Jamil Kooli I have calculated the radius of the proton and the neutron but not by using the Schwarzschild radius formula.

Instead I proceeded as follows: In the Spacetime Wave theory, all the mass/energy of the proton is in wave energy given by E=hf.

From knowing the mass of the proton we get a frequency f. This gives us a wavelength. Now we can say that there will be an integer X number of wavelengths in the loop and X wavelengths will be equal to 2 PI r where r is the effective radius.

Using an approximation for r derived from the measured charge radius we get the value 3 for X.

So the proton is not three quarks but instead it is three wavelengths.

Conference Paper THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS (Conference Paper)

Richard

Richard Lewis

I calculated the neutron radius value indirectly using the link that this constant has with the proton radius from muonic hydrogen 0.8409 fm (Randolph Pohl's team and the CREMA collabaration) i find the value 0.8775fm. But the direct calculation should be using the equation of the Schwarzschild radius. My equations are detailed in my article under the DOI:10.1504/IJDSSS.2021.10044738.

Prston Guynn

Every one know there is a general rule, unless you don't follow it in the present case, is that experimentation should confirms or not a theory. So let's wait for the experiment to provide the correct neutron's radius value knowing that my value for the neutron radius is 0.8775fm (DOI:10.1504/IJDSSS.2021.10044738). and my value for the proton radius is 0.87564fm (DOI:10.1504/IJDSSS.2021.10044735) (close to the value 08758fm from before 2010). By the way i have no negative attitude towards your theories. Only I consider that the fundamental theories must be in link, that's all. And it is experience alone that proves it. I have about 4200 reads and 45 questions and 110 answers on RG. There is People who understand my questions there are people who understand them less and there are people who do not understand them at all. They are a little exotic but cibled questions emerging from a theory who could connect everything. I'm basing on Einstein's théories of relativity and Planck's units. I believe that h and reduced h have equations i believe that these possible equations could connect Planck's units with Einstein's theories. I believe that these theories are ultimate. Therefore i believe that most of subjects of physics should be treated in their cadres. I assure all my lectors on RG that i will have future papers which ralate to all my qustions on RG they will describe equations for the different subjects who have no answer in physics till now!

Preston Guynn

I give you an example that my ideas are important. My question on RG "Do you think that the classical electron radius and the Rydberg constant have their dimensionless values ​​related?" reach 500 readings. People think I discovered something. so very soon I will submit a paper in which I describe my new equation for the Rydberg constant which is closely related to the classical electron radius. My new equation of the Rydberg constant would give a better result for the fine structure than the one of the current CODADTA. I don't think you wouldn't appreciate my future equations.

Preston Guynn

My question on RG "Does a free electron theoretically not bound to an atom and not in motion possess any intrinsic energy apart from its mass-energy at rest?" reaches 450 reads. People inderstand that my work could be important. To confirm this to my lectors soon i'll submit a paper in which i'll describe the equation which gives the exact value of the intrinsèque energy of an electron. People will like my researches in physics.

I think the proton charge radius might be calculated using the Dirac’s hypothesis about the observed ratio of the electrostatic force to the gravitational force (β ≈ 2.26866 × 10^39). The calculated value is rp ≈ 0.8264 fm. You can find the preprint https://osf.io/j5gz4.

Paul Talbot

Many thanks. I want do add some thing about your value H ≈ 72.013 km s

-1 Mpc-1 you described in your mentioned paper for the Hubble constant. I find it very accurate noting that it is in good agreement with the value 72.4 km/s/Mpc of Freedman et al. I have asked a technical question on RG "Do you think the universe has seen two expansion rates, for example 72.4 km/s/Mpc (Freedman et al.) and 67.4 km//Mpc?". Best regards.

The 67.4 km/s/Mpc value is model dependant (ΛCDM). I think this model is flawed like many others before it. It has to be replaced by something else.

I must admit that my view of the cosmos is unconventional. You can have a look at it if you want https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09G85GSPP (look inside). Best regards.