Subatomic Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum
in [Physics]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 7 May 2010 12:07 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! Keep smilin', RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Jerry on 8 May 2010 00:04 On May 7, 11:07 am, "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! > > Keep smilin', > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Alejandro's point, which you currently refuse to address, is precisely the same as my point, which you earlier refused to address. 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? Your completely ad hoc use of fractions for masses below the proton mass, justified by vague numerological arguments, smacks of arbitrary curve fitting. Given the above, is anyone to be impressed that the eta particle is matched to only 6.7%, the Lambda0 particle is matched to only 4.7%, and the N is matched to only 4.8%??? Jerry
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 8 May 2010 13:52 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? 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: 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! Best, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: G. L. Bradford on 8 May 2010 14:08 "Michael Moroney" <moroney(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:hs40qg$btf$1(a)pcls6.std.com... > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> writes: > >>You can whine and deny all you want to, fuckheaded bigot, but it's >>Einstein >>and Tom&Jeery you are denying. > >>For a cosmic muon with v = 0.999c, it's natural lifespan = 2.2 usec. >>ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon > >>Einstein's calculation is tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), >>ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif > > >>2.2usec * sqrt(1-0.999^2) = 0.098362 usec > >>So cosmic muons which normally decay in 2.2 usec therefore map to "a >>narrower set of values tau in the relatively moving frame"(--Tom&Jeery) >>and only last for a maximum of 0.01 usec. >>"These effects are regularly seen" -- Tom&Jeery. ======================== It's a matter of history, the observation wasn't of the particle at such an [expanded] difference in relative velocity, an [expanded] universe, it was of a history. A lot of physicists have a tough time with history, a tough time with histories. The "life" doesn't last any longer, neither position nor velocity being absolute -- though they, or one or the other of the ingredients, are claimed to be absolute for one agenda and a moment later not-at-all absolute for another agenda (space isn't absolute thus expansion and contraction can throw distance time of light transmission from relatively moving A to relatively unmoving B out of kilter). Locally it, the particle, decayed long ago in time, relatively speaking, but non-locally it wasn't observed to do so until long (an even longer time) after the event. The observers [always] assume they are right on top of things when they aren't (assuming space and time to be -flat- absolutes, thus assuming position and velocity to also be -flat- absolutes, thus assuming the [distance] of light transmission in space / time to be -flatly- absolute). It's amazing that they can spout, line and verse, the theories of relativity....then, concerning position and velocity, go about expanding or contracting time without any correspondent expansion or contraction of space whatsoever. They will tell you that the 3-d space parameter is built into the 1-d time parameter. If it were built in, there would be a integral cancellation of the effect (the 'twins paradox' effect) they swear by, and a realization that the particle decayed long before -- much longer before -- they observed it to decay; and that light at 'c' spent a relatively longer time traveling in a relatively larger, relatively more inflated, string of [space]-[time] curvature. GLB ========================
From: G. L. Bradford on 8 May 2010 15:17
"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01(a)insightbb.com> wrote in message news:0oSdnT5dc5w0NXjWnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d(a)insightbb.com... > > "Michael Moroney" <moroney(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message > news:hs40qg$btf$1(a)pcls6.std.com... >> "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> writes: >> >>>You can whine and deny all you want to, fuckheaded bigot, but it's >>>Einstein >>>and Tom&Jeery you are denying. >> >>>For a cosmic muon with v = 0.999c, it's natural lifespan = 2.2 usec. >>>ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon >> >>>Einstein's calculation is tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), >>>ref: >>>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif >> >> >>>2.2usec * sqrt(1-0.999^2) = 0.098362 usec >> >>>So cosmic muons which normally decay in 2.2 usec therefore map to "a >>>narrower set of values tau in the relatively moving frame"(--Tom&Jeery) >>>and only last for a maximum of 0.01 usec. >>>"These effects are regularly seen" -- Tom&Jeery. > > ======================== > > It's a matter of history, the observation wasn't of the particle at such > an [expanded] difference in relative velocity, an [expanded] universe, it > was of a history. A lot of physicists have a tough time with history, a > tough time with histories. The "life" doesn't last any longer, neither > position nor velocity being absolute -- though they, or one or the other > of the ingredients, are claimed to be absolute for one agenda and a moment > later not-at-all absolute for another agenda (space isn't absolute thus > expansion and contraction can throw distance time of light transmission > from relatively moving A to relatively unmoving B out of kilter). Locally > it, the particle, decayed long ago in time, relatively speaking, but > non-locally it wasn't observed to do so until long (an even longer time) > after the event. > > The observers [always] assume they are right on top of things when they > aren't (assuming space and time to be -flat- absolutes, thus assuming > position and velocity to also be -flat- absolutes, thus assuming the > [distance] of light transmission in space / time to be -flatly- absolute). > > It's amazing that they can spout, line and verse, the theories of > relativity....then, concerning position and velocity, go about expanding > or contracting time without any correspondent expansion or contraction of > space whatsoever. They will tell you that the 3-d space parameter is built > into the 1-d time parameter. If it were built in, there would be a > integral cancellation of the effect (the 'twins paradox' effect) they > swear by, and a realization that the particle decayed long before -- much > longer before -- they observed it to decay; and that light at 'c' spent a > relatively longer time traveling in a relatively larger, relatively more > inflated, string of [space]-[time] curvature. > > GLB > > ======================== Observer A: "It happened before they knew it happened." Observer B: "Well, I'll have to dispute you in one thing, it happened much longer than that before they knew it happened." GLB ======================== |