The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. A Small Number Hypothesis
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

A Small Number Hypothesis

  • 1 Replies
  • 328 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BilboGrabbins (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 119
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
A Small Number Hypothesis
« on: 13/10/2021 23:11:08 »
For the work, we will draw only on the similarity of powers and we will derive an approximation of Newtons constant.

Dirac must have been disheartened by the lack of support on his large number hypothesis and I feel some of his pain. There is equally a small number hypothesis that requires attention. The charged ion of nitrogen has a mass approx to 5 * 10^(-26) kg and for oxygen it is the same roughly. Hence Avogadro's number is also approx to the same number for a 24 cubic meter of space for an ideal gas. Hydrogen being an electrically charged proton pulled vertically by an electric field is approx to 2*10^(-27)kg. An alpha particle from radium has a mass approx to 5*10^(-27) kg and a neutron with a mass only slightly bigger has a mass approx to 5*10^(-27) kg. With protons and neutrons in mind, the neutron is slightly bigger and the question of why seems to lye with charge itself contributing to the total mass observed Gm^2 ~ nhc. This was even known to Feymann who stated that while the neutron was electrically neutral it has a more complex configuration involving a charge distribution making it slightly heavier than a proton.

At room temperature for air is 28.8kg for the 24 cubic meter of space. Further the measured density of liquid air is 1000kg/cu.m

The standard calculation for the lattice is

24/(28.8 ))/1000) = 833/1

From here I noticed that when it is divided by 6 it is approximately equal to the fine structure constant

833/6 ~ 137

By noticing this, I further took

(1/833)/6 ~ 8*10^(-6)

Which is further the number relating to the wavelength in meters of red light. Since we where talking about the ideal gas in 24 cubic meters of space, the fact that 6 was used to find the approximate value of the fine structure was a bit of a surprise but understandable as it conveys it self 3+3. In hypothesising this I decided to take the inverse function

3^√833 ~ 1

But stranger if not just a matter of curiosity, adding 833 directly with 137 was nearly the density of liquid air off by a factor of 30.

To note, while many numbers we have noticed approximations to, that fine structure 1/137 is much larger in comparison.


For electric charge to mass measurements, further study has shown remarkable numerical agreement with a small number hypothesis. For instance, the cathode ray for discharged electrons in gas reveals ~ 2*10^(11) while electrons from hot tungsten is the same including electrons from the more general case of the photoelectric effect. There are many more cases of this number obeying fundamental processes involving electrons.

The biggest surprise was the following speculation

833/137*10^(-11) ~ G

The gravitational constant. Notice that we spoke about 10^(11) in electron dynamics
Logged
 



Offline BilboGrabbins (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 119
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: A Small Number Hypothesis
« Reply #1 on: 13/10/2021 23:16:42 »
I know it's a wild hypothesis. There were many more relationships known to me. There could be nothing behind it, but those damn powers spoke to me for some reason.
« Last Edit: 14/10/2021 14:00:59 by BilboGrabbins »
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 36 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.