Planck's Constant Revealed for the First Time

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Tetryonics
 


You are being extremely sloppy with the units. As others have already suggested, you should add all the units to all values and carefully keep track of them with every calculation you do. If you don't, noone will understand it, and the chances that you make a mistake are extremely large.




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Yeah, that had me stratching my head as well....
6.62943244x10^-34 J to a Planck constant of 6.629697947x10^-34 J·s?

It should obviously be 6.629697947x10^-34 J·s [for 1 Planck quantum] - 1 h/sec gives 6.629697947x10^-34 J
[and a mass of 4.376238634 e-51 kg]

The other value of 6.62943244x10^-34 J.s I did find on one of my illustrations which is a incorrect value of [h] from when I was originally solving for it using 1/12 Carbon with not realizing the distinction between periodic Carbon 12 [284,760] and its allotropic forms [270,072] etc and had missed correcting it in my revisions.

If fact determining this value, and distinguishing between elemental atoms in all their quantum forms is was what drove a lot of work in the QC eBook

It wasn't until I did Quantum Chemistry that I saw the 22506 vs 22512 results for averaged weight calculations
[at that point I redid all the calculations for 22512 Hydrogen to determine a value for a molar weight of 1 gram]

Thanks for pointing that out, sometimes 1 person becomes blind to work they have reviewed countless times..
I will correct that illustration.....



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Did they reveal it at a Board meeting??

Sorry. I'm not even drunk. Sorry.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by moebius
 


Tetryonic theory is founded on the equilateral geometry of Planck energy quanta, where the square quantum numbers of Physics are in fact equilateral geometries.

Planck quanta [kg*[m^2/s] is a measure of the Energy/sec [mass] of the quanta, and its quantised Angular momentum [qAm] m^2/s which is the direct result if its equilateral geometry [not a vector rotation about a point as it is classically described].

The qAm gives rise to all geometry at the Planck scale through Charge [which is the result of h/c^2 geometries].
These h quanta combine to create a 'fabric' of mass-Energy over the geometric framework that Charge interaction creates and the number of h quanta per charge fascia is what gives us the de Broglie, Compton frequencies, momenta etc of Matter itself

mass-Energies are 2D planar EM fields and Matter is a 3D standing-wave geometry made up up [n]pi square number Planck mass-Energy geometries.

In the QM eBook you can follow the development of all fermionic Matter geometries from charges
Tetryons [4pi], Quarks [12pi], Leptons [12pi], Mesons [24pi], Baryons [36pi] etc
as determined by Weak & Strong force interactions between the Charged fascia of Planck mass-Energies.

Each geometry will have specific mass-Energy quanta contents for each n quantum energy level.
The Tetryonic UFE has the following basic structure Geometry * [mass-Energy quanta]

so Leptons are 12pi * n1 & Baryons are 36pi * 25^2 for their ground energy levels
resulting in 1.2 e20 for electrons - 22500 e19 for all Baryons [and for example 12 for Neutrinos]
This is all more clearly illustrated in the QM eBook in much greater detail for each particle type and familty etc

of course the total charge fascia is what we measure as the net 'elementary' charge of each particle
electron [0 pos/12 neg charges = net neg 12 charge] - Protons [24 pos/12 neg = net 12 pos charge]
neutrinos [6/6 =0] Neutrons [18/18 =0]

so rest mass-Matter electrons have 1.2 e20 quanta [compton frequencies] and
rest mass-Matter Baryons have 2.25 e23 quanta [compton frequencies]



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Tetryonics
 


At some stage a decision has to be made regarding determining an exact value for Planck’s Constant
– there are two paths to its determination.

1. An empirical measurement of the atomic weights of Carbon or Oxygen
[as was the case historically] or,
2. A means of determining an exact value from theory must be developed.


Option 1 has the following problems:

It is an empirical measurement of quantum mass-Energies that cannot exclude the mass-Energy contributions to the measured system through sources of blackbody radiation, heat, kinetic energies etc. Even at Absolute Zero any means of measurement will, by necessity introduce energies into the system being measured in order to measure it.
Additionally, their remains the problem of obtaining an exact mole of any element free of isotopes etc that will affect the measurement and the determination of an exact value for any particular element.

Historically, Chemists used 1/12 of 12 grams of Carbon as the best estimate of an atomic mass close to that of a Hydrogen atom, while for a period Physicists sought to establish 1/16 of Oxygen as an alternative.
Both of these approaches are not accurate as all elements are made up of Deuterium nuclei not Hydrogen atoms with the result in either case being a weighted (or averaged) molar mass [with 1/2 electron masses]
Even the use of diatomic Hydrogen gas will introduce errors as the atoms will still have binding, and kinetic energies as well as elemental isotopes within the gas under measurement.

Many methodologies are currently employed by Physicists and Chemists around the World in an attempt to refine this value - many introducing addition constants and variables to the atoms under measurement

Option 2 - Determining Planck’s exact mass-energy momenta value from theory

Tetryonics, offers an alternative, purely theoretical approach to that outlined above and historically used.
Using Tetryonic geometry we can quickly calculate from theory an exact Compton frequency of Planck quanta comprising the mass-energies of the REST Matter of any element or compound:

Leptons are 12pi charged geometries with n1 energy levels
E = h*[v=1.2 e20] e mass = E/c^2

Baryons are 36pi charged geometries with n25 energy levels
E = h*[v=2.25 e23] H mass = E/c^2

[Thus determining the exact rest mass for each particle , exclusive of any additional energies of Black body radiation – kinetic motion or measurement etc fro theory alone]

We cab now define Avogadro’s [N]umber to be the number of rest mass Hydrogen atoms in 1 gram (thus additionally implying that the inverse of Hydrogen’s mass will now also be equal to N)

Avogadro [6.022141579 e23] = N = [1.660538841 kg -1] H atom

From Tetryonic geometry we can use this defined mass for the rest mass of a single Hydrogen atom and divide by the Compton frequency of Hydrogen 2.2512 e23 [2.25 e23 + 1.2 e19] to determine a value for Planck’s Constant directly from theory [exclusive of weighting and other non-rest mass energies]

Solving for Planck’s constant from this rest mass of Hydrogen we get:
h = 6.629697947 e-34 J.s

This value is exclusive of any additional heat-kinetic energies and energies of measurement used and is the exact mass-Energy of a Proton & electron [not a P+½ electron using 1/12 C or 1/16 O methods]

Any deviation from this value must represent the energies introduced by any empirical measurement and/or the combined inaccuracies introduced by any measurement device or ill-defined physical constants used in determining the mass-energies of the system under study.

This value can then be applied in many additional ways, in conjunction with Tetryonic theory, to determine the rest and molar mass-energies of any element of compound and allow Chemists to determine the stored ‘chemical’ energies in any element or compound.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
This theory strongly reminds me of a theory I have seen before:





posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


No wonder you don't show your math to others.......



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Tetryonics
 


Are you talking to yourself? What maths am I supposed to show? Just some random math?

I know someone though who is claiming to have a method to calculate the Planck constant but fails to deliver the math. Writing down one value, then say "And then we calculate the Planck constant" followed by the next number is exactly what my cartoon is depicting.
edit on 27-1-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



That's right your math is limited to cut n paste from WIKIPEDIA
[don't worry I won't ask you to explain what you paste]

Still waiting for your accurate proven numbers and how you derive them

You do know math means numbers don't you?
here's an example for you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
[you can spell them out if that helps]



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Tetryonics
 


Once again, I'm the one who you say keeps referring to Wikipedia. -PLB- and I are more than one person (I'm pretty sure).



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tetryonics

Still waiting for your accurate proven numbers and how you derive them


I won't go into your confusion about who you are replying to or what math means, but, I could not have said it better myself.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


There are inherent problems with the observed value. There is not a way to remove the addition of your observational energies, meaning that the simple act of observing a system inputs energy into the system.

What Tetryonics is trying to point out is that geometry is paramount to the situation, and now that we have the geometry which dictates the math, Tetryonics can arrive at the EXACT figure without the need for physical measurements and observations.

I think Tetryonics can take it from there to explain the nature of our current situation while being a bit more explicit regarding the steps he has taken to arrive at the value for Planck's Constant. Buckle your seat belts. Our observed values will always be under a constant refinement process as we are able to increase the precision of measurements over time. But the underlying geometry is still there precisely, and now, able to model the precise relationships via Tetryonic Geometry everything else just falls into place.

edit on 27-1-2013 by shixta because: typo and small changes



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 



You realize that the particular numerical value of Avogadro's constant has no intrinsic physical meaning, because it was historically based on a connection to the gram/kilogram, which itself was arbitrarily defined as the mass of a hunk of metal in a lab in Paris.



Sorry, WRONG!

You should have paid attention in grade school.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Tetryonics
 



Using Tetryonic geometry we can quickly calculate from theory an exact Compton frequency of Planck quanta comprising the mass-energies of the REST Matter of any element or compound: Leptons are 12pi charged geometries with n1 energy levels E = h*[v=1.2 e20] e mass = E/c^2 Baryons are 36pi charged geometries with n25 energy levels E = h*[v=2.25 e23] H mass = E/c^2

Could you please post the derivation of this exact Compton frequencies, where do you get them from?



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Howdy,

[img]
[/img]

I don't do digits well but somehow, I think this pic might help in putting straight lines into perspective?

It's probably not important; but I think we (in our constantly changing position within the universe) are traveling at the speed of light; giving us our bodies amongst celestial bodies, according to Einstein's relativity theory.
edit on (1/27/1313 by loveguy because: cloudy day



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mbkennel
 



You realize that the particular numerical value of Avogadro's constant has no intrinsic physical meaning, because it was historically based on a connection to the gram/kilogram, which itself was arbitrarily defined as the mass of a hunk of metal in a lab in Paris.



Sorry, WRONG!

You should have paid attention in grade school.



What did your grade school say about the value of Avogadro's number and where it came from.
edit on 27-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Thank you for trying to help! Unfortunately I just get a headache trying to make sense of it. It's like I understand the basics but any further and I'm lost. But thank you for such a detailed and well thought out response!!



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by moebius
 


It would take way too much space here to show the derivation of the exact Compton frequencies for the rest mass electron and Proton in the Hydrogen atom.

ALL the information for the rest masses of all sub-atomic particles and elements are available for viewing in my eBooks in particular T[1] - Quantum mechanics & T[3] - Chemistry (available from numerous sources on the web)

Pirate Bay, YouTube, Google+ community pages etc



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by shixta
 


I do not see how this can be viable given the the limited dimensionality that is taken into account.

Anytime you start talking about Quanta...you have to take into account such Quanta not being specific to any one particular state of existence.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Tetryonics has strict definitions of Energy in all its forms [EM mass, standing wave Matter, black-body radiation, kinetic energies etc]. This distinction between energy's waveforms allows for the precise definition and determination of the quanta in any physical system under measurement.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum