Text: Physical Constants Do NOT Exist http://209.68.37.190/unituniv/uu.htm#Our%20Unitary%20Universe by Guy Myhre This brief is a nonmathematical description of some of my discoveries, which pertain to the methodology of quantum physics. If, after reading it, you want to delve into detailed mathematical proof of these and other discoveries, please examine my book, Our Unitary Universe. http://209.68.37.190/unituniv/uu.htm#Our%20Unitary%20Universe If They Are Not Physical Constants, What Are They? Most of the physical constants really do NOT exist. This recently discovered fact forever changes the methodology of physics. Yes, they do exist as constants in metric-based equations, but they are not physical constants. For some reason, the physics community has, over the years, elevated the status of these constants by giving them a long, important-sounding name: fundamental, universal physical constants of nature. What does this moniker conger up in your mind? It seems to mean that these constants have existed since time began, since the universe was born tens of billions of years ago. Are they fundamental? Are they universal? Are they physical? Are they constant? Do they exist in nature? The answer to all of these questions is NO. So, what are these important-sounding things, anyway? Well, they are simply inventions that were necessary to make quantum-based equations work...when metric units of measure were used (and they always were). Do ANY Physical Constants Exist? Sure. The single-dimensional attributes of the elementary particles exist, but they do not appear in a quantum equation when used as its units of measure. Most of the others, such as the fine-structure constant and the electromagnetic-to-gravitational force ratio, are dimensionless ratios between like-dimensioned entities. As a rule of thumb, if the constant possesses multiple units of measure (dimensions), it is not a fundamental physical constant. One exception is the speed of light, which possesses the same magnitude regardless of the length-time elementary-particle-attribute pair that is used. What Is The Background to All This? When physicists began to examine quantized physical phenomena at the beginning of the twentieth century, they wanted to create equations, which mathematically described what was going on. This is important because once the equation is created, you need not continue to experiment with its related phenomenon for a solution. You just plug in known values to the equation and solve it for the unknown ones. But, as the early quantum physicists discovered, a big problem existed. Their experiments yielded proportions, not equations. People don't like to work with proportions. They are mathematically cumbersome. What Does A Proportion Do For Me? Yet, a proportion does describe the cause and effect or the action and reaction for a particular physical system. You put the cause or action on one side of the proportion and the effect or reaction on the other. If you have it right, whatever action you apply to your system returns a reaction that is in proportion to it. For example, if you double the magnitude of the action, that of the reaction doubles also. Halve it, the reaction is halved. Divide it by ten, the reaction is divided by ten, as well. Were physicists happy with this state of affairs? No, they really needed their equations. What Does An Equation Do For Me? In a truly valid equation, the numerical values and the units of measure on one side of the equal sign must be equal to those on the other side. Otherwise, the equal sign is lying. Therefore, to convert a proportion into an equation, just invent and insert a fudge factor that makes everything equal (the term, constant of proportionality, is better sounding, isn't it). Yet, because the various fudge factors kept reappearing in equation after equation, they appeared to be universal. Then, somebody said that they are fundamental, and, then ... well, you get the picture. Why Were These Constants Invented In The First Place? The only reason that these constants had to be invented was the usage of the metric system of unit measures when studying quantized particles. The metric system is based upon humanoid and terrestrial magnitudes rather than those of the single-dimensional attributes of elementary (quantized) particles. When using a system of unit measures based upon the attributes of the electron almost all of the physical constants vanish. If the system of unit measures is based upon the attributes of the quantum particle of matter, more constants vanish. Good Grief, Does The Fine-Structure Constant Vanish, Also? The permittivity, permeability, and gravitational constants almost vanish, but each one still contains the fine-structure constant when an inertial-force-based unit of force, such as the newton, is used to measure, respectively, electronic, magnetic, and gravitational force. When using the quantum units of electromagnetic and gravitational force, even the fine-structure constant vanishes from these three constants, so that they, in essence, vanish, also. So, What Is This Fine-Structure Constant, Anyway? It is the ratio between the quantum unit of electromagnetic force and the electron-based quantum unit of inertial force. Another definition is that it is the ratio between the quantum unit of gravitational force and the quantum-particle-of-matter-based quantum unit of inertial force. Got that? If you don't and want to, examine Our Unitary Universe. Are More Great Discoveries Revealed Here? These discoveries prompt realization of new, more-fantastic ones, such as the simple, elegant linkage between electromagnetic and gravitational force, where each of the magnitudes of the attributes of the electron is linked to its quantum-particle-of-matter counterpart by only one factor, the square-root of the electromagnetic-to-gravitational force ratio, which is about ten to the twenty-first power. This means that these two forces are manifestations of a more-fundamental parent force. What About the Copenhagen Interpretation? Since the days of Thomas Young and George Airy two centuries ago, their respective projections of parallel lines and concentric rings have been interpreted to be caused by "wave interference." Thus was born what has become to be known as particle-wave duality culminating in the Copenhagen interpretation. The discoveries exposed in Our Unitary Universe show that quantized diffraction angles cause these phenomema, not what the Copenhagen interpretation professes to cause them. Quantized Diffraction Angles? Yes. In essence, an elementary particle's diffraction past a slit or pinhole deflects its trajectory by an integral multiple of a quantized angle, which can only represent that particle's unitary attributes of length and time. However, once diffracted, if the particle is disturbed--such as in an attempt to measure it--its trajectory changes by one or more quantized angles, but, because this change can occur at a random location, the angle of the particle's new trajectory cannot be an integral multiple of its previous angle. This means that the point of destination is random and parallel lines or concentric rings will not appear on the destination screen. What About Double Slits? When a double-slit apparatus possesses a particular physical configuration in harmony with the wavelength or momentum of the elementary particle, those that diffract past one slit focus on the destination screen in phase with those diffracting past the second slit. This reinforces the parallel-line or concentic-ring phenomenon. In some configurations, covering one slit can decrease this reinforcement such that the parallel lines appear to vanish. Is This the Death Knell of Observer-Created Reality? Apparently, yes. What Is The Bottom Line? The speed of light appears to be relevant here because, as we progress from the less-massive elementary particle to the more-massive, their wavelengths and lifetimes decrease by the same proportion. The electron, the proton, the quantum particle of matter, and so on, appear to possess the same magnitudes for their attributes but at distinctly different, near-lightspeed values. Please continue with Our Unitary Universe.

See Also:

Source: