Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Proton / electron mass ratio equation

  1. Jan 21, 2016 #1
    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:


    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.

  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 21, 2016 #2

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    That's what it is, and that's what's wrong with Wikipedia. Crackpots can write whatever they want.
  4. Jan 21, 2016 #3
    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.
  5. Jan 21, 2016 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Why don't we try to block those false informations?
  6. Jan 21, 2016 #5
    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.
  7. Jan 21, 2016 #6

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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.
  8. Jan 21, 2016 #7
    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:


    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.
  9. Jan 21, 2016 #8

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Crackpottery on top of crackpottery. I think this thread should be closed.
  10. Jan 21, 2016 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Done. :smile:
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Proton / electron mass ratio equation
  1. Electrons and protons (Replies: 1)

  2. Mass of Proton (Replies: 4)