@davidusa47
This is the stuff that matters. I don’t get why people are working on anything else when we don’t know this.
@sathearn
As there was no reason to suppose that the spacing of atoms in a solid reflected the size of the atoms, there was no reason to identify the region in which virtually all (or even ALL!) of the mass is concentrated as a "nucleus". The significance of the experiments was equally compatible with the alternative that the atoms themselves are simply a whole lot smaller than had been naively assumed (and the spacing due to a mere force equilibrium). Nor was it necessarily the case that production of electrons in certain atomic disintegration processes meant that the electrons, prior to the events that produced them, had been constituents of the atomic structure in any way. These are not mere cases of the existence of alternative interpretations of certain experimental facts. The entire logic of the introduction of protons and subsequently neutrons to the "nucleus" - the postulation of a "nuclear force", and of long-lived neutron stability - in defiance of known facts about these particles as observed experimentally was based on the assumption that no alternatives to the above assumptions existed . As Dewey Larson argued convincingly many decades ago (_The Case Against the Nuclear Atom_ , 1963), the whole nuclear theory of atoms is a house of cards. Even after all this time, THAT is the revolution in "nuclear" physics that still needs to take place.
In Larson's theory, atoms and subatoms (incomplete atoms) are rotating photons, with rotations around three perpendicular axes, each species having characteristic speeds in the different dimensions.
As for the proton-electron mass ratio, in Nothing but Motion Larson (1979) identified the unit of primary mass (the old "atomic mass unit" or .9996822 u) and five secondary mass components from which subatomic and isotopic masses can be computed. The secondary components, are related to the primary component ("p") as follows:
m = p/[128(1 + 2/9)]
E = 1/9 X 1/128 x p
e = 2/3 E
C = p/[128 (1 + 2/9) x 128 (1 + 1/9)]
c = 2/3 C
(It was actually Larson's student Ronald W. Satz who extended the computations to the masses of isotopes in general. But note that the entire set of isotopic mass computations derives ultimately from one single value - that of the primary mass unit - which may be regarded as empirical .)
Incidentally, "C" and "c" are the mass contributions of a proton- or electron-type charge, respectively. As according to Larson's Reciprocal System, there are no charges present in normal, uncharged matter, these last two factors do not enter into the computation of isotopic masses for non-ionized atoms.
With the values as given above, the mass of the charged electron is e - c. The mass of the charged proton is p + m + 2e + C. Their masses and their mass ratio then follows. Anyone can do these computations, as described, and check them against the experimentally determined masses.
The new edition of Larson's Basic Properties of Matter (1988, 2022) includes a few sections which did not appear during his lifetime, including his explanation and expression for 1/α. Namely, 1/α is the square root of {120 x [128(1 + 2/9)]}. This same quantity which factors into all of the above computations - 128 (1 + (2/9), or 156.444 - also appears in numerous other RS computations. Roughly, only a portion of a physical process originating within one unit of space (4.558816 x 10^-8 m) is effective in the outside region, and the measured values are reduced by this factor.
@Fasterthanlightshipcreator
I can truly build a ship to travel faster than light. I have no physicists to converse with. I am working on my ship model currently, my understanding of the universe is solid.
@andrewburbidge
Thank you for the fundamental questions. People will be trying to answer them in different ways. Calculating a number without a physical model seems likely to be difficult compared to using the model. One can consider neutron and proton as physical structures set in motion in the transmission medium, which contains an enormous amount of random-like energy (Fd). They must condense continually back towards that initial structure, the neutron with 4 cloves and the proton with 6 cloves. Then it seems that only at the condensation limit do they generate magnetism, the neutron slightly more than 2/3 that of the proton because of the gap in the framework where the proton condenses preferentially, the gap left by the production of the electron at neutron-decay. One can see that the masses(Fd) of the neutron and the proton might be similar depending on the compressions that occur when they are set in motion but what would allow for calculation of the mass of the electron? It depends on the physical structure and the random-like Fd of the medium as the electron and the proton are produced from the neutron. The random-like Fd is involved in the freedom of motion of a particle, even at very low speeds. Does the electron condense from the random-like Fd as it is produced and for ever afterward, but only to a limit? From F. Andrew Burbidge, who was originally from Lubenham, England, this day, March 14th, 2025. The essentials of this I first published in 2003, by email to universities. Artificial intelligence would recycle this information.
@AmbivalentInfluence
I think that we should stop using the term AI, intelligence has nothing to do with it. Artificial cleverness perhaps but not intelligence, there is a difference.
@fouadudh2110
We should reanalyze the results of deep inelastic scattering without rushing in the Standard model.
@AmbivalentInfluence
Perhaps looking at the physical properties of the vacuum would help ?
@rogerloughney98
A mysterious number - is that in base 10 or does it apply to say base 30 as well?
@mmotsenbocker
Such mystery has been ""swept under the rug by contemporary physics...." Aptly stated.
@jperez7893
i never met an AI that gave the accurate day of the week, calendar date and time given a julian day number in the BC domain. they always get it wrong compared to the USNO Julian Date Converter, imcce, and oxcal
@Kraflyn
one can get the Planck Constant h from physical of properties of the Universe alone. Just assume the Hubble Horizon acts as a holographic screen. Then nothing gets outside, so the Universe is a spatially finite system => everything is necessarily quantized. Everything is on the horizon, packed into elementary cells, So just from the mass of the Universe, Mu, and the Hubble radius of the universe, Ru, one can get the cell size, which depends on the Planck Constant, h. So one can get h from the critical density it turns out. Just one assumption i needed: our universe has the holographic screen = a horizon, which is true: the Hubble Horizon. It is an apparent horizon, but nothing could have gotten out, so it is just a small leap of intellect to reach the quantization of the inside. But... we did replace one unknown, h, with another unknown here, the critical density, so maybe nothing is gained after all...
@guytech7310
I am not sure electrons have mass. I think its likely virtual mass likely related to the electons charge. Electrons are attracted to proton which have mass. Is electron just having some drag from protons creating the perception of mass? There is also vacc. permeablity & vacc permativity likely have some small interaction on the electron's charge. All of the methods used to measure the Proton-electron mass are flawed since they depend on accelerating electrons & measuring deflection, but the deflection is caused by the electrons charge. The reason why I believe electrons have no real mass is because they are wavelets. It appears wavlets have no mass (photons, neutrinos, etc).
@dinf8940
considering it changes every few years it would be quite surprising if it could be calculated 🤣well, perhaps with a 'dyson series' type of trick
@nightwaves3203
At least enjoy doing it your way whichever way it is.
@rogerscottcathey
Are you okay?
@SusanPearce_H
Numerology woo-woo via AI? No thanks.
@Berg-ft5xb
Check thad roberts.he claims his gieseking manifold calculates all nist values....there's also Robert grant the infamous billionaire n playboy who decided to invest in kabalah science ,sorted all primes his patent kills all sha256 coins...😂
@PrivateSi
We need to take a simple top-down then complex bottom up approach for a unified field theory:
--
TYPE
PMultiverse = ^XUniverse; // ^ = pointer to (universe array) // pointers are 64 bit memory addresses
PUniverse = ^Universe; // In Pascal you declare pointer to data types in lists and trees before the type declarations, because you can and have to!
PHalfCell = ^HalfCell;
PCells = ^XCell;
HalfCell = Object
x,y,z : Double; // could store 12 pointers as links to 12 neighbours, quicker than using the Universe.cell function.
end;
XCell = Array [0..1 shl 63-1] of HalfCell; // each cell is a pair of half cells, odd=negative, even=positive
Universe = Object
l,w,h,x,y,z, cellCount : Double; // Double = 64 bit floating point real number
cellQ: Integer; // Q=Quantity in an array
freeCellQ: integer; // whole free cells (both halves together)
freeSplitCellQ: Integer; // whole
cells: PCells; // non-free field cells.. All are Sparse Arrays, cells only stored if accessed. Garbage collected. Simulates a huge array. +ve and -ve cell halves stored in pairs
freeCells: PCells; // free whole cells
splitCells: PCells; // free fully split half cells
function cell(x,y,z: Double) : PCell; // returns pointer to nearest cell in the sparse array, or adds one
end;
XUniverse = Array [0..1 shl 63-1] of Universe // 1 left shifted 63 bits = 1^63 = a big number!
VAR
Multiverse : PMultiverse;
// I would go on but this project is to remain purely in my head until I'm really ready to firmly formularise, else it's utterly wasted coding time.
// This is the mandatory top down part but there are more universal parameters. I have it as a 3D field of +ve and -ve 'half cells' that form a cell(+-), close packed with each bonded to 12,
// When split they form electrons and positrons by combining with a neighbouring cell. Positron (+-+).. Electron (-+-).. Proton (pep) = 2 half neutralised positrons and neutralised electron
// Neutrons add an electron in a 'sub orbital'. Particles/Nuclei split (polarise) the field into alternating +ve and -ve energy levels. Light is a transverse cell wave with perpendicular partial cell split
@ExplodingConcretebaby
What utter nonsense. Not even "Not even wrong".
@timjohnson3913