Planck's Constant

Physical science is not capable to correct discovered, serious omissions. The social and environmental consequences of the omissions are serious. When scientists are not willing to adjust in the end journalism will confront them.

Prof. J. F. Nye F.R.S. answered the email "Full Circle" on Thursday May 5th 2005 with the following message: "Why don't you simply derive the physical value of Planck's constant from other fundamental constants? No more words, just a formula. Such a formula would be more convincing than all this hetoric."

On May 6th I sent to Prof. J. F. Nye the derived formula. I suppose he did not expect me to be able to eliminate Planck's constant as (independent) natural constant.

I agree with him that the formula is more convincing than the overwhelming evidence already shown. I expected a scientist with the stature of Prof. J. F. Nye would at least consider such compelling evidence. That Prof. J. F. Nye is not professionally interested is amazing, but that does not mean others do not value such proof.

I have put the correspondence with Prof. J. F. Nye on the website www.paradox-paradigm.nl in the chapter Incompetent Science. The specific correspondence and derived formula for Planck's constant can be found at Prof. Dr. Nye, F.R.S.

As the invalidity of the Standard Model have been exposed (top) scientists refuse to budge and with that they are compromising all the QM findings. Everything QM achieved is on the verge of becoming ridiculed when (top) scientists unjustly ignore severe omissions and stick to their claim that ether does not exist.

How could I be so naive to think that a simple physics theory of ether, eliminating Planck's constant and just 3 dimensions, would be more acceptable for Professor Dr. Nye F.R.S. and others than the present perception of relativity of time and space, parallel worlds, 11 dimensions, membranes, all the paradoxes and more, much more!

How could I even consider scientists preferring simple answers to fundamental questions! High school math, common sense, some effort and determination to comprehend the theory and all the answers are found. The origin of all physical phenomena is by far not as complicated as everyone thinks.

Purposely ignoring severe omissions after being discovered is incompetent science. In the end journalism will expose this and the consequences for science will be much more severe.

Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt

I derived h from natural constants a few years ago. See the page in the link below, which I put together around 18 months after I did it. In the process, I found the full quantised relationship between gravity and all the other natural constants (observe the second table’s third column, look at the pattern in the formulae, then look at the answers they give).

The harmonic resonance of space itself was the predictable implication of a space where finite did not exist. I knew the pattern had to be present, if finitelessness was the actual state of a physical space, so I went deliberately looking for this harmonic relation in the constants. It took around 12 months (with pocket calc, pen and lots of paper and coffee) to find the key to the whole structural relationship between the natural constants, but here it is:

http://www.geocities.com/zinfinityspace/Appendix.html

--

Here’s a simpler way of determining h (plus numerous others included in the tables of the link):

PLANCK'S QUANTA (Light’s Total Sinewave Anisotropy)
h = λ*æ/c^3 = 6.626068791897^-34

i.e

1 eV wavelenth multiplied by æ=0.0144, divided by light speed cubed equals Planck’s constant.

Turns out this æ ( 0.0144) was the ‘Rossetta Stone’ which unlocked the whole structructure of the natural constant's relations (as you can see rather clearly given in the first table of the link above).

æ=0.0144 is not an arbitrary number either, as it comes from 1eV of E^2 / 1eV of m

--

Consider also:

Electromagnetic Constant (where wavelength and freq are both 1eV)
εμ = G/λ/f*50 = 1.112650056054^-17

and;

Gravity Constant
G = 0.0144/c/ə = 6.671281903963^-11

;where ə = 1/(G/c/e) = 0.72

;where e = the charge quanta = 1.602216080717^-19

--

Kind of indisputable when you can derive εμ precisely and exactly from the very same values used to determine h and G above …

Clearly, and demonstrably, there can be no question that the actual source of h has now been determined, and not just determined, but determined with precision and exactness h=6.626068791897^-34.

It's going to take a few years for all this to soak in - be patient.

enjoy

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

Please study Dimensional Analysis by PW Bridgman; in particular, pp 99-106. The book was written in 1922, and is still in print because it is still relevant. Bridgman emphasizes that what physical constants we determine are solely dependent on what measures are deemed fundamental. If your derived version of h-bar doesn't exceed the present measured accuracy (and thereby provide a falsifiable prediction), your derivation is flawed.

Even reputable scientists fall into the tautology trap. Witness the case of Jacob Sternglass, a famous and highly reputable engineer. In his try at cosmology, Beyond the Big Bang, he goes into a long, ranting calculation (which, subtly, included the measured value of h), and uses the calculation to 'predict' the value of h to nine decimal places of accuracy (the limit of his desktop computer in that day). He goes on to claim that with a better calculator, he could obtain better accuracy-- which he certainly could, as that information was in his assumption set from the beginning, and in no sense a prediction. Elsewhere in the book, he does a similar thing with the Rydberg fine-structure constant. In both cases, his 'predictions' matched current measured accuracy, small wonder.

Make a prediction which can be tested (falsified).
Devise an experiment which should demonstrate/falsify the prediction.
Publish the quantified results, including all possible sources of error, without editing.

Perhaps you will gain the audience you are presently alienating. Scientists have seen too many theories-in-search-of-proof, which is why they are reluctant to give ear to anyone who has no new/better data, nor predictions outside the previously known.

Good luck. Steve

__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabamus.-- Reymond

Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen.--Hilbert

Pick one.

Kind of indisputable when you can derive εμ precisely and exactly from the very same values used to determine h and G above …

Check it.

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?...rch_for=abbr_in

Electric Constant ε
Value 8.854 187 817... x 10-12 F m-1
Standard uncertainty (exact)
Relative standard uncertainty (exact)
Concise form 8.854 187 817... x 10-12 F m-1

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?...rch_for=abbr_in!

Magnetic Constant μ
Value 4pi x 10-7 = 12.566 370 614... x 10-7 N A-2
Standard uncertainty (exact)
Relative standard uncertainty (exact)
Concise form 4pi x 10-7 = 12.566 370 614... x 10-7 N A-2

From which we get the ElectroMagnetic Constant:
εμ = 1.112 650 056… x 10-17 (exact)

--

Now look at that value I gave in the first post:

Electromagnetic Constant (where wavelength and freq are 1eV)
εμ = G/λ/f*50 = 1.112650056054^-17

--

Thus your assertion that you believe this to somehow represent false precision is quantitatively proven to be wrong from the known exact values for ε and μ.

Okay?

And using those values given in my first post, and the link to my tables equations, there can be no question that I have actually derived and calculated both h and G with that same degree of exactness.

You may not like it, but as you see for εμ, my method derived exactly the correct result for εμ. i.e. there was clearly no error involved.

Now look at the equation which produced this incredible exactness.

εμ = G/λ/f*50

(btw the variables are a constant 1 eV within all of my tables, in the link given, and λ and f are a 1 eV photon in this εμ equation)

--

And if you think the number 50 is a little too convenient to really be in that equation, consider this equation’s result, and compare it to the exact Magnetic constant quantity I gave from NIST:

Magnetic Constant μ
μ = π/2,500,000 = 12.56637061436 x 10^-7

That’s another relationship I found, which produced the exact value of the magnetic constant! So if you think the '50' in it is strange, how about pie / 2,500,000 = Magnetic Constant μ (!)

I’ll even give you another staggering example of how these round integers fit in to the constants and 1 eV values (from my tables).

m = G^4*90,000

The value for 1 eV mass is exactly derived from that (outrageous appearing) equation!

And here is yet another case of rounded integers for you to ponder:

c = G^2/(p/36)

;where c is 299792458 m/s, G=0.02/c, p is 1 eV momentum = 5.344417572764^-28

--

So if you wish to disparage what you haven’t understood yet, and also want to question it's precision, the ball is in your court, I suggest you ...

Check it.

--

(rather than smugly and complacently request that I read a book from 1922 ...)

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.