Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- From: "tony fleming" <tfleming1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 24 Aug 2005 04:54:30 -0700
>Renormalization works quite fine, where is your problem?
>Care to calculate e.g. the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron
>without QED?
bjeorn believe it or not i HAVE calculated it a few years ago, haven't
written it up yet, too much else to do!! i got incredibly close to the
QED answer, i was using MAPLE and left the work after i realised where
the whole thing was heading!! this was a milestone in my calcs to
verify the SFT technique as something fundamental. don't forget, i had
to convince myself of its benefits first before starting to announce it
to the world.
but sometime down the track i will be writing up a comparison paper
between QFT and SFT and i guess this will feature in this report.
i remember reading how each term could take a year of supercomputing
and thinking "wow" and SFT does it in a few lines of MAPLE code!!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- From: Bjoern Feuerbacher
- Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- References:
- why can't fields be quantized too?
- From: flames
- Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- From: Bruce Scott TOK
- Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- From: tfleming1
- Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- From: Bjoern Feuerbacher
- why can't fields be quantized too?
- Prev by Date: Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- Next by Date: Re: Gravity Probe B
- Previous by thread: Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- Next by thread: Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- Index(es):