John P. Ralston

University of Kansas

Department of Physics and Astronomy

Lawrence, KS 66045

Articles: Revising your world-view of the fundamental constants, Oct 1, 2013

ArXiv (76): *Quantum Theory without Planck’s Constant*, (PDF), Mar 2012

Books: How to Understand Quantum Mechanics, IOP, 2018;*Emergent un-Quantum Mechanics*, 2013

Google Scholar

Homepage

inSPIRE^{HEP}: Revising your world-view of the fundamental constants, 2013

Within this website: https://81018.com/questions-1/

https://81018.com/starts/#Ralston

About light: https://81018.com/light-questions/

About the ΛCDM : https://81018.com/cdm/

Most recent email: May 13, 2021 (Links added: 24 May 2021)

Dear Prof. Dr. John Ralston:

Yes, these following paragraphs are in the footnotes of my last homepage.

“**[1] Scholar’s scholars**: Of the 100,000 or so scholars who are engaged with the foundations of cosmology, mathematics and physics, my hope is that there are at least 1% who would be open to start with the most fundamental units of space-and-time. Most of these scholars are now familiar with Planck’s base units and his constant. I would guess that most are not familiar with the work of John Ralston to challenge the efficacy of Planck’s calculations. He makes a strong case.

“Notwithstanding, a more accurate calculation of Planck’s constant and then a recalculation of base units would be welcomed. My assumption that it will render numbers that are like those calculated by George Stoney and Max Planck, i.e. numbers for space and time that are many orders of magnitude smaller than the space-and-time approximated for atomic structures, especially the particles-and-waves defined by the Standard Model for particle physics.”

**Also, in one of the support pages, I say**:

“Scale invariant, pi takes it place within the infinitesimal. Whether we use Stoney’s numbers, Planck’s base units, or new calculations by mathematicians like John Ralston, these infinitesimal spheres will be the smallest possible and the most-densely packed (on the levels of a blackhole or neutron star), and all still have the Fourier dynamics of any sphere” (Editor’s note: …at or smaller than that which is given in Notation 67″).

I thought you would want to know. Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

Sixth email: April 7, 2021, 5:54 PM (Small revisions: 24 May 2021)

I am back on your 2012 paper (ArXiv – PDF), re-reviewing our earlier discussions. Although I realized you are clearly stating that the Planck constant is extraneous and clouds better numbers, I am looking for your equivalents to the Planck base units.

Now I am organizing all my references to your work on a single page so I can more quickly review what I have said. I am right now updating that reference page to those questions and the questions themselves.

I also have your book open, and I have just commenced that reading and analysis.

All this work still goes through my very old filters that are profoundly *under constructio*n. I have quite a ways to go. A bellwether is a note that I sent to Rush D. Holt, Jr. in 2016. He was the CEO of the AAAS and that note reflects my struggles with first principles and starting points before I discovered your work in 2018.

Again, let me ask if you have equivalent numbers to the Max Planck’s or George Stoney’s base units? Thank you.

Warmly,

Bruce

Fifth email: February 4, 2021, 1:58 PM

Might you share the answers to your Pop Quiz or must I embarrass myself and submit my guesses to receive the right answers?!? Might the quiz be a good four-part video? I am thinking 26:46 minutes each for PBS member stations. May I add a few questions?

On a personal note, another quick question: Could the Planck base (adjusted for work on the Planck Constant) units be a description of the first instant in time?

Thanks,

Bruce

Fourth email: October 9, 2018, 2 PM

**Article** Title: Redefining Light That link goes to Part I, the Thesis.**Lead**: Planck’s constant: Called into action or called into question?**Link**: https://81018.com/light-dublin-trinity/**Part II**: Antithesis and still untitled, possibly “Redefining Light: Part II.**Working notes link**: https://81018.com/Ralston/

Dear Prof. Dr. John Ralston:

It looks like that article about light and the Planck Constant will be in three sections.

The first section, as given today, requires a few more hours of editing.

My working notes have also been moved into a new page: https://81018.com/ralston/ where Part II will be developed over the next week or so. That will be primarily focused on your work.

Part III is open. It may well be a synthesis using the base-2 chart.

When I am well on my way with the explanation of your work, I’ll drop another note and, of course, I will anticipate that you will be as critical as you need to be. Thanks.

Bruce

****************

Bruce E. Camber

Third email: October 3, 2018, 8:55 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. John Ralston,

I am now reading your ResearchGate papers and ArXiv’s as fast as I can and yet slow enough to grasp your essence. To date, I had relied on Frank Wilczek’s encouragement, “Explore the Planck base units!” I asked, “Do they double? Can I multiply them by 2?” No real answer… “You can multiply them by anything you want!” (Sabine Hossenfelder) So, I ask, “Is it meaningful?” No real answer.

The path from infinity to pi. I’ve now also started that research of the Ralston collection. Is pi the first manifestation of physicality at the very beginning? Were the Planck base units in some measure present? Obviously I am not a big fan of Hawking, Guth and the Big Bang folks…

-Bruce

PS. I like your exaggerations! I’ll show you some of mine about your work soon.

****************

Bruce E. Camber

Second email: Tuesday, October 2, 2018, 2:28 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. John Ralston:

Do you stand by your article (ArXiv 2012)? If so, I will send it along to the Trinity College Dublin (TCD) folks.

Your articles are wonderful homework. I’ll read, and re-read until I begin to grasp all that you have said (to the best of my abilities). I am ready to wake up! It seems most of the IAS folks are rather sure of themselves, yet when I finish reading their work, often I feel like they’re hiding something… first, it seems that they really don’t want us to understand completely and then intimidate us to hold back all our questions.

Thank you again for your references. I’ll see if I can purloin or otherwise buy a copy of your book. Would Max Planck and Frank Wilczek applaud? I hope so. – Bruce

- How to Understand Quantum Mechanics, John P. Ralston, The University of Kansas ISBN: 9781681741628 • eBook ISBN: 9781681742267, May, 2018
- Emergent un-Quantum Mechanics © 2013 Ralston
- Revising Your World–View of the Fundamental Constants, October 2013
- METROLOGY:
*Measurement of the fine-structure constant as a test of the Standard Model*, Parker et al., Science 360, 191–195 (2018) 13 April 2018Bruce E. Camber

First email: Sunday, Sep 30, 2018, 4:22 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. John Ralston:

Thank you for your work over six years ago (25 Mar 2012) on “Quantum Theory without Planck’s Constant” found here within ArXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5557 PDF

Are there subsequent un-ArXived papers about this work? Do you stand by it? I hope so. In your conclusions you said,”There is still a place for standardizing Planck’s constant, just as standardizing other units is important to engineering and commerce.”

Your analysis is so entirely informative of the history that has transpired. Very helpful.

I would like to send those ArXiv references along to the folks at Trinity College Dublin’s School of Physics and the Trinity College Dublin’s Centre for Research on Advanced Nanostructures and Nanodevices (CRANN), particularly to their folks making this claim: “*One of the measurable characteristics of a beam of light is known as angular momentum. Until now, it was thought that in all forms of light the angular momentum would be a multiple of Planck’s constant* (the physical constant that sets the scale of quantum effects).”

This is an important topic, especially in light of Sir Michael Atiyah‘s recent publication of “The fine-structure constant” (α).

Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

****************

Bruce Camber

____________

October 2013, **Revising your world-view of the fu ndamental constants, John P. Ralston**

“Fundamental constants are thought to be discoveries about Nature that are fixed and eternal, and not dependent on theory. Actually constants have no definition outside the theory that uses them. For a century units and constants have been based on the physics of the previous millennium. The constants of physics changed radically with quantum mechanics and modern theory, but their use and interpretation was unfortunately locked in early. By critically re-examining the actual structure of the present system in a new light, we find that obsolete concepts of Newtonian physics impede the understanding and use of quantum theory. Confronting the difference finds that Planck’s constant cannot be observed in quantum theory, and is entirely a construct of human history and convention. A cascade of seeming paradoxes and contradictions occurs when Planck’s constant is eliminated, yet the end result is a simpler and cleaner vision of what quantum mechanics and quantum field theory really involve. By eliminating redundant holdovers the number and nature of fundamental constants is revised. By avoiding the Newtonian conception of mass and associated experimental errors the electron mass is determined with a relative error 67 times smaller than before. The fundamental unit of electric charge is determined more than 100 times more accurately than the current determination of international committees.”