That's a lot of questions. I will answer the question in the title as it stands now without speculating about unconfirmed relations or future theories. If I have time, I will answer the next questions which require my subjective opinion.

The constant h denotes the Planck’s constant, which is a fundamental physical constant that relates the energy and frequency of a photon, or a quantum of light. The equation E = hf states that the energy of a photon is equal to the product of Planck’s constant and the frequency of the light. Planck’s constant has a fixed value of approximately 6.626 x 10^-34 joule second.

To answer your question, it is not possible to derive or calculate the value of h without using E and f, or some equivalent quantities that are related to them. This is because h is an empirical constant that was determined by experiments, not by theory. It was first introduced by Max Planck in 1900 to explain the blackbody radiation spectrum, which could not be explained by classical physics at that time. Planck’s constant was later confirmed by other experiments, such as the photoelectric effect and the Compton scattering.

Therefore, h is not a variable that can be expressed in terms of other physical quantities, but rather a fundamental constant that defines the relationship between energy and frequency of light. It is one of the basic constants of nature that cannot be derived from first principles, but must be measured by experiments.

Do you think that in unified physics all constants should relate exclusively to cosmological constants?

This is a very interesting and speculative question that does not have a definitive answer. I do not have a hard-set opinion, so I will try to give you some possible perspectives based on the current state of knowledge and research.

One possible perspective is that in unified physics, all constants should relate exclusively to cosmological constants, because they reflect the fundamental properties and symmetries of the universe. This would imply that the physical laws and constants are the same everywhere and at all times, and that they can be derived from a single theory that describes all interactions and phenomena. This perspective is motivated by the quest for simplicity, elegance and universality in physics, and by the hope of finding a theory of everything that can explain all observations and experiments.

Another possible perspective is that in unified physics, not all constants should relate exclusively to cosmological constants, because they may depend on local or historical conditions or variations. This would imply that the physical laws and constants are not necessarily the same everywhere and at all times, and that they may change or evolve due to some unknown mechanisms or influences. This perspective is motivated by the possibility of explaining some of the apparent fine-tuning or coincidences of the physical constants, such as the cosmological constant or the fine-structure constant, by invoking anthropic arguments, multiverse scenarios or dynamical models.

A third possible perspective is that in unified physics, some constants may relate exclusively to cosmological constants, while others may not. This would imply that there are different levels or layers of physical laws and constants, some of which are more fundamental and universal than others, and some of which may emerge or result from more basic principles or phenomena. This perspective is motivated by the recognition of the complexity and diversity of nature, and by the possibility of finding connections or patterns among different physical domains or scales.

Of course, these are not the only possible perspectives, and there may be other ways of thinking about this question. Ultimately, the answer may depend on empirical evidence, theoretical developments and philosophical preferences. I hope this gives you some food for thought.

Planck's constant can't be derived from anything else-it's a new constant. It defines the scale when quantum phenomena become relevant.

There aren't many cosmological constants-just one, the coefficient in the Einstein-Hilbert action of the term that doesn't contain any derivatives of the metric.

Stam Nicolis

I have the same opinion regarding current physics. But I am convinced that for the current state of physics even the most super powerful mathematical modeling will fail to unify the objects of the universe from the smallest to the largest. Example: imagine that we live in a black hole our position will not allow us to imagine what is happening outside this black hole. So to say that there are only G and c and h etc. for me no one has established an exhaustive list of the constants of the universe. Following this and to have a very clear and very precise idea of ​​the constants of physics and their origin, it is not necessary to be in a laboratory but it is necessary theoretically to put oneself outside the ultimate edges of our universe. this is why I say that Planck's constant must have a formula resulting from a perfect knowledge of the universe. No one today can claim that his mathematical model is ultimate even if it comes from a very powerful theory without him being able to imagine placing himself at the ultimate edges of the universe. For me to detect all the constants it is necessary to be placed outside the ultimate edges of the universe that's why I say that there must be another way which is this time theoretical to calculate the constant of Planck Planck's reduced constant etc.

Lyudmil Antonov,

Thank you for all these explanations. I completely agree when you say in the first paragraph "This perspective is motivated by the search for simplicity, elegance and universality in physics, and by the hope of finding a theory of everything that can explain all observations and experiments.". I encountered similar things while working on the new physics. I noticed the use of very simple algebra that anyone can easily understand. I noticed the use of very simple fractions such as ratios (1/2, 1/3, 3/4, 2/3 etc,). I also noticed the use of dimensionless ratios such as (neutron radius/proton radius) etc. I noticed that everything is linked and that everything comes from mathematical rules, especially those relating to prime numbers etc. I noticed that the new physics is simple, coherent and logical. Easy mathematics makes simplicity beauty and "elegance" of creation. I have never encountered very hard and complex math. It's the simple mathematical rules that seem to be used to create these complex and wondrous things in the universe.

Dear Jamil Kooli

To your first question: "I mean would it be possible to calculate the value of h without going through experimentation."

The answer is yes, it certainly is possible. De Broglie was the first to do it from the known equations related to the Bohr atom in his 1924 thesis.

This is currently unknown in mainstream because his thesis was in French and was not formally translated to English until recently (2021).

His derivation and calculation of Planck's constant from standard kinematic equations is reproduced and explained with all calculations presented in Section 6 of this recently published article, with reference to his original French thesis and to its recently formally translated version by the Minkowski Institute:

Article Introduction to Synchronized Kinematic and Electromagnetic Mechanics

But there is more. It is also possible to directly define h from a set of well known standard constants h=e2/2ε0αc, as derived and explained in this other article republished upon invitation by the editors in 2021 in book "Newest Updates in Physical Science Research", Vol. 4". See Equation (4):

Article The Last Challenge of Modern Physics: Perspective to concept...

If you own a pocket scientific calculator, you can confirm the calculations yourself. If you don't own one, I strongly suggest that you purchase one if you really want to confirm the validity of equations and really understand physics.

The value of all standard constants are provided, and are also available on the internet.

Best Regards, André

Dear Jamil Kooli

To your question: "Why the Planck mass is involved in theories of the cosmological world and in theories of the quantum world?"

It is because Planck theorized 120 years ago that all values obtained from physical reality should somehow be related to h, and this caused quite a lot of unfounded theorizing in mainstream that can be related only very awkwardly to the only real fundamental elementary mass that was ever measured in physically carried out experiments, which is the rest mass of the electron.

Best Regards, André

Dear Jamil Kooli

You wrote: "But I am convinced that for the current state of physics even the most super powerful mathematical modeling will fail to unify the objects of the universe from the smallest to the largest."

Maybe you should not be so certain of this.

Just think that such a fundamental constant as h could be openly calculated and formally published by such a famous physicist as Louie de Broglie 100 years ago without mainstream ever becoming aware of this. What makes you think that this integration from the smallest to the largest may not be already formally available without mainstream being aware of it?

Think of this old saying: "You can bring water to a horse, but nobody can force it to drink."

It always was customary across history for all mainstream orthodox physicists to stick to what they learned when young and to never integrate any true progress, if they even become aware of it, that was accomplished during their lifetime.

This is what Planck stigmatized with these famous words:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

congratulations I confirm you that this equation h=e2/2ε0αc is exact I have demonstrate it, it is absolutely the Planck's constant it agrees with my theory for new physics. I know that someone will find it. Who has make this equation? it is really exact this is unbelievable? which theory has permitted to give this result???.

Dear Jamil Kooli

I derived this equation 25 years ago as an outcome of my resumption of research about electromagnetic mechanics at the turn of the 21rst century.

It is not derived from any theory, but from the Coulomb equation.

This mechanics is now completely developed and harmonized with kinematic mechanics, and all related articles have been formally published over the course of the past 25 years.

All articles are available in free access from this index:

Article INDEX -Electromagnetic Mechanics (The 3-Spaces Model)

Best Regards, André

“H denotes the constant ratio E/f (E=hf) is it possible that h has an equation both without E and f?”

- the posts in the thread are either in complete framework of the mainstream physics, while the Planck constant h, or, more correctly ћ, is really one of ultimate constants in Matter, and, correspondingly, since in the mainstream the fundamental phenomena/notions “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, fundamental laws and constants etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,

- so in every case, when the mainstream addresses to some really fundamental point, the result completely obligatorily logically in better case is discovering of some logical links in experimentally observed material objects/systems, and fitting mathematical constructions “physical theories” with experiments; having at that no any rational scientific understanding – why the theories are adequate to the reality, and why mathematics is so effective at description and analysis of what exists and happens in Matter at all;

- or some – and rather vivid - posts with rather strange alternative theory, where the poster, say, writes about rather strange “calculation the value of h without going through experimentation”; and not only derivation of h, though; and quite not only in one post.

The fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

, note at that, that they can be defined only together; where it is rigorously proventhat there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set

- so Matter – and everything in Matter fundamentally are nothing else than some informational patterns/systems. That immediately has made the outstanding von Weizsäcker’s “Ur-hypothesis” and Fredkin-Toffoli finding be completely scientifically legitimate,

- and further basing on these findings from which it follows that Matter is based on binary reversible logics, to develop the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, which is in complete accordance with all reliable experimental data, and in which more 30 fundamental physical problems are either solved or essentially clarified, including this thread one.

In this case historically the Planck h constant was obtained by Planck in the outstanding finding that provided the assumption that EM radiation of black body happens as discrete quanta of energy ΔE=hf, a few existent in 1900 different “laws of radiation” become by parts of one law;

- further outstanding Einstein finding was in that the quanta not only are radiated, but also are absorbed;

- further the Bohr’s outstanding assumption that stable electron orbits are in accordance with condition that angular orbital momentums are equal to integer numbers of ћ,

- further in outstanding de Brogile finding it was shown that the Bohr assumption is consistent with assumption that electrons on the orbits are standing waves which have waves length λ=h/P,

- and, in certain sense eventually, that resulted in the Schrodinger “wave equation”, where the h constant obtains a new meaning;

- while all that after Planck-Einstein is rather far form “E=hf”.

Really, as that is quite rationally assumed/postulated in the SS&VT model above, the h constant, more correctly ћ constant, is the ultimately fundamental elementary physical action, which is necessary to change information that is written as a state of some material object, what fundamentally always happens as “bit by bit” process, on 1bit;

- and, since physically that happens as changes of 4D angular momentums, that also is the fundamental elementary change of angular momentum on ћ.

At that E=ћω really is as E=dS/dt, where S is the change of physical action state of a particle at its motion, if we measure the action in J.s; or ω=dS/dt, if we measure the action in bits.

Correspondingly the least physical action principle really means that processes in Matter proceed with more probability at minimum of binary operation, and that reveals itself including on “classical” macro scale.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

I write questions but there will also be my papers to justify them. But today there is no exhaustive list of all the constants of physics. This is precisely why it cannot be said that there are no theoretical formulas for h and reduced h. At present, there is also no ultimate theory. Who can claim today that an ultimate theory cannot provide the theoretical formulas of h and reduced h? One can imagine that such a thing could happen. I also find that what I write is a little exotic but look there are even exotic experiments including those on exotic hydrogen and deuterium. I know the results of these experiments are exotic that's why I wrote two articles. People don't even believe the results of their own trials and are forced to explain the results through conventional methods. For me this will lead to the delay in the emergence of new physics.

Jamil Kooli

“…But today there is no exhaustive list of all the constants of physics….”

- that today there is no exhaustive list of all the constants of physics is, in certain sense, possibly correct, however now Matter is experimentally studied in well large interval of energies of interacting particles, bodies, etc., and that looks as is rather substantive base for the inference that the set of really fundamental constants – which are Planck units – is complete enough to be base of general physics theory.

That is another thing, that that isn’t done till now; and so, say, Standard [particles] Model is based on ~20 “fundamental constants”, what looks as rather strange situation, which, however, will be practically for sure remedied when physics will be based on the postulate that everything in Matter exists and happens as some disturbances in the ultimate Matter’s base – the dense lattice of binary reversible FLEs, and essentially on the SS&VT informational model at all, mores see the SS posts above and links in the posts.

However yet now it is clear at least a couple of points:

- though everything in Matter is completely determined by properties /parameters of FLE, nonetheless these properties cannot be “unified”/reduced to some one property/parameter. The properties, first of all that determine to the fundamental Nature forces and their strengths are fundamentally functionally different and independent on each other, so, say, attempts to develop some “Grand Theory of Everything”, where “all Forces will be unified”, are senseless; and just so Matter is as it is, i.e. consists of a few stable particles, atoms, galaxies, etc.;

- correspondingly that

“….This is precisely why it cannot be said that there are no theoretical formulas for h and reduced h. …..”

- isn’t correct, the real reason for which there are no theoretical formulas for h is quite natural: that is because of the h-constant [more correctly ћ] – and all other Planck units – are as they are in order to be Matter would be as it is; so, till somebody doesn’t ask “for what reason and why Matter was created and is as it is?” – while the answer is completely outside physics – the unique scientific way to know what are the fundamental constants is the experimental measurements.

Cheers

Contrary to some of the opinions expressed above, I still maintain that it is not possible to derive Planck's constant without experimentation. Planck's constant is a measured quantity that relates the energy and frequency of any quantum mechanical oscillator, such as a photon. The original determination of Planck's constant was made by fitting the spectrum of a blackbody radiator, but several other more accurate methods are used today. Planck's constant is also a consequence of our chosen unit system, and its value depends on the units of energy and frequency.

The articles cited in the opinion do not derive Planck's constant from first principles, but rather use existing equations and constants that involve Planck's constant. For example, De Broglie used the Planck-Einstein relation E = h*nu to associate a wavelength (lambda) to a particle with momentum (p) using Planck's constant as the constant of proportionality: (lambda = h/p). The second article used the definition of the fine-structure constant (alpha) to express Planck's constant in terms of other constants: (h = h=e2/2ε0αc). However, these equations and constants are either based on experimental observations or theoretical assumptions that involve Planck's constant, so they cannot be used to derive it without circular reasoning.

Therefore, it seems that Planck's constant is truly a new physical constant that cannot be derived from classical theories or Maxwell's equations. It is a fundamental parameter of quantum mechanics that reflects the discrete nature of energy and matter at microscopic scales.

Lyudmil Antonov,

The theoretical solutions for h and reduced h, as well as the "proton radius puzzle" problem (0.8758 fm or 0.8418 fm), as well as the Hubble constant problem (67.4 km/s/Mpc or 72. 4 km/s/Mpc) exceed the standard models. The solutions need a new physics beyond the standard models. For my part, I find that the results of the Planck satellite of 2018 must be explained by new physics, and I also find that the measurements of the radius of the proton according to the exotic muonic experiments since 2010 are also part of new physics. According to me the new physics refers to new constants and new cosmological parameters to link what is small and what is large. For me the new physics will link Einstein, Planck and other physicists who worked fundamentally. For me the new physics was born since 2010 since the muonic experiments on hydrogen and on deuterium a few years later. And in 2018 with the results of the Planck satellite. But people do not like to hear that!

Dear Jamil Kooli

Yes, there is an expression to calculate h or ћ and most of all other natural constants and invariables. The model is depicted in

Preprint The Metric Universe

(pp. 88-95 for ћ). But ћ is the effective value of a temporal function depending on space and time as well as of the frame of reference. So you cannot renounce of experimentation. But if the frame of reference is known you can calculate the value and more (see Table 10 at p. 298) with at least ±1x10-9 accuracy. The main result of that model, most of all natuaral constants aren't constant at all. Only µ0, ε0, c, k, κ0 (The specific conductivity of the vacuum) and ћ1 (The initial value of ћ at BB) as well as α and µ (Proton/electron mass ratio) are really constant. WIth its help all other values can be calculated. Btw. the additional changes cancel each other, so that there is a Virtual Relativity Principle.

Jamil Kooli

you are asking too many queries in one single post ................

Very briefly I can tell you that my own calculations [ not without simulations ] bring that so-called Constant down to the level of 10^-92 OR 10^-93 rather than being in the realms of something like 10^−33 OR 10^-34

Gerd Pommerenke,

For me in new physics the value HO=72. 4 Km/s/Mpc (Friedman et a.) is actually the most precise for the Hubble constant. And for me the value HO=68. 4 Km/s/Mpc (Planck satellites results 2018) is not the Hubble constant it is another thing. I have asked a technical question on my RG pages: "Do you think that the value 67.4 km/s/Mpc (Planck 2018 results) is in close link with HA (Einstein's equation c=HAxRA)?"

Dear Jamil Kooli ,

Well it's about the "other" Hubble parameter, i.e. I cannot refute your value. Btw. 71.9845 kms–1Mpc–1 resp. 71.9963... are the values I calculated first. See (1051) for details. But the 67.4 (what Planck 2018? The CODATA does not contain H0) aren't correct, rather 68.6241... And last value better match the latest observations of the JWST. Check your 72.4 with it.

Regarding Einstein's equation c=HAxRA yes, it's about a LEH-universe (Light speed Expanding Hyper spherical Universe). See Figure 44b for details or section 4.5 in total.

Gerd Pommerenke,

I find your value 71.9963 kms–1Mpc–1 the best estimation for the Hubble constant. The value 72.4 kms–1Mpc–1 of Freedman et al. is also a good estimation. But 68.6241 kms–1Mpc–1 is not a good estimation for the Hubble constant. It is another thing. Note i have not give my value. But my value is so near to yours.

Thank you for your answer. But FYI my values aren‘t estimations but they are calculated values, calculated from other natural constants.

Gerd Pommerenke,

I find your value 71.9963 kms–1Mpc–1 for H0 quasi exact.

Dear Jamil Kooli

>> I find your value 71.9963 kms–1Mpc–1 for H0 quasi exact.

Maybe, but my opinion is: I calculated two different values and I'm not sure, which of them is the correct one. If the 71.9963 should be correct, then it's really exact because it's based on the ratio of the classical electron radius and the Planck radius (1050). However, the same also applies to the second solution. But it is also possible that both solutions are correct, depending on what they are applied to. So stay curious.

The exact (arbitrary precision due to symbolic integer geometric computation) of the Hubble H0 factor from iSpace theory is 71.993829941…

[km/s/Mps] and is …

a) fully compatible to the value of Gerd Pommerenke within measurement precision, all while using 2 very different models (like novel integer geometric 10D iSpace (3D+6D+1D) with „changed distance definition„ approach and 4D continuum based spacetime in his mathematically more traditional differential equation based ansatz) when comparing our resukts (F2F, some month ago)

and b) based on iSpace exact quantum theoretical predictions for constants of nature not at all per-se in any way to cosmology in current mainstream physical view!

Please see - simple to follow - why:

Preprint Hubble constant H0 is derived from Newtonian gravitational c...

Abstract:

While doing routine checks of a proposed improved value for Newtonian gravitational constant G in a 2021 paper of Alex Kritov [1] (suggested to me by ResearchGate) did not look like convincing physical results to me with respect to ⅈSpace-geometry (like G, fine structure constant α and others). However, his derivation of a quantum physical relation to Hubble constant H0 did look promising to me, so I was checking the relation in detail with respect to my recent work on identification of quantum of time to be 1/6961 iSpace-Second (in iSpace-IQ unit system). The following short list of equations shows how to derive an exact relationship for the Hubble constant H0, the value of which is currently to be measured with 3-4 digits precision at best. Despite this problem, its value is highly relevant on acceptance or rejection of cosmological models. The value is much improved by relating to more precise well-known constants of nature-as all of those can currently be measured with a much higher digit precision then H0 - the weakest of which with about 5-6 digits being the Newtonian gravitational constant G. But measurement precision issues aside, all required constants as shown are available in closed form by ⅈSpace theory and hence calculable to arbitrary number of digits-effectively predicting their exact values. Applying this method to Hubble constant H0, it is possible to predict its exact value even in cosmologic preferred unit Kilometer per Second per Megaparsec, but which results in nothing less than a frequency with its units rearranged and cancelled with arbitrary theoretical precision (in addition causing an ⅈSpace-typical zero error bar).

Gerd Pommerenke,

The two values are very precise but I prefer the one of 71.9963 kms–1Mpc–1. You can use it to calculate other things. You must be confiant to this value. Note I find that It is a good thing that you have worked with the ratio of the classical electron radius and the Planck radius (1050). But what is the Planck radius? Note that I have asked a technical question on my Rg pages "Do you think that classical electron radius and Rydberg constant have their dimensionless values in link?" to show the importance of the electron radius in modern physical calculations.

Dear Christian G. Wolf

Welcome back. The calculated 71.9963 kms–1Mpc–1 is based on the CODATA2018 values. The calculation with your iSpace values turns out 68.622152215... resp. 71.994296730... that's a little bit more than your 71.993829941… But the calculation took place on another way.

Gerd Pommerenke,

In new physics the value 71.9963 kms–1Mpc–1 is the most precise for the Hubble constant. In new physics all the constants are in link. They have theoretical values. You can give me other values for HO I can say you which is the most accurate between them. But the Planck radius is the Planck length yes?

#Jamil Kooli

The Planck radius = Planck length. I cannot give you other values. The problem is situated at CODATA. Your and my value is connected with the 2018 values defined there. The application of iSpace would change some values a little bit, even H0. The problem can better be explained by Christian.

As for Energy of a photon : There are two versions of this formula, one using the frequency, the other using the wavelength. The basic upshot is that as frequency goes up, so does energy, however wavelength goes down. So as wavelength goes up frequency and energy go down. This formula is for the energy of an individual photon. In general, only relational values will be needed (no exact values calculated).

Quote: "This formula is for the energy of an individual photon. In general, only relational values will be needed (no exact values calculated)."

With this formula, E=e2/2ε0αλ, whose first ever derivation was formally published in 2007 in this article of a Kazan State University engineering journal, the actual energy value of any photon can be calculated from its wavelength with the utmost precision.

Article Field Equations for Localized Photons and Relativistic Field...

All formal references are provided, including direct links to those that are directly available on the internet.

A series of rather strange posts, which have no relation to the thread question “H denotes the constant ratio E/f (E=hf) is it possible that h has an equation both without E and f?”, looks as too long already, so it looks as worthwhile to remind here that the thread question is scientifically answered in the couple of SS posts on page 2.

Cheers

To the questions: "I mean would it be possible to calculate the value of h without going through experimentation.? and is it possible that h has an equation both without E and f?"

The answer is yes, it certainly is possible. De Broglie was the first to do it from the known classical mechanics equations related to the Bohr atom in his 1924 thesis.

His derivation and calculation of Planck's constant from standard kinematic equations is reproduced and explained with all calculations presented in Section 6 of this recently published article, with reference to his original French thesis and to its recently formally translated version by the Minkowski Institute:

Article Introduction to Synchronized Kinematic and Electromagnetic Mechanics

But there is more. It is also possible to directly define h from a set of well known standard constants h=e2/2ε0αc, as derived and explained in this other article republished upon invitation by the editors in 2021 in book "Newest Updates in Physical Science Research", Vol. 4". See Equation (4):

Article The Last Challenge of Modern Physics: Perspective to concept...

People who own a pocket scientific calculator can confirm the calculations themselves. To really understand physics, it is mandatory to be able to numerically resolve equations.

The value of all standard constants are provided, and are also available on the internet.

Localized photons differ in energy , momenta , and even shape , from those under general debate in sub-specialties like QFT and QED . If you calculate momentum of a certain photon in , say , QCD ; it will turn out to be differing from momentum for the same photon in (relativistic ) QM .

Quote: "If you calculate momentum of a certain photon in , say , QCD ; it will turn out to be differing from momentum for the same photon in (relativistic ) QM."

This makes no sense. All photons of exactly the same energy have exactly the same frequency and the same wavelength and can consequently have only exactly the same momentum.

The vectorized physical domain structure function algorithm is a faster and more efficient way to calculate velocity anisotropy in two-dimensional molecular line emission observations. It is particularly effective for large images and can handle irregularities in the data, such as asymmetric boundaries and missing information. This algorithm does not have the same requirements as frequency domain algorithms, making it a reliable tool for a variety of E/f (E=hf) observations.

I only want to answer the question in regard to the proton radius. Most researchers think the 'proton radius puzzle' has been solved by the experimental findings of the JLab's PRad team, who arrive at a radius of r = 0.831 ± 0.007(stat) ± 0.012(syst) fm. My 3D proton model yields a theoretical radius of r = 4ħ/mc = 0.841... fm, which is well within the combined statistical and systemic standard error. See: Preprint On the proton radius, nuclear oscillations, and the nature o...

Jean Louis Van Belle,

Many thanks for the documentation. For me the muonic measuremment results are what we need to determine the neutron's radius value indirectly. I have calculated the neutron radius value using the results of the CREMA COLLABORATION because for me they are the best in the domain which relate to the experiments on exotic muonic atoms of hydrogen and deuterium. I used their value 0.8409 fm. In other side for me the regular proton radius (O.8758fm from hydrogenat) is in link with their value of the muonic proton radius 0.8409 fm from muonic hydrogen and in link with their value of the muonic proton radius 0.8356 fm from muonic deuterium. But for me this is the new physics beyond the standard model. Best regards.

Jean Louis Van Belle,

Many thanks for the documentation. For me the muonic measuremment results are what we need to determine the neutron's radius value indirectly. I have calculated the neutron radius value using the results of the CREMA COLLABORATION because for me they are the best in the domain which relate to the experiments on exotic muonic atoms of hydrogen and deuterium. I used their value 0.8409 fm. In other side for me the regular proton radius (O.8758fm from hydrogenat) is in link with their value of the muonic proton radius 0.8409 fm from muonic hydrogen and in link with their value of the muonic proton radius 0.8356 fm from muonic deuterium. But for me this is the new physics beyond the standard model. Best regards.

SM itself is in contrast with standard model .............It was only investigated in a quantum framework up to now. There are many theories that have resided these last fifty years within the hazy mist we have been calling the Standard Model (SM) of elementary particles. There are sorts of theories that might supercede the Standard Model, the hunt for which is the primary reason to build particle colliders in the first place. The chapter includes a basic description of how to search for beyond-Standard Model physics at the LHC, and short summaries of effective field theories, grand unified theories, composite models, supersymmetry and theories with extra space dimensions. As a result, physicists have increasingly turned to model-independent strategies as tools in searching for a wide range of possible effects.