Here in this thread I would like to make a compilation of all the different mathematical techniques used to calculate the mass of all the different quantum states described by Yang and mills.
Two questions: 1. Why are you saying what you'll do, rather than doing it? 2. Why do you want to make such a compilation?
Not of my techniques but the techniques of others I already have my own way to calculate the maximum of electrons that can fit the orbitals of s,p,d,f, its seems to keep on going but may not have any practical use am just investigating am a bit rusty this is why I like coming here. I am trying to define what constitutes for a separate quantum state and how you can detect the overall mass of each state one by one. But I need to translate to subatomic levels measuring Quarks and mesons and get the mass from those states using renormalisation method.
What has that got to do with Yang and Mills? I'm interested, though. What are your techniques for calculating the number of electrons in each orbital? What do you mean by "translate"? What are you measuring with these quarks and mesons? What are you renormalising?
What is a mass gap? Show me how you get the numbers 2, 8, 18, 32 and 50 from your circle quadrature thing. What are you scaling? Overall mass of what? Please explain renormalisation to me in one or two sentences, so I can check that my understanding of it is the same as yours.
Pauli did that well; invented an additional quantum number, which has non-zero two possible quantized angular momentum values associated with it. Many experiments, including a magnetic field's Zeeman effect splitting of degenerate energy level support "spin" of electrons is real. (and fine structure measurements do the same for nuclear spin). If it "aint broke" why fix it?
"Mass gap" is one of the clay mathematics problems. I also provided a solution for the Reimann hypothses yesterday I asked you to look at it?... "Reimann hypothesis" is a different problem from the clay mathematics, I provided a counterexample proving Reimanns assumption false. pi*(r/H)^2=a when r=1 ...a=2 when r=2....a=8 when r=3....a=18 when r=4....a=32 and so on....
This is not my intentions this is not my goal I attempt to prove the mass gap and then pre big bang origins of the universe by accurately measuring the rate of expansion stemming from the original singularity.
Renormalisation is sort of like measuring accuracy if a quantity is too big to calculate you have to sort of break it up into manageable finite sets so its workable in a rational form something like that.
Let me check. When r=1, a=2. Therefore: \(\pi\times (1/H)^2 = 2\) Therefore: \((1/H)^2 = 2/\pi\) So, then when r=3 we have \(\pi \times (3/H)^2 = \pi \times (1/H)^2 \times 3^2 = \pi \times (2/\pi)^2 \times 9 = 36/\pi \approx 11.5 \ne 18\) So your maths doesn't work.
So when you're measuring your quarks and mesons, what are you breaking into manageable finite sets, exactly?
H= sqrt{pi/2} so.....pi*(1/H) = 2 pi*(2/H)=8 ....and so on I don't know what calculations you did but they come out to play for me?? Stick to the form James I don't see how your technique is in relation to mine? You must be making some kind of error in translation my formula is fine, figure out where you went wrong and try again.
I showed you what calculations I did. I showed you that your formula doesn't work. See post #11, above.
Jason: Could you please list one or two of the different mathematical techniques used to calculate the mass of all the different quantum states described by Yang and Mills? Just a couple of the ones you already know about will do.
I don't have any of my own techniques James this is why I made the thread in the first place to expand my understanding only the Higgs particle I am aware is supposed to give mass to the other particles.
The calculations will only work in the form I put it in if you rearrange my formula inccorectly you will not get the correct results now tell me what were you attempting to prove by rearanging my formula when it was already in a form that gave you the correct answer what was the point of the extra work?
and further... (2/pi)^2 is not equal to (1/H)^2 Check it again you added a square unit that does not belong this must be the source of your error. Come again James your math is sloppy my friend you need coffeePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You were not careful in your calculations, you attempted to change the form , and in the process you made an error. It is good to take your time and double check your work this will prevent these sort of misjudgements. see post#18 because pi* (2/pi) * 9 = 18
