How Wrong is the Standard Model?

[Dotini]

How Wrong is the Standard Model?

Apparently the most basic laws of physics will have to be re-written due to the new discovery that Protons, among the building blocks of atoms, are even smaller than we thought.

"The size of a proton is an essential value in equations that make up the 60-year-old theory of quantum electrodynamics, a cornerstone of the Standard Model of particle physics. The Standard Model describes how all forces, except gravity, affect subatomic particles."

"It's possible the smaller proton means the Rydberg constant hasn't been correctly measured. This value describes the way light gets emitted from various elements—a key component of spectroscopy, which is used, for instance, to tell which kinds of elements exist in galaxies and the vast interstellar gas-and-dust clouds called nebulae."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... m-physics/

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

[junglelord]

I know that APM states that the radius of both the EM charge and the ES charge, will change in relationship to each other...this is based on the concept that sub atomic units are made of dual charges....they expand and contract...so again I see the possibility that the difference in measurements may be due to this relationship expressed in APM...therefore the idea of a static size for a distributed charge unit is a fallicy to begin with.

[aetherevarising]

I had no idea I was a member here. Delighted to see this but nor sure how it happened. LOL. Either my son signed me in or I'm more addled than I realised. I think before one can complain about shortfalls in the standard model one could perhaps look at some of the outstanding questions. No reason, that I've found - why the proton's size is 1836 x greater than the electron. Same charge - but opposite to the electron - yet SO MUCH MASS? When I asked our 'experts' I was advised that the proton is a boson - which really doesn't explain anything at all.

I've just seen that this forum is for the promotion of eu theory. Can anyone guide me to the appropriate thread? I have some real questions to ask regarding this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie

[StevenO]

According to Miles Mathis the proton is not about 4% smaller than expected but 137x larger than we think. That is where the magic "fine structure constant" number comes from:

WHY THE ATOMIC WORLD IS 100 TIMES LARGER THAN WE THOUGHT

The proton is 1821x more massive than the electron since it has four more spin levels than the electron:

Unifying the Electron and Proton

[bboyer]

The only thing spinning in this context of "spin" would seem to be the mystical mathematician's web of deceit and delusion. Don't know much of his rope theory but I'd have to go with Gaede on this one with respect to the mathematician's conjuring of ... spin.

http://www.youtube.com/user/bgaede#p/u/0/6WfydkWLIkk

[david lambright]

I had no idea I was a member here. Delighted to see this but nor sure how it happened. LOL. Either my son signed me in or I'm more addled than I realised. I think before one can complain about shortfalls in the standard model one could perhaps look at some of the outstanding questions. No reason, that I've found - why the proton's size is 1836 x greater than the electron. Same charge - but opposite to the electron - yet SO MUCH MASS? When I asked our 'experts' I was advised that the proton is a boson - which really doesn't explain anything at all.

I've just seen that this forum is for the promotion of eu theory. Can anyone guide me to the appropriate thread? I have some real questions to ask regarding this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie

hi rose!...good to hear you on forum!...did i tell you i missed you?...well i do ....have you seen my last posts at EF?...good stuff...david...ps we will talk soon!

[StevenO]

The only thing spinning in this context of "spin" would seem to be the mystical mathematician's web of deceit and delusion. Don't know much of his rope theory but I'd have to go with Gaede on this one with respect to the mathematician's conjuring of ... spin.

http://www.youtube.com/user/bgaede#p/u/0/6WfydkWLIkk

Science by Youtube? Bring on the cheerleaders! Maybe they could show you what spin is...

[nick c]

hi StevenO,

Science by Youtube? Bring on the cheerleaders! Maybe they could show you what spin is...

I my opinion, judgement should be made on the content of the message, not the vehicle through which it is presented. After all the videos are nothing more than recordings of a man presenting his case and using some audio/visual aids, what difference does it make if they are presented on You Tube, or not?
Nick

[StevenO]

hi StevenO,

Science by Youtube? Bring on the cheerleaders! Maybe they could show you what spin is...

I my opinion, judgement should be made on the content of the message, not the vehicle through which it is presented. After all the videos are nothing more than recordings of a man presenting his case and using some audio/visual aids, what difference does it make if they are presented on You Tube, or not?
Nick

Hi Nick,

No means to upset anybody. It is just clear from Arc's comments that he neither read Mathis nor Gaede. He just expresses an opinion based on an impression from a Youtube video. This has nothing to do with science. In that case I prefer to have myself impressed by short skirted ladies

[StevenO]

Here is Miles explanation of the 4% size difference (and why the standard model does not want to go there):

Proton Size by Miles Mathis

NEW REPORTS ON THE PROTON SIZE

by Miles Mathis



A kind reader sent me a link to an article in National Geographic and Nature this month (July 2010) that reports particle physics were shocked to discover the proton was 4% smaller than previously thought. This was discovered by firing a laser at a muon orbiting a proton, bumping it from one orbit to another. We are told that the standard model has no explanation for this discrepancy, but that it may have something to do with the Rydberg constant.

I have an answer for these particle physicists, and it has nothing to do with the Rydberg constant. It has to do with the unified field. Remember that all these experiments are taking place on the Earth, which not only has its own gravitational field, but is in the larger field of the Sun. Quantum physicists always ignore this when they run their numbers, but they shouldn't do that. The masses and energies they are finding and are plugging into the equations are determined by the unified field, so gravity cannot be ignored at the quantum level. In my paper on the Saturn anomaly, and before that in my paper on the perihelion of Mercury, I showed that Einstein's field equations are wrong by 4% in the field of the Sun. That is to say, gravity is generally miscalculated by that amount in our solar system, at all points. Since Einstein's field equations are really mass equations (he does a mass transform to find curvature), all the masses in the solar system are wrong by 4%, including of course atomic and subatomic masses. This must be important because the equations that give us a proton size are dependent on proton and muon masses. Although these scientists aren't directly using Einstein's field equations in this problem, they are using masses that are determined by the field. The 4% error in the field equations are directly causing the 4% error here.

But there is more. This is not the only mathematical or field error in the quantum equations. It is the most obvious error, since it shows itself in simple experiments, but it is not the largest error by a wide margin. Even larger errors in the math are hidden errors, since they offset. In other words, two or more mathematical errors—errors in different directions—nullify one another, so that this simple experiment cannot show them. QED is full of offsetting pushes like this, since it has not only been renormalized in multiple ways, it has been jerry-rigged decade after decade. But I have shown that the proton size is off not by 4%, but by around 170%. Yes, the proton is actually over 100 times larger than we think, not 4% smaller. These scientists haven't even begun to uncover all the errors. To understand why this is so, you have to read several of my papers, including all my papers on Bohr. There has been a fundamental misunderstanding from the beginning concerning the assignment of the angular momentum of the electron orbit. Not only are the angular momentum equations faulty, the momentum itself has been misassigned. When we add to this the fact that Coulomb's equation was always misunderstood, we have a very large mess with many points of spillage. When we correct all these mistakes, we find gravity at the quantum level at a size 1022 larger than we thought. We find a larger Bohr radius, we find a different fine structure constant, and we find no point particles. We find a photon with real size and spin and mass, and so on.

This article at NG admits that the standard model may have to be rewritten, but it doesn't have a clue as to the extent of this rewrite. I predict that particle physicists will strongly resist this rewrite, since some of them may have some inkling of the revolution ahead, a revolution that will do most of them no good. That is why we are hearing about Rydberg's constant. It will be much easier to hide in one more mathematical fudge, by pushing some fake constant one more time, than to actually make the necessary corrections. Particle physics has never had a problem with bold mathematical cheats: it has existed from the beginning on them.

If you don't think particle physics is confused, try taking the link from this NG report to a “related problem”, that of the neutrino. If you take the link, you find that physicists are now proposing that the neutrino, previously thought to be on the scale of a photon, is as large as ten billion light years. You read that right. Some older neutrinos are now said to be almost as large as the observable universe, based on computer models:

An open question is whether gravity—say, the pull from an entire galaxy—can force a meganeutrino to collapse down to a single location.

Yes, this is now the state of the art in physics. This is what we see published in major journals. Nothing is now too ridiculous to propose. I have a question: do you seriously imagine that physicists who would propose such things, or sit by and allow such things to be proposed, could be right about anything? If any of the foundations were in order, it would be impossible to propose or publish the things we now see proposed and published. As you can judge the seeds from the fruit, you can judge the theories by the articles. The popular articles are rubbish because the scholarly articles are rubbish, and the scholarly articles are rubbish because the theories and math are rubbish.

[bboyer]

....This has nothing to do with science. In that case I prefer to have myself impressed by short skirted ladies

Nor does the QED "particle" zoo and their imaginary spin(s). Regarding the short skirted ladies, I can agree.

[Grey Cloud]

....This has nothing to do with science. In that case I prefer to have myself impressed by short skirted ladies

Nor does the QED "particle" zoo and their imaginary spin(s). Regarding the short skirted ladies, I can agree.

Is somebody going to start a thread? A thread on short threads. We have string theory and rope theory....

[Goldminer]

Phooey, I am posting the following here. I don't want to start a new thread:

Pencho Valov posted the following quote and comment on another forum:

"Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law" Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci. Reber (1982)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w67 ... lltext.pdf

". . .pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an expanding spacetime geometry ( . . .) . . .any photon gradually loses its energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the universe."

My comment to him is this:

Please be advised that this is a straw choice of alternatives: the choice is not just "expanding universe" versus "tired-light." There are probably many other hypotheses, one of which has evidence: Halton Arp et al, has discovered intrinsic red shift belonging to various galaxies and QSO's in relatively close proximity to, and in front of, conventional, non red shifted galaxies.

When this paradigm is considered, the visible Universe becomes smaller, and the universal expansion of the "main stream" "standard?" consensus disappears. The Earth then looses its "center of the expansion" position, just as Copernicus won over Ptolemy, and thus the "tired light" hypothesis becomes less of an alternative, not to mention the silliness of the Big Bang religion.