QED. All I needed was the official 0.84fm.
The basic constants of fundamental physics are now calculable via algorithm to any precision.
https://phxmarker.blogspot.com/2020/06/summary-of-scientific-proton-to.html
I put hundred of hours into computer programs in the 80's and 90's checking the stability of the solution. It is stable. Need verification because that's they way these things work....
The only thing I had in 1991 was 0.84fm from my calculations, but the official was 0.87fm. I proceeded anyway with the proton to electron mass ratio by plugging it into the full Rydberg equation, obviously, so I could once and for all solve the whole equation for its roots - the values of the constants that make the equation equal 1.0000000... - Unity. Once I found the solution was stable, in the mid 90s, I knew all I had to do was wait and see if the measurement came out to 0.84fm. It did. (In 2019!!!) I told a few friends about it in the 90s, and some said oh, he's talking about that again. Well, I said all I needed was 0.84fm and I can solve for all the physics constants!!!
Thus, QED. Thanks NIST and all yunz who measured it for me, lol. I have been waiting since the SSC - Superconducting Super Collider was cancelled for new proton data to unleash the solution Richard Feynman knew was just around the corner. Thanks for all the nice books Richard.
And I emailed the solution in 1999 to Marc Ludeke's US State Department email from my Texas Instruments email, so there is proof in the records FOIA work may be forthcoming...
So many years went by and of course it was known if and when someone had the proton to electron mass ratio, it would be pointing towards new physics because it would mean we have an idea of what mass is. That's where Dan Winter and Nassim Haramein and others come in with more complete theories on what mass and charge actually are.
It was known? By people back in the 70s who were working on the quantum theory. Mr. Leslie Jackson, my high school chemistry teacher (East Liverpool Junior/Senior High School) in 1978 told us all about it. (Physics and Calculus teacher Mr. James Moore also was likely aware of this problem)
All you need is knowledge of 2nd order differential wave equations (like sophomore level math in college, actually very simple), and an idea of algebra and how to numerically solve equations on a computer. It does not take a genius, just someone who cares about details.
I am the creator of the sign flip algorithm, however, there was a young gentleman I met at the computer center I was talking with and working with for hours. He and I both kinda came up with it together. I am the one, I believe, who kept saying "let the equations solve themselves" - thus, viola, the sign flip algorithm... This was 1981-1982 before I realized I was working on the Rydberg equation, was just focusing on numerical methods and had no idea what the equations were that we were working on. And all of this was because I was interested in math and computers and did a lot of this in parallel with my college work. I forget his name, however, he was not happy with me finally having to focus on my classes so I could graduate and get a career launched. He said I got hungry. Sometimes I must simply blaze my own trail.
What is key about the sign flip algorithm is that if during an iteration at a specific digit all is good mathematically, even though you move on to the next finer digit, the algorithm allows for the previous courser digit to be modified, thus one is not locked into a wrong digit preventing convergence. There are people way more knowledgeable about numerical methods than I who can shed more light into the algorithm. it may be standard knowledge now for those who solve equations for roots numerically... idk.
The work of implementing this sign flip algorithm in fortran on an IBM mainframe in 1981-1982 and the discussions* were some of the most fun I have ever had in my life. I was doing this work in my spare time and had to put it on hold until the measurement came out 2019... just last year...
What I learned in 1981-1982 I used to solve the whole full Rydberg equation in 1991, and when PCs came out, I programmed it again and found it was stable. These post 1991 runs were when I knew it was the constants and masses and all, but in 1981/2 the equations they had us work on the teacher either didn't tell us or it was too advanced to know or it was just an equation. what we were doing was finding out what types of equations would converge numerically, and when we got to this one, it would not converge NO MATTER what we did, months we worked. Finally went to Professor an said NOTHING WE DO CONVERGES, this equation does not converge on its roots. So, he said, well, add this little term to the big equation, with an alpha in it, and see what happens. Well, son of a bitch, it converged! we said WHAT IS ALPHA? and Prof said something, but I was only 20 and didn't know enough physics yet. I am pretty sure he had us working on the Rydberg equation.
I'll have the algorithm running shortly in MS Excel for free for y'all.
And then it can be checked for stability more completely.
And I knew one day something called the internet would exist and I could self publish. I planned it and dreamed about it. So many years passed, I forgot about it, until Lyz pointed out Nassim Harramain's work and I had of copy of Scientific American with the proton radius puzzle, and started blogging about the solution as I reworked through all the details to be sure it was complete.
I never put much work into it after 1991 until June 2014, because this is science and I was waiting for the measurement. If the measurement and predictions don't agree, the predictions are wrong. Real science agrees with the observation. So I was not going to put any more time into it until the measurement came out. Well, the first measurement came out in 2010, right after Haramein's prediction. It took until 2019 until NIST changed (peer reviewed science) to 0.84fm. Science.
I'm writing about the details now because I forgot how many hours I put into checking stability mid 90s when PCs became powerful enough to begin buying them and the internet was opening up. What else was i to do to test a new computer while waiting for the data to come out was to be SURE that the solution was stable and singularly stable. So I programmed and cranked and pinged the equation and it was stable from all fair angles and converged to the same solution every time.
Two things left to do, outside source verify stability /singular stability, and the other thing to do is to keep running the algorithm to see if is falls apart at finer and finer digits of resolution. I was able to get it to about 15 digits, maybe 16, the limit of the software I was using. I'd like to see if it is good to 20 digits, 32, 64, at what point does it fall apart? Because that may point to a new term if it falls apart, or if it keeps on going converging no matter how many digits, then we have an EXACT solution.....
This means if plug all the coefficients into the equation, and the number of digits after the 1.00000000... is the number of digits of resolution. My algorithm is so fine it calculates 1 to at least 15-16 zeros after the 1: (1.000000000000000, for example). You gotta have the constants right on for that, and it has to be a unique convergence....
How many people do you know that brag about how many digits they can calculate 1 to?
Convergence could be because of the way I think about it vs others, that's another reason the algorithm needs peer review. I think it might have been key to force the digits to be 1.000... meaning twiddle the coefficient until you get 1 then move to next digit and twiddle until you get 0, then move on. Not sure it it would work with a tolerance idea, like 0.9999 as you twiddle digits. It might not make a difference, but if it does, then have to question uniqueness.
I probably shouldn't describe how it works because it's so easy to get it wrong... it's in the code...
One way to look at this is like one plucking a string on a stringed instrument, the exact frequency can be predicted if all parameters are taken into account. instead of plucking a string, we are pinging a proton to see what frequencies come out. The hydrogen atom is our instrument and its frequencies our notes
Oh, and I forgot, this may clear up some of the confusion in mainstream about some of the spectral lines, like in NMR, there's a whole science to reading them. Since they are basically mis-calibrated, a lot of the problems they are having with all the lines in the spectrum to identify the molecules/atoms they are trying to identify is analogous to aliasing - mixing, and now having a more complete definition in the beginning, aliasing could be removed, or maybe even the lines explained just by adding in this term they dropped. If you look at what mainstream does, they just try adding all kinds of different terms and give them different names for different effects. I'll look it up again and add it here later. And this is just speculation, might not effect NMR at all, but E8 theory needs this....
There's your 'nother billyawn dollar idea! If this is correct, that is, still need to check into NMR wrt molecular and atomic ID.
I wrote QED on one of my proton radius papers and Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher asked me what QED meant. I thought she was joking, but not everyone studied Latin like I did for 4 years in high school, nor saw how funny Richard Feynman was when he named his theory QED - Quantum Electro-Dynamics, and it is pretty good, but they missed the point by banging too many bongos and playing jackass games. They missed the whole new science that is coming to rock your world, heat/cool your house, and light up your life.
All that said, it could only be converging because of some bias in my programming/thinking or whatever... it would take a few people a few weeks, but an expert math person probably in one day could verify way beyond a doubt.
I'm about to put the finishing touches on this (publish excel file) and put it (this phase) to bed. The new stuff this points too is more interesting.
* it was during these discussions when my buddy and I came up with the idea of solving an equation for the roots to get all the terms in the physics identity equations to extract the constants. We knew it does not work in general, only for a specific class of equations, however, we had a dream of never having to look the constants up again, just use an algorithm. Of course it had to be scientific, however, we were using the official equations, and I knew if someone had the proton to electron mass ratio they could figure it out, but it wasn't until my senior (1984) year I learned about wave equations, Schrodinger, solid-state electronics, quantum theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Watch the water = Lake π© ππ¦