The theory presented on this blog has energy as size at the subatomic. Specifically, it…

# Øye’s Fine-structure Constant

Conventional quantum physics tends to deal with physical phenomena in purely mathematical terms. Few make any attempt at explaining exactly what the various constants and variables used actually are. There’s no well defined physical model behind the formulas in which we can clearly point to a particular thing and say that this is what we are dealing with. Everything is statistics and probabilities.

## Unexplained constants

While the formulas produced by quantum physics have great predictive powers, the underlying mechanisms that produce the results are poorly understood. This has led to a situation in which physical constants have been discovered, without anyone being able to explain what they represent.

The Fine-structure constant is an example of this. There are at least 5 different ways to calculate and measure this constant. It represents a relationship in nature that no-one can deny. Yet, no-one can seem to agree on what it means.

## Enos Øye’s discovery

Looking into the nature of the Fine-structure constant, Enos Øye recently made an interesting discovery.

By simplifying one of the accepted formulas for this constant, he found that the constant can be expressed solely in terms of the atom and the energy required to ionize it.

Enos Øye made the discovery that the Fine-structure constant is equal to the wavelength of the electron of a hydrogen atom, divided by half the wavelength of the photon required to kick it out of orbit, thus ionizing the hydrogen atom.

The fine structure constant relates the energy of an electron in orbit around a proton with the energy of the photon required to free it from its orbit.

## Interesting detail

With respect to my own work on the atom, I found one detail in Øye’s work particularly interesting. It turns out that the best fit between theoretical calculations and measured values was achieved when Øye used the Bohr radius in combination with the Bary radius. This can be seen in his calculations pictured above.

The Bohr radius uses the center of the proton as origo, while the Bary radius includes the fact that both the electron and the proton have mass, putting the origo a little away from the geometric center of the proton. The fact that both are required is a big clue as to the nature of electron orbits.

## The bouncing electron

If the electron clouds observed around the nuclei of atoms are purely statistical phenomena, then there should be no need for a Bary radius. On the other hand, if the electron is moving in an orbit, like a moon around a planet, then the Bary radius should be used on its own. The electron orbit is in other words neither a purely statistical phenomenon nor a conventional orbit.

This is exactly what we should expect if the electron is bouncing on the atomic nucleus as suggested in by book. A bouncing electron would neither orbit, nor be completely random. It would be something in between, precisely as required by Enos Øye in his calculations on the Fine-structure constant.

## This Post Has 0 Comments