Discrete Scale Relativity Beats QED on New Proton Radius Test
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Eureka! Why time travel is possible
Next: (rev 1.5) First Correct Human Rights Declaration - ARTICLE TWO and Preamble - {HRD-02 20100102-V1.5}
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 8 Jul 2010 00:50 Read the latest issue of Nature [8 July 2010]. A new very high precision measurement of the proton radius is 5-sigma lower than QED-based expectations. QED-based value is 0.877 to 0.9 fermi New measurement indicates that the proton radius is 0.84 fermi. Decades ago Discrete Scale Relativity predicted that the proton radius would equal about 0.81 fermi, based on the Schwarzschild metric and the corrected value of G. Going to the more realistic Kerr-Newman metric gives a slightly higher value of 0.814 fermi. http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv6i22p167.pdf So on the proton radius test, Discrete Scale Relativity not only competes well with QED, it actually beats QED and gives a more accurate prediction. Want to see a whole new way to understand the cosmos? Want to enter the 21st century? RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 8 Jul 2010 13:41 On Jul 8, 4:11 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > woof, woof, woof, woof, woof,woof,woof,woof,woof,woof,woof,... ---------------------------------------------------------- Sigh! The QED-based values are high by about by 4.8%. Discrete Scale Relativity's value is low by 3.6%. DSR beats QED for this particular test. Right, Woofster? RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Sam Wormley on 8 Jul 2010 18:24 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?
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 9 Jul 2010 00:17 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
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. |