Subatomic Mass Spectrum From 1st Principles
in [Physics]
|
Prev: WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 23 Apr 10 Washington, DC
Next: galactic density & distribution; speed of light derived pure math & a log-spiral-radius #29; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 24 Apr 2010 18:07 When you plot a histogram of particle masses from 100 MeV to 1800 MeV, and then adjust the peak heights to reflect the particle "widths", i.e., stability, you get a very unqiue spectrum that the "standard model" is completely unable to explain. Using the (sqrt n)(revised Planck mass) relation derived from GR and QM in my recent paper, I can reproduce a unique and statistically significant 1st approximation fit to the unique and enigmatic particle mass spectrum. You cannot call this numerology. It is the physics of the new paradigm, which will make the "standard model" look exceedingly Ptolemaic. Paper can be read for free at: http://journalofcosmology.com/OldershawRobert.pdf , or http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0701/0701006.pdf . I would have thought that any physicist would be highly interested in what I am doing. Imagine my surprise! Best, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Edward Green on 24 Apr 2010 20:55 On Apr 24, 6:07 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > When you plot a histogram of particle masses from 100 MeV to 1800 MeV, > and then adjust the peak heights to reflect the particle "widths", > i.e., stability, you get a very unqiue spectrum that the "standard > model" is completely unable to explain. > > Using the (sqrt n)(revised Planck mass) relation derived from GR and > QM in my recent paper, I can reproduce a unique and statistically > significant 1st approximation fit to the unique and enigmatic particle > mass spectrum. You cannot call this numerology. It is the physics of > the new paradigm, which will make the "standard model" look > exceedingly Ptolemaic. Paper can be read for free at:http://journalofcosmology.com/OldershawRobert.pdf, orhttp://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0701/0701006.pdf. > > I would have thought that any physicist would be highly interested in > what I am doing. > > Imagine my surprise! Very interesting stuff. Best of luck with your efforts.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 24 Apr 2010 21:53 On Apr 24, 8:55 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > Imagine my surprise! > > Very interesting stuff. Best of luck with your efforts.- Hide quoted text - > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I just plotted up [by hand] the stability-weighted mass spectrum and the predicted peak positions this evening. If anybody would like to see this, send me a fax # and I'll send you a copy, or wait a few days and I'll have an Excel version to share. The match-up is amazingly good for a 1st approximation. Results with the full Kerr-Newman treatment should be very impressive and totally unambiguous. Thanks for your encouragement. Best, RLO www.amherst.edu?`rloldershaw
From: eric gisse on 24 Apr 2010 22:13 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > When you plot a histogram of particle masses from 100 MeV to 1800 MeV, > and then adjust the peak heights to reflect the particle "widths", > i.e., stability, you get a very unqiue spectrum that the "standard > model" is completely unable to explain. You'll find that physics always has a hard time 'explaining' numerology and general data juggling to the satisfaction of certain people. [...]
From: Y.Porat on 25 Apr 2010 04:01
On Apr 25, 12:07 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > When you plot a histogram of particle masses from 100 MeV to 1800 MeV, > and then adjust the peak heights to reflect the particle "widths", > i.e., stability, you get a very unqiue spectrum that the "standard > model" is completely unable to explain. > > Using the (sqrt n)(revised Planck mass) relation derived from GR and > QM in my recent paper, I can reproduce a unique and statistically > significant 1st approximation fit to the unique and enigmatic particle > mass spectrum. You cannot call this numerology. It is the physics of > the new paradigm, which will make the "standard model" look > exceedingly Ptolemaic. Paper can be read for free at:http://journalofcosmology.com/OldershawRobert.pdf, orhttp://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0701/0701006.pdf. > > I would have thought that any physicist would be highly interested in > what I am doing. > > Imagine my surprise! > > Best, > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ---------------------- you have a 'little ' problem: the Alpha patticle ios not a sphere with 'radius'' and thereis noting there that is ritating around some one center !! it could be that trhe center og gravity of that structure is a center of rotation but then youdint hae sort of a solid shere but a lot of vacum in it as well between the protons and neutrons if you take them as chains of orbitals directed to 4 directins in space (a tetrahedron !!!) see my abstract" http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract EVEN IS YOU WRITE IT IN 'SCI.PHYSICS.RESEARCH IT IS WRONG and you can learn something from someone in the 'Plebeian' of simple sci.physics (:-) so please tel it to your parrots on the sci.research as well ATB Y.Porat --------------------- ATB Y.Porat -------------------------- |