The Proton Radius Riddle - And an Intriguing Coincidence

Recent measurements of the proton radius earlier: www.nature.com...
suggest an intriguing coincidence - closely related to Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis, yet more intuitive.
The coincidence has also been noted by some heterodox physicists, see Dirk Freyling’s ‘mass-radius constancy’ (www.ek-theory.com/) and N. Haramein (I do not endorse their theories here).
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@Th...
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/

[@EugenethePhilostopher]

Speaking about synchronicities. You have no idea how important what you've shown here is to what I'm thinking about right now. Thank you very much!

[@ADAMBLVCK]

It might help you to consider that God both does and doesn't exist, at the same time.

[@sino-wt7pu]

I noticed it myself already 8-10 years ago, when I had read about the Muon-Hyrdrogen exerimental Data that pinned the Proton Radius down to 0.84 fm instead of the 0.87fm that had been previouly measured by the collider experiments. I did these little fun calculations since school ... So several years ago I set on my bed with my college block and aussumed a standing wave on the circumference of the proton ... So set mc^2=h*f, and f=c/lambda and lamda=2*pi*r ... And then mangled it together, noticed the value I got was off, but some remarkable integer factor ... Calculation idea was as follows m*c^2=h*c/lambda ... (typo) ... mc=h/lambda, lambda=h/mc ... lamda=2*pi*r, so 2*pi*r=h/(mc) ...r=h/(2pi*m*c) .... This gives a value of 2.103089100513957e-16 meters ... At first I thought: ''Never mind, far off'' but then I multiplied that by 4 ... And saw: 'Wow' 8.412356402055828e-16 meter ... That was within 5 promille of that back then newly obtained proton radius withing the measurment accuracy back then ... lol ... ( edit: Basically since then I have been continously wondering, how to make sense of it ... because the was a joke-calculation I did for fun back then that was never meant to work ... edit:typos ... it was always clear to me that the reasoning is completely wrong, but the value was wrong in a very remarkable way)"

[@EugenethePhilostopher]

You've assumed a simple "looped" standing wave (2-dimensional). In reality a proton has 3 "quarks", i.e. the loop is 3-dimensional (with oscillation on all 3 axes). I.e. it's like a 3D Lissajous figure. I bet this is where your factor comes from.

[@sino-wt7pu]

@@EugenethePhilostopher Yes, 3d. It's really an interesting question/coincidence. I thought about spherical harmonics. I so wanted to dig deeper, start with learning more about physics, because I've never studied it as s main subject. Got myself some book about Particle Physics and related, but it just stayed a project on my bucket list. I am still curious though. I was wondering, whether the Proton is just so ''perfect'' that some really complicated mathematics in the end reduces to some really simple equation finally. with a much simpler explanation, why things are like that. 🤔

[@stevenverrall4527]

Great stuff! We can go further and note that the fine structure constant is related to the charge distribution of the proton. See my July 2024 peer-reviewed book chapter for details.

[@ADAMBLVCK]

Yes, the fine structure constant is related to virtually everything non-gravitational in physics. Could you summarize your unique findings that haven't been addressed in the last 100 years of theoretical physics?

[@justinjozokos1699]

The relationship between fundamental constants was very interesting. I'm a little hesitant to start invoking things like the mass or radius of the universe though because I'm weary of mainstream cosmology

[@mathoph26]

You guys should know something: all the nucleus binding energy are computed with EMPIRICAL potentials, nuclear physics is totally unknown at fundamental level, still nowadays. They came up with quarks, up/down and so on. But in PRACTICE they use fictitious fit-potential (yukawa type or gaussian) to compute the binding energy...

[@toymaker3474]

modern physics is a joke.

[@jacuzzihot]

You are wrong the proton, neutron mass and the deuterium mass have been calculated from scratch using Lattice-Gauge Theory. There is abolsutely NOTHING fundamental with this formula, it is very silly high-school drop-out physics.

[@TS-jm7jm]

can you elaborate on that point please

[@ADAMBLVCK]

@@toymaker3474 your standard for jokes is way off. Trump is a joke. Climate change denial is a joke. Modern Physics works very well up to 20 decimals after the comma. Shit becomes impossible to calculate due to fundamental notions like chaos and existence theorems in the way we do differential calculations and the limits thereof. So easy to brush it off as a joke and think you're on top of the mountain.

[@toymaker3474]

@@TS-jm7jm lets start with the basics, light requires a medium.

[@phyarth8082]

Reduced Planck constant ℏ=1/4*mp*rp*c very important is 1/4 , because p=1*mv - momentum is 1D, E=1/2*m*v^2 - kinetic energy is 2D, p=1/3*N*M*v^2/V is 3D - pressure Kinetic Gas theory - f=1/4*N/V*v - The Frequency of Collisions with a Wall is 1D+2D+3D. Coefficient 1/4 closes Kinetic gas theory. Planck constant must close elementary particles and it must be related somehow with probability frequency and 1/4 coefficient. Darren Aronofsky movie pi, pro-mathematician not allowed wander from number theory into numerology ?

[@panmichael5271]

Particle physics deals mainly with the total center of mass energy in colliders, and not the radii of colliding particles. Hence proton radii are relevant questions for nuclear physics.

[@ernestuz]

The proton radius measured in this experiment is the charge radius, that is, the one measured using electric interactions. Protons are a complex mess of stuff, the 3 quarks model is just a simplification of it, we have been not able to simulate their inner working until very recently. So really attaching a radius to it is like measuring the size of a cloud, the closer you get, the more difficult it is to determine where it starts, or it ends. Other problem is the radius depends on the chosen interaction, it'll be different when interacting with an electron or when interacting with a meson, or a muon. It's curious how people try to solve particle physics from their armchairs, basing their thinking on very oversimplified models. EDIT: Well, this experiment found the proton is around a 5% smaller, not really a big difference, but was substantial, AFAIK all modern measurements also give this smaller radius.

[@carly09et]

The question is a metrication problem. 'h' is a measure bound making any measure 'spongy' . Space is 'spongy' by 'c' as c^2 is u_0*e_0.

[@jacuzzihot]

I totally agree. Is Unzicker a physicist or a high-school drop-out, earning money with reading tarot cards? Such a BS, very unscientific. He puts science to shame.

[@alwayscurious413]

Super comment - in optics the width of a laser beam is entirely down to your chosen definition and what you want to do with the beam. Some of the beam width correction factors are quite large. It’s interesting to apply this thinking to fundamental particles, which I suspect are all fuzzy clouds anyway.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Could the mathematics be representing spherical geometry? The charge of the electron is squared is because because process is relative to the spherical surface. The Universe could be a light sphere with the speed of light squared the wavefunction squared and even time squared in the work of Galileo.

[@chrismonksellye4608]

vixra.org/pdf/2004.0451v2.pdf

[@ADAMBLVCK]

I think it's your face squared, then light squared, then square circle squared.

[@mathoph26]

This is really interresting ! A tensorial theory of gravitation including proton (and neutron as well) mass distribution is an idea that I share also

[@stevenverrall4527]

Have you read any of my recent peer-reviewed publications on ground state proton and neutron models?

[@jacuzzihot]

Huh???

[@mathoph26]

@@stevenverrall4527 no but i am interrested

[@mathoph26]

​@@stevenverrall4527 i am interrested

[@mathoph26]

This is a very interresting geometric approach. You just need a theoretical driving equation (like a N body Dirac) because it is wave mechanics at the end. This is still interresting because of the rotation symmetry you use. That can guide you toward the partial differential equations that drive all of this.

[@johnlord8337]

The proton is a composite positron object, ... as much as the neutron is an electron and positron composite. If you accept that the proton is (generically a constant of) 928 MeV/c2, then its composition is only so many diameters (and radius) of positrons 0.511 MeV/c2. You can figure out the number of positrons fitting into a proton. The Coulomb boundary of an elemental atom nucleus ... and any smaller proton and neutron Coulomb boundary) has been superseded by this object's composite and fused condition. So, ... unless you don't admit with particle physics or point physics ... or ? ... such electrons and positrons do have dimension, not just force, field, and wave of an un-dimensional point object. Basic math can solve what is the true value of the radius and diameter of a proton.

[@frun]

I'm curious, if there's a universe similar to ours inside a proton. It's noteworthy, that particles don't have size, but they interact as if they do.

[@toymaker3474]

their is no such thing as a particle.

[@MrVibrating]

What do you think of Nassim Haramein's resolution of the proton radius with the Schwarzchild radius of its mass, and the strong force as essentially gravitational? For anyone paying attention to the nuts and bolts of UAP tech (ie. practical warp tech), the implications of such a correlation are highly relevant..

[@TheMachian]

The Schwarschild radius, technically, would be much smaller, but I do not think it has a physical reality. I have always said that the strong force is a flawed concept to begin with. True understanding must indeed explain in another way whatever holds the nucleus together. I believe however this will not be the case unless we have unified electricity and gravity-

[@browncow7113]

What do you think of it yourself, MrVibrating? I am not qualified to judge. I find his cosmology very exciting, but there is the whiff of the charlatan about it all. What do you see as the link with the control/propulsion of UAP's? Mr Unzicker - what do you think, though, about his actual results, i.e. his claimed derivations?

[@lefthandedhardright8839]

Another thing that should have huge implications, but no one is talking about, UY Scuti, once thought to be one of the largest stars, is a lot smaller and closer than thought. A lot of stars are in this same predicament.

[@user-nj1og6yb7v]

Fascinating

[@modalextension9109]

How can one even define a radius of a wobbling bubble of quarks and gluons? If it is done by scattering, don't we get a lumped equivalent of the interactions? And it will depend on the interaction type. I don't think it ressembles a radius in the classical sense of a ball. See this for quite varying numbers: m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZ7GqnWrgZ6Nb5Y&pp=ygULUHJvdG9uIHN1emU%3D

[@TheBelrick]

No such thing as quarks and gluons. Who taught you that rubbish? Oh right, antihuman enemies.

[@ADAMBLVCK]

​@@TheBelrick Aight Panzer boy, snap back to reality. I fear that the next week you're going to tell us that Jesus is a Fermion. Do you know that we've never seen an atom, nor seen electromagnetic waves? We don't even see electrons, nor their spins, yet we're communicating due to their existence. We're inferring the existence and properties of particles and waves thanks to their interactions with other waves and particles. In the same way, Quarks and Gluons, and their properties, predict scattering and jet-production amplitudes and statistics in collider experiments. Without them, shit makes no sense. But let's not fear! I'm sure that your ChatGPT empowered theory of everything is going to explain all these things! Wohoo!

[@byronwatkins2565]

1836 is the ratio of the proton and electron masses. Radius is not considered. Also, m/r has units where everywhere else the units have canceled; this cannot be correct.

[@christophershelton8155]

You mention how philosophy and physics should go hand and hand. Interesting, since a lot of philosophers at the time of Newton thought his formulas left a lot out in regards to understanding the universe. Newton also recognized this as well 'I can calculate the motion of an object, but not the madness of a man' is one example

[@dominiqueubersfeld2282]

Could anyone explain to Mr Unzicker the meaning of the word "pareidolia"?

[@ADAMBLVCK]

Unzicker is uncertain about that

[@MrRyanroberson1]

h/pi being a common constant as well, the equation could be made even simpler-looking

[@aachacon31]

What was the previous measuremed value of the mass of proton? Right now is about 0.84 fm...

[@TheMachian]

About 0.87. Quite a difference.

[@Hitsujiomeguruboken]

Ha ha!

[@drake_sterling]

I wish to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Unzicker, based on these videos and "Einstein's Lost Key". I have a list of demos now of a geometric utility. Your insights are all verifiable at all levels. Your insights into A Einstein's early thoughts on variable lightSpeed are substantiated in the actual metric establishing Proton radius. It's variable, depending upon the lowest and highest Planckian/Machian number. These would be imaginary, bounding the finite universe on a finite numeric relationship. You might enjoy Spheric Geometry, and we admire you... so weit so gut !

[@lebenstraum666]

Space and time are not illusions but part of the ontological hierarchy of materialism.

[@ricardoabh3242]

About the impact, yes interesting that nobody mentions the consequences?

[@AliBenBrahim-s9x]

Is the concept of size in the quantum world the same as in the classical world?!!!

[@justinfalzon6854]

Yes, please.

[@ManuelGarcia-ww7gj]

I thought that physicists treated all subatomic particles as though they are dimensionless points!

[@nadahere]

that is a century out of date. Update yourself. ;-)

[@jacuzzihot]

Fundamental particles as quarks and electrons are structre less. The proton has rather complex structure and was modelled with lattice-gauge-theory.

[@ManuelGarcia-ww7gj]

@@nadahere Okay, consider me updated. I have pointed that saying subatomic particles have no volume is a mistake since my freshman year in college. It is good to know tht I was right and the braniacs of my day were wrong.

[@Kraflyn]

h has dimensions of the product mvr. You can do this for any particle.

[@jacuzzihot]

and then keep the particle for which the relationhsip holds approximately and cll it the holy particle that rules them all. pseudo-science totally.

[@maxhunter3574]

How would this relate to neutron stars, white dwarfs, magnetars, etc. When the proton turns to neutron? And how does this relate to the quark structures inside other boson's?

[@EugenethePhilostopher]

The proper answer is "we don't know". And just FYI: the only bosons that are supposed to have quarks inside (according to SM) would be mesons (and aggregations thereof such as tetraquarks).

[@t00by00zer]

The hydrogen ground state is at quantum number 137 relative to the zero spin radius of the electron mass, r=h/(2pi*m*c).

[@ADAMBLVCK]

No the ground state of hydrogen has quantum numbers 111

[@t00by00zer]

@@ADAMBLVCK You completely missed the point. Hydrogen's "ground state" relative to the electron zero spin radius [defined by r = h(2*pi*m*c)] is 137. That's why the fine structure constant has its value.

[@ADAMBLVCK]

​@@t00by00zer The thing is that you're not making any valid points. I feel that you're thoroughly confused, which is perfect for learning something new. First, "electron zero spin radius" means nothing. Electrons don't have a radius, and they always have a half-integer spin (so far as experiment goes). Further, the fine structure constant is irrelevant for the ground state of Hydrogen, unless you're introducing relativistic and spin-orbit coupling corrections, which you probably have never heard of. Again, the quantum numbers to fully describe the ground state of hydrogen is 100 for quantum numbers nlm (previously I said 111 which is incorrect). When introducing corrections, you get a few extra quantum numbers, which remains irrelevant unless n > 1, which isn't the ground state anymore. You might start arguing about the Lamb Shift correction for the ground state, but that's not related to 1/alpha, not even in the same order, or whatever you're proposing...

[@t00by00zer]

@@ADAMBLVCK the equation that was the focus of the video applies to not only the proton, but to all "particles." That radius equation defines the zero spin radius of the particle. It's inversely proportional to mass. The lower the mass of a particle, the larger it's zero spin radius is. Relative to that number for the electron, the ground state of hydrogen is at quantum number 137. Of course electrons have a radius. All particles do. In the case of the electron mass around a proton, that radius manifests as the orbital radius.

[@manmanman2000]

5:52 There is an m_e too much in this line

[@BrianGreene-i4o]

Is this preparation for your next interview with the bot? I'm interested to see if it's capable of being more than a research tool.

[@vortextube]

This is complete bunk.

[@Hitsujiomeguruboken]

Sometimes Pi/2 and sometimes 2/Pi …….. just as you need it😜

[@ADAMBLVCK]

Proof by Promise and Convenience

[@GriuGriu64]

What is the meaning of proton radius??

[@jacuzzihot]

Nothing. It says smth about the charge distribution.

[@christophershelton8155]

Have you read any of Nietzsche?

[@theomnisthour6400]

Who says God can't change his mind at the last minute and fine tune the music of academic spheres into total cacaphony? Post modernist scientists need a little more Monty Python Confuse-a-cat in their lives

[@billcook4768]

Does the concept of measurable size even apply for atomic particles?

[@ADAMBLVCK]

Yes. Scattering experiments have shown that there's a clear region where shot particles bounce against "something". This something is called the nucleus which is a single proton for Hydrogen, and it has clear dimensions, unlike electrons, which have no apparent size.

[@billcook4768]

@@ADAMBLVCK Thanks

[@BarriosGroupie]

Do you have the source for Dirac saying that "this is a remarkable coincidence"? I can't find this quote in his 1937 paper _A New Basis for Cosmology._

[@TheMachian]

Lookup the 1938 paper.

[@digbysirchickentf2315]

What if Protons are egg-shaped? and the universe is shaped like a gerkin, or vice versa. Does the universe have a shape at all?

[@ADAMBLVCK]

Protons most definitely are not egg or pear shaped - this is very conclusive in experiment and theory. There are however heavy pear-shaped nuclei observed, like Radium-222 in CERN. The universe has no definite shape, because canon definitions of the universe requires an open simply connected region - this means that our universe has a volume, but no definite boundary to this volume. It's mathematically rigorously defined if that helps, or you can go study some mathematics to verify for yourself.

[@alllions3848]

another coincidence h=[(4pi GK)/(c^4 sqrt2)]*unit

[@Lemure_Noah]

This proves our universe is inside a massive black hole, didn't?

[@georganatoly6646]

Kleine Bemerkung, aber du hast Pi auf Deutsch gesagt. Auf Englisch klingt es wie Pei.

[@TheMachian]

danke!

[@neilcreamer8207]

Maybe the proton is special because it's the only particle that really exists? There's plenty of argument that a neutron is just a proton and electron in a short-lived arrangement, that quarks are imaginary, and that electrons are not particles at all. That leaves only the proton.

[@paaao]

I feel the same. Is it even an argument that all neutrons decay into protons? That is good evidence that the two things are just different modes of the same thing.

[@TheBelrick]

First rule of understanding physics is understanding that physics has been deliberately defrauded since 1927. Which is of course when they came up with the nonsense that the neutron is a particle.

[@maeton-gaming]

​@@paaao the neutron can be correctly understood as a phase modality of a proton, the electron is better understood as the terminal end of a line of induction in the dielectric field.

[@jacuzzihot]

O boy.....get a physics course first.

[@cougar2013]

All of that has been long disproven or debunked, unfortunately.

[@ai-pictures8833]

Which imply that God made universal law.

[@maeton-gaming]

one is to phi as phi is to one

[@jacuzzihot]

God is a fairy-tale.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Hey check out my new beautiful equation. X²*X²*X²*...♾️ < X³ this is a simplified version... Think about it, a square is two-dimensional meaning length and width only with absolutely no depth... A cube function has depth... If it has depth then that means infinite amounts of two-dimensional existence can stack into any size three dimensional existence... Thus this equation is fundamental. Yet another mathematical shattering of the status quo. ² means squared ³ means cubed... This solves so many problems with math and creates a lot more maybe.

[@ADAMBLVCK]

That's false. x^2 * x^2 = x^4 > x^3, if x > 1 and if x belongs to real numbers. Going up in power, makes it even bigger than x^3. Only for values 0 < x < 1, does your "equation" hold, and even then, you could just remove the cubed on the right hand side, and it would hold as well, breaking your volume vs surface intuitions.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

@@ADAMBLVCK again that's my entire point of this equation... Our mathematical system is broken because it doesn't matter how many times you multiply a square function it can never make it a cubed function or anything higher... That's what this mathematical equation is designed to facilitate...

[@ADAMBLVCK]

@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler sorry, you're wrong. Did you get your math degree from Terence Howard University?

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

@@ADAMBLVCK I get that system lead you to conclude these ideas that I'm wrong but it's actually the system that is wrong. I recently simplified my explanation of the logical progression of the spatial dimensions even more and I'm gonna leave it here. let me show you the logical establish pattern so you can understand better, infinite amounts of 0 dimensional existence can stack into any size one dimensional existence because it is nothing and infinite amount of nothing can stack in any size version of something. 1D equals length only. Now infinite amounts of one-dimensional existence can stack into any size two dimensional existence because it is length and now that you've added width in so then infinite amounts of one dimensional existence can stack inside of it. Now infinite amounts of two dimensional existence can stack into any size three dimensional existence because this is length and width and now you add depth... When we add in depth we allow for infinite stacking of two-dimensional planes to stack into any size three dimensional existence because of the additional depth dimension. Now given this logically established pattern we can conclude that if a fourth spatial dimension exist then infinite amounts of three dimensional existence can stack into any size 4 dimensional existence... This means that if a fourth spatial dimension exist our universal potentiality of our three-dimensional universe will be compressed down into a relatively flat state which is exactly what we observe of our universe. This means if a 4th spacial dimension exists (as verified by this logical progression pattern that aligns with our observations) then infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality can stack into ANY SIZE 4D existence making a infinite 3d multiverse the norm... This explains Mandela effects.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

@@ADAMBLVCK $1×$1=$1²=$2

[@Blueelectricaltape]

Can you show me my FREE ENERGY design?