kwrk

Members
  • Content count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About kwrk

  • Rank
    Lepton
  1. Quant not Quark

    I'll probably need 2 days to press my 10 page paper into one, but until then: the essential conclusions are already in the table above. The corresponding formula is: [math]W_n / W_e = 1.509 (y_l^m)^{-1/3} \Pi_{k=0}^n\alpha^{-1/3^k}[/math], y=1 for spherical, y=1/3 for 1st angular symmetry. I.e. a significant portion of particles in the uds-quark energy range can be given with an accuracy of about 1% as function of two parameters (in this form it is W_electron and [math]\alpha[/math]; 1.509 is a term from W_µ/W_e, too special for the 1st round). For my knowledge, accuracy is pretty good. If any of you has examples from the standard model, giving better results, I'll be truly interested. I quite often hear - and I've seen that reasoning in this forum too - “standard theory gives the value of the anomalous g factor, g_a, with a precision of 10^-10, you have to beat that”. Not at all. That's a term for the electron, so let's look at that. I used e as reference in the table above, I could use any other particle, yielding the e energy within the range set in the table. Magnetic moment of the e is given by: [math]g_a g_D e/(2m_e) \hbar/2[/math] g_a is from QED, calculating interaction of the electron with the vacuum. Not my business. g_D = Dirac factor = 2 fits perfectly since my model implies an electromagnetic wave with the magnetic part only, i.e. W/2, contributing to the magnetic moment. That leaves W in 2c^2/W to be calculated. Accuracy better than 1%. But where is the contribution of the standard model, i.e. QCD, to the Bohr magneton ? Or to make it easier, the corresponding values for p, n, etc. ? QCD is out there for 50 years but when it comes to values for mass/energy and magnetic moments, its performance is poor. I am admittedly not familiar with QCD and judge it only by its results. Did I miss something ?
  2. test

    [math]W_n/W_e ={1.509}(y_l^m)^{-1/3}\Pi_{k=0}^n\alpha^{-{1/3}^k}[/math], y=1 for spherical, y=1/3 for 1st angular symmetry. [math]\alpha[/math] [math] g_a g_D \hbar/2[/math] [math] \hbar/2[/math] [math]W_n/W_{ref}=(y_l^m)^{-1/3}\Pi_{k=0}^n\alpha_0^{(-1/3^k)}[/math] [math]W_n/W_{ref}=(y_l^m)^{-1/3}\Pi_{k=0}^n\alpha_0^{(-1/3^k)}[/math] Wn/Wref=(yml)−1/3Πnk=0α(−1/3k
  3. Quant not Quark

    can't use the preview + have to reload. but it works. Thanks a lot
  4. test

    [math]y=x^2[/math] [math]\psi\Psi[/math] [math]W_n / W_{ref} = (y_l^m)^{-1/3} \pi_{k=0}^n\alpha_0^{ (-1/3^k)}[/math] [math]W_n/W_{ref}=(y_l^m)^{-1/3}\pi_{k=0}^n\alpha_0^{(-1/3^k)}[/math] [math]W_n / W_{ref} = (y_l^m)^{-1/3} \Pi_{k=0}^n\alpha_0^{ (-1/3^k)}[/math]
  5. test

    [math]y=x^2[/math] [math]\alpha_0=\alpha[/math] [math]\alpha[/math] [math]y=x^2[/math] [math]y=x^2[/math] [math]W_n / W_{ref} = (y_l^m)^{-1/3} \Pi_{k=0}^n\alpha_0^{ (-1/3^k)}[/math] [math]y=x^2[/math]
  6. Quant not Quark

    It didn't look that strict to me, when I browesed through some topics. Anyway, I'll try. I have trouble with formulars though. Neither regular Tex nor \( y=x^2 \ as recommended in the math section here works for me. In the worst case, attaching the file I linked would be ok ?
  7. Quant not Quark

    Hi everybody, I am working on a model that uses the solution to a 2nd order DE, Ψ(e,ε), e=elementary charge, ε=electric constant, as probability amplitude for the electromagnetic field, EΨ. Applying this to a point charge gives: - quantized values for particle energy - as function of a partial product of powers over the fine-structure constant α, see table below for spherical + 1st angular symmetry term; - a numerical approximation of the fine-structure constant 1/α ≈ 4π Γ(1/3)|Γ(-1/3)| ( Γ=Gamma function); - magnetic moments, calculated from electromagnetic fields; agreement with experiment within factor of 2; and on a speculative level - a possibility to quantitatively express gravitational force entirely in electromagnetic terms; - an indication of a common base for strong force, electromagnetism and mass/gravitation. The model is quite incomplete, its elaboration primitive and sloppy and I know the standard model already explains everything, but I need only e + ε, the standard model needs an additional 20+ parameters to do so. More info at url deleted or Youtube url deleted “Quant not Quark” Any idea, comment or critique welcome, Happy new year, kwrk .............W_lit/MeV.......Wn/We lit.......Wn/We calc.......calc/lit.......Πn/1,509 y00...(ν......0,3eV-calc.........-................... 6E-7..................-..............α^3) .........e.......0,51...............Ref...................-........................-...............- .........µ.......105,66...........206,8...............206,8.............1,000.........α^(-1) .........η.......547,86.........1072,1.............1066,0.............0,994.........α^(-1)α^(-1/3) .........p.......938,27.........1836,2.............1841,5.............1,003.........α^(-1)α^(-1/3)α^(-1/9) .........n.......939,57.........1838,7.............1841,5.............1,002.........α^(-1)α^(-1/3)α^(-1/9) .........Λ.......1115,68.......2183,3.............2209,6.............1,012.........α^(-1)α^(-1/3)α^(-1/9)α^(-1/27) .........Σ.......1192,64.......2333,9.............2348,0.............1,006.........α^(-1)α^(-1/3)α^(-1/9)α^(-1/27)α^(-1/81) .........Δ.......1232,00.......2411,0.............2420,4.............1,004.........α^(-3/2) y10. .π.........139,57..........273,1...............298,2.............1,092.........1,44 α^(-1) ........ρ0........775,26........1517,2............1537,6.............1,013.........1,44 α^(-1)α^(-1/3) ........ω0........782,65.......1531,6.............1537,6.............1,004.........1,44 α^(-1)α^(-1/3) ........Σ0.......1383,70.......2707,8.............2656,3.............0,981........1,44 α^(-1)α^(-1/3)α^(-1/9) ........Ω-........1672,45.......3272,9.............3187,2.............0,974........1,44 α^(-1)α^(-1/3)α^(-1/9)α^(-1/27) ........tau......1776,82.......3477,................3491,3.............1,004........1,44 α^(-3/2)