# Thread: Calculating the distance between the Earth and the Sun by the fine-structure constant

1. nikolay, you are still dropping equations!
start explaining how you got those, they did did appear magically in your notebook
unless you do so, thus thread will be closed and your chance to present your model is over

2. Originally Posted by Reality Check
That is correct, Nikolay Sukhorukov. No one here and probably no one else wants to continue your idea because it is obviously wrong. That is been explained to you.
Thank you for the interesting conversation, dear Mr. Reality Check. "And yet she turns" (© Galileo Galilei)

Originally Posted by Reality Check
The idea of an electron having an extent ("an electron is a ball") was abandoned in the 1920's when we found that the measured spin of an electron gives a surface of an extended electron moving many times faster than the speed of light.
Ok, in 2018, I also found that the spin of an electron (by which I understand the linear equatorial speed of electron rotation) is ≈ 51.39 m/s, which is many times less than the speed of light:

where Re ≈ 1.6101∙10-22 m is the electron radius I obtained, Rp.m ≈ 7.77∙10-16 m is so-called the "magnetic" proton radius, which can be calculated by the formula

α ≈ 1/137.04 is the fine-structure constant, Rc is the Rydberg constant (in Hz), c is the speed of light, C = 1 m/s is a matching coefficient,

and wow, what an unexpected coincidence! Dividing the Earth's gravitational parameter µ by the square of the obtained speed "51.39 m/s" gives the average distance from the Earth to the Sun:

a = µ/51.392 ≈ 1.5094∙1011 m

(Since you are not interested in my idea, I did not yet specify the details of the expression

I think that replacing the real spin with a math one (so-called "property") is in principle a permissible hypothesis but not a dogma. I have an alternative hypothesis, that's all. Science is not a religion. No one is obliged to accept any theory, even if it is accepted by millions of specialists. There must always be a place for doubt.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
There is no such thing as a "sub-neutrino".
I know. I introduced this term so as not to be confused with the well-established definition of the neutrino. I should have clarified this. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Using your example: the Sun gravitationally influences Mercury and Mercury gravitationally influences the Sun but Mercury's gravitation dominates inside Mercury's sphere of influence and the Sun's gravitation dominates outside Mercury's sphere of influence.
Maybe so and maybe not. I saw hypotheses that assume the gravity of the Sun may just be absent within the sphere of influence of planets. That is, the Sun can influence a planet and its sphere of influence as a whole, but cannot influence objects that are in the sphere of influence of a planet.

Originally Posted by Van Rijn
I did not set my goal to get the exact value of AU. I think my equation is useful because it indirectly proves the connection between the microcosm and the macrocosm, and also confirms the uniqueness of our planet.

Originally Posted by Van Rijn
Why would we assume that?

Mercury (and other planets) do gravitationally influence the sun. In fact, one of the methods for detecting planets around other stars is by looking for the wobble of the star caused by the planets on their sun. So again, based on the evidence, this argument is wrong.
It all depends on the masses (or rather, on the gravitational parameters) of planets, stars, galaxies, black holes etc. If a planet is very big, then it affects its star. For example, the sphere of influence of Jupiter, according to my formula (if it is correct)

is ≈ 4.80∙1013 m, which is almost 62 times the distance between Jupiter and the Sun. Therefore, there are no problems with the mutual gravitational influence of the Sun and Jupiter.

Originally Posted by Shaula
Hans Dehmelt did not meaure the electron radius. He measured the g-factor very accurately in 1991. He then used (as he said himself) a simple model to estimate limits of substructure (derived in 1980) to estimate an upper limit of the electron's size. Which came out at ~10-22m. So it wasn't measured and was an order of magnitude estimate of a limit.
Actually, if I understood correctly, Hans Dehmelt first spoke about the radius of the electron and only then he said about the upper limit:

But why the radius of the electron can not be close to the upper limit?

Originally Posted by Shaula
Making your claim that your result is close to a measured value false. You could just have easily used the 10-18m result from first order uncertainty theory or the 10-15m classical radius which has the benefit of actually being a radius, not an upper limit.
It is hard for me to say about "10-18 m", but I am sure that the radius of an electron cannot be "2.82∙10-15 m", since in such a case the radius would have been measured long ago, for example, when protons are bombarded by fast electrons.

Originally Posted by Shaula
References:
Drehmelt lecture

Originally Posted by Shaula
As an example - did you know that:

If K were a beautiful number (2, 8, 3, 64, √3, √2 etc.), then this would not be a coincidence and would be worthy of attention, but so this is just a joke. Thank's. In general, I think that physics is not a math application. Although physics is permeated with math, but it develops mainly not with math logic, but with physical intuition.

Originally Posted by Shaula
So what is it you want to discuss? A numerological coincidence (which is actually not very coincidental, you've contrived it)? An unpresented model of the electron? An unpresented model for how the solar system is related to the fine structure constant?
I am ready to discuss my electron and proton models with the help of which I obtained the average distance from the Earth to the Sun, if it is really interesting for readers, but my main goal is to convey the idea that the microcosm and the macrocosm are interconnected by means of fundamental physical constants, and that our planet is an unusual cosmic object.

Originally Posted by giorgio
If one clicks on your link "Source: Calculation of the distance from the Earth to the Sun" there is NO derivation. There is no "calculation".
I thought that the word "calculation" is not the same as "derivation" in English, and means "calculating formula". May be I am wrong. Sorry.
Last edited by Nikolay Sukhorukov; 2018-Dec-08 at 08:17 AM.

3. Originally Posted by tusenfem

nikolay, you are still dropping equations!
start explaining how you got those, they did did appear magically in your notebook
unless you do so, thus thread will be closed and your chance to present your model is over
It is done:

I just do not explain everything immediately, but gradually. Perhaps it is my style.
Last edited by Nikolay Sukhorukov; 2018-Dec-07 at 03:56 PM.

4. Newbie
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
6
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov

I thought that the word "calculation" is not the same as "derivation" in English, and means "calculating formula". May be I am wrong. Sorry.
But you did not calculate ANYTHING. You simply posted the formula. Please show your calculations or admit that you simply made up the formula. Which one is it?

5. Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
It is done:

I just do not explain everything immediately, but gradually. Perhaps it is my style.

No! it is not done (unless you mean this thread)
Am Am i supposed to "learn" someting from that equation?
I told you to show us how you derived your equations, and you giveme "it is done"???
infraction

6. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
7,080
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
If K were a beautiful number (2, 8, 3, 64, √3, √2 etc.), then this would not be a coincidence and would be worthy of attention, but so this is just a joke.
K is 1 kg.m - just like your C is 1 m/s to make the units work. The 'beautiful number' is 10. So you believe that this cannot be a coincidence and is worthy of attention? If 10 is not beautiful enough we can fix that. Replace the height of Carrie-Anne Moss with the height of Shaquille O'Neal and blam - we have a beautiful number on your list (8 instead of 10). So this must be a new a profound relationship by your logic, right? In the spirit of free science I give you permission to use this deeply meaningful equation if you need it to advance your claims.

And this is exactly why I don't think there is anything to discuss. A bit of numberology and some contrived 'coincidences' do not make for a scientific theory. If you have a theory then present it and we can evaluate it. If all you have is "oooh, look, I can multiply numbers together until they are close to some value I have selected" then I'm out.

7. Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
I did not set my goal to get the exact value of AU. I think my equation is useful because it indirectly proves the connection between the microcosm and the macrocosm, and also confirms the uniqueness of our planet.
Then, what was your goal? Sorry, but I'm afraid I don't see where you've proved anything, or confirmed anything about our planet.

It all depends on the masses (or rather, on the gravitational parameters) of planets, stars, galaxies, black holes etc. If a planet is very big, then it affects its star. For example, the sphere of influence of Jupiter, according to my formula (if it is correct)
Not to be rude, but I'm really not interested in debating this further. Just a piece of advice: If you're going to pursue this further, it's up to you to research how gravity actually works, and test your assumptions against real world data. Nobody is going to be interested if you just insist on things you haven't tested and can't demonstrate.

8. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,023
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
ok, in 2018, I also found that the spin of an electron (by which I understand the linear equatorial speed of electron rotation).....
Irrelevant and wrong physics of elections.
It is impossible for an electron to have a classical "linear equatorial speed of electron rotation" (especially that "linear" bit). Read my post. The measured angular momentum of an electron gives an extended electron a surface that spins faster than the speed of light. That was found in the 1920's using the classical radius of an electron. Since then we have measured upper limits to the size of an electron and these are much less than the classical radius. That leads to a surface spinning ay even more times the speed of light.

You say you "obtain" an electron radius of ~10-22 meters. That matches an estimated upper limit of ~10^22 meters makes an extended electron impossible because the measured angular momentum gives a rotational speed many times greater than the speed of light..

What makes your assertion even more wrong is the textbook experiment that shows electron spin is quantized, not classical: Stern–Gerlach experiment.

Rumors of wrong "hypotheses that assume the gravity of the Sun may just be absent within the sphere of influence of planets" do not change what happens. There is the assumption for the purpose of making calculations that the gravity of the Sun can be neglected within the sphere of influence of planets. The Sun still influences objects within the sphere of influence of planets. We assume that it is small enough that we can ignore it, e.g. for the trajectories of spacecraft.
Consider this, Nikolay Sukhorukov. The Earth is inside the Earth's sphere of influence. The Earth's oceans are inside the sphere. But tides are created by both the Moon and the Sun.

Your value of the AU is still wrong.
Your value of the Earth's sphere of influence is still wrong.
Your formula does not give a "connection between the microcosm and the macrocosm" because it gives the wrong macroscopic values.
Your formula will never give a "connection between the microcosm and the macrocosm" because it is based on obviously wrong physics such as an extended electron with classical spin.
Your formula gives as much a connection as Shaula's formula which is a connection between his car, the height of a Carrie-Ann Moss and an AU.

In addition, there is a hint that you think 1 m/s is special. Why select C = 1 m/s? Why not 2 m/s? Why not pi m/s? What makes SI units special, e.g. why not 1 foot/second or 1 furlong/hour (or even 1 Smoot/day )?
Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Dec-10 at 12:00 AM.

9. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,023
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
For example, the sphere of influence of Jupiter, according to my formula (if it is correct)
is extremely wrong as you should know, Nikolay Sukhorukov. You must have read Table of selected SOI radii which lists the correct SOI of the Earth that your formula already gets wrong. Jupiter has a SOI of 48.2 * 10^6 kilometers = 4.82 * 10^10 meters. You have 4.80∙10^13 meters.

Read the SOI equation = a(m/M)^2/5. Any value of m/M to 2/5 is < 1 if m/M is < 1. m is defined to be less the M so m/M is less than 1. The SOI equation will always give a distance that is less than a. The mass of Jupiter (m) is many times less than the Sun (M).

You are asserting that we can ignore the Sun for spacecraft going from Earth to Jupiter. Look up how spacecraft get from Earth to Jupiter, e.g. Juno. Spacecraft are mostly under the influence the Sun only bit for practical purposes it is more complex, e.g. there may be slingshots around planets. Juno left the SOI of the Earth for a heliocentric orbit (solar SOI), returned for a slingshot, spent a couple of years in the solar SOI and then entered Jupiter's SOI.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Dec-10 at 12:25 AM.

10. Originally Posted by Reality Check
Irrelevant and wrong physics of elections.
It is impossible for an electron to have a classical "linear equatorial speed of electron rotation" (especially that "linear" bit). Read my post. The measured angular momentum of an electron gives an extended electron a surface that spins faster than the speed of light. That was found in the 1920's using the classical radius of an electron. Since then we have measured upper limits to the size of an electron and these are much less than the classical radius. That leads to a surface spinning ay even more times the speed of light.
Unfortunately, I am not competent in this subject matter. Has anyone tried to apply a model in which the number of turns is equal to or a multiple of the integer "299792458" (as I described in this thread earlier)

to calculate a linear speed of rotation of an electron? That is, the electron radius vector r in the formula L=r∙p is replaced by a value by a multiple of the order of 10-12 m (the Compton wavelength of the electron). I understand that this may seem strange, but I think it is no more strange than replacing the real rotation of an electron with the mathematical abstraction ħ/2.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
What makes your assertion even more wrong is the textbook experiment that shows electron spin is quantized, not classical: Stern–Gerlach experiment.
Thank's for the link. By the way, can you tell me if anyone has ever split the electron beam in a non-uniform magnetic field into two? (© A. Grishaev's quote: "Splitting an atom beam is obtained, but an electron beam is not. Isn't it strange: the action of a non-uniform magnetic field on the spins of the electrons is not enough to pull away these electrons, but enough to pull apart atoms whose masses are four orders of magnitude larger!")

My theory does not deny the quantization of the rotation and movement of an electron. I do not yet have an exact model of an electron, but I suppose that an electron/positron can have two shells. The first inner (electro)magnetic shell is not quantized, the second outer maximum "subneutrino" shell is quantized:

Dependence the (electro)magnetic radius Re.em on the maximum radius Re=1.6101∙10-22 m of an electron/positron is expressed by the formula

That is, this means that the length of circle of the (electro)magnetic radius is equal to the length of the three quantum steps of the subneutrino that forms the outer shell of an electron.

I assume that the proton model is similar to the electron model. I imagine a proton as a system of one positron moving at the speed of light along a broken trajectory consisting of three quantum steps and creating an inertial mass of the proton mp ≈ 1836∙me (of course, this contradicts the quark model of the proton, but this is just my hypothesis):

The rotation of a proton positron is synchronized. That is, its one side always faces the center of the proton. Therefore the condition

is satisfied, where Rp.em ≈ 7.77∙10-16 m (also known from experiments to determine the proton radius as the magnetic radius Rp.m of a proton)

<Continued in the next post>
Last edited by Nikolay Sukhorukov; 2018-Dec-11 at 10:31 AM.

11. <Continuation>

Re.em is "1.3316∙10-22 m", in accordance with the formula

where Re is "1.6101∙10-22 m", which I calculated by the formula

Thus, with these expressions I calculated the value of the linear speed of rotation of an electron/positron:

Further, I simply assumed that the resulting speed "51.39 m/s" is the minimum orbital speed of the maximum sphere of influence of the Earth and dividing the Earth's gravitational parameter µ by the square of this speed, obtained the average distance from the Earth to the Sun.

a = µ/51.392 ≈ 1.5094∙1011 m.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
... The Earth's oceans are inside the sphere. But tides are created by both the Moon and the Sun.
Unfortunately, you probably don’t know what Google translate is and don’t want to read the texts of Russian researchers, which more experienced than me, but if you want I can translate the text for you proving that the tides created by the Sun is a fake. Please note that I am not ready to unconditionally accept this statement. I am just talking about another author's hypothesis, which you can read if you want.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Your formula will never give a "connection between the microcosm and the macrocosm" because it is based on obviously wrong physics such as an extended electron with classical spin.
Your formula gives as much a connection as Shaula's formula which is a connection between his car, the height of a Carrie-Ann Moss and an AU.
Mr. Reality Check, the future will show that gives my formula.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
In addition, there is a hint that you think 1 m/s is special. Why select C = 1 m/s? Why not 2 m/s? Why not pi m/s? What makes SI units special, e.g. why not 1 foot/second or 1 furlong/hour (or even 1 Smoot/day )?
You probably did not understand one of my past posts. Read it carefully and you will probably understand why I got 1 m/s and not 2 foot/second:

Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
So, what is the coefficient "C= 1 m/s"? I got it by developing my model of electron according to which, as a first approximation, an electron is a ball, the spherical shell of which is formed by the turns of an electron's sub-neutrino ("the pramatter") moving with the speed of light and passing the poles of the electron, like on the figure below:

Accordingly to my model, the total length of all the turns is exactly equal to the Compton wavelength of electron multiplied by 2, the sub-neutrino's mass equal to the electron rest mass, and the number of the turns is equal to or a multiple of the integer "299792458" i.e. to the numerical value of the speed of light. This is a key feature! That is I suppose that the radius of an electron, in a first approximation, can be got using the equations:

Attachment 23799

where me is the electron rest mass, c is the speed of light, h is the Planck constant, λe is the Compton wavelength of electron, Re is the electron's radius, n is some integer, C = 1 m/s is a matching coefficient, α ≈ 1/137.04 is the fine-structure constant, Rc is the Rydberg constant (in Hz). It is here that the coefficient C is introduced. It is needed just to simplify the calculation formula - in order to get rid of the number "299792458".
Originally Posted by Reality Check
is extremely wrong as you should know, Nikolay Sukhorukov. You must have read Table of selected SOI radii which lists the correct SOI of the Earth that your formula already gets wrong. Jupiter has a SOI of 48.2 * 10^6 kilometers = 4.82 * 10^10 meters. You have 4.80∙10^13 meters.

Read the SOI equation = a(m/M)^2/5. Any value of m/M to 2/5 is < 1 if m/M is < 1. m is defined to be less the M so m/M is less than 1. The SOI equation will always give a distance that is less than a. The mass of Jupiter (m) is many times less than the Sun (M).
Probably, it is just a mess of terminology. I got the radius of the sphere of influence of Jupiter not according to the table of selected SOI radii but according to the formula

I took the gravitational parameter of Jupiter µp≈1.27∙1017 from here.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
You are asserting that we can ignore the Sun for spacecraft going from Earth to Jupiter. Look up how spacecraft get from Earth to Jupiter, e.g. Juno. Spacecraft are mostly under the influence the Sun only bit for practical purposes it is more complex, e.g. there may be slingshots around planets. Juno left the SOI of the Earth for a heliocentric orbit (solar SOI), returned for a slingshot, spent a couple of years in the solar SOI and then entered Jupiter's SOI.
I did not say that. I just told the hypothesis of other authors. I guess I shouldn't have done that. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Van Rijn
Then, what was your goal? Sorry, but I'm afraid I don't see where you've proved anything, or confirmed anything about our planet.
That is, you are not surprised that the obtained formula gives the correct value only for the distance between the Sun and the Earth? Probably you are not a romantic, Mr. Van Rijn.
Last edited by Nikolay Sukhorukov; 2018-Dec-10 at 11:30 PM.

12. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,023
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
<Continuation>...
Two posts ignoring the errors in your actual ATM idea, Nikolay Sukhorukov.
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Your value of the AU is still wrong.
Your value of the Earth's sphere of influence is still wrong.
Your formula does not give a "connection between the microcosm and the macrocosm" because it gives the wrong macroscopic values.
Your formula will never give a "connection between the microcosm and the macrocosm" because it is based on obviously wrong physics such as an extended electron with classical spin.
Your formula gives as much a connection as Shaula's formula which is a connection between his car, the height of a Carrie-Ann Moss and an AU.

In addition, there is a hint that you think 1 m/s is special. Why select C = 1 m/s? Why not 2 m/s? Why not pi m/s? What makes SI units special, e.g. why not 1 foot/second or 1 furlong/hour (or even 1 Smoot/day )?
Maybe a the hint is a real issue: You really do think that "1 m/s" is special because in your past posts which I did read, you talked about the irrelevant fact that quantum numbers exist (these include the number 1).
Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Dec-11 at 03:52 AM.

13. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,023
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
....I can translate the text for you proving that the tides created by the Sun is a fake.
Nikolay Sukhorukov, you are saying that your source is abysmally ignorant or deluded. But maybe the translation is totally bad.

This is Earth's tides
Tides are the rise and fall of sea levels caused by the combined effects of the gravitational forces exerted by the Moon and the Sun, and the rotation of Earth.
There are stronger tides when the Moon and Sun are on the same side of the Earth. These are the spring tides. There are weaker tides when the Moon and Sun are on the opposite side of the Earth. These are the neap tides.

14. Newbie
Join Date
Dec 2018
Posts
6
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
Unfortunately, I am not competent in this subject matter. Has anyone tried to apply a model in which the number of turns is equal to or a multiple of the integer "299792458" (as I described in this thread earlier)

to calculate a linear speed of rotation of an electron? That is, the electron radius vector r in the formula L=r∙p is replaced by a value by a multiple of the order of 10-12 m (the Compton wavelength of the electron). I understand that this may seem strange, but I think it is no more strange than replacing the real rotation of an electron with the mathematical abstraction ħ/2.

Thank's for the link. By the way, can you tell me if anyone has ever split the electron beam in a non-uniform magnetic field into two? (© A. Grishaev's quote: "Splitting an atom beam is obtained, but an electron beam is not. Isn't it strange: the action of a non-uniform magnetic field on the spins of the electrons is not enough to pull away these electrons, but enough to pull apart atoms whose masses are four orders of magnitude larger!")

My theory does not deny the quantization of the rotation and movement of an electron. I do not yet have an exact model of an electron, but I suppose that an electron/positron can have two shells. The first inner (electro)magnetic shell is not quantized, the second outer maximum "subneutrino" shell is quantized:

Dependence the (electro)magnetic radius Re.em on the maximum radius Re=1.6101∙10-22 m of an electron/positron is expressed by the formula

That is, this means that the length of circle of the (electro)magnetic radius is equal to the length of the three quantum steps of the subneutrino that forms the outer shell of an electron.

I assume that the proton model is similar to the electron model. I imagine a proton as a system of one positron moving at the speed of light along a broken trajectory consisting of three quantum steps (of course, this contradicts the quark model of the proton, but this is just my hypothesis):

The rotation of a proton positron is synchronized. That is, its one side always faces the center of the proton. Therefore the condition

is satisfied, where Rp.em ≈ 7.77∙10-16 m (also known from experiments to determine the proton radius as the magnetic radius Rp.m of a proton)

<Continued in the next post>
You keep making up expressions with no derivation. Do you have any derivation or it is all made up stuff? I asked you (twice) before, would you please answer?

This is about the Sun-Earth distance, and Nikolay Sukhorukov was going to present us some derivations of his equations.
If they do not come soon, this thread is closed.

16. Originally Posted by giorgio
You keep making up expressions with no derivation. Do you have any derivation or it is all made up stuff? I asked you (twice) before, would you please answer?
I have been trying here for 20 days to explain the derivation. If no one can understand my main idea, then I am powerless.

Originally Posted by tusenfem
This is about the Sun-Earth distance, and Nikolay Sukhorukov was going to present us some derivations of his equations.
If they do not come soon, this thread is closed.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is related to the radius of an electron, as I explained in detail in my previous post. If no one can understand this idea, then it is really better to close this thread. Thanks to all.

17. No, you have not derived anything, you have started with a magical equation in post #1 and never explained how you got that equation.
But okay, you get your wish, I will close this thread, but this was the one-and-only chance you had to present your work.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•