# Newton-Raphson Convergence of 5 Physical Constants **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [11 October 2024 20:03 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/newton-raphson-convergence-of-5-physical-constants/5628 "2024-10-11T20:03:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jabowery](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/user_avatar/scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/jabowery/32/5478_2.png) [@jabowery](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/u/jabowery)\ **Post date:** [11 October 2024 20:03 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/newton-raphson-convergence-of-5-physical-constants/5628/1 "2024-10-11T20:03:12Z")
Mark Rohrbaugh may be some kind of on-the-spectrum genius with a professional background in mix-signal (analog-digital) integrated circuitry. For some time, based on a semi-classical relation involving a reasonably intuitive assumption about angular momentum in the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom, he’s been pursuing a derivation of [the proton radius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_radius_puzzle) that presaged the major correction in that “constant” by the wider physics community. Since then he’s been working on a kind of minimalist algorithm calculating predictions for significant digits of physical constants. In his latest blog post he describes his use of Newton-Raphson Iteration to derive 5 physical constants using only his semi-classical ration and the proton/electron mass ratio. Those constants are: e ϵ0 h c RH > **[5x5: Polynomial Convergence of 5 Constants - Combined Newton-Raphson...](https://phxmarker.blogspot.com/2024/10/5x5-polynomial-convergence-of-5.html)** > > The Algorithm of post 9/5/2022 new-algorithm-idea-multi-variate CONVERGES when holding the proton mass and electron mass (thus the $... He describes the semi-classical relation and resulting algorithm in this post: > **[New Algorithm Idea - Multi-Variate Polynomial Roots in a Limited Field-Ψ](https://phxmarker.blogspot.com/2022/09/new-algorithm-idea-multi-variate.html)** > > Ψ-The Limited Field being constants. Unknown constants, so they look like variables when they are unknown, however, as constant as π,  ф , e... ---
**Author:** ![drlorentz](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/user_avatar/scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/drlorentz/32/902_2.png) [@drlorentz](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/u/drlorentz)\ **Post date:** [11 October 2024 21:07 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/newton-raphson-convergence-of-5-physical-constants/5628/2 "2024-10-11T21:07:04Z")
What, in heaven’s name, is the Rudberg constant? Poor Johannes must be rolling over in his grave. ![](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/uploads/default/original/3X/1/4/1462e5d5e4040212097362df17542ac2dd2594fd.png) ---
**Author:** ![jabowery](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/user_avatar/scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/jabowery/32/5478_2.png) [@jabowery](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/u/jabowery)\ **Post date:** [11 October 2024 21:42 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/newton-raphson-convergence-of-5-physical-constants/5628/3 "2024-10-11T21:42:00Z")
Obviously, since Mark Rohrbaugh doesn’t use a Dvorak keyboard, I’ll have to admonish him to please not torture us with his crackpottery further. You can only trust those who permit typos to appear in public if they misspell Rydberg as either Rpdberg or Rfdberg or Ridberg. A diagonal slip of the finger to Rudberg is so unlikely on a Dvorak that we can surely classify Mark Rohrbaugh as a QWERTY crackpot. ---
**Author:** ![drlorentz](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/user_avatar/scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/drlorentz/32/902_2.png) [@drlorentz](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/u/drlorentz)\ **Post date:** [11 October 2024 22:50 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/newton-raphson-convergence-of-5-physical-constants/5628/4 "2024-10-11T22:50:26Z")
> [@jabowery](#): > > He describes the semi-classical relation and resulting algorithm in this post: Besides checking his spelling, Mr Rohrbaugh could help himself by doing some algebra to simplify his [formula](https://phxmarker.blogspot.com/2022/09/new-algorithm-idea-multi-variate.html). Specifically, it reduces to r\_p = 2h/(pi _c_ m\_p), where r\_p = proton radius m\_p = proton mass _c_ = speed of light h = Planck’s constant Thus, there are only two independent physical constants involved, not five. (Speed of light is now a defined value.) Mr. Rohrbaugh’s overly complex expression obfuscates the relation of r\_p to fundamental constants, not to mention making the computations subject to the propagation of errors. Quantities such as the hydrogen Rydberg constant (R\_H) and the fine structure constant (alpha) are defined in terms of fundamental constants, not determined independently. The permittivity of free space cancels out. To the substance of the equation, it results in a value of r\_p of 0.8412 fm. Some measurements are consistent with this value, while [others are not](https://physicsworld.com/a/has-the-proton-radius-puzzle-been-solved-at-last/). Since it’s unclear where Mr. Rohrbaugh’s equation comes from, it’s hard to assess its relationship to conventional theory, if any. ---
**Author:** ![drlorentz](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/user_avatar/scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/drlorentz/32/902_2.png) [@drlorentz](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/u/drlorentz)\ **Post date:** [11 October 2024 22:58 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/newton-raphson-convergence-of-5-physical-constants/5628/5 "2024-10-11T22:58:06Z")
> [@jabowery](#): > > Obviously, since Mark Rohrbaugh doesn’t use a Dvorak keyboard, I’ll have to admonish him to please not torture us with his crackpottery further. You can only trust those who permit typos to appear in public if they misspell Rydberg as either Rpdberg or Rfdberg or Ridberg. A diagonal slip of the finger to Rudberg is so unlikely on a Dvorak that we can surely classify Mark Rohrbaugh as a QWERTY crackpot. It’s merely indicative of low consciousness, which is an important personality trait for someone working in mathematics and science. Let’s hope he’s more careful with his math than he is with his spelling, especially when it comes to the name of a famous physicist and well-known physical constant — at least famous and well-known to physicists. If you wish to admonish him, may I suggest that you urge him to check his work for obvious errors before posting to his blog. ---
**Author:** ![jabowery](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/user_avatar/scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/jabowery/32/5478_2.png) [@jabowery](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/u/jabowery)\ **Post date:** [12 October 2024 00:31 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/newton-raphson-convergence-of-5-physical-constants/5628/6 "2024-10-12T00:31:42Z")
> [@drlorentz](#): > > Since it’s unclear where Mr. Rohrbaugh’s equation comes from, it’s hard to assess its relationship to conventional theory, if any. He assumes a proton-electron torque balance in the Bohr model (which above I mischaracterized as momentum): > Now, because for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, for every force there is an equal and opposite force, for every torque, there is an equal and opposite torque, equate mprp to mere to balance torque/spin between proton and electron > **[n=1 (DRAFT): A Physics Letter A (Mathematical Physics): Proton Radius, the...](http://phxmarker.blogspot.com/2023/06/draft-physics-letter-mathematical.html)** > > Proton Radius, the Rydberg Equation, and Fundamental Physics Constants Mark Rohrbaugh - MSEE, ΩIV  ,  Lyz Starwalker - Mµ\*     ©1991 -... ![image](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/uploads/default/original/3X/9/b/9b42360a9441a190ed4e7044e7f7aa6170254b67.png) ---
**Author:** ![jabowery](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/user_avatar/scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/jabowery/32/5478_2.png) [@jabowery](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/u/jabowery)\ **Post date:** [30 October 2024 01:40 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/newton-raphson-convergence-of-5-physical-constants/5628/7 "2024-10-30T01:40:15Z")
At my suggestion he’s pursuing a calculation with c set to the SI exact value, but also seems to think the standards committee should consider a different approach to that taken in the 2019 revision. Here’s what he said: > As well as correcting the intial values and tolerances, I’m planning on running a version with c set to SI unit value of 299792458 m/s. In this way, four constants can be solved for and a more fair comparison made to NIST/CODATA. Addressing the idea of setting c will be saved for a later post. Perhaps c should be set according to the polynomial AND a timebase reference created. I think that, combined with re-defining mass, could carefully set the constants to be in harmony with mks SI units ideas.