Øye's Fine-structure Constant

A big problem with conventional quantum physics is that it deals with physical phenomena in purely mathematical terms. There is little attempt to explain exactly what the various constants and variables used actually are. There is no well defined physical model behind the formulas in which we can clearly point to a particular thing and say that this is what we are dealing with. Everything has become statistics and probabilities.

While the formulas produced by quantum physics have great predictive powers, the underlying mechanisms that produce the results are poorly understood.

This has lead to a strange situation in which physical constants have been discovered, without anyone being able to explain what they represent.

The Fine-structure Constant is a good example of this. There are at least 5 different ways to calculate and measure this constant. It represents a relationship in nature that no-one can deny. Yet, no-one can seem to agree on what it means. However, this state of affairs may soon change.

Looking into the nature of the Fine-structure Constant, Enos Øye recently made an interesting discovery. By simplifying one of the accepted formulas for this constant, he found that the constant can be expressed solely in terms of a hydrogen atom and the energy required to ionize it.

Enos Øye made the discovery that the fine structure constant is equal to the wavelength of the electron of a hydrogen atom, divided by half the wavelength of the photon required to kick it out of orbit, thus ionizing the hydrogen atom.

The fine structure constant relates the energy of an electron in orbit around a proton with the energy of the photon required to free it from its orbit.

With respect to my own musings about the Fine-structure Constant, I found one detail in Øye's work particularly interesting. It turned out that the best fit between theoretical calculation and measured value was achieved when Øye used the Bohr radius in combination with the Bary radius. This can be seen in his calculations pictured above.

The Bohr radius uses the center of the proton as origo for the radius, while the Bary radius uses the fact that both the electron and the proton have mass, putting the origo a little away from the geometric center of the proton.

This is a huge clue as to the nature of electron orbits. If electron clouds observed around the nuclei of atoms are pure statistical phenomena, then there should be no need for a Bary radius. On the other hand, if the electron is moving in an orbit, like a moon around a planet, then the Bary radius should be used.

As it turned out, we need a bit of both Bary and Bohr to get the most accurate result.

In my book on this matter, I make the suggestion that the electron may be bouncing off the nucleus of an atom. This gives a simple physical explanation for the electron cloud. It also gives an explanation as to why electrons have to move from one discrete energy to another, without intermediate energy levels. The reason being that this is due to the resonant frequencies of the atomic nucleus.

With Enos Øye's calculations, we have one more reason to believe the electron is bouncing about. The need to include the Bary radius suggests that we are dealing with a particle in an orbit-like state around the nucleus. The need to include Bohr, indicate that this orbit is highly erratic and best described statistically.

An electron, furiously bouncing about on an irregular shaped nucleus would fit Enos Øye's calculations to a tee.