Discrete Scale Relativity Beats QED on New Proton Radius Test
Robert L. Oldershaw
Read the latest issue of Nature [8 July 2010].
A new very high precision measurement of the proton radius is 5-sigma
lower than QED-based expectations.
QED-based value is 0.877 to 0.9 fermi
New measurement indicates that the proton radius is 0.84 fermi.
Decades ago Discrete Scale Relativity predicted that the proton radius
would equal about 0.81 fermi, based on the Schwarzschild metric and
the corrected value of G. Going to the more realistic Kerr-Newman
metric gives a slightly higher value of 0.814 fermi.
http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv6i22p167.pdf
So on the proton radius test, Discrete Scale Relativity not only
competes well with QED, it actually beats QED and gives a more
accurate prediction.
Want to see a whole new way to understand the cosmos?
Want to enter the 21st century?
eric gisse
>
> Read the latest issue of Nature [8 July 2010].
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/abs/nature09250.html
>
> A new very high precision measurement of the proton radius is 5-sigma
> lower than QED-based expectations.
You say 5 sigma but I don't think you know what it means.
>
> QED-based value is 0.877 to 0.9 fermi
I wonder from where you get this number...
>
> New measurement indicates that the proton radius is 0.84 fermi.
Actually, the measurement says 0.84184(67) fm. Notice the difference?
>
> Decades ago Discrete Scale Relativity predicted that the proton radius
> would equal about 0.81 fermi, based on the Schwarzschild metric and
> the corrected value of G.
The proton has angular momentum, dumbass. It can't be described by
Schwarzschild, even in principle. That your two numbers are so close
together for such an extremal object tells me that you are just makin' shit
up.
> Going to the more realistic Kerr-Newman
> metric gives a slightly higher value of 0.814 fermi.
Which is merely 40 standard deviations away from what has been measured, if
one makes the generous assumption that you actually calculated your number
instead of guessed at it.
>
> http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv6i22p167.pdf
>
> So on the proton radius test, Discrete Scale Relativity not only
> competes well with QED, it actually beats QED and gives a more
> accurate prediction.
*scratches head*
QED, at this instance in time, can be interpreted as giving a 5 sigma
disagreement with observation on proton mass.
You, on the other hand, have repeated your guess of the proton radius and
have firmly established you believe your answer is what you've written. And
that it is 40 standard deviations out of tune with observation.
Is 40 smaller than 5 in your universe?
>
> Want to see a whole new way to understand the cosmos?
> Want to enter the 21st century?
Step 1 would be to learn some /maf/.
40 is bigger than 5, no matter how you stomp your feet.
>
> RLO
> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> woof, woof, woof, woof, woof,woof,woof,woof,woof,woof,woof,...
----------------------------------------------------------
Sigh!
The QED-based values are high by about by 4.8%.
Discrete Scale Relativity's value is low by 3.6%.
DSR beats QED for this particular test.
Right, Woofster?
Sam Wormley
> A new very high precision measurement of the proton radius is 5-sigma
> lower than QED-based expectations.
Did you mean to say the the measurement is lower than QED-based
expectations. AND that the new measurements have a 5-sigma confidence
level?
Or what?
eric gisse
> On Jul 8, 4:11 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> woof, woof, woof, woof, woof,woof,woof,woof,woof,woof,woof,...
> ----------------------------------------------------------
Too stupid and too intellectually dishonest to respond to me point by point.
>
> Sigh!
>
> The QED-based values are high by about by 4.8%.
Making shit up, Robert?
The difference is between _PREVIOUS MEASUREMENTS_, not a strict QED
prediction.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity's value is low by 3.6%.
Making shit up, Robert?
You _predict_ (pull out of your ass) a value of 0.814 fm, which differs from
the _measured_ value by 0.02781 fm. Given the experiment has a standard
deviation of 0.00067 that means, YOU ARE WRONG BY 41 STANDARD DEVIATIONS.
>
> DSR beats QED for this particular test.
>
> Right, Woofster?
Only if 41 is smaller than 5, fuckwit.
>
> RLO
> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Robert L. Oldershaw
------------------------------------------------------
If you read the paper in Nature you will understand that the newly
measured proton radius estimate and the value based on QED differ by 5
standard deviations.
This is what the authors of the paper published in Nature say.
If verified, it is a serious problem for QED.
Get your information from the source. Put in some friggin effort!
Not from imbeciles like EG.
Sam Wormley
In other words, YOU CANNOT explain the meaning. You grabbed a
chunk out of this (or similar),
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/abs/nature09250.html
You said, "A new very high precision measurement of the proton radius
is 5-sigma lower than QED-based expectations".
Whereas the paper says, "On the basis of present calculations [11, 12,
13, 14, 15] of fine and hyperfine splittings and QED terms, we find
r_p = 0.84184(67) fm, which differs by 5.0 standard deviations from
the CODATA value^3 of 0.8768(69) fm. Our result implies that either
the Rydberg constant has to be shifted by −110 kHz/c (4.9 standard
deviations), or the calculations of the QED effects in atomic
hydrogen or muonic hydrogen atoms are insufficient".
Quit trying to bullshit us, Oldershaw.
eric gisse
> On Jul 8, 6:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/7/10 11:50 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>>
>> > A new very high precision measurement of the proton radius is 5-sigma
>> > lower than QED-based expectations.
>>
>> Did you mean to say the the measurement is lower than QED-based
>> expectations. AND that the new measurements have a 5-sigma confidence
>> level?
>>
>> Or what?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you read the paper in Nature you will understand that the newly
> measured proton radius estimate and the value based on QED differ by 5
> standard deviations.
Yet you insist on using percent difference when comparing what you predict
to what is observed, rather than standard deviations which provide a clearer
picture of the precision. Is it because you are dishonest, or simply don't
understand simple error analysis?
I'm going to go with "a lot of column a, and a lot more of column b".
>
> This is what the authors of the paper published in Nature say.
So much for the claim that nothing interesting or controversial ever gets
published.
>
> If verified, it is a serious problem for QED.
Yep.
But notice how you are the only one hooting and screaming about it.
>
> Get your information from the source. Put in some friggin effort!
>
> Not from imbeciles like EG.
Of course your entire point of view is formed off the fact that I've
repeatedly made fun of your ideas and shoved your arrogant stupidity back in
your face.
I'm sure it is merely a /coincidence/ that you are unable to discuss my
technical points, and instead snip everything wholesale then repeat the
claim I had just discredited.
If you don't like it, stop talking like you know better than the rest of
modern science. You aren't. 30 years of fringe publications are evidence
enough of that.
>
> RLO
> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Painius
news:1ba0199f-86cc-43cb...@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
------------------------------------------------------
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A
Name calling subtracts from one's credibility. There are many
here who esteem the thoughts of "EG". If you would like to
earn a similar level of regard, then please stick to the facts and
to your interpretations of those facts. Credibility is very tough
to gain and extremely easy to lose in an eyeblink !
happy new days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
Lurker extraordinaire
P.S.: "Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities.
Truth isn't." > Mark Twain
P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
Sigh! It's like trying to teach chess to a troop of chimpanzees.
They just jump up and down and screech at each other and eat the
pieces, not to mention the less modest activities.
hanson
------ [ Oldershaw 1 : Ellsworth 0, zilch, nada, P I T
A ] -----
>
Paine Ellsworth.... Nothing Else worse than "Painius"
<starswi...@maol.com> wrote:
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 6:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/7/10 11:50 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>>
>
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote:
Get your information from the source!
Not from imbeciles like EG aka Eric Gisse.
>
Paine Ellsworth, a P I T A, short for Paine In The Ass, wrote:
P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A
[wherewith Ellsworth continues with] Name calling & subtracts
from his already nonexistend credibility. There are many here
who esteem the thoughts of "EG". Credibility is very tough to
gain and extremely easy to lose in an eyeblink !
Happy new days and..starry starry nights! Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth, Lurker extraordinaire, who is a "Fiction that's
obliged to stick to possibilities, as Truth isn't."
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Ellsworth, are you kidding or
are you one of the sub-intelctuals that depend on the posting
of EG who can't get a BSc even after 6 years of college?
You Paine, are a true P I T A, a Pitiful Imbecile Twit Ass.
You just restored your credibility as a P I T A in eyeblink. Kudos
and thanks for the laughs, though.... ahahaha... hahahahanson
Painius
in message
news:d01374be-be61-46cb...@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A
Very sad, because i was following what you were writing.
No more. Bye now.
happy new days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: "Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities.
Painius
news:i17p5d$g17$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Hanson, it makes me happy that you can find humor in
just about anything. You've probably been in and out of
alt.astronomy enough to know that i am not what might
be called a "mainstreamer", but that does not necessarily
mean that i don't follow the mainstream when the facts
show that the mainstream is correct.
The mainstreamers in these sci.* groups are still to be
highly revered in my opinion, even though many of them
seem to have become a bit jaded with guys like you, me
and Oldershaw.
Oldershaw seems to feel that he spreads his words like
pearls before swine. And yet he continues. He feels as if
it's like teaching chess to a bunch of chimpanzees. And
yet guffawing chimps like yourself are all he draws as
followers. Keep laughing Hanson, as you have zero
credibility, and Oldershaw's credibility is as the Moon's
present cycle -- quickly ebbing into nothingness. A new
moon is coming after the eclipse tomorrow. There is
always hope.
By the way, do you think there is any way to make a push-
gravity theory work?
happy new days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S. "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the
future." > Niels Bohr
P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
hanson
>
"Painius" <starswi...@maol.com> wrote:
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> Paine Ellsworth... Nothing Else worse than "Painius"
>>>> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>>>>
>> "Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote:
>> Get your information from the source!
>> Not from imbeciles like EG aka Eric Gisse.
>>>
>> Paine Ellsworth, a P I T A, short for Paine In The Ass, wrote:
>> P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A
>> [wherewith Ellsworth continues with] Name calling & subtracts
>> from his already nonexistend credibility. There are many here
>> who esteem the thoughts of "EG". Credibility is very tough to
>> gain and extremely easy to lose in an eyeblink !
>> Happy new days and..starry starry nights! Indelibly yours,
>> Paine Ellsworth, Lurker extraordinaire, who is a "Fiction that's
>> obliged to stick to possibilities, as Truth isn't."
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> -- [ Oldershaw 1 : Ellsworth 0, zilch, nada, P I T A ] --
>> are you one of the sub-intelctuals that depend on the posting
>> of EG who can't get a BSc even after 6 years of college?
>> You Paine, are a true P I T A, a Pitiful Imbecile Twit Ass.
>> You just restored your credibility as a P I T A in eyeblink. Kudos
>> and thanks for the laughs, though.... ahahaha... hahahahanson
>
> Hanson, it makes me happy that you can find humor in
> just about anything.
>
ahahahaha... You lie.You are not happy. You cranked yourself
grieveously, below, in your Paine-full bullsherations, in your
heroic efforts to talk out of both sides of your mouth:
>
Pained Paine groaned, moaned & wrote:
> You've probably been in and out of alt.astronomy
> enough to know that i am not what might be
> called a "mainstreamer", but that does not necessarily
> mean that i don't follow the mainstream when the facts
> show that the mainstream is correct.
>
... Can't say that I follow you around, but from your
current posting, it is safe to say that "Paine Ellsworth
is in and out of his mind depending on whether he has
happy few days and... starry starry nights!"... ahaha..
>
Pained Paine groaned, moaned & wrote:
> The mainstreamers in these sci.* groups are still to be
> highly revered in my opinion, even though many of them
> seem to have become a bit jaded with guys like you, me
> and Oldershaw.
>
... Your classification of and associating yourself with...
is a Paine-full stretch. Hanson travels alone!... ahahaha....
>
Pained Paine groaned, moaned & wrote:
> Oldershaw seems to feel that he spreads his words like
> pearls before swine. And yet he continues. He feels as if
> it's like teaching chess to a bunch of chimpanzees. And
> yet guffawing chimps like yourself are all he draws as
> followers. Keep laughing Hanson, as you have zero
> credibility, and Oldershaw's credibility is as the Moon's
> present cycle -- quickly ebbing into nothingness. A new
> moon is coming after the eclipse tomorrow. There is
> always hope.
>
.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... So, let OldNshallow
spread his "pearls before swine"... If you are not a swine
then why does it crank you?... ahahaha... And what is
that obsession you have with "credibility"?... ahaha...
Don't generalize on that. Olde might not have "credibility"
with you, but he himself has more than enough for himself.
= "Let'em sing!... All of them!... It's a beautiful choir! =
>
Pained Ells worth nothing wrote:
> By the way, do you think there is any way to make a push-
> gravity theory work?
>
.... ahahahaha... you be the judge, Paine. You tried to do
so very hard in your own posts.... ahahahaha... ahahahaha....
>
Pained Poesy Proletarian wrote:
> happy new days and... starry starry nights!
>
Likewise, Paine, ... and thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> Very sad, because i was following what you were writing.
> No more. Bye now.
Only the full-brained need apply
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> yet guffawing chimps like yourself are all he draws as
> followers. Keep laughing Hanson, as you have zero
> credibility, and Oldershaw's credibility is as the Moon's
Do you have any idea how hypocritical you are?
Painius
news:f316e648-bbb7-4ed1...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A
So... you have a low opinion of *my* credibility.
Big surprise.
Now please answer the question while you're still here...
>
> Do you think there is any way to make a push-gravity theory@ work?
>
@ NOTE: Highly Modified Le Sage (HMLS) theory based upon present
physical knowledge...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
A "yes" or "no" would be sufficient, and if you care to expound, i *do*
like brief, interesting explanations !
happy days and...
Robert L. Oldershaw
NO
Painius
On Jul 10, 3:17 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
NO
P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A
Wonderful ! Your response will serve to endear you a bit to
the mainstreamers who're about. I, on the other hand, will
look forward to showing that you are incorrect.
Ciao !