Proton / electron mass ratio equation

[infinite_kitsch]

Hi all, I'm new to the forum so I hope this is the right place to pose this question. I've managed to find answers to nearly all of the questions I've had regarding certain aspects of physics on the forums, but haven't seen this addressed anywhere.

According to Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-to-electron_mass_ratio ), there is a new "formula" that can be used to calculate the proton/electron mass ratio. Personally, I can't find any reasonining behind the use of many of the constants in this formula. Not only that, but the "source" (if it can even be called that) for the formula also doesn't seem to provide any reasoning behind the derivation:

http://phxmarker.blogspot.cz/2015/08/the-razors-edge-muonic-proton-radius-in.html

I'm wondering if this formulation holds any validity whatsoever. I can't put together what the Fine structure or Rydberg constants have to do with the derivation and was hoping somebody here could help make sense of it. To me, it just seems to be elaborate numerology but I'd be happy with any insight people could provide.

thanks!

 

[Vanadium 50]

To me, it just seems to be elaborate numerology

That's what it is, and that's what's wrong with Wikipedia. Crackpots can write whatever they want.

 

[infinite_kitsch]

That's what it is, and that's what's wrong with Wikipedia. Crackpots can write whatever they want.

Thank you for your reply. I'm guessing that these kinds of ideas are so far from being actual science that it's difficult to point out concrete issues. I'm trying to find specific reasons why the Fine structure or Rydberg constants don't apply at all, but it's impossible to even conceive of reasons why they would apply. It seems as though they were just randomly selected, but any additional insight would be appreciated.

 

[Garlic]

Why don't we try to block those false informations?

 

[infinite_kitsch]

Why don't we try to block those false informations?

I don't think that removing it would achieve too much as the people behind it would claim that people were "stifling the science" behind the equation.

It would be more productive to demonstrate why it is incorrect, but the problem is, that it can't even be demonstrated that it is in any way correct in the first place. Even though the numbers match, the reasoning behind it is conspiquously absent. What would seem to be necessary would be to show why these constants have absolutely no relation to this problem, but the issue is that it's such a soup of nonsense that it becomes difficult to even address the initial ingredients.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Even though the numbers match

Not very well. I get 1750 and not 1820.

The Rydberg constant has the electron mass in it. The proton radius has units of inverse mass (in conventional units), and the inventor of the equation liberally sprinkles alphas and pis around.

 

[infinite_kitsch]

Not very well. I get 1750 and not 1820.

The Rydberg constant has the electron mass in it. The proton radius has units of inverse mass (in conventional units), and the inventor of the equation liberally sprinkles alphas and pis around.

I agree with your points, but apparently the dichotomy lies in the fact that instead of the "accepted" value of the proton radius, the formula is supposed to use Nassim Haramein's "predicted proton radius" as I've entered here:

http://wolfr.am/9TQG9pBx

This is allegedly supposed to demonstrate that this predicted radius is more accurate than the measured radius as it then leads to a closer match for the proton/electron mass ratio.

 

[Vanadium 50]

the formula is supposed to use Nassim Haramein's "predicted proton radius" as I've entered here:

Crackpottery on top of crackpottery. I think this thread should be closed.

 

[berkeman]

I think this thread should be closed.

Done.