All the lepton masses from G, pi, e

[arivero]

<br /> \frac{r}{r_c}\ =\ \sqrt{-\frac{1}{2} l(l+1)\ \ +\ \ <br /> \sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{2} l(l+1) \right)^2\ +\ l(l+1)} }<br />

I have only noticed it now; of course the funny thing about r_c is that it depends of the mass. So if we ask rto keep the same value when we jump from l=1/2 to l=1, then we are asking the mass of the orbiting particle to jump from \propto M_{W} to \propto M_Z.

We can put also (with L^2 adimensional here)

<br /> r {M_l c \over \hbar}\ =\ \sqrt{-\frac{1}{2} L^2\ \ +\ \ <br /> \sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{2} L^2 \right)^2\ +\ L^2} }<br />

or<br /> M_l \ =\ {1 \over \sqrt 2}{\hbar\over c r} \sqrt{- L^2\ \ +\ \ <br /> \sqrt{\left( L^2 \right)^2\ + 4 \ L^2} } <br />

or, with M \equiv {\hbar\over c r} (hmm, we could even to hide here the sqrt(2), could we?), and natural units to become grouptheoretical...

<br /> M_s^2 = \frac 12 ( - M^2 S^2 + \sqrt{ (M^2S^2)^2 + 4 M^2 (M^2 S^2) })<br />
and now we should go to check the Casimir invariants of unitary representations of the Lorentz group and see if this combination has some meaning for physmathematicians. Note that in the semiclassical limit \hbar \approx 0 we have a tautological M_s^2 \approx M^2 so the formula is not very bad at all.

 

[arivero]

Tilburg

I should mention this too

host www.uvt.nl is IP # 137.056.000.224

I can not find a host having 137.036.000.001 This range is assigned to SUNYat Cobleskill, but www.suny.edu web uses a different range, 141... Ah, here:

www.cobleskill.edu has IP# 137.036.032.031
telcobilling.cobleskill.edu[/URL] has IP# 137.036.004.003Cobleskill is approx "160 miles northwest of New York City and midway between Albany and Oneonta"

 

[arivero]

<br /> M_s^2 = \frac 12 ( - M^2 S^2 + \sqrt{ (M^2S^2)^2 + 4 M^2 (M^2 S^2) })<br />

What about the negative square speeds in the original proposal? Here correspond to negative mass square and there is a situation where negative mass square has sense for a force field, namely when it is an scalar field with a cuartic self interaction: then we get the "mexican hat" symmetry breaking scheme.

Let me use the notation \beta^2_{-s} for the negative square speed got as solution of the same equation than \beta^2_s. The only interesting one I have noticed is
<br /> \beta^2_{-1}= -2.73205080756887729352<br />
Fix the above mentioned quartic coupling to be \lambda=1. Then we can produce the "vacuum mass"
<br /> v=\sqrt{-m^2 \over \lambda} = M_{Z0}\sqrt{ -\beta^2_{-1} \over \lambda \beta^2_1} = M_{Z0} 1.9318516525781365 <br />

and for M_{Z0} = 91.1874 \pm 0.0021 GeV we get

v = 176.1605 \pm 0.0041 \; GeV

a value slightly higher that the measured 174.1042 GeV (\pm 0.00075) coming from Fermi constant. We could of course "adjust" the quartic coupling to be \lambda=(176.1605/174.1042)^2=1.0238 but it seems bit of cheating; we can better blame radiative corrections

 

[arivero]

Now a tour of force: if we have the vacuum and we have sin weinberg, we have all the GSW model. In particular we have
<br /> M_W^2 Sin^2 \theta = {\pi \alpha \over \sqrt 2 G_F } = {2 v^2 \pi \alpha }<br />

Thus
<br /> ({\beta_{1/2}^2 \over \beta_1^2})(1-{\beta_{1/2}^2 \over \beta_1^2})= 2 \pi \alpha { -\beta^2_{-1} \over \lambda \beta^2_1}

and
<br /> \alpha={\lambda \over 2 \pi} ({\beta_{1/2}^2 \over -\beta^2_{-1} }) (1-{\beta_{1/2}^2 \over \beta_1^2})<br />

which for \lambda=1 gives (ooooh!)

\alpha=.00739161112923688931...

\alpha=1/135.28...

Again blame radiative corrections, or put \alpha to predict \lambda, or both things. Or set two different vacua to get an additional parameter or claim GSW, SM, nor MSSM are the real things... a lot play here. The most puzzling thing looking only at our setup is the lack of a role for <br /> \beta_{-1/2}, and the meaning of spins (the vacuum is scalar, the W is vector, and we have respective spins 1 and 1/2 instead).

 

[Hans de Vries]

which for \lambda=1 gives (ooooh!)

\alpha=.00739161112923688931...

\alpha=1/135.28...

It seems to get quite interesting Alejandro. Let's see, I suppose the
coupling lambda is like the one in:

{\cal L}\ =\ \frac{1}{2}\left( (\partial \vec{\psi})^2 \ +\ m^2\vec{\psi}^2 \right) - \frac{\lambda}{4}\vec{\psi}^4

Where the sign of the mass term is inverted ?Regards, Hans

Ok I see, Using +\sqrt{m^2/\lambda} for symmetry breaking leads then
to one component becoming the massless (Goldstone) boson.

 

[CarlB]

which for \lambda=1 gives (ooooh!)

\alpha=.00739161112923688931...

\alpha=1/135.28...

Again blame radiative corrections, or put \alpha to predict \lambda, or both things. Or set two different vacua to get an additional parameter or claim GSW, SM, nor MSSM are the real things... a lot play here. The most puzzling thing looking only at our setup is the lack of a role for <br /> \beta_{-1/2}, and the meaning of spins (the vacuum is scalar, the W is vector, and we have respective spins 1 and 1/2 instead).

Interesting. I've seen that number before. Look at the correction for \delta_1 in my forbidden paper on the neutrino masses:

Eqn (14)
http://brannenworks.com/MASSES.pdf

If you replace my \alpha + O(\alpha^2) with your \alpha&#039;, you can eliminate the O(\alpha^2).

This gives a value

\delta_1 = 2/9 - \frac{4\pi\alpha&#039;}{3^{12}}

= 0.22222204743

well within the error bars set by experiment: .22222204717(48) given as equation (12) in my reference.

Carl

 

[Hans de Vries]

Fix the above mentioned quartic coupling to be \lambda=1. Then we can produce the "vacuum mass"
<br /> v=\sqrt{-m^2 \over \lambda} = M_{Z0}\sqrt{ -\beta^2_{-1} \over \lambda \beta^2_1} = M_{Z0} 1.9318516525781365 <br />

and for M_{Z0} = 91.1874 \pm 0.0021 GeV we get

v = 176.1605 \pm 0.0041 \; GeV

Just to note that we have generally for any spin:

<br /> i\frac{\beta_-}{\beta_+}\ = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2_+}}<br />

and thus:

<br /> \tanh{(\cosh^{-1}{(1.9318516525781365)})}\ =\ \beta_1 <br />

Regards, Hans

 

[physmike]

The following may not be in the same league as the main contributions to this thread, but I think it's cool. It doesn't work to many significant figures. Now, never mind why I'm doing this, but if we let \phi = 1.618 \cdots be the golden ratio and we try to relate \alpha to the Temperley-Lieb d factor, we come up with \alpha = 137.08 from

\frac{\sqrt{\alpha}}{2} = e^{\frac{2 \pi}{2 + \phi}} + e^{\frac{- 2 \pi}{2 + \phi}}

Cheers
Kea

Kea, Have you seen this?

Fine-structure Constant, Anomalous Magnetic Moment, Relativity Factor and the Golden Ratio that Divides the Bohr Radius
Authors: R. Heyrovska (1), S. Narayan (2)


" ... Here the mysterious fine-structure constant, alpha = (Compton wavelength/de Broglie wavelength) = 1/137.036 = 2.627/360 is interpreted based on the finding that it is close to 2.618/360 = 1/137.508, where the Compton wavelength for hydrogen is a distance equivalent to an arc length on the circumference (given by the de Broglie wavelength) of a circle with the Bohr radius and 2.618 is the square of the Golden ratio, which was recently shown to divide the Bohr radius into two Golden sections at the point of electrical neutrality. From the data for the electron (e) and proton (p) g-factors, it is found that


(137.508 - 137.036)= 0.472 = [g(p) - g(e)]/[g(p) + g(e)]
(= 2/cube of the Golden ratio),

(360/φ2) - α-1 = 2/φ3 = (gp - ge)/(gp + ge),


and that (2.627 - 2.618)/360 = (small part of the Compton wavelength corresponding to the intrinsic radii of e and p/de Broglie wavelength) = 0.009/360 = (1- gamma)/gamma, the factor for the advance of perihilion in Sommerfeld's theory of the hydrogen atom, where gamma is the relativity factor.

ge/gp = (φ3 – 2)/(φ3 + 2)

...Figure 1. The Golden ratio, point of electrical neutrality (Pel) and magnetic center (Pµ) of the hydrogen atom."

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0509207


alphaly, physmike :shy:

 

[arivero]

Ok I see, Using +\sqrt{m^2/\lambda} for symmetry breaking leads then
to one component becoming the massless (Goldstone) boson.

Exactly. You use different signs in mass and quartic coupling to get the "mexican hat". It is almost fine, except that in the standard model this symmetry breaking measures 174 gev, not 176 gev. But it is funny because this quantity is in the same context that the others, and in fact we only collected all the know ones: W, Z, and the breaking. It could be a bit risky to say that the photon is got from spin 0 but one is almost tempted to predict that the extant term \beta_{-1/2} is to be used to get the Higgs boson mass. EDITED: on second though, perhaps I should try to understand the models with two Higgs fields to break
Ideally it should be possible to implement all the new insights in a single lagrangian; it was because of this that I started to look to the negative solutions too. It is fascinating also that this 176 GeV has been hidden in front of our eyes a whole year (and a pity that top quark is now down to 172; it was at 178 last year).

 

[physmike]

Exact match of the fine-structure constant,
...with fibonacci and golden ratio.


α = 7.297 352 568 x 10-3 [1]


(α/3)^-12 = 2.33061803... x 10^31

(α/3)^-12 = 233 x 10^29 + 61803... x 10^23


This result was inspired by the harmonic system of William B. Conner [2].
A harmonic scale of 12 "musical intervals" from 144, ..., 233, ...270.
Fibonacci number, 233, is in the 13th place of the series that begins with
1,1,2,3,..., and 89 + 144 = 233. 233 is the tone SE in the harmonic system.
144 is the fundamental tone DO, light harmonic, and a decagon
angle. 144^1/2 = 12 & 27^1/3 = 3 . 270 is the tone of "action" TI,
and 27 is the "time" harmonic. Inverse golden ratio, φ^-1 = 0.61803...


According to Conner, 233 represents, among other things here;
the minimal compression density of the formative forces
in the quadrispiral cycle of interlocking compressive/expansive
vortices.

And the inverse golden ratio reflects the spiral geometry.


[1] http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?alph|search_for=abbr_in!

[2] Conner, William B. Harmonic Mathematics: A Phi-Ratioed Universe as
Seen through Tone-Number Harmonics. Chula Vista, CA: Tesla Book Company, 1982

 

[CarlB]

The function

f = 1 + \sqrt{2}\cos(\delta + 2n\pi/3)

gives the masses of the leptons according to the Koide formula. But it turns out that there was another crank at the APS meeting that is using the same formula, but in a slightly different context. I don't know how he got it, but it had to do with assuming that the electron was on a helical path.

This is somewhat similar to some of the stuff you guys are doing, in that it is applying classical mechanics to the electron, and somewhat similar to my insane ideas (my lecture was not well attended, by the way), so here it is:

A spatial model of a free electron (or a positron) is formed by a proposed helically circulating point-like charged superluminal quantum. The model includes the Dirac equation's electron spin \textstyle{1 \over 2}\hbar and magnetic moment e\hbar /2m as well as three Dirac equation measures of the electron's \textit{Zitterbewegung} (jittery motion): a speed of light velocity c, a frequency of 2mc^2/h=2.5\times 10^{20} hz, and a radius of \textstyle{1 \over 2}\hbar /mc=1.9\times 10^{-13}m. The electron's superluminal quantum has a closed double-looped helical trajectory whose circular axis' double-looped length is one Compton wavelength h/mc. The superluminal quantum's maximum speed in the electron model's rest frame is 2.797c. In the electron model's rest frame, the equations for the superluminal quantum's position are:

\begin{array}{l} x(t)=R_0 (1+\sqrt 2 \cos (\omega _0 t))\cos (2\omega _0 t) \\ y(t)=R_0 (1+\sqrt 2 \cos (\omega _0 t))\sin (2\omega _0 t) \\ z(t)=R_0 \sqrt 2 \sin (\omega _0 t) \\ \end{array} \]

where R_0 =\textstyle{1 \over 2}\hbar /mc and \omega _0 =mc^2/\hbar. A photon is modeled by an uncharged superluminal quantum moving at 1.414c along an open 45-degree helical trajectory with radius R=\lambda /2\pi.
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR06/Event/47453

His website:
http://www.superluminalquantum.org

Now one odd thing is that the way I came up with the Koide extension was by looking very carefully at Clifford algebra and I also ended up with superluminal components for the electron.

One possible relation is that his theory has something to do with what would happen if you convert my theory over to Bohmian mechanics. Bohmian mechanics adds a particle trajectory to the usual wave function.

Now my theory involves three particles that are moving under the influence of a potential that is fairly easily to calculate. But the potential is given by a Clifford algebra and is kind of complicated. It is at least conceivable that one would find that the solution gives helices for the preon (binon) trajectories. That would give a classical interpretation for angular momentum that would match the quantum interpretation.

In any case, it was an interesting coincidence.

Carl

 

[Hans de Vries]

EDITED: It is fascinating also that this 176 GeV has been hidden in front of our eyes a whole year (and a pity that top quark is now down to 172; it was at 178 last year).

If you look at Weinberg's Vol.II 21.3.37 and 21.3.38 you'll see that he uses
the value for alpha at mZ ( 1/127.904(19) ) This then gives you a lamda of
1.057 and the use of this value makes the 176 GeV go back to 171.3 GeV.

Regards, Hans

 

[arivero]

If you look at Weinberg's Vol.II 21.3.37 and 21.3.38 you'll see that he uses
the value for alpha at mZ ( 1/127.904(19) ) This then gives you a lamda of
1.057 and the use of this value makes the 176 GeV go back to 171.3 GeV.

Yes, I saw that our alpha at least goes in the right side (increases respect to the standard non-renormalised value) and I though on checking evaluations at mZ, but I am too lazy and I put it in the to-do stack; also because we do not now how the things move in our context, where some quantities are clearly non-renormalised and some other (coupling constants, surely) are.

BTW, the people at CDF are working hard on nailing an other \lambda, the one of the top quark, as Dorigo tells

 

[arivero]

by looking very carefully at Clifford algebra and I also ended up ...

In any case, it was an interesting coincidence.

Well, while it could be physics, also math has a word in such coincidences. Surely some of the formulae that started the thread can be got by approximation techniques from the ones with irrational numbers, sort of fractional approximations of pi and such.

As for Clifford-like objects, a lot of coincidence can come from the fact that the solutions to a second degree equation can be put as eigenvalues of a 2x2 matrix, and the sigma matrices are a basis for 2x2 matrices. One could wonder if it generalises to higher degree equations and gamma matrices, and if it can be related to Galois theory, but this could be a thread for math research.

For our recent cases, it is enough to notice that
x^2 + a x - b= (-x) (-x-a) - b = <br /> \begin{vmatrix}{ 0 -x &amp; \sqrt b \cr \sqrt b &amp; -a -x}\end{vmatrix}

We used a=M^2S^2=-C_2 and b=M^4 S^2=-C_1 C_2 in operatorial notation, where C1 and C2 are the Casimir Invariants of Poincare group, with eigenvalues m^2 and -m^2 s (s+1) respectively. Then our equation can be written as asking for the eigenvalues of the object

<br /> \begin{pmatrix} 0 &amp; 1 \cr 1 &amp; 0 \end{pmatrix} \sqrt{-C_1 C_2} + \begin{pmatrix}{0 &amp; 0 \cr 0 &amp; -1}\end{pmatrix} (-C_2)}<br />

Or, more generally, of

<br /> \sigma_\perp \otimes \sqrt{-C_1 C_2} + <br /> { {\bf I} - \sigma_z \over 2 } \otimes C_2}<br />

with \sigma_\perp being any combination \sigma_x \sin t + \sigma_y \cos t

It is interesting to consider some different forms for the second term. We can use two parameters r, \theta (aggh, to many angles here) to put it as r {\bf I} \sin \theta - r \sigma_z \cos \theta; then for r to infinity we get a sin^2 weinberg of 5/8, the opposite of the GUT value . And for \sin \theta=0, r=1 we can retort the argument to surface a 114 GeV value in the place where we were expecting it.

 

[arivero]

A harmonic scale of 12 "musical intervals"

Sorry I disgress in the offtopic, but I would like remark that the proof that 12 musical intervals do not build up an octave is one of the important results from Euclide (a detail that Pythagoreans and Platonists prefer discretly to forget). In the scale of popular sci-myths, it compares to the one telling that the Lunar Cicle is 28 days (it is more than 29 if you care to look at the sky instead the equations).

 

[arivero]

Let me resume the situation numerically too. We have the original object
<br /> A \equiv \sigma_\perp \otimes \sqrt{-C_1 C_2} + <br /> { {\bf I} - \sigma_z \over 2 } \otimes C_2}<br />

and now an auxiliar operator
<br /> B \equiv \sigma_\perp \otimes \sqrt{-C_1 C_2} + <br /> { \sigma_z } \otimes C_2}<br />

The eigenfunctions adscribe to representations (m,s) of the Poincare Group and we are interested on the eigenvalues. We use that C1 and C2 are the casimir invariants, with respective eigenvalues m^2 and -m^2 s (s+1)

From M_Z we fix m to be 106.5732 +- 0.0024 GeV. You can not see it in this formulation, but it is the orbit radius of Hans's original formulation.

Then we get

Eigenvalues of A for s=1/2
+ (80.3717 +- 0.0019 GeV) ^2
- ( 122.384 +- 0.003 GeV) ^2
Eigenvalues of A for s=1
+ (91.184 +- 0.0021 GeV)^2 %MZ is the experimental input
- (176.154 +- 0.004 GeV)^2
Eigenvalues of B for s=1/2
+- ( 114.07 +- 0.003 GeV)^2
Eigenvalues of B for s=1
+- ( 166.796 +- 0.005 GeV)^2

Note that the Eigenvalues of B are same module, different sign; sort of degenerate. Of these six values, three are well known and another one (114 GeV) is the best estimate of Higgs mass.

We have used an experimental input and predicted two new ones (and the 114). Alternatively we can use the parametrisation of the standard model to cancel the experimental input and then we predict two adimensional quantities:
the fine structure constant =1/135.28...
the sin of Weinberg angle at mass shell =0.2231013223...

The later of the two quantities is a best prediction than the former, reflecting the fact that 176 GeV misses the 174 GeV of the electroweak vacuum, while M_W is targeted accurately. But it is good enough being as they are, unrenormalised, sort of tree level, estimates.

 

[physmike]

Sorry I disgress in the offtopic, but I would like remark that the proof that 12 musical intervals do not build up an octave is one of the important results from Euclide (a detail that Pythagoreans and Platonists prefer discretly to forget). .

arivero, sorry I'm not a musician, William B. Conner was. And his 12 musical intervals, as whole tone-numbers, do form an octave. Guess you were referring to Pythagorean ratios, as a bit off-topic, and I'm not familiar with Euclid's proof on this; found a reference [1].

However, while we're a little off-topic; Euclid did know about the beginning of the Fibonacci series,
in Book VII, Proposition 28 of Euclid, as explained by Ben Iverson [2].

On a path through history bringing us back toward the topic,
the Great Pyramid has a height of 233 sacred cubits by Conner's measurements,
and a slant height of 618 in a measurement equivalent to our foot [3].

And a related descriptive example from nature, Mario Livio reports the largest of sunflowers can have a 233/144 spiral ratio, clockwise and counterclockwise spiral patterns [4].




[1] Tonalsoft:Encyclopedia of Microtonal Music Theory

"The Pythagorean comma is the difference between 12 just perfect fifths up and 7 octaves up:

(3/2)^12 = 312/212 = 531441/4096
(2/1)^7 = 128

531441/4096 x 1/128 = 531441/524288 Pythagorean comma

The ratio 531441/ 524288, in JustMusic prime-factor notation designated as 312, with an interval size of approximately 0.23 Semitones [= ~23.46001038 cents].

The pythagorean comma was first described c. 300 BC by pseudo-Euclid in Divisions of the Canon."

("Equal temperament does away with the Pythagorean comma, ..." [5]).

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/p/pythagorean-comma.aspx


[2] Iverson, Ben. Pythagoras and the Quantum World Volume II (Revised). Tigard, OR: ITAM, 1995


[3] Turbeville, Joseph. "The Great Pyramid Architect Had A Secret", A Glimmer of Light From the Eye of a Giant: Tabular Evidence of a Monument in Harmony with the Universe, A mathematical combination of the Fibonacci series with a process of number reduction by distillation led to the development of several numerical tables that provide evidence of a direct numerical connection to the Great Pyramid and the cosmological order of the universe. http://www.eyeofagiant.com


[4] Livio, Mario. The Golden Ratio, The Story of Phi, the World's Most Astonishing Number. Broadway Books: New York, 2002


[5] Garland, Trudi Hammel and Kahn, Charity Vaughan. Math and Music: Harmonious Connections. Dale Seymour Publications: Palo Alto, CA, 1995

 

[arivero]

arivero, sorry I'm not a musician, William B. Conner was. And his 12 musical intervals, as whole tone-numbers, do form an octave. Guess you were referring to Pythagorean ratios, as a bit off-topic, and I'm not familiar with Euclid's proof on this; found a reference [1].

Yep, that is. And it is the pest of musicians since then. A question of harmonics.

On a path through history bringing us back toward the topic,
the Great Pyramid has a height of 233 sacred cubits by Conner's measurements,
and a slant height of 618 in a measurement equivalent to our foot [3].

And a related descriptive example from nature, Mario Livio reports the largest of sunflowers can have a 233/144 spiral ratio, clockwise and counterclockwise spiral patterns [4].

NO This is no the topic. First of all, no masses involved. Second, we all know of geometrical ratios. Third, geometrical ratios are GEOMETRICAL, they can be built without knowledge of algebra or numbers, so you can expect it in geometrical constructions (eg buildings) without needing to resort to strange or arbitrary measurement units. A drawing of a circle is not the same that knowledge of pi.

Note that in the topic of this thread a lot of relationships are adimensional coupling constants or adimensional mass quotients. A joke on the use of units to derive results is Bethe et al short note deriving the fine structure constant (adimensional quantity) from Celsius temperature scale (an ad-hoc arbitrary unit).

There is a math incognita about pyramids but unrelated to Egyptians: the fact that the formula for the pyramid can not be got from a finite process of slicing and pasting known volumes; it needs of differential calculus or other similar infinite involved process. Archimedes says that this volume was first calculated by Democritus, but indefinitely iterated proofs have not survived in greek texts; there are some proofs on the same spirit in later chinese texts, eg Lin Hui. The final proof of impossiblity was given in 1900-1903 as answer to one of the problems of Hilbert.

Enough for the off-topic. I hope you were just trying to do a joke (look for instance some messages before, the host IP joke). If you are serious, you are, er, dissonant.

 

[arivero]

- ( 122.384 +- 0.003 GeV) ^2
+- ( 166.796 +- 0.005 GeV)^2

Reviewing Tony Smith website I become aware again of the work of Dalitz and Goldstain in the early 1990, about some events at 122 GeV that were rejected as background.

As for the 166. Some methodologies of analysis happen to get this set of values due to systematic error.

It is interesting to note that the difference between operator A and B amounts to replace a Pauli matrix by a projector matrix. Sort of selecting one chirality?

 

[physmike]

Electron Mass: from Tone Number and Golden Ratio

Trying to get to the topic.
Beginning with the same basic algebra in post #220.

me = 9.109 3826 x 10-31 kg [1]

(me/3)^-12 = 1.627750...


Tone Number 162 & (60)^1/2 ~ 7.75


162, Sun Tone RE in base octave, resonant to the Golden Ratio φ = 1.618...
60 is the second suboctave of Tone Number 240, LA, harmonic of "tachyon motion" [3]


Curious numerical correlations? While neither in the Bethe or Eddington camp, we'll quote John Barrow: "Our purpose in revealing some of its examples (alpha, numerical gymnastics) is not without serious object." (p. 75) [2]

Quoting Conner on the origin of Tone-Numbers:

"The Pythagorean Table, as it is known today, is a reconstruction of earlier versions. This is the work of one Albert von Thimus, a lawyer/scholar who lived in the 1800's...
My adaptation is based on the Table as it appears in Siegmund Levarie's and Ernst Levy's
"The Pythagorean Table" (Main Currents, March-April 1974). ...does not in any way involve a restructuring of the basic ratios. However, for string-length on the vertical arm I have substituted frequency (pitch), and I have used the specific number value of 144 as the fundamental." (p.75) [4]



[1] http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?me|search_for=abbr_in!

[2] Barrow, John D. The Constants of Nature. New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 2002

[3] Conner, William B. Harmonic Mathematics: A Phi-Ratioed Universe as Seen through Tone-Number Harmonics. Chula Vista, CA: Tesla Book Company, 1982

[4] Conner,William B. PsychoMathematics: The Key to the Universe (revision of Math's Metasonics).
Chula Vista, CA: Tesla Book Company, 1983

 

[Hans de Vries]

Trying to get to the topic.

Not really, You've provided a classical example of how not to search for
numerical systematics in physics:

Beginning with the same basic algebra in post #220.

me = 9.109 3826 x 10-31 kg [1]

First of all: m_e is a dimensional number, its value depends on the
totally arbitrary definition of the kilogram. Its numerical value as such
does not mean anything.

(me/3)^-12 = 1.627750...

Tone Number 162 & (60)^1/2 ~ 7.75

Then you use more numbers and symbols than you predict, There
are zillions of ways to do this so you're not predicting anything.

Next you change the value 1.62 in 162, Where does the factor 100
come from? In any other number system for instance on base 16 or
base 12 this "resemblance" doesn't exist.

Curious numerical correlations? While neither in the Bethe or Eddington camp, we'll quote John Barrow: "Our purpose in revealing some of its examples (alpha, numerical gymnastics) is not without serious object." (p. 75) [2]

Serious it should be.

Quoting Conner on the origin of Tone-Numbers:

"The Pythagorean Table, as it is known today, is a reconstruction of earlier versions. This is the work of one Albert von Thimus, a lawyer/scholar who lived in the 1800's...
My adaptation is based on the Table as it appears in Siegmund Levarie's and Ernst Levy's
"The Pythagorean Table" (Main Currents, March-April 1974). ...does not in any way involve a restructuring of the basic ratios. However, for string-length on the vertical arm I have substituted frequency (pitch), and I have used the specific number value of 144 as the fundamental." (p.75) [4]

This sounds all very poetic and maybe it will even produce some nice
music, but as Arivero noted: It's dissonant on a Physics webside.

[3] Conner, William B. Harmonic Mathematics: A Phi-Ratioed Universe as Seen through Tone-Number Harmonics. Chula Vista, CA: Tesla Book Company, 1982

[4] Conner,William B. PsychoMathematics: The Key to the Universe (revision of Math's Metasonics).
Chula Vista, CA: Tesla Book Company, 1983

The Mentors of Physicsforums would call the above "crackpot references"
which are not allowed here. They will "hunt" you down and complain
that you're not observing the PF Guidelines to which you've agreed.

Sorry,

Regards, Hans.

 

[arivero]

From M_Z we fix m to be 106.5732 +- 0.0024 GeV. You can not see it in this formulation, but it is the orbit radius of Hans's original formulation.

Then we get

Eigenvalues of A for s=1/2
+ (80.3717 +- 0.0019 GeV) ^2
- ( 122.384 +- 0.003 GeV) ^2
Eigenvalues of A for s=1
+ (91.184 +- 0.0021 GeV)^2 %MZ is the experimental input
- (176.154 +- 0.004 GeV)^2

the sin of Weinberg angle at mass shell =0.2231013223...

Hans kindly remembered me that the above linked post contained also some relationships for charged leptons. In fact even at first order these relations are good; in our new notation (with this m=106.5732 GeV deduced from measured MZ) we could put them as

<br /> {\alpha \over 2} {m \over M_W} \approx {m_e \over m_\mu}<br />

<br /> {\alpha \over 2} {m_Z^2 \over m M_W} \approx ({m_\mu \over m_\tau})^2<br />

and then derived from both,
<br /> \left({\alpha \over 2}\right)^3 {m m_Z^2 \over M_W^2} \approx ({m_e \over m_\tau})^2<br />

But we also have Yablon observation,
<br /> m_\tau \approx \alpha \sqrt 2 \ 172.18 GeV<br />

And then of course we have Koide's
<br /> \frac 23 \left(\sqrt{1}+\sqrt{m_\mu\over m_e}+\sqrt{m_\tau \over m_e}\right)^2 = ({1}+{m_\mu\over m_e}+{m_\tau \over m_e})<br />

And even Krolinowski (I should check it, I think he produced some sqrt(19) somewhere) could have a hit.

Too many!

 

[arivero]

(and I wonder if it could be interesting to look systematically for small integers of pi multiples or so as I did at the start of the thread, now that we have a couple new masses to think about. For instance
{ m_\mu m_\tau \over (122.384 GeV) \ m_e} \approx 3

 

[physmike]

:-)

...You've provided a classical example of how not to search for
numerical systematics in physics:

Have you thought about the relation of your exponential
alpha expression with a logarithmic spiral, and the golden ratio?
We'd like to see more of your work as promised in post #155.
Please make it a "knot".

Alejandro,

I'll add a second section to the paper demonstrating this successive
difference method. Indeed, currently only the end-result is presented
without any explanation.

Regards, Hans

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=742908&postcount=155 :

First of all: m_e is a dimensional number, its value depends on the
totally arbitrary definition of the kilogram. Its numerical value as such
does not mean anything.:

Yes, that's the consensus. Have you ever wondered about the
"invisible hand"?

Then you use more numbers and symbols than you predict, There
are zillions of ways to do this so you're not predicting anything.

Next you change the value 1.62 in 162, Where does the factor 100
come from? In any other number system for instance on base 16 or
base 12 this "resemblance" doesn't exist.:

Are you serious? ... Perhaps we oversimplified the presentation
to highlight a "coincidence".
...floating decimal point arithmetic, and

har·mon·ic

1 a. Any of a series of musical tones whose frequencies
are integral multiples of the frequency of a fundamental tone.

...

3 Physics. A wave whose frequency is a whole-number multiple
of that of another.


http://www.answers.com/topic/harmonic?method=22 :

This sounds all very poetic and maybe it will even produce some nice
music, :

Yes, the Table is poetic, in the best sense of the word.
It has interesting connections with Onar Aam's poetic
octonionic structures of music, and Tony Smith's Witting
polytope nursery rhymes:

"The Witting polytope can be constructed from the
4-dim 24-cell by a Golden Ratio expansion
of the 24-cell to a 24+96 = 120 vertex 4-dim polytope, the 600-cell.

It has octonionic structure and lives in 8-dim space.

Since the Witting polytope has 240 = 20x12 vertices,
it has 12-structure."

Though we question his Wyleresque attempts to formulate the
masses, and his recently acquired status. A status similar to the
references you were concerned about.

 

[CarlB]

I've been thinking about formulas and information theory. Perhaps a good rule for choosing which formulas have merit and which do not would be by comparing how much information is required to describe the formula.

For example, 355/113 gives 3.1415929 ... which is fairly close to pi = 3.1415926, the error is one part in 1.0 E+7, or about 24 bits of accuracy. Now we know that 355/113 is simply an entry in the continued fraction expansion of pi, and so is not some magic formula with an accuracy that we can't expect to find with the continued fraction expansion of any "typical" real number.

355 has 9 binary bits and 113 has 7 more, so at first glance it appears that one has taken about 8 bits of information out of pi. But if one take the point of view that this particular equation must be picked out of all possible equations, then one must also include coding for the termination of the binary number and the division.

Now Shannon's theory of encoding says that you should use short sequences of bits for the "characters" that are more frequently used. Surely binary numbers and division are fairly frequent used items, so they should be encoded efficiently. The encoding of the binary approximation of pi also has some overhead, that required to define where the decimal place goes. Surely these should also be efficient things.

Looking at the numbers, it seems like these sorts of things take about 3 or 4 bits each.

Looked at this way, a formula, in order to truly represent information more efficiently than a simple decimal approximation, had better be quite terse.

One way of approximating the information required to encode a number occurs to me. Count the number of keystrokes required to obtain the number on a calculator. For the two approximations of pi given above, the number of keystrokes is each about 8 so neither is significantly more efficient than the other. For stuff like the Koide formula, one requires a supplementary key that says "solve" I suppose.

Carl

 

[arivero]

Yes, that's the consensus. Have you ever wondered about the
"invisible hand"?

Physmike, an invisible hand for kilograms...? Er, you are pushing conspiracy theory to new heights!

You are telling that someone at the age of the French Revolution or so, knowing secretly the value of the mass of the electron, manipulated the definition of Kilogram in order to get the numbers of the Golden Ratio. But as the definition of Kilogram comes from a cubic decimeter of agua, it follows is that this Secret Fellow actually manipulated the definition of the meter, ie He took the final decision about where to mark the signals in the platinum-iridium bar at Paris so that the people two hundred years after him were able to detect the existence of this secret advanced scientific society.

And you have found Them! Congratulations.

(but still, Conspiracy is off topic for this thread, I am sorry. I hope moderators will be notifyed of your postings at some time)

 

[arivero]

I've been thinking about formulas and information theory.

I.J. Good did a try on it decades ago; his conclusion (or his method) was disapointing, the only formula he got to select was the infamous 6 pi ^5 for proton/electron ratio.

 

[Hans de Vries]

I've been thinking about formulas and information theory.
Carl

It's a good exercise. Very few relations pass the "Shannon Test"

The predictive value (in bits) can be defined as:

<br /> \ln_2{\left(\frac{\mbox{value}}{\mbox{error}}\right)}<br />

To determine how many bits your formula uses to make this prediction
you can do something like this:

Add for each number used:

<br /> \ln_2{\left(\mbox{number}\right)}<br />

Add two bits or so for each use of the most basic constants like pi, e ...

Add \ln_2{(6)} for each of the six elementary operations:

<br /> +, -, x, /, {a}^n, \sqrt[n]{a} <br />

Add an extra bit for the three latter ones since they are non-commutative.
(swapping the operands changes the result)

Add 1 bit for each pair of brackets since it divides an expression in two.

Add for every basic function exp, ln, sine, cosine, tangent a value
of ln2(10) (there are about 10 elementary functions)etcetera.

It turns out that very few formulas actually predict more bits than
they use. A number very hard to quantify is how much a formula
resembles a "physical" formula. The above quantification doesn't
discriminate between very odd looking formulas and more realistic
ones so it might be a tad too negative.Regards, Hans.

 

[physmike]

Physmike, an invisible hand for kilograms...? Er, you are pushing conspiracy theory to new heights!
...
(but still, Conspiracy is off topic for this thread, I am sorry. I hope moderators will be notifyed of your postings at some time)

Incorrect allusion, ...you were off topic, ... Regards, er, not Hans

 

[arivero]

Eigenvalues of A for s=1/2
+ (80.3717 +- 0.0019 GeV) ^2
- ( 122.384 +- 0.003 GeV) ^2
Eigenvalues of A for s=1
+ (91.184 +- 0.0021 GeV)^2 %MZ is the experimental input
- (176.154 +- 0.004 GeV)^2

Thus
Tr A_{s=1/2} = \frac 38 Tr A_{s=1}

Eigenvalues of B for s=1/2
+- ( 114.07 +- 0.003 GeV)^2
Eigenvalues of B for s=1
+- ( 166.796 +- 0.005 GeV)^2

Tr A_{1/2} = Tr A_{s=1}=0

This is worth remarking because a lot of breaking systems have mass formulae extracted from trace or supertrace of the M^2 operator.