waasekom,
Once again I think you are close to something. In this scenario, the electron and proton are offspring of a single "parent", the neutron. When they are separated they have an irresistible attraction for each other. When they are together in a system, they are in harmony: they fit together. As the universe evolves, gravitational attraction draws such systems together (and then forces them apart into plasma, or charged "ions" looking for mates). Out of a chaotic process, all kinds of structures emerge, such as molecules, i.e. atoms bound to each other with various kinds of bonds but mainly due to sharing of outer shells (i.e. electrons). There is a family structure involved, and any stable structure is harmonic: it fits (virtually by definition). But change is chaotic; and in the universe, change is constant. But yet again, the universe inexorably creates more complex families, molecules join together to create new molecules, and eventually structures such as proteins; and then a recognizable form of consciousness, a two-way sensing system, emerges; and eventually living cells, and families of cells like ourselves. It is a miracle, and it forces us to consider a harmonic principle behind all this growth. Then there may be a natural moral principle, found in that (unrecognized) harmonic principle.
Bluelamp,
I am mystified by your statement, "The h for J is q times the h for eV. . ." As I said above, and I believe it is the accepted terminology, the physical units that make up Planck's constant h are joule-seconds, J*S. (I think there was a big kafuffle when he published this constant - according to what I read, "h" can interpreted to mean momentum multiplied by distance or energy multiplied by time. But its physical units are J*S.) Then in the equation E = hf, the physical unit for E is the joule, J -- just as it is in the equation E = mc^2. And you can also break down the joule further: its units are "kilograms multiplied by meters squared divided by seconds squared", so J = kg*m^2/s^2. That works fine for E = mc^2. When you look at E = hf, you get "kilograms, multiplied by meters squared, multiplied by seconds, divided by seconds squared, multiplied by number of cycles, divided by seconds." But somehow the physicists agree: the E in both cases is a joule, J, which is in dealing with electromotive force is termed the "coulomb-volt", so that J = C*V. And that breaks down to J = A*S*V. It seems the classical physicists have this all pretty well down, but when Planck's constant comes up, it gets confusing. But it works, and that counts. Remember that Feynman said of quantum mechanics, "No one understands it." And in that vein, I do not understand what your statement I quoted above means. Maybe you could write it out as an equation.
You mentioned that in your preferred model, the particles have the Compton radius. I believe that is the classical electron radius, also (according to Wikipedia) called the Lorentz radius. The three radii, being the Bohr radius, the Compton or classical electron radius, and the R(e) in this model, are related by alpha, the fine structure constant (as I showed in one of the posts above). So something is going on. And as I (eventually) carry on with this model, alpha becomes quite important.
With regard to mc^2, as I read what I wrote in the post that included the mc^2 terms, I see that it is somewhat confusing. However, all the equations are accurate; what they represent, in terms of the physical quantities understood by physicists, is not necessarily clear, since sometimes the physical units that emerge when the terms are manipulated do not make sense - to anyone, and especially the unit known as an "electronvolt". It is not my term. I stated in that post that the value, i.e. the number, for the "m" term that emerges when physicists equate m = hf/c^2, is identical to the number which in my model is simply a "volt". But the "m" in that equation is conventionally called "mass-energy", and strictly it is accompanied by the acknowledgement that it is an "electronvolt / c^2". If anyone should be confused, it is those who try to work with "electronvolt mass-energy". As I said, in Einstein's equation, "m" is rest mass or inertial mass, in kilograms.
In my model, there is no "m". As I said, the "m" is inertial mass according to Einstein, and I believe the inertia is due to the external field pressure, or a net physical motion of space towards the body, which tends to keep the (spherical) electron or proton in one place! In other words, this model is not trying to do away with general relativity. I even think it is kind of foolish to seek a "quantum gravity" theory. They seek that theory because according to their Big Bang idea, GR breaks down! And Big Bang cosmology and high energy physics are joined at the hip -- they justify each other.
(Now this morphs into another post.) I make use of the equation mc^2 = hf, where "m" is the rest mass, in kilograms, in the same way Einstein used it. But I am not interested in the "m", I am interested in the "f" - the frequency of a massless wave (which in this model, instead of moving linearly, rotates). The physicists are interested in that "electronvolt/c^2", i.e. that wierd "mass-energy", because they use it in their work. I don't think they know what it is - "mass" is supposed to indicate some kind of "stuff", but there is no "stuff" in their models, only particles and fields! (Which is why they seek the Higgs field, which is a Big Bang phenomenon.) I accept that there is a massive body involved: it has inertial mass, which has been measured, in kilograms. It represents a form of energy E. A massless wave packet represents the same form of energy E. It is momentum-energy, the energy of both a moving body and a massless wave packet. In the equation E = mc^2, the E is the idealized momentum-energy of a moving body that is at rest relative to the observer (i.e. in the inertial frame according to SR)! I translate that E = mc^2 "rest energy" into the E = hf form, but the form is of a massless rotating electromagnetic wave packet with a spherical shape, that is at rest relative to an observer (i.e. in the inertial frame). (In other words, instead of a wave packet moving linearly through space at c, the wave packet rotates at c.) This way, I find a rotational frequency f that corresponds to a whole wave (peak to peak) moving linearly, but in this case representing a complete rotation. Since this is an electric current, it is a changing electric field, so it also has a changing magnetic field. So I think it is legitimate to model it as an electromagnetic wave.
And when you apply the (superconducting current) Josephson constant to it, it fits! You have the frequency and the volts, the current and the "h" quantity as work done per rotation. The Josephson constant is the real breakthrough here, it points to current arising from energy, i.e. amperes per joule re-interpreted as frequency per volt. So the energy of the field (arising from two directions, external and internal, responsible for the factor of 2) produces a current. The current's own potential energy is described by the volt. That is, the current (a very tiny current) contains a huge potential per (tiny) unit of current (and hence a tiny energy, but don't stop the rotation or it will explode); but this potential is in turn created by the energy of the field dissipated in maintaining the current. So the field energy is constantly transformed into the potential of the current.
When you multiply the proton potential by the electron potential, you are imitating the action of the field that produces each shell's potential: the intermediate field between the electron and proton has an external component (external to the proton) and an internal component (internal to the electron), just as there is a field external to the electron and internal to the proton. Instead of multiplying the internal and external field energies that create the potential of a single shell by the "volts-to-frequency converter" (q/h from each side, totalling 2 q/h) to find the frequency of the current, you are multiplying the two current potentials to find the converter!
I believe the field is completely used up in doing its work. The question is, how much energy is used to maintain the current at its natural frequency? In other words, what is the energy of the field? Is it the potential multiplied by the current flowing for one second (i.e., J = C*V)? Or is it the potential multiplied by the current flowing for one cycle? In this model of a powered universe, there is not a finite quantity of energy; the operative term is power, i.e. watts. (Here I am speculating beyond what I have done so far.)
It is possible to find the current per cycle: it is simply q/f, which is 1.602 176 53 e-19 / 1.232 832 504 e20 = 1.299589786 e-39 amps per cycle. Multiply by v = 509 858.5241 volts and you get the numerical value of Planck's constant, the work done to rotate the electron for one cycle, 6.626 0693 e-34. But what are the units here? The operation is "volts multiplied by amperes" and the answer is in time units of one cycle. The cycle takes 8.111401969 e-21 seconds. So to find J = C*V = A*S*V, we multiply 6.626 0693 e-34 by 8.111401969 e-21 and get 5.374671156 e-54 joules as the energy used to rotate the electron one rotation. The same operation for the proton yields 2.889128636 e-57 joules as the energy used to rotate the proton one rotation.
However, the proton rotates "r" times as quickly as the electron, and it has a smaller current, but a correspondingly larger potential. And in terms of surface area, it is r^2 smaller than the electron. If we take the current of one rotation for each body as its constantly or permanently existing current, we have simply its constant current in amperes.
Volts multiplied by amperes equals watts (joules per second), and we have a work done per second that is equal for each body, i.e. 2.889 128 636 e-57 x 948 494 251.2 = 2.740 321 902 e-48 watts for the proton, and the same for the electron. And, by this method, the same for every material body.This then is the actual power, second by second for eternity, of the powered universe, dissipated by the current of each body. I do not know how this would be converted into some quantity of power per cubic meter of space, since it is applied at a surface, not in a volume.
And where does this power come from? It comes from the future (that's God). It can't be located in physical reality, but it can't be eliminated: in a sense, the future is virtual reality (for us creatures). We know it's coming, we can't stop it, but neither can we grasp it in physical reality. Can we go there otherwise? That is the big question in my mind.
