Re: Renormalization in QED

From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 07/20/04 

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:58:42 -0400

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cdin5a$d32$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> kenseto wrote:
> > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
> > news:cdgdeo$lp5$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> >
> >>kenseto wrote:
> >>
>

>
> >>>That's adding epicycles to fix the failed theory.
> >>
> >>The SM is internally consistent and made *lots* of *amazingly* accurate
> >>predictions. So how can you call it as "failed" theory?
> >
> >
> > So is NM made some accurate predictions but nevertheless it is a failed
> > theory.
>
> We have examples where NM failed. There are *no* examples where the SM
> failed.

It failed to include a theory of quantum gravity. It failed because it
predicts
the Higgs but the Higgs was not found.
>
>
>
>
> >>>Science is looking for alternative when existing theory fails.
> >>
> >>Right. Err, that's exactly what I talked about above, which you yourself
> >>said: "when the LHC is running and not finding the Higgs you will
> >>simply invent something else". How is this different from "looking for
> >>alternative when existing theory fails"?
> >
> >
> > Good science is that when existing theory keep on running into problems
> > it is a sgne that the basic model is wrong.
>
> But the SM does *not* keep on running into problems.

Yes it does. NBo quantum gravity and Higgs not found. In Scientific
American they listed 10 potential problems with the SM.

>About 99.99% of
> the predictions of the SM have been found to be true, with an amazing
> accuracy. There are only *very* few areas where there are *minor*
> problems. And these will probably be solved in a few years.
>
> Again: if the Higgs will *not* be found at the LHC, *then* you have
> a point in saying that the SM is in trouble. But so far, you have no
> point.

What about quantum gravity??
>
>
> > Furthermore MM interpretations include the QFT math and give us a new
> > theory of gravity that can be united with the electromagnetic and
nuclear
> > forces.
>
> You repeat yourself.

It is worth repeating.
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>>Don't worry you will find some loop hole to explain the failed result.
> >>
> >>I am willing to take a bet that if the Higgs is not found at the LHC,
> >>particle physicists will freely admit that it very probably does not
> >>exist.
> >
> > Even if you found the Higgs the MM interpretations can include the
Higgs.
> > Why? The Higgs is just an unstable orbiting S-Particle. What this mean
is
> > that the SM is a subset of MM.
>
> You show here very nicely that MM is not good science. Before you said
> that MM does not include the Higgs, now you say it can include it. MM
> appears to be infinitely flexible - i.e. it can't make definite
predictions.

No ....MM is not infinitely flexible. A free S-Particle interacting with an
orbiting S-Particle could become a Higgs under the right condictions. This
is part
of the basic consequences of the MM model. MM makes all sorts of
predictions.
>
>

> >>
> >>Oh, you mean stuff like "stacked interactions", right?
> >
> >
> > Stacked interaction is not an epicycle. It is a consequence of the
basic
> > model of MM.
>
> Well, the Higgs is also a consequence of the basic model of the
> electroweak interactions. So how can you call it an epicycle?

Because the basic model of SM is that all particles are massless and the
Higgs
was invented to give particle mass. Now that's is an epicycle.
>
>
>
> >>>>>OTOH, MM does not require the Higgs and MM includes the QFT math.
> >>>>
> >>>>Err, the QFT math *includes* the Higgs. So if MM uses the QFT math,
> >>>>then MM also includes the Higgs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>But MM has a different mechanism to replace the Higgs. MM says that the
> >>>mass of a particle is dependent on the orbital diameter of its
> >>>S-Partricle.
> >>
> >>You still have not told me why only certain diameters are possible,
> >>IIRC.
> >
> >
> > All orbital diameters are possible. However, only the smallest orbital
> > diameter around one E-String are stable....
>
> Why?

Because orbiting one E-String will eliminate the effect of the CRE force.
Read my paper about the CRE force.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf

>
>
> > these particles are the
> > neutrinos and the electrons and they are detected to have the lowest
mass.
>
> Do you want to say that the electron and the electron neutrino have the
> *same* mass?

Yes.
>
> And what about the muon neutrino and the tau neutrino?

They have larger mass than the electron neutrino.
>
>
> > The S-Particle of the up quark is probably orbiting around more than
> > one E-Strings and thus it has a larger orbital diameter and thus it is
> > detected to have a larger mass than the electron.
>
> Epicycle.

NO....it is a consequence of the MM model.
>
>
> > The S-Particle of
> > the down quark is orbiting around even more E-Strings than the
> > up quark and thus it has a larger orbital diameter than the up quark
> > and thus it is detected to have a larger mass than the up quark.
>
> So, are there only stable diameters for orbits around a certain number
> of E-Strings,

NO ...the only stable particle is orbiting around one E-String.

>or why don't we observe particles with masses
> corresponding to S-particles orbiting around 2,3,4,5,6,7 etc. E-strings?

We do....the up quark's and the down quark's S-Particle orbit around
more than one E-String.
>
>
>
> >>Oh, BTW, the S-particles themselves are massless, right?
> >
> >
> > NO....the S-Particle is the only solid massive particle exists in the
> > universe.
>
> So you need a force to keep it on its orbit. What force is that?

MM says that the E-Strings are repulsive to each other and the
S-Particles are repulsive to the E-Strings. This enables the S-Particles
to maintain its motion in the E-Matrix.
>
> BTW, how big is that mass?

Don't know. It is not measureable in terms of what we know as mass.
Why? because a free S-Particle does not respond to any measurement
technique based on the elctromagnetic interactions.

Ken Seto

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Renormalization in QED
    ... > Even if you found the Higgs the MM interpretations can include the Higgs. ... > neutrinos and the electrons and they are detected to have the lowest mass. ... Do you want to say that the electron and the electron neutrino have the ... > one E-Strings and thus it has a larger orbital diameter and thus it is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Day LHC Discovered Higgs Boson Does *Not* Exist!
    ... If the Higgs boson is not found, as I am certain will be the ... > Inject a proton (which has mass). ... but only the proton and electron masses are ... What physics needs is a full explanation of inertia, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What if the higgs dont exist....
    ... > | FrediFizzx wrote: ... > give you mass. ... Why should one insert the electron mass when one wants to do a ... If the Higgs is found, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Day LHC Discovered Higgs Boson Does *Not* Exist!
    ... If the Higgs boson is not found, as I am certain will be the ... Inject a proton (which has mass). ... but only the proton and electron masses are ... inertia is a real problem. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What if the higgs dont exist....
    ... > | FrediFizzx wrote: ... > give you mass. ... Why should one insert the electron mass when one wants to do a ... If the Higgs is found, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)