Talk:Mass formula

Untitled

"Foogod" wrote that "lack of published error information and an apparent limited amount of third-party investigation have resulted in little or no rigorous verification of these claims."

It took about 6 minutes with a spreadsheet, using the CODATA value of the fine structure constant, 0.007297352568, to verify that Mills' expressions evaluated to the values he claimed. (I can email the spreadsheet to you if you like, so you can verify my verification.)

Therefore, it is fact, not opinion, that Mills' predictions deviate from experimental values by, at most, 0.0036%. No need to delete this information out of POV concerns.

Also, CQM makes predictions about mass ratios only -- not about the masses of particles or atoms. (Unless you know something about CQM that I don't know... please provide a source.)

Please note, I'm not saying that it's wrong, I'm just saying that it hasn't been verified in any published source I can find. If there is a citable source where a reputable independant party has published a verification of this claim, then I'm all for including that info here; however, as far as I can tell this claim has only been tested by proponents of the theory, and therefore lacks rigorous (independent) verification. bitch Unfortunately, your calculations (while I'm sure they're correct), or any I might do myself, can't be used for this because it would violate the Wikipedia:No original research policy.

As far as predicting ratios vs masses, it's a logical extrapolation that if you can predict ratios between a given set of particles then with the simple addition of the definition of a physical constant (the mass of one of the particles, for example), the same formula becomes a formula for predicting the masses of the particles as well, so I didn't consider this to be a terribly large distinction. You are technically correct in that I don't think Mills has ever officially proposed a constant to complete this process, so I have no problem saying things either way. -- Foogod 01:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the percentage value again, BTW, mainly because it's a fairly unscientific way to measure these things which doesn't take into account error ranges or standard deviations, and thus is potentially misleading. Until somebody does a more scientific comparison, I think it's better to stick with the more vague (and clearly not scientific) terms like "close" (particularly since the cited paper doesn't talk about percentages either).. -- Foogod 02:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)