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!
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!