In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:55:37 +0100: Hi Michel, [snip] >Robin, > >I may be wrong but all this sounds complicated and ad hoc, compared to >the standard quantum electrodynamics theory, which, although it often >goes against common sense (e.g. the "preposterous" things I >mentioned), does predict things nicely from a tiny set of rules.
Does it really? I must admit to never having been deeply involved in quantum theory, but I get the impression, looking in from the outside, that in practice "adjustments" are usually made until the "right" result is obtained. > >For example, to go back to the subject of your original question, can >Mills predict the next decimal places for the electron's intrinsic >magnetic moment (presently 12 or so) I doubt very seriously that there is a single physical quantity anywhere on Earth that can be measured with such accuracy/precision, for two reasons. 1) Measurement implies comparison with a standard, and I don't think we have any standards that accurate/precise. 2) The measurement instruments themselves would need not to vary in *any* of their critical parameters by that degree of precision during the measurement process. I find it very hard to believe that this is the case. Furthermore the accuracy of those parameters also needs to be known with that degree of precision, otherwise the number is meaningless, even if the precision were valid. Here I use accuracy to describe the absolute value of a measurement, and precision to describe the number of decimal places to which the value is known. However, to answer your question, I think the answer is no, but then he also doesn't (yet) take many of the smaller effects into account that influence precision at that level. IOW it doesn't necessarily mean that his theory would fail at that level if he were to try. BTW you shouldn't judge Mills by any representations I may make. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
