| He's now admitting mz is NOT the physical mass - instead m_φ is. Let me check what m_φ is in his paper... From his paper: m_φ ≈ 4.16×10⁻⁹ kg ≈ 2.5 nanograms (the "resonance mass") My response: The problem isn't mathematical - it's that this prediction is falsified by existing data. Particles at ~2.5 nanograms are extensively studied: Dust particles in optical traps Brownian motion experiments Colloidal physics Micro-mechanical oscillators No anomalous behavior is observed at this mass scale. If objects showed "anomalous inertial behavior" at 2.5 ng, we would have seen it in: AFM (atomic force microscopy)
- routinely measures sub-nanogram particles Optical tweezers
- trap and measure particles from 1 nm to 10 μm MEMS devices
- measure inertia at nanogram scales Verdict:
His prediction is experimentally falsified. This is not a philosophical disagreement - his model makes a testable prediction that contradicts existing measurements. The "Brute Force" QED Defense His claim: "12,672 diagrams is brute force. Achieving 63 ppm with one term (a_μ = α/2π + α²/12) is elegant." This completely misses the point. QED's 12,672 diagrams achieve 0.1 ppm agreement because each diagram contributes a calculable correction from quantum field theory. The complexity comes from precision, not failure. His formula achieves 63 ppm - that's 630× worse than QED! |