Something is rotten in the state of QED

[Engr. Ravi]

https://vixra.org/abs/2002.0011
[Yes, once can sometimes find gems on vixra!!!]
"""
ABSTRACT

Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. However, this precision is based on a single experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (g-factor). An examination of QED history reveals that this value was obtained using illegitimate mathematical traps, manipulations and tricks. These traps included the fraud of Kroll & Karplus, who acknowledged that they lied in their presentation of the most relevant calculation in QED history. As will be demonstrated in this paper, the Kroll & Karplus scandal was not a unique event. Instead, the scandal represented the fraudulent manner in which physics has been conducted from the creation of QED through today.
"""

OLIVER CONSA does to QED what ALEXANDER UNZICKER did to the STANDARD MODEL in "Bankrupting Physics" and the "The Higgs Fake" and what PETER WOIT did to STRING THEORY in "Not Even Wrong".

In any case, the material presented is historically accurate and increases skepticism regarding the claim: "QED is the most accurate theory in the history of science, 11-digit agreement with experiment, etc.".

One of my best quotes from the article is that of Fermi:

"""
According to Dyson, Fermi also did not agree with this new way of conducting science:

When Dyson met Fermi, he quickly put aside the graphs he was being shown indicating agreement between theory and experiment. His verdict, as Dyson remembered, was:

“There are two ways of doing calculations in theoretical physics. One way, and this is the way I prefer, is to have a clear physical picture of the process you are calculating. The other way is to have a precise and self-consistent mathematical formalism. You have neither.”

When a stunned Dyson tried to counter by emphasizing the agreement between experiment and the calculations, Fermi asked him how many free parameters he had used to obtain the fit. Smiling after being told “Four,” Fermi remarked, “I remember my old friend Johnny von Neumann used to say, WITH FOUR PARAMETERS I CAN FIT AN ELEPHANT, AND WITH FIVE I CAN MAKE HIM WIGGLE HIS TRUNK.”

There was little to add.
"""

[Odd Bodkin]

Well, at least Ravi is venturing beyond relativity, which is the domain
where cranks claim to discover easy fraud, to claim that quantum theory is
also obvious garbage foisted on an unquestioning sheeple. As is common,
Ravi uses as evidence that this is so: “Hey, there’s at least one other
person who thinks it’s a scam, and here’s also a reputable figure in the
history of physics who had his doubts. That PROVES that it’s still a
volatile controversy!”

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Engr. Ravi]

On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 6:51:46 PM UTC+5:30, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, at least Ravi is venturing beyond relativity, which is the domain
> where cranks claim to discover easy fraud, to claim that quantum theory is
> also obvious garbage foisted on an unquestioning sheeple. As is common,
> Ravi uses as evidence that this is so: “Hey, there’s at least one other
> person who thinks it’s a scam, and here’s also a reputable figure in the
> history of physics who had his doubts. That PROVES that it’s still a
> volatile controversy!”

Bodkin, don't put words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say or imply: "that quantum theory is also obvious garbage foisted on an unquestioning sheeple".

First, quantum theory is not the same as QED. If you have any doubts regarding that, read Dirac.

Even regarding QED, I'm not saying or implying that it (QED) is obvious garbage. All I'm saying is that if you bother to go behind the doors, and see "how the sausage actually got made" it gives a whole new perspective regarding claims like: "QED is the most accurate theory in the history of science, 11-digit agreement with experiment, etc.". The paper in the OP gives a detailed history of the experimental confirmation of QED and will make you think twice before mindlessly regurgitating such claims about QED.

As is well known, things only got worse for physics since QED. The revered Standard Model/QCD/QFT, when examined more closely turns out be another rotten sausage. Alexander Unzicker does a great job of exposing how unreliable the experimental confirmation of SM/QCD/QFT is, despite claims that the SM is another thoroughly confirmed theory.

String theory is of course the emperor parading naked, and Peter Woit does an excellent job playing the role of the child.

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 02:40:51 -0800 (PST), "Engr. Ravi"
<ravic...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 02:40:51 -0800 (PST), in sci.physics.relativity
you wrote:

>Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science.

Who cares about advertising slogans directed at the Great Unwashed.

Nobody else, except trolls like you,
cares for "whiter than white" propaganda.


w.

[Odd Bodkin]

Engr. Ravi <ravic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 6:51:46 PM UTC+5:30, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Well, at least Ravi is venturing beyond relativity, which is the domain
>> where cranks claim to discover easy fraud, to claim that quantum theory is
>> also obvious garbage foisted on an unquestioning sheeple. As is common,
>> Ravi uses as evidence that this is so: “Hey, there’s at least one other
>> person who thinks it’s a scam, and here’s also a reputable figure in the
>> history of physics who had his doubts. That PROVES that it’s still a
>> volatile controversy!”
>
> Bodkin, don't put words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say or imply: "that
> quantum theory is also obvious garbage foisted on an unquestioning sheeple".

Alright, then quantum field theory.

>
> First, quantum theory is not the same as QED. If you have any doubts
> regarding that, read Dirac.
>
> Even regarding QED, I'm not saying or implying that it (QED) is obvious
> garbage. All I'm saying is that if you bother to go behind the doors, and
> see "how the sausage actually got made" it gives a whole new perspective
> regarding claims like: "QED is the most accurate theory in the history of
> science, 11-digit agreement with experiment, etc.". The paper in the OP
> gives a detailed history of the experimental confirmation of QED and will
> make you think twice before mindlessly regurgitating such claims about QED.
>
> As is well known, things only got worse for physics since QED. The
> revered Standard Model/QCD/QFT, when examined more closely turns out be
> another rotten sausage.

There you go. QFT is obvious garbage, according to you.

> Alexander Unzicker does a great job of exposing how unreliable the
> experimental confirmation of SM/QCD/QFT is, despite claims that the SM is
> another thoroughly confirmed theory.
>
> String theory is of course the emperor parading naked, and Peter Woit
> does an excellent job playing the role of the child.
>

If you read Woit — actually read him — recall his complaint that string
theory makes no definitive testable predictions, and hence is not even a
physics theory. This is much different than the standard model, which has
made hundreds of definitive predictions validated in experiment. See the
difference?



--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Engr. Ravi]

On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 11:40:33 PM UTC+5:30, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > As is well known, things only got worse for physics since QED. The
> > revered Standard Model/QCD/QFT, when examined more closely turns out be
> > another rotten sausage.
> There you go. QFT is obvious garbage, according to you.

No, again you put words into my mouth. I'm NOT saying QFT is "obvious garbage". All I'm saying is that the actual experimental evidence for QFT is a far cry from the usual claims that SM/QCD/QFT is "a thoroughly confirmed theory". Read Unzicker's book, "Bankrupting Physics" and you'll get a whole new perspective regarding such claims.

> > Alexander Unzicker does a great job of exposing how unreliable the
> > experimental confirmation of SM/QCD/QFT is, despite claims that the SM is
> > another thoroughly confirmed theory.
> >
> > String theory is of course the emperor parading naked, and Peter Woit
> > does an excellent job playing the role of the child.
> >
> If you read Woit — actually read him — recall his complaint that string
> theory makes no definitive testable predictions, and hence is not even a
> physics theory. This is much different than the standard model, which has
> made hundreds of definitive predictions validated in experiment. See the
> difference?

My point, put another way, is that the difference between String theory and SM, QED is a matter of degree: String Theory has not a single experimental prediction confirmed to-date (and more importantly possibly never will), while QCD/QED supposedly have "excellent" experimental confirmation, but when examined more closely, the experimental support is found to be a far cry from the standard narrative.

By contrast, the experimental evidence for SR/GR, in terms of predictions matching observations can be called excellent. My problem with SR/GR is different. I think these theories are physically ABSURD and there is very likely a physically meaningful (and very likely more complex) theory that can explain these results based on a RATIONAL aether.

[Odd Bodkin]

Engr. Ravi <ravic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 11:40:33 PM UTC+5:30, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> As is well known, things only got worse for physics since QED. The
>>> revered Standard Model/QCD/QFT, when examined more closely turns out be
>>> another rotten sausage.
>> There you go. QFT is obvious garbage, according to you.
>
> No, again you put words into my mouth. I'm NOT saying QFT is "obvious garbage".

Well, “rotten sausage” seems like garbage to me.

> All I'm saying is that the actual experimental evidence for QFT is a far
> cry from the usual claims that SM/QCD/QFT is "a thoroughly confirmed
> theory". Read Unzicker's book, "Bankrupting Physics" and you'll get a
> whole new perspective regarding such claims.

First off, as others have pointed out, it’s not black and white and no one
knowledgeable claims it is, except maybe in gee-whiz popularizations. If
someone like Unziger publishes a book that has as its buzz line “You’ve
been told this whole time it’s White and it’s Not White at all!”, well,
that’s not really a revelation. Of COURSE there are issues with QCD, not
the least of which that perturbation calculations blow up pretty badly
because of the size of the coupling constant, and so the calculation method
that worked admirably for QED won’t work for QCD, but that does not really
address whether it is a good representation of reality but rather makes it
more challenging to produce predictions in some energy domains. That
doesn’t mean it’s rotten sausage at all.

Likewise in QED there was back in the 60s a lot of agonizing over
renormalization to handle the infinities of bare charge and bare mass of
point leptons, and whether that was mathematically rigorous. Feynman’s
famous argument here is that mathematical rigor is something you can
establish after the fact, once it’s agreed by all that it works to high
precision. And it’s true that not ALL predictions of QED are good to 12
digits. Who cares? That was never the claim. The Lamb shift calculation is
good to six digits, but the fact is that competing models didn’t get it
right to two. So does pointing out that twelve-digit confirmation is
perhaps a limited statement or could even be interpreted as an
overstatement and indication that it’s rotten sausage? No, it just means
that gee-whiz popularizations should always be taken with a grain of salt
and used as a springboard for deeper readings at a more precise (and
technically demanding) level.

>
>>> Alexander Unzicker does a great job of exposing how unreliable the
>>> experimental confirmation of SM/QCD/QFT is, despite claims that the SM is
>>> another thoroughly confirmed theory.
>>>
>>> String theory is of course the emperor parading naked, and Peter Woit
>>> does an excellent job playing the role of the child.
>>>
>> If you read Woit — actually read him — recall his complaint that string
>> theory makes no definitive testable predictions, and hence is not even a
>> physics theory. This is much different than the standard model, which has
>> made hundreds of definitive predictions validated in experiment. See the
>> difference?
>
> My point, put another way, is that the difference between String theory
> and SM, QED is a matter of degree: String Theory has not a single
> experimental prediction confirmed to-date (and more importantly possibly
> never will), while QCD/QED supposedly have "excellent" experimental
> confirmation, but when examined more closely, the experimental support is
> found to be a far cry from the standard narrative.

Again, that depends on what you consider “standard narrative”. If you
thought the standard narrative is that the Standard Model is bulletproof,
without any historical reservations, without any open questions, and with
unassailable precision that proves that it is THE answer, then that
narrative is indeed false — but so what?

There is a fundamental difference between string theory and the Standard
Model. String theory lacks any firm predictions, aside from accessible low
energy supersymmetric partners that have not been seen. The Standard Model
has made scores of predictions ranging from 3-jet collider events at the
right rate and right angular distributions, to the W/Z mass ratio, which
have been validated to solid precision. Certainly better than any other
candidates.

>
> By contrast, the experimental evidence for SR/GR, in terms of predictions
> matching observations can be called excellent. My problem with SR/GR is
> different. I think these theories are physically ABSURD and there is very
> likely a physically meaningful (and very likely more complex) theory that
> can explain these results based on a RATIONAL aether.
>

Fine, propose a rational aether theory that competes. Otherwise, what’s to
be gained by complaining that it doesn’t “feel right” to you? Think back to
Dirac’s comment about renormalization not feeling right. Does it have to?

[Brodie Wiser]

Helmut Wabnig wrote:

>>Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in
>>the history of science.
>
> Who cares about advertising slogans directed at the Great Unwashed.
> Nobody else, except trolls like you,
> cares for "whiter than white" propaganda.

the capitalist el-ites (the parasites of el) no need to wear mask
suffocators. Only the slaves. Which proves the concept.

https://zb10-7gsop1v78.bitchute.com/JFOeVQIalNyY/OcC6Vmb89sSB.mp4

[Dono.]

On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 2:40:53 AM UTC-8, Engr. Ravi wrote:
>snip imbecilities<

Dumbestfuck,

The reason that you can spew your imbecilities is that BOTH your computer and the innternet are based on QED.
Besides, Consa is an "independent researcher" , code name for...crank

[Engr. Ravi]

The last section of the paper says:

"""
7.4 The muon anomaly

QED was also used to calculate the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. To date, the most accurate experimental value was obtained in 2004 in the E821 experiment that was conducted at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). The experimental result was 0.001,165,920.9(6) [47]. Unfortunately, the theoretical value did not match the experimental value and had an error that was greater than 3 sigmas. Despite enormous effort in recent decades, this discrepancy could not be eliminated. Currently, the theoretical value of the muon g-factor is 0.001,165,918.04(51).

Theoretical physicists are concerned about this discrepancy, as it is perhaps the most palpable evidence that the standard model is incomplete.

In 2011, the E989 experiment was devised to improve the accuracy of the E821 experiment. This extremely complex experiment will be performed at the Fermilab’s Tevatron. Before the experiment could be conducted, a gigantic magnet (15 meters in diameter and 600 tons in weight) had to be moved 1300 km, from BNL to Fermilab. This delicate operation was successfully performed in June 2013. The magnet transfer lasted 35 days and cost 3 million dollars.

In addition, the Fermilab particle accelerator had to be enlarged. The related investment plan, the PIP-II Reference Design Report, had an estimated cost of 600 million dollars and was approved in July 2018. It is expected that the E989 experiment can be concluded in 2020 and that a new experimental value will be presented for the muon g-factor.

GIVEN THE SCIENTIFIC PRECEDENTS, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THE DISCREPANCY WILL BE RESOLVED, AND THE MYTH OF QED’S PRECISION WILL BE PRESERVED.
"""

And the muon drama is playing out just as per the dog-eared QED playbook:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/muon-g-2-experiment-at-fermilab-finds-hint-of-new-particles-20210407
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/04/particle-mystery-deepens-physicists-confirm-muon-more-magnetic-predicted
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26726269

[JanPB]

On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 2:40:53 AM UTC-8, Engr. Ravi wrote:

> https://vixra.org/abs/2002.0011
> [Yes, once can sometimes find gems on vixra!!!]
> """
> ABSTRACT
>
> Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. However, this precision is based on a single experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (g-factor).

No, it's much MUCH more involved than that. It it was that easy, it would have been rejected ages ago.

--
Jan

[Burt Waggoner Jr]

I see no proofs. Simplify for instance the GR equation in zero gravity
gradient, so what's left back is flat SR. For me to believe it is like
that. You guys always come up with pompous allegations, but no proofs.
It's time for you to put the money where your mouth is. If satisfactory,
I am ready to donate a beer to your horse.

[Engr. Ravi]

On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 2:28:15 PM UTC+5:30, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 2:40:53 AM UTC-8, Engr. Ravi wrote:
> > https://vixra.org/abs/2002.0011
> > [Yes, once can sometimes find gems on vixra!!!]
> > """
> > ABSTRACT
> >
> > Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. However, this precision is based on a single experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (g-factor).

> No, it's much MUCH more involved than that. If it was that easy, it would have been rejected ages ago.

The author is NOT saying that ALL that QED does is to calculate the g-factor of the electron. Of course QED is used for a lot more than that.

He is only saying that the reputation of QED as a theory that is EXTREMELY precise rests on the computation of the g-factor, since the magnetic moment of the electron is supposedly one of the few things that can be EXPERIMENTALLY measured to great precision, AND that this reputation will be seen to be undeserved, if one actually takes a deeper look at how the calculations are made, AND also how the experiments are actually carried out. BOTH the THEORISTS and the EXPERIMENTALISTS have several knobs to tweak so that they agree with one another to as many digits of precision as they please.

[Odd Bodkin]

Well, it’s true that the electron g-factor agrees with experiment to the
13th digit, which is pretty damn impressive. But it also calculates the
Lamb shift, and getting the answer to better than a percent was a huge
coup, and presently the Lamb shift is the best constraint on the low energy
value of the fine structure constant to a part in a million or so. The
g-factor of the muon is only matched to about the 9th decimal place, but it
is more sensitive to non-standard model physics than the electron value.

What’s interesting and often overlooked is that these are all connected.
The knobs that Ravi thinks are free result in effects across *all* the QED
results. So if something is tweaked to match the electron g value exactly
but that’s not warranted, then the clue for that is that the other results
would swing wide. It’s the collective match to *all* the different results
with one value of the fine structure constant that’s so impressive.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Shepherd Castilloux]

Engr. Ravi wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 2:28:15 PM UTC+5:30, JanPB wrote:
>> No, it's much MUCH more involved than that. If it was that easy, it
>> would have been rejected ages ago.
>
> The author is NOT saying that ALL that QED does is to calculate the
> g-factor of the electron. Of course QED is used for a lot more than
> that.

The Secret Contents of Ever Given – Evergreen Container Ship – Translated
Video By Kaan Sariaydin
https://www.mavigazetem.com.tr/the-secret-contents-of-ever-given-
evergreen-container-ship-translated-video-by-kaan-sariaydin/

https://www.youtube.com/embed/8Z1eFrE66aM

Shall I tell you the True story here? Now … Everyone, really needs to see
this from a different perspective!
(Globalists’) 1st Card, what was it? ‘The Techno Weapon Corona Covid-19!
They were planning to put an end to this matter in March
Do you know WHY the corona cases are going up?
Now, In order to understand what I mean, We have written an article about
this on mavigazetem.com and as we go along we will expose this further
There (in Suez), Nationalist Powers carried out an operation against
Global Powers
Jointly Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Qatar carried out an (secret) operation
The Evergreen crisis is an (secret) operation (against Globalists)
All events are interrelated, Let me explain this …
The Evergreen crisis, that container ship carried Very Important Contents
Those (shipping) containers had the products of a 30 year plan…
… products as a result of 30 years’ worth of investments
Let’s analyse this Step By Step and show you the visuals on the big screen
This is Why Covid-19 Cases are on the Rise!!! (Globalist) were planning
to end (the Corona) game …
Hang On!!! I didn’t get this right! So the Evergreen Containers, the so
called Suez Canal event, the Ship that was stuck there for days.
We were told that the ship broke down due to a technical problem
Nooo this is a lie
Why that Ship was stuck there? In that particular way? Is there a deeper
secret behind this? What should our interpretation of this Event be?
Of course, of course (there is a plan behind this)

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/13/21 1:28 PM, Engr. Ravi wrote:
> BOTH the THEORISTS and the EXPERIMENTALISTS have several knobs to
> tweak so that they agree with one another to as many digits of
> precision as they please.

This is simply not true. Why bother to just make things up and pretend
they are true? What's the point?

(hint: if what you claim were true, they would agree; they DON'T.)

I know a lot more about the Fermilab muon g-2 experiment [#] than about
the Brookhaven experiment or the theoretical calculation. They added an
offset to their hardware known only to two people who were not members
of the experiment [@]. The experimenters completed their analysis
without knowing how it related to either the older experiment or the
theoretical prediction. This includes "setting all the 'knobs'" that
Ravi fantasies about (which are not really "knobs", but rather are
techniques for evaluating systematic errors [%]). After their analysis
was debugged, evaluated, and frozen, the offset was revealed and the
experimental result was calculated. Their current analysis used just the
first ~6% of their data. The recent Fermilab result agrees with the
Brookhaven experiment's result to much better than the errorbars, and
combined they disagree with the current theoretical value by ~ 4.2 sigma.

[@] This is now a standard experimental technique, called
"putting the result in a box", or "blind analysis". The
point is to prevent the experimenters from consciously or
unconsciously steering their result to some previously-known
value. Revealing the offset is known as "opening the box".

[%] These generally affect the errorbar much more than the
result itself.

It will be interesting to see what the remaining 94% of their data yield.

Note also that there is a recent, completely different theoretical
calculation. It is currently available in preprint only; it differs from
the previous theoretical value and is consistent with the experimenters'
values. If this value is confirmed, and the two theoretical calculations
are reconciled, the discrepancy would disappear.

It is interesting to this experimental particle
physicist that the theorists want confirmation of
results, just like we experimentalists always did.

Finally, note that this is NOT a QED calculation, the hadrons of the
standard model are important contributors to the theoretical value, and
generate most of the theoretical errorbar.

[#] Full disclosure: While I am not a member of the
Fermilab g-2 collaboration, I did assist them in their
initial muon beamline design, I am the author of one
of the particle simulation codes they use, and I built
it on several supercomputers to support their use.

Tom Roberts

[Engr. Ravi]

Its great to hear directly from ground zero [Fermilab]!!! Thanks for describing the "blind analysis" cross checking procedure.

I still think that the overall thesis of the OP ["Something rotten in the state of QED"] stands. As you note:

"""
> Note also that there is a recent, completely different theoretical
> calculation. It is currently available in preprint only; it differs from
> the previous theoretical value and is consistent with the experimenters'
> values. If this value is confirmed, and the two theoretical calculations
> are reconciled, the discrepancy would disappear.
"""

More importantly if the remaining 94% of the data results produces a different value for the muon g-factor, we can count on the theorists to come up with another tweak that EXACTLY predicts just this new result. Now, what do we call a theory that can predict any number you want, ...?

[Jarek Duda]

Updated version of "Something is rotten in the state of QED": https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.02078

I really like the renormalization quotes:
Feynman: It is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense.
The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is: absurd. I’m going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don’t turn yourself off because you can’t believe Nature is so strange.”

Dirac: “I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation because this so-called ’good theory’ does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, ignoring them in an arbitrary way.
This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves disregarding a quantity when it is small – not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!. ”

> More importantly if the remaining 94% of the data results produces a different value for the muon g-factor, we can count on the theorists to come up with another tweak that EXACTLY predicts just this new result. Now, what do we call a theory that can predict any number you want, ...?

Indeed, Standard Model is ~26 parameters a few pages long sequence of corrections - expanded: https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation
The big question is if we can see this sequence as "Taylor expansion" of a simpler model?
Where to search for it?
I bet on topological solitons - starting with making Gauss law count topological charge for its quantization ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07896 ).

[Addy Nix]

Jarek Duda wrote:

> Updated version of "Something is rotten in the state of QED":
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.02078
>
> I really like the renormalization quotes:
> Feynman: It is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree
> with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is
> philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly
> reasonable from the point of view of common sense.

President Trump is the creator through Operation Warp Speed of the
vaccine.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 2:40:53 AM UTC-8, Engr. Ravi wrote:

That something is rotten, in the state, of Denmark, or here QED,
of here what you would say, I have heard of that before so when
you ask I wonder: is not Quantum Electrodynamics, what works out
solving the static charge in space terms, fine what it is and more for
the other quantum ... dynamics, QED, QCD, ....

[Ross A. Finlayson]

This is outrageous!

Am I led further to believe hadronic physics, muons, and what
results flux in "weak" force what makes muons, all this is a linear
point model free from computing it, otherwise what I would put
in for QED?

I suppose I would usually call this QCD, where, the results what
make these in the quantum chromo dynamics, is that the color
in the dynamics is rather the category in the color force, that is
also the strong nuclear force or under the carriers the nuclear force,
where it's still usually approximate that in transition e = mc^2.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03418-1

[Ross A. Finlayson]

"We obtained the same results as Richard Feynman in his parton model,
if the partons are identified with the quarks. It later turned out that the
results of the light-cone current algebra are nearly correct in the theory
of QCD, owing to the asymptotic freedom of the theory." -- https://cerncourier.com/a/the-history-of-qcd/

Vacuum polarization energy seems what is working up "triple point".
I.e. that there are various "vacuum polarization energy" kinds in regimes,
there is more than one vacuum with regards to "singular solutions what
results that something like Higgs field is also vacuum polarization".

[Ross A. Finlayson]

There's an example about "1+2+3+.. =, - 1/12", you have to remember
that it's only like "i^2 = -1, roots of unity and complex analysis", that
the analysis "resulting that the expression results the value" is only
some "small negative constant in the restitutive".

Or, "re-normalization is de-re-normalization, for normalization".

Whether "g-factor" or "path integral constant: 1.000..xxx", is for
scattering and tunneling what usually would add back out the
things in curves in straight lines.

Then he ends with "Winter is coming". That's always forboding,
though usually people with four seasons under that mean
"it's not winter yet".

I don't see what the problem is, "old physics" already has
that people include QCD and QED in an at least combined theory.

[Odd Bodkin]

Wow. Physics jabberwocky.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Ross A. Finlayson]

"Supersymmetry not dead, again."

[Ross A. Finlayson]

I figured all this out from a usual education,
then, studying mathematics, keeping it all easy
and simple in mathematics, learning the course
of development what is the concept of continuity,
mathematically, what results these great properties
of the numbers, with, mathematics I need for physics,
in infinities, that solve and work up for all the mathematics,
the continuous and discrete, basically that then notions
like renormalizable gauge components, which I just made
up but only from putting the words together, that, ...,
there is an approach from mathematics to help _derive_
the path integral constant, for the usual successful path integral
approach, that for statistics and what are numbers, this way
then with the usual models of physical laws, their closures
in what are the limits and extremes, find all their classical
apparatus, and, sit fair from what I know are the utterest
foundations of continuum mechanics. (What I writ.)

Here it's a residue as it were and "oo = -1/12" under a branch,
a usual notion of braking radiation as let out, i.e. that "this
line under that is 1 twelvth specifically that is as 3 and 2x2
why these components add up and the path integral constant is
1.000...".

One might imagine an inverse square setup for what results
why the equilibriation is for the "sum-of-histories" here
"course-of-passage", makes for some reasonable definitions
for QED what let out those of QCD and vice versa.

I.e., that in the other branch it's as much "oo = 0/12".

Here that that's to result the input components, both in
its pressure component and its relaxation or attenuation,
..., underpressure, is as for that the magnetic for the
charge and state for QED and kinetics up in QCD,
under the magnetic for example E->C or as magnetic C->E,
is for a usual theorem including both QED and QCD and
the natural apparatus as of for example singular forms,
what makes for neat theorems in balance and exchange.

For example all the ones there already are as so set.

So, I've found it easier to understand physics as "theoretical".

Where it's practical....

... which for theoretical physics it is.

[Odd Bodkin]

Yup. (Stops reading)

[Colin Hare]

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

>> "Supersymmetry not dead, again."
>
> I figured all this out from a usual education,
> then, studying mathematics, keeping it all easy and simple in
> mathematics,
> learning the course of development what is the concept of continuity,
> mathematically, what results these great properties of the numbers,
> with, mathematics I need for physics,

you dont undrestand my *Divergent_Matter* (of the Moving Objects model).

[Ross A. Finlayson]

"..., to _derive_ the path integral constant."


It's a regular physics.