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: Robert L. Oldershaw on 31 May 2010 12:46 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. (2) Do you know how many spectral lines there are in the spectrum of even a relatively simple atom? 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. (3) Here is a simple test to separate the scientists from the posers. 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? RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Greg Neill on 31 May 2010 12:51 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. Then do so. > > (2) Do you know how many spectral lines there are in the spectrum of > even a relatively simple atom? 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. And *all* of those lines are observed. Where are the particles matching all the possible lines that your formula predicts? > > Your problem is with nature, which you do not understand, not my mass > formula. Nature is what it is. I don't think anyone has a problem with that. *Your* problem is that you think numerology is physics, or that you've somehow convinced yourself that what you're doing isn't numerology when it plainly is. > > (3) Here is a simple test to separate the scientists from the posers. > 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? And this addresses *your* numerology how? Chaning the subject does not an argument make.
From: Tom Roberts on 31 May 2010 13:04 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > Have the spins of the elementary particles we are talking about been > measured empirically, or are they assigned theoretically? For all unstable mesons and baryons, the spins are measured empirically, by looking at the types and distributions of their decay products. For stable particles, spins are deduced from measurements of their magnetic moments. The PDG reports measured quantities, and give references to the measurements. Tom Roberts
From: Jerry on 31 May 2010 14:14 On May 31, 11:46 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> 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. Lambda j = 3/2 a = 5/7 99.0% Sigma j = 3/2 a = 5/8 99.6% Xi(1320) j = 3/2 a = 1/2 99.2% Xi(1535) j = 3/2 a = 3/8 99.97% Omega(-) j = 4/2 a = 2/5 99.85% tau j = 1/2 a = 1/8 99.96% Why can a equal 1/8, 3/8, 4/8, 5/8 but not 2/8, 6/8, 7/8? Why can a equal 2/5 but not 1/5, 3/5, 4/5? Why can a equal 5/7 but not 1/7, 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, 6/7? Why is 6 not an allowed denominator for a so that you don't have 1/6, 2/6, 4/6, 5/6? Why can j = 1/2, 3/2, 4/2 but not 2/2? > (2) Do you know how many spectral lines there are in the spectrum of > even a relatively simple atom? 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. The Rydberg formula, which paved the way towards the Bohr atom, matched the wavelengths of the hydrogen spectrum almost exactly. Your formula makes a scattershot set of predictions for particle masses. Most of the predicted masses are unobserved, and the few matches are only approximate, no better than could be fit by a random mass spectrum. > Your problem is with nature, which you do not understand, not my mass > formula. > > (3) Here is a simple test to separate the scientists from the posers. > 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? Don't try to squirm out of your dilemma by changing the subject. Jerry
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 |