An alternative to quarks?

[newts]

Not only are there websites, there are papers. You apparently have still not even done the most basic research into the topic, and still have no idea what you are talking about.

=Uncool-

 

Usually when I google 'Higgs boson' all I get is pro-Higgs propaganda. I have tried googling 'Higgs nonsense' and only got one positive response. However when I googled 'Higgsless model' and 'quarkless model' there were thousands of pages. So perhaps all physicists do not believe in exactly the same set of nonsense. Do you know if any of these models make sense, or contain any original ideas?

 

I suppose it is not so much human nature to oppose all new ideas, but rather to oppose all new ideas except ones own; the classic case being Galileo who mocked his fellow professors as fools for rejecting his ideas, and then rejected Kepler's correct ideas.

 

Earlier in the thread, somebody was enthusing about the amazing predictive power of Gell-Mann's 8 fold way. Can anybody express those predictions in the form of simple equations, without turning the air blue with quarkological niceties?

 

But you criticize the standard model for not predicting masses. Why is the standard model not permitted to use experimentally-determined values as parameters and yet you are?

In my theory a muon is about 205 times the mass of an electron because it contains around 251 charges, and it might some day be possible to show that this is true. In the standard model the only explanation for the mass difference, is that God chose to create a heavier version of the electron. It may not be possible to figure out everything about the universe, but surely the aim of physics is to discover as much as possible.

 

The reason a muon is considered to be an elementary particle, is presumably that its magnetic moment is proportionate to that of an electron. However muons clearly are not elementary particles like electrons and positrons, because muons decay to create electrons. That decay is neatly explained by saying that the pairs of charges in the muon unravel in a similar way to electron/positron pairs. I do not understand magnetic moments, but my theory does offer the possibility that one day magnetic moments could be explained by the arrangements of charges inside particles.

[uncool]

Usually when I google 'Higgs boson' all I get is pro-Higgs propaganda. I have tried googling 'Higgs nonsense' and only got one positive response. However when I googled 'Higgsless model' and 'quarkless model' there were thousands of pages. So perhaps all physicists do not believe in exactly the same set of nonsense. Do you know if any of these models make sense, or contain any original ideas?

You are an arrogant ass. That should make the answer to your question obvious.

I suppose it is not so much human nature to oppose all new ideas, but rather to oppose all new ideas except ones own; the classic case being Galileo who mocked his fellow professors as fools for rejecting his ideas, and then rejected Kepler's correct ideas.

It is certainly human nature to be skeptical; when another person makes wild claims without any form of support, it is natural to not take them seriously. Luckily, quark theory has that support; you don't.

Earlier in the thread, somebody was enthusing about the amazing predictive power of Gell-Mann's 8 fold way. Can anybody express those predictions in the form of simple equations, without turning the air blue with quarkological niceties?

There was one major prediction; Wikipedia says

 

In addition to organizing the mesons and spin-1/2 baryons into an octet, the principles of the Eightfold Way also applied to the spin-3/2 baryons, forming a decuplet. However, one of the particles of this decuplet had never been previously observed. Gell-Mann called this particle the Ω−

and predicted in 1962 that it would have a strangeness −3, electric charge −1 and a mass near 1,680 MeV/c2. In 1964, a particle closely matching these predictions was discovered[1] by a particle accelerator group at Brookhaven.

Now, to talk about those "quarkological niceties" because they inherently tie into the Eightfold way: the original Eightfold way deals with a certain representation of SU(3); the fact that the eightfold way naturally represents the mesons led to the idea that baryons would have some representation of SU(3), the most natural of which was a 10-dimensional representation; the fact that an SU(3) representation explains pretty much everything about the subatomic particles cleanly and accurately pretty much is quark theory, by definition.

 

In my theory a muon is about 205 times the mass of an electron because it contains around 251 charges, and it might some day be possible to show that this is true. In the standard model the only explanation for the mass difference, is that God chose to create a heavier version of the electron. It may not be possible to figure out everything about the universe, but surely the aim of physics is to discover as much as possible.

And scientists are looking into why there is a difference in mass between the different leptons and trying to figure out if there is a reason why. Your point?

The reason a muon is considered to be an elementary particle, is presumably that its magnetic moment is proportionate to that of an electron.

No, that is not the reason. The reason is that it is an eigenstate of the free Hamiltonian, just like every other elementary particle.

However muons clearly are not elementary particles like electrons and positrons, because muons decay to create electrons.

Elementary particles can decay as long as they are more massive than the total mass of the other particles and the other particles can be produced by the reaction laws.

That decay is neatly explained by saying that the pairs of charges in the muon unravel in a similar way to electron/positron pairs. I do not understand magnetic moments, but my theory does offer the possibility that one day magnetic moments could be explained by the arrangements of charges inside particles.

It may offer that possibility, but since it doesn't actually explain magnetic moments, you can't claim them as an advantage for your theory.

=Uncool-

[swansont]

In my theory a muon is about 205 times the mass of an electron because it contains around 251 charges, and it might some day be possible to show that this is true. In the standard model the only explanation for the mass difference, is that God chose to create a heavier version of the electron. It may not be possible to figure out everything about the universe, but surely the aim of physics is to discover as much as possible.

 

But you do not appear to predict, a priori, that it contains 251 charges. Your "theory" is ad hoc. The standard models makes predictions, and these have been tested. What predictions do you have?

 

No, physics can't find out everything. There are more parameters than can be fixed by the theory, so some have to be experimentally determined, like mass.

 

The reason a muon is considered to be an elementary particle, is presumably that its magnetic moment is proportionate to that of an electron. However muons clearly are not elementary particles like electrons and positrons, because muons decay to create electrons. That decay is neatly explained by saying that the pairs of charges in the muon unravel in a similar way to electron/positron pairs. I do not understand magnetic moments, but my theory does offer the possibility that one day magnetic moments could be explained by the arrangements of charges inside particles.

 

Decay is (partly) a matter of energy — the particle decays because it it is energetically favorable to do so. A muon is considered elementary because it's not made of other particles. Stability is not a criterion.

[hypervalent_iodine]

You are an arrogant ass. That should make the answer to your question obvious.

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Uncool, you should try keep comments such as the one I've quoted to a minimum. Attack the idea, not the person making them.

[newts]

You are an arrogant ass. That should make the answer to your question obvious.

Arrogance is a necessary part of creativity; it is the asses that get tenderly led by the nose, and accept whatever nonsense they are told. My question was really an attempt to find out if you are always 100% behind mainstream physics, or whether you occasionally see merit in an alternative theory.

 

And scientists are looking into why there is a difference in mass between the different leptons and trying to figure out if there is a reason why. Your point?

It might be reasonable for philosophers to debate whether or not there is a reason why the universe exists. On the other hand, there is a reason why two apples weigh more than one, and there is a reason why a gold atom is heavier than a hydrogen atom, so I can absolutely guarantee that there is also a reason why a muon is heavier than an electron. So physicists could skip stage 1 and move straight on to determining the reason, except that could spell trouble for their imaginary beings.

 

No, that is not the reason. The reason is that it is an eigenstate of the free Hamiltonian, just like every other elementary particle.

Since I do not know physics jargon, I cannot determine whether or not that statement means anything, all I can do is calculate the probability amplitude based on your other offerings.

 

Elementary particles can decay as long as they are more massive than the total mass of the other particles and the other particles can be produced by the reaction laws.

So particles can decay if the laws of physics allow it. Wow! How many physicists shared the Nobel prize for that discovery?

 

But you do not appear to predict, a priori, that it contains 251 charges. Your "theory" is ad hoc. The standard models makes predictions, and these have been tested. What predictions do you have?

 

One strength of my theory, is that because all particles are composed of charges, it could potentially be falsified by analysis of particle masses. That is not the case for the standard model, because an awkward customer can always be dealt with by saying it is an elementary particle, or by discovering a new type of quark, or by the exorbitant use of binding energy. I would be interested to see the standard model's predictions of particle masses expressed as model-independent equations, but that appears to be classified information.

 

Decay is (partly) a matter of energy — the particle decays because it it is energetically favorable to do so. A muon is considered elementary because it's not made of other particles. Stability is not a criterion.

 

There may be good mathematical reasons to assume that a muon is an elementary particle, however the evidence that it decays clearly disproves this. Since the products of muon decay are thought to be an electron, a neutrino, and an anti-neutrino, it might be reasonable to assume that these things are actually present in a muon. However muon decay also sometimes produces an electron/positron pair, or gamma photons.

 

Therefore determining the composition of a muon from its decay products is not straightforward. But if we start by assuming it is composed of charges, then if the muon decays in one or two pieces, it might be expected that all the charge pairs would unravel to produce neutrinos, leaving just an electron. However if the muon were to break into 3 parts during the decay process, then it would quite likely produce 2 electrons and 1 positron; and clearly if the positron encountered one of the electrons, gamma photons would ensue.

 

I tend to think that arguing on here is futile, because nobody is going to accept my theory whatever. But when somebody gives me a proper argument, it does at least get me to focus on things like muon decay that I had not previously considered.

[uncool]

Arrogance is a necessary part of creativity; it is the asses that get tenderly led by the nose, and accept whatever nonsense they are told. My question was really an attempt to find out if you are always 100% behind mainstream physics, or whether you occasionally see merit in an alternative theory.

And yet your question managed to malign all of the theories and the scientists backing those theories. Well done.

 

Do you really think that physicists really don't care whether the model makes sense or contain original ideas? Do you really think the referenced papers would get published? Of course they are both original and make sense in the sense that they are possible explanations of what we see.

 

It might be reasonable for philosophers to debate whether or not there is a reason why the universe exists. On the other hand, there is a reason why two apples weigh more than one, and there is a reason why a gold atom is heavier than a hydrogen atom, so I can absolutely guarantee[/QUOTe]

If your theory is correct.

that there is also a reason why a muon is heavier than an electron. So physicists could skip stage 1 and move straight on to determining the reason, except that could spell trouble for their imaginary beings.

If you haven't realized yet, an actual honest disproof of quarks would be a physicist's dream.

Since I do not know physics jargon, I cannot determine whether or not that statement means anything, all I can do is calculate the probability amplitude based on your other offerings.

And I can do the same for you. Your probability amplitudes are pretty damn low for both honesty and content.

So particles can decay if the laws of physics allow it. Wow! How many physicists shared the Nobel prize for that discovery?

Congratulations; you've found a specific point where QFT doesn't make a specific prediction. Similarly, I could say for your theory that protons are stable because the laws of physics allow it. Wow. Your theory explains so much.

 

Now how about you deal with all of the other predictions that were made? Why did you ignore the prediction that I specifically pointed out? I'll quote it again for you:

In addition to organizing the mesons and spin-1/2 baryons into an octet, the principles of the Eightfold Way also applied to the spin-3/2 baryons, forming a decuplet. However, one of the particles of this decuplet had never been previously observed. Gell-Mann called this particle the Ω−

and predicted in 1962 that it would have a strangeness −3, electric charge −1 and a mass near 1,680 MeV/c2. In 1964, a particle closely matching these predictions was discovered[1] by a particle accelerator group at Brookhaven.

=Uncool-

 

One strength of my theory, is that because all particles are composed of charges, it could potentially be falsified by analysis of particle masses.

Except it was falsified with one, until you came up with the fudge factor of the particles being so close together that mass was added. What is a specific falsifiability criterion, along with the relevant statistical analysis?

That is not the case for the standard model, because an awkward customer

By which you mean what? Anomalous data? A new particle found? This is literally so vague as to be meaningless.

can always be dealt with by saying it is an elementary particle

So you mean a new particle found; the Standard model makes no predictions about any particles in the Standard model. It does, however, make falsifiable predictions about the particles in the standard model, and these predictions have been generally confirmed.

, or by discovering a new type of quark,

Even assuming a new type of quark, the minimum energy for such a quark is so enormous that it would barely affect physics at the low-energy scales. The Standard model would make accurate predictions for sufficiently low-energy physics, so no, not every piece of data is unfalsifiable.

or by the exorbitant use of binding energy.

Err. That would be your theory, not that of the Standard model.

I would be interested to see the standard model's predictions of particle masses expressed as model-independent equations, but that appears to be classified information.

Only because you continue to fail to access relevant papers.

There may be good mathematical reasons to assume that a muon is an elementary particle, however the evidence that it decays clearly disproves this.

Only if you manage to not understand what the definition of an elementary particle is.

Since the products of muon decay are thought to be an electron, a neutrino, and an anti-neutrino, it might be reasonable to assume that these things are actually present in a muon. However muon decay also sometimes produces an electron/positron pair, or gamma photons.

Do you mean that it sometimes produces an electron/positron pair alone?

Therefore determining the composition of a muon from its decay products is not straightforward. But if we start by assuming it is composed of charges, then if the muon decays in one or two pieces, it might be expected that all the charge pairs would unravel to produce neutrinos, leaving just an electron. However if the muon were to break into 3 parts during the decay process, then it would quite likely produce 2 electrons and 1 positron;

And nothing else?

and clearly if the positron encountered one of the electrons, gamma photons would ensue.

So your claim is that a muon can decay into an electron and two photons.

 

You would be wrong, but at least it's a claim for your theory.

=Uncool-

[newts]

Do you mean that it sometimes produces an electron/positron pair alone?

 

And nothing else?

 

So your claim is that a muon can decay into an electron and two photons.

 

You would be wrong, but at least it's a claim for your theory.

=Uncool-

Obviously I meant that muon decay could result in these things in addition to neutrinos. If a muon were to decay into just 2 electrons and a positron, that would only result in a mass of 3 electrons, when the mass/energy of a muon is about 206 electron-masses.

 

I think that neutrinos are waves similar to photons, so I actually dispute the existence of anti-neutrinos.

[uncool]

Are you going to acknowledge the specific falsifiable predictions that I quoted above, or are you going to continue ignoring it as well as everything that has been written in this thread?

=Uncool-

[swansont]

One strength of my theory, is that because all particles are composed of charges, it could potentially be falsified by analysis of particle masses. That is not the case for the standard model, because an awkward customer can always be dealt with by saying it is an elementary particle, or by discovering a new type of quark, or by the exorbitant use of binding energy. I would be interested to see the standard model's predictions of particle masses expressed as model-independent equations, but that appears to be classified information.

 

The conspiratorial and arrogant tone do not help your case when they are offered as a substitute for familiarity with the physics. An "awkward customer" cannot be dealt with as you claim.

 

The standard model does not predict masses; there are too many parameters to do so. There is nothing "classified" about this. Further, how can parameters from a model that aren't expressed, be expressed as model-independent equations?

 

There may be good mathematical reasons to assume that a muon is an elementary particle, however the evidence that it decays clearly disproves this. Since the products of muon decay are thought to be an electron, a neutrino, and an anti-neutrino, it might be reasonable to assume that these things are actually present in a muon. However muon decay also sometimes produces an electron/positron pair, or gamma photons.

 

If you account for any basic physics at all, you would see that it is not reasonable to assume that. How and why would the particles stick together? How do you get different decay products?

 

If a muon contains 251 charges, what is the particle that contains 250? 249? 248? 252? 253? Why don't we see them?

 

I tend to think that arguing on here is futile, because nobody is going to accept my theory whatever.

 

Acceptance happens after you defend the hypothesis against objections and present evidence to support it.

[uncool]

The standard model does not predict masses; there are too many parameters to do so.

Err. It did predict masses, namely the mass (along with the existence) of the top quark. Unless you are referring to a Standard model with all parameters unspecified, the above statement doesn't seem to be correct; given the energies and cross-sections that had been found, the Standard model specifies the mass of the top quark pretty precisely.

=Uncool-

[swansont]

Err. It did predict masses, namely the mass (along with the existence) of the top quark. Unless you are referring to a Standard model with all parameters unspecified, the above statement doesn't seem to be correct; given the energies and cross-sections that had been found, the Standard model specifies the mass of the top quark pretty precisely.

=Uncool-

 

Sorry, that was vague of me. It doesn't predict masses when there are too many parameters to do so.

 

I was under the impression that the masses that were predicted were based on other measured masses, rather than being a priori predictions, i.e. some of the free parameters were fixed by experiment, allowing mass predictions to then be made.

[uncool]

Sorry, that was vague of me. It doesn't predict masses when there are too many parameters to do so.

 

I was under the impression that the masses that were predicted were based on other measured masses, rather than being a priori predictions, i.e. some of the free parameters were fixed by experiment, allowing mass predictions to then be made.

I think it was more than just other measured masses; other cross-sections also should matter. But yes, the free parameters were fixed by experiment, and the mass of the top quark was calculated from that. I think newts is looking for the formula for the mass of the top quark in terms of the parameters that were found by experiment.

=Uncool-

[newts]

Are you going to acknowledge the specific falsifiable predictions that I quoted above, or are you going to continue ignoring it as well as everything that has been written in this thread?

=Uncool-

I do not know what you want me to say. The mass of the omega is given as 1672, so the prediction was right to ½ %, but also out by the mass of 15 electrons. I read that originally Gell-Mann intended quarks as a purely mathematical model, and it was only later decided to believe they exist. I presume the predictions are valid, but I would like somebody to translate them into simple equations. I am convinced the universe can only be composed of one kind of thing, so any model that claims multiple elementary particles is untenable.

 

If you haven't realized yet, an actual honest disproof of quarks would be a physicist's dream.

That may be true of yourself; however actions speak louder than words, and the obsession with finding a mascot for the Higgs mechanism, indicates a mindset of proving existing beliefs rather than properly investigating nature.

 

At the beginning of the 20^th century, nobody could have possibly imagined that atomic nuclei would contain neutral particles, however once atomic masses were measured this became obvious. Accurate measurement followed by impartial mathematical analysis, works better than man imagining he can second guess nature. It worked for Kepler's elliptical orbits, whilst Galileo and the rest remained fixated on circles. So surely if physicists really wanted to discover what gives particles mass, the scientific approach would be to concentrate efforts on accurately measuring particle masses.

 

A few months ago, you said that the only truly awkward customers for the standard model, would be a charged particle and a neutral one with exactly the same mass, but you did not define 'exactly'.

 

I found a couple of candidates, the B meson neutral has a mass of 5,279.50±0.30 MeV, whilst the charged version is 5,279.15±0.31 MeV. That is ok for my theory as the difference is about .7 electron-masses. The other pair are the vector B meson charged and neutral, which both have masses quoted as 5,325.1±0.5 MeV. The total uncertainty of around 2 electron-masses means the data is not strong enough to disprove my theory, but what about the standard model? If the standard model does predict that such particles cannot have the same mass, is it not forced to arbitrarily accept that the mass difference can be as low as about the mass of an electron?

 

If a muon contains 251 charges, what is the particle that contains 250? 249? 248? 252? 253? Why don't we see them?

My model predicts that since photons and neutrinos are waves, they should have a continuous energy spectrum. Particles with rest mass are collections of charges, therefore must have discrete values for mass, so their numbers are limited. The simplest answer is to say that since observed particles have widely varying life-spans, the unobserved ones have life-spans so short that they cannot be observed or cannot form. Then again I think that all collisions are elastic unless the energy is sufficient to produce muons, and I cannot give a proper explanation for that. However the standard model is not entirely spotless in this regard, as in the list of baryons about half the predicted particles have never been observed http://en.wikipedia....List_of_baryons.

[uncool]

I do not know what you want me to say. The mass of the omega is given as 1672, so the prediction was right to ½ %, but also out by the mass of 15 electrons.

You've forgotten the other predictions, including strangeness -3.

 

Furthermore, I want you to come out and finally admit that you were wrong, that the Standard Model has specific supporting evidence in the form of confirmed predictions.

I read that originally Gell-Mann intended quarks as a purely mathematical model, and it was only later decided to believe they exist.

Your point?

I presume the predictions are valid, but I would like somebody to translate them into simple equations. I am convinced the universe can only be composed of one kind of thing, so any model that claims multiple elementary particles is untenable.

A more accurate statement is that either any model that claims multiple elementary particles is untenable or that your conviction is untenable. One has evidence; the other does not. Guess which one scientists are going to follow?

That may be true of yourself; however actions speak louder than words, and the obsession with finding a mascot for the Higgs mechanism, indicates a mindset of proving existing beliefs rather than properly investigating nature.

It indicates a mindset that attempts to figure out whether a model is accurate by testing its claims.

At the beginning of the 20^th century, nobody could have possibly imagined that atomic nuclei would contain neutral particles, however once atomic masses were measured this became obvious. Accurate measurement followed by impartial mathematical analysis, works better than man imagining he can second guess nature.

Accurate measurement: masses and charges of the 9 baryons, as well as masses and charges of the 8 mesons. Impartial mathematical analysis: deduction of the 10th baryon.

 

Man imagining he can second guess nature: unfounded assumption that there is only one kind of particle.

 

You're not doing too well, even by your own account.

It worked for Kepler's elliptical orbits, whilst Galileo and the rest remained fixated on circles. So surely if physicists really wanted to discover what gives particles mass, the scientific approach would be to concentrate efforts on accurately measuring particle masses.

The scientific approach would be to create theories, make sure they have falsifiable predictions (including specific statistical conditions for success or failure), and test those predictions. Guess what the Standard model has done. Guess what your theory continues to fail to do.

A few months ago, you said that the only truly awkward customers for the standard model, would be a charged particle and a neutral one with exactly the same mass, but you did not define 'exactly'.[/QUOTe]

Reference, please.

 

My model predicts that since photons and neutrinos are waves, they should have a continuous energy spectrum. Particles with rest mass are collections of charges, therefore must have discrete values for mass, so their numbers are limited. The simplest answer is to say that since observed particles have widely varying life-spans, the unobserved ones have life-spans so short that they cannot be observed or cannot form. Then again I think that all collisions are elastic unless the energy is sufficient to produce muons, and I cannot give a proper explanation for that. However the standard model is not entirely spotless in this regard, as in the list of baryons about half the predicted particles have never been observed http://en.wikipedia....List_of_baryons.

The above is a large number of words, but very little content. You've failed to answer the question. Why is it that 251 electrons is stable, but 248 isn't? What is it specifically about the muon that makes it stable?

=Uncool-

[swansont]

That may be true of yourself; however actions speak louder than words, and the obsession with finding a mascot for the Higgs mechanism, indicates a mindset of proving existing beliefs rather than properly investigating nature.

Bollocks. You test theories. That's simply proper science.

 

My model predicts that since photons and neutrinos are waves, they should have a continuous energy spectrum.

 

The photon energy spectrum discrete in come circumstances, continuous in others. Electrons, neutrons, atoms, etc. are waves, too: they can interfere. This has been demonstrated.

 

Particles with rest mass are collections of charges, therefore must have discrete values for mass, so their numbers are limited. The simplest answer is to say that since observed particles have widely varying life-spans, the unobserved ones have life-spans so short that they cannot be observed or cannot form. Then again I think that all collisions are elastic unless the energy is sufficient to produce muons, and I cannot give a proper explanation for that. However the standard model is not entirely spotless in this regard, as in the list of baryons about half the predicted particles have never been observed http://en.wikipedia....List_of_baryons.

 

Does your model predict which ones are stable and which are not?

[newts]

You've forgotten the other predictions, including strangeness -3.

 

Furthermore, I want you to come out and finally admit that you were wrong, that the Standard Model has specific supporting evidence in the form of confirmed predictions.

How do you calculate strangeness from the tracks in a bubble chamber? I have not forgotten strangeness, I never did know what it meant.

 

I did not say the SM makes no predictions, I just said that it could not be falsified by measurements of particle masses.

 

Quote from page 7: Newts:

 

The most obvious way that my model could be disproved, would be if a neutral particle was discovered which had exactly the same mass as a proton. It seems that the standard model cannot be disproved by the discovery of any type of new particle. In that sense my model is falsifiable, whilst the standard model is not. Unless people are able to acknowledge that, how can the two models be usefully compared?

 

Uncool:

 

Congratulations; you have made one prediction. It doesn't have any statistical analysis, although it could probably be done relatively easily. However, the Standard Model does not predict that any neutral particle will have the same mass as any charged particle either, so you don't have a distinguishing prediction yet.

 

The photon energy spectrum discrete in come circumstances, continuous in others.

Is it gamma photons that have discrete values? Presumably visible, microwave and radio wave photons can have any energy?

[uncool]

How do you calculate strangeness from the tracks in a bubble chamber? I have not forgotten strangeness, I never did know what it meant.

 

I did not say the SM makes no predictions, I just said that it could not be falsified by measurements of particle masses.

And you would be wrong; that statement is precisely the same as the statement that it could not be falsified by measurements of particle masses. The Standard Model would have been falsified if no particle with the specific mass stated was found when experiments at the appropriate energy level were performed.

Quote from page 7: Newts:

 

The most obvious way that my model could be disproved, would be if a neutral particle was discovered which had exactly the same mass as a proton. It seems that the standard model cannot be disproved by the discovery of any type of new particle. In that sense my model is falsifiable, whilst the standard model is not. Unless people are able to acknowledge that, how can the two models be usefully compared?

 

Uncool:

 

Congratulations; you have made one prediction. It doesn't have any statistical analysis, although it could probably be done relatively easily. However, the Standard Model does not predict that any neutral particle will have the same mass as any charged particle either, so you don't have a distinguishing prediction yet.

You misunderstood the quote. The quote says that the Standard Model does not say that there will be a neutral particle that has the same mass as a charged particle; it does not say that there must not be one. So you have a prediction that is not made by the Standard Model, although it barely even counts as a prediction due to its lack of specific statistical tests. What I was looking for was a specific test that would be predicted by your model and that would falsify the Standard Model. The fact that you maintain that there is no prediction that falsifies the Standard Model only continues to show that you have no idea what the Standard Model predicts.

 

Is it gamma photons that have discrete values? Presumably visible, microwave and radio wave photons can have any energy?

Gamma photons can also have any energy (in the gamma range). That is not the circumstance that swansont is referring to; he is (so far as I can tell) referring to something in quantum mechanics (namely, whether the photons come from disturbances in bound or free states).

=Uncool-

[swansont]

Is it gamma photons that have discrete values? Presumably visible, microwave and radio wave photons can have any energy?

 

Photons coming from atomic or nuclear transitions have discrete values. Alphas from decays do to, while betas have a continuous spectrum. It has to do with the system that produces them, not whether they are particles or waves.

[newts]

The Standard Model would have been falsified if no particle with the specific mass stated was found when experiments at the appropriate energy level were performed.

So there are no hypothetical particles, or combinations of particles, that could falsify the standard model. The only way it could be falsified would be if a predicted particle could not be found. So the SM remains unassailable so long as nobody is rash enough to predict anything within a measurable energy range.

 

The flaw in that argument, is that Wikepedia's list of baryons contains about 30 predicted particles which have never been observed. Once we take that into account, maybe the prediction of the omega is not quite such a stunning achievement?

 

My theory is eminently falsifiable; indeed if you look at the list of mesons, you will find some annoying little animals called vector kaons, whose quoted values do actually contradict my theory.

 

Photons coming from atomic or nuclear transitions have discrete values. Alphas from decays do to, while betas have a continuous spectrum. It has to do with the system that produces them, not whether they are particles or waves.

My point was merely that since particles with rest mass contain an integer number of charges, the difference in mass between two particles cannot be less than .7 of an electron-mass. In the case of photons the difference is not restricted.

 

I think you were referring to emission lines, like hydrogen's 13.6 eV. Are emission lines infinitely thin, in so far as it is impossible to measure the difference in wavelength of such photons, or do they have a spread of say 0.01 eV?

[uncool]

So there are no hypothetical particles, or combinations of particles, that could falsify the standard model.

Correct, because the Standard Model is a theory of the existence of certain particles in our universe. To be more specific, it says that the laws of physics act in a certain way at low energies.

The only way it could be falsified would be if a predicted particle could not be found. So the SM remains unassailable so long as nobody is rash enough to predict anything within a measurable energy range.

The Standard Model predicts those things because that is what the Standard Model says. You are basically saying "The Standard Model remains unassailable so long as nobody is rash enough to predict precisely what the Standard Model predicts"; your statement is meaningless.

The flaw in that argument, is that Wikepedia's list of baryons contains about 30 predicted particles which have never been observed. Once we take that into account, maybe the prediction of the omega is not quite such a stunning achievement?

No, it is quite a stunning achievement. Being able to predict the energy level at which a particle with specific characteristic appears before it has ever appeared is a rather spectacular prediction.

My theory is eminently falsifiable; indeed if you look at the list of mesons, you will find some annoying little animals called vector kaons, whose quoted values do actually contradict my theory.

In which case, I'm pretty sure that your theory is contradicted; I believe that all of the basic forms of kaons have been observed. Note that none of the values are in red, nor do they have a cross next to them. They have been observed in experiments.

=Uncool-

[newts]

No, it is quite a stunning achievement. Being able to predict the energy level at which a particle with specific characteristic appears before it has ever appeared is a rather spectacular prediction.

I am working on my own predictions, and I was wondering to what extent particles get found by chance, or is it often necessary to search at a particular energy?

 

In which case, I'm pretty sure that your theory is contradicted; I believe that all of the basic forms of kaons have been observed. Note that none of the values are in red, nor do they have a cross next to them. They have been observed in experiments.

=Uncool-

Wikipedia got one of the figures wrong.

[swansont]

My point was merely that since particles with rest mass contain an integer number of charges, the difference in mass between two particles cannot be less than .7 of an electron-mass. In the case of photons the difference is not restricted.

 

I think you were referring to emission lines, like hydrogen's 13.6 eV. Are emission lines infinitely thin, in so far as it is impossible to measure the difference in wavelength of such photons, or do they have a spread of say 0.01 eV?

 

The energy spread depends on the lifetime of the state, in accordance with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. [math]\Delta{E}\Delta{t}>\hbar[/math]

There are mechanisms by which you can broaden the lines as well (e.g. Doppler, pressure/collisions) but those are generally small with respect to the energy of the photon in atomic systems.

[newts]

Humbled by the prodigious predictive power of quarks, I have come up with my own predictions.

 

In my theory a proton is thought to be a near spherical ball of charges with a diameter of 17 charges. We can then assume that there might be other particles whose mass can be predicted using the formula: n³ /17³ ´ the mass of the proton, where n is an integer.

 

My predictions are shown in a table and compared to particle data, near the bottom of this page http://squishtheory....research-paper/.

 

The table is also shown separately http://squishtheory....ress.com/table/

 

I had hoped that somebody might be able to translate quark theory into simple equations like n³ /17³ ´ the mass of the proton, but perhaps that is not possible?

[uncool]

Humbled by the prodigious predictive power of quarks, I have come up with my own predictions.

 

In my theory a proton is thought to be a near spherical ball of charges with a diameter of 17 charges. We can then assume that there might be other particles whose mass can be predicted using the formula: n³ /17³ ´ the mass of the proton, where n is an integer.

And yet you still haven't managed to learn your lesson about statistical analysis. Your claim that it is "predictive" means literally nothing, since you have not managed to say exactly where the line between "predictive" and "non-predictive" is. In other words, you have no idea what the power of your test is.

My predictions are shown in a table and compared to particle data, near the bottom of this page http://squishtheory....research-paper/.

 

The table is also shown separately http://squishtheory....ress.com/table/

 

I had hoped that somebody might be able to translate quark theory into simple equations like n³ /17³ ´ the mass of the proton, but perhaps that is not possible?

It is possible; I'm not sure how to do it myself.

=Uncool-

[newts]

And yet you still haven't managed to learn your lesson about statistical analysis. Your claim that it is "predictive" means literally nothing, since you have not managed to say exactly where the line between "predictive" and "non-predictive" is. In other words, you have no idea what the power of your test is.

I did not think quantifying the other predictions in the paper was very easy, but these ones are perhaps more straightforward.

 

The successful range for predictions was 775-1777 MeV, a range of 1000. There were 12 particles in the range excluding the proton, I accepted a value within 10 as counting as a prediction. Therefore a total of 240/1000 or about ¼ of the range would have led to success. All 5 predictions were successful, giving a chance of (¼)⁵ , or about one in a thousand.

 

You probably will not agree with my maths, but can you offer an alternative calculation?

 

I could probably find a way to quantify the other predictions, but I do not think that would achieve anything; as if people are not interested in a new idea, then I doubt complicated statistical calculations are going to get them very excited.