Re: Renormalization in QED

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 07/19/04 

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:03:01 +0200

kenseto wrote:
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> news:cd6ar5$fg5$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>
>>kenseto wrote:
>>

[snip]

>>>>>>>The Higgs,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Can we discuss this in a few years again when LHC is running?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If they don't find it with the LHC they will invent something else to
>>>>>replace the Higgs.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, yes. And then they will try to find evidence for that.
>>>>That's called "science".
>>>
>>>
>>>NO that's not science.
>>
>>And what makes you think you are qualified to judge what is science
>>and what isn't?
>
>
> You don't need any qualification to realize that keep on adding epicycles to
> fix a failed theory is not science.

What makes you think you are qualified to judge what are epicycles and
what aren't? What makes you think you are qualified to judge whether
the SM is a failed theory or not?

>>>That's called "adding epicycles" to fixing the theory.
>>
>>In the same vein, I could call your heap of postulates of MM
>>"adding epicycles to fix the theory".
>
>
> MM is a new theory. No epicycles are needed.

Err, the SM is also a new theory. Both the gluons and the Higgs were
in it right from the start, when it was proposed (in the 70s). They
weren't added later.

> There are proposed experiments that can refute MM.

So what? There are also a lot of experiments which can refute the SM.

>>>It is time for a complete new theory and MM is such a new theory.
>>
>>MM is not a scientific theory, it is a heap of unsupported assertions.
>
>
> ROTFLOL....a comment from a panicking idiot.

Actually, while I'm reading this, I am grinning wildly. Grinning is not
a panic reaction...

>>>MM does not
>>>require the Higgs and MM math is the same as QFT math at the lower
>>>level.
>>
>>See for another post for the contradiction in this statement.
>
>
> No contradiction.

Yes, there is a contradiction.

>>BTW, what do you mean by "lower level" here?

Hello?

>>Additionally, the QFT math *also* includes gluons. If you think otherwise,
>>please explain what the terms in the equations which describe the
>>gluons describe instead. For starters, you could explain why there
>>is an SU(3)-symmetry in the equations.
>
>
> The interactions of gluons can be replaced by the stacked interaction of
> the orbiting S-Particles of the quarks. So there is no need for the gluons.

Err, I was not talking about interactions of gluons. I asked you how
MM interprets the terms in the equations (in the Lagrangian of the SM)
which describe the gluons. Not their interactions - the gluons themselves!

>>>>>By that time I will probabbly be dead.
>>>>
>>>>The LHC will be running probably in 2007, surely in 2010. Are you that
>>>>old that you will be dead in only six years?
>>>
>>>
>>>Why do we have to waite until 2010? MM is now available and it is
>>>the final theory we are searching for.
>>
>>That was not the point here. The point was if you will be dead in 2010
>>or not.
>
>
> Your question is irrelevant.

Evasion noted. If you think this is irrelevant, why did you make
the comment above? ("By that time...")

What's your problem with telling me your age? I have no problem at all
with that - I am 29 years old.

[snip]

>>>>If you can explain the occurence of three-jet events, using
>>>>the concept of "stacked interactions between the quarks", feel free
>>>>to show your work.
>>>
>>>
>>>NO you do it.
>>
>>Why should I? *You* keep claiming that this is possible. *I* think
>>that is is not possible.
>
>
> The occurence of three jet events can be interpreted as the result of
> orbiting S-Particles interacting with the free S-Particles.

Can you predict the ratio of two- to three-jet events from this idea?

And can you explain why these observations yield a value for alpha_s
which is consistent with measurements of completely different types?

[snip]

>>>and too tired of answering your endless questions
>>
>>Bad for you. Hint: scientists have to answer questions about their
>>work all the time. This is called "peer review". They don't whine
>>about that.
>
>
> Hint: There is no evidence of "peer review" between you and I.

This sentence does not even make sense grammatically.

> You already made up your mind about MM without understanding it.

Well, the same applies for you and the SM.

>>>and you refused to answer one of my question: What is the prediction
>>>of current physics of my proposed experiment?.
>>
>>Well, you refused to answer about 100 of my questions up to now...
>
>
> The answer to my question will show the difference between MM and
> current physics and that difference is testable experimentally.
> All your questions are based on your unsupported belief that MM is wrong.

This is not a belief, and in no way unsupported. E.g. the well-known
data on Compton scattering, which shows no dependence of the red shift
on the distance between the target and the detector, in contrast to
the prediction of MM, shows that MM is wrong.

>>>>You could start by explaining what "stacked interactions" actually
>>>>means.
>>
>>>
>>>Read the paper in the following link (the section on Nuclear Strong
>>>force):
>>>http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
>>
>>"At a more fundamental level, this force is responsible for the bindings
>>of the protons and neutrons to form the nucleus."
>>
>>Wrong already in the second sentence of the section, congratulations!
>>"this force" here obviously refers to the title of the section, hence
>>you talk about the strong nuclear force. But the strong nuclear force
>>is *not* responsible for the binding of the quarks in the protons and
>>neutrons!!! It's the other way round: the strong nuclear force is a
>>residual effect (comparable to van-der-Waals forces) of the strong
>>("colour") interaction between the quarks.
>
>
> Hey idiot....the strong (colour) interaction is the strong force.

Wrong. The strong colour force and the nuclear strong force are two
quite different things.

>>"According to quantum mechanicsm the strong force is manifested by the
>>exchange of messenger particles known as gluons."
>>
>>First, this is not according to QM, but according to QCD, and second,
>>"manifested" makes no sense here.
>
>
> Idiot ....QM is a general term that include qed, qcd, and electroweak
> forces.

Wrong. The term which includes QED, QCD and the electroweak forces is
QFT, not QM.

>>"The force is caused by the absolute motion ... of the S-Particles of
>>the quarks in the protons and neutrons."
>>
>>Err, how can absolute motion "create" a force???
>
>
> Idiot....one of the postulate of MM is that particles that have absolute
> motion in the same direction gives rise to an attractive force and particles
> that have absolute motions in the opposite directions gives rise to a
> repulsive force.

That is at least thr 12th postulate. How many do you need?

>>"When two basic particles of the same charge are stacked on top of
>>each other,..."
>>
>>Sorry, but how can you say that they are stacked *on top* of each other?
>
>
> Here's an example why I feel that I am wasting my time with you. You
> can't even visualize that two orbiting S-Particles can stack on top of each
> other.

I have no problem visualizing that - but you did not answer my
following question - which was the point here!

>>Why not beside each other? Or behind each other? Do you want to say
>>that there is an absolute sense for "up" and "down" in the universe???
>
>
> When they are beside each other they will have electromagnetic interactions.

You did not answer my question:
Do you want to say that there is an absolute sense for "up" and "down"
in the universe???

I.e. how do you distinguish "on top" from "beside" and "behind"???
On earth, there is no problem with that, since gravity defines "up"
and "down" - but how do you do that in other places?

>>"...their S-Particles are traveling in the same direction. Therefore,
>>they exert an attractive force on each other."
>>
>>Hwo does MM explain that for short distances, this forces obeys
>>an inverse square law, but for larger distances, it becomes constant?
>
>
> Are you saying that the nuclear strong force obeys the inverse square law
> at short distances?

No, the strong colour force does do that. Evidence: see e.g. the spectra
of quarkonia.

> Also at larger distances the nuclear strong force becomes
> constant??

No, the strong colour force does do that.

> I don't think so. The strong force gets stronger when you try to
> pull the quarks apart.

Wrong. Only the potential energy get stronger. The force becomes constant.

>>"It is noteworthy that the attractive stacked-interactions are effective
>>only within a short distance of 10^(-13) cm. At a greater distance, the
>>stacked up quarks or down quarks exert a repulsive force on each other."
>>
>>How does this follow? Specifically, where do you get the precise
>>figure of 10^(-13) cm from? Could you please show the calculation giving
>>this result?
>>
>>Or is this all simply a postulate?
>
>
> Current Physics says that the effective range of the nuclear strong force is
> 10^-13 cm

Can MM predict this number?

>>"This is the exact behavour of the nuclear strong force that we observed
>>in the laboratory."
>>
>>It is news to me that any laboratory result ever showed that the nuclear
>>strong force becomes repulsive on longer distances. What are you talking
>>about? Reference?
>
>
> If the stacked up quarks slide wrt to each other for more than 10-13 cm then
> the force between them becomes repulsive because their S-Particles are no
> longer moving in the same direction at all time.

I asked you for *observations* in *laboratories* which *show* this
behaviour, not for a theoretical explanation!

>>"Another peculiar property of the nuclear strong force is that it
>>becomes stronger when the interacting particles are being pulled apart."
>>
>>1) This directly contradicts your preceding sentence. If the force
>>becomes stronger, it can not become repulsive at the same time!!!
>
>
> Hey idiot....this is pulling the up quarks apart while they are in stacked
> interaction.
> The previous statement is that the stacked up quarks are sliding wrt each
> other.

So the behaviour of the force on distance depends on the direction of
the relative motion of the quarks wrt each other, or what???

>>2) This is simply wrong. The *nuclear* strong force does *not* show this
>>behaviour. You seem to confuse it with the strong ("colour") force
>>between the quarks.
>
>
> The strong (color) force is the nuclear strong force.

Wrong. Its dependence on distance is different, for starters.

>>3) Even the force between the quarks does *not* show this behaviour.
>>This force does *not* become stronger at greater distances - it becomes
>>*constant*. What becomes stronger is the *potential energy*.
>
>
> You can spin it any way you want. The up shot is: when you are trying
> to pull two up-quarks apart the the larger is the distance the stronger
> is the force needed.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. The force does *not* increase with
distance. It becomes *constant*.

>>BTW, I notice that you did not bother to explain anywhere why this
>>"getting stronger" should be ***proportional*** to the distance. Hint:
>>standard physics can derive that. Further hint: it derives that using
>>the assumption of gluons.
>
>
> Hint: when the up quarks are pulled apart the surrounding E-Strings
> became more distorted and these E-Strings will try to recover to the
> none-distorted state and in that process they will push the up quarks
> together again. This is the reason why the nuclear strong force gets
> stronger when the up quarks are being pulled apart.

This would explain only why the force increases (which it in reality
does not). You still have not explained why there should be a
*************************PROPORTIONALITY************************
between force and distance! Do you even know what that word means?

>>Summary: this section is, as all the others I looked at so far, very
>>big on rhetoric and unsupported assertions, and plain errors - but
>>there is essentially no actual physics or, God beware, evidence found
>>there. Big surprise.
>
>
> You are full of ***. You don't understand MM and you use your
> naive knowledge as a tool to judge.

Well, you don't understand QFT and the SM, and use your naive knowledge
(from misunderstood popular science sources) as a tool to judge.

In contrast to you, I have *looked* at MM, and tried to understand it
(although you make that quiet hard with your constant evasions of my
questions, and your misuse of a lot of technical terms), whereas you
have never bothered to actually try to learn QFT. If you have tried
this, please tell me what books you used (hint: popular science books
don't count).

So, *who* is full of *** here?

Bye,
Bjoern

Quantcast