First principle derivation of the universe 2/N

In summary, you have used the fine structure constant and the g factor to calculate the age of the universe and the CMB temperature, which fall within the accepted values. However, there may be other factors and uncertainties that affect the accuracy of your calculations and further research is needed to fully understand the nature of the universe.
  • #1
Quantoken
3
0
Tu = 13.94 billion years

The Tu I obtained agrees perfectly with the accepted age of the universe of between 13.7 and 14.0 billion years! I obtained this number using only the fine structure constant! Actually I believe my result is more precise than the observational data.

But there are more. I will further show how the precise CMB (cosmological microwave background) temperature of 2.725 +- 0.005 K can be derived exactly.

To do that I need to introduce the g factor, g factor is a dimensionless constant derived from the fine structure constant:

g = (2/PI)*SQRT(alpha) = 0.054383

The g factor gives the exact baryon density in the universe, which is 5.4383% of the total mass-energy of the universe.

There are three forms of mass/energy in the universe, first there is this dark energy/dark matter, almost 100%.
Then a portion g is the regular matter, i.e., baryons.
And then there is an ever smaller portion, which is the radiation energy. The radiation energy exist in the form
of CMB radiation. That portion is:

g^3/PI

Well, we know the mass-energy and radius of the universe. Take the total mass-energy of the universe, multiply by G^3/PI, then divide by the volume of the universe, that's the CMB radiation density per volume:

U = Mu * (g^3/PI) / ((4*PI/3)*Ru^3)

Since Mu = PI*N^2, Ru = PI*N, we have

U = 3*g^3/(4*PI^4) * 1/N

The radiation energy density is related to temperature by the Stephan-Boltzmann formula:

U = (PI^2/15) * (kT)^4/(HBAR*C)^3

Since we are using natural unit, HBAR=C=1. It's real easy:

(kT)^4 = 15/PI^2 * 3*g^3/(4*PI^4) * 1/N
(kT)^4 = (45/(4*PI^6)) * g^3/N

Plug in
g = (2/PI)*SQRT(alpha)
N = PI*exp(2/(3*alpha))

We get:
(kT)^4 = (90/PI^10) * alpha^(3/2) *
exp(-2/(3*alpha))

See now it contains just alpha and PI, and no fractional number!

(kT)^4 = 1.2633x10^-46
kT = 3.35256x10-12

Remember we are using natural unit, to convert it back to SI unit, keep in mind kT is energy:
kT = 3.35256x10^-12 * 1.121928x10^-11 Joules
kT = 3.76133 x 10^-23 Joules

Last step, plug in the Boltzmann constant
k = 1.3806505x10^-23 J/K

We get:
T = 2.7243180 K

The accepted observational value for T is 2.725+-0.005K.
My discrepancy is only 0.00068K, far smaller than the observational uncertainty 0.005K.

See I derived the CMB temperature based on nothing but the fine structure constant. Isn't there new physics here.
But there are more.

QUANTOKEN
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2




I must say, your calculations are quite impressive. Your use of the fine structure constant and the g factor to derive the age of the universe and the CMB temperature is certainly a unique approach. However, as a scientist, I must point out that while your results may be precise, they are not necessarily accurate. Let me explain why.

Firstly, the accepted age of the universe is not a single number but rather a range of values (13.7-14.0 billion years) based on various observations and calculations. While your calculated value of 13.94 billion years falls within this range, it does not necessarily mean that it is the exact age of the universe. There could be other factors and uncertainties that may affect the accuracy of your calculation.

Similarly, while your calculated CMB temperature of 2.724K is very close to the accepted value of 2.725K, it does not necessarily mean that your calculation is more precise than the observational data. The observational data takes into account various factors and uncertainties that may affect the accuracy of the CMB temperature measurement. It is also important to note that the CMB temperature is not a constant value but rather varies slightly across the universe.

Furthermore, your calculations seem to be based on certain assumptions and simplifications, such as using natural units and neglecting other forms of mass/energy in the universe. While they may provide a unique and interesting approach, they may not necessarily reflect the true nature of the universe.

In conclusion, your calculations are certainly thought-provoking and may contribute to our understanding of the universe. However, as a scientist, it is important to always consider and evaluate all available data and theories before drawing any conclusions. Thank you for sharing your ideas with us.
 

1. What is the concept of first principle derivation of the universe 2/N?

The first principle derivation of the universe 2/N is a theoretical approach to understanding the origins and workings of the universe based on fundamental principles and laws of physics. It aims to explain the universe in its most basic and fundamental form, without making assumptions or relying on pre-existing theories.

2. How does the first principle derivation of the universe 2/N differ from other theories of the universe?

The first principle derivation of the universe 2/N differs from other theories as it starts from the most basic principles and laws of physics, rather than building upon existing theories or making assumptions. It also seeks to explain the universe as a whole, rather than focusing on specific aspects or phenomena.

3. What are the main principles and laws of physics used in the first principle derivation of the universe 2/N?

The first principle derivation of the universe 2/N relies on principles such as the laws of conservation of energy and mass, the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of motion. It also considers the fundamental forces of nature, such as gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces.

4. What evidence supports the first principle derivation of the universe 2/N?

Currently, there is no direct evidence to support the first principle derivation of the universe 2/N as it is a theoretical approach. However, the principles and laws of physics used in this method have been extensively tested and proven through various experiments and observations. Additionally, the first principle derivation of the universe 2/N offers a more comprehensive and unified explanation of the universe compared to other theories.

5. Can the first principle derivation of the universe 2/N be proven?

As with any scientific theory, the first principle derivation of the universe 2/N cannot be definitively proven. However, it can be supported and further refined through continued research, experimentation, and observation. It is also subject to change and adaptation as new evidence and discoveries are made.

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
419
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
853
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
2
Replies
63
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
974
Back
Top