search
top

The Planck-radius



The Planck-radius

When you are inter­ested in physics you must read “Unbe­liev­able”!

The energy quan­tifi­ca­tion of the atoms at mol­e­c­u­lar dis­tance are pos­si­bly the result of the quan­tifi­ca­tion of distance.

In the book “From Para­dox to Par­a­digm”, chap­ter “The pho­ton and the con­stant of Planck” , the Planck-​radius is cal­cu­lated at:

(12);

The clas­si­cal radius or Comp­ton – radius of the elec­tron is:

(13)

We observe that the ratio between the Compton-​radius and the Planck-​distance is:

exactly the same fac­tor as between the ryd­berg radius and the Bohr-​radius (11). ***

We will show that this equal­ity is not just a coin­ci­dence, but the result of the exis­tence of the quan­tum dis­tance (QD). The Planck-​distance, the Comp­ton radius, the Bohr-​radius and the ryd­berg con­stant are directly and inte­ger related by the quan­tum num­ber .

The deriva­tion of the Planck-​distance is based on the assump­tion that space is not absolutely empty, but that space is filled with so called point-​volumes with a radius of the Planck-​distance. Although a not empty space is for­mally not con­sis­tent with the assump­tion of sci­ence that space is absolutely empty, sci­ence already admits inher­ently that space is not empty by the gen­eral accep­ta­tion of the field the­ory. The field the­ory assumes that in “empty” space, vac­uum, there can be fields such as elec­tro­sta­tic fields, mag­netic fields and grav­ity fields.

How can there exist fields in vac­uum when this vac­uum is assumed to be absolutely empty?

Philo­soph­i­cally this is not con­sid­ered pos­si­ble. Sci­ence already implic­itly accepts that vac­uum is not absolute empty, only sci­ence doesn’t admit it yet offi­cially or formally!

There are more very strong indi­ca­tions that vac­uum is not just empty space. The phe­nom­e­non of stel­lar aber­ra­tion for exam­ple indi­cates strongly that there is “ether” (“Stel­lar Aber­ra­tion and the Unjus­ti­fied Denial of Ether” Galilean Elec­tro­dy­nam­ics 16, 7577 (July/​August 2005)).

Fig­ure 2. An impres­sion of space filed with point-​volumes.

So when we assume space is not empty but filled with so-​called point-​volumes this is sci­en­tif­i­cally not unac­cept­able. The remark­able thing that hap­pens is that when we fill up space with point-​volumes a com­pletely QM-​consistent expla­na­tion for the 12 atomic ion­iza­tion lev­els is found and at the same time cal­cu­la­tions of the cor­rect distance/​energy level of the nucleus at the ion­iza­tion lev­els are obtained. Although main­stream sci­ence rejects ether, the sci­en­tific expla­na­tions are too com­pelling to ignore.

When we imag­ine that space is filled up with bulb shaped point-​volumes with radius then space can­not be homo­ge­neous every­where (fig­ure 2).

Next chap­ter: The Ori­en­ta­tion of Point-​Volumes Sur­round­ing a Charge

When you are interested in physics you must read “Unbelievable“!

The energy quantification of the atoms at molecular distance are possibly the result of the quantification of distance.

In the book “From Paradox to Paradigm”, chapter “The photon and the constant of Planck” , the Planck-radius is calculated at:

  (12);

The classical radius or Compton–radius of the electron is:

(13)

We observe that the ratio between the Compton-radius and the Planck-distance is:

exactly the same factor as between the rydberg radius and the Bohr-radius (11). ***

We will show that this equality is not just a coincidence, but the result of the existence of the quantum distance (QD). The Planck-distance, the Compton radius, the Bohr-radius and the rydberg constant are directly and integer related by the quantum number .

The derivation of the Planck-distance is based on the assumption that space is not absolutely empty, but that space is filled with so called point-volumes with a radius of the Planck-distance. Although a not empty space is formally not consistent with the assumption of science that space is absolutely empty, science already admits inherently that space is not empty by the general acceptation of the field theory. The field theory assumes that in “empty” space, vacuum, there can be fields such as electrostatic fields, magnetic fields and gravity fields.

How can there exist fields in vacuum when this vacuum is assumed to be absolutely empty?

Philosophically this is not considered possible. Science already implicitly accepts that vacuum is not absolute empty, only science doesn’t admit it yet officially or formally!

There are more very strong indications that vacuum is not just empty space. The phenomenon of stellar aberration for example indicates strongly that there is “ether” (“Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether” Galilean Electrodynamics 16, 75-77 (July/August 2005)).

Figure 2.  An impression of space filed with point-volumes.

So when we assume space is not empty but filled with so-called point-volumes this is scientifically not unacceptable. The remarkable thing that happens is that when we fill up space with point-volumes a completely QM-consistent explanation for the 12 atomic ionization levels is found and at the same time calculations of the correct distance/energy level of the nucleus at the ionization levels are obtained. Although mainstream science rejects ether, the scientific explanations are too compelling to ignore.

When we imagine that space is filled up with bulb shaped point-volumes with radius  then space cannot be homogeneous everywhere (figure 2).

Next chapter: The Orientation of Point-Volumes Surrounding a Charge

top