Nassim Haramein on the Radius Of The Proton - "all of a sudden all of standard the standard model QED just goes out the window"

2019 - electron re-measurement of proton radius agrees with muonic measurement verifying proton radius puzzle

"something that really is remarkable that

happened in last few weeks there was

papers that were published they were

able to remeasure the radius of the

proton more precisely using standard

standard techniques that is using

electrons instead of muons one

remaining criticism on my prediction of

the radius the proton which is critical

was that oh well this new radius of the

proton which is 4 percent smaller than

is predicted by QED by the standard

model is maybe wrong although it was

verified twice 2010 and 2013 and it

produced what's called a proton puzzle

the proton radius puzzle you know there

was a lot of you know literature saying

well maybe because they use muons which

are every electrons they flex the proton

radius you know the the the elasticity

of the proton radius kind of pushed and

when the when the electron was scattered

off it and that's why a smaller radius

and all this stuff trying to avoid the

problem because if the radius is 4

percent smaller all of a sudden all of

standard the standard model QED just

goes out the window

because it's highly reliant on that

radius being specifically what used to

be and so in the last few weeks

published papers were reporting on

experiments that were done where they

use normal electrons they use the the

earlier techniques but more precisely

and they got the same radius they got

the radius that they got from the view

on experiment the radius that my

equations predict so that means that and

it's funny

because the standard like this there's

actually articles in the press out there

saying Oh physics is not broken after

all we got the wig we got we confirmed

that the radius was the new onyx radius

well actually that's wrong

yeah and this physicists out there

they're little confused because the fact

that we predict that these these that

they confirmed this radius having been

four percent smaller totally breaks

physics I mean the standard model of

physics the universe is doing just fine

but the standard model of physics broken

QEDS in big trouble because the

Rydberg constant which is very

precisely measured as well and the

radius of proton now being four percent

smaller precisely measured there doesn't

work inside the QED theory that is you

know the QED theory actually used the

proton radius as as a variable to adjust

to the Rydberg constant and you know

it give the radius that they thought it

was now if it's four percent smaller all

of a sudden the Rydberg constant goes

up in smoke which was thought to be you

know the most precise prediction of any

theory you know on the planet ever well

all of a sudden it's it's wrong by a

long shot you know because it was

precise to like some 12 or 10 digit

accuracy but if it's four percent wrong

now it's not precise at all and so and

so the only theory that actually gives

the correct Rydberg constant and radius

of the proton and its mass and the mass

of the universe of course and the mass

you know without the need for dark

matter and dark energy and the mass of

all the electrons the only theory that

actually does the job

is the holographic math solution and

that's why it gives the correct

prediction for the radius the protons

that's a really good"

Dance Computers, Dance!

Like I said at the beginning of the blog, the old fashioned way, step by step. Dance Bojangles dance!

Error Steps Mirrored*

*The error is how much the Full Rydberg polynomial deviates from its ideal value of 1.

The Surfer, OM-IV (Ω4)

©2021 Mark Eric Rohrbaugh & Lyz Starwalker © 2022

Ω

Richard Feynman On The Fine-Structure Constant

Fine-structure_constant
another
Number

Richard Feynman, one of the originators and early developers of the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED), referred to the fine-structure constant in these terms:

There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e – the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455 (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.)

Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by humans. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed His pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out*– without putting it in secretly!

— Richard P. Feynman (1985). QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton University Press. p. 129. ISBN 978-0-691-08388-9. -(from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Numerological_explanations_and_multiverse_theory)

My comments:

* it comes out of the sign-flip algorithm I developed in the early 1980s at University of Cincinnati

The roots of the characteristic equation (Full Rydberg Equation) from the simultaneous solution of the Bohr and Schrödinger atomic models for a single electron hydrogen atom at 0K gives the fine-structure constant as one of the roots and it can be calculated to any desired precision.

The Surfer, OM-IV (Ω4)

©2021 Mark Eric Rohrbaugh & Lyz Starwalker © 2022

Ω

Speed of Light 1900 - 1984 Plus 2022 Ideal Plot

From: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_5sLs_6OR4Aukz0C_BZvikHfNcKEsy9Yzwmd9EOGNTA/edit?usp=sharing

Speed of Light (km/s) vs. Year
1900-2022*

*2022 value is from this work, shown for comparison

(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#History)

In 1983, the speed of light (km/s) was set to:

1983

17th CGPM, definition of the metre

299792.458 (exact)[89]

exact, as defined

Ideal value, c, based on this work:

299779.058km/s <~ 1991 this work (1991 - 2022)

299792.458km/s <~ 1983 decreed / consensus value

So, as shown on chart above, the speed of light just needs to decrease a little.

The meter definition and time reference (cesium atoms? or whatever) one or the other or both can be  adjusted to agree with the analysis. (Simultaneous Bohr/Schrödinger atom solution, lowest energy, single electron hydrogen - using 0˚K hydrogen as a reference).

This can be extended into mass definitions, however, after a little homework...

Note:  13,400 m/s is how much the speed of light has to be reduced to be the ideal theoretical value.  This is less than 25% 0f the 90,000 m/s differene between the speed of light in a vacuum and in air due to the index of refraction.  Therefore, the correction is 25% of what one would do to correct for air vs. vacuum.

Just saying.

Constants by decree works if there is solid logic behind the decree, practical logic.  More thinking required to determine if this work would be a better target for the decree...

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

Ω

Spoon Feeding Physics

The reality:

Physics information delivery!

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

Ω

The Schrödinger Wave Equation for the Hydrogen Atom

See equation 11.10.9 & 11.10.10 in link below. 

See equation 11.10.9 & 11.10.10, the Bohr model and Schrödinger model are same for lowest energies and single electron hydrogen atom.  It’s useful to see both equations- related Bohr Rydberg coefficient to quantum mechanical model (Schrödinger model):

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Map%3A_Physical_Chemistry_for_the_Biosciences_(Chang)/11%3A_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Atomic_Structure/11.10%3A_The_Schrodinger_Wave_Equation_for_the_Hydrogen_Atom

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

Ω

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