Yu. D. Buslenko
Atomic physics specialists know well that dimensionless atomic constants (fine structure constants, ratio of proton and electron masses, ratio of electron shell and nucleus dimensions, ratio of proton and electron magnetic moments, etc.)are calculating on basis of experimental information. Up till now no one managed to calculate those constants theoretically, and to interlink them by formulas.
I point to the fact that any dimensionless constants do not depend on such measures as kilograms, meters, seconds, and their combinations, and therefore are of higher degree of generalization as compared with physical magnitudes, which use these measurements. For example, numbers p ≈ 3,14 è å ≈ 2,72 appear in mathematical physics as dimensionless constants. But it doesn’t mean that those numbers are applied only in physics. I think the calculation technique of dimensionless atomic constants is to be found by some general and accurate laws of nature, in which physical laws would appear as particular and specific cases. I offer atomic physicists to abandon monopolistic claims on truth, and to look for problem-solution along with other disciplines scientists. Beware of being said to be dilettantes. Your potential partners, who somehow know atom, feel confident within the bounds of their specialties, and become powerless beyond the bounds. Different sciences interaction is to give such an objective knowledge, which is unlikely to be revealed within the bounds of som separate discipline. It is impossible for two men or two women to give birth to descendants.
1.Theorem of irregular mass moving as physical variant of Godel’s theorem. Additional (cross-cut) factor is on this move. Time division into basic and additional as applied to inert and electrical mass properties. Electric charge nature.
2.Formula that binds up fine structure constant a with the numbers 1, 3, p, å, i by means of equal probability of two alternative events, integer-valued parameter of discreteness. a periodicity in complex quantities.
3.Theoretical ratio of proton and electron masses bp, neutron and electron bn, meson and electron bπ.
4.Theoretical ratio of gí dimensions of electronic shell and nucleus by the example of hydrogen atom.
5.Integer spin division into half-integer spin circumferentially and by tractrix.
6.må anomaly of electron magnetic moments, mðratio of proton and electron magnetic moments.
7.Nucleus as a nucleon system. Fundamental irreducibility of nucleus mass to free nucleons masses sum. Nucleus mass fault. Theoretical calculation (without use of Weizsacker’s formula) binding energy density for heavy hydrogen, helium, and other heavy components nucleuses. Functional binding of mass number and nuclear stability.
8.Formula that binds gravitation constant (?)and nuclear constants, and Universe parameters.
9.Theorem ï.1 consequences correspondence test to basic aspects and formulas of classic physics, quantum mechanics, and theory of relativity.
10.Mathematical reflection of quantitative changes to quality ones. Variable unit as quality and quantity indivisible quantum. Binding continuous quantity change and discrete quality change by the example of quantum-unit. Quantum calculation as an alternative to mathematical infinite methods. Philosophical interpretation and geometrical notion of universal constants a, b, g.
11.Cost quantization. Benefit (surplus value) as a factor of form of economical development. Repetition factor of pace of development by constant a. Time division into basic and additional as applied to pace of development. Large-scale economical system functioning under conditions where its elements have different paces of development.
I will cite fourteen constants meanings, which were theoretically calculated on bases of unified mathematical model: 1. Slope ratio of spiral development for elementary cycle a = 137,0013199-1…; 2. Ratio of symmetric and asymmetric under oppositions interaction b=1836,598269…; 3. Space interaction between similar and polar elements as interaction between field and spot g=14688,8…; 4. Fine structure constant a í=137,036-1; 5. Ratio of proton and electron masses bÐ=1836,15; 6. Ratio of neutron and electron masses bn=1838,68; 7. Ratio of neutral p– meson and electron bp0=264,1; 8. Ratio of charged p– meson electron bpq=273,2; 9. Ratio of electron shell and nucleus dimensions by the example of hydrogen atom gí=39928,2; 10. Electron magnetic moment anomaly må=1,001159652; 11. Ratio of proton and electron magnetic moments mð=1,521032•10-3; 12. Binding energy density for heavy hydrogen nucleuses 2/1 Í=1,11 MeV/nucleon; 13. The same to helium nucleus 4/2Íå=7,07 MeV/nucleon; 14. The same to iron nucleus 56/26Fe=8,79 MeV/nucleon. Calculation of the last three constants is made by means of conversion coefficient 0, 511 MeV per one electronic mass. All the constants, except for the first three ones, are theoretically calculated with some variety of accuracy, beginning with the last mentioned number.
The constant truth, calculated by me, is rather doubtful. As it is known, to err is human.
It concerns me, and opponents that would like to test my hypothesis. Truth is the only one for everyone. Hence it should be revealed by alternative versions comparison of one and the same problem. Mathematicians, physicists, economists, philosophers, and others, who can refute or verify the constants, declared by me, please let me know. I will reveal my method in exchange for the methods, suggested by independent opponents.
This article and its duplicates are published on the following site: www.bus-atom.ru
Yuriy Dmitriyevich Buslenko is registered at the following addresses. Postal address: post office box 916, the city of Saratov, 410012, Russia;
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org; Telephone number:- +7 (845-2) 71-56-94
August 15, 2003.