&#From the idea to the theory

Uwe J. M. Reichelt

Macroquantum physics , quantum physics, general relativity, quantum gravity, Special theory of relativity, dark energy, Planck units, fine structure constant, dark matter, Orbit structure of the planets, 137

Home | Makroquantum physics(MQT) | MQT abridged version | to the person | publications

Uwe J. M. Reichelt
Physicist - author










GV

Inhalt

1.
2.
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.2
2.3
3.
3.1
3.2
4.
4.1
4.2
5.
6.




Requirements for a new physical theory
Confirmation of a theory by experiment or observation
Number mysticism or confirmation?
Example 1. A number can be mystical and yet very significant
Example 2. Numbers alone are not enough, their probability is also important
Example 3. Can numbers indicate a system?
What are the numbers in example 3 and which theory describes them and how indicated?
Graphic representation for example 3 and its solution
Influence of several waves and disturbances
Outer planets
Inner planets
The structure of the solar system
Original state of the solar system
Follow Follow-up of the solar system
Is there astronomical evidence for extrasolar analog systems?
Why has this problem only been solved now, 400 years after Kepler?



1. Requirements for a new physical theory

1. If it was postulated , then it must consist of established principles of physics and be or them mathematically was derived mathematically from existing knowledge of physics , then the must be error-free and physically logical.
2. It is necessary that there exist solutions that are confirmed experimentally or by observation become.
3. Do not make predictions beyond what is known by other confirmed theories, so she has no authorization.
4. It should be refutable. Either because there are mistakes in it, not her predictions apply or because contradictions with established knowledge arise.
5. It must have consistent correspondence with established theories of physics.

Note: But it is possible that a theory is correct and predictions cannot be proven because they are beyond the technical possibilities. The same goes for refutability. The confirmation the verification of statements will only ever be possible with one probability, so considerations must be given to Confidentiality is employed so as not to succumb to coincidences. This is covered in the next section followed up.


2. Confirmation of a theory through experiment or observation

Whether through experiment or observation, results always arise in the form of data. But these are always more or less flawed. That is why it is necessary to check with what probability it is a matter of coincidence or some kind of secure, usable value. So the question is is a theory confirmed by reliable values or is it based on a kind of "number mysticism".


2.1 Number mysticism or confirmation?



2.1.1 Example 1. A number can be mystical and yet very much be significant

The number  137 applies not only to esoterics, but also among eminent scientists such as for example Richard Feynman or Wolfgang Pauli as a mystical number, it's easy to research on the internet (e.g. here). As a natural number, it is the reciprocal value of Fine structure constants the next. The latter, however, is an important and at the same time a mysterious quantity in physics and was first from Arnold Sommerfeld Discovered in 1916.
It is "only" a ratio between the electrostatic ??Elemental Power (Coulombkraft) two elementary charges to a maximum possible through the speed of light and Planck's The absolute limit force limited by the quantum of action, which results from the 1906 of Max Planck Planck units, representations of all physical quantities from natural constants. So she is not a Mystery, but a simple ratio between two, albeit important, physical forces and thus comparable to Ludolf's number "π".
CONCLUSION: WHAT SEEMS PUZZLE CAN BE SIMPLE, LOGICAL AND SIGNIFICANT! The published justification is under meaning of the fine structure constants.

2.1.2 Example 2. Numbers alone are not enough, even yours Probability matters

??Lotto 6 out of 46 probably know most of them. The probability of a single lottery ticket To land a "six", probably not often. It is 1 : 13.983.816, not very high.
Suppose someone came up to you and said they had a "surefire" method of making such a win to make, but absolutely needed lottery tickets with a value of 1000 € for his system and unfortunately would have himself only 500 €, whether they took part, shared the risk, but also the "safe" profit with him and the would use the remaining € 500 for it. What would you do?
Statistically, that's clear to me. Numbers are drawn according to a random principle, i. H. around to win with a good degree of certainty would have to hold out for more than 13900 drawings, that is, for a lifetime and would cost me € any millions to begin with.
If I had, I hardly bothered with the lottery to end up making the difference between profit and costs, which could also be negative.
But what if the one but has a secure system?
Believing in miracles is dangerous.
CONCLUSION: WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF STATUTORY RELIABILITY, STATEMENTS MUST BE ENJOYED WITH CAUTION!

2.1.3 Example 3. Can numbers indicate a system?

Let's say you have an idea, a concept or a theory about a system and want it then check the condition of the system. They also have the test method for this and can therefore use it achieve the following measured values:

0.3074     0.4666     0.9833     1.016     1.666     29.659     49.305

With their examination method they can guarantee an accuracy that the values true specified.
Now they want to know whether the results are random or whether they contain a statement is hidden, maybe even a physical connection. How can you make a statement from these numbers win, which rules out any chance, is the question. After long deliberation and stimulated by the values themselves, you come up with the idea of the values of the to display measurement results a little differently.

20/60 - 2/60  = 0.3000
30/60 - 2/60  = 0.4667
60/60 - 1/60  = 0.9833
60/60 + 1/60  = 1.016
100/60        = 1.667
1800/60       = 30.00
3000/60       = 50.00

A structure can now be seen. 5 values are reproduced very well, the others reasonably. Obviously there is one thing in common for all values, the number 60 in the denominator and running values in the numerator, as well as correction values for the first 4th.
But even if you now have a more or less complicated mathematical series or better would form a sequence of numbers, you don't get the desired statement with it. Because number sequences or series, if they can be formed easily, only offer a simplification. A statement as to whether your system is responsible for it in your model concept, therefore one as possible this method does not provide a physically meaningful connection.
But if you have a model and a mathematical formulation for your system, it should there are solutions that not only lead to better results, but also to the desired statement. So you first look for mathematical solutions to your model or theory without going to pay attention to the measurement results and obtain, for example, the following formula as a solution:
Value ( n, m, l ) = ( n/m ) πl      with "n, m and l " as natural numbers.

So this formula should provide the correct values and we put their values in the next table together.
However, it also contains further information that is confirmed in the table. The numerator "n" is actually a counting index, while " l " in conjunction with "π" a group characteristic is because it separates " l= 0" rational values of otherwise irrational.

Table of the values considered so far

n m l VALUETHEO VALUEMEAS Delta (abs) and in % KORR with i/60 VALUENEW Delta %
2 6 0 0.3333 0.3074 0.0259 8.43 - 2 0.3000 0.0074 2.41
3 6 0 0.5000 0.4667 0.0333 7.14 - 2 0.4667 0.0000 0.00
6 6 0 1.0000 0.9833 0.0167 1.70 - 1 0.9833 0.0000 0.00
6 6 0 1.0000 1.0167 0.0167 1.64 + 1 1.0167 0.0000 0.00
10 6 0 1.6667 1.6667 0.0000 0.00 0 1.6667 0.0000 0.00
3 1 2 29.609 29.659 0.0500 0.19 + 3 29.659 0.0000 0.00
5 1 2 49.348 49.305 0.0430 0.09 0 49.348 0.0430 0.09

Both the counting property of "n" and the grouping by "m" and are not difficult in the table "l" to be recognized. And also the effect of the above cited correction, which is based on a uniform disturbance variable (with the value 60) in one group with different but countable action by "i".
The counter "n" has gaps in the group "m = 6 and l = 0 for n = 1, 4, 5, 7-9" and the group "m = 1 and l = 2 for n = 1, 2 and 4 ", which can be interpreted as a prediction, namely that at the flaws after further Values in the analyzed system should be searched for.
So we searched again and actually found the values:

0.7233     1.3815     1.5240     5.203     9.5826     19.2010     39.48

and despite multiple checks, no further.

We create an additional table according to the above scheme and try to classify the values

n m l VALUETHEO VALUEMEAS Delta (abs) and in % KORR mit i/60 VALUENEW Delta %
1 6 0 0.1667 ?
4 6 0 0.6667 0.7233 0.0566 7.83 + 3 0.7167 0.0066 0.91
5 6 0 0.8333 ?
7 6 0 1.1667 ?
8 6 0 1.3333 1.3815 0.0482 3.49 + 3 1.3833 0.0018 0.13
9 6 0 1.5000 1.5240 0.0240 1.57 + 2 1.5333 0.0093 0.61
1 2 2 4.9348 5.2030 0.2682 5.15 + 16 5.2015 0.0015 0.03
1 1 2 9.8696 9.5826 0.2870 3.00 - 20 9.5359 0.0467 0.49
2 1 2 19.739 19.201 0.5382 2.80 - 30 19.2392 0.0382 0.02
4 1 2 39.478 39.482 0.0040 0.00 0 39.478 0.0040 0.00

A value (red) fits into the table, but appears to be a kind in its group with "m = 2" Form subgroup.
In the group "m = 1 and l = 2" all counters are n = 1 - 5 fully occupied. However, there are gaps in the group "m = 6 and l = 0". What can we conclude from this? My opinion is that something is missing, lost or never existed.
I leave what they believe to them. The question is still unanswered, is it a number game, number mysticism or do these values prove something? We probably had a theory, otherwise we would not have arrived at the formula and now want to know the measured contradict the theory, or with what certainty do they confirm it. Since you Theories cannot prove, we try the thesis that the readings match the theoretically expected agree, refute.
So the question is, what is the probability of the measured not agreeing with the calculated Values match.
If they match, the values must satisfy the equation f(x) = y = x. Let's put that measured values as "y" and those calculated according to the formula as "x", they should be as accurate as possible lie on the 45-degree straight line and we can use the straight line equation on which the value pairs are based help the linearen Regression determine. Then we are a lot closer to the reliability we are looking for, because the increase the straight line should be 45 degrees and its confidence interval (confidence interval) may be at the The security you are looking for is not yet zero, so it must be horizontal. The one close to the rise "Zero" probability is our sought-after certainty of assertion that theory and Measurement does not contradict each other.
Without going into the arithmetic procedure further, we perform the regressions of the values both tables once without and once with correction and limit ourselves to one Confidence of 99.95%.

Determination of the certainty of information through regressions. Compared to the corrected values the uncorrected and that for a linear as well as logarithmic regression, which brings more realistic statements in the case of widely differing values. Compared to that like that Statements change if you only consider the affected group of planets and also a comparison as an example like that in the Titius-Bode series after the introduction of the astronomical unit Johann Friedrich Wurm 1787 (here only linear) at their installation, according to Discovery of Uranus and the asteroids as well as the discovery of the planets Neptune and Pluto would have assumed.

Regression in the linear Scale with uncorrected original values
Regression im double logarithmic scale with uncorrected original values
Regression im double logarithmic scale with corrected original values

disturbed group in log. Scale with uncorrected original values
disturbed group in log. Scale with corrected original values

1787 Titius Bode series after the introduction of the astronomical unit (AE) by J.F. Wurm (linear scale)
1787/1801 Titius-Bode series after the discovery of Uranus and Ceres (linear scale)
1846 Titius-Bode series after the discovery of Neptune (linear scale)
1930 Titius Bode series after the discovery of the planet Pluto (linear scale)

CONCLUSION: IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO ASSUME A RELATIONSHIP, THE STATEMENT RELIABILITY SHOULD BE> 99.95%

The first two regressions show a difference between viewing in linear or logarithmic scale. For a good statement, a regression should be as uniform as possible Distribution of the values are available, even better a normal distribution. Is this not the case, as with our data, for on a linear scale the low values are practically not independent of their own error rate effective and they would have to be considered as a value, what reduction of the sample size and Increasing the confidence interval means.
In logarithmic coordinates there is approximately a more uniform distribution and therefore there are their statements more trustworthy. Because one is on a sure match between measured and theoretical Would like to check data, so actually to reject the hypothesis "Y-measured" equals "Y-theory" tried, one could use the slope and its confidence interval. But the pictures show that due to the spread of the values, no useful statements can be made. Suitable Instead, the measure of determination appears.
It expresses the ratio of the residual scatter to the mixed scatter of the values themselves and its confidence interval is determined using the Student or t distribution with tables. The highest The security level that can be found there for one-sided questions is 0.005. Is so the determined test value for the coefficient of determination obtained in the regression is greater than the table value regarding the sample size, the thesis "theory equals measurement" is rejected. You can simplify just look whether the achieved coefficient of determination is greater than 99.95% in order to assume between there is no contradiction between theory and practice.
The figures also show the significant effect of the disturbance correction. For comparison, the effectiveness of this method is shown in 4 temporal terms using the Titius-Bodesche series Levels made clear and shows that in 1787 there was still no secure connection to reality It could have turned out that this would only have happened with the discovery of Uranus and Ceres. And it also shows that despite a high statistical certainty this was wrong, because from the discovery of Neptune and later even Pluto was over with the sure statement. Can we also be wrong with our numbers and their theoretical interpretation? What kind of numbers are these actually and which theory does the given solution provide? Perhaps someone already suspects it, more on this in the next section.

2.2 What are the numbers in Example 3 and what theory describes them as stated?

The numbers are of course not chosen at random. They are real measurement results because they are Apsid values and also mean distance values of the planets in our solar system. So the question remains which theory leads to the given solution. That too has already been named, it is that Macroquantum theory and the solution is obtained directly from the main equation, the except for a physical quantity with the
Schrödinger equation matches, because a linear one Wave equation for a plane wave with the variables "q (distance to the center)", "p (orbital momentum)", "L (orbital angular momentum)", "H (Hamilton operator)" and "t (time)", which represents a probability amplitude just like in quantum physics (QT), must one differentiates only according to the time and obtains the
1st main equation macroquantum physics (MQT). Read in Volltext the theory of MQT chapter 1 pages 15 ff.
The (actually interesting) ??Probability density for a plane wave, analogous to the QT, one obtains by multiplying the ??Probability amplitude with their conjugated complexes. This density has the value "1" everywhere and says that no location is preferred. The COS² and SIN² functions but are independent solutions and always form an equivalent pair for the same argument (arg) and have Maxima shifted against each other (phase shift by π/4).
How come the above ??Solution formula come about?
The planar wave solution is split into a time-dependent and a location-dependent part. Since only the position dependency (here especially the radial position component) is of interest, the solution is reduced to the ??approach. The is completely analogous to quantum theory ??Impulse represented by angular momentum and a wavelength.
Only the vestibule positions are of interest for the solution sought and there the radial momentum component disappears, the tangential has an extreme value. If, under this assumption, the momentum is replaced by angular momentum and tangential wavelength, only the distance and the tangential wavelength remain in the exponent and only the distance sought is of interest for the argument of the trigonometric functions "COS (arg) and SIN (arg)" and "r" the wavelength in the tangential direction. For the latter, it applies to stationary revolutions that they are identical is shortened to the circumference of the circle with the radius "r" or an integer by "m". When is the radius itself identical to the circle number "π", powers of "π" are added and therefore not only rational relationships also irrational, is possibilities from the entire range of numbers. Since the functions COS² and SIN² contain maxima, the counting index "n" comes into play because the probability densities with their maxima are the determine the probable position of the vestibules.
The COS² function has maxima where the argument corresponds to integer values of "π", the SIN² function for half-integers. So there exist 2 ??Solution types.
Now the value marked in red in the 2nd table is not explained as a subgroup with m = 2 from Group m = 1, l = 2 but as a sinus counterpart to group m = 1, l = 2 with n = 0. Consequently, it should also be part of the cosine group for n = 0 to give a value, that is indeed the central star.

2.3 Graphic representation of the results from Example 3

In the following representations the orbits (corrected and uncorrected) of the planets are a wave pattern superimposed on that is the probability density of the corresponding SINE² or COSINE² function reproduces, the maxima appearing light and the minima appearing dark. The apsidal position is aligned the periapside (near point) is on the right for all orbits, and the apoapside (far point) is on the left. Only one wavelength is always effective per image, overlays as they occur in reality, are avoided for the sake of better visibility.


7 representations of all planetary orbits and the
assigned ones Waves with additionally assumed orbits.

Is anything noticeable in these representations?

Probably not. I feel when I checked the connections euphorically and was enthusiastic about it complete agreement, nothing noticed at first. The matches of astronomical data and the predictions of the theory with their solution functions, the harmonic Waves. Stop! Harmonic waves? These are waves without any force acting. Planets move without Power center? Then what is the sun with its all-holding gravitational force? When it dawned on me a great shock went through me. My theory only works for the planets and other celestial bodies, when one negates the center of force.

The explanation

The search for the cause of this conflict was not that easy. Then but I found it. During my studies, I was never confronted with reading my textbooks Theoretical physics mentioned none of this. In the early 1970s it was already established, but only something for experts and specialists, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (ART). There I found out that this theory describes gravity as the curvature of space and time and the movement of celestial bodies Geodesics takes place, which always form the shortest distance between any two orbital points and on which all motionless movements are free of force, regardless of whether they are from a distance, as in elliptical orbits viewed in constant acceleration and deceleration seem.
If only to correct force-free solutions to my theory in the treatment of celestial mechanical problems lead to results, then that means that the ART must be absolutely mandatory and im Hamilton operator (H in the 1st main equation of the MQT) gravity does not occur. Only the other three work there physical forces (the electromagnetic force, the strong and the weak nuclear force), the gravitational force however not, it is expressed in the geometric parts of the equation and are harmonic plane waves then spherical shells around masses (energies) with equidistant same phase, i.e. radially constant distances between the maxima.
This important statement has made me convinced that the 3 forces are not related to gravitation unify, because gravity is not a force at all, but a geometric property that can only be achieved through Energy (mass) caused and not mediated by exchange particles.

Explanations of the representations

The regular orbit displays are almost self-explanatory. The effect of the correction, which is obvious It is clear that it reverses the influence caused by disturbance and leads to significantly better values visible.
But how do you explain the physical sense of such a correction?
The diagram for the Saturn series shows 2 things. In the case of significant wave influences, on the one hand, all maxima are occupied and there are other planets that oscillate between different maxima (Pluto). It is therefore justified to look for the cause of the unoccupied maxima 1, 5 and 7 in the wave of the inner planets to ask. If the vacant 1st maximum can still be explained simply by the great closeness to the sun, it can be seen in the 5th and 7th. different. That each one planet was on these maxima can be excluded, since there is no physical mechanism that makes planets disappear without a trace. That just there happens to be no matter for the formation of a planet should have been, is also not likely. So there is only the possibility to assume that originally a Planet oscillated between 5 and 7. There is a lot to be said for his disappearance, because he had 2 crossing points with the Earth orbit. The same mean distances from the earth and this planet to the sun lead to an encounter with same amount of speed (only the directions of movement differ slightly). Such an encounter can lead to one Capture or cause a collision. In both cases, traces are left behind. For a capture speaks when to the "Lagrange Points" 4 and 5 no residual matter from a collision can be found in the Earth-Moon system. A planet capture (also a collision) creates a disturbance on all neighboring planets, their influence can be proven because (not yet explainable) strangely enough the corrections in whole-numbered portions of the Wavelength of 1/60 AU lie, which is at the same time very exactly the distance of today's earth apsids from the middle one corresponds to earth orbit distance. The conclusion that was originally drawn between maxima 5 and 7 remains the planet swinging inside the wave formed the moon after a crash, but it is more likely that it is through Capture has become today's moon.
The same principle was used for the wave that belongs to Jupiter. On this
SIN² wave there is only one occupied maximum (Jupiter). The maxima 2 - 5 that are not (no longer) occupied belong to orbits with crossing points for COS² wave der Saturn series. And actually let the people involved find planets of the Saturn series special features.
Uranus is the only planet to have one axial inclination which deviates greatly from all other planets, which is anyway the consequence of a collision is interpreted.

Plutos Moon Charon falls size-wise completely out of the ordinary and does not fit the shaft pair
COS²-SIN² of the other Pluto moons.This pair of waves (cos² and sin²), which is aligned with the barycentre, describes the 4 small moons quite good, but not Charon's circulation. Its large mass compared to Pluto (approx. 12%) leads to that PLuto itself orbits the Baryzentrum.
The corresponding values of the probability density are given on the railway apsides and make them Context clearly.

3. Influence of several waves and of disturbances

So far, only waves of one wavelength and an associated disturbance have been considered. Of interest but is also whether the influence of another wave can be demonstrated in a wave context. Therefore it is investigated whether the planets of the Saturn and Jupiter series with their much larger ones Wavelength an effect of the smaller wavelength of the series of inner planets can be demonstrated.
For this purpose, vestibule differences and vestibule deviations from the theoretical value are considered.
Note: For large values, the reduction leads to n / 6 or m / 60 AU (n and m are whole numbers) to smaller and smaller deviations if one compares with the value itself. Here the deviation from the The value 1/6 AU can be considered for the wave influence and 1/60 AU for the interference influence.
The values used come from the "NASA" (As of 06/27/21 and are converted to AE).

3.1 Outer planets

Jupiter has the vestibule values 4.95008 AU and 5.45875 AU.
Their difference (apoapsid value - periapsid value) of 0.50867 can be represented as 3/6 = 0.5 with the remainder 0.00867 (deviation to 1/6 ~ 5.2%) and speaks for the influence of the wave with 1/6 AU wavelength.
The Periapside deviates from the theoretical valueπ2/2 = 4.93480 by 0.01528 AU (9.1% to 1/6 AU), but can be increased by π2/2 + 1/60 = 4.95147 AU with a deviation of 0.0013 AU (~ 8.3% in relation to 1/60 AU) also show the interference with weak.
The Apoapside follows π2/2 + 3/6 = 5.43480 AU with the deviation of 0.02395 AU, which is a value of 14% based on 1/6 AU.
Conclusion: The difference in the apses only shows the influence of the 1/6 AU (94%) wave. The periapsid lies on the SIN² wave & # x03C0 2 / 2 with 91% probability. An interference of 1/60 AU is shown with ~ 92% certainty. The apoapsis is also there with a probability of 86% if the abside difference is 3/6 AU considered. A disruptive influence is only weakly detectable, if at all.

Saturn has the values 9.04127 and 10.12383.
The difference is 1.08326. The value 6.5 / 6 = 1.08333 AU deviates from this by 0.00077 AU (~ 0.5% to 1/6), which means that there is an vestibule here the SIN² and the other on the COS² wave and the influence of the inner wave (1/6 AU) is clear.
The Periapside differs from the theoretical value 9.86960 AU by 0.82833 AU and is with π2 - 5/6 = 9.03627 and with a deviation of 0.00500 AU (2.9% of 1/6 AU) well suited for the detection of the wave influence. No interference is detectable
The Apoapside can also be described quite well with π 2 + 1.5 / 6 = 10.1196 (Deviation 0.00423 AU ~ 2.5% based on 1/6). Here, too, no interference can be seen.
Conclusion: The difference in the apses clearly shows the influence of the 1/6 AU (97%) wave and at the same time that both the sinus as well as the cosine part.
The vestibules themselves lie well on the 1/6 AU wave, the periapsids on the cosine portion (97%) and the apsids on the sine part (97%). An interference of the order of 1/60 AU can be excluded with the same degree of certainty.

Uranus has vestibules at 18.32447 and 20.07799 AU.
This results in a difference of 1.75352 AU. This deviates from 10.5 / 6 by 0.00352 AU (2.1% to 1/6). Here, too, both the COS² and SIN² waves are effective.
The Periabside deviates from the theoretical value 2π2 = 19.73921 AE by 1.41474 AE, which is explained by the wave influence of 8.5 / 6 = 1.41667 AE and a remainder of 0.00193 AE leaves. The wave influence 1/6 AU shows with 98.8% probability. The apoapside deviates from 120.5 / 6 = 20.0833 AU by 0.00534 AU, i.e. only by ~ 3%.
The deviation of the theoretical value 19.73921 is 0.33878 AU, which corresponds to 2/6 AU with a difference of 0.005 AU, i.e. 97% is influenced by the 1/6 AU wave.
Conclusion: The wave influence 1/6 AU (sine and cosine components) can be clearly seen in the apsid difference. Both the Both the periapsids and the apoapsids show a well-established relationship to the 1/6 AU wave. Interference can also be excluded here with the same degree of certainty. In the graphic it looks more like it a vestibule difference of 11/6 AU, but the above figures are more precise.

Neptuns Vestibule values are 29.70930 and 30.38593 AU.
Their difference is 0.61663 AU => 4/6 = 0.66667 deviates from this by 0.05004 AU, 30% to 1/6. But 4/6 - 3/60 = 0.61667 only deviates by 0.000037 AU (0.22% based on 1/60).
The periapside should theoretically be 29.60881 AU. It deviates from this by 0.0933 AU which with 0.5 / 6 AU = 0.0833 leads to a 6% deviation based on 1/6 AU.
The apoapside deviates from the theoretical value 29,385 by 0.808 AU, even with the assumption of the wave influence 1/6 AU with 5/6 = 0.8333, i.e. the remainder of 0.025 AU, the probability would be that the wave influence only works ~ 84%.
Conclusion: The difference in the apses initially only weakly indicates an influence of the 1/6 AU wave, but it is assumed add the interference factor 1/60 AU, then both the influence of the wave 1/6 AU and the interference factor 1/60 with 96% sure to recognize.
The deviations in the vestibules themselves can neither be traced back to the 1/6 AU wave nor to the disturbance factor.

Pluto occupies the maxima 3 and 5 of the COS² wave π2 AE and has astronomical vestibules at 29,658 and 49,304 AU. It doesn't seem to make much sense to check their difference for 1/6 AU. Nevertheless, the difference results in the value 19.646 AU which can be represented surprisingly well by 118/6 = 19.6666 and only deviates from this by 0.02 AU (~ 12% to 1/6).
The Periabside is theoretically at the value 3π2 = 29.6088 AU and deviates from the astronomical value by 0.049 AU (~ 30% to 1/6). If, however, the disturbance 3/60 AU is added, the result is the 3π2 + 3/60 = 29.6588 AU and the difference is 0.0008 AU (~ 5% to 1/60). The deviation is therefore caused by the disorder with 95% probability.
The apoapside should be at the 5th maximum and have the value 49,348 AU. It deviates by 0.044 AU. This deviation cannot be explained with either the 1/6 AU wave or the 1/60 AU fault.
Conclusion: A possible influence of the 1/6 AU wave can only be seen with little probability at the difference in the apses show (88%).
The periapsid shows the influence of the disorder (95%), but not that of the 1/6 AU wave. No indications can be drawn from the apoapsid position.

Overall result
The influence of the wave 1/6 AU on objects of the wave π2 AU can be clearly demonstrated in the apsidal differences with a slightly decreasing certainty (99% -> 88%) for all planets from Jupiter to Pluto. As well on the apses of Jupiter and Saturn, as well as the apoapses of Uranus.
The interfering influence 1/60 AU has a demonstrable effect on the difference in the apses of Neptune and the periapses of Pluto. On the other hand, an effect of the disturbance on Jupiter and Saturn can be ruled out with more than 90% certainty. This is understandable and compatible with the above assumption that the disturbance is related to the Earth-Moon system together, since large planets like Jupiter and Saturn are unlikely to be impressed by disturbances, by others Waves earlier during their formation phase. In addition to the influence of waves, smaller objects definitely show the interference.

3.2 Inner planets

In the case of the inner planets that follow the wave 1/6 AU, attention is only paid to the interfering influence 1/60 AU and in contrast to the outer planets, the positioning is not on the periapsis but on the Apoapsides made.

Mars has vestibules at 1.38114 and 1.66599 AU. Their difference is 17.09 wavelengths 1/60 AU, gives way accordingly by approx. 0.5% from the exact value 17. Compared to the wave, the apoapsis is 1/6 AU by -0.000676 AU (~ 0.4% deviation to 10/6 AU), the perabside by 0.04781 AU (~ 29%). From an interference (17/60 AU) can be assumed.

In the Earth the vestibules are at 0.98325 and 1.01672 AU and the difference is 0.03347 AU, gives way i.e. only 0.8% from the value 2/60 AU and is obvious (due to the moon capture or collision) Output of the fault 1/60 AI.

The Venus has the lowest eccentricity, so the vestibules are close together, 0.718433 and 0.728212 AU of away from the sun. The difference of 0.00978 AU shows no connection to the malfunction, also to the The apses are not visible.

At the Mercury on the other hand, the influence of 1/60 AU is particularly clear on the apoapsis. It is 0.466698 AU and gives way from the value 3/6 AU (3rd maximum of the inner main wave with 1/6 AU wavelength) by 0.033302 AU, which is very accurate corresponds to the value of 2/60 AU (deviation only 0.19%). The periapsid with a value of 0.307504 AU gives way from the 2nd maximum = 2/6 AU, however, by 0.025829 AU, but has a deviation of approx. 5% from the value 1.5 / 60. In the case of Mercury, the influence of 1/60 AU is visible.

Overall result
The influence of a wavelength of 1/60 AU, assumed to be a disturbance, is very clear on the inner planets to recognize except for Venus, with the highest precision on the Mercury apses and the earth apses.

4. The structure of the solar system

So far it should be shown that our solar system is not based on historical laws except for Kepler's laws Is based on randomness, but follows a clear physical principle in its structure. The theory behind this Provides evidence, is new and largely unknown, but also meets all criteria such as recognized theories and the writer is sure it will prevail. It is possible as it is a generalization of the Quantum theory represents that it is converted into a corresponding matrix shape instead of the wave representation, just as Schrödinger's wave mechanics is comparable to Heisenberg's matrix mechanics. I myself consider the wave representation to be clearer.
The statements of the macroquantum physics presented here, which generally apply to all existing systems, show that it is useful to assume two states in the structure of the solar system, one Original state during the training phase and a subsequent state after the preprogrammed collisions or captures have taken place and have disrupted the original orbits.

4.1 Original state of the solar system

As this original state I call the stage of development in the young solar system, as the planetary structure had developed but no disturbances had changed the orbits. To describe all planets together Because of their very large differences in distance, it is not expedient to represent them. That's why the inner planets considered separately from the outer ones and here in a slightly different way those already mentioned above the representations shown are used. This separation is also logical from the theory point of view, since there are two fundamental waves of the probability densities following from the equations as solutions, the occurrence of all mainly describe observed objects completely and with great accuracy, these waves in their wavelengths however differ by a factor of about 60 (6π2 = 59.2176). The two representations show the original state of the outer planets and inner planets.
The dotted lanes are the middle distances.

4.2 Follow-up state of the solar system

The next state is reached when there are no more crossing paths. It corresponds to today's. Disturbances in the original trajectories can now be seen. In conclusion, one can say that the solar system is clearly structured and, in its original state, still almost exact System that is dominated by waves with two different wavelengths. The occurring Crossing paths (two paths with different eccentricity but the same distance between them) to disturbances, the influence of which manifests itself in changes in the original orbits, but through "quantized" Effect can be proven.

5. Is there astronomical evidence for extrasolar analog systems?

The previous evidence of extrasolar planets is perhaps still sufficient in the accuracy of their orbital parameters not enough to show that there is something similar to that in the solar system and thus the general validity of this The theory presented and discussed on the basis of the solar system can be derived. An indication of that however, give the data from exoplanets, because it has been found that they are largely similar Follow the same series as the Titius-Bode series. Since this does not arise from a physical theory, but through the 2n sequence leads to statements analogous to the theory presented here with its levels Probability waves, more accurate data will clear this up. As a significant confirmation of the wave theory (MQT), however, I see one of the first recordings of the approx. Protostellar dust disk 450 light years away HL-Tauri , which was successful at the ALMA observatory in the Chilean Atacama Desert.

The pictures show the dust disk HL_Tauri and a size comparison with our solar system. Are distinct To recognize structures that are very similar to the theoretical wave representations of the theory I presented resemble. In contrast to the interpretation of astronomy, however, I assume that planets are not in the "Gaps" develop, but here directly the waves of the probability density and the distribution of the Matter shapes. My rationale is that the more matter there is in places, the brighter it is in it Representation is, because it is brightest in the center of the HL-Tauri dust disk, where the star is forming, his own Fusion has not yet (fully) ignited, because it is not triggered by the radiation pressure To recognize "blowing away". However, planets should form where there is the most matter. The pictures also show an angular dependency of the matter, which is actually the case with the nature of mine
equations is also to be expected, although so far I have only examined the radial component myself.

6. Why has this problem only been solved now, 400 years after Kepler?

A question that has occupied me for a long time. It is certain, yes Kepler tried to find the mean planetary orbital distances, he only had values of 6 planets, into another 4. Rule to pack because he believed in the harmony of creation. He has to use the mean distance between the tracks already knew quite well, otherwise they would be for him 2th. and 3th. Kepler's rule not successful, the latter he published only 10 years (1619) after the other two.
Platonic solids (from Wikipedia) should help to solve the problem. We know they didn't help.
Also as Newton be 1687 inWorkGravitation law made known and thus ennobled the three Keplerian rules to physical laws, did not lead to anything explanation of the path distances. The solution was tried several times in the period that followed, as an example above the Titius Bode series mentioned (Titius 1766, Bode 1772 and finally Wurm 1787 with the introduction of the astronomical unit "AU"), but all in vain.
Even Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GRT), which is considered a comprehensive description of gravitation applies, did not provide any information that would suggest a physical explanation of the orbit data. What wonder that the view of well-known physicists finally drifted to the point that there was no systematics or physical reason, everything is just historical coincidence.
I asked myself why I too had been looking for a solution for several decades without success, even then, when in 1981/82, after many years of unsuccessful searching, I managed to find the ones shown at the beginning
equations to be derived mathematically with considerations from classical mechanics. Equations that as I know today very well contained the solutions.

So what was the cause of the failure?
Not only did my equations provide the solution, they also answered that question. Actually I could have found out sooner with careful consideration! The search for a system of medium distances is nonsensical. The middle distance an elliptical orbit is irrelevant for the orbit distance, it is only the mean value of the both vestibule distances! Is just an abstraction, because there a celestial body is radial seen only a short time, he lingers longest in the distance of the apses, because there the radial momentum component of its orbit a minimum. The mean distance also has no relation whatsoever on the orbital eccentricity, only the apses determine the eccentricity of an ellipse.
Eccentric orbits are by no means the exception; Mercury and Mars have the inner planets clear deviations from the orbit and also the outer planets have considerable differences in the apses. The most impressive value is provided by Pluto, e = 0.2488 ~ 0.25 = (5th-3rd) / (5th + 3rd) maximum of to him and the great planets belonging to wave of probability density.
The latter is also the reason why Pluto remains a "neat", albeit very small, planet for me. The general theory of relativity has not shown that objects are in a gravitational field Geodesics run, so one
force-free movement consequences?
But where there is no force, the mass does not matter either! And I wonder why classified one planets according to their size?
By the way, yes Galilei knew that bodies fall equally quickly regardless of their mass.