This entry was posted in Mathematics, Philosophy of science, Physics and tagged coupling constant explained, electron charge as coupling constant, God's number, junction number explained, magic of fine-structure constant, magic of God's number, meaning of the fine-structure constant, physical meaning of coupling constant, the dimensions of the electron, the fine-structure constant explained, the mystery explained. Bookmark the permalink.
Part of your explanation is simple mathematical manipulation.
where me=mass of electron, αe= fine structure constant, re=classical electron radius, and rc,e is the reduced Compton wavelength of the electron.
where αe= fine structure constant, rs = Schwarzchild radius of electron.
Obviously when you divide by re by me you get αe.
So as we can see, this says nothing about αe.
For your information, there is a meaning to the fine structure constant, but this isn’t it.
I could tell you what it is but you wouldn’t believe me anyway.
Conventional physics contains a critical error in its dimensions that prevents you and others from discovering the true meaning of the fine structure constant.
I have constructed a grid that allows me to track physics expressions for consistency in units, and there are errors all over the place. The Reissner – Nordstrom Metric for example should yield Planck length for rq. These errors are caused by physicists not understanding the fine structure constant.
I am currently writing a paper that shows that the systems of units (MKS, SI etc) that are being currently used in physics cannot completely describe nature because electric current or charge has not been correctly related to distance and time. Evidence of this problem lies with the dimensionless fine structure constant and the renormalization of volume out of equations giving the impression that an electron is a point like particle. An error in dimensions (or I perceive it to be a short-cut) occurred in physics over 100 years ago when physicists related mechanical or gravitational force with electrostatic force. My work has detected this error and supports an argument that the fine structure constant is related to volume (thus having dimension) which was claimed by Armand Wyler back in the 70’s.
What I have constructed is a two dimensional grid with physical properties on the grid. The grid can be used to track the units of any physics expression. It correctly shows when and why we need to apply the fine structure constant and it gives physical meaning to the number. The grid works so well, I can give several examples of published work that can be shown to be incorrect and in one case the grid can be used to explain someone else’s work (Harry Hellman on the Gravitation constant) that was never completed because of a lack of understanding.
I understand that physics will never accept my work, because they have devised a system that actually works to a point. But, if physics wants to advance further, perhaps a re-examination of dimensional analysis is required.
My model shows that the electron has a unique volume composed of the surface area of a sphere times the Compton wavelength. So it appears to be a sphere moving in a circular orbit.
This also pertains to the proton. The proton has a smaller Compton wavelength but a larger sphere surface area than the electron, but the product gives the same volume as the electron. Because my model shows that charge is proportional to this volume-product , it also explains why the proton and electron have the same magnitude of charge dispite their different masses.
This also answers the 4/3 problem.
The model seems to answer many unanswered questions in physics.
I recently met with a professor at U of ND and he was amazed at how well the grid worked.
Unfortunately, there is no one in my area that is able to help me.
As you can probably tell I am not a professional in physics, but I do feel that my grid can be a valuable tool to someone. What I am doing is comparing other peoples work with my grid looking for anomalies. For example, my grid shows that the fine structure constant should be applied to the Reissner-Nordstrom metric thus giving a value to rq equal to Planck length rather than their reported value.
I am currently looking for a good place to post my work, and I am trying to find someone to sponsor me so that I can post my work at arXiv. If you have any suggestions as to where I can post my work, I would greatly appreciate any help. Remember, this work is unique and controversial and most people are going to be very sceptical of it. However, this work has the potential of changing our perception of certain dimensional quantities in physics.
If I don’t find a good site to post my work, I can send you a copy via email if you are still interested. Any criticism would be appreciated.
I do have a question that I hope you can answer.
If the fine structure constant is dimensionless, can’t we place it on either side of the expression and still get a radius. In other words if we are solving for a radius, how did physicists figure out that there are two distinct radii and not just one, that being the reduced Compton wavelength. Couldn’t the reduced Compton wavelength be a solution to many expressions just by moving the fine structure constant to the opposite side of the expression?