"hanson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... > 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" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.