Pierre Noyes' work on the combinatorial hierarchy aka bit-string physics actually appears to have a predicted radius for the proton derived from pure mathematics. It is related to the Schwartz radius:
What this has led me to is an attempt to reformulate quantization as resting on the quantization of mass, and hence a Democritean quantum mechanics in which there are only particles and the void, but in which the number of particles can change via the Wick-Yukawa mechanism. The resulting model for elementary particles is a charge cloud surrounding a black hole (with zero spin for bosons and l/2 spin for fermions) which shields the hole by a Coulomb barrier - 137e2 (or for quarks l/9 or 2/9 or 4/9 that value) high. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-1351.pdf On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark,**** > > ** ** > > I've been focusing on mass variation, not radius - but your point that > textbook values for the other physical properties of protons are almost as > flakey, stands. **** > > ** ** > > Mass of the proton, historically, was measured at different values in > different countries using different techniques, and even in modern times > with Penning traps, there are severe problems with the generally accepted > value. And since a 125 GeV Higgs isn't compatible with the Standard Model, > the reference frame is crumbling.**** > > ** ** > > Believe it or not - there is NO model or hypothesis to predict the mass of > a proton! Many in fizzix assume there is, but they are wrong. (there are > dozens of efforts to do this, as in QCD - but none has gotten much traction > AFAIK.)**** > > ** ** > > Since the mass cannot be derived elegantly from other known values, it is > taken on faith as a practical matter - but I should mention that this value > could be related to a beta-decay process and derived that way. However, > there are too many transformations to account for in any decay process such > as spin, kinetic energy, weak isospin, weak hypercharge, color charge, > bosons/gluon identity, not to mention: quark mass and neutrino mass. We > need a derivation which matches actual measurements. None exists.**** > > ** ** > > Quark mass does not have a value which can be agreed on, so how can > protons?**** > > ** ** > > Look for a possible revision soon, due to Higgs. **** > > ** ** > > BTW - the Standard Model mass of the proton is 1.672 621 637 x 10^ -27 kg, > or 938.272013 MeV, or 1.007 276 466 77 atomic mass units. Other values can > still be found in "official" sources and I'm not sure where this one comes > from, but who cares? It is wrong if the billions spent on the Higgs was > well-spent.**** > > **** > > ** ** > > *From:* MarkI-ZeroPoint **** > > ** ** > > This might tie in to what Jones has been saying in a number of vortex > postings...**** > > ** ** > > Is the radius of a proton wrong?**** > > http://phys.org/news/2013-02-textbook-radius-proton-wrong.html**** > > ** ** > > Apparently after 3 years now, they still cannot find an error in the data > which suggests that the textbooks are wrong about the proton radius...**** > > ** ** > > "Usually these updates are to clarify that the problem has been resolved > and that, once again, something innocuous was to blame for the unexpected > result. Updating three years later to say "it's still broken!" is something > of an oddity."**** > > ** ** > > "The announcements in question here are about a finding that the radius of > the proton differed from the "textbook" value by 4%. This doesn't sound > like much, but we thought we knew the radius to within 0.8%, making 4% sort > of a big deal. Physicists only count something as a "discovery" if it's > five "standard deviations" (5σ) significant. This measurement is now at 7σ > and more than ten times more precise than the previous value, with an error > of just 0.05%."**** > > ** ** > > "What made it all the more important though, was that the radius of the > proton wasn't some value that comes from reading it off a ruler. The theory > behind the textbook value is quantum electrodynamics (QED), probably the > most refined and accurate theory in all of physics."**** > > ** ** > > -Mark Iverson**** > > ** ** >
