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 25 May 2010 00:36 On May 24, 11:28 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On May 23, 3:53 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" > > > 10 of 10 mass/stability peaks retrodicted SPOT-ON! > > > Average relative agreement is 99.6% > > From what I can see, you are using the following selection rules: > > j = k/2 where k = 1,2,3,4 > a = m/n where n = 5,7,8 and m = 1..n > > This defines a 72 line mass spectrum between 627.972 MeV and > 1776.17 MeV, which you then compare with measured particle > masses. > > Shall I suggest a simpler spectrum which yields equally good > results? Have you ever heard of a geometric series? > > M = 627.972 r^n where r = (1776.17/627.972)^(1/72) > and n = 0..72 > > Let us compare with a few actual particle masses: > > M n retrodiction Accuracy > rho 770 14 768.67 99.82% > omega 783 15 779.85 99.60% > p+ 938.27 28 940.89 99.72% > n 939.57 28 940.89 99.85% > eta' 957.75 29 954.58 99.66% > Lambda0 1115.68 40 1118.92 99.71% > Sigma1 1192 44 1185.45 99.45% > Xi0 1320 51 1311.55 99.36% > N 1440 57 1430.03 99.30% > Omega- 1672.45 68 1676.48 99.76% > > Average relative agreement is 99.62% ----------------------------------------- That is fairly impressive, but if use use 2 adjustable constants and a power law with an adjustable exponent, you can get anything you want. My revised Planck mass has a sound theoretical derivation, is based on empirical data, and has been verified by independent tests. I do not need or use any subjectively and arbitrarily adjustable constants. I think you need to take a look at the new graph/data/mass equation. I am not using (sqrt n) anymore. I'm using a far more valid mass equation, from a physics point of view. Send me an email and I will reply with an attachment containing what you need for a more informed evaluation. That goes for you lurkers too. Free; no risk; no tricks. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Jerry on 25 May 2010 00:53 On May 24, 11:36 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On May 24, 11:28 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > On May 23, 3:53 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" > > > > 10 of 10 mass/stability peaks retrodicted SPOT-ON! > > > > Average relative agreement is 99.6% > > > From what I can see, you are using the following selection rules: > > > j = k/2 where k = 1,2,3,4 > > a = m/n where n = 5,7,8 and m = 1..n > > > This defines a 72 line mass spectrum between 627.972 MeV and > > 1776.17 MeV, which you then compare with measured particle > > masses. > > > Shall I suggest a simpler spectrum which yields equally good > > results? Have you ever heard of a geometric series? > > > M = 627.972 r^n where r = (1776.17/627.972)^(1/72) > > and n = 0..72 > > > Let us compare with a few actual particle masses: > > > M n retrodiction Accuracy > > rho 770 14 768.67 99.82% > > omega 783 15 779.85 99.60% > > p+ 938.27 28 940.89 99.72% > > n 939.57 28 940.89 99.85% > > eta' 957.75 29 954.58 99.66% > > Lambda0 1115.68 40 1118.92 99.71% > > Sigma1 1192 44 1185.45 99.45% > > Xi0 1320 51 1311.55 99.36% > > N 1440 57 1430.03 99.30% > > Omega- 1672.45 68 1676.48 99.76% > > > Average relative agreement is 99.62% > > ----------------------------------------- > > That is fairly impressive, but if use use 2 adjustable constants and a > power law with an adjustable exponent, you can get anything you > want. > > My revised Planck mass has a sound theoretical derivation, is based on > empirical data, and has been verified by independent tests. I do not > need or use any subjectively and arbitrarily adjustable constants. Uh, say that again??? You are a pot calling the kettle black. So far I can see, your selection coefficients are totally arbitrary. ANY mass spectrum with similar spacing is capable of fitting particle masses to the same accuracy. Goodbye again. Jerry
From: eric gisse on 25 May 2010 01:36 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On May 24, 11:28 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> On May 23, 3:53 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" > >> > 10 of 10 mass/stability peaks retrodicted SPOT-ON! >> >> > Average relative agreement is 99.6% >> >> From what I can see, you are using the following selection rules: >> >> j = k/2 where k = 1,2,3,4 >> a = m/n where n = 5,7,8 and m = 1..n >> >> This defines a 72 line mass spectrum between 627.972 MeV and >> 1776.17 MeV, which you then compare with measured particle >> masses. >> >> Shall I suggest a simpler spectrum which yields equally good >> results? Have you ever heard of a geometric series? >> >> M = 627.972 r^n where r = (1776.17/627.972)^(1/72) >> and n = 0..72 >> >> Let us compare with a few actual particle masses: >> >> M n retrodiction Accuracy >> rho 770 14 768.67 99.82% >> omega 783 15 779.85 99.60% >> p+ 938.27 28 940.89 99.72% >> n 939.57 28 940.89 99.85% >> eta' 957.75 29 954.58 99.66% >> Lambda0 1115.68 40 1118.92 99.71% >> Sigma1 1192 44 1185.45 99.45% >> Xi0 1320 51 1311.55 99.36% >> N 1440 57 1430.03 99.30% >> Omega- 1672.45 68 1676.48 99.76% >> >> Average relative agreement is 99.62% > ----------------------------------------- > > That is fairly impressive, but if use use 2 adjustable constants and a > power law with an adjustable exponent, you can get anything you > want. Yeah Robert, that's called 'numerology'. > > My revised Planck mass has a sound theoretical derivation, is based on > empirical data, and has been verified by independent tests. I do not > need or use any subjectively and arbitrarily adjustable constants. > > I think you need to take a look at the new graph/data/mass equation. > > I am not using (sqrt n) anymore. I'm using a far more valid mass > equation, from a physics point of view. > > Send me an email and I will reply with an attachment containing what > you need for a more informed evaluation. Does anyone even bother? > > That goes for you lurkers too. > > Free; no risk; no tricks. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 25 May 2010 12:48 On May 25, 1:36 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > wooph, wooph, wooph, wooph, ... ------------------------------------------- Are there any intelligent lurkers out there? Or is it 'Barking Dogs All The Way Down'?
From: Jerry on 26 May 2010 00:25
On May 24, 11:36 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > That is fairly impressive, but if use use 2 adjustable constants and a > power law with an adjustable exponent, you can get anything you > want. How about pseudo-random distributions of 72 mass spectrum lines between 627.972 and 1776.17 MeV? To repeat what I stated earlier: From what I can see, you are using the following selection rules: j = k/2 where k = 1,2,3,4 a = m/n where n = 5,7,8 and m = 1..n With the above, you effectively define a 72 line mass spectrum between 627.972 MeV and 1776.17 MeV I wrote a simple C# program to generate various pseudo-random 72 line mass spectra between 627.972 MeV and 1776.17 MeV. The source code is given. 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 static void Main(string[] args) { string pi = "3141592653589793238462643383279502884" + "197169399375105820974944592307816406286" + "208998628034825342117067982148086513282" + "306647093844609550582231725359408128481" + "117450284102701938521105559644622948954" + "930381964428810975665933446128475648233" + "786783165271201909145648566923460348610" + "454326648213393607260249141273724587006" + "606315588174881520920962829254091715364" + "367892590360011330530548820466521384146" ; string e = "27182818284590452353602874713526624977" + "57247093699959574966967627724076630353" + "54759457138217852516642742746639193200" + "3059921817413596629043572900334295260" + "59563073813232862794349076323382988075" + "3195251019011573834187930702154089149" + "93488416750924476146066808226480016847" + "7411853742345442437107539077744992069" + "55170276183860626133138458300075204493" + "3826560297606737113200709328709127443"; string phi = "16180339887498948482045868343656381177" + "2030917980576286213544862270526046281890" + "2449707207204189391137484754088075386891" + "75212663386222353693179318006076672635" + "4433389086595939582905638322661319928290" + "26788067520876689250171169620703222104" + "32162695486262963136144381497587012203" + "4080588795445474924618569536486444924104" + "4320771344947049565846788509874339442212" + "54487706647809158846074998871240076521"; DoParticleMassFits("Using digits of pi as random source", pi); DoParticleMassFits("Using digits of e as random source", e); DoParticleMassFits("Using digits of phi as random source",phi); } static void DoParticleMassFits(string caption, string source) { double[] spectrum = new double[72]; System.Console.WriteLine(caption); GenerateSpectrum(ref spectrum, 627.972, 1776.17, source); System.Console.WriteLine ("particle mass n retrodict accuracy"); PerformFit(spectrum, "rho", 770); PerformFit(spectrum, "omega", 783); PerformFit(spectrum, "p+", 938.27); PerformFit(spectrum, "n", 939.57); PerformFit(spectrum, "eta'", 957.75); PerformFit(spectrum, "lambda0", 1115.68); PerformFit(spectrum, "Sigma1", 1192); PerformFit(spectrum, "Xi0", 1320); PerformFit(spectrum, "N", 1440); PerformFit(spectrum, "Omega-", 1672.45); System.Console.WriteLine(); } static void GenerateSpectrum(ref double[] spectrum, double lbound, double hbound, string source) { int length = spectrum.Length; for (int i = 0; i < length; ++i) { spectrum[i] = lbound + double.Parse("." + source.Substring(4*i, 4)) * (hbound - lbound); } Array.Sort(spectrum); } static void PerformFit(double[] spectrum, string particleName, double particleMass) { double retrodictedMass = 0; double accuracy = 0; int n = 0; for (int i = 0; i < spectrum.Length; ++i) { if (particleMass >= spectrum[i] && particleMass <= spectrum[i + 1]) { if (particleMass - spectrum[i] < spectrum[i + 1] - particleMass) { n = i; retrodictedMass = spectrum[i]; accuracy = 100 * spectrum[i] / particleMass; } else { n = i + 1; retrodictedMass = spectrum[i + 1]; accuracy = 100 * particleMass / spectrum[i + 1]; } } } string output = String.Format ("{0,-10} {1,8:0.00} {2:00} {3,8:0.00} {4,6:0.00}", particleName, particleMass, n, retrodictedMass, accuracy); System.Console.WriteLine(output); } |