Trends, Past and Future: Fundamental Physics Constants

Moar later. Check historical Planck data, h, it’s getting smaller and just needs to get a little smaller. 

Constants Trend

1. Elementary charge, e, + ✅

2. Electron mass, e_0, + ✅

3. Fine-structure constant, alpha, + ✅

4. Permittivity of free space, epsilon_0, - ✅

5. Planck’s constants, h, - ✅

6. Proton radius, r_p, - ✅

7. Rydberg constant, R_H, - ✅

8. Speed of Light, c, - ✅

+ means needs to increase

- means needs to decrease 

3 need to increase in value a small amount 

5 need to decrease a small amount 

To be correct and more in harmony with Nature

9. Proton mass, r_p, -

10. Proton to electron mass ratio, mu or beta, -

5. Historical data for Planck's constant✅ versus Year plus ideal value:

Planck's constant versus year*
(units J/Hz)

*from: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Recommended-values-of-the-Planck-constant-The-codata-tgfc-was-established-in-1969-and_tbl1_320676149

Will add others later.  Have to use 1970+ data since that when they "finalized" the standard model and the trend should match my prediction, the trend appears to agree with h, the Planck constant.

Planck's constant was fixed by decree in 2019 having to do with the mass definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Value

1. Elementary charge✅ (electron charge):

(from: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/264/timeline-of-measurements-of-the-electrons-charge)

6. Proton radius, r_p, - ✅

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/andp.201800363

NIST/CODAT vs. MR Proton over the years

So far we've checked 3 of the constants and the trends agree with our prediction/analysis.

8. Speed of Light, c, - ✅

Speed of light measurement decreasing value over time

3. Fine-structure constant, alpha, + ✅

1973      fine-structure constant 0.007297334              (from physics.NIST.gov)

2014/15 fine-structure constant 0.007297352566417 (from physics.NIST.gov)

2018/19 fine-structure constant 0.0072973525693     (from physics.NIST.gov)

2020:      1/137.035999206(11)

This wk: 1/137.029874274

5 of 8 have agreed with prediction.  Even though h, the Planck constant was set by law (decree) in 2019, scientific forces will be changing that.  It was done for defining mass.  Now that more is known, mass can be defined using these values and their timebase, if still needed (very likely as I haven't address time, yet).

2. electron mass, m_e, + ✅

2015: 9.109 383 56(11) × 10 −31 kg

2018: 9.109 383 7015(28) x 10-31 kg  

7. Rydberg Constant, R_H, - ✅

2015: 10 973 731.568 508(65) m−1 

2018: 10 973 731.568 160(21) m-1

4. Permitivity of free space, e_0, - ✅

2010: 8.854 187 817... e-12    (exact)                  F m^-1

2018: 8.854 187 8128(13) x 10-12 F m-1

9. Proton mass, r_p, - (does not agree with prediction? recheck)*

2010:  1.672 621 777 e-27

2014:  1.672 621 898(21) × 10−27 kg

2018:  1.672 621 923 69(51) x 10-27 kg

10. Proton to electron mass ratio, mu or beta, - (does not agree with prediction? recheck)*

2010:  1836.152 672 45 

2018:  1836.152 673 43(11)  

* need to re-think #9 & #10 since I added those two are based on the others... 

Addendum:

"Instead, he believes that physicists should focus on dimensionless quantities, such as the fine-structure constant." from: https://physicsworld.com/a/can-gps-find-variations-in-plancks-constant/

Also, dimensionless proton to electron mass ratio which comes out correctly with this work that addresses the proton radius puzzle and includes the proton radius in the solution...

First!

1/alpha 1/fine-structure constant

https://physicsworld.com/a/fundamental-constant-measured-at-highest-precision-yet/

The Surfer, OM-IV (Ω4)

©2021 Mark Eric Rohrbaugh & Lyz Starwalker © 2022

Ω

Convergence!

The waveforms of the constants as the algorithm converges are shown here, starting with the ERROR versus Iteration#: (from Excel file, data generated from BASIC program*)

Error, log scale Y-axis, Iteration# X-axis

Elementary charge, e

Electron mass, m_e

Fine-structure constant, α

Permittivity of free space, ε_0

Planck's constant, h

Proton radius, r_p

Rydberg constant, R_H

Speed of Light, c

The Full Rydberg polynomial is in the upper right of this image:

The final values to about 14 digits accuracy are:

(mks units)

elementary charge, e=1.6022514387454(393)e-19  

Planck's constant, h=6.6257738721130(28)e-34  

electron mass, m_e=9.1097907336274(77)e-31  

Proton radius, r_p=8.4119972191308(31)e-16  

Rydberg constant, R_H=10973241.071596(634)  

Permittivity of free space, epsilon_0=8.8537920581144(05)e-12  

Speed of Light, c=299779058.06636(304)  

Fine-structure constant, alpha=0.0072976787382677(79)  

Digits resolution 14

Calc'd proton mass= 1.6726933172773(2)e-27

NIST   proton mass= 1.67262192369(51) x 10-27 kg

Final  fine-structure constant= 0.0072976787382677(79).                        (1/137.029874274)  

Input  fine-structure constant= 0.00729735256  (compare to above line) (1/137.035999084(21)) 

Proton/electron mass ratio=1836.1490029653(637)

More about final values later... ...(need to do a little more checking before replacing NIST/CODATA)

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constant:

“Fundamental physical constants cannot be derived and have to be measured. Developments in physics may lead to either a reduction or an extension of their number: discovery of new particles, or new relationships between physical phenomena, would introduce new constants, while the development of a more fundamental theory might allow the derivation of several constants from a more fundamental constant.

A long-sought goal of theoretical physics is to find first principles (theory of everything) from which all of the fundamental dimensionless constants can be calculated and compared to the measured values.”

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant

Looks like they might have to update their information.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constant#Examples

Comment on the solution (which was derived and discussed in previous posts and papers):

The constants are the roots of the Full Rydberg polynomial - for a single hydrogen atom. Do not reduce the "two wave/particle" system into simply examining the electrons like Feynman did in QED or like Squalid-State (Solid-State for those in Rio Linda)

"The characteristic roots (roots of the characteristic equation) also provide qualitative information about the behavior of the variable whose evolution is described by the dynamic equation.", from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_equation_(calculus)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_polynomial

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Book:_Quantum_States_of_Atoms_and_Molecules_(Zielinksi_et_al)/02:_Foundations_of_Quantum_Mechanics/2.07:_Derivation_of_the_Rydberg_Equation_from_Bohr's_Model

*modified to print out ALL intermediate values instead of simply the error and final results (see link)

The Surfer, OM-IV (Ω4)
©2021 Mark Eric Rohrbaugh & Lyz Starwalker © 2022

Ω

LaTeX Reference

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Mathematics

The Surfer, OM-IV

Ω

Solution to Proton Radius Puzzle and 8 Fundamental Physics Constants from Theory/Algorithm- Narrated

YouTube narration of solution

The Surfer, OM-IV
©2021 Mark Eric Rohrbaugh & Lyz Starwalker © 2021

"This is How We Do It"

"I'm So Paid"

Send your extra bitcorn to: 19oBJbAMmpkz5n47AfDuLDaBikBBQrFPyy

Ω

This Is How It's Done - Basic Code - Full Rydberg Equation Roots, part 3

Basic Program  <-- Load this basic program into the online basic interpreter at: http://www.calormen.com/jsbasic/ or use your own basic interpreter.  Will use this code to create the MS Excel macro/VBA document later.  It's a BASIC numerical iteration program that uses the sign-flip algorithm to solve for the roots of the Full Rydberg Polynomial. Erdos number TBD (IEEE references, Patents?).

Click the "Show output" button for more readable and total output log.

Full Rydberg Polynomial

For now, the results for the roots for our most recent re-derivation:

(mks units)

elementary charge, e=1.6022514387454(393)e-19  

Planck's constant, h=6.6257738721130(28)e-34  

electron mass, m_e=9.1097907336274(77)e-31  

Proton radius, r_p=8.4119972191308(31)e-16  

Rydberg constant, R_H=10973241.071596(634)  

Permittivity of free space, epsilon_0=8.8537920581144(05)e-12  

Speed of Light, c=299779058.06636(304)  

Fine-structure constant, alpha=0.0072976787382677(79)  

Digits resolution 14

Calc'd proton mass= 1.6726933172773(2)e-27

NIST   proton mass= 1.67262192369(51) x 10-27 kg

Final  fine-structure constant= 0.0072976787382677(79)

Input  fine-structure constant= 0.00729735256  (compare to above line)

Proton/electron mass ratio=1836.1490029653(637)

The Surfer, OM-IV
©2021 Mark Eric Rohrbaugh & Lyz Starwalker © 2021

Ω

This Is How It's Done - FRED* - Full Rydberg Equation Derivation, part 2

Goog calc link for Rydberg Poloynomial

Notice the Rydberg Polynomial only adds up to 0.999455406 

$1={{m_ee^4\over 8{\epsilon_0}^2h^3cR_H}}-{\pi r_pR_H\over \alpha^2}$

This is due to the orignal Rydberg Constant equation, which is incomplete, has adjusted ALL of the constants so that it equals 1:

Goog calc link for Rydberg Constant Equation

This ignores the proton radius and how it is connected/correlated to the other fundamental constants.

Note that it is tuned (ignoring precision of value used for proton radius for the moment) to:

Goog calc link for closeness to 1

...within 1.862e-10 of 1.0, thus, mainstream's most prized constant is a tweaked hack of theoretical and emperical work and measurements.

Once the correction is made to the equation to account for the proton radius, then the theory agrees with measurements more closely and some anomalies are simulatenously resolved. 

Still to be peer reviewed, however, by inspection, dropping the electron mass to proton mass ratio from the derivation like the mainstream does with their reduced mass assumption (to allow for an analytical solution to the wave equaitons and the creation of the Solid-State theory, which is of major practical importance and for all practical purposes works but for all of the finest of measurements) was a bad idea. Good for technology, not so good for theory.

The stabilty and uniqueness of the solution is being revisited, and plan to present a working Excel spreadsheet to demonstrate this numerical methods solution. So, the error can be kind of forgiven since it requires iteration on a computer, computers which were not available (or readily available) when the original work was done back in the 30s, 40s, 50s. No excuse in the 60s and 70s when some of the theory was "finalized". It hardly seems like science, more like a captured dogma.

*Fred gets credit for asking me if I could solve for what mass is, a Feynam problem, which happened to coincide with my search for a derivation of the proton to electron mass ratio.

Moar later.

(forgive the repeats from earlier posts, however, this approach is more concise and less scattered)

The Surfer, OM-IV

Ω

This Is How We Do It - FREE - Full Rydberg Equation Extracted, part 1

The Rydberg constant for hydrogen, from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_constant

$R_M=$ Rydberg constant for reduced Mass(?)

$R_\infty=$ Rydberg constant for heavy atoms

$R_H=$ Rydberg constant for Hydrogen

$m_e=$ mass of electron

$M=$ Mass of nucleus

$m_p=$mass of proton

$\alpha=$ Fine structure constant

$r_p=$ proton radius

$\epsilon_0$ = Permittivity of free space

$h=$ Planck's constant

$c=$ speed of light

$e=$ electron charge, fundamental charge

$\pi=$ 3.1415926535897932384626433...

$1=$  1.0000000000000000000000000...

From wikipedia page on the Rydberg constant:

$R_M={R_\infty\over {1+{m_e\over M}}}$

$R_H=R_\infty{1\over {1+{m_e\over m_p}}}$

$R_H=R_\infty{m_p\over {m_e+m_p}}$

$R_H=R_\infty{1\over {1+{m_e\over m_p}}}$

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series

This post is simply to show how to derive the Full Rydberg Equation (FRE), a polynomial that has been solved via the sign-flip numeric iteration algorithm for all terms in the equation.  This solution can only be performed with the Full Rydberg Equation as the equation for the Rydberg constant is incomplete and not solvable for the terms which compose the equation. The stabilty and uniqueness of the solution can be shown via computer numeric solution and will be available soon in The Excel VBA / macro spreadsheet.

This derivation makes use of, as a starting point,: $$R_M={R_\infty\over {1+{m_e\over M}}}$$ however, it can also begin with the wave equation, Schrödinger's wave equation, as done in previous posts and whitepapers linked throughout this blog. For simplicity and clarity, this is how we do it:

$R_M={R_\infty\over {1+{m_e\over M}}}$

$R_M(1+{m_e\over M})=R_\infty$

$(1+{m_e\over M})={R_\infty\over R_M}$

$1={R_\infty\over R_M}-{m_e\over M}$

For hydrogen, 1H @ 0°K:, $M=m_p$

$1={R_\infty\over R_H}-{m_e\over m_p}$

${m_p\over m_e}={\alpha^2\over\pi r_pR_H}=1836.15267$ - see derivation-of-proton-to-electron-mass-ratio

$1={R_\infty\over R_H}-{\pi r_pR_H\over \alpha^2}$

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

$1={{m_ee^4\over 8{\epsilon_0}^2h^3cR_H}}-{\pi r_pR_H\over \alpha^2}$

To be continued... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That's_All_She_Wrote

https://phxmarker.blogspot.com/2022/09/thats-all-she-wrote-one-equation-to.html

The Surfer, OM-IV

http://goldenmean.info/kit/

.

Ω

Ratio of Speed Limit of Sound to Light Speed Squared - Profound Relationship

Crystalline Lattice Analysis of the Speed of Sound in Metallic Hydrogen (Simple Version - WIP) Sound to Light Sonoluminescence

credit

from: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-forum/3d-array-of-spheres/td-p/8054413

The spacing of the protons, center to center, is $2r_p$. For a standing wave phononic vibration in the crystal, proton to proton spacing is $1\over2$ wavelength, so the shortest standing wave wavelength is $4r_p$, thus the $\pi\over2$? in:

https://phxmarker.blogspot.com/2021/05/speed-limit-of-sound-fine-structure.html

$$f_u={v_u\over\lambda_u}$$
$$v_u=c\sqrt{{\pi\over2}r_pR_H}$$

$$\lambda_u=4r_p$$

$$f_u=c\sqrt{{\pi\over32}{R_H\over r_p}}$$

Max Speed of Sound Google Calc link

Google Calc Link: c*sqrt(pi/32*(Rydberg constant)/0.8414femtometers)=

The frequency would be a subharmonic of this.

Wavelength of the sound is $4r_p=3.3656 femtometers$

A subharmonic of a factor 178,274,305 would bring the frequency down to the middle the visible spectrum:

Google calc link to divide frequncy by 178274305

Vibrating a crystal of metallic hydrogen at 60GHz would make it radiate in the visible spectrum?

(need to revisit basics - Work In Progress -WIP)

(I would imagine there is a lot of noise in space)

Modifications for Tension-Pressure and density:

$$f_u={v_u\over\lambda_u}\sqrt{T\over\mu}$$

$$v_u=c\sqrt{{\pi\over2}r_pR_H}$$

$$\lambda_u=4r_p$$

$$f_u=c\sqrt{{\pi\over32}{R_H\over r_p}}\sqrt{T\over\mu}$$

Might have to review crystal resonators to progress:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_oscillator#Mechanical_stress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

Once the equation is corrected for Pressure/density/elasticity/temperature or whatever, perhaps Jupiter's 22.3MHz emmissions can be simply explained. 

Moar coming.

sauce

source

Goog calc link for maximum possible sound frequency

Some effect like this, however, with the protons+ moving via phonon standing wave in a periodic 3D metallic crystal, for when the phonon frequency equals the photon frequency, however, even that assumption may be wrong... (this is LIVE derived crash and burn, results will verify over time):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

The Surfer, OM-IV

https://radiojove.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/sci_briefs/discovery.html

Ω

Simply For LaTeX Practice: Defintion of Derivative

$${df\over dt}=\displaystyle{\lim_{h \to 0}}{{f(t+h)-f(t)}\over h}$$

How?

Navy. USN, United States Navy, that's how.

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Lamport for LaTex!!!

Speed Limit of Sound - Fine Structure Constant and the Proton to Electron Mass Ratio

Speed limit of sound is limited by the speed of light, proton radius, and the Rydberg constant:

(this defines a new experiment / series of experiements to determine the proton radius)

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/41/eabc8662*

$$v_u=\alpha({m_e\over{2m_p}})^{1\over2}c$$

using for the proton to electron mass ratio:

$${m_p\over m_e}={\alpha^2\over\pi r_pR_H}$$

$$v_u=c\sqrt{{\pi\over2}r_pR_H}$$

Google Calculator Link

Google Calc link with Phi equation for mass ratio

$$r_p={2\over{\pi R_H}}{({v_u\over c})}^2$$

Google Calc Proton Radius

Tinkering and Hammering Out Equations verifies!

And there you have it, another simple result from good old fashioned work!

It looks like you have a sort of Rydberg Molasses™ that slows the speed of light down as it traverses the proton radius a quarter wave at a time, thus the ${\pi\over2}$ quarter wave phase-factor, or some rms $\sqrt2\over2$ crystal lattice averaging factor.

* "Our result expands the current understanding of how fundamental constants can impose new bounds on important physical properties."

Other notes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagonal_crystal_family

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Speed_of_sound_in_solids

One more for the road:

$$({v_u\over c})^2={\pi\over2}r_pR_H$$

This clearly sheds Light on the geometric reality of the Universe.

™=That's Mine

Addendum:

Assuming the photon and phonon are the same frequency:

$$f_{phonon}=f_u$$

$$f_{photon}={c\over\lambda}$$

$$f_u={v_u\over\lambda_u}$$

$${c\over\lambda}={v_u\over\lambda_u}$$

$${v_u\over c}={\lambda_u\over\lambda}$$

$$({v_u\over c})^2=({\lambda_u\over\lambda})^2$$

$$({\lambda_u\over\lambda})^2={\pi\over2}r_pR_H$$

Moar later to check correlation in k-space/momentum space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen#Claimed_observation_of_solid_metallic_hydrogen,_2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delocalized_electron

The Surfer, OM-IV

Cannon Fire!

Ω