Proton / electron mass ratio equation

In summary, the conversation discusses a new formula that claims to calculate the proton/electron mass ratio, but the reasoning behind the use of certain constants is unclear. The source of the formula is also questionable and may be considered as elaborate numerology. There is a debate on whether this formula should be removed or debunked, as it may be seen as stifling scientific progress. However, the formula is based on a predicted proton radius from a controversial figure, making it unreliable. The conversation ends with the suggestion that the thread be closed due to the questionable nature of the formula.
  • #1
infinite_kitsch
4
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
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
Why don't we try to block those false informations?
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
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.
 
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
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.
 
  • #9
Vanadium 50 said:
I think this thread should be closed.
Done. :smile:
 

1. What is the "proton / electron mass ratio equation"?

The proton / electron mass ratio equation is a mathematical formula used to calculate the ratio of the mass of a proton to the mass of an electron. It is represented as mp/me, where mp is the mass of a proton and me is the mass of an electron.

2. Why is the proton / electron mass ratio important?

The proton / electron mass ratio is important because it is a fundamental constant in physics and has a significant impact on our understanding of the universe. It is used in various calculations and equations in fields such as quantum mechanics and cosmology.

3. How is the proton / electron mass ratio calculated?

The proton / electron mass ratio is calculated by dividing the mass of a proton by the mass of an electron. The mass of a proton is approximately 1.6726 x 10-27 kilograms, while the mass of an electron is approximately 9.1094 x 10-31 kilograms. When divided, the resulting ratio is approximately 1836.152.

4. What is the significance of the proton / electron mass ratio?

The significance of the proton / electron mass ratio lies in its relationship to other fundamental constants, such as the fine structure constant and the gravitational constant. It also plays a crucial role in determining the stability of atoms and the strength of electromagnetic forces.

5. How does the proton / electron mass ratio vary?

The proton / electron mass ratio is considered a constant, meaning it does not vary significantly under normal conditions. However, it has been found that the ratio may differ slightly in different parts of the universe due to variations in the strength of electromagnetic forces.

Similar threads

I Muon/electron numerology
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
7
Views
711
Why Does the Proton-Electron Mass Ratio Diverge from Direct Division?
    • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
6
Views
5K
I How Does Electron Spin Affect the Partition Function in Saha's Equation?
    • Thermodynamics
Replies
1
Views
724
A Landau's Maximum Mass Limit Derivation in Shapiro & Teukolsky (1983)
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
23
Views
2K
Ratio between electron to proton
    • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
I How powerful would a collider have to be to observe a sphaleron?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Proton-electron mass ratio; changed? how much?
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
2K
How do we know the mass of an electron?
    • Electromagnetism
Replies
28
Views
2K
Ratio of velocities between proton and electron?
    • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
3K
A proton and an positron (identical to an electron, except positivel
    • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top