Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 22 Apr 2010 18:49 dlzc wrote: > On Apr 22, 12:53 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > wrote: >> On Apr 22, 3:13 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >> >http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102285 >> > ... refuted by Gliese 581, Gleise 876, 2M1207, OGLE-2005-BLG-390L, > http://www.planetary.org/exoplanets/notable.php >> >> ------------------------------- >> >> If you read the paper a little more carefully, >> you will understand that the existing data do >> not "refute" the prediction. > > Yes, these observations *do* refute it. > >>Rather the existing empirical data strongly >> support the prediction of anomalously few >> planetary systems for stars wih masses below >> 0.4 solar masses, i.e., in the mass range >> 0.1 to 0.4 solar masses. > > Four danged planets on one star. 1 star alone, nearly 1% of the > detected planets. > > Add to this, the difficulties in observing dimmer parent stars... > >> Attention to details is required in >> scientific research. > > Yes. Will you? > > Will you at least stop spamming, and contribute to the conversations? > Or *must* you act like Ernest Wittke (aka. EinsteinHoax)? Does that pile of phlegm still post? Regular expressions cured the visibility of his stupidity ages ago. > > David A. Smith
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 22 Apr 2010 18:58 On Apr 22, 4:13 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > Four danged planets on one star. 1 star alone, nearly 1% of the > detected planets. > > Add to this, the difficulties in observing dimmer parent stars... > > David A. Smith --------------------------------------------------- I only discuss science with people who have both oars in the water. Good Luck
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 25 Apr 2010 08:09 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:15:50 -0700: > At sci.physics.research, theoretical physicist AN commented: > > "Because the proton is so much bigger, it makes a much better target > than an electron. The proton charge radius is known experimentally, but > cannot at present be derived from the standard model. " > > Although the "standard model" cannot "at present" be used to derive a > definitive value for the proton charge radius, there is a new > cosmological paradigm called the Discrete Self-Similar Cosmological > Paradigm that has already derived the proton's charge radius from first > principles. Just to give the CONTEXT. Jonathan Thornburg asked in spr: >>> In another thread, Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier(a)univie.ac.at> wrote: >>>> The proton charge radius is known experimentally, but >>>> cannot at present be derived from the standard model. >>> >>> Is our inability to compute a standard-model prediction of the proton >>> charge radius a *computational* limit, i.e., is it the case that we >>> know an algorithm (possibly involving lattice QCD) which we think >>> should give the standard-model prediction for the proton charge radius, >>> but we don't have big/fast enough computers to do the calculation in >>> a reasonable amount of time? And AN replied: >> Yes, and with lattice QCD we perhaps never will have, since it scales >> very poorly with increasing the lattice size. However, recent computations using lattice QCD give the proton mass at better than 4% accuracy. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 25 Apr 2010 14:48 On Apr 25, 8:09 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > > >> Yes, and with lattice QCD we perhaps never will have, since it scales > >> very poorly with increasing the lattice size. > > However, recent computations using lattice QCD give the proton mass at > better than 4% accuracy. > ------------------------------------------ Watch how easy this is. R(proton) = 2G'm/c^2 = 0.8 x 10^-13 cm m = mass of proton G' = 2.18 x 10^31 cm^3/g sec^2 rationale for G' is eplained at: http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0701/0701006.pdf This retrodiction is based on a Schwarzschild approximation. For a more accurate retrodiction of R(proton) using the full Kerr- Newman solution, see the linked paper. It's a discrete fractal world, my friends. Open your eyes! Best, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: BURT on 25 Apr 2010 16:16
On Apr 25, 11:48 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Apr 25, 8:09 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez<nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > > > >> Yes, and with lattice QCD we perhaps never will have, since it scales > > >> very poorly with increasing the lattice size. > > > However, recent computations using lattice QCD give the proton mass at > > better than 4% accuracy. > > ------------------------------------------ > > Watch how easy this is. > > R(proton) = 2G'm/c^2 = 0.8 x 10^-13 cm > > m = mass of proton > G' = 2.18 x 10^31 cm^3/g sec^2 > rationale for G' is eplained at:http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0701/0701006.pdf > > This retrodiction is based on a Schwarzschild approximation. > > For a more accurate retrodiction of R(proton) using the full Kerr- > Newman solution, see the linked paper. > > It's a discrete fractal world, my friends. Open your eyes! > > Best, > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw The proton is a tripple point particle. It is an infinitely small form made of three point quarks. Mitch Raemsch |