Subatomic Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum
in [Physics]
|
From: Al.Rivero on 14 May 2010 17:19 On 14 mayo, 19:06, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > (2) ONLY (a) VALUES BETWEEN 0 and 4/3 (note: a couple exceed 1 because > they are unstable paticles). Write the values of (a) for each peak. You have not done it yet, so there is nothing to speak about. I am surprised you are uppercasing, do you believe that you have told us about the values of this series? You haven't. Not in this thread, at least.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 14 May 2010 19:22 On May 14, 5:19 pm, "Al.Riv...(a)gmail.com" <al.riv...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > (2) ONLY (a) VALUES BETWEEN 0 and 4/3 (note: a couple exceed 1 because > > they are unstable paticles). > > Write the values of (a) for each peak. You have not done it yet, so > there is nothing to speak about. I am surprised you are uppercasing, > do you believe that you have told us about the values of this series? > You haven't. Not in this thread, at least. ------------------------------ I have given you more than enough information to do it yourself. In case you have not picked up on it: MY MAIN GOAL OF LATE IS TO GET OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED. When many people contribute to a new idea, then the development of the idea is speeded up and new and unexpected advances are possible, if not likely. Mostly I hope to convince some highly talented individual to repeat everything using the full Kerr-Newman metric. Why don't I do it myself? Of course I will, but I want others to participate, if only to check my results, but more for the broader development and refinement of the new Discrete Self-Similar Paradigm. Do you really think I would continue this lame discussion with you primarily for your benefit. I'm talkin' to the lil' buckaroos out there, not the demented Cat's Cradle theorists or the choir boys of The Church of the Substandard Model. What more can one say? Good luck, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw <--- Unifies HEP + QM + GR
From: Al.Rivero on 14 May 2010 20:07 On 15 mayo, 01:22, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > > Write the values of (a) for each peak. You have not done it yet, so > > there is nothing to speak about. I am surprised you are uppercasing, > > do you believe that you have told us about the values of this series? > > You haven't. Not in this thread, at least. > In case you have not picked up on it: MY MAIN GOAL OF LATE IS TO GET > OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED. When many people contribute to a new idea, > then the development of the idea is speeded up and new and unexpected > advances are possible, if not likely. I see. It is a good initiative. In my case, it has failed because of the following scientific reasons: - If I need to guess different values of a, it will be even more nearby to trajectories, as each a will multiply the mass constant (your about 600 MeV), producing different startpoints for the slopes quantised by the n. - Furthermore, diferent values of a will combine with the n quantum, producing far more than 8 peaks, and most likely causing a decrease of predictivity. - I can see not reason for a quantisation of a. The "pseudo angular momentum" quantum is already counted by n. - It keeps failing me to explain D and B, more precisely the empty ranges between them. - I do not see clearly what units are we using in the quantum; in the original quantum we have sqrt(J), in the new version it is sqrt(J (J +1)) so that 'a' needs to be used to restore units. It can work, but it seems a bit convolved. Plus the following non scientific considerations - I have not enjoyed the tone of the answers and "hints", uppercassing, teasing about "the secret", that you already 'know', etc. I would not enjoy to travel a research path with you. - You have started discussion fully conviced that the sqrt(n) series was 'the answer', you have insulted and teased us about being a morons by not believing it, and then you have changed to a 'still better' theory. In this way you have proven that you reserve the right to doubt and evolve the theory, but you deny to the rest of us such possibility. The only plus of the theory is that I agree that the real signal of mass in in the GeV-TeV scale, not in the Planck scale, and I like your view of Planck scale as spureous or not fundamental. Moreover, blackhole-like spectrum could have a role, as hinted by the modern concept of saturated BPS states. But that is not enough. Others can run a different path, anyway. Have luck.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 14 May 2010 21:39 On May 14, 8:07 pm, "Al.Riv...(a)gmail.com" <al.riv...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I see. It is a good initiative. > > In my case, it has failed because of the following scientific reasons: > --------------------------------------- Look, this is quite simple. You have devoted your career to the substandard paradigm and the dubious attempts to rescue it with string theory, supersymmetry, loopy quantum field theory, multiverses, anthropic unreasoning, etc., etc., ... You have put your eggs, and rear end, in that basket, so you are highly motivated to delay or stop the development of the new discrete self-similar paradigm. Same as it ever was! Currently, those who think and act like you are far in the majority. In the long run, however, I think the new paradigm will emerge victorious. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw <--- What it's all about
From: Uncle Al on 15 May 2010 12:06
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote: > > On May 14, 8:07 pm, "Al.Riv...(a)gmail.com" <al.riv...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I see. It is a good initiative. > > > > In my case, it has failed because of the following scientific reasons: > > > --------------------------------------- > > Look, this is quite simple. > > You have devoted your career to the substandard paradigm and the > dubious attempts to rescue it with string theory, supersymmetry, loopy > quantum field theory, multiverses, anthropic unreasoning, etc., > etc., ... > > You have put your eggs, and rear end, in that basket, so you are > highly motivated to delay or stop the development of the new discrete > self-similar paradigm. Same as it ever was! > > Currently, those who think and act like you are far in the majority. > In the long run, however, I think the new paradigm will emerge > victorious. Ah, Bob - "Al.Rivero" is asking for numbers. Talking the talk is easy, professionals and crackpots. If you are a scientist you must walk the walk - provide numbers or doable experiments. As you have no experiments, post the numbers. If you have no numbers, you have no theory. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |