14th Sep, 2022

forty-two times ten - Inh. Christian Wolf

Question

Asked 13th Jul, 2022

The physical constants (*G*, *h*, *c*, *e*, *me*, *kB ...*), can be considered fundamental only if the units they are measured in (*kg*, *m*, *s* ...) are independent. However there are anomalies which occur in certain combinations of these constants which suggest a mathematical (unit number) relationship. By assigning a unit number to each unit we can define a relationship between the units (*kg* -> **15**, *m* -> **-13**, *s* -> **-30**, *A* -> **3**, *K* -> **20**).

In order for the dimensioned physical constants to be fundamental, as noted above, the units must be independent of each other, there cannot be a unit number relationship, however these anomalies question this assumption. Every combination predicted by the model returns an answer consistent with CODATA precision. Statistically therefore, can these anomalies be dismissed as coincidence?

For convenience, the article has been transcribed to this wiki site and a youtube introduction.

**https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Physical_constant_(anomaly) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HY5AgHn25g)**

The table lists the physical constants according to their unit number θ. Although the constants are dimensioned, they can be solved using 2 dimensionless constants, the fine structure constant alpha and Omega, and 2 unit dependent scalars. This illustrates how we may construct physical entities from mathematical structures.

...

Some general background to the physical constants.

Hi Hieram, youre welcome! Imho fun should be induced by fruitful scientific research supported by open commenting one other’s ideas (opposed to endless fruitless repeating discussions what presumingly not *cannot ever work* … **until it does) **like iSpace („integer-Space„ or „complex-Space“ when treating the i as the one for a complex number) able to derive and decipher inter-relationships, dependencies and calculate exact arbitrary precision numerical values for *most but all *constants of nature.

Also recently a new true quantum geometric iSpace-IQ unit system has been developed, able to directly represent native quantum relations of contants while keeping strictly compatible to MKSA/SI system showing a single *time* based conversion factor, effective predicting **quantization of time itself**.

So - no - being a true long time Apple expert consultant i’d say we do not need to fear to be sued for (at least not in the foreseeable future ;-) ). And please all take the time to read thru the very short yet imho rreally convincing math of both of my newest papers to be found on my RG home.

Here is a link to RG summary of my iSpace project:

1 Recommendation

**Get help with your research**

Join ResearchGate to ask questions, get input, and advance your work.

``Mathematical universe" doesn’t mean anything-what matters is the mathematics, that is relevant for describing natural phenomena.

Dimensionful constants simply imply that it’s always possible to choose units so that these constants take any non-zero value, in particular 1, and express all other quantities of tye same dimensions as fractions, or multiples thereof.

So Planck units are useful for describing phenomena, where gravitational, relativistic and quantum effects become of comparable significance.

I'd say this in its own longstanding as well as very interesting question has **indeed been solved** (and with all due respect - and a *mouthful of self esteem)* **once and for all** by my recent breakthru derivation of the **iSpace-IQ **unit system. Based on former work of the iSpace-theory to derive exact relations and hence give exactly predictable values for constants of nature in MKSA/SI system (see my RG papers on this work as published on Wolfram IMS-2015 conference in Prag) in iSpace-IQ unit system there is *no more need* to reference any human artefact (MKSA/SI or other like c = 299792458m/s or mu0 = 4*Pi/10^7 Vs/Am). On the contrary, with the help of this new integer quantum-geometric unit system it became possible to derive a proof for the quantization of space-time in 1/6961 iSpaceSecond, yet lossless convertible to derive standard well-known CODATA compatible values for electron charge, Planck constant and electron mass in both Kg and eV/c^2 by equations **valid in both (***in fact any*) unit system. Hard to believe, yet easy to see:

Let me know what you think of these simple yet fully predictive equations from iSpace-theoretical framework! Appreachiating any feedback, it is not at all plausible to me that a single iSpace-2-SI/MKSA correction factor of (exactly [47*14665487/10^24]) **could hold true over four powers** (^1 for electron charge, ^2 for Planck-constant, ^2, ^3 and ^4 for electron-mass in eV/c^2, Kilogram and respective combinations) **simply by chance, hence proof quantization of time to be a real physical effect.**

So to answer the question - dimensionful constants yes - it is possible to choose exact generator equations for (likely) all constants of nature as they seem to be governed by simple integer-geometric rules and discrete time base as derived and show by the results of project on theoretical derivation of constant of nature:

The only dimensionful units one ever needs are the length (Meter, iSpaceMeter, …), the time (Second, iSpaceSecond, …), the electric potential (Volt, iSpaceVolt, …) and the electric current (Ampere, iSpaceAmpere, …). All other unit entities **are not primary ones** (like the Coulomb, the Ohm and especially the Kilogram and it’s related unit of ElectronVolt/c^2, …) and by this can - and should - be replaced by **the 4 basic ones** (the Kelvin and the Boltzmann constant are special cases but can be treated similar).

When defining GoldenRatio iSpaceMeter, 1/6961 iSpaceSecond, 1 iSpaceVolt and GoldenRatio iSpaceAmpere as base units (like done in iSpace-IQ and iSpace-SI integer quantum geometric unit systems) most but all **constants of nature can be derived** from simple multiplicative (!) integer geometric relations. Yet all these relations can then be converted *lossless* to MKSA/SI, Planck units (or any other unit system, for that matter) with *arbitrary precision* (effectively predicting the constants value with a per-definition of iSpace entities zero error bar).

What about the Candela? How is it expressible by the four (?) basic units? What about the mole? The SI has seven basic and *independent* units. So there are at least three that are not expressible by your four basic ones.

K. Kassner Your question on the Candela is valid. While I have not had time to have a look on details of similar human SI artifacts introduced inadvertently (by the in principle of course proper methodology of SI) with respect to a quantized iSpace-IQ time base (1/6961) correction factor, i am sure its possible if we agree that the candela expresses some form of energy over an area.

For the mole however, things are way more complex (if not complicated) due to the historical definition process, involving Avogadro constant. While I did succeed to express also an mp/me ratio required to in turn define an iSpace exact Avogadro constant and with this the mole, recent 2019 SI redefinition imho has done more harm than good to this end of the spectrum (with respect to chemistry, mainly). So if you're interested we could discuss this offline, but my results on this are imho not ready for prime time. For all electrical relations, like e, h, me, re, a0, finestructure constant and many more I am sure prime time has come.

A candela has nothing to do with an energy per area. You can see this easily by noting the fact that today's energy-saving light bulbs have the same light current intensity as the old ones which had about ten times the energy output. A 60-Watt bulb with a glowing filament had about 800 lumen (1 lumen = 1 cd*1 sr), but a 800 lumen bulb of these days (an LED) has only 7 to 8 Watt energy output. And there is of course no strict proportionality, because some bulbs give 808 lumen at 7 Watt, others at 8 Watt.

K. Kassner thank you very much for your detailed feedback, I will asap once time allows re-read into the exakt SI definitions and come back with either a proposal (if i find a similar exact relation) or add the Candela to the SI units then currently not yet manageable within the iSpace theoretical framework. I excuse to the lists readers to have not been more precise with respect to the logical reasoning and possible limitations (like the one mentioned with the Kelvin and Boltzmann constant) of my initial post on the suggested 4 base units to use (V, A, m, s).

Malcolm J. Macleod As stated above hard mathematical evidence that - and how exactly - constants of nature are interrelated to lowest possible layer of spacetime can be easily understood by applying iSpace geometric factors in relation to well-known CODATA measurement resulte with maximum precision.

If you managed to unveil one or more further independent relations as presented in your (sorry to say, somewhat little difficult to follow poster of equations - could you attach or send ab easier to follow up Mathematica notebook or at least a scalable, mire sequential pdf of your results, please?) question posted I will be happy to check with my tools developed for exactly such scenarios in the wake of derivation if iSpace theory. As i an only able to this in my spare time. it might take a while (say 1-2 weeks likely).

All relation hinting to hidden interconnections of constants of nature being numerical resonance of underlying geometric rules (or not) are imho noteworthy of full investigation and very interesting its own, whatever model based on.

Thank you in advance for possibly considering also a look into the basics of iSpace theoretical methods as presented on my RG home, these alone might already answer most of your questions when recalculating your (unitless) equations im whatever unit system with the integer geometric **symbolic** expressions if iSpace.

Malcolm J. Macleod I calculated an hour about and what I can see is standard (as expected) iSpace relations at core, so - yes - your expressions are mathematically/logicall correct but do not expose core phyisical relations (imho, like basic iSpace equations derived claim to do), but highly unnecessary complex powers of existing constants of nature "pumped up" with some geometric values of Pi^n * 2^m and the like, I can post the PDF of the 1-2 A4 iSpace re-calculations here or sent to you in private (as in context wise not published, and fully uncommented as of now).

Adding the PDF to the thread - to clarify to other/future readers what iSpace method is capable of (and easily) to reveal hidden interconnections like those presented by Malcolm J. Macleod (considering the basis for the discussions so far on this thread).

Manfred Geilhaupt I had the same issue on posting via RGs web interface (maybe we’d start all using the app version by now) getting post ERROR and tried 4x … it’s a RG bug (imho) just refresh your browser page cache and delete the duplicate entries posted (was possible in my case).

fundamental constants and combinations.

Only c, h, G are fundamental independent and nonetheless belong together physically (see pdf: "digits" from 1986 pumped up with sense?) and 1/c^2=ε*μ=const and together with h*v=m*c^2 reveals that h=const. But the mass of the electron might be time dependent (m(t)). So electron mass and charge are not "fundamental" constants in that way of thinking with sense?. (By the way thanks to Christian)

- 259.94 KBfundamental constants.pdf

Neither the mass of the electron (or any other particle for that matter) nor the charge is time dependent. Everything is LEGO style exact - read my recent RG linked Mathematica based integer geometric purely multiplicative equations - nothing to add or take away, nothing to bend and nothing to age in quantum world) and value wise ethernet.

Constant of nature are just THAT - CONSTANTs and not variables (as unfortunately many in cosmology seem to think likely to save all the by now severely flawed cosmological theoretical models).

"Neither the mass of the electron (or any other particle for that matter) nor the charge is time dependent."

Yes, the "effective" values - (root time mean square for one oscillation period - its what we measure in experiments) of mass and charge due to a kind of wave-function - are not time dependent. But at least space dependent due to the change of metric of the Einstein Space (specially the Sommerfeld fine structure constant depends on the Schwarzschild Metric). The last word has the experiment. (see Webb et al. running FSC)

(h, c, and Go are constants like constants must be)

By the way: k*T=h*v=m*c^2 (Heat due to moving, like oscillation due to frequency. So does restmass, inertial mass only exists in nature. We are measuring effective values like in electrics for current and potential is somehow equivalent picture.)

""Could a numerical relation between the fundamental physical constants (G, h, c, e, me, kB ...)"

From Einsteins point of view: e and me might be constants but are not fundamental ones. Only G, h, c and kB are placed into this kind of Olymp is my base camp.

See attached picture if you like is "in one" what you said within your statement.

Hi Preston

"and the electron is not a point particle but has dimensions, rotation velocity, and structure." Your wording is mine! So we are on the same track? (see my video mentioned above if you like)

Manfred Geilhaupt yes, the relation you posted above is a unitless - and hence of course also valid in any unit system combination of constants of nature. Checked it in both iSpace-SI (MKSA/SI) and iSpace-IQ units and it as expected related *exactly to 1.*

Aside of the imho respectable achievement to identify such relations from unit physics and best measurement precision only - which when using iSpace symbolic methodology is a **matter of minutes** for *dozens* of such (I know as I do the like for 20+ years now) - what exactly is from your point of view **the physical significance **of the presented relation?

1 Recommendation

Malcolm J. Macleod you have fallen a bit silent, since you asked tge question - had a look on my posted pdf recalculating your key relations mentioned with iSpace symbolic exactness shed any light on the set of assumption you had?

From my (iSpace) point of view one if your key relations I checked „just“ boils down when using normalized iSpace base time (which was in your case to applied by the power of 7) to the following core „physics“ (times integer factors like 2/3 which are not geometrically relevant):

(6961^10)/(288792458^24)

As you see, *both* are core primary constants of iSpace theory and of course MKSA/SI (which largely overlaps unit system wise).

1 Recommendation

Einstein: "A theory that sets mass and charge of an electron a priori is incomplete." (This is what I came up with by chance before reading his statement! See my solution, video I mentioned before gives an overview. So now it is possible to solve the DE by own investigation to come up with the same result, or to prove it wrong. This is my investigation since a lot of time by myself to prove: wrong or right answered by experiment. If the math (no numerology) is correct.

By the way: NUMEROLOGY is a nice thing. Eddington did it, Heisenberg did it, Dirac did it, I did it. But never Einstein!

Manfred Geilhaupt You have avoided to answer my simple question about the **physical relevance **of the equation you posted obive. You posted thid here, you please explain.

1 Recommendation

Sorry Christian I interpreted it that way that you already know the relevance.

I discovered this equation once by playing around these constants. But is ist easy to show the "relevance" if you take the definition of the Rydberg constant from textbook and the Sommerfeld FSK as well. Then you come up with the unity 1. Simple to do it that way. Later I thought it ist a good test for the individual Codata constants accuracy. My way later was to find out how to derive the mass and charge of an electron at rest from a theory. I mean the Newton Einstein Theory which gives us an equation of motion which I interpreted new while applying it for an electron at rest. Of course to avoid 0=0 I need to accept that the matter electron is no more a point particle. Thats it.

A propos "iSpace": this really triggers some fear that Apple Inc. is trying to push through their own standards now in fundamental physics as well... [sorry for trolling ;-)]

Hi Hieram, youre welcome! Imho fun should be induced by fruitful scientific research supported by open commenting one other’s ideas (opposed to endless fruitless repeating discussions what presumingly not *cannot ever work* … **until it does) **like iSpace („integer-Space„ or „complex-Space“ when treating the i as the one for a complex number) able to derive and decipher inter-relationships, dependencies and calculate exact arbitrary precision numerical values for *most but all *constants of nature.

Also recently a new true quantum geometric iSpace-IQ unit system has been developed, able to directly represent native quantum relations of contants while keeping strictly compatible to MKSA/SI system showing a single *time* based conversion factor, effective predicting **quantization of time itself**.

So - no - being a true long time Apple expert consultant i’d say we do not need to fear to be sued for (at least not in the foreseeable future ;-) ). And please all take the time to read thru the very short yet imho rreally convincing math of both of my newest papers to be found on my RG home.

Here is a link to RG summary of my iSpace project:

1 Recommendation

Were some scientists right in showing that the Lorentz Force brings to a paradox??

Question

736 answers

- Asked 2nd Nov, 2022

- Stefano Quattrini

Several scientists pointed out a paradoxical consequence of the application of the Lorentz Force as an addendum to Maxwell's equations in the form given by Heaviside. There is at least one case where the momentum is not conserved...

From the script of 1911 Einstein and Laub to Coleman, Shockley, Furry, Boyer, Babson, Reynolds, Bjorkquist, Griffiths, and Mansuripur till 2012 it was pointed out such an issue.

-----------

Einstein A and Laub J "Über die im elektromagnetischenFelde aus ruhende Körper ausgeubten pondermotorischeKräfte"

Ann. Phys. 26 541 (1911)

--------------

Coleman, S. and Van Vleck, J. H. *"Origin of Hidden Momentum Forces on Magnets"** *

------------

Shockley W "Hidden linear momentum related to the α,E term for a Dirac-electron wave packet in an electric field"

Phys. Rev. Lett. 20 3434 (1968)

-------------

Furry, W. H. *"Examples of Momentum Distributions in the Electromagnetic Field and in Matter"*,

--------------

Boyer, T. H. *"Concerning hidden momentum"*,* *

---------------

Babson, D., Reynolds, S. P., Bjorkquist, R. and Griffiths, D. J. *"Hidden momentum, field momentum, and electromagnetic impulse"*,

-----------------------------

Mansuripur M. Trouble with the Lorentz law of force: incompatibility with special relativity and momentum conservation.

Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 193901 (2012)

------------------------------

Article

Full-text available

- Sep 1975

It is shown by means of general principles and specific examples that, contrary to a long-standing misconception, the modern mathematical physics of compressible fluid dynamics provides a generally consistent and efficient language for describing many seemingly fundamental physical phenomena. It is shown to be appropriate for describing electric an...

Article

- Nov 2010

Much research in theoretical physics is inspired at least in part by the idea of unifying all of the fundamental forces of nature. An analysis of how gravity affects other forces at subnuclear scales has major implications for that idea. See Article p.56

Preprint

Full-text available

- Jan 2020

We provide an updated assessment of the fundamental physics potential of LISA. Given the very broad range of topics that might be relevant to LISA, we present here a sample of what we view as particularly promising directions, based in part on the current research interests of the LISA scientific community in the area of fundamental physics. We org...

Get high-quality answers from experts.