Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 27 Apr 2010 12:47 On Apr 27, 6:27 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > 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% > -------------------------------------------- (1) But to get anywhere you needed to reproduce an approximation of the revised Planck mass of 674.8 MeV, and then use my (sqrt n) term as a multiplication factor. To my knowledge, rolling dice does not count as a theoretical derivation (although it might in "string theory" or "QCD"). I derive the relation from GR+QM+DSR. (2) I am now working on an unbiased set of 95 particles. Experimental peaks and my expectation peaks match up very well. (3) No one doubts that one can devise arbitrary numerological methods to retrodict segments of the particle mass spectrum. I know of at least 3 or 4. The key issue is whether you can provide an elegant theoretical explanation for your retrodiction. Do you appreciate this none-too-subtle fact? (4) You have achieved a good fit because you have reproduced my basic results with a bogus dice-rolling method. If you did not have advanced knowledge of M = (sqrt n)(674.8 MeV), I don't think you would have gotten very far. See what I am saying? (5) Here is the basic truth in a different context. You can retrodict the Bode-Titus law of planetary distances by many numerological schemes. Most of them have sketchy theoretical justification, at best. So they are not useful explanations; they are just numerology. I maintain that my paper is not numerology because it derives (sqrt n) (674.8 MeV) from first principles. Ongoing research is going to make that distinction ever more clearly. Thanks for the challenge, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 27 Apr 2010 12:58 On Apr 27, 9:18 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > > > 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 > ---------------------------------------- > I repeat: > > 1) Your theory cannot explain the hundred of observations explained by QCD. --------------------------------------------- Scholars (and they were the overwhelming majority of "scholars" at the time) who argued for the Ptolemaic paradigm used the same argument. They said: "The Ptolemaic paradigm explains everything, so why do we need a crazy new paradigm? Look at the 100s of objects, motions and eclipses it can explain!" I challenge YOU to personally show us how QCD can just accomplish the trivial goal of retrodicting the radius of the proton. Notice that I have done it above with one simple equation. SHOW US WHAT QCD CAN DO TO MATCH THAT OR SHUT UP RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Jerry on 27 Apr 2010 13:07 On Apr 27, 11:47 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Apr 27, 6:27 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > 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% > > -------------------------------------------- > > (1) But to get anywhere you needed to reproduce an approximation of > the revised Planck mass of 674.8 MeV, and then use my (sqrt n) term as > a multiplication factor. > > To my knowledge, rolling dice does not count as a theoretical > derivation (although it might in "string theory" or "QCD"). > > I derive the relation from GR+QM+DSR. Uh, huh... sure... > (2) I am now working on an unbiased set of 95 particles. Experimental > peaks and my expectation peaks match up very well. > > (3) No one doubts that one can devise arbitrary numerological methods > to retrodict segments of the particle mass spectrum. I know of at > least 3 or 4. The key issue is whether you can provide an elegant > theoretical explanation for your retrodiction. Do you appreciate this > none-too-subtle fact? Unfortunately, you do not provide ANY sort of explanation why certain specific values of n are to be chosen in preference to other values. Hence your procedure counts as pure numerology. > (4) You have achieved a good fit because you have reproduced my basic > results with a bogus dice-rolling method. If you did not have > advanced knowledge of M = (sqrt n)(674.8 MeV), I don't think you would > have gotten very far. See what I am saying? The point is, the ability to retrodict a spectrum of particle masses using as many adjustable parameters that you allow yourself is totally meaningless. > (5) Here is the basic truth in a different context. You can retrodict > the Bode-Titus law of planetary distances by many numerological > schemes. Most of them have sketchy theoretical justification, at > best. So they are not useful explanations; they are just numerology. That is PRECISELY the point that I made in another post. > I maintain that my paper is not numerology because it derives (sqrt n) > (674.8 MeV) from first principles. Ongoing research is going to make > that distinction ever more clearly. > > Thanks for the challenge, > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Jerry
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 27 Apr 2010 16:41 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:58:43 -0700: > On Apr 27, 9:18 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> >> > 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 >> > ---------------------------------------- >> I repeat: >> >> 1) Your theory cannot explain the hundred of observations explained by >> QCD. > --------------------------------------------- > > Scholars (and they were the overwhelming majority of "scholars" at the > time) who argued for the Ptolemaic paradigm used the same argument. They > said: "The Ptolemaic paradigm explains everything, so why do we need a > crazy new paradigm? Look at the 100s of objects, motions and eclipses it > can explain!" > > I challenge YOU to personally show us how QCD can just accomplish the > trivial goal of retrodicting the radius of the proton. Notice that I > have done it above with one simple equation. > > SHOW US WHAT QCD CAN DO TO MATCH THAT > > OR SHUT UP > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw In another thread I revised some of the mistakes and false claims that you do in your paper. In this thread I have given you six (6) basic points of both a theoretical and an experimental nature. *You ignored all* including the above one. You sistematically censor any criticism to your 'theory'. Your goal is that physicists abandon a theory tested in hundred of experiments (QCD) by a 'theory' (yours) which predicts none of them, and that 'promises' us to predict readius of protons... except that you are comparing apples and oranges, or R and r (as remarked in one of the points that you sniped). -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 27 Apr 2010 23:41
On Apr 27, 1:07 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > Unfortunately, you do not provide ANY sort of explanation why > certain specific values of n are to be chosen in preference to > other values. Hence your procedure counts as pure numerology. > I did not think n=1, n=2, n=3, ... needed much explaining. > The point is, the ability to retrodict a spectrum of particle > masses using as many adjustable parameters that you allow > yourself is totally meaningless. But I only use two parameters which are empirically derived from nature, and are good to 3%, or better. If you think there is more room in the theory to subjectively "adjust" things, it just proves that you have not taken enough time to learn the Discrete Self-Similar Paradigm. You would be surprised at how well your time would be spent if you developed a good working understanding of the DSSP BEFORE you took out the sledge hammer. You might be quite surprised. Best, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |