About

Some of My Java Applets:

General Relativity: Black Hole Orbits in Painleve and Schwarzschild coordinates + Newton

Symmetry: Rotating Crystal (symmetry and Miller indices), Rotating E8 roots, Sudoku designer / solver

Calculators: Scientific RPN Base-N, Clifford Algebra, Koide Formula Mass Parameterization

Blog Entries:

Elementary Science:  Feynman Diagrams for the Masses, Feynman Diagrams for the Masses (part 2), Quantum Numbers and Differential Equations, 1 Parameter Subgroups of Lie Groups, Measuring the Speed of Gravity Waves, Painleve Coordinates, The Painleve Equations of Motion, Kepler’s Symmetries and Newton’s DE, Why Does DNA Only Use 4 Nucleotides?, Quantum States as Symmetry Operators, The Algebra of Orthogonal Spin 1/2 States, AGASA, Yakutsk, and UHECR Anomalies, Where the Bee Sucks, There Suck I, Ticks

Gravity and Astronomy: Measuring the Speed of Gravity Waves, Painleve Coordinates, The Painleve Equations of Motion, Kepler’s Symmetries and Newton’s DE, AGASA, Yakutsk, and UHECR Anomalies, Spontaneous and Stimulated Emission of Gravitons

Gravity and QFT: General Relativity, Painleve, and QFT, The Painleve Equations of Motion, Precolor and Black Holes and All That

Symmetry: Quantum States as Symmetry Operators, Kepler’s Symmetries and Newton’s DE, Precolor and Black Holes and All That

Density Matrix (operator) theory: Precolor and Primitive Idempotents, The Algebra of Orthogonal Spin 1/2 States, The Snuark Algebra as a QFT, Primitive Idempotents and Generations, Quantum States as Symmetry Operators, Non Hermitian Density Matrices, Bound States as Density Matrices, Bound States as Symmetry Operators and E8,

Preon (snuark) theory: The Bilson-Thompson Helon (Braid) Model, Precolor and Primitive Idempotents, The Algebra of Orthogonal Spin 1/2 States, The Snuark Algebra as a QFT, The Snuark Mass Interaction, Long Lived Snuark Bound States, Primitive Idempotents and Generations, Infrad Correction to Mass I, A Fictitious Snuark Vacuum State, Fictitious Snuark Vacuum II, Precolor and Black Holes and All That

Bound states in QFT: Long Lived Snuark Bound States, Bound States as Density Matrices, Bound States as Symmetry Operators and E8

The Quantum Vacuum: A Fictitious Snuark Vacuum State, Fictitious Snuark Vacuum II

Elementary Particle Masses: The Snuark Algebra as a QFT, The Snuark Mass Interaction, Long Lived Snuark Bound States, Infrad Correction to Mass I, Mass and the New Physics

Baryon masses: Regge Trajectories and Koide’s Formula

E8 symmetry: Broken E8 as a Result of Composite Particles, Non Hermitian Density Matrices, Bound States as Density Matrices, Bound States as Symmetry Operators and E8,

Various Book Reviews: The Search for Eldorado, John Hemming, The Book of Five Rings, Miyamoto Musashi, The Island of the Day Before, Umberto Eco

Journal Citations:

Neutrino Mass and New Physics;
R. N. Mohapatra, A. Y. Smirnov; Department of Physics, University of Maryland, Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics, Institute for Nuclear Research RAS;
Annual Reviews of Nuclear and Particle Science, 56 (2006) 569-628
hep-ph/0603118

Heuristic Development of a Dirac-Goldhaber Model for Lepton and Quark Structure;
Gerald Rosen, Drexel University;
Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 22, No. 4 (2007) 283-288

Tribimaximal Neutrino Mixing and a Relation Between Neutrino and Charged Lepton-Mass Spectra;
Yoshio Koide, University of Shizuoka;
to be published in J. Phys. G (2007).
hep-ph/0605074

S_3 Symmetry and Neutrino Masses and Mixings;
Yoshio Koide, University of Shizuoka;
to be published in Euro. Phys. J C (2007).
hep-ph/0612058

Books and articles:

Introduction to the application of Density Operators to Elemenatry Particles (2008), in 8.5×11 LaTeX (uses “memoir class”). To write your own book, try starting with my source here.

Paper on the Neutrino Masses from Koide’s formula (2006)

Paper on density operator theory (2007)

Carl Brannen

9 responses to “About

  1. Hello
    Since my early studies I realized that the Newton gravitation force law was completely wrong in small distances. I have been fired from the class because my physics teacher was very angry about my claims: How could scientific community accept to use a non accurate law without trying to correct it!!?

    I think that mass explanation is something simple and reachable. I’m working on a gravity model and I’m facing the same problem again! The Newton force law is wrong with small distances and high masses. And there is no other referential!

    I can not build a model based on wrong gravity approximation

    In my new web site I propose a new gravitational approximation and I would like to have your opinion on it.

    Thank you
    Saad

  2. you are right! the law was settled for spheres interaction and I made wrong calculations. Thank you for opening my eyes on that point. I was first very disappointed about my approximation, but actually it makes my unification project less difficult to achieve.
    I’m working on an eather model (not a law) that explains gravity, space-time wrapping, black hole, wave forms using string methodology (not theory) and I would like to send you a copy to get your opinion. I will certainly need 3 or 4 weeks modeling for a first understandable shot.
    Thank you for your help.

  3. Hi Carl:

    I was just about to look up your blog, when lo and behold, a message came into my blog from you.

    Anyway, thanks for the tip to use worldpress, I think this blogging business is going to be a lot of fun.

    But this latex stuff, yuk! Any easy way to convert microsoft word equations into latex?

    Jay.

  4. Fred

    Hello Carl,

    I’ve been meaning to forward this site address to you. http://plus.maths.org/competition/
    It’s a link to Plus Magazine which is holding a math essay competition in several categories. One of the categories is for ‘university student and general public entrants.’ http://plus.maths.org/competition/guidelines_general.html
    I thought of you when I first read about it due to your obvious interest and written thoughts concerning math and science. The closing date for entering is March 31, 2008. I hope you’ll consider submitting a story as it would be quite interesting to read your entry. I, myself, am contemplating a very short fictional piece to forward.

    Best wishes, Fred

  5. dan l

    Found a typo in the title
    “Infrad Correction to Mass I”
    on this page.

    I found your site from a comment you made a scienceblogs,
    and a google search, and I’m enjoying it.

  6. Glenn

    Just looking around and found your site. Always receptive to anything that tries to look past the patent clerk’s rantings.
    Correct me if you see this differently but I regard the “space time continuum” as undefined and no better than proving theories “by God”. An imaginary something in his nothing space.
    I much prefer aether theory and the work of TJJ See in particular, though most of his math is over my head (only got to Analytic Geometry).

  7. Hello,

    I didn’t know where to put this, but I stumbled across a book you may be interested in ” Density-Matrix Renormalization: A New Numerical Method in Physics Lectures of a Seminar and Workshop Held at the Max-Planck-Institut für Physik komplexer Systeme Dresden, Germany, August 24th to September 18th, 1998″ (available here http://www.springerlink.com/content/rt413t787619/?p=ec5ec39dded849a2a8c021a902104ea4&pi=232)

    I don’t know if it’s freely available, but I have access to its chapters from UC Davis…if you’d like, I could send you an ecopy of its chapters.

  8. My name is Scott and I am an admin. at Caltech. I received a letter today from Dr. David W. Talmage, 290 S. Fairfax St., Denver, CO 80246 addressed to Professor Leonard Mlodinow, Department of Physics 276-17, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125. Unfortunately, I can not find a listing of Prof. Mlodinow in the Caltech directory. If you know this professor is here at Caltech you can call me (626-395-8342) and leave me instructions on how to get this letter to the professor.

  9. William C. McKee

    To: Carl Brannen.

    Hi Carl, I noticed your Quantum Mechanical approach to neutrinos. But you do know that there is a sort of big picture approach to the, shall we say weighed average mass of neutrinos, if we assume that Dark Matter is primarily some composite of this stuff — including yes, even the “Singularium” matter, my pet term, that might be at the very heart of Black Holes. I don’t like “infinite density”, so I found a way around it.

    “constants”:
    h_bar = h/(2*pi) = 1.05459E-34 J*s ( or units of (kg*m^2)/s )
    c = 2.997925E8 m/s
    G = 6.6720E-11 N*m^2/kg^2 ( or units of m^3/(kg*s^2) )
    H = 2.33E-18 s^-1 (Hubble “constant” )

    The long and short of matters, is if I make a few simple assumptions then I can obtain a sort of weighed average mass of the neutrino from:

    m^2 = { [ h_bar*c/G ]^(3/2) }/[ (1/2)*c^3/(G*H) ]

    m^2 = 1.190E-76 kg^2

    m = 1.091E-38 kg

    m*c^2 = 9.805E-22 Joules

    (9.805E-22 J)*( (1/1.602E-19) eV/J) ) = 0.00612 eV = “m” for a weighed average neutrino’s approximate mass.

    Notice that “m^2” is a function of the current value of the Hubble “constant”, or likewise we could substitute H = 1/t, where “t” is Hubble time in seconds from the instant of the Bib Bang. If you put in the “t” for Planck time, then you get the Planck mass. So that checks OK at least.

    Out of a few simple assumptions falls what I believe is an entirely adequate explanation for so-called Dark Matter and perhaps with a bit of help from you, and adequate explanation for so-called Dark Energy. This latter matter has two problems to overcome (a) since I am only an amateur scientist, I am out of my depth with Relativistic momentum terms and time derivatives of same, and (b) there is the scary matter of converting whatever data that astronomers have obtained from telescopes concerning the growing “acceleration” that they observe and the “acceleration” function that will result from my own efforts. If I rightly or wrongly do the derivatives, the units will be in terms of acceleration. But a wrongly placed (or interpreted) radical term of [ 1 – (v/c)^2 ]^0.5 could make things potentially right or very wrong. Help would be welcome.

    I’d like to present something helpful to CERN to explain what they did and did not see with their resent mu neutrino experiments. If my effort pleases them, then perhaps they would do the favour of considering the conducting of a few cloud chamber experiments that I would recommend, with their powerful proton beam simulation of cosmic rays and cloud formation.

    Yours, William C. McKee

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s