Subatomic Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum
in [Physics]
|
From: Jerry on 11 May 2010 11:28 On May 11, 10:02 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On May 11, 7:06 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Are you describing your own feelings right now? > > > Jerry > > ------------------------------------- > > No. > > But I am sensing some definite anger coming from your cage. Wrong. Just mild annoyance. I had thought you might be more flexible and open-minded than the usual bunch of crackpots that infest these newsgroups. But I was wrong. You're as egotistic, narcissistic, and megalomaniacal as the worst of them. Now you've degenerated into psychobabble, so I had best leave you alone to brood in your own little world where you are the misunderstood genius with the revolutionary theory that is ignored by the establishment... You never did answer any of my key questions, by the way. And I doubt that you followed up on Alejandro's references. My parting recommendation is that you do both. Bye, Jerry
From: leucipo2001 on 11 May 2010 20:53 On 11 mayo, 16:55, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On May 8, 10:43 pm, "Al.Riv...(a)gmail.com" <al.riv...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > J=1/2 ----> J=sqrt( 1/2 (1/2 +1)) = sqrt(3)/2 > > ---------------------------------------------- > > Do we need some remedial math here, Alejandro? > > Is this what you mean by "irrational expresions". > Is "remedial math" some kind of math that you use and it is different of standard math? It could explain things. Let me do it more slowly 1/2 when increased in one unit is 3/2. 3/2 times 1/2 is 3/4. You multiply the numerators and the denominators. sqrt(3/4) is sqrt(3)/sqrt(4). You apply the sqrt() both to numerator and denominator sqrt(4) is 2. > Do you know how many times terms like 1/(sqrt 2) turn up in QM, for > instance? What you told, and I agree, is that many times in QM we get factors in the form sqrt(J(J+1)), instead of sqrt(J^2) as expected in classical mechanics. All I did was to put J=1/2 in one of such factors and point out that in such case we should expect some irrational factor to appear. Irrational was not intended to be an insult, it is the common word to call the numbers that are in the set of real numbers but not in the set of rational numbers. Also in a more restricted way it can be used to refer only to the subset of algebraic numbers. > > ;) > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 12 May 2010 11:49 On May 12, 8:45 am, leucipo2001 <al.riv...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > for j=1/2 this is sqrt(3/4a) times 674.8 MeV. And I would be glad if > you were > educated enough to apologize by your reference to "needing remedial > math". ------------------------------------ I did not understand the unfelicitous: sqrt (3)/2; most people would use the more obvious: sqrt (3/4). Besides, this is polemics. Don't throw a hissy fit over a small dig. > What I am telling is that I am surprised that you are ignoring the > Regge phenomenology, which already executes an ordering of the > particle spectrum according J and M^2. Your theory should explain all > of the Regge phenomenology because it is experimental result, and a > valid theory must fit with experimental results. If you are grouping ------------------------------------------ I see no need to use Ptolemaic pseudoscience when a far more clear, more elegant, and from-first-principles, explanation is available. You have wasted your career becoming indoctrinated into the substandard, string and SUSY delusions. As ye sow so shal ye reap. Good luck, pilgrim RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 13 May 2010 11:58 On May 12, 8:45 am, leucipo2001 <al.riv...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > particle spectrum according J and M^2. Your theory should explain all > of the Regge phenomenology because it is experimental result, and a > valid theory must fit with experimental results. If you are grouping > the trajectories in a different way, you should explain why your fit > is more valid than the traditional. --------------------------------------- Ok, I should explain this. The reason I can ignore the complicating issue of different particle families in the FIRST APPROXIMATION approach is the following. In this context, gravitation and mass dominate over EM and charge- related issues by a factor of 1/137 (see Discrete Scale Relativity). For this reason, if you are not trying to retrodict the fine and hyper- fine structure of the mass/stability spectrum, then you can lump ALL particles into one sample and consider that the particles differ only in mass and spin. Best, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw <---- THE ANSWERS ARE HERE!
From: Al.Rivero on 13 May 2010 16:22
On 13 mayo, 17:58, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > fine structure of the mass/stability spectrum, then you can lump ALL > particles into one sample and consider that the particles differ only > in mass and spin. Still, it is a bit confusing that you keep speaking of spin and angular momentum. All the particles you are using in your postdiction have spin either 1/2, 1 or 3/2, while your sequence goes from 1/2 up to 7. We should concede that it is a quantum number akin to angular momentum, but not the measured angular momentum, and try to use another word for it. The theory seems me a old failed theory. It relies on particles discovered in the sixties, except for the tau. Really at what it says is that the such set of particles can be approximately fitted using a series n=0, 1/2, 2, 3, 4, respectively for pions, kaon, nucleon, lambda-Sigma and Xi. At this level we should compare this theory with the other theories in use in the sixties, namely Gell-Mann SU(3). This theory SU(3)_flavour explains the interval between pion kaon and eta and, more forcefully, predicts that given the interval between Lambda, Sigma and Xi, a new particle must be found, Omega. And it predicted it at the right interval. Moreover, the groupings of particles use the real, measured spin. On the contrary, your theory can not predict at this level the gap Lambda-Sigma, and in predicts an extra particle between the Xi and the Omega. Very adhoc, you choose Xi(1530), an excited state of the Xi, and really the least stable particle of all the series. It is a fail. You can argue that it is a sucess that the series continues, after n=5 (fail) and n=6 (Omega), with n=7 tau. But after that, your theory seems to predict the continuity of the "tower" of states, and the post-1970 spectrum shows a completely different panorama: there are wide gaps of highly inestable particles, unadequate candidates for the corresponding values of n, and then followed by peaks of very stable particles: the D and B series. It is true that SU(3) flavour also fails to predict the D and B series. But after its discovery, it was very easily expanded to include them, and to predict adequate gaps between the D particles and then between the B series. On the contrary, your theory does not show easily how to add a new quantum number, as it aims to be a first- principles theory where your n and your scale are expected to be related to the same principles that gravitational theory. So your theory, compared with the prevalent theory in the seventies, shows the following problems: - no justification, at first, level, for the Lambda-Sigma split. - failed prediction of a new particle between Xi and Sigma, barely justified by introducing a very unstable resonance of Xi. - If the stability cutoff is lowered to include such resonance, then arguments for the eta0 are needed, and there is only a weak one, adhoc for it. - Lack of flexibility to incorporate the D and B series (and J/Psi and Ypsilon if Xi(1530) enters game) Probably the lack of flexibility was the final strike. Note that, by comparision, SU(3) flavour theory, besides its flexibility and its ability to predict Omega, was also able to explain the pion-kaon-eta split. Thinking about it, I am very surprised that you see this theory as a "new development", it smells 1970 all of it. I wonder if you had thought on it when you were a younger student, then forgot, then remembered now in the old age as if it were new. |