Prev: Online survey jobs & data entry jobs
Next: Why is the square of the universal speed limit the amount of energy?
From: leucipo2001 on 6 May 2010 19:37
On 6 mayo, 05:35, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu>
wrote:
> On May 5, 8:11 pm, leucipo2001 <al.riv...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > stability againstmass? :-DDDDDDDDD
>
> ---------------------------
>
> Have you seen a copy of the graph,

Your version? It is not available on the net, I have not seen it.

The graph itself? I have been looking at it for years. It is on my
webpage, it is in my preprints at arxiv, and I have worked it, with
error bars, scales, partial widths, and all the jazz.

I strongly suggest to separate your set on grounds of the main decay
mechanism: electromagnetic, electroweak, or strong.

If you have failed to find the power laws for electroweak and for
electromagnetic, you have not looked at the graph time enough. Note
that nobody has. MacGregor did look masses and he did look decays, but
separately.


> and the explanation of it, and the derivation of themassequation?

http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/newdevyear/2010/Jan.htm and
similar? I find it unconvincing, sorry to tell.

But it is good if you get people to look at decay widths in a global
way.

Alejandro


From: leucipo2001 on 6 May 2010 19:50
On 7 mayo, 01:37, leucipo2001 <al.riv...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 mayo, 05:35, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 8:11 pm, leucipo2001 <al.riv...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > stability againstmass? :-DDDDDDDDD
>
> > ---------------------------
>
> > Have you seen a copy of the graph,
>
> Your version? It is not available on the net, I have not seen it.
>
> The graph itself? I have been looking at it for years. It is on my
> webpage, it is in my preprints at arxiv, and I have worked it, with
> error bars, scales, partial widths, and all the jazz.
>
> I strongly suggest to separate your set on grounds of the main decay
> mechanism: electromagnetic, electroweak, or strong.
>
> If you have failed to find the power laws for electroweak and for
> electromagnetic, you have not looked at the graph time enough. Note
> that nobody has. MacGregor did look masses and he did look decays, but
> separately.
>
> > and the explanation of it, and the  derivation of themassequation?
>
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/newdevyear/2010/Jan.htmand
> similar? I find it unconvincing, sorry to tell.
>
> But it is good if you get people to look at decay widths in a global
> way.
>
> Alejandro

I already told you of the links

http://dftuz.unizar.es/~rivero/research/nonstrong.jpg
and
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2006/09/14/a-mistery-behind-the-z-width/
which contains detailed instructions to produce the plot from the data
in
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/html/computer_read.html or
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/html/computer_read.html

Now, let me tell you of another two versions of the plot appearing in
my preprints
It is figure 1 of http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0507144
and it is figure 1 of http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0603145

There is a third version lost somewhere as an atachment in
physicsforum, where I plot as reference the full decay width of a
single quark (say, the top) as a funtion of its mass. Of course this
decay width shows a transition across the value of the mass of the W
particle, and then its dependency changes from quintic to cubic.

I hope to hear your opinion of the whole scenary.

Cheers,

Alejandro Rivero
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 6 May 2010 22:08
On May 6, 7:50 pm, leucipo2001 <al.riv...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> I hope to hear your opinion of the whole scenary.
>
----------------------------

Ok, I have sent you the graph.

Explaining the particle widths is of interest, but it is far more
important to get some understanding of the distinct pattern of the
particle masses.

Quarks are Ptolemaic, model-building, fictions.

I know the secret of the mass spectrum.

Best,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

From: leucipo2001 on 7 May 2010 04:29
On 7 mayo, 04:08, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu>
wrote:

> Ok, I have sent you the graph.

Saw it. I ack that it IS an histogram :-) Still, the electroweak-
decaying particles (ie beta decay) are orders of magnitude more stable
than the rest, so your plot will basically add the number of beta
decaying particles in each bin, then at a smaller scale the
electromagnetic (two photons) disintegrations, and then only at the
smallest scale the huge quantity of strongly decaying particles and
resonances.

> Explaining the particle widths is of interest, but it is far more
> important to get some understanding of the distinct pattern of the
> particle masses.

Yes but you plot particle widths, it is amusing that you plot it if
you are not interested on them. The idea of doing a bin of the decays,
adding them, could be aimed to discover some "metaparticle" so that
all the known particles are really decays of this meta-thing. But it
seems, to me, "cargo science" in its more pure form (cloning the
external ways of known methods without really using or even
understanding them). As I have hinted you, the only thing you see in
your bin is the location of the most stable particles, and these
locations are already refined enough so that a histogram is not the
right tool.

I myself used a bin to count the number of known beta-rays in the
*nuclear* spectrum. This histogram has two features: a) it raises at
81 GeV and b) it follows very well the pattern of fission products
from Uranium. So it is a lot more likely, lacking some neutral way to
count the total rays in a bin and not only the discovered ones, that
'b' is the total explanation and 'a' is just a coincidence. But even
in this case the science is more realistic, all the objects in the bin
being of the same kind (high energy electron).

>
> Quarks are Ptolemaic, model-building, fictions.
>
> I know the secret of the mass spectrum.
>

You are dishonest with yourself, then. Your fractions in the
"quantisation" are strong indications of ad-hoc fitting, the way you
will not let a "good idea" to be ruined by experimental evidence.

Of course the subatomic particles could be different states of a
single entity. This is only a multi-character, multi-word way to say
that they are a thing.

> Best,
> RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Online survey jobs & data entry jobs
Next: Why is the square of the universal speed limit the amount of energy?