note 430(5)

Many thanks again, Very interesting as usual. I would say that the QED method of describing vacuum polarization depends on the sum of many terms. Only the first two are given in the website which gives Eqs. (1) to (4). This website is found by using Google keywords "Measurement of Vacuum Polarization" sites three and five. I would say that QED gives an unphysical result when r << lambda, perhaps some infinity has not properly been removed by renormalization and regularization. This is not a problem of m theory, it is a problem of QED. Secondly, I do not think that m greater than one is disallowed in m theory, because m is a general function of r. However m > 1 is a result that emerges from a major weakness of QED, and so m > 1 should be discarded as unphysical on the grounds that QED is unphysical. In the Einstein theory m = 1 – r0 / r , so as r goes to zero m goes to minus infinity, a "dippy" result in the words of Feynman and an ugly result in Dirac’s words. Due to our work at AIAS / UPITEC over the past sixteen years, it is widely accepted that the Einstein theory is also unphysical and incorrect in many ways. The main point is that vacuum polarization is described immediately by m theory, through Eq. (7). I used QED only for comparison, and as you show, it falls apart completely. Although Dirac and Heisenberg independently proposed vacuum polarization in 1934, it has never been observed properly. So how can the standard modellers claim that QED is ultra, ultra precise? On the other hand m theory is as precise as needed, this can be achieved in any situation by fine tuning m. We have been spectacularly successful from UFT415 to UFT430. The problem with EQ. (35) seems to be another Wikipedia error. Perhaps there are other sites or references that can be studied to try to find out the source of the wikipedia error. One shoudl not use Wikipedia at all if there are scholarly references available or if there is a good library within reach. Teh fact that you have dug out yet another Wikipedia disaster is obviously a good thing. Wikipedia is just a private company run by people who often make mistakes.

430(5).pdf


%d bloggers like this: