[General] muon g-2 experiment results

[Richard Gauthier]

Hello Chandra,
   Congratulations on your Cosmic Ether article. Your proposal of an
experimental test for the Cosmic Ether, going beyond the MMX, deserves to
be pursued. Are there any present experimental groups that could take on
this project?
    with best wishes,
            Richard

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 7:14 PM Roychoudhuri, Chandra <
chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:

> Dear Oliver:
>
> Many thanks, for your article giving the historical origin of the
> creeping-in deceptive culture within mathematical physics, QED being an
> example.
>
>
>
> I have attached one of my recent publication. In this paper, have
> preserved my causal brain and honest opinions. Yes, sometimes I have “gone
> out on a limb”; but still I have maintained causality!
>
>
>
> If you have any comments, feel free to respond.
>
>
>
> Chandra.
>
>
>
> *From:* General <general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=
> uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> *On Behalf Of *oliver consa
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 28, 2021 3:40 AM
> *To:* oliver consa <oliver.consa at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* [General] muon g-2 experiment results
>
>
>
> *Message sent from a system outside of UConn.*
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues:
>
>
>
> First Results from Fermilab's Muon g-2 Experiment show strong evidence
> that our best theoretical model of the subatomic world is incomplete.
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bnl.gov%2Fnewsroom%2Fnews.php%3Fa%3D118760&data=04%7C01%7C%7C62b7929515fb421df1ea08d90ab7e234%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637552607179281211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=tOnb%2FqMycA%2B7%2B2jVXjK9s3reYiVO2PBE8euvYY35dKY%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> This evident discrepancy of the experimental data with respect to the
> theoretical data should make us doubt about the validity of Quantum
> electrodynamics (QED). However, it seems that no one is willing to question
> the validity of the QED and the scientific community prefers to propose new
> hypotheses to solve the discrepancy (new elementary particles, new
> fundamental forces, etc ...).
>
>
>
> A year ago, we already anticipated this situation and published this paper:
>
>
>
> *Something is Rotten in the State of QED*
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvixra.org%2Fabs%2F2002.0011&data=04%7C01%7C%7C62b7929515fb421df1ea08d90ab7e234%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637552607179281211%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=rZAY32vp95I9HbWCLtgnvrQFvAcfwzp7cqHyurmCNww%3D&reserved=0>
>
> *"Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in
> the history of science. However, this precision is based on a single
> experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron
> (g-factor). An examination of QED history reveals that this value was
> obtained using illegitimate mathematical traps, manipulations and tricks.
> These traps included the fraud of Kroll & Karplus, who acknowledged that
> they lied in their presentation of the most relevant calculation in QED
> history. As we will demonstrate in this paper, the Kroll & Karplus scandal
> was not a unique event. Instead, the scandal represented the fraudulent
> manner in which physics has been conducted from the creation of QED through
> today." (12 pag)*
>
>
>
> The paper is fun to read and is already in the Vixra Top 500
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vixrapedia.org%2Fwiki%2FVixra_Top_500&data=04%7C01%7C%7C62b7929515fb421df1ea08d90ab7e234%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637552607179291206%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=pdi7UsGEmYQu1ft6auCM9BTSwIzbJjizD0Ce%2FrTKBHY%3D&reserved=0>.
> But if you think that vixra is an unreliable source and the tone of the
> paper is too rude for your taste, you can also read a more objective and
> polite version published in ARXIV: *"**The Unpublished Feynman Diagram
> IIc*
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2010.10345&data=04%7C01%7C%7C62b7929515fb421df1ea08d90ab7e234%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637552607179291206%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=XGBzf5sz5hvZXXByENYC347ZopQ7OgkF4%2FxgnwqV14k%3D&reserved=0>
> *"*
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Oliver Consa
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20210429/802abaa8/attachment.html>