# Electron/Proton mass ratio

1. Aug 19, 2010

So I read somewhere about some equation that might explain the Electron/Proton mass ratio, but it was off by several percentage points and the equation seemed complicated.
Unfortunately I forget where I originally read this.
Anyway, I was not particularly impressed, so I wrote a C program to try billions of relatively simple equations and look for ones whose solutions come closest to the Electron/Proton mass ratio.
Obviously many of the more complicated ones had the right answer within machine or measured accuracy, but some did "silly" operations that I could nto see in physics such as taking a sine of sine. One surprisingly simple equations came reasonably close. It is off by less than a tenth of percent so it is obviously wrong, none the less I found it interesting. Essentially the program was looking for a coincidence and that is probably all it found, but here is the equation:

Let x = electron/proton mass ratio

sqrt(x) ~= sqrt(PI/3) - 1

Could be written as:
sqrt(PI/3) = sqrt(1) + sqrt(x)

The equation is similar to that of a circle, but with square roots instead of squares.
PI/3 is obviously very common being the angle of equilateral triangles. Sqrt(PI) is important in probability and statistics regarding the Beta function.

Anyway, I am not a Physicist having taken just 2 physics courses in college, but figured I would throw what is probably just a coincidence out there to see if it meant anything to anyone else.

2. Aug 19, 2010

### alxm

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
3. Aug 20, 2010

### unusualname

4. Aug 20, 2010

Staff Emeritus
As pointed out, it's numerology. It's also wrong - the difference between your formula and the true value is 100,000 larger than the uncertainty on the true value.

To be honest, I am surprised with billions of trials, you didn't do better.

5. Aug 20, 2010

### Bob S

I had a professor in college who told us that the true blue value of the fine structure was exactly 1/137 (based on numerology?), and the disparity on the measured value (~1/137.02) was experimental error. Six years later, he won the Nobel prize in experimental physics. I guess anyone can have dubious theories once in a while.

Bob S

6. Aug 20, 2010