Deducing the proton energy configuration

Oakley, William S.

doi:10.18203/issn.2454-2156.intjscirep20163968

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As above the electron consists of two spin-½ components each of 6.791 MeV, the posited unit of quantum gravity, and α -1 6.7921 MeV = 930.76 MeV, close to the CODATA proton rest mass of 938.272 MeV. This suggests the proton [13] is a single spin-½ quantum in a highly relativistic state, with a volume contracted by α -1 ≈ 137 while the electron volume is expanded by 137. The opposite and equal volume changes generate equal but opposite charge values.…”

Section: The Proton Anomalymentioning

confidence: 65%

A Review of Inconsistencies and Unfounded Assumptions in Physics Enables A Path Forward

Oakley¹

2020

Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely recognized significant parts of leading-edge physics are at an impasse. Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate long-standing inconsistencies and assumptions that have become dogma but are erroneous and blocking progress. Newtonʼs gravitational constant GN is assumed a natural constant, having originated via Newtonʼs notion of gravity as radial force acting on mass in flat observer space. But Einstein showed gravity due to curved space time with “mass” dimensionally c2 remote from the observer energy domain. Dirac stated (elementary) particles are “no more than electromagnetic energy localized in observer space”. This suggests gravity is emergent at the particle scale by spacetime curved in three dimensions. But Newtonʼs assumed radial force is consistent only with spacetime curvature in the two dimensions orthogonal to the radial, so how can GN be fundamental? Do the different dimensionalities of Newtonʼs and Einsteinʼs theories relate to the Dark Matter issue? Describing the electron as a photon in a relativistic quantum loop localized by curved spacetime enables derivation of an expression for GN giving a value within the empirical uncertainty. The electron is posited as relativistic electromagnetic energy in dynamic equilibrium between circumferential metric tension at the Strong Force scale and radial electrostatic force, satisfying the Planck “Force Equality” premise. As historically long suspected GN contains a numerical factor of c4, derived from the cgs units, in which it was first measured, and a relativistic factor, α-4/3, which move the Planck scale into exact correspondence with the electron parameters. General Relativity is shown a fundamental femto-scale theory where the strong force in a metric curved at the particle scale is manifest in observer space reduced by the classical “Large Number” of 5.7x1044 and is evident as gravity. The expression obtained for GN is supported by deriving the MOND constant and the observed flat galactic star rotation velocity curves. Resolving identified erroneous assumptions and inconsistencies will significantly impact cosmology and particle physics and bring gravitational and electromagnetic unification closer.

show abstract

Section: The Proton Anomalymentioning

confidence: 65%

A Review of Inconsistencies and Unfounded Assumptions in Physics Enables A Path Forward

Oakley¹

2020

Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From above (2m q ) 2 = 5.864217632 x 10 -58 kg 2 , and we obtain a theoretical value G T for Newton"s constant; Note: Reference 1 shows the historical assumption that gravity acts via force between masses in the observer domain is incorrect and inadvertently introduced a numerical factor equal to c 4 into G. Hence the dimensions of G N , Newton"s classical constant, are in error by c 4 . The real force of gravity acts on quantum energies m q c 2 circulating within particles, wherein each energy propagates rectilinearly in a relativistic state close to a toroidal event horizon and is thereby dimensionally remote by c 2 from the observer domain in which mass is measured, i.e.…”

Section: The Electronmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…From the referenced helical-toroid electron model, 1 with the nominal base quantum energy m q c 2 = 6.8MeV, the nominal electron rest mass energy in (2) is close to, but somewhat greater than, the empirical value of 0.510998946MeV, m e c 2 ~ 2α 2/3 6.8MeV = 0.51166MeV (2) It is clear the 6.8MeV base energy value is insufficiently precise and both expressions (1) and (2) require adjustment by considering possible internal particle dynamics, such as energy cross coupling between quantum loops. Initial internal energy adjustment values can be obtained by analyzing the sparse set of crosscoupling values available from simple relativistic expressions containing α.…”

mentioning

confidence: 80%

Validating internal electron and proton energy configurations via a theoretical derivation of the mass ratio mp/me

Oakley¹

2017

Int J Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONThe ratio of the mass of the proton to that of the electron has long been theoretically unsupported by physical particle models, the lack of which is a long standing problem. Both particles exhibit exactly the same, although opposite, electric charge values but their 2014 CODATA rest mass energies differ greatly; for the electron m e c 2 = 0.5109989461(31)MeV and for the proton m p c 2 = 938.2720813(58)MeV. The CODATA value for the proton -electron rest mass ratio is: 1,836.15267389(17). [In concise form the two digits in parentheses indicate the standard uncertainty in the prior two digits]. ABSTRACTBackground: There are no particle models giving theoretical rest mass energy values for the electron or proton, and their internal energy configurations are unknown. Consequently there is no theoretical basis for the proton/electron rest mass ratio m p/ m e . Previous articles established both electrons and protons consist of quantum loops of the same 6.8MeV base quantum energy, albeit in different relativistic states. Methods: Prior work is extended by considering internal particle energy cross coupling factors to derive detailed theoretical expressions for the internal energy distributions of electrons and protons. These expressions consist of the base quantum energy modified by terms containing only relativistic factors of the fine structure constant, α ~ 1/137. For m p /m e the base quantum energy cancels and the derived mass ratio is given by the particle"s internal quantum loop relativistic states. The derived mass ratio is compared to the empirical value. Newton"s gravitational constant, G, is calculated from the electron internal energy configuration. Results: Derived particle energy configurations give proton mass and proton/electron mass ratio values fully consistent with empirical data. The common base quantum loop energy is obtained to 6ppm. Combining particle mass energy expressions gives m p /m e to ten digits and consistent with the 2014 CODATA value via an expression containing only the fine structure constant. A theoretical value for Newton"s gravitational constant is obtained to an uncertainty of 6ppb. The Hierarchy problem is resolved, and the Planck scale of matter is adjusted. Conclusions: The particle energy configurations are validated by providing particle mass energy values and a proton/electron mass ratio consistent with empirical data. Newton"s G is shown not a natural constant, and misunderstanding its nature gave rise to the Hierarchy problem and an erroneous value for the Planck scale of matter, both now resolved..

show abstract

Deducing the proton energy configuration

Cited by 2 publications

References 6 publications

A Review of Inconsistencies and Unfounded Assumptions in Physics Enables A Path Forward

A Review of Inconsistencies and Unfounded Assumptions in Physics Enables A Path Forward

Validating internal electron and proton energy configurations via a theoretical derivation of the mass ratio mp/me

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About