Proton / electron mass ratio equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the validity of a new formula for calculating the proton/electron mass ratio, which some participants believe lacks proper reasoning and scientific grounding. The conversation explores the relevance of constants like the Fine structure and Rydberg constants in this context, as well as the implications of using alternative values for the proton radius.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses skepticism about the new formula, suggesting it may be "elaborate numerology" without proper justification for the constants used.
  • Another participant agrees, stating that the formula appears to lack scientific validity and that the reasoning behind the constants is absent.
  • Concerns are raised about the difficulty in demonstrating the incorrectness of the formula due to the lack of clear reasoning for the constants' relevance.
  • A participant notes a discrepancy in the calculated values, reporting a result of 1750 instead of the expected 1820.
  • Discussion includes the claim that the formula relies on a "predicted proton radius" from Nassim Haramein, which is met with skepticism and accusations of "crackpottery."
  • There is a suggestion that instead of removing the formula from Wikipedia, it would be more productive to demonstrate its incorrectness, although this is acknowledged as challenging.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement regarding the validity of the formula and the reasoning behind it. There is no consensus on how to address the claims made by the formula's proponents.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the absence of clear reasoning for the constants used in the formula and the reliance on alternative values for the proton radius, which complicates the discussion. The conversation reflects a broader concern about the quality of information presented in popular sources like Wikipedia.

infinite_kitsch
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
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!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
infinite_kitsch said:
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.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
 
Why don't we try to block those false informations?
 
Garlic said:
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.
 
infinite_kitsch said:
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.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
 
infinite_kitsch said:
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.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
I think this thread should be closed.
Done. :smile:
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Effective Mass-to-Charge Ratio of Electroweak or QED Vacuum
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad Is the Near Integer Muon to Electron Mass Ratio a Coincidence or Significant?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Undergrad Best Formula for Fitting Nuclear Charge Radius Data
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Graduate Why Does the Proton-Electron Mass Ratio Diverge from Direct Division?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
Graduate Questioning Proton Mass Measurement and Variation
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
Ratio between electron to proton
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad How powerful would a collider have to be to observe a sphaleron?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Ratio of velocities between proton and electron?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Graduate Proton-electron mass ratio; changed? how much?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Undergrad How Does Electron Spin Affect the Partition Function in Saha's Equation?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K