Authors: Michael John Sarnowski
It is becoming clear, that experimental physics will not be enough to develop the model for the construction of the Universe. Statistical Probability will be necessary for developing the model and proving the model. The equations in this paper predict a value for the Planck Constant, from other fundamental constant for each Codata year since 1969. The data below shows a calculating equation that predicts a Planck constant within 0.2 sigma of the actual Codata value for the Planck constant over six publications of Codata in a row, since 1986. The data below shows a calculating equation that predicts a Planck constant consistently nearly equal to the actual Codata value for the Planck constant over all eight publications of Codata in a row, since 1973. To randomly generate an equation to do this, when the data has become more accurate by a factor of 700 times over this time period, is highly unlikely, perhaps as unlikely as one out of a 100000. In addition, Equation 2, below, predicted a more accurate Planck constant, than the Codata value of the respective Codata publication. This again is unlikely, but not unheard of. The sum of these data show that the mechanism for determining the Planck constant, may be mirroring the calculations, and may be measuring the same phenomena. Data for 2018 CODATA are included. The value calculated using spinning sphere theory, of 6.6260701507*10^-34 continues to be compatible with the CODATA value of 6.62607015*10^-34.
Comments: 3 Pages.
[v1] 2019-12-13 22:41:27
Unique-IP document downloads: 23 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.