Prev: Impossible Variable Star Curves Predicted by BaTh.
Next: Speed of Light in Dark Water
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 01:03
On 7/8/10 11:17 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Jul 8, 6:24 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/7/10 11:50 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>>
>>> A new very high precision measurement of the proton radius is 5-sigma
>>> lower than QED-based expectations.
>>
>> Did you mean to say the the measurement is lower than QED-based
>> expectations. AND that the new measurements have a 5-sigma confidence
>> level?
>>
>> Or what?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you read the paper in Nature you will understand that the newly
> measured proton radius estimate and the value based on QED differ by 5
> standard deviations.
>
> This is what the authors of the paper published in Nature say.
>
> If verified, it is a serious problem for QED.
>
> Get your information from the source. Put in some friggin effort!
>
> Not from imbeciles like EG.
>
> RLO
> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

In other words, YOU CANNOT explain the meaning. You grabbed a
chunk out of this (or similar),
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/abs/nature09250.html

You said, "A new very high precision measurement of the proton radius
is 5-sigma lower than QED-based expectations".

Whereas the paper says, "On the basis of present calculations [11, 12,
13, 14, 15] of fine and hyperfine splittings and QED terms, we find
r_p = 0.84184(67) fm, which differs by 5.0 standard deviations from
the CODATA value^3 of 0.8768(69) fm. Our result implies that either
the Rydberg constant has to be shifted by −110 kHz/c (4.9 standard
deviations), or the calculations of the QED effects in atomic
hydrogen or muonic hydrogen atoms are insufficient".

Quit trying to bullshit us, Oldershaw.



From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 02:02
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

> On Jul 8, 6:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/7/10 11:50 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>>
>> > A new very high precision measurement of the proton radius is 5-sigma
>> > lower than QED-based expectations.
>>
>> Did you mean to say the the measurement is lower than QED-based
>> expectations. AND that the new measurements have a 5-sigma confidence
>> level?
>>
>> Or what?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you read the paper in Nature you will understand that the newly
> measured proton radius estimate and the value based on QED differ by 5
> standard deviations.

Yet you insist on using percent difference when comparing what you predict
to what is observed, rather than standard deviations which provide a clearer
picture of the precision. Is it because you are dishonest, or simply don't
understand simple error analysis?

I'm going to go with "a lot of column a, and a lot more of column b".

>
> This is what the authors of the paper published in Nature say.

So much for the claim that nothing interesting or controversial ever gets
published.

>
> If verified, it is a serious problem for QED.

Yep.

But notice how you are the only one hooting and screaming about it.

>
> Get your information from the source. Put in some friggin effort!
>
> Not from imbeciles like EG.

Of course your entire point of view is formed off the fact that I've
repeatedly made fun of your ideas and shoved your arrogant stupidity back in
your face.

I'm sure it is merely a /coincidence/ that you are unable to discuss my
technical points, and instead snip everything wholesale then repeat the
claim I had just discredited.

If you don't like it, stop talking like you know better than the rest of
modern science. You aren't. 30 years of fringe publications are evidence
enough of that.

>
> RLO
> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

From: Painius on 9 Jul 2010 04:23
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rloldershaw(a)amherst.edu> wrote in message...
news:1ba0199f-86cc-43cb-bf5f-6aa44f8302f7(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 8, 6:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/7/10 11:50 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>
> > A new very high precision measurement of the proton radius is 5-sigma
> > lower than QED-based expectations.
>
> Did you mean to say the the measurement is lower than QED-based
> expectations. AND that the new measurements have a 5-sigma confidence
> level?
>
> Or what?

------------------------------------------------------

If you read the paper in Nature you will understand that the newly
measured proton radius estimate and the value based on QED differ by 5
standard deviations.

This is what the authors of the paper published in Nature say.

If verified, it is a serious problem for QED.

Get your information from the source. Put in some friggin effort!

Not from imbeciles like EG.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A

Name calling subtracts from one's credibility. There are many
here who esteem the thoughts of "EG". If you would like to
earn a similar level of regard, then please stick to the facts and
to your interpretations of those facts. Credibility is very tough
to gain and extremely easy to lose in an eyeblink !

happy new days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
Lurker extraordinaire

P.S.: "Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities.
Truth isn't." > Mark Twain

P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth


From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 9 Jul 2010 13:21
On Jul 9, 4:23 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote:
>


Sigh! It's like trying to teach chess to a troop of chimpanzees.

They just jump up and down and screech at each other and eat the
pieces, not to mention the less modest activities.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Painius on 10 Jul 2010 04:01
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rloldershaw(a)amherst.edu> wrote...
in message
news:d01374be-be61-46cb-a8d3-4f8cbc7ac754(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 9, 4:23 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote:
>

Sigh! It's like trying to teach chess to a troop of chimpanzees.

They just jump up and down and screech at each other and eat the
pieces, not to mention the less modest activities.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A

Very sad, because i was following what you were writing.
No more. Bye now.

happy new days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: "Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities.
Truth isn't." > Mark Twain

P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Impossible Variable Star Curves Predicted by BaTh.
Next: Speed of Light in Dark Water