See WIKI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-to- ... mass_ratio

This problem was the starting point for Ground Potential (GP) theory, and a possible solution was found in four steps as follows:

*1) there seem to be roughly the same number of positive and negative charges (electrons and protons)*

2) make the assumption that protons and electrons are a particle pair

3) justify the mass difference by assuming an electrically biased observer

4) look for the equation that fits.

2) make the assumption that protons and electrons are a particle pair

3) justify the mass difference by assuming an electrically biased observer

4) look for the equation that fits.

It was logical to concider that the relationship might involve a Lorenz transformation, because one of the effects was clearly some kind of "gravitational redshift", but there was no obvious velocity, involved. What eventually solved the problem was to get rid of mass by factoring the numbers by c^2, and by working in eV it was now possible to divide by 1 electron and create a Lorenz transformation factor with pure potential (volts).

Knowing how a radical function of the type y=sqrt(1-x^2) looks, means we can make further assumptions..

*As we we are working with protons and electrons it seemed plausible that the potentials of these would form the upper and lower boundary of the radical function, and one of these potentials aught to be a constant, so the proton was arbitrarily chosen as the constant, with ground potential and the electron's potential being the variables.*

a) that the y value must be positive ie. electron potential is positive

b) that the positive domain of the x value is limited, ie there is a maximum value for potential

a) that the y value must be positive ie. electron potential is positive

b) that the positive domain of the x value is limited, ie there is a maximum value for potential

We see from the graphic that the electrons potential rises as ground potential falls, and the amount by which the electron potential rises is the radical function of half the fall in ground potential. We now have the full equation.

Where ø'e is the electron potential, ø'gnd is ground potential and ø'p is the proton potential. When we insert real numbers into this equation abnd solve for x (ground potential);

Copy this into Wolfram Alpha : 0.511=((938-x)/2)*√(1-(x^2/938^2))

http://www.wolframalpha.com

We get a value for ground potential of a staggering 930 million volts, positively biased indeed.

There is reason to believe that this result is accurate, because it corresponds nicely with the potential of Ni62 and Fe56 which are the two isotopes with the highest binding energies (or lowest potential). The interpretation of this observation is that Ni62 and Fe56 can not decay to a lower potential because they are already at ground potential. Furthermore it is a known fact that the planet Earth is substantially made from the elements Iron and Nickel, so to assume a value for ground potential of 930 million volts is not utopia.

**Experiment**

Apart from those experiments that nature has already provided for us, there are further experiments we can do to test this hypothesis.

*1) measure a positive change in the electrons mass over time (10-20 years)*

2) measure electron mass at sea level, then measure it again at higher altitude (potential changes by around 3 Volts/meter

3) rig up a laboratory in a faraday cage and electrically bias the laboratory while weighing the electron.

2) measure electron mass at sea level, then measure it again at higher altitude (potential changes by around 3 Volts/meter

3) rig up a laboratory in a faraday cage and electrically bias the laboratory while weighing the electron.

**Conclusion**

Given the right goodwill, this hypothesis can be proved with a relatively low cost experiment, well within the capabilities of most funded Universities, and if proven to be correct, it has solved the following important long standing problems;

a) the question electron proton mass ratio

b) the question about a changing µ

c) the question about the missing antimatter

PS: I would be very interested to hear from anyone who has the capability and interst in doing one of the experiments.

Steven