tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post8936642852317495247..comments2023-01-22T08:22:51.059-08:00Comments on Physics with an edge: List of major QI papersMike McCullochhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-66079698317808220132018-07-13T13:39:24.949-07:002018-07-13T13:39:24.949-07:00Not to nitpick, but isnt the above definition of C...Not to nitpick, but isnt the above definition of Compton Wavelength the Planck Particle?... It's an ideal case, possibly a virtual particle only, as i understand it...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-28584623360670902802017-10-19T07:13:18.468-07:002017-10-19T07:13:18.468-07:00Mike. Yes, quark confinement comes from the force ...Mike. Yes, quark confinement comes from the force between two quarks increasing linearly with distance between them until the energy in the 'string' is sufficient to create a new quark-antiquark pair. It had occurred to me that this is equivalent to a parabolic energy potential as in the harmonic oscillator in quantum mechanics. Back in my undergraduate physics course (which I have to say was almost 50 years ago), we had to solve the one-dimensional harmonic oscillator equation, but for the quark confinement problem it would have to be the three-dimensional harmonic oscillator (which we never got as far as).<br /><br />[I just looked this up on the web and it seems that the 3-D harmonic oscillator is separable into three 1-D harmonic oscillators, so easier than I thought]<br /><br />Of course, if we consider the nucleon as the ground state of a harmonic oscillator, it will also have to have excited states. Conventionally, the delta particle is considered as an excited state of the nucleon and there are other excited states (also called resonances), so any harmonic oscillator model would have to predict their masses as well, but these are known. It might be worth asking if anyone has attempted to treat the quarks in a single nucleon as a harmonic oscillator.<br /><br />I have spent all my career as an experimental physicist, so don't have the theoretical equipment to handle all this, but it seems to be something that might be worth looking at.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />Laurence<br /><br />Laurence Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12022978799028708943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-2814652118771709202017-10-18T03:53:07.085-07:002017-10-18T03:53:07.085-07:00Laurence: Thanks for your comment. Yes, eqn. 23 is...Laurence: Thanks for your comment. Yes, eqn. 23 is well known. What I was trying to do is choose scales that are well observed in relation to those particles, but I may well have missed the ideal values. My overall point though still stands, and a better equation to look at is eqn 22 which is different to the usual one (the extra term), and may be testable if instead of the cosmic scale (Theta) we initially encase the system in a smaller horizon.<br /><br />I am interested in your comment about QCD and its missing mass problem. Isn't there a quark confinement problem as well?Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-57953153400327234422017-10-13T11:51:46.399-07:002017-10-13T11:51:46.399-07:00Mike,
As I don't have access to the paywalled ...Mike,<br />As I don't have access to the paywalled journals, I started by reading your 24th October 2016 paper on ArXiv. I have a question for you about your derivations of the mass of the electron and the nucleon in equations 23 & 24. As the Compton wavelength of a particle is defined as equal to the wavelength of a photon whose energy is the same as the mass of the particle, multiplying its reciprocal by h/c will surely just recover the mass. It also wasn't obvious why you used the Compton wavelength for the electron, but the radius of the hydrogen nucleus for the nucleon. (If I was being pedantic, the photon needs twice as much energy to form an electron, because it must simultaneously form a positron to ensure charge conservation).<br /><br />What did interest me about the derivation of the mass of the nucleon is that (rather like the universe) there is a missing mass problem. Although the rest mass of the proton is 938 MeV/c^2,the valence quarks only account for about 9 MeV/c^2 of this. QCD assumes that the virtual quarks and gluons account for the remainder. If most of the rest mass of the nucleon came from the confinement of the valence quarks, then there might be a simpler way to formulate QCD. I'm not a theoretician, so I wouldn't know how to go about this, but a more accurate calculation of nucleon mass based on a 3-dimensional rather than 1-dimensional model might be a good place to start.<br /><br />Regards,<br />LaurenceLaurence Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12022978799028708943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-24413750078120923562017-10-13T01:21:50.038-07:002017-10-13T01:21:50.038-07:00Tammor: I did look into those two cases, but could...Tammor: I did look into those two cases, but could find no estimates of the error in the data, except that higher red-shift galaxies are more difficult to observe, of course, being much further away.Mike McCullochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985573443686082382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-76566548310619393392017-10-12T05:53:22.189-07:002017-10-12T05:53:22.189-07:00Hi Mike,
Do you have any idea why the observed an...Hi Mike,<br /><br />Do you have any idea why the observed and predicted galaxy rotation differ at Z > 2.2?<br /><br />Regards,<br />Tamastammorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01364231628636489881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637778157419388168.post-82000498354019537952017-10-10T14:20:41.962-07:002017-10-10T14:20:41.962-07:00Thanks for this. I'll try to read them all bef...Thanks for this. I'll try to read them all before I ask more questions here. joesixpackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08912279232742819732noreply@blogger.com