Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 22 Apr 2010 12:15 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. 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. You can find this result and quite a bit more in the following paper, which has just been published in the Journal of Cosmology, Vol. 6, 2010. http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0701/0701006.pdf Why can't the monumental Ptolemaic glass-bead game known as the "standard model" derive something as basic as the proton's charge radius? Why can the DSSCP accomplish this task with such ease? I think I know the answers to these two questions, but I am hoping you will confirm those answers for yourselves. Do we need a new unified paradigm for all of nature, from the smallest elementary particles to the largest superclusters of galaxies? Oh, yeah! RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: dlzc on 22 Apr 2010 15:13 On Apr 22, 9:15 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: .... > Why can the DSSCP accomplish this task with > such ease? 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 .... > Do we need a new unified paradigm for all > of nature, from the smallest elementary > particles to the largest superclusters of > galaxies? > Oh, yeah! Yes, we still do. David A. Smith
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 22 Apr 2010 15:53 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. 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. Attention to details is required in scientific research. Best, RLO http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0701/0701006.pdf www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: dlzc on 22 Apr 2010 16:13 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)? David A. Smith
From: BURT on 22 Apr 2010 16:32
On Apr 22, 1:13 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> 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)? > > David A. Smith The proton is a tripple point particle or three quarks. The three have one quantum wave. Mitch Raemsch |