OK, I have this mass thing figured out

The physicist throws an electron at a proton at one unit of momentum. This causes the proton to return the exponent of itself, times 2/3, 108*2/3

The physicist calls that (108*2/3) * 17* 3/2 = 108*17 = 1836.

The proton, in units of electron mass, = the proton exponent times 17.

Which is the V/A * 17  = 17*  [108^3]/[108^2] which should be the radius, 108. The 17 includes a 1/3 and other stuff to be decided later. Thus, using Shannon,


2^[log2(3/2)*108] -1 = 17*volume/area of a proton sphere. V/A is the standard signal to noise in a lot of of physics. The constant 17 will be decomposed later.

So, in conclusion.

If you are trying to measure the volume of something, and are blocked because the thing has area, then use quants of radius, you get the best accuracy. Good advice.

If the proton is Shannon orthogonal, and Avagadro implies it is, and I will verify, then; the radius digit, (3/2)^108, and the (1/2+sqrt(5)/2)^91, are single digit measurements of the proton and should compare.

So, 1/wave = radius and physicists think that goes as mass, so I think I have my Comptons in good shape. The cyclotron is measuring the wave number of the proton, they will get (1/2+sqrt(5)/2)^91.

The Fibonacci folks win the boobie for finding the sample rate of light.

The folks doing the muon atom want to find the best wave/null quant, to the nearest integer in and about these numbers. Look at the difference between the best two, are they within 9.288e-5?