Constants of Nature: The Proton-Electron Mass Ratio

Why 1836.15...? Why not 530,45? Why not 3871.12? Nobody knows. We would not notice in daily life.

Mind also my backup channel:

[donaldkasper]

The ratio of proton to electron to me means nothing. The fundamental question is why is the mass of an electron, proton, and neutron, what they are? Why is their radius what they are? Why do they interact at all? What set up the rules of their interaction? Why do they even exist? Why does the electron appear to be the most mobile, meaning leaves atoms and just flies around? Why does it have the rules it does for its free movement?

[kontrolafaktu]

Proton is analogue of Hubble radius, classical electron is an analogue of the observable universe. The proton/electron mass ratio is the square* of the difference in volume (i.e. difference in the moment of inertia of Hubble radius and the observable universe) - when t(universe) = t(Hubble time). It's one of Dirac's large numbers. * square in the end means 6th power because you're jumping from dim. 24 to 4.

[RolandStracke]

In regard to the problem of masses I want to point at an interesting formula which allows to calculate the masses oft the known elementary particles with high accuracy. This formula was found by the german physisist Karl Otto Greulich („Calculation oft the masses of all fundamental elementary particles with an accuracy of approx. 1%“, Journal of Modern Physics, Vol.1, No.5, pp 300-302, 2010). The formula is: mn / me= n / 2*α, not more. (mn: mass of particle belonging to n, me: mass of electron, n: integer, α: fine structure constant). For instance: n = 3, mn / me = 205, 55 (myon) or n = 27, mn / me =1849, 99 (proton).

[arandomguy]

We will always have to measure some fundamental quantities, that we will never unserstand its value. Its a universe gift

[johnlord]

Neither a Constant of the proton, nor a Constant of the electron/positron. The data range is a valid statement for these 3 particles, and thus there is no singular Constant, let alone have the 1835 or 1836 but a data range in the 1830-1840 range.

[trailedge]

Fascinating! Anything quantum is quackery.

[sathearn]

I've pointed out before under previous videos on this topic that Dewey B. Larson presented theoretical methods for calculating the masses of various "subatoms" (as well as H1 and Deuterium) in his book of 1979, involving summing components of "primary mass" (P) and "secondary mass" appropriate to each subatom.  

The secondary mass components are: 
m = P/{128(1 + 2/9)} 
E = P x 1/9 x 1/128
C = P/{[128(1 + 2/9)] x [128(1 + 1/9)]}
e = 2/3 E
c = 2/3 C

Ronald W. Satz later derived equations to extend these calculations for all isotopes where Z > 2.

The SOLE empirical value that goes into ALL of these calculations is the mass of O16. That is, P = 1/16 the mass of an O16 atom.

Then, for example, the mass of the electron is e - c. The mass of the proton is P + m + 2e + C. The resulting calculated/observed ratios for these two particles, are then 0.99998 and respectively, according to my checks. Anyone can check this themselves. The ratio between the two masses obviously follows directly.

[DKFX]

The electron to proton ratio is wrong. Obviously not the concept itself but the value that we measure. It's not 1836.15 in the most basic form derived from the constituent equations of mass. however it's quite close to that number. Some type of relativistic correction or gravitational or unknown influence is causing the lab equipment to measure slightly wrong electron and proton masses here on Earth.

[keithnorris]

Maybe it`s a radian value that encodes for degrees, minuets and seconds.

[Familyproud-eh]

I'm so glad to have stumbled upon this channel.
Can anyone please tell me what they think of the theory that says atoms are not the building blocks of the matter, the periodic table is wrong, electrons are not the basis of chemical reactions, and so on. Instead, the whole universe is made up of quantum fields around particles.
Looking forward to hearing from you professionals.

Please reply if possible.

[jarekk.]

Proton-to-electron mass ratio:
2(2·3·5)²+[2(u+u+d)-mᵉ]/mᵉ = 1 836, 15267

electron = mᵉ = 0, 51099895 MeV
proton = mᵉ·2(2·3·5)²+2(u+u+d)-mᵉ = 938, 27208943 MeV
neutron = = 939, 56542052 MeV

quark d = 4, 75416145 MeV
quark u = 2, 36916387 MeV

[davidrandell]

2002 all your fears were laid to rest. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon. Yes the “ thinking “ part exceeds your brain power.

[PD_]

Thank you for reminding us that we are nowhere close to understanding everything. Maybe we need to evolve bigger brains. Would we be better off for knowing the answers if we still can't get along with each other? Unzicker, just take a break and go sailing, life is just a dream!

[PrivateSi]

Sorry to pollute the comments with quackery (that could be true) but if you believe Protons are actually formed from 2 half neutralised positrons and a fully neutralised electron instead of up and down quarks a 'Mass Multiplier Mechanism' is needed, and a constant to go with it. The mass has to be a result of the neutralisation that is at a deeper level than the neutralisation a neutron experiences, with a neutron being a proton + extra neutralising electron bound by a Mass Addition Mechanism in this model.

[a.hardin]

Some constants will be variable. We just find ourself in a Universe with this number. Anthropically, you can just say that had it varied a great deal matter would not be able to form complex structures....and we could not observe its value in those Universes because no observers can emerge.

It’s up to you now to find a way to calculate it A Priori or from first principles if that’s what you believe is possible. I think that’s a fool’s errand like most contemporary physicists but our intuition may be wrong.

[BlackMasterRoshi]

mic picking up background noise really well

[enterprisesoftwarearchitect]

Quark binding energy and its coupling constant might be involved… the proton isn’t fundamental, it’s been demonstrated.

[kontrolafaktu]

Two protons at Planck density have the same mass as the local Hubble volume, two classical electrons at Planck density have the mass of the observable universe (at t = hubble time = universe age). Note that the proton's Compton wavelength is 0.5pi× charge radius, sim. relationship holds for the electron.

[marcv]

I actually think this is the most important question, and that once it's answered other answers will begin to fall in place.

[khalifabasitali]

R/sir,
I have an problem in the polarization of light.means if light polarize then any one of the field is restrict may M.field or E.field but the one is travel .Questions is that maxwell's equation tells that change in electric field produce magnetic field and vice versa but here is only one field how they can travel itself....make a short video on such a problem ...