search
top

The Deviation Between the Theoretical and Empirical Value of Planck’s constant (h)



The Deviation Between the Theoretical and Empirical Value of Planck’s constant (h)

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

The­o­ret­i­cal Physics endorsed the drag coef­fi­cient of Fres­nel when the empir­i­cal “con­fir­ma­tion” by Fizeau showed a devi­a­tion of 10%!

Is the derived for­mula for Planck’s con­stant false when the devi­a­tion is just 0.35%?

Sta­tis­ti­cally it is impos­si­ble to obtain by coin­ci­dence a for­mula for Planck’s con­stant with just a devi­a­tion of 0.35%. Sci­en­tists should acknowl­edge that and let the sci­en­tific debate deter­mine whether the the­ory behind the deriva­tion is accept­able or not. Rejec­tion of man­u­scripts by sci­ence and physic jour­nals, that reveal seri­ous omis­sions in the past, only on the argu­ment that the arti­cle is not rel­e­vant or not actual reveals incompetence.

When edi­tors and ref­er­ees are con­vinced the dis­cov­ered omis­sions are of no con­se­quence for the present per­cep­tion by QM of physic processes they still should not reject papers on bogus argu­ments. It is the task of the sci­en­tific com­mu­nity to deter­mine that. An edi­tor and/​or ref­eree do not rep­re­sent this com­mu­nity. A debate, whether the new per­spec­tives should be rejected or not, is the proper sci­en­tific process. Rejec­tion of arti­cles by edi­tors or ref­er­ees based on invalid argu­ments degen­er­ates sci­ence and scientists.

Although this paper reveals more than enough argu­ments and evi­dence to jus­tify pub­li­ca­tion with­out explain­ing the devi­a­tion of 0.35% I will indi­cate how the devi­a­tion can be explained. In the arti­cle *** marks the for­mu­las where the the­o­ret­i­cal and exper­i­men­tal val­ues devi­ate fac­tor 1.003458. It appears that the devi­a­tion fac­tor of 1.003458 is sys­tem­atic. The appar­ent cause for the devi­a­tion implies a dif­fi­cult math­e­mat­i­cal prob­lem that by far exceeds my capabilities.

The empir­i­cal value of h is obtained with the for­mula that describes the rela­tion between the energy and the fre­quency of the pho­ton; E=hv. The deriva­tion of the­o­ret­i­cal for­mula for the Planck-​distance (12) is based on this equa­tion. Other for­mu­las refer to par­ti­cles with mass.

The pho­ton prop­a­gates through space and does not dis­tort tense free ether. Masses how­ever dis­tort the sur­round­ing ether. A nucleus, a charged mass, affects the stress free cubi­cal ori­en­tated ether (fig. 2) and shapes the sur­round­ing space into a tensed spher­i­cal ori­en­ta­tion. The stress free cubi­cal ori­en­tated space con­tains more point-​volumes or ether per vol­ume than spher­i­cal ori­en­tated ether sur­round­ing the nucleus of an atom. The pack­ing den­sity of point-​volumes in the spher­i­cal ori­en­tated space/​ether around a nucleus there­fore dif­fers from the cubi­cal tense free ether pack­ing den­sity. (fig­ures 2,3 and 5).

When a nucleus polar­izes the sur­round­ing ether/​space (elec­tric field) the point-​volumes are forced to ori­en­tate into a spher­i­cal shape. The same num­ber of point-​volumes around a charged nucleus occupy more space. The exper­i­men­tal deter­mined con­stant of Planck and the for­mula for the Planck-​distance refer to physics of a tense free cubi­cal ori­en­tated ether. While deriv­ing Planck’s con­stant the dif­fer­ence between stress and stress-​free ether is not math­e­mat­i­cally addressed. The pack­ing dif­fer­ence pos­si­bly explains the sys­tem­atic devi­a­tion fac­tor of 1.003458.

Edi­tors, ref­er­ees and other sci­en­tists should address this pos­si­bil­ity first before dis­qual­i­fy­ing the ether the­ory only based on the argu­ment that the the­o­ret­i­cal value of Planck’s con­stant dif­fers slightly from the exper­i­men­tal value and is there­fore false.

Next chap­ter: The Quan­ti­sa­tion of Physics by Means of the Quan­tum Distance

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

Theoretical Physics endorsed the drag coefficient of Fresnel when the empirical “confirmation” by Fizeau showed a deviation of 10%!

Is the derived formula for Planck’s constant false when the deviation is just 0.35%?

Statistically it is impossible to obtain by coincidence a formula for Planck’s constant with just a deviation of 0.35%. Scientists should acknowledge that and let the scientific debate determine whether the theory behind the derivation is acceptable or not. Rejection of manuscripts by science and physic journals, that reveal serious omissions in the past, only on the argument that the article is not relevant or not actual reveals incompetence.

When editors and referees are convinced the discovered omissions are of no consequence for the present perception by QM of physic processes they still should not reject papers on bogus arguments. It is the task of the scientific community to determine that. An editor and/or referee do not represent this community. A debate, whether the new perspectives should be rejected or not, is the proper scientific process. Rejection of articles by editors or referees based on invalid arguments degenerates science and scientists.

Although this paper reveals more than enough arguments and evidence to justify publication without explaining the deviation of 0.35% I will indicate how the deviation can be explained. In the article *** marks the formulas where the theoretical and experimental values deviate factor 1.003458. It appears that the deviation factor of 1.003458 is systematic. The apparent cause for the deviation implies a difficult mathematical problem that by far exceeds my capabilities.

The empirical value of h is obtained with the formula that describes the relation between the energy and the frequency of the photon; E=hv. The derivation of theoretical formula for the Planck-distance (12) is based on this equation. Other formulas refer to particles with mass.

The photon propagates through space and does not distort tense free ether. Masses however distort the surrounding ether. A nucleus, a charged mass, affects the stress free cubical orientated ether (fig. 2) and shapes the surrounding space into a tensed spherical orientation. The stress free cubical orientated space contains more point-volumes or ether per volume than spherical orientated ether surrounding the nucleus of an atom. The packing density of point-volumes in the spherical orientated space/ether around a nucleus therefore differs from the cubical tense free ether packing density. (figures 2,3 and 5).

When a nucleus polarizes the surrounding ether/space (electric field) the point-volumes are forced to orientate into a spherical shape. The same number of point-volumes around a charged nucleus occupy more space. The experimental determined constant of Planck and the formula for the Planck-distance refer to physics of a tense free cubical orientated ether. While deriving Planck’s constant the difference between stress and stress-free ether is not mathematically addressed. The packing difference possibly explains the systematic deviation factor of 1.003458.

Editors, referees and other scientists should address this possibility first before disqualifying the ether theory only based on the argument that the theoretical value of Planck’s constant differs slightly from the experimental value and is therefore false.

Next chapter: The Quantisation of Physics by Means of the Quantum Distance

top