Proton and Neutron Mass from GUITAR
Once we have discovered the natural unit set, which is also the scale of natural discreteness of spacetime. Now let's try to figure out the mass of proton and mass of neutron.
Actually, the mass of proton and mass of neutron, expressed in terms of kilogram, are in factor mass ratio of these particles against that standard one kilogram alloy metal chuck, whose mass is really not very precise known due to the limitation of technology. I would rather talk about the mass ratio between these particles against the mass of electron. That mass ratio is more precisely known.
From particle collider experiments, we know there must be a 3 fold microstructure within the proton. Gell-man used that 3-fold structure discovery to construct a model of quarks of 3 different flavors, to describe that 3-fold structure. Which is OK. But for now let's forget about quarks, and think about what that 3-fold structure tells us.
It is a structure unknowable to us, you can never disasseble that structure, and exam an individual quark. But we may be able to figure out how many distinguishable different ways that 3-fold structure can be constructued. That would tell us the entropy. With that we can calculate the mass.
I am not going to reveal all the details, But I find that given if the structure is constructed using a building element of 3 different flavors, there is exactly one way of forming one solid piece, and exact one way when all three pieces are separated from each other. And there are 3 ways one separate from the group of the other two. That's (1, 3, 1). When I futher study how many different ways within each scenary they can interact with each other, there are (1, 5!,7!) ways respectively.
So the total number of intrisic states are:
Wi = (1,3,1) * (1,5!7!) = (1x1 + 3*5! + 1*7!) = 1 + (3*5!) + 7!
Isn't that elegant? Now don't forget that externally, for proton, it has a spin up and spin down state. That's two different states. The total number of states would then be two multiplied by the intrisic number of states above:
W = Wspin * Wi = 2x(1+3*5!+7!)
The entropy then would be
S = ln(Wi)
The simplest structure has two states, 0, 1, and the entropy is ln(2).
So that's it. We have obtained the proton mass! Since proton is considered a point particle so far and NO geometric factor is involved, it's entropy from interla states corresponds to its mass linearly:
Mp = S/ln(2) = ln(W)/ln(2) = ln(2*(1+3*5!+7!))/ln(2)
Mp = ln(10802)/ln(2) = 13.39901083
That is the proton mass! Although we have used some simplicifications so far. It agrees with experimental value excellently!
How come? Remember we are using the natural units so far. In the matural unit set, the electron mass is:
Me = alpha * M0 = alpha = 1/137.03599911 = 7.297352568x10^-3
Let's see the mass ratio between proton and electron:
Mp/Me = 13.39901083/7.297352568x10^-3
Mp/Me = 1836.146836
My calculation matches excellently with the accepted value of 1836.15, See
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mpsmesearch_for=proton+mass
The discrepancy is 3x10^-6, i.e., three parts out of a million. The actual value is slightly higher than my calculation. I believe this is due to the fact that protons may decay, slightly raise the mass, although the mass raise is so small, that the delay must be outrageously slow to be detectable at all.
My speculation is confirmed in the case of neutron, whose delay time is known. And I obtained a glorious success in obtaining the neutron mass, which agrees with experimental value completely, and so confirms my speculation that limited delay life really do increase the mass slightly.
Neutron can be considered as simply a proton combined with an electron. So it's mass could have been simply the theoretical proton mass calculated above, plus the electron mass. The presumed electric interaction energy between the positively charged proton and negatively changed electron, shall not be counted, because externally, electric field resulting from such interaction is none-observable. So it does not exist as long as it is not observable.
However, the electron mass within a neutron is not the regular electron mass we know. It has a limited lifespan staying within the neutron (it can decay and be emitted out), so the delay mean lifetime increases the mass by a factor of beta^2, with beta related to the delay lifetime, compared to the "age of the universe".
We have:
Mn - Mp = Me * beta^2,
with
beta = ln (Tu/sqrt(PI)) / ln((sqrt(2)/PI) * Tau/sqrt(PI))
where Tu is the age of the universe, and Tau is the neutron decay mean lifetime.
Keep in mind we are using the natural unit set, discussed in my previous message on this BLOG. In which the unit of time:
T0 = time for light to go across the length of one classical electron radius
T0 = 9.399637148(94)x10^-24 second
And Tu, in natural unit set, is simply:
Tu = PI*N,
with N = PI*exp(2/(3*alpha)),
alpha = fine structure constant = 1/137.03599911(46)
The neutron delay mean lifetime can be found here:
http://www.physi.uni-heidelberg.de/physi/publications/ckm_hartmann.pdf
The most precise result found in the paper is 885.4 +- 0.4 seconds. The author averages all accurate and inaccurate results and obtained 885.7 +- 0.8 seconds, which is also what the internationally accepted value of 885.7 +- 0.8 seconds. I think it is wrong to dilute the accuracy by averaging in inaccurate results. So I simply use the most accurate one, 885.4 +- 0.4 seconds.
If any one wants to use 885.7+-0.8 seconds, OK, and the end conclusion is still the same.
Based on the above Tu and Tau, any one with a good calculator can calculate beta, and then the correction of neutron mass from proton mass from beta^2:
Beta = 93.07442757(31) / 58.43688(50)
Beta = 1.592734(14)
Beta^2 = 2.536802(46)
So:
Mn/Me = (Mp/Me) + beta^2
Mn/Me = 1836.1468368(60) + 2.536802(46)
Mn/Me = 1838.683638(46)
Or in another way, Mn/Me is between
1838.683592 to 1838.683684
The large argin of error is due to the inaccuracy of known neutron delay lifetime, 885.4 +- 0.4 seconds.
Compare my result with the accepted value:
Mn/Me = 1838.6836598(13)
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mnsmesearch_for=neutron+mass
My result agrees with the accepted value completely within margin of error, with 10 effective decimal places!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quantoken
posted by Quantoken at 6:05 AM
19 Comments:
Quantoken,
your calculations are amazing.
So what is your result for the mass of the Higgs particle
and how many different types of Higgs particles will we see
at the LHC ?
Best,
JustMe
7:35 AM
Quantoken,
I do not want to waste your time, but I have one more
question. What is the mass of the Neutrino in your theory
and how do the various neutrino masses relate to each other ?
By the way I think you made a small mistake, since the
neutron is a proton plus electron plus neutrino.
Best,
JustMe
7:39 AM
JustMe:
No you are not wasting my time. Any discussion is always welcomed and I try to answer them if I have time. I do not believe in censorship of any way or form.
GUITAR theory is still in development and it certainly can not answer all questions. But the principles it is based on are sounding and results obtained so far are encouraging.
As for neutrinos, I am always skeptical about it. It was first necessarily proposed by Pauli, in order to conserve energy. But in GUITAR theory, quantum information conservation is more fundamental. Energy conservation is only a derivation from quantum information conservation, so there may be unusual situations where it is broken while the quantum information is still conserved, without bringing in new particles. We do observe experimental evidences which can satisfactorily explained by the existence of neutrinos, but that does not mean there can not be some other alternative reasonable explanations, although we may not find them yet.
In my opinion, if all the mass-energy of the universe is accounted for precisely without neutrino, then the existence of neutrino will be pretty questionable. Because we would expect a tremendous amount of neutrinos, which should count a considerable portion of the energy of the universe.
GUITAR is approaching the goal of accounting for all the energy in the universe pretty satisfactorily, certainly much more closer than any establishment cosmologists, although I am still not quite there yet.
Quantoken
7:59 AM
Quantoken,
thank you for the answers.
So you think the neutrino may not exist after all.
Do you think the muon is a real particle and can
you calculate the muon mass with your GUITAR ?
Afterall most physicists seem to be puzzled why the muon exists.
Thank you,
JustMe
8:50 AM
Frankly I really do not know whether neutrino exists or not. I do not have a bias either way. I think we need more experimental evidences to have an answer.
As for Muon mass, I do not have any research yet. But note it happen to be almost 1.5 times the natural unit of mass, which I discussed to be 1.2483x10^-28 kg.
See:
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mmu|search_for=all!
Quantoken
9:05 AM
Quantoken,
one last question, then I have to go.
You say that energy conservation can be broken in
your theory. Can you explain the bigbang with this or
the energy production needed for the steady state universe ?
This would be great !
By the way, are you a professor or something ?
Congratulations,
JustMe
9:21 AM
No he is not a professor. Quantoken, I am sure you will agree that the ratio Mp/Me=1836.15, which you claim to have calculated, is the same in all inertial frames at all energy scales...a truly Lorentz invariant quantity.
Right? In your units and derivation you wrote:
Me=alpha Mo = 1/137.03599 = 7.29735256 x 10 ^-3 so that
Mp/me = 13.39901083/Me = 1836.15
which certainly appears to be the right value. You would expect this ratio to hold at 100GeV say? Well it does of course as experiment clearly verifies. It would even hold in the very early universe at colossal energies. HOWEVER, once you reach 100Gev the fine structure constant starts to run so that at around 100Gev it becomes alpha~1/128. Now before you object let me remind you that this ABSOLUTE FACT has been experimentally verified with accuracy and is part of the phenomenally successful Standard Model.
That means in your model that at 100 Gev (by your reasoning and in your units) the ratio starts to drop rapidly as alpha runs at high energies.
Mp/Me = 13.39901083/0.0078125 = 1715.0733...
with alpha=128. This is why particle masses like me and Mp crucially cannot depend on alpha, while other things can and why you cannot base a unit system on alpha!! Again let me emphasise that alpha=1/128 at 100Gev and above has been measured and is not some theoretical speculation. That is why people talk about running coupling constants convergeing at sufficient energy since the phenomena has been observed. Whether alpha runs with time is an open issue but the running of alpha with energy is certainly not. Also, your magic number N and G would vary at high energies too. Since alpha=1/137 does not hold at all energies.
Farthermore, In your derivation of the proton and neutron mass you assume 3 flavours of quarks as internal constituents and do some weird thing involving the "number of internal states", which you don't explain or justify. By this reasoning all the particles in the baryon octet and decouplet would be the same. But anyway, you seem to forget (or just don't know) that with 3 quarks you can make all kinds of particles of which the proton and neutron are just two.
With 3 flavours of quarks (up u, down d, and strange s) you can build a baryon octet and decouplet, basicaly families of similar particles. Also in determining the "inner states" you have'nt taken account the fact that the internal quarks inside baryons have individual spins can combine into spins J=1/2 and J=3/2, since each individual quark has spin half. For example [uud> gives a proton if J=1/2 but [uud> is a Delta^(+) particle if J=3/2 and their masses are different. Similarly, you can have Sigma^{+} particle with J=1/2 from [uus>. By your reasoning all particles with J=1/2 made of any three flavours of quarks should all have the same mass. But guess what...they dont. The mass difference between these particles are related by the Gellmann-Okubo mass formulas--experimental fact! The [sss> or the Omega minus particle was predicted this way and is the heaviest. The internal states are determined by the group SU(3).
The statement" its mass corresponds lineary to the entropy of its internal states" is utter nonsense with no physical basis or justification whatsoever. Besides, "internal states" by your reasoning should all be the same for all baryons, that is any 3 quark favour combinations of u, d and s you can build, so all the cousins of the proton in the baryon octet and decuplet should be the same...but they arent. In evaluating "internal states" you have also not included colors of the quarks or the ways in which their internal spins can combine to give total spins of 1/2 or 3/2.
I could go on but see no point. Running alpha already falsifies everything you say anyway and a running alpha with high energy is fact. Thus your calculation of the ratio Mp/me is not fixed, is not Lorentz invariant and runs once you reach 100Gev. Everything you have said is dependent upon an absolutely fixed alpha.
I am sure you will predictably come up with some contrived and convulated way to avoid this however.
Since you put Me=Mo alpha then you can have Mo vary as alpha changes with energy so you have "running units" but that is just rediculous.
Incidently, getting numbers like Mp/me to very high accuracy is not science, it is numerology. You can do it best by working backwards from the accepted values. I admit you are quite good at it but there is no scientific or rigorous technical underpinning to anything to say. I should also point out that the Standard Model is the most emperically precise and successful model in science.
2:35 PM
Quantoken,
reading the previous post it seems that you still have some
work to do. Also I think you should try to figure out if the
neutrino exists in your theory.
But maybe the conservation of energy is the main question.
Good luck,
JustMe
2:53 PM
Maybe the GUITAR theory of Quantoken needs some
adjustments at high temperatures (or energy) but I am
sure it will work fine at low temperatures, which
is the case for almost all the universe anyways.
I think it is no coincidence that 1/alpha = 137 is
1 + T/2 , where T is the absolute zero measured in
the Celsious scale !!!
Now this is some food for thought!
Best,
JustMe
PS: Is JustMe perhaps just the alter ego of Quantoken ?
3:38 PM
Excuse me, just noticed I am using my one of kid's blog names...must still be logged in as that. Let me assure you "Amazingpig" did not write the last message:)
3:41 PM
The low energy alpha=1/137 is indeed a perplexing mystery. The temperature formula seems more than a coincidence. Also the ratio [U235/U238]=0.0072 for Uranium abundance. Perhaps coincidences perhaps something more.
4:17 PM
I think that once you think outside of the
box and without the constraints of the establishment
you will meet many interesting ideas.
http://www.petcom.com/~john/
I think these fellows are onto something interesting too!
Good luck,
JustMe
4:23 PM
Quantoken,
I think you should definitely get in contact with
the people at Rutgers:
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~williebo/
They also have a great theory about everything ...
Best,
JustMe
4:33 PM
Anonymous:
I have been away for a while and I am trying to catch up with the questions.
As for your claim of changing alpha at higher energy. You obviously confused two concepts. The real alpha, which is defined as e^2/(hbar*c), does not change at high energy, what changed is the EFFECTIVE fines structure constant. Note the key word EFFECTIVE. That's a different concept. Please re-read the article you qouted and please search and circle each keyword "effective" in the paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0002035
Think it in an easier way, for the real alpha defined in terms of e, hbar, C to change, one of either the charge, the hbar, or the C must have changed at high energy. No one had ever made that claim! So with the same e, hbar, c, the alpha is certain the same value.
Quantoken
10:42 PM
Regarding "I think it is no coincidence that 1/alpha = 137 is 1 + T/2 , where T is the absolute zero measured in the Celsious scale !!!"
I am not interested in numerology. No numerology can derive a number agreeing with experimental value to 10 decimal places, certainly not with a simple calculation as I did.
The Celsious scale was choosen by man but the value of alpha is not choosen by man. So it was a pure numerical coincident that alpha equals 1-T/2. On the other side, do you realize how amazingly it was close to alpha, if you take my theoretical CMB temperature 2.7243K, divided by the boiling point absolute temperature of water? There is no man made factor here since man do not fix the boiling temperature of water. But on second thought I also rule that as coincident, because the boiling point of water really depends on the atmospheric pressure. And there could be nothing special in the earth's atmospheric pressure.
As for the Uranium ratio. I noticed a bit more than you. If you consider the U234/U235/U238 ratio. It happen to be alpha^2 : alpha : 1. So that's a double coincident. I am not sure if it means some physics or still conincident. But it is a factor that the earth is a huge nuclear reactor, operating at an efficiency even higher than the Sun's, since the Hydrogen atom on the Sun took 10 billion years of wait in average for a chance to fuse.
It's also interesting to observe that the age of the earth 4.45 billion years, happen to be 1/PI of the age of the universe. i.e., the age of earth equals to simply N in my theory. But that may still be a conincident.
Quantoken
11:09 PM
I must firmly make the distinction between my GUITAR theory, which is scientific, and those of crackpots and numerology.
This is why I firmly reject the stuff at the Rutgers site. A quick glanze at their web site spooted the attractive claim that they derived the value of G, the gravitational constant. Took we less than 2 seconds to identify where that claim came from once I open the article to read. All it takes is the search of keyword "Planck Length" and it brings me right to the spot where they secretly injected the value of G as input, in order to get the G out at the output of calculation. The Planck Length contains G, and that's where they secrectly injected the G into input which they could not otherwise obtain. Had a wrong value of Planck Length provided based on a wrong value of G, they would arrive at the wrong G at the end.
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~williebo/s19derCoulomblaw.pdf
The same techniques have been used by both the super string camp and the loop quantum gravity camp in secrectly injecting G using the Planck length, and then claim to have "successfully" derived the correct blackhole entropy. That's crackpot. The correct theory should be able to explain why G is what it is, and not smaller or bigger, without secretly inserting the number in the first place.
I am not interested in such numerology or crackpots.
Quantoken
8:33 AM
Ok I take your point about alpha. You are using the "bare" costant as opposed to the running constant which has momentum dependance. But that illustrates that your theory contains no underlying dynamics or underlying dynamical processes, but is concerned with numerical relationships between fixed quantities, just getting numbers out, even if to high accuracy. A physics theory involves dynamics and processes. Underlying dynamics in high energy (cosmological) processes would have to invoke the running alpha. At most I am prepared to accept you may have found another numerical coincidence or relationship involving alpha but that does not mean there is any new or established physics at work.
You also said somewhere" that alpha=1/137 is proportional to the log of the radius of the universe". But the experiment reveals that the universe is exanding, in fact accelerating, so how can such a statement make any sense? There is also no derivation or justifictaion for this number "N" you give. How is it derived and what is it based on? Is is the solution of something? I dont see how if it is formulated from constants. From what you present it just seems to be nothing more than the number you need to get the right answer you want.
You also say G=(1/2N) in natural units with hbar=c=1.
So G is dimensionless here if N is just a number, unless I am missing something. (I think anyone who read this would be equally confused.) Now normally, with full units, one would expect G has units L^{3}/MT^{2} so that
G=6.7 x 10^-11 m^{3}/kg s^{2}
In natural units G has units L^{2} or M^{-2} so
G=2.5 x 10^-70 m^{2}
In fact Lplanck =sqrt(G)= 1.6 x 10^-35m
and Mplanck = 1/sqrt(G)
You can't have a dimensionless G
11:39 AM
Anonymous:
You can't have a dimensionless G. In my expression
G = 1/(2*N), clearly G is dimensionful and N is dimensionless. I am just omitting the obvious units G would have, for simplicity. You need to interpret that as saying the numerical value of G, under natural unit set, equals to 1/(2*N).
Keep in mind, the natural unit set is not an arbitrary choosen unit set. It is the unit set reflecting the inherit discreteness of the nature.
Let's show a convertion between the MKS unit set to natural unit set. Let's use nM, , nL, nT to denote the natural units of mass, length, time, respectively.
The given value of G is:
G = 6.674x10-11 [M^3Kg^-1Sec^-2]
G = 6.674x10^-11 * (Meter/nL)^3 * (Kg/nM)^-1 * (Sec/nT)^-2 [nL^3nM^-1nT^-2]
We know:
1 nL = 2.817940325x10^-15 meter
1 nM = 1.24831335x10^-28 kg
1 nT = 9.399637148x10^-24 second
So
G = 6.674x10^-11 * (1/2.817940325x10^-15)^3 * (1.24831335x10^-28)^1 * (9.399637148x10^-24)^2 [nL^3nM^-1nT^-2]
You get:
G = 3.290x10^-41 [nL^3nM^-1nT^-2]
On the other side:
N = PI*exp(2/(3*alpha)) = 1.4898x10^40
1/(2N) = 3.356x10^-41
Compare the two numerical value, they are close to within 2% of each other. Dirac argued that for a pure numerical value of such a huge order of magnitude to be so close, there is a fundamental physics connecting the two.
Please note that different groups have reported measurement of G up to 0.7% different from each other. So far all attempts to measure G has been done on the surface of earth. It's quite possible that when the more accurate G is measured in an environment far removed from any nearby gravity source, the true value of G could well deviate from the current accepted value by 2%.
There is a profound reason in GUITAR why G = (1/2N) and once you know that reason there is no longer a need to explain that as coincidence, but something deeply connected.
You said "You also said somewhere" that alpha=1/137 is proportional to the log of the radius of the universe". But the experiment reveals that the universe is EXPANDING, in fact accelerating, so how can such a statement make any sense? There is also no derivation or justifictaion for this number "N" you give."
You have to be very careful not to confuse between what the experiments actually tell us, and what one can INTERPRET from observables.
The "expanding" universe is a theoretical INTERPRETATION, under certain presuptions which are untrue. It is not an experimental fact. If you do a precise measurement of the universe's size at one time, and measure again at a later time, and find that during that time period its size has changed, then the expansion would be a fact, not an interpretation.
No such evidence of the universe actually change size is available. The only observed fact is hubble red-shift, i.e., more remote galaxies seem to display a bigger red-shift. That's the fact.
Hubble red-shift is the experimental fact. "expansion" is only a logical derivation and interpretation from that fact, based on some hidden assumption. Whether that interpretation is correct or not is subject to a careful examination to see if that hidden assumption can be held true or not.
Big Bangers assumed that doppler shift is the only possible explanation of Hubble red-shift. That assumption is wrong, it inheritantly relied on the assumption that clocks at remote galaxies are ticking at the same pace as clocks here on earth. Unfortunately that assumption of clock synchronization is wrong and has no observational fact to back it up.
If you do NOT take it for granted that clocks at remote galaxies surely run at the same pace, then you want to find facts that support either conclusions. The only thing that can be used to make a judgement in that regard, unfortunately, is the star light itself. Now,
start lights from remote galaxy do seem to display a different frequency (Hubble red shift).
So it could well mean that the remote clocks are indeed not synchronize with ours. The light emitted has a correct frequency when measured by the remote clock, but reads a different frequency by our clock since the two clocks are not ticking at the same pace!!! It's due to clock difference, not relative movements.
It is not just a speculation that remote clocks tick slower than ours. It is a DERIVED conclusion from GUITAR that due to quantum information conservation, the remote clock MUST tick slower as observed by us.
So, in my model, Hubble redshift is the universal relativity effect predicted by GUITAR, the universe is not expanding, and there is no doppler shift. And Big Bang is wrong.
Quantoken
1:31 PM
I said: "So, in my model, Hubble redshift is the universal relativity effect predicted by GUITAR, the universe is not expanding, and there is no doppler shift. And Big Bang is wrong."
I might also add that the same universal relativity effect predicted by GUITAR, also predicts a "FAKE" constant acceleration for objects far enough from earth for it to be measured. This "acceleration" will show up when you calculate frequency shift of radio waves. But if you are to do a careful measurements of distance changes, you will find such acceretation is untrue.
The predicted pseudo-acceleration equals to:
a = (4/PI^2) * (1/N) = 2.72x10^-41 [nL/nT^2]
in natural unit set. That number agrees PERFECTLY with the observed Pioneer Spaceship Anormality Acceleration.
I leave it as homework to convert it into MKS unit value, and search up and compare it with the reported Pioneer acceleration data.
Quantoken
1:43 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home