Sample Data and Proofs
The massenergy of the
gluino ğ = 6.388355 TeV.
But what supersymmetric particles gave birth to it, what must it decay to, and why? Or, what was, say, the universal mass density when the gluino emerged during the Big Bang? Only dimensionless Mumbers, or Membrane Numbers, can furnish invariant equations determining such particle or cosmic parameters. So, can other 'interpretations' of the standard model, superstrings, SUSY, Mtheory or cosmology provide as firm or succinct theoretical answers to such fundamental questions? (For
a far broader overview of a gluino's significance in regard to these issues
click on
The Theory, Significance and Precise Calculation of Gluino Mass.)
The massenergy of the neutral weak boson
Z^{o}_{ } = 91.187633 GeV = 9u_{1}/8 + m_{s } m_{b};
half of a
proof given so one can’t deduce the mass of the strange and bottom quarks, or the Higgs vacuum minima u_{1}.
However, this value and equation suffices as one of our most powerful “Proofs in the Pudding” – given its present experimental average of 91.1876^{±}^{..0021}
GeV
is the highest energy that qualifies as a precisely measured scale. Beyond this tangible, verified "pudding” of experimental correlation, there are a couple of conventional theoretical proofs in this expression deriving the Z mass that are independent of the component masses per se or another equation – yet serve to further validate all unstated values in a standard context.
(For a more extended discussion see
The ZBoson Mass And Its Formula As Multiple Proofs In One Yummy Bowl Of Pudding.)
The Best Proof in Pudding or Theory
m_{d}  m_{u} = 4.5934527 MeV
= p^{±}  p^{0}
= m(u+2d)^{o}  m(2u+d)^{+ }= m(d+d)  m(u+d) = m(u+d)  m(u+u)
Again, one cannot infer the precise up and down quark masses from this differential,
as it must correspond exactly to the measurable difference between the charged and neutral pions. But quarks can’t be physically measured
directly. So these equations are proof positive that KaluzaKlein Mumbers aren’t
constrained by such obvious elusiveness  and positive proof both from, and
that, standard theory and experiment, is helpless to ever give a precise
prediction for either quark constituting the core of baryon matter – lacking any explanation for baryogenesis
as well (see the gluino article for some vital information about this issue).
You can now validate this basic tenet for yourself by deriving, then using, the down quark mass from the Home page's given value for the up
(or vice versa with respect to the article
The Pionic Proof of the Precise DownUp Quark Mass Difference). However, the differential is obviously a derivative quantity: the prediction of the up
and down (or pion) masses being predicated on more fundamental expressions. (Similarly, one can't
fully fathom the origin of baryon matter without a thorough grasp of what composes a complete and
unified numeric, geometric, theoretical and metalogical tautology for physics and cosmology.)
Likewise, the "standard model" is fine for extrapolating measurable parameters into a workable theoretical schematic. But it often lacks an explanation or equation that sufficiently predicts an observable. For example, the averaged experimental value for the mean life of the free neutron is 886.7 seconds. Without giving up the `punch line’ of the full equation, we’ll just demonstrate our basic methodology for exponential analysis of "membrane numbers"  as the
beta decay time parameter
= 2^{153.526686324 }´ t_{pl }= 886.71204 s; where t_{pl} is one unit of ‘Planck time.’
These examples are the most powerful and confirmable evidence that 241 Mumbers supplies The Definitive Data for Fundamental Physics and Cosmology.
Readers are encouraged to supplement these examples, and a few other themes, by
following the given links to more extended summaries in webarticles which
supply valuable additional information concerning the topics at hand. In
particular, one might start with a history of 241 Mumbers in regard to a 'pure'
dimensionless derivation of the finestructure constant in 2000 in the essay
Pure Derivation of the Exact FineStructure Constant and as a Ratio of Two
Inexact Metric Constants, as updated with respect to some recent
controversies. Which then naturally goes on to explore the crucial difference between
the standard notion of a 'dimensionless constant' and a truly unified
dimensionless system that allows one to consistently write pure numeric
equations which are precisely predictive of an entire spectrum of fundamental
parameters and particle masses (such as the last, as well as for the first, of
the four basic examples here with respect to the neutron decay time and
respective equations for the pure relation of the gluino to other masses in the
first stage of the selfguided ecourse of hand'son education [as compared to
what one John Gatto calls 'dumbeddown'^{2}
schooling or book learning.)
Add to
Onlywire
