Applied Physics Research; Vol. 7, No. 5; 2015
ISSN 1916-9639
E-ISSN 1916-9647
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
An Unknown Physical Constant Missing from Physics
Koshun Suto1
1
Chudaiji Buddhist Temple, Isesaki, Japan
Correspondence: Koshun Suto, Chudaiji Buddhist Temple, 5-24, Oote-Town, Isesaki, 372-0048, Japan.
Tel: 81-270-239-980. E-mail: koshun_suto129@mbr.nifty.com
Received: April 24, 2014
doi:10.5539/apr.v7n5p68
Accepted: August 21, 2015
Online Published: August 24, 2015
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n5p68
Abstract
Planck constant is thought to belong to the universal constants among the fundamental physical constants.
However, this paper demonstrates that, just like the fine-structure constant α and the Rydberg constant R∞,
Planck constant belongs to the micro material constants. This paper also identifies the existence of a constant
smaller than Planck constant. This new constant is a physical quantity with dimensions of angular momentum,
just like the Planck constant. Furthermore, this paper points out the possibility that an unknown energy level,
which cannot be explained with quantum mechanics, exists in the hydrogen atom.
Keywords: Planck constant, Bohr's quantum condition, hydrogen atom, unknown energy level, fine-structure
constant, classical electron radius
1. Introduction
In 1900, when deriving a equation matching experimental values for black-body radiation, M. Planck proposed
the quantum hypothesis that the energy of a harmonic oscillator with frequency ν is quantized into integral
multiple of hν. This was the first time that Planck constant h appeared in physics theory.
Since this time, Planck constant has been thought to be a universal constant among fundamental physical
constants.
Fundamental physical constants play an essential part in elementary equations describing natural phenomena and
can be broadly divided into universal constants and material constants.
Universal constants include the speed of light in vacuum c, Newtonian constant of gravitation G, and Planck
constant h.
Material constants can be divided into micro material constants and macro material constants. Also, micro
material constants can be divided into physical quantities and constants.
Physical quantities belonging to the category of micro material constants include the electron rest mass me,
elementary charge e, and electron's Compton wavelength λC, and include such constants as the fine-structure
constant α and the Rydberg constant R∞.
The Boltzmann constant k and the Avogadro constant NA are examples of macro material constants.
Incidentally, in deriving the equation for the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, Bohr assumed the following
quantum condition including the Planck constant:
pn ⋅ 2πrn = 2πn,
n = 1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅.
(1)
However, the author has pointed out that Equation (1) is no more than an approximation (Suto, 2014). That is,
1/ 2
n
pn ⋅ 2πrn = 2π ⋅ 1 + (1 + α 2 / n 2 ) ≈ 2πn.
2
(2)
Equation (2) is a condition derived from the following equation for the energy levels of the hydrogen atom.
n 2 1/ 2
En = me c 2
− 1 ,
2
n + α
2
68
n = 0,1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅.
(3)
www.ccsenet.org/apr
Applied Physics Research
Vol. 7, No. 5; 2015
Equation (3) derived by the author is an equation which increases the precision of the equation derived by Bohr
for the energy levels of the hydrogen atom. (However, Equation (3) has not been successfully generalized to an
equation including multiple quantum numbers.)
Planck constant does not play an essential role when deriving Equation (3). Thus, the next section of this paper
examines whether Planck constant can truly be called a universal constant.
2. Planck Constant Derived from Fundamental Physical Constant
The following is Einstein’s equation expressing the equality of energy and mass.
E = mc 2 .
Here, m is the mass of an object or a particle and c is the speed of light in vacuum.
(4)
If me is the rest mass of an electron, an electron’s mass energy E0 can be represented by the following equation.
E0 = me c 2 .
(5)
Meanwhile, Einstein’s relational expression regarding light quanta is as follows.
E = hν .
(6)
Equation (4) and Equation (6) are traditionally thought to be representative equations of the theories of special
relativity and quantum mechanics, the foundations of modern physics, and these two equations have been
thought to have similar importance.
If νc is the frequency of a photon carrying an amount of energy equivalent to E0, the following is true.
E0 = hν C .
Next, let us calculate the wavelength of a photon with frequency νc.
(7)
Combining equals from Equation (5) and Equation (7), we obtain:
me c 2 = hν C .
(8)
Equation (5) expresses the energy possessed by an electron with rest mass me. Also, Equation (7) indicates the
relationship between photon’s frequency and energy.
Fundamentally these two types of energy have different characteristics, but from a quantitative perspective, it is
possible to combine them as equals.
Thus, the photon’s frequency νc is expressed as follows.
me c 2
.
h
νC =
(9)
Next, the photon’s wavelength λ becomes:
λ=
c
νC
=
h
= λC .
me c
(10)
Thus, Equation (5) can be transformed as follows.
me c 2 = me cλCν C .
(11)
In Equation (11), λC is the wavelength of a photon, not an electron. However, because the right sides of Equation
(11) and Equation (8) match, the following relationship holds true in the case of a photon as well.
me cλC = h.
Now, let us consider the case where the photon energy is not mec2.
(12)
If the rest mass of the electron decreases by just ame then the energy aE0 of the photon emitted from that electron
is given by the following equation.
aE0 = ame c 2 ,
(when 0 < a<1).
This equation can also be written as follows.
69
(13)
www.ccsenet.org/apr
Applied Physics Research
Vol. 7, No. 5; 2015
E = a E0 = a me cλCν C = me cλC ⋅ aν C = hν .
Finally, it was possible to confirm that Equation (6) holds in general.
(14)
The currently known values for me or λC were not determined through experimentation. me was determined
through precise calculations from Rydberg constant formulas, and λC was obtained by substituting me in the
formula λC=h/mec. Many fundamental physical constants are being adjusted, based on measured data from
theoretical equations or experiments designed to represent the fundamental laws of physics, to avoid conflicts
from arising between these constants.
Because the equation for determining an electron’s Compton wavelength is λC=h/mec, naturally the modified
version of this Equation (12) is true.
According to traditional classical quantum mechanics, Planck constant exists a priori as a universal constant, and
thus it is thought that the energy of a photon can be determined if its frequency is known, and the wavelength of
a quantum can be determined if its momentum is known (E =hν and λ=h/p).
In this paper, however, a logical case is made that, since the product of the momentum and wavelength of any
photon can be expressed by the constant mecλC, Planck constant only comes into existence when mecλC is
replaced with h.
In other words, Equation (12) can be interpreted to mean not that “the value of mecλC and h match” but instead to
mean “mecλC is h.”
In this paper, we show that Planck constant is not a universal constant but is instead just a micro material
constants on a par with the fine-structure constant α and the Rydberg constant R∞.
3. An Unknown Physical Constant Missing from Physics
In the classical quantum theory of Bohr, the energy levels of the hydrogen atom can be expressed with the
following equation.
2
1 1 me e4 1
En = −
⋅ ,
2 4πε0 2 n2
n = 1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅.
(15)
When Bohr derived this equation, he assumed the quantum condition in Equation (1).
From Equation (1), the product p1r1 of the minimum value of the momentum p1 and the minimum value of the
radius r1 is as follows.
p1r1 = .
(16)
Incidentally, the author has derived a relation between energy and momentum, applicable to the electron in the
hydrogen atom, from the perspective of classical theory (Suto, 2011). That is,
2
Ere,2 n + pn2 c 2 = ( me c 2 ) ,
n = 1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅.
(17)
Also, Ere,n has been defined as follows.
Ere, n = me c 2 + En .
(18)
Here, Ere,n is the relativistic energy of the electron, and the electron’s energy is described on an absolute scale.
Now, the following equation can be derived by comparing Ere,n defined with Equation (18) and Equation (3).
1/ 2
n2
Ere, n = me c 2 2
,
2
n +α
α=
1 e2
.
4πε0 c
(19)
Next, if the right side of Equation (19) is substituted for Equation (17), then the following equation can be
derived.
1/ 2
α2
pn = me c 2
.
2
n +α
70
(20)
www.ccsenet.org/apr
Applied Physics Research
Vol. 7, No. 5; 2015
If 0 is substituted here for n in Equation (20),
(21)
p0 = me c.
p0 is obtained, and thus in this case we will find r0.
First, the energy of the hydrogen atom is given by the following equation.
1 1 e2
.
2 4πε0 rn
Due to this equation and Equation (18), the relativistic energy Ere, n becomes as follows.
En = −
Ere, n = me c 2 −
1 1 e2
.
2 4πε0 rn
(22)
(23)
Here, the right sides of Equation (19) and Equation (23) are connected with an equals sign. That is,
1/ 2
n2
me c 2 2
2
n +α
= me c 2 −
1 1 e2
.
2 4πε0 rn
(24)
If rn is found from that,
−1
2
2 1/ 2
re ( n + α )
e2
1
1
1−
.
=
rn =
2 4πε0 me c 2 (1 + α 2 / n 2 )1/ 2
2 ( n 2 + α 2 )1/ 2 − n
Here, re is the classical electron radius.
(25)
Next, if 0 is substituted for n in Equation (25),
r0 =
r
1 1 e2
= e.
2 4πε0 me c 2 2
(26)
Finally, p0r0 is as follows due to Equation (21) and Equation (26) (see Appendix).
re 1 1 e2
=
(27)
.
2 2 4πε0 c
This p0r0 value is not an approximate value. However, as is clear from Equation (2), p1r1 in Equation (16) is an
approximate value. Therefore, this paper concludes that the value of this p0r0 is a physical quantity more basic
than p1r1 in Equation (16).
p0 r0 = me c ⋅
In this paper, this physical quantity is tentatively called s and positioned as a constant on a par with Planck
constant. That is,
1 1 e2
(28)
.
2 4πε0 c
A small s is used as the subscript s of s . This signifies that s is a smaller quantity than . The relationships
between s and , and between hs and h are as follows.
s =
1
s = α.
2
(29.1)
1
hs = αh.
(29.2)
2
If, in Equation (29.1), and α are micro material constants, then it is natural to regard s in the same way.
If the relationship in Equation (29.2) is used here, then Equation (6) can be written as follows.
E=
2
hs ν.
α
71
(30)
www.ccsenet.org/apr
Applied Physics Research
Vol. 7, No. 5; 2015
This paper predicts that Equation (30) will be an important equation just like Equation (6).
Normally, the energy of a photon is thought to be proportional to the photon's frequency. However, Equation (6)
does nothing more than signify that the photon’s energy E is expressed by the product of h and ν. (Since h has
dimensions, it cannot be said that h is a constant of proportionality). In Equation (30), in contrast, 2/α becomes
the constant of proportionality, and thus it is possible to interpret the photon energy as varying in proportion to
hsν. Also, hs is a constant, and thus the fact that energy is proportional to hsν has the same meaning as energy
being proportional to ν. That is,
2h
2
⋅ hs ν = s ⋅ ν = hν.
α
α
So, is there experimental data supporting the inclusion of s among physical constants?
E=
(31)
To solve this problem, this paper assumes, on a trial basis, that there is an unknown energy level in the hydrogen
atom.
Then an equation for the unknown is derived by using a condition similar to the Bohr’s quantum condition. Then
the values obtained from the equation are compared with experimental data to determine whether or not they
match. If the theory of quantum mechanics is complete, there should be no match between experimental data and
the value predicted by the equation for the unknown.
However, if there is a match between the theoretical value and observed data, this can be regarded as powerful
evidence supporting inclusion of s among the physical constants.
4. Derivation of Equation for Unknown Energy Level
If it is assumed that an unknown energy level exists in the hydrogen atom, what is the best method of deriving an
equation for it? The following confirms that procedure.
1. It is difficult to derive an unknown equation, and thus we begin by predicting an approximation of the
unknown equation, while referring to Bohr’s quantum condition. At that time, it is assumed that the following
relation holds, which is similar to Bohr’s quantum condition.
α
(32)
pn′ ⋅ 2πrn′ = 2πn′ s = 2πn′ ⋅ ,
n′ = 1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅.
2
2. Taking into account the fact that the approximation of Equation (3) is Bohr’s equation (15), in this case the
original equation is derived by proceeding backwards from the derived approximation.
Let us suppose that an atomic nucleus is at rest because it is heavy, and consider the situation where an electron
(electric charge −e, mass me) is orbiting at speed v along an orbit (radius r) with the atomic nucleus as its center.
An equation describing this motion is as follows:
me v 2
1 e2
=
.
r
4πε0 r 2
(33)
The following equation is derived by multiplying both sides of the above equation by r3 and using Equation (32).
2
rn′ = 4πε0
2 α 2
n′ ,
me e2 2
n′ = 1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅.
(34)
To agree with n´ on the light side, n´ is added to r on the left side.
Next, the following equation is derived when this rn′ is substituted into Equation (22) and the subscript n´ is
attached to E.
2
2
1 1 me e4 2 1
En′′ = −
,
⋅
2 4πε0 2 α n′2
n′ = 1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅.
Here, energy is taken to be E´ in order to distinguish from existing equations of quantum mechanics.
Incidentally, Bohr’s equation (15) can be written as follows.
72
(35)
www.ccsenet.org/apr
Applied Physics Research
Vol. 7, No. 5; 2015
2
1 1 me e4 1
1
1
En = −
⋅ 2 = − α 2 me c 2 ⋅ 2 ,
2
2 4πε0
2
n
n
n = 1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅.
(36)
In contrast, Equation (35) can be written as follows.
2
1
2 1
En′′ = − α 2 me c 2 ⋅ 2 ,
n′ = 1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅.
(37)
2
α n′
Next, we confirm that Equation (15) is an approximation for Equation (3). First, Equation (3) can be written as
follows.
1/ 2
n 2
En = me c 2 2
2
n + α
− 1
1/ 2
1 − α 2 / n2 )
(
1
= me c
−
(1 + α 2 / n 2 )1/ 2 (1 − α 2 / n 2 )1/ 2
2
α 4 −1/ 2 α 2 1/ 2
= me c 1 − 4 1 − 2 − 1 ,
n n
2
n = 0,1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅.
(38.1)
(38.2)
(38.3)
Here, α 4 / n 4 ≈ 0 and therefore,
α4
1 − 4
n
−1/ 2
≈ 1.
(39)
That means Equation (38.3) can be written as follows.
α 2
En ≈ me c 2 1 − 2
n
1/ 2
− 1 ,
n = 0,1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅.
(40)
The Taylor expansion of this formula is as follows.
α 2 1/ 2
α2
α4
En ≈ me c 1 − 2 − 1 = me c 2 − 2 − 4 + ⋅⋅⋅ .
n
2n 8n
2
(41)
The second and subsequent terms in the parentheses can be regarded as zero, and thus if only the first term is
used, the result is as follows.
1
α2
me c 2 ⋅ 2 ,
n = 1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅.
2
n
The above demonstrates that Bohr’s equation (15) is an approximation of Equation (3).
En ≈ −
(42)
Now, this time we will apply the logic used thus far to Equation (37). Equation (36) used only the first term in
parentheses in Equation (41). Therefore, referring to Equation (41), we can predict that the Taylor expansion of
the equation to be found will be as follows.
1/ 2
2
2
1 2 2 α 2 1 2 4 α 4
2
α
En′′ ≈ me c 1 − 2 − 1 ≈ me c 2 − 2 − 4 + ⋅⋅⋅ .
α n′
2 α n′ 8 α n′
2
(43)
If the relationship between Equation (41) and Equation (38.3) is taken into account here, then it can be predicted
that Equation (43) is an approximation of the following equation.
73
www.ccsenet.org/apr
Applied Physics Research
−1/ 2
1/ 2
24
22
En′′ = me c 1 − 4 1 − 2 − 1 .
n′ n′
2
Vol. 7, No. 5; 2015
(44)
If the fact that Equation (38.3) is derived from Equation (38.2) is taken into consideration, Equation (44) can be
written as follows.
1/ 2
1 − 2 2 / n′2 )
(
.
−
En′′ = me c
1
(1 + 22 / n′2 )1/ 2 (1 − 22 / n′2 )1/ 2
Rearranging this equation, the following equation can be derived.
2
n ′2
En′′ = me c 2 2
n′ + 4
1/ 2
− 1 ,
n′ = 0,1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅.
(45)
(46)
This is the equation for the unknown energy level of the hydrogen atom which this paper is proposing as a
springboard for discussion.
5. Comparison of Theoretical and Measured Values
In this section, we search other papers for experimental data matching theoretical data obtained from Equation
(46).
However, comparison of theoretical values and experimental data is not done in order to prove the correctness of
Equation (46). This comparison is carried out to obtain evidence supporting recognition of s as a physical
constant. Equation (46) does not necessarily have to be correct in order to recognize s as a physical constant.
Even if it is tentatively assumed that there is no experimental data matching the theoretical data, that is not a
reason to reject the considerations in section 3.
Also, conversely, even if theoretical values and experimental data match, that is not conclusive evidence that the
experimental data is a transition energy between the energy levels at issue here.
For the above reasons, this paper uses the simple method of an Internet search to search for experimental data. In
addition, the comparison of theoretical values and experimental data is performed by limiting to the following
range.
Task 1. First, the energy level En′ ′ in Equation (46) is calculated from n´=0 to 600. Then it is checked whether
or not that theoretical value is actually observed. Searching is performed with the terms: “hydrogen atom,”
“energy level,” and “the theoretical value to be checked.”
Task 2. It is confirmed whether or not a value is actually observed which matches the transition energy E
between different energy levels En′ ′ and Em′ ′ . Here, En′, m′ = En′ ′ − Em′ ′ , (n′ ≠ m′, n′ > m′).
This task is performed in the following three energy ranges. Searching is performed with the terms: “hydrogen
atom,” “transition energy,” and “the theoretical value to be checked.”
1)
Energy range from E0′ to E10′ .
2)
′ to E279
′ . However, this includes E1 found from Equation (3).
Energy range from E270
3)
′ to E553
′ . However, this includes E2 found from Equation (3).
Energy range from E544
First, for Task 1, it was confirmed that there is experimental data numerically matching the energy level from
′ . (However, that measurement value does not prove the existence of the pertinent energy level.)
E0′ to E600
Next, Table 1-3 summarizes the results of Task 2 (See Table 1, 2, 3).
Based on the above comparison, this paper has determined that there exists experimental data numerically
matching theoretical values. (However, even this case is not conclusive evidence that the measured values are
the pertinent transition energies.)
However, no evidence was obtained that Equation (46) is a mistake. Thus, in this paper it was determined that
there is no problem with recognizing s as a physical constant.
The discussion in this paper does not reach a conclusion regarding whether Equation (46) is correct or not.
However, this paper predicts that in the hydrogen atom there is an energy level lower than the energy levels
predicted by quantum mechanics.
74
www.ccsenet.org/apr
Applied Physics Research
Vol. 7, No. 5; 2015
Table 1. Transition energy confirmed in the energy range from E0′ to E10′ . The measured values in this table
almost match the theoretical values. This table was originally longer in the horizontal direction. However, for
reasons of page space, the original table was divided here by cutting it vertically in the center of the left-right
direction. Then the right half of the table was placed under the left half. The dotted line on the top right edge and
the dotted line at the low left edge overlap in the original table. Also, in the paired numerical values in the table,
the top figure is the theoretical value. The bottom figure is a value obtained by a search, and is a measurement
value close to the theoretical value (The same remarks apply to Table 2 and 3 below).
E0′ = −0.5110 MeV
−0.511MeV
E0′
E1′
E2′
E3′
E4′
0
―
―
―
―
0
―
―
―
0
―
―
0
―
E1′ = −0.2825 MeV 0.2285MeV
−0.282 MeV 0.229MeV
E2′ = −0.1497 MeV 0.3613MeV
−0.150 MeV 0.361MeV
0.1328MeV
0.4252MeV
0.1967MeV
63.85keV
0.425MeV
0.197MeV
63.8keV
0.4571MeV
0.2285MeV
95.72keV
31.87keV
0.475MeV
0.229MeV
95.7keV
31.9keV
0.4745MeV
0.2459MeV
0.1131MeV
49.27keV
17.40keV
0.474MeV
0.246MeV
0.113MeV
49.3keV
17.4keV
0.4848MeV
0.2563MeV
0.1234MeV
59.60keV
27.72keV
0.485MeV
0.256MeV
0.123MeV
59.6keV
27.72keV
0.4913MeV
0.2628MeV
0.1300MeV
66.16keV
34.29keV
0.491MeV
0.263MeV
0.130MeV
66.2keV
34.3keV
0.4957MeV
0.2672MeV
0.1344MeV
70.57keV
38.69keV
0.496MeV
0.267MeV
0.134MeV
70.6keV
38.7keV
0.4988MeV
0.2703MeV
0.1375MeV
73.65keV
41.78keV
0.499MeV
0.270MeV
0.1375MeV
73.7keV
41.8keV
0.5011MeV
0.2726MeV
0.1397MeV
75.90keV
44.02keV
0.501MeV
0.273MeV
0.140MeV
75.9keV
44.0keV
E3′ = −85.82 k eV
−85.8 k eV
E4′ = −53.95 k eV
−53.9 k eV
E5′ = −36.55 k eV
−36.5 k eV
E6′ = −26.22 k eV
−26.2 k eV
E7′ = −19.66 k eV
−19.7 k eV
E8′ = −15.26 k eV
−15.3k eV
E9′ = −12.17 k eV
−12.2 k eV
E10′ = −9.923k eV
−9.92 k eV
0.133MeV
0
E5′
E6′
E7′
E8′
E9′
E10′
0
―
―
―
―
―
0
―
―
―
―
0
―
―
―
0
―
―
0
―
E6,5 = 10.33k eV
10.33k eV
E7,5 = 16.89 k eV
16.89 k eV
E8,5 = 21.29 k eV
21.29 k eV
E9,5 = 24.38 k eV
24.38 k eV
E10,5 = 26.63k eV
26.63k eV
6.562keV
6.56keV
10.97keV
4.404keV
11.0keV
4.40keV
14.05keV
7.493keV
3.089keV
14.1keV
7.5keV
3.08keV
16.30keV
9.738keV
5.334keV
2.245keV
16.3keV
9.74keV
5.33keV
2.25keV
75
0
www.ccsenet.org/apr
Applied Physics Research
Vol. 7, No. 5; 2015
′ to E279
′ . The measured values in this table
Table 2. Transition energy confirmed in the energy range from E270
almost match the theoretical values
′ = −14.019 eV
E270
−14.02 eV
′ = −13.915eV
E271
−13.92 eV
′
E270
′
E271
′
E272
′
E273
′
E274
0
―
―
―
―
0
―
―
―
0
―
―
0
―
0.1033eV
0.103eV
0.2054eV
0.1021eV
0.205eV
0.102eV
0.3064eV
0.2031eV
0.1010eV
0.306eV
0.203eV
0.101eV
0.4063eV
0.3030eV
0.2009eV
0.0999eV
0.406eV
0.303eV
0.201eV
0.100eV
0.4134eV
0.3102eV
0.2081eV
0.1071eV
0.00714eV
0.413eV
0.3102eV
0.208eV
0.107eV
0.00714eV
0.5051eV
0.4019eV
0.2997eV
0.1987eV
0.0988eV
0.505eV
0.402eV
0.300eV
0.199eV
0.099eV
0.6029eV
0.4996eV
0.3975eV
0.2965eV
0.1966eV
0.603eV
0.500eV
0.397eV
0.296eV
0.197eV
0.6995eV
0.5963eV
0.4942eV
0.3932eV
0.2932eV
0.700eV
0.596eV
0.494eV
0.393eV
0.293eV
0.7952eV
0.6919eV
0.5898eV
0.4888eV
0.3889eV
0.795eV
0.692eV
0.590eV
0.489eV
0.389eV
0.8898eV
0.7865eV
0.6844eV
0.5834eV
0.4835eV
0.890eV
0.787eV
0.684eV
0.583eV
0.484eV
E1
′
E275
′
E276
′
E277
′
E278
′
E279
0
―
―
―
―
―
0
―
―
―
―
0
―
―
―
0
―
―
0
―
′ = −13.813eV
E272
−13.81eV
′ = −13.712 eV
E273
−13.71eV
′ = −13.612 eV
E274
−13.612 eV
E1 = −13.605eV
−13.605eV
′ = −13.513eV
E275
−13.51eV
′ = −13.416 eV
E276
−13.42 eV
′ = −13.319 eV
E277
−13.32 eV
′ = −13.223eV
E278
−13.22 eV
′ = −13.129 eV
E279
−13.129 eV
E275,1 = 0.0917 eV
0.0917 eV
E276,1 = 0.1894 eV
0.189 eV
E277,1 = 0.2861eV
0.286 eV
E278,1 = 0.3817 eV
0.382 eV
E279,1 = 0.4764 eV
0.476 eV
0.0977eV
0.098eV
0.1944eV
0.967eV
0.194eV
0.967eV
0.2901eV
0.1923eV
0.956eV
0.290eV
0.192eV
0.956eV
0.3847eV
0.2870eV
0.1903eV
0.0946eV
0.385eV
0.287eV
0.190eV
0.0946eV
76
0
0
www.ccsenet.org/apr
Applied Physics Research
Vol. 7, No. 5; 2015
′ to E553
′ . The measured values in this table
Table 3. Transition energy confirmed in the energy range from E544
almost match the theoretical values
′ = −3.453eV
E544
−3.453eV
′
E544
′
E545
′
E546
′
E547
′
E548
0
―
―
―
―
0
―
―
―
0
―
―
0
―
′ = −3.441e V
E545
0.0127eV
−3.441e V
0.0127eV
′ = −3.428eV
E546
0.0253eV
0.0126eV
−3.428eV
0.0253eV
0.0126eV
′ = −3.416 eV
E547
0.0378eV
0.0251eV
0.0125eV
−3.416 eV
0.0378eV
0.0251eV
0.0125eV
′ = −3.403eV
E548
0.0502eV
0.0376eV
0.0250eV
0.0125eV
0.050eV
0.0376eV
0.0250eV
0.0125eV
E2 = −3.401eV
0.0521eV
0.0395eV
0.0269eV
0.0143eV
0.00189eV
−3.401eV
0.0521eV
0.0395eV
0.0269eV
0.0143eV
0.00189eV
′ = −3.391eV
E549
0.0626eV
0.0500eV
0.0374eV
0.0248eV
0.0124eV
−3.391eV
0.0626eV
0.0500eV
0.0374eV
0.0248eV
0.0124eV
′ = −3.378eV
E550
0.0749eV
0.0623eV
0.0497eV
0.0372eV
0.0247eV
−3.378eV
0.0749eV
0.0623eV
0.050eV
0.0372eV
0.0247eV
′ = −3.366 e V
E551
0.0872eV
0.0745eV
0.0619eV
0.0494eV
0.0370eV
0.087eV
0.0745eV
0.062eV
0.0494eV
0.037eV
0.0994eV
0.0867eV
0.0741eV
0.0616eV
0.0491eV
0.099eV
0.0867eV
0.074eV
0.0616eV
0.049eV
0.1115eV
0.0988eV
0.0862eV
0.0737eV
0.0613eV
−3.342 eV
0.111eV
0.0990eV
0.086eV
0.074eV
0.061eV
E2
′
E549
′
E550
′
E551
′
E552
′
E553
0
―
―
―
―
―
0
―
―
―
―
0
―
―
―
0
―
―
0
―
−3.403eV
−3.366 e V
′ = −3.354 eV
E552
−3.354 eV
′ = −3.342 eV
E553
E549,2 = 0.0105eV
0.0105eV
E550,2 = 0.0228eV
0.0123eV
0.0228eV
0.0123eV
E551,2 = 0.0351e V
0.0246eV
0.0123eV
0.0246eV
0.0123eV
0.0368eV
0.0244eV
0.0122eV
0.0368eV
0.0244eV
0.0122eV
0.0489eV
0.0366eV
0.0243eV
0.0121eV
0.049eV
0.0366eV
0.0243eV
0.0121eV
0.035eV
E552,2 = 0.0473eV
0.047eV
E553,2 = 0.0594 eV
0.059eV
0
0
6. Conclusions
1). It has been thought that Planck constant h is a universal constant belonging to the same category as the speed
of light in vacuum c and the electric charge e.
Thus, it is valid to regard Planck constant not as a universal constant but as a micro material constants on par
with the fine-structure constant α or the Rydberg constant R∞.
77
www.ccsenet.org/apr
Applied Physics Research
Vol. 7, No. 5; 2015
2). This paper has pointed out the existence of a constant s . This constant is smaller than Planck constant, and
is a physical quantity with dimensions of angular momentum. That is,
1 1 e2
.
(47)
2 4πε0 c
In the micro world, there are two constants with the dimensions of angular momentum. What relates and s
is the fine-structure constant α.
s =
2 S
1 e2
(48)
=
.
4πε0 c
This paper concludes that, just like and α, s is a constant belonging to the micro material constants. The
above two items are the main conclusions of this paper.
α=
3). This paper has derived Equation (46) as a candidate for an unknown energy level in the hydrogen atom.
However, Equation (15) can neatly explain the spectrum of the hydrogen atom, but a spectrum requiring
Equation (46) has not been discovered. In addition, many data sets used to compare theoretical and experimental
values include energies emitted from molecules other than hydrogen.
Thus there are also problems with Equation (46). However, this paper predicts that there is a high probability of
an unknown energy level, which cannot be explained by quantum mechanics, existing in the hydrogen atom.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my thanks to the staff at ACN Translation Services for their translation assistance.
References
Schiff, L. I. (1968). Quantum Mechanics (p. 472). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Suto, K. (2011). An energy-momentum relationship for a bound electron inside a hydrogen atom. Physics Essays,
24(2), 301-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/1.3583810
Suto K. (2014). n=0 energy level present in the hydrogen atom. Applied Physics Research, 6(5), 109-115.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v6n5p109
Appendix
In this paper, Equation (13) was obtained by starting from Equation (3). Equation (3) states that a hydrogen atom
has an n=0 energy level. However, at present, no experimental evidence has been obtained to support the
existence of such an energy level. Therefore, it will be confirmed here that Equation (13) can be derived without
relying on Equation (3).
Referring to classical quantum theory, the total mechanical energy of the electron in a hydrogen atom has a
negative value. The total mechanical energy of an electron is considered to be zero when the electron is
separated from the atomic nucleus by a distance of infinity and remains at rest in that location. The total
mechanical energy of Equation (15) is the value obtained from this perspective. However, even if we place an
electron at rest an infinite distance from its nucleus, the relativistic energy of the electron is fundamentally not
zero. According to Einstein, an electron in this state should have rest mass energy. According to quantum
mechanics textbooks, the eigenvalue of the energy of a hydrogen atom as obtained from the Dirac equation,
which is a relativistic wave equation, is as follows (Schiff, 1968).
γ2
γ4
E = me c 2 1 − 2 − 4
2n
2n
n 3
− .
k 4
(A1)
If we ignore for the third term of this equation and define it as an approximation, Equation (A1) can be written as
follows.
2
1 1 me e 4 1
E ≈ me c 2 −
2 4πε0 2 n 2
(A2.1)
= me c 2 + En .
(A2.2)
E of Equation (A2.1) defines an absolute quantity, which includes the electron’s rest mass energy.
78
www.ccsenet.org/apr
Applied Physics Research
Vol. 7, No. 5; 2015
The energy of a hydrogen atom Equation (15) corresponds to the reduction in the electron’s rest mass energy,
while conversely, Equation (A2.2) corresponds to the electron’s remaining rest mass energy.
Even if the electron which was at rest begins moving in free space, and even if it is absorbed into an atom, the
starting point of the electron’s energy for either case is its rest mass energy. From this fact, the relativistic energy
in absolute terms, Ere, n , for a hydrogen atom is defined as below:
Ere, n = me c 2 + En . (A3)
This shows that the following inequalities hold for the relativistic energy and total mechanical energy of the
electron in the hydrogen atom.
0 ≤ Ere, n < me c 2 .
(A4)
−me c 2 ≤ En < 0.
(A5)
This does not mean that the existence of an n=0 energy level has been proven. However, logically speaking, the
lower limit of the energy level of the hydrogen atom becomes En = −mec 2 (i.e., Ere = 0 ).
Therefore, Equation (22) can be written as follows:
−me c 2 = −
Solving this, the following r is obtained.
1 1 e2
.
2 4πε0 r
r
1 1 e2
= e.
2
2 4πε0 me c
2
For the p corresponding to this r, the following value is obtained by setting Ere, n = 0 in Equation (3).
r=
(A6)
(A7)
p = me c.
(A7)
This confirms that the existence of E0 is not essential to inferring the value of s , which is a candidate for the
minimum unit of physical quantities having a dimension of angular momentum.
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
79