On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 9:29 AM Lawrence Crowell < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:18:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> On 1/10/2019 4:21 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >> *So even Feynman knew that there was no theoretical value for the FSC, >>> alpha.* >>> >> >> No, he knew very well there was a theory that could come up with a >> value because his own Feynman Diagrams could do it. But what he didn't know >> and what nobody knows is why his theory came up with that particular pure >> number when he never specifically stuck that number into the rules on how >> the diagrams should operate. >> >> >> The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c. Those three values are >> measured independent of any Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory. The >> calculation using Feynman diagrams is of the anamolous magnetic moment. A >> correction to the value of g that depend on relativistic effects (hence the >> occurence of c in the denominator). The anamolous magnetic moment can be >> measure experimentally and using Feynman's diagrams and the measured values >> of e, hbar, and c a value can be calculated that includes the relativistic >> effects of quantum field theory. That's why the agreement with measurement >> is significant. >> >> Brent >> > > Everyone seems to be overlooking charge renormalization. > Do you really think that that is relevant? How? Bruce LC > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
