in [Relativity]

Prev: The Singularity, Spacetime and the Conception
Next: The principles of the Ether-nal Ethe-r-eal Real-m of Real-ity
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 8 Aug 2010 23:45 Ok, ok, I admit the following: (1) Trying to use a Kerr metric to model such diverse particle types as leptons, spin 0 mesons and baryons was going to be problematic. (2) Using spin values other than the conventional j values was going to be very problematic. Suitably chastened, I decided to treat the different particles types separately and to only use conventional j values. I started with baryons since they seemed to fit the Kerr modelling the best. I chose the well-known and relatively stable baryons: p, n, Lambda, Delta(++,+,0,-), Sigma(+,0,-), Xi(0,-), Xi(1530;0,-) and Omega(-). I used the same Kerr-derived mass formula: (j{j+1}/a^2)^1/4 (674.8 MeV) , with the revised Planck mass derived in accordance with Discrete Scale Relativity. I used the j values: 1/2, 1/2, 1/2, 3/2, 1/2, 1/2, 3/2, 3/2, respectively. Using "a" values of 4/9, 4/9, 6/19, 7/12, 5/18, 2/9, 3/8, 5/16, respectively, I get the retrodicted MeV values of 942, 942, 1117.5, 1229.5, 1191.5, 1332.1, 1533.4 and 1679.8, respectively. The average agreement between the 8 theoretical and empirical masses is <99.67%>. I know, I know, the "a" values look like "fudge factors". However, (1) They all conform to the 0-1.00 criterion of the Kerr metric "rotation parameter". (2) They are reasonably "close" to 1/2, 1/2, 1/3, 1/2, 1/4, 1/2, 3/8, 1/3, which *look* less arbitrary. Therefore I call the "a" values "nudge factors" rather than ad hoc fudge factors. Can I theoretically justify these "a" values? No way. At least, not yet. However, I think the focus on baryons and conventional spin values has improved my argument that subatomic particles might well be accurately modeled by Kerr-Newman black holes and virtually naked singularities. It's a work in progress. If you have a favorite baryon that I have not included here, why not try the mass formula given above and see if its mass can be retrodicted by this method? RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: BURT on 9 Aug 2010 00:13 On Aug 8, 8:45 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders... (a)amherst.edu>wrote: > Ok, ok, I admit the following: > > (1) Trying to use a Kerr metric to model such diverse particle types > as leptons, spin 0 mesons and baryons was going to be problematic. > > (2) Using spin values other than the conventional j values was going > to be very problematic. > > Suitably chastened, I decided to treat the different particles types > separately and to only use conventional j values. > > I started with baryons since they seemed to fit the Kerr modelling the > best. I chose the well-known and relatively stable baryons: p, n, > Lambda, Delta(++,+,0,-), Sigma(+,0,-), Xi(0,-), Xi(1530;0,-) and > Omega(-). > > I used the same Kerr-derived mass formula: (j{j+1}/a^2)^1/4 (674.8 > MeV) , with the revised Planck mass derived in accordance with > Discrete Scale Relativity. > > I used the j values: 1/2, 1/2, 1/2, 3/2, 1/2, 1/2, 3/2, 3/2, > respectively. > > Using "a" values of 4/9, 4/9, 6/19, 7/12, 5/18, 2/9, 3/8, 5/16, > respectively, > > I get the retrodicted MeV values of 942, 942, 1117.5, 1229.5, 1191.5, > 1332.1, 1533.4 and 1679.8, respectively. > > The average agreement between the 8 theoretical and empirical masses > is <99.67%>. > > I know, I know, the "a" values look like "fudge factors". However, > > (1) They all conform to the 0-1.00 criterion of the Kerr metric > "rotation parameter". > > (2) They are reasonably "close" to 1/2, 1/2, 1/3, 1/2, 1/4, 1/2, 3/8, > 1/3, which *look* less arbitrary. > > Therefore I call the "a" values "nudge factors" rather than ad hoc > fudge factors. Can I theoretically justify these "a" values? No > way. At least, not yet. However, I think the focus on baryons and > conventional spin values has improved my argument that subatomic > particles might well be accurately modeled by Kerr-Newman black holes > and virtually naked singularities. > > It's a work in progress. > > If you have a favorite baryon that I have not included here, why not > try the mass formula given above and see if its mass can be > retrodicted by this method? > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Light has an electric energy level spectrum. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 10 Aug 2010 00:07 On Aug 8, 9:13 pm, BURT <macromi... (a)yahoo.com> wrote:> On Aug 8, 8:45 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders... (a)amherst.edu>> wrote: > > > > > > > Ok, ok, I admit the following: > > > (1) Trying to use a Kerr metric to model such diverse particle types > > as leptons, spin 0 mesons and baryons was going to be problematic. > > > (2) Using spin values other than the conventional j values was going > > to be very problematic. > > > Suitably chastened, I decided to treat the different particles types > > separately and to only use conventional j values. > > > I started with baryons since they seemed to fit the Kerr modelling the > > best. I chose the well-known and relatively stable baryons: p, n, > > Lambda, Delta(++,+,0,-), Sigma(+,0,-), Xi(0,-), Xi(1530;0,-) and > > Omega(-). > > > I used the same Kerr-derived mass formula: (j{j+1}/a^2)^1/4 (674.8 > > MeV) , with the revised Planck mass derived in accordance with > > Discrete Scale Relativity. > > > I used the j values: 1/2, 1/2, 1/2, 3/2, 1/2, 1/2, 3/2, 3/2, > > respectively. > > > Using "a" values of 4/9, 4/9, 6/19, 7/12, 5/18, 2/9, 3/8, 5/16, > > respectively, > > > I get the retrodicted MeV values of 942, 942, 1117.5, 1229.5, 1191.5, > > 1332.1, 1533.4 and 1679.8, respectively. > > > The average agreement between the 8 theoretical and empirical masses > > is <99.67%>. > > > I know, I know, the "a" values look like "fudge factors". However, > > > (1) They all conform to the 0-1.00 criterion of the Kerr metric > > "rotation parameter". > > > (2) They are reasonably "close" to 1/2, 1/2, 1/3, 1/2, 1/4, 1/2, 3/8, > > 1/3, which *look* less arbitrary. > > > Therefore I call the "a" values "nudge factors" rather than ad hoc > > fudge factors. Can I theoretically justify these "a" values? No > > way. At least, not yet. However, I think the focus on baryons and > > conventional spin values has improved my argument that subatomic > > particles might well be accurately modeled by Kerr-Newman black holes > > and virtually naked singularities. > > > It's a work in progress. > > > If you have a favorite baryon that I have not included here, why not > > try the mass formula given above and see if its mass can be > > retrodicted by this method? > > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw > > Light has an electric energy level spectrum. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There are two families of electric particle of energy. The lepton family of the electron and its fat versions and the proton family also with fat versions of itself. Mitch Raemsch
From: Jerry on 10 Aug 2010 05:36 On Aug 8, 10:45 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders... (a)amherst.edu>wrote: > Using "a" values of 4/9, 4/9, 6/19, 7/12, 5/18, 2/9, 3/8, 5/16, > respectively, > > I get the retrodicted MeV values of 942, 942, 1117.5, 1229.5, 1191.5, > 1332.1, 1533.4 and 1679.8, respectively. > > The average agreement between the 8 theoretical and empirical masses > is <99.67%>. > > I know, I know, the "a" values look like "fudge factors". "Look like"? They -ARE- fudge factors. I recommend that you learn the Euclidean algorithm and ponder the implications of Hurwitz' Theorem. At the very least, the Euclidean algorithm will reduce the amount of work you expend on generating new fudge factors. Jerry
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 10 Aug 2010 13:50
On Aug 8, 11:45 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders... (a)amherst.edu>wrote: > > It's a work in progress. > > If you have a favorite baryon that I have not included here, why not > try the mass formula given above and see if its mass can be > retrodicted by this method? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It would also be interesting to see how well one could do retrodicting the masses of spin-0 mesons using the Reissner-Nordstrom solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations. These solutions concern charged, but non-rotating, ultracompact objects. RLO http://journalofcosmology.com/OldershawRobert.pdf |