Erratum: Schwartz -> Schwarzschild I guess it was one of God's little jokes to have the man who discovered the radius of the black hole to be named Karl Schwarzschild.
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 4:25 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > 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**** >> >> ** ** >> > >
