[General] HA: Arxiv paper: Something is wrong in the state of QED

[oliver consa]

Dear Alexander,

Thank you very much for your interest in this paper.

In my paper "Helical Solenoid Model of the Electron" (
http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-06.PDF),  I proposed an electron
model in which the g-factor appeared as a direct consequence  from its
geometry. As a result I got a g-factor value of g = sqrt (1+ alpha / pi) =
1.0011607. This result is consistent with the Schwinger factor, and it
offers a value much closer to the experimental value.

One criticism I received, is that it was invalid because the QED predicted
a much more accurate result. From there I tried to understand how the
calculation was carried out in the QED to transfer the ideas to my model.
But to my surprise I found out that all the QED calculations are bullshit.
I kept investigating and everything I found continued to confirm my
suspicions. In the end I was encouraged to publish this article.

My conclusion is that the quantization of the electromagnetic field is an
incorrect hypothesis that only leads to infinite results.

Best wishes,
Oliver Consa

El vie, 15 oct 2021 a las 9:55, Burinskii A.Ya. (<bur at ibrae.ac.ru>)
escribió:

> Dear Oliver,
>
> Thank you very much for new version of your article.
> It is very interesting, and I expect to cite it in my further publication.
> I am working now for a stringy version of the Dirac electron as a
> Kerr-Newman black hole.
> What is your opinion about the point that anomalous magnetic momentum
> is result of interaction of the electron with external  em field, and thus,
> it is not proper electron's magnetic momentum.
>
> Best regards, Alexander
>
> ________________________________
> От: oliver consa [oliver.consa at gmail.com]
> Отправлено: 10 октября 2021 г. 13:06
> Кому: oliver consa
> Тема: [General] Arxiv paper: Something is wrong in the state of QED
>
>
> Dear colleague,
>
>
> I am sending you this paper because I am convinced will be of interest to
> you:
>
>
> Something is wrong in the state of QED
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.02078
>
>
> “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 the history of QED reveals that this value
> was obtained in a very suspicious way. These suspicions include the case of
> Karplus & Kroll, who admitted to having lied in their presentation of the
> most relevant calculation in the history of QED. As we will demonstrate in
> this paper, the Karplus & Kroll affair was not an isolated case, but one in
> a long series of errors, suspicious coincidences, mathematical
> inconsistencies and renormalized infinities swept under the rug.”
>
>
>
> This paper raises important questions about the validity and legitimacy of
> the QED. I believe that it is a topic that deserves a greater diffusion and
> a public debate.
>
>
> It is an improved and corrected version of a popular previous paper
> published by me on Vixra. The information has been expanded and corrected,
> much more respectful language has been used, and most subjective
> interpretations of the facts have been eliminated.
>
>
> I hope you enjoy it
>
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Oliver Consa
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at oliver.consa at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/oliver.consa%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/20211016/62219117/attachment.html>