really predicting the masses of elementary particles #569 Correcting Math
in [Logic]
|
Prev: really predicting the masses of elementary particles #568 Correcting Math
Next: Impersonators Flatter Me, Thank YOu
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 5 Apr 2010 15:52 I wrote last night: > > What I am relying on is the idea that the electron has mass of 1 and > space of 1876 whereas the proton has mass of 1876 and space of 1. > > And the way I derive the number 1876 for the proton mass relative to > electron mass, is that only at the diameter of the larger sphere of > 1876 diameter will those two opposite spinning > log-spirals meet up at the Equator. So maybe there is a projection of > projective geometry involved in this also. > Well, first off, I should have looked up a more accurate measure of the mass ratio of proton to electron, instead of relying on my memory. The more accurate measure is 1836.1527. I was wondering what the two Fibonacci numbers between that number was: 1597, 2584 And I do not suppose that if the ratio was a Fibonacci number itself, whether that would make this derivation any easier. I suppose, though, that if many of the mass ratios of many of the elementary particles were a Fibonacci number, then their theory would have been easily solvable, because they formed an obvious pattern. However, I do have a pattern of the mass ratio of proton and electron and the inverse fine-structure constant, only it is begotten out of the Atom Totality theory dealing with just purely Atom Totality structure and pi, not the log spiral. But I suppose it is easy to render pi into a log-spiral accounting. --- quoting from my Atom Totality book --- The number 1836.1527 which is about 6(pi^5). The last electron subshell of a plutonium atom is 5f6. Notice that the two digits of 5 and 6 are in both 6(pi^5) and 5f6. So for the 6 electrons in the 5f energy shell gives 6(pi^5). When we analyze electron parts of a Plutonium Atom Totality measure the mass ratio of a proton to an electron inside of (superpositioned onto) a Plutonium Atom Totality then the unitless number results as 6(pi^5). In the next atom totality of element 95, the mass ratio of proton to electron as measured by sacks of life atoms of life in a 95th electron observable universe will be 7(pi^5). (A) THE MEANING OF THE INVERSE FINE-STRUCTURE MARKER FOR THE NEUTRONS. The physical meaning of the inverse fine-structure marker for the neutrons is the fact that there are exactly 137 neutrons in the nucleus of the Plutonium Atom Totality, which is the isotope 231(a)94. The inverse fine-structure marker is a variable in high energy physics. In many books it is written as a constant which is slightly more than the number 137, but this is incorrect with physics experiments. In high energy physics, the inverse fine-structure marker or the fine-structure marker, either one is a variable. But, over its range of values, the most frequent value of the inverse fine-structure marker is the number 137. Statistically the average value of the inverse fine-structure variable over its range of values from high energy physics to low energy physics is exactly 137. Because the totality is a dynamical system due to spontaneous neutron materialization,i.e. the creation of new matter in the universe in a logarithmic spiral rate, then the inverse fine-structure marker will increase with time since it is a reflection of the present atom totality that in the future it will increase to 138. The inverse fine-structure marker is exactly 137 neutrons in the collapsed wavefunction and in the uncollapsed wavefunction of 231(a)94 when the value of pi is taken as exactly equal to 22/7, the inverse fine-structure marker is exactly ((22/7)^7)/22. --- end quoting from my other book --- So notice that the mass ratio of electron to proton becomes 6(pi^5) and that the inverse fine structure constant becomes (pi^7)/22. These two numbers would be related to each other in the fact of their exponents are energy structures in a plutonium atom. And to convert the pi into a log-spiral. The above suggests that the masses of all the other elementary particles are accessory masses, or what I am trying to say is that they are unimportant particles. They are not fundamental particles but merely add-ons of extra energy. The above means that we have to explain only the mass of a few particles such as the proton, electron and neutrino, and perhaps why the neutron is what it is, but for all the other particles of Nature, well, they are merely an excited with energy electron or excited with energy proton. Unlike the Standard Model which makes a big fuss over "other particles" this thread would imply that the subject of elementary particles is overblown, and that the world of physics needs to only consider the stable elementary particles. In a earlier time in physics with the building of these huge collider machines, in order to keep funding those machines, the elementary particles of physics were propagandized as being "independent and important" when in reality, anything other than the proton, electron, neutron, neutrino and muon were just "energy add on uninteresting particles". And the LHC which is in operation now, is perhaps the last straw of this particle physics nonsense of thinking that these derivative-particles have anything important to do with physics. When the LHC fails to report a Higgs particle, will they stop their nonsense and focus on real-true physics and not their delusional physics? I suspect not. Delusionals in science seem to have a life-long disease of being delusional. But what the LHC can do, is probably prove or convince most high energy physicists that a Fusion Barrier Law exists and that a machine can only reach 2/3 fusion breakeven in its output. So if the LHC scientists divert their attention away from the delusional Higgs and focus on a fusion barrier law, the LHC would have been well worth its time and price tag. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |