It gives good results for those cases where the weak interaction is less important, e.g. the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. For muons, on the other hand, you need to include the weak interaction. This is what the electroweak theory is all about. QED forms part of electroweak.Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski
I said that they predicted the mass of the charmed B meson, i.e. the prediction came before the measurement. How did they fudge the parameters to give them the correct answer when no-one, at the time, knew the correct answer?The QCD (also all theories based on the perturbation theory with the renormalization) contains too much controlled parameters which gives possibility to match the theoretical results to experimental data.
Good for you. Did your theory correctly predict the mass of the charmed B meson?My theory does not contain CONTROLLED PARAMETERS! (only the four physical constants plus three well known masses).
I think that what you are suggesting here is that there are so many particles that there was a good chance that at least one particle would provide a good match for the predicted mass. What you are forgetting is that the prediction wasn't that there would exist some particle with a particular mass. The prediction was that the charmed B meson would have a particular mass. When the experimentalists measured the mass, they were not trying to measure the mass of some random particle. They set out to measure the mass of the charmed B meson. All of a sudden, what you appear to be suggesting looks very unlikely.What about B meson?
If it is really whole history then maybe probability (there is very big zoo of particles)?
As an aside, have you considered that your hypothesis regarding this prediction may also apply to your claimed success in matching particle masses?
Why should QCD predict the mass of the quarks? Does GR predict the value of G? Does QED predict the value of e?It is very well known that the QCD is unable predict the mass of quarks. The masses of quarks were defined in such way to obtain the experimental data.
Of course we hope that a theoretical framework may exist that would allow us to predict the masses of the quarks (as well as a whole bunch of other parameters), but that is not what QCD is about. Take a very simple example, using Newtonian gravity and Newtonian mechanics, I can predict the force between two masses. What I could not do, within that framework, is predict what the masses were. I would have to measure them somehow.