward lower frequencies
Clocks run slower
Lower energy states
Objects contract
CONCLUSIONS
Engineering expressions are developed for experimental investigations involving coupling
between EM fields and gravity that may be characterised by the magnitude of the superposition of
Poynting Vectors. Based upon dimensional similarity and the equivalence principle, the engineered
acceleration may be used to modify the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth.
An engineered change in the value of the Refractive Index corresponds to a change in the
gravitational potential energy. The magnitude of this change may be characterised by “KR” such
that the gravitational acceleration is reduced to “zero” within a practical benchtop test volume when
“KR = 1”. This leads to “KEGM” which may be used for metric engineering purposes.
114
www.deltagroupengineering.com
CHAPTER
3.4
Amplitude and Frequency Spectra [66]
Abstract
An experimental prediction is developed considering gravitational acceleration as a
harmonic function. This expands potential experimental avenues in relation to the hypothesis to be
tested presented in chapter 3.2. Subsequently, this chapter presents: (i) a harmonic representation of
gravitational fields at a mathematical point arising from geometrically spherical objects of uniform
massenergy distribution using modified Complex Fourier Series (FS): (ii) characteristics of the
amplitude spectrum based upon (i): (iii) derivation of the fundamental harmonic frequency based
upon (i): (iv) characteristics of the Frequency spectrum of an implied ZeroPointField (ZPF) based
upon (i) and the assumption that an ElectroMagnetic (EM) relationship exists over a change in
displacement within a practical benchtop test volume.
115
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Process Flow 3.4,
116
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
GENERAL
A metric engineering description was presented in chapter 3.3 based upon the principles of
similarity. An engineering parameter, termed the Critical Ratio “KR”, has been formulated to
indicate proportional experimental conditions, which may be stated as the ratio of the applied
ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields to the induced change of gravitational field strength.
1.2
HARMONICS
To further articulate the applicability of “KR”, a harmonic description of gravitational fields
is developed. This acts to expand potential experimental avenues in relation to the hypothesis to be
tested as stated in chapter 3.2. Subsequently, this chapter presents:
i. A harmonic representation of gravitational fields at a mathematical point arising from
geometrically spherical objects of uniform massenergy distribution using modified Complex
Fourier Series (FS).
ii. Characteristics of the amplitude spectrum based upon (i).
iii. Derivation of the Fundamental harmonic frequency based upon (i).
iv. Characteristics of the frequency spectrum of an implied ZeroPointField (ZPF) based upon (i)
and the assumption that an EM relationship exists over a change in displacement across a
practical benchtop test volume.
The proceeding construct obeys the following hierarchy,
v. A harmonic representation of the magnitude of gravitational acceleration “g” is developed in
section 3.1.
vi. The frequency spectrum of (v) is derived in section 3.2 by application of Buckingham Π
Theory (BPT) and dimensional similarity developed in chapter 3.1.
vii. The ZPF energy density is related to (vi) in section 3.3 based upon the assumption that
engineered EM changes in “g” may be produced across the dimensions of a practical benchtop
test volume.
viii. Spectral characteristics of the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) are derived in section 3.4 based upon
(vii).
ix. A description of physical modelling criteria is presented in section 4.
x. A set of sample calculations and illustrational plots are presented in section 5.
1.3
EXPERIMENTATION
The method of solution contained herein facilitates the determination of the following PV /
ZPF experimental design boundaries at practical benchtop conditions,
i. Amplitude and frequency spectra.
ii. Poynting Vectors.
2
THEORETICAL MODELLING
2.1
TIME DOMAIN
FS may be applied to represent a periodic function as a trigonometric summation of sine and
cosine terms. It may also be applied to represent a constant function over an arbitrary period by the
same method.
Since the classical PV model is a weak field isomorphic approximation of General
Relativity (GR) and the frequency spectrum is postulated to range from “∞ < ω < ∞”, it follows
that FS represent a useful tool by which to describe gravity.
117
www.deltagroupengineering.com
2.2
DISPLACMENT DOMAIN
The time domain modelling in the proceeding section may be applied over the displacement
domain of a practical benchtop test volume by considering the relevant changes over the dimensions
of that volume. This is illustrated by sample calculations presented in section 5.
3
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
3.1
CONSTANT ACCELERATION
Constant functions may be expressed as a summation of trigonometric terms. Subsequently,
it is convenient to model a gravitational field utilising modified Complex FS, according to the
harmonic distribution “nPV = N, 2  N ... N”, where “N” is an odd number harmonic. Hence, “g”
may be usefully represented by the magnitude of a periodic square wave solution as “nPV → ∞”,
g( r, M )
G. M .
2
r
n PV
2 . i . π .n PV .ω
e
π . n PV
..
PV ( 1 , r , M ) t i
(3.63)
where, the wavefunction amplitude spectrum “CPV” is calculated to be,
C PV n PV, r , M
G.M .
2
r
2
π .n PV
(3.64)
such that,
Variable
ωPV(nPV,r,M)
ωPV(1,r,M)
nPV
r
M
G
3.2
Description
Units
Hz
Frequency spectrum of PV
Fundamental frequency of PV
Harmonic frequency modes of PV
None
Magnitude of position vector from the centre of mass
m
Mass
kg
Universal Gravitation Constant
m3kg1s2
Table 3.13,
FREQUENCY SPECTRUM
It was illustrated in chapter 3.1 that dimensional similarity and the equivalence principle
could be applied to represent the magnitude of an acceleration vector “aPV” as follows,
a PV K 0 ω PV, r , E PV, B PV, X .
3 2
ω PV .r
c
(3.65)
where,
Variable
K0(ωPV,r,EPV,BPV,X)
ωPV
EPV
BPV
c
Description
Experimental relationship function
Harmonic frequency modes of PV
Magnitude of PV Electric field vector
Magnitude of PV Magnetic field vector
Velocity of light in a vacuum
Table 3.14,
Units
None
Hz
V/m
T
m/s
In accordance with the harmonic representation of “g” illustrated by equation (3.63),
“K0(ωPV,r,EPV,BPV,X)” is a frequency dependent experimental function. It was illustrated in chapter
3.1 that “K0(ωPV,r,EPV,BPV,X) = K0(X) = KPV3/2”. Hence, an expression for the frequency spectrum
118
www.deltagroupengineering.com
may be derived in terms of harmonic mode. This may be achieved by assuming the acceleration
described by equation (3.65) is dynamically, kinematically and geometrically similar to the
amplitude of the 1st harmonic (nPV = 1) described by equation (3.64) as follows,
aPV ≡ CPV(1,r,M)
(3.66)
The assumption associated with the preceding equation manifests by recognising that a FS is
the hybridisation of the “CPV” and “ωPV” distributions where, “CPV” decreases as “nPV” increases
and “ωPV” increases as “nPV” increases, intersecting at “nPV = 1”. Therefore, utilising equation
(3.65) and (3.66), it follows that all frequency modes may be represented by,
n PV 3 2 . c . G. M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
π .r
ω PV n PV, r , M
(3.67)
Hence, the fundamental frequency (nPV = 1) as a function of planetary radial displacement
may be graphically represented as follows,
Fundamental Frequency
RE
ω PV 1 , r , M E
ω PV 1 , R E , M E
r
Radial Distance
Figure 3.7,
where,
Variable
RE
ME
3.3
Description
Radius of the Earth
Mass of the Earth
Table 3.15,
Units
m
kg
ENERGY DENSITY
The gravitational field surrounding a homogeneous solid spherical mass may be
characterised by its energy density. If the magnitude of this field is directly proportional to the
massenergy density of the object, then the field energy density of the PV “Uω” may be evaluated
over the difference between successive odd frequency modes.
The reason for evaluation over odd frequency modes is due to the mathematical properties
of FS for constant functions. For such cases – as appears in standard texts, the summed contribution
of all even modes equals zero. [33] Subsequently, only odd mode contributions need be considered
when modelling a constant function as follows [refer to Appendix 3.B for derivation],
U ω n PV, r , M
U ω( r , M ) .
n PV
2
4
4
n PV
(3.68)
where,
U ω( r , M )
h .
4
ω PV( 1, r , M )
3
2.c
119
(3.69)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Variable
Description
Uω(nPV,r,M) Energy density per change in odd harmonic mode
h
Planck’s Constant [6.6260693 x1034]
Table 3.16,
3.4
Units
Pa
Js
SPECTRAL CHARACTERISTICS
3.4.1 CUTOFF MODE AND FREQUENCY
Utilising the approximate rest massenergy density “Um” of a solid spherical object, as
described by equation (3.70), an expression relating the terminating harmonic frequency mode to
“r” and “M” may be derived as follows,
U m( r , M )
3 .M .c
2
4 .π .r
3
(3.70)
Assuming that “Um(r,M) = Uω(nPV,r,M)”, equation (3.70) may be related to equation (3.68) and
solved for “nPV”. Hence, we may form the harmonic cutoff mode “nΩ” as follows,
n Ω ( r, M )
Ω ( r, M )
4
12
Ω ( r, M )
1
(3.71)
where, “Ω(r,M)” is termed the harmonic cutoff function,
3
108.
Ω ( r, M )
U m( r , M )
U ω( r , M )
12. 768 81.
U m( r , M )
2
U ω( r , M )
(3.72)
Subsequently, the upper boundary of the ZPF frequency spectrum “ωΩ” termed the
harmonic cutoff frequency may be calculated as follows,
ω Ω ( r , M ) n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.73)
Therefore, “nΩ” and “ωΩ” may be graphically represented for the Earth as follows,
RE
n Ω R E, M E
n Ω r, M E
ω Ω r, M E
ω Ω R E, M E
r
Radial Distance
Cutoff Mode
Cutoff Frequency
Figure 3.8,
The derivation of equation (3.71  3.73) is based upon the compression of energy density to
one change in odd harmonic mode whilst preserving dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity in
accordance with BPT. The preservation of similarity across one change in odd mode is due to the
120
www.deltagroupengineering.com
mathematical properties of constant functions in FS as discussed section 3.3. The subsequent
application of these results to equation (3.63) acts to decompress the energy density over the Fourier
domain yielding a highly precise reciprocal harmonic representation of “g” whilst preserving
dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity to the Newtonian, PV and GR representations.
3.4.2 ZEROPOINTFIELD
The crossfertilisation of the amplitude and frequency characteristics of the Fourier
spectrum with the ZPF spectral energy density distribution is a useful tool by which to analyse
expected characteristics. This may be achieved by graphing the ZPF Poynting Vector in PV form
“Sω” as follows,
ZPF Poynting Vector
S ω n PV, r , M
c .U ω n PV, r , M
(3.74)
S ω n PV , R E , M E
n PV
Harmonic
Figure 3.9,
4
PHYSICAL MODELLING
4.1
POLARISABLE VACUUM
The spectral characteristics of the PV at the surface of the Earth may be articulated by assuming,
i. The PV physically exists as a spectrum of frequencies and wave vectors.
ii. The sum of all PV wave vectors at the surface of the Earth is coplanar with the gravitational
acceleration vector. This represents the only vector of practical experimental consequence.
iii. A modified Complex FS representation of “g” is representative of the magnitude of the
resultant PV wave vector.
iv. A physical relationship exists between Electricity, Magnetism and gravity such that the local
value of gravitational acceleration may be investigated and modified utilising the equations
defined in the preceding section.
4.2
TEST VOLUMES
The application of modified FS to define the modes of oscillation of physical systems has
been experimentally verified since its development by Joseph Fourier (1768  1830). [34] The
representation developed in the preceding section is defined in the time domain but may also be
applied over an arbitrary displacement domain “∆r” as appears in standard engineering texts for
beams, membranes, strings, control systems and wave equations. [25, 33]
If we consider a small (experimentally practical) cubic test volume of length “∆r” to be
filled with a large number of incremental displacement elements, frequency characteristics of the
test volume may be hypothesised. Assuming each element within the test volume may be described
by sinusoids of appropriate amplitude and frequency, it may be conjectured that the system
121
www.deltagroupengineering.com
interaction of the elements produces an amplitude and frequency spectrum consistent with a
modified FS representation of “g” over “∆r”.
The resultant wave vector at each frequency mode of the test volume is required to be
coplanar with the gravitational acceleration vector for it to be representative of physical reality.
Hence, only a line of action vertically downward through the cubic element is required for
experimental consideration. Moreover, the mathematical representation of forces acting through the
test volume is further simplified by approximating “g” as constant over the vertical dimension of
the test volume.
4.3
TEST OBJECT
In accordance with PV and ZPF theories, test objects are assumed to produce a gravitational
spectral signature in the same manner as the signature produced by planetary masses. Gravitational
spectral signature is defined as the spectrum of amplitudes and frequencies unique to “r” and “M”
by the application of modified FS.
5
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
5.1
BACKGROUND GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
5.1.1 FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY
The fundamental frequency mode of the PV at the surface of the Earth may be usefully
approximated as follows,
ωPV(1,RE,ME) ≈ 0.04(Hz)
(3.75)
5.1.2 FREQUENCY BANDWIDTH
An expression may be defined representing the frequency bandwidth of the local
gravitational field as follows,
∆ω PV( r , M ) ω Ω ( r , M )
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.76)
Assuming an ideal relationship between the mathematical model and the background gravitational
field yields,
∆ωPV(RE,ME) ≈ 520(YHz)
(3.77)
where, “YHz = 1024(Hz)”.
5.2
APPLIED EXPERIMENTAL FIELDS
5.2.1 MODE BANDWIDTH
Assuming a practical benchtop cubic element of length “∆r” possesses spectral attributes
over the displacement domain, the number of permissible modes “Ν∆r” starting from “ωΩ” at “r”
over “∆r” as “nPV → nΩ” may be approximated by,
N ∆r( r , M ) ω Ω ( r , M ) .
∆r
c
(3.78)
In figure (3.10),
1. The arrows pointing downwards represent a uniform gravitational field.
2. The arrows pointing upwards represent a uniformly applied system field.
3. The cube represents the experimental test volume of length “∆r”, with base residing at coordinates (0,0,r).
122
www.deltagroupengineering.com
4. The square section represents an EM flux area.
5. “h” represents the vertical displacement above the EM flux area.
∆r
h
X
Y
X
Y
Figure 3.10,
5.2.2 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
The factors to be considered in experimental design configurations are as follows:
i. Where feasible, the experiment should attempt to maximise the applied energy density with
preference towards the highest frequency bombardment possible.
ii. Optimal energy delivery conditions occur at the highest achievable frequencies tending
towards the harmonic cutoff mode “nΩ”.
iii. Optimal experimental conditions occur when the ratio of the applied Poynting Vector to the
Impedance Function approaches unity.
iv. EM modes within the test volume are subject to normal physical influence. For example, the
fundamental frequency mode cannot exist within a typical Casimir experiment; hence, the
equivalent gravitational acceleration harmonic cannot exist. Hence, the relative contribution of
low harmonic mode numbers to “g” is trivial.
6
CONCLUSIONS
The delivery of EM radiation to a test object may be used to alter the weight of the object. If
the test object is bombarded by EM radiation, at high energy density and frequency, the
gravitational spectral signature of the test object may undergo constructive or destructive
interference.
123
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
124
www.deltagroupengineering.com
CHAPTER
3.5
General Similarity [67]
Abstract
An experimental prediction is developed considering gravitational acceleration “g” as a
harmonic function across an elemental displacement utilising modified Complex Fourier Series
(FS). This is evaluated to illustrate that the contribution of low frequency harmonics is trivial
relative to high frequency harmonics when considering “g”. Moreover, the formulation and
development of the Critical Boundary “ωβ” leading to the proposition that the dominant bandwidth
arising from the formation of beat spectra is several orders of magnitude above the TeraHertz
(THz) range, terminating at the ZPF beat cutoff frequency is presented. In addition, it is proposed
that the modification of “g” is dominated by the magnitude of the applied Magnetic field vector
“BA” and that the ElectroGraviMagnetic (EGM) spectrum is an extension of the classical
ElectroMagnetic (EM) spectrum.
125
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Process Flow 3.5,
126
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
GENERAL
The Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model provides a theoretical description of spacetime that
may be derived from the superposition of ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields. The spacetime metric may
be engineered utilising ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM), where EM fields may be applied to affect
the state of the PV and thereby facilitate interactions with the local gravitational environment.
This chapter continues previous work leading to practical modelling methods of the PV
based upon the assumption that dimensional similarity exists between the spacetime geometric
manifold and applied EM fields. In accordance with Buckingham's Π Theory (BPT), experiments
must be designed that tests the hypothesis stated in chapter 3.2.
1.2
HARMONICS
This chapter facilitates the following additions to the global EGM construct,
i. Derivation of the fundamental harmonic beat frequency across an elemental displacement
“∆r”, IFF “∆r << r”. This is evaluated to illustrate that the contribution of low frequency
harmonics is trivial relative to high frequency harmonics when considering gravitational
acceleration “g” across “∆r”.
ii. Group velocities across “∆r”.
iii. Formulation and development of the Critical Boundary “ωβ” leading to the proposition that the
dominant bandwidth arising from the formation of beat spectra is several orders of magnitude
above the TeraHertz (THz) range, terminating at the ZPF beat cutoff frequency “ωΩ ZPF”.
iv. The development of General Similarity Equations (GSEx) applicable to experimental
investigations.
v. The proposition that the modification of “g” is dominated by the magnitude of the applied
Magnetic field vector “BA”.
vi. The proposition that the EGM spectrum is an extension of the classical EM spectrum.
2
THEORETICAL MODELLING
Fourier Series (FS) may be applied to represent a constant function over an arbitrary period
by the infinite summation of sinusoids. Since the PV model of gravitation is an isomorphic
approximation of General Relativity (GR) in the weak field, it follows that FS may present a useful
tool by which to describe gravity as the number of harmonic frequency modes tends to infinity. The
frequency spectrum of the PV is postulated to range from “∞ < ωPV < ∞”.
3
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
3.1
INTRODUCTION
The spectral composition of the PV / ZeroPointField (ZPF) is an important design
consideration for experimental investigations. It was illustrated that the harmonic cutoff mode “nΩ”
may be quantified by a system of equations.
Taking limits of “nΩ” as described in chapter 3.4 yields the free space harmonic cutoff
mode. Free space refers to a flat spacetime manifold where the magnitude of the acceleration
vector is “0(m/s2)”: hence,
lim
r
∞

n Ω ( r, M )
127
→∞
(3.79)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Therefore, the spectral modelling characteristics of the PV / ZPF may be articulated as follows,
i. The free space harmonic mode bandwidth is “∞ < nPV < +∞”.
ii. The magnitude of the free space harmonic cutoff mode tends to infinity.
iii. The fundamental harmonic frequency of free space tends to zero.
iv. The presence of a planetary mass superimposed on the ZPF alters the free space harmonic
mode spectrum to “nΩ(r,M) ≤ nPV ≤ +nΩ(r,M)”.
v. The fundamental and cutoff harmonic frequencies of the PV / ZPF for a planetary mass
increases as “r” decreases according to:
“ωPV(1,r∆r,M) > ω PV(1,r,M)”, “ωΩ(r∆r,M) > ωΩ(r,M)” and “nΩ(r∆r,M) < nΩ(r,M)”
ωΩ(r,M) YHz
ωΩ(RE,M0) → 0
ωΩ(RE,MM) ≈ 196
ωΩ(RE,ME) ≈ 520
ωΩ(RE,MJ) ≈ 2x103
ωΩ(RE,MS) ≈ 9x103
Table 3.17,
ωPV(1,r,M) Hz
ωPV(1,RE,M0) → 0
ωPV(1,RE,MM) ≈ 0.008
ωPV(1,RE,ME) ≈ 0.0358
ωPV(1,RE,MJ) ≈ 0.2445
ωPV(1,RE,MS) ≈ 2.4841
nΩ(r,M)
nΩ(RE,M0) → ∞
nΩ(RE,MM) ≈ 2.4x1028
nΩ(RE,ME) ≈ 1.5x1028
nΩ(RE,MJ) ≈ 7.6x1027
nΩ(RE,MS) ≈ 3.5x1027
where, “YHz = 1024 (Hz)”.
Variable
nΩ(r,M)
ω PV(nPV,r,M)
ωΩ(r,M)
nPV
r
∆r
M
RE
M0
MM
ME
MJ
MS
3.2
Description
Units
Harmonic cutoff mode of PV
None
Frequency spectrum of PV
Hz
Harmonic cutoff frequency of PV
Harmonic frequency modes of PV
None
Magnitude of position vector relative to
m
the centre of mass of a planetary body
Magnitude of change of position vector
Mass of the planetary body
kg
Radius of the Earth
m
Zero mass condition of free space
kg
Mass of the Moon
Mass of the Earth
Mass of Jupiter
Mass of the Sun
Table 3.18,
PHENOMENA OF BEATS [35]
3.2.1 FREQUENCY
It was illustrated in chapter 3.4 that it is convenient to model a gravitational field at a
mathematical point utilising Complex FS obeying an odd number harmonic distribution.
Subsequently, it follows that a beat frequency “∆ωδr” spectrum forms across “∆r” since “nΩ(r,M) ≠
nΩ(r ± ∆r,M)”. Hence, the change in frequency (also termed a beat) across “∆r” may be usefully
approximated by,
∆ω δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
ω PV n PV, r
∆r , M
ω PV n PV, r , M
(3.80)
The fundamental beat frequency occurs when “nPV = 1” and may be expressed as “∆ωδr(1,r,∆r,M)”
and the change in harmonic cutoff frequency “∆ωΩ” (also termed the PV beat bandwidth across
“∆r”) becomes,
128
www.deltagroupengineering.com
∆ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
ω Ω(r
∆r , M )
ω Ω ( r, M )
(3.81)
where, “ωΩ” represents the harmonic cutoff frequency of the PV.
3.2.2 WAVELENGTH
The change in harmonic wavelength “∆λδr” across “∆r” may be determined in a similar
manner as follows,
∆λ δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
λ PV n PV, r
∆r , M
λ PV n PV, r , M
(3.82)
where,
λ PV n PV, r , M
c
ω PV n PV, r , M
(3.83)
Therefore, the change in harmonic cutoff wavelength “∆λΩ” may be given by,
∆λ Ω ( r , ∆r , M ) c .
1
ω Ω( r
1
∆r , M )
ω Ω ( r, M )
(3.84)
3.2.3 GROUP
3.2.3.1 VELOCITY
Group velocity is a term used to describe the resultant velocity of propagation of a set or
family of interacting wavefunctions. Within the bounds of this book, we consider two distinct
scenarios by which to construct the mathematical model. The first scenario concerns itself with
engineering representations at a mathematical point “r”.
At “r”, a spectrum of harmonic modes exists according to “nΩ ≤ nPV ≤ +nΩ”. Superposition
of these modes produces the constant function “g”. Therefore, it follows that the group velocity at a
mathematical point is zero. Consequently, gravitational wavefunctions are not observed to radiate
from a planetary body.
The second scenario considers group velocities over a differential element “∆r”.
Recognising that the change in modal amplitude across practical values of “∆r” at the surface of the
Earth tends to zero, the group velocity “∆vδr” at each harmonic frequency mode may be defined as
follows,
∆v δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
∆ω δr n PV, r , ∆r , M .∆λ δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
(3.85)
The terminating group velocity “∆vΩ” is the group velocity induced by the change in
frequency at the highest harmonic mode “nΩ”. Since the number of modes varies significantly with
“r”, the group velocity terminates with respect to the induced beat across “∆r” at the highest
common mode number “nΩ(r,M)” (recalling that “nΩ” increases with “r”). Subsequently, “∆vΩ”
occurs at the lower harmonic cutoff mode and may be defined as follows,
∆v Ω ( r , ∆r , M ) ∆v δr n Ω ( r , M ) , r , ∆r , M
(3.86)
3.2.3.2 ERROR
Evaluating equation (3.85, 3.86) reveals incremental nonzero magnitudes at low harmonics
tending to zero “([∆vδr],[∆vΩ]) → 0(m/s)” as “nPV → nΩ”. However, the expected result is that the
group velocity is exactly zero at all modes “([∆vδr],[∆vΩ]) = 0(m/s)”.
However, if “∆r → ∞”, then “∆vδr” is nontrivial and a mathematical statement has been
made predicting the radiation of gravitational waves from the centre of mass of a planetary body.
129
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Therefore, we may consider the calculation of “∆vδr” and “∆vΩ” as being proportional measures of
the mathematical representation error “RError” across “∆r”.
It should be noted that the error revealed by equation (3.85, 3.86) is introduced by the
simplification that the magnitude of the amplitude of “nPV” is constant across “∆r”. Typically, for
practical values of “∆r” at the surface of the Earth, “RError → (∆vδr ≈ ∆vΩ) → 0(%)”.
3.2.4 BEAT BANDWIDTH CHARACTERISTICS
3.2.4.1 FREQUENCY
Thus far, it has been illustrated that an amplitude and frequency spectrum exists at each
mathematical point over the domain “0 < r < ∞”. The preceding body of work has defined certain
characteristics, including change over the domain “∆r”. However, the variation in spectral
bandwidth from “r” to “r+∆r” requires further consideration.
Assuming the ZPF energy across “∆r” is equal to the change in the magnitude of the rest
massenergy density influence “∆UPV(r,∆r,M)” yields,
h .
ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
3
ZPF
2.c
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
4
∆ω δr( 1, r , ∆r , M )
4
(3.87)
where, the ZPF beat cutoff frequency “ωΩ ZPF” becomes,
4
ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
ZPF
2 .c .
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
h
3
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
4
(3.88)
Therefore, the ZPF beat bandwidth “∆ωZPF” may be defined as,
∆ω ZPF( r , ∆r , M ) ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
ZPF
∆ω δr( 1, r , ∆r , M )
(3.89)
3.2.4.2 MODES
The ZPF beat cutoff mode “nΩ ZPF” corresponding to “ωΩ ZPF” may be determined utilising
equation (3.90) developed in chapter 3.4 as follows,
1 . 2 .c .G.M .
K PV( r , M )
r
π .r
3
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.90)
where, “ωPV(nΩ ZPF,r,M) = ωΩ(r,∆r,M)ZPF” and “nPV = nΩ(r,∆r,M)ZPF”.
n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
ZPF
ZPF
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.91)
3.2.4.3 CRITICAL RATIO
“KR” is defined as the ratio of the applied fields to the ambient background field by any
suitable measure. Consequently, “KR” in terms of the ratio of energy densities may be defined by,
ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
KR
ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
4
ZPF
4
ZPF
ωβ
4
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
130
4
(3.92)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
3.3
CRITICAL BOUNDARY
3.3.1 FREQUENCY
The Critical Boundary “ωβ” represents the lower boundary of the ZPF spectrum yielding a
specific proportional similarity value as follows,
ω β r , ∆r , M , K R
4
ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
K R . ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
ZPF
4
ZPF
4
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
4
(3.93)
Therefore, the similarity bandwidth “∆ωS” is given by,
∆ω S r , ∆r , M , K R
ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
ZPF
ω β r , ∆r , M , K R
(3.94)
3.3.2 MODE
The Mode Number (Critical Boundary Mode) of “ωβ” may be calculated by reuse of
equation (3.90) as follows,
n β r , ∆r , M , K R
ω β r , ∆r , M , K R
ω PV( 1, r , M )
(3.95)
Consequently, the change in the number of modes as a function of “KR” may be given by,
∆n S r , ∆r , M , K R
3.4
n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
ZPF
n β r , ∆r , M , K R
(3.96)
BANDWIDTH RATIO
A bandwidth ratio “∆ωR” may be defined relating “∆ωZPF” to “∆ωΩ”. This represents the
ratio of the bandwidth of the ZPF spectrum to the Fourier spectrum of the PV. “∆ωR” provides a
useful conversion relationship between forms over practical benchtop values of “∆r” and may be
defined as follows,
Bandwidth Ratio
∆ω R( r , ∆r , M )
∆ω ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
∆ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
(3.97)
∆ω R R E , ∆r , M E
∆r
Change in Radial Displacement
Figure 3.11,
131
www.deltagroupengineering.com
4
PHYSICAL MODELLING
4.1
GENERAL SIMILARITY EQUATIONS
4.1.1 OVERVIEW
It was illustrated in chapter 3.2 that acceleration may be represented by the superposition of
wavefunctions. The Primary Precipitant was decomposed to form General Modelling Equations
GMEx. Therefore, for applied experimental fields (commencing from zero strength), the change in
GMEx is equal to the required change of the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration vector “g”.
∆GME1 is proportional to a solution of the Poisson equation applied to Newtonian gravity,
where the resulting acceleration is a function of the geometry of the energy densities. “∆GME2” is
proportional to a solution of the Lagrange equation where the resulting acceleration is a function of
the Lagrangian densities of the EM field harmonics in a vacuum.
Assuming proportional similarity (KR ≠ 1) between the ambient gravitational field across
“∆r” and the mathematical model, a family of General Similarity Equations (GSEx) may be defined
where “∆GME1 ≠ ∆GME2” for all “∆r” as “nPV → nΩ ZPF” and “+nΩ ZPF < +∞”.
4.1.2 GSEx
GSE1,2 may be formed utilising the following energy balancing equations,
∆GME x
g 0
(3.98)
∆GME x
g 2 .g
(3.99)
such that,
N
EA k A,n A,t
∆GME x
∆K 0( ω , X )
2 .r
.
2
nA= N
±c
2
(3.100)
N
B A k A,n A,t
2
nA= N
∆K 0( ω , X )
G.M .
KR
2
r .c
(3.54)
where, “∆K0(ω,X)” is the Engineered Relationship Function as derived in chapter 3.3, “kA” denotes
the applied wave vector and the permittivity and permeability of free space, “ε0” and “µ0”
respectively, act as the Impedance Function.
Substituting equation (3.54, 3.100) into (3.98, 3.99) and solving for “KR” yields the Critical
Ratio explicitly in terms of applied fields as “nA → nΩ ZPF” such that “KR → 1” as follows,
N
2
2 .c .
KR
B A k A,n A,t
2
nA= N
N
(3.101)
N
EA k A,n A,t
2
2
±c .
nA= N
B A k A,n A,t
2
nA= N
132
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Subsequently, proportional representations of similarity over the domain “1< nA <nΩ ZPF” are
significantly influenced by the magnitude of the functions “EA” and “BA” of equation (3.101) and
may be defined by GSE1,2 as follows,
N
2
2 .c .
GSE E A , B A , k A , n A , t
B A k A,n A,t
2
nA= N
1, 2
N
N
E A k A,n A,t
2
±c .
2
nA= N
2
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
(3.102)
Similarly, it follows that GSE3 may be written utilising the following equation,
KR
ε
∆K C ∆K 1 , ∆K 2
. 0
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
µ0
(3.103)
where,
∆K C ∆K 1 , ∆K 2
2
∆K 1( ω , r , E, D , X )
N
N
1
.
EA k A,n A,t
∆K 2( ω , r , B, D , X ) K 2
PV n A = N
2
.
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
2
(3.50)
Substituting equation (3.50) into (3.103) when “KR = 1” yields GSE3 as follows,
GSE E A , B A , k A , n A , t , r , ∆r , M
1
3
K PV( r , M ) .∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
.
ε0
µ0
N
N
.
EA k A,n A,t
2
nA= N
.
B A k A,n A,t
nA= N
(Eq. 3.104)
GSE4,5 may be formed by combining GSE1,2 with GSE3 as follows,
GSE E A , B A , k A , n A , t , r , ∆r , M
GSE E A , B A , k A , n A , t , r , ∆r , M
4, 5
GSE E A , B A , k A , n A , t
3
1,2
(3.105)
where,
Variable
∆GMEx
g
EA(kA,nA,t)
BA(kA,nA,t)
∆KC(∆K1,∆K2)
∆UPV(r,∆r,M)
c
G
Description
Change in applied acceleration vector
Magnitude of gravitational acceleration vector
Magnitude of applied Electric field vector
Magnitude of applied Magnetic field vector
Change in Critical Factor with respect to changes
in experimental relationship functions
Change in energy density of the gravitational field
with respect to “r, ∆r and M”
Velocity of light in a vacuum
Universal Gravitational Constant
Table 3.19,
133
Units
m/s2
V/m
T
PaΩ
Pa
m/s
m kg1s2
3
www.deltagroupengineering.com
2
4.2
QUALITATIVE LIMITS
Theoretical qualitative behaviour may be obtained for GSE1,2 by taking the limits of the
Right Hand Side (RHS) of equation (3.102) with respect to applied EM fields. By performing the
appropriate substitutions (KR → 1 as [nPV,nA] → nΩ ZPF) the following results are obtained,
lim
lim
GSE E A , B A , k A , n A , t
 B
0+
EA
∞
A
1, 2
lim
lim
GSE E A , B A , k A , n A , t
 E
+
0
BA
∞
A
1, 2
→0
(3.106)
→2
(3.107)
GSE1,2(EA,BA,kA,nA,t) qualitatively imply that achieving complete dynamic, kinematic and
geometric similarity between the applied EM fields and “g” is facilitated by maximising “BA”
whilst minimising “EA”. This suggests the proposition that “BA” dominates the local modification
of “g”.
The result, “lim GSE1,2(EA,BA,kA,nA,t) → 2” as “EA → 0+” and “BA → ∞”, arises from the
final energy density state of the PV after successful experimentation being twice the initial state.
This results in a net magnitude of acceleration of “2g” and may be represented by the following
equations, where “f” denotes the final state of the PV for complete similarity:
N
E f k PV, n PV, t
2
2.
n PV, k PV
E A k A,n A,t
2
nA= N
(3.108)
N
B f k PV, n PV, t
2
n PV, k PV
2.
B A k A,n A,t
2
nA= N
(3.109)
As “nA → nΩ ZPF”, the superposition of applied wavefunctions describes the magnitudes of
the Electric and Magnetic field vectors as constant (steady state) functions. Therefore, Maxwell's
Equations (in MKS units) may define the system characteristics as follows (where: “ρ” is the charge
density and “J” is the vector current density), [36]
∇ .E A
ρ
ε0
,∇
E A 0 , ∇ .B A 0 , ∇
B A µ 0 .J
(3.110)
Consequently as “nA → nΩ ZPF”, optimal similarity occurs when:
i. The divergence of “EA” is maximised.
ii. The magnitude and curl of “EA” is minimised.
iii. The magnitude and curl of “BA” is maximised.
As the square root of the ratio of the sum of the applied field’s approach “c”, GSE1
approaches unity as follows,
GSE E A , B A , k A , n A , t
lim
N
c
E A k A,n A,t
2
B A k A,n A,t
2
1
nA= N
N
nA= N
→1
134
(3.111)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Similarly, the applied field’s influence on GSE2 may be expressed as follows,
GSE E A , B A , k A , n A , t
lim
N
c
E A k A,n A,t
2
B A k A,n A,t
2
2
nA= N
N
nA= N
→ Undefined (3.112)
Consequently, characteristics of equation (3.106  3.112) are such that:
iv. GSE1(EA,BA,kA,nA,t) qualitatively implies:
“KR = 1” when “[ΣEA(kA,nA,t)2/ΣBA(kA,nA,t)2] → c2” as “nA → nΩZPF”.
v. GSE1(EA,BA,kA,nA,t) qualitatively implies use over the range:
“0 ≤ GSE1(EA,BA,kA,nA,t) < 2”.
vi. GSE2(EA,BA,kA,nA,t) qualitatively implies use over the range:
“0 ≤ GSE2(EA,BA,kA,nA,t) < 1 ∪ 1 < GSE2(EA,BA,kA,nA,t) < 2”.
The results presented above should not be taken as definitive mathematical solutions or
experimental predictions. However, deeper consideration may suggest that GSE1 represents an
expression biasing constructive EGM interference, whilst GSE2 biases destructive EGM
interference with “g”. The “undefined” result, indicated by equation (3.112), suggests that the local
spacetime manifold cannot be totally flattened in the presence of applied EM fields. The applied
fields represent energy contributions that inherently modify the geometry of the local spacetime
manifold.
5
METRIC ENGINEERING
5.1
POLARISABLE VACUUM
Utilising GSE3, we may write (in terms of the applied Poynting Vector) the exponential
metric tensor line element for the PV model representation of GR in the weak field limit analogous
to the form specified in chapter 3.3 as follows,
ds
2
µ
υ
g µυ .dx .dx
2
2
c .dt
K EGM
2
K EGM. dr
2
2
r .dθ
2
2
2
r .sin ( θ ) .dψ
(3.113)
g 00
1
K EGM
(3.114)
g 11 g 22 g 33 K EGM
where,
2.
K EGM e
G .M .
1
2
r .c
1.
2
GSE 3
3
K PV . e
(3.115)
∆K 0( ω , X )
(3.116)
Note:
i. “KEGM” is a function of the applied fields and constituent characteristics “(EA,BA,kA,nA,t)”.
ii. “nA >> 1”.
135
www.deltagroupengineering.com
5.2
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
5.2.1 RANGE FACTOR
The range factor “Stα(r,∆r,M)” is the product of “∆UPV(r,∆r,M)” and the Impedance
Function “Z”. It is a useful “ataglance” design tool that indicates the boundaries of the applied
energy requirements for experiments. The greater the magnitude of the range factor, the greater the
magnitude of applied energy required for complete dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity
with the ambient background field and may be represented as follows,
µ0
St α ( r , ∆r , M ) ∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .
ε0
(3.117)
We may determine specific limiting characteristics of the range factor for an ideal
experimental solution where the upper limiting value is defined by,
3.M .c .
4.π
2
lim
St ( r , 0, M )
+ α
∆r 0
1
(r
∆r )
3
1 . µ0
3
ε0
r
St α ( r , 0, M ) 0
(3.118)
The lower limiting value is defined by,
1
µ0
3 .M .c .
4 .π
2
lim
St α ( r , ∞ , M )
∆r ∞
1
(r
∆r )
3
1 . µ0
3
ε0
r
St α ( r , ∞ , M )
3 . . 2. ε 0
Mc
3
4
π .r
2
(3.119)
The range of “Stα(r,∆r,M)” over the domain “0 < ∆r < ∞” is given by,
0
St α ( r , ∆r , M ) <
2
3 .M .c . µ 0
3
ε0
4.π .r
(3.120)
5.2.2 SENSE CHECKS AND RULES OF THUMB
For nonexperimentally validated engineering undertakings, it is common practice to sense
check predicted behaviour before proceeding. We may develop simple sense checks and rules of
thumb by further considering the predicted mathematical results herein, in relation to other physical
phenomena.
For example, it is widely believed by proponents of the PV and ZPF models (of gravity and
inertia respectively) that the Compton frequency of an Electron “ωCe” represents some sort of
boundary condition. Subsequently, we may define the ratio of “∆ωZPF” to “ωCe” as the 1st Sense
Check “Stβ” as defined by equation (3.121). This acts as an indicator regarding orderofmagnitude
relationships and results.
The Electron represents a fundamental particle in nature and it would seem inappropriate
that “Stβ >> 1” (∆ωZPF >> ωCe) as it would imply that the beat bandwidth of ZPF frequencies, over
practical benchtop values of “∆r” is much larger that the Compton frequency of an Electron,
contradicting contemporary belief.
Similarly, if “Stβ → 0”, then “ωCe >> ∆ωZPF” and would seem to imply that, assuming “ωCe”
is representative of a natural gravitational boundary condition, proportional similarity (KR ≈ 1) by
artificial means is not experimentally practical and the mathematical model derived to achieve
similarity is inappropriate. Therefore, we expect that “0 << Stβ < 1”. Hence,
136
www.deltagroupengineering.com
∆ω ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
St β ( r , ∆r , M )
ω Ce
(3.121)
The 2nd Sense Check “Stγ” may be defined as the ratio of the magnitude of “∆ωΩ” to “ωCe”,
therefore it follows that “Stβ ≥ Stγ” (ZPF bandwidth > the Fourier cutoff change).
St γ ( r , ∆r , M )
∆ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
(3.122)
ω Ce
The 3rd Sense Check “Stδ” may be defined as the ratio of the harmonic cutoff modes across
“∆r” (expected to be: ≈ 1).
St δ ( r , ∆r , M )
n Ω( r
∆r , M )
n Ω ( r, M )
(3.123)
Therefore, it follows that,
∆ω R( r , ∆r , M )
St β ( r , ∆r , M )
St γ ( r , ∆r , M )
(3.124)
th
The 4 Sense Check “Stε” may be defined in terms of “RError” across “∆r” as follows
(expected to be: ≈ 1),
St ε n PV, r , ∆r , M
∆v δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
∆v Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
(3.125)
Hence,
Sense Check
RE
St β R E , ∆r , M E
St β r , ∆r , M E
St γ r , ∆r , M E
St γ R E , ∆r , M E
r
Radial Distance
Figure 3.12 [above, YAxis is logarithmic scale]: Figure 3.13 [below],
Sense Check
N
N
St ε n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
n PV
Harmonic
137
www.deltagroupengineering.com
6
ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS
6.1
BEAT SPECTRUM
Characteristics of the beat PV / ZPF spectrum, over “∆r = 1(mm)”, at the surface of the
Earth may be approximated according to the following table [PHz = 1015(Hz)],
Characteristic
Evaluated Approximation
Wavelength
λPV(1,RE,ME) ≈ 8.4x106(km)
Change in Wavelength
∆λδr(1,RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 1.8(m)
Change in CutOff Wavelength ∆λΩ(RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 0(m)
Group Velocity
∆vδr(1,RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 1.3x1011(m/s)
Terminating Group Velocity
∆vΩ(RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 1.3x1011(m/s)
Representation Error
RError ≈ 1.3x109(%)
Fundamental Beat Frequency
∆ωδr(1,RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 7.5x1012(Hz)
Change in CutOff Frequency
∆ωΩ(RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 45(PHz)
Beat CutOff Frequency
ωΩ(RE,∆r,ME)ZPF ≈ 371(PHz)
Beat CutOff Mode
nΩ(RE,∆r,ME)ZPF ≈ 1x1019
Beat Bandwidth
∆ωZPF(RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 371(PHz)
Critical Boundary Frequency
ωβ (RE,∆r,ME,50%) ≈ 312(PHz)
Critical Boundary Mode
nβ(RE,∆r,ME,50%) ≈ 8.7x1018
Similarity Bandwidth
∆ωS(RE,∆r,ME,50%) ≈ 59(PHz)
Similarity Modes
∆nS(RE,∆r,ME,50%) ≈ 1.7x1018
Bandwidth Ratio
∆ωR(RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 8.2
Bandwidth Ratio (∆r = 17mm) ∆ωR(RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 1
Range Factor
Stα(RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 88(MPa MΩ)
Range Factor Upper Limit
Stα(RE,∞,ME) ≈ 2x105(GPa GΩ)
1st Sense Check
Stβ(RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 4.8x104
nd
2 Sense Check
Stγ(RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 5.8x105
3rd Sense Check
Stδ(RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 1
th
4 Sense Check
Stε(nPV,RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 1
Table 3.20,
6.2
CONSIDERATIONS
Some of the factors to be considered in experimental design configurations may be
articulated as follows:
i. The experimental design should attempt to maximise the applied energy density with the
highest frequency conditions possible.
ii. Optimal conditions occur approaching the ZPF beat cutoff mode “nΩ ZPF”.
iii. EM modes within an experimental volume are subject to normal physical influence. The
fundamental frequency mode will not exist within a Casimir experiment. Hence, the equivalent
gravitational acceleration harmonic cannot exist.
iv. Numerical solutions to equation (3.93) indicate that greater than “99.99(%)” of the EGM beat
spectrum occurs in the “PHz” range. “KR ≈ 1” when “ωβ(RE,∆r,ME,99.999999999999 %) ≈
312(PHz)” and “∆ωZPF(RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 371(PHz)”.
138
www.deltagroupengineering.com
6.3
EGM WAVE PROPAGATION
The gravitational effect generated by a specifically applied EM field harmonic may be
conceptualised as a modified EM wave. Figure (3.14) depicts the manner in which pseudowave
propagation occurs. This has been termed EGM Wave Propagation and has 5 components as
follows,
i. The Electric Field Wave.
ii. The Magnetic Field Wave.
iii. The ElectroGravitic Coupling Wave (coplanar with the Electric Field Wave).
iv. The MagnetoGravitic Coupling Wave (coplanar with the Magnetic Field Wave).
v. The Poynting Vector indicated in Figure (3.14) as the wave propagation arrow.
Figure 3.14, not to scale:
6.4
DOMINANT AND SUBORDINATE BANDWIDTHS
The EGM spectrum is fictitious and is derived from the concept of similarity. However,
practical benefits to facilitate understanding of the concepts presented herein may be realised by the
articulation, in terms of applied experimental fields, of the conventional representation of the EM
spectrum. [37, 38]
The EGM spectrum represents all frequencies within the EM spectrum but may be
simplified into two regimes. These have been termed the dominant and subordinate gravitational
bandwidths (“∆ωEGM δ” and “∆ωEGM σ” respectively) as indicated in Figure (3.15).
Figure 3.15, not to scale:
139
www.deltagroupengineering.com
At the surface of the Earth, over practical benchtop values of “∆r”, “∆ωEGM δ” is responsible
for significantly more than “99.99(%)” of the spectral composition of “g”. Therefore, utilising table
(3.17) we may approximate the classical EM spectral representation for frequencies of Gamma
Rays “ωγ” at a mathematical point with displacement “r” as follows [YHz = 1024(Hz)],
i. “105(PHz) > ωγ > 1(YHz)”.
ii. “ωg > 1(YHz)”.
where, “ωg” represents the gravitational frequency of the applied experimental fields for complete
dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity with the background gravitational field at the surface
of the Earth.
6.5
KINETIC AND POTENTIAL
The EGM spectrum may be considered a hybrid function of an amplitude and frequency
distribution. The harmonic behaviour across an element “∆r” has been described in terms of,
i. The Fourier spectrum – termed the potential spectrum and is nonphysical.
ii. The ZPF spectrum – termed the kinetic spectrum and is physical.
Properties of the Fourier spectrum are such that wavefunction amplitude decreases as
frequency increases, whereas properties of the ZPF spectrum dictate constant amplitude with
increasing frequency. Consequently, merging the two distributions as defined by equation (3.92)
produces engineering properties and boundaries seemingly consistent with commonsense
expectations.
The potential spectrum has the advantage of being able to fictitiously represent ZPF
behaviour at a mathematical point in addition to “∆r”. This is otherwise not possible due to the ZPF
being a physical manifestation of “g” and the constituent wavefunctions possess finite wavelengths.
7
CONCLUSIONS
7.1
CONCEPTUAL
The construct herein suggests that the delivery of EM radiation to a test object may be used
to modify its weight. Specifically, at high energy density and frequency, the gravitational spectral
signature of the test object may undergo constructive or destructive interference. However, the
frequency dependent conditions for gravitational similarity at the surface of the Earth are enormous:
[ωβ ≈ 312(PHz) and ∆ωZPF ≈ 371(PHz)].
Summarising yields:
i. The ZPF spectrum of free space is composed of an infinite number of modes “nPV”, with
frequencies tending to “0(Hz)”, as illustrated in table (3.17).
ii. The group velocity produced by the PV at a mathematical point and across practical values of
“∆r” at the surface of the Earth is “0(m/s)”. Consequently, gravitational wavefunctions are not
observed to propagate from the centre of a planetary body.
iii. “∆UPV(r,∆r,M)” is proportional to “∆ωZPF(r,∆r,M)”.
iv. “g” exists (at practical benchtop experimental conditions / dimensions) as a relatively narrow
band of beat frequencies in the “PHz” range. Spectral frequency compositions below this
range [approximately less than 42(THz)] are negligible [similarity ≈ 0(%)].
v. General Similarity Equation (GSEx) facilitates the construction of computational models to
assist in designing optimal experiments. Moreover, they can readily be coded into “offtheshelf3DEM” simulation tools to facilitate the experimental investigation process.
vi. A solution for optimal experimental similarity utilising EM configurations exists when
Maxwell's Equations at steady state conditions are observed such that:
(a) The divergence of “EA” and curl of “BA” is maximised.
(b) The magnitude and curl of “EA” is minimised.
140
www.deltagroupengineering.com
7.2
PHYSICAL MODELLING CHARACTERISTICS
For “∆r << r” yields:
50 .%
ω β R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
100 .%
Re ω β R E , ∆r , M E , K R
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.16,
50 .%
ω β R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
100 .%
Im ω β R E , ∆r , M E , K R
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.17,
50 .%
ω β R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
100 .%
ω β R E , ∆r , M E , K R
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.18,
50 .%
Re ∆ω S R E , ∆r , M E , K R
Im ∆ω S R E , ∆r , M E , K R
0
0.5
100 .%
∆ω S R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.19,
141
www.deltagroupengineering.com
50 .%
100 .%
∆ω S R E , ∆r , M E , K R
∆ω S R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.20,
n β R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
100 .%
50 .%
Re n β R E , ∆r , M E , K R
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.21,
n β R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
100 .%
50 .%
Im n β R E , ∆r , M E , K R
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.22,
n β R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
100 .%
50 .%
n β R E , ∆r , M E , K R
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.23,
142
www.deltagroupengineering.com
50 .%
100 .%
∆n S R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
Re ∆n S R E , ∆r , M E , K R
Im ∆n S R E , ∆r , M E , K R
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.24,
50 .%
100 .%
∆n S R E , ∆r , M E , K R
∆n S R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
Figure 3.25,
NOTES
143
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
144
www.deltagroupengineering.com
CHAPTER
3.6
Harmonic and Spectral Similarity [68]
Abstract
A number of tools to facilitate the experimental design process are presented. These include
the development of a design matrix based upon: (i) the Critical Harmonic Operator “KR H” based
upon a unit amplitude spectrum: (ii) the derivation of Harmonic and Spectral Similarity Equations
(HSEx and SSEx): (iii) Critical Phase Variance “φC”: (iv) Critical Field Strengths (EC and BC) and
(v), Critical Frequency “ωC”.
145
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Process Flow 3.6,
146
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
GENERAL
In previous chapters, a number of practical engineering tools for application to the
Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model of gravity were derived by application of Buckingham Π Theory
(BPT) and dimensional analysis techniques. BPT is a welltested and experimentally verified
method that relates a mathematical model to an Experimental Prototype (EP). The EP represents the
PV at the surface of the Earth by which all similarity conditions are referenced.
The power of BPT to facilitate and articulate the derivation of mathematical constructs has
advanced theoretical boundaries to a higher level. The tools derived have volunteered precise
calculations leading to the Critical Ratio “KR” and General Similarity Equations (GSE's). “KR” is
defined as the ratio of the sum of the magnitudes of the applied ElectroMagnetic (EM) fields, to the
magnitude of the background gravitational field. The General Modelling Equation’s (GME’s)
derived in chapter 3.2 exploit these definitions to produce GSEx.
1.2
PRACTICAL METHODS
Practical engineering of the hypothesis to be tested may be realised by application of the
equivalence principle with respect to “KR”. Complete similarity occurs when “KR = 1” and
proportional similarity at “KR ≠ 1”, therefore it follows that “KR” may be used to represent
relationships in terms of potential, acceleration, energy densities or any suitable measure in
harmonic form. The harmonic representation of “KR” in the Fourier domain leads to a useful
engineering tool facilitating the experimental design process.
1.3
OBJECTVES
This chapter assists in the qualitative and quantitative experimental design process as
follows,
i. Harmonic representation of “KR = 1” in the Fourier domain over an elemental displacement
“∆r” termed the Critical Harmonic Operator “KR H” based upon a unit amplitude spectrum.
ii. Utilisation of “KR H” to formulate harmonic representations of various other physical variables
for consideration in the experimental design process.
iii. Utilisation of “KR H” to simplify GSEx, on a modal basis, to Harmonic Similarity Equations
(HSEx).
iv. Graphical visualisation of HSEx based upon Complex Phasor Forms of the magnitude of the
applied Electric and Magnetic fields (“EA” and “BA” respectively).
v. The Reduction of HSEx into simplified ElectroMagnetic (EM) design consideration forms
HSEx R.
vi. Spectral Similarity Equations (SSE): these qualify and quantify the similarity of a singularly
applied experimental EM source to the frequencies that inhabit the ambient ElectroGraviMagnetic (EGM) spectrum.
vii. Determination of the applied EM phase requirements with respect to the background
gravitational field utilising SSEx.
viii. Assess the suitability of Maxwell's Equations to experimental investigations utilising SSEx.
1.4
RESULTS
The results obtained may be articulated by the development of a design matrix based upon,
i. The derivation of “KR H”.
ii. The derivation of HSEx R and SSEx.
iii. Critical Phase Variance “φC”.
147
www.deltagroupengineering.com
iv. Critical Field Strengths “EC” and “BC” (Electric and Magnetic field strengths respectively).
v. Critical Frequency “ωC”.
2
THEORETICAL MODELLING
Assuming complete dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity between the EP and the
mathematical model (KR =1) where the harmonic mode of the PV “nPV” approaches the harmonic
cutoff mode “nΩ” [nPV → nΩ and nΩ < ∞], “KR” has many representations. One such
representation incorporating the change in harmonic frequency modes across “∆r” shall be derived.
The spectral characteristics of the EP may be articulated at the surface of the Earth assuming
spherical geometry with uniform mass distribution,
i. The ZeroPointField (ZPF) physically exists as a spectrum of frequencies and wave vectors.
ii. The summed effect of all ZPF wave vectors at the surface of the Earth is coplanar with the
gravitational acceleration vector.
iii. A modified Complex FS representation of “g” is physically real and is representative of the
magnitude of the resultant ZPF wave vector.
iv. A physical relationship exists between gravity, Electricity and Magnetism such that the
physical interaction of applied EM fields with the PV, in accordance with the hypotheses to be
tested as defined in chapter 3.2, may be investigated and potentially modified.
It was illustrated in chapter 3.3 that, for an engineered change in “g” by application of BPT
and the equivalence principle, a change in the PV may be described [as nPV → nΩ] by,
∆g ≡ ∆a PV
∆K 0( ω , X )
E PV k PV, n PV, t
2
B PV k PV, n PV, t
2
n PV, k PV
.
r
n PV, k PV
(3.48)
i
where,
Variable
∆g
∆aPV
EPV(kPV,nPV,t)
BPV(kPV,nPV,t)
ω
kPV
i
∆K0(ω,X)
r
Description
Change of gravitational acceleration vector
Change in PV acceleration vector
Magnitude of PV Electric field vector
Magnitude of PV Magnetic field vector
Field frequency
Harmonic wave vector of PV
Denotes initial conditions of PV
Engineered relationship function
Magnitude of position vector from centre of mass
Table 3.21,
Units
m/s2
V/m
T
Hz
1/m
None
m
Subsequently, considering only the resultant ZPF wave vector relating to “g” in a practical
laboratory experiment, equation (3.48) may be usefully simplified by removing “kPV” notation and
relating it to a generalised Fourier representation of constant “g” over “∆r” as “nPV →
nΩ”, analogous to the form utilised in chapter 3.4,
E PV n PV, t
∆K 0( ω , X ) n PV
.
r
B
n PV
2
G.M .
PV n PV, t
2
i .
2
r
n PV
2
π .n PV
.e
π .n PV .∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t .i
(3.126)
i
148
www.deltagroupengineering.com
where, “∆ωδr” denotes the beat frequency across “∆r” as defined in chapter 3.5 and “∆K0(ω,X)” is
the Engineered Relationship Function.
E PV n PV, t
c
2
2
n PV
B PV n PV, t
2
n PV
(3.127)
G.M .
∆K 0( ω , X )
KR
2
r .c
(3.54)
Substituting equation (3.127) and (3.54) into (3.126) yields the PV  EM harmonic
representation of the ideal value of the magnitude of “KR” for the complete reduction of “g” over
“∆r” in a laboratory at the surface of the Earth as “nPV → nΩ”,
K R( r , ∆r , M )
2.
π
i .
n PV
π .n PV .∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t .i
1 .
e
n PV
(3.128)
where, “i” on the Right Hand Side (RHS) of equation (3.126, 3.128) represents complex number
notation and the maximum amplitude occurs at time index,
t n PV, r , ∆r , M
1
2 . n PV .∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
(3.129)
Yields the unit amplitude spectrum analogous to the result previously found in chapter 3.4 as “nPV
→ nΩ(r+∆r)”,
K R n PV
3
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
3.1
DESIGN MATRIX
2
(3.130)
π . n PV
H
Utilising equation (3.130) a table of expressions for the magnitude of the amplitude
spectrum of various experimental design considerate relationships may be formulated for complete
dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity between the EP and the mathematical model (KR =1)
as “nPV → nΩ”,
Description
Eng. Rel. Func.
Primitive Form
Harmonic Form
∆K 0( ω , X)
∆K 0 n PV, r , M , X
G.M .
KR
2
r .c
Refractive Index
2.
K EGM K PV. e
U g( r, M )
Critical Factor
KR
K PV n PV, r , M
2
r .c
K PV( r , M ) e
Engineered
Refractive Index
GPE / kg
G .M
2 . ∆K 0( ω , X )
G.M .m . 1
r
m
∆K C( r , ∆r , M )
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
.
ε0
µ0
H
G.M .
K R n PV
2
H
H
r .c
K PV( r , M ) .K R n PV
K EGM n PV, r , M , K R
U g n PV, r , M
H
H
H
ΣKPV H → KPV
H
K EGM r , M , K R
U g ( r , M ) .K R n PV
∆K C n PV, r , ∆r , M
Result
Σ∆K0 H → ∆K0
.K n
R PV
H
ΣKEGM H → KEGM
ΣUg H → Ug
H
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .K R n PV .
H
µ0
Σ∆KC H → ∆KC
ε0
Table 3.22,
where, the permittivity and permeability of free space (“ε0” and “µ0” respectively) act as the
Impedance Function such that,
149
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Variable
∆UPV(r,∆r,M)
∆KC(r,∆r,M)
G
3.2
Description
Change in energy density of PV
Change in Critical Factor
Universal Gravitation Constant
Table 3.23,
Units
Pa
PaΩ
m3kg1s2
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
Factors to be considered in experimental design configurations when applying equations
defined in table (3.22) are as follows:
i. The actual EM modes over “∆r” are subject to normal physical influence. The fundamental
frequency mode will not exist within a Casimir experiment; hence, the equivalent gravitational
acceleration harmonic cannot exist.
ii. The relative contribution of the fundamental frequency mode to the gravitational acceleration
vector “g” is trivial.
4
PHYSICAL MODELLING
4.1
HARMONIC SIMILARITY EQUATIONS
A family of HSEx may be defined by relating the EP to the mathematical model on a modal
basis, termed discrete similarity for “∆r << ∞”. Utilising GSE1,2 derived in chapter 3.5 yields
HSE1,2; formed from the ratio of “KR(r,∆r,M)” to “GSE1,2” as follows,
HSE E A , B A , k A , n A , n PV, r , ∆r , M , t
i . E A k A, n A, t
2
1, 2
2
± c .B A k A , n A , t
2
.e
π .n PV .∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t .i
2
π . n PV. c . B A k A , n A , t
2
(Eq. 3.131)
Similarly, HSE3 may be formed utilising the ratio of “KR(r,∆r,M)” to “GSE3” as follows,
π .n
HSE E A , B A , k A , n A , n PV, r , ∆r , M , t
3
.∆ω
( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t .i
PV
δr
2 .i .K PV( r , M ) .St α ( r , ∆r , M ) .e
π .n PV.E A k A , n A , t .B A k A , n A , t
(Eq. 3.132)
Hence, HSE4,5 may be formed utilising the ratio of “KR(r,∆r,M)” to “GSE4,5” as follows,
HSE E A , B A , k A , n A , n PV, r , ∆r , M , t
2
4 .i .K PV( r , M ) .St α ( r , ∆r , M ) .c .B A k A , n A , t .e
4, 5
π .n PV.E A k A , n A , t . E A k A , n A , t
2
π .n PV .∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t .i
2
± c .B A k A , n A , t
2
(Eq. 3.133)
Recognising that,
i .e
π .n PV .∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t .i
1
(3.134)
Yields,
HSE E A , B A , k A , n A , n PV, r , ∆r , M , t
1.
1,2
2
E A k A, n A, t
2
2
± c .B A k A , n A , t
2
c .B A k A , n A , t
2
2
.K
R n PV
H
(Eq. 3.135)
150
www.deltagroupengineering.com
HSE E A , B A , k A , n A , n PV, r , ∆r , M , t
K PV( r , M ) .St α ( r , ∆r , M )
3
.K n
R PV
E A k A , n A , t .B A k A , n A , t
H
(Eq. 3.136)
HSE E A , B A , k A , n A , n PV, r , ∆r , M , t
4, 5
2.
2
K PV( r , M ) .St α ( r , ∆r , M ) .c .B A k A , n A , t
E A k A,n A,t . EA k A,n A,t
2
2.
± c B A k A,n A,t
2
.K n
R PV
(Eq. 3.137)
where,
St α ( r , ∆r , M ) ∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .
3 .M .c .
4 .π
2
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
Variable
EA(kA,nA,t)
BA(kA,nA,t)
c
M
4.2
µ0
ε0
1
(r
∆r )
(3.117)
1
3
3
r
(3.118)
Description
Units
Magnitude of applied Electric field vector
V/m
Magnitude of applied Magnetic field vector
T
Velocity of light in a vacuum
m/s
Mass
kg
Table 3.24,
VISUALISATION OF HSEx OPERANDS
Visualisation of HSE operands  the expression inside the magnitude notation on the Right
Hand Side (RHS) of equation (3.131  3.133)  provides valuable information regarding the
differences between forms. For example, it shall be demonstrated that HSE4,5 suggest constructive
and destructive EM interference considerations. To achieve this, we shall utilise the following
definitions for the applied EM fields in Complex Phasor Form,
E A E 0 , n E, r , ∆ r , M , t
E 0.e
2 .π .ω E n E , r , ∆r , M .t
π .
i
2
(3.138)
B A B 0, n B, φ , r , ∆ r , M , t
B 0.e
2 .π .ω B n B , r , ∆r , M .t
π
2
φ .i
(3.139)
Note: since “g” on a laboratory test bench at the surface of the Earth is usefully approximated to a
onedimensional (1D) situation and complete dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity between
the EP and the mathematical model (KR =1) is assumed, the harmonic wave vector “kA” has been
omitted for simplicity.
where,
E rms
E0
2
B rms
B0
2
151
(3.140)
(3.141)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
H
Variable
EA(E0,nE,r,∆r,M,t)
BA(B0,nB,φ,r,∆r,M,t)
E0
B0
nE
nB
φ
ωE
ωB
Erms
Brms
Description
Applied Electric field vector
Applied Magnetic field vector
Amplitude of Electric field vector
Amplitude of Magnetic field vector
Harmonic mode number of the ZPF with respect to EA
Harmonic mode number of the ZPF with respect to BA
Relative phase variance between EA and BA
Harmonic frequency of the ZPF with respect to EA
Harmonic frequency of the ZPF with respect to BA
Root Mean Square of EA
Root Mean Square of BA
Table 3.25,
Units
V/m
T
V/m
T
None
θc
Hz
V/m
T
Equations (3.138, 3.139) are functions in Complex Form and contain Real and Imaginary
components. For visualisation purposes, only the Real component is required. Figure (3.26)
includes a graphical representation of “EA” and “BA” for arbitrary illustrational values.
The representations for “Re(HSE1,2)” have been accentuated for illustrational purposes by a
large value of “φ” (180°). Typically, values of “0°” would be expected in accordance with classical
EM propagation, or “90°” in accordance with Maxwell’s Equations.
Re E A 1 .
V
m
, 1 , R E , ∆r , M E , t
Re B A 1 .( T ) , 1 , 180 .( deg ) , R E , ∆r , M E , t
V
Re HSE 1 1 .
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , 180 .( deg ) , 3 , R E , ∆r , M E , t
m
V
Re HSE 2 1 .
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , 180 .( deg ) , 3 , R E , ∆r , M E , t
m
t
Electric Forcing Function
Magnetic Forcing Function
HSE 1
HSE 2
Figure 3.26,
Figure (3.27) includes arbitrary illustrational values but also contains important information
regarding “φ”. Exploratory graphical analysis demonstrates that “Re(HSE3)” is inphase with
“Re(HSE4)” and outofphase with “Re(HSE5)” for key values (0° and 90°) of “φ”. The significance
of this being that “Re(HSE3)” is analogous to the Poynting Vector and implies that “Re(HSE4)” is
representative of constructive EGM interference and “Re(HSE5)” is representative of destructive
EGM interference.
HSE4,5 were formed from General Modelling Equation “1” and “2” (GME1,2) as described in
chapter 3.5. GME1 is proportional to a solution of the Poisson equation applied to Newtonian
gravity where the resulting acceleration is a function of the geometry of the energy densities. GME2
is proportional to a solution of the Lagrange equation where the resulting acceleration is a function
of the Lagrangian densities of the EM field harmonics in a vacuum.
152
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Therefore, experimental investigations with the objective of reducing the local gravitational
acceleration on a test bench, by means of EGM interference, should bias engineering designs
governed by HSE5. However, designs favouring HSE4 should not be discounted and should form
part of any complete design process.
Re HSE 3 1 .
V
Re HSE 4 1 .
V
Re HSE 5 1 .
V
m
m
m
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , 0 .( deg ) , 3 , R E , ∆r , M E , t
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , 0 .( deg ) , 3 , R E , ∆r , M E , t
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , 0 .( deg ) , 3 , R E , ∆r , M E , t
t
HSE 3
HSE 4
HSE 5
Figure 3.27,
4.3
REDUCTION OF HSEx
HSEx may be simplified by performing the appropriate substitution of equation (3.138 3.141). The simplified equations carry the subscript “R” (of the form HSEx R) and facilitate the
investigation of the influence of “φ” on a modal basis. This becomes important in a practical sense
because experimental investigations will involve “1” (or very few) applied forcing function
frequencies.
The reproduction of the entire background EGM spectrum would be technically difficult to
achieve. Subsequently, experimental configurations will need to consider “φ” influence very
carefully. Assuming the forcing function frequency of “EA” is equal to that of “BA” yields HSEx R as
follows,
HSE 1 φ, n PV
HSE 2 φ, n PV
2 .( cos ( 2 .φ)
π .n PV
R
2 .( cos ( 2 .φ)
π .n PV
R
HSE 3 E rms, B rms, n PV, r , ∆r , M
(3.142)
1)
(3.143)
K PV( r , M ) .St α ( r , ∆r , M )
π .n PV.E rms.B rms
R
HSE 4 E rms , B rms , φ , n PV, r , ∆r , M
HSE 5 E rms , B rms , φ , n PV, r , ∆r , M
4.4
1)
1
R
cos ( φ )
1
R
sin ( φ )
.HSE E
3 rms , B rms , n PV, r , ∆r , M
.HSE E
3 rms , B rms , n PV, r , ∆r , M
(3.144)
R
R
(3.145)
(3.146)
VISUALISATION OF HSEx R
Significant design information leading to complete dynamic, kinematic and geometric
similarity with the background field (KR =1) may be obtained by visualisation of HSEx R.
Assigning arbitrary values where required to analyse modelling behaviour facilitating the
153
www.deltagroupengineering.com
experimental design process yields,
Figure (3.28) analysis:
i. Harmonic similarity is maximised at “φ = 0°” and “φ = 90°”. Intuitively, this appears to agree
with expectation; these phase angles are observed in classical vacuum EM wave propagation
and Maxwell's Equations respectively.
ii. Maximum harmonic amplitude occurs at “nPV = 1”: This implies that a low frequency carrier
wave encasing a high frequency Poynting Vector maximises similarity of the applied fields
with the background gravitational field. Intuitively, this appears to agree with expectation as
the population of Photons in the ZPF is maximised at the fundamental harmonic.
iii. “HSE1 = HSE2” at “φ = 45°” and “φ = 135°”.
π
π
Harmonic Similarity
2
HSE 1_R ( φ , 1 )
HSE 1_R ( φ , 2 )
HSE 2_R ( φ , 1 )
HSE 2_R ( φ , 2 )
φ
Phase Variance
Figure 3.28,
Note: alteration of notation is required for graphing purposes. It is a limitation of the graphing
software used herein that axial arguments may not be written precisely in the form HSE1 R(φ,1) etc.
Figure (3.29) analysis [YAxis is logarithmic]:
iv. “HSE3 R → 1” as “nPV → nΩ ZPF”: This is consistent with Poynting Vector characteristics
described in chapter (3.2, 3.3).
where,
Harmonic Similarity
Variable
nΩ(r,∆r,M)ZPF
RE
ME
Description
ZPF beat cutoff mode across “∆r” at “r”
Radius of the Earth
Mass of the Earth
Table 3.26,
Units
None
m
kg
HSE 3_R E rms , B rms , n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
n PV
Harmonic Mode
Figure 3.29,
154
www.deltagroupengineering.com
4.5
SPECTRAL SIMILARITY EQUATIONS
The preceding sections define the requirements for complete dynamic, kinematic and
geometric similarity with any specific mode in the background EGM field. However, reproduction
of only one specific mode for experimental investigations is extremely limiting. Alternatively, it is
highly advantageous to consider the reproduction of a harmonically averaged distribution for each
HSE, termed Spectral Similarity Equations (SSE's).
SSE's are defined as a family of equations that quantify and qualify the similarity of a single
field source defined by HSE with respect to the spectrum of frequencies that inhabit the background
EGM field. SSE's differs from GSE's in that GSE's represents similarity of multiple EM sources
with respect to the background EGM field.
Therefore, utilising the HSE's above, the magnitude of the average spectral similarity per
frequency mode with respect to the applied forcing function may be generalised as follows,
1
SSE
.
n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
1
ZPF
HSE
n PV
(3.149)
where, “nPV” has the odd harmonic distribution: “nΩ ZPF, 2  nΩ ZPF …. nΩ ZPF”.
Recognising that (with error “< 6.7x106(%)” at “nΩ ZPF > 106”),
1
n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
1
ZPF
ln 2 .n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
ZPF
1
.
n PV
n PV
n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
γ
1
ZPF
(3.150)
As “nPV → nΩ ZPF” and “nΩ ZPF >>1”: Substituting HSE's into equation (3.149) yields,
SSE 1( φ, r , ∆r , M )
SSE 2( φ, r , ∆r , M )
SSE 3 E rms , B rms , r , ∆r , M
2 .( cos ( 2 .φ)
ln 2 .n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
π
n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
2 .( cos ( 2 .φ)
1) .
γ
ZPF
1
(3.151)
ZPF
ln 2 .n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
ZPF
π
n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
γ
1
ZPF
.
γ
K PV( r , M ) . St α ( r , ∆r , M ) ln 2 n Ω ( r , ∆r , M ) ZPF
.
π .E rms .B rms
n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
1
ZPF
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , φ, r , ∆r , M
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , φ, r , ∆r , M
4.6
1) .
1
cos ( φ)
1
sin ( φ )
.SSE E
3 rms , B rms , r , ∆r , M
.SSE E
3 rms , B rms , r , ∆r , M
(3.152)
(3.153)
(3.154)
(3.155)
CRITICAL PHASE VARIANCE
“φC” is defined as the phase difference between “EA” and “BA” for complete dynamic,
kinematic and geometric similarity with the background EGM field (SSEx = 1). Therefore, by
analyses of the preceding figures and the appropriate transformation of the preceding equations,
“φC” may be easily determined.
For proportional solutions to the Poisson equation applied to Newtonian gravity where the
resulting acceleration is a function of the geometry of the energy densities, “φC = 0°”. For
proportional solutions to the Lagrange equation where the resulting acceleration is a function of the
155
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Lagrangian densities, “φC = 90°”.
4.7
CRITICAL FIELD STRENGTH
“EC” and “BC” are derived utilising the reciprocal harmonic distribution describing the EGM
amplitude spectrum. Solutions to “SSE4,5 = 1” represent conditions of complete dynamic,
kinematic and geometric similarity with the amplitude of the background EGM spectrum. “EC” and
“BC” denote Root Mean Square (RMS) values satisfying the proceeding equation,
π
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , r , ∆r , M
2
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , r , ∆r , M
1
(3.156)
where,
E rms E C( r , ∆r , M )
B rms
4.8
(3.157)
E C( r , ∆r , M )
c
(3.158)
DCOFFESTS
The value of “EC” and “BC” may be decreased by the application of an offset function “DC”.
This denotes a percentage offset of the forcing function and may be applied to facilitate a specific
experimental configuration. For example, if “DC = 100(%)” the value of “EC” and “BC” computed
above yield,
SSE 4 ( 1 DC) .E rms, B rms, 0, r , ∆r , M
SSE 4 ( 1 DC) .E rms, ( 1 DC) .B rms, 0, r , ∆r , M
π
SSE 5 E rms, ( 1 DC) .B rms, , r , ∆r, M
2
1
2
π
SSE 5 ( 1 DC) .E rms, ( 1 DC) .B rms, , r , ∆r, M
2
(3.159)
1
4
(3.160)
Therefore, by recomputing the value of “EC” and “BC” at “SSE4,5 = 1” a decrease in Critical Field
Strength shall be observed.
5
MAXWELL’S EQUATIONS
5.1
GENERAL
By considering Maxwell's Equations in relation to the applied EM fields and the
requirements of similarity, it is possible to deduce important design characteristics for further
consideration. Maxwell's Equations (in MKS units) for timevarying fields are as follows (where,
“ρ” is the charge density and “J” is the vector current density), [39]
∇ .E
ρ
ε0
,∇
E
∂B
∂t
, ∇ .B 0 , ∇
B µ 0 .J
ε 0 .µ 0 .
∂E
∂t
(3.161)
Consequently as “SSE5 → 1”, optimal similarity occurs when:
i. The divergence of “EA” is maximised.
ii. The curl of “BA” is maximised.
156
www.deltagroupengineering.com
5.2
CRITICAL FREQUENCY
“ωC” is defined as a half wavelength over “∆r” by applied fields and represents a minimum
frequency for the application of Maxwell's Equations within this experimental context,
ω C( ∆r )
6
c
2 .∆r
(3.162)
CONCLUSIONS
A number of tools that facilitate the experimental design process are presented. These
include the development of a design matrix based upon the unit amplitude spectrum, the derivation
of Harmonic and Spectral Similarity Equations (HSEx and SSEx), Critical Phase Variance “φC”,
Critical Field Strengths (EC and BC) and Critical Frequency “ωC”.
Note: equations (3.147, 3.148) were deleted from this section due to redundancy.
NOTES
157
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
158
www.deltagroupengineering.com
CHAPTER
3.7
The Casimir Effect [69]
Abstract
An experimental prediction is formulated hypothesising the existence of a resonant modal
condition for application to classical parallel plate Casimir experiments. The resonant condition is
subsequently utilised to derive the Casimir Force “FPP” to high precision for a specific plate
separation distance of “∆r = 1(mm)”; ignoring finite conductivity + temperature effects and evading
the requirement for Casimir Force corrections due to surface roughness. The results obtained
suggest Casimir Forces arise due to Polarisable Vacuum (PV) pressure imbalance between the
plates induced by the presence of a physical boundary excluding low energy harmonic modes.
159
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Process Flow 3.7,
160
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
INTRODUCTION
A Dutch Physicist named “Hendrick Casimir” predicted that quantum ElectroMagnetic field
fluctuations would produce an attractive force between two neutrally charged reflective parallel
plates, inexplicable by gravitational attraction (nowadays known as the Casimir Effect). This effect
has been experimentally verified and its derivation states it to be cosmologically homogeneous.
This chapter challenges that assertion and demonstrates that it depends upon environmental
conditions (i.e. the magnitude of the ambient gravitational field strength).
Chapter 3.6 established two Reduced Average Harmonic Similarity Equations (HSE4A,5A R).
It shall be demonstrated that HSE4A,5A R may be utilised to describe the characteristics of Relative
Phase Variance “φ” over the range of the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) harmonic “nPV”. Subsequently,
deriving the Casimir Force and hypothesising a calculation of the PV inflection mode and frequency
of a classical Casimir plate experiment. HSE4A,5A R presented in chapter 3.6 are as follows,
HSE 4A E rms , B rms , φ, n PV, r , ∆r , M
HSE 5A E rms , B rms , φ, n PV, r , ∆r , M
1
R
cos ( φ)
R
sin ( φ)
1
.HSE E
3 rms , B rms , n PV, r , ∆r , M
.HSE E
3 rms , B rms , n PV, r , ∆r , M
HSE 3 E rms, B rms, n PV, r , ∆r , M
R
(3.147)
(3.148)
K PV( r , M ) .St α ( r , ∆r , M )
π .n PV.E rms.B rms
R
St α ( r , ∆r , M ) ∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .
3 .M .c .
4 .π
2
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
R
µ0
(r
(3.117)
ε0
1
∆r )
(3.144)
1
3
3
r
(3.118)
where, the permittivity and permeability of free space (“ε0” and “µ0” respectively) act as the
Impedance Function.
Variable
HSE3 R
r
∆r
c
M
Stα
∆UPV
KPV
Erms
Brms
2
Description
Units
Reduced Harmonic Similarity Equation proportional None
to the Poynting Vector of the PV
Magnitude of position vector from centre of the Earth
m
Separation distance between parallel Casimir Plates
Velocity of light in a vacuum
m/s
Planetary mass
kg
Range Factor
PaΩ
Change in energy density of PV
Pa
Refractive Index of PV
None
Root Mean Square of EA (applied Electric Field)
V/m
Root Mean Square of BA (applied Magnetic field)
T
Table 3.27,
THEORETICAL MODELLING
Spectral Similarity Equations (SSEx) were developed from HSEx. SSEx represent the
average magnitude per harmonic mode, analogous to a solution of field pressure equilibrium with
respect to the intensity of the amplitude spectrum. Of particular importance, SSE3 denotes a
proportional formulation of the ambient (i.e. required applied) Poynting Vector as follows,
161
www.deltagroupengineering.com
SSE 3 E rms, B rms, r , ∆r , M
N X( r , ∆r , M )
K PV( r , M ) . St α ( r , ∆r , M )
π .E rms.B rms.N X( r , ∆r , M )
n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
(3.163)
1
ZPF
ln 2 .n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
ZPF
γ
(3.164)
where, “γ” denotes Euler’s Constant and “NX” is termed the harmonic inflection mode.
Utilising equation (3.163) and assuming complete similarity between the PV and SSE3
yields the Critical Field Strengths “EC” and “BC” as follows,
SSE 3 E rms, B rms, r , ∆r , M
1
(3.165)
E rms E C( r , ∆r , M )
B rms
(3.157)
E C( r , ∆r , M )
c
(3.158)
Substituting equation (3.157, 3.158) into equation (3.163) and solving for “EC” yields,
E C( r , ∆r , M )
c .K PV( r , M ) . St α ( r , ∆r , M )
π .N X( r , ∆r , M )
(3.166)
Therefore, utilising equation (3.147, 3.148) and assuming complete similarity between the PV and
HSE4A,5A R, an expression for “φ4,5” in terms of “nPV” for each harmonic form may be articulated as
follows,
φ 4 E C( r , ∆r , M ) , B C( r , ∆r , M ) , n PV, r , ∆r , M
Re acos HSE 3 E C( r , ∆r , M ) , B C( r , ∆r , M ) , n PV, r , ∆r , M
R
(Eq. 3.167)
φ 5 E C( r , ∆r , M ) , B C( r , ∆r , M ) , n PV, r , ∆r , M
Re asin HSE 3 E C( r , ∆r , M ) , B C( r , ∆r , M ) , n PV, r , ∆r , M
R
(Eq. 3.168)
Hence,
π
N C R E , ∆r , M E
N X R E , ∆r , M E
π
φ 4 E C R E , ∆r , M E , B C R E , ∆r , M E , n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
2
φ 5 E C R E , ∆r , M E , B C R E , ∆r , M E , n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
n PV
Figure 3.30,
where, “RE” and “ME” denote radius and mass of the Earth and “NC” indicates the Critical Mode
representing the condition of minimum permissible wavelength between the parallel plates over “∆r
= 1(mm)”. “ωC” and “ωPV(1,r,M)” denote the Critical Frequency and fundamental harmonic
frequency respectively,
162
www.deltagroupengineering.com
ω C( ∆r )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
ω PV( 1, r , M )
(3.169)
c
ω C( ∆r )
.
2 ∆r
(3.162)
Analysis of figure (3.30) illustrates that “NX” represents a point of graphical inflection
where the rate of change of “φ4,5” with respect to “nPV” is nontrivial. Notably, “φ4 = π” and “φ5 =
π/2” over the range “1 ≤ nPV ≤ NX” and are influenced by the manner in which the applied forcing
functions (“EA” and “BA” – representing the PV by similarity) have been initially defined.
Since the PV cannot be uniquely described by a single mode, the arbitrary value of “φ”
initially utilised in the mathematical construct is unimportant. Hence, the phase similarity on a
modal basis may be disregarded. The Critical Phase Variance “φC” defined in chapter 3.6 considers
the entire PV spectrum when defining the required value of “φ” for complete similarity.
Subsequently, we may conjecture that the corresponding frequency at “NX” relates to a resonant
condition where the Harmonic Inflection Frequency “ωX” may be defined as follows,
ω X( r , ∆r , M ) N X( r , ∆r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )
3
(3.170)
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
To derive a relationship incorporating harmonic PV characteristics with the Casimir Force
for parallel plates, we shall bring to the fore a suite of mathematical approximations resulting in a
highly precise representation of the Casimir Force. Recognising that the sum of odd modes of a
double sided reciprocal harmonic spectrum, symmetrical about the “0th” mode, approaches the sum
of all modes of a onesided reciprocal harmonic spectrum, with vanishing error, as “nPV → nΩ ZPF”
and “nΩ ZPF >> 1” according to [refer to Appendix 3.B for derivation],
n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
1
n PV
ZPF
1
ln( 2 )
n PV
n PV
n PV = 1
ln 2 .n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
γ
ZPF
(3.171)
where,
i. The Left Hand Side (LHS) of the preceding equation denotes the summation of all odd modes
across the entire spectrum, symmetrical about the “0th” mode, following the sequence:
“nPV = nΩ ZPF, 2  nΩ ZPF ... nΩ ZPF”.
ii. The middle expression of the preceding equation represents the summation of all odd and even
modes on the Right Hand Side (RHS) side of the spectrum following the sequence “nPV = 1, 2
… nΩ ZPF”.
iii. “γ” on the RHS of the preceding equation denotes Euler’s Constant.
Subsequently, the difference in sum between “NX” and “NC” may be usefully approximated as
follows,
ln 2 .N X( r , ∆r , M )
γ
ln 2 .N C( r , ∆r , M )
γ
ln
N X( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
(3.172)
By contrast to the preceding equations, we shall apply classical arithmetic progression to
facilitate the derivation of the Casimir Force. A Fourier distribution describing a constant function
is composed of a reciprocal harmonic series governing amplitude characteristics and an arithmetic
progression governing frequency characteristics. The interaction of these two spectral distributions
intersects at the fundamental harmonic (nPV = 1).
163
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Subsequently, we expect that an expression relating the Casimir Force to harmonic
distributions of the PV should consider aspects of a classical arithmetic sequence and a reciprocal
harmonic series. Hence,
Let: “A”, “D” and “StN” denote the values of the 1st harmonic term, common difference and “NTth”
harmonic term respectively in a classical arithmetic sequence [40] as follows,
St N A
NT
1 .D
(3.173)
where, the number of terms “NT” is,
N T A , D , St N
St N
A
D
D
(3.174)
Hence, the ratio of the number of terms “NTR” relating “NX” to “NC” is,
N T A , D , N X( r , ∆r , M )
N TR( A , D , r , ∆r , M )
N T A , D , N C( r , ∆r , M )
(3.175)
Considering the sum of terms yields,
Σ H A , D, N T
NT
. 2 .A
D. N T
2
1
(3.176)
where, the ratio of the sum of terms “ΣHR” relating “NX” to “NC” is,
Σ HR( A , D, r , ∆r , M )
Σ H A , D, N X( r , ∆r , M )
Σ H A , D, N C( r , ∆r , M )
(3.177)
Therefore, when “A = 1” and “D = 1,2”:
N X( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
4
PHYSICAL MODELLING
4.1
THE CASIMIR FORCE
N TR( 1 , 1 , r , ∆r , M )
Σ HR( 1 , 2 , r , ∆r , M )
(3.178)
Analysis and consideration of the mathematical characteristics of equation (3.171  3.178)
facilitates the formulation of the Casimir Force “FPV” in terms of “NX” and “NC” [for a specific
configuration of “∆r = 1(mm)”] as follows,
F PV A PP , r , ∆r , M
A PP .∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .
N C( r , ∆r , M )
N X( r , ∆r , M )
2
.ln
N X( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
4
(3.179)
where, “APP” denotes the projected area of a parallel plate in a classical Casimir experiment.
We shall now compare the classical representation of the Casimir Force for parallel plates
“FPP” to the preceding equation by performing a sample calculation, [8]
F PP
π .h .c .A PP
4
480.∆r
(3.180)
Considering a Casimir plate area equal to planetary surface area in equation (3.179), yields a result
to within “102(%)” of the classical representation of the Casimir Force described by equation
(3.180).
164
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Analysis of equation (3.179) indicates that “FPP” decreases with increasing ambient
gravitational environment. This concurs with chapter 3.5 and suggests the exclusion of fewer
available low frequency modes. The mathematical construct defined in chapter 3.5 states that, as
gravitational acceleration at the surface of a planetary body increases, “ωPV(1,r,M)” also increases.
Therefore, an Earth based equivalent Casimir experiment conducted on Jupiter will exclude fewer
low frequency modes – preserving higher frequency modes that simply pass through the plates,
resulting in a smaller Casimir Force. By contrast, the same experiment conducted on the Moon will
produce a larger Casimir Force.
Notably, a Casimir Experiment conducted in free space will produce an extremely small force
(tending to zero) due to the lack of initial background field pressure. Since the Casimir Force arises
from a pressure imbalance, the lack of significant ambient field pressure between the plates
prevents the formation of large Casimir Forces.
4.2
COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT
The Cosmological Constant “Λ” is a function of the vacuum energy density, typically
symbolised by “ρvac” or “UZPF”. Since the vacuum energy density is modified by the presence of
gravitational fields (i.e. it becomes polarised in accordance with the “PV” model of gravity), one
must differentiate between the cosmological average and local value of “Λ”.
The proportional change in the local value of the Cosmological Constant “∆Λ” across small
values of “∆r” may also be approximated harmonically commencing with the definition,
8 .π .G .
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
2
3 .c
∆Λ PV( r , ∆r , M )
(3.181)
Exploratory factor analysis of “ωPV(1,r,M)”, “∆ωδr(1,r,∆r,M)”, “Um(r,M)” and “∆UPV(r,∆r,M)”
produces the following approximate relationship for practical experimental values of “∆r”,
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
2
U m( r , M )
3 .
2
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
(3.182)
where,
U m( r , M )
3 .M .c
2
4 .π .r
3
(3.70)
Hence,
∆Λ ( r , ∆r , M )
9 .G.M . ∆ω δr( 1, r , ∆r , M )
2.r
3
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.183)
Therefore, equation (3.183) is a useful weak field approximation as illustrated by the proceeding
table defining errors with practical experimental values of “∆r” at “r”,
Object
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
White Dwarf: “r ≈ 4200 (km) @ 3 x105 Earth Masses” [41]
Red Giant: “r ≈ 200 Solar Radii @ 4 Solar Masses” [42]
Neutron Star: “r ≈ 20 (km) @1 Solar Mass” [43]
Table 3.28,
165
Mag. of error (%)
≈ 2.4545 x107
≈ 6.5632 x105
≈ 4.0931 x104
≈ 3.6992 x103
≈ 0.0238
≈ 0.1952
≈ 5.2482
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Typically in engineering research, predictions and experimental expectations with less than
approximately “5(%)” error are generally considered to be “acceptable and useful” approximations
for “back of the envelope” calculations. Subsequently, we may state that the ElectroGraviMagnetic (EGM) method of practical experimental modelling is useful over the range of subatomic
particles to Neutron Stars.
4.3
REFINEMENT OF CLASSICAL CASIMIR EQUATION
Historically, integrating from infinity to the surface of a planet derives “FPP”. This approach
assumes that the fundamental frequency of the ZPF at the surface of a planetary body is the same as
free space [0(Hz)]. However, there is no physical evidence to support this contention and it shall be
illustrated in proceeding chapters that nonzero fundamental frequencies lead to precise calculations
of fundamental particle massenergy and radii.
“∆Λ” May be utilised to refine “FPP” to a solution precisely satisfying equation (3.179,
3.183). By appropriately relating equation (3.179, 3.180, 3.183), a Planetary Casimir Factor “KP”
may be defined. “KP” represents a refinement of the value of “480” residing in the denominator of
“FPP” and takes the generalised form,
2
K P( r , ∆r , M )
2 3
16.π .r .h . N X( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M )
ln
4
N C( r , ∆r , M )
27.c .M .∆r N C( r , ∆r , M )
4
.
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
(3.184)
Assuming “KP” to be a representation of greater precision than the value of “480” in “FPP”, we may
reformulate “FPP” to be,
F PP
π .h .c .A PP
. 4
480.0436∆r
(3.185)
34
where, “h” denotes Planck’s Constant [6.6260693 x10 (Js)].
5
CONCLUSIONS
An experimental prediction has been formulated hypothesising the existence of a resonant
modal condition for application to classical parallel plate Casimir experiments. The resonant
condition was subsequently utilised to derive the Casimir Force “FPP” to high precision for a
specific configuration of “∆r = 1(mm)”; ignoring finite conductivity + temperature effects and
evading the requirement for Casimir Force corrections due to surface roughness. The results
obtained suggest Casimir Forces arise due to PV pressure imbalance between the plates induced by
the presence of a physical boundary excluding low energy harmonic modes.
166
www.deltagroupengineering.com
ARTICLE
3.3
APPLICATION
OF
DERIVED
ENGINEERING
PRINCIPLES
Jean–Baptiste Joseph Fourier: 1768 – 1830
167
www.deltagroupengineering.com
ADVANCED ENGINEERING – MANKIND ON THE MOON
“ONE SMALL STEP FOR MAN, ONE GIANT LEAP FOR MAKIND”
Neil Armstrong
168
www.deltagroupengineering.com
CHAPTER
3.8
Derivation of the Photon MassEnergy Threshold [70]
Abstract
An analytical representation of the massenergy threshold of a Photon is derived utilising
finite reciprocal harmonics. The derived value is “< 5.75 x1017(eV)” and is within “4.3(%)” of the
Eidelman et. Al. value endorsed by the Particle Data Group (PDG) “< 6 x1017(eV)”. The PDG
value is an adjustment of theoretical predictions to fit physical observation. The derivation
presented herein is without adjustment and may represent physical evidence of the existence of
Euler’s Constant in nature at the quantum level.
169
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Process Flow 3.8,
170
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
INTRODUCTION
It shall be demonstrated that the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model of gravitation,
complimenting General Relativity (GR) in the weak field, is capable of predicting the Photon massenergy threshold to within “4.3(%)” of the Particle Data Group (PDG) prediction presented by
“Eidelman et. Al.” of “< 6 x1017(eV)”. [12]
The PDG is a collaboration of leading Nuclear and Theoretical Particle physicists funded by
the USDoE, CERN, INFN (Italy), US NSF, MEXT (Japan), MCYT (Spain), IHEP and RFBR
(Russia).
The derived Photon massenergy threshold “mγ”, based upon the physical properties of the
Electron, may be usefully described by a finite reciprocal harmonic series representation as the
number of harmonic modes approaches infinity, producing the result “mγ < 5.75 x1017(eV)”.
The proceeding section sets the foundation from which a complete construct may be formed
based upon practical modelling methods. The use of physical modelling techniques will be shown
to be highly advantageous in the development of “mγ”.
2
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
The PV spectrum is conjectured to be composed of mathematical wavefunctions, over the
symmetrical frequency domain “ωΩ < ωPV < ωΩ”, which physically manifest as conjugate Photon
pair populations. It shall be illustrated that the pending definition leads to a solution for the massenergy threshold of a population of Photons based upon the physical properties of an Electron as
defined by,
i. The geometry of a free Electron at rest is usefully approximated to spherical.
ii. Electrons radiate a spectrum of conjugate Photon pairs through their spherical geometric
boundary.
iii. The term “conjugate Photon pair” denotes a theoretical particle population involving energy
transfer resulting in the magnitude of the local acceleration vector “g”. The existence of
conjugate Photon pair populations requires experimental validation and is conjectured to be
equivalent to the Polarisation Electric field, “4πP” of a polarised dielectric medium coupled to
the source field.
iv. The modes of the PV spectrum contributing to gravitational effects exist as odd harmonics
over the domain “nPV = nΩ, 2  nΩ ... nΩ”, symmetrical about the “0th” mode. The even modes
(Imaginary component) of the complex Fourier function are disregarded due to null
summation for all “nPV”.
v. The amplitude spectrum of the Fourier distribution is proportional to the conjugate Photon pair
population.
We shall continue the construct by establishing a useful mathematical operator for
subsequent use. It takes the form of the average value at each harmonic mode utilising the
summation operand defined by equation (3.63) and may be generated as follows,
1
n PV.ω PV( 1 , r , M )
n PV.ω PV( 1 , r , M ) .
0 .( s )
2 .i . π .n PV .ω
e
π .n PV
..
PV( 1 , r , M ) t i
dt
4
2
n PV.π
(3.186)
where, “ωPV(1,r,M)” is the fundamental harmonic frequency derived in chapter 3.4.
By considering an Electron at rest as a solid spherical particle with uniform surface and
homogeneous massenergy distribution, we may determine the magnitude of the average power at
each odd harmonic mode.
An important aspect to this, assuming an Electron radiates a spectrum of conjugate Photon
171
www.deltagroupengineering.com
pairs through its geometric boundary, is the proportional rest massenergy power flow
“c*Um(re,me)” through the surface “4πre2”. Hence, the massenergy power flow at each mode “Ste”
may be formed as follows,
St e n PV
2
4 .π .r e . c .U m r e , m e
4
.
2
π . n PV
(3.187)
where, “re” and “me” denote the classical Electron radius and rest mass (kg) respectively.
Subsequently, the magnitude of the average energy per odd harmonic period on either side of the
PV spectrum “Stg” is defined by,
St g n PV
St e n PV
n PV .ω PV 1 , r e , m e
(3.188)
th
Recognising that the PV spectrum is symmetrical about the “0 ” mode, we may formulate
an expression for the massenergy of the odd harmonic conjugate Photon pair population “mg”.
Assuming that “nPV = nΩ” at the spherical boundary of an Electron, an upper limit for “mg” may be
defined as follows,
2 .
St g n Ω r e , m e
Ng
mg N g
(3.189)
where, “Ng” denotes the Photon pair population. Evaluating equation (3.189) assuming that the
population of conjugate Photon pairs is mode normalised to unity (Ng = 1) yields,
mg ≈ 1.2 x1015(eV)
3
(3.190)
PHYSICAL MODELLING
To predict the massenergy threshold of a Photon “mγ”, we shall utilise the conjugate Photon
pair population principles defined above. Firstly, we shall establish some useful mathematical
relationships that facilitate the concise representation of “mγ”.
It has been illustrated that the summation of the odd harmonic modes are representative of
the magnitude of the acceleration vector “g”. Therefore, summing the odd modes across both sides
of the spectrum leads to the following representation with vanishing error. This is proportional to
the sum of all modes on the positive side of the spectrum as “nPV → nΩ” and “nΩ >> 1” as stated in
chapter 3.7 [refer to Appendix 3.B for derivation],
n Ω ( r, M )
1
n PV
1
ln( 2 )
n PV
n PV = 1
ln 2 .n Ω ( r , M )
n PV
γ
(3.191)
There are half as many odd modes as there are “odd + even” modes when “nPV → nΩ”.
Hence, we may deduce “mγ” by the following ratio,
mg 1
> . ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
mγ 2
γ
(3.192)
Performing the appropriate substitutions and recognising that the preceding equation may be further
reduced by usefully approximating the Refractive Index “KPV” to unity, yields the Photon massenergy threshold to be,
mγ<
512.h .G.m e
c . π .r e
2
.
n Ω r e, m e
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
172
γ
(3.193)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Evaluating yields,
mγ < 5.75 x1017(eV)
(3.194)
By comparing the value of “mγ” derived to the value for the Photon massenergy threshold
endorsed by the PDG “< 6 x1017(eV)”, [12] it is apparent that “mγ” compares favourably.
4
CONCLUSIONS
It has been illustrated that the PV model of gravity based upon the existence of a spectrum
of frequencies makes the following predictions,
i. The Photon massenergy threshold for a mode normalised population of Photons is believed to
be “< 5.75 x1017(eV)”, based upon the physical properties of an Electron.
ii. Experimental validation of the Photon massenergy boundary predicted herein may be natural
evidence of Euler’s Constant at a quantum level.
NOTES
173
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
174
www.deltagroupengineering.com
CHAPTER
3.9
Derivation of Fundamental Particle Radii [71]
Electron, Proton and Neutron
Abstract
Experimental predictions are derived from first principles for the Root Mean Square (RMS)
charge radius of a free Electron and Proton, and Mean Square (MS) charge radius of a free Neutron
to high computational precision [0.0118(fm), 0.8305 ± 0.0001(fm) and 0.8269(fm) respectively].
This places the derived value of Proton radius to within “0.38(%)” of the average “Simon” and
“Hand” predictions [0.8335(fm)], arguably the two most precise and widely cited references since
the 1960's. Most importantly, the SELEX Collaboration has experimentally verified the Proton
radius prediction derived herein to extremely high precision as being {√[0.69(fm2)] = 0.8307(fm)}.
The derived value of Electron radius compares favourably to results obtained in HighEnergy
scattering experiments [0.01(fm)] as reported by “Milonni et. Al.” It is also illustrated that a change
in Electron mass of “≈ +0.04(%)” accompanies the HighEnergy scattering measurements. This
suggests that the Electron radius depends on the manner in which it is measured and the energy
absorbed by the Electron during the measuring process. The Fine Structure Constant “α” is also
derived, to within “0.026(%)” of its “National Institute of Standards and Technology” (NIST) value,
utilising the Electron and Proton radii construct herein. In addition, it is also illustrated that the
terminating gravitational spectral frequency for each particle may be expressed simply in terms of
Compton frequencies.
Precise2 calculations for: (i) the Neutron Mean Square (MS) charge and Magnetic radii, (ii) the
Proton Electric, Magnetic and Classical RMS charge radii are derived in “Appendix 3.G”.
Note: within this chapter, “ħ” (i.e. Dirac’s Constant) is applied to Compton Frequencies, whilst
“h” (i.e. Planck’s Constant) is utilised in Compton Wavelengths.
2
Shown to be in agreement with experimental observations.
175
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Process Flow 3.9,
176
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
INTRODUCTION
It is widely hypothesised, by proponents of the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) and ZeroPointField (ZPF) models of gravity and inertia respectively, that the Compton frequency of an Electron
“ωCe” represents some sort of boundary condition. We may expand this hypothesis by recognising
that the Compton frequency of a Proton “ωCP” and Neutron “ωCN” are multiples of “ωCe”. Hence, it
follows that “ωCP” and “ωCN” may represent natural boundary conditions.
The construct herein utilises ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM) principles to facilitate the
derivation of the Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radius of a free Electron and Proton, and Mean
Square (MS) charge radius of a free Neutron to high computational precision [rε = 0.0118(fm), rπ =
0.8305 ± 0.0001(fm) and rν = 0.8269(fm) respectively]3.
The Fine Structure Constant “α” may be formulated in terms of “rε” and “rπ” to within
“0.026(%)” of its NIST value4 and utilised to numerically refine the derived value of “rε”.
Subsequently, it is conjectured that HighEnergy scattering measurements of “rε” result in a change
in Electron mass “∆me” of “≈ +0.04(%)”. Thus, the harmonic cutoff frequency “ωΩ” for the
Electron, Proton and Neutron are simplified to “ωΩ(rε,me) = 2ωΩ(rπ,mp)”, “ωΩ(rπ,mp) = ωCP2/ωCe”
and “ωΩ(rν,mn) = ωCN2/ωCe” respectively. The subscripts “e, ε” denote classical and scattered
Electron parameters respectively derived herein.
2
THEORETICAL MODELLING
2.1
SENSE CHECKS AND RULES OF THUMB
A series of sense checks and rules of thumb were defined in chapter 3.5 acting as indicators
for orderofmagnitude relationships and results. Considering “ωCP” and “ωCN” as hypothetical
boundaries, it follows that the Sense Checks (“Stη” and “Stθ”: 5th and 6th respectively) may be
formulated utilising the ratio of “ωΩ” (as defined in chapter 3.4) of the Proton and Neutron to their
respective Compton frequencies.
Since “ωΩ → 0” as “r → ∞”, we might also expect that “[Stη, Stθ] → 0” as “r → ∞”
according to the “1x2” matrix block as follows,
St η r π , m p
St θ r ν , m n
ω Ω r π, m p
ω Ω r ν ,mn
ω CP
ω CN
(3.195)
where, “mp” and “mn” denote the rest mass of a Proton and Neutron respectively.
2.2
THE PROTON
When “Stη” is forced to consider RMS charge radii predictions for free Protons as reported
by “Stein”5, tempting assumptions may be inferred. Table (3.29), illustrates the value of “Stη” in
relation to four possible radii configurations. Based upon the computed values of “Stη” and “Stθ” as
stated in table (3.29), we may hypothesise that the accuracy of the RMS charge radius of a free
Proton may be numerically and analytically derived. By equating the value of “Stη” to the Proton to
Electron mass ratio “mp/me”, highly precise radii predictions may be articulated.
3
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) states that the RMS charge radius of a
free Proton to be [2002]: “rp = 0.8750 ± 0.0068(fm)” [1] where, “fm” represents femtometre [1(fm)
= 1015(m)].
4
α = 7.297352568 x103 [2002] [1].
5
“0.805 ± 0.011(fm)” and “0.862 ± 0.012(fm)”. [44]
177
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Stη(rp,mp)
Stη(0.875(fm),mp)
Stη(0.862(fm),mp)
Stη(0.845(fm),mp)
Stη(0.805(fm),mp)
Stη(0.834(fm),mp)
Value
1783.8
1798.7
1818.7
1868.4
1832.6
Description
Utilising the NIST 2002 value of rp [1]
Utilising the value of rp as reported by Simon et. Al [44  46]
Utilising the value of rp as reported by Andrews et. Al [47]
Utilising the value of rp as reported by Stein [44  46]
Utilising the average value of rp above as reported by [44  46]
Table 3.29,
3
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
3.1
DERIVATION OF PROTON AND NEUTRON RADII
3.1.1 NUMERICAL
Utilising the results defined in table (3.29), we shall hypothesise that a numerically exact
relationship exists between the ratio of the Compton wavelength of an Electron “λCe” to the
Compton wavelength of a Proton “λCP” and the Proton to Electron mass ratio. Similarly, we shall
hypothesise that a numerically exact relationship exists between the ratio of “λCe” to the Compton
wavelength of a Neutron “λCN” and the Neutron to Electron mass ratio according to the “2x2”
matrix block as follows,
λ Ce m p
St η r π , m p
St η r π , m p
λ CP m e
St θ r ν , m n
St θ r ν , m n
λ Ce m n
λ CN m e
(3.196)
where, “rπ” and “rν” denote values satisfying equation (3.196) utilising the “Given” function within
the “MathCad 8 Professional” environment. Hence,
[rπ rν] = [0.8306 0.8269] (fm)
(3.197)
Comparing the results for “rπ” to the values illustrated in table (3.29), it is apparent that “rπ”
compares favourably [within 1.8(%)] to the prediction [0.845(fm)] determined by “Andrews et. Al”.
[47] Moreover, considering “rπ” in relation to the predictions derived by “Simon et. Al” [44] and
“Hand et Al”, [48] arguably the two most precise and cited relevant works referenced by science
since the 1960’s, [49] we find that “rπ” is within “0.38(%)” of the average “Simon et. Al” and “Hand
et. Al” predictions [0.8335(fm)].
3.1.2 ANALYTICAL
Performing the appropriate substitutions from “Appendix 3.C” into the mass ratio
relationships for “Stη” and “Stθ” in equation (3.196), useful analytical representations for “rπ” and
“rν” may be formed in terms of Compton wavelengths and particle mass as follows,
λ CP
rπ
c .m e
rν
8 .π
2
5
.
4
27.m e
3
128.G.π .h
.
K PV r π , m p .m p
λ CN
K PV r ν , m n .m n
178
5
.
4
λ CP
4
2
K PV r π , m p .m p
5
.
4
λ CN
4
2
K PV r ν , m n .m n
(3.198)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
where, “c” represents the speed of light in a vacuum. “G” and “h” denote the Gravitational and
Planck Constants respectively; the Refractive Index “KPV” may be usefully approximated to unity.
Utilising the approximations and exact expressions described in “Appendix 3.C”, equation
(3.198) may be simplified in terms of Compton, Planck (λh, ωh, mh) and particle mass
characteristics. Hence, three highly precise analytical approximation forms of “rπ” and “rν” may be
written as follows,
3
rπ
λ CP
.
λ CN
2
16.π .λ Ce
λ CP
27
.
2
4
.
.
4 π λ h λ Ce
2
16.π .λ Ce
3
rν
5
5
.
27
.
2
λ CN
4
4 .π .λ h λ Ce
c .ω Ce
5
5
2
4
2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
h .m e
27.m h m e
.
.
.
.
3
4
2
3
mp
4 .π
4 .ω CP
32.π ω CP 16.c .π .m p
c .ω Ce
5
(3.199)
5
2
4
2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
h .m e
27.m h m e
.
.
.
.
3
4
2
3
mn
4 .π
4 .ω CN
32.π ω CN 16.c .π .m n
(3.200)
Subsequently, the analytical approximation error relative to the numerically precise result for “rπ”
and “rν” returned may be shown to be trivial [< 106(%)].
3.2
DERIVATION OF ELECTRON RADIUS
3.2.1 NUMERICAL
It was illustrated in chapter 3.6 that the massenergy threshold of a Photon “mγ” based upon
the classical Electron radius “re” may be deduced by the summation of a finite reciprocal harmonic
series. Since there are half as many odd harmonics as there are “odd + even” harmonics in a broad
Fourier distribution6, the following relationship was derived [refer to Appendix 3.B for derivation],
mg 1
> . ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
mγ 2
γ
(3.192)
where, “mg” represents the odd harmonic spectral massenergy contribution and “γ” denotes Euler’s
Constant.
Applying Buckingham Π Theory (BPT) in terms of dynamic, kinematic and geometric
similarity to the preceding equation and recognising that the massenergy terms may be replaced by
“ωΩ”, leads to an expression where “rε” may be numerically determined as follows,
ω Ω r ε, m e
1.
ω Ω r e, m e
2
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
γ
(3.201)
It was illustrated in chapter (3.4  3.6) that a gravitational spectrum may be characterised by
a frequency distribution terminating at “ωΩ”. Subsequently, it follows that IFF “re” represents a
conditional experimental observation parameter; we may conjecture that the radius of an Electron
occupies a range of values dependent upon how it is measured as suggested by recent scattering
experiments. [11]
Therefore, the preceding equation represents a robust mathematical condition defining the
lower boundary of the Electron radius that preserves the gravitational nature of the works covered
in chapter (3.1  3.6). Utilising the “Given” function within the “MathCad 8 Professional”
environment, a highly precise numerical approximation for “rε” is determined to be,
r ε 0.0118.( fm)
6
(3.202)
As the harmonic cutoff mode “nΩ” tends to infinity.
179
www.deltagroupengineering.com
3.2.2 ANALYTICAL
An analytical representation of equation (3.201) may be formulated by performing the
appropriate substitutions for “ωΩ” as defined in chapter 3.4 leading to the following relationship
with trivial error,
9
r ε r e.
3.3
1.
2
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
5
γ
(3.203)
DERIVATION OF THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT
An analytical approximation of “α” incorporating “rε” and “rπ” may be obtained utilising
exploratory factor analysis. Applying the radii approximations above, a useful exponential
relationship between the Proton and Electron may be defined to within “0.026(%)” of its NIST
value based upon approximations of “rε” and “rπ” derived herein as follows,
rε
α
2
.e
3
rπ
(3.204)
We shall conjecture that the “2/3” index is a qualitative indicator by considering the derivations in
chapter 3.1 where it was illustrated that “2/3” relates the experimental relationship function “K0” to
“KPV”. This assumption shall be further developed in the proceeding section.
3.4
ELECTRON CUTOFF FREQUENCY
The calculated results imply that EGM may be a useful tool by which to enhance Nuclear
understanding in the fields of QuantumElectroDynamics (QED) and QuantumChromoDynamics
(QCD). Subsequently, exploratory factor analysis in conjunction with the preceding formulations
suggest that “ωΩ” for a free Electron may be usefully approximated to within “0.018(%)” as
follows,
ωΩ(rε,me) = 2ωΩ(rπ,mp)
(3.205)
3.5
REFINEMENT OF ELECTRON RADIUS
Assuming equation (3.204, 3.205) to be exact representations may provide an opportunity
for greater computational precision of “rε”. This may be achieved by utilising the “Given” function
satisfying the following “1x3” matrix block within the “MathCad 8 Professional” environment,
α
r ε ω Ω r ε, m e
rε
r e ω Ω r π, m p
rπ
9
2
.e
3
1.
2
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
5
γ
2
(3.206)
returns the result [ωΩ(0.011802(fm),me) = 2ωΩ(rπ,mp) to within 106(%)],
rε = 0.011802 (fm)
3.6
(3.207)
DERIVATION OF ELECTRON SCATTERING MASS
The mass of the Electron based upon its classical radius has been established and
scientifically accepted for many years. However, considering that scattering experiments have cast
doubt on its radius, we may conjecture that the introduction of energy to the state of the Electron
during radius measurements by scattering techniques affects its mass.
180
www.deltagroupengineering.com
It is also well accepted that the mass of a particle increases as its energy state increases
leading to a reduction in its physical dimensions. Subsequently, we may conjecture that “rε” derived
herein is accompanied by a “∆me” when “rε” is measured utilising HighEnergy techniques as
conducted by (for example) “Los Alamos National Laboratories” (LANL) [11] and the Stanford
Linear Accelerator (SLAC). [50]
Therefore, the Electron scattering mass “mε” may be determined utilising the “Given”
function satisfying the following “1x2” matrix block within the “MathCad 8 Professional”
environment,
ω Ω r ε, m ε
ω Ω r ε, m ε
1.
ω Ω r e, m e
ω Ω r π, m p
2
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
γ
2
(3.208)
yields,
∆me ≈ +0.04 (%)
3.7
(3.209)
HARMONIC CUTOFF FREQUENCIES
Utilising the preceding construct in conjunction with exploratory factor analysis, a simple
family of equations may be formulated expressing the terminating gravitational spectral frequency
for a free Electron, Proton and Neutron explicitly in terms of Compton frequencies in the form of a
“1x3” matrix as follows,
ω Ω r ε, m e
ω Ω r π, m p
4
PHYSICAL MODELLING
4.1
ELECTRON
2 .ω Ω r π , m p
ω Ω r ν ,mn
ω CP
2
ω CN
2
ω Ce
ω Ce
(3.210)
Equation (3.202, 3.207) agrees favourably with the results of HighEnergy scattering
experiments reported by “Milonni et. Al.”. [11] It states that, if the Electron is not a point particle,
its physical dimensions are approximately no larger than “0.01(fm)” and it seems improbable that
the Electron has any “structure”.
These results strongly support EGM because “nΩ” is a function of radius and mass. Hence, it
may be stated that EGM also implies that “structure” does not exist within “rε”. Therefore, we may
conjecture that the free Electron radius and mass varies according to its energy level and may be
physically modelled over the following set,
{(r,M): rε ≤ r ≤ re ∩ me ≤ M ≤ mε}
4.2
(3.211)
PROTON
Relating equation (3.204) to the standard calculation form “α = 2πre / λCe” yields a set of
highly precise physical modelling boundaries for “rπ” in terms of Compton, Planck and exponential
characteristics as follows,
rε
. c .e
r e ω Ce
2
3
c .ω Ce
5
2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
.
.
rπ
3
4
4 .ω CP
32.π ω CP
(3.212)
Therefore, “rπ” may be approximately written as: “rπ = 0.8305 ± 0.0001(fm)”.
181
www.deltagroupengineering.com
4.3
NEUTRON
In addition to “rν” predicted above, a set of useful physical modelling approximations
[within “0.3(%)”] to assist with experimental design considerations may be defined based upon the
proceeding equations,
r ν λ CN ω CP m p
r π λ CP ω CN m n
(3.213)
Notably, a convenient shorthand physicalmodelling tool is the ratio of “rε” to the difference
in radii between a free Proton and Neutron as follows,
rε
rπ
rν
≈π
(3.214)
If we assume that equation (3.214) represents an exact analytical boundary solution where “rε” from
equation (3.204) is utilised in conjunction with “rπ” from equation (3.199), the result returned for
“rν” may be expressed in terms of Compton, Planck and trigonometric characteristics. The error on
the Left Hand Side (LHS), with respect to the Right Hand Side (RHS) is less than “0.013(%)” as
follows,
rπ
rε
π
rν
c .ω Ce
3
4 .ω CN
5
.
27.ω h ω Ce
.
4
32.π ω CN
2
4
(3.215)
Therefore, “rν” may be approximately written as: “rν = 0.8269(fm)”.
5
EXPERIMENTATION
The SELEX Collaboration is an international effort pursuing experimental verification of
particle properties such as the radius of a Proton. The Proton radius prediction derived herein has
been experimentally verified to extremely high precision. [9]
6
CONCLUSIONS
It has been demonstrated that the EGM model of gravity predicts experimentally supported
radii values of a free Electron, Proton and Neutron from an almost entirely mathematical
foundation. Experimental predictions have been derived from first principles for the radii of a free
Electron, Proton and Neutron to high computational precision. This places the derived value of
Proton radius to within “0.38(%)” of the average “Simon et. Al” and “Hand et. Al” predictions,
arguably the two most precise and widely cited references since the 1960's.
Most importantly, the SELEX Collaboration has experimentally verified the Proton radius
prediction derived herein to extremely high precision {√[0.69(fm2)] = 0.8307(fm)}.
The derived value of Electron radius compares favourably to results obtained in HighEnergy scattering experiments conducted at “LANL”. It has also been illustrated that a change in
Electron mass of “≈ +0.04(%)” accompanies the HighEnergy scattering measurements. This
suggests that the Electron radius depends upon the manner in which it is measured and the energy
absorbed by the Electron during the measuring process.
The Fine Structure Constant has also been derived, to within “0.026(%)” of its NIST value,
utilising the Electron and Proton radii construct herein. In addition, it is predicted that the
terminating gravitational spectral frequency for each particle may be expressed simply in terms of
Compton characteristics.
182
www.deltagroupengineering.com
CHAPTER
3.10
Derivation of the Photon and Graviton MassEnergies and Radii [72]
Abstract
The construct herein utilises the Photon massenergy threshold “mγ” to facilitate the precise
derivation of the massenergies of a Photon and Graviton [mγγ = 3.2 x1045(eV) and mgg = 6.4 x1045
(eV) respectively]. Moreover, recognising the waveparticle duality of the Photon, the Root Mean
Square (RMS) charge radii of a free Photon and Graviton [rγγ = 2.3 x1035(m) and rgg = 3.1 x1035
(m) respectively] is derived to high computational precision. In addition, the RMS charge
diameters of a Photon and Graviton (“φγγ” and “φgg” respectively) are shown to be in agreement
with generalised Quantum Gravity (QG) models, implicitly supporting the limiting definition of the
Planck length “λh”. The value of “φγγ” is illustrated to be “≈λh”, whilst the value of “φgg” is
demonstrated to be “≈1.5λh”.
183
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Process Flow 3.10,
184
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
INTRODUCTION
It has been demonstrated, based upon the physical properties of an Electron, that the
Polarisable Vacuum (PV) model of gravitation, complimenting General Relativity (GR) in the weak
field, is capable of predicting the Photon massenergy threshold “mγ” to within “4.3(%)” of the
Particle Data Group (PDG) prediction. [12]
This chapter articulates the precise derivation of the massenergies of a Photon and Graviton
[mγγ = 3.2 x1045(eV) and mgg = 6.4 x1045(eV) respectively]. Moreover, recognising the waveparticle duality of the Photon, the Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radii of a free Photon and
Graviton [rγγ = 2.3 x1035(m) and rgg = 3.1 x1035(m) respectively] is derived to high computational
precision.
In addition, the RMS charge diameters of a Photon and Graviton (“φγγ” and “φgg”
respectively) are derived and shown to be in agreement with generalised Quantum Gravity (QG)
models, implicitly supporting the limiting definition of the Planck length “λh”. [51] Utilising the
“Plain h” form where “λh = 4.05131993288926 x1035(m)” [calculated from National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) 2002 [1]], the value of “φγγ” is illustrated to be “≈λh”, whilst the
value of “φgg” is demonstrated to be “≈1.5λh”.
2
THEORETICAL MODELLING
Assuming that “mγ” as illustrated in chapter 3.8 represents an exact boundary value, a
precise expression for “mγγ” may be derived utilising equation (3.193),
mγ
512.h .G.m e
c . π .r e
2
.
n Ω r e, m e
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
γ
(3.193)
where,
Variable
h
G
c
me
re
nΩ
γ
Description
Planck's Constant
Universal Gravitation Constant
Velocity of light in a vacuum
Electron rest mass
Classical Electron radius
Harmonic cutoff mode of PV
Euler's Constant
Table 3.30,
Units
Js
m3kg1s2
m/s
kg
m
None
To initiate the derivation process, we require a definition of “mgg” from which to apply dynamic,
kinematic and geometric similarity with respect to “mγγ”.
It has been illustrated that only the odd modes of a finite reciprocal harmonic distribution
contribute to the magnitude of gravitational acceleration “g” according to “nPV = nΩ, 2  nΩ ... nΩ”
being symmetrical about the “0th” mode where, “nPV” represents the modes of spacetime manifold
in the PV model of gravitation terminating at “nΩ”.
The PV spectrum is conjectured to be composed of mathematical wavefunctions, over the
symmetrical frequency domain “ωΩ < ωPV < ωΩ”, which physically manifest as conjugate Photon
pair populations. Subsequently, we shall define the odd frequency modes to be representative of
conjugate Photon pair populations constituting a population of Gravitons. Therefore, “1” Graviton
shall be defined as “1” conjugate Photon pair according to the following relationship,
mgg = 2mγγ
(3.216)
185
www.deltagroupengineering.com
3
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
Recognising that the Photon energy “EΩ” [52] at the harmonic cutoff frequency “ωΩ” is
proportional to the conjugate Photon pair population, we may determine the Photon population “Nγ”
at the massenergy threshold as follows,
E Ω h .ω Ω r e , m e
(3.217)
EΩ
Nγ
mγ
(3.218)
Performing the appropriate substitutions utilising equations defined in “Appendix 3.C” yields,
2
3 . . .
c .π .r e
2 c Gme
.
. ln 2 .n
Nγ
Ω r e, m e
512.G.m e
π .r e
γ
(3.219)
Hence,
3
m γγ
h .
re
3
π .r e
2 .c .G.m e
.
512.G.m e
2
.
c .π
n Ω r e, m e
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
2
γ
2
(3.220)
Evaluating yields,
Nγ = 1.8 x1028
(3.221)
[mγγ mgg] = [3.2 6.4] x1045(eV)
4
(3.222)
PHYSICAL MODELLING
In accordance with the preceding definition of Photon and Graviton massenergy, we may
apply Buckingham Π Theory (BPT) in terms of dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity
between two massenergy systems defined at “ωΩ”. Subsequently, it follows that any two
dimensionally similar systems may be represented by,
ω Ω r 1, M 1
ω Ω r 2, M 2
(3.223)
where, “r1,2” and “M1,2” denote arbitrary radii and mass values. Subsequently, utilising equations
defined in “Appendix 3.C” and performing the appropriate substitutions, the preceding equation
may be simplified as follows,
M1
2
r1
M2
5
r2
(3.224)
Let “M1 = mγγ/c2”, “M2 = me”, “r1 = rγγ” and “r2 = re”: solving for “rγγ” yields,
5
r γγ r e .
2
m γγ
m e .c
2
(3.225)
where, “rγγ” may be expressed in terms of Compton and Planck characteristics as follows [to within
5 x103(%) of the precise numerical result],
r γγ γ . λ h .
λ CN
c . ω CP
h .m p
λ CP ω h ω CN c .m h m n
186
(3.226)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
where,
Variable
λh
λCN
λCP
ωCN
ωCP
ωh
mn
mp
mh
Description
Planck Length
Neutron Compton Wavelength
Proton Compton Wavelength
Neutron Compton Frequency
Proton Compton Frequency
Planck Frequency
Neutron rest mass
Proton rest mass
Planck Mass
Table 3.31,
Units
m
Hz
kg
Hence,
r gg
5
4 .r γγ
(3.227)
Therefore, the Photon and Graviton RMS charge diameters may be expressed as multiples of the
Planck length as follows,
r
2 . γγ
λ h r gg
1.1529
1.5213
[φγγ φgg] ≈ [1 1.5] λh
5
(3.228)
(3.229)
CONCLUSIONS
The construct herein derives the massenergies and RMS charge diameters of a Photon and
Graviton. The results agree with generalised Quantum Gravity (QG) models, implicitly supporting
the limiting definition of Planck length “λh” according to “φγγ ≈ λh” and “φgg ≈ 1.5λh”.
187
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
188
www.deltagroupengineering.com
CHAPTER
3.11
Derivation of Lepton Radii [73]
Abstract
This chapter predicts the Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radii of free Electron “e”, Muon
“µ ” and Tau “τ” particles. The Fine Structure Constant “α” is also derived as a function of Muon
and Tau radii (“rµ” and “rτ” respectively) to within “7.6 x103(%)” of its 2002 National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) value. In addition, the Mean Square (MS) charge radii of free
Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrino’s (“ren”, “rµn” and “rτn” respectively) is derived to high
computational precision. These are shown to be in favourable agreement to experimental
observations made by “the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO), SuperKamiokande, Tristan,
LEP, LEP1.5, LEP2, NuTeV, CHARMII, CCFR, BNL E734 and DONUT” as analysed by
“Hirsch et. Al.”.

189
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Process Flow 3.11,
190
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
INTRODUCTION
ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM) principles may be utilised to facilitate the precise
derivation of the massenergies of a Photon and Graviton. Recognising the waveparticle duality of
the Photon, the Root Mean Square (RMS) charge diameters of a free Photon and Graviton were
derived in chapter 3.10 to high computational precision by methods of dimensional similarity. They
were shown to be in agreement with generalised Quantum Gravity (QG) models, implicitly
supporting the limiting definition of the Planck length.
Similarly, this chapter predicts the RMS charge radii of free Electron “e”, Muon “µ” and
Tau “τ” particles. Subsequently, the Fine Structure Constant “α” is derived as a function of Muon
and Tau radii (“rµ” and “rτ” respectively) to within “7.6 x103(%)” of its 2002 National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) value.
In addition, the Mean Square (MS) charge radii of free Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrino’s
(“ren”, “rµn” and “rτn” respectively) are derived to high computational precision. These are shown to
be in favourable agreement to experimental observations made by “the Sudbury Neutrino
Observatory (SNO), SuperKamiokande, Tristan, LEP, LEP1.5, LEP2, NuTeV, CHARMII,
CCFR, BNL E734 and DONUT” as analysed by “Hirsch et. Al.”.
2
THEORETICAL MODELLING
The application of Buckingham Π Theory (BPT) in terms of dynamic, kinematic and
geometric similarity between two massenergy systems defined at the harmonic cutoff frequency
“ωΩ”, leads to a solution for the massenergies and radii of the Photon and Graviton. Subsequently,
it follows that any two completely similar systems may be represented by “ωΩ(r1,M1) = ωΩ(r2,M2)”
where, “r1,2” and “M1,2” denote arbitrary radii and mass values.
Therefore, utilising the equations defined in “Appendix 3.C” and performing the appropriate
substitutions, an expression for proportional similarity may be stated as follows,
2
ω Ω r 1, M 1
M1
ω Ω r 2, M 2
M2
5
9
.
r2
r1
9
St ω
(3.230)
where, “Stω” represents the harmonic cutoff frequency ratio between two proportionally similar
massenergy systems.
3
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
3.1
ELECTRON RADIUS
It was illustrated in chapter 3.9 that “ωΩ(rε,me) / ωΩ(rπ,mp) = 2” to high computational
precision. Hence, substituting “Stω = 2” into equation (3.230) yields an approximation for “rε”,
5
1 . me
r ε r π.
9
2 mp
2
(3.231)
where,
Variable
rε, r1
rπ, r2
me, M1
mp, M2
Description
RMS charge radius of a free Electron
RMS charge radius of a free Proton
Electron rest mass
Proton rest mass
Table 3.32,
191
Units
m
kg
www.deltagroupengineering.com
3.2
MUON  TAU RADII AND THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT
Consideration of equation (3.230) provides initial guidance as to a method of determining
the RMS charge radii of free “µ” and “τ” particles. Since there is little apparent difference in the
physical behaviour of these particles with respect to “e”, we may surmise that “rµ” and “rτ” are
proportional to “rε”.
Moreover, because the Muon rest mass “mµ” is less than the Tau rest mass “mτ” and are
members of the same family, we expect that “rµ < rτ”. Subsequently, the application of BPT and
dimensional similarity principles imply that “rµ” and “rτ” may be proportionally approximated as
follows,
2
[rµ rτ] ≈
me
r ε. 1
2
9
me
1
mµ
9
mτ
(3.232)
It is important to note that equation (3.232) is not a definitive mathematical statement and
requires further development. To facilitate this, we shall consider the effect of these radii
approximations on “ωΩ” and “Stω” as follows,
1
ω Ω r ε, m e
. ω
Ω r µ,mµ
≈ [4 6]
ω Ω r τ,m τ
(3.233)
Assuming the values of “Stω” determined in equation (3.233) represent exact analytical boundary
conditions, highly precise representations for “rµ” and “rτ” may be formulated as follows,
5
rµ rτ
r ε.
1 . mµ
9
4 me
2 5
1 . mτ
9
6 me
2
(3.234)
Evaluating yields,
[rµ rτ] ≈ [8.2122x103 0.0122] (fm)
(3.235)
Consequently, “α” may be expressed in exponential form utilising equation (3.234) [to within 7.6
x103(%) of the NIST 2002 value: α = 7.297352568 x103 [1]] as follows,
rµ
α
rε
.e
rτ
rν
(3.236)
where, “rν” denotes the MS charge radius of a free Neutron as derived chapter 3.9 and evaluated to
be “≈ 0.8269(fm)” [see also: Eq. (3.418)].
3.3
NEUTRINO RADII
Lepton Neutrino’s are categorised within the family group into types. [53] Assuming that
each Neutrino type (Electron Neutrino “νe”, Muon Neutrino “νµ” and Tau Neutrino “ντ”) shares a
common value of “ωΩ” with its parent particle (“e”, “µ” or “τ”), a highly precise representation
for “ren”, “rµn” and “rτn” is possible and may be formulated as follows,
Let:
2
ω Ω rε , µ , τ , me , µ , τ
me , µ , τ
ω Ω ren , µn , τn , men , µn , τn
men , µn , τn
192
5
9
.
rεn , µn , τn
rε , µ , τ
9
1
(3.237)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
such that,
5
r en r µn r τn
r ε.
m en
me
2
5
r µ.
m µn
2
mµ
5
r τ.
m τn
2
mτ
(3.238)
where,
Variable
men
mµn
mτn
Description [12]
Electron Neutrino rest mass [< 3(eV/c2)]
Muon Neutrino rest mass [< 0.19(MeV/c2)]
Tau Neutrino rest mass [< 18.2(MeV/c2)]
Table 3.33,
Units
kg
Evaluating the preceding equation yields,
[ren rµn rτn] < [9.5379x105 6.5524x104 1.9587x103] (fm)
(3.239)
Note: these results are only as accurate as the values of the Neutrino rest masses utilised.
4
PHYSICAL MODELLING
“Hirsch et. Al.” thoroughly revisited available observations from “the Sudbury Neutrino
Observatory (SNO), SuperKamiokande, Tristan, LEP, LEP1.5, LEP2, NuTeV, CHARMII,
CCFR, BNL E734 and DONUT” [54] as summarised in table (3.34). Hence, the radii predictions
returned in equation (3.239) satisfy “Hirsch” conclusions.
In addition, the Neutrino radii boundary value of “〈rε,µ,τ2〉 < 1031(cm2)” as derived by
“Joshipura et. Al.” [55] is also satisfied by equation (3.239). The authors conducted a worthwhile
and thorough scientific analysis, but the “Hirsch et. Al.” study has greater scope and is the main
focus for observational comparisons to the preceding construct.
Hirsch Radii Range
5.5 ≤ 〈 rA2(νe) 〉 ≤ 9.8
5.2 ≤ 〈 rA2(νµ) 〉 ≤ 6.8
8.2 ≤ 〈 rA2(ντ) 〉 ≤ 9.9
EGM Derived Radii
ren2 ≈ 9.0971x103
rµn2 ≈ 4.2933
rτn2 ≈ 3.8364
Table 3.34,
Scale
x1032(cm2)
x1033(cm2)
x1032(cm2)
where, “rA” denotes the axial vector charge radius.
5
CONCLUSIONS
The preceding construct derives the charge radii of the “µ”, “τ”, “νe”, “νµ” and “ντ” to high
computational precision; “α” is also derived to within “7.6 x103(%)” of its NIST 2002 value. This
result, in conjunction with experimental observations, implicitly validates all radii predictions
derived herein.
Note: a “MathCad 8 Professional” calculation algorithm utilising the analytical representations
derived in chapter (3.9, 3.11) as exact boundary conditions, is defined in “Appendix 3.D” and
evaluated.
193
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
194
www.deltagroupengineering.com
CHAPTER
3.12
Derivation of Quark and Boson MassEnergies and Radii [74]
Abstract
This chapter assumes classical form factors to derive massenergies [〈mallQuarks〉 =
30.6742(GeV)], in agreement with Particle Data Group (PDG) estimates [〈mallQuarks〉 =
29.9856(GeV)]. The Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radii of all flavours of Quarks is also derived
[〈rallQuarks〉 = 0.9602 x1016(cm)], in agreement with experimental observations and generalisations
made by the ZEUS Collaboration (ZC) [〈rupQuark+downQuark〉 < 0.85 x1016(cm)]. The “Top” Quark
massenergy derived [178.6(GeV)] is shown to be within “0.35(%)” of the value concluded by the
DZERO Collaboration (D0C) [178.0(GeV)], in agreement with the Standard Model (SM)
electroweak fit. The RMS charge radii of the “W”, “Z” and Higgs Boson is also derived and it is
illustrated that all flavours of Quarks and Bosons exist as exact multiples of the harmonic cutoff
frequency “ωΩ” of an Electron.
195
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Process Flow 3.12,
196
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
INTRODUCTION
Quarks are fundamental natural constituent particles of prime importance to our
understanding of the Universe. It was not until our recent scientific past that Quarks were known to
exist. Prior to this knowledge, it was believed that Protons and Neutrons represented a natural
particulate boundary state.
Since the discovery of the Quark, an arsenal of considerable scientific expertise has been
applied and further research is being pursued vigorously. The ZEUS Collaboration (ZC) has
performed a major contribution to the body of knowledge regarding the physical dimensions of
Quarks.
The ZC is an international effort utilising its detector at HERA to determine physical
characteristics of Quarks. [14] The experiments demonstrated no significant deviations from the
predictions of the Standard Model (SM) and a generalised Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radius
for the Quark “rxq”, based upon classical form factor, was concluded to be “< 0.85 x1016(cm)” April 2004.
ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM) principles have been applied to facilitate the precise
derivation of massenergies and radii of a variety of particles to high computational precision. This
chapter utilises a similar procedure, based upon methods of dimensional similarity, to predict the
RMS charge radii of free Quarks. The term “free” indicates particles with classical form factor.
This is achieved by the application of Buckingham’s Π Theory (BPT) in terms of dynamic,
kinematic and geometric similarity between two massenergy systems defined at a harmonic cutoff
frequency “ωΩ”. Subsequently, it follows that any two completely similar systems may be
represented by “ωΩ(r1,M1) = ωΩ(r2,M2)”, with proportional similarity when “ωΩ(r1,M1) ≠
ωΩ(r2,M2)” where, “r1,2” and “M1,2” denote arbitrary radii and mass values.
This chapter assumes classical form factors to derive massenergies [〈mallQuarks〉 =
30.6742(GeV)] in agreement with Particle Data Group (PDG) estimates [〈mallQuarks〉 =
29.9856(GeV)]. [12] The RMS charge radii of all flavours of Quarks are also derived, in agreement
with experimental observations and generalisations made by the ZC [〈rupQuark+downQuark〉 < rxq]. The
“Top” Quark massenergy “mtq” derived [178.6(GeV)] is shown to be within “0.35(%)” of the value
concluded by the DZERO Collaboration7 (D0C) [mtq = 178.0(GeV)  June 2004], [15] in
agreement with the Standard Model (SM) electroweak fit. [12]
The RMS charge radii of the “W”, “Z” and Higgs Boson is also derived and it is illustrated
that all flavours of Quarks and Bosons exist as exact harmonic multiples of “ωΩ” for an Electron.
Consequently, this suggests that the Photon may be the fundamental particle in nature from which
all others may be described. The derived harmonic relationships between the Lepton, Quark and
Boson groups, suggests that all fundamental particles radiate populations of Photons at specific
frequencies.
2
THEORETICAL MODELLING
2.1
STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
This chapter scrutinises important elements of the ZC and extends theoretical boundaries by
application of the experimental data gathered. We shall commence by noting that the collisions
studied released the constituent Quarks of the Proton. [14] Subsequently, the translation of data
gathered into RMS charge radii does not differentiate between “Up” Quark radius “ruq” and “Down”
Quark radius “rdq”.
Protons are composed of two “Up” Quarks and one “Down” Quark; therefore, we shall
assume that the ratio of collision data translating to Quark radii predictions obeys a “2:1” ratio. This
leads to an equation relating radii to mean values of a large population sample as follows,
7
An international collaboration of leading scientists.
197
www.deltagroupengineering.com
r xq
2.2
2.r uq
r dq
3
(3.240)
GENERALISED SIMILARITY
Utilising the equations defined in “Appendix 3.C” and performing the appropriate
substitutions, a generalised expression for similarity may be stated as follows,
2
ω Ω r 1, M 1
M1
ω Ω r 2, M 2
M2
5
9
.
9
r2
St ω
r1
(3.230)
where, “Stω” represents the harmonic cutoff frequency ratio between two similar massenergy
systems. Therefore, assuming “ωΩ(rdq,mdq) = ωΩ(ruq,muq)” due to confinement within the Proton, an
expression for “rdq” is possible in terms of “ruq” from equation (3.230) as follows,
5
r dq r uq .
m dq
2
m uq
(3.241)
Substituting equation (3.241) into (3.240) and solving for “ruq” yields,
1
5
r uq 3 .r xq. 2
m dq
2
m uq
(3.242)
where, “muq” and “mdq” represent the rest mass of the “Up” and “Down” Quark respectively.
2.3
RELATIVE SIMILARITY
At present, the massenergy of Quarks has not been precisely measured. Consequently, our
ability to mathematically predict Quark radii is restricted and massenergy approximations must be
utilised to apply EGM principles. However, the impact of the experimental gap may be minimised
by assessing characteristics relative to an acceptable datum.
This may be achieved by utilising “ωΩ” of the “Up” Quark to describe “ωΩ” of all other
Quarks. Equation (3.243) represents a matrix of all Quark flavours, which acts to normalise “Stω”
relative to the lightest particle as follows,
St dq
ω Ω r dq , m dq
St sq
ω Ω r xq, m sq
St cq <
St bq
1
ω Ω r uq , m uq
. ω Ω r xq, m cq
ω Ω r xq, m bq
ω Ω r xq, m tq
St tq
(3.243)
Where:
i. The subscripts “dq, sq, cq, bq and tq” denote “Down, Strange, Charm, Bottom and Top”
Quarks respectively.
ii. The subscript “ω” in “Stω” is replaced by “dq, sq, cq, bq and tq” as appropriate. This assists in
distinguishing between harmonic cutoff frequency ratios of different Quarks relative to the
“Up” Quark.
iii. “m” denotes rest mass.
198
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Note: “rxq” is used in equation (3.243) to compensate for the lack of definitive experimental data
for the radii of specific Quark flavours. In addition, the “ZC's” experimental generalisation of
“rxq” validates its qualitative use in this forum. The proceeding construct utilises “rxq” as an
initialisation value for subsequent development.
3
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
Current scientific community assessments of experimental data pertaining to Quark rest
mass vary significantly. Perhaps the most reliable estimates reside with the PDG. The PDG specify
a range of Quark mass for each flavour, bounded by upper and lower limits based upon
experimental observation and a variety of theoretical approaches. The “Top” Quark has a relatively
narrow banded estimate based upon observation of top events. [12]
By deductive reasoning, upper PDG and SLAC boundary estimates provide the most
sensible values to be employed by equation (3.243) in a preliminary capacity. Subsequently, “Stω”
values for all flavours of Quarks may be evaluated according to,
Upper Limit [12] Units
muq < 4
MeV
mdq < 8
msq < 130
GeV
mcq < 1.35
mbq < 4.7 [50]
mtq < 179.4
Table 3.35,
Hence, the “Stω” threshold values, in accordance with equation (3.243) utilising table (3.35) PDG
estimates, are calculated in table (3.36). In addition, “Stω” threshold values are rounded down to the
nearest integer to produce “Stω” harmonic values. This is an extremely important reduction as shall
be illustrated in the proceeding section.
Stω Threshold
Stω Harmonic
Stdq = 1 (normalised) Stdq = 1
Stsq < 2.0491
Stsq = 2Stdq
Stcq < 3.4468
Stcq = 3Stdq
Stbq < 4.5479
Stbq = 4Stdq
Sttq < 10.2166
Sttq = 10Stdq
Table 3.36,
4
PHYSICAL MODELLING
4.1
QUARK RADII
It shall be demonstrated that the physical properties (radii and massenergy) of all flavours
of Quarks may be described as integer multiples of the “Up” Quark in the form “ωΩ(rQuark,mQuark) /
ωΩ(ruq,muq) = Stω”. This acts to unify the physical description of Quarks in terms of “ωΩ”.
Transformation of equation (3.230) followed by the appropriate substitutions utilising “Stω”
harmonic values defined in the preceding table, facilitate the precise determination of Quark radii as
exact harmonics of the “Up” Quark as follows,
5
rsq , cq , bq , tq r uq .
1
Stsq , cq , bq , tq
.
9
msq , cq , bq , tq
m uq
2
(3.244)
Yields,
199
www.deltagroupengineering.com
EGM Radii x1016(cm)
ruq = 0.7682
rdq = 1.0136
rsq = 0.8879
rcq = 1.0913
rbq = 1.071
rtq ≈ 0.8834
Table 3.37,
Note: “rtq” has been listed as approximate, whereas all other flavours are listed as highly precise.
This is an important statement and shall be explored in detail in the proceeding section.
4.2
QUARK MASS
It was illustrated in chapter 3.9 that an exact harmonic relationship exists between the
Electron and Proton according to “ωΩ(rε,me) / ωΩ(rπ,mp) = 2”. Subsequently, it follows that exact
harmonic relationships should exist between Electrons and Quarks.
It shall be demonstrated that exact harmonic solutions satisfy all currently known boundaries
regarding the radii and massenergy of Quarks in accordance with ZC, PDG and D0C estimates as
follows,
Assuming,
St uq
ω Ω r uq , m uq
St dq
ω Ω r dq , m dq
St sq
St cq
<
1
.
ω Ω r ε, m e
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
St bq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
St tq
ω Ω r tq , m tq
(3.245)
Yields,
Stω Threshold Stω Harmonic
Stuq < 7.207
Stuq = 7
Stdq < 7.207
Stdq = Stuq
Stsq < 14.4141
Stsq = 2Stuq
Stcq < 21.6211 Stcq = 3Stuq
Stbq < 28.8281 Stbq = 4Stuq
Sttq < 72.0703
Sttq ≈ 72
Table 3.38,
where, “rε” denotes the Electron radius defined in chapter 3.11 and “me” represents Electron rest
mass. Subsequently, transformation of equation (3.230) yields,
muq , dq , sq , cq , bq , tq
m e.
Stuq , dq , sq , cq , bq , tq
9.
ruq , dq , sq , cq , bq , tq
5
rε
(3.246)
Followed by the appropriate substitution produces excellent results as follows,
EGM MassEnergy
muq = 3.5083
mdq = 7.0166
msq = 114.0201
PDG MassEnergy Range
1.5 < muq < 4
4 < mdq < 8
80 < msq < 130
200
Units
MeV
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1.15 < mcq < 1.35
4.1 < mbq < 4.4
169.2 < mtq < 179.4
Table 3.39,
mcq = 1.1841
mbq = 4.1223
mtq = 178.6141
GeV
Therefore, by satisfaction of ZC experimental observations and PDG boundary conditions, it has
been demonstrated that the radii and massenergy characteristics of Quarks may be represented as
exact harmonic multiples of “ωΩ(ruq,muq)”.
Notably, D0C has suggested (June 2004) a new “world average” for the value of the “Top”
Quark massenergy to be “mtq = 178.0 ± 5.1(GeV)”. [15] Hence, the EGM massenergy prediction
is within “0.35(%)” of the D0C result.
4.3
REFINEMENT OF TOP QUARK RADIUS
Utilising “mtq” from table (3.39) and the exact “Stω” harmonic value in table (3.36), a
refined prediction for “rtq” may be formulated satisfying the ZC, PDG, D0C and EGM as follows,
5
r tq r uq
1 . m tq
9
10 m uq
.
2
(3.247)
Evaluating yields,
rtq = 0.9294x1016(cm)
4.4
(3.248)
BOSON RADII
Utilising PDG massenergy estimates defined in table (3.40), it shall be demonstrated that
the “W”, “Z” and Higgs Boson “H” may also be described in terms of harmonic multiples of the
“Up” Quark as follows,
PDG MassEnergy [12]
Units
GeV
mW = 80.425 (range average)
mZ = 91.1876 (range average)
mH ≈ 114.4 (boundary value)
Table 3.40,
Bosons are exchange particles, therefore we may approximate their radii utilising the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Range “ru” relationship, [16] where “rBoson ≈ ru” as follows,
ru(M) ≈
h
4 .π .c .M
(3.249)
Hence,
Heisenberg Radii x1016(cm)
ru(mW) ≈ 1.2268
ru(mZ) ≈ 1.082
ru(mH) ≈ 0.8624
Table 3.41,
Assuming,
ω Ω r u mW ,mW
St W
St Z
St H
≈
1
ω Ω r uq , m uq
. ω Ω r u mZ ,mZ
ω Ω r u mH ,mH
(3.250)
Calculating and rounding to the nearest integer harmonic representation yields,
201
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Stω Threshold Stω Harmonic
StW = 7
StW ≈ 7.1781
StZ = 8
StZ ≈ 7.9147
StH = 9
StH ≈ 9.4414
Table 3.42,
Hence applying,
5
rW , Z , H r uq
.
1
StW , Z , H
.
mW , Z , H
2
m uq
9
(3.251)
Yields,
EGM Radii x1016(cm)
rW ≈ 1.2835
rZ ≈ 1.0613
rH ≈ 0.9401
Table 3.43,
We may perform a sense check of the EGM results by considering the Heisenberg
Uncertainty approximation illustrated by equation (3.249). If the ratio of the predicted radii is
approximately equal to “ru” [rBoson ≈ ru], then the predicted results appear feasible as follows,
5
rW
rZ
rH
ru mW
r u mZ
ru mH
( 1.0463 0.9809 1.09 )
(3.252)
CONCLUSIONS
The construct herein assumes classical form factors to derive massenergies and RMS
charge radii in agreement with PDG estimates, experimental observations and generalisations made
by the ZC. The “Top” Quark massenergy derived was shown to be within “0.35(%)” of the value
concluded by D0C as illustrated in table (3.44).
The RMS charge radii of the “W”, “Z” and Higgs Boson were also derived and it was
illustrated that all flavours of Quarks and Bosons exist as exact harmonic multiples of the Electron
as described by equation (3.253, 3.254). The derived harmonic relationships between the Lepton,
Quark and Boson groups, suggests that all fundamental particles radiate populations of Photons at
specific frequencies.
Key results,
EGM Radii x1016(cm)
ruq = 0.7682
rdq = 1.0136
rsq = 0.8879
rcq = 1.0913
rbq = 1.071
rtq = 0.9294
〈rQuark〉 = 0.9602 ≈ rxq
rW ≈ 1.2835
rZ ≈ 1.0613
rH ≈ 0.9401
〈rBoson〉 ≈ 1.095
〈r〉 ≈ 1.0052
EGM MassEnergy
muq = 3.5083
mdq = 7.0166
msq = 114.0201
mcq = 1.1841
mbq = 4.1223
mtq = 178.6141
〈mQuark〉 = 30.6742
PDG MassEnergy Range
1.5 < muq < 4
4 < mdq < 8
80 < msq < 130
1.15 < mcq < 1.35
4.1 < mbq < 4.4
169.2 < mtq < 179.4
〈mQuark〉 = 29.9856
80.387 < mW < 80.463
91.1855 < mZ < 91.1897
mH > 114.4
Units
MeV
GeV
Table 3.44,
202
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
.
ω Ω r uq , m uq
1
ω Ω r ε,m e
.
ω Ω r dq , m dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
1 2 3 4
ω Ω r W,mW
ω Ω r Z, m Z
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r tq , m tq
7 8 9 10
ω Ω r dq , m dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
7 14 21 28
ω Ω r W,mW
ω Ω r Z, m Z
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r tq , m tq
49 56 63 70
(3.253)
(3.254)
Note: the “MathCad 8 Professional” calculation algorithm utilised to derive all computational
results presented in this chapter is contained in “Appendix 3.E”.
NOTES
203
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
204
www.deltagroupengineering.com
CHAPTER
3.13
The Planck Scale, Photons, Predicting New Particles and Designing an
Experiment to Test the Negative Energy Conjecture [75]
Abstract
This chapter utilises previous works to predict a “16(%)” experimentally implicit increase of
the Planck Scale. An approximation of the Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radius of a free Photon
“rγγ” utilising physical properties of Lepton family particles is derived. Moreover, the existence of
three (3) new particles in the Lepton family is also predicted at the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Electron
harmonics with massenergies of approximately “9(MeV), 57(MeV) and 566(MeV)” respectively.
The existence of two (2) new particles in the Quark / Boson families is also predicted at the 5th and
6th “Up” Quark harmonics with massenergies of approximately “10(GeV) and 22(GeV)”
respectively. In addition, the optimal configuration of a Classical Casimir Experiment to test the
negative energy conjecture is also presented. It is concluded that the optimal practical benchtop
physical conditions to test the conjecture exist in the “XRay” Laser range.
205
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Process Flow 3.13,
206
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter utilises previous works to derive:
i. A “16(%)” experimentally implicit increase of the Planck Scale.
ii. An approximation of the Root Mean Square (RMS) charge radius of a free Photon “rγγ”,
utilising physical properties of the Lepton family.
iii. The existence of three (3) new particles in the Lepton family at the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Electron
harmonics with massenergies of approximately “9(MeV), 57(MeV) and 566(MeV)”
respectively.
iv. The existence of two (2) new particles in the Quark / Boson families at the 5th and 6th “Up”
Quark harmonics with massenergies of approximately “10(GeV) and 22(GeV)” respectively.
v. The optimal configuration of a Classical Casimir Experiment to test the negative energy
conjecture. It is concluded that the optimal practical benchtop physical conditions to test the
conjecture exist at:
1. A plate separation distance of “≈ 16.5(mm)”.
2. An applied ElectroMagnetic (EM) beam wavelength of “≈ 18(nm)”. This is indicative of
the “XRay” Laser range.
3. An RMS Electric Field Intensity of “≈ 550(V/m)”.
4. An RMS Magnetic Flux Density of “≈ 18(milligauss)”.
5. A phase variance between the applied Electric and Magnetic fields of “0, ±π or ±π/2”.
2
THE PLANCK SCALE
2.1
CONVERGENT BANDWIDTH
The Planck Scale is considered a limiting natural condition by which to formulate
mathematical constructs and to qualitatively validate derivations. Subsequently, we may utilise
Planck properties of length and mass (“λh” and “mh” respectively) to qualitatively validate the
ElectroGraviMagnetic (EGM) construct.
By considering all works covered in chapter 3.1  3.12, we expect that the Polarisable
Vacuum (PV) spectral frequency bandwidth to converge to a single mode at conditions of
maximum energy density. Planck Mass denotes such a condition and represents a useful qualitative
measure.
Computing the value of the harmonic cutoff mode “nΩ” and the harmonic cutoff frequency
“ωΩ” to fundamental harmonic frequency “ωPV” ratio, a value of unity for equation (3.255) [to
within 0.2(%)] indicates that the PV spectral frequency bandwidth converges to a single mode at
conditions of maximum energy density.
n Ω λ h,mh
2.2
ω Ω λ h,mh
ω PV 1, λ h , m h
1
(3.255)
PLANCK CHARACTERISTICS
It is important to note that we would not expect “ωΩ” to be equal to the Planck Frequency
“ωh”. The reason for this is due to the manner in which “ωh” is derived. Historically, it involved
dimensionally combining the Universal Gravitational Constant “G” with Planck's Constant “h”
[6.6260693 x1034(Js)] and the velocity of light in a vacuum “c”.
Simply combining variables does not take into account the contribution of Experimental
Relationship Functions (ERF's) in accordance with accepted Dimensional Analysis Techniques
(DAT's) or Buckingham Π Theory (BPT) as utilised in chapter 3.1. Since there is no direct method
facilitating the determination of these ERF's, a value of unity has historically been assumed.
207
www.deltagroupengineering.com
This assumption implicitly places Planck characteristics in the domain of the nonphysical. However, we may utilise the properties of the preceding equation to determine a value of
“ωh” that is physically meaningful. To proceed, we shall apply DAT's as follows,
Let a “3x1” matrix represent Planck characteristics in the following form:
5
c
G.h
K ω.
ωh
λh
G.h
K λ.
c
mh
3
h .c
K m.
G
(3.256)
Where: “Kω”, “Kλ” and “Km” denote ERF's governing Planck Frequency, Length and Mass
respectively.
Determining the “mh” to “λh” ratio yields,
mh
λh
h .c
K m.
G
G.h
K λ.
c
K m c2
.
Kλ G
3
(3.257)
Hence,
Kλ mh
.
G Km λh
c
2
(3.258)
Substituting classical definitions of “mh” and “λh” produces the result,
G.h
3
Kλ c
. c
K m G h .c
2
1
G
(3.259)
Hence,
Kλ Km
(3.260)
Recognising the classical “λh” to “ωh” relationship,
λh
c
ωh
(3.261)
Performing the appropriate substitutions by relating equation (3.256, 3.261) yields,
K λ.
G.h
c
3
c . G.h
K ω c5
(3.262)
Simplifying,
K ω .K λ c .
3
G.h . c
1
.
5
c Gh
(3.263)
Hence,
208
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Kω
1
Kλ
(3.264)
Therefore,
Kω
2.3
1
Km
(3.265)
EXPERIMENTAL RELATIONSHIP FUNCTIONS
Utilising properties of equation (3.255) and the relationships of equation (3.264, 3.265),
we may formulate an experimentally based solution for “Kω”, “Kλ” and “Km”. The solution is
experimentally based because “ωΩ” and “ωPV” represent elements of the PV spectral frequency
bandwidth.
These were used to produce an experimentally verified result for the RMS charge radius
of a free Proton with classical form factor, as determined by the SELEX Collaboration [9] and
illustrated in chapter 3.9.
Recognising that the classical representation of the Refractive Index “KPV” described by
equation (3.55) is a weak field exponential approximation, we shall remove its contribution to
“ωPV” in determining an experimentally based solution for “Kω”, “Kλ” and “Km”.
Secondary justification for the removal of “KPV” from “ωPV” stems from the recognition
of the mathematical properties of equation (3.255). “KPV” does not contribute numerically to the
modification of the “ωΩ / ωPV” ratio.
If “nΩ = 1” at Planck conditions in accordance with equation (3.255) [the PV spectral
bandwidth is convergent]: “Kω”, “Kλ” and “Km” may be determined. This may be accomplished by
considering the ratio of the fundamental PV spectral frequency of a Planck Particle “ωPV(1,λh,mh)”
[with removal of “KPV”] to the classical representation of “ωh” as follows,
2.
K PV( r , M ) e
ω PV n PV, r , M
G .M
2
r .c
(3.55)
n PV 3 2 .c .G.M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
π .r
(3.67)
Substituting Planck characteristic notation at the fundamental harmonic “nPV = 1” produces,
ω PV 1 , λ h , m h
3 . . .
1 . 2 c G mh.
K PV λ h , m h
λh
π .λ h
(3.266)
Hence, “Kω” may be represented by,
Kω
ω PV 1, λ h , m h
K PV λ h , m h
. 1
ωh
(3.267)
Simplifying yields,
3 . . .
1 . 2 c Gmh
Kω
λ h .ω h
π .λ h
(3.268)
Substituting classical Planck definitions produces,
3
3
1 2 .c .G . h .c . c
Kω .
c
G G.h
π
(3.269)
Therefore,
209
www.deltagroupengineering.com
3
Kω
2.4
2
π
(3.270)
EXPERIMENTALLY IMPLICIT VALUES OF PLANCK CHARACTERISTICS
Utilising equation (3.255, 3.270) and classical Planck definitions, it may be demonstrated
that “ωPV → ωΩ → the Planck Frequency”, independent of “KPV” in the PV model of gravitation by
the following relationship,
ω PV 1 , λ h , m h
K PV λ h , m h
.
ω Ω λ h,m h
1
K ω .ω h
K PV λ h , m h
.
1
K ω .ω h
1
(3.271)
Therefore, an experimentally based determination of Planck Frequency, Length and Mass may be
implicitly defined as follows,
K ω.
ωh
1 . G.h
K ω c3
λh
mh
2.5
5
c
G.h
1 . h .c
Kω G
(3.272)
IMPACT OF EXPERIMENTALLY IMPLICIT VALUES
The impact to the classical definition of the Planck Scale is to raise its value by
approximately “16(%)” as illustrated by the following equation,
1
1 16.2447.( % )
Kω
(3.273)
Consequently, we may express the RMS charge radius of a free Photon “rγγ” [which was derived in
chapter 3.10 from the physical properties of an Electron], in terms of free Muon and Tau particle
RMS charge radii (“rµ” and “rτ” respectively) according to,
r γγ K ω .
G.h . r µ
c
3
rτ
(3.274)
such that, the error in relation to equation (3.225) in chapter 3.10 is less than “0.12(%)” and may be
expressed as follows,
1
r γγ
Kω
.
3
c .r τ
0.1192.( % )
G.h r µ
(3.275)
Therefore, it is clear from equation (3.274) that the determination of “Kω” leads to a useful
approximation relating physical properties of the Lepton family, specifically all ElectronLike
particles, to Photons.
Note: the value of “Kλ” reaffirms the conclusion [to within 0.83(%)] stated in chapter 3.10, that the
diameter of a Photon coincides with the Planck Length as defined by equation (3.272). This implies
that the diameter of a Photon is the natural limit of the Quantum scale.
210
www.deltagroupengineering.com
3
3.1
THEORETICAL MODELLING
BACKGROUND
In chapter 3.11, equation (3.230) was derived by the application of BPT which relates the
mass and radius of two particles by similarity where, “r1,2” and “M1,2” denote arbitrary radii and
mass values respectively. The result produced by equation (3.230) [chapter 3.11, 3.12] agrees with
physical experiment and contemporary expectation. Hence, we may conclude that the EGM
construct is well formulated and equation (3.230) is fit for further theoretical particle predictions.
2
3.2
ω Ω r 1, M 1
M1
ω Ω r 2, M 2
M2
5
9
.
r2
9
St ω
r1
(3.230)
LEPTONS
As stated in the proceeding section, we shall utilise equation (3.230) to predict the existence
of additional Lepton family particles that are not currently known or predicted by the Standard
Model in particle physics.
To proceed, we shall assume that any as yet undiscovered particles exist as harmonic
multiples of the Electron in terms of “ωΩ” where, “Stω” represents the harmonic cutoff frequency
ratio between two proportionally similar massenergy systems.
We shall also assume that the RMS charge radii of a free Electron as implied by scattering
experiments “rε” (see chapter 3.11), “rµ” and “rτ” produces a usefully approximate ElectronLike
Lepton average RMS charge radii “rL” as follows,
rL
5
rL
rπ
m
. 1. e
3 29 m p
rµ
rε
rτ
3
(3.276)
5
2
. 1
1 . mµ
9
4 me
2
5
1 . mτ
9
6 me
2
(3.277)
rL ≈ 10.7518 x1016(cm) ≈ 0.0108(fm)
(3.278)
Hence, a generalised massenergy relationship may be stated as,
m L St ω
9
m e . St ω .
rL
5
rε
(3.279)
nd
rd
th
Therefore, the massenergies of three (3) new theoretical particles at the 2 , 3 and 5 Electron
harmonics are,
mL(2) ≈ 9(MeV)
(3.280)
mL(3) ≈ 57(MeV)
(3.281)
mL(5) ≈ 566(MeV)
(3.282)
Note: the 1st, 4th and 6th Electron harmonics denote the massenergies of the Electron “me”, Muon
“mµ” and Tau “mτ” particles respectively (see chapter 3.11).
211
www.deltagroupengineering.com
3.3
QUARKS / BOSONS
Similarly, new particles may be predicted in the Quark / Boson families utilising the same
method. Equation (3.253) describes Quarks and Bosons as harmonic multiples of the “Up” Quark.
The integer pattern is obvious and suggests the existence of two (2) new theoretical particles at the
5th and 6th harmonics.
Utilising equation (3.230) and the average Quark / Boson radii defined in table (3.44), the
massenergies of the two (2) new theoretical particles [at “Up” Quark harmonic multiples] may be
predicted as follows,
m QB St ω
9
m uq . St ω .
r QB
5
r uq
(3.283)
where, table (3.44) indicates:
rQB = 〈r〉 ≈ 1.0052 x1016(cm)
(3.284)
th
th
Therefore, the massenergies of two (2) new theoretical particles at the 5 and 6 “Up” Quark
harmonics are,
(3.285)
mQB(5) ≈ 10(GeV)
mQB(6) ≈ 22(GeV)
st
nd
rd
th
th
th
th
(3.286)
th
Note: the 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 and 10 harmonics denote known or currently theoretical
particles (Higgs Boson) as articulated in chapter 3.12.
4
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
4.1
BACKGROUND
We shall now methodically design an experiment based upon a Classical Casimir
Configuration (parallel plates) with the ambition of achieving PV resonance. The existence of a
resonant condition may reveal the possibility of negative vacuum energy exploitation as conjectured
by “Puthoff et. Al.”. [23, 24, 30]
The design approach involves the determination of an optimal physical configuration by
dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity with the experimentally verified force predictions of
equation (3.179) and graphical analysis of figure (3.30),
F PV A PP , r , ∆r , M
A PP .∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .
N C( r , ∆r , M )
N X( r , ∆r , M )
2
.ln
N X( r , ∆r , M )
4
N C( r , ∆r , M )
(3.179)
where,
Variable
r
∆r
M
FPV
App
∆UPV
NC
NX
RE
ME
Description
Magnitude of position vector from the centre of mass
Change in magnitude of position vector
Mass
Casimir force predicted by the PV model
Projected area of a parallel plate
Change in energy density of PV
Critical mode
Harmonic inflection mode
Radius of the Earth
Mass of the Earth
Table 3.45,
212
Units
m
kg
N
m2
Pa
None
m
kg
www.deltagroupengineering.com
π
N C R E , ∆r , M E
N X R E , ∆r , M E
π
φ 4 E C R E , ∆r , M E , B C R E , ∆r , M E , n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
2
φ 5 E C R E , ∆r , M E , B C R E , ∆r , M E , n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
n PV
Figure 3.30,
Figure (3.30) illustrates the behaviour of the Phase Variance “φ4,5” between the Electric and
Magnetic field of the PV, with respect to harmonic mode “nPV”, derived from Reduced Harmonic
Similarity Equations (see chapter 3.6, 3.7) for a classical Casimir configuration.
Analysis of figure (3.30) indicates that the rate of change of “φ4,5” is approximately constant
until “nPV” approaches “NX”. Rapid changes in system states are typically associated with
conditions of spectral sympathy. Therefore, the rapid rate of change in “φ4,5” commencing at “NX”
may represent a state of natural resonance at the associated frequency “ωX”.
It is unclear as to how the PV might respond to forced EM oscillations at “ωX”, but it is
obvious that “NX” denotes a point of mathematical interest in relation to the negative energy
conjecture. Subsequently, the first step in the design of a resonant Casimir cavity is to determine the
optimal plate separation for complete similarity between the Casimir Force predicted by ZPF
Theory and the gravitational force associated with the PV model, in this case “∆r” in accordance
with figure (3.31),
D
B
C
A
Figure 3.31,
where,
Variable
A
B
C
D
Description
EM beam generator
EM beam
Mating face material for resonant cavity
Resonant cavity of height “∆r”
Table 3.46,
Note: figure (3.31) is for illustrational purposes only. Materials of construction should be reflective
inside the cavity and neutrally charged.
213
www.deltagroupengineering.com
The basic principles of experimental operation should be to:
i. Trap EM energy by reflection at frequency “ωX” and Phase Variance “φ4,5” inside the
cavity.
ii. Permit the RMS intensities of the Electric and Magnetic fields inside the cavity to attain
the values specified in section 5.2 (as a minimum).
iii. Ensure that the Electric and Magnetic field vectors are orthogonal inside the cavity.
iv. Ensure that a standing wave forms in three dimensions (3D) within the cavity.
v. Ensure any unexpected effects / events are observed.
4.2
BANDWIDTH RATIO
A bandwidth ratio “∆ωR” was defined in chapter 3.5 relating the ZeroPointField (ZPF)
beat bandwidth “∆ωZPF” to a change in harmonic cutoff frequency “∆ωΩ”. This represents the ratio
of the bandwidth of the ZPF spectrum to the Fourier spectrum of the PV. “∆ωR” provides a useful
conversion relationship between forms over practical benchtop values of “∆r” and was defined as
follows,
∆ω R( r , ∆r , M )
∆ω ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
∆ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
(3.97)
It shall be demonstrated that equation (3.97) may be applied to determine the optimal value of “∆r”
for practical benchtop experimental investigation of the negative energy conjecture.
4.3
OPTIMAL SEPARATION
We may utilise “∆ωR” to facilitate the calculation of the optimal value of “∆r” by
determining the physical properties that satisfy the solution “∆ωR = 1”. Once achieved, the ZPF
spectrum used to derive the Casimir Force (see chapter 3.4  3.7) is completely similar to the
Fourier spectrum of the PV used to derive fundamental particle properties (see chapter 3.4, 3.8 3.12). This technique is easily applied utilising the “Given” and “Find” commands in the “MathCad
8 Professional” environment by the following algorithm,
Given
∆ωR(RE,∆r,ME) = 1
∆r = Find(∆r)
Therefore, the optimal practical benchtop value of “∆r” is,
∆r ≈ 16.5(mm)
5
PHYSICAL MODELLING
5.1
INFLECTION WAVELENGTH
(3.287)
Utilising equation (3.287), the harmonic inflection wavelength is applied to determine the
type of energy delivery system to be used in experimentation and may be calculated as follows,
λ X( r , ∆r , M )
c
ω X( r , ∆r , M )
(3.288)
λX(RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 18(nm)
(3.289)
Evaluating yields,
214
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Therefore, based upon the wavelength specified by equation (3.289), an “XRay” laser system
should be utilised in experimental investigations for a plate separation distance of “∆r ≈ 16.5(mm)”.
5.2
CRITICAL FIELD STRENGTHS
In addition to wavelength, the critical field strengths in terms of the applied Electric and
Magnetic RMS values (“Erms” and “Brms” respectively) must also be achieved for complete
similarity with the background gravitational field. This may be determined by calculating the value
of Erms which satisfies the condition “SSE3 = 1” (see chapter 3.6) for a plate separation distance of
“∆r ≈ 16.5(mm)”.
Similarly, this is easily computed utilising the “Given” and “Find” commands in the
“MathCad 8 Professional” environment by the following algorithm,
Given
SSE3(Erms, Erms/c,RE,∆r,ME) = 1
Erms = Find(Erms)
where, Brms = Erms/c: Therefore,
5.3
Erms ≈ 550(V/m)
(3.290)
Brms ≈ 18(milligauss)
(3.291)
CRITICAL PHASE VARIANCE
The final criteria required to achieve complete similarity with the background gravitational
field is “φ4,5”. This may be determined by calculating the value of “φ4,5” which satisfies the
condition “SSE4,5 = 1” utilising equation (3.290, 3.291).
As before, this is easily computed utilising the “Given” and “Find” commands in the
“MathCad 8 Professional” environment by the following algorithm,
Given
SSE4(Erms, Brms,φ4,RE,∆r,ME) = 1
SSE5(Erms, Brms,φ5,RE,∆r,ME) = 1
[φ4 φ5] = Find(φ4,φ5)
Yields,
[φ4 φ5] = [0 ±π/2]
(3.292)
Performing a graphical analysis of “SSE4,5(φ) = 1” produces,
π
2
π
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , φ , R E , ∆r , M E
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , φ , R E , ∆r , M E
1
φ
Figure 3.32,
Therefore, utilising equation (3.292) and figure (3.32), optimal phase variance between the applied
Electric and Magnetic fields occurs at “0, ±π or ±π/2”.
215
www.deltagroupengineering.com
6
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter derives:
i. An experimentally implicit increase of the Planck Scale.
ii. An approximation of the RMS charge radius of a free Photon “rγγ”, utilising physical
properties of the Lepton family, specifically all ElectronLike particles.
iii. The existence of three (3) new particles in the Lepton family.
iv. The existence of two (2) new particles in the Quark / Boson families.
v. The optimal practical benchtop configuration of a Classical Casimir Experiment to test the
negative energy conjecture.
THE ANSWERS TO SOME IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
•
(a)
WHAT CAUSES HARMONIC PATTERNS TO FORM?
ZPF Equilibrium
A free fundamental particle is regarded by EGM as a “bubble” of energy equivalent mass.
Nature always seeks the lowest energy state: so surely, the lowest state for a free fundamental
particle “should be” to diffuse itself to “nonexistence” in the absence of “something” acting to
keep it contained?
This provokes the suggestion that a free fundamental particle is kept contained by the
surrounding spacetime manifold. In other words, free fundamental particles are analogous to
“neutrally buoyant bubbles” floating in a locally static fluid (the spacetime manifold). EGM is an
approximation method, developed by the application of standard engineering tools, which finds the
ZeroPointField (ZPF) equilibrium point between the massenergy equivalence of the particle and
the spacetime manifold (the polarized ZPF) surrounding it  as depicted below,
Figure 3.43,
(b)
Inherent Quantum Characteristics
If one assumes that the basic nature of the Universe is built upon quantum states of
existence, it follows that ZPF equilibrium is a common and convenient feature amongst free
fundamental particles by which to test this assumption. Relativity tells us that no absolute frames of
reference exist, so a logical course of action is to define a datum as EGM is derived from a
gravitational base. In our case, it is an arbitrary choice of fundamental particle.
To be representative of the quantum realm, it follows that ZPF equilibrium between free
fundamental particles should also be analogous to quantum and fractional quantum numbers – as
one finds with the “Quantum Hall Effect”. Subsequently, the harmonic patterns of Particle
Summary Matrix 3.3 form because the determination of ZPF equilibrium is applied to inherently
quantum characteristic objects – i.e. fundamental particles.
216
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Hence, it should be no surprise to the reader that comparing a set of inherently quantum
characterized objects to each other, each of which may be described by a single wavefunction at its
harmonic cutoff frequency, results in a globally harmonic description. That is, the EGM harmonic
representation of fundamental particles is a quantum statement of ZPF equilibrium – as one would
expect. Infact, it would be alarming if Particle Summary Matrix 3.3, or a suitable variation thereof,
could not be formulated.
Therefore, harmonic patterns form due to inherent quantum characteristics and ZPF equilibrium.
•
WHY HAVEN’T THE “NEW” PARTICLES BEEN EXPERIMENTALLY DETECTED?
EGM approaches the question of particle existence, not just by mass as in the Standard
Model (SM), but by harmonic cutoff frequency “ωΩ” (i.e. by mass and ZPF equilibrium). It was
shown in Ch. 3.5 that the bulk of the PV spectral energy [i.e. “>> 99.99(%)”] at the surface of the
Earth exists well above the “THz” range. Hence, generalizing this result to any mass implies that
the harmonic cutoff period “TΩ” (i.e. the inverse of “ωΩ”) defines the minimum detection interval
to confirm (or refute) the existence of the proposed “L2, L3, L5” Leptons and associated “ν2, ν3, ν5”
Neutrino’s. In other words, a particle exists for at least the period specified by “TΩ”.
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) approaches this question from a highly useful, but extremely
limited perspective compared to the EGM construct. QFT utilizes particle mass to determine the
minimum detection period (in terms of eV) to be designed into experiments. To date, this approach
has been highly successful, but results in the conclusion that no new Leptons exist beyond the SM
in the massenergy range specified by the proposed Leptons. Whilst QFT is a highly useful
yardstick, it is by no means a definitive benchmark to warrant termination of exploratory
investigations for additional particles.
Typically in the SM, short lived particles are seen as resonances in cross sections of data
sets and many Hadrons in the data tables are revealed in this manner. Hence, the SM asserts that the
more unstable particles are, the stronger the interaction and the greater the likelihood of detection.
The EGM construct regards the existing Leptons of the SM as longlived particles. It also
asserts that the SM does not adequately address the existence or stability of the extremely shortlived Leptons proposed. This assertion is supported by the fact that detection of these particles is
substantially beyond current capabilities due to:
i.
The minimum detection interval (with negligible experimental error) being “< 1029(s)”.
ii.
The possibility that the proposed Leptons are transient (intermediate) states of particle
production processes which decay before detection. For example, perhaps an Electron
passes through an “L2” phase prior to stabilization to Electronic form (for an appropriate
production process). Subsequently, this would be not be detected if the transition process
is very rapid and the accelerator energies are too low.
iii.
The possibility of statistically low production events.
Hence:
i.
The proposed Leptons are too shortlived to appear as resonances in crosssections.
ii.
The SM assertion that the more unstable particles are, the stronger the interaction and
the greater the likelihood of detection is invalid for the proposed Leptons.
Therefore, contemporary particle experiments are incapable of detecting the proposed Leptons at
the minimum accelerator energy levels required to refute the EGM construct.
•
WHY SHOULD ONE BELIEVE THAT ALL FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES MAY BE
DESCRIBED AS HARMONIC MULTIPLES OF EACH OTHER?
Because of the precise experimental and mathematical evidence presented in Particle
Summary Matrix (3.1, 3.2, 3.4). These results were achieved by construction of a model based upon
a single gravitational paradigm. Moreover, the Casmir force was also derived in Ch. 3.7.
217
www.deltagroupengineering.com
•
WHY IS EGM A METHOD AND NOT A THEORY?
EGM is a method and not a theory because: (i) it is an engineering approximation and (ii),
the mass and size of most subatomic particles are not precisely known. It harmonizes all
fundamental particles relative to an arbitrarily chosen reference particle by parameterising ZPF
equilibrium in terms of harmonic cutoff frequency “ωΩ”.
The formulation of Particle Summary Matrix 3.3 is a robust approximation based upon PDG
data. Other interpretations are possible, depending on the values utilized. For example, if one reapplies the method presented in Ch. 3.12 based upon other data, the values of “Stω” in Particle
Summary Matrix 3.3 might differ. However, in the absence of exact experimentally measured mass
and size information, there is little motivation to postulate alternative harmonic sequences,
particularly since the current formulation fits the available experimental evidence extremely well.
If all mass and size values were exactly known by experimental measurement, the main
sequence formulated in Ch. 3.12 (or a suitable variation thereof) will produce a precise harmonic
representation of fundamental particles, invariant to interpretation. Particle Summary Matrix 3.3
values cannot be dismissed due to potential multiplicity before reconciling how:
i.
“ωΩ”, which is the basis of the Particle Summary Matrix 3.3 construct, produces the
experimentally verified formulation of Eq. (3.212, 3.215) as derived in Ch. 3.9. These
generate radii values substantially more accurate than any other contemporary method.
Infact, it is a noteworthy result that EGM is capable of producing the Neutron Mean
Square (MS) charge radius as a positive quantity. Conventional techniques favour the
nonintuitive form of a negative squared quantity.
ii.
“ωΩ” is capable of producing “a Top Quark” mass value – the SM cannot.
iii.
EGM produces the results defined in Particle Summary Matrix 3.1.
iv.
Extremely shortlived Leptons (i.e. with lifetimes of “TΩ”) cannot exist, or do not exist
for a plausible harmonic interpretation.
v.
Any other harmonic interpretation, in the absence of exact mass and size values
determined experimentally, denote a superior formulation.
Therefore, EGM is a method facilitating the harmonic representation of fundamental particles.
•
WHAT WOULD ONE NEED TO DO, IN ORDER TO DISPROVE THE EGM METHOD?
Explain how measurements of charge radii and massenergy by collaborations such as CDF,
D0, L3, SELEX and ZEUS in [9, 14, 15, 80, 8285]; do not correlate to EGM calculations.
•
WHY DOES THE EGM METHOD PRODUCE CURRENT QUARK MASSES AND NOT
CONSTITUENT MASSES?
The EGM method is capable of producing current and constituent Quark masses, only
current Quark masses are presented herein. This text is limited to current Quark masses because it is
the simplest example of ZPF equilibrium applicable whereby a particle is treated as “a system” and
the equilibrium radius is calculated. Determination of the constituent Quark mass is more
complicated, but it is possible. For example, “Appendix 3.I” calculates an experimentally implicit
value of the Bohr radius by treating the atom as “a system” in equilibrium with the polarized ZPF.
•
WHY DOES THE EGM METHOD YIELD ONLY THE THREE OBSERVED FAMILIES?
This occurs because it treats all objects with mass as a system (e.g. the Bohr atom) in
equilibrium with the Polarized ZPF (its own gravitational field). Therefore, since fundamental
particles with classical form factor denote states (or systems: Quarks in the Proton and Neutron) of
polarized ZPF equilibrium, it follows that only the three families will be predicted.
218
www.deltagroupengineering.com
APPENDIX 3.A
KEY ARTEFACTS
Chapter
•
3.1
Refractive Index and Experimental Relationship Function
2
K PV K 0( X )
(3.25)
Summation of sinusoids produces a constant function
Re( a( t ) )
Acceleration
•
3
Im( a( t ) )
f( t )
t
Time
Real Terms (NonZero Sum)
Imaginary Terms (Zero Sum)
Constant Function (eg. "g")
Figure 3.2,
Chapter
•
3.2
Critical Factor “KC”
K C K 1, K 2
•
2
K 1 ω 0, r 0, E 0, D , X
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D, X
N
N
2
E 0( k , n , t ) .
n= N
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
2
(3.44)
General Modelling Equation1 (GME1)
N
2
a r0
±
β1
β2
2
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D, X
.
±
N
2 .r 0 . K PV
n= N
3
N
E 0( k , n , t )
2
2
c0 .
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
2
E 0( k , n , t )
K 0 ω 0, X
n
=
N
.
±
N
3
2 .r 0 . K PV
2
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
(Eq. 3.45)
219
www.deltagroupengineering.com
2
c0
General Modelling Equation2 (GME2)
N
a r0
±
β1
β2
±
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D, X
2
N
N
.
2 .r 0 . K PV
3
E 0( k , n , t )
2
c0 .
2
n= N
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
2
±
K 0 ω 0, X
E 0( k , n , t )
2
. n= N
N
3
2 .r 0 . K PV
2
B 0( k , n , t )
n= N
(Eq. 3.46)
Chapter
•
3.3
Critical Ratio “KR”
KR
•
ε
∆U g ∆a PV ∆K C( ∆r )
. 0
g
Ug
∆U PV( ∆r ) µ 0
Engineered Relationship Function “∆K0(ω,X)”
∆K 0( ω , X )
•
r .g .
G.M .
KR
KR
2
2
c
r .c
Chapter
2 . ∆K 0( ω , X )
(3.56)
3.4
Gravitational amplitude spectrum “CPV”
G.M .
C PV n PV, r , M
2
r
•
(3.64)
n PV 3 2 . c . G. M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
π .r
(3.67)
Harmonic cutoff mode “nΩ”
n Ω ( r, M )
•
2
π .n PV
Gravitational frequency spectrum “ωPV”
ω PV n PV, r , M
•
(3.54)
Engineered Refractive Index “KEGM” (normal matter form)
K EGM K PV. e
•
(3.53)
Ω ( r, M )
4
12
Ω ( r, M )
1
(3.71)
Harmonic cutoff function “Ω”
3
Ω ( r, M )
•
108.
U m( r , M )
U ω( r , M )
12. 768 81.
U m( r , M )
U ω( r , M )
2
(3.72)
Harmonic cutoff frequency “ωΩ”
ω Ω ( r , M ) n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )
220
(3.73)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
2
c0
Chapter
•
3.5
Critical Boundary “ωβ”
ω β r , ∆r , M , K R
•
4
ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
4
ZPF
K R . ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
4
ZPF
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
4
(3.93)
EGM Wave Propagation
Figure 3.14,
•
EGM Spectrum
Figure 3.15,
Chapter
3.6
•
Critical Phase Variance “φC = 0°, 90°”
•
Critical Field Strengths (“EC and BC”)
“EC” and “BC” are derived utilising the reciprocal harmonic distribution describing the EGM
amplitude spectrum. Solutions to “SSE4,5 = 1” represent conditions of complete dynamic,
kinematic and geometric similarity with the amplitude of the background EGM spectrum.
221
www.deltagroupengineering.com
•
Spectral Similarity Equations4,5 (SSE4,5)
π
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , r , ∆r , M
2
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , r , ∆r , M
•
1
(3.156)
DCOffsets
SSE 4 ( 1
SSE 4 ( 1
DC) .E rms , B rms , 0 , r , ∆r , M
DC) . E rms, ( 1
SSE 5 E rms , ( 1
DC) .B rms, 0, r , ∆ r , M
π
DC) .B rms , , r , ∆r , M
2
SSE 5 ( 1 DC) . E rms, ( 1
1
2
DC) .B rms,
π
2
(3.159)
, r, ∆ r, M
1
4
(Eq. 3.160)
•
Critical Frequency “ωC”
c
.
2 ∆r
ω C( ∆r )
Chapter
•
3.7
Harmonic Inflection Mode “NX”
N X( r , ∆r , M )
•
n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
1
ZPF
ln 2 .n Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
ZPF
γ
(3.164)
Critical Mode “NC”
N C( r , ∆r , M )
•
(3.162)
ω C( ∆r )
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.169)
Harmonic Inflection Frequency “ωX”
ω X( r , ∆r , M ) N X( r , ∆r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )
•
EGM Casimir Force “FPV”
F PV A PP , r , ∆r , M
Chapter
•
(3.170)
A PP .∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .
N C( r , ∆r , M )
N X( r , ∆r , M )
.ln
2
N X( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
4
(3.179)
3.8
Photon massenergy threshold “mγ”
mγ<
512.h .G.m e
c . π .r e
2
.
n Ω r e, m e
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
222
γ
(3.193)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Chapter
•
3.9
The Fine Structure Constant “α”
2
rε
α
.e
3
rπ
•
Harmonic cutoff frequency “ωΩ”
ω Ω r ε, m e
•
ω Ω r π, m p
2 .ω Ω r π , m p
ω Ω r ν ,mn
ω CP
2
ω CN
2
. c .e
r e ω Ce
rπ
Chapter
ω Ce
ω Ce
rε
2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
.
.
rπ
3
4
4 .ω CP
32.π ω CP
c .ω Ce
rν
π
5
.
3
4 .ω CN
(3.212)
27.ω h ω Ce
.
4 ω
.
32 π
CN
2
4
(3.215)
3.10
The massenergy of a Graviton “mgg”
(3.216)
The massenergy of a Photon “mγγ”
3
h .
m γγ
re
•
3
π .r e
2 .c .G.m e
.
512.G.m e
2
c .π
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
2
2
(3.220)
2
m γγ
m e .c
2
(3.225)
The radius of a Graviton “rgg”
r gg
Chapter
5
4 .r γγ
(3.227)
3.11
Harmonic cutoff frequency ratio (the ratio of two particle spectra) “Stω”
2
•
γ
The radius of a Photon “rγγ”
r γγ r e .
•
n Ω r e, m e
.
5
•
(3.210)
5
c .ω Ce
3
mgg = 2mγγ
•
2
Proton and Neutron radii (rπ, rν)
rε
•
(3.204)
ω Ω r 1, M 1
M1
ω Ω r 2, M 2
M2
5
9
.
r2
r1
9
St ω
(3.230)
Electron, Muon and Tau radii (rε, rµ, rτ)
223
www.deltagroupengineering.com
5
2
1 . me
r ε r π.
9
2 mp
5
•
5
2
1 . mµ
9
4 me
rε .
rµ rτ
(3.231)
1 . mτ
9
6 me
2
(3.234)
The Fine Structure Constant “α”
rµ
rε
α
.e
rτ
rν
•
(3.236)
Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrino radii (ren, rµn, rτn)
5
r en r µn r τn
Chapter
•
r µ.
me
m µn
mµ
2
5
r τ.
m τn
2
mτ
(3.238)
Quark and Boson harmonic representations
.
ω Ω r dq , m dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
1 2 3 4
ω Ω r W,mW
ω Ω r Z, m Z
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r tq , m tq
7 8 9 10
ω Ω r uq , m uq
(3.253)
Quarks and Bosons as harmonic multiples of the Electron
1
ω Ω r ε,m e
Chapter
•
r ε.
5
2
3.12
1
•
m en
.
ω Ω r dq , m dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
7 14 21 28
ω Ω r W,mW
ω Ω r Z, m Z
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r tq , m tq
49 56 63 70
(3.254)
3.13
Planck Scale Experimental Relationship Functions
3
Kω
Kω
Kω
224
2
π
(3.270)
1
Kλ
(3.264)
1
Km
(3.265)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
•
Approximation of the radius of a free Photon “rγγ”, relating physical properties of the Lepton
family, specifically all ElectronLike particles
G.h . r µ
r γγ K ω .
rτ
(3.274)
mL(2) ≈ 9(MeV)
(3.280)
mL(3) ≈ 57(MeV)
(3.281)
mL(5) ≈ 566(MeV)
(3.282)
mQB(5) ≈ 10(GeV)
(3.285)
mQB(6) ≈ 22(GeV)
(3.286)
c
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3
Theoretical particle (Lepton)
Theoretical particle (Lepton)
Theoretical particle (Lepton)
Theoretical particle (Quark / Boson)
Theoretical particle (Quark / Boson)
The optimal configuration of a Classical Casimir Experiment to test the negative energy
conjecture exists at:
∆r ≈ 16.5(mm)
(3.287)
λX(RE,∆r,ME) ≈ 18(nm)
(3.289)
Erms ≈ 550(V/m)
(3.290)
Brms ≈ 18(milligauss)
(3.291)
The optimal phase variance between the applied Electric and Magnetic fields occurs at “0, ±π or
±π/2”
Appendix 3.G
•
Neutron Charge Distribution “ρch”
r
ρ ch ( r )
•
KS
2.
3
3.
5 2
π rν . x
. e
rν
2
1.
e
r
x .r ν
2
3
1
x
(3.406)
Neutron Charge Density Gradient Radius Intercept “rdr”
r dr
5.
3
rν
225
(3.391)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
•
“To” Neutron Mean Square Charge Radius Conversion Equation “KS”
KS
•
3. π .r ν
2
. (1
x) . x
1
x x
8
3
2
“From” Neutron Mean Square Charge Radius Conversion Equation “b1 and rX”
b1
2 . KS
3.r ν
2
2
x
1
(3.394)
6 .b 1 .K X . x
2
rX
•
(3.396)
3 .b 1 . x
2
1
rν
KS
1
. K .K
S X
(3.418)
Neutron Magnetic Radius “rνM”
r dr
rν
r ν . ρ ch r νM
ρ ch ( r ) d r
rν
•
(3.420)
Proton Electric Radius “rπE”
r dr
r ν . ρ ch r πE
ρ ch ( r ) d r
rν
•
(3.423)
Proton Magnetic Radius “rπM”
∞
r ν . ρ ch r πM
ρ ch ( r ) d r
r dr
rν
•
(3.426)
Classical Proton Root Mean Square Charge Radius “rp”
r P r πE
1.
2
r νM
rν
(3.429)
Appendix 3.I
•
The first term of the Hydrogen Spectrum (Balmer series) “λA” [by EGM] utilising the Bohr
radius “rBohr” and the fundamental PV wavelength “λPV”
λA
λ PV 1 , K ω .r Bohr , m p
2 .n Ω K ω .r Bohr , m p
226
(3.457)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
APPENDIX 3.B
FORMULATIONS, DERIVATIONS, CHARACTERISTICS AND PROOFS
CHAPTER
3.2
substitute , E( k , n , t ) E 0( k , n , t )
E( k , n , t )
a( t )
K 0( ω , X )
2
substitute ,
. n
r
B( k , n , t )
2
K PV .
2
n
B( k , n , t )
2
n
2
a r0
r0
substitute , r
n
B 0( k , n , t )
K 0 ω 0, X
.n
3
r 0 .K PV
K PV
E 0( k , n , t )
2
B 0( k , n , t )
2
2
n
substitute , ω ω 0
substitute , a( t ) a r 0
a r0
K 0 ω 0, X n
.
3
r 0 .K PV
E 0( k , n , t )
2
α1
substitute , K 0 ω 0 , X
B 0( k , n , t )
2
substitute , a r 0
(3.35)
K 1 ω 0, r 0, E 0, D , X
2
substitute ,
n
E 0( k , n , t )
2
K 1 ω 0, r 0 , E 0, D , X
α1
1
3
r 0 .K PV
n
2
.
B 0( k , n , t )
2
n
(3.36)
substitute , α 1 α 2
α1
K 1 ω 0, r 0, E 0, D, X
E 0( k , n , t )
3
r 0 .K PV
2
.
B 0( k , n , t )
n
2
B 0( k , n , t )
substitute ,
n
2
n
2
c0
2
α2
K 1 ω 0, r 0 , E 0, D , X
.c 2
0
3
r 0 .K PV
2
.
E 0( k , n , t )
n
227
2
(3.38)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
a r0
K 0 ω 0, X
substitute , a r 0
2
.n
3
r 0 .K PV
β1
E 0( k , n , t )
substitute , K 0 ω 0 , X
B 0( k , n , t )
2
substitute ,
E 0( k , n , t )
2
.
E 0( k , n , t )
3
1
r 0 .K PV
2
n
2
(3.37)
2
substitute ,
n
E 0( k , n , t )
2
2.
K 0 ω 0, X n
.
3
E 0( k , n , t )
β2
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0 , D , X
.c 2 .
0
B 0( k , n , t )
1
r 0 . K PV
3
2
2
n
(3.40)
2
2
K 0 ω 0, X .
3
2
2
n
K 1 ω 0, r 0, E 0, D, X
r 0 .K PV
n
B 0( k , n , t )
2
B 0( k , n , t )
c0
n
r 0 .K PV
substitute , α 1
B 0( k , n , t )
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D , X
substitute , β 1 β 2
substitute , a r 0
α1
β1
n
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D , X
.
3
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0 , D , X
2
n
r 0 . K PV
a r0
β1
.
B 0( k , n , t )
2
E 0( k , n , t )
2
n
n
solve , K 1 ω 0 , r 0 , E 0 , D , X
(3.39)
228
www.deltagroupengineering.com
substitute , a r 0
K 0 ω 0, X
β1
substitute , β 1
2
.n
3
r 0 .K PV
a r0
E 0( k , n , t )
B 0( k , n , t )
2
2
n
K 0 ω 0, X
K 2 ω 0, r 0 , B 0, D , X
.
E 0( k , n , t )
3
r 0 .K PV
2
B 0( k , n , t )
n
2
2
n
solve , K 2 ω 0 , r 0 , B 0 , D , X
(3.41)
substitute , K 1 ω 0 , r 0 , E 0 , D , X
K C ω 0, r 0, E 0, B 0, D, X
2
E 0( k , n , t )
2
n
K 1 ω 0 , r 0, E 0, D , X
K 2 ω 0 , r 0, B 0, D, X
K 0 ω 0, X .
substitute , K 2 ω 0 , r 0 , B 0 , D , X
K C ω 0, r 0, E 0, B 0, D , X
K 0 ω 0, X
B 0( k , n , t )
2
2
E 0( k , n , t ) .
n
2
B 0( k , n , t )
2
n
n
(Eq. 3.44)
substitute , β 1
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D , X
.
r 0 .K PV
a r0
β1
β2
2
E 0( k , n , t )
3
n
2
E 0( k , n , t )
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D , X
.c 2 .
substitute , β 2
0
3
r 0 .K PV
B 0( k , n , t )
n
2
substitute , K 2 ω 0 , r 0 , B 0 , D , X
2
2
a r0
2
1 . K 0 ω 0, X . n
3
2
2
B 0( k , n , t )
2
r 0 .K PV
n
1 . K 0 ω 0, X . 2
c0
3
2
2
r 0 .K PV
K 0 ω 0, X
B 0( k , n , t )
2
n
expand
(3.45)
229
www.deltagroupengineering.com
substitute , β 1
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D , X
.
r 0 .K PV
a r0
β1
β2
substitute , β 2
2
E 0( k , n , t )
3
n
2
E 0( k , n , t )
K 2 ω 0, r 0, B 0, D , X
.c 2 .
0
B 0( k , n , t )
3
r 0 .K PV
2
1 . K 0 ω 0, X . n
3
2
2
B 0( k , n , t )
2
.
r 0 K PV
n
2
a r0
n
2
substitute , K 2 ω 0 , r 0 , B 0 , D , X
2
1 . K 0 ω 0, X . 2
c0
3
2
2
r 0 .K PV
K 0 ω 0, X
B 0( k , n , t )
2
n
expand
CHAPTER
(3.46)
3.3
E PV k PV, n PV, t
∆a PV
∆K 0 ω 0 , X n PV
.
r
B PV k PV, n PV, t
n PV
2
substitute ,
E PV k PV, n PV, t
2
2
c .
n PV
2
B PV k PV, n PV, t
n PV
substitute , ∆a PV g .K R
2
g .K R.
r
c
solve , ∆K 0 ω 0 , X
2
(3.54)
The change in amplitude spectrum for “∆K0(ω,X)” is proportional to the Fourier amplitude at each mode within the spectrum. Subsequently, the
change in amplitude spectrum over “∆r” is trivial.
CHAPTER
3.4
Integrating equation (3.47),
ρ 0( ω )
2 .h .ω
c
3
3
(3.47)
Yields,
230
www.deltagroupengineering.com
2 .h .
c
1. h . 4
ω
2 c3
3
ω dω
3
(3.293)
where, “ω ≡ ωPV”: utilising equation (3.67),
ω PV
n PV 3 2 .c .G.M
.
. K
PV
r
π .r
(3.67)
Yields a generalised frequency change representation according to,
Uω
h .
ωPV
3
2.c
4
2
ωPV
4
(3.294)
Substituting equation (3.67) into (3.293) yields the generalised change in odd mode representation according to,
U ω( r , M ) .
U ω n PV, r , M
n PV
2
4
4
n PV
(3.68)
where,
U ω( r , M )
3
h .G.M . 2 .c .G.M .
2
K PV
2. 5
.r
π
.
πc r
(3.295)
Note: equation (3.295) is a modified representation of equation (3.69).
Subsequently, if:
U m( r , M )
3 .M .c
4 .π .r
3
And assuming:
U m( r , M )
2
(3.70)
U m( r , M )
U ω( r , M ) .
U ω n PV, r , M
n PV
2
4
then,
4
n PV
(3.296)
231
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Next, let:
D
U m( r , M )
U ω( r , M )
(3.297)
Hence,
D
n PV
2
4
4
n PV
(3.298)
Solving for “nPV” yields,
2
1
1 . 108.D
12
2
12. 768 81.D
1
3
1
2
48
12. 108.D
108.D
2
12. 768 81.D
2
D
n PV 2
4
4
n PV
solve , n PV, factor
1.
24
108.D
2
12. 768 81.D
3
2
1
48 24. 108.D
12. 768 81.D
2
2
3
2
1
i . 3 . 108.D
12. 768 81.D
2
3
2
48.i . 3
1
1
108.D
1
1 . 108.D
2
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
12. 768 81.D
3
12. 768 81.D
2
12. 768 81.D
2
2
1
3
3
1
2
48
24. 108.D
12. 768 81.D
2
3
2
2
2
1
i . 3 . 108.D
2
12. 768 81.D
2
3
48.i . 3
1
24
1
108.D
12. 768 81.D
2
3
2
(Eq. 3.299)
232
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Analysing the structure of the preceding equation leads to simplification by assigning temporary definitions of “F” and “L” for use with equation
(3.299). This approach is required to fully exploit the “MathCad 8 Professional” symbolic calculation environment and may be articulated as follows,
Let: “F = 108D+12√(768+81D2)” and “F = L3”. Hence, an expression for “nPV” as a function of “L” may be defined by,
1.
L 1
12
solve , n PV, factor
D
n PV 2
4
substitute , 108.D
4
n PV
2
12. 768 81.D F
2
1
3
substitute , F L,
3
1
,F
3
2
L
F L
4
L
1. .
i 3
24
1 .
L 1
24
2 .i . 3
1. .
i 3
24
1 .
L
24
2 .i . 3
1
2
L
2
L
(3.300)
collect , L
Equation (3.300) is a simplifying intermediary step leading to the harmonic cutoff function “Ω(r,Μ)” subject to the redefinition of “L” as follows,
Let: “L = Ω(r,M)” and “nΩ(r,M) = nPV + 2” hence,
n Ω ( r , M ) n PV 2
Ω ( r, M )
4
12
Ω ( r, M )
1
2
(3.301)
Therefore,
n Ω ( r, M )
Ω ( r, M )
4
12
Ω ( r, M )
1
(3.71)
Performing the appropriate substitutions of “D” into “L3 = 108D+12√(768+81D2)” for application to equation (3.71) yields,
3
Ω ( r, M )
108.
U m( r , M )
U ω( r , M )
12. 768 81.
U m( r , M )
2
U ω( r , M )
(3.72)
Hence,
ω Ω ( r , M ) n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.73)
233
www.deltagroupengineering.com
CHAPTER
3.5 / 3.6
The HSE1,2 operand may be formed utilising the ratio of “KR(r,∆r,M)” to “GSE1,2”,
2 .i .
e
.
π n PV
π .n PV .∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t .i
2.
2 .c B A k A , n A , t
EA k A,n A,t
2
exp i .π .n PV.∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t
. E k ,n ,t
A A A
2
2
π .n PV
c .B A k A , n A , t
i
simplify, factor
2
2
c .B A k A , n A , t
.
2
2
c .B A k A , n A , t
2
2
(3.302)
The HSE3 operand may be formed utilising the ratio of “KR(r,∆r,M)” to “GSE3”,
2 .i .
e
π .n PV
π .n PV .∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t .i
simplify
E A k A , n A , t .B A k A , n A , t
K PV( r , M ) .St α ( r , ∆r , M )
2.
exp i .π .n PV.∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t
.K ( r , M ) .St ( r , ∆r , M )
PV
α
π .n PV E A k A , n A , t .B A k A , n A , t
i
.
(3.303)
The HSE4,5 operand may be formed utilising the ratio of “KR(r,∆r,M)” to “GSE4,5”,
2 .i .
e
π .n PV
EA k A,n A,t
2
π .n PV .∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t .i
2
c .B A k A , n A , t
2
.E k , n , t .B k , n , t
A A A
A A A
2
2 .c .K PV( r , M ) .St α ( r , ∆r , M ) .B A k A , n A , t
simplify
2
4 .i .St α ( r , ∆r , M ) .K PV( r , M ) .c .B A k A , n A , t .
exp i .π .n PV.∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t
π .n PV.E A k A , n A , t
3
2
π .n PV.E A k A , n A , t .c .B A k A , n A , t
2
(Eq. 3.304)
234
www.deltagroupengineering.com
2
CHAPTER
3.6
HSE1 R may be formed as follows,
substitute , E A
2
i . EA
2
2
c .B A
2
2
π .n PV.c .B A
substitute , B A
E 0 .e
B 0 .e
substitute , ω E n E
2 .π .ω E n E .t
π .
i
2
2 .π .ω B n B .t
π
2
φ .i
1
i
ωB nB
substitute , B 0
2 .B rms
substitute , E 0
2 .E rms
π .n PV
.( exp( 2 .i .φ )
1) →
i
π .n PV
.( exp( 2 .i .φ )
1 ) simplify
1.
π
2.
( cos ( 2 .φ )
1)
2
2
n PV
substitute , E rms c .B rms
simplify
(Eq. 3.305)
HSE2 R may be formed as follows,
substitute , E A
2
i . EA
2
2
c .B A
2
2
π .n PV.c .B A
substitute , B A
E 0 .e
B 0 .e
substitute , ω E n E
2 .π .ω E n E .t
π .
i
2
2 .π .ω B n B .t
π
ωB nB
substitute , B 0
2 .B rms
substitute , E 0
2 .E rms
2
φ .i
1
i
π .n PV
.( exp( 2 .i .φ )
1) →
( exp( 2 .i .φ )
i .
π .n PV
1)
simplify, factor
1.
π
2.
( cos ( 2 .φ )
1)
2
2
n PV
substitute , E rms c .B rms
simplify
(Eq. 3.306)
235
www.deltagroupengineering.com
HSE3 R may be formed as follows,
E 0 .e
substitute , E A
2 .i .K PV( r , M ) .St α ( r , ∆r , M )
π .n PV.E A .B A
B 0 .e
substitute , B A
2 .π .ω E n E .t
2 .π .ω B n B .t
substitute , ω E n E
ωB nB
substitute , ω B n B
ω EM n EM
substitute , B 0
2 .B rms
substitute , E 0
2 .E rms
π .
i
2
π
2
φ .i
i .K PV( r , M ) .
St α ( r , ∆r , M )
π .n PV.E rms .B rms
.exp i . 4 .π .ω
.
EM n EM t
π
φ
simplify
i .K PV( r , M ) .
St α ( r , ∆r , M )
π .n PV.E rms.B rms
(3.307)
.exp i . 4.π .ω
.
EM n EM t
π
φ
1.
simplify
π
K PV( r , M ) .
St α ( r , ∆r , M )
n PV.E rms.B rms
(3.308)
HSE4 R may be formed as follows (Eq. 3.309),
2
4 .i .St α ( r , ∆r , M ) .K PV( r , M ) .c .B A
2
π .n PV.E A . E A
2.
c BA
2
substitute , E A
E 0 .e
substitute , B A
B 0 .e
2 .π .ω E n E .t
π .
i
2
2 .π .ω B n B .t
π
substitute , ω E n E
ωB nB
substitute , ω B n B
ω EM n EM
substitute , B 0
2 .B rms
substitute , E 0
2 .E rms
substitute , c
2
φ .i
2 .i .St α ( r , ∆r , M ) .
K PV( r , M )
E rms .B rms .π .n PV. exp i .π . 4 .ω EM n EM .t 1
exp i . 4 .π .ω EM n EM .t
π
2 .φ
.exp( i .φ )
E rms
B rms
simplify, factor
236
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
2 .i .St α ( r , ∆r , M ) .
K PV( r , M )
E rms .B rms .π .n PV. exp i .π . 4 .ω EM n EM .t
1
exp i . 4 .π .ω EM n EM .t
π
2 .φ
1.
.exp( i .φ ) simplify, expand , simplify
π
K PV( r , M )
2.
St α ( r , ∆r , M )
2
2
2
2
2
2
B rms .E rms .n PV .cos ( φ )
(Eq. 3.310)
HSE5 R may be formed as follows,
2
4 .i .St α ( r , ∆r , M ) .K PV( r , M ) .c .B A
2
π .n PV.E A . E A
2
2
c .B A
substitute , E A
E 0 .e
substitute , B A
B 0 .e
2 .π .ω E n E .t
2 .π .ω B n B .t
substitute , ω E n E
ωB nB
substitute , ω B n B
ω EM n EM
substitute , B 0
2 .B rms
substitute , E 0
2 .E rms
substitute , c
π .
i
2
π
φ .i
2
2.i .exp( i .φ ) .K PV( r , M ) .
St α ( r , ∆r , M )
E rms .B rms .π .n PV. exp i .π . 4 .ω EM n EM .t
1
exp i . 4 .π .ω EM n EM .t
π
2 .φ
E rms
B rms
simplify, factor
(Eq. 3.311)
1
2 .i .St α ( r , ∆r , M ) .
K PV( r , M )
E rms.B rms.π .n PV. exp i .π . 4 .ω EM n EM .t
1
exp i . 4 .π .ω EM n EM .t
π
2 .φ
.exp( i .φ ) simplify, expand , simplify
1.
π
St α ( r , ∆r , M )
2.
K PV( r , M )
2
2
2
2
2
2
B rms .E rms .n PV .sin ( φ )
(Eq. 3.312)
237
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Thus, from equations (3.310, 3.312), HSE4,5 R may be formed utilising HSE3 R as follows,
HSE 4 E rms , B rms , φ , n PV, r , ∆r , M
HSE 5 E rms , B rms , φ , n PV, r , ∆r , M
1
R
cos ( φ )
1
R
sin ( φ )
.HSE E
3 rms , B rms , n PV, r , ∆r , M
.HSE E
3 rms , B rms , n PV, r , ∆r , M
R
(3.313)
R
(3.314)
Note: equations (3.315 – 3.320) were deleted from this section due to redundancy.
In addition to graphical methods illustrated in chapter 3.6, “φC” may be determined as follows,
1
d
d φ C cos φ C
1
d
d φ C sin φ C
.HSE E
3 rms , B rms , n PV, r , ∆r , M
.HSE E
3 rms , B rms , n PV, r , ∆r , M
R
R
0 solve , φ C
0 solve , φ C
0 OR
“φC = 2π”
(3.321)
1.
π
2
1.
π
2
(3.322)
A useful approximation of the average amplitude per harmonic mode utilised in SSEx may be numerically proven as follows,
Let: N = 106 + 1
Considering a double sided odd number distribution: “nPV = N, 2 – N … N”
The approximation error may be numerically evaluated utilising “MathCad 8 Professional” to be,
1
N
.
1
1
N
n PV
1
n PV
.( ln( 2 .N )
1 = 6.6287.10
6
(%)
γ)
1
(3.323)
Subsequently, vanishing error is implied as “N → [nΩ,nΩ ZPF]” and SSEx may be formed according to,
238
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
N
1
ln( 2 .N )
n PV
N
.
1
n PV
γ
1
(3.324)
CHAPTER
3.7 – 3.9
Mathematical summation characteristics presented in chapter (3.7 – 3.9) may be numerically proven utilising “MathCad 8 Professional” as follows,
Let: N = 106 + 1
where, equation (3.285) represents matrix “M” such that:
i. The matrix element “M0,0” follows the integer onesided distribution: “nPV = 1, 2 … N”
ii. The matrix element “M2,0” follows the double sided odd number distribution: “nPV = N, 2 – N … N”
N
1
ln( 2 )
n PV = 1
ln( 2 .N )
n PV
γ
15.0859
1
n PV
15.0859
= 15.0859
n PV
(3.325)
Subsequently, vanishing error is implied as “N → [nΩ,nΩ ZPF]” by,
1
n PV
n PV
.
1 = 3.314410
6
( %)
N
1
ln( 2 )
n PV = 1
n PV
(3.326)
Therefore, a highly precise useful approximation may be formulated as follows,
239
www.deltagroupengineering.com
N
1
n PV
1
ln( 2 )
n PV
n PV = 1
ln( 2 .N )
γ
n PV
(3.327)
Next, considering the error for a onesided odd spectrum following the distribution “nPV = 1, 3 … N” yields,
1
n PV
n PV
1.
( ln( 2 .N )
2
1 = 6.6287.10
6
(%)
γ)
(3.328)
Therefore, the relationship between odd and “odd + even” harmonic modes, to high computational precision, is usefully represented as “N →
nΩ(re,me)” by,
mg 1
> . ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
mγ 2
γ
(3.329)
NOTES
240
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
241
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
242
www.deltagroupengineering.com
APPENDIX 3.C
SIMPLIFICATIONS
me
h .ω Ce
2 .π .c
2
λ Ce .m e
λ Ce .m e
λ CP
λ CN
ω CP.m e
,mp
ω Ce
,mn
ω CN.m e
ω Ce
h .ω CP
h .ω CN
2
2 .π .c
2
2 .π .c
G.h
λh
, ωh
mh
c
3
5
c
G.h
h .c
G
(3.330)
U m( r , M ) 3 .r2 .c4 3 π .r
.
U ω( r , M ) 4 .h .G 2 .c .G.M
3
Ω ( r , M ) 3 .c .
(3.331)
6 .r .c .
π .r
.
.
h G 2 c .G.M
2
3
(3.332)
3
2 3
Ω ( r , M ) c . 6 .r .c .
π .r
n Ω ( r, M )
.
.
12
4 h G 2 c .G.M
ω Ω r ε, m e
ω Ω r e, m e
n Ω r ε , m e .ω PV 1 , r ε , m e
n Ω r e , m e .ω PV 1 , r e , m e
(3.333)
3 . . .
n Ω r ε,m e
2 c G me
.
3
rε
π .r ε
n Ω r ε, m e r e r e
. .
3 . . .
n Ω r e,m e
2 c G m e n Ω r e, m e r ε r ε
.
re
π .r e
243
(3.334)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
3
. 2 . 3 π .r
c. 6 rε c.
ε
3
3
.
.
.
.
Ω r ε, m e r e r e 4
hG
2 c G me r e r e
. .
.
.
3
rε rε
Ω r e, m e r ε r ε
. 2 . 3 π .r
c. 6 re c.
e
4
h .G
2 .c .G.m e
5
3
2 3
rε
3
3
rε re re
.
.
re rε rε
.
re
re
rε
.
rε
3
.
re
rε
re
re
rε
9
(3.335)
G .M
e
2
r .c
1
(3.336)
1
3
2.
π .r
c . 6 .r c .
3
3
2 3
3
2
.
.
π .r . 2 .c .G.M c . 6 .r .c .
π .r
4 h G 2 c .G.M . 2 .c .G.M c . 6 .r .c .
ω Ω ( r, M )
r
4 .r h .G 2 .c .G.M
4 .r h .G 2 .c .G.M
π .r
π .r
3
1
2.
c . 6 .r c
ω Ω ( r, M )
4 .r h .G
1
3
ω Ω ( r , M ) 3 .h
1
3
. . .
. 2 c GM
π .r
2
13
3.
2
9
14
5
1
1
3
9
π .r
.
.
2 c .G.M
2
.π 9 .c 9 .r 9 .M 9 .G
3
h
3
3
2.
c . 12.r .c M
4 .r
π .h
1
π .r
.
.
2 c .G.M
1
1
1
9
1
.
c
14
13 2
2 .π .G
9
1
9
3
ω Ω ( r, M ) c . .
2
ωh
4 .π .h
2
.M
14
5
3
1
. . .
. 2 c GM
π .r
3
2
1. 3 . 9 . 9 . 9 . 9 .
12 2 c r M h
4
(3.337)
2
1
1
3.
9.
G
3
π
9
(3.338)
1
9
. M
2
9
5
r
(3.339)
2
Utilising c5 ω h .G.h yields,
3
1
1
(3.340)
2
5
r
(3.341)
244
www.deltagroupengineering.com
APPENDIX 3.D
DERIVATION OF LEPTON RADII
Assuming the analytical representations derived in chapter (3.9, 3.11) denote exact boundary
conditions, particle radii may be calculated utilising the following “MathCad 8 Professional”
algorithm [satisfying all criteria between the “Given” and “Find” commands],
Given
5
1
rπ
c .ω Ce
rν
4
5
.
2.
.
3
27.ω h ω Ce ω CP
.
5
4
1 .
32.π
4
α
(3.199, 3.200)
1
ω CN
3
ω CN
rε
1
ω CP
2
.e
3
rπ
(3.204)
rε
rπ
π
rν
(3.214)
5
1 . me
r ε r π.
9
2 mp
2
(3.231)
5
rε .
rµ rτ
1 . mµ
9
4 me
2
5
1 . mτ
9
6 me
2
(3.234)
rµ
α
rε
.e
rτ
rν
(3.236)
5
r en r µn r τn
r ε.
m en
me
2
5
r µ.
m µn
mµ
2
5
r τ.
m τn
2
mτ
(3.238)
rε
rπ
rν
rµ
rτ
Find r ε , r π , r ν , r µ , r τ , r en , r µn , r τn
r en
r µn
r τn
(3.342)
245
www.deltagroupengineering.com
rε
0.0118
rπ
0.8306
rν
0.8268
rµ
.
8.216210
rτ
=
3
( fm)
0.0122
r en
r µn
r τn
.
9.540410
5
.
6.555610
4
.
1.958710
3
(3.343)
The radii results may be tested against the calculation accuracy of “α” and “π” as follows,
1 .r ε .
e
α rπ
2
3
100
rµ
1 .r ε .
e
α rν
1.
π rπ
rτ
= 100 ( % )
100
rε
rν
(3.344)
where, “α” and “π” accuracy is displayed to high precision.
The change in Electron mass, as discussed in chapter 3.9 may be recomputed subject to the
preceding equation set as follows,
Given
ω Ω r ε, m ε
ω Ω r ε,m ε
1.
ω Ω r e, m e
ω Ω r π, m p
2
ln 2.n Ω r e , m e
γ
2
(3.208)
me = Find(mε)
(3.345)
where, the Electron scattering massenergy becomes,
mεc2 = 0.511533744627484(MeV)
(3.346)
The Electron massenergy increase becomes,
(mε/me) – 1 = 0.105(%)
(3.347)
Considering the massenergy increase defined in chapter 3.9 and equation (3.306) yields,
∆me < 0.11(%)
(3.348)
where, “+0.04(%) ≈ +0.11(%)” due to physical measurement limitations.
246
www.deltagroupengineering.com
APPENDIX 3.E
DERIVATION OF QUARK AND BOSON MASSENERGIES AND RADII
Assuming the analytical representations derived in chapter (3.4, 3.9, 3.11, 3.12) denote exact
boundary conditions, particle properties may be calculated utilising the following “MathCad 8
Professional” algorithm,
n PV 3 2 . c . G. M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
π .r
ω PV n PV, r , M
(3.67)
√KPV(r,M) ≈ 1
(3.349)
h .
4
ω PV( 1, r , M )
3
2.c
U ω( r , M )
3 .M .c
U m( r , M )
(3.69)
2
4 .π .r
3
n Ω ( r, M )
(3.70)
Ω ( r, M )
4
12
Ω ( r, M )
1
(3.71)
3
U m( r , M )
108.
Ω ( r, M )
12. 768 81.
U ω( r , M )
U m( r , M )
2
U ω( r , M )
(3.72)
ω Ω ( r , M ) n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )
(3.73)
5
1
rπ
c .ω Ce
rν
4
5
.
1
2
4
ω CP
27.ω h .ω Ce ω CP
.
5
4
1 .
1
32.π
3
ω CN ω CN
3
5
1 . me
r ε r π.
9
2 mp
r uq 3 .r xq. 2
5
m dq
(3.199, 3.200)
2
(3.231)
1
5
r dq r uq .
.
m dq
2
m uq
(3.350)
2
m uq
(3.351)
247
www.deltagroupengineering.com
St dq
ω Ω r dq , m dq
St sq
ω Ω r xq, m sq
St cq
St bq
1
ω Ω r uq , m uq
. ω Ω r xq, m cq
ω Ω r xq, m bq
ω Ω r xq, m tq
St tq
St dq
floor St dq
St sq
floor St sq
St cq
floor St cq
St bq
floor St bq
St tq
floor St tq
(3.353)
5
m sq
2
St sq
9
m cq
2
5
r sq
r cq
r bq
5
r uq .
1
m uq
St cq
.
2
5
m bq
r tq
9
2
St bq
5
m tq
9
2
St tq
9
St uq
ω Ω r uq , m uq
St dq
ω Ω r dq , m dq
St sq
1
St cq
ω Ω r ε ,me
.
ω Ω r cq , m cq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
St tq
ω Ω r tq , m tq
floor St uq
St dq
floor St dq
St sq
floor St sq
St cq
floor St cq
St bq
floor St bq
St tq
floor St tq
(3.354)
ω Ω r sq , m sq
St bq
St uq
(3.352)
(3.355)
(3.356)
248
www.deltagroupengineering.com
9
5
St uq .r uq
m uq
9
5
St dq .r dq
m dq
m sq
me
m cq
rε
m bq
9
5
St sq .r sq
.
9
5
St cq .r cq
5
9
5
St bq .r bq
m tq
9
5
St tq .r tq
5
r tq r uq .
2
1 . m tq
9
10 m uq
r u( M )
h
.
4 π .c .M
rW
r u mW
rZ
r u mZ
rH
r u mH
(3.247)
(3.358)
(3.359)
ω Ω r u mW ,mW
St W
St Z
St H
1
. ω Ω r u mZ ,mZ
ω Ω r uq , m uq
ω Ω r u mH ,mH
St W
round St W , 0
St Z
round St Z , 0
St H
round St H , 0
5
rW
rZ
rH
(3.357)
(3.361)
1
St W
5
r uq .
1
m uq
9
.m 2
W
5
1 .
2
mZ
9
St Z
5
1 .
2
mH
.
2
(3.360)
9
St H
(3.362)
249
www.deltagroupengineering.com
m uq
3.506.10
m dq
7.0121.10
m sq
3
1.1833
m bq
4.1196
m tq
178.4979
r uq
=
r cq
0.8879
10
1.0913
16 .
cm
0.9294
r tq
(3.364)
rW
1.2839
rZ
= 1.0616
rH
0.9403
6
(3.363)
1.071
r bq
1.
2
1.0136
r sq
6
c
0.7682
r dq
1.
GeV
0.1139
=
m cq
3
r uq
r dq
m uq
10
16 .
cm
(3.365)
r sq
m dq
m sq
r cq
m cq
rZ
rH
ru mW
ru mZ
r u mH
3
16 .
cm
(3.366)
m tq = 30.6542
m bq
GeV
c
rW
1.
r tq = 0.9602 10
r bq
rW
r H = 1.0953 10
rZ
1
.
ω Ω r uq , m uq
2
(3.367)
= ( 1.0465 0.9811 1.0903 )
(3.252)
16 .
cm
(3.368)
ω Ω r dq , m dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
ω Ω r W,mW
ω Ω r Z, m Z
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r tq , m tq
=
1 2 3 4
7 8 9 10
(Eq. 3.253)
1
ω Ω r ε ,me
.
ω Ω r dq , m dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
ω Ω r W,mW
ω Ω r Z, m Z
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r tq , m tq
=
7 14 21 28
49 56 63 70
(Eq. 3.254)
250
www.deltagroupengineering.com
APPENDIX 3.F
HARMONIC REPRESENTATIONS
Commencing with the classical representation of gravitational acceleration as a function of
planetary radial distance, we shall illustrate the harmonic modes of gravity in the EGM model as
follows,
Gravitational Acceleration
Acceleration
R E
G .M E
r
g
2
r
Radial Distance
Figure 3.33,
Assuming the fundamental harmonic period “TPV” to be,
T PV n PV, r , M
1
ω PV n PV, r , M
(3.369)
The harmonic modes of acceleration “aPV” in the EGM representation of the PV model of gravity in
the weak field approximation (√KPV(r,M) ≈ 1) at “r” may be stated as,
a PV n PV, r , M , t
i .C PV n PV, r , M .e
π .n PV .ω PV ( 1 , r , M ) .t .i
(3.370)
where, the gravitational representation of the preceding equation may be written as,
g PV n PV, r , M , t
a PV n PV, r , M , t
n PV
(3.371)
Representing equation (3.370) graphically yields,
251
www.deltagroupengineering.com
T PV 1 , R E , M E
T PV 1 , R E , M E
6
2
Acceleration
C PV 1 , R E , M E
Re a PV 1 , R E , M E , t
Re a PV 3 , R E , M E , t
C PV 3 , R E , M E
Re a PV 5 , R E , M E , t
t
Time
1st +ve Harmonic
3rd +ve Harmonic
5th +ve Harmonic
Figure 3.34,
Acceleration
where, the Real Component of “aPV” is equal to the amplitude spectrum of “gPV” as follows,
Re a PV n PV , R E , M E ,
T PV n PV , R E , M E
2
C PV n PV , R E , M E
n PV
Harmonic
Real Component
Harmonic Amplitude Spectrum
Figure 3.35,
Representing equation (3.371) graphically yields,
252
www.deltagroupengineering.com
T PV 1 , R E , M E
2
Acceleration
g
g PV n PV , R E , M E , t
t
Time
Figure 3.36,
A useful graphical representation for “KR H” presented in chapter 3.6 is termed the Critical
Harmonic Operator with composition as follows,
1
T δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
K R( r , ∆r , M , t )
∆ω δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
2.
π
H
i .
n PV
1 .
e
n PV
(3.372)
π .n PV .∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t .i
(3.373)
T δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
K R_av ( r , ∆r , M )
H
∆ω δr n PV, r , ∆r , M .
K R( r , ∆r , M , t ) d t
H
0 .( s )
(3.374)
Note that the average value of “KR H” over the fundamental period “Τδr” [“KR av H”], is
approximately “98.2(%)” when “N = 21”. This indicates rapid convergence with vanishing error as
“nPV → nΩ”. Representing equation (3.373) graphically yields,
Unit Harmonic Operator
K R_av_H R E , ∆r , M E
1
K R_H R E , ∆r , M E , t
0.5
t
Time
Figure 3.37,
253
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
254
www.deltagroupengineering.com
APPENDIX 3.G
[76] Results,
1
CONVERSION OF NEUTRON POSITIVE CORE RADIUS
The Mean Square (MS) charge radius of a free Neutron “rν”, as derived in chapter 3.9, may
be converted to the conventional MS charge radius “KX” representation of “fm2”. This may be
achieved by utilising the Neutron Charge Distribution “ρch” curve as follows,
bi
1 .
ρ ch ( r )
π
2
r
2
r
1 . b1.
e
3
3 a1
π
ai
.e
3
i= 1 a i
3
a1
2
r
b2
.e
2
a2
3
a2
(3.375)
where, “a1, a2, b1 and b2” are mathematical constants physically satisfying the preceding equation,
“r” denotes the magnitude of the radial position vector and “fm” denotes “femtometre” [x1015(m)].
Recognising that,
∞
ρ ch ( r ) d r d r d r 4 . π .
Q
2
r . ρ ch ( r ) d r b 1
b2 0
0
∞
3
4
2
r .ρ ch ( r ) d r . a 1
2
4. π .
0
(3.376)
2
a 2 .b 1
(3.377)
3
where, “Q” denotes the charge density per unit Coulomb and takes the units “fm ”. Subsequently,
equation (3.376) yields the relationship “b2 = b1” such that,
2
r
b1
ρ ch ( r )
π
1 .
e
.
a1
3
2
a2
1 .
e
3
a1
3
r
a2
(3.378)
“rν” represents the ZeroPointField (ZPF) equilibrium radius and intersects the radial axis
at “r = rν” in accordance with equation (3.375). Hence, an expression for “rν” may be defined in
terms of “a1, a2 and b1” as follows,
rν
b1
π
rν
.
3
2
1 .
e
2
rν
a1
1 .
e
3
a2
a1
0
3
a1
3 . ln
a2
2
a2
.
a 1.a 2
2
a2
(3.379)
2
2
a1
(3.380)
The maximum value of “ρch” occurs at “r = 0” and may be determined (assuming spherical
Neutron geometry) according to,
V( r )
4. . 3
πr
3
(3.381)
Hence, the Charge Density per unit Coulomb “Q(r)” is expressed by [Q(r) → C/m3 * 1/C = 1/m3]:
Q( r )
1
V( r )
(3.382)
255
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Therefore, the Charge Density per unit Coulomb per unit Quark “Qch(r)” may be written as,
Q( r )
Q ch ( r )
3
(3.383)
Evaluating yields,
1
Q ch r ν = 0.1408
3
fm
(3.384)
This result may be expressed analytically by relating equation (3.378) to (3.381 – 3.383)
when “r = 0” as follows,
b1
1
4.π . r ν
3
π
.
1
1
3
3
a1
3
a2
(3.385)
Hence,
3
.
π . a1a2
4. π .b 1 a 3 a 3
2
1
3
rν
3
(3.386)
The radial position “rdr” (as a function of “rν”) for which the gradient of the Charge Density
“dρch(r)/dr” is zero may be determined as follows,
2
r
d b1 . 1 .
e
dr 3 a 3
1
π
r
a1
1 .
e
2
a2
3
a2
r
2 .b 1.r
π
3.
a 1.a 2
. a 5 .e
1
a2
2
r
5
a 2 .e
a1
2
0
5
(3.387)
Simplifying yields,
r dr
5
a 1 .e
2
a2
r dr
2
a1
5
a 2 .e
(3.388)
Therefore,
r dr
rν
2
r dr
2
5 . ln
a1
a 1.a 2
.
a2
2
a2
ln a 2
2 3
r dr . .
5 ln a 1
5.
3
2
2
a1
(3.389)
ln a 1
ln a 2
(3.390)
rν
(3.391)
Evaluating yields,
r dr = 1.0674 ( fm)
(3.392)
Exploratory factor analysis, with respect to equation (3.378), indicates that an infinite family
of solutions for “a1, a2 and b1” exists to satisfy “ρch”. Therefore, we shall assume that “a2 = xa1” and
“a1 = rν”. Subsequently, the values of “a2, b1 and x” may be determined as follows,
256
www.deltagroupengineering.com
substitute , a 2 x. a 1
3.
2
a 2 .b 1 K S
2
a1
2
KS
2.
substitute , a 1 r ν
3
solve , b 1
2
rν . 1
2
x
(3.393)
where, “KS” denotes the MS charge radius of a Neutron as derived utilising EGM methodology.
Hence,
2 . KS
b1
3 .r ν
2
2
x
1
(3.394)
Substituting “b1” into equation (3.385) yields an expression for “KS” in terms of “rν and x”
as follows,
substitute , b 1
b1
1
4.π .r ν
3
π
1
.
a1
3
KS
3 a 2
2
.
substitute , a 2 x a 1
1
3
2.
3
a2
2
a1
1
3.
8
2.
rν π
2
. x3 .
( x 1)
2
x
substitute , a 1 r ν
x 1
solve , K S
(3.395)
Hence,
3. π .r ν
KS
2
. (1
x) . x
1
x x
8
3
2
(3.396)
A solution for “x” may be found by performing the appropriate substitutions into equation
(3.380) and solving numerically utilising the “Given” and “Find” commands within the “MathCad 8
Professional” environment as follows,
rν
a2
3 . ln
2
.
a1
a 1 .a 2
2
a2
2
substitute , a 2 x. a 1
2
substitute , a 1 r ν
a1
rν
2
2
3 . ln( x) . r ν .
factor
2
x
( ( x 1) .( x 1) )
(3.397)
Given
2
x
ln( x) .
2
x
x
1
1 3
(3.398)
Find( x)
(3.399)
Evaluating yields,
x = 0.6829
a1
a2
=
0.8268
0.5647
(3.400)
( fm)
(3.401)
b 1 = 0.2071
(3.402)
2
K S = 0.1133 fm
(3.403)
257
www.deltagroupengineering.com
The error produced by “KS” in relation to its experimental value “KX” [10] may be
calculated according to “1 – KS / KX” as follows,
KX
1
2
0.113. fm
KX
(3.404)
= 0.295 ( % )
KS
(3.405)
Note: the experimental uncertainty of “KX” is “±0.005(fm2)” (as defined by [10]). Consequently,
“KS” matches experimental measurement precisely, with zero error. The error described by
equation (3.405) assumes an exact experimental value as defined by equation (3.404).
We may graphically reinforce the preceding derivation by substituting the results for “KS, rν
and x” into equation (3.378) and working in dimensionless form as follows,
r
ρ ch ( r )
KS
2.
3
3
5 2
π .r ν . x
. e
2
rν
1.
e
r
x .r
2
ν
3
x
1
(3.406)
Neutron Charge Distribution
Charge Density
rν
r dr
ρ ch( r )
ρ ch r 0
ρ ch r dr
r
Radius
Charge Density
Maximum Charge Density
Minimum Charge Density
Figure 3.38,
Evaluating “ρch” at specific conditions yields the appropriate results,
ρ ch r 0
0.1408
ρ ch r ν
= 5.768.10
12
ρ ch 10 .( fm)
0
9
1
3
fm
(3.407)
Utilising the “Given” and “Find” commands, we may determine graphical inflections at “r1”
and “r2” according to,
Given
258
www.deltagroupengineering.com
r1
d
2
KS
2.
d r 12 3
3
π .r ν
5.
rν
. e
2
x
3
d r 23 3
r1
3.
π rν
5.
1
x
e
x .r ν
0
(3.408)
2
rν
. e
2
1.
2
3
KS
2.
r1
x
r2
d
2
r2
1.
e
2
x .r ν
0
3
x
1
(3.409)
Find r 1, r 2
r2
(3.410)
Evaluating yields [r1 = 0.3766(fm), r2 = 0.6624(fm)],
r1
=
r2
0.3766
0.6624
(3.411)
Neutron Charge Distribution
r1
r2
ρ ch( r )
ρ ch r 0
d
Neutron Charge Characteristic
dr
ρ ch( r )
d
dr 1
d
ρ ch r 1
2
d r2
d
ρ ch( r )
2
d r 22
d
2
d r 02
ρ ch r 2
ρ ch r 0
r
Radius
Figure 3.39,
Evaluating specific conditions yields the appropriate results,
d
ρ ch r 1
dr 1
d
2
d r 22
d
2
d r 02
0.2539
ρ ch r 2
= 0.5447
1.1032
ρ ch r 0
(3.412)
259
www.deltagroupengineering.com
rν
4
r . ρ ch ( r ) d r
0
∞
4
r . ρ ch ( r ) d r
4.π .
0.0166
rν
0.13
=
rν
0.0705
2.
r ρ ch ( r ) d r
0.0705
0
∞
2
r . ρ ch ( r ) d r
rν
(3.413)
We shall perform an additional test to ensure that no obvious algebraic errors have been
inadvertently performed. To achieve this, we shall employ the exact analytical representation of the
integrand, in this case “ρch”, as defined by standard mathematics tables as follows, [34]
∞
2
r
b1
π
.
3
1 .
e
2
r
a1
a2
1 .
e
3
dr
3
a1
a2
b1
. 1
2.π a 2
1
1
2
a2
0
(3.414)
Substituting appropriately produces,
2 . KS
b1
.
1
3.r ν
1
2.π a 2
1
2
2
x
1
2.π
2
a2
.
1
rν
KS
1
2
x. r ν
2
4 2
3.π .r ν .x
(3.415)
Evaluating yields,
KS
4 2
3 .π .r ν .x
= 0.0552
(3.416)
Whereas the result computed by numerical approximation is,
∞
ρ ch ( r ) d r = 0.0552
0
(3.417)
Since the results of the two preceding equations are identical, no obvious algebraic or numerical
errors have been performed.
Assuming “KX” has zero uncertainty, equation (3.394) may be transposed and utilised to
convert “KX” to an equivalent RMS charge radius form “rX” as follows,
6 .b 1 .K X . x
2
rX
3 .b 1 . x
2
1
1
rν
KS
. K .K
S X
(3.418)
Evaluating and converting dimensionally produces: 0.8071 ≤ rX(fm) ≤ 0.8437
260
(3.419)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
2
NEUTRON MAGNETIC RADIUS
Continuing in dimensionless form, the Neutron Magnetic Radius “rνM” may be usefully
approximated to high computational precision {to within 3.2 x103(%) of the experimental result
[0.879(fm)]} [56] utilising “ρch”, “rν” and “rdr”. Firstly, recognising that “d2ρch(rdr/rν)/dr2 = 0” and
graphing over the domain “rν ≤ r ≤ 1.8(fm)”,
r dr
r dr
d2
d r2
rν
ρ ch( r )
r
Radius
Figure 3.40,
Provokes the solution,
Given
r dr
rν
r ν . ρ ch r νM
ρ ch ( r ) d r
rν
r νM
(3.420)
Find r νM
(3.421)
Evaluating and converting dimensionally produces,
rνM = 0.87897(fm)
(3.422)
Visualising graphically over the domain “rν ≤ r ≤ 1.8(fm)” yields,
Neutron Charge Distribution
r νM
r dr
ρ ch r νM
ρ ch( r )
r
Radius
Figure 3.41,
261
www.deltagroupengineering.com
3
PROTON ELECTRIC RADIUS
Similarly, in dimensionless form, the Proton Electric Radius “rπE” may be usefully
approximated to high computational precision {to within 6.2 x102(%) of the experimental result
[0.848(fm)]} [56] utilising “ρch”, “rν” and “rdr” as follows,
Given
r dr
r ν . ρ ch r πE
ρ ch ( r ) d r
rν
r πE
(3.423)
Find r πE
(3.424)
Evaluating and converting dimensionally produces,
rπE = 0.84853(fm)
4
(3.425)
PROTON MAGNETIC RADIUS
Again, in dimensionless form, the Proton Magnetic Radius “rπM” may be usefully
approximated to high computational precision {to within 0.82(%) of the experimental result
[0.857(fm)]} [56] utilising “ρch”, “rν” and “rdr” as follows,
Given
∞
r ν . ρ ch r πM
ρ ch ( r ) d r
r dr
rν
r πM
(3.426)
Find r πM
(3.427)
Evaluating and converting dimensionally produces,
rπM = 0.84993(fm)
5
(3.428)
CLASSICAL PROTON RMS CHARGE RADIUS
Finally, in dimensionless form, the Proton RMS charge radius “rp” may be usefully
approximated to high computational precision {to within 0.05(%) of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) result [0.8750(fm)]} [1] as follows,
r P r πE
1.
2
r νM
rν
(3.429)
Evaluating and converting dimensionally produces,
rp = 0.87459(fm)
(3.430)
262
www.deltagroupengineering.com
APPENDIX 3.H
[76] Results,
CALCULATION OF L2, L3 AND L5 ASSOCIATED NEUTRINO RADII
We may deduce the approximate masses of the “L2, L3 and L5” Neutrino particles by
inference. This may be achieved by initially assuming their masses to be approximately equal to the
Neutrino masses articulated in chapter 3.11 and solving for their radii in accordance with equation
(3.230, 3.238).
Utilising the masses of the Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrino’s (men, mµn and mτn
respectively), the radii of the “Lx” Neutrino particles “rνx”, may be determined relative to the
Electron mass as follows,
5
5
r ν2 r ν3 r ν5
m en
1 .
r ε.
2
9
me
2
5
2
r µ.
m µn
5
2
9
r τ.
3
m τn
2
9
5
(3.431)
Evaluating produces Neutrino radii of,
r ν2 r ν3 r ν5 = ( 0.0274 0.76557 2.82054) 10
16 .
cm
(3.432)
Determining the average “rνx” radius value yields,
1.
3
r ν2
r ν3
r ν5 = 1.2045 10
16 .
cm
(3.433)
Determining the average Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrino radii produces (chapter 3.11),
1.
3
r en
r µn
r τn = 0.90323 10
16 .
cm
(3.434)
Comparing equation (3.433, 3.434) yields,
r ν2
r ν3
r ν5
r en
r µn
r τn
= 1.33356
≈
4
3
(3.435)
Therefore, since the average value of both radii groupings approximate unity (4/3), the initial
assumption that their masses (by matter type) are approximately equal appears qualitatively
validated.
263
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
264
www.deltagroupengineering.com
APPENDIX 3.I
DERIVATION OF THE HYDROGEN ATOM SPECTRUM (BALMER
SERIES) AND AN EXPERIMENTALLY IMPLICIT DEFINITION OF THE
BOHR RADIUS [76] Results,
It is possible to utilise ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM) to derive the first term in the Balmer
series of the Hydrogen atom spectrum. Subsequently by inference, the remaining terms may also be
produced. Moreover, an experimentally implicit definition of the Bohr radius “rBhor” may also be
derived.
Classical Derivation of the Atomic Emission / Absorption Spectrum [57]
1. Calculate the reduced mass of Hydrogen “µ”,
m e .m p
µ
me
mp
(3.436)
2. Calculate the Rydberg Constant “R∞” [Joules] (Qe denotes Electric charge),
2
4
2.π .µ .Q e
R∞
h
2
(3.437)
3. Calculate the Electronic energy level “E” at an arbitrary quantum number “nq”,
R∞
E nq
nq
2
(3.438)
4. Calculate the transition energy “∆E”,
∆E n q
E nq
E( 2 )
(3.439)
5. Calculate the Balmer series wavelength “λB”,
λB nq
h .c
∆E n q
(3.440)
6. Specify the quantum range variable “nq = 3, 4…12” and plot the spectrum,
The Hydrogen Spectrum (Balmer Series)
1
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
λB nq
nm
Wavelength
Figure 3.42,
7. Evaluate the first term: λB(3) = 656.46962(nm)
265
(3.441)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
General Formulation of Atomic Emission / Absorption Spectra by EGM
Assumptions:
1. “rBohr” defines a usefully approximate position of the ZeroPointField (ZPF) equilibrium radius.
2. The fundamental wavelength of the Polarisable Vacuum (PV) spectrum of the Hydrogen atom
coincides with the longest wavelength in the Balmer series.
3. The Hydrogen atom may be usefully represented by an “imaginary particle” (spherical) of
radius “rBohr” with approximately the mass of a Proton.
4. The ZPF is in equilibrium with an “imaginary field” surrounding the atom at approximately
“rBohr”.
EGM has utilised Fourier series to develop a spectral representation of the PV model of
gravity. EGM describes the field energy induced by mass as a spectrum of frequencies. The EGM
spectrum is defined by a discrete set of frequencies commencing from incrementally above “0(Hz)”
to the Planck frequency. Or in other words, the EGM spectrum is a discrete version of the
continuous ZPF spectrum based upon a Fourier distribution.
The PV spectrum is a subset of the EGM spectrum with a nonzero fundamental frequency.
It occupies a bandwidth of the EGM spectrum and is system or particle specific, based upon the
distribution of energy density. It assumes that, in the case of a spherical particle for example, the
ZPF energy outside a region with certain radius is in equilibrium with the field energy of the
particle or system inside that region.
Since EGM is based upon a Fourier distribution, the amplitude spectrum within the Fourier
distribution is usefully represented by a decay function (asymptotically tending to zero).
Subsequently, we would expect that the ratio of the fundamental PV wavelength to the longest
wavelength in the Balmer Series might relate to the total number of modes by an index value.
Since the PV spectrum as described by EGM is double sided and symmetrical about the
th
“0 ” mode, the wavelength of the PV spectrum “λPV” for a spherical mass may be applied to
determine the first term in the Balmer series of the Hydrogen atom spectrum as follows,
c
λ PV n PV, r , M
ω PV n PV, r , M
(3.83)
where, “λPV(1,r,M)” denotes the fundamental (starting) wavelength of the PV spectrum of arbitrary
mass and radius.
If “λA” approximates the first term of the Balmer series [i.e. the longest wavelength such
that λA ≅ λB(3)] in the Hydrogen atom emission / absorption spectrum, then a relationship to the
EGM method may be assumed and tested as follows,
Let:
λ PV( 1 , r , M )
λ A( r, M )
ψ
2 .n Ω ( r , M )
(3.442)
where, “2nΩ” denotes the total number of modes (odd + even) on both sides of the EGM spectrum,
symmetrical about the “0th” mode defined by,
n Ω ( r, M )
Ω ( r, M )
4
12
Ω ( r, M )
1
(3.7)
Hence, testing an obvious value of “ψ = 2” yields the general formulation,
λ A( r, M )
λ PV( 1, r , M )
266
2.n Ω ( r , M )
(3.443)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Application of the General Formulation by EGM
Method 1:
The Bohr radius is a nonphysical quantum average property incorporating Planck’s
Constant “h” and may be defined as follows,
ε 0 .h
r Bohr
2
π .m e .Q e
2
(3.444)
Evaluating yields, [58]
rBohr = 5.291772108 x1011(m)
(3.445)
It was illustrated in chapter 3.13 that the Planck Scale was approximately “16(%)” too small.
Since “h” is a function of “rBohr” and represents a nonphysical quantum average property, it follows
that “rBohr” is approximately “16(%)” too large and must also be rescaled for application to
equation (3.443) under the EGM method by a factor of “Kω”. Hence,
3
Kω
2
π
(3.270)
λ A K ω .r Bohr , m p = 657.32901 ( nm)
(3.446)
Evaluating “λA” and comparing to “λB” yields the EGM error associated with the first term in the
Balmer series as follows,
λ A K ω .r Bohr , m p
λB
1 = 0.13091 ( % )
(3.447)
Method 2:
If we assume “rBohr” to be correct and constrain the EGM predicted Balmer Series
wavelength to be exactly equal to the classical representation, then we may calculate the required
“imaginary particle mass” (mx) utilising the “Given” and “Find” commands within the “MathCad 8
Professional” environment as follows,
Given
λ A K ω .r Bohr , m x
1
λB
mx
(3.448)
Find m x
m x = 1.68052 10
(3.449)
27 .
kg
(3.450)
Notably, “mx” is very close to the Proton mass and the Atomic Mass Constant “mAMC”.
Determining EGM mass errors yields,
mx
1 = 0.47208 ( % )
mp
mx
(3.451)
1 = 1.20316 ( % )
m AMC
(3.452)
Method 3:
267
www.deltagroupengineering.com
If we assume “mAMC” to be correct and apply similar logic as previously (Method 2), we
may determine the correct value of ZPF equilibrium radius based upon the experimentally implicit
definition of the Planck Scale derived in chapter 3.13 as follows,
Given
λ A K ω .r x, m AMC
λB
rx
1
(3.453)
Find r x
r x = 5.27319.10
(3.454)
11
( m)
(3.455)
Comparing “rx” to “rBohr” yields the difference between them,
r Bohr
1 = 0.35238 ( % )
rx
(3.456)
Hence, the ZPF equilibrium radius coincides with the Bohr Radius to within “0.353(%)” and
suggests an experimentally implicit8 definition of “rBohr”. Therefore, a useful approximation to the
first term in the Hydrogen atom spectrum (Balmer series) may be given by,
λA
λ PV 1 , K ω .r Bohr , m p
2 .n Ω K ω .r Bohr , m p
(3.457)
NOTES
APPENDIX 3.J
8
Refer to chapter 3.13 for factors of experimental implication.
268
www.deltagroupengineering.com
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
•
General and Specific Symbols (alphabetical order)
Symbol
A
a
a1
a2
APP
ax(t)
a∞
Description
1st Harmonic term
Magnitude of acceleration vector
Acceleration with respect to General Modelling Equation One
Acceleration with respect to General Modelling Equation Two
Parallel plate area of a Classical Casimir Experiment
Arbitrary acceleration in the time domain
Mean magnitude of acceleration over the fundamental period in a FS
representation in EGM
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector
B
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity:
Ch. 3.2
Amplitude of applied Magnetic field: Ch. 3.6
B0
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Magnitude of applied Magnetic field vector
BA
Critical Magnetic field strength
BC
Magnitude of PV Magnetic field vector
BPV
Bottom Quark: elementary particle in the SM
bq
Root Mean Square of BA
Brms
Velocity of light in a vacuum
c
Velocity of light in a vacuum (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity: Ch. 3.1
Velocity of light (locally) in the PV model of gravity
c0
Amplitude of fundamental frequency of PV (nPV = 1)
CPV(1,r,M)
Amplitude
spectrum of PV
CPV(nPV,r,M)
Charm Quark: elementary particle in the SM
cq
Common difference
D
Experimental configuration factor: a specific value relating all design
criteria; this includes, but not limited to, field harmonics, field orientation,
physical dimensions, wave vector, spectral frequency mode and
instrumentation or measurement accuracy
Offset function
DC
Down Quark: elementary particle in the SM
dq
Energy: Ch. 3.3
E
Magnitude of Electric field vector
Magnitude of Electric field vector (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity:
Ch. 3.2
Electronic energy level
Charge
e, eElectron: subatomic / elementary particle in the SM
Exponential function: mathematics
Amplitude of applied Electric field: Ch. 3.6
E0
Energy (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Magnitude of Electric field vector (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Magnitude of applied Electric field vector
EA
Critical Electric field strength
EC
Magnitude of PV Electric field vector
EPV
269
Units
m/s2
m2
m/s2
T
T
m/s
m/s2
%
J
V/m
J
C
V/m
J
V/m
V/m
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Root Mean Square of EA
m/s2
Complex FS representation of EGM
Magnitude of the ambient gravitational acceleration represented in the time
domain
Amplitude spectrum / distribution of F(k,n,t)
F0(k)
The Casimir Force by classical representation
N
FPP
The
Casimir
Force
by
EGM
FPV
Gluon: theoretical elementary particle in the SM
g
Magnitude of gravitational acceleration vector
m/s2
3 1 2
Universal Gravitation Constant
m kg s
G
Tensor element
g00
Tensor element
g11
Tensor element
g22
Tensor element
g33
Height: Ch. 3.4
m
h
Higgs Boson: theoretical elementary particle in the SM
H
Hydrogen
Magnetic field strength
Oe
Js
Planck’s Constant (plain h form)
h
hbar
Planck’s Constant (2π form)
HSE4A R Time average form of HSE4 R
HSE5A R Time average form of HSE5 R
Generalised reference to the reduced form of HSEx
HSEx R
Complex number
i
Initial condition
Macroscopic intensity of Photons within a test volume
W/m2
In,P
Vector current density
A/m2
J
Wave vector
1/m
k
K0(r,X) ERF by displacement domain precipitation
Generalised ERF
K0(X)
K0(ω
ω,r,E,B,X) ERF by wavefunction precipitation
K0(ω
ω,X) ERF by frequency domain precipitation
K0(ω
ωPV,r,EPV,BPV,X) ERF equivalent to K0(ω,r,E,B,X)
ERF formed by reinterpretation of the primary precipitant
(V/m)2
K1
ERF formed by reinterpretation of the primary precipitant
T2
K2
Harmonic wave vector of applied field
1/m
kA
Critical Factor
KC
PaΩ
Engineered Refractive Index
KEGM
Harmonic form of KEGM
KEGM H
Experimentally
implicit Planck Mass scaling factor
Km
The intensity of the background PV field at specific frequency modes
W/m2
Kn,P
A refinement of a constant in FPP
KP
Harmonic wave vector of PV
1/m
kPV
Refractive Index of PV
KPV
Harmonic form of KPV
KPV H
Critical Ratio
KR
Critical harmonic operator (based upon the unit amplitude spectrum)
KR H
Neutron MS charge radius by EGM
m2
KS
m2
Neutron MS charge radius (determined experimentally) in the SM
KX
Experimentally implicit Planck Length scaling factor
Kλ
Erms
F(k,n,t)
f(t)
270
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Kω
L
L0
L2
L3
L5
M
m0
M0
mAMC
mbq
mcq
mdq
me
ME
men
mgg
mH
mh
MJ
mL(2)
mL(3)
mL(5)
MM
mn
mp
mQB(5)
mQB(6)
MS
msq
mtq
muq
mW
mx
mZ
mε
mγ
mγg
mγγ
mµ
mµn
mτ
mτn
n
n, N
nA
nB
NC
nE
nPV
Experimentally implicit Planck Frequency scaling factor
Length
Length (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Theoretical elementary particle (Lepton) by EGM
Theoretical elementary particle (Lepton) by EGM
Theoretical elementary particle (Lepton) by EGM
Mass
Mass (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Zero mass (energy) condition of free space
Atomic Mass Constant
Bottom Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Charm Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Down Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Electron rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Mass of the Earth
Electron Neutrino rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Graviton rest mass (energy) by EGM
Higgs Boson rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Planck Mass
Mass of Jupiter
Rest mass (energy) of the L2 particle by EGM
Rest mass (energy) of the L3 particle by EGM
Rest mass (energy) of the L5 particle by EGM
Mass of the Moon
Neutron rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Proton rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Rest mass (energy) of the QB5 particle by EGM
Rest mass (energy) of the QB6 particle by EGM
Mass of the Sun
Strange Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Top Quark rest mass (energy) according (energy) to PDG
Up Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
W Boson rest mass according (energy) to PDG
Imaginary particle mass
Z Boson rest mass according (energy) to PDG
Electron rest mass (energy) in high energy scattering experiments
Photon rest mass (energy) threshold according to PDG
Graviton rest mass (energy) threshold according to PDG
Photon rest mass (energy) by EGM
Muon rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Muon Neutrino rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Tau rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Tau Neutrino rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Neutron: subatomic particle in the SM
Field harmonic (harmonic frequency mode)
Harmonic frequency modes of applied field
Harmonic mode number of the ZPF with respect to BA
Critical mode
Harmonic mode number of the ZPF with respect to EA
Harmonic frequency modes of PV
271
m
kg or eV
www.deltagroupengineering.com
nq
NT
NTR
NX
N∆r
nΩ
nΩ ZPF
nβ
P
p
Q, Qe
QB5
QB6
r
r0
rBohr
rBoson
rbq
rc
rcq
rdq
re
RE
ren
RError
rgg
rH
RJ
rL
RM
rp
rQB
RS
rsq
rtq
ru
ruq
rW
rx
rxq
rZ
rε
rγγ
rµ
Quantum number
Number of terms
The ratio of the number of terms
Harmonic inflection mode
Permissible mode bandwidth of applied experimental fields
Harmonic cutoff mode of PV
ZPF beat cutoff mode
Mode Number (Critical Boundary Mode) of ωβ
Polarisation vector
Proton: subatomic particle in the SM
Magnitude of Electric charge
Theoretical elementary particle (Quark or Boson) by EGM
Theoretical elementary particle (Quark or Boson) by EGM
Arbitrary radius with homogeneous mass (energy) distribution
Generalised notation for length (e.g. r → λ/2π): Ch. 3.1
Generalised notation for length (locally) in the PV model of gravity: Ch. 3.1
Magnitude of position vector from centre of spherical object with
homogeneous mass (energy) distribution
Reciprocal of the wave number: Ch. 3.1
Length (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Classical Bohr radius
Generalised RMS charge radius of a Boson by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Bottom Quark by EGM
Transformed value of generalised length (locally) in the PV model of gravity
RMS charge radius of the Charm Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Down Quark by EGM
Classical Electron radius in the SM
Mean radius of the Earth
RMS charge radius of the Electron Neutrino by EGM
Representation Error
RMS charge radius of the Graviton by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Higgs Boson utilising ru
Mean radius of Jupiter
Average RMS charge radii of the rε, rµ and rτ particles
Mean radius of the Moon
Classical RMS charge radius of the Proton in the SM
Average RMS charge radius of the QB5 / QB6 particles by EGM utilising ru
Mean radius of the Sun
RMS charge radius of the Strange Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Top Quark by EGM
Heisenberg uncertainty range
RMS charge radius of the Up Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the W Boson utilising ru
Bohr radius by EGM
Generalised RMS charge radius of all Quarks as determined by the ZC
within the SM
RMS charge radius of the Z Boson by utilising ru
RMS charge radius of the Electron by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Photon by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Muon by EGM
272
C/m2
C
m
%
m
m
www.deltagroupengineering.com
RMS charge radius of the Muon Neutrino by EGM
Neutron RMS charge radius (by analogy to KS)
RMS charge radius of the ν2 particle by EGM
RMS charge radius of the ν3 particle by EGM
RMS charge radius of the ν5 particle by EGM
Neutron Magnetic radius by EGM
Generalised reference to rν2, rν3 and rν5
RMS charge radius of the Proton by EGM
Proton Electric radius by EGM
Proton Magnetic radius by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Tau by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Tau Neutrino by EGM
Rydberg Constant
Poynting Vector
Strange Quark: elementary particle in the SM
nth Harmonic term
Range factor
1st Sense check
3rd Sense check
4th Sense check
2nd Sense check
5th Sense check
6th Sense check
A positive integer value representing the harmonic cutoff frequency ratio
between two proportionally similar mass (energy) systems
Poynting Vector of PV
Sω
Time
t
Top Quark: elementary particle in the SM
tq
Initial state GPE per unit mass described by any appropriate method
Ug
Harmonic form of Ug
Ug H
Rest massenergy density
Um
Up Quark: elementary particle in the SM
uq
Field
energy density of PV
Uω
Local value of the velocity of light in a vacuum
vc
W Boson: elementary particle in the SM
W
All variables within the experimental environment that influence results and
X
behaviour including parameters that might otherwise be neglected due to
practical calculation limitations, in theoretical analysis
Impedance function
Z
Z Boson: elementary particle in the SM
Change in electronic energy level
∆Ε
Change in the magnitude of the local PV acceleration vector
∆aPV
Change in magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration vector
∆g
∆GME1 Change in GME1
∆GME2 Change in GME2
∆GMEx Generalised reference to changes in GME1 and GME2
Harmonic form of ∆K0
∆K0 H
∆K0(ω
ω,X) Engineered Relationship Function by EGM
Change in K1 by EGM
∆K1
rµn
rν
rν2
rν3
rν5
rνM
rνx
rπ
rπE
rπM
rτ
rτn
R∞
S
sq
StN
Stα
Stβ
Stδ
Stε
Stγ
Stη
Stθ
Stω
273
J
W/m2
PaΩ
W/m2
s
(m/s)2
Pa
Pa
m/s
Ω
J
m/s2
(V/m)2
www.deltagroupengineering.com
∆K2
∆ KC
∆nS
∆r
∆t
∆t0
∆ Ug
∆UPV
∆vΩ
∆vδr
∆ΛPV
∆λΩ
∆λδr
∆ωPV
∆ωR
∆ωS
∆ωZPF
∆ωΩ
∆ωδr
Π
ΣH
ΣHR
Ω
α
α1
αx
β
β1
βx
ε0
φ
φC
φgg
φγγ
γ
γg
λ
λΑ
λΒ
λCe
λCN
Change in K2 by EGM
Change in Critical Factor by EGM
Change in the number of ZPF modes
Plate separation of a Classical Casimir Experiment
Practical changes in benchtop displacement values
Change in time (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Change in time (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Change in Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) per unit mass induced by
any suitable source
Change in energy density of gravitational field
Change in rest massenergy density
Terminating group velocity of PV
Group velocity of PV
Change in the local value of the Cosmological Constant by EGM
Change in harmonic cutoff wavelength of PV
Change in harmonic wavelength of PV
Frequency bandwidth of PV
Bandwidth ratio
Similarity bandwidth
ZPF beat bandwidth
Beat bandwidth of PV
Beat frequency of PV
Dimensional grouping derived by application of BPT
The sum of terms
The ratio of the sum of terms
Harmonic cutoff function of PV
An inversely proportional description of how energy density may result in an
acceleration: Ch. 3.2
Fine Structure Constant
The subset formed, as “N → ∞”, by the method of incorporation
Generalised reference to α1 and α2
A directly proportional description of how energy density may result in an
acceleration
The subset formed, as “N → ∞”, by the method of incorporation
Generalised reference to β1 and β2
Permittivity of a vacuum
Relative phase variance between EA and BA
Critical phase variance
RMS charge diameter of the Graviton by EGM
RMS charge diameter of the Photon by EGM
Mathematical Constant: EulerMascheroni (Euler’s) Constant
Photon: elementary particle in the SM
Graviton: theoretical elementary particle in the SM
Wavelength
1st term of the Balmer Series by EGM
Classical Balmer Series wavelength
Electron Compton Wavelength
Neutron Compton Wavelength
274
T2
PaΩ
m
s
(m/s)2
Pa
m/s
Hz2
m
Hz
Hz
m/s2
m/s2
F/m
θc
m
m
m
www.deltagroupengineering.com
λCP
λh
λPV
µ, µµ
µ0
ν2
ν3
ν5
νe
νµ
ντ
ρ
ρ0
τ, τω
Proton Compton Wavelength
Planck Length
Wavelength of PV
Muon: elementary particle in the SM
Reduced mass of Hydrogen
Permeability of a vacuum
Theoretical elementary Neutrino of the L2 particle by EGM
Theoretical elementary Neutrino of the L3 particle by EGM
Theoretical elementary Neutrino of the L5 particle by EGM
Electron Neutrino: elementary particle in the SM
Muon Neutrino: elementary particle in the SM
Tau Neutrino: elementary particle in the SM
Charge density
Spectral energy density
Tau: elementary particle in the SM
Field frequency
Field frequency (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity: Ch. 3.2
Field frequency (locally) in the PV model of gravity
ω0
Field frequency (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Harmonic frequency of the ZPF with respect to BA
ωB
Critical frequency
ωC
Harmonic frequency of the ZPF with respect to EA
ωE
Electron Compton Frequency
ωCe
Neutron Compton Frequency
ωCN
Proton Compton Frequency
ωCP
Planck Frequency
ωh
Generalised reference to ωPV(nPV,r,M)
ωPV
Fundamental frequency of PV (nPV = 1)
ωPV(1,r,M)
ωPV(nPV,r,M) Frequency spectrum of PV
Harmonic inflection frequency
ωX
Harmonic cutoff frequency of PV
ωΩ
ZPF
beat cutoff frequency
ωΩ ZPF
Critical boundary
ωβ
〈 mQuark〉 Average mass (energy) of all Quarks according to PDG
Average mass (energy) of all Quarks by EGM
Average RMS charge radius of all Bosons in the SM utilising ru
〈rBoson〉
Average RMS charge radius of all Quarks by EGM
〈rQuark〉
Average RMS charge radius of all Quarks and Bosons by EGM utilising ru
〈r〉〉
275
kg or eV
N/A2
C/m3
Pa/Hz
Hz
kg or eV
m
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Bibliography 3
[1] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/
[2] Mathworld, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EulerMascheroniConstant.html
[3] Software: MathCad 8 Professional, http://www.mathsoft.com/
[4] University of Illinois, http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/mathmine1.html
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_%CF%80_theorem
[7] Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/kurs/matmod/1998h/
[8] University of California, Riverside,
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html
[9] The SELEX Collaboration, http://arxiv.org/abs/hepex/0106053v2
[10] “Karmanov et. Al.”, http://arxiv.org/abs/hepph/0106349v1
[11] “P. W. Milonni”, The Quantum Vacuum – An Introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics,
Academic Press, Inc. 1994. Page 403.
[12] Particle Data Group, http://pdg.lbl.gov/, “S. Eidelman et Al.” Phys. Lett. B 592, 1 (2004).
[13] “Hirsch et. Al.”, Bounds on the tau and muon neutrino vector and axial vector charge radius,
http://arxiv.org/abs/hepph/0210137v2
[14] The ZEUS Collaboration, http://arxiv.org/abs/hepex/0401009v2
[15] The DZERO Collaboration, http://arxiv.org/abs/hepex/0406031v1
[16] Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/exchg.html
[17] “James William Rohlf”, Modern Physics from α to Z, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1994.
[18] Norwegian University of Science and Technology, A microbiography of Edgar Buckingham,
http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/notes/buckingham/
[19] “W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, J. A. Wheeler”, Gravitation, W. H. Freeman & Co, 1973. Ch. 1,
Box 1.5, Ch. 12, Box 12.4, sec. 12.4, 12.5.
[20] “B.S. Massey”, Mechanics of Fluids sixth edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold (International),
1989, Ch. 9.
[21] “Rogers & Mayhew”, Engineering Thermodynamics Work & Heat Transfer third edition,
Longman Scientific & Technical, 1980, Part IV, Ch. 22.
[22] “Douglas, Gasiorek, Swaffield”, Fluid Mechanics second edition, Longman Scientific &
Technical, 1987, Part VII, Ch. 25.
[23] “Puthoff et. Al.”, PolarizableVacuum (PV) representation of general relativity, v2, Sept., 1999
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/grqc/9909037
[24] “Puthoff et. Al.”, Polarizablevacuum (PV) approach to general relativity, Found. Phys. 32, 927
– 943 (2002).
[25] “Erwin Kreyszig”, Advanced Engineering Mathematics Seventh Edition, John Wiley & Sons,
1993, Ch. 10.
[26] “H.A. Wilson”, An electromagnetic theory of gravitation, Phys. Rev. 17, 54 – 59 (1921).
[27] “R.H. Dicke”, Gravitation without a principle of equivalence. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 363 – 376,
1957.
[28] “R.H. Dicke”, Mach’s principle and equivalence, in Proc. Of the International School of
Physics “Enrico Fermi” Course XX, Evidence for Gravitational Theories, ed. C. Møller, Academic
Press, New York, 1961, pp. 1 – 49.
[29] “A.M. Volkov, A.A. Izmest’ev, and G.V. Skrotskii”, The propagation of electromagnetic
waves in a Riemannian space, Sov. Phys. JETP 32, 686 – 689 1971.
[30] “Puthoff et. Al.”, Engineering the ZeroPoint Field and Polarizable Vacuum for Interstellar
Flight, JBIS, Vol. 55, pp.137, 2002 , http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astroph/0107316v2.
[31] “G. Arfken”, Mathematical Methods for Physicists – Third Edition, Academic Press, Inc. 1985
ISBN 0120598205. Ch. 1, pp. 77.
[32] “J.D. Jackson”, Classical Electrodynamics, Third Edition, 1998, ISBN 047130932x, Ch. 6,
276
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Secs. 6.7 – 6.9, Ch. 12, Sec. 12.7.
[33] “K.A. Stroud”, “Further Engineering Mathematics”, MacMillan Education LTD, Camelot
Press LTD, 1986, Programme 17.
[34] “Lennart Rade, Bertil Westergren”, “Beta Mathematics Handbook Second Edition”, ChartwellBratt Ltd, 1990, Page 470.
[35] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BeatFrequency.html
[36] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MaxwellEquationsSteadyState.html
[37] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectromagneticRadiation.html
[38] Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/ems1.html
[39] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MaxwellEquations.html
[40] http://www.mathcentre.ac.uk/students.php/all_subjects/series
[41] Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/whdwar.html
[42] Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/redgia.html
[43] Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/pulsar.html
[44] “Stein, B. P”. Physics Update, Physics Today 48, 9, Oct. 1995.
[45] “Simon et Al.”, Nucl. Phys. A333, 381 (1980).
[46] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Proton.html
[47] “Andrews et Al.”, 1977 J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. 3 L91 – L92.
[48] “L.N. Hand, D.G. Miller, and R. Wilson”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 35, 335 (1963).
[49] A Proposal to the MITBates PAC. Precise Determination of the Proton Charge Radius, August
19 (2003) – Spokespersons: H. Gao, J.R. Calarco [email: hayian@mit.edu, phone: (617) 2580256,
fax: (617) 2585440].
[50] Stanford Linear Accelerator, http://www.slac.stanford.edu/
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html
[51] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlanckLength.html
[52] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Photon.html
[53] Stanford Linear Accelerator, http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/fundamental.html
[54] See: [13]
[55] “Joshipura et. Al.”, Bounds on the tau neutrino magnetic moment and charge radius from
SuperK and SNO observations, http://arxiv.org/abs/hepph/0108018v1
[56] “Hammer and Meißner et. Al.”, http://arxiv.org/abs/hepph/0312081v3
[57] University of Tel Aviv, http://www.tau.ac.il/~phchlab/experiments/hydrogen/balmer.htm
[58] Scienceworld, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BohrRadius.html
[59] “Albert Einstein”, http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/index.html
[60] “Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier”,
http ://wwwgroups.dcs.stand.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Fourier.html
[61] http://stores.lulu.com/dge
[62] http://www.veoh.com/users/DeltaGroupEngineering
[63] “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM), Practical modelling
methods of the polarisable vacuum – I, Physics Essays: Vol. 19, No. 1: March 2006.
[64] “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM), Practical modelling
methods of the polarisable vacuum – II, Physics Essays: Vol. 19, No. 2: June 2006.
[65] “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM), Practical modelling
methods of the polarisable vacuum – III, Physics Essays: Vol. 19, No. 3: September 2006.
[66] “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM), Practical modelling
methods of the polarisable vacuum – IV, Physics Essays: Vol. 19, No. 4: December 2006.
[67] “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM), Practical modelling
methods of the polarisable vacuum – V, Physics Essays: Vol. 20, No. 1: March 2007.
[68] “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM), Practical modelling
methods of the polarisable vacuum – VI, Physics Essays: Vol. 20, No. 2: June 2007.
[69] “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, ElectroGraviMagnetics (EGM), Practical modelling
methods of the polarisable vacuum – VII, Physics Essays: Vol. 20, No. 3: September 2007.
277
www.deltagroupengineering.com
[70] “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, Derivation of the Photon massenergy threshold, The
Nature of Light: What Is a Photon?, edited by C. Roychoudhuri, K. Creath, A. Kracklauer,
Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 5866 (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2005) [pg. 207 – 213].
[71] “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, Derivation of fundamental particle radii (Electron,
Proton & Neutron), Physics Essays: Vol. 22, No. 1: March 2009.
[72] “Riccardo C. Storti, Todd J. Desiato”, Derivation of the Photon & Graviton massenergies &
radii, The Nature of Light: What Is a Photon?, edited by C. Roychoudhuri, K. Creath, A.
Kracklauer, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 5866 (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2005) [pg. 214 – 217].
[73, 74, 75] See [76].
[76] “Riccardo C. Storti”, The Natural Philosophy of Fundamental Particles, The Nature of Light:
What Is a Photon?, edited by C. Roychoudhuri, K. Creath, A. Kracklauer, Proceedings of SPIE Vol.
6664 (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2007).
[77] http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/Docs/QE3__Summary.pdf
[78] http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/Docs/QE3__Calculation_Engine.pdf
[79] http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/Docs/QE3__High_Precision_(MCAD12).pdf
[80] Progress in Top Quark Physics (Evelyn Thomson): Conference proceedings for PANIC05,
Particles & Nuclei International Conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico (USA), October 24 – 28, 2005:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hepex/0602024v1
[81] http://wwwcdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/top/top.html#PAIR
[82] W Mass & Properties (the CDF & D0 Collaborations): http://arxiv.org/abs/hepex/0511039v1
[83] Measurement of the Mass and the Width of the W Boson at LEP (the L3 Collaboration):
http://arxiv.org/abs/hepex/0511049v1
[84] Precision Electroweak Measurements on the Z Resonance (the ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL,
SLD Collaborations, the LEP Electroweak Working Group, the SLD Electroweak & Heavy Flavour
Groups): http://arxiv.org/abs/hepex/0509008v3
[85] Combination of CDF and D0 Results on the Mass of the Top Quark, FermilabTM2347E,
TEVEWWG/top 2006/01, CDF8162, D05064: http://arxiv.org/abs/hepex/0603039v1
[86] Cornell University Library: http://www.arxiv.org/
278
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NUMERICAL
EGM
SIMULATIONS
279
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
280
www.deltagroupengineering.com
MATHCAD 8
PROFESSIONAL
COMPLETE
SIMULATION
[77]
281
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
282
www.deltagroupengineering.com
APPENDIX 3.K
Computational Environment
NOTE: KNOWLEDGE OF MATHCAD IS REQUIRED AND ASSUMED
•
•
•
Convergence Tolerance (TOL): 0.001.
Constraint Tolerance (CTOL): 0.001.
Calculation Display Tolerance: 6 figures – unless otherwise indicated.
Units of Measure (Definitions)
Scale 1
10
Scale 2
10
3
3
10
6
10
6
10
9
9
10
10
10
12
12
10
10
15
15
10
18
10
18
10
21
10
24
10
Scale 1 .( Hz)
( mHz µHz nHz pHz fHz aHz zHz yHz )
Scale 1 .( J )
Scale 1 .( W )
( mW µW nW pW fW aW zW yW )
Scale 1 .( ohm )
( mΩ µΩ nΩ pΩ fΩ aΩ zΩ yΩ )
Scale 1 .( V)
( mV µV nV pV fV aV zV yV )
Scale 1 .( Pa )
( mPa µPa nPa pPa fPa aPa zPa yPa )
Scale 1 .( T )
( mT µT nT pT fT aT zT yT )
Scale 1 .( Ns )
( mNs µNs nNs pNs fNs aNs zNs yNs )
( mN µN nN pN fN aN zN yN )
Scale 1 .( newton )
( mgs µgs ngs pgs fgs ags zgs ygs )
Scale 1 .( gauss )
Scale 1 .( gm)
( mgm µgm ngm pgm fgm agm zgm ygm )
( mSt µSt nSt pSt fSt aSt zSt ySt )
( kSt MSt GSt TSt PSt ESt ZSt YSt )
Scale 1
Scale 2
( kHz MHz GHz THz PHz EHz ZHz YHz )
( kN MN GN TN PN EN ZN YN )
( kJ MJ GJ TJ PJ EJ ZJ YJ )
24
10
Scale 1 .( m)
( mm µm nm pm fm am zm ym )
( mJ µJ nJ pJ fJ aJ zJ yJ )
21
Scale 2 .( Hz)
Scale 2 .( newton )
Scale 2 .( J )
283
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Scale 2 .( W )
( kW MW GW TW PW EW ZW YW )
Scale 2 .( ohm )
( kΩ MΩ GΩ TΩ PΩ EΩ ZΩ YΩ )
Scale 2 .( V)
( kV MV GV TV PV EV ZV YV )
Scale 2 .( Pa )
( kPa MPa GPa TPa PPa EPa ZPa YPa )
Scale 2 .( T )
( kT MT GT TT PT ET ZT YT )
Scale 2 .( eV)
( keV MeV GeV TeV PeV EeV ZeV YeV )
Ns newton .s
Constants (Definitions)
G
ε0
α
6.6742.10
3
m
11 .
kg .s
.
8.85418781710
c
m
299792458.
s
h
6.6260693.10
2
12 .
F
µ0
34 .
7 newton
4.π .10 .
2
A
( J .s )
.
eV 1.6021765310
19 .
γ
19 .
( J)
m
.
7.29735256810
3
.
1.6021765310
Qe
( C)
0.5772156649015328
Fundamental Particle Characteristics (Definitions or Initialisation Values)
m e m p m n m µ m τ m AMC
.
9.109382610
λ Ce λ CP λ CN λ Cµ λ Cτ
ω Ce ω CP ω CN ω Cµ ω Cτ
31
h. 1
.
1.6726217110
27
1
1
1
.
1.6749272810
27
.
1.883531410
28
.
3.1677710
27
.
1.6605388610
27
.( kg )
1
c me mp mn mµ mτ
2
2.π .c .
h
me mp mn mµ mτ
eV
6
6
3 0.19.10 18.2.10 .
2
c
m en m µn m τn
Note: for the Bottom Quark, the “SLAC” estimate is utilised initially.
m uq m dq m sq m cq m bq m tq
4.10
( 80.425 91.1876 114.4) .
mW mZ mH
r xq
0.85.10
3
GeV
0.13 1.35 4.7 179.4 .
2
c
GeV
c
re rp rn
8.10
3
2
( 2.817940325 0.875 0.85 ) .( fm)
16 .
( cm )
r Bohr
.
0.529177210810
10
( m)
284
λB
.( nm )
656.469624182052
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Planck Characteristics (Definitions)
G.h
λh
c
h .c
mh
3
G.h
th
G
c
1
ωh
5
th
Astronomical Statistics
24
24
24
30
0.0735.10 5.977.10 1898.8.10 1.989.10 .( kg )
MM ME MJ MS
5
1738 6377.18 71492 6.96.10 .( km)
RM RE RJ RS
2
c .R E
2 .G
M BH
R BH
c
200.R S
R RG
2 .G.M BH
M RG
2
4 .M S
M NS
1 .M S
R NS
R WD
4200.( km)
M WD
20 .( km)
3
300.10 .M E
Other
.
M BH = 4.2937906795847110
33
( kg )
mx
mp
rx
r Bohr
Arbitrary Values for Illustrational Purposes
ω
KR
1 .( Hz)
k
1
X
R max
1
4
10 .( km)
1
r
∆R max
RE
F 0( k )
1
K 0( ω , X )
1
R max
250
Chapter 3.1
Specifying arbitrary values for illustrational purposes facilitates the representation of constant
acceleration by the superposition of wavefunctions as follows:
N
10
n
B( k, n , t )
N, 1 N.. N
Re( F( k, n , t ) ) .( T )
( π .n .ω .t ) .i
F( k , n , t )
F 0( k ) .e
E( k , n , t )
Im( F( k , n , t ) ) .
V
m
N
E( k , n , t )
a( t )
K 0( ω , X )
r
1
2
ω
. n= N
N
a∞
B( k , n , t )
2
ω.
0 .( s )
a( t ) d t
n= N
285
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Harmonic Representation of Acc.
1
1
2 .ω
ω
Acceleration
a( t )
a∞
t
Time
The contribution (to a constant function) of the sine and cosine terms may be represented for
illustrational purposes as follows:
1
N
f( t )
g
ω.
a( t )
n= N
ω
f( t )
2
e
0 .( s )
( π .n .ω .t ) .i
(π
d t .e
.n .ω .t ) .i
Real & Complex Harmonic Contributions
Acceleration
Re( a( t ) )
Im( a( t ) )
f( t )
t
Time
Real Terms (NonZero Sum)
Imaginary Terms (Zero Sum)
Constant Function (eg. "g")
Chapter 3.2
Additional harmonic characteristics may be usefully represented for illustrational purposes as
follows:
N
N
5
ΣE( t )
N
E( k , n , t )
2
ΣB( t )
n= N
B( k , n , t )
2
n= N
286
www.deltagroupengineering.com
EM Function
1
2
ω
ω
Re( F ( k , 1 , t ) )
Re( F ( k , 2 , t ) )
Re( F ( k , 3 , t ) )
t
Time
EM Function
1st Harmonic (Fundamental)
2nd Harmonic
3rd Harmonic
1
2
ω
ω
Im( F ( k , 1 , t ) )
Im( F ( k , 2 , t ) )
Im( F ( k , 3 , t ) )
t
Time
EM WaveFunction Superposition
1st Harmonic (Fundamental)
2nd Harmonic
3rd Harmonic
1
1
2 .ω
ω
ΣE( t )
ΣB ( t )
t
Time
Electric Field Magnitude
Magnetic Field Magnitude
Chapter 3.3
Assuming an experiment may be conducted such that the magnitude of the local value of gravitation
is either reduced to zero or doubled, the behaviour of the Engineered Refractive Index may be
illustrated by the following equation set:
287
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Note: “ ∆K 0 ” does not refer to a change in “ K 0 ”.
2.
K PV( r , M )
e
G .M
3
2
r .c
K 0( r , M , ω , X )
∆K 0( r , M , ω , X )
G.M .
KR
2
r .c
K EGM_N( r , M )
K PV( r , M ) .e
e
2
Engineered Relationship Function,
2 . ∆K 0( r , M , ω , X )
K PV( r , M )
K EGM_E( r , M )
K PV( r , M )
Engineered Refractive Index (normal matter form),
Engineered Refractive Index (exotic matter form),
2 . ∆K 0( r , M , ω , X )
By considering astronomical objects as point gravitational masses, we may compare characteristics
(to six decimal places) as follows:
K PV R E, M M
K PV R E, 2 .M M
K PV R E, M E
K PV R E, 2 .M E
K PV R E, M J
K PV R E, 2 .M J
K 0 R E, M M , ω , X
K 0 R E, M E, ω , X
K 0 R E, M J , ω , X
∆K 0 R E, M M , ω , X
∆K 0 R E, M E, ω , X
∆K 0 R E, M J , ω , X
K EGM_N R E, M M
K EGM_N R E, M E
K EGM_N R E, M J
1
1
1.000001
K EGM_E R E, M M
K EGM_E R E, M E
K EGM_E R E, M J
1
1
1
3
K PV R E, M E .e
∆K 0 R E , M E , ω , X
K PV R E, M S
K PV R E, 2 .M S
K 0 R E, M S , ω , X
∆K 0 R E, M S , ω , X
1
1
1
1
1.000001
1
1
.
8.55887110
12
.
6.96005110
0.999999
10
2.2111.10
7
∆K 0 R E , M E , ω , X
K 0 R E, M E, ω , X
=1
1.000463
1.000927
=
0.999305
.
2.31613510
K EGM_N R E, M S
1.000927
K EGM_E R E, M S
1
3
K PV R S , M S .e
e
=1
=
1
∆K 0 R S , M S , ω , X
4
∆K 0 R S , M S , ω , X
= 1.000008
e
∆K 0_min
∆K 0_divs
K 0 R S, M S, ω , X
= 1.000008
Hence:
∆K 0_min
1 .10
K EGM r , M , ∆K 0
7
∆K 0_max
K PV( r , M )
e
2 .∆K 0
∆K 0
∆K 0_min
100
∆K 0_min, ∆K 0_divs .. ∆K 0_max
288
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Engineering Refractive Characteristics
Engineered Refractive Index
0
K PV R E , M E
K EGM R E , M E , ∆K 0
∆K 0
Engineered Relationship Function
3
K PV( r , M ) .e
Hence:
∆K 0( r , M , ω , X )
e
∆K 0( r , M , ω , X )
K 0( r , M , X )
Chapter 3.4
Amplitude Spectrum of “g”
The time dependent amplitude spectrum of a Fourier representation of “g” at a mathematical point
(in Complex form over the time domain) may be represented as follows:
Note: “negative amplitude” harmonics are equivalent to “positive amplitude” harmonics as
illustrated in the graphs.
N, 2
N .. N
t
0 .( s ) ,
1
2
..
.
.
25 N ω ω
i .
a PV n PV, t
2 .g .
e
.
π n PV
π .n PV .ω .t .i
Harmonic Amplitudes of Acceleration
Acceleration
n PV
Re a PV n PV , t
t
Time
Real Component
289
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Harmonic Amplitudes of Acceleration
Acceleration
Re a PV( 1 , t )
Re a PV( 1 , t )
Re a PV( 3 , t )
Re a PV( 5 , t )
t
Time
1st Negative Harmonic
1st Positive Harmonic
3rd Positive Harmonic
5th Positive Harmonic
Hence, the timeindependent amplitude spectrum “ C PV” may be determined by substitution of
t
1
2 .n PV.ω
a PV n PV, t
into
C PV n PV, r , M
which produces:
G.M .
2
r
2
.
π n PV
Fundamental Frequency of “g”
It was illustrated that the frequency spectrum may be given by:
r
R max, R max ∆R max.. R max
Hence, it follows that:
ω PV n PV, r , M
T PV n PV, r , M
n PV 3 2 .c .G.M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
π .r
1
λ PV n PV, r , M
ω PV n PV, r , M
c
ω PV n PV, r , M
Fundamental characteristics occur when “ n PV 1 ” such that:
ω PV 1 , R E, M M
ω PV 1 , R E, M E
ω PV 1 , R E, M J
ω PV 1 , R E, M S
.
8.27226110
=
0.035839
T PV 1 , R E, M M
3
( Hz)
T PV 1 , R E, M E
0.244543
T PV 1 , R E, M J
2.484128
T PV 1 , R E, M S
290
120.885935
=
27.902544
4.089263
(s)
0.402556
www.deltagroupengineering.com
λ PV 1 , R E, M M
. 7
3.62406910
λ PV 1 , R E, M E
=
λ PV 1 , R E, M J
λ PV 1 , R E, M S
. 6
8.36497210
. 6
1.2259310
( km)
. 5
1.20683210
Fundamental Gravitational Frequency
Fundamental Frequency
RE
ω PV 1 , r , M M
ω PV 1 , r , M E
ω PV 1 , r , M J
ω PV 1 , r , M S
ω PV 1 , R E , M E
r
Radial Distance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Harmonic Representation of “g”
Since “g” is physically constant and never negative in the time domain, we may model “the real
world” by taking the magnitude of the appropriate Fourier function. This solution is provoked by
the preceding graphs where negative harmonics produce the same results as positive harmonics.
Therefore, a generalised representation of the magnitude of “g” at a mathematical point over a
fundamental period may be given by:
N
21
a PV( r , M , t )
n PV
N, 2
N .. N
i .
C PV n PV, r , M .e
t
0.( s ) ,
T PV 1, R E, M E
25.N
.. T PV 1, R E, M E
π .n PV .ω PV ( 1 , r , M ) .t .i
n PV
291
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Harmonic Representation of Gravity
T pv
Acceleration
g
Re a PV R E , M E , t
t
Time
Harmonic Cutoff Function, Mode and Frequency
It has been illustrated that the massenergy density for a sold spherical object of homogeneous
distribution may be given by:
3 .M .c
U m( r , M )
2
4 .π .r
3
Subsequently, the energy stored in the gravitational field surrounding this object may be given by:
4
h .
ω PV( 1, r , M )
3
2.c
U ω( r , M )
The massenergy stored in the gravitational field denotes the Polarized Vacuum form of the ZeroPointField. Where, the harmonic cutoff function, mode and frequency are given by “Ω”, “ n Ω ”
and “ ω Ω ” respectively – as follows:
3
Ω ( r, M )
n Ω ( r, M )
ω Ω ( r, M )
∆ω PV( r , M )
108.
U m( r , M )
12. 768 81.
U ω( r , M )
Ω ( r, M )
4
12
Ω ( r, M )
U m( r , M )
2
U ω( r , M )
1
n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )
ω Ω ( r, M )
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
The gravitational Poynting Vector, according to the PV model of gravity, is characterised by:
S m( r , M )
c .U m( r , M )
292
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Evaluating and graphing the preceding system of equations yields:
U m R E, M M
U m R E, M E
U m R E, M J
Ω R E, M M
6.080707
Ω R E, M E
494.481475
=
( EPa)
. 5
1.57089110
Ω R E, M J
. 29
2.83606210
. 29
1.73968910
=
. 28
9.17216810
U m R E, M S
.
1.64551410
Ω R E, M S
n Ω R E, M M
. 28
2.36338510
ω Ω R E, M M
n Ω R E, M E
.
1.44974110
ω Ω R E, M E
. 27
7.64347410
ω Ω R E, M J
. 27
3.5284510
ω Ω R E, M S
. 3
8.76512110
S m R E, M M
0.182295
n Ω R E, M J
n Ω R E, M S
8
28
=
∆ω PV R E, M M
∆ω PV R E, M E
∆ω PV R E, M J
195.505363
. 3
1.86915710
( YHz)
519.573099
=
.
8.76512110
. 3
1.86915710
14.824182
=
S m R E, M J
3
∆ω PV R E, M S
195.505363
S m R E, M E
519.573099
=
. 28
4.2341410
( YHz)
YW
. 3
4.70941210
2
cm
.
4.93312710
6
S m R E, M S
Cutoff Function vs Radial Distance
RM
RE
Ω R E, M E
Cutoff Function
Ω r, M M
Ω r, M E
Ω r, M J
Ω R E, M J
Ω r, M S
r
Radial Distance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
293
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Cutoff Mode vs Radial Distance
RM
RE
n Ω R E, M E
Cutoff Mode
n Ω r, M M
n Ω r, M E
n Ω r, M J
n Ω R E, M J
n Ω r, M S
r
Radial Distance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Cutoff Frequency vs Radial Distance
RM
RE
Cutoff Frequency
ω Ω r, M M
ω Ω r, M E
ω Ω R E, M J
ω Ω r, M J
ω Ω r, M S
ω Ω R E, M E
r
Radial Distance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
294
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Poynting Vector vs Radial Distance
Magnitude of PV Poynting Vector
RM
RE
S m r, M M
S m r, M E
S m r, M J
S m r, M S
S m R E, M J
S m R E, M E
r
Radial Distance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
295
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Cutoff Mode & Frequency vs Radial Dist.
RM
RE
n Ω r, M M
n Ω R E, M E
n Ω r, M E
n Ω r, M J
n Ω r, M S
ω Ω r, M M
ω Ω r, M E
ω Ω r, M J
ω Ω R E, M E
ω Ω r, M S
r
Radial Distance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Gravitational Poynting Vector per Change in Odd Harmonic Mode
The harmonic contribution of the gravitational Poynting Vector, according to the PV model of
gravity, per change in odd mode may be represented as follows.
U ω n PV, r , M
h .
4
ω PV( 1, r , M ) .
3
.
2c
S ω n PV, r , M
c .U ω n PV, r , M
n PV
2
4
4
n PV
The following graphs show that the change in energy density per odd frequency mode is trivial, but
the cumulative effect is “g”. It also shows that the energy density per mode increases with
frequency.
296
www.deltagroupengineering.com
S ω n PV , R E , M M
S ω n PV , R E , M E
S ω n PV , R E , M J
S ω n PV , R E , M S
n PV
Harmonic
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Poyn. Vec. vs Change in Harm. Freq. Mode
Magnitude of PV Poynting Vector
Magnitude of PV Poynting Vector
Poyn. Vec. vs Change in Harm. Freq. Mode
S ω n PV , R E , M E
n PV
Harmonic
297
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Applied Experimental Field – Mode Bandwidth
The number of permissible modes fitting within practical benchtop displacement geometries “ N ∆r ”
may be defined as follows:
∆r
1 .( mm)
∆r
ω Ω ( r, M ) .
c
N ∆r( r , M )
N ∆r R E, M M
. 14
6.52135710
N ∆r R E, M E
. 15
1.73310910
N ∆r R E, M J
=
N ∆r R E, M S
. 15
6.23483610
. 16
2.9237310
Chapter 3.5
The behaviour of the EGM construct over a practical laboratory benchtop elemental displacement
“ ∆r ” in terms of the PV and ZPF, may be characterised by the following system of equations:
∆ω δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
ω PV n PV, r
∆λ δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
∆λ Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
λ PV n PV, r
c.
ω PV n PV, r , M
λ PV n PV, r , M
1
ω Ω ( r, M )
∆r , M )
∆ω δr n PV, r , ∆r , M .∆λ δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
∆v δr n Ω ( r , M ) , r , ∆r , M
3 .M .c .
4 .π
2
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
∆K C( r , ∆r , M )
4
∆ω ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
1
(r
∆r )
1
3
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .
ω Ω_ZPF ( r , ∆r , M )
KR
∆r , M
1
ω Ω(r
∆v δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
∆v Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
∆r , M
3
r
µ0
ε0
2 .c .
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
h
3
ω Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
4
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
ω Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
ω PV( 1, r , M )
0 , 0.0025.. 2
ω β r , ∆r , M , K R
n β r , ∆r , M , K R
4
ω Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
4
4
K R . ω Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
4
ω β r , ∆r , M , K R
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
298
www.deltagroupengineering.com
∆n S r , ∆r , M , K R
∆ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
ω Ω(r
∆ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
∆ω S r , ∆r , M , K R
St β ( r , ∆r , M )
St γ ( r , ∆r , M )
St δ( r , ∆r , M )
ω Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .
201
ω β r , ∆r , M , K R
µ0
ε0
∆ω ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
ω Ce
∆ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
ω Ce
n Ω(r
∆r , M )
n Ω ( r, M )
St ε n PV, r , ∆r , M
N
ω Ω ( r, M )
∆ω ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
∆ω R( r , ∆r , M )
St α ( r , ∆r , M )
∆r , M )
n β r , ∆r , M , K R
∆v δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
∆v Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
N, 2
n PV
∆ω δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M M
∆ω δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
=
∆ω δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M J
N .. N
1.729554
∆λ δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M M
7.493187
∆λ δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
( pHz )
51.128768
519.469801
∆ω δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M S
∆λ δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M J
.
1.33585910
4
∆v δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M M
∆λ Ω R E, ∆r , M E
.
5.02660110
5
∆v δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
.
1.39724710
5
∆λ Ω R E, ∆r , M S
.
2.97920610
6
∆v Ω R E, ∆r , M M
13.105112
∆λ Ω R E, ∆r , M J
∆v Ω R E, ∆r , M E
∆v Ω R E, ∆r , M J
∆v Ω R E, ∆r , M S
=
( ym )
∆v δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M J
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E
13.105115
s
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M J
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M S
299
0.256316
( m)
13.105101
=
13.10513
pm
13.105131
s
13.109717
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M M
pm
1.74894
0.025237
∆v δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M S
13.105121
13.109693
=
∆λ δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M S
∆λ Ω R E, ∆r , M M
=
7.577156
2.860531
232.617621
=
4
7.3899.10
( GPa)
. 7
7.74094810
www.deltagroupengineering.com
∆K C R E, ∆r , M M
ω Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M M
1.077649
∆K C R E, ∆r , M E
87.634109
=
∆K C R E, ∆r , M J
. 4
2.78399910
ω Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E
( MPa .MΩ )
370.868276
=
ω Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M J
. 7
2.9162510
∆K C R E, ∆r , M S
123.501066
. 3
1.56573710
ω Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M S
. 3
8.90753610
∆ω ZPF R E, ∆r , M M
123.501066
n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M M
. 19
1.49295410
∆ω ZPF R E, ∆r , M E
370.868276
n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E
. 19
1.03481710
=
∆ω ZPF R E, ∆r , M J
( PHz)
. 3
1.56573710
. 3
8.90753610
∆ω ZPF R E, ∆r , M S
=
n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M J
( PHz)
. 18
6.40270810
n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M S
. 18
3.5857810
n β R E, ∆r , M M , K R2
. 15
1.78829110
KR2 = 99.99999999999999(%)
ω β R E, ∆r , M M , K R2
14.793206
ω β R E, ∆r , M E, K R2
=
ω β R E, ∆r , M J , K R2
41.841506
n β R E, ∆r , M E, K R2
( THz)
167.366022
n β R E, ∆r , M J , K R2
946.765196
ω β R E, ∆r , M S , K R2
. 19
1.49277510
∆ω Ω R E, ∆r , M M
∆n S R E, ∆r , M E, K R2
19
1.0347.10
∆ω Ω R E, ∆r , M E
∆n S R E, ∆r , M J , K R2
∆n S R E, ∆r , M S , K R2
∆ω R R E, ∆r , M M
∆ω R R E, ∆r , M E
=
∆ω R R E, ∆r , M J
∆ω R R E, ∆r , M S
St α R E, ∆r , M M
St α R E, ∆r , M E
St α R E, ∆r , M J
18
.
6.40202410
∆ω Ω R E, ∆r , M J
. 18
3.58539910
∆ω Ω R E, ∆r , M S
9.615565
∆ω S R E, ∆r , M J , K R2
11.66707
∆ω S R E, ∆r , M S , K R2
St β R E, ∆r , M M
.
2.78399910
4
St β R E, ∆r , M E
( MPa .MΩ )
St β R E, ∆r , M J
7
St β R E, ∆r , M S
.
2.19383110
5
St δ R E, ∆r , M M
St γ R E, ∆r , M E
.
5.83032610
5
St δ R E, ∆r , M E
St γ R E, ∆r , M S
.
2.0974410
.
9.83425710
St δ R E, ∆r , M J
4
St δ R E, ∆r , M S
4
300
45.263389
162.833549
( PHz)
763.476685
∆ω S R E, ∆r , M E, K R2
St γ R E, ∆r , M M
St γ R E, ∆r , M J
=
8.19356
.
2.9162510
=
17.031676
∆ω S R E, ∆r , M M , K R2
87.634109
St α R E, ∆r , M S
. 14
3.81125810
7.251258
1.077649
=
. 14
6.84403710
n β R E, ∆r , M S , K R2
∆n S R E, ∆r , M M , K R2
=
. 15
1.16748410
=
=
123.486273
370.826434
=
. 3
1.56556910
( PHz)
. 3
8.90658910
.
1.59080310
4
.
4.77711210
4
.
2.01680710
3
0.011474
1
=
1
1
1
www.deltagroupengineering.com
St ε 1 , R E, ∆r , M M
St ε 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
=
St ε 1 , R E, ∆r , M J
St ε 1 , R E, ∆r , M S
2.
e
G .M M
. 1
2
R E .c
1.
0.999999
St ε n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M M , R E, ∆r , M M
1.000001
St ε n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E , R E, ∆r , M E
1.000001
St ε n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M J , R E, ∆r , M J
1.000002
St ε n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M S , R E, ∆r , M S
2.
2
2
=1
e
G .M E
. 1
2
R E .c
1.
1.000001
=
1
1.000003
1
2
2
=1
Hence:
K EGM e
2.
e
G .M J
. 1
2
R E .c
G .M .
1
2
r .c
1.
2
1.
2
GSE 3
3.
K PV( r , M ) e
2.
2
= 1.000001
e
∆K 0( r , M , ω , X )
e
∆K 0( r , M , ω , X )
K 0( r , M , X )
G .M S
. 1
2
R E .c
1.
2
2
= 1.000927
Critical Boundary
50 .%
100 .%
ω β R E , ∆r , M J , 50 .%
Re ω β R E , ∆r , M M , K R
Critical Boundary
2.
ω β R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
Re ω β R E , ∆r , M E , K R
Re ω β R E , ∆r , M J , K R
Re ω β R E , ∆r , M S , K R
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
301
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Critical Boundary
100 .%
150 .%
ω β R E , ∆r , M J , 150 .%
Critical Boundary
Im ω β R E , ∆r , M M , K R
Im ω β R E , ∆r , M E , K R
ω β R E , ∆r , M E , 150 .%
Im ω β R E , ∆r , M J , K R
Im ω β R E , ∆r , M S , K R
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
302
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Critical Boundary
50 .%
100 .%
ω β R E , ∆r , M J , 50 .%
Critical Boundary
ω β R E , ∆r , M M , K R
ω β R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
ω β R E , ∆r , M E , K R
ω β R E , ∆r , M J , K R
ω β R E , ∆r , M S , K R
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
303
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Similarity Bandwidth
50 .%
100 .%
∆ω S R E , ∆r , M J , 50 .%
Re ∆ω S R E , ∆r , M M , K R
Re ∆ω S R E , ∆r , M E , K R
∆ω S R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
Similarity Bandwidth
Re ∆ω S R E , ∆r , M J , K R
Re ∆ω S R E , ∆r , M S , K R
Im ∆ω S R E , ∆r , M M , K R
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Im ∆ω S R E , ∆r , M E , K R
Im ∆ω S R E , ∆r , M J , K R
Im ∆ω S R E , ∆r , M S , K R
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
304
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Similarity Bandwidth
50 .%
100 .%
∆ω S R E , ∆r , M J , 50 .%
Similarity Bandwidth
∆ω S R E , ∆r , M M , K R
∆ω S R E , ∆r , M E , K R
∆ω S R E , ∆r , M J , K R
∆ω S R E , ∆r , M S , K R
∆ω S R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
305
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Mode Number
50 .%
100 .%
n β R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
Mode Number
Re n β R E , ∆r , M M , K R
Re n β R E , ∆r , M E , K R
Re n β R E , ∆r , M J , K R
Re n β R E , ∆r , M S , K R
n β R E , ∆r , M J , 50 .%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
306
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Mode Number
100 .%
Im n β R E , ∆r , M E , 150 .%
Im n β R E , ∆r , M M , K R
Mode Number
150 .%
Im n β R E , ∆r , M E , K R
Im n β R E , ∆r , M J , K R
Im n β R E , ∆r , M S , K R
Im n β R E , ∆r , M J , 150 .%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
307
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Mode Number
50 .%
100 .%
n β R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
Mode Number
n β R E , ∆r , M M , K R
n β R E , ∆r , M E , K R
n β R E , ∆r , M J , K R
n β R E , ∆r , M S , K R
n β R E , ∆r , M J , 50 .%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
308
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Mode Number
50 .%
100 .%
Re ∆n S R E , ∆r , M M , K R
Re ∆n S R E , ∆r , M E , K R
∆n S R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
∆n S R E , ∆r , M J , 50 .%
Mode Number
Re ∆n S R E , ∆r , M J , K R
Re ∆n S R E , ∆r , M S , K R
Im ∆n S R E , ∆r , M M , K R
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Im ∆n S R E , ∆r , M E , K R
Im ∆n S R E , ∆r , M J , K R
Im ∆n S R E , ∆r , M S , K R
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
309
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Change in Mode Number
Change in Mode Number
50 .%
100 .%
∆n S R E , ∆r , M M , K R
∆n S R E , ∆r , M E , K R
∆n S R E , ∆r , M J , K R
∆n S R E , ∆r , M S , K R
∆n S R E , ∆r , M E , 50 .%
∆n S R E , ∆r , M J , 50 .%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
KR
Critical Ratio
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
310
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Sense Checks
RE
St β r , ∆r , M M
St β r , ∆r , M E
Sense Check
St β r , ∆r , M J
St β r , ∆r , M S
St γ r , ∆r , M M
St β R E , ∆r , M E
St γ r , ∆r , M E
St γ r , ∆r , M J
St γ r , ∆r , M S
St γ R E , ∆r , M E
r
Radial Distance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
311
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Range Factor
RM
RE
Range Factor
St α r , ∆r , M M
St α r , ∆r , M E
St α r , ∆r , M J
St α r , ∆r , M S
St α R E , ∆r , M E
St α R E , ∆r , M M
r
Radial Distance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
312
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Sense Check
Sense Check
N
N
St ε n PV , R E , ∆r , M M
n PV
Harmonic
Sense Check
Sense Check
N
N
St ε n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
n PV
Harmonic
Sense Check
Sense Check
N
N
St ε n PV , R E , ∆r , M J
n PV
Harmonic
313
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Sense Check
Sense Check
N
N
St ε n PV , R E , ∆r , M S
n PV
Harmonic
∆r min
0
10 .( mm)
∆r max
2
10 .( m)
∆r
∆r min,
∆r max
.. ∆r max
100
Bandwidth Ratio
Bandwidth Ratio
∆ω R R E , ∆r , M M
∆ω R R E , ∆r , M E
∆ω R R E , ∆r , M J
∆ω R R E , ∆r , M S
∆r
Change in Radial Displacement
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Chapter 3.6
Representation of “g” (in harmonic form “ g ∆r ”) over a practical laboratory benchtop elemental
displacement “ ∆r ” in terms of the PV and ZPF, may be characterised by the following system of
approximations:
314
www.deltagroupengineering.com
N
t
21
0 .( s ) ,
N, 2
n PV
T δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
200
K R( r , ∆r , M , t )
2.
i .
π
n PV
1 .( mm)
∆r
N .. N
T δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
1
∆ω δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
.. 4 .T δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
1 .
e
n PV
π .n PV .∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t .i
g ∆r( r , ∆r , M , t )
G.M .
K R( r , ∆r , M , t )
2
r
Unit Fourier Spectrum
1.5
T δ_r
1
Ideal Critical Ratio
1
K R R E , ∆r , M E , t
0.5
t
Time
Harmonic Representation of "g"
T δ_r
g
Acceleration
10
g ∆r R E , ∆r , M E , t
5
t
Time
Harmonic Similarity Equations
Utilising unit magnitude values where appropriate for illustrational purposes, the Harmonic
Similarity Equations may be visualised as follows:
E0 EE B0 BB n E n B φ
1.
V
m
ω E n E, r , ∆r , M
n E.∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
ω B n B, r , ∆r , M
n B.∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
0.
V
1 .( T ) 0 .( T ) 1 1 0 .( deg )
m
315
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Let the EM forcing functions “EA” and “BA” be represented as Complex Numbers in Phasor Form:
(http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ComplexNumber.html) – Where “E0” and “B0” are magnitudes of
the Electric Field Intensity and Magnetic Flux Density amplitudes respectively.
E A E 0 , n E, r , ∆r , M , t
B A B 0 , n B , φ, r , ∆r , M , t
E 0 .e
2 .π .ω E n E , r , ∆r , M .t
B 0 .e
π .
i
2
2 .π .ω B n B , r , ∆r , M .t
π
E rms
1 .
E0
2
B rms
1 .
B0
2
φ .i
2
The Phasor form has Real and Complex components, as graphically illustrated below:
Electric Field
Re E A 1 .
V
m
, 1 , R E , ∆r , M E , t
V
Im E A 1 .
, 1 , R E , ∆r , M E , t
m
E rms
t
Time
Magnetic Field
Electric Field
Re B A 1 .( T ) , 1 , 90 .( deg ) , R E , ∆r , M E , t
Im B A 1 .( T ) , 1 , 90 .( deg ) , R E , ∆r , M E , t
B rms
t
Time
Magnetic Field
Visualisation of Harmonic Similarity Equation Operands
HSE 1 E 0 , B 0 , n E, n B , φ, n PV, r , ∆r , M , t
HSE 2 E 0 , B 0 , n E, n B, φ, n PV, r , ∆r , M , t
i . E A E 0 , n E, r , ∆r , M , t
2
2
c .B A B 0 , n B , φ, r , ∆r , M , t
2
2
π .n PV.c .B A B 0 , n B , φ, r , ∆r , M , t
i . E A E 0 , n E, r , ∆r , M , t
2
2
c .B A B 0 , n B, φ, r , ∆r , M , t
2
2
π .n PV.c .B A B 0 , n B, φ, r , ∆r , M , t
316
.e
.e
π .n PV .∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t .i
2
π .n PV .∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t .i
2
www.deltagroupengineering.com
π .n
.∆ω
( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t .i
PV
δr
2 .i .K PV( r , M ) .St α ( r , ∆r , M ) .e
π .n PV.E A E 0 , n E, r , ∆r , M , t .B A B 0 , n B, φ, r , ∆r , M , t
HSE 3 E 0 , B 0 , n E, n B, φ, n PV, r , ∆r , M , t
2
4 .i .St α ( r , ∆r , M ) .K PV( r , M ) .c .B A B 0 , n B, φ, r , ∆r , M , t .e
HSE 4 E 0 , B 0, n E, n B, φ, n PV, r , ∆r , M , t
π .n PV.E A E 0 , n E, r , ∆r , M , t . E A E 0 , n E, r , ∆r , M , t
2
2
c .B A B 0 , n B, φ, r , ∆r , M , t
2
4 .i .St α ( r , ∆r , M ) .K PV( r , M ) .c .B A B 0 , n B, φ, r , ∆r , M , t .e
HSE 5 E 0 , B 0, n E, n B, φ, n PV, r , ∆r , M , t
π .n PV.E A E 0 , n E, r , ∆r , M , t . E A E 0 , n E, r , ∆r , M , t
2
π .n PV .∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t .i
2
π .n PV .∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) .t .i
2
c .B A B 0 , n B, φ, r , ∆r , M , t
2
T δr 1 , R E , ∆r , M E
2
Re E A 1 .
V
m
, 1 , R E , ∆r , M E , t
Re B A 1 .( T ) , 1 , 180 .( deg ) , R E , ∆r , M E , t
Re HSE 1 1 .
V
m
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , 180 .( deg ) , 3 , R E , ∆r , M E , t
V
Re HSE 2 1 .
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , 180 .( deg ) , 3 , R E , ∆r , M E , t
m
t
Electric Forcing Function
Magnetic Forcing Function
HSE 1
HSE 2
T δr 1 , R E , ∆r , M E
2 .T δr 1 , R E , ∆r , M E
V
Re HSE 3 1 .
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , φ , 3 , R E , ∆r , M E , t
m
V
Re HSE 4 1 .
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , φ , 3 , R E , ∆r , M E , t
m
V
Re HSE 5 1 .
, 1 .( T ) , 1 , 1 , φ , 3 , R E , ∆r , M E , t
m
t
HSE 3
HSE 4
HSE 5
The preceding graph indicates that “HSE4” may be considered to be the “Constructive Form”
whilst “HSE5” may be considered to be the “Destructive Form”.
Reduction of the Harmonic Similarity Equations
N
201
HSE 1_R φ, n PV
n PV
N, 2
N .. N
2 .( cos ( 2 .φ)
π .n PV
1)
φ
0 .( deg ) , 2 .( deg ) .. 360 ( deg )
HSE 2_R φ, n PV
317
∆r x
2 .( cos ( 2 .φ)
π .n PV
1)
10.( cm)
0.01.( mm) ,
.. 10.( cm)
2
10
n EM
nE
www.deltagroupengineering.com
E rms
c
Harmonic Similarity
B rms
ω EM n EM
n EM.( Hz)
HSE 3_R E rms , B rms , n PV, r , ∆r , M
K PV( r , M ) .St α ( r , ∆r , M )
π .n PV.E rms .B rms
HSE 3_R E rms , B rms , n PV , R E , ∆r , M M
HSE 3_R E rms , B rms , n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
HSE 3_R E rms , B rms , n PV , R E , ∆r , M J
HSE 3_R E rms , B rms , n PV , R E , ∆r , M S
n PV
Harmonic Mode
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
HSE 4 E rms , B rms , φ , n PV, r , ∆r , M
HSE 5 E rms , B rms , φ , n PV, r , ∆r , M
1
R
cos ( φ )
1
R
sin ( φ )
.HSE E
3 rms , B rms , n PV, r , ∆r , M
.HSE E
3 rms , B rms , n PV, r , ∆r , M
318
R
R
www.deltagroupengineering.com
π
π
Harmonic Similarity
2
HSE 1_R ( φ , 1 )
HSE 1_R ( φ , 2 )
HSE 2_R ( φ , 1 )
HSE 2_R ( φ , 2 )
φ
Phase Variance
π
2
Harmonic Similarity
π
HSE 4_R E rms , B rms , n EM , φ , n Ω _ZPF R E , ∆r , M M , R E , ∆r , M M
HSE 4_R E rms , B rms , n EM , φ , n Ω _ZPF R E , ∆r , M E , R E , ∆r , M E
Harmonic Similarity
HSE 4_R E rms , B rms , n EM , φ , n Ω _ZPF R E , ∆r , M J , R E , ∆r , M J
HSE 4_R E rms , B rms , n EM , φ , n Ω _ZPF R E , ∆r , M S , R E , ∆r , M S
HSE 5_R E rms , B rms , n EM , φ , n Ω _ZPF R E , ∆r , M M , R E , ∆r , M M
HSE 5_R E rms , B rms , n EM , φ , n Ω _ZPF R E , ∆r , M E , R E , ∆r , M E
HSE 5_R E rms , B rms , n EM , φ , n Ω _ZPF R E , ∆r , M J , R E , ∆r , M J
HSE 5_R E rms , B rms , n EM , φ , n Ω _ZPF R E , ∆r , M S , R E , ∆r , M S
φ
Phase Variance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
319
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Harmonic Similarity
HSE 4_R E rms , B rms , n EM , 0 , n PV , R E , ∆r , M M
HSE 4_R E rms , B rms , n EM , 0 , n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
Harmonic Similarity
HSE 4_R E rms , B rms , n EM , 0 , n PV , R E , ∆r , M J
HSE 4_R E rms , B rms , n EM , 0 , n PV , R E , ∆r , M S
HSE 5_R E rms , B rms , n EM ,
HSE 5_R E rms , B rms , n EM ,
π
4
π
4
, n PV , R E , ∆r , M M
, n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
π
HSE 5_R E rms , B rms , n EM , , n PV , R E , ∆r , M J
4
HSE 5_R E rms , B rms , n EM ,
π
4
, n PV , R E , ∆r , M S
n PV
Harmonic
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Note: the Phase Variance has been set to enable graphical distinction between curves and at ideal
conditions, graphical overlap occurs.
320
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Spectral Similarity Equations
SSE 1( φ, r , ∆r , M )
.
1 ) . ln 2 n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
2 .( cos ( 2 .φ)
π
n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
π
SSE 3 E rms, B rms, r , ∆r , M
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , φ, r , ∆r , M
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , φ, r , ∆r , M
1
.
1 ) . ln 2 n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
2 .( cos ( 2 .φ)
SSE 2( φ, r , ∆r , M )
γ
n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
γ
1
K PV( r , M ) . St α ( r , ∆r , M ) ln 2.n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
γ
.
π .E rms.B rms
n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M ) 1
1
cos ( φ)
1
sin ( φ)
.SSE E
3 rms , B rms , r , ∆r , M
.SSE E
3 rms , B rms , r , ∆r , M
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , R E, ∆r , M M
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , R E, ∆r , M J
π
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , , R E, ∆r , M M
4
π
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , , R E, ∆r , M J
4
π
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E, ∆r , M M
4
π
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E, ∆r , M J
4
π
625.721384
. 7
884.903667 5.23117610
. 7
884.903667 5.23117610
π
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E, ∆r , M M
2
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E, ∆r , M J
2
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , R E, ∆r , M E
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , R E, ∆r , M S
π
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , , R E, ∆r , M E
4
π
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , , R E, ∆r , M S
4
π
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E, ∆r , M E
4
π
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E, ∆r , M S
4
π
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E, ∆r , M E
2
π
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E, ∆r , M S
2
321
7
3.699.10
=
625.721384
7
3.699.10
. 4 6.83180210
. 10
7.28183810
. 5 9.66162710
. 10
1.02980710
. 5 9.66162710
. 10
1.02980710
. 4 6.83180210
. 10
7.28183810
www.deltagroupengineering.com
π
π
4
2
Spectral Similarity
SSE 1 φ , R E , ∆r , M M
SSE 1 φ , R E , ∆r , M E
Spectral Similarity
SSE 1 φ , R E , ∆r , M J
SSE 1 φ , R E , ∆r , M S
SSE 2 φ , R E , ∆r , M M
SSE 2 φ , R E , ∆r , M E
SSE 2 φ , R E , ∆r , M J
SSE 2 φ , R E , ∆r , M S
φ
Phase Variance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Spectral Similarity
Spectral Similarity
SSE 3 E rms , B rms , R E , ∆r x , M M
SSE 3 E rms , B rms , R E , ∆r x , M E
SSE 3 E rms , B rms , R E , ∆r x , M J
SSE 3 E rms , B rms , R E , ∆r x , M S
∆r x
Change in Radial Displacement
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
322
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Spectral Similarity
SSE 1 0 , R E , ∆r x , M M
SSE 1 0 , R E , ∆r x , M E
SSE 1 0 , R E , ∆r x , M J
Spectral Similarity
SSE 1 0 , R E , ∆r x , M S
π
SSE 2
, R E , ∆r x , M M
16
π
SSE 2
, R E , ∆r x , M E
16
π
SSE 2
, R E , ∆r x , M J
16
SSE 2
π
16
, R E , ∆r x , M S
∆r x
Change in Radial Displacement
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Note: the Phase Variance has been set to enable graphical distinction between curves and at ideal
conditions, graphical overlap occurs.
Spectral
Similarity
.
π
3π
4
4
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , φ , R E , ∆r , M M
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , φ , R E , ∆r , M E
Spectral Similarity
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , φ , R E , ∆r , M J
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , φ , R E , ∆r , M S
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , φ , R E , ∆r , M M
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , φ , R E , ∆r , M E
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , φ , R E , ∆r , M J
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , φ , R E , ∆r , M S
φ
Phase Variance
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
323
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Spectral Similarity
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , R E , ∆r x , M M
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , R E , ∆r x , M E
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , R E , ∆r x , M J
Spectral Similarity
SSE 4 E rms , B rms , 0 , R E , ∆r x , M S
SSE 5 E rms , B rms ,
π
4
, R E , ∆r x , M M
π
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E , ∆r x , M E
4
π
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E , ∆r x , M J
4
π
SSE 5 E rms , B rms , , R E , ∆r x , M S
4
∆r x
Change in Radial Displacement
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Note: the Phase Variance has been set to enable graphical distinction between curves and at ideal
conditions, graphical overlap occurs.
Phase Variance Required for Optimal Similarity Conditions
φ 4C_H E rms , B rms, n PV, r , ∆r , M
Re acos HSE 3_R E rms, B rms , n PV, r , ∆r , M
φ 5C_H E rms, B rms, n PV, r , ∆r , M
Re asin HSE 3_R E rms , B rms, n PV, r , ∆r , M
φ 1C_S( r , ∆r , M )
.
1
1 π n Ω_ZPF ( r , ∆r , M ) 1
Re .acos .
2
2 ln 2 .n Ω_ZPF ( r , ∆r , M )
γ
φ 2C_S( r , ∆r , M )
1
Re .acos
2
.
1 . π n Ω_ZPF ( r , ∆r , M ) 1
2 ln 2 .n Ω_ZPF ( r , ∆r , M )
γ
324
2
1
2
1
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Phase Variance
π
Phase Variance
2
φ 1C_S R E , ∆r x , M E
0
φ 2C_S R E , ∆r x , M E
∆r x
Change in Radial Displacement
φ 4C_S E rms, B rms, r , ∆r , M
K PV( r , M ) . St α ( r , ∆r , M ) . ln 2.n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
π .E rms.B rms. n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M ) 1
γ
Re acos
φ 5C_S E rms, B rms, r , ∆r , M
K PV( r , M ) . St α ( r , ∆r , M ) . ln 2 .n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
π .E rms.B rms. n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M ) 1
γ
Re asin
Phase Variance
Phase Variance
φ 4C_H E rms , B rms , n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
π
φ 5C_H E rms , B rms , n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
π
2
n PV
Harmonic
Phase Variance
π
Phase Variance
2
φ 4C_S E rms , B rms , R E , ∆r x , M E
0
φ 5C_S E rms , B rms , R E , ∆r x , M E
∆r x
Change in Radial Displacement
325
www.deltagroupengineering.com
φ 4C_H E rms , B rms , 1 , R E, ∆r , M M
φ 4C_H E rms , B rms , 1 , R E, ∆r , M J
φ 4C_H E rms , B rms , n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M M , R E, ∆r , M M
φ 4C_H E rms , B rms , n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M J , R E, ∆r , M J
φ 5C_H E rms , B rms , 1 , R E, ∆r , M M
φ 5C_H E rms , B rms , 1 , R E, ∆r , M J
φ 5C_H E rms , B rms , n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M M , R E, ∆r , M M
φ 5C_H E rms , B rms , n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M J , R E, ∆r , M J
90
90
φ 1C_S R E, ∆r , M M
φ 1C_S R E, ∆r , M J
90
90
φ 2C_S R E, ∆r , M M
φ 2C_S R E, ∆r , M J
φ 4C_S E rms , B rms , R E, ∆r , M M
φ 4C_S E rms , B rms , R E, ∆r , M J
φ 5C_S E rms , B rms , R E, ∆r , M M
φ 5C_S E rms , B rms , R E, ∆r , M J
φ 4C_H E rms , B rms , 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
φ 4C_H E rms , B rms , 1 , R E, ∆r , M S
φ 4C_H E rms , B rms , n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E , R E, ∆r , M E
φ 4C_H E rms , B rms , n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M S , R E, ∆r , M S
φ 5C_H E rms , B rms , 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
φ 5C_H E rms , B rms , 1 , R E, ∆r , M S
φ 5C_H E rms , B rms , n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E , R E, ∆r , M E
φ 1C_S R E, ∆r , M E
180 180
180 180
=
0
0
90
90
0
0
90
90
180 180
( deg )
180 180
90
90
90
90
φ 5C_H E rms , B rms , n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M S , R E, ∆r , M S
0
0
φ 1C_S R E, ∆r , M S
90
90
φ 2C_S R E, ∆r , M E
φ 2C_S R E, ∆r , M S
0
0
90
90
φ 4C_S E rms , B rms , R E, ∆r , M E
φ 4C_S E rms , B rms , R E, ∆r , M S
φ 5C_S E rms , B rms , R E, ∆r , M E
φ 5C_S E rms , B rms , R E, ∆r , M S
Critical Field Strengths
Given
SSE 4 E rms,
SSE 5 E rms,
E rms
E rms
c
E rms
c
, 0.( deg ) , R E, ∆r , M E
, 90.( deg ) , R E, ∆r , M E
E rms = 190.811924
Find E rms
E rms
B rms
1
1
V
m
B rms = 6.364801 ( mgs )
c
DCOffsets
SSE 4 ( 1
DC
100.( % )
DC) .E rms , B rms , 0 .( deg ) , R E, ∆r , M E
SSE 5 E rms , ( 1
0.5
DC) .B rms , 90.( deg ) , R E, ∆r , M E
SSE 4 ( 1
DC) .E rms , ( 1
DC) .B rms , 0 .( deg ) , R E, ∆r , M E
SSE 5 ( 1
DC) .E rms , ( 1
DC) .B rms , 90.( deg ) , R E, ∆r , M E
=
0.5
0.25
0.25
Critical Frequency
ω C( ∆r )
c
.
2 ∆r
ω C( ∆r ) = 149.896229( GHz)
λ C( ∆r )
326
c
ω C( ∆r )
λ C( ∆r ) = 2 ( mm)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Chapter 3.7
Graphical Representation, Analysis and Optimal Conditions of Similarity
φ 4 E rms , B rms, n PV, r , ∆r , M
φ 4C_H E rms, B rms , n PV, r , ∆r , M
φ 5 E rms, B rms, n PV, r , ∆r , M
φ 5C_H E rms, B rms, n PV, r , ∆r , M
N max
n Ω_ZPF R M , ∆r , M M
N X( r , ∆r , M )
B C( r , ∆r , M )
λ X( r , ∆r , M )
n PV
n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
1
ln 2.n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
E C( r , ∆r , M )
c
c
ω X( r , ∆r , M )
γ
ω X( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
1,
1 .
N max 1 .. N max
500
E C( r , ∆r , M )
c .K PV( r , M ) . St α ( r , ∆r , M )
π .N X( r , ∆r , M )
N X( r , ∆r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )
ω C( ∆r )
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
ω C( ∆r ) = 149.896229( GHz)
N X R M , ∆r , M M
. 17
2.15162910
E C R M , ∆r , M M
N X R E, ∆r , M E
. 17
2.29685210
E C R E, ∆r , M E
17
.
3.15778710
E C R J , ∆r , M J
. 17
3.76223110
E C R S , ∆r , M S
N X R J , ∆r , M J
=
N X R S , ∆r , M S
B C R M , ∆r , M M
B C R E, ∆r , M E
B C R J , ∆r , M J
=
λ X R M , ∆r , M M
λ X R J , ∆r , M J
λ X R S , ∆r , M S
ω X R M , ∆r , M M
6.364801
ω X R E, ∆r , M E
0.76984
( mgs )
0.240852
B C R S , ∆r , M S
λ X R E, ∆r , M E
9.8181
36.419294
97.406507
167.343325
=
N C R E, ∆r , M E
N C R J , ∆r , M J
N C R S , ∆r , M S
327
V
23.079214
m
10.073108
=
8.231693
3.077746
( PHz)
1.791481
N C R M , ∆r , M M
( nm )
190.811924
7.220558
ω X R S , ∆r , M S
29.761666
=
ω X R J , ∆r , M J
294.339224
. 12
3.20180310
=
. 12
4.18248610
. 13
1.53794510
. 13
3.14792110
www.deltagroupengineering.com
π
Phase Variance
N C R E , ∆r , M E
N X R E , ∆r , M E
φ 4 E C R M , ∆r , M M , B C R M , ∆r , M M , n PV , R M , ∆r , M M
φ 4 E C R E , ∆r , M E , B C R E , ∆r , M E , n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
Phase Variance
φ 4 E C R J , ∆r , M J , B C R J , ∆r , M J , n PV , R J , ∆r , M J
π
φ 4 E C R S , ∆r , M S , B C R S , ∆r , M S , n PV , R S , ∆r , M S
2
φ 5 E C R M , ∆r , M M , B C R M , ∆r , M M , n PV , R M , ∆r , M M
φ 5 E C R E , ∆r , M E , B C R E , ∆r , M E , n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
φ 5 E C R J , ∆r , M J , B C R J , ∆r , M J , n PV , R J , ∆r , M J
φ 5 E C R S , ∆r , M S , B C R S , ∆r , M S , n PV , R S , ∆r , M S
n PV
Harmonic
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
Harmonic Similarity
N X R E , ∆r , M E
Im acos HSE 3_R E C R M , ∆r , M M , B C R M , ∆r , M M , n PV , R M , ∆r , M M
Im acos HSE 3_R E C R E , ∆r , M E , B C R E , ∆r , M E , n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
Im acos HSE 3_R E C R J , ∆r , M J , B C R J , ∆r , M J , n PV , R J , ∆r , M J
π
Im acos HSE 3_R E C R S , ∆r , M S , B C R S , ∆r , M S , n PV , R S , ∆r , M S
Harmonic Similarity
Re acos HSE 3_R E C R M , ∆r , M M , B C R M , ∆r , M M , n PV , R M , ∆r , M M
Re acos HSE 3_R E C R E , ∆r , M E , B C R E , ∆r , M E , n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
Re acos HSE 3_R E C R J , ∆r , M J , B C R J , ∆r , M J , n PV , R J , ∆r , M J
Re acos HSE 3_R E C R S , ∆r , M S , B C R S , ∆r , M S , n PV , R S , ∆r , M S
π
acos HSE 3_R E C R M , ∆r , M M , B C R M , ∆r , M M , n PV , R M , ∆r , M M
2
acos HSE 3_R E C R E , ∆r , M E , B C R E , ∆r , M E , n PV , R E , ∆r , M E
acos HSE 3_R E C R J , ∆r , M J , B C R J , ∆r , M J , n PV , R J , ∆r , M J
acos HSE 3_R E C R S , ∆r , M S , B C R S , ∆r , M S , n PV , R S , ∆r , M S
n PV
Harmonic
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
The Moon
The Earth
Jupiter
The Sun
π
Spectral Similarity
2
Spectral Similarity
π
SSE 4 E C R E , ∆r , M E , B C R E , ∆r , M E , φ , R E , ∆r , M E
SSE 5 E C R E , ∆r , M E , B C R E , ∆r , M E , φ , R E , ∆r , M E
1
φ
Phase Variance
328
www.deltagroupengineering.com
φ 4 E C R M , ∆r , M M , B C R M , ∆r , M M , N X R M , ∆r , M M , R M , ∆r , M M
180
φ 4 E C R E, ∆r , M E , B C R E, ∆r , M E , N X R E, ∆r , M E , R E, ∆r , M E
180
φ 4 E C R J , ∆r , M J , B C R J , ∆r , M J , N X R J , ∆r , M J , R J , ∆r , M J
180
φ 4 E C R S , ∆r , M S , B C R S , ∆r , M S , N X R S , ∆r , M S , R S , ∆r , M S
φ 5 E C R M , ∆r , M M , B C R M , ∆r , M M , N X R M , ∆r , M M , R M , ∆r , M M
=
180
90
( deg )
90
φ 5 E C R E, ∆r , M E , B C R E, ∆r , M E , N X R E, ∆r , M E , R E, ∆r , M E
90
φ 5 E C R J , ∆r , M J , B C R J , ∆r , M J , N X R J , ∆r , M J , R J , ∆r , M J
90
φ 5 E C R S , ∆r , M S , B C R S , ∆r , M S , N X R S , ∆r , M S , R S , ∆r , M S
SSE 4 E C R M , ∆r , M M , B C R M , ∆r , M M , 0 , R M , ∆r , M M
π
SSE 5 E C R M , ∆r , M M , B C R M , ∆r , M M , , R M , ∆r , M M
2
SSE 4 E C R E, ∆r , M E , B C R E, ∆r , M E , 0 , R E, ∆r , M E
π
SSE 5 E C R E, ∆r , M E , B C R E, ∆r , M E , , R E, ∆r , M E
2
π
SSE 4 E C R J , ∆r , M J , B C R J , ∆r , M J , 0 , R J , ∆r , M J
SSE 5 E C R J , ∆r , M J , B C R J , ∆r , M J , , R J , ∆r , M J
2
1 1
=
1 1
1 1
1 1
π
SSE 4 E C R S , ∆r , M S , B C R S , ∆r , M S , 0 , R S , ∆r , M S
SSE 5 E C R S , ∆r , M S , B C R S , ∆r , M S , , R S , ∆r , M S
2
Mathematical Approximations, Limits, Patterns and Series
N
N
6
10
Σ1
1
1
ln( 2 )
n PV = 1
N, 2
n PV
1
Σ2
N .. N
n PV
Σ Error
Σ2
n PV
.
Σ Error = 3.31435710
1
Σ1
n PV
6
Σ 1 = 15.085875
ln( 2 .N )
Σ 2 = 15.085875
Σ2
γ = 15.085874
.
Σ 1 = 4.99999810
7
(%)
N
1
ln( 2 )
n PV = 1
ln( 2 .N )
1
n PV
15.085875
= 15.085874
γ
1
n PV = 1
n Ω ( r, M )
1
n PV
. 6 ( %)
1 = 3.31435710
ln( 2 )
n PV
Hence:
n PV
N
15.085875
1
n PV
n PV
n PV
n PV
ZPF
1
ln( 2 )
n PV = 1
n PV
ln 2 .n Ω ( r , M )
ZPF
γ
Note: for large mode numbers, the error is trivial.
329
www.deltagroupengineering.com
N
1
1
ln( 2 )
n PV
n PV
n PV = 1
1 , 3 .. N
n PV
ln( 2 .N )
γ
n PV
Considering only one side of the spectrum,
1
n PV
n PV
.
1 = 6.62871210
1.
( ln( 2 .N )
2
1
1
n PV
1
N
1
1
N
γ
n PV
= 1.508584.10
1
n PV
6
1
(%)
1
γ)
1
1
ln( 2 .N )
n PV
N
n PV
n PV
n PV
.( ln( 2 .N )
N
Average,
1
.
N
.
= 6.62870610
5
1
1
.
N
ln( 2 .N )
5
n PV
.( ln( 2 .N )
N
Error,
Considering both sides of the spectrum,
.
= 1.50858510
.
1
1
1
N .. N
1
.
N
(%)
γ)
N, 2
n PV
6
.
1 = 6.62870610
6
(%)
γ)
1
γ
1
It can be numerically proven that the average function is:
1
n Ω ( r, M )
•
.
1
ZPF
n PV
1
ln 2 .n Ω ( r , M )
ZPF
n Ω ( r, M )
n PV
γ
1
ZPF
The LHS of the equation includes the odd modes over the entire spectrum from left to right.
The RHS of the equation includes all modes (odd and even).
•
Hence:
1.
2
ln 2 .N X R M , ∆r , M M
γ
ln 2 .N C R M , ∆r , M M
ln 2 .N X R E, ∆r , M E
γ
ln 2 .N C R E, ∆r , M E
1.
2
1.
2
1.
2
ln 2 .N X R J , ∆r , M J
γ
ln 2 .N C R J , ∆r , M J
ln 2 .N X R S , ∆r , M S
γ
ln 2 .N C R S , ∆r , M S
330
γ
γ
γ
γ
1 . N X R M , ∆r , M M
ln
2
N C R M , ∆r , M M
1 . N X R E, ∆r , M E
ln
2
N C R E, ∆r , M E
1 . N X R J , ∆r , M J
ln
2
N C R J , ∆r , M J
5.557718 5.557718
=
5.45678 5.45678
4.964882 4.964882
4.694305 4.694305
1 . N X R S , ∆r , M S
ln
2
N C R S , ∆r , M S
www.deltagroupengineering.com
A D St N
N T A , D, St N
(1 1 1 )
N TR( A , D , r , ∆r , M )
Σ HR( A , D , r , ∆r , M )
N T A , D, N X( r , ∆r , M )
N T A , D, N C( r , ∆r , M )
Σ H A , D , N X( r , ∆r , M )
Σ H A , D , N C( r , ∆r , M )
Form Check_1( r , ∆r , M )
Form Check_2( r , ∆r , M )
1
.
N R( r , ∆r , M )
St N
A
D
D
Σ H A , D, N T
N R( r , ∆r , M )
NT
. 2.A
2
D. N T
1
N X( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
N TR( 1 , 1 , r , ∆r , M )
Σ HR( 1 , 2 , r , ∆r , M )
N R( r , ∆r , M )
4
Σ HR( 1 , 2 , r , ∆r , M )
1
Form Check_3( r , ∆r , M )
N R( r , ∆r , M )
ln
. 1 . ln 2 .N ( r , ∆r , M )
X
2
γ
ln 2 .N C( r , ∆r , M )
γ
N T 1 , 2 , N C R M , ∆r , M M
N T 1 , 2 , N C R J , ∆r , M J
. 12 7.68972610
. 12
1.60090210
N T 1 , 2 , N X R M , ∆r , M M
N T 1 , 2 , N X R J , ∆r , M J
. 17 1.57889410
. 17
1.07581410
N T 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R M , ∆r , M M
N T 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R J , ∆r , M J
N T 1 , 2 , N C R E, ∆r , M E
N T 1 , 2 , N C R S , ∆r , M S
N T 1 , 2 , N X R E, ∆r , M E
N T 1 , 2 , N X R S , ∆r , M S
. 17 1.88111510
. 17
1.14842610
N T 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E
N T 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R S , ∆r , M S
. 18 8.57004510
. 18
5.17408410
=
. 18 7.16489910
. 18
4.83975610
. 12 1.57396110
. 13
2.09124310
N TR 1 , 1 , R M , ∆r , M M
. 4
6.72005410
Σ H 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R M , ∆r , M M
. 37
9.36929710
N TR 1 , 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
. 4
5.49159510
Σ H 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E
. 38
1.07084610
. 4
2.05325110
Σ H 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R J , ∆r , M J
N TR 1 , 1 , R S , ∆r , M S
. 4
1.19514810
Σ H 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R S , ∆r , M S
Σ HR 1 , 2 , R M , ∆r , M M
. 9
4.51591310
N TR 1 , 1 , R J , ∆r , M J
Σ HR 1 , 2 , R E, ∆r , M E
Σ HR 1 , 2 , R J , ∆r , M J
Σ HR 1 , 2 , R S , ∆r , M S
=
=
=
. 38
2.05343110
. 38
2.93782710
. 9
3.01576110
. 8
4.21583910
. 8
1.42837810
1
Form Check_1 R M , ∆r , M M =
1
1
Form Check_1 R J , ∆r , M J =
1
331
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Form Check_2 R M , ∆r , M M
Form Check_2 R E, ∆r , M E
=
Form Check_2 R J , ∆r , M J
Form Check_2 R S , ∆r , M S
1
Form Check_3 R M , ∆r , M M
1
Form Check_3 R E, ∆r , M E
1
Form Check_3 R J , ∆r , M J
1
Form Check_3 R S , ∆r , M S
1
Form Check_1 R E, ∆r , M E =
Form Check_1 R S , ∆r , M S =
1
1
=
1
1
1
1
1
Casimir Force
A PP( r )
4 .π .r
2
F PV( r , ∆r , M )
F PP( r , ∆r )
π .h .c .A PP( r )
A PP( r ) .∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .
4
480.∆r
N C( r , ∆r , M )
N X( r , ∆r , M )
Casimir force per unit area,
.ln
2
N X( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
Casimir force per unit area,
F PP R M , ∆r
F PV R M , ∆r , M M
A PP R M
A PP R M
F PP R E, ∆r
A PP R E
F PP R J , ∆r
=
1.300126
F PV R E, ∆r , M E
1.300126
A PP R E
1.300126
( fPa )
F PV R J , ∆r , M J
1.300126
A PP R J
4
A PP R J
F PP R S , ∆r
F PV R S , ∆r , M S
A PP R S
A PP R S
2.349179
=
1.300007
0.074224
( fPa )
0.015617
Discrepancy between the classical representation and EGM,
F PP R M , ∆r
1
F PV R M , ∆r , M M
F PP R E, ∆r
F PV R E, ∆r , M E
F PP R J , ∆r
F PV R J , ∆r , M J
F PP R S , ∆r
F PV R S , ∆r , M S
KM KE KJ
44.65616
1
=
1
.
9.15864310
3
. 3
1.65163110
( %)
. 3
8.22480110
1
(1 1 1 )
332
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Given
F PV R M , ∆r , M M
2
2
π .h .c .R M
K M .∆r
4
2
2
π .h .c .R E
F PV R E, ∆r , M E
4
K E.∆r
2
2
π .h .c .R J
F PV R J , ∆r , M J
K J .∆r
4
KM
KE
KM
Find K M , K E, K J
KJ
KE
=
66.412608
KM
265.650432
120.01099
4. K E
= 480.043961
.
2.10195710
KJ
. 3
8.40782810
3
KJ
The Proportional Change in the Value of the Cosmological Constant
By Casimir Force
∆Λ ( r , ∆r , M )
8 .π .G .
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
2
3 .c
2
8 .π .G . F PV( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M )
ln
2
A PP( r )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
3 .c
St ∆Λ ( r , ∆r , M )
Λ R( r , ∆r , M )
4
∆Λ ( r , ∆r , M )
St ∆Λ ( r , ∆r , M )
∆Λ R M , ∆r , M M
∆Λ R E, ∆r , M E
∆Λ R J , ∆r , M J
Λ R R S , ∆r , M S
10
0.029107
.
3.39437710
Λ R R M , ∆r , M M
Λ R R J , ∆r , M J
1.447168
=
∆Λ R S , ∆r , M S
Λ R R E, ∆r , M E
St ∆Λ R M , ∆r , M M
3.225809
15 .
St ∆Λ R E, ∆r , M E
2
Hz
St ∆Λ R J , ∆r , M J
3
St ∆Λ R S , ∆r , M S
3.225809
=
1.447168
10
0.029107
.
3.39437710
15 .
2
Hz
3
1
=
1
1
1
333
www.deltagroupengineering.com
By Fundamental Harmonics
ω PV 1 , R M , M M
2
U m R M,M M
3 .
2
∆U PV R M , ∆r , M M
∆ω δr 1 , R M , ∆r , M M
ω PV 1 , R E, M E
. 9
1.303510
∆ω δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
=
ω PV 1 , R J , M J
∆ω δr 1 , R J , ∆r , M J
. 9
4.78288210
9
1.3035.10
. 11
5.22005110
. 9
4.78288510
=
2
U m R J, M J
3 .
2
∆U PV R J , ∆r , M J
. 10
5.36192210
10
5.3619.10
. 11
5.21985810
2
U m R S, M S
3 .
2
∆U PV R S , ∆r , M S
ω PV 1 , R S , M S
∆ω δr 1 , R S , ∆r , M S
∆ω δr_Error( r , ∆r , M )
2
U m R E, M E
3 .
2
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
2
U m( r , M )
. 3 .
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) 2
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
1
∆ω δr_Error R M , ∆r , M M
∆ω δr_Error R E, ∆r , M E
∆ω δr_Error R J , ∆r , M J
∆ω δr_Error R S , ∆r , M S
∆ω δr_Error R WD , ∆r , M WD
∆ω δr_Error R RG, ∆r , M RG
∆ω δr_Error R NS , ∆r , M NS
∆ω δr_Error R BH, ∆r , M BH
=
1
.
2.45448210
7
.
4.09314210
4
.
3.69917510
0.023754
0.195216
5.248215
27.272806
∆Λ EGM( r , ∆r , M )
Making the appropriate substitutions yields:
.
6.56319310
5
3
(%)
9 .G.M . ∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
2 .r
3
where, any suitable harmonic mode may be utilised to produce an equivalent result. The first
harmonic has been represented here for convenience.
Note: additional notation is required [“EGM”] to distinguish between the harmonic and classical
representations.
∆Λ Error( r , ∆r , M )
1
∆Λ ( r , ∆r , M )
∆Λ EGM( r , ∆r , M )
∆Λ EGM R M , ∆r , M M
∆Λ EGM R E, ∆r , M E
∆Λ EGM R J , ∆r , M J
∆Λ EGM R S , ∆r , M S
∆Λ EGM R WD , ∆r , M WD
∆Λ EGM R RG, ∆r , M RG
∆Λ EGM R NS , ∆r , M NS
∆Λ EGM R BH, ∆r , M BH
∆Λ Error R M , ∆r , M M
∆Λ Error R E, ∆r , M E
∆Λ Error R J , ∆r , M J
∆Λ Error R S , ∆r , M S
∆Λ Error R WD , ∆r , M WD
∆Λ Error R RG, ∆r , M RG
∆Λ Error R NS , ∆r , M NS
∆Λ Error R BH, ∆r , M BH
=
3.225809
1.447169
0.029107
.
3.39425210
3
. 6
2.30813410
.
8.47616310
12
. 15
5.25385210
=
334
.
2.45448210
7
.
4.09314210
4
10
15 .
2
Hz
. 9
1.42948610
.
6.56319310
.
3.69917510
0.023754
0.195216
5.248215
27.272806
5
3
(%)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Casimir Force Correction
2
8 .π .G . F PV( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M )
ln
2
A PP( r )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
3 .c
4
9 .G.M . ∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
2 .r
3
N ( r , ∆r , M )
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) 8 .π .G 2 .r3 π .h .c .A PP 1 N X( r , ∆r , M )
.
.
.
.
.ln X
. .
2
4
App N C( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
3 .c 9 G M 480.∆r
2
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
Let:
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
2
2 3
1 . 16.π .r .h . N X( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M )
ln
K P 27.c .M .∆r4 N C( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
4
4
where, KP is a planetary factor.
2
2 3
1 . 16.π .r .h . N X( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M )
ln
K P 27.c .M .∆r4 N C( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
St PP K P , r , ∆r , M
St PP 4 .K E, R E, ∆r , M E
St PP 4 .K E, R E, ∆r , M E
St PP 480, R E, ∆r , M E
St PP 480, R E, ∆r , M E
1
4
.
99.999934
=
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
. 5
6.56319310
. 3
100.009093 9.09300510
1
( %)
Hence:
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
2
2 3
1 . 16.π .r .h . N X( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M )
ln
K P 27.c .M .∆r4 N C( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
2
K P( r , ∆r , M )
2 3
16.π .r .h . N X( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M )
ln
4
N C( r , ∆r , M )
27.c .M .∆r N C( r , ∆r , M )
4 .K M
K P R M , ∆r , M M
4 .K E
K P R E, ∆r , M E
4 .K J
K P R J , ∆r , M J
4
.
1
7
= 6.56319710
.
5
.
4.09312510
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
1
.
2.45448210
4
K P R M , ∆r , M M
K P R E, ∆r , M E
( %)
K P R J , ∆r , M J
4
K P R S , ∆r , M S
1
265.650431
480.043646
=
. 3
8.40786210
. 4
3.99605210
Additionally:
∆Λ EGM( r , ∆r , M )
2.G.M . ∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
3
r
U m( r , M )
1
2.G.M .
(r
∆r )
335
1
3
3
r
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Checking yields:
2 .G.M M ∆U PV R M , ∆r , M M
.
3
U m R M,M M
RM
2 .G.M E ∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E
.
3
U m R E, M E
RE
3.225809
=
2 .G.M J ∆U PV R J , ∆r , M J
.
3
U m R J, M J
RJ
1.447168
0.029107
.
3.39437710
10
15 .
2
10
15 .
2
Hz
3
2 .G.M S ∆U PV R S , ∆r , M S
.
3
U m R S, M S
RS
1
2 .G.M M .
1
∆r
RM
3
1
2 .G.M E.
3
1
2 .G.M J .
RJ
RS
3.225809
3
RE
1
∆r
3
∆r
3
1
2 .G.M S .
3
1
∆r
RE
RM
3
RJ
=
1.447168
0.029107
.
3.39437710
Hz
3
1
3
RS
2 .G.M M ∆U PV R M , ∆r , M M
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
M
3
U
R
,
M
RM
m M
M
R M ∆r
2 .G.M E ∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
E
3
U m R E, M E
RE
R E ∆r
2 .G.M J ∆U PV R J , ∆r , M J
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
J
3
U
R
,
M
RJ
m J
J
R J ∆r
2 .G.M S ∆U PV R S , ∆r , M S
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
S
3
U m R S, M S
RS
R S ∆r
1
1
3
RM
1
3
1
1
3
1
=
1
1
3
1
3
RJ
0
0
(%)
0
1
1
3
0
3
RE
1
3
RS
336
www.deltagroupengineering.com
∆Λ EGM R M , ∆r , M M .
.
∆Λ EGM R E, ∆r , M E
2 .G.M M ∆U PV R M , ∆r , M M
.
3
U m R M, M M
RM
1
1
2 .G.M E ∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E
.
3
U m R E, M E
RE
1
1
1
2 .G.M J ∆U PV R J , ∆r , M J
.
∆Λ EGM R J , ∆r , M J .
3
U m R J, M J
RJ
.
∆Λ EGM R S , ∆r , M S
1
∆r
3
∆r
RE
3
∆Λ EGM R J , ∆r , M J . 2 .G.M J .
3
3
1
3
∆r
RS
.
2.45448210
7
.
6.56319710
5
.
4.09312510
4
.
3.69903810
3
(%)
1
1
3
=
1
RJ
1
∆Λ EGM R S , ∆r , M S . 2 .G.M S .
1
3
1
1
∆r
RJ
1
RE
1
(%)
. 3
3.69903810
1
1
5
1
RM
1
∆Λ EGM R E, ∆r , M E . 2 .G.M E.
.
6.56319710
1
1
RM
7
. 4
4.09312510
1
2 .G.M S ∆U PV R S , ∆r , M S
.
3
U m R S, M S
RS
∆Λ EGM R M , ∆r , M M . 2 .G.M M .
=
.
2.45448210
1
3
RS
Chapter 3.8 and 3.10
512.h .G.m e
mγ
c . π .r e
n Ω r e, m e
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
.
2
EΩ
γ
5
m γγ
mγ
Nγ
m γ = 5.746734 10
m γγ
m gg
1
=
2 .m γγ
m gg
17 .
3.195095
6.39019
r e.
2
m γγ
m e .c
5
r gg
2
4 .r γγ
Nγ
EΩ
mγ
φ γγ
φ gg
2.
r γγ
r gg
. 28
N γ = 1.79861110
eV
10
r γγ
h .ω Ω r e , m e
45 .
eV
λ CN c ω CP
γ .
h .m p
.
λ h.
r γγ
λ CP ω h ω CN c .m h m n
r γγ
r gg
=
2.335379
3.081551
10
35 .
m
φ
1 . γγ
λ h φ gg
=
1.152898
1.521258
. 3 4.80847710
. 3 4.80847710
. 3 ( %)
= 4.80847710
337
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Chapter 3.9
Representation 1
ω Ω ( r, M )
St ζ( r , M )
St η ( r , M )
ω Ce
ω Ω ( r, M )
St θ ( r , M )
ω CP
ω Ω ( r, M )
ω CN
Given
λ Ce
St η r p , m p
λ CP
mp
St η r p , m p
me
λ Ce
St θ r n , m n
λ CN
mn
St θ r n , m n
rπ
me
rπ
Find r p , r n
rν
=
rν
830.594743
826.941624
( am)
r ν = 3.653119 ( am )
rπ
Representation 2
5
λ CP
c .m e
8 .π
2
5
4
27.m e
.
.
K PV r p , m p .m p
3
128.G.π .h
3
λ CN
5
27
.
2
16.π .λ Ce
.
h .m e
4
2
K PV r p , m p .m p
4
λ CN
.
2
830.594743
826.941624
3
( am)
5
λ CN
4
830.594743
c .ω Ce
= 830.594743 ( am)
3
4 .ω CN
830.594743
5
2
4
27.m h m e
.
.
2
3
mp
4 .π
16.c .π .m p
5
.
2
4
4 .π .λ h λ Ce
2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
.
4
32.π ω CN
h .m e
2
3
16.c .π .m n
338
λ
. CN
27
.
2
16.π .λ Ce
4 .π .λ h λ Ce
5
=
4
2
K PV r n , m n .m n
λ CP
2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
.
.
3
4
4 .ω CP
32.π ω CP
c .ω Ce
.
5
K PV r n , m n .m n
λ CP
4
λ CP
5
.
826.941624
= 826.941624 ( am)
826.941624
2
4
27.m h m e
.
mn
4 .π
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Representation 3
5
1
rπ
c .ω Ce
rν
4
1
.
9
2
4
ω CP
27.ω h .ω Ce ω CP
.
.
5
4
1
1 .
32.π
3
ω CN ω CN
5
3
rε
r e.
1.
2
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
5
γ
Refinement of radii predictions,
rε
2
.e
3
.
= 7.29429710
3
rπ
1 .r ε .
e
α rπ
2
3
= 99.958131 ( % )
Accuracy in relation to “α” utilising the NIST 2002 value.
ω Ω r ε,m e
Recognising that:
= 2.000178
ω Ω r π, m p
and that the ratio of “re” to “rp  –n” is approximately
“π”, we shall conjecture a set of physical rules as follows:
Given
α
r ε ω Ω r ε, m e
r e ω Ω r π, m p
rν
rε
rπ
rε
rν
9
2
.e
3
rπ
1.
2
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
5
γ
2 π
Find r ν , r ε
rε
Any changes in radii predictions due to refinement methods can be shown to be negligible as
follows,
rπ
rν
830.594743
= 826.837911 ( am)
11.802437
rε
rε
π. r π
1 .r ε .
e
α rπ
= 100 ( % )
rν
2
3
= 99.974102( % )
A possible change in Electron mass may be calculated according to, let:
mε
me
Given
ω Ω r ε, m ε
ω Ω r ε,m ε
1.
ω Ω r e, m e
ω Ω r π, m p
2
mε
m ε = 9.112989kg 10
Find m ε
.
m ε .c = 5.11201210
( eV)
2
ln 2.n Ω r e , m e
5
γ
2
mε
31
me
1 = 0.039588 ( % )
mε
= 1.000396
me
.
m e .c = 5.10998910
( eV)
2
5
339
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Particle Characteristics
λ Ce m p λ Ce m n
λ CP m e λ CN m e
r ν λ CN ω CP m p
r π λ CP ω CN m n
rν
1
. 3 1.83615310
. 3 1.83868410
. 3 1.83868410
. 3
= 1.83615310
= ( 0.995477 0.998623 0.998623 0.998623)
λ CP ω CN m n
.
= ( 0.315088 0.315088 0.315088) ( % )
r π λ CN ω CP m p
St ζ r e , m e
St η r π , m p
. 5 1.83615310
. 3 1.83881210
. 3
= 3.21927910
St θ r ν , m n
ω PV 1 , r e , m e
ω PV 1 , r π , m p
ω PV 1 , r ν , m n
ω Ω r e, m e
ω Ω r π, m p
ω Ω r ν,mn
ω PV 1 , r π , m p
ω Ω r π, m p
ω PV 1 , r e , m e
ω Ω r e,m e
ω PV 1 , r ν , m p
ω Ω r ν,mn
ω PV 1 , r e , m e
ω Ω r e,m e
ω Ω r ν ,mn
ω PV 1 , r e , m e
ω PV 1 , r ν , m p
ω PV 1 , r ν , m n
2
λ Ce
2 .π .c .
ω Ce
λ CP
2
ω Ω r ν ,mn
ω CN
ω Ce
ω Ω r ε, m e
2 .ω Ω r π , m p
ω CP.
2
2 .π .c .
λ Ce
2
λ CN
mp
.
2.6174110
18
35.738651
( GHz)
. 18
2.62481410
2
. 17 7.32711610
. 16 7.34446910
. 16
= 4.39398910
3
3
3
3
= 2.61741.10 2.61741.10 2.61741.10 2.61741.10
( YHz)
me
ω CN.
ω
. CP
ω Ω r π , m p ω Ce
1
35.506976
62.803639 10.50233
ω Ω r π, m p
ω CP
.
2.49926810
17
62.425172 10.472707
=
ω Ω r e, m e
ω Ω r π, m p
0.568793
=
mn
. 3 2.62463110
. 3 2.62463110
. 3 2.62463110
. 3
= 2.62481410
( YHz)
me
2
ω
. CN
ω Ω r ν , m n ω Ce
1
= ( 100 100 99.993032) ( % )
Chapter 3.11
2
5
rε
r π.
1 . me
9
2 mp
2
r µ0 r τ0
r ε. 1
me
2
9
1
mµ
me
9
mτ
5
St ω
1
ω Ω r ε,m e
. ω
Ω r µ0 , m µ
ω Ω r τ0 , m τ
rµ rτ
340
r ε.
1 . mµ
9
4 me
2 5
1 . mτ
9
6 me
2
www.deltagroupengineering.com
5
r ε.
r en r µn r τn
rπ
m en
5
2
r µ.
me
830.594743
r τ0
11.802436
rε
St ω
St ω
0,0
=
0,1
=
4.005149
rµ
5.629206
rτ
=
mτ
8.193164
( am)
13.730068
8.212157
12.240673
2
m τn
r τ.
mµ
r µ0
= 826.837911 ( am)
rν
5
2
m µn
( am)
rµ
1 .r ε .
e
α rν
1
r en
rτ
.
= 4.99870410
3
( %)
r en
0.095379
r µn = 0.655235 ( am)
1
.
ω Ω r ε,m e
2
.
9.09712910
r µn
1.958664
r τn
r ν mp
.
= 0.589336 ( % )
r π mn
1
r τn
ω Ω r µ,mµ
=
ω Ω r τ,m τ
2
=
3
0.429333
10
32 .
2
cm
3.836365
2
4
ω Ω r µ,m µ
6
ω Ω r τ, m τ
=
. 28
2.09392810
. 28
3.14089210
( Hz)
Chapter 3.12
1
5
r uq
m dq
3 .r xq. 2
m uq
5
2
r dq
r uq .
m dq
2
St dq
ω Ω r dq , m dq
St sq
ω Ω r xq, m sq
St cq
m uq
St bq
1
ω Ω r uq , m uq
1
St dqn
floor St dq
St dqn
floor St sq
St sq
2
= 3
St sq
2.049066
St sq
St cq
= 3.446836
St cq
floor St cq
St cq
4.547918
St bq
floor St bq
St bq
St bq
St tq
10.216613
St tq
floor St tq
341
ω Ω r xq, m bq
ω Ω r xq, m tq
St tq
St dq
. ω Ω r xq, m cq
St tq
1
4
10
www.deltagroupengineering.com
5
2
m sq
9
St sq
5
m cq
r sq
r cq
r bq
5
r uq
1
.
.
m uq
2
St cq
9
m bq
5
r tq
m tq
St cq
St bq
St tq
=
St dq
ω Ω r dq , m dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
1
2
St cq
ω Ω r ε, m e
9
St bq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
St tq
ω Ω r tq , m tq
.
ω Ω r cq , m cq
9
St uq
floor St uq
St uq
7.207028
St dq
floor St dq
St dq
14.414056
St sq
floor St sq
St sq
21.621085
St cq
floor St cq
St cq
28.828113
St bq
floor St bq
St bq
St tq
floor St tq
St tq
7.207028
St dq
ω Ω r uq , m uq
2
St tq
St uq
St uq
St sq
St bq
5
St sq
2
72.070282
7
7
=
14
21
28
72
9
5
St uq .r uq
m uq
9
5
St dq .r dq
m dq
m sq
m cq
m bq
me
rε
5
9
5
St sq .r sq
.
r tq
r uq .
9
5
St cq .r cq
5
1 . m tq
9
10 m uq
2
r u( M )
h
4 .π .c .M
9
5
St bq .r bq
m tq
9
5
St tq .r tq
ω Ω r u mW ,mW
rW
r u mW
St W
rZ
r u mZ
St Z
rH
r u mH
St H
St W
7.178111
St W
round St W , 0
St W
7
St Z
= 7.914688
St Z
round St Z , 0
St Z
= 8
St H
9.44142
St H
round St H , 0
St H
9
1
ω Ω r uq , m uq
342
. ω Ω r u mZ ,mZ
ω Ω r u mH ,mH
www.deltagroupengineering.com
5
1
St W
rW
5
1
r uq .
rZ
5
m uq
rH
9
m uq
.m 2
W
m dq
m sq
1 .
2
mZ
9
St Z
.
2
5
9
St H
r uq
1.013628
r sq
0.887904
=
r cq
1.091334
6
1.
9
1.
3
3
0.11402
GeV
1.184055
m bq
4.122266
m tq
178.61407
c
2
= 1.081984 ( am)
r u mZ
( am)
rW
1.226776
rZ
0.862443
r u mH
1.283533
= 1.061303 ( am)
0.940072
rH
0.92938
r tq
1.
r u mW
1.070961
r bq
6
.
7.01662310
0.768186
r dq
1.
3
=
m cq
1 .
2
mH
.
3.50831210
r uq
r dq
m uq
r sq
m dq
r cq
m sq
r tq = 0.960232 ( am)
r bq
m cq
m tq = 30.674156
m bq
GeV
c
r uq
r dq
rW
rZ
r sq
r cq
r bq
rZ
rH
ru mW
ru mZ
r u mH
1
.
ω Ω r uq , m uq
ω Ω r ε,m e
rW
r H = 1.005145 ( am)
rZ
r H = 1.09497 ( am)
rW
1
r tq
2
.
= ( 1.046265 0.980887 1.09001 )
ω Ω r dq , m dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
ω Ω r W,mW
ω Ω r Z, m Z
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r tq , m tq
ω Ω r dq , m dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
ω Ω r W,mW
ω Ω r Z, m Z
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r tq , m tq
=
=
1 2 3 4
7 8 9 10
7 14 21 28
49 56 63 70
Chapter 3.13
The Planck Scale
n Ω λ h , m h = 1.001996
ω PV 1, λ h , m h
ωh
ω Ω λ h,m h
ω PV 1 , λ h , m h
3
= 2.338413
Kω
2
π
1 = 0.199602 ( % )
Kλ
1
Kω
343
Km
ω Ω λ h,mh
ωh
= 2.34308
Kλ
www.deltagroupengineering.com
K ω.
K ω K λ K m = ( 0.860254 1.162447 1.162447 )
1 . G.h
. 11 ( ym)
= 4.70944610
K ω c3
1
5
c
. 18 ( YHz)
= 6.36576910
.
Gh
1 . h .c
. 8 ( kg )
= 6.34179210
Kω G
r γγ
1 = 16.244735( % )
Kω
= 0.998808
G.h . r µ
K ω.
3
c rτ
r γγ
1
K ω.
K λ .λ h
K λ .λ h
r γγ .K λ .
3
c .r τ
= 0.119179 ( % )
G.h r µ
rτ
3
= 0.991785
2 .r gg
1
G.h . r µ
c
2 .r γγ
= 0.119179 ( % )
1
2 .r γγ
K λ .λ h
ω PV 1 , λ h , m h
1 = 30.866795 ( % )
2 .r gg
= 0.821515 ( % )
K PV λ h , m h
.
K λ .λ h
= 1.308668
1
= 100 ( % )
K ω .ω h
Note: these results indicate that the fundamental frequency for a Planck particle (at the
experimentally implicit scale derived by EGM) is the harmonic cutoff frequency. That is, only one
mode exists.
φ γγ
K λ .λ h
φ gg
φ γγ = 4.709446 10
5
35 .
4 .φ γγ
5
4 = 131.950791 ( % )
φ gg = 6.214151 10
m
35 .
m
Theoretical Particles
Leptons
rL
rµ
rε
rτ
3
m L 2, r L
m L 3, r L
m L St ω , r L
m L 5, r L
9
m e . St ω .
rL
5
r L = 10.751756 ( am )
rε
= ( 9.158498 56.785167 565.658456)
MeV
c
2
m L 1, r ε
m L 2, r L
m L 3, r L
m L 4, r µ
m L 5, r L
m L 6, r τ
m L 7, r L
m L 8, r L
. 3 2.57116810
. 3 4.68915110
. 3
565.658456 1.77698910
m L 9, r L
m L 10, r L
m L 11, r L
m L 12, r L
. 3 1.27993910
. 4 1.96542410
. 4 2.90740110
. 4
7.96673810
MeV
m L 13, r L
m L 14, r L
m L 15, r L
m L 16, r L
.
.
.
.
4.16806410
5.81788910
7.93596810
1.06103410
c
m L 17, r L
m L 18, r L
m L 19, r L
m L 20, r L
. 5 1.80266710
. 5 2.2992210
. 5 2.89617110
. 5
1.39382910
m L 21, r L
m L 22, r L
m L 23, r L
m L 24, r L
. 5 4.44724810
. 5 5.4320610
. 5 6.57869710
. 5
3.60724910
0.510999
=
9.158498
4
344
56.785167
4
4
105.65837
5
2
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Quarks and Bosons
r QB
1.
9
r uq
r dq
r cq
9
m uq . St ω .
m QB St ω , r QB
m QB 5, r QB
r sq
m QB 6, r QB
r bq
r QB
r tq
rW
rZ
rH
5
r QB = 1.005145 ( am )
r uq
= ( 9.602148 21.811422)
GeV
c
2
m QB 1 , r dq
m QB 2 , r sq
m QB 3, r cq
m QB 4, r bq
.
7.01662310
0.11402
1.184055
4.122266
m QB 5 , r QB
m QB 6 , r QB
m QB 7, r W
m QB 8 , r Z
9.602148
21.811422
80.425
91.1876
m QB 9 , r H
m QB 10, r tq
m QB 11, r QB
m QB 12, r QB
114.4
178.61407
333.634108
493.536148
m QB 13, r QB
m QB 14, r QB
m QB 15, r QB
m QB 16, r QB
=
3
707.535843
. 3 1.80112310
. 3
987.596451 1.34714410
m QB 17, r QB
m QB 18, r QB
m QB 19, r QB
m QB 20, r QB
. 3 3.06005810
. 3 3.90296410
. 3
2.36604810
m QB 21, r QB
m QB 22, r QB
m QB 23, r QB
m QB 24, r QB
. 3 7.54927810
. 3 9.22101310
. 3 1.11674510
. 4
6.12336610
GeV
c
2
. 3
4.916310
Experimental Design Specifications for a Resonant Casimir Cavity
Optimal Displacement
∆r .( 1 1 1 1 )
∆r M ∆r E ∆r J ∆r S
Given
∆ω R R M , ∆r M , M M
∆ω R R E, ∆r E, M E
∆ω R R J , ∆r J , M J
1
1
1
∆ω R R S , ∆r S , M S
1
∆r M
∆r M
∆r E
∆r E
∆r J
Find ∆r M , ∆r E, ∆r J , ∆r S
∆r J
∆r S
∆r S
5.358102
=
16.518308
122.49972
( mm)
855.41628
Harmonic Inflection Wavelength and Frequency
λ X R M , ∆r M , M M
λ X R E, ∆r E, M E
λ X R J , ∆r J , M J
λ X R S , ∆r S , M S
=
19.744081
ω X R M , ∆r M , M M
18.346216
ω X R E, ∆r E, M E
30.054415
32.089744
( nm )
ω X R J , ∆r J , M J
ω X R S , ∆r S , M S
345
15.183915
=
16.340834
9.974989
( PHz)
9.342314
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Critical Frequency
ω C ∆r M
27.97562
ω C ∆r E
9.074551
=
ω C ∆r J
( GHz)
1.223645
0.175232
ω C ∆r S
Critical Field Strengths
E C R M , ∆r M , M M
554.936781
B C R M , ∆r M , M M
E C R E, ∆r E, M E
550.421992
V
B C R E, ∆r E, M E
141.888993
m
B C R J , ∆r J , M J
=
E C R J , ∆r J , M J
92.476743
E C R S , ∆r S , M S
B C R S , ∆r S , M S
18.510699
=
18.360101
4.732907
( mgs )
3.084692
Target Resonant Field Pressure at Similarity Characteristics Specified Above
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M M
2.860531
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E
232.617621
=
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M J
( GPa)
4
7.3899.10
. 7
7.74094810
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M S
Appendix 3.D
Derivation of Lepton Radii
Given
5
1
rπ
c .ω Ce
rν
4
5
.
2.
.
ω CP
3
ω CN
ω CN
5
1 . me
r ε r π.
9
2 mp
rµ rτ
1 . mµ
9
4 me
2
5
5
r en r µn r τn
α
rε
1
2
5
r ε.
1
3
27.ω h ω Ce ω CP
.
5
4
1 .
32.π
4
r ε.
m en
me
1 . mτ
9
6 me
2
2
5
r µ.
m µn
mµ
2
5
r τ.
m τn
2
mτ
2
.e
3
rπ
346
www.deltagroupengineering.com
rµ
rε
α
.e
rτ
rν
rε
rπ
π
rν
rε
rε
0.011806
rπ
rπ
0.830596
rν
rν
0.826838
rµ
rµ
.
8.21650110
Find r ε , r π , r ν , r µ , r τ , r en , r µn , r τn
rτ
=
rτ
r en
r en
r µn
r µn
r τn
r τn
1 .r ε .
e
α rπ
3
3
100
rµ
( fm)
0.012241
2
1 .r ε .
e
α rν
.
9.54036910
5
.
6.55581610
4
1.
.
1.95879510
3
π rπ
rτ
= 100 ( % )
100
rε
rν
Given
ω Ω r ε, m ε
ω Ω r ε,m ε
1.
ω Ω r e, m e
ω Ω r π, m p
2
mε
ln 2.n Ω r e , m e
γ
2
Find m ε
m ε .c = 0.511534 ( MeV )
mε
m e .c = 0.510999 ( MeV )
2
2
1 = 0.104669 ( % )
me
Appendix 3.E
Derivation of Quark and Boson MassEnergies and Radii
1
5
r uq
3 .r xq. 2
m dq
m uq
5
2
r dq
r uq .
m dq
2
St dq
ω Ω r dq , m dq
St sq
ω Ω r xq, m sq
St cq
m uq
St bq
St tq
347
1
ω Ω r uq , m uq
. ω Ω r xq, m cq
ω Ω r xq, m bq
ω Ω r xq, m tq
www.deltagroupengineering.com
5
2
m sq
9
St sq
St dq
floor St dq
St sq
floor St sq
St cq
floor St cq
St bq
floor St bq
St tq
floor St tq
5
m cq
r sq
r cq
r bq
5
r uq
.
1
.
m uq
2
St cq
9
m bq
2
5
2
r tq
St bq
5
m tq
9
2
St tq
9
St uq
ω Ω r uq , m uq
St uq
floor St uq
St dq
ω Ω r dq , m dq
St dq
floor St dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
St sq
floor St sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
St cq
floor St cq
St bq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
St bq
floor St bq
St tq
ω Ω r tq , m tq
St tq
floor St tq
St sq
1
St cq
ω Ω r ε, m e
.
9
5
St uq .r uq
m uq
9
5
St dq .r dq
m dq
m sq
m cq
m bq
me
rε
.
5
5
9
5
St sq .r sq
1 . m tq
9
10 m uq
r uq .
r tq
9
5
St cq .r cq
2
r u( M )
h
.
.
4 π c .M
9
5
St bq .r bq
m tq
9
5
St tq .r tq
rW
r u mW
St W
rZ
r u mZ
St Z
rH
r u mH
St H
ω Ω r u mW ,mW
1
ω Ω r uq , m uq
5
St W
round St W , 0
rW
St Z
round St Z , 0
rZ
St H
round St H , 0
rH
. ω Ω r u mZ ,mZ
ω Ω r u mH ,mH
1
St W
5
r uq .
1
m uq
9
.m 2
W
5
1 .
2
mZ
9
St Z
5
1 .
2
mH
.
2
9
St H
348
www.deltagroupengineering.com
m uq
m dq
m sq
.
3.50603110
3
r uq
.
7.01206110
3
r dq
1.013628
r sq
0.887904
=
m cq
GeV
0.113946
1.183285
c
r cq
2
m bq
4.119586
r bq
m tq
178.49794
r tq
1.
6
1.
6
r uq
r dq
m uq
r sq
m dq
r cq
m sq
1.091334
rH
ru mW
ru mZ
r u mH
1.
rW
1.283867
= 1.06158 ( am)
0.940317
rH
0.92938
GeV
c
rZ
rZ
( am)
1.070961
m tq = 30.654213
m bq
rW
3
=
rW
r tq = 0.960232 ( am)
r bq
m cq
0.768186
2
= ( 1.046537 0.981142 1.090294)
r H = 1.095254 ( am)
rZ
The following two result sets are accurate to “4” decimal places:
1
.
ω Ω r dq , m dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
ω Ω r W,mW
ω Ω r Z, m Z
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r tq , m tq
ω Ω r uq , m uq
1
.
ω Ω r ε,m e
mW
ω Ω r dq , m dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
ω Ω r W,mW
ω Ω r Z, m Z
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r tq , m tq
m en
80.425
= 91.1876
mZ
GeV
c
114.4
mH
1.
r QB
9
r uq
r dq
2
r sq
r cq
3 .10
0.19
m τn
18.2
r tq
=
7 8 9 10
7 14 21 28
49 56 63 70
6
m µn =
r bq
1 2 3 4
=
rW
MeV
c
rZ
2
rH
r QB = 1.00524 ( am )
Appendix 3.G
4. . 3
πr
3
V( r )
Q( r )
1
V( r )
Q ch ( r )
Q( r )
r dr
3
5.
rν
3
Let:
x
1
2
Given
2
x
ln( x) .
2
x
x
1
1 3
Find( x)
349
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Therefore:
a1
a2
r0
3 . π .r ν ( 1 x) .x3
.
2
8
1 x x
2
1
r ν.
x
KS
0 .( fm)
r max
1.8.( fm)
δr
ρ ch ( r )
KS
2.
3
2
1.
e
3
x
1
a1
x = 0.682943
2
K S = 0.113334 fm
KX
ρ ch r 0
ρ ch r ν
rν
. e
3
5
2
π .r ν . x
r dr = 1.067443 ( fm)
r max r 0
r
100
r
a2
2
0.113. fm
r
x .r
12
ρ ch 10 .( fm)
0
3 .r ν
KS
.
2
2
x
1
r 0 , δr .. r max
2
ν
Q ch r ν = 0.140776
1
3
fm
=
0.826838
0.564683
1
KX
b 1 = 0.20712
( fm)
= 0.294995 ( % )
KS
0.140776
= 5.76803210
. 9
2
b1
1
3
fm
1 .
rν
rν
ρ ch ( r ) d r = 0.071089
1
3
fm
0
1
1.
ρ ch r 0 = 0.070388
3
2
fm
Neutron Charge Distribution
Charge Density
rν
r dr
ρ ch( r )
ρ ch r 0
ρ ch r dr
r
Radius
Charge Density
Maximum Charge Density
Minimum Charge Density
350
www.deltagroupengineering.com
rν
rν.
r0
0
1
r dr
fm
r max
1
r dr .
fm
δr
1.8
KS
2.
3
3.
π rν
5.
K S.
r max r 0
2
x
2
rν
. e
1.
e
3
x
1
1
2
fm
r
100
r
ρ ch ( r )
KS
r
x .r
r 0 , δr .. r max
2
ν
Let:
r1 r2
0.38
r dr
0.38
0.38
2
Given
2
r1
d
2
KS
2.
d r 12 3
3.
π rν
5.
. e
2
x
rν
1.
e
3
x
1
2
r2
3
d r 23 3
r1
r2
KS
2.
3
π .r ν
5.
. e
2
x
rν
r1
r2
=
2
x .r ν
r2
1.
e
3
x
1
Find r 1 , r 2
0
2
x .r ν
0
0.376649
0.662409
Neutron Charge Distribution
r1
r2
ρ ch( r )
ρ ch r 0
d
dr
Neutron Charge Characteristic
d
r1
ρ ch( r )
d
dr 1
d
ρ ch r 1
2
d r2
d
ρ ch( r )
2
d r 22
d2
d r 02
ρ ch r 2
ρ ch r 0
r
Radius
351
www.deltagroupengineering.com
rν
4
r .ρ ch ( r ) d r
0
d
ρ ch r 1
dr 1
d
2
d r 22
d
2
d r 02
∞
4
r .ρ ch ( r ) d r
0.253851
ρ ch r 2
4 .π .
= 0.544657
1.103201
rν
0.016626
=
rν
2.
r ρ ch ( r ) d r
ρ ch r 0
0.129961
0.070507
0.070506
0
∞
2
r .ρ ch ( r ) d r
rν
Hence:
4 2
3 .π .r ν .x
6 .b 1 .K X . x
2
rX
∞
KS
3 .b 1 . x
2
6 .b 1 . K X
0
1
r X = 0.825617 ( fm)
2
2
0.005. fm . x
2
1
r ν .( fm)
= 0.147606 ( % )
6 .b 1 . K X
= 0.807145 ( fm)
2
2
0.005. fm . x
3 .b 1 . x
2
2
0.005. fm
3 .b 1 . x
2
2
0.005. fm
2
3 .b 1 . x
1
rX
1
6 .b 1 . K X
6 .b 1 . K X
ρ ch ( r ) d r = 0.055162
matches
1
3 .b 1 . x
r ν .( fm)
= 0.055162
. x2
. x2
1
1
= 0.843686 ( fm)
1
= 0.019693 ( fm)
1
1
r ν .( fm) = 0.016848 ( fm)
1
The Neutron Magnetic Radius may be determined as follows:
r νM
rν
Given
r dr
rν
r ν .ρ ch r νM
ρ ch ( r ) d r
rν
r νM
r νM = 0.878972
Find r νM
Hence:
d
2
d r2
ρ ch
r dr
.
ρ ch r νM = 2.93889110
3
0
rν
352
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Neutron Charge Distribution
r νM
r dr
ρ ch r νM
ρ ch( r )
r
Radius
r dr
d2
d r2
r dr
rν
ρ ch( r )
r
Radius
The Proton Electric Radius may be determined as follows:
r πE
rν
Given
r dr
r ν .ρ ch r πE
ρ ch ( r ) d r
rν
r πE
r πE = 0.848527
Find r πE
.
ρ ch r πE = 1.35418110
3
r πE
1 = 0.062194 ( % )
0.848
The Proton Magnetic Radius may be determined as follows:
r πM
rν
∞
10.r ν
Given
∞
r ν .ρ ch r πM
ρ ch ( r ) d r
r dr
rν
353
www.deltagroupengineering.com
r πM
.
ρ ch r πM = 1.43530110
r πM = 0.849933
Find r πM
3
The Classical Proton RMS Charge Radius may be determined as follows:
r πE
1.
2
r ν = 0.874594
r νM
Performing dimensional conversions yields:
r νM
r νM .( fm)
r πE.( fm)
r πE
r νM = 878.971907 ( am )
r πM
r πM .( fm)
r πE = 848.527406 ( am )
rν
r ν .( fm)
KS
K S . fm
2
r πM = 849.933378 ( am )
Appendix 3.H
5
5
r ν2 r ν3 r ν5
m en
1 .
r ε.
2
9
me
2
2
5
r µ.
m µn
5
2
9
r τ.
3
m τn
9
5
1.
r ν2 r ν3 r ν5 = ( 0.027398 0.7656 2.820647 ) ( am )
r en r µn r τn
r ν2
r ν3
r ν5
r en
r µn
r τn
2
3
1.
= ( 0.095404 0.655582 1.958795 ) ( am )
3
r ν2
r ν3
r ν5 = 1.204548 ( am)
r en
r µn
r τn = 0.90326 ( am)
= 1.333557
Appendix 3.I
λ A( r, M )
λ PV( 1 , r , M )
2 .n Ω ( r , M )
Method 1
λ A K ω .r Bohr , m p
λ A K ω .r Bohr , m p = 657.329013( nm)
λB
1 = 0.130911( % )
Method 2
Given
λ A K ω .r Bohr , m x
λB
mx
Find m x
1
m x = 1.680518 10
mx
27 .
kg
mp
354
1 = 0.472081 ( % )
mx
1 = 1.203162 ( % )
m AMC
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Method 3
Given
λ A K ω .r x, m AMC
1
λB
rx
.
r x = 5.27319110
Find r x
11
r Bohr
( m)
1 = 0.352379 ( % )
rx
Particle Summary Matrix 3.1
r πE
2
0.69. fm
0.848.( fm)
r πM
0.857.( fm)
rπ
KX
KS
=
0.113
2
fm
0.113334
1.
r πE
2
830.595686 830.662386
=
r νM
rν
rp
848.527406
848
849.933378
857
874.594421
875
( am)
826.837876 825.617412
rν
rX
r νM
0.879.( fm)
878.971907
879
2
rε
.e
3
rπ
m tq = 178.49794
GeV
c
rε
2
.e
rµ
.
7.29735310
3
rτ
= 7.29735310
.
3
rν
λ A K ω .r Bohr , m p
λB
3.141593
=
657.329013
656.469624
( nm)
rε
rπ
1 .r ε .
e
α rπ
rν
rµ
2
1 .r ε .
e
α rν
3
rπ
M Error
2
0.69. fm
1 . 1.
r νM
rp 2
M Error =
rν
rτ
π rπ
r πM
0.848.( fm)
0.857.( fm)
1
r πE
rν
KS
rX
KX
m tq .c
0.879.( fm)
178.( GeV)
2
λ A K ω .r Bohr , m p
14
.
4.44089210
.
8.02976710
3
0.062194
0.824577
0.147824
0.295867
0.279741
0.130911
3
14
.
8.88178410
λB
.
1.11022310
.
3.19605810
rν
r πE
r νM
0.046352
rε
1.
14
(%)
355
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1.
M Error
0,0
12
+ M Error
2, 0
Error Av
M Error
M Error
0, 1
M Error
0, 2
M Error
M Error
2, 1
M Error
1, 0
M Error
2, 2
M Error
1,1
1, 2
M Error
3,0
...
M Error
3, 1
3, 2
Error Av = 0.149891 ( % )
Particle Summary Matrix 3.2
2
rε
. c .e
r e ω Ce
r π_1
rπ
∆r π
r π_av
c .ω Ce
r ν_2
( 0.69 0.02) . fm
r ν_av
2
r π_1
r π_2
r ν_1
r ν_2
5
1.
r ν_av
2
1 .
r π_av
r π_Error
r ν_1
∆r π
r π_2
2
0.69. fm = 830.662386 ( am )
∆r ν
( 0.69 0.02) . fm
2
1.
r π_av
2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
.
.
3
4
4 .ω CN
32.π ω CN
∆r ν
r π_1
5
2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
.
.
3
4
4 .ω CP
32.π ω CP
r ν_2
π
1 .
r ν_av
r ν_Error
c .ω Ce
r π_2
rε
r ν_1
1.
3
2
= 12.03985 ( am)
2
r π_1
r π_2
r ν_1
r ν_2
r π_av r ν_av
∆r π
=
830.59568
830.594743
826.837876
826.941624
830.595212
.
4.68527810
∆r ν
826.88975
4
1.
2
∆K X
rX KX
rX KX
∆K X
rX KX
∆K X
r ν_Error
2
6 .b 1 .K X . x
rX KX
2
3 .b 1 . x
∆r X_av
∆K X
rX KX
0
( %)
1
2
0.005. fm
∆K X
1
r X_av
∆K X
rX KX
843.685579
807.144886
=
r X_av
825.415232
∆r X_av
18.270346
.
r X_Error = 1.11022310
m gg = 6.39019 10
0
1=
0.051874
. 3 ( YHz)
ω Ω r π , m p = 2.61740910
r X_av
r π_Error
( am)
14
( %)
45 .
eV
( am)
r X_Error
.
m γ = 5.74673410
28
2 .r e
λh
5
.
45 .
eV
∆K X
∆r X_av
= 1.152898
2
1
r X_av
m γγ = 3.195095 10
5
2
m γγ
m e .c
10
rX KX
5
2 . 4 .r e
.
λh
eV
2
m γγ
m e .c
45 .
= 1.521258
2
Also, see Chapter 3.11  3.13.
356
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Particle Summary Matrix 3.3
The following is accurate to “1 or 2” decimal places (as implied by the results):
ω Ω r π, m p
ω Ω r ν ,mn
ω Ω r ν,mn
ω Ω r ε,m e
ω Ω r ε, m e
0.5
ω Ω r en , m en
1
ω Ω r en , m en
0.5
ω Ω r L, m L 2 , r L
2
ω Ω r L, m L 2 , r L
1
ω Ω r L, m L 3 , r L
2
ω Ω r L, m L 3 , r L
1
ω Ω r µ,mµ
ω Ω r π, m p
.
6
2
ω Ω r µ,mµ
3
ω Ω r µn , m µn
8
ω Ω r µn , m µn
4
ω Ω r L, m L 5 , r L
8
ω Ω r L, m L 5 , r L
4
ω Ω r τ,m τ
10
ω Ω r τ, m τ
ω Ω r τn , m τn
1
4
12
1
12
ω Ω r ε,m e
.
ω Ω r τn , m τn
ω Ω r uq , m uq
ω Ω r uq , m uq
= 14
ω Ω r dq , m dq
14
ω Ω r dq , m dq
28
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
42
5
6
=
6
7
7
14
21
ω Ω r cq , m cq
56
ω Ω r cq , m cq
28
ω Ω r bq , m bq
70
ω Ω r bq , m bq
35
ω Ω r QB, m QB 5 , r QB
84
ω Ω r QB, m QB 5 , r QB
42
98
49
112
ω Ω r QB, m QB 6 , r QB
56
ω Ω r W,mW
126
ω Ω r W,mW
63
ω Ω r Z, m Z
140
ω Ω r Z, m Z
70
ω Ω r QB, m QB 6 , r QB
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r tq , m tq
ω Ω r tq , m tq
357
www.deltagroupengineering.com
ω Ω r π, m p
ω Ω r ν,mn
ω Ω r ε, m e
0.07
ω Ω r en , m en
0.07
ω Ω r L, m L 2 , r L
0.14
ω Ω r L, m L 3 , r L
0.14
0.29
1
ω Ω r µ,mµ
0.43
14
ω Ω r µn , m µn
0.57
1
ω Ω r L, m L 5 , r L
0.57
14
0.71
1
ω Ω r τ, m τ
1
ω Ω r uq , m uq
.
ω Ω r τn , m τn
ω Ω r uq , m uq
ω Ω r dq , m dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
0.86
=
0.86
7
2
3
3
ω Ω r bq , m bq
5
ω Ω r QB, m QB 5 , r QB
6
0.07
2
1
4
0.07
1
7
1
ω Ω r cq , m cq
7
7
4
7
4
0.14
0.14
0.29
= 0.43
0.57
0.57
0.71
7
7
0.86
ω Ω r QB, m QB 6 , r QB
8
5
0.86
ω Ω r W,mW
9
7
ω Ω r Z, m Z
10
6
7
ω Ω r H, m H
6
ω Ω r tq , m tq
7
358
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Particle Summary Matrix 3.4
φ γγ
φ gg
=
4.709446
6.214151
10
35 .
m
rε
φ
1 . γγ
K λ .λ h φ gg
=
1
m γγ
1.319508
m gg
11.805507
mp
. 4
5.10998910
rν
830.595686
mn
0.938272
rµ
826.837876
mµ
0.939565
rτ
8.216501
mτ
r en
12.241488
m en
0.095404
r µn
=
10
45 .
eV
3 .10
0.768186
m uq =
( am)
1.091334
9
4
1.9.10
1.958795
0.887904
r sq
1.776989
m τn
1.013628
r dq
0.0182
. 3
3.50603110
m dq
. 3
7.01206110
m sq
0.113946
r cq
1.070961
m cq
1.183285
r bq
0.92938
m bq
4.119586
r tq
1.283867
m tq
rW
1.06158
mW
91.1876
mZ
114.4
0.940317
rZ
rH
GeV
c
2
178.49794
80.425
mH
m L 2, r L
r QB
6.39019
0.105658
m µn
0.655582
r τn
rL
3.195095
me
rπ
r uq
=
.
9.15849810
m L 3, r L
=
10.751756
1.00524
( am)
0.056785
m L 5, r L
=
0.565658
m QB 5 , r QB
9.604416
m QB 6 , r QB
21.816575
3
GeV
c
2
3
λ Ce λ CP λ CN λ Cµ λ Cτ = 2.42631.10 1.32141 1.319591 11.734441 0.697721 ( fm)
.
ω Ce ω CP ω CN ω Cµ ω Cτ = 7.76344110
4
1.425486 1.427451 0.160523 2.699721 ( YHz)
359
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Comparison Tables
ω Ω r ε, m e
. 3
5.23406410
ω Ω r ε,m e
. 3
2.61740910
ω Ω r π, m p
ω Ω r ν,mn
. 3
2.62481410
ω Ω r ν ,mn
ω Ω r µ,mµ
. 4
2.09331310
ω Ω r µ,mµ
ω Ω r τ, m τ
. 4
3.14077610
ω Ω r τ,m τ
52.002066
ω Ω r en , m en
. 3
5.23406410
ω Ω r en , m en
78.023133
ω Ω r µn , m µn
. 4
2.09331310
ω Ω r µn , m µn
13.002457
ω Ω r τn , m τn
. 4
3.14077610
ω Ω r τn , m τn
ω Ω r π, m p
ω Ω r uq , m uq
= 3.66384510
.
4
( YHz)
1
ω Ω R M,M M
13.002457
6.502164
6.52056
52.002066
78.023133
. ω Ω r uq , m uq
= 91.017198
ω Ω r dq , m dq
91.017198
ω Ω r dq , m dq
. 4
3.66384510
ω Ω r sq , m sq
. 4
7.3276910
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
. 5
1.09915310
ω Ω r cq , m cq
364.068792
ω Ω r bq , m bq
. 5
1.46553810
ω Ω r bq , m bq
910.17198
ω Ω r tq , m tq
5
.
3.66384510
ω Ω r tq , m tq
637.120386
ω Ω r W,mW
. 5
2.56469110
ω Ω r W,mW
ω Ω r Z, m Z
. 5
2.93107610
ω Ω r Z, m Z
ω Ω r H, m H
. 5
3.2974610
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r ε,m e
ω Ω r ε, m e
ω Ω r π, m p
ω Ω r π, m p
ω Ω r ν ,mn
ω Ω r µ,mµ
ω Ω R E, M E
273.051594
728.137584
819.154782
ω Ω r ν,mn
5.037614
ω Ω r µ,m µ
5.051867
10.723101
5.362322
5.377493
40.2891
ω Ω r τ, m τ
42.886002
ω Ω r en , m en
60.449171
ω Ω r en , m en
64.345524
ω Ω r µn , m µn
10.073778
ω Ω r µn , m µn
10.723101
ω Ω r τ,m τ
ω Ω r τn , m τn
1
10.073778
182.034396
40.2891
60.449171
. ω Ω r uq , m uq
= 70.516448
ω Ω r dq , m dq
70.516448
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
ω Ω r tq , m tq
ω Ω r W,mW
ω Ω r τn , m τn
1
ω Ω R J, M J
141.032895
64.345524
. ω Ω r uq , m uq
= 75.061704
ω Ω r dq , m dq
75.061704
ω Ω r sq , m sq
211.549343
42.886002
150.123408
225.185113
282.065791
ω Ω r cq , m cq
300.246817
705.164477
ω Ω r bq , m bq
750.617042
493.615134
ω Ω r tq , m tq
525.431929
564.131581
ω Ω r W,mW
634.648029
ω Ω r Z, m Z
ω Ω r Z, m Z
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r H, m H
360
600.493634
675.555338
www.deltagroupengineering.com
ω Ω r ε, m e
ω Ω r π, m p
ω Ω r ν,mn
ω Ω r µ,mµ
4.059933
32.378335
ω Ω r en , m en
48.579976
ω Ω r τn , m τn
ω Ω R S, M S
4.048478
ω Ω r τ, m τ
ω Ω r µn , m µn
1
8.095792
8.095792
32.378335
48.579976
. ω Ω r uq , m uq
= 56.670543
ω Ω r dq , m dq
56.670543
ω Ω r sq , m sq
113.341086
170.011629
ω Ω r cq , m cq
226.682172
ω Ω r bq , m bq
566.70543
ω Ω r tq , m tq
396.693801
ω Ω r W,mW
453.364344
510.034887
ω Ω r Z, m Z
ω Ω r H, m H
NOTES
361
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
362
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
363
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
364
www.deltagroupengineering.com
MATHCAD 8
PROFESSIONAL
CALCULATION
ENGINE
[78]
365
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
366
www.deltagroupengineering.com
APPENDIX 3.L
Computational Environment
NOTE: KNOWLEDGE OF MATHCAD IS REQUIRED AND ASSUMED
•
•
•
Convergence Tolerance (TOL): 0.001.
Constraint Tolerance (CTOL): 0.001.
Calculation Display Tolerance: 6 figures – unless otherwise indicated.
PV / ZPF Equations
2.
K PV( r , M )
e
G .M
3
2
r .c
K 0( r , M )
K PV( r , M ) .e
K EGM_N( r , M )
K PV( r , M )
2
2 . ∆K 0( r , M )
G.M .
KR
2
r .c
∆K 0( r , M )
K PV( r , M )
K EGM_E( r , M )
e
G.M .
C PV n PV, r , M
2
r
2
1
T PV n PV, r , M
n PV 3 2 .c .G.M
.
. K ( r, M )
PV
r
π .r
ω PV n PV, r , M
π .n PV
c
λ PV n PV, r , M
ω PV n PV, r , M
2 . ∆K 0( r , M )
U m( r , M )
ω PV n PV, r , M
3 .M .c
2
4 .π .r
3
3
U ω( r , M )
n Ω ( r, M )
h .
4
ω PV( 1, r , M )
3
2.c
Ω ( r, M )
4
12
Ω ( r, M )
∆ω PV( r , M )
ω Ω ( r, M )
∆ω δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
∆λ δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
∆λ Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
c.
∆v δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
1
λ PV n PV, r
ω Ω ( r, M )
n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )
U ω( r , M )
S m( r , M )
∆r , M
∆r , M
1
ω Ω(r
108.
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
ω PV n PV, r
U m( r , M )
Ω ( r, M )
12. 768 81.
c .U m( r , M )
2
U ω( r , M )
N ∆r( r , M )
ω Ω ( r, M ) .
∆r
c
ω PV n PV, r , M
λ PV n PV, r , M
1
∆r , M )
ω Ω ( r, M )
∆ω δr n PV, r , ∆r , M .∆λ δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
3 .M .c .
4 .π
2
∆v Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
U m( r , M )
∆v δr n Ω ( r , M ) , r , ∆r , M
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
367
1
(r
∆r )
1
3
3
r
www.deltagroupengineering.com
∆ω ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
4
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
ω Ω(r
∆ω S r , ∆r , M , K R
∆r , M )
ω Ω ( r, M )
ω Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .
∆ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
ω Ce
µ0
4
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
∆ω R( r , ∆r , M )
4
n β r , ∆r , M , K R
∆ω ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
∆ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
ω β r , ∆r , M , K R
St β ( r , ∆r , M )
ε0
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
ω Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
∆n S r , ∆r , M , K R
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
∆ω Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
3
4
K R . ω Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
4
ω β r , ∆r , M , K R
n β r , ∆r , M , K R
St γ ( r , ∆r , M )
ε0
ω Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
2 .c .
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
h
ω Ω_ZPF ( r , ∆r , M )
ω Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
ω β r , ∆r , M , K R
St α ( r , ∆r , M )
4
µ0
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .
∆K C( r , ∆r , M )
St δ( r , ∆r , M )
n Ω(r
∆ω ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
ω Ce
∆r , M )
n Ω ( r, M )
∆v δr n PV, r , ∆r , M
St ε n PV, r , ∆r , M
∆v Ω ( r , ∆r , M )
Casimir Equations
ω C( ∆r )
c
.
2 ∆r
E C( r , ∆r , M )
ω X( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
λ C( ∆r )
c
ω C( ∆r )
c .K PV( r , M ) . St α ( r , ∆r , M )
π .N X( r , ∆r , M )
N X( r , ∆r , M ) .ω PV( 1 , r , M )
ω C( ∆r )
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
N TR( A , D , r , ∆r , M )
Σ HR( A , D , r , ∆r , M )
A D St N
N T A , D, N X( r , ∆r , M )
N T A , D, N C( r , ∆r , M )
Σ H A , D , N X( r , ∆r , M )
Σ H A , D , N C( r , ∆r , M )
N X( r , ∆r , M )
B C( r , ∆r , M )
λ X( r , ∆r , M )
(1 1 1 )
Σ H A , D, N T
N R( r , ∆r , M )
368
n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
1
ln 2.n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
γ
E C( r , ∆r , M )
c
c
ω X( r , ∆r , M )
St N
N T A , D, St N
NT
2
. 2.A
N C( r , ∆r , M )
D
D
D. N T
N X( r , ∆r , M )
A
1
A PP( r )
4 .π .r
2
www.deltagroupengineering.com
π .h .c .A PP( r )
F PP( r , ∆r )
A PP( r ) .∆U PV( r , ∆r , M ) .
F PV( r , ∆r , M )
4
480.∆r
N C( r , ∆r , M )
N X( r , ∆r , M )
N X( r , ∆r , M )
.ln
4
N C( r , ∆r , M )
2
8 .π .G .
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
2
3 .c
∆Λ ( r , ∆r , M )
2
4
8 .π .G . F PV( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M )
ln
2
A PP( r )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
3 .c
St ∆Λ ( r , ∆r , M )
∆Λ ( r , ∆r , M )
Λ R( r , ∆r , M )
∆ω δr_Error( r , ∆r , M )
St ∆Λ ( r , ∆r , M )
9 .G.M . ∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
∆Λ EGM( r , ∆r , M )
2
U m( r , M )
. 3 .
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M ) 2
∆U PV( r , ∆r , M )
∆Λ Error( r , ∆r , M )
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
2 .r
3
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
1
2
2 3
1 . 16.π .r .h . N X( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M )
ln
K P 27.c .M .∆r4 N C( r , ∆r , M )
N C( r , ∆r , M )
St PP K P , r , ∆r , M
2
4
2 3
16.π .r .h . N X( r , ∆r , M ) . N X( r , ∆r , M )
ln
4
N C( r , ∆r , M )
27.c .M .∆r N C( r , ∆r , M )
K P( r , ∆r , M )
∆Λ ( r , ∆r , M )
1
4
1
∆Λ EGM( r , ∆r , M )
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
.
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
ω PV( 1 , r , M )
.
∆ω δr( 1 , r , ∆r , M )
Fundamental Particle Equations
mγ
512.h .G.m e
c . π .r e
2
.
n Ω r e, m e
ln 2 .n Ω r e , m e
5
m gg
φ γγ
φ gg
2 .m γγ
2.
r γγ
r e.
r γγ
γ
2
m γγ
m e .c
r gg
2
ω Ω ( r, M )
St ζ( r , M )
r gg
h .ω Ω r e , m e
EΩ
ω Ce
5
3
4 .r γγ
Kω
St η ( r , M )
2
Nγ
Kλ
π
ω Ω ( r, M )
ω CP
EΩ
mγ
1
Kω
St θ ( r , M )
m γγ
Km
mγ
Nγ
Kλ
ω Ω ( r, M )
ω CN
Note: the highlighted equation is not included as a constraint. This is the most significant difference
between the calculation engine and the “complete algorithm” of Appendix 3.K.
5
1
rπ
c .ω Ce
rν
4
5
2.
.
3
27.ω h ω Ce ω CP
.
.
5
4
1 .
32.π
4
3
ω CN
1
ω CP
1
5
rε
1 . me
r π.
9
2 mp
2
ω CN
369
www.deltagroupengineering.com
5
r ε.
rµ rτ
1 . mµ
9
4 me
2 5
1 . mτ
9
6 me
5
2
r ε.
r en r µn r τn
m en
me
2
5
r µ.
5
2
m µn
m τn
r τ.
mµ
2
mτ
Given
5
1 . me
r ε r π.
9
2 mp
rε
α
2
2
.e
3
rπ
rµ
rε
α
.e
rτ
rν
rε
rπ
π
rν
rε
rπ
rν
rµ
rτ
1
5
Find r ε , r π , r ν , r µ , r τ , r en , r µn , r τn
3 .r xq. 2
r uq
m dq
5
2
r dq
m uq
r uq
m dq
.
2
m uq
r en
r µn
r τn
5
St dq
ω Ω r dq , m dq
St dq
floor St dq
St sq
ω Ω r xq, m sq
St sq
floor St sq
St cq
St bq
St tq
1
ω Ω r uq , m uq
. ω Ω r xq, m cq
St cq
floor St cq
ω Ω r xq, m bq
St bq
floor St bq
ω Ω r xq, m tq
St tq
floor St tq
m sq
2
St sq
9
m cq
2
5
r sq
r cq
r bq
5
r uq
.
1
m uq
St cq
.
2
5
m bq
r tq
2
St bq
5
m tq
9
2
St tq
370
9
9
www.deltagroupengineering.com
St uq
ω Ω r uq , m uq
St uq
floor St uq
St dq
ω Ω r dq , m dq
St dq
floor St dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
St sq
floor St sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
St cq
floor St cq
St bq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
St bq
floor St bq
St tq
ω Ω r tq , m tq
St tq
floor St tq
St sq
1
St cq
ω Ω r ε, m e
.
9
5
St uq .r uq
m uq
9
5
St dq .r dq
m dq
m sq
me
m cq
rε
m bq
5
9
5
St sq .r sq
.
1 . m tq
r uq .
9
10 m uq
r tq
9
5
St cq .r cq
5
2
r u( M )
h
4 .π .c .M
rW
r u mW
rZ
r u mZ
rH
r u mH
9
5
St bq .r bq
m tq
9
5
St tq .r tq
ω Ω r u mW ,mW
St W
round St W , 0
. ω Ω r u mZ ,mZ
St Z
round St Z , 0
ω Ω r u mH ,mH
St H
round St H , 0
St W
1
St Z
ω Ω r uq , m uq
St H
5
1
St W
rW
5
m uq
rH
5
1
r uq .
rZ
.
2
9
.m 2
W
1 .
2
mZ
9
St Z
5
rµ
rL
rε
rτ
3
1 .
2
mH
9
St H
r QB
1.
9
r uq
m QB St ω , r QB
Let:
x
r dq
r sq
r cq
9
m uq . St ω .
r bq
r QB
r uq
r tq
rW
rZ
rH
m L St ω , r L
9
m e . St ω .
rL
5
rε
5
V( r )
4. . 3
πr
3
Q( r )
1
V( r )
Q ch ( r )
Q( r )
3
r dr
5.
rν
3
1
2
371
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Given
2
x
ln( x) .
1
1 3
2
x
x
Find( x)
KS
rX
2
3 . π .r ν ( 1 x) .x3
.
2
8
1 x x
2
6 .b 1 .K X . x
3 .b 1 . x
2
1
r νM
KS
2.
3
rν
rν.
rν
. e
3
5
2
π .r ν . x
r πE
2
2
x
1
fm
r
2
0.113. fm
1
r dr .
1
fm
1
K S.
KS
2
fm
2
x .r ν
1.
e
3
x
r πM
KX
r dr
2
rν
1
rν
KS
.
3 .r ν
1
r
ρ ch ( r )
2
b1
10.r ν
∞
rν
V
volt
Given
r dr
rν
r ν .ρ ch r νM
ρ ch ( r ) d r
rν
r dr
r ν .ρ ch r πE
ρ ch ( r ) d r
rν
∞
r ν .ρ ch r πM
ρ ch ( r ) d r
r dr
rν
r νM
r πE
Find r νM , r πE, r πM
r πM
r νM
r νM
r πE
r πE .( fm)
r πM
r πM
5
5
r ν2 r ν3 r ν5
m en
1 .
r ε.
2
9
me
2
2
5
r µ.
m µn
9
3
2
rν
5
r τ.
m τn
r ν .( fm)
KS
K S . fm
2
2
9
5
372
www.deltagroupengineering.com
λ PV( 1 , r , M )
λ A( r, M )
2 .n Ω ( r , M )
Given
λ A K ω .r x, m AMC
1
λB
rx
Find r x
Particle Summary Matrix 3.1
2
0.69. fm
0.848.( fm)
rπ
r πE
KX
KS
=
0.113
2
0.113364
0.857.( fm)
r πM
fm
1.
r πE
2
830.702612 830.662386
=
r νM
rν
rp
848.636631
848
850.059022
857
874.696943
875
( am)
826.944318 825.617412
rν
rX
r νM
0.879.( fm)
879.064943
879
2
rε
.e
3
rπ
m tq = 178.440506
GeV
c
rε
2
.e
rµ
.
7.29735310
3
rτ
= 7.29735310
.
3
rν
λ A K ω .r Bohr , m p
λB
3.141593
=
657.329013
656.469624
( nm)
rε
rπ
1 .r ε .
e
α rπ
rµ
2
1 .r ε .
e
α rν
3
rπ
M Error
2
0.69. fm
1 . 1.
r νM
rp 2
rν
rν
rτ
rε
1.
π rπ
rν
r πE
r πM
0.848.( fm)
0.857.( fm)
1
r πE
rν
KS
rX
KX
r νM
m tq .c
0.879.( fm)
178.( GeV)
2
λ A K ω .r Bohr , m p
λB
373
www.deltagroupengineering.com
0
.
4.8425510
M Error =
.
1.11022310
0
3
0.034635
.
7.38826910
3
0.075074
0.809916
0.160717
0.321692
0.247475
0.130911
1.
M Error
0,0
Error Av
12
13
M Error
M Error
0, 1
+ M Error
2, 0
(%)
M Error
0, 2
M Error
M Error
2, 1
M Error
1, 0
1,1
M Error
2, 2
3,0
M Error
3, 1
M Error
1, 2
...
M Error
3, 2
Error Av = 0.149388 ( % )
Particle Summary Matrix 3.2
2
rε
. c .e
r e ω Ce
r π_1
r π_2
c .ω Ce
5
3
rπ
r ν_1
2
r π_av
r π_Error
r ν_Error
∆r π
r π_av
r π_1
2 r ν_1
r ν_2
∆r ν
r ν_av
r ν_1
∆r π
1 .
r ν_av
r ν_2
∆r ν
2
6 .b 1 .K X . x
rX KX
3
r π_2
1 .
r π_av
r π_2
3 .b 1 . x
2
1
r π_Error
r ν_Error
r π_1
r π_2
r ν_1
r ν_2
r π_av r ν_av
1
∆r π
=
∆K X
2
( 0.69 0.02) . fm
2
π
27.ω h ω Ce
.
4 ω
.
32 π
CN
2
. 14
2.22044610
4
( %)
0
830.702606
830.594743
826.944318
826.941624
830.648674
826.942971
.
1.34683810
( am)
3
2
0.005. fm
2
0.69. fm
( 0.69 0.02) . fm
1=
0.053931
∆r ν
. 3 ( YHz)
ω Ω r π , m p = 2.61722210
1.
.
4 .ω CN
r π_1
1.
r ν_av
c .ω Ce
r ν_2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
.
.
3
4
4 .ω CP
32.π ω CP
5
rε
=
830.662386
12.03985
( am)
2
r X_av
r X_Error
1.
2
rX KX
rX KX
∆K X
∆K X
rX KX
∆r X_av
∆K X
∆r X_av
r X_av
rX KX
∆K X
1
r X_av
374
www.deltagroupengineering.com
rX KX
∆K X
rX KX
∆K X
843.685579
807.144886
=
r X_av
825.415232
∆r X_av
18.270346
m γ = 5.746734 10
φ
1 . γγ
λ h φ gg
=
m γγ
17 .
eV
1.152898
1.521258
r X_Error = 0 ( % )
( am)
m gg
=
3.195095
6.39019
φ
1 . γγ
K λ .λ h φ gg
=
10
45 .
eV
0.991785
1.308668
Particle Summary Matrix 3.3
The following is accurate to “1 or 2” decimal places (as implied by the results):
ω Ω r π, m p
ω Ω r ν ,mn
ω Ω r ν,mn
ω Ω r ε,m e
ω Ω r π, m p
0.5
2
ω Ω r L, m L 2 , r L
1
4
ω Ω r L, m L 3 , r L
1
6
ω Ω r µ,mµ
3
ω Ω r µn , m µn
4
4
ω Ω r L, m L 2 , r L
2
ω Ω r L, m L 3 , r L
ω Ω r µn , m µn
8
ω Ω r L, m L 5 , r L
8
ω Ω r τ,m τ
10
ω Ω r L, m L 5 , r L
12
ω Ω r τ, m τ
12
ω Ω r τn , m τn
ω Ω r τn , m τn
.
0.5
ω Ω r en , m en
1
ω Ω r µ,mµ
1
ω Ω r ε, m e
ω Ω r en , m en
ω Ω r uq , m uq
= 14
ω Ω r dq , m dq
14
1
ω Ω r ε,m e
.
ω Ω r uq , m uq
2
5
6
=
6
7
7
28
ω Ω r dq , m dq
42
ω Ω r cq , m cq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
56
ω Ω r bq , m bq
70
ω Ω r cq , m cq
28
84
ω Ω r bq , m bq
35
ω Ω r QB, m QB 5 , r QB
ω Ω r QB, m QB 5 , r QB
42
ω Ω r QB, m QB 6 , r QB
98
112
ω Ω r W,mW
ω Ω r QB, m QB 6 , r QB
126
56
ω Ω r Z, m Z
140
ω Ω r W,mW
63
ω Ω r Z, m Z
70
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r H, m H
14
21
49
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r tq , m tq
ω Ω r tq , m tq
375
www.deltagroupengineering.com
ω Ω r π, m p
ω Ω r ν,mn
ω Ω r ε, m e
0.07
ω Ω r en , m en
0.07
ω Ω r L, m L 2 , r L
0.14
ω Ω r L, m L 3 , r L
0.14
14
0.29
ω Ω r µ,mµ
1
0.43
7
ω Ω r µn , m µn
0.57
0.07
1
0.57
0.07
ω Ω r L, m L 5 , r L
7
0.71
2
0.86
7
0.86
3
1
7
1
4
2
7
3
4
ω Ω r cq , m cq
4
7
0.86
ω Ω r bq , m bq
5
5
0.86
ω Ω r QB, m QB 5 , r QB
6
ω Ω r τ, m τ
1
ω Ω r τn , m τn
.
=
ω Ω r uq , m uq
ω Ω r uq , m uq
ω Ω r dq , m dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
1
14
1
8
ω Ω r W,mW
9
ω Ω r Z, m Z
10
0.14
0.29
= 0.43
0.57
0.57
0.71
7
6
7
ω Ω r QB, m QB 6 , r QB
0.14
7
6
7
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r tq , m tq
Particle Summary Matrix 3.4
φ γγ
φ gg
r Bohr
rx
=
4.670757
6.163101
10
35 .
1 = 0.352379 ( % )
m
.
r x = 5.27319110
m γγ
m gg
=
11
( m)
3.195095
6.39019
10
376
φ
1 . γγ
K λ .λ h φ gg
=
0.991785
1.308668
45 .
eV
www.deltagroupengineering.com
rε
me
rπ
11.807027
mp
. 4
5.10998910
rν
830.702612
mn
0.938272
rµ
826.944318
mµ
0.939565
rτ
8.215954
mτ
r en
12.240673
m en
0.095379
r µn
r uq
=
0.768186
m uq =
( am)
1.091334
9
4
1.9.10
1.958664
0.887904
r sq
3 .10
m τn
1.013628
r dq
1.776989
m µn
0.655235
r τn
0.105658
0.0182
. 3
3.50490310
m dq
. 3
7.00980510
m sq
0.113909
r cq
1.070961
m cq
1.182905
r bq
0.92938
m bq
4.11826
r tq
1.284033
m tq
rW
1.061716
mW
91.1876
mZ
114.4
0.940438
rZ
rH
r QB
c
2
178.440506
80.425
mH
m L 2, r L
rL
GeV
.
9.15554710
m L 3, r L
=
10.754551
1.005287
0.056767
m L 5, r L
( am)
3
=
0.565476
m QB 5 , r QB
9.596205
m QB 6 , r QB
21.797922
GeV
c
2
3
λ Ce λ CP λ CN λ Cµ λ Cτ = 2.42631.10 1.32141 1.319591 11.734441 0.697721 ( fm)
.
ω Ce ω CP ω CN ω Cµ ω Cτ = 7.76344110
1.
6
1.
6
r uq
m uq
r dq
r sq
m dq
r cq
m sq
r bq
m cq
4
1.425486 1.427451 0.160523 2.699721 ( YHz)
r tq = 0.960232 ( am)
m bq
m tq = 30.644349
GeV
c
2
Similarity Equations
SSE 3 E rms, B rms, r , ∆r , M
φ 4C_S( r , ∆r , M )
K PV( r , M ) . St α ( r , ∆r , M ) ln 2.n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M )
γ
.
π .E rms.B rms
n Ω_ZPF( r , ∆r , M ) 1
Re acos SSE 3 E C( r , ∆r , M ) , B C( r , ∆r , M ) , r , ∆r , M
377
www.deltagroupengineering.com
φ 5C_S( r , ∆r , M )
Re asin SSE 3 E C( r , ∆r , M ) , B C( r , ∆r , M ) , r , ∆r , M
1
SSE 4 φ, DC_E, DC_B, E rms , B rms , r , ∆r , M
.SSE ( 1
3
DC_E) .E rms , ( 1
DC_B ) .B rms , r , ∆r , M
.SSE ( 1
3
DC_E) .E rms , ( 1
DC_B ) .B rms , r , ∆r , M
cos ( φ)
1
SSE 5 φ, DC_E, DC_B , E rms , B rms , r , ∆r , M
sin ( φ)
Calculation Results
K PV R E, M M
K PV R E, M E
K PV R E, M J
K PV R E, 2 .M M
K PV R E, 2 .M E
K PV R E, 2 .M J
K 0 R E, M M
K 0 R E, M E
K 0 R E, M J
∆K 0 R E, M M
∆K 0 R E, M E
∆K 0 R E, M J
K EGM_N R E, M M
K EGM_N R E, M E
K EGM_N R E, M J
1
1
1.000001
K EGM_E R E, M M
K EGM_E R E, M E
K EGM_E R E, M J
1
1
1
=
1
1
1
1
1
1.000001
1
.
8.55887110
1
12
.
6.96005110
K PV R E, M S
K PV R E, 2 .M S
3
K PV R E, M E .e
K PV R S , M S
3.
e
∆K 0 R E , M E
∆K 0 R S , M S
ω PV 1 , R E, M M
ω PV 1 , R E, M E
K 0 R E, M E
= 1.000008
.
8.27226110
=
e
=1
0.035839
∆K 0 R E , M E
e
( Hz)
K 0 R S, M S
2.484128
T PV 1 , R E, M S
λ PV 1 , R E, M M
. 7
3.62406910
λ PV 1 , R E, M J
λ PV 1 , R E, M S
Ω R E, M M
Ω R E, M E
Ω R E, M J
Ω R E, M S
=
. 6
8.36497210
. 6
1.2259310
1.000927
K EGM_E R E, M S
1
=
U m R E, M E
U m R E, M J
27.902544
4.089263
6.080707
494.481475
=
. 5
1.57089110
. 8
1.64551410
. 29
2.83606210
n Ω R E, M M
. 28
2.36338510
. 29
1.73968910
n Ω R E, M E
. 28
9.17216810
n Ω R E, M J
. 28
4.2341410
n Ω R E, M S
378
(s)
0.402556
U m R E, M S
. 5
1.20683210
4
120.885935
U m R E, M M
( km)
.
2.31613510
K EGM_N R E, M S
T PV 1 , R E, M E
ω PV 1 , R E, M S
=
0.999305
= 1.000008
T PV 1 , R E, M J
λ PV 1 , R E, M E
=
∆K 0 R S , M S
0.244543
ω PV 1 , R E, M J
1.000927
∆K 0 R E, M S
T PV 1 , R E, M M
3
7
2.2111.10
1.000463
K 0 R E, M S
=1
0.999999
10
=
( EPa)
. 28
1.44974110
. 27
7.64347410
. 27
3.5284510
www.deltagroupengineering.com
ω Ω R E, M M
ω Ω R E, M E
. 3
1.86915710
ω Ω R E, M S
. 3
8.76512110
S m R E, M M
0.182295
S m R E, M J
( YHz)
S m R E, M S
∆ω PV R E, M J
.
4.70941210
N ∆r R E, M E
YW
N ∆r R E, M J
2
cm
. 6
4.93312710
∆ω δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
=
∆ω δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M J
=
1.729554
∆λ δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M M
7.493187
∆λ δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
( pHz )
519.469801
∆ω δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M S
. 14
6.52135710
N ∆r R E, M S
51.128768
∆λ δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M J
.
1.33585910
4
∆v δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M M
∆λ Ω R E, ∆r , M E
.
5.02660110
5
∆v δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
.
1.39724710
5
∆λ Ω R E, ∆r , M J
∆λ Ω R E, ∆r , M S
.
2.97920610
∆v Ω R E, ∆r , M M
13.105112
∆v Ω R E, ∆r , M E
∆v Ω R E, ∆r , M J
=
∆K C R E, ∆r , M J
∆K C R E, ∆r , M S
∆v δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M J
. 16
2.9237310
7.577156
=
pm
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E
13.105115
s
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M J
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M S
1.74894
0.256316
13.105101
=
13.10513
pm
13.105131
s
13.109717
2.860531
232.617621
=
.
2.78399910
4
. 7
7.74094810
ω Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E
( MPa .MΩ )
ω Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M J
. 7
2.9162510
( GPa)
. 4
7.389910
ω Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M M
87.634109
( m)
0.025237
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M M
1.077649
=
. 15
6.23483610
∆v δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M S
6
13.105121
∆K C R E, ∆r , M M
∆K C R E, ∆r , M E
( ym )
13.109693
∆v Ω R E, ∆r , M S
. 15
1.73310910
∆λ δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M S
∆λ Ω R E, ∆r , M M
=
( YHz)
. 3
1.86915710
. 3
8.76512110
∆ω PV R E, M S
3
∆ω δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M M
519.573099
=
N ∆r R E, M M
14.824182
=
195.505363
∆ω PV R E, M E
519.573099
=
ω Ω R E, M J
S m R E, M E
∆ω PV R E, M M
195.505363
123.501066
370.868276
=
. 3
1.56573710
ω Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M S
. 3
8.90753610
n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M M
. 19
1.49295410
( PHz)
KR2 = 99.99999999999999(%)
∆ω ZPF R E, ∆r , M M
∆ω ZPF R E, ∆r , M E
∆ω ZPF R E, ∆r , M J
∆ω ZPF R E, ∆r , M S
123.501066
n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E
370.868276
=
. 3
1.56573710
( PHz)
n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M J
. 3
8.90753610
n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M S
379
=
. 19
1.03481710
. 18
6.40270810
. 18
3.5857810
www.deltagroupengineering.com
ω β R E, ∆r , M M , K R2
ω β R E, ∆r , M E, K R2
=
ω β R E, ∆r , M J , K R2
41.841506
167.366022
∆n S R E, ∆r , M M , K R2
∆n S R E, ∆r , M E, K R2
∆n S R E, ∆r , M J , K R2
∆ω R R E, ∆r , M M
=
∆ω R R E, ∆r , M J
∆ω R R E, ∆r , M S
St α R E, ∆r , M M
St α R E, ∆r , M J
∆ω Ω R E, ∆r , M J
. 18
3.58539910
∆ω Ω R E, ∆r , M S
8.19356
∆ω S R E, ∆r , M E, K R2
9.615565
∆ω S R E, ∆r , M J , K R2
11.66707
∆ω S R E, ∆r , M S , K R2
St β R E, ∆r , M M
St β R E, ∆r , M E
( MPa .MΩ )
St β R E, ∆r , M J
5
St δ R E, ∆r , M M
St γ R E, ∆r , M E
.
5.83032610
5
St δ R E, ∆r , M E
.
2.0974410
St γ R E, ∆r , M S
.
9.83425710
St ε 1 , R E, ∆r , M M
St ε 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
St ε 1 , R E, ∆r , M J
=
St ε 1 , R E, ∆r , M S
2.
e
2.
G .M M
. 1
2
.
REc
G .M J
. 1
2
R E .c
1.
St δ R E, ∆r , M J
4
3
0.011474
1
=
1
1
1
1.000001
St ε n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M J , R E, ∆r , M J
1.000002
St ε n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M S , R E, ∆r , M S
=1
e
2.
2
2
= 1.000001
e
G .M S
. 1
2
R E .c
1.
( PHz)
. 3
8.90658910
.
2.01680710
1.000001
G .M E
. 1
2
.
REc
. 3
1.56556910
4
St ε n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E , R E, ∆r , M E
2.
370.826434
=
.
4.77711210
St ε n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M M , R E, ∆r , M M
2
( PHz)
123.486273
4
0.999999
2
1.
=
St δ R E, ∆r , M S
4
162.833549
.
1.59080310
St β R E, ∆r , M S
.
2.19383110
45.263389
763.476685
∆ω S R E, ∆r , M M , K R2
St γ R E, ∆r , M M
=
=
7.251258
. 7
2.9162510
St γ R E, ∆r , M J
e
. 18
6.40202410
. 4
2.78399910
St α R E, ∆r , M S
17.031676
∆ω Ω R E, ∆r , M E
1.0347.10
87.634109
=
. 14
3.81125810
∆ω Ω R E, ∆r , M M
1.077649
St α R E, ∆r , M E
. 14
6.84403710
n β R E, ∆r , M S , K R2
19
∆n S R E, ∆r , M S , K R2
. 15
1.16748410
=
n β R E, ∆r , M J , K R2
. 19
1.49277510
=
. 15
1.78829110
n β R E, ∆r , M E, K R2
( THz)
946.765196
ω β R E, ∆r , M S , K R2
∆ω R R E, ∆r , M E
n β R E, ∆r , M M , K R2
14.793206
1.000001
=
1
1.000003
1
2
2
=1
1.
2
2
= 1.000927
380
www.deltagroupengineering.com
N X R M , ∆r , M M
N X R E, ∆r , M E
N X R J , ∆r , M J
=
B C R M , ∆r , M M
B C R J , ∆r , M J
=
λ X R M , ∆r , M M
λ X R J , ∆r , M J
2
9.8181
ω X R M , ∆r , M M
6.364801
ω X R E, ∆r , M E
0.76984
( mgs )
=
36.419294
97.406507
294.339224
=
=
=
N C R J , ∆r , M J
N C R S , ∆r , M S
ln 2 .N X R E, ∆r , M E
γ
ln 2 .N C R E, ∆r , M E
ln 2 .N X R J , ∆r , M J
γ
ln 2 .N C R J , ∆r , M J
ln 2 .N X R S , ∆r , M S
γ
ln 2 .N C R S , ∆r , M S
8.231693
3.077746
( PHz)
. 12
3.20180310
N C R E, ∆r , M E
γ
m
1.791481
N C R M , ∆r , M M
167.343325
volt
23.079214
10.073108
ω X R S , ∆r , M S
( nm )
190.811924
7.220558
ω X R J , ∆r , M J
ln 2 .N C R M , ∆r , M M
1.
2
E C R S , ∆r , M S
γ
2
1.
. 17
3.76223110
ln 2 .N X R M , ∆r , M M
1.
2
E C R J , ∆r , M J
29.761666
λ X R S , ∆r , M S
1.
. 17
3.15778710
0.240852
B C R S , ∆r , M S
λ X R E, ∆r , M E
.
2.29685210
E C R E, ∆r , M E
17
N X R S , ∆r , M S
B C R E, ∆r , M E
E C R M , ∆r , M M
. 17
2.15162910
. 12
4.18248610
. 13
1.53794510
. 13
3.14792110
1 . N X R M , ∆r , M M
ln
2
N C R M , ∆r , M M
γ
γ
γ
1 . N X R E, ∆r , M E
ln
2
N C R E, ∆r , M E
5.557718 5.557718
=
N X R J , ∆r , M J
1.
ln
2
N C R J , ∆r , M J
5.45678 5.45678
4.964882 4.964882
4.694305 4.694305
1 . N X R S , ∆r , M S
ln
2
N C R S , ∆r , M S
N T 1 , 2 , N C R M , ∆r , M M
N T 1 , 2 , N C R J , ∆r , M J
. 12 7.68972610
. 12
1.60090210
N T 1 , 2 , N X R M , ∆r , M M
N T 1 , 2 , N X R J , ∆r , M J
. 17 1.57889410
. 17
1.07581410
N T 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R M , ∆r , M M
N T 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R J , ∆r , M J
N T 1 , 2 , N C R E, ∆r , M E
N T 1 , 2 , N C R S , ∆r , M S
N T 1 , 2 , N X R E, ∆r , M E
N T 1 , 2 , N X R S , ∆r , M S
. 17 1.88111510
. 17
1.14842610
N T 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E
N T 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R S , ∆r , M S
. 18 8.57004510
. 18
5.17408410
N TR 1 , 1 , R M , ∆r , M M
N TR 1 , 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
N TR 1 , 1 , R J , ∆r , M J
N TR 1 , 1 , R S , ∆r , M S
=
=
. 18 7.16489910
. 18
4.83975610
. 12 1.57396110
. 13
2.09124310
. 4
6.72005410
Σ H 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R M , ∆r , M M
. 4
5.49159510
Σ H 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R E, ∆r , M E
. 4
2.05325110
Σ H 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R J , ∆r , M J
. 4
1.19514810
Σ H 1 , 2 , n Ω_ZPF R S , ∆r , M S
381
. 37
9.36929710
=
. 38
1.07084610
. 38
2.05343110
. 38
2.93782710
www.deltagroupengineering.com
F PP R M , ∆r
A PP R M
Σ HR 1 , 2 , R M , ∆r , M M
. 9
4.51591310
F PP R E, ∆r
Σ HR 1 , 2 , R E, ∆r , M E
. 9
3.01576110
A PP R E
.
4.21583910
F PP R J , ∆r
. 8
1.42837810
A PP R J
=
Σ HR 1 , 2 , R J , ∆r , M J
Σ HR 1 , 2 , R S , ∆r , M S
8
1.300126
=
1.300126
( fPa )
1.300126
1.300126
F PP R S , ∆r
A PP R S
F PV R M , ∆r , M M
F PP R M , ∆r
A PP R M
F PV R M , ∆r , M M
F PV R E, ∆r , M E
2.349179
F PP R E, ∆r
A PP R E
1.300007
F PV R E, ∆r , M E
=
F PV R J , ∆r , M J
0.074224
( fPa )
F PP R J , ∆r
0.015617
A PP R J
F PV R J , ∆r , M J
F PV R S , ∆r , M S
F PP R S , ∆r
A PP R S
F PV R S , ∆r , M S
∆Λ R M , ∆r , M M
∆Λ R E, ∆r , M E
∆Λ R J , ∆r , M J
=
44.65616
1
=
1
1.447168
St ∆Λ R E, ∆r , M E
0.029107
15 .
2
Hz
. 3
1.65163110
St ∆Λ R J , ∆r , M J
3
3
( %)
1
St ∆Λ R M , ∆r , M M
10
.
9.15864310
. 3
8.22480110
3.225809
.
3.39437710
∆Λ R S , ∆r , M S
1
3.225809
=
St ∆Λ R S , ∆r , M S
1.447168
10
0.029107
.
3.39437710
15 .
2
Hz
3
ω PV 1 , R M , M M
∆ω δr 1 , R M , ∆r , M M
Λ R R M , ∆r , M M
Λ R R E, ∆r , M E
Λ R R J , ∆r , M J
Λ R R S , ∆r , M S
=
1
ω PV 1 , R E, M E
1
∆ω δr 1 , R E, ∆r , M E
1
ω PV 1 , R J , M J
1
∆ω δr 1 , R J , ∆r , M J
. 9
1.303510
=
. 9
4.78288210
. 10
5.36192210
. 11
5.22005110
ω PV 1 , R S , M S
∆ω δr 1 , R S , ∆r , M S
382
www.deltagroupengineering.com
2
U m R M,M M
3 .
2
∆U PV R M , ∆r , M M
2
U m R E, M E
3 .
2
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E
9
1.3035.10
=
2
U m R J, M J
3 .
2
∆U PV R J , ∆r , M J
. 9
4.78288510
10
5.3619.10
. 11
5.21985810
2
U m R S, M S
3 .
2
∆U PV R S , ∆r , M S
∆ω δr_Error R M , ∆r , M M
∆ω δr_Error R E, ∆r , M E
∆ω δr_Error R J , ∆r , M J
∆ω δr_Error R S , ∆r , M S
∆ω δr_Error R WD , ∆r , M WD
∆ω δr_Error R RG, ∆r , M RG
∆ω δr_Error R NS , ∆r , M NS
∆ω δr_Error R BH, ∆r , M BH
=
.
2.45448210
7
.
6.56319310
.
4.09314210
4
.
3.69917510
0.023754
0.195216
5.248215
27.272806
∆Λ EGM R M , ∆r , M M
∆Λ EGM R E, ∆r , M E
3.225809
1.447169
∆Λ EGM R J , ∆r , M J
∆Λ EGM R S , ∆r , M S
0.029107
.
3.39425210
3
∆Λ EGM R WD , ∆r , M WD
∆Λ EGM R RG, ∆r , M RG
.
8.47616310
12
∆Λ EGM R NS , ∆r , M NS
∆Λ EGM R BH, ∆r , M BH
∆Λ Error R M , ∆r , M M
∆Λ Error R E, ∆r , M E
∆Λ Error R J , ∆r , M J
∆Λ Error R S , ∆r , M S
∆Λ Error R WD , ∆r , M WD
∆Λ Error R RG, ∆r , M RG
∆Λ Error R NS , ∆r , M NS
∆Λ Error R BH, ∆r , M BH
K P R M , ∆r , M M
K P R E, ∆r , M E
K P R J , ∆r , M J
K P R S , ∆r , M S
=
.
2.30813410
6
. 15
5.25385210
=
.
2.45448210
7
.
4.09314210
4
5
3
(%)
10
15 .
2
Hz
. 9
1.42948610
.
6.56319310
.
3.69917510
0.023754
0.195216
5.248215
27.272806
5
3
(%)
265.650431
480.043646
=
. 3
8.40786210
. 4
3.99605210
2 .G.M M ∆U PV R M , ∆r , M M
.
3
U m R M,M M
RM
2 .G.M E ∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E
.
3
U m R E, M E
RE
2 .G.M J ∆U PV R J , ∆r , M J
.
3
U m R J, M J
RJ
3.225809
=
1.447168
10
0.029107
.
3.39437710
15 .
2
Hz
3
2 .G.M S ∆U PV R S , ∆r , M S
.
3
U m R S, M S
RS
383
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1
2 .G.M M .
1
∆r
RM
3
RM
1
2 .G.M E.
1
∆r
RE
3
RJ
1
∆r
3
∆r
3
RS
1.447168
=
3
RJ
1
2 .G.M S .
3.225809
3
RE
1
2 .G.M J .
3
.
3.39437710
15 .
10
0.029107
2
Hz
3
1
3
RS
2 .G.M M ∆U PV R M , ∆r , M M
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
M
3
U
R
,
M
RM
m M
M
R M ∆r
2 .G.M E ∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
E
3
U m R E, M E
RE
R E ∆r
2 .G.M J ∆U PV R J , ∆r , M J
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
J
3
U
R
,
M
RJ
m J
J
R J ∆r
3
3
3
3
∆r
RE
3
1
∆Λ EGM R J , ∆r , M J . 2 .G.M J .
∆r
RJ
3
1
∆Λ EGM R S , ∆r , M S . 2 .G.M S .
RS
3
1
1
1
1
1
=
.
2.45448210
7
.
6.56319710
5
. 4
4.09312510
(%)
. 3
3.69903810
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
RE
=
1
1
3
.
2.45448210
7
.
6.56319710
5
.
4.09312510
4
.
3.69903810
3
( %)
1
1
∆r
0
1
RM
RJ
(%)
3
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
RS
1
1
∆Λ EGM R E, ∆r , M E . 2 .G.M E.
1
3
1
1
0
=
1
RJ
2 .G.M S ∆U PV R S , ∆r , M S
.
3
U m R S, M S
RS
3
1
1
2 .G.M J ∆U PV R J , ∆r , M J
.
∆Λ EGM R J , ∆r , M J .
3
U m R J, M J
RJ
∆r
1
3
2 .G.M E ∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E
.
∆Λ EGM R E, ∆r , M E .
3
U m R E, M E
RE
RM
3
RE
2 .G.M M ∆U PV R M , ∆r , M M
.
∆Λ EGM R M , ∆r , M M .
3
U m R M, M M
RM
∆Λ EGM R M , ∆r , M M . 2 .G.M M .
1
RM
1
2 .G.M S ∆U PV R S , ∆r , M S
1
.
. 2 .G.M .
S
3
U m R S, M S
RS
R S ∆r
∆Λ EGM R S , ∆r , M S .
1
1
1
3
RS
384
www.deltagroupengineering.com
5
λ CP
c .m e
5
4
27.m e
.
.
K PV r p , m p .m p
3
128.G.π .h
8 .π
2
3
λ CN
5
2
16.π .λ Ce
c .ω Ce
2
5
2
3
16.c .π .m p
4
λ CP m e λ CN m e
r ν λ CN ω CP m p
r π λ CP ω CN m n
rν
.
830.594743
= 830.594743 ( am)
4 .ω CN
3
830.594743
4
2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
.
4
32.π ω CN
2
3
16.c .π .m n
5
.
826.941624
= 826.941624 ( am)
826.941624
2
4
27.m h m e
.
mn
4 .π
= ( 0.315205 0.315205 0.315205) ( % )
St θ r ν , m n
. 5 1.83602.103 1.83868.103
= 3.21927910
ω PV 1 , r e , m e
ω PV 1 , r π , m p
ω PV 1 , r ν , m n
ω Ω r e, m e
ω Ω r π, m p
ω Ω r ν ,mn
ω PV 1 , r π , m p
ω Ω r π, m p
ω PV 1 , r e , m e
ω Ω r e,m e
ω PV 1 , r ν , m p
ω Ω r ν,mn
ω PV 1 , r e , m e
ω Ω r e,m e
=
ω Ω r ν ,mn
ω PV 1 , r e , m e
ω PV 1 , r ν , m p
ω PV 1 , r ν , m n
2 .π .c .
λ Ce
2
λ CP
0.568793
35.500829
35.73252
. 17 2.61722210
. 18 2.62462610
. 18
2.49926810
( GHz)
62.792864 10.50158
ω Ω r π, m p
2
=
62.414364 10.471952
ω Ω r e, m e
ω Ce
.
h .m e
St η r π , m p
ω CP
5
2
4 .π .λ h λ Ce
= ( 0.995476 0.998623 0.998623 0.998623)
r π λ CN ω CP m p
ω Ω r π, m p
c .ω Ce
λ
. CN
27
. 3 1.83615310
. 3 1.83868410
. 3 1.83868410
. 3
= 1.83615310
λ CP ω CN m n
St ζ r e , m e
5
.
2
16.π .λ Ce
2
4
27.m h m e
.
mp
4 .π
λ Ce m p λ Ce m n
( am)
4
2
K PV r n , m n .m n
3
2
4
27.ω h ω Ce
.
.
3
4
4 .ω CP
32.π ω CP
1
λ CN
.
4 .π .λ h λ Ce
.
826.941624
λ CN
5
h .m e
830.594743
=
4
λ
. CP
27
.
4
2
K PV r p , m p .m p
5
K PV r n , m n .m n
λ CP
4
λ CP
.
ω CP.
mp
. 17 7.32784510
. 16 7.34520410
. 16
= 4.39398910
. 3 2.61741.103 2.61741.103 2.61741.103
= 2.61722210
( YHz)
me
385
www.deltagroupengineering.com
2
ω CN
ω Ω r ν ,mn
ω Ce
λ Ce
2 .π .c .
ω CN.
2
λ CN
2
ω Ω r ε,m e
2 .ω Ω r π , m p
mn
. 3 2.62463110
. 3 2.62463110
. 3 2.62463110
. 3
= 2.62462610
( YHz)
me
2
ω
. CP
ω Ω r π , m p ω Ce
ω
. CN
ω Ω r ν , m n ω Ce
1
1
= ( 99.985611 100.007215 100.000181) ( % )
m L 1, r ε
m L 2, r L
m L 3, r L
m L 4, r µ
m L 5, r L
m L 6, r τ
m L 7, r L
m L 8, r L
m L 9, r L
m L 10, r L
m L 11, r L
m L 12, r L
m L 13, r L
m L 14, r L
m L 15, r L
m L 16, r L
m L 17, r L
m L 18, r L
m L 19, r L
m L 20, r L
. 5 1.80208610
. 5 2.29847910
. 5 2.89523810
. 5
1.3933810
m L 21, r L
m L 22, r L
m L 23, r L
m L 24, r L
. 5 4.44581510
. 5 5.4303110
. 5 6.57657710
. 5
3.60608710
9.155547
0.510999
.
565.476231 1.77526210
3
=
56.766874
105.677748
.
2.5703410
. 3
4.6876410
3
. 3 1.27952710
. 4 1.96479110
. 4 2.90646410
. 4
7.96417210
MeV
. 4 5.81601510
. 4 7.93341210
. 4 1.06069210
. 5
4.16672110
c
m QB 1 , r dq
m QB 2 , r sq
m QB 3 , r cq
m QB 4 , r bq
.
7.00980510
m QB 5 , r QB
m QB 6 , r QB
m QB 7 , r W
m QB 8 , r Z
9.596205
21.797922
80.425
91.1876
m QB 9 , r H
m QB 10, r tq
m QB 11, r QB
m QB 12, r QB
114.4
178.440506
333.427609
493.23068
m QB 13, r QB
m QB 14, r QB
m QB 15, r QB
m QB 16, r QB
707.097922
986.98519
. 3 1.80000810
. 3
1.3463110
=
3
0.113909
1.182905
4.11826
m QB 17, r QB
m QB 18, r QB
m QB 19, r QB
m QB 20, r QB
.
2.36458310
m QB 21, r QB
m QB 22, r QB
m QB 23, r QB
m QB 24, r QB
. 3 7.54460610
. 3 9.21530610
. 3 1.11605410
. 4
6.11957610
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M M
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M E
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M J
∆U PV R E, ∆r , M S
3
.
.
3.05816410
3.90054810
3
2
3
GeV
c
2
.
4.91325710
3
2.860531
232.617621
=
4
7.3899.10
( GPa)
. 7
7.74094810
The following two result sets are accurate to “13” decimal places:
1
.
ω Ω r uq , m uq
1
ω Ω r ε,m e
.
ω Ω r dq , m dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
ω Ω r W,mW
ω Ω r Z, m Z
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r tq , m tq
ω Ω r dq , m dq
ω Ω r sq , m sq
ω Ω r cq , m cq
ω Ω r bq , m bq
ω Ω r W,mW
ω Ω r Z, m Z
ω Ω r H, m H
ω Ω r tq , m tq
=
=
1 2 3 4
7 8 9 10
7 14 21 28
49 56 63 70
Resonant Casimir Cavity Design Specifications (Experimental)
Given
∆ω R R E, ∆r , M E
∆r
Find ( ∆r )
1
∆r = 16.518377 ( mm)
E C R E, ∆r , M E = 550.422869
V
m
ω X R E, ∆r , M E = 16.340851 ( PHz)
B C R E, ∆r , M E = 18.360131( mgs )
SSE 4 0 .( deg ) , 0 .( % ) , 0 .( % ) , E C R E, ∆r , M E , B C R E, ∆r , M E , R E, ∆r , M E
SSE 5 90.( deg ) , 0 .( % ) , 0 .( % ) , E C R E, ∆r , M E , B C R E, ∆r , M E , R E, ∆r , M E
386
=
1
1
www.deltagroupengineering.com
MATHCAD 12
HIGH PRECISION
CALCULATION
RESULTS
[79]
387
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
388
www.deltagroupengineering.com
APPENDIX 3.M
Computational Environment
NOTE: KNOWLEDGE OF MATHCAD IS REQUIRED AND ASSUMED
This appendix denotes high precision calculation results obtained from the “MathCad 12”
computational environment utilising the calculation engine defined in “Appendix 3.L”.
•
•
•
Convergence Tolerance (TOL): 1014.
Constraint Tolerance (CTOL): 1014.
Calculation Display Tolerance: 6 figures – unless otherwise indicated.
Particle Summary Matrix 3.1
rπE +
( 2)
rπ
0.69⋅ fm
rπE
0.848⋅ ( fm)
rπM
1
2
⋅ ( rνM − rν )
rν
rνM
0.857⋅ ( fm)
rp
rX
0.879⋅ ( fm)
( )
KX −0.113 2
=
fm
KS −0.113348
2
−
rε
⋅e 3
rπ
rµ
−
rε ⋅ e rτ
rν
rε
rπ − rν
830.647087 830.662386
848.579832 848
849.993668
857
( am)
=
874.643564 875
826.889045 825.617615
879.016508 879
mtq = 178.470327
GeV
2
c
λA( Kω ⋅ rBohr , mp ) 657.329013
=
( nm)
λB
656.469624
7.297353× 10− 3
=
−3
7.297353× 10
3.141593
rµ
2
−
−
r
r
r
r
1 ε
1 ε
1
ε
3
τ
⋅ ⋅e
⋅ ⋅e
⋅
α rπ
α rν
π rπ − rν
rπ
rπE
rπM
0.848⋅ ( fm)
0.857⋅ ( fm)
2
0.69⋅ fm
M Error :=
−1
1 1
rν
KS
⋅ ⋅ ( rνM − rν ) + rπE
rX
KX
rp 2
2
rνM
mtq ⋅ c
λA ( Kω ⋅ rBohr , mp )
0.879⋅ ( fm)
178⋅ ( GeV)
λB
( )
389
www.deltagroupengineering.com
− 14
− 13
2.220446× 10
0
1.110223× 10
−1.841834× 10− 3
0.068376
−0.817542
M Error =
( %)
−0.040736
0.153997
0.308232
−3
0.264229
0.130911
1.87806× 10
1
ErrorAv :=
12
⋅ M Error
+ M Error
+ M Error
+ M Error
+ MError
+ MError
...
+ M 0, 0 + M 0, 1 + M 0, 2 + M 1, 0 + M 1, 1 + M 1, 2
Error2 , 0
Error2 , 1
Error2 , 2
Error3 , 0
Error3 , 1
Error3 , 2
ErrorAv = 0.148979(%)
Particle Summary Matrix 3.2
2
−
rε c
3
⋅
⋅e
r
ω
e Ce
rπ_1
:=
5
2
4
rπ_2
c⋅ ωCe
27⋅ ωh ωCe
⋅
⋅
4⋅ ω 3 32⋅ π4 ωCP
CP
rν_2
rν_av
∆rν
rπ_2
rε
rπ −
π
rν_1
5
:=
2
4
r
c⋅ ωCe
27⋅ ωh ωCe
ν_2
⋅
⋅
4⋅ ωCN3 32⋅ π4 ωCN
1 ⋅ (r
π_av + ∆rπ )
rπ_Error rπ_2
:=
r
1
ν_Error
rν_2 ⋅ ( rν_av + ∆rν )
∆rπ rπ_av − rπ_1
:=
∆rν rν_av − rν_1
rπ_1
r
ν_1
rπ_av
∆rπ
830.647081 830.594743
826.889045 826.941624
=
( am)
830.620912 826.915335
−0.026169 0.02629
rX ( KX ) :=
rπ_av 1 rπ_1 + rπ_2
:= ⋅
rν_av 2 rν_1 + rν_2
rπ_Error
0
− 1 = ( %)
0
rν_Error
(2 )
2
3⋅ b 1⋅ ( x − 1)
−6⋅ b 1⋅ KX ⋅ x − 1
( 2)
ωΩ ( rπ , mp ) = 2.617319× 10 ( YHz)
3
∆KX := 0.005⋅ fm
( )
2
0.69⋅ fm
830.662386
1
=
( am)
2
2
⋅ ( 0.69 + 0.02) ⋅ fm − ( 0.69 − 0.02) ⋅ fm 12.03985
2
( )
rX_av :=
1
2
( (
( )
)
(
⋅ rX KX − ∆KX + rX KX + ∆KX
rX_Error :=
(
)
rX KX − ∆KX − ∆rX_av
rX_av
−1
))
(
∆rX_av := rX_av − rX KX + ∆KX
rX( KX − ∆KX)
rX( KX + ∆KX)
rX_av
∆rX_av
390
)
843.685786
807.145085
=
( am)
825.415435
18.270351
www.deltagroupengineering.com
− 14
rX_Error = 2.220446× 10
φγγ 1.152898
=
λh φgg 1.521258
1
⋅
(
− 17
mγ = 5.746734 10
( %)
)
⋅ eV
(
)
mγγ 3.195095 − 45
=
10 ⋅ eV
mgg 6.39019
φγγ 0.991785
=
Kλ ⋅ λh φgg 1.308668
1
⋅
Particle Summary Matrix 3.3
The following is accurate to “1 or 2” decimal places (as implied by the results):
ωΩ ( rν , mn)
ωΩ ( rε , me)
ωΩ ( ren , men)
ωΩ ( rL , mL( 2, rL) )
ωΩ ( rL , mL( 3, rL) )
ωΩ ( rµ , mµ )
ωΩ ( rµn , mµn)
ω (r , m (5, r ) )
Ω L L
L
ωΩ ( rτ , mτ )
ωΩ ( rτn , mτn)
1
ωΩ ( ruq , muq)
⋅
ωΩ ( rπ , mp )
ωΩ ( rdq , mdq)
ωΩ ( rsq , msq )
ωΩ ( rcq , mcq)
ωΩ ( rbq , mbq)
ω (r , m (5 , r ) )
Ω QB QB QB
ωΩ ( rQB , mQB( 6 , rQB) )
ωΩ ( rW , mW)
ωΩ ( rZ , mZ )
ωΩ ( rH , mH)
ωΩ ( rtq , mtq )
ωΩ ( rπ , mp )
ωΩ ( rν , mn)
ωΩ ( rε , me)
ωΩ ( ren , men)
ωΩ ( rL , mL( 2, rL) )
ω (r , m ( 3, r ))
Ω L L
L
ωΩ ( rµ , mµ )
ωΩ ( rµn , mµn)
ωΩ ( rL , mL( 5, rL) )
ωΩ ( rτ , mτ )
ωΩ ( rτn , mτn)
1
⋅
ωΩ ( rε , me)
ωΩ ( ruq , muq)
ωΩ ( rdq , mdq)
ωΩ ( rsq , msq)
ωΩ ( rcq , mcq)
ωΩ ( rbq , mbq)
ωΩ ( rQB , mQB( 5, rQB) )
ωΩ ( rQB , mQB( 6, rQB) )
ωΩ ( rW , mW)
ωΩ ( rZ , mZ )
ωΩ ( rH , mH)
ωΩ ( rtq , mtq )
1
2
2
4
6
8
8
10
12
12
= 14
14
28
42
56
70
84
98
112
126
140
391
0.5
0.5
1
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
6
=
7
7
14
21
28
35
42
49
56
63
70
www.deltagroupengineering.com
ωΩ ( rπ , mp )
ωΩ ( rν , mn)
ωΩ ( rε , me)
ωΩ ( ren , men)
ωΩ ( rL , mL( 2, rL) )
ω ( r , m ( 3, r ))
Ω L L
L
ωΩ ( rµ , mµ )
ωΩ ( rµn , mµn)
ωΩ ( rL , mL( 5, rL) )
ωΩ ( rτ , mτ )
ωΩ ( rτn , mτn)
1
⋅
ωΩ ( ruq , muq)
ωΩ ( ruq , muq)
ωΩ ( rdq , mdq)
ωΩ ( rsq , msq)
ωΩ ( rcq , mcq)
ωΩ ( rbq , mbq)
ωΩ ( rQB , mQB( 5, rQB) )
ωΩ ( rQB , mQB( 6, rQB) )
ωΩ ( rW , mW)
ωΩ ( rZ , mZ )
ωΩ ( rH , mH)
ωΩ ( rtq , mtq )
0.07
0.07
0.14
0.14
0.29
0.43
0.57
0.57
0.71
0.86
0.86
=
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Particle Summary Matrix 3.4
rε
rπ 11.806238
r
830.647087
ν
826.889045
rµ
8.214055
rτ 12.237844
ren
0.095379
rµn
0.655235
rτn
1.958664
ruq = 0.768186 ( am)
r 1.013628
dq
rsq 0.887904
1.091334
rcq 1.070961
rbq
0.92938
rtq 1.283947
rW 1.061645
rZ 0.940375
r
H
me
mp
m
n
mµ
mτ
men
mµn
mτn
muq
m
dq
msq
mcq
mbq
mtq
mW
mZ
m
H
5.109989× 10− 4
0.938272
0.939565
0.105658
1.776989
3 × 10− 9
−4
1.9 × 10
0.0182
GeV
=
−3
3.505488× 10 2
c
−3
7.010977× 10
0.113928
1.183102
4.118949
178.470327
80.425
91.1876
114.4
392
(
)
φγγ 4.670757 − 35
=
10 ⋅ m
φgg 6.163101
www.deltagroupengineering.com
− 11
rx = 5.273191× 10
φγγ 0.991785
=
Kλ ⋅ λh φgg 1.308668
1
( m)
(
⋅
)
mγγ 3.195095 − 45
rL 10.752712
=
10 ⋅ eV
=
( am)
mgg 6.39019
rQB 1.005262
1
6
1
6
rBohr
rx
− 1 = 0.352379( %)
mL( 2, rL)
mL( 3, rL)
m ( 5, r )
L L
mQB( 5, rQB)
m 6, r
QB( QB)
9.153163× 10− 3
0.056752
GeV
=
0.565329 2
9.597226 c
21.800242
⋅ ( ruq + rdq + rsq + rcq + rbq + rtq ) = 0.960232( am)
⋅ ( muq + mdq + msq + mcq + mbq + mtq ) = 30.649471
GeV
2
c
The following two result sets are accurate to “13” decimal places:
1
ωΩ ( ruq , muq)
ωΩ ( rdq , mdq) ωΩ ( rsq , msq ) ωΩ ( rcq , mcq) ωΩ ( rbq , mbq) 1 2 3 4
=
ωΩ ( rW , mW) ωΩ ( rZ , mZ ) ωΩ ( rH , mH ) ωΩ ( rtq , mtq ) 7 8 9 10
⋅
ωΩ ( rdq , mdq) ωΩ ( rsq , msq ) ωΩ ( rcq , mcq) ωΩ ( rbq , mbq) 7 14 21 28
=
ωΩ ( rε , me) ωΩ ( rW , mW) ωΩ ( rZ , mZ ) ωΩ ( rH , mH ) ωΩ ( rtq , mtq ) 49 56 63 70
1
⋅
NOTES
393
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
394
www.deltagroupengineering.com
INDEX 3
•
Instances of significant appearance by mathematical symbol
Symbol
A
a
a1
a2
APP
ax(t)
a∞
Description
1st Harmonic term
Magnitude of acceleration vector
Acceleration with respect to General Modelling Equation One
Acceleration with respect to General Modelling Equation Two
Parallel plate area of a Classical Casimir Experiment
Arbitrary acceleration in the time domain
Mean magnitude of acceleration over the fundamental period in a FS
representation in EGM
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector
B
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity:
Ch. 3.2
Amplitude of applied Magnetic field: Ch. 3.6
B0
Magnitude of Magnetic field vector (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Magnitude of applied Magnetic field vector
BA
Critical Magnetic field strength
BC
Magnitude of PV Magnetic field vector
BPV
Bottom Quark: elementary particle in the SM
bq
Root Mean Square of BA
Brms
Velocity of light in a vacuum
c
Velocity of light in a vacuum (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity: Ch. 3.1
Velocity of light (locally) in the PV model of gravity
c0
Amplitude of fundamental frequency of PV (nPV = 1)
CPV(1,r,M)
CPV(nPV,r,M) Amplitude spectrum of PV
Charm Quark: elementary particle in the SM
cq
Common difference
D
Experimental configuration factor: a specific value relating all design
criteria; this includes, but not limited to, field harmonics, field orientation,
physical dimensions, wave vector, spectral frequency mode and
instrumentation or measurement accuracy
Offset function
DC
Down Quark: elementary particle in the SM
dq
Energy: Ch. 3.3
E
Magnitude of Electric field vector
Magnitude of Electric field vector (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity:
Ch. 3.2
Electronic energy level
Electron: subatomic / elementary particle in the SM
e, eAmplitude of applied Electric field: Ch. 3.6
E0
Energy (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Magnitude of Electric field vector (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Magnitude of applied Electric field vector
EA
Critical Electric field strength
EC
Magnitude of PV Electric field vector
EPV
Root Mean Square of EA
Erms
F(k,n,t) Complex FS representation of EGM
395
Page
164
88
103
164
99
94
88
102
152
102
110
31
110
73
151
38
92
102
119
118
73
164
102
31
72
114
88
100
265
69, 191
151
114
102
110
31
110
151
93
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Magnitude of the ambient gravitational acceleration represented in the time
domain
Amplitude spectrum / distribution of F(k,n,t)
F0(k)
The Casimir Force by classical representation
FPP
The Casimir Force by EGM
FPV
Gluon: theoretical elementary particle in the SM
g
Magnitude of gravitational acceleration vector
Universal gravitation constant
G
Tensor element
g00
Tensor element
g11
Tensor element
g22
Tensor element
g33
Height: Ch. 3.4
h
Higgs Boson: theoretical elementary particle in the SM
H
Hydrogen
Magnetic field strength
Planck's Constant (plain h form)
h
hbar
Planck's Constant (2π form)
HSE4A R Time average form of HSE4 R
HSE5A R Time average form of HSE5 R
Generalised reference to the reduced form of HSEx
HSEx R
Complex number
i
Initial condition
Macroscopic intensity of Photons within a test volume
In,P
Vector current density
J
Wave vector
k
K0(r,X) ERF by displacement domain precipitation
Generalised ERF
K0(X)
K0(ω
ω,r,E,B,X) ERF by wavefunction precipitation
K0(ω
ω,X) ERF by frequency domain precipitation
K0(ω
ωPV,r,EPV,BPV,X) ERF equivalent to K0(ω,r,E,B,X)
ERF formed by reinterpretation of the primary precipitant
K1
ERF formed by reinterpretation of the primary precipitant
K2
Harmonic wave vector of applied field
kA
Critical Factor
KC
Engineered Refractive Index
KEGM
Harmonic form of KEGM
KEGM H
Experimentally implicit Planck Mass scaling factor
Km
The intensity of the background PV field at specific frequency modes
Kn,P
A
refinement of a constant in FPP
KP
Harmonic wave vector of PV
kPV
Refractive Index of PV
KPV
Harmonic form of KPV
KPV H
Critical Ratio
KR
Critical harmonic operator (based upon the unit amplitude spectrum)
KR H
Neutron MS charge radius by EGM
KS
Neutron MS charge radius (determined experimentally) in the SM
KX
Experimentally implicit Planck Length scaling factor
Kλ
Experimentally implicit Planck Frequency scaling factor
Kω
Length
L
f(t)
396
95
94
30
63
81
85
38
114
123
75
63
104
38
238
36
149
110
93
134
93
92
87
92
32
118
99
110
31
32
149
63
93
166
110
36
149
31
226
36
63
46
www.deltagroupengineering.com
L0
L2
L3
L5
M
m0
M0
mAMC
mbq
mcq
mdq
me
ME
men
mgg
mH
mh
MJ
mL(2)
mL(3)
mL(5)
MM
mn
mp
mQB(5)
mQB(6)
MS
msq
mtq
muq
mW
mx
mZ
mε
mγ
mγg
mγγ
mµ
mµn
mτ
mτn
n
n, N
nA
nB
NC
nE
nPV
nq
NT
Length (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Theoretical elementary particle (Lepton) by EGM
Theoretical elementary particle (Lepton) by EGM
Theoretical elementary particle (Lepton) by EGM
Mass
Mass (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Zero mass (energy) condition of free space
Atomic Mass Constant
Bottom Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Charm Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Down Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Electron rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Mass of the Earth
Electron Neutrino rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Graviton rest mass (energy) by EGM
Higgs Boson rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Planck Mass
Mass of Jupiter
Rest mass (energy) of the L2 particle by EGM
Rest mass (energy) of the L3 particle by EGM
Rest mass (energy) of the L5 particle by EGM
Mass of the Moon
Neutron rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Proton rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Rest mass (energy) of the QB5 particle by EGM
Rest mass (energy) of the QB6 particle by EGM
Mass of the Sun
Strange Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
Top Quark rest mass (energy) according (energy) to PDG
Up Quark rest mass (energy) by EGM
W Boson rest mass according (energy) to PDG
Imaginary particle mass
Z Boson rest mass according (energy) to PDG
Electron rest mass (energy) in high energy scattering experiments
Photon rest mass (energy) threshold according to PDG
Graviton rest mass (energy) threshold according to PDG
Photon rest mass (energy) by EGM
Muon rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Muon Neutrino rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Tau rest mass (energy) according to NIST
Tau Neutrino rest mass (energy) according to PDG
Neutron: subatomic particle in the SM
Field harmonic (harmonic frequency mode)
Harmonic frequency modes of applied field
Harmonic mode number of the ZPF with respect to BA
Critical mode
Harmonic mode number of the ZPF with respect to EA
Harmonic frequency modes of PV
Quantum number
Number of terms
397
114
77
46
114
128
267
73
72
38
38
70
61
75
38
38
77
38
38
78
38
72
63
71
74
267
75
181
34
33
51
38
70
38
71
63
93, 94
110
151
31
151
110
265
164
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NTR
NX
N∆r
nΩ
nΩ ZPF
nβ
P
p
Q, Qe
QB5
QB6
r
r0
rBohr
rBoson
rbq
rc
rcq
rdq
re
RE
ren
RError
rgg
rH
RJ
rL
RM
rp
rQB
RS
rsq
rtq
ru
ruq
rW
rx
rxq
rZ
rε
rγγ
rµ
rµn
rν
rν2
The ratio of the number of terms
Harmonic inflection mode
Permissible mode bandwidth of applied experimental fields
Harmonic cutoff mode of PV
ZPF beat cutoff mode
Mode number of ωβ
Polarisation vector
Proton: subatomic particle in the SM
Magnitude of Electric charge
Theoretical elementary particle (Quark or Boson) by EGM
Theoretical elementary particle (Quark or Boson) by EGM
Arbitrary radius with homogeneous mass (energy) distribution
Generalised notation for length (e.g. r → λ/2π): Ch. 3.1
Generalised notation for length (locally) in the PV model of gravity: Ch. 3.1
Magnitude of position vector from centre of spherical object with
homogeneous mass (energy) distribution
Length (locally) in the PV model of gravity
Classical Bohr radius
Generalised RMS charge radius of a Boson by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Bottom Quark by EGM
Transformed value of generalised length (locally) in the PV model of gravity
RMS charge radius of the Charm Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Down Quark by EGM
Classical Electron radius in the SM
Mean radius of the Earth
RMS charge radius of the Electron Neutrino by EGM
Representation error
RMS charge radius of the Graviton by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Higgs Boson utilising ru
Mean radius of Jupiter
Average RMS charge radius of the rε, rµ and rτ particles
Mean radius of the Moon
Classical RMS charge radius of the Proton in the SM
Average RMS charge radius of the QB5 / QB6 particles by EGM utilising ru
Mean radius of the Sun
RMS charge radius of the Strange Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Top Quark by EGM
Heisenberg uncertainty range
RMS charge radius of the Up Quark by EGM
RMS charge radius of the W Boson utilising ru
Bohr radius by EGM
Generalised RMS charge radius of all Quarks as determined by the ZC
within the SM
RMS charge radius of the Z Boson by utilising ru
RMS charge radius of the Electron by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Photon by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Muon by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Muon Neutrino by EGM
Neutron RMS charge radius (by analogy to KS)
RMS charge radius of the ν2 particle by EGM
398
164
34
33
37
34
93
63
46, 265
78
88
91
92
88
102
267
201
73
92
73
72
38
38
70
36
62
75
38
77
38
38
78
38
72
74
201
71
74
268
197
75
69
61
69
70
36
263
www.deltagroupengineering.com
RMS charge radius of the ν3 particle by EGM
RMS charge radius of the ν5 particle by EGM
Neutron Magnetic radius by EGM
Generalised reference to rν2, rν3 and rν5
RMS charge radius of the Proton by EGM
Proton Electric radius by EGM
Proton Magnetic radius by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Tau by EGM
RMS charge radius of the Tau Neutrino by EGM
Rydberg Constant
Poynting Vector
Strange Quark: elementary particle in the SM
nth Harmonic term
Range factor
1st Sense check
3rd Sense check
4th Sense check
2nd Sense check
5th Sense check
6th Sense check
A positive integer value representing the harmonic cutoff frequency ratio
between two proportionally similar mass (energy) systems
Poynting Vector of PV
Sω
Time
t
Top Quark: elementary particle in the SM
tq
Change in Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) per unit mass induced by
Ug
any suitable source
Harmonic form of Ug
Ug H
Rest massenergy density
Um
Up Quark: elementary particle in the SM
uq
Field energy density of PV
Uω
Local value of the velocity of light in a vacuum
vc
W Boson: elementary particle in the SM
W
All variables within the experimental environment that influence results and
X
behaviour including parameters that might otherwise be neglected due to
practical calculation limitations, in theoretical analysis
Impedance function
Z
Z Boson: elementary particle in the SM
Change in electronic energy level
∆E
Change in the magnitude of the local PV acceleration vector
∆aPV
Change in magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration vector
∆g
∆GME1 Change in GME1
∆GME2 Change in GME2
∆GMEx Generalised reference to changes in GME1 and GME2
Harmonic form of ∆K0
∆K0 H
∆K0(ω
ω,X) Engineered Relationship Function by EGM
Change in K1 by EGM
∆K1
Change in K2 by EGM
∆K2
Change in Critical Factor by EGM
∆ KC
rν3
rν5
rνM
rνx
rπ
rπE
rπM
rτ
rτn
R∞
S
sq
StN
Stα
Stβ
Stδ
Stε
Stγ
Stη
Stθ
Stω
399
263
62
263
53
62
69
71
265
104
72
164
35
37
38
62
121
47
63
111
149
120
71
119
92
59
87
111
59
265
110
132
149
32
111
www.deltagroupengineering.com
∆nS
∆r
∆t
∆t0
∆ Ug
∆UPV
∆vΩ
∆vδr
∆ΛPV
∆λΩ
∆λδr
∆ωPV
∆ωR
∆ωS
∆ωZPF
∆ωΩ
∆ωδr
Π
ΣH
ΣHR
Ω
α
α1
αx
β
β1
βx
ε0
φ
φC
φgg
φγγ
γ
γg
λ
λA
λB
λCe
λCN
λCP
λh
λPV
Change in the number of ZPF modes
Plate separation of a Classical Casimir Experiment
Practical changes in benchtop displacement values
Change in time (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Change in time (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Initial state GPE per unit mass described by any appropriate method
Change in energy density of gravitational field
Change in rest massenergy density
Terminating group velocity of PV
Group velocity of PV
Change in the local value of the Cosmological Constant by EGM
Change in harmonic cutoff wavelength of PV
Change in harmonic wavelength of PV
Frequency bandwidth of PV
Bandwidth ratio
Similarity bandwidth
ZPF beat bandwidth
Beat bandwidth of PV
Beat frequency of PV
Dimensional grouping derived by application of BPT
The sum of terms
The ratio of the sum of terms
Harmonic cutoff function of PV
An inversely proportional description of how energy density may result in an
acceleration: Ch. 3.2
Fine Structure Constant
The subset formed, as “N → ∞”, by the method of incorporation
Generalised reference to α1 and α2
A directly proportional description of how energy density may result in an
acceleration
The subset formed, as “N → ∞”, by the method of incorporation
Generalised reference to β1 and β2
Permittivity of a vacuum
Relative phase variance between EA and BA
Critical phase variance
RMS charge diameter of the Graviton by EGM
RMS charge diameter of the Photon by EGM
Mathematical Constant: EulerMascheroni (Euler's’ Constant
Photon: elementary particle in the SM
Graviton: theoretical elementary particle in the SM
Wavelength
1st term of the Balmer Series by EGM
Classical Balmer Series wavelength
Electron Compton Wavelength
Neutron Compton Wavelength
Proton Compton Wavelength
Planck Length
Wavelength of PV
400
30
64
57
114
111
111
130
129
165
129
32
30
36
37
35
128
30
164
33
99
38
102
103
99
102
30
38
152
31
183
38
76
33
91
266
265
38
62
www.deltagroupengineering.com
µ, µµ
µ0
ν2
ν3
ν5
νe
νµ
ντ
ρ
ρ0
τ, τω
Muon: elementary particle in the SM
Reduced mass of Hydrogen
Permeability of a vacuum
Theoretical elementary Neutrino of the L2 particle by EGM
Theoretical elementary Neutrino of the L3 particle by EGM
Theoretical elementary Neutrino of the L5 particle by EGM
Electron Neutrino: elementary particle in the SM
Muon Neutrino: elementary particle in the SM
Tau Neutrino: elementary particle in the SM
Charge density
Spectral energy density
Tau: elementary particle in the SM
Field frequency
Field frequency (at infinity) in the PV model of gravity: Ch. 3.2
Field frequency (locally) in the PV model of gravity
ω0
Field frequency (locally) in the PV model of gravity by EGM
Harmonic frequency of the ZPF with respect to BA
ωB
Critical frequency
ωC
Harmonic frequency of the ZPF with respect to EA
ωE
Electron
Compton Frequency
ωCe
Neutron Compton Frequency
ωCN
Proton Compton Frequency
ωCP
Planck Frequency
ωh
Generalised reference to ωPV(nPV,r,M)
ωPV
Fundamental frequency of PV (nPV = 1)
ωPV(1,r,M)
ωPV(nPV,r,M) Frequency spectrum of PV
Harmonic inflection frequency
ωX
Harmonic cutoff frequency of PV
ωΩ
ZPF beat cutoff frequency
ωΩ ZPF
Critical
boundary
ωβ
〈 mQuark〉 Average mass (energy) of all Quarks according to PDG
Average mass (energy) of all Quarks by EGM
Average RMS charge radius of all Bosons in the SM utilising ru
〈rBoson〉
Average RMS charge radius of all Quarks by EGM
〈rQuark〉
Average RMS charge radius of all Quarks and Bosons by EGM utilising ru
〈r〉〉
401
69, 189
265
38
80
70
71
134
36
69, 189
89
102
114
152
31
152
136
177
38
61
33
118
34
33
37
30
202
78
www.deltagroupengineering.com
Periodic Table of the Elements
Group**
Period
1
IA
1A
1
1
H
1.008
2
3
4
5
6
7
18
VIIIA
8A
2
IIA
2A
13
IIIA
3A
14
IVA
4A
15
VA
5A
16
VIA
6A
17
VIIA
7A
2
He
4.003
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Li
Be
B
C
N
O
F
Ne
6.941
9.012
10.81
12.01
14.01
16.00
19.00
20.18
11
12
Na
Mg
22.99
24.31
3
IIIB
3B
4
IVB
4B
5
VB
5B
6
VIB
6B
7
VIIB
7B
8
9
10
 VIII  8 
11
IB
1B
12
IIB
2B
13
14
15
16
17
18
Al
Si
P
S
Cl
Ar
26.98
28.09
30.97
32.07
35.45
39.95
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cr
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
Ge
As
Se
Br
Kr
39.10
40.08
44.96
47.88
50.94
52.00
54.94
55.85
58.47
58.69
63.55
65.39
69.72
72.59
74.92
78.96
79.90
83.80
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Mo
Tc
Ru
Rh
Pd
Ag
Cd
In
Sn
Sb
Te
I
Xe
85.47
87.62
88.91
91.22
92.91
95.94
(98)
101.1
102.9
106.4
107.9
112.4
114.8
118.7
121.8
127.6
126.9
131.3
55
56
57
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Cs
Ba
La*
Hf
Ta
W
Re
Os
Ir
Pt
Au
Hg
Tl
Pb
Bi
Po
At
Rn
132.9
137.3
138.9
178.5
180.9
183.9
186.2
190.2
190.2
195.1
197.0
200.5
204.4
207.2
209.0
(210)
(210)
(222)
89
104
87
88
Fr
Ra
(223)
(226)
Lanthanide Series*
Actinide Series~
Ac~ Rf
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
114
116
118
Db
Sg
Bh
Hs
Mt






()
()
()
(227)
(257)
(260)
(263)
(262)
(265)
(266)
()
()
()
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
Ce
Pr
Nd
Pm
Sm
Eu
Gd
Tb
Dy
Ho
Er
Tm
Yb
Lu
140.1
140.9
144.2
(147)
150.4
152.0
157.3
158.9
162.5
164.9
167.3
168.9
173.0
175.0
95
96
100
101
90
91
92
93
94
97
98
99
102
103
Th
Pa
U
Np
Pu
Am Cm
Bk
Cf
Es
Fm Md
No
Lr
232.0
(231)
(238)
(237)
(242)
(243)
(247)
(249)
(254)
(253)
(254)
(257)
(247)
402
(256)
www.deltagroupengineering.com
HARMONIC REPRESENTATION OF FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES
Illustrational only
Wavefunction “ψ” based upon Proton harmonics,
sin St ω .2 .π .ω Ω r π , m p .t
ψ St ω , t
(3.458)
1.
T Ω r π ,m p
2
ψ( 1, t )
ψ( 2, t )
ψ( 4, t )
5 .10
0
29
1 .10
28
1.5 .10
28
2 .10
28
2.5 .10
28
3 .10
28
3.5 .10
28
ψ( 6, t )
t
Proton, Neutron
Electron, Electron Neutrino
L2, v2
L3, v3
Figure 3.44,
1 .
T Ω r π ,m p
16
ψ( 8, t)
ψ ( 10 , t )
ψ ( 12 , t )
0
5 .10
30
1 .10
29
1.5 .10
29
2 .10
29
2.5 .10
29
3 .10
29
3.5 .10
29
4 .10
29
4.5 .10
29
ψ ( 14 , t )
t
Muon, Muon Neutrino
L5, v5
Tau, Tau Neutrino
Up and Down Quark
Figure 3.45,
403
www.deltagroupengineering.com
1 .
T Ω r π ,m p
56
ψ ( 28 , t )
ψ ( 42 , t )
ψ ( 56 , t )
0
1 .10
30
2 .10
30
3 .10
30
4 .10
30
5 .10
30
6 .10
30
30
7 .10
8 .10
30
9 .10
30
3 .10
30
1 .10
29
1.1 .10
29
1.2 .10
29
1.3 .10
29
ψ ( 70 , t )
t
Strange Quark
Charm Quark
Bottom Quark
QB5
Figure 3.46,
1 .
T Ω r π ,m p
168
ψ ( 84 , t )
ψ ( 98 , t )
ψ ( 112 , t )
ψ ( 126 , t ) 0
5 .10
31
1 .10
30
1.5 .10
30
2 .10
30
2.5 .10
30
3.5 .10
30
4 .10
30
4.5 .10
30
ψ ( 140 , t )
t
QB6
W Boson
Z Boson
Higgs Boson
Top Quark
Figure 3.47,
404
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
405
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
406
www.deltagroupengineering.com
NOTES
407
www.deltagroupengineering.com
90000
ID: 471178
www.lulu.com
9 781847 533531
Quinta Essentia: A Practical Guide to SpaceTime Engineering  Part 3
ISBN 9781847533531