It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So does this equasion include the 97% of matter they called dark matter because that was the only way they could make the numbers add up and how does the other fudged number known as dark energy effect the equation ?
Yes they solved this gravity wave thing by finding this god particle so now we are left with a another wave that explains away the first wave.
but lets face it you need to be wet behind the ears to think that taking a picture of the universe in the gama spectrum can take you back 14.7bn years
if this big bang does indeed exsists then it was not all matter blowing up from something thats smaller than a nat's knacker to create the universe and it was just the CPU being powered up or maybe the run button being pressed.
The double slit exsperiment gives you a clue as does DNA being computer code and that computers are getting much smarter than we are so if you add it all up then we are in something like Minecraft that has it's own set of rules that too has a type of gravity.
ErosA433
if you have the form L^16 and have anything that has mass in that L, that is (assuming it doesn't cancel out... which is where i am coming from) then in order for L^16 to have units of eV/c^2 then the units of L must be (eV/c^2)^(1/16)
ErosA433
This is often how you atribute physical meaning to a formula. It is totally fine for it to be unitless, it would just be that the carrier of the unit in eV/c^2 would be your V parameter.
starheart
ErosA433
This is often how you atribute physical meaning to a formula. It is totally fine for it to be unitless, it would just be that the carrier of the unit in eV/c^2 would be your V parameter.
But, I mean, who cares if Swanne's formula is unitless? His results clearly proves that his formula works; isn't it enough? No one else succeeded making up such a formula; is it really necessary that it has a unit?
ErosA433
It is quite nice and does the task quite well, So i am not batting aside the impressive numerology, but it really isn't any form of particle physics breakthrough or success. Units are extremely important in physics. without understanding them, you dont understand anything about what an equation is saying or giving you.
ErosA433
And you cannot just cancel out units swanne, you cannot assign eV to something and do zero unit analysis
in order for L^16 to have units of eV/c^2 then the units of L must be (eV/c^2)^(1/16)
ErosA433
This is a formula to the 16th power, basically a 16th power polynomial.
IT also does not give / fit with the W and Z bosons, and yet has gamma, graviton and gluon why?
First principles means deriving the masses without knowledge of them in the first place, more over using a very small number of input parameters (that mean something physical)
I noticed that too and I understood your explanation, but maybe Swanne didn't. I'll take a crack at trying to explain it a little differently; hopefully this makes sense because I've been exposed to natural units but I don't work with them.
ErosA433
Please Swanne, perform unit analysis on your equations and tell me what the unit of M is, you seem not to understand how units propagate, iv tried to explain it, but still it appears amiss.
When you apply a system of natural units, you have to define exactly how you are doing it. Your explanation I quoted below makes apparent reference to the Planck natural units, which does allow you to set c^2=1, but it doesn't allow you to ignore that your electron volts are raised to the sixteenth power and thus don't match the Planck units for mass under the system of natural units you appear to be trying to use.
swanne
This was done with the purpose of reducing all masses of the standard model under the same order of magnitude. I'ts not "numerology", it's akin to a concept in maths which is called a "modulus".
True, but when you do that, you have to be careful, and understand what it means.
swanne
If my memory serves me well, the speed of light can often be thought of as "1" when going with natural units. Thus sometimes (rarely, but sometimes), E=mc^2 is written E=m, since E=m1^2 is equal to E=m1 (and, thus, E=m).
The equation c = 1 can be plugged in anywhere else. For example, Einstein's equation E = mc^2 can be rewritten in Planck units as E = m. This equation means "The energy of a particle, measured in Planck units of energy, equals the mass of the particle, measured in Planck units of mass."
There are several problems with this.
Following this logic, then, eV/c^2 could very well be written "eV" if c^2 is equal to 1. In which case, (eV)^16 would mean the squaring of the value of electronVolts only, and not of the speed of light.
ErosA433
Well, So, the same is true here, why start with the Tau to define the masses of the lower leptons for example?
Given that this formula apparently gives us the masses of all the quarks (I firmly say by tuned numerology only and not physics) please show how this relates to the mass of a proton and neutron.
It would have to be a different formula, wouldn't it? With the formula you have, you're dealing with the exponent of 16 and I don't see how using kg units gets around that problem.
swanne
What if I were to put the formula into kg instead? Unlike eV/c^2, mass can be expressed in simple, plain kg, no planckian natural units involved.
I guess I'm trying to understand if the formula is useful, and if so, exactly how. For example:
Arbitrageur
As George Box said, all models are wrong, but some are useful.
OK so the formula can change the fudge factor to match experimental results, there is precedent for this in some cases, but...
swanne
If ever the neutrino happens to be 0.8 eV, well, all one would have to do is correct the value of
W = (0^(3-c))*1.969823
to
W = (0^(3-c))*2.669823
It seems my formula does conform to a curve fitting formula. It's what I basically intended it to be: something to account for all which we observed. Nothing more, but nothing less.
It would be great to have a formula, but I think you pointed out in your OP the unsolved problem:
swanne
I fear I might sound blunt, but if you have come up with a better formula, please share it with us.
Is there a theory that can explain the masses of particular quarks and leptons in particular generations from first principles?