It is a real space theory, and I do not know whether it is a coincidence, but there is a match between these masses and 2^n.
By the way, do you know whether the mass of the Higgs boson is theoretical model dependent?
The mass of the Higgs boson can be determined experimentally (and was measured recently), so it do not depend on the theoretical model. The very concept of the quark mass, on the other hand, it not clear since according to QCD we cannot observe quarks in free state.
I am baffled. To the best of my understanding I do not see any correspondence whatsoever, not even phenomenological between the masses of the fermion families and 2^n. In what units?
As for the Higgs boson mass there is/was no theoretical prediction, not even a hint about its mass.
Finally, concerning the quark masses, things are not so clear cut as stated above. Many theoretical and phenomenological model calculations demand that a mass be associated to each of them not to mention the fact that they lead to particle productions that depend on their mass. In addition, the fact that quarks are not seen free in nature, taken at face value could mean that they don't exist but this kind of reasoning would take us 50 years back.
If your are right, we could assign a natural number n to each particle.
As far as I can see, there is no experimental evidence for it, because measurements are nor precise enough.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology