Fine Structure Constant

[junglelord]

Justin, your work has a lot of the details of The Aether Physics Model aka APM by Dave Thomson.
However his goes further in its development. MASS is indeed a fundamental dimension. Mass and EM charge are two sides of the same coin.

There is no Strong or Weak force. Yes, thats all correct. The reason for the existance of 137 according to Feynman is the answer to the universe, the fine structure constant is indeed knowable and explainable. APM made it so several years ago.

The vortex is the archetype form. Tensegrity creates matter....yes its all true.
Indeed I teach the truth via Soft Tissue Therapy. Geometry is the key, Structure and Function cannot be Separated.

[bboyer]

The reason for the existance of 137 according to Feynman is the answer to the universe

phooey ... we've been over this before :sigh: everybody knows the answer is

Answer_to_Life_the_Universe_and_Everything.png (23.45 KiB) Viewed 9832 times

courtesy of Deep Thought

jeeze, jl ....

[junglelord]

Jez, 42 is a joke.


137 is the real deal....this is the EU, not some comedy show. 137 is the fundamental for EM.

One of the great physicists of this century is a man named Richard Feynman, who teaches at CalTech and knows as much about the way the Cosmos works as any man alive. Feynman has participated in half a dozen extraordinary theoretical developments and won a fistful of prizes, including the one you get from Sweden. Even so, he likes to tell people that physics has not accomplished as much as some physicists like to brag, and that we are not as close to a great universal theory of matter and energy as some theorists like to think. Indeed, Feynman has said, physicists ought to put a special sign in their offices to remind themselves of how much they don't know. The message on the sign would be very simple. It would consist entirely of one word, or, rather, number: 137.

One hundred thirty-seven is the value of a number called the fine-structure constant. This constant, 137, is the way physicists describe the probability that an electron will emit or absorb a photon. Because this is the basic physical mechanism of electricity and magnetism, the fine-structure constant has its own symbol, the Greek letter a, “alpha.”
http://www.137.com/137/

After all my work I pray you do not need the special sign!

[Solar]

Nah!

On the determination and value of the fine structure constant

Alpha = 138.5853838

[junglelord]

If you know both theories, you will realize that they are both stating the same thing about Alpha.
It is derived the same way in both approaches, using the same quantum constants (plancks length, compton wavelength, elemental charge constant, pi, etc) with the same geometry for the electron, toroidal.

The reason why Alpha is derived that way is because sacred geometry is the original source of all forms. Sacred Geometry implicity creates Plancks Length, Compton Wavelength, Toroidal Electrons, Elemental Charge and Electron Mass constants are all derived from the underlying geometry of Aether combined with angular momentum. Phi, Pi, e, rule the universe.

Good PDF. Thanks.

[bboyer]

discussion split off to its own topic so as not to derail the original any further

[D_Archer]

from blazelabs (http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-const.asp) by Xavier Borg:

Tweaking the a fine structure constant using common sense
"Since there is no theoretical way to derive the exact value for the a constant, this is usually done experimentally at low energy levels. Current accepted value from NIST reference is 1/137.03599911(46). But we now know something that most scientists do not know. We know that matter is the 3D version of electromagnetic energy T/S, whose structure is made up of elementary energy units connecting the nodes of their structure. We also know that the ratio of the 3D mass to 1D 'unit energy' is EClass/ERydberg/2 = a-3. Hence we know that the number of EM waves joining the structure of an elementary matter unit is equal to a-3 and should therefore be an integer. Taking the present CODATA value we get a-3 = 2573380.53. So at zero Kelvin, the real value should be higher than this. If we stick to our platonic fractal structure, we find out that any structure made up of any combination of platonic shapes will always end up with an even total number of elements, so it makes sense we select 2573382 as our value for a-3, which gives us a value for a= 1/137.0360251 which is also within 1986 CODATA's margin of error, and most important an exact value theoretically derived for a temperature at absolute zero Kelvin. Note that since this tweaking method does not involve other parameters such as gravitational constant, electron charge etc... all of which are known to have limited accuracy, the value obtained does not suffer from inaccuracies of other constants as does the NIST derivation. Also, note that in no experiment is a measured directly, but is always a product of other measured parameters, and always measured above zero Kelvin. Now the biggest challenge left, is to show which 3D structure of 1D EM energy units is composed of exactly 2573382 elements."

Fine structure constant = a = 1/137.0360251

Kind regards,
Daniel

[woldemar]

I have a rather off the beaten track idea regarding the fine structure constant...
http://watermanpolyhedron.com/fine2009.html

steve waterman

[StevenO]

The "Fine Structure Constant" is just more standard model misdirection and Planck's constant is hiding the real mass of the photon.

It is all explained here: THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT AND PLANCK'S CONSTANT

[woldemar]

I have worked for perhaps ten years on the fundamental physical constants. I have managed to work out a scheme to evaluate them derived only from a few mathematical constants. Each is seen as a factors of 2 and 3 and pi. The powers are restricted to low integers for pi and also allowed to half integers for 2 and 3.

I have written a short article on this but have not posted this work (yet). For now, I will give you one example - Planck's constant. The given NIST value at 6.62606876 Js x 10^-34
This i have at 1 / 48pi or 2^-4, 3^-1, pi^-1 = 6.63145596216231

Each constants predicted value is compared with (NIST - suggested) / suggested. Planck comes to -0.081237 difference.

Planck being related to pi, as i suggest the fundamental constant should be, makes more sense to me as 1 / 48pi
and no sense to me at 6.62606876

Additionally, I will say that i derive light at exactly 3. Now i realize that that is all preposterous again, to even think of challenging the speed of light say, or of Planck. i am not sure if i wish to release this article now. However, i might disclose how i manage to get light to be 3, and a few other initially derived major constants. Just not sure if this is the place or time.

This is just the top ice cube of the iceberg. To repeat what i said above. I can start with a few mathematical constants, and derive all the physical constants from them ! i have thousands of equations, if not millions, that all equate to endless decimal places. I did try to publish an older version of all this a few year backs back. It was rejected out-right, due to my saying light was 3. While in fact, that value was within the ranges achieved through many of the empirical evidence. I should perhaps also mention, that while the article was rejected some half dozen times, my first response was something like.... We are not going to publish you here, but do not consider this a rejection. This work is too important to be placed here. Let us know when you get it published. This was a while ago, and i might be able to dig the email out of my computer, but that was the thrust of it.

At that time however, while i had my predicted values aligned with those 2,3,p1 values, they were not yet derived from only mathematical constants.

[junglelord]

I can model the universe on PHI< Pi<e

[woldemar]

This is an old list that is currently posted at my site. For the most part, these are the values i use in the version that derives them from math constants only. any way, it will give you some idea of this tactic.

http://watermanpolyhedron.com/130constants.htm

There are just so many to say about this. i will just say one for now. The first radiation constant at 3.74177197,
is 2 pi h c c. i mentioned that h, I have as 1/ 48 pi...and that i have light at 3.
This makes my first radiation constant equal to exactly 3/8. Kind of curious, as light squared and pi and Planck,
all those x.xxxxxxxxx numbers...smoosh them together and I get exactly 3/8.

Interestingly, a value of 3/8, I see as more appropriate to a radiation constant. So 3.74177197 makes little sense to me, while 3/8 looks just like many other formula components.

[seasmith]

Fine Structure Constant Varies with Direction in Space, Says New Data

But get this. While data from the Keck telescope indicate the fine structure constant was once smaller, the data from the Very Large Telescope indicates the opposite, that the fine structure constant was once larger. That's significant because Keck looks out into the northern hemsiphere, while the VLT looks south

? More confirmation for a [local] "Charge Field", a la Mathis ?


http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/ar ... ?nlid=3441