Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Math]
|
From: spudnik on 21 May 2010 00:06 matter is some how composed of light, no particles involved, whatsoever (that is just a nonmathematical assumption about a "quantum" of light ... so, what is it about Pascal's duality (interchangeability of the words "point" and "line" in any theorem of the projective plane), that makes you think that photons "exist" in the sense of Newton's balls? perhaps the Standard Model with quarks & gluons, subsuming the inherent symmetry of things, does not directly express that part of "the mass is equivalent to the Energy of the light, divided by the second power of the speed of it (the increment in the area of the wavefront, c.f. Are Buckafka Fullofit .-) > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of THE wave. thusNso: not only that, but Australia is an island; I mean, what is the highest mountain? not only was Ahrrenius's "model" never actually created, but there is a fatal assumption that was shown in the '30s to be an assumption, that glaciation requires "cooling." thusNso: maether decompreththing aether createth light waveth, and there'th too much thibbilanth in hear. A=mcc -- ba-doom! thusNso: on the wayside, one should preliminarily determine what a "beam" is, that is split by the beamsplitter; people, who habitually think of a particle, when use of the word, quantum, is made for the click of a geigercounter (well, those might be ions) or what ever. that is, a laser beam is just a very special case, a highly modified or shaped set of waves, or a standing wave of some sort, frequency, polarity of lightwaves ... not Newton's clacking balls! can a photon be only one cycle of light? thusNso: hey; maybe they'd let you look at your trophy with your old 3d glasses! thusNso: dood, my valu of pi is lots simpler to calculate than yours -- seven cans of beer & a string! thusNso: nice cartoon; is there only one beamsplitter in Sagnac? --Pi, the surfer's canonical value, is not constructible with a pair of compasses .. but, could be with a pair and a half of compasses; dyscuss.
From: mpc755 on 21 May 2010 00:13 On May 21, 12:06 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > matter is some how composed of light, > no particles involved, whatsoever > (that is just a nonmathematical assumption > about a "quantum" of light ... so, what is it > about Pascal's duality (interchangeability > of the words "point" and "line" > in any theorem of the projective plane), > that makes you think that photons "exist" > in the sense of Newton's balls? > I am not saying a photon 'particle' exists in the sense of Newton. I am saying the photon 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave. The photon 'particle' may very well occupy a very small region of the wave itself. The following is an image of a photon: http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif The very small region of the wave, which in the image is represented by the very center of the wave, is the 'particle'. It is what is detected. The very small region of the wave which is able to be detected exiting a single slit is the 'particle'. Answer this question. If a photon exists as an ocean wave with nothing that would constitute a 'particle' the if detectors are placed at the exits to the slit while the photon wave is in the slits, why is the photon ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit? What is it about the photon which allows for it to be detected ALWAYS exiting a single slit? The reason why the photon wave is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit is because a very small region of the wave behaves as a particle. This very small region of the wave may very well be a very small portion of the wave itself. > perhaps the Standard Model with quarks & gluons, > subsuming the inherent symmetry of things, > does not directly express that part of "the mass > is equivalent to the Energy of the light, > divided by the second power of the speed of it > (the increment in the area of the wavefront, > c.f. Are Buckafka Fullofit .-) > > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of THE wave. > > thusNso: > not only that, but Australia is an island; I mean, > what is the highest mountain? > > not only was Ahrrenius's "model" never actually created, but > there is a fatal assumption that was shown in the '30s > to be an assumption, that glaciation requires "cooling." > > thusNso: > maether decompreththing aether createth light waveth, and > there'th too much thibbilanth in hear. A=mcc -- ba-doom! > > thusNso: > on the wayside, > one should preliminarily determine what a "beam" is, > that is split by the beamsplitter; people, > who habitually think of a particle, when use > of the word, quantum, is made for the click > of a geigercounter (well, those might be ions) or what ever. > > that is, a laser beam is just a very special case, > a highly modified or shaped set of waves, or > a standing wave of some sort, frequency, polarity > of lightwaves ... not Newton's clacking balls! > > can a photon be only one cycle of light? > > thusNso: > hey; maybe they'd let you look at your trophy > with your old 3d glasses! > > thusNso: > dood, my valu of pi is lots simpler to calculate > than yours -- seven cans of beer & a string! > > thusNso: > nice cartoon; is there only one beamsplitter in Sagnac? > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value, is not constructible > with a pair of compasses .. but, could be with a pair and > a half of compasses; dyscuss.
From: spudnik on 23 May 2010 14:49 why reply to BURNT, I ask you. why do I reply to you & your so-called theory, you could legitamitly answer! anyway, if you take your statement (beolwsville) seriously, then it would be an infinitessimal part of the wave, and you'd be back at the useless "point particles" of "classical physics" or just Newtonianism. it is certainly unfortunate that Einstein may have been thinking of this, when he coined the term, photon ... but, it's better to have your Theory of Everything be built upon a foundation of little rocks o'light, than to have a big pile of rocks on your toe. > There is only THE wave associated with a photon. The 'particle' > occupies a very small region of THE wave. thusNso: aside from "your English sucks, badly," I really don't know what you mean, because it changes from day to day. why would a photon have a minimum mass of 10^-90 kilograms, and what in Hell is the Dimensions Game?... well, if you cannot answer either question, Game Over! > about dimensions in physics formulas: > it seems that no one here understands > or understood the dimension 'game,' better than me. thsNso: quaternions have three signs (unary operators), i, j & k; now, if you wanted to get rid of the minus sign, as well, that would be an additional problem. since you do not propose to get rid of addition (binary operator) or multiplication (binary operator), but use the symbols for those operators in your hare-brained additions ... it just makes me feel bad, unless you can prove, that you don't need subtractions or negatives. on the wayside, i may not fully grok the idea of unary operators, but "exp()" and "ln()" are canonically such. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hall_effect > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect thusNso there may not have been any exposition, but I didn't think of that, that his hare-brained attempt unconsciously obliterated the pythagorean theorem, iff it actualy did any thing, at all, that any one could comprehend, including doctor Martin. thusNso: is he trying to prove that all solutions to the Fermat curves, pass only through irrational points on the grid?... welcome to the club! well, he ceraintly didn't prove that, as far as I can see (but I'm wearing the oldstyle 3d glasses, so, y'never know .-) thusNso: yeah; first, do no harm, or assign yourself to an automatic "opt-in to your killfile, thank *me*." anyway, that is not Bucky's system, but Cliff's. at least, he is not among the fanatics, who beleive what Bucky saith, that he alleviated the need for math with Nature's Co-ordinating System -- as important as some of that is. "to remove me from your killfile, send your Social Security Number to tim(a)polysignosis.org; thank *you*." thsNso: "pressure equals a third of energy density" -- really?... well, a tetrahedron is a third of the volume of the parallelopiped that it's inscribed in; so, there. "spacetime" is a totally useless word for concepts, since it is merely phase-space of ordinary space; just use quaternions, real part as time. (funny thing: I just read that Hoagland's "hyperdimensional physics" was nothing but quaternions "a la Maxwell," Yahoo!TM .-) thusNso: I don't see any neccesary resaon for *any* irrational number to have a maximum run of any digit in what ever integral base; so, rake one coal over yourself for propitiating such a silly idea! on the wayside, 0.999.... does not = 1; it equals 1.000...., the "real"number, one; take a hop, a skip & a jump over Tony Robinson's bed of coals. thusNso: the second part of the question is clearly trivial, and the first part seems to be its inverse, or what ever. have Farey sequences ever been used for continued fractions, or does that make any sense, at all? > Example: The fraction 4 / 97 occur in the place 197 of > the Farey's sequence of order 113. How can I know it > without calculate all the smaller terms? --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- good to at least one place! http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 23 May 2010 16:15 On May 23, 2:49 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > why reply to BURNT, I ask you. why do I reply > to you & your so-called theory, you could legitamitly answer! > > anyway, if you take your statement (beolwsville) seriously, then > it would be an infinitessimal part of the wave, and > you'd be back at the useless "point particles" of "classical physics" > or > just Newtonianism. The 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave, not an infinitesimal part. > it is certainly unfortunate that > Einstein may have been thinking of this, when he coined the term, > photon ... but, it's better to have your Theory of Everything be built > upon a foundation of little rocks o'light, than > to have a big pile of rocks on your toe. > > > There is only THE wave associated with a photon. The 'particle' > > occupies a very small region of THE wave. > > thusNso: > aside from "your English sucks, badly," I really don't know > what you mean, because it changes from day to day. > > why would a photon have a minimum mass of 10^-90 kilograms, and > what in Hell is the Dimensions Game?... well, if > you cannot answer either question, Game Over! > > > about dimensions in physics formulas: > > it seems that no one here understands > > or understood the dimension 'game,' better than me. > > thsNso: > quaternions have three signs (unary operators), i, j & k; now, > if you wanted to get rid of the minus sign, as well, > that would be an additional problem. > > since you do not propose to get rid of addition (binary operator) or > multiplication (binary operator), but use the symbols > for those operators in your hare-brained additions ... > it just makes me feel bad, unless you can prove, > that you don't need subtractions or negatives. > > on the wayside, i may not fully grok the idea > of unary operators, but "exp()" and "ln()" are canonically such. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hall_effect > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect > > thusNso > there may not have been any exposition, but > I didn't think of that, that > his hare-brained attempt unconsciously obliterated the pythagorean > theorem, > iff it actualy did any thing, at all, > that any one could comprehend, including doctor Martin. > > thusNso: > is he trying to prove that all solutions > to the Fermat curves, pass only through irrational points > on the grid?... welcome to the club! > well, he ceraintly didn't prove that, as far as I can see (but > I'm wearing the oldstyle 3d glasses, so, y'never know .-) > > thusNso: > yeah; first, do no harm, or assign yourself > to an automatic "opt-in to your killfile, thank *me*." > anyway, that is not Bucky's system, but Cliff's. at least, > he is not among the fanatics, who beleive what Bucky saith, > that he alleviated the need for math with Nature's Co-ordinating > System > -- as important as some of that is. > "to remove me from your killfile, > send your Social Security Number to t...(a)polysignosis.org; thank > *you*." > > thsNso: > "pressure equals a third of energy density" -- really?... well, > a tetrahedron is a third of the volume of the parallelopiped > that it's inscribed in; so, there. > "spacetime" is a totally useless word for concepts, since > it is merely phase-space of ordinary space; > just use quaternions, real part as time. (funny thing: > I just read that Hoagland's "hyperdimensional physics" was > nothing but quaternions "a la Maxwell," Yahoo!TM .-) > > thusNso: > I don't see any neccesary resaon for *any* irrational number > to have a maximum run of any digit in what ever integral base; so, > rake one coal over yourself for propitiating such a silly idea! > on the wayside, > 0.999.... does not = 1; > it equals 1.000...., the "real"number, one; > take a hop, a skip & a jump over Tony Robinson's bed of coals. > > thusNso: > the second part of the question is clearly trivial, and > the first part seems to be its inverse, or what ever. > have Farey sequences ever been used for continued fractions, or > does that make any sense, at all? > > > Example: The fraction 4 / 97 occur in the place 197 of > > the Farey's sequence of order 113. How can I know it > > without calculate all the smaller terms? > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- good to at least one place!http://wlym.com
From: BURT on 23 May 2010 16:57
On May 23, 1:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 23, 2:49 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > why reply to BURNT, I ask you. why do I reply > > to you & your so-called theory, you could legitamitly answer! > > > anyway, if you take your statement (beolwsville) seriously, then > > it would be an infinitessimal part of the wave, and > > you'd be back at the useless "point particles" of "classical physics" > > or > > just Newtonianism. > > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of the wave, not an > infinitesimal part. > > > > > it is certainly unfortunate that > > Einstein may have been thinking of this, when he coined the term, > > photon ... but, it's better to have your Theory of Everything be built > > upon a foundation of little rocks o'light, than > > to have a big pile of rocks on your toe. > > > > There is only THE wave associated with a photon. The 'particle' > > > occupies a very small region of THE wave. > > > thusNso: > > aside from "your English sucks, badly," I really don't know > > what you mean, because it changes from day to day. > > > why would a photon have a minimum mass of 10^-90 kilograms, and > > what in Hell is the Dimensions Game?... well, if > > you cannot answer either question, Game Over! > > > > about dimensions in physics formulas: > > > it seems that no one here understands > > > or understood the dimension 'game,' better than me. > > > thsNso: > > quaternions have three signs (unary operators), i, j & k; now, > > if you wanted to get rid of the minus sign, as well, > > that would be an additional problem. > > > since you do not propose to get rid of addition (binary operator) or > > multiplication (binary operator), but use the symbols > > for those operators in your hare-brained additions ... > > it just makes me feel bad, unless you can prove, > > that you don't need subtractions or negatives. > > > on the wayside, i may not fully grok the idea > > of unary operators, but "exp()" and "ln()" are canonically such. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hall_effect > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect > > > thusNso > > there may not have been any exposition, but > > I didn't think of that, that > > his hare-brained attempt unconsciously obliterated the pythagorean > > theorem, > > iff it actualy did any thing, at all, > > that any one could comprehend, including doctor Martin. > > > thusNso: > > is he trying to prove that all solutions > > to the Fermat curves, pass only through irrational points > > on the grid?... welcome to the club! > > well, he ceraintly didn't prove that, as far as I can see (but > > I'm wearing the oldstyle 3d glasses, so, y'never know .-) > > > thusNso: > > yeah; first, do no harm, or assign yourself > > to an automatic "opt-in to your killfile, thank *me*." > > anyway, that is not Bucky's system, but Cliff's. at least, > > he is not among the fanatics, who beleive what Bucky saith, > > that he alleviated the need for math with Nature's Co-ordinating > > System > > -- as important as some of that is. > > "to remove me from your killfile, > > send your Social Security Number to t...(a)polysignosis.org; thank > > *you*." > > > thsNso: > > "pressure equals a third of energy density" -- really?... well, > > a tetrahedron is a third of the volume of the parallelopiped > > that it's inscribed in; so, there. > > "spacetime" is a totally useless word for concepts, since > > it is merely phase-space of ordinary space; > > just use quaternions, real part as time. (funny thing: > > I just read that Hoagland's "hyperdimensional physics" was > > nothing but quaternions "a la Maxwell," Yahoo!TM .-) > > > thusNso: > > I don't see any neccesary resaon for *any* irrational number > > to have a maximum run of any digit in what ever integral base; so, > > rake one coal over yourself for propitiating such a silly idea! > > on the wayside, > > 0.999.... does not = 1; > > it equals 1.000...., the "real"number, one; > > take a hop, a skip & a jump over Tony Robinson's bed of coals. > > > thusNso: > > the second part of the question is clearly trivial, and > > the first part seems to be its inverse, or what ever. > > have Farey sequences ever been used for continued fractions, or > > does that make any sense, at all? > > > > Example: The fraction 4 / 97 occur in the place 197 of > > > the Farey's sequence of order 113. How can I know it > > > without calculate all the smaller terms? > > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- good to at least one place!http://wlym.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is more than one wave in light. Light is both a magnetic wave at angles to an electric wave. Light is dual. Mitch Raemsch |