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 1 Jun 2010 15:19 On Jun 1, 12:11 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > So, you're challenging the basic conservation laws, > and Noether's theorem. ----------------------------------- Somebody might reasonably ask: "Don't we already understand the subatomic particle masses? Doesn't the Standard Model, and specifically QCD, already provide a thorough explanation for the particle masses?" I will let Richard Feynman answer that important question. 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 Read that quotation carefuly several times. It was written in about 1988, but there has been no improvement in the situation in spite of all the hype surrounding "string theory", supersymmetry, QCD, and any number of other hermetic gambits. This is why a retrodiction of the particle mass spectrum, if it is based on sound physics, albeit necessarily a radical departure from past failures, is so important. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 1 Jun 2010 15:27 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
From: Greg Neill on 1 Jun 2010 15:31 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 1, 12:11 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: >> >> So, you're challenging the basic conservation laws, >> and Noether's theorem. > ----------------------------------- > > Somebody might reasonably ask: "Don't we already understand the > subatomic particle masses? Doesn't the Standard Model, and > specifically QCD, already provide a thorough explanation for the > particle masses?" > > I will let Richard Feynman answer that important question. > > �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 > > Read that quotation carefuly several times. It was written in about > 1988, but there has been no improvement in the situation in spite of > all the hype surrounding "string theory", supersymmetry, QCD, and any > number of other hermetic gambits. > > This is why a retrodiction of the particle mass spectrum, if it is > based on sound physics, albeit necessarily a radical departure from > past failures, is so important. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw You changed the subject. What's the above got to do with the empirical measurement of particle properties such as spin?
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. |