Things to Reject in 21st Century Physics
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Deepwater Horizon BP Oil Spill - A Geophysical Theory That Needs Consideration
Next: EINSTEINIANA: THE FUNDAMENTAL NIGHTMARE
From: PD on 10 Jul 2010 11:50 On Jul 10, 12:07 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 9, 2:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > And you'd like to compare this against the hundreds of experimental > > tests of QCD? > > -------------------------------- > > Tell me what the 3 most important successful test of QCD were. I don't know that there is an acknowledged set of three. There are lots of examples. One is the 2-jet cross section as a function of transverse momentum, especially at FNAL. Another is the presence and frequency of 3-jet events, and their energy spectra, as far back as ISR and TASSO, but also reproduced at FNAL and CERN. Another is the signal for quark-gluon plasma at RHIC. The scholarly literature is littered with experimental tests of QCD. PD
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 10 Jul 2010 13:01 On Jul 10, 1:47 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Woof, woof,woof,woof,woof,woof,... --------------------------------- What makes Eric Gisse so angry. (1) He can't stop barking (2) He has fleas (3) It's the drool problem (4) All of the above (5) Something else I would wecome your input.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 10 Jul 2010 13:04 On Jul 10, 11:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't know why you think QED and QCD are untestable. ------------------------------------------ Well, take QCD. What has it successfully predicted or retrodicted without Ptolemaic fudging? RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 10 Jul 2010 13:14 On Jul 10, 11:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Tell me what the 3 most important successful test of QCD were. > > I don't know that there is an acknowledged set of three. > There are lots of examples. > One is the 2-jet cross section as a function of transverse momentum, > especially at FNAL. > Another is the presence and frequency of 3-jet events, and their > energy spectra, as far back as ISR and TASSO, but also reproduced at > FNAL and CERN. > Another is the signal for quark-gluon plasma at RHIC. -------------------------------------- There is much roon for debate on each of these 3 results you mention. (1) Was the agreement achieved by "adjustment" (2) Did QCD predict the jet phenomena BEFORE it was observed, or "explain" it after it was discovered. (3) Could other theories explain the phenomena better? It is far from cut-and-dried. It depends on who you ask and what their bias is. When it comes to real predictions QCD has failed the free-quark test, the Higgs boson test, it cannot predict any properties of particles (only fudged retrodictions), requires 30 adjustment factors. Discrete Scale Relativity predicts a proton radius of 0.814 fermi that is in better agreement with the new high precision measurement (and a second previous test) than the QED-based estimate, and far, far better than anything QCD can barf up. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: eric gisse on 10 Jul 2010 08:29
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 10, 11:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > Tell me what the 3 most important successful test of QCD were. >> >> I don't know that there is an acknowledged set of three. >> There are lots of examples. >> One is the 2-jet cross section as a function of transverse momentum, >> especially at FNAL. >> Another is the presence and frequency of 3-jet events, and their >> energy spectra, as far back as ISR and TASSO, but also reproduced at >> FNAL and CERN. >> Another is the signal for quark-gluon plasma at RHIC. > -------------------------------------- > > There is much roon for debate on each of these 3 results you mention. > > (1) Was the agreement achieved by "adjustment" I bet you could figure out this question by reading the scholarly articles on the subject, Robert. > > (2) Did QCD predict the jet phenomena BEFORE it was observed, or > "explain" it after it was discovered. > > (3) Could other theories explain the phenomena better? > > It is far from cut-and-dried. It depends on who you ask and what their > bias is. > > When it comes to real predictions QCD has failed the free-quark test, Robert, even I know that QCD doesn't predict free quarks. > the Higgs boson test, it cannot predict any properties of particles > (only fudged retrodictions), requires 30 adjustment factors. I seem to recall it is fewer than 30, all of which are direct observables. If you have knowledge to the contrary, please give a literature reference. > > Discrete Scale Relativity predicts a proton radius of 0.814 fermi that > is in better agreement with the new high precision measurement (and a > second previous test) than the QED-based estimate, and far, far better > than anything QCD can barf up. There you go again, Robert. Your prediction is off by 40 standard deviations from what is observed. The previous observation interpreted via QED lamb shift and the newest one by Pohl differ by 5 standard deviations. Why is 40 better than 5, Robert? You seem curiously unable to answer this question. Instead you prefer some variation of not answering it or insulting me. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |