Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6% level
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 1 Jun 2010 18:44 On Jun 1, 3:31 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > You changed the subject. What's the above got to do with > the empirical measurement of particle properties such as > spin ------------------------------------------- In my opinion, everything. Here, try again: There remains one especially unsatisfactory feature [of the Standard Model of particle physics]: the observed masses of the particles, m. There is no theory that adequately explains these numbers. We use the numbers in all our theories, but we do not understand them what they are, or where they come from. I believe that from a fundamental point of view, this is a very interesting and serious problem. Richard Feynman And, by the way, if you are going to talk about spin, you might want to read this paper: B. M. Garraway and S. Stenholm (Contemporary Physics, vol. 43, no. 3, pgs. 147-160, 2002). Dare to question dogma, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Greg Neill on 1 Jun 2010 19:26 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 1, 3:31 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: >> >> You changed the subject. What's the above got to do with >> the empirical measurement of particle properties such as >> spin? > ------------------------------------------- > > In my opinion, everything. An opinion is not an explanation. To all appearances, you're simply obfuscating.
From: eric gisse on 1 Jun 2010 20:17 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 1, 7:22 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > 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 was a thoughtful professional physicist writing a review of the > subject that was requested by the editor of the peer-reviewed physics > journal Contemporary Physics. > > Woof-on, Woofy If you don't like the attention, you should stop posting. Or at least act like an adult that isn't fucked in the head.
From: eric gisse on 1 Jun 2010 20:18 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: [...] > Dare to question dogma, > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw So Robert, what is your education in physics? My reference of NMR & Stern-Gerlach seems to have gone right over your head, so I suspect 'not a hell of a lot'.
From: Jerry on 1 Jun 2010 20:33
On Jun 1, 2:27 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jun 1, 7:22 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > 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 was a thoughtful professional physicist writing a review of the > subject that was requested by the editor of the peer-reviewed physics > journal Contemporary Physics. > > Woof-on, Woofy BZZZZT!!! Many physicists will say it has been empirically measured, but the expert in the field says that is FALSE. INCONSISTENCY!!!!!! You first called the person who made the statement "the expert in the field" and now you claim it was an anonymous peer reviewer??? Shall I conclude that you are blatantly lying??? Jerry |