A discrete model of the universe can be used to predict the Rydberg constant.

[Copernicus]

In the ATM origin of charge I showed the following equation to derive the value of q.



where T^2=(X)^2+1^2+1^2=2.996162911

and X=(mass of proton-mass of electron)/mass of neutron

The top equation can be rearranged to define the Rydberg constant as shown below, the defining the Rydberg constant in terms of the proton electron and neutron and the Planck constant.



Rnc is the neutron comptom wavelength and Rec is the electron comptom wavelength.

this number is within the accuracy of the known rest masses of the proton neutron and electron and the Planck constant.

[Tensor]

And this explains the hyperfine splitting of spectrum splitting, how?

[Shaula]

Amazingly my height in cm divided by my weight in stone is pretty close to the Rydberg energy in eV. Oh, I had to chuck in a few other factors to get the units to work but that is rather irrelevant. What are the odds?

1) You have not predicted anything. You are juggling numbers. WHY does that equation hold? Last thread you basically admitted that it was numerology with no justification for the terms in it (before I gave up following it). Did you find some justification for the equation in the end? Otherwise you are curve fitting. Something I seem to remember you criticising mainstream for doing....
2) What do each of the terms mean, physically. How is this theory different from your previous one?

[tusenfem]

\frac{(Rnc)^2\times (T^2)(pi)^6}{32(Rec)^3}={10.97373119\times(10^6)}[/tex]

Rnc is the neutron comptom wavelength and Rec is the electron comptom wavelength.

this number is within the accuracy of the known rest masses of the proton neutron and electron and the Planck constant.

I would love to see some full justification for this equality.

[Copernicus]

I appreciate your criticism Shaula. My beef with fitting the data has more to do with String Theory, renormalization, point particles, Feynman diagrams. These things are so complicated that most people in physics just say the maths are too complicated for "me" and therefor accept it. In my opinion, very dangerous.

[Copernicus]

I would love to see some full justification for this equality.

I was wondering what you would be looking for specifically as full justification?

[Copernicus]

And this explains the hyperfine splitting of spectrum splitting, how?

Could you give me an example of the hyperfine splitting you are looking at. I assume you mean splitting that is not predicted by the Bohr hydrogen model?

[Copernicus]

And this explains the hyperfine splitting of spectrum splitting, how?

I have to admit, Rydberg constant is not exactly my interest, but as I review it, apparently the hyperfine splitting is due to spin pairing of proton and electron, which changes the total energies slightly. Parallel spins are rare because they are higher energy. Other reasons as well. I am sure you know much more about this than me.

[tusenfem]

I was wondering what you would be looking for specifically as full justification?

How about an actual model behind this numerology. You cannot just make up an equation, just because it happens to give a number that you like. There has to be physics attached to it.


Let me make this official.
You will either provide a full description of how this got together now or this thread will be closed.

[Hornblower]

I appreciate your criticism Shaula. My beef with fitting the data has more to do with String Theory, renormalization, point particles, Feynman diagrams. These things are so complicated that most people in physics just say the maths are too complicated for "me" and therefor accept it. In my opinion, very dangerous.

Can you give some examples, in appropriate mathematical detail, that justify your opinion?

[Copernicus]

How about an actual model behind this numerology. You cannot just make up an equation, just because it happens to give a number that you like. There has to be physics attached to it.


Let me make this official.
You will either provide a full description of how this got together now or this thread will be closed.

I've got to work 4 13 hour days the next 4 days, I work nights so now is start of my sleep time. Might as well just close the thread, unless you want to wait till next Tuesday.

[Shaula]

I appreciate your criticism Shaula. My beef with fitting the data has more to do with String Theory, renormalization, point particles, Feynman diagrams. These things are so complicated that most people in physics just say the maths are too complicated for "me" and therefor accept it. In my opinion, very dangerous.

So simple numerical fitting is good, while complicated numerical fitting is bad?

And how are Feynmann diagrams curve fitting? You seem to basically be saying that you dislike all empirical theories except your own. Which is not a good start.

[pzkpfw]

Per rule 13A, this thread should not have been started in the first place. That the proposer isn't ready to actually present the idea just makes it worse. This thread closed until the Origin of Charge thread has had its 30 days. Then this one will be re-opened; but the clock will not be reset.