Limits of Theoretical Physics(?)

[elas]

IOW, you did not predict this particle. Correct?

 

I concede that reply 20 is misleading, the mass values of the unpredicted particles have (as far as I am aware) not been published; what I intended to imply was that the mass values are predictable as against the Fermilab statement that they were not predicted by QT.

 

My proposal predicts the values found by experiment within the experimental margin of error; QT predicts the average of a selected group of experimental results. The process of averaging is a self-serving stage that prevents QT from reaching a finality.

 

You have turned the debate from 'particles' to 'particle' but particles not particle, was the subject of my replies. What is the experimentallyt proven data of the particle you are referring to?

 

I have shown how to predict the mass of all possible charged elementary particle states. As I understand it the the report is about the discovery of unpredicted particles, not just one particle; moreover the report concerns the investigation of a narrow mass band, implying that there is plenty more to come in other mass band

 

I would welcome a reference to any site that gives the mass values of newly discovered particles.

Edited April 9, 2011 by elas

[swansont]

I concede that reply 20 is misleading, the mass values of the unpredicted particles have (as far as I am aware) not been published; what I intended to imply was that the mass values are predictable as against the Fermilab statement that they were not predicted by QT.

 

My proposal predicts the values found by experiment within the experimental margin of error; QT predicts the average of a selected group of experimental results. The process of averaging is a self-serving stage that prevents QT from reaching a finality.

 

You have turned the debate from 'particles' to 'particle' but particles not particle, was the subject of my replies. What is the experimentallyt proven data of the particle you are referring to?

 

I have shown how to predict the mass of all possible charged elementary particle states. As I understand it the the report is about the discovery of unpredicted particles, not just one particle; moreover the report concerns the investigation of a narrow mass band, implying that there is plenty more to come in other mass band

 

I would welcome a reference to any site that gives the mass values of newly discovered particles.

 

This is one of the shortcomings of your model. You do not predict the new particle, but any new particle discovered will fit into it. If this bump turns out to not be real, it has no effect. Thus, your model is not falsifiable.

 

That's why it isn't science.

[elas]

This is one of the shortcomings of your model. You do not predict the new particle, but any new particle discovered will fit into it. If this bump turns out to not be real, it has no effect. Thus, your model is not falsifiable.

 

That's why it isn't science.

 

I disagree; there is plenty of space for unpredicted particles in my model in particular amongst the larger fractions. What are the other shortcomings?

 

My model predicts that quarks are charge +1 or -1 particles, u and d are shown in the table this means that the model can be falsified by proving the QT claim that quarks are fractionally charged.

 

Only the limitations of excel prevent extending the table to include all quarks.

Edited April 10, 2011 by elas

[swansont]

I disagree; there is plenty of space for unpredicted particles in my model in particular amongst the larger fractions. What are the other shortcomings?

 

Space isn't the issue; in this case it's not a virtue. Whether your model says they exist or not is the issue. If your model has room for dozens of new particles, the question is: where are they?

 

My model predicts that quarks are charge +1 or -1 particles, u and d are shown in the table this means that the model can be falsified by proving the QT claim that quarks are fractionally charged.

 

Only the limitations of excel prevent extending the table to include all quarks.

 

There is ample evidence that quarks are fractionally charged.

[elas]

Space isn't the issue; in this case it's not a virtue. Whether your model says they exist or not is the issue. If your model has room for dozens of new particles, the question is: where are they?

 

 

 

There is ample evidence that quarks are fractionally charged.

 

References please such as:

 

http//www.sciencedirect.com?-ob=Article URL&_udi=B^TVD-$W6M

 

Because a mathematical assumption fits into a theory that is only a small part of the whole; it does not prove that the assumption is correct. My proposal is also an assumption that fits mathematically; but it is supported by negative experimental results given in the above reference. My model explains how and why by showing that there is only one elementary charged particle and therefore only one elementary charge and one elementary force; every observed charged particle (force carrier) is a compaction of the elementary particle; the contents being conserved.

 

Yesterday, at long last, I had a two hour debate with a professional researcher; his final comment was that my model probably explains the role of a Higg's field (in my words - the elasticity of matter). I now have an understanding of why QT students and theorist have difficulty understanding my model and I now have a complete set of university course papers.

 

Hopefully, one more revision that will produce something worthy of journal submission.

 

PS: I would describe the Higg's field as comprising of particles in the lowest possible compaction state; the Higg's particle being a particle in the highest possible compaction state; the states of all other particles lies between the two Higg's states. They will be found when we look for them and thankfully the process of 'looking' has finally begun and some results are starting to be reported. Of course (as my table illustrates) some results were found earlier, but were lost in the averaging process.

Edited April 11, 2011 by elas

[imatfaal]

Elas - you do realize that a list of masses as generated by your formula will predict every particle simply because it is a long list of numbers with a constant addition (.102something), the most you can be wrong by is .051ish; in fact your average error is actually slightly more than would be expected by using random numbers.

[elas]

Elas - you do realize that a list of masses as generated by your formula will predict every particle simply because it is a long list of numbers with a constant addition (.102something), the most you can be wrong by is .051ish; in fact your average error is actually slightly more than would be expected by using random numbers.

 

The gaps between1/2, 1/3, and 1/4 are large, admittedly the gaps get smaller, but that is the way natural compaction works as can be seen when experimental results are not averaged.

 

Your criticism could also be applied to the fractions of Composite Fermions theory, but that to is experimentally proven.

 

Things are now moving on; I will soon open a forum to give a diagrammatical explanation of the connection between Penrose spin, Lisi's SU(3), and Rovelli's Loop Quantum Gravity; they are all descriptions of different parts of the natural particle field structure. Following on from this I hope to give an explanation of how and why neutrons decay.

 

I am becomming increasingly confident that a classical interpretation can be attached to QT. Such an interpretation will allow mathematicians to edit QT and produce a complete mathematical theory. That is to say that only those parts of QT that can be subjected to a classical interpretation can be retained in QT and all future predictions must be accompanied by a classical interpretation.

[imatfaal]

The gaps between1/2, 1/3, and 1/4 are large, admittedly the gaps get smaller, but that is the way natural compaction works as can be seen when experimental results are not averaged.

 

 

Nonsense - the gaps are all the same. Behind a little flim-flammery your table is a simple arithmetic series with a₀ = 0 and d = 0.1022009043

So if the "the way natural compaction works" is for the gaps to get smaller: and they clearly don't get smaller - is your theory toast? Self contradiction

[elas]

Nonsense - the gaps are all the same. Behind a little flim-flammery your table is a simple arithmetic series with a₀ = 0 and d = 0.1022009043

So if the "the way natural compaction works" is for the gaps to get smaller: and they clearly don't get smaller - is your theory toast? Self contradiction

 

I should have said the compactions get smaller.

 

The electromagnetic spectrum has been used to demonstrate this point and long ago I submitted a scaled diagram to show the relationship between particle mass, radii and wavelength using the un-averaged data from the Particle Data Group.

 

Note also that A.G.Lisi’s E8 theory also predicts the existence of many new particles, but as far as I am aware no one has thought of comparing Lisi's predictions with the un-averaged findings detailed in the PDG reports.

Edited April 15, 2011 by elas

[imatfaal]

So now we agree that your table is basically a list of numbers generated by an arithmetic series (ie it is .102... multiplied by any +ve integer) , would you also agree that it can have no predictive power because any/all masses can be "predicted" with an "error" orders of magnitude smaller than the experimental error.

 

If you bet on all the horses you are bound to win!

 

I like the fact that you are willing to formulate ideas and put them up for scrutiny and I hope you understand that I am not being deliberately obstructive rather I am pointing out those errors that occur to me. That said, I think you are wrong; the quest for a classical explanation is doomed, but the actual journey to that realisation may prove very illuminating.

[elas]

So now we agree that your table is basically a list of numbers generated by an arithmetic series (ie it is .102... multiplied by any +ve integer) , would you also agree that it can have no predictive power because any/all masses can be "predicted" with an "error" orders of magnitude smaller than the experimental error.

 

If you bet on all the horses you are bound to win!

 

I like the fact that you are willing to formulate ideas and put them up for scrutiny and I hope you understand that I am not being deliberately obstructive rather I am pointing out those errors that occur to me. That said, I think you are wrong; the quest for a classical explanation is doomed, but the actual journey to that realisation may prove very illuminating.

 

Basically you are correct, but you are ignoring the supporting evidence that shows that in particle structure nature rides all the horses (just as nature does in evolution). I admit the evidence is scattered throughout a number of submissions; but I hope to complete my current article this weekend then I will attempt to assemble a comprehensive reply. The journey to a classical interpretation is about to begin.

 

The whole purpose of my submissions is to obtain the constructive criticism that highlights errors for correction and also highlights where I have failed to convince, your replies are most welcomed.

 

PS For latest submission see: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/56535-carbon-graphene-and-quantum-theory/#entry601642

Edited April 16, 2011 by elas

[DrRocket]

I presume this is the one referred to - the pre-print at arxiv , and a few pop-sci articles from New Scientist and Scientific American

 

maybe this http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0699