On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> 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
