Error in numbers but not concepts

by sam_micheal | January 1, 2011 at 08:54 am
76 views | 0 Recommendations | 0 comments

It had been quite a while since i've 'played with the numbers' (of curvature etc), so i didn't notice some errors in my numbers and numerical claims. Taking five numbers and their associated uncertainties, i propagated the uncertainties until i arrived at the curvature ratio between electron and proton. In the process, i noticed an error in the electron curvature and error in my claim about 'exactness'. Please forgive this - it was not intentional and the error - actually helped me think more clearly about the concepts. But to clear the air, i will list out my numerical errors.

Idiotically, i couldn't even get the ratio right because i had the electron wrong. The correct approximate values are: (2/3)10^-23, (11/9)10^-20, and (6/11)10^-3 for electron, proton, and ratio. That leaves the progression to approximately be: (11/9)10^-20, (2/3)10^-23, (4/11)10^-26, and (24/121)10^-29. It's a little sticky to convert back and forth between curvature and mass so the easier approach is simply to use the NIS value for proton-electron mass ratio, invert it, and apply that on the electron mass. The mass progression from proton to electron to something-1 to something-2 is: 1.673*10^-27 kg, 9.109*10^-31 kg, 4.961*10^-34 kg, and 2.702*10^-37 kg.

Upsettingly, i re-realized the upper limit for neutrino mass proposed by convention is about 2 eV (electron-volts). This converts to a mass of about 4*10^-36 kg. So.. "I'm frakked" (with the numbers) as Starbuck loves to say. 8| Even considering my error bounds as i traced them above, doesn't allow me leeway to claim rational numbers for coefficients. :( And what do we do with the conventional claim neutrinos have a maximum mass of 2 eV? i can't just pretend that doesn't exist..

My intuitive prediction for the pattern would have been something like this: proton, electron, positive charged 'something-1', and negative charged 'something-2'. Not a neutral particle. So there's something wrong with the way we measure mass, our theory about neutrinos, or my thought processes. ;) i know what you're going to say..

All my numerical errors cannot erase the conceptual insights i've arrived at over the years: charge moment is impeded spin, elementary particles are dual flux-vortices and screw-dislocations in spacetime, more deeply - they are spherical standing waves of temporal curvature, and all the associated insights of complex time.. i know there are many who would 'throw up their arms' at the numerical mistakes i've made but the spirit and motivation of/for Iam space stands.

A billion numerical errors and Iam space are preferable to the Standard Model and virtual exchange.

Author

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Track this Story

is reporting from
Member
NP Rank: