Subatomic Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum
in [Physics]
|
From: Jerry on 8 May 2010 18:43 On May 8, 12:52 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On May 8, 12:04 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Ask yourself: > > > 1) Is there -ANY- random mass between 1508 MeV and 2134 MeV that > > cannot be fit by integer n to within 4.8 percent or better? > > > 2) Is there -ANY- random mass between 2134 MeV and 3018 MeV that > > cannot be fit by integer n to within 2.5 percent or better? > > > 3) Is there -ANY- random mass between 3018 MeV and 4268 MeV that > > cannot be fit by integer n to within 1.2 percent or better? > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > How about in the 100 MeV to 1500 MeV range? You use an array of completely arbitrary fractions to "force-fit" your so-called theory to the facts. > Are things a bit more restricted there? Be honest and avoid > misleading statements. > > In my derivation of my mass equation, I "absorbed" the spin parameter > "a" into the "n" value. > > However, maybe "a" should not be "absorbed" and so a closer > approximation to the actual mass equation should be: > > M = (sqrt n/a)(revised Planck mass of 674.8 MeV). > > If this is the case, then you can explain how fractions like 5/4, 3/4, > 1/2, 1/25 can be derived from the basic Kerr relation: Fractions such as 4/3, 2/3, 1/3 work just as well if not better. These are COMPLETELY ARBITRARY FITTING COEFFICIENTS. > J = aGM^2/c or better said: nh-bar = aGM^2/c. > > Ready to open that steel-trap mind yet. Doesn't work so well if it is > always closed. Claro! Unfortunately, it is YOU who are the close-minded one. You've wasted years of your life in this numerological exercise, and you refuse to believe that it has been all for nothing. Jerry
From: Al.Rivero on 8 May 2010 18:45 On 7 mayo, 18:07, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On May 7, 4:29 am, leucipo2001 <al.riv...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I know the secret of the mass spectrum. > > > You are dishonest with yourself, then. Your fractions in the > > "quantisation" are strong indications of ad-hoc fitting, the way > > ----------------------------------- > > There is a reasonable theoretical argument for replacing [sqrt n] with > [sqrt n(n+1)]. (In quantum mechanics, I think the total angular > momentum is j(j+1) h-bar.) > > If you do this then the proton becomes the n = 1 particle and the Kaon > becomes the n = 1/2 particle. > > Hmmm, veddy interestig! I expect [sqrt n] is a typo and you mean [sqrt n^2]. Yes, Hans de Vries did this trick with W and Z time ago, n=1 for the Z and n=1/2 for the W. Then, putting relativity, the value of W/Z magically appears. Very intriguing. Your say that it also happens for kaon/proton? It is strange because the kaon is not a serius quantity, it is already broken by SU(3) flavour. But please do not let me to stop you, and show here the calculation for this concrete fact, instead of referring again to your article.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 8 May 2010 21:29 On May 8, 6:45 pm, "Al.Riv...(a)gmail.com" <al.riv...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > flavour. But please do not let me to stop you, and show here the > calculation for this concrete fact, instead of referring again to your -------------------------- What you say about the kaon (m = 497 MeV) makes no sense to me. It is an importnat particle and very diagnostic. Let me slowly go through my physics one more time for you. For a Kerr black hole: J = aGM^2/c If we want to model elementary particles as Kerr Black holes, then: n(h-bar) = aGM^2/c With a little math: M = (sqrt n/a)(sqrt[h-bar c/G]). (sqrt[h-bar c/G] is the Planck mass definition. Using Discrete Scale Relativity to give you the correct value of G, and then calculating the correct revised Planck mass of 674.8 MeV, M = (sqrt n/a)(674.8 MeV) HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART SO PAY ATTENTION NOW. Especialy Jerry and Alejandro. I can retrodict 7 of the 8 most important peaks in the particle mass spectrum (100-1800 MeV range) using ONLY the following TWO assumptions. (1) n = 1/2, 2/2, 3/2, 4/2,... This comes from Quantum Mechanics where angular momentum comes in discrete multiples of h-bar: n/2 h-bar. (2) The parameter "a" is the Kerr spin parameter and it can vary between 0 and 1 in the Kerr solution. I REQUIRE ONLY a = 1/2 or 1. With this ultra-simple physics and these two assumptions which are highly motivated from both a theoretical and an observational standpoint, I CAN RETRODICT THE PARTICLE MASS SPECTRUM AT THE 98.4% LEVEL, OR BETTER. THE SUBSTANDARD MODEL COULD NOT EVEN GET NUMBERS IN THE RIGHT BALLPARK WITHOUT PUTTING IN THE "QUARK MASSES" AND A LOT OF OTHER PARAMETERS BY HAND, I.E., BY CHEATING. I REPEAT: I NOW KNOW THE SECRET OF THE PARTICLE MASS SPECTRUM. There ya go, pilgrims RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Al.Rivero on 8 May 2010 22:43 I am not disregarding it, I am only telling that it is no news to have J proportional to M^2 via a coefficient. It is the fundational equation of String Theory, it is Chew-Fraustchi plot. Google for it if you do not believe me. It works for higher spins. It was noticed in the sixties, then it implied Veneziano conjecture, and then string actions. The quantity you call "revised Planck mass" is called "string tension". Now, what is interesting is the idea of putting, instead of J, sqr( J(J +1)). As I told, it is no news to me neither. Again, if you do not believe me, I can look for references. But now, if I (or you) apply this rule, we have J=1-----> J=sqrt( 1 (1+1) ) = sqrt(2) J=1/2 ----> J=sqrt( 1/2 (1/2 +1)) = sqrt(3)/2 So we get irrational expresions for your n, and it is not the thing that you want. Thus I was being nice and inviting you to rephrase your previous argument. It is a pity that you have taken differently. The particles for which the formula is not working are the ones where you need ad-hoc fractions; this is most probably because of flavour mixing and other effects, but it was never discussed very deeply in the literature. The actual Chew-Fraustchi plot is expected to work separately for integer and half integer spin, as well for different electric and strange charge. So it is amazing that your table uses a same proportion for all the particles, and I suspect that there is a selection effect. So I asked you to separate the electroweak particles; if there is a single line for all the electroweak particles, that is a surprise, really, and you could title the argument "electroweak decaying particles align in a single Chew- Fraustchi plot" or something similar. I doubt it so I asked for more work. If I do the work, I will claim discovery; so I find I would let you to do the work. Google for string tension MeV and you will find a lot of results along your lines... "Regge trajectories suggest values of 420 to 440 MeV for the string tension" "the string tension turns out to be about 800 MeV, in contrast with the expected value of ^ 420 MeV" "From Regge phenomenology, Ï â (440 MeV)2. " Of course, anyone telling you that there is not relationship between J and M^2 in the spectrum of subatomic particles is showing that it does not know the field and he can be safely ignored. What is surprising (and dubitius) is to find the relatioship between particles with different charge or different strangeness. On 9 mayo, 03:29, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On May 8, 6:45Â pm, "Al.Riv...(a)gmail.com" <al.riv...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > flavour. But please do not let me to stop you, and show here the > > calculation for this concrete fact, instead of referring again to your > > -------------------------- > > What you say about the kaon (m = 497 MeV) makes no sense to me. > It is an importnat particle and very diagnostic. > > Let me slowly go through my physics one more time for you. > > For a Kerr black hole: J = aGM^2/c > > If we want to model elementary particles as Kerr Black holes, then: > > n(h-bar) = aGM^2/c > > With a little math: M = (sqrt n/a)(sqrt[h-bar c/G]). > > (sqrt[h-bar c/G] is the Planck mass definition. > > Using Discrete Scale Relativity to give you the correct value of G, > and then calculating the correct revised Planck mass of 674.8 MeV, > > M = (sqrt n/a)(674.8 MeV) > > HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART SO PAY ATTENTION NOW. Especialy Jerry and > Alejandro. > > I can retrodict 7 of the 8 most important peaks in the particle mass > spectrum (100-1800 MeV range) using ONLY the following TWO > assumptions. > > (1) n = 1/2, 2/2, 3/2, 4/2,... This comes from Quantum Mechanics where > angular momentum comes in discrete multiples of h-bar: n/2 h-bar. > > (2) The parameter "a" is the Kerr spin parameter and it can vary > between 0 and 1 in the Kerr solution. I REQUIRE ONLY a = 1/2 or 1. > > With this ultra-simple physics and these two assumptions which are > highly motivated from both a theoretical and an observational > standpoint, I CAN RETRODICT THE PARTICLE MASS SPECTRUM AT THE 98.4% > LEVEL, OR BETTER. > > THE SUBSTANDARD MODEL COULD NOT EVEN GET NUMBERS IN THE RIGHT BALLPARK > WITHOUT PUTTING IN THE "QUARK MASSES" AND A LOT OF OTHER PARAMETERS BY > HAND, I.E., BY CHEATING. > > I REPEAT: I NOW KNOW THE SECRET OF THE PARTICLE MASS SPECTRUM. > > There ya go, pilgrims > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 9 May 2010 15:15
On May 9, 10:51 am, "Al.Riv...(a)gmail.com" <al.riv...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, and what is the difference. I can quote you a hundred articles on ------------------------------ 1. Denial 2. Anger 3. Depression/Despondency 4. Acceptance It will be interesting to observe those deluded by and religiously addicted to "string theory", "SUSY", and the good ol' Substandard Model go through the above progression. We have a new unified paradigm that applies to all scales of nature's hierarchy: the Discrete Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm. The new unified paradigm is referred to as Discrete Scale Relativity when the discrete self-similarity is exact. Nothing to argue about anymore. Best, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |