return to homepage
return to updates
THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANTby Miles Mathis
AND PLANCK'S CONSTANT
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.
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
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.
standard model defines the fine structure constant like this:
α = e2/2hcε0
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.
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.
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.
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:
R is Rydberg's constant,
decade, basic physics and mechanics is plowed under by more and more
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
c = λν
= m( λν)2
= m λ2ν
take a common photon like the infrared photon, with a wavelength of
about 8 x 10-6 m. In that case λ2ν
= 2,400. So,
h = m(2,400)
constant is about 2,400 times the mass of the photon.
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.
will reply, “But your math is just circular. You haven't
explained anything mechanically.”
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 18213 beneath the proton level, or 18212 beneath the electron level. All we have to do is multiply the
proton mass by 1/18213,
which gives us:
x 10-27(1/1821)3 = 2.77 x 10-37 kg
is the mass of the photon, derived without Einstein's equation. So
my math is not circular.
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.
have proved my point. Planck's constant is hiding the mass of the
how does this answer Feynman's question? We have to go back to the
fine structure constant and remove all the fudge.
α = 2πke2/hc
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
e2 = hcα/2πk = 2400mc(.0073)/5.65 x 1010 = .091m
e = .3√m
= 1.602 x 10-19 C
= 2 x 10-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)
= 3.204 x 10-26 kg/s
e = 6.08 x 10-8[√kg)/s](√m)
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 e2.
To get the right dimensions for e,
the dimensions for that last constant must be √kg)/s.
Since there is not a 1-to-1 relationship between s and √kg,
even that last number is not telling us what we want to know.
have more work to do. Let's look first at that number for e
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 1011
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.]
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/s2 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
= ma = (1.673 x 10-27 kg)9.8 m/s2 = 1.639 x 10-26 N
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,
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.”
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:
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
even if the machine is turned 90o,
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
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.
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.
charge field of the Earth is .009545 m/s2,
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.
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 Ns2/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.
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. 1QED,
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 bi-polar field.
The charge field is everywhere, and it its strength is everywhere
determined by compound emissions.
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
anti-protons 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.
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 Smith--that 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.