My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > Science Forums > Physics

Physics Physics Forum


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
February 5th, 2016, 10:17 PM   #1
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Phoenix, AZ

Posts: 10
Thanks: 0

Math Focus: Calculus, System and Signal Analysis
Lightbulb Proton to Electron Mass Ratio

Equation for the proton to electron mass ratio:
$$\mu={m_p\over m_e} = {\alpha^2\over\pi r_pR_H}=1836.15267$$
$m_p=$ mass of proton
$m_e=$ mass of electron
$\alpha=$ fine-structure constant
$r_p=$ radius of proton
$R_H=$ Rydberg constant

comes from combining the Rydberg equation for electron mass:
$$m_e={2R_Hh\over c\alpha^2}$$
$c=$ speed of light
$h=$ Planck's constant

with Nassim Haramein's equation for the proton mass-radius relationship:
$$m_pr_p=4\ell m_{\ell}$$
$\ell=\sqrt{\hbar G\over c^3}=$ Planck length
$m_{\ell}=\sqrt{\hbar c\over G}=$ Planck mass
$\hbar={h\over 2\pi}$ = Reduced Planck's constant
$G=$ Universal Gravitational constant

CODATA value for ${m_p\over m_e}=1836.15267389(17)$

calculated mass ratio using my derived equation:
1836.15267(421379) <- only good to 9 digits due to limited resolution of CODATA for fundamental constants.

(By the way, this is confirmation to the resolution of the proton radius puzzle:
$$r_p=0.841235640294664 fm$$ )
Mark Rohrbaugh - February 6, 2016

Last edited by phxmarker; February 5th, 2016 at 11:14 PM.
phxmarker is offline  
 
February 8th, 2016, 04:17 PM   #2
Math Team
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Alabama

Posts: 3,264
Thanks: 902

What is your point? This is a simple algebraic manipulation, but it is NOT a "resolution of the proton radius puzzle" because you assumed that when you used "Nassim Haramein's equation for the proton mass-radius relationship".

Last edited by skipjack; February 8th, 2016 at 04:57 PM.
Country Boy is offline  
February 8th, 2016, 04:30 PM   #3
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,305
Thanks: 962

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Now that Country Boy brings it up, just what is the proton radius "puzzle?" I'm not aware of any problems here, except perhaps for calculating it directly from QCD. That's likely to be a nasty one.

-Dan
topsquark is offline  
February 8th, 2016, 06:36 PM   #4
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Phoenix, AZ

Posts: 10
Thanks: 0

Math Focus: Calculus, System and Signal Analysis
The proton puzzle is the proton radius measurement discrepancy problem that was revealed when researchers went in to refine the CODATA measurement for the proton radius with a new measurement technique (supposedly more accurate). In 2010 & 2013, muonic hydrogen was used and the proton radius came out to be about 0.8412fm which is 4% smaller than the CODATA value of 0.8768fm for the proton radius.

This is a major unresolved problem in physics, and the relationships above clearly show Nassim Haramein's equation not only predicts the proton radius, it is also a key part of the first accurate equation for the proton to electron mass ratio based on fundamental physical constants rooted in a geometrical and information theory based analytical derivation approach (i.e., the derivation is physics based, not numerology).

And this is the first and only physics based equation and it is 100% accurate. You cannot find any other equation for the proton to electron mass ratio that is physics based.

The point is this is the first equation for the proton to electron mass ratio that is based on fundamental physical constants and it agrees with - MATCHES - measured data. Do you know how long people have been looking for an analytical equation for the proton to electron mass ratio?

Last edited by phxmarker; February 8th, 2016 at 07:35 PM.
phxmarker is offline  
February 8th, 2016, 07:12 PM   #5
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,305
Thanks: 962

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phxmarker View Post
The proton puzzle is the proton radius measurement discrepancy problem that was revealed when researchers went in to refine the CODATA measurement for the proton radius with a new measurement technique. In 2010 & 2013, muonic hydrogen was used and the proton radius came out to be about 0.8412fm which is 4% smaller than the CODATA value of 0.8768fm for the proton radius.

This is a major unresolved problem in physics, and the relationships above clearly show Nassim Haramein's equation not only predicts the proton radius, it is also a key part of the first accurate equation for the proton to electron mass ratio based on fundamental physical constants rooted in a geometrical and information theory based analytical derivation approach (i.e., the derivation is physics based, not numerology).

And this is the first and only physics based equation and it is 100% accurate. You cannot find any other equation for the proton to electron mass ratio that is physics based.

The point is this is the first equation for the proton to electron mass ratio that is based on fundamental physical constants and it agrees with measured data. Do you know how long people have been looking for an analytical equation for the proton to electron mass ratio?
It looks like curiosity is going to kill this cat.

Ignoring all the bad stuff I found on the internet about Mr. Haramein and his version of the way Physics works, despite the number of articles he has posted online I have been unable to locate the one in which he derives the $\displaystyle m_p r_p = 4 L m_L$ relationship. I would like to see this derivation as I cannot understand why the RHS has nothing at all to do with a proton.

And there is no such thing as a 100% accurate equation in Physics. It is accurate only insofar as data supports it. And clearly data cannot be 100% accurate!

-Dan
topsquark is offline  
February 8th, 2016, 07:56 PM   #6
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Phoenix, AZ

Posts: 10
Thanks: 0

Math Focus: Calculus, System and Signal Analysis
Haramein does have a derivation for $m_pr_p=4Lm_L$. This is the algebraic form, however, there is a geometric form. A verbal description is in his paper: http://hiup.org/wp-content/uploads/2...13PRRI3363.pdf

I agree with you on the 100% comment. I do believe the equation for the proton to electron mass ratio matches the measured data to about 9 decimal places, and likely it matches to 12 or more digits. The calculation's accuracy is limited by the number of digits of the accuracy of the measured speed of light. (using all CODATA values, I found c to be the limiting term for digits of resolution)
phxmarker is offline  
February 9th, 2016, 01:57 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2014
From: Glasgow

Posts: 2,164
Thanks: 736

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
Why are you posting this? What do you want us to do?
Benit13 is offline  
February 9th, 2016, 08:12 AM   #8
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,305
Thanks: 962

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phxmarker View Post
Haramein does have a derivation for $m_pr_p=4Lm_L$. This is the algebraic form, however, there is a geometric form. A verbal description is in his paper: http://hiup.org/wp-content/uploads/2...13PRRI3363.pdf

I agree with you on the 100% comment. I do believe the equation for the proton to electron mass ratio matches the measured data to about 9 decimal places, and likely it matches to 12 or more digits. The calculation's accuracy is limited by the number of digits of the accuracy of the measured speed of light. (using all CODATA values, I found c to be the limiting term for digits of resolution)
I have done a first approximation read-through of the paper and, whereas the algebra is rather pretty, I have to say that I see no reason to believe its claims.

1) I would be much more comfortable with the concepts if everything were a black hole. There is a Schwarzschild radius for every object but it only has a physical meaning if the object can fit inside of it.

I suppose you could tile any surface with your "Planck areas" but as the proton doesn't actually have a surface I don't see how this could work.

2) If anyone had truly quantized GR I would have heard of it by now, so I doubt it exists. Can you please give me a reference for this paper as well?

-Dan
topsquark is offline  
February 9th, 2016, 08:29 AM   #9
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Phoenix, AZ

Posts: 10
Thanks: 0

Math Focus: Calculus, System and Signal Analysis
There are a series of papers at Publications | Hawaii Institute for Unified Physics
The one on the universal scaling law of matter is important as well as a few of the other papers there. The ideas are giving results, as it can easily be seen with the equation for proton to electron mass ratio.

The ideas help solve a few of the unsolved physics problems, so it's kind of important and showing a new direction for physics to take.
phxmarker is offline  
February 9th, 2016, 09:08 AM   #10
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,305
Thanks: 962

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phxmarker View Post
There are a series of papers at Publications | Hawaii Institute for Unified Physics
The one on the universal scaling law of matter is important as well as a few of the other papers there. The ideas are giving results, as it can easily be seen with the equation for proton to electron mass ratio.

The ideas help solve a few of the unsolved physics problems, so it's kind of important and showing a new direction for physics to take.
Okay, the link to the "quantized Schwarzschild solution" goes back to the original paper referenced before. This is not actually a quantum theory...it is merely a patchwork of your Planck units across the Schwarzschild surface. The name of the work is really confusing.

I'll browse the rest later.

-Dan
topsquark is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > Science Forums > Physics

Tags
electron, mass, proton, ratio



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another try at a classical electron J Thomas Physics 0 February 2nd, 2015 08:55 AM
Moving proton, Magnetic field, velocity, force FishFace Physics 3 October 27th, 2011 06:39 AM
A proton moves perpendicular to a uniform magnetic fieldB at r-soy Physics 0 February 7th, 2011 01:31 AM
Magnitude of force between electron & proton sivela Physics 1 January 27th, 2011 04:51 PM
Solving For Mass, Given mass as constant and 1 unknown DesolateOne Elementary Math 1 December 16th, 2010 07:37 PM





Copyright © 2019 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.