Wonderful number 12 on the spectrum of mass

[Yuri Danoyan]

As is well known all matter is made of 12 particles: 6 quarks and 6 leptons.

I would like to show that some numbers in the spectrum of mass of elementary particles one way

or another connected with enigmatic number N=12.

 

Consider natural logarithms mass of quarks and exploring them:

 

 

Mu=1.5- 3 Mev; Md=3-7 Mev;

lnMu=0.4-1.09; lnMd=1.09-1.94

 

Ms=70-120 Mev; Mc=1160-1390 Mev;

lnMs=4.24-4.78; lnMc=7.05-7.23

 

Mb=4130-4270 Mev; Mt=170900- 177500Mev;

lnMb=8.32-8.35; lnMt=12.04-12.08

 

As we see, natural logarithms values of mass next (express in round numbers): 1;2;4;5;7;8;12. Draw attention to absent numbers divisible to 3(3,6,9) except last number N=12 . Interesting puzzle! Ratio 3:1

Limiting number is 12.

 

Consider the values of lepton mass(except neutrino), their logarithms.

 

Me=0.510 Mev; lnMe = -0.67; ln Me/ln Me=1;

Mmu=105.65 Mev lnMmu=4.66; ln Mmu/ln Me= - 6.95;

Mtau=1777 Mev; lnMtau=7.48; ln Mtau/ln Me= -11.64;

 

In the case of leptons we have the (express in round numbers)1,7,12. Limiting number N=12

Quotent 11,64/6,95=1,6 B.t.w. close to Golden Mean or 1.618.

 

In the case of electrical charges, there is a surprising number in magnitude when you equate alfa, a fine-structure constant, to 1.

 

alfa=e^2/hc=1/137; e=e

 

if alfa=e^2hc=1 e=11.7

 

We obtain a value of charge close to N=12 as a limiting number.

Heaviest meson mass Upsilon m=11020Mev equal to 11.74 mass of proton.Close to number N=12.

Heaviest baryon mass

Bo Mass m = 5620.2 ± 1.6 MeV This is equal 5.98 mass of proton.

Long-lived baryons mass limited by 6 proton mass.Number of quarks also 6.Accidental coincidence !

Conclusion.

1.Values of mass (logarithms) basic elementary particles(fermions) are restricted by some limit number N= 12.

2.My be there is hidden connection between numbers of quarks and leptons,logarithms of their mass und numbers of proton mass containing in heavier particles mass?

References:

http://pdg.lbl.gov/

[Bignose]

Accidental coincidence !

 

That's all this is... You can do something similar probably with almost any number if you account for all of the known physical constants and combinations thereof. Especially if you start counting "close to"s, like you do here.

 

Unless you can provide a really compelling reason with supporting evidence as to why 12 is special, this isn't anything more than numerology.

[Yuri Danoyan]

Can you read my other threads?

 

I have suspicion about hidden connection between N=12

and the minimum number of dimensions of a crystal lattice whose symmetry rotations and reflections form the Monster group is 196884. Because ln196 884=12.19.

 

My be it is good hint for string theoreticians.Also for 11-dimensional M-Theory.

Edited July 19, 2008 by Yuri Danoyan
multiple post merged

[iNow]

You seem to have mistyped. The first digit is not a one, but a 4.

 

 

"Or how many Vogons does it take to change a lightbulb?"

[Yuri Danoyan]

All quarks and leptons are fermions.Due to their half-integer spin, as an observer circles a fermion (or as the fermion rotates 360° about its axis) the wavefunction of the fermion changes sign. A related phenomenon is called an antisymmetric wavefunction behavior of a fermion.

12 to binary 1100, as we noted before, antisymmetric record.

That the hint to hidden connection between different manifestations of antisymmetry.

[Yuri Danoyan]

Additional information about wonderful N=12

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_%28number%29

[Bignose]

Again, just because it occurs frequently, doesn't mean it has any specific significance. I'm not going to do the legwork, but I guarantee I can come up with several similar examples for every integer between 1 and 20. Probably every integer between 1 and 100 if you wanted to. Especially, as I said, if you count the "close-to"s. Unless it is actually exactly 12, or you find a compelling reason why 12 is so significant, this is just numerology -- a thoroughly debunked and worthless (in a scientific sense) pursuit.

[Yuri Danoyan]

Unless it is actually exactly 12, or you find a compelling reason why 12 is so significant, this is just numerology -- a thoroughly debunked and worthless...

 

Why did you see only numerology?

 

Great canadian scientist Hans Selye's favourite motto was :

 

"Neither the prestige of your subject, and the power of your instruments, nor the extent of your learnedness and the precision of your planning, can substitute for the originality of your approach and the keeness of your observation."

 

You are didn't see originality of my approach and the keeness of my observation.Only numerology?

 

Unless it is actually exactly 12....

 

I revealed fluctuations around 12.It seems to me very important...

[Royston]

You are didn't see originality of my approach and the keeness of my observation.Only numerology?

 

Originality and keenness are fine, but you're assuming that 12 is significant, and then cherry picking data to support your position. That is, in essence, numerology. It's not science, and posting famous quotes doesn't support your position either.

Edited August 13, 2008 by Snail
typo

[Yuri Danoyan]

Numerology is only interpretation.

Science is extraction,mining of new facts.

My facts are new.

[Edtharan]

Science is extraction,mining of new facts.

My facts are new.

This is a logical fallacy. Just because something is a "new fact" and science is about discovering new facts does not make it science. The reason that this is needed is the logical fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

You have shown that you can encounter the number 12 in various different situations. You then have to show that this is not Cherry Picking (intentional or accidental).

 

Your premise is not that the number 12 exists (or that certain phenomena produce the number 12), but that this number 12 has a causal relationship between these apparently disparate phenomena.

 

So far all you have done is keep saying that certain phenomena produce the number 12.

 

Nobody is denying that thee produce the number 12.

 

What they are saying is that you have to show why you think there is a causal relationship between these phenomena and what that relationship is.

 

You are didn't see originality of my approach and the keeness of my observation.Only numerology?

It doesn't matter how original your approach or how keen your observation if you jump to incorrect conclusions.

 

You have gone form keen observation of the number 12 to the conclusion that there is a causal relationship between these occurrences.

 

Unless you can show a logical and causal relationship between them, then you have not actually shown anything at all. All you have done is apply a logical fallacy and state that you are right (which is also another logical fallacy, that of Bare Assertion.

 

3 Logical fallacies, but science works on logic, so this can't be science. It is not Numerology either (as that is a mysticism thing and you are not proposing a mystical significance to this). What it is, is an illogical jump to a conclusion not supported by evidence or actual process.

[Yuri Danoyan]

to the conclusion that there is a causal relationship...

 

No conclusion,only supposition.

Read please my final sentence in this thread.

[foodchain]

I think its because of the math, for instance you can do the math with chemistry that leaves you with having a half a proton or something like that, of course its not right but its just an example. Here is another one, if you take any string of numbers like say 123 when you add them up like 1+2+3 you get 6. If you do this with the number 122 you get five, and so on and so fourth. I think this is due to it being base ten or something right?

[Yuri Danoyan]

Just exploring the numbers is not crime against science.

It is also science.

[Klaynos]

Just exploring the numbers is not crime against science.

It is also science.

 

Make a prediction using it about something that you've not yet looked at...

 

And numerology is not science, this looks very much like cherry picking as discussed above, YOU have to prove it's not and then it get's closer to being science.

[Yuri Danoyan]

If i can do prediction i would be Nobel laureat

[Klaynos]

If i can do prediction i would be Nobel laureat

 

No, you'd be doing science, that's what science is all about...

[Yuri Danoyan]

will see...

[Edtharan]

to the conclusion that there is a causal relationship...

 

No conclusion,only supposition.

Read please my final sentence in this thread.

Supposition is not science, yet you keep insisting that you are doing science.

 

However, you are supposing that there is a causal relationship, but still don't actually state what you think this relationship is.

 

If all you do is show that the number 12 occurs, then that is not new. If you are supposing that there might be some causal relationship between these instances, then tell us what you think it might be.

 

If i can do prediction i would be Nobel laureat

No, you would then be doing science. Science experiments are about testing the predictions made by theories. If you are not proposing a prediction based on the supposed causal relationship between these separate instances, then there is nothing to test. As science is about testing these predictions, we can categorically state that you are not doing science. Whatever it is you are doing it is not science.

 

will see...

So you are asking us to take it on faith. Now we are into the realm of Numerology.

 

If you know what this supposed link is between these instances of the number 12, then tell us.

 

If you are saying that there will be some link discovered in the future, but you have some secret knowledge in advance of that, then why don't you just tell us what that link is?

 

I am not saying here that you need to make a prediction. Only tell us the reason that you think there is a link between these instances of the number 12. If your reason stands up to the tests of logic and evidence, then you might be on the track towards actual science. If we can use that reason to make predictions about other phenomena (instances of the number 12), then we will be doing science.

 

If this then gives us new insights into physics, or makes the physics that we know significantly easier, then you might be up for a Nobel. But until then there is a very, very long road to travel.

 

Science is about making predictions based on logic and observation (evidence) and testing them.

 

You are nowhere near to doing science here.

[Yuri Danoyan]

If you are supposing that there might be some causal relationship between these instances, then tell us what you think it might be.

 

Reason of supposition connected with notion of metasymmetry,where metasymmetric numbers are 11 and 13. 12 in the middle between them.See my thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34145