
return
to homepage return
to updates
THE FINE
STRUCTURE CONSTANT AND PLANCK'S CONSTANT
by
Miles Mathis milesmathis.com
March 19,
2009
Abstract: I
will show that Planck's constant is a paper wall built to hide
the mass of the photon. After that I will unwind the fine
structure constant, and answer Feynman's question as to where the
number comes from and why it is what it is.
In
his book QED,
Richard Feynman has a final chapter called “Loose Ends” where
he tells his audience some of the remaining unknowns of the
theory of quantum electrodynamics. Chief among these is the
number 1/137.03597, which is the fine structure constant. Feynman
calls it the observed coupling constant or “the amplitude for a
real electron to emit a real photon.”^{1}
But at a place like Wikipedia, you will find it
listed under “fine structure constant.” Feynman says that
“all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their
wall and worry about it.”
I don't worry about it because
I know it is more misdirection. Feynman says that “a good
theory would say that e is
the square root of 3 over 2 pi squared, or something.” But I
have an even better theory: The constant
is a fake number: an outcome of math
specifically designed to keep you from looking in the right
place.
The standard model defines the fine structure
constant like this:
α = e^{2}/2hcε_{0}
= e^{2}cμ_{0}/2h
= 2πke^{2}/hc
Modern
physics loves to bury mechanics under constants. As you can see,
the fine structure constant, which is already a constant, is
defined in terms of other constants, like the permittivity and
permeability constants. Charge is also now buried under many
other constants, including the Rydberg constant, the Josephson
constant, Faraday's constant, Avogadro's constant, and more. Now,
we don't want to have to fool with the permittivity constant or
the vacuum permeability, since I
have already shown that they are misdirections. So we will
look at the third equation.
α = 2πke^{2}/hc
At
first it is difficult to see what Feynman is asking. He asks why
the number is 137, but in the first instance, it is 137 because
of the way the equation is built. So why is the equation built
this way? You can see that we have Coulomb's constant, but since
we are dealing with quanta, we don't need it. I
have shown that Coulomb's constant is a scaling constant,
taking us from the quantum level to our level. But this equation
isn't scaling anything to our level. Yes, light is going c
relative to us, but it is also going c relative to the quantum
level. Both the electron and photon are already at the quantum
level, so to me the presence of k is a sure sign that these
physicists don't have any idea what they are doing. That is how I
know this fine structure constant is a ghost.
The only
physically assignable variables or constants we have here are e
and c, so Feynman must be asking why the
relationship of c to the squared charge of the electron is what
it is. Notice that the “coupling” is between a squared charge
and a velocity. That's rather odd, wouldn't you say? For the
coupling constant to be meaningful as a number, it should couple
a mass and a mass, or an energy and an energy, or something like
that. As it is, this number is just an outcome of a juggled
equation, juggled purposely to hide the real interactions.
This
fine structure equation, with h and k, is already too complex.
But it was not complex enough for modern physicists, who were
afraid some graduate student might unwind it. So in the decades
since they have created even more complex equations, like this
one:

Where
R is Rydberg's constant,

Every
decade, basic physics and mechanics is plowed under by more and
more needless math.
Feynman's question should have been,
what is the relationship of the electron's mass to its charge,
or what is the relationship of the electron's energy to the
photon's energy. He and his colleagues couldn't answer these
questions because they had already buried them under so much
math, but I can answer them quite easily. To do that, we first
have to dig Planck's constant out of the rubble and show what it
really is.
If
we go to the Wikipedia page on Planck's constant and scroll down
to the section called “origin of Planck's constant,” we find
that Planck himself had no idea of the value of the constant. He
was working, like Newton before him, with proportions. In
looking at Wien's displacement law, Planck proposed that the
energy of the light was proportional to its frequency, and then
simply made up the equality with his constant. In other words,
he had no idea where the constant was coming from. Planck did
not develop the equation from mechanics, he developed it from
experiment: specifically, the experiments at the turn of the
century on black body radiation.
That Planck had no idea
where his constant was coming from is understandable, but that
later physicists could not figure it out is beyond belief,
especially after Einstein gave them the equation E=mc^{2}.
Planck's constant is now taught as a conversion factor between
phase (in cycles) and action. But action is an old feint: a
longstanding blanket over mechanics. So we can ignore that. The
constant is expressed in eV seconds, erg seconds, or Joule
seconds, all of which are unhelpful mechanically, so we can
ignore them as well.
I will now show that Planck's
constant is very easy to derive mechanically, which makes it
astonishing that the derivation is not on the Wiki page or in
any textbooks. Once you see how easy it is, you will agree that
this information must be hidden on purpose. There is no way that
a century of particle physicists could have been ignorant of
what I am about to prove, so we must assume they were hiding it
with full intent to deceive.
We take Einstein's famous
equation and apply it straight to the photon. We don't need the
transform gamma:
gamma
applies to everything except
light. Light is a special
case, remember? Einstein's postulate 2? So we can apply the
equation as is, with no transform.
E = mc^{2}
c = λν
E =
m( λν)^{2}
h
= m λ^{2}ν
Now,
take a common photon like the infrared photon, with a wavelength
of about 8 x 10^{6}
m. In that case λ^{2}ν
= 2,400. So,
h = m(2,400)
Planck's constant is
about 2,400 times the mass of the photon.
You will say,
“But the photon doesn't have mass!” And I say, that is what
they want you to think, which is why they never use Einstein's
equation on photons. Giving the photon mass, or even a strict
mass equivalence, would bring down the entire structure of QED,
so they can't let you go there.
You will reply, “But
your math is just circular. You haven't explained anything
mechanically.”
Not yet I haven't—in this paper—but
I send you to my
paper on photon motion, where I develop a mass for the
photon without using Einstein's equation. I will do it again
here. We start with the difference between the mass of the
electron and the mass of the nucleon, which is called a Dalton,
and which is about 1821. I have already shown that this number
comes from the stacked
spins on the electron, and I developed an equation that
yields not only the Dalton but all the meson levels as well. In
other words, I gave a mechanical explanation of the number 1821,
with simple math and simple motions. In
the paper after that, I showed that this same quantum
equation will give us the photon mass as well, by assuming the
photon inhabits a fundamental level of the equation, just like
the electron, nucleon, and all the mesons. This fundamental
level is 1821^{3}
beneath the proton level, or
1821^{2}
beneath the electron level.
All we have to do is multiply the proton mass by 1/1821^{3},
which gives us:
1.67 x 10^{27}(1/1821)^{3}
= 2.77 x 10^{37}
kg
That is the mass of
the photon, derived without Einstein's equation. So my math is
not circular.
But is it the correct math? Let's see. If
we multiply that mass by 2,400 we get 6.63 x 10^{34}
kg, which is, sure enough,
the number value of Planck's constant.
I have proved my
point. Planck's constant is hiding the mass of the photon.
But
how does this answer Feynman's question? We have to go back to
the fine structure constant and remove all the fudge.
α
= 2πke^{2}/hc
I
have shown in other papers that k
and π are ghosts,
and in this paper I have shown that h and α are ghosts, so we
have to dump them. We will use their numerical value to absorb
them into the equation.
e^{2}
= hcα/2πk =
2400mc(.0073)/5.65 x 10^{10}
= .091m
e
= .3√m
e
= 1.602 x 10^{19}
C
1C = 2 x 10^{7}
kg/s (see definition of
Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)
e
= 3.204 x 10^{26}
kg/s
e
= 6.08 x
10^{8}[√kg)/s](√m)
So,
Feynman's question becomes “How do we explain this numerical
relationship of m to e?”
Well, we can't do it from these equations, as you now see, since
these equations are not giving us a number relation between m
and e.
They are giving us a number relation between m and e^{2}.
To get the right dimensions for e,
the dimensions for that last constant must be √kg)/s. Since
there is not a 1to1 relationship between s and √kg, even
that last number is not telling us what we want to know.
We
have more work to do. Let's look first at that number for e
in the next
to the last equation, which is the current one. I have expressed
it in kg/s, and this brings a lot of things to light. Remember
that the electron has a mass of 9.11 x 10^{31}
kg. According to this
equation the electron is emitting a charge every second that
outweighs it by 35,000 times. The electron is emitting the mass
equivalent of 35,000 electrons every second, or 1.16 x 10^{11}
photons per second. So it is
not just my charge field that has mass. The standard model
charge field has a huge mass, it is just hidden by these
dimensions like the Coulomb. Ask yourself why the standard model
and textbooks never write the fundamental charge as kg/s.
Textbooks tell you that charge is mediated by virtual photons,
but they don't tell you that the electron emits 35,000 times its
own mass of these virtual photons every second, just to create
charge. You see, if they told you this, they would have to field
your next question, which is, “How can the electron emit so
much mass and not dissolve? How does this conserve energy?” In
my theory, I put that question out in the open and try to answer
it, but the standard model prefers to dodge it with all their
sloppy math and undefined constants and complex dimensions like
the Coulomb and Ampere and Volt. [Go to my papers on Galactic
Rotation and the Bullet
Cluster to see how I use this math to solve longstanding
problems in astronomy.]
What allows us to solve this
easily is the loss of the constant k. Remember that I said k is
a scaling constant, and we don't need it here. The reason is
because in these equations we are comparing quanta to eachother:
no scaling is involved. For the same reason, we can import a
trick I used in
my quantum gravity paper, where I showed that as long as we
are staying at the quantum level, and not scaling, we can use a
very familiar number for gravity at the quantum level. If we are
measuring gravity at the quantum level from our level, then we
have to scale down using the radius as the scaling transform.
But if we are not
scaling, we can use 9.8 m/s^{2}
as the number for gravity. I
showed that if the quanta measure their own gravity, this is the
number they would get. It sounds crazy, I know, but I will show
how it works again here. We just find a unified field force for
the proton, using its mass and its acceleration.
F = ma
= (1.673 x 10^{27}
kg)9.8 m/s^{2}
= 1.639 x 10^{26}
N
Multiplying by two
to represent the vector meeting of the fields of both electron
and proton gives us 3.279 x 10^{26}
N. Amazingly close to our
bolded number above for e,
isn't it?
You will say “Yes, but you have a pretty
significant difference, 7.5 x 10^{28}
N. You also have the wrong
dimensions. The elementary charge is in kg/s, and your number is
in N.”
Let's look at my margin of error, first. If we
divide, we find my error is about 2.3%. But I have already shown
in my papers on the Bohr
magneton and Millikan's
oil drop experiment that the Earth's charge field is skewing
all experiments done on the Earth. It is responsible for the .1%
difference between the Bohr magneton and the magnetic moment of
the electron. It was responsible for Millikan's error. And so it
must also be responsible for a .1% error in computing quantum
masses. The proton's mass is determined in experiments done here
on the Earth, and physicists have never included the effect of
the Earth's charge field, since they don't know it exists.
You
will say, “Your error is 2%, not .1%”. First of all, it is
not my error: it is the standard model's error. And the error
enters this problem in multiple places. Just as in Millikan's
oil drop experiment, we have a confluence of errors. Let's look
at the mass spectrometer, used to “weigh” the proton:
As
you can see, the spectrometer must suffer the same problems as
the oil drop experiment, since the magnet is in the plane of the
Earth's charge field. The ions are moving straight down to start
with and have a downward vector throughout the experiment. This
can't work. The magnetic field is also rather weak, so it has no
chance of burying the error simply by field strength
But
even if the machine is turned 90^{o},
so that all motion is horizontal instead of vertical, the
problem will remain. Unlike
Venus, the Earth is both electrical and magnetic. If the
experiment is done vertically, the electrical field of the Earth
interacts. If the experiment is done horizontally, the magnetic
field interacts. Both fields have the same strength, as produced
by the charge field, so you are damned either way.
Although
the mass spectrometer, either horizontal or vertical, must
encounter the Earth's charge field, it does not encounter it
precisely like the oil drop experiment did. Millikan set up the
his electrical field in vector opposition to the gravity field,
and included gravity in his calculations. But the math of the
mass spectrometer attempts to ignore gravity, as an experimental
constant. Masses in mass spectrometers are not calculated from
gravity (in the experiment), they are calculated relative to
eachother. Wikipedia admits that “there is no direct method
for measuring the mass of the electron at rest,”^{2}
and this is also true of the
proton. You can see that the proton must be moving in the
spectrometer, and its path must be bent by a field. The relative
bend then tells us the mass.
At any rate, gravity is
present throughout the experiment, and though it can be ignored
as a matter of relative mass, it cannot be ignored mechanically.
Because it is present, it must be included in any correction.
Both it and the induced magnetic field are affected, but because
they are not in vector opposition we don't treat them the same
as we did with Millikan. With Millikan, we applied the charge
field correction directly to his electrical field, since he
aligned them. Here we halve the correction and then take the
square root to square the effect. We halve the correction
because the motion of the particle in the curve goes from
(nearly) all gravity to (nearly) all induced magnetic field.
Look at the curve in the diagram. At the end of the path, the
particle is not moving down at all. So we go from “gravity is
the entire cause of motion” to “gravity is almost no cause
of the motion.” If we sum that path, from all to none, all
being 1 and none being 0, then the average will be about ½,
given a smooth curve. So we only get half our error during the
experiment. We only get half of it, but we still have to take
the square root, since the error affects both the gravitational
field and the induced magnetic field. Two effects will give us
an increased total effect.
The
charge field of the Earth is .009545 m/s^{2},
which is .0974% of gravity. Half that is .000487, and the square
root is .0221 or 2.21%. Above, my error was 2.3%, so I am now
within .0009. The rest of that error is probably due to my math
alone, since, as a theoretician, I almost never carry my
calculations past the thousandths place. I will let those who
love precision fine tune my math.
Now let's look at the
dimensions. I have a force; the standard model Coulomb reduces
to kg/s or Ns/m. But remember that the standard model is not too
picky about its dimensions. The cgs system is still used, and in
that system charge was kg or Ns^{2}/m.
Yes, before SI, charge used to reduce to mass, although they
never promoted that fact. So the dimension changes with the
system. It changes again with my system, so that charge is a
force, not a mass. I can change the dimensions without changing
the number, because s/m reduces to one in my mechanics. Charge
is the mass of the photon field, but a mass cannot give us a
strength of interaction or a force by itself. You need a mass
and a velocity, as I have shown elsewhere. This will give you a
field strength, which will give you a force. Well, velocity is
m/s. If you multiply s/m by m/s, you get one, and the field
dimension reduces to N.
But
what does all this mean for the fine structure constant? It
means that the number for the fine structure constant comes from
misusing Coulomb's constant in quantum equations. In the
equations we looked at above, k should never be used, so the
defining equations for the fine structure constant are just
garbage. The only way to understand what the fine structure
constant is, is to look at the impact
parameter equation of the Rutherford formula. If you take
that link you will see that the fine structure constant is just
a transform or scaling constant between mass and charge. Mass
and charge have been defined in two different ways, by two
different sets of field equations, but they are actually
equivalent. The fine structure constant just takes us from one
to the other. But again, if we didn't have the constant k
fouling up field equations at the quantum level, we wouldn't
need the fine structure constant at all. My own unified field
equations rewrite all charge as mass, jettisoning the redundant
field equations of charge. Of course this allows me to jettison
k and the fine structure constant as well. That is what I showed
you above, by finding the correct numbers using Newton's
equations like F=ma instead of electrostatic or quantum field
equations. To make the unified field equations completely
mechanical and transparent, we have to jettison all mention of
the old charge equations, since they weren't mechanical. All
classical and quantum E/M equations quickly devolve or dissolve
into virtual fudges and finesses, and I have swept all of that
out the door forever. All E/M field theory, quantum and macro,
has to be rewritten in terms of volume, density, and real
particles with real size, and that is what I have done.
Conclusion:
The elementary charge is not a charge, it is a
unified field force. The standard model believes that forces
at the planetary or astral level are all gravitational and at
the quantum level are all E/M, but this is false. The forces at
all levels are unified field forces. The elementary charge
includes gravity. For this reason we can use Newton's equations
at the quantum level. Newton's equation is a unified field
equation, and if we use it correctly, we can use it at any
level. The measured masses of quanta are unified field numbers.
All
masses are unified field
numbers, since they represent compound motions and forces.
Quantum masses are hiding both
fields, and this allows us to
calculate “charges” straight from masses, without Coulomb's
equation and without Planck's constant.
The elementary
charge is not only a unified field force, it is a compound of
emission by both the electron and the proton. Even when we are
measuring the charge of the electron alone, the field will be
composed of proton and electron emission. You cannot study
electron charge alone, or proton charge alone, since you cannot
go anywhere in the universe where the charge field is unipolar.
Even on the surface of the proton or electron, you will find a
bipolar field. The charge field is everywhere, and it its
strength is everywhere determined by compound emissions.
For
the record, this is also why you
can't have a magnetic monopole in the real world. There are
no walls: the charge field is everywhere, and it is everywhere
created by both protons and electrons (and antiprotons and
positrons).
For a different and slightly simpler
explanation of where the fine structure constant comes from, you
may also consult my paper on Rutherford's
scattering equations, where I show that the atomic world is
about 137 times larger than we think.
For a more recent
update on the fine structure constant, you can read my
newest paper, where I show that the fine structure constant
is a mass to charge transform, and tie it to other important
charge numbers.
^{1}QED,
p. 129. ^{2}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_constant
If this paper was useful to you in
any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE
THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing
these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by
paying Melisa Smiththat is just one of my many noms de
plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it
might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob
us 33 cents for each transaction.
