For over half a century now Theoretical Physics academia has been
desperately searching for the TRUE value of the Fine Structure
Constant. The best "guess" so far from those scientists in Quantum
Mechanics diligently working to find this correct value is:
7.297352570 (50) x10^ -3 (ref: wikipedia-Fine Structure Constant-
2007, mathematician: James Gilson).

However, this value still does not allow us to correctly
mathematically describe the atom since it is only, at best, an
"estimated guess". So what is really keeping Theoretical Physics
academia today from finding the correct value of this very important
universal constant? The real reason is: Because they don't know where
to look? Why don't they know where to look? Becuase they don't really
know what an: "electron" is. Why don't they know what an electron is?
Because they use the "Uncertainty Principle" defining electrons as
"vague and elusive entities where it is impossible to simultaneously
know their position and velocity".

Using a completely new type of physics called: REALITY PHYSICS, we are
now able to go beyond current Quantum Mechanics (with its "Uncertainty
Principle", and INCORRECT definition of: "what an electron is") as we
are now able to finally reveal the CORRECT definition of the electron
(as an "active" configuration continually spinning at the speed of
light), further enabling us to describe the atom as a: "perfect
mathematical design".

Using this newly discovered "perfect mathematical design" of the atom,
we find we are now able, for the first time ever in the entire history
of Physics, to calculate the CORRECT value of the Fine Structure
Constant to be: 7.29907563x10^ -3.

For more information on this new discovery now finally revealing the
TRUE value of the Fine Structure Constant please go to: www.godcipher.com
, and scroll down to the bottom of the home page and click on: "THE
TRUE VALUE OF THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT REVEALED" preprint paper.

Not only does this paper prove, beyond any doubt possible, that this
new value is the CORRECT one, but we are also able to expose direct
absolute proof that the current value (from wikipedia) as accepted by
Theorertical Physics academia today, is COMPLETELY WRONG.

All coments, opinions and suggestions are welcome from anyone who is
interested.

All the best,

Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS

On Jul 11, 4:05�pm, Jeff wrote:
For over half a century now Theoretical Physics academia has been
desperately searching for the TRUE value of the Fine Structure
Constant. The best "guess" so far from those scientists in Quantum
Mechanics diligently working to find this correct value is:
7.297352570 (50) x10^ -3 (ref: wikipedia-Fine Structure Constant-
2007, mathematician: James Gilson).

However, this value still does not allow us to correctly
mathematically describe the atom since it is only, at best, an
"estimated guess". So what is really keeping Theoretical Physics
academia today from finding the correct value of this very important
universal constant? The real reason is: Because they don't know where
to look? Why don't they know where to look? Becuase they don't really
know what an: "electron" is. Why don't they know what an electron is?
Because they use the "Uncertainty Principle" defining electrons as
"vague and elusive entities where it is impossible to simultaneously
know their position and velocity".

Using a completely new type of physics called: REALITY PHYSICS, we are
now able to go beyond current Quantum Mechanics (with its "Uncertainty
Principle", and INCORRECT definition of: "what an electron is") as we
are now able to finally reveal the CORRECT definition of the electron
(as an "active" configuration continually spinning at the speed of
light), further enabling us to describe the atom as a: "perfect
mathematical design".

Using this newly discovered "perfect mathematical design" of the atom,
we find we are now able, for the first time ever in the entire history
of Physics, to calculate the CORRECT value of the Fine Structure
Constant to be: 7.29907563x10^ -3.

For more information on this new discovery now finally revealing the
TRUE value of the Fine Structure Constant please go to: � �www.godcipher.com
, and scroll down to the bottom of the home page and click on: "THE
TRUE VALUE OF THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT REVEALED" preprint paper.

Not only does this paper prove, beyond any doubt possible, that this
new value is the CORRECT one, but we are also able to expose direct
absolute proof that the current value (from wikipedia) as accepted by
Theorertical Physics academia today, is COMPLETELY WRONG.

All coments, opinions and suggestions are welcome from anyone who is
interested.

All the best,

Jeff Lee � CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS

Jeff, if you would change the fine structure constant then you must
adjust the values for all other funadamental physical constants
because they are all related by a number of precise mathematical
relationships.

The National Institutes for Standards and Technology (NIST) uses this
fact to adjust all of the constants by having a small sebset of
constants they can measure vary precisely.


BTW, the electron is no longer shown to orbit in atoms. In fact, the
hydrogen atom's electron is found at the nucleous in the ground
state.


It is the geometry of particles that derive all related fundamental
physical constants. See;


http://www.members.aol.com/tnlockyer/CHARGESPIN.pdf


Regards; Tom.


http://amazon.com/Fundamental-Physic...tic-Structures...


(just restocked)

On Jul 11, 4:53*pm, " wrote:
BTW, the electron is no longer shown to orbit in atoms. *In fact, the
hydrogen atom's electron is found at the nucleous in the ground
state.

The elèctròn does orbit (orbital angular momentum) and does epicýcles
(intrinsic angular momentum), but in the s-orbital dives intom the
nucleus. In the ground s-orbit the elèctròn brushes against the
nucleus continually, and the orbit is mostly circular; however, the
background can polarizein the circular orbit in oblong and broader
orbits (as the waveplot allows), still equipotential with the ground
orbit. The many elèctric and magnetic polarisations of liht are
consistent with classic orbital structures and orientations within a
quantal action.

-Aut

On Jul 13, 5:38�pm, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
On Jul 11, 4:53�pm, " wrote:

BTW, the electron is no longer shown to orbit in atoms. �In fact, the
hydrogen atom's electron is found at the nucleous in the ground
state.

The el�ctr�n does orbit (orbital angular momentum) and does epic�cles
(intrinsic angular momentum), but in the s-orbital dives intom the
nucleus. �In the ground s-orbit the el�ctr�n brushes against the
nucleus continually, and the orbit is mostly circular; however, the
background can polarizein the circular orbit in oblong and broader
orbits (as the waveplot allows), still equipotential with the ground
orbit. �The many el�ctric and magnetic polarisations of liht are
consistent with classic orbital structures and orientations within a
quantal action.

-Aut

Aut, nope, since the advent of quantum mechanics the Bohr picture has
lost favor.

See; P.W. Atkins book "QUANTA" second edition, Oxford University
Press (1991) page 33.

Quote;

* In the gound state of the hydrogen atom, the electron has zero
angular momentum around the nucleus.

Hence, it cannot be the centrifical force that balances the nuclear
attraction.

* The electron may be found at the nucleus itself, which is forbidden
in the Bohr model.

Unquote.

******************************************
Note, the Bohr model cannot derive the electron binding energy,
13.5984 eV.

And the old problem of the orbiting electron would radiate energy and
fall into the nucleus.

The Bohr model fails on physical principles.

In my book I show the derivation of the hydrogen electron's binding
energy, in fact Chapter 19 is devoted to the hydrogen atom, and shows
there are two null distances, the far field Bohr radius and the the
near field electron to
proton bond length.

Regards: Tom.

http://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-Ph...ometric-Struct...

(note they were out of stock, but a new shipment of books to their
warehouse is in transit)

On Jul 14, 10:10Â*am, " wrote:
On Jul 13, 5:38�pm, "Autymn D. C." wrote:





On Jul 11, 4:53�pm, " wrote:

BTW, the electron is no longer shown to orbit in atoms. �In fact, the
hydrogen atom's electron is found at the nucleous in the ground
state.

The el�ctr�n does orbit (orbital angular momentum) and does epic�cles
(intrinsic angular momentum), but in the s-orbital dives intom the
nucleus. �In the ground s-orbit the el�ctr�n brushes against the
nucleus continually, and the orbit is mostly circular; however, the
background can polarizein the circular orbit in oblong and broader
orbits (as the waveplot allows), still equipotential with the ground
orbit. �The many el�ctric and magnetic polarisations of liht are
consistent with classic orbital structures and orientations within a
quantal action.

-Aut

Aut, nope, since the advent of quantum mechanics the Bohr picture has
lost favor.

See; P.W. Atkins book Â*"QUANTA" second edition, Oxford University
Press (1991) page 33.

Quote;

* In the gound state of the hydrogen atom, the electron has zero
angular momentum around the nucleus.

Hence, it cannot be the centrifical force that balances the nuclear
attraction.

* The electron may be found at the nucleus itself, which is forbidden
in the Bohr model.

Unquote.

******************************************
Note, the Bohr model cannot derive the electron binding energy,
13.5984 eV.

And the old problem of the orbiting electron would radiate energy and
fall into the nucleus.

The Bohr model fails on physical principles.

In my book I show the derivation of the hydrogen electron's binding
energy, in fact Chapter 19 is devoted to the hydrogen atom, and shows
there are two null distances, the far field Bohr radius and the the
near field electron to
proton bond length.

Regards: Tom.

OOPS try this link.

http://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-Ph.../dp/096315463X

(note they were out of stock, but a new shipment of books to their
warehouse is in transit)- Hide quoted text -

On Jul 14, 10:10Â*am, " wrote:
On Jul 13, 5:38�pm, "Autymn D. C." wrote:



On Jul 11, 4:53�pm, " wrote:

BTW, the electron is no longer shown to orbit in atoms. �In fact, the
hydrogen atom's electron is found at the nucleous in the ground
state.

The el�ctr�n does orbit (orbital angular momentum) and does epic�cles
(intrinsic angular momentum), but in the s-orbital dives intom the
nucleus. �In the ground s-orbit the el�ctr�n brushes against the
nucleus continually, and the orbit is mostly circular; however, the
background can polarizein the circular orbit in oblong and broader
orbits (as the waveplot allows), still equipotential with the ground
orbit. �The many el�ctric and magnetic polarisations of liht are
consistent with classic orbital structures and orientations within a
quantal action.

Aut, nope, since the advent of quantum mechanics the Bohr picture has
lost favor.

It's not the Bohr model; it's a Bohr-Fermi-Pauli-Stark-Zeeman-Lamb
corrective model.

See; P.W. Atkins book Â*"QUANTA" second edition, Oxford University
Press (1991) page 33.

Quote;

* In the gound state of the hydrogen atom, the electron has zero
angular momentum around the nucleus.

Hence, it cannot be the centrifical force that balances the nuclear
attraction.

I said "within a quantal action", dolt. A measurement of your
elèctròn takes one action, which is two loops of the momenta fields;
its degenerate barýcentron is thus at or near the nucleus no matter
its subintegral paths away the nucleus, in s-shells.

* The electron may be found at the nucleus itself, which is forbidden
in the Bohr model.

The elèctròn's resolution is the same as the nucleòn's (without
corrections) at the same momenta; if they are colocomotive, it
wouldn't be hard to find such a reading. But there is no prohibition
of discrete fotòns in the Bohr model, which hasn't a say.

Unquote.

******************************************
Note, the Bohr model cannot derive the electron binding energy,
13.5984 eV.

It's not Bohr's job to do so.

And the old problem of the orbiting electron would radiate energy and
fall into the nucleus.

The orbit is already at the nucleus--its inner radius, at least.

-Aut