The Rotating Lepton Model
-
Stylianos Polychroniadis wrote:
The Rotating Lepton Model vs the Standard Model
It's not a confrontational system; it's just a new set of statistical analyses, based on new-ish assumptions. The fact that even the Hamiltonians are calculated to within 1% of empirical observations is impressive enough for a lot of people to take notice and try it out for themselves, using variants of the system it's been tried with. If results are good, it will be accepted gratefully -- there's a lot of other research that will profit from it -- so try to avoid saying anything that might be taken as being antagonistic toward others who have spent chunks of their lives working on different models. BTW, you did notice that this is a programming message board, didn't you? Just because computer types stick the word "quantum" in front of everything, these days, doesn't mean they're into the Physics (just like the prevalence of the word "cloud" doesn't mean we know anything about meteorology, and "artificial intelligence" doesn't mean we've got any brains).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Well, it's thermodynamic systems modelling and satellite trajectories I've been programming for the last 20 years so I guess to me it figures.
-
Stylianos Polychroniadis wrote:
The Rotating Lepton Model vs the Standard Model
It's not a confrontational system; it's just a new set of statistical analyses, based on new-ish assumptions. The fact that even the Hamiltonians are calculated to within 1% of empirical observations is impressive enough for a lot of people to take notice and try it out for themselves, using variants of the system it's been tried with. If results are good, it will be accepted gratefully -- there's a lot of other research that will profit from it -- so try to avoid saying anything that might be taken as being antagonistic toward others who have spent chunks of their lives working on different models. BTW, you did notice that this is a programming message board, didn't you? Just because computer types stick the word "quantum" in front of everything, these days, doesn't mean they're into the Physics (just like the prevalence of the word "cloud" doesn't mean we know anything about meteorology, and "artificial intelligence" doesn't mean we've got any brains).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Well, it's thermodynamic systems modelling and satellite trajectories I've been programming for the last 20 years so I guess to me it figures. A little piece of mind if anyone cares for my two cents. If we only criticize based on speculation and not in-depth knowledge ie failing to provide constructive grounds for conversation, then we fall in a dark infinite loop of self-admiration. Everybody has an opinion nowadays I'm afraid. The science and engineering discipline we have chosen, since we are here on CP, should have taught us by itterations of education or training that progress and achievement is a life-time process. I'd rather be more humble when dealing with things I don't quite understand yet and then be even more humble when I have mastered them and I have to express my opinion in public.
-
The Rotating Lepton Model vs the Standard Model -Only two fundamental forces: gravity and electromagnetism -Only 5 fundamental particles: 3 neutrinos, positron, electron -No additional/assumptional/adjustable variables https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437119320515
Buy your leptons here: https://www.particlezoo.net/[^] :-\
-
Buy your leptons here: https://www.particlezoo.net/[^] :-\
Can I have 1/2 lb of Higgs Bosons, and 1.7 Kg of Tachyon particles, please - the pink ones, if you've got 'em.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
Well, it's thermodynamic systems modelling and satellite trajectories I've been programming for the last 20 years so I guess to me it figures. A little piece of mind if anyone cares for my two cents. If we only criticize based on speculation and not in-depth knowledge ie failing to provide constructive grounds for conversation, then we fall in a dark infinite loop of self-admiration. Everybody has an opinion nowadays I'm afraid. The science and engineering discipline we have chosen, since we are here on CP, should have taught us by itterations of education or training that progress and achievement is a life-time process. I'd rather be more humble when dealing with things I don't quite understand yet and then be even more humble when I have mastered them and I have to express my opinion in public.
I don't see anyone criticising the article (which is normally my remit, so think yourself lucky that it's something I'm into), so I'm unsure why you went off on that tangent.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I don't see anyone criticising the article (which is normally my remit, so think yourself lucky that it's something I'm into), so I'm unsure why you went off on that tangent.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Quote:
It's not a confrontational system; it's just a new set of statistical analyses, based on new-ish assumptions. The fact that even the Hamiltonians are calculated to within 1% of empirical observations is impressive enough for a lot of people to take notice and try it out for themselves, using variants of the system it's been tried with.
That is simply wrong. What the model proposes eliminates the weak and strong forces as it describes them to be a result of lepton rotation with angular velocity near the speed of light. The gravity measured is described in Special Relativity. Finally, instead of 15 fundamental particles described by the Standard Model, this model proposes only five.
-
The Rotating Lepton Model vs the Standard Model -Only two fundamental forces: gravity and electromagnetism -Only 5 fundamental particles: 3 neutrinos, positron, electron -No additional/assumptional/adjustable variables https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437119320515
-
You are most welcome. As for gravity have patience. One step at a time. What really strikes me is the new perspective that the bizzare quanta are simply neutrinos in elliptical motion near the speed of light! Could this new knowledge lead to new room-temperature superconducting materials?
-
The Rotating Lepton Model vs the Standard Model -Only two fundamental forces: gravity and electromagnetism -Only 5 fundamental particles: 3 neutrinos, positron, electron -No additional/assumptional/adjustable variables https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437119320515
Interesting... I'll reserve judgement until I've (a) read the article, and (b) seen how precise their results are, and (c) seen a prediction made by their theory which differs from what the Standard Model predicts. Note that many numerologists, playing with numbers, have matched physical data to good accuracy. This doesn't mean that their "explanations" are correct.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
Quote:
It's not a confrontational system; it's just a new set of statistical analyses, based on new-ish assumptions. The fact that even the Hamiltonians are calculated to within 1% of empirical observations is impressive enough for a lot of people to take notice and try it out for themselves, using variants of the system it's been tried with.
That is simply wrong. What the model proposes eliminates the weak and strong forces as it describes them to be a result of lepton rotation with angular velocity near the speed of light. The gravity measured is described in Special Relativity. Finally, instead of 15 fundamental particles described by the Standard Model, this model proposes only five.
Stylianos Polychroniadis wrote:
The fact that even the Hamiltonians are calculated to within 1% of empirical observations is impressive enough for a lot of people to take notice and try it out for themselves, using variants of the system it's been tried with.
Stylianos Polychroniadis wrote:
That is simply wrong.
It's simply wrong that other people will try to verify the findings, or simply wrong that they even try to verify the findings? You know what? I have no idea what you're talking about, half the time -- not because I don't know any Physics, but because you leap from topic to topic and perspective to perspective with no rhyme nor reason, and with no bridges between them. I've never known someone so good at talking cross-purpose. In two replies, you've managed to talk -- quite aggressively, mind -- about five things that have nothing to do with what you were replying to. You really want to work on that. Being hard to understand alienates people, as does ignoring what people say and going off on your own tangent, and it's really not hard to communicate simply and efficiently.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Well, it's thermodynamic systems modelling and satellite trajectories I've been programming for the last 20 years so I guess to me it figures. A little piece of mind if anyone cares for my two cents. If we only criticize based on speculation and not in-depth knowledge ie failing to provide constructive grounds for conversation, then we fall in a dark infinite loop of self-admiration. Everybody has an opinion nowadays I'm afraid. The science and engineering discipline we have chosen, since we are here on CP, should have taught us by itterations of education or training that progress and achievement is a life-time process. I'd rather be more humble when dealing with things I don't quite understand yet and then be even more humble when I have mastered them and I have to express my opinion in public.
Stylianos Polychroniadis wrote:
Everybody has an opinion nowadays I'm afraid.
In this cause, in a uniquely recursive manner, you are giving yours. The tone and context of your post brands your comment, as politely as prudence and good taste allow, as conceited arrogance. There are a good number of people in the CP lounge with a very lot of education in various areas of specialization - and the good taste not to arbitrarily share blurt out arbitrary facts to try to prove something (what?) to the rest of us. And at the same time - do I not prove your point?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Stylianos Polychroniadis wrote:
The fact that even the Hamiltonians are calculated to within 1% of empirical observations is impressive enough for a lot of people to take notice and try it out for themselves, using variants of the system it's been tried with.
Stylianos Polychroniadis wrote:
That is simply wrong.
It's simply wrong that other people will try to verify the findings, or simply wrong that they even try to verify the findings? You know what? I have no idea what you're talking about, half the time -- not because I don't know any Physics, but because you leap from topic to topic and perspective to perspective with no rhyme nor reason, and with no bridges between them. I've never known someone so good at talking cross-purpose. In two replies, you've managed to talk -- quite aggressively, mind -- about five things that have nothing to do with what you were replying to. You really want to work on that. Being hard to understand alienates people, as does ignoring what people say and going off on your own tangent, and it's really not hard to communicate simply and efficiently.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
No, wrong is the assumption that the model is another statistical tool and non-confrontational to the standard model. While in fact it is fundamentally a whole new theory that if proven correct (by what you correctly describe as validation) will replace the Standard Model.
Quote:
It's not a confrontational system; it's just a new set of statistical analyses, based on new-ish assumptions.
I am sorry you cannot follow my train of thought. Please note that my responses to you are simply in the spirit of your own reply.
-
Interesting... I'll reserve judgement until I've (a) read the article, and (b) seen how precise their results are, and (c) seen a prediction made by their theory which differs from what the Standard Model predicts. Note that many numerologists, playing with numbers, have matched physical data to good accuracy. This doesn't mean that their "explanations" are correct.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
I cannot agree more with you. Indeed one needs to be extremely careful with judgement especially for such ground-breaking news.
-
Stylianos Polychroniadis wrote:
Everybody has an opinion nowadays I'm afraid.
In this cause, in a uniquely recursive manner, you are giving yours. The tone and context of your post brands your comment, as politely as prudence and good taste allow, as conceited arrogance. There are a good number of people in the CP lounge with a very lot of education in various areas of specialization - and the good taste not to arbitrarily share blurt out arbitrary facts to try to prove something (what?) to the rest of us. And at the same time - do I not prove your point?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Yes you do! That is correct. It is this very tone that I would love to see eliminated in a place where highly-intellectual people exchange views. And yes, I owe to the rest of the community an apology. So I am sincerely sorry, but I'm fed up with shallow and rushed sterile judgement.
-
No, wrong is the assumption that the model is another statistical tool and non-confrontational to the standard model. While in fact it is fundamentally a whole new theory that if proven correct (by what you correctly describe as validation) will replace the Standard Model.
Quote:
It's not a confrontational system; it's just a new set of statistical analyses, based on new-ish assumptions.
I am sorry you cannot follow my train of thought. Please note that my responses to you are simply in the spirit of your own reply.
I meant expressing one's opinions to other people in a confrontational manner. i.e. (as was perfectly clear, when I wrote it the first time), it's not "The Rotating Lepton Model vs the Standard Model", it's just "The Rotating Lepton Model". If you play the "I'm smarter than you!" card, you will not make many friends -- especially of people who are smarter than you. And saying that it's not statistical modelling is pure fantasy. Anyway, I'm bored with this, now, so I'll just enjoy the Lounge for what it is, rather than what you want it to be.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Yes you do! That is correct. It is this very tone that I would love to see eliminated in a place where highly-intellectual people exchange views. And yes, I owe to the rest of the community an apology. So I am sincerely sorry, but I'm fed up with shallow and rushed sterile judgement.
Even when we had the (now extinct) SoapBox and it's burly language and discussions, I had never observed a person so full of themselves as you appear to be. I suppose you can feel proud that you excel in something !
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
