Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6% level
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Light is the unified form of the universe
Next: More problems for Cold Dark Matter theory, Milky Way doesn't fit model
From: Jerry on 30 May 2010 17:45 On May 30, 4:24 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On May 28, 5:31 pm, e. pisser and spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > wooph, wooph, wooph,... > > --------------------------------- > > You can tell a great deal about a poster from the tone and content of > the writing. > > Indications of deep-seated anger usually indicate that the person is > thinking emotionally, rather than rationally, and that there is a high > probability of bias. > > A sense of humor is a good sign. > > Relentless negativity is a sign of insecurity. I take it that you don't believe the following to be absolutely HILARIOUS. Using digits of pi as pseudo-random source particle mass n retrodict accuracy rho 770.00 08 775.40 99.30 omega 783.00 09 775.40 99.03 p+ 938.27 20 948.89 98.88 n 939.57 20 948.89 99.02 eta' 957.75 22 954.18 99.63 lambda0 1115.68 29 1111.48 99.62 Sigma1 1192.00 32 1190.01 99.83 Xi0 1320.00 42 1328.83 99.34 N 1440.00 50 1439.40 99.96 Omega- 1672.45 64 1702.69 98.22 Using digits of e as pseudo-random source particle mass n retrodict accuracy rho 770.00 08 760.82 98.81 omega 783.00 09 779.88 99.60 p+ 938.27 22 940.05 99.81 n 939.57 22 940.05 99.95 eta' 957.75 25 956.59 99.88 lambda0 1115.68 31 1114.12 99.86 Sigma1 1192.00 38 1191.39 99.95 Xi0 1320.00 47 1320.11 99.99 N 1440.00 55 1459.27 98.68 Omega- 1672.45 66 1666.52 99.65 Using digits of phi as pseudo-random source particle mass n retrodict accuracy rho 770.00 06 758.52 98.51 omega 783.00 06 758.52 96.87 p+ 938.27 16 935.46 99.70 n 939.57 16 935.46 99.56 eta' 957.75 17 951.53 99.35 lambda0 1115.68 27 1131.00 98.65 Sigma1 1192.00 30 1198.63 99.45 Xi0 1320.00 39 1322.17 99.84 N 1440.00 46 1437.68 99.84 Omega- 1672.45 63 1664.11 99.50 Using digits of sqrt(2) as pseudo-random source particle mass n retrodict accuracy rho 770.00 11 786.88 97.85 omega 783.00 11 786.88 99.51 p+ 938.27 24 945.33 99.25 n 939.57 24 945.33 99.39 eta' 957.75 24 945.33 98.70 lambda0 1115.68 31 1122.62 99.38 Sigma1 1192.00 33 1193.34 99.89 Xi0 1320.00 41 1308.51 99.13 N 1440.00 47 1432.86 99.50 Omega- 1672.45 61 1675.36 99.83 Using arithmetic series as source particle mass n retrodict accuracy rho 770.00 09 771.50 99.81 omega 783.00 10 787.44 99.44 p+ 938.27 19 930.97 99.22 n 939.57 20 946.92 99.22 eta' 957.75 21 962.86 99.47 lambda0 1115.68 31 1122.34 99.41 Sigma1 1192.00 35 1186.12 99.51 Xi0 1320.00 43 1313.70 99.52 N 1440.00 51 1441.28 99.91 Omega- 1672.45 65 1664.54 99.53 Using geometric series as source particle mass n retrodict accuracy rho 770.00 14 768.67 99.83 omega 783.00 15 779.85 99.60 p+ 938.27 28 940.89 99.72 n 939.57 28 940.89 99.86 eta' 957.75 29 954.58 99.67 lambda0 1115.68 40 1118.92 99.71 Sigma1 1192.00 44 1185.45 99.45 Xi0 1320.00 51 1311.55 99.36 N 1440.00 57 1430.25 99.32 Omega- 1672.45 68 1676.48 99.76 Jerry
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 30 May 2010 22:49 On May 30, 5:45 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: But we have already established that if you use a power law with multiple arbitrarily adjustable constants, then you can reproduce lots of patterns that have a discrete regular structure. This is called numerology. The important item that you seem to be overlooking is that the pile of squat in your most recent post is based on such numerology. If you have some justification for the apparently arbitrary n-values you resort to, then please tell about it. I will bet the farm that there is at least one other constant in your "analysis" that you cannot justify in terms of YOUR physics. Bottom line: if you cannot justify the parameters in your equations, as in the case of the substandard paradigm with its 30 parameters that have to be "put in by hand", and as in the case of your piles of squat, then you have Ptolemaic model-building at best, and crude numerology at worst. Can you see the difference between your numerology and my physics? RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: eric gisse on 30 May 2010 23:01 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On May 30, 5:45 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > But we have already established that if you use a power law with > multiple arbitrarily adjustable constants, then you can reproduce lots > of patterns that have a discrete regular structure. This is called > numerology. > > The important item that you seem to be overlooking is that the pile of > squat in your most recent post is based on such numerology. If you > have some justification for the apparently arbitrary n-values you > resort to, then please tell about it. I will bet the farm that there > is at least one other constant in your "analysis" that you cannot > justify in terms of YOUR physics. > > Bottom line: if you cannot justify the parameters in your equations, > as in the case of the substandard paradigm with its 30 parameters that > have to be "put in by hand", and as in the case of your piles of > squat, then you have Ptolemaic model-building at best, and crude > numerology at worst. > > Can you see the difference between your numerology and my physics? Since you can't justify your numbers or show how your generating equation was derived, there is no difference. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Jerry on 31 May 2010 00:37 On May 30, 9:49 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On May 30, 5:45 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > But we have already established that if you use a power law with > multiple arbitrarily adjustable constants, then you can reproduce lots > of patterns that have a discrete regular structure. This is called > numerology. > > The important item that you seem to be overlooking is that the pile of > squat in your most recent post is based on such numerology. If you > have some justification for the apparently arbitrary n-values you > resort to, then please tell about it. I will bet the farm that there > is at least one other constant in your "analysis" that you cannot > justify in terms of YOUR physics. > > Bottom line: if you cannot justify the parameters in your equations, > as in the case of the substandard paradigm with its 30 parameters that > have to be "put in by hand", and as in the case of your piles of > squat, then you have Ptolemaic model-building at best, and crude > numerology at worst. > > Can you see the difference between your numerology and my physics? What physics? All you've produced is a generating function whose output is a dense mass spectrum with closely spaced lines. You can match ANY mass in the range of your generating function to a precision equal to the local line spacing. Look at the values that you allow yourself in your formula. j can apparently acquire ANY value from 1/2, 2/2, 3/2, 4/2 a can apparently acquire ANY value m/n where n=5,7,8 and m <= n If you work it out, this implies a mass spectrum whose range comprises 72 closely spaced lines. This implies that the average precision with which a mass will be matched in the range from m_min to m_max will be (m_max/m_min)^(1/72)/2 which basically explains your 99.6% precision at retrodiction. I've demonstrated that -random- mass spectra fit the data just as well as your formula. Less than 15% of the masses predicted by your formula correspond to an actual particle. 85%+ correspond to nothing. What good are predictions that are 85% wrong? You've aimed a shotgun at your target, and you imagine yourself to be a marksman because several pellets managed to hit the bullseye. Jerry
From: eric gisse on 31 May 2010 01:20
Jerry wrote: [...] > You've aimed a shotgun at your target, and you imagine yourself to > be a marksman because several pellets managed to hit the bullseye. > > Jerry I once put an arrow within an arrow with a compound bow at about 30 yards. The problem was that I did it a foot off center. |