Because it is not fixed, the change in the magnetic constant affects the value of the electromagnetic nature of the vacuum. This changes 1/137.
The mechanism behind the Papp reaction is based on the change of the electromagnetic nature of the vacuum caused by massive charge screening in a coulomb explosion of molecular crystals by EUV; water and/or noble gas crystals. This is what Mills will try to use in his new invention; he just does not know it. On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:45 PM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > It is likely that the exact value of the fine structure constant is not > significant as it appears to change based on energy (1/128 at 80 GEV) and > seems to vary over time. > > So 137 might be a decent integer approximation of a value that changes > under varying circumstances. > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Eric Walker <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> If he eventually does include these two well supported phenomena, then >>> the 1/137.0359 fraction most likely will be changed to a new one. Then, my >>> hope for inclusion of all the integer and fractional values might reappear >>> as a consequence. >>> >> >> One detail I think it's important to draw attention to in general (but >> which I'm sure you're personally aware of) is precision in the matter of >> the principal quantum number we're talking about. >> >> There are integers (0, 1, 2, 3, etc.), rational numbers (1/2, 1/3, 1/137, >> etc.), irrational numbers (e.g., pi) and so on. Following are some numbers >> that have been mentioned in connection with the lowest redundant level in >> Mills's model: >> >> 1. 1/137 (a rational number, and precisely specifiable). >> 2. The fine structure constant, α = e^2/hbar*c ~ 1/137.035999074. >> This is no doubt an irrational number, despite the numerator and >> denominator, because of the irrational components. >> 3. A principal quantum number -- generally an integer, but in Mills's >> model it appears to be a precisely-specifiable rational number for all but >> the most redundant level. >> >> It is a non-sequitor to replace (1) with (2) without a justification of >> some kind. In addition, even if we can justify the step, we then end up >> with the awkward situation where value (3) is sometimes a rational number >> and sometimes an irrational number. (We've set aside hope at this point for >> having a simple integer principal quantum number.) One gets the impression >> there has been a fishing expedition for convenient physical constants. >> >> Eric >> >> >
