Tuesday, September 26, 2023

Proton Decay , Lifetime = ∞

This previous post on proton decay may have inadvertently  both provided a new derivation for the proton radius puzzle and simultaneously proving the proton is infinitely (∞) stable:
  1. First, assume the proton is infinitely (∞) stable, which implies the time derivative of the mass of the proton is zero (0).
  2. B, assume the proton's radius is infinitely (∞) stable, and also set its time derivative to zero (0).
Proton Storm (stretch analogy)

Simply assume the time derivative rate of change of the mass & radius is 0, no changing, thus stable. This simple assumption then gives the form of the solution to the proton radius puzzle as shown in the full derivation originally done June 11, 2015.
(MPRP)t=RPMP+MPRPt=0

RPMP+MPRPt=0

RPMP=MPRP

MPMP=RPRP


ln(MP)=ln(RP)+C

ln(RP)=ln(1RP)

ln(MP)=ln(1RP)+C

MP=eCRP

MPRP=K[1]

[1] This alone is notable - the form of the solution is the same as the actual proton radius puzzle solution equation. 


The Surfer, OM-IV

Monday, September 25, 2023

The Original Error, continued (the NIST/CODATA coefficients are only good to about 5 decimal places!)


Balance



Error of this magnitude (0.000001) implies the NIST/CODATA coefficients are only good to about 5 decimal places!

Work in progress to summarize initial errors and then continueing error as the iterations continue...


The Surfer, OM-IV

Friday, September 22, 2023

Q: Practical Reasons for More Digits of Accuracy for Fundamental Physics Constants?

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


What are the practical reasons for more digits of accuracy? Are there applications that require more precision/digits? 
Technical vs. scientific reasons, is there a scientific/mathematical/logical need for more and why?
A reminder: technology masquerading as science is a dead end. [CERN & Higgs Boson]


* Note: they are saying seventh [7th] digit when they are lucky to have 4-5 decimal places correct. The proton radius was off a whopping -4% (1 decimal only and they call this science?) and in 2018 when NIST/CODAT updated the proton radius THEY DID NOT CORRECT the other constants:
The new measurement, which is reported in Nature, differs from the value obtained in the 2018 Berkeley experiment in its seventh digit. This result surprised** the Paris researchers, since it implies that either one or both measurements has an error currently unaccounted for. However, the two groups’ measurements do agree closely with the value of ฮฑ calculated from precise measurements of the electron’s so-called g-factor, which relates to its magnetic moment. In a related News and Views article, Mรผller notes that the Paris result “confirms that the electron has no substructure and is truly an elementary particle”.

** surprised them, however, not The Surfer and readers of this blog! 

The OTHER reasons the search for more precision/accuracy must go on:

  1. Scientific
  2. Technical
  3. Consciousness/Spiritual
  4. Known Unknown
  5. Unknown Unknown
  6. Neither Science Nor Religion

Moar later...

The Surfer, OM-IV

Wednesday, September 20, 2023

The Original Error - Original Rydberg Constant




The Surfer, OM-IV


Saturday, September 16, 2023

n=0: Lowest Energy State ⍺



The Omega Point
Smallest physical matter/dimension, setting the electron aside for now since it needs work.
The beginning to the end.
$$r_p$$

The lowest energy state boundary conditions equivalence between Bohr & Wave Model is likely the conditions for the solution of the boundary value problem for the constants.
A mathematical investigation of second order complex wave equations and examining if there are examples where the boundary value coefficients can be found would be informative. 
Information Theory - IT - Information Technology



It's a shame there isn't a theory for the fundamental constants yet.

The Surfer, OM-IV

Saturday, September 9, 2023

The Original Error -- Cumulative Systematic-Error in Constants of The Rydberg Equation



The error is about 0.000054 out of 1.  However, this is with the corrected from -4% error from the 0.87fm to the 0.84fm proton radius.
A check: plug in values of constants from the GPS system and compare to error with CODATA values

Therefore, for the original starting error, we will examine it with both values of the proton radius - 0.87fm & 0.84fm.
Then, after that, the first iteration error will be calculated using the corrected proton radius leaving the original -4% error behind.

  1. Error from unity (1) with original incomplete Rydberg formula/equation.
  2. Error from unity (1) with $r_p=0.87...fm$
  3. Error from unity (1) with $r_p=0.84...fm$
  4. Error from unity (1) with first full set of iterated values
  5. ...continue...
A -4% error is unacceptable for real science.

9/12/2023 updates & comments:


It's worth looking at the error with the original Rydberg equation because it becomes apparent that the constants are FINE TUNED to make the error very small, less than 10^-10, even though there was a HUGE -4% error with the proton radius, and when CODATA/NIST updated the proton radius to 0.84fm THEY DID NOT UPDATE THE OTHER CONSTANTS! The error in some of them are so huge that they are likely only good to 3-4 decimal places from the ideal.

The Surfer, OM-IV

Saturday, September 2, 2023

Trolling the Scientists for Truth

Like election fraud can be proven, so can science/scientific fraud.
NCSWIC

Saturday, July 29, 2023

The Next Iteration or n = n + 1 ; n=+ ; n++

credit

The Next Iteration requires great peace of mind and patience, like assembling a Japanese bicycle on Christmas Eve.

The starting error was negative, first iteration positive, and if all goes well, the Next Iteration should be somewhere between the two.

However, before proceeding, the original error and first iteration error will be checked or re-checked.

(published early, updates coming over weekend)



Error = how far equation minus 1 is from 0 (zero)



The Surfer, OM-IV


Saturday, July 15, 2023

The Proton is a Dynamic!

The proton is a dynamic, not a static, however, much information about it can be gained by examining the overall static nature of the constants. Are the constants constant some ask.  No problem asking, however, it is better to focus on derivation theory of the constants rather than a divergence.

Is the proton to electron mass ratio constant over time?
Is the proton a stable dynamic? (Does the proton decay?)
What is the electron? Does it need to be redefined?

Science, over time, will tell...  

credit



The Surfer, OM-IV
©1991 Mark Eric Rohrbaugh & Lyz Starwalker © 2023

Saturday, June 24, 2023

n=1 (DRAFT): A Physics Letter A (Mathematical Physics): Proton Radius, the Rydberg Equation, and Fundamental Physics Constants

Proton Radius, the Rydberg Equation, and Fundamental Physics Constants






n=1 Bohr_model


Highlights

  • Complete solution to proton radius puzzle
  • Correction to Rydberg Equation (extends with proton to electron mass ratio)
  • Roots of Full Rydberg Equation define fundamental physics constants

Abstract

A mathematical solution for the proton radius has been derived which adds a term to the Rydberg equation.  By avoiding using the reduced mass approximation (as has been done in solid-state theory and the hydrogen atom's analytical solution to the Schrรถdinger Wave Equation) and including the proton to electron mass ratio which brings in the proton radius.  A proton to electron mass ratio of 1836.15267 is calculated with a proton radius of 0.8412fm.

Keywords

Proton radius; proton to electron mass ratio; Rydberg equation 


1.0 Introduction
This derivation makes use of, as a starting point,: $$R_M={R_\infty\over {1+{m_e\over M}}}[1]$$

1.1 Governing model
Schrรถdinger Equation (and Full Wave Equation)
(At lowest energies, n=1, Bohr model and Schrรถdinger model are equivalent for 1H hydrogen)

2.0 Derivation:
$R_M={R_\infty\over {1+{m_e\over M}}}$
$R_M(1+{m_e\over M})=R_\infty$
$(1+{m_e\over M})={R_\infty\over R_M}$
$1={R_\infty\over R_M}-{m_e\over M}$
For hydrogen, 1H @ 0°K:, $M=m_p$
$1={R_\infty\over R_H}-{m_e\over m_p}$

For the electron to proton mass ratio (inverse of proton to electron mass ratio), the derivation of the proton to electron mass ratio:
$$\mu={m_p\over m_e}=1836.15267\dots$$
$$m_e={2R_{H}h\over c\alpha^2}$$
( $m_e$ for the electron mass: Derivation of Rydberg equation for electron mass, also see [1] above)
$$m_e{\alpha^2\over R_{H}}={2h\over c}$$
$$m_e{\alpha^2\over \pi R_{H}}={2h\over \pi c}$$
By substitution, let $r_e={\alpha^2\over\pi R_{H}}$, then:
$$m_er_e={2h\over\pi c}$$
Now, because for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, for every force there is an equal and opposite force, for every torque, there is an equal and opposite torque, equate $m_pr_p$ to $m_er_e$ to balance torque/spin between proton and electron:
$$m_er_e={2h\over\pi c}=m_pr_p$$
$$\therefore {m_p\over m_e}={r_e\over r_p}={\alpha^2\over\pi r_pR_{H}}=1836.15267$$
Where:
$$m_pr_p={2h\over\pi c}=4\ell m_{\ell}$$
$$r_p=0.841235640(294664)\;fm$$(Google Calculator for r_p)

$\mu={m_p\over m_e}={\alpha^2\over\pi r_pR_H}=1836.15267$ (Google Calculator for ฮผ)
$1={R_\infty\over R_H}-{\pi r_pR_H\over \alpha^2}$
$R_\infty={m_ee^4\over 8{\epsilon_0}^2h^3c}$
$$1={{m_ee^4\over 8{\epsilon_0}^2h^3cR_H}}-{\pi r_pR_H\over \alpha^2}\;[2]$$

$R_{H}=$ Rydberg constant for 1H hydrogen atom
$R_{\infty}=$ Rydberg constant for massive nucleus atom
$R_{M}=$ Rydberg constant for Multi-proton atom
$m_{\ell}=$ Planck mass

3. Other Solutions for proton mass (ratio)
Boundary Value Problem method of determining coefficients use with wave equation for both electron and proton; Geometrical assuming vacuum density and information theory of black hole event horizon - Haramein et al

4. Conclusions
This derivation provides a polynomial [2] that predicts future trends of fundamental physics constants coefficient values as the measurements are refined over the years to be more precise.  The polynomial [2] may also actually DEFINE the constants - ongoing work with the polynomial investigating stability and convergence continues.  

There are various algorithms one can envision setting some constants as known and iterating to find the others, and likely all constants in the equation.  A timebase reference is also needed and likely why c is defined in mainstream via decree rather than derivation. 

Credit authorship contribution statement
Mark's derivation with Lyz's input to equate/balance the proton and electron 

Declaration of Competing Interest
n/a

Data availability
n/a

References
[standard]

*Mยต - Master of the ยตniverse, Macro and micro, inner and outer-dimensional


The Surfer, OM-IV
©2023 Mark Eric Rohrbaugh & Lyz Starwalker ©2023

Friday, June 9, 2023

The Physics Constants as a Boundary Value Problem

A glaring incompleteness of current scientific theory is the complete and total lack of solving the constants as a boundary value problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_value_problem

There is a large body of literature on this subject and electrical engineers known it well.  Signals and System engineering requires it. 
The constants are coefficients of a boundary value problem. 

Boundary Conditions:
  1. Single Hydrogen atom - full analytical solution to Schrรถdinger's Equation [1]
  2. 0ยบK - Absolute Zero, no phonons/vibrations
  3. No applied EM fields
  4. vacuum? (implied by 1.)
  5. t = -, 0, +∞, t + 2ฯ€ft
  6. Extract the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_polynomial
  7. Instrinsic/characteristic polynomial/solution?
  8. 2 body problem, do not reduce to single body such as in Squalid-State
  9. n=1, ?more?
Considering it is simply a second order wave equation, what is the reason mainstream science has ignored the fundamentals?
This is quite different than looking at the physics constants as "free" parameters.



http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hydsch.html*
* DO NOT USE REDUCED MASS ASSUMPTION!
[1] - establishes 1H@0ยบK as reference mass - the Hydrogen atom / proton is a reference for all other mass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nearly_free_electron_model <~~ Works for Technology not Science!
The Surfer, OM-IV