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=RP∂MP+MP∂RP∂t=0

RP∂MP+MP∂RP∂t=0

RP∂MP=−MP∂RP

∂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. 

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

The Surfer, OM-IV

Ω

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

Balance

• Error from unity (1) with original incomplete Rydberg formula/equation.
• 1.09680531e-9 
• Error from unity (1) with rp=0.87...fm
• 0.00000414432 
• Error from unity (1) with rp=0.84...fm
• 0.00000397535
• Error from unity (1) with first full set of iterated values <-- see previous post (update coming)

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

Ω

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 α 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, Müller 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

https://www.goldenmean.info/

Ω

 

The Original Error - Original Rydberg Constant

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

Error = 1.09680531e-9

The Surfer, OM-IV

Ω

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

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-theory-which-explains-the-values-of-all-fundamental-physical-constants

https://freespoke.com/search/web?q=fundamental+constants+theory&page_token=CAMQEBgCIAo

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

The Surfer, OM-IV

Ω

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

Ω

Trolling the Scientists for Truth

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

NCSWIC