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 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
From: eric gisse on 1 Jun 2010 02:07
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > 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 Still numerology. You scale the numbers to whatever you think works, and make arbitrary choices of parameters. You even have the case where several of your n's 'correspond' to entirely different particles. You are not doing physics, no matter how hard you've tried to convince yourself that you are. There's a reason you are posting here instead of giving lectures, publishing articles, and going to conferences. |