Google+ Followers

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Reduced Mass - Is the Discussion Over?

 
Time-dependent Schrödinger equation
(single nonrelativistic particle)
$$\mathbf{\hat{H}\Psi}= \mathbf{E\Psi}$$
$$i\hbar{\partial\over\partial t}\Psi(r,t)={\left[{-\hbar^2\over2\mu}\nabla^2+V(r,t)\right]}\Psi(r,t)$$

$\mu=$ reduced mass <~~ this is the problem
$m^*=m_{eff}$ effective mass <~~ this is the problem
$\mu=m_{eff}$ BIG ASSUMPTION <~~ this is the problem

Experimentalists use this form of the Schrödinger equation to develop fields such as quantum electrodynamics (QED), solid-state electronics, and others.  They proceed and skip over the fact that the fundamental masses and constants are not defined.  While this will work somewhat for experiments, the theory is flawed.  It is leaving out important aspects relative to fundamental physics investigations.  Likely this has been well known for a long time but suppressed by savages masquerading as civilized humans.

So, this is the main problem with proceeding with using the reduced mass term in the Schrödinger equation.  When one proceeds using this equation and substituting the reduced mass term with an effective mass, $m_{eff}$, and proceed to develop a theory and test and measure and work with effective mass LIKE it IS the mass of the object under investigation, this is missing the behavior of the whole.  While experimental results can be obtained this way, it is missing a significant point.

This discussion of reduced mass has gone on so long that it has faded from discussion.  It requires careful considerations of mathematical and scientific integrity to even proceed.

The kind of thinking required is the same kind required to assemble a bicycle from Japan, parts from a box, on Christmas Eve, it requires much peace of mind. 

The Surfer, OM-IV

WWE Takedown Body Slam To Consensus Science


 





The Surfer, OM-IV

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Neptune Rises From The Deep

 

Go NAVY!!!

  




The Surfer, OM-IV 

Reduction of a Two Particle System to One (or Reductionism)

(or the problem with breaking physics into subfields QED, QCD 

$\mu$ is reduced mass

Reduction-ism and isolation are mainstream concepts, commonly applied principles, applied commonly as postulates in theoretical derivations (or should be applied/included).  As a matter of fact, the experimentalists often use the concept of reduced mass in much of their work and derivations when designing experiments to test theory:
$M=m_1+m_2$
$\mu={m_1m_2\over m_1+m_2}$
$x_{cm}={{m_1r_1+m_2r_2}\over{m_1+m_2}}$
$\mu<m_1$
$\mu<m_2$
$\mu={m_1m_2\over m_1+m_2}\approx m_1$ for $m_2\gg m_1$
$\mu={m_1m_2\over m_1+m_2}\approx m_2$ for $m_1\gg m_2$
${1\over\mu_i}=\sum_{i=1}^n{1\over x_i}={1\over x_1}+{1\over x_2}+\cdots+{1\over x_n}$    (eqn 1)*
$m^*={m_1m_2\over m_1+m_2}$
$err(i)=m^*-{1\over\mu_i}$

Q:How many terms does it take to make ${1\over\mu_i}=m^*$ (i.e., drive the error to zero)?
Let's deal with the proton - electron system, where:
$m_1=m_e$
$m_2=m_p$
$m_p\gg m_e$ $\therefore$ $m_2\gg m_1$ case, thus $m^*\approx m_1=m_e$
Note, again, $m^*<m_1$
$m_{ep}^*\equiv{m_em_p\over m_e+m_p}\approx m_e$
What is the error?
$err ={m_em_p\over m_e+m_p}-m_e$
$\;\;\;\;\,\,\,={-m_e^2\over m_e+m_p}$
$\therefore\;err<0$, i.e. the error is negative, thus, no matter how many terms are added to eqn 1, there will always be an error.  Adding any term actually increases the error.  This is the problem the mainstream has been engaging in repeatedly, over the last few decades - this is insanity!
A: No number of terms will make it fit, thus, this is why the proton radius cannot be determined by the mainstream scientists using their flawed approach.

So, QED, Quantum Electro Dynamics reduces the problem to electron-photon dynamics which work for most ordinary interactions, and QCD, Quantum Chromo Dynamic (LQCD??? or others attempting to address this issue???) basically is inside the proton, reductionism into quarks and gluons, etc, however, now matter how many terms they add, since the initial error is negative, they are adding more error and simply studying error terms and calling them particles.  And with high energies, they're studying transient disturbances in the vacuum.  Very funny and strange.

Talk about insanity.  The mainstreamers are Ghost Busting!

No matter how many terms, it will not fit, thus, convict. Quite opposite of if the glove does not fit, you must acquit.

There is likely formal and more detailed proofs of this concept, however, human dynamics and power struggles seem to make co-operation very challenging and expensive.


For future analysis (from a distant observer)
From a distance $R\gg r$, $r=R_1-R_2$ distance between the two particles:
(examine equations in the detailed form of a distance observer however, include near, intermediate, and far fields)
(could look at it using antenna engineering concepts)
An operator for reducing two particles to one and creation of error terms.

Charged him with committing a 9-11 @1:25
(famous Gomer & Barney Fife citizen's arrest scene makes mockery of integrity of the law and humans)


The Surfer, OM-IV 

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Geometric Nature of Physics

 

The geometric nature of the structure of the vacuum goes well with this concept from mainstream physics. Wonder what structure the 8 dimensional polynomial:
$$F\left(x_0,\cdots,x_7\right)\equiv1\equiv{{x_0x_1^4}\over8x_2x_3^2x_4^3x_5}-{{\pi x_6x_7x_0}\over2x_4}$$
takes?




The Surfer, OM-IV 

FailUre Analysis - Error Analysis, Using the Rydberg Constant

 

"Modern" papers on The Balmer Series experiment give great insight into the thinking that goes behind a major error in physics for around 70-100 years, AND, more significantly, the ENTIRE history of the measurement of the Rydberg constant, THE MOST precisely measured physics constant, or among the most precisely measured, gives us a great tool to compare the actual behavior of the proton with the spectral lines of the hydrogen atom (and the error of the mainstreamers).

You see, because the mainstream does not have a reference, (i.e., the units and masses are not defined, and more implied), and everything must be verified by measurement in "modern" "science", now, having the proton as a reference (assuming we are 100% correct with the proton radius and the multidimensional roots of the polynomial), THEN, the precise nature of our analysis can be used as a tool to dissect the error of the mainstream.  Their arrogance has made this a simple job.  They have provide much material bragging of their success. This is part of their downfall.  They have documented it, in history, for themselves, and all, to see.

;-)

The Surfer, OM-IV

Monday, November 13, 2017

The Oracle - TOPPCG - Beta 2 (included basic program)




(BETA)
Second run results are in from The Oracle Precision Physics Constant Generator (TOP-PCG2)
THIS RUN IS VERY EXPERIMENTAL AS IT FREES UP ALL CONSTANTS TO BE ADJUSTED
7-8 different fundamental physics constants were calculated:
(BETA version  ⟱ The Oracle Says!!)
$e=1.602251451738(3054)\times10^{-19}$  <~~ TOP_PCG2

$h=6.62577381838(3603)\times10^{-34}Js$ <~~ TOP_PCG2

$m_e=9.10979080749(9954)\times10^{-31}kg$ <~~ TOP_PCG2

$r_p=8.41199715091(6646)\times10^{-16}m$ <~~ TOP_PCG2

$R_H=10973240.98261(2936)m^{-1}$   <~~ TOP_PCG2

$\epsilon_0=8.85379198631(7646)\times10^{-12}Fm^-1$   <~~ TOP_PCG2

$c=299779055.6354(0846)ms^{-1}$   <~~ TOP_PCG2

$m_p=1.67262189820(9999)m^{-1}$   <~~ input proton mass (see program for other inputs)
$m_p=1.672693330841(4473)m^{-1}$   <~~ TOP_PCG2


Proton to Electron Mass Ratio = 1836.152673809(3817)  <~~ TOP_PCG
Proton to Electron Mass Ratio = 1836.070589933(8043)  <~~ TOP_PCG2


$$F\left(x,\cdots,x_n\right)\equiv1\equiv{m_e}{e^4\over8c\epsilon_0^2h^3R_H}-{{\pi r_pcm_e}\over2h}$$

The above coefficients go into the above equation using a numerical method to calculate 1 to 13 decimal places:
$\alpha=fine\;structure\;constant$
$m_e=mass\;of\;electron$
$m_p=mass\;of\;proton$
$r_p=2010\;and\;2013\;muonic\;hydrogen\;proton\;radius\;(Haramein's\;Equation)$
$R_H=Rydberg\;constant$
$m_pr_p={2h\over{\pi c}}=4\ell m_{\ell}\;(Haramein's\;Equation)$
$\ell=Planck\;Length$
$m_{\ell}=Planck\;Mass$
$h=$ Planck's constant
$c=$ Speed of light
$\epsilon_0=$ Permittivity of vacuum
$e=$ elementary charge

A little more correlation work is needed and other experiments, like locking down certain coefficients if they are considered "golden" in their accuracy. 

The coefficients are so different after 4 digits because there is a 1 out of 1836 error in the existing coefficients. All related to the proton radius problem, proton to electron mass ratio, and the very poor proton magnetic moment work. And lack of the experimentalists' handing the coefficients according to the theory.

Here's a copy of the program: PhysicsCoefficientsPhxMarkER  <- click here
(the IO and comments and bits resolution need a little fixing, but the ideas are there - very short program)
(adjust line 5001 to adjust stopping resolution xresstop=2e-10 runs faster than 2e-15)
(it runs on this online interpreter: http://www.calormen.com/jsbasic/


The Surfer, OM-IV
©2017 Mark Eric Rohrbaugh & Lyz Starwalker © 2017

Rydberg Equation and Approximations!

Rydberg Function


$$R_H\equiv{m_em_p\over{m_e+m_p}}{e^4\over8c\epsilon_0^2h^3}\approx{m_e}{e^4\over8c\epsilon_0^2h^3}$$

$$R_H\equiv{m_em_p\over{m_e+m_p}}{e^4\over8c\epsilon_0^2h^3}={m_e\over{1+{m_e\over m_p}}}{e^4\over8c\epsilon_0^2h^3}$$

$$1\equiv{m_e\over{1+{m_e\over m_p}}}{e^4\over8c\epsilon_0^2h^3R_H}$$

$$1+{m_e\over m_p}={m_e}{e^4\over8c\epsilon_0^2h^3R_H}$$

$$F\left(x,\cdots,x_n\right)\equiv1\equiv{m_e}{e^4\over8c\epsilon_0^2h^3R_H}-{m_e\over m_p}\approx{m_e}{e^4\over8c\epsilon_0^2h^3R_H}$$

$$F\left(x,\cdots,x_n\right)\equiv1\equiv{m_e}{e^4\over8c\epsilon_0^2h^3R_H}-{{\pi r_pcm_e}\over2h}\approx{m_e}{e^4\over8c\epsilon_0^2h^3R_H}$$

The roots of this multi-dimensional polynomial are the complete solution to the proton radius problem and all of standard physics.

This approximation
${np\over{n+p}}= Constant \approx n$ if $p\gg n $   approximation is used in many fields where the product of two parameters is a constant.  It is used often in derivations.  Misuse is a big problem when comparing theory to measurement.  (!!!) (this may be root of confusion)

Likely one of these equations converges numerically, and the other is challenging.

I suspect this approximation is related to the major blunder I heard/sensed rippling through the corporate scientific researcher community in the late 1980s, early 1990s. 


The Surfer, OM-IV
©2017 Mark Eric Rohrbaugh & Lyz Starwalker © 2017

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Setting Up The Problem - Multi-Dimensional Roots of Proton to Electron Mass Ratio Equation(s)


(DRAFT  - a few minor correction and comments are required.  11/11/17 MR)
This post is concerning "Rest Mass Physics", 0K, the physics of rest mass of proton and electron from first principles and fundamental constants.  The dynamics is the hard problem. 11/11/17 MR

You can do it the easy way, or the hard way, or both.

Is it possible, mathematically and in Nature, from a "Golden Ratio" of physical constants, to determine those physical constants to any desired precision via numerical methods?  That's what this is about, so if it's already known about the stability of solutions or convergence issues, we'll find out as this investigation proceeds.

Example Approach to Multi-Dimensional Polynomial Root Finding:
$$F\left(x_0,x_1,\cdots,x_n\right)={e^4m_e\over{8h^3c\epsilon_0^2R_{\infty}}}-{m_e\over m_p}=1$$
$x_0=e=$ elementary charge
$x_1=m_e=$ eletron mass
$x_2=h=$ Planck's Constant
$x_3=c=$ Speed of Light
$x_4=\epsilon_0=$ permittivity of free space
$x_5=R_{\infty}=$ Rydberg constant
$x_6=m_p=$ proton mass
$$F\left(x_0,x_1,\cdots,x_6\right)={x_0^4x_1\over8x_2^3x_3x_4^2x_5}-{x_1\over x_6}=1$$
$err=F\left(x_0,x_1,\cdots,x_n\right)-1$
Use precise starting values or seeds values for the constants.
Iterate until $err\rightarrow0$.
Requires extra precision calculations (>64bit?)
Google Calculator check of F(x) <-- click to see calculation of identity
(check#2) <-- something is amiss??? Bad starting point for coeficient values?
So, this is a basic statement of the problem and one potential numerical method solution.

Update
A more precise defination of the Rydberg constant is:
$$R_H\equiv{m_em_p\over{m_e+m_p}}{e^4\over8c\epsilon_0^2h^3}$$
$m_pr_p={2h\over\pi c}={4\hbar\over c}$  <~~~ use this for proton mass-radius product!
Need to double check equations again...  ;-)
(it's an ongoing project)
Correction may be:


$$F\left(x_0,x_1,\cdots,x_n\right)={e^4m_e\over{8h^3c\epsilon_0^2R_{\infty}}}=1+{m_e\over m_p}$$


$$F\left(x_0,x_1,\cdots,x_n\right)={x_0^4x_1\over8x_2^3x_3x_4^2x_5}=1$$

(the dream since 1981 or was it 1977???)
The Surfer, OM-IV
 (this post needs a little re-working... 11/11/17MR)

Friday, November 10, 2017

Oneness and Misc Ramblings





If one were to check this link very closely, one would see that this compares the measured data to my equation, and the result is 1, unity, #Oneness.


Rydberg's Unit of Energy Identity


$${e^4m_e\over{64\pi^3\hbar^3c\epsilon_0^2R_{\infty}}}=1$$

(Wolfram evaluation of equation <-- click here)

or


$${e^4m_e\over{8h^3c\epsilon_0^2R_{\infty}}}=1$$


$$m_e={8h^3c\epsilon_0^2R_{\infty}\over e^4}$$
$$m_e={8h^2\epsilon_0^2R_y\over e^4}$$

(Wolfram evaluation of equation <-- click here)
(Google Calculator evaluation - click here)

Proton to electron mass ratio example by Wolfram: click here

Redefining standard mass NIST info

The Surfer, OM-IV

Wolfram Summary of Proton Radius




Wolfram's site has a feature where it compares the calculation results to "known" things.  It is interesting to see what it says about the calculation of the proton radius:
Click here for wolframalpha comments on the proton radius

Highlighted 96% of classical proton radius (-4%error):




Wolfram on the calculation for the proton to electron mass ratio

Wolfram on Unity

Wolfram on 1836.15267

$1836.15267\approx2903\Phi+42$, $2903$ is prime, $\Phi$ is Golden ratio, and the answer is 42!
The Surfer, OM-IV

Thursday, November 9, 2017

Numerical Analysis Example for Phi Equation




As an example of numerical methods using a computer to solve equations, here's an equation who's solution is the phi ratio:
$$x^2-x-1=0$$

Let's say you want to solve this equation (or more much more complex), numerically, rather than symbolically, using a computer.  Here is a simple numerical method to do this:

Method 1:  Iteration
Rewrite the equation for the variable you want to solve for: (i.e., solve for "x=")
$x=x^2-1$            (eqn. 1)
$x^2=x+1$
$x=\sqrt{x+1}$          (eqn. 2)

Note, there are choices for the form of the equation.  Not all equations converge, so it takes practice in finding the form that easily converges.  Just try them all.  Eqn. 2 above converges while I had no luck with eqn. 1.

Write an iterative loop on the computer using a seed value for "x", and use the equation to calculate the next "x" then feed the results for "x" back into the equation and repeat.  Not all equations will converge, be aware.


Here is a sample basic program to calculate phi yourself from the phi equation:

10 PRINT "Numerical Analysis Example for Phi Equaiton"
15 iterations = 0
20 Rem seed value 
30 x=2
35 Rem Resolution, adjust resolution to 1e-10 or 1e-9 for test cases
37 res=1e-16
40 Rem  Loop to solve Phi equationPhi equation
50 xnew=sqr(x+1)
60 err=abs(xnew - x)
65 x=xnew
66 iterations = iterations + 1
67 print "err=";err
70 if err>res then goto 40
80 print "Ourx=";x;"<---Our phi"
86 phi = (1+ sqr(5))/2
87 print "Phi= ";phi;"<---Actual phi"
90 print "resolution= ";res
95 print "iterations= ";iterations
100 end


Just cut and paste into this  Applesoft BASIC emulator.

There are other methods, and they're based on the same basic principle.  Such as writing the equation in a form such as:
$F(x,y,z)=Constant$
$F(x,y,z)=1$
or
$F(x,y,z)=x$ 
or
$F(x,y,z)=\pi$ 
as we have in the case of the re-written proton to electron mass ratio equation from The Oracle Precision Physics Constant Generator (TOP-PCG).  Simply focus on iterating the error towards zero.

Numerical methods are a powerful tool for investigation.  Anyone inspired can write a program with all kinds of features with numerical analysis, graphs, knobs, bells, whistles and adjustments, etc. 
The Surfer, OM-IV

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

The Oracle Precision Physics Constant Generator #2


First results are in from The Oracle Precision Physics Constant Generator (TOP-PCG)!
(BETA version  ⟱ The Oracle Says!!)
$\alpha=7.2973525664(17)\times10^{-3}$ <~~~~~ CODATA
$\alpha=7.2973525664(17084)\times10^{-3}$  <~~ TOP_PCG

$m_e=9.10938356(11)\times10^{-31}kg$ <~~~~~~~ CODATA
$m_e=9.10938356(0899034)\times10^{-31}kg$ <~~ TOP_PCG

$r_p=8.4123564\times10^{-16}m$ <~~~~~~~~~ Muonic Hydrogen Proton Radius seed data
$r_p=8.41235640479985\times10^{-16}m$ <~~ TOP_PCG

$R_H=10973731.568508(65)m^{-1}$ <~~ CODATA
$R_H=10973731.568508(30)m^{-1}$   <~~ TOP_PCG*

$m_p=1.672621898(21)\times10^{-27}kg$ <~~~~ CODATA
$m_p=1.672621898(209999)\times10^{-27}kg$ <~~ TOP_PCG


Proton to Electron Mass Ratio = 1836.1526738093817  <~~ TOP_PCG


The above coefficients go into this equation to calculate pi to 15 decimal places:
$$\pi={{\alpha^2 m_e}\over{r_pR_Hm_p}}$$
$\alpha=fine\;structure\;constant$
$m_e=mass\;of\;electron$
$m_p=mass\;of\;proton$
$r_p=2010\;and\;2013\;muonic\;hydrogen\;proton\;radius\;(Haramein's\;Equation)$
$R_H=Rydberg\;constant$
$m_pr_p={2h\over{\pi c}}=4\ell m_{\ell}\;(Haramein's\;Equation)$
$\ell=Planck\;Length$
$m_{\ell}=Planck\;Mass$
$h=$ Planck's constant
$c=$ Speed of light

This is all for now.  Will update when new results available.  Simple numerical methods are used. More details later and maybe a copy of the basic program...  ;-)

* The version of basic used only allows pi to 16 digits, therefore, this final bit may be in need of refinement.  Will be using higher precision program as the basic was just to blast through the ideas.

The Surfer, OM-IV
©2017 Mark Eric Rohrbaugh & Lyz Starwalker © 2017
©2017 MarkER Design, LLC © 2017
Gold Canyon, AZ 85118

The Oracle Precision Physics Constant Generator

$$\pi={{\alpha^2 m_e}\over{r_pR_Hm_p}}$$
$\alpha=fine\;structure\;constant$
$m_e=mass\;of\;electron$
$r_p=2010\;and\;2013\;muonic\;hydrogen\;proton\;radius\;(Haramein's\;Equation)$
$R_H=Rydberg\;constant$
$m_p=mass\;of\;proton$

The precision of pi  and the equation above for $\pi$ may(?) be used to increase the digits of resolution of these 5 fundamental physics constants.

Will be posting results as this investigation proceeds...

It'll be like a table with before and after "The Oracle says:" comparison.

The Surfer, OM-IV
©2017 Mark Eric Rohrbaugh & Lyz Starwalker © 2017
©2017 MarkER Design, LLC © 2017
Gold Canyon, AZ 85118

Saturday, November 4, 2017

Correct Cosmology - Red Shift Interpretations and More

^
/   \
|
|
|
What's wrong with this picture?

|
|
|
\    /
$\vee$
Spin or Rotation!

Thinking about the other theories that need some work...
Redshift may be pointing to a whole different reality, especially if it's quantized red shift...

The Surfer, OM-IV

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Proton Radius Puzzle - Solved



The proton radius puzzle has been around since 2010 and repeatedly shown by experiment that the proton radius is actually about -4% smaller than the official CODATA measured value for the proton radius.

Solution:
The proton is a vortex in the yet to be defined super fluid aether

Proton Parameters of interest:
mass - energy and mass ratios (such as proton to electron mass ratio and others)
radius
charge
magnetic momentum
angular momentum


From standard quantized angular momentum or quantization of circulation of a super fluid, the mass-radius relationship of the proton can be derived:

$m_pr_p={2h\over\pi c}$

And, using this mass-radius relationship and analyzing the proton as a rotating surface charge of elementary charge evenly distributed over the surface of the proton, the proton's magnetic moment can be derived (see derivation):
$\mu_p={8\over3}\mu_N$
$\mu_p=2.666\mu_N$  ;($\mu_p=2.657\mu_N$, possible relativistic correction)
$\mu_N={e\hbar\over2m_p}$
$\mu_p={er_pc\over3}$  ; possible "minor (-0.4%)" relativistic correction: $\mu_p={er_pc\sqrt{1-\alpha}\over3}$
$e=$ elementary charge
$\hbar={h\over2\pi}=$ reduced Planck's constant
$h=$ Planck's constant
$c=$ speed of light

Using this value of the proton's magnetic moment, the peak resonance frequency (Larmor frequency) of 1H (free proton, rest proton, 0K) can be calculated to be: 40.6538308 MHz /Tesla (40.55MHz/Tesla relativistic correction). <~~ note this is different than the mainstream's 42.58MHz/Tesla (mainstream is designed to be off-peak for NMR/MRI).  While this claim may be alarming to some, realize that there is a linear relationship between angular momentum and radius, and likewise, magnetic (angular) momentum.  Therefore, since the proton radius is 4% smaller, the proton's magnetic moment is also 4% smaller.


Using mks units...
This is the proton, rest state, condensed-matter type analysis.  These are the fundamental properties of the proton.

Much more is implied by this as Haramein and others has been saying for a long time.

Addendum:
${m_p\over m_e}={r_e\over r_p}={\alpha^2\over\pi r_pR_{\infty}}=1836.15267$
Where:
$m_pr_p={2h\over\pi c}=4\ell m_{\ell}$
$r_p=0.841235640294664\;fm$
$m_p=$ proton mass
$m_e=$ electron mass
$r_p=$ proton radius
$r_e=$ effective torque arm radius for electron
$\alpha=$ fine-structure constant
$h=$ Planck constant
$c=$ speed of light
$R_{\infty}=$ Rydberg constant
$\ell=$ Planck length
$m_{\ell}=$ Planck mass

The Surfer, OM-IV
©2017 Mark Eric Rohrbaugh & Lyz Starwalker © 2017
©2017 MarkER Design, LLC © 2017
Gold Canyon, AZ 85118

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Columbo of Physics - CoP - Coefficient of Performance

Columbo of Physics
"I just got one more question.  How'd you miss the boat so much?  I mean, it's not just a little, ya know, like ppm, or whatever, but 4%???", Lt. Columbo, PhuD

There's more important things coming. Among one is a numerical method of increasing precision of standard physics constants WITHOUT doing any experiments! More on that later, it has been lurking in the foreground of my posts on the proton to electron mass ratio. 🤓👽🛸


The Surfer, OM-IV

1H Larmor Frequency Data Set #2





Here is a case where data is plot, and fundamental 1H is the dashed red line on the image above.  At an applied B field of 100mT, we see about 3.9MHz (marked in light lime-green cross lines).  The Larmor frequency is then:
$$f_{\mathscr{L}}={3.9\over0.1}{MHz\over T}=39\,{MHz/T}$$ 

This is clear evidence that the theoretical peak Larmor frequency of 1H is much lower than the mainstream theory, likely -4.5% lower.

My derivation, https://phxmarker.blogspot.com/2017/10/magnetic-moment-of-protonfinal-real.html, show the actual 1H Larmor frequency to be:
    $f_{\mathscr{L}}=40.7\,{MHz/T}$ 
     (My derivation using Haramein's proton work)
instead of
    $f_{\mathscr{L}}=42.6\,{MHz/T}$
    (Mainstream theory)

Needs more statistical evidence to overturn a hundred year old theory.  These things must be accurately predicted by a good theory, and our theory and way of working with the proton appears to match the empirical data.  To be continued...





"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1943 was awarded to Otto Stern "for his contribution to the development of the molecular ray method and his discovery of the magnetic moment of the proton"."





The Surfer, OM-IV
©2017 Mark Eric Rohrbaugh & Lyz Starwalker © 2017