and its possible relationship to particle masses
In the previous discussion, "normal" probabilistic calculations are based upon the concept of the "interval". As we have seen, without such an interval no statistical calculation is possible ... until now.
What I wish to obtain is a set of discreet (but seemingly random) numbers consistent with simple rules which somehow miraculously turn out to be equal to all the particle masses discovered or ever to be discovered.
I am going to proceed on the assumption that the theory (unstated) of
By Thus, instead of having units of mass/energy like 1 unit of charge or 1/2 unit of angular momentum, and adding them together to get a "sum", we just have this odd value which at first sight seems to make no sense relative to other values. The values chosen won't be composites of other values. They are what they are and are not divisible. They do have a relationship (purely mathematical) to other values but that relationship is not a physically, causal one. It is "holistic". These values are subject to some normal rules of physics. For instance, we can't create a particle of a given mass value if there is insufficient mass-energy available for its production. The standard rules of thermodynamics apply and must supercede any mass-specifying principle.
As I have given it before, this rule requires that no two particles of differing quantum properties can exist relative to one another and at the same time relative to an infinite. This produces contradictions, e.g. if a particle possessed one unit of mass and another non-composite particle had a mass of seven units, then, they cannot simultaneously exist relative to one another and to an infinite space with an infinite number of particles in it ... for if so, we should have to say that 1 is to infinity in the same manner as 7 is to infinity and therefore 1=7 which is false in all finite situations (a contradiction at the finite level - for two things cannot both at the same time).
not beSince it is known that there are a multitude of dissimilar particles existing relative to one another, some sort of explanation is in order. It is this.
Because space is not as yet infinite relative to any given particle, they may co-exist temporarily. And, in fact, all particles decay in a finite time except the electron and proton. But these two also differ in mass so that another explanation is required.
its simplest representative. Namely,
^{x}
Wherein, "e" is Euler's number 2.71828...
Our graph will look like this ... This distribution allows for any mass to be possible ... but not equally possible. If all values to infinity were equally possible, there would be no logical way to choose any one of them by any probabilistic means whatsoever. In an unbounded field there is no way to set an interval because all intervals are identical relative to that infinite field (1/infinity = 6/infinity). More specifically, the area under the curve must be finite in order to calculate probability ... not infinite, as in an unbounded field of equal probability. If we were calculating most probable masses in the "interval way", we would make an interval and calculate its area as a fraction of the area under the curve and that would be the probability of finding a particle in that mass spread. However, this continuous spread of masses is not found in nature. We find specific, discreet masses ... always the same. We must therefore pick such values off the graph at specific places. And there is no "fixed" interval dependence. That is, we can't obtain points on the graph by drawing a vertical line up from the x-axis to intersect the graph ... and ... put those vertical lines a "unit" distance apart on the x-axis. This is not found in nature. We have to do something which is graph dependent and x-axis independent ... something "weird" or "different".
We might also try to cut up the "y" axis into finite intervals. In this case, we would have to choose some number (which number?) of intervals such that they would fit into the given finite length a whole number of times. Here I've cut it into 21 intervals ... why not 27 or 168 or 5684653 ?? Suppose we cut up "y" into all whole number intervals and let probability be determined by those which are more likely, i.e. the prime numbers? Thus, if we cut "y" into 44 pieces, we've covered the line numbered 6 of 44 as 6/44=3/22 ... i.e. that line was already accounted for when we cut "y" up into 22 intervals. The larger the number the greater the likelyhood that its intervals are already covered. So, we will cut "y" up (denoting discreet mass values) in this manner. Low numbers first, prime numbers cutting off the bulk of the possible intervals (actually ALL of them).
Then, we will redefine the zero point mass as that of the electron. Hence, [0,0] will be where the electron is placed ... or ... the spectrum of probability values will extend from "1" unit mass to (presently) 1/1836 unit masses such that no particle can be denoted at less than the electron mass. Thusly,
This process must necessarily produce an abundance of possible mass values from a single, simple logical mechanism. Note that the "y" axis does not denote standard interval probability but rather a different discreet function. The area under the curve therefore needn't be "1" unit.
A particle may then have any one of these values provided that there is enough available energy in a given interaction. Which value is Since the mass is hypothesized to be independent of other quantum parameters, a fair question would be ... Why can't one mass value denote more than one particle in violation of experimental observation? The answer must be that the given array of sub-atomic particles is the only consistent one possible given the above restrictions (which admittedly at this point appear to be too "loose" to hold up to the evidence).
Because I demand an extremely simple explanation for something so elementary. Because I am committed to the view that the electron-proton mass ratio is given by probability applied to the hydrogen bound state in conjunction with the fine structure constant as given in the page Because it fits the presently known general layout of mass values as given in the previous page even though it may be dissimilar in specifics. We know we must have a mass of "one" unit and that there are many other masses on the same general scale as that unit. The likelyhood of producing an extremely aberrant mass value will be extremely small or non-existent. The spread of mass values will be more than the electron yet no common mass value can be very close to that of unit mass (proton) as is known to be the case. Etc. In the next page, I shall generate values for hypothetical masses. I can guarantee that they will appear to be a random set yet be simply derived. Whether they will correspond to known masses values is dubious at best. But I will (as I say) ... try. |