Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6% level
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 31 May 2010 16:19 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On May 31, 1:20 am, jerry + eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> woophums, woophums, woophums,.... > -------------------------------- > > (1) I can explain all parameters that I use. They are not arbitrarily > chosen to reproduce the data. We're waiting. > > (2) Do you know how many spectral lines there are in the spectrum of > even a relatively simple atom? How big is infinity? > The stable nuclei and their isotopes > form a very large set of closely mass peaks differing by the > relatively small difference of 1 nucleon mass. > > Your problem is with nature, which you do not understand, not my mass > formula. My understanding of nature, while limited, is significantly better than yours. > > (3) Here is a simple test to separate the scientists from the posers. I wonder what makes you think you are a scientist... > Have the spins of the elementary particles we are talking about been > measured empirically, or are they assigned theoretically? How about a > straight answer without the usual hand-waving? Um, yes, they have all been measured. I am baffled that you even ask. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 31 May 2010 23:52 On May 31, 12:51 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > (1) I can explain all parameters that I use. They are not arbitrarily > > chosen to reproduce the data. > > Then do so. ------------------------------- http://journalofcosmology.com/OldershawRobert.pdf
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 1 Jun 2010 00:04 On May 31, 1:04 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > For all unstable mesons and baryons, the spins are measured empirically, by > looking at the types and distributions of their decay products. ------------------------------------------------- Right, so the spin is inferred from other phenomena and requires numerous theoretical assumptions. No direct spin measuremnets. > > For stable particles, spins are deduced from measurements of their magnetic moments. ---------------------------------------- Right, so the spin is inferred from other phenomena and requires numerous theoretical assumptions. No direct spin measuremnets. I can show you the latest review article on the subject of the spin of the free electron. Conclusion: it HAS NEVER BEEN DIRECTLY MEASURED. Many physicists will say it has been empirically measured, but the expert in the field says that is FALSE. It is hoped that technical problems previously preventing a direct measurement of the spin of the free electron will be solved within 1-10 years. Hope this helps to clarify your thinking. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Greg Neill on 1 Jun 2010 00:11 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On May 31, 1:04 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> For all unstable mesons and baryons, the spins are measured empirically, by >> looking at the types and distributions of their decay products. > ------------------------------------------------- > > Right, so the spin is inferred from other phenomena and requires > numerous theoretical assumptions. No direct spin measuremnets. So, you're challenging the basic conservation laws, and Noether's theorem.
From: eric gisse on 1 Jun 2010 01:56
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On May 31, 1:04 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> For all unstable mesons and baryons, the spins are measured empirically, >> by looking at the types and distributions of their decay products. > ------------------------------------------------- > > Right, so the spin is inferred from other phenomena and requires > numerous theoretical assumptions. No direct spin measuremnets. Oh no, yet another untutored layman takes umbrage with how science is done! > >> >> For stable particles, spins are deduced from measurements of their >> magnetic moments. > ---------------------------------------- > > Right, so the spin is inferred from other phenomena and requires > numerous theoretical assumptions. No direct spin measuremnets. Stern-Gerlach, fine structure in atomic spectra, Zeeman splitting, nuclear resonance... That NMR and MRI machines work should tell you something about our knowledge of the spin of elementary particles. > > I can show you the latest review article on the subject of the spin of > the free electron. Conclusion: it HAS NEVER BEEN DIRECTLY MEASURED. You could but you won't, because it won't say what you want it to say. > > Many physicists will say it has been empirically measured, but the > expert in the field says that is FALSE. Who might this expert be, and what are his credentials? I somewhat suspect the 'expert' is a guy with a web page who says something that makes sense to you and nothing else. > It is hoped that technical > problems previously preventing a direct measurement of the spin of the > free electron will be solved within 1-10 years. Wow, one to ten years? That's a pretty wide time frame. Do you even know what the 'technical problems' are? I wonder what problem you think measuring the spin of a free electron solves. > > Hope this helps to clarify your thinking. > > A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. As evidenced by people like yourself who think they have absolute command of physics because they read a few coffee table books many years ago. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |