You can find the manual with schematic at the bottom of the post. I was not aware of the fact that the link I posted initially is now broken.

Marco

]]>My take here is that to perform these theoretical computations is not that easy,even if you are in a regime where asymptotic freedom sets in and perturbation theory is reliable. I think that a better insight could come from lattice QCD but I cannot evaluate how much could be helpful at this stage.

Marco

]]>The paper is very understated, but the discrepancies between the pQCD predictions and the experimentally measured hadronic decay cross sections at Belle from high enegy electron-positron collisions is very extreme (in some cases at the ten sigma level), which is not something that I see every day trolling hep at arxiv, and the bare bones four page paper makes almost no effort to analyze why this might be the case. But, on the surface, there doesn’t seem to be any good reason, for example, to think that Belle has grossly understated systemic error in how it conducted these experiments.

The paper shows a better match of a model with SU(3) with broken flavor symmetry than it does in the case of a model with SU(3) with perfect flavor symmetry, but isn’t even very close to the predictions of either model.

Do you have any insight into what could be going on in the theoretical calculations that could cause it to be so grossly off at some energies for some decays, while being right on the money for many other decays at certain energies?

]]>What you have just shown is that the problem with can be solved with a known perturbation techniques in this particular case. *You can do this only after the proper interpretation by me is given*. It is this the missing logical leap and you cannot find any published paper in physics or mathematics where one treats the solution of a (partial or ordinary) differential equations from both sides. Just because this was not recognized. To have an idea of the cultural difficulty that this missed interpretation yields just check this answer of mine in mathoverflow.

In order to have an idea of the matter, it is common wisdom to believe that problems with an infinitely strong perturbation were never treatable with perturbation techniques (just check standard literature in applied mathematics where my interpretation is never given). No duality whatsoever. For the Schroedinger equation this implied a lot of problems nobody was able to manage leaving a large room in the literature to occupy by my technique. The same is true for the Einstein equations and quantum field theory and I have never seen these solutions to appear in literature before. Indeed, I have got a lot of papers published in refereed journals for this reason.

So, even if you can recover some known techniques obtaining the solution in particular cases, there is yet a logical gap to bridge and this is what I have done.

Cheers,

Marco

]]>Look, I am not trying to criticize your work in anyway. I just want to point out that the method is essentially boundary layer approximation, not something entirely new that has been overlooked by all mathematicians in history, as your post suggests.

]]>