Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 25 Apr 2010 21:30 On Apr 25, 4:16 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > The proton is a tripple point particle. It is an infinitely small form > made of three point quarks. ----------------------------------- Can you explain the proton's mass or radius quantitatively? Or do you deal in received wisdom?
From: glird on 26 Apr 2010 14:22 On Apr 22, 12:15 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > > The DSSCP uses the Kerr-Newman solution of General Relativity, a bit > of Quantum Mechanics (quantization of angular momentum), and the > self-evident discrete self-similarity of nature to correctly > retrodict the radius and mass of the proton. Unless the radius of a proton was already knon, how would anyone know that the retrodiction was correct? > Do we need a new unified paradigm for all of nature, from the > smallest elementary particles to the largest superclusters of > galaxies? > Oh, yeah! A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. glird
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 26 Apr 2010 18:24 On Apr 26, 2:22 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: ? > > > Do we need a new unified paradigm for all of nature, from the > > smallest elementary particles to the largest superclusters of > > galaxies? > > Oh, yeah! --------------------------------------- > > A new paradigm already exists. The trouble is that nobody, other > than its sire, is willing or able to consider the merits of anything > that disagrees with the old one embedded in their mind. ----------------------------------------- Sad, but true. However, while that is the situation now, who knows what the situation might be in the not-too-distant future? The Ptolemaic paradigm eventually collapsed under the weight of its own ungainly artificiality. I predict the same will eventually happen to the substandard paradigm, starting with the just-so story known as Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the weakest link of the substandard model. Best, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Jerry on 27 Apr 2010 06:27 On Apr 25, 1:48 pm, "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! Pure numerology. Using five rolls of a pair of dice (rejecting one roll which gave me a "10"), I generated a "fundamental mass unit" M of 774.2 MeV. The following parallels the first rows of your Table 1: n sqrt(n) predicted actual error ------------------------------------------------ 1/54 0.1361 105.4 mu 105.66 0.29% 1/32 0.1768 136.9 pi0 134.98 1.4% 2/5 0.6325 489.6 kappa 497.65 1.6% 1/2 0.7071 547.4 eta 547.75 0.06% 1 1.000 774.2 rho 770 0.54% 1 1.000 M 774.2 --- 1 1.000 774.2 omega 783 1.1% 3/2 1.225 948.2 p+ 938.27 1.0% 3/2 1.225 948.2 n 939.57 1.0% 3/2 1.225 948.2 eta' 957.75 1.0% 2 1.414 1094 Lambda0 1115.68 2.0% 5/2 1.581 1224 Sigma1 1192 2.7% 3 1.732 1341 Xi0 1314.83 2.1% 7/2 1.871 1448 N 1440 0.58% 9/2 2.121 1642 Omega- 1672.45 1.8% et cetera et cetera ad nauseum My fits to the fundamental dice constant are better than yours. Jerry
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 27 Apr 2010 09:18
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:48:42 -0700: > 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. Yes, when you ignore any criticism to your work. > 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. I repeat: 1) Your theory cannot explain the hundred of observations explained by QCD. 2) You completely ignore the fact that the usual Hilbert-Einstein equations are not acurate near horizons. 3) You completely ignore the fact that the usual Hilbert-Einstein equations are not scale independent. At cosmological scale an extra Lambda term is added. At mesoscopic scale correction terms to <T_ab> are added. At quantum level much more stronger modifications are needed. 4) You ignore any difficulty with the BH model (causality, divergences). The current models of quantum gravity try to eliminate those oddities of the classical theory. You copy and paste a classical model into quantum realm and claim it to work by decree. 5) Your work is based in an unproven assumption about G. All measurements of G that I know show no sistematic modification at small scales. 6) Your R is associated to a non-flat metric. The r for proton measured experimentally and covered by quantum field theory is based in a flat metric. You compare apples and oranges. Your R is not r. 7) Etc. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |