New Derivation of J/Psi Particle Mass

Discrete Scale Relativity models subatomic particles as quantized Kerr-
Newman ultracompact objects.

In the following paper the masses of 27 well-known particles were
retrodicted at the 98.4% level, on average.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0701/0701006.pdf [see
section 4]

The relevant equation based on a Kerr solution is M = (sqrt n)(revised
Planck mass of 674.8 MeV).

Here is a demonstration for a particle NOT included in the published
paper.

J/Psi mass = 3095 MeV

Does the M = (sqrt n)(674.8 MeV) equation work for J/Psi? You betcha!

M = (sqrt 21)(674.8 MeV) = 3092.3 MeV

That's agreement at the 99.9% level.

No quarks needed. Just classical General Relativity and a little
Quantum Mechanics.


Hmmm, time for a new paradigm?
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

On Apr 16, 5:47*pm, General Omar Windbottom
wrote:
Discrete Scale Relativity models subatomic particles as quantized Kerr-
Newman ultracompact objects.

In the following paper the masses of 27 well-known particles were
retrodicted at the 98.4% level, on average.

*http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0701/0701006.pdf* * *[see
section 4]

The relevant equation based on a Kerr solution is M = (sqrt n)(revised
Planck mass of 674.8 MeV).

Here is a demonstration for a particle NOT included in the published
paper.

J/Psi mass = 3095 MeV

Does the M = (sqrt n)(674.8 MeV) equation work for J/Psi? *You betcha!

M = (sqrt 21)(674.8 MeV) = 3092.3 MeV


Regarding the J/psi (a charmonium vector meson), of what significance
is the number 21? In other words, 21 quantum units of what?

That's agreement at the 99.9% level.


So? Demonstrate that this is not mere numerology. Try beginning with
the actual measurements of particle masses with their actual margins
of error, back-derive your alleged values of n without skipping over
particles which you don't like (such as the electron (0.511) or the
delta baryon (1232)), and then do a proper statistical analysis of the
results, taking into account that the square-root function produces
values which get progressively closer to each other for progressively
larger integer n.

[snip]

DWIII

On Apr 18, 12:08*pm, DWIII wrote:

Done that, in spite of several glaring inconsistencies within that
paper, inconsistencies between that paper and your claims here and on
other fora, and clear evidence of cherry-picking from the available
data.

Would you care to specify what the problems are, rather than just
insinuate putative problems?

Also note that the value of a new theoretical model lies not on just
retrodiction, but also very much on falsifiable predictions. *For
example, what new particles does your model predict for those values
of n that are conspiciously missing from your table?

The linked paper contains a major, multi-component, definitive
prediction. Specifically it is that going from the Kerr solution to
the full Kerr-Newman solution with give one the fine structure of the
particle mass function, rather than just a rough 1st approximation
based on the Kerr solution. I have not done this, and to my knowledge
no one else has either, so at this point no one can know whether this
works the way I predict it will or not. Therefore it is a definitive
prediction.

Frankly, I wouldn't be a bit surprized if one could achieve similar
results by selective derivation from the collective literary works of
James Joyce.

Let's see you use that method to retrodict the mass of the J/Psi
particle at the 99.9% level. Put up or shut up.

Yes, QCD is thorny in that regard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lattice_QCD).

Wow, we agree on something! See how easy it is.

With my method one person can achieve better results (for 28
particles!) with a hand calculator and a few hours of free time. *That
is worth thinking about.

For the most massive hadrons, a trivial summation of quark masses is
even easier, just as (or more than as) accurate, and one hardly needs
a calculator for that.

Yes but you have to put in the quark masses BY HAND!!! Get it? The
substandard model cannot predict the masses of the quarks or the Higgs
bozo. It's all fudged to fit the experimental data. I derive the
revised Planck mass from first principles, then use it and GR to
retrodict particle masses. DO YOU SEE THE HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
SUBSTANDARD MODEL'S PTOLEMAIC MODEL-BUILDING AND THE DISCRETE SELF-
SIMILAR PARADIGM'S DERIVATION FROM PRINCIPLE?

Do you want to see the diference? Or do you not want to see the
difference?

Yours in science,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

On Apr 18, 5:31 pm, General Omar Windbottom
wrote:
On Apr 18, 12:08 pm, DWIII wrote:



Done that, in spite of several glaring inconsistencies within that
paper, inconsistencies between that paper and your claims here and on
other fora, and clear evidence of cherry-picking from the available
data.

Would you care to specify what the problems are, rather than just
insinuate putative problems?


The bulk of your paper claims to deal with hadron mass spectroscopy,
but brings in the muon and tau leptons, and also small nuclei such as
H3, He3, and He4 for no apparent reason. You suggest in the paper
that higher values of n (n10) seem to be preferentially even (by way
of vague allusion to nuclear "magic numbers"), but brazenly announce
here that n=21 for the J/psi is somehow an additional confirmation.
Also, the J/psi spin-1 meson (3097) is an excited state of the eta_c
spin-0 meson (2980) which you ignore, along with the previously
mentioned delta baryon (1232). Why? Because they don't "fit"?

Also note that the value of a new theoretical model lies not on just
retrodiction, but also very much on falsifiable predictions. For
example, what new particles does your model predict for those values
of n that are conspiciously missing from your table?

The linked paper contains a major, multi-component, definitive
prediction. Specifically it is that going from the Kerr solution to
the full Kerr-Newman solution with give one the fine structure of the
particle mass function, rather than just a rough 1st approximation
based on the Kerr solution. I have not done this, and to my knowledge
no one else has either, so at this point no one can know whether this
works the way I predict it will or not. Therefore it is a definitive
prediction.


Which is not what I asked for. What particle is represented by n=9?
What properties (if it existed) would it have other than trivially
being within a small range of mass?

[snip]

I derive the
revised Planck mass from first principles, then use it and GR to
retrodict particle masses.

You have done nothing of the sort. With suitable scaling, you might
as well be retrodicting _any_ given set of real-world or randomly-
generated data with similarly unimpressive results.

DWIII

On Apr 18, 7:15*pm, DWIII wrote:

Firstly, it is clear that you are involved in a gladiatorial battle
and not in a search for a better understanding of nature. You have no
interest in finding anything of value in the Discrete Self-Similar
Paradigm. Instead you feel you must kill it because it is a threat to
your world view.

Knowing that, I will still continue to make my case for the benefit of
those readers who maintain an open mind and a keen interest in a
better understanding of nature.

The bulk of your paper claims to deal with hadron mass spectroscopy,
but brings in the muon and tau leptons, and also small nuclei such as
H3, He3, and He4 for no apparent reason.

No, no! That is a main point. Atomic Scale mass is discretized and
it does not matter whether the masses are called "leptons" or
"hadrons" or "nuclei". They are ALL Kerr-Newman ultracompact objects
(black holes and virtually naked singularities) and regardless of what
"family" of particles they belong to, they still obey the discrete
mass spectrum of the Atomic Scale. This is due to the fact that only
certain combinations of J, M and q are allowed as stable states or
excited states. Understand now?

that higher values of n (n10) seem to be preferentially even (by
way
of vague allusion to nuclear "magic numbers"), but brazenly announce
here that n=21 for the J/psi is somehow an additional confirmation.

I expect that each of the n values will have a particle or resonance,
unless the K-N model forbids it.

Also, the J/psi spin-1 meson (3097) is an excited state of the eta_c
spin-0 meson (2980) which you ignore, along with the previously
mentioned delta baryon (1232). *Why? *Because they don't "fit"?

The J/Psi "fits" at the 99.9% level
The n = 19 gives (sqrt 19)(674.8 MeV) = 2941 MeV ( agrees well w/2980,
98.7%)
The n = 3 gives (sqrt 3)(674.8 MeV) = 1168 MeV (off by ~5% from 1232)
But we will not really know how well this idea can do until the full K-
N solution is used. Get it - the Kerr solution is only a 1st
approximation?

The linked paper contains a major, multi-component, definitive
prediction. *Specifically it is that going from the Kerr solution to
the full Kerr-Newman solution with give one the fine structure of the
particle mass function, rather than just a rough 1st approximation
based on the Kerr solution. *I have not done this, and to my knowledge
no one else has either, so at this point no one can know whether this
works the way I predict it will or not. *Therefore it is a definitive
prediction.

Which is not what I asked for. *What particle is represented by n=9?
What properties (if it existed) would it have other than trivially
being within a small range of mass?

The Xi (2030 MeV) = (sqrt 9)(674.8 MeV) = 2024 MeV at the 99.7% level.
You can look up the properties on your own. Getting the picture yet?


I derive the
revised Planck mass from first principles, then use it and GR to
retrodict particle masses.

You have done nothing of the sort. *With suitable scaling, you might
as well be retrodicting _any_ given set of real-world or randomly-
generated data with similarly unimpressive results.

If you understood the Discrete Self-Similar Paradigm and its even more
restricted form of Discrete Scale Relativity, then you would know that
the scaling equations were published in 1985 and the new paradigm is
based on definite principles. It cannot be fudged or "adjusted", and
it makes definitive predictions.

But of course, "The Church of the Substandard Paradigm" does not want
competitors and its defenders/apologists work like the devil to stamp
out any "unorthodox" thought.

Theoretical physicists are often quoted in Nature and the NYTimes
saying: 'If there were good new ideas out there we would embrace them
and study them diligently'. I don't know if they realize their
disconnect with reality. Most humans fight against challenges to
their world views with a closed-minded tenacity. Alas.

Send more "criticism". Since nature seems to smile on the Discrete
Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm, I have full confidence that I can
defend it against you, or Lenny Susskind, or Stephen Weinberg, or
Frank Wlizcek, or Ed Witten, or T'Hooft, or Igor Khav..., or whoever.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

On Apr 18, 9:48*pm, General Omar Windbottom
wrote:
On Apr 18, 7:15*pm, DWIII wrote:

Firstly, it is clear that you are involved in a gladiatorial battle
and not in a search for a better understanding of nature. *You have no
interest in finding anything of value in the Discrete Self-Similar
Paradigm. *Instead you feel you must kill it because it is a threat to
your world view.

Knowing that, I will still continue to make my case for the benefit of
those readers who maintain an open mind and a keen interest in a
better understanding of nature.


Glad to hear you intend to make such an effort; I wouldn't have it
otherwise, even though it seems the "Paradigm" has already died
several times over. Benefit for the onlookers, as you say; but why is
this not posted on sci.physics in the first place (where it
belongs)?

[snip]


Also, the J/psi spin-1 meson (3097) is an excited state of the eta_c
spin-0 meson (2980) which you ignore, along with the previously
mentioned delta baryon (1232). *Why? *Because they don't "fit"?

The J/Psi "fits" at the 99.9% level
The n = 19 gives (sqrt 19)(674.8 MeV) = 2941 MeV ( agrees well w/2980,
98.7%)
The n = 3 gives (sqrt 3)(674.8 MeV) = 1168 MeV (off by ~5% from 1232)
But we will not really know how well this idea can do until the full K-
N solution is used. *Get it - the Kerr solution is only a 1st
approximation?


Let's focus on these two so-called "retrodictions", shall we? For
simplicity, I will grant you your 674.8 MeV; let's call it "k".
According to:

m = k*sqrt(n)

the associated differential equation is:

dm = (1/2)*k*n^(-1/2)*dn

which we can approximate as:

Dm =approx (1/2)*k*n(-1/2)*Dn

where Dm and Dm stand respectively for "delta m" and "delta n" for
reasonably small changes in "n". Agreed?

Rewriting this in terms of Dm/m (the ratio of the corresponding change
in mass to the total mass, which easily converts to a percentage, your
favorite method of comparison):

Dm/m =approx Dn/2n

Notice that "k" cancels out, showing how irrelevant it is. For n=19,
let us also assume the worst possible case that the actual value of n
is off by a full 0.5, knocking quantization for a loop:

Dm/m =approx 0.5/(2*19) = 0.013 = 1.3%

yielding 1.3 % knocked off of 100%, and thus equivalent to an
"accuracy" of 98.7% Doesn't look so impressive now, does it?

n=3 fares little better; any n from 2.85 to 3.15 will yield Dm/m
within 5% of 100% for an "accuracy" not less than 95%.


The linked paper contains a major, multi-component, definitive
prediction. *Specifically it is that going from the Kerr solution to
the full Kerr-Newman solution with give one the fine structure of the
particle mass function, rather than just a rough 1st approximation
based on the Kerr solution. *I have not done this, and to my knowledge
no one else has either, so at this point no one can know whether this
works the way I predict it will or not. *Therefore it is a definitive
prediction.

Which is not what I asked for. *What particle is represented by n=9?
What properties (if it existed) would it have other than trivially
being within a small range of mass?

The Xi (2030 MeV) = (sqrt 9)(674.8 MeV) = 2024 MeV at the 99.7% level..
You can look up the properties on your own. *Getting the picture yet?


There are in fact several resonances of the Xi baryon; that particular
one is neither the lowest, nor the currently-known highest. Cherry-
picking again, aren't we?

DWIII

On Apr 18, 9:48*pm, General Omar Windbottom
wrote:

[snip]

The J/Psi "fits" at the 99.9% level
The n = 19 gives (sqrt 19)(674.8 MeV) = 2941 MeV ( agrees well w/2980,
98.7%)
The n = 3 gives (sqrt 3)(674.8 MeV) = 1168 MeV (off by ~5% from 1232)
But we will not really know how well this idea can do until the full K-
N solution is used. *Get it - the Kerr solution is only a 1st
approximation?


A brief side note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter

Need I say more?

DWIII