tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.comments2017-02-14T01:35:22.222-08:00theoryMitchellnoreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-75507851792691214032017-02-14T01:35:22.222-08:002017-02-14T01:35:22.222-08:00(Mtau + Mmuon + Melectron)/Melectron=a
2*(2/e)^2=...(Mtau + Mmuon + Melectron)/Melectron=a<br /><br />2*(2/e)^2=b<br /><br />2*ln(Mplanck/Melectron)=c<br /><br />2*Euler-Mascheroni constant=d<br /><br />(alpha)^-1 = 137.035999173<br /><br />(alpha)^-1 = 137 + (ln137/137) + (c^2*b)^-1 - (a^2*d)^-1<br /><br />mr nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05182750705725644070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-5875778056234309312017-02-13T13:49:05.326-08:002017-02-13T13:49:05.326-08:00Fascinating stuff. I've been meaning to blog a...Fascinating stuff. I've been meaning to blog about it when I get a chance, especially the work by Hans de Vries.andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-59830469490447289292017-02-13T09:47:39.266-08:002017-02-13T09:47:39.266-08:00[(mW2 - mH2) / (mZ2 - mt2)]/[(mW2 -mH2) / (mZ2 + m...[(mW2 - mH2) / (mZ2 - mt2)]/[(mW2 -mH2) / (mZ2 + mt2)]=-,lnln(Phi)<br /><br />Phi= golden number= (1+sqr(5))/2<br /><br />[(mW2 - mH2) / (mZ2 - mt2)]+[(mW2 + mH2) / (mZ2 + mt2)]=sin(84°)<br /><br />84°= supetsymmetry angle/ betamr nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05182750705725644070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-49117923232893092812017-02-12T11:07:02.924-08:002017-02-12T11:07:02.924-08:00(Alpha)^-1~137 + ln(137)/137 =137.035912269532
l...(Alpha)^-1~137 + ln(137)/137 =137.035912269532<br /><br /><br />ln(137)/137~(Pi(137))^-1<br /><br />Prime number theorem: x/ln(x)~Pi(x)mr nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05182750705725644070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-9864278840553814782017-02-12T02:55:01.893-08:002017-02-12T02:55:01.893-08:00MH/me = 4(2Pi)^6 x cos(beta)
MH = higgs boson mas...MH/me = 4(2Pi)^6 x cos(beta)<br /><br />MH = higgs boson mass<br />me = electron mass<br />Beta = 84°(supersimmetry angle )mr nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05182750705725644070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-4328889756592163252017-02-12T02:50:39.007-08:002017-02-12T02:50:39.007-08:00Axiomatization of Unification Theories: the Fundam...Axiomatization of Unification Theories: the Fundamental Role of the Partition Function of Non-Trivial Zeros (Imaginary Parts) of Riemann's Zeta Function. Two Fundamental Equations that Unify Gravitation with Quantum Mechanics<br /><br />http://vixra.org/abs/1701.0042mr nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05182750705725644070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-54870270746449918862017-02-12T02:47:50.873-08:002017-02-12T02:47:50.873-08:001) [(Mw)^2+(MH)^2]/[(Mz)^2+(Mt)^2]=ln[sqr(Pi)]
2)...1) [(Mw)^2+(MH)^2]/[(Mz)^2+(Mt)^2]=ln[sqr(Pi)]<br /><br />2) [(Mw)^2+(MH)^2]/[(Mz)^2+(Mt)^2]=(7/e)-2<br /><br />3) [(Mw)^2+(MH)^2]/[(Mz)^2+(Mt)^2]= [ln(Pi)]^7-2<br /><br />MW = 80.384 Gev<br />MH = 125.0901 Gev<br />Mz = 91.1876 Gev<br />Mt = 173.7 Gev<br /><br />(3/8)x [(Mw)^2+(MH)^2]/[(Mz)^2+(Mt)^2] = (cos(13.04°))^2<br /><br />13.04° = main cabibo angle , quark matrix mixingmr nothinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05182750705725644070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-19052162475001389012016-07-28T10:50:31.265-07:002016-07-28T10:50:31.265-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-66531356686247475032016-07-28T10:50:23.326-07:002016-07-28T10:50:23.326-07:00See also this paper discussing that relation among...See also this paper discussing that relation among others: http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.07898andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-46841681975155710182016-07-26T15:18:37.286-07:002016-07-26T15:18:37.286-07:00Somewhat off topic, another interesting numerologi...Somewhat off topic, another interesting numerological hypothesis is the Gatto-Sartori-Tonin relation.andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-57753609584343340482016-05-28T01:05:26.457-07:002016-05-28T01:05:26.457-07:00Kitano et al may also be of interest.
Kitano has...<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.08227" rel="nofollow">Kitano et al</a> may also be of interest. <br /><br />Kitano has written several papers that I find interesting. Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-47416754349877840612016-05-19T13:47:52.043-07:002016-05-19T13:47:52.043-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-5757774243755865522016-05-19T13:47:35.531-07:002016-05-19T13:47:35.531-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-19228501762431120682016-05-19T13:43:15.850-07:002016-05-19T13:43:15.850-07:00Given the huge variety of different kinds of parto...Given the huge variety of different kinds of partons that pop out of protons in its pdf I don't think this is going to get you to the right answer.andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-8866373046587884332016-05-19T13:41:04.526-07:002016-05-19T13:41:04.526-07:00Understood. I just think that a negative binding ...Understood. I just think that a negative binding energy is implausible. The only reason you see it is atomic nuclei is that people don't conventionally use the most stable isotope of Fe as the baseline.andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-9693024597565776022016-05-19T04:39:10.130-07:002016-05-19T04:39:10.130-07:00I think the thing to do is to calculate charge rad...I think the thing to do is to calculate charge radius and Compton radius for various charged solitons. If you can find one with this same ratio, you may have hit upon the structure of the proton!Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-14017612187434700162016-05-18T21:04:09.222-07:002016-05-18T21:04:09.222-07:00Froggatt and Nielsen's idea is that the Higgs-...Froggatt and Nielsen's idea is that the Higgs-force binding energy makes the difference. Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-28047127041481511272016-05-18T18:03:24.055-07:002016-05-18T18:03:24.055-07:00None of the other bound states have a mass less th...None of the other bound states have a mass less than the sum of the pole masses of the quarks in the composite hadron. A 750 GeV particle would have a mass much less than this.andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-76225615921277118852016-05-18T17:58:35.690-07:002016-05-18T17:58:35.690-07:00I made this response at Stack Exchange (possible i...I made this response at Stack Exchange (possible in correctly as an Answer rather than a comment) and I am reposting it here in case it is deleted:<br /><br />Another attractive feature of this conjecture is that it is similar to another conjecture related to hadrons that is known to be true: that the spin of a hadron is equal to the sum of the spins of the quarks in the hadron (which come in discrete half integer increments), even though non-quark partons in the hadron have non-zero spins that "magically" cancel out in the total for reasons that are not well understood (i.e. the "proton spin crisis")). Until we understand why this is the case for spin in hadrons, we can't rule out that this conjecture is exactly true for related reasons.<br /><br />I'd also note that the in lots of other areas of the Standard Model (e.g. some of the more obscure relationships between electroweak constants in the Standard Model), there are lots of known exact relationships between Standard Model, so it wouldn't be a priori unreasonable to wonder if there was such a relationship here, particularly given that charge radius is an electroweak phenomenon. I don't think that there is any known Standard Model constant relationship that can explain why this conjecture should be true, but the precision of the the conjectured relationship is sufficiently great that it isn't unreasonable to entertain the possibility that it is exactly or exactly subject to small corrections, true.andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-80320578263560419842016-05-07T06:26:28.749-07:002016-05-07T06:26:28.749-07:00This was independently discovered by a Physics Sta...This was independently discovered by a Physics Stack Exchange user, <a href="http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/113705/bonkers" rel="nofollow">"bonkers"</a>, around 8 April 2016, but the post has been deleted. Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-89663533067930011452016-01-22T23:34:01.959-08:002016-01-22T23:34:01.959-08:00LCP, in contrast, continues to be strongly support...LCP, in contrast, continues to be strongly supported by the evidence.andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-8425958860450544872016-01-22T23:32:35.301-08:002016-01-22T23:32:35.301-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-73243341189771628242016-01-22T23:32:10.266-08:002016-01-22T23:32:10.266-08:00The accuracy of the D-K rule has declined a lot as...The accuracy of the D-K rule has declined a lot as the measurement of the Higgs boson mass has improved to the point where it is pretty much ruled out.andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-87859951564623821302015-12-28T17:12:24.729-08:002015-12-28T17:12:24.729-08:00About this new bump at around 750 Gev, I have show...About this new bump at around 750 Gev, I have showed three points:<br />One, there must be a Vacuum boson which sits at 125.46 +/- Gev, wrongly named as Higgs boson (see https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/before-lhc-run-2-begins-enough-jeh-tween-gong ).<br />Two, the first excited vacuum energy (vev) state sits right around at 750 Gev. Yet, the key point of this calculation is that {when this new bump (750) appears, the old bump (125.46 Gev) should be greatly reduced (if not disappear altogether) in accordance to the following dynamics equation}. <br />X = the old bump (vacuum boson, wrongly named as Higgs boson) height (at 8 Tev with z fb-1)<br />X (1) = the bump (125 Gev vacuum boson, at 13 Tev with z fb-1) height<br />Y = the bump (750 Gev, at 13 Tev with z fb-) height<br />Then, X (1) ~ (roughly equal to) X – Y, (at z fb-1)<br />That is, even with the current LHC Run 2 data, we can evaluate this prediction.<br /><br />Three, I gave more discussion on this at,<br />https://medium.com/@Tienzen/quantum-gravity-mystery-no-more-1d1bf39ad255#.r27qw9g1t <br />https://medium.com/@Tienzen/damning-the-popperianism-and-the-multiverse-4ea7740fcca6#.lhz1lbrjg <br />Tienzenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05842156512465678309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-416737812331434120.post-80373383128774351442015-10-16T19:10:45.447-07:002015-10-16T19:10:45.447-07:00The earlier fakes have been removed, but we now ha...The earlier fakes have been removed, but we now have <a href="http://vixra.org/abs/1510.0133" rel="nofollow">"Some Minimality Results for Monoids"</a>. Perhaps I'm mellowing with age but I quite enjoyed this one. Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.com