Spectral Decomposition of Constant Functions Utilizing Fourier Harmonics

[Bret Danfoss]

I've seen a mathematical method which decomposes a Constant Function (say, Gravitational Acceleration), into a spectrum of Quantum Vacuum [QV] Frequencies. It is shown to yield exact analytical solutions to the RMS Charge Radius of the Proton, & the MS Charge Radius of the Neutron (both are experimentally verified).

Q: What do people think of such an approach ?

 

[Haborix]

At first blush, I'd want to see an actual reference because it sounds like word salad. A spectral decomposition of a constant function includes only a single frequency, namely zero.

 

[PeterDonis]

I've seen a mathematical method

Where? Please give a reference. We can't discuss a "method" without a reference that explains how it works.

 

[Bret Danfoss]

Thanks for stepping in. You made me chuckle a little bit with the 'word salad' reference. [Moderator's note: off topic content deleted.]

Anyway, I see your point, but it's actually inaccurate. Try building a Square Wave with Fourier Series, then rectify the WaveFunction. The Bandwidth of the Frequency Spectrum is bounded by the Mass involved.

So, as you can imagine, there's a vast number of frequencies involved, but it's the High-End Frequency Cut-Off that carries virtually all the Energy.

In the case of the Proton, the Quantum Vacuum [QV] Frequency ends-up being equal to the Square of the Proton Compton Frequency, divided by the Electron Compton Frequency.

In the case of the Neutron, the QV Frequency ends-up being equal to the Square of the Neutron Compton Frequency, divided by the Electron Compton Frequency.

I can certainly give you the reference to the Research Article, but it's been my experience that when I do this, people play the man & not the ball.

They attack ME because the author is an Engineer. It has nothing to do with me, but I have followed the math, checked it all & it's mathematically & experimentally correct.

 

[PeterDonis]

I can certainly give you the reference to the Research Article, but it's been my experience that when I do this, people play the man & not the ball.

Irrelevant. Either give a reference or this thread will be closed. We do not discuss vague handwaving about a "method" here. We can only discuss the method based on a reference that explains how it works.

I hear you & it's entirely logical.

Apparently not since you are trying to not comply.

Please read my other reply, we can go from there.

See above.

 

[Bret Danfoss]

Irrelevant. Either give a reference or this thread will be closed. We do not discuss vague handwaving about a "method" here. We can only discuss the method based on a reference that explains how it works.


Apparently not since you are trying to not comply.


See above.

My advice is to watch the YouTube video as a short cut [1], but you can read the Research Articles if you prefer [2,3,4]. Possibly the easiest Research Article to understand how the method is formulated, occurs in Reference [4]. Moreover, the author pleads the case that his method has revealed a minor flaw in the Standard Model of Particle-Physics, as appears in Reference [5]:
[Crackpot references removed by the Mentors]

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation while references are reviewed.

 

[berkeman]

After reviewing the references supplied by the OP, they turn out to not be acceptable at PF. Thread will remain closed.