Thanks for your question. Of course, people like Witten or Jaffe are difficult to get in touch. They have a lot a people bothering them and I would avoid to be one of them. The only person that recognised correctness of part of my work has been Terry Tao that was really helpful in all this matter. I am grateful to him for this. Since then, I produced a lot of papers on QCD based on my work and most of them went through reputable journals. In complete respect with the rules of the community, I wait for further comments from my peers.

Cheers,

Marco

]]>Nice to hear from you again. Thanks a lot for your interest about my work. The choice of that frequency was not aimed to any experiment around. What I did is to take one of the excitation frequencies of the cavity and put it into the equation. The greater the better to see if the effect was in the realm of observability. I am convinced that a part of the effect seen at EW is due to this but the rest is possibly in need of further explanation by more mundane effects.

Marco

]]>On page 14 of your paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917v1) you consider a frequency of

ν = 210.423537 GHz

instead of the frequency tested by NASA (which was 2 GHz, or 100 times smaller). Is this a typo on the paper? or otherwise, why consider a frequency that is 100 times higher than tested?

Jose’ Rodal, Ph.D.

]]>Thanks a lot for pointing out my post about this matter. The idea is that the quantum field theory of the quartic scalar field is exactly solvable when not interacting with other fields and this yields the spectrum of the theory itself. The point is that other fields can change this spectrum, mostly for higher excited states. Anyhow, the spectrum for the Lagrangian of the Higgs field has the form being an integer, and . If you take and fix you will get , it is not difficult to verify that for you will get the right value of mass of 750 GeV. But this just applies to a self-interacting Higgs field without any other field as said.

Marco

]]>