Potter's electro-magnetic universal distance per mass constant.

Potter, old chum, listen:
While your tripe below, attempting to rewrite the
framework of pedagogic physics is admirable,
its real and only value is in the personal way as
of how YOU perceive some of nature's aspects
& properties to be. That is all and no more.

Your tripe joins millions of such like schemes that
were/are and will be published, posted & blogged
by other folks, all of whom believe to have a "eureka".

But NONE of then, incl. yours will have any impact
onto the educational system or onto current R&D.

Has it been too long, since you left academia
that you can't remember that every physic lecturer
there publishes his own physics book, and does
demand that every one of his students buys it
at an exorbitant price?... If a student would turn in
test results & use YOUR tripe below instead of his,
the Prof. will give the poor kid a failing grade.

Like it or not, Potter, Physics is a social enterprise.
In it, as can bee seen, only the brightest are allowed
to do physics and "play" and do R&D. The rest of the
folks are relegated to work accoring to "specifications".

So much for the "morality" of folks, which you constantly
harp upon. But carry on, Tom. I like your tripe.Take care,
and thanks for the laughs... ahahahahanson


"Tom Potter" wrote:
This article makes rigorous definitions of Planck's constant and the fine
structure constant and suggests that they are not in fact constants.

Let us consider a system composed of one electron and one proton.

1. Let M(P) = the mass of the proton.
2. Let M(E) the mass of the electron.
3. Let c = a universal distance per time constant. ( The speed of light. )

4. Two bodies interact about a common point in a common time.
The common point is the center of mass of the system
and the common time is the period of the system.

Let T(c) = the common period divided by 2 times pi
= L(c) / c

where L(c) is the distance light travels during one radian of
interaction of the electron-proton system.

5. Let K = Potter's electro-magnetic universal distance per mass constant.
K = 1.0585382 x 10^13 meters per kilogram for E-M interactions.

6. Then the fine structure(E) = ( M(P) * K / L(c) ) ^1/3
and fine structure(E)^0 * L(c) = 1 / ( 2 * Rydberg constant )
and fine structure(E)^1 * L(c) = 2 * pi * Bohr Radius
and fine structure(E)^2 * L(c) = compton's wavelength
and fine structure(E)^3 * L(c) = 2 * pi * classical electron radius
= M(P) * K

As interactions are symmetrical about the common center of mass, we can
define a fine structure constant for the **proton** and obtain the
following
equations:

fine structure(P) = ( M(E) * K / L(c) ) ^1/3
fine structure(P)^0 * L(c) = 1 / ( 2 * Rydberg constant )
fine structure(P)^1 * L(c) = 2 * pi * Bohr Radius(proton)
fine structure(P)^2 * L(c) = compton's wavelength(proton)
fine structure(P)^3 * L(c) = 2 * pi * classical radius(proton)
= M(E) * K
fine structure(P)^3 * M(P) = fine structure(E)^3 * M(E)

7. Let h(E) be the Planck's constant for an electron.

8. Let h(P) be the Planck's constant for a **proton**.

Note that:
M(E) * M(P) * K^2 = fine(E)^3 * fine(P)^3 * L(c)^2
= h(E) * fine(P) * K / c
= h(P) * fine(P) * K / c

Also note that:
h(E) * K / c = fine(P)^3 * fine(E)^2 * L(c)^2
= M(E) * K * fine(E)^2 * L(c)

and symmetrically:
h(P) * K / c = fine(E)^3 * fine(P)^2 * L(c)^2
= M(P) * K * fine(P)^2 * L(c)

Equations showing the simpliest relationships between Planck's constant
and the Fine structure constant:
fine(P) * h(P) = M(P) * M(E) * K * c
fine(E) * h(E) = M(P) * M(E) * K * c

Note: As K and c are universal constants, and as we are considering rest
masses to be constant, h(X) and fine(X) must vary reciprocally when a
system such as a hydrogen atom is changing states.

The relationship between the orbital velocity of a body and the fine
structure constant is:
sine(X) = velocity(X) / c = fine(X) * charge ratio

comments:

1. The common period is associated with Rydberg's constant.
In other words, the distance symmetrical to both bodies
is the reciprocal of Rydberg's constant. The other distances
( comptons wavelength, etc. ) relate to a particular body.

2. If we assume that rest masses are constants, we have to acknowledge
that
the h's and fine structure constants must vary for a system to
accomodate change. The simpliest system would consider the rest masses
to be constant, the distance common to the masses L(c) to be an
independent variable and all other properties to be dependent variables.

Note that the distance L(c) is related to the common period of the system.

3. Schrodinger's Equation would be symmetrical to both the electron and
the
proton if it were based on the mass products rather than a "constant"
associated with only one of the bodies. The equation works because the
incoming and outgoing frequencies are common to both parties to an
interaction. Schrodinger's Equation, like Planck's constant
is biased in favor of the electron.

4. I emphasized distances, rather than more fundamental times and angular
displacements, in order to more clearly show the relationships between
the common physical constants.

5. Observe that the foregoing is for a one electro/one proton system,
and the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC shape of these particles would determine
how the Exclusion Principle comes into play.

6. The fundamental unit of reality is a cycle,
and Planck's constant for the electron
equates the radius of an electron cycle to a unit of electron ACTION,
and Planck's constant for the proton
equates the radius of an proton cycle to a unit of proton ACTION,

--
Tom Potter
-----------------
http://prioritize.biz/
http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66
http://xrl.in/63g4
http://www.tompotter.us

poke

"hanson" wrote in message
...
Potter, old chum, listen:
While your tripe below, attempting to rewrite the
framework of pedagogic physics is admirable,
its real and only value is in the personal way as
of how YOU perceive some of nature's aspects
& properties to be. That is all and no more.

Your tripe joins millions of such like schemes that
were/are and will be published, posted & blogged
by other folks, all of whom believe to have a "eureka".

But NONE of then, incl. yours will have any impact
onto the educational system or onto current R&D.

Has it been too long, since you left academia
that you can't remember that every physic lecturer
there publishes his own physics book, and does
demand that every one of his students buys it
at an exorbitant price?... If a student would turn in
test results & use YOUR tripe below instead of his,
the Prof. will give the poor kid a failing grade.

Like it or not, Potter, Physics is a social enterprise.
In it, as can bee seen, only the brightest are allowed
to do physics and "play" and do R&D. The rest of the
folks are relegated to work accoring to "specifications".

So much for the "morality" of folks, which you constantly
harp upon. But carry on, Tom. I like your tripe.Take care,
and thanks for the laughs... ahahahahanson


"Tom Potter" wrote:
This article makes rigorous definitions of Planck's constant and the fine
structure constant and suggests that they are not in fact constants.

Let us consider a system composed of one electron and one proton.

1. Let M(P) = the mass of the proton.
2. Let M(E) the mass of the electron.
3. Let c = a universal distance per time constant. ( The speed of
light. )

4. Two bodies interact about a common point in a common time.
The common point is the center of mass of the system
and the common time is the period of the system.

Let T(c) = the common period divided by 2 times pi
= L(c) / c

where L(c) is the distance light travels during one radian of
interaction of the electron-proton system.

5. Let K = Potter's electro-magnetic universal distance per mass
constant.
K = 1.0585382 x 10^13 meters per kilogram for E-M interactions.

6. Then the fine structure(E) = ( M(P) * K / L(c) ) ^1/3
and fine structure(E)^0 * L(c) = 1 / ( 2 * Rydberg constant )
and fine structure(E)^1 * L(c) = 2 * pi * Bohr Radius
and fine structure(E)^2 * L(c) = compton's wavelength
and fine structure(E)^3 * L(c) = 2 * pi * classical electron radius
= M(P) * K

As interactions are symmetrical about the common center of mass, we can
define a fine structure constant for the **proton** and obtain the
following
equations:

fine structure(P) = ( M(E) * K / L(c) ) ^1/3
fine structure(P)^0 * L(c) = 1 / ( 2 * Rydberg constant )
fine structure(P)^1 * L(c) = 2 * pi * Bohr Radius(proton)
fine structure(P)^2 * L(c) = compton's wavelength(proton)
fine structure(P)^3 * L(c) = 2 * pi * classical radius(proton)
= M(E) * K
fine structure(P)^3 * M(P) = fine structure(E)^3 * M(E)

7. Let h(E) be the Planck's constant for an electron.

8. Let h(P) be the Planck's constant for a **proton**.

Note that:
M(E) * M(P) * K^2 = fine(E)^3 * fine(P)^3 * L(c)^2
= h(E) * fine(P) * K / c
= h(P) * fine(P) * K / c

Also note that:
h(E) * K / c = fine(P)^3 * fine(E)^2 * L(c)^2
= M(E) * K * fine(E)^2 * L(c)

and symmetrically:
h(P) * K / c = fine(E)^3 * fine(P)^2 * L(c)^2
= M(P) * K * fine(P)^2 * L(c)

Equations showing the simpliest relationships between Planck's constant
and the Fine structure constant:
fine(P) * h(P) = M(P) * M(E) * K * c
fine(E) * h(E) = M(P) * M(E) * K * c

Note: As K and c are universal constants, and as we are considering rest
masses to be constant, h(X) and fine(X) must vary reciprocally when
a
system such as a hydrogen atom is changing states.

The relationship between the orbital velocity of a body and the fine
structure constant is:
sine(X) = velocity(X) / c = fine(X) * charge ratio

comments:

1. The common period is associated with Rydberg's constant.
In other words, the distance symmetrical to both bodies
is the reciprocal of Rydberg's constant. The other distances
( comptons wavelength, etc. ) relate to a particular body.

2. If we assume that rest masses are constants, we have to acknowledge
that
the h's and fine structure constants must vary for a system to
accomodate change. The simpliest system would consider the rest masses
to be constant, the distance common to the masses L(c) to be an
independent variable and all other properties to be dependent
variables.

Note that the distance L(c) is related to the common period of the
system.

3. Schrodinger's Equation would be symmetrical to both the electron and
the
proton if it were based on the mass products rather than a "constant"
associated with only one of the bodies. The equation works because the
incoming and outgoing frequencies are common to both parties to an
interaction. Schrodinger's Equation, like Planck's constant
is biased in favor of the electron.

4. I emphasized distances, rather than more fundamental times and angular
displacements, in order to more clearly show the relationships between
the common physical constants.

5. Observe that the foregoing is for a one electro/one proton system,
and the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC shape of these particles would determine
how the Exclusion Principle comes into play.

6. The fundamental unit of reality is a cycle,
and Planck's constant for the electron
equates the radius of an electron cycle to a unit of electron ACTION,
and Planck's constant for the proton
equates the radius of an proton cycle to a unit of proton ACTION,

--
Tom Potter

As can be seen from the fact
that I kept everyone's favorite CONSTANTS in my article,

some folks MIGHT find that
"Potter's electro-magnetic universal distance per mass constant"
provides a better understanding
of their favorite constants and observable properties.

As you imply,
the map is not the territory,

and models are NOT causes,
but are just approximations to reality,

and folks should use the model that allows them to
do what they want to do in the most efficient and cost-effective way.

--
Tom Potter
-----------------
http://prioritize.biz/
http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66
http://xrl.in/63g4
http://warp-to.us