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

Sat Oct 16 11:25:32 PDT 2021

Dear Oliver,

Thank you for the interesting article, great motivation - I didn't know 
about it.

I see you emphasize Gouanère"A Search for the de Broglie Particle 
Internal Clock by Means of Electron Channeling" electron clock 
confirmation paper - I also believe is extremely important.

Regarding your electron model as toroidal, the g-factor agreement is 
indeed spectacular - I will think about it. I am just working on 
electron ansatz and it seems to require some spin precession/nutation.

The main initial remarks:

- shouldn't such solenoid have mass density per length? Electron has 
very concrete 511keV mass, couldn't yours have various? (I rather 
reserve such shape e.g. for 3 neutrinos),

- the most basic interaction for electron is Coulomb - how would you 
like to get it? Why charge is quantized - e.g. no half-electron?

- there is very strong experimental confidence that electron is nearly 
point-like (some gathered: 
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/397022/experimental-boundaries-for-size-of-electron 
) - yours is much more complex, what might be crucial objection.

Best wishes,

Jarek

W dniu 16.10.2021 o 19:40, oliver consa pisze:
> 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
>     <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/oliver.consa%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
>     Click here to unsubscribe
>     </a>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atdudajar at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/dudajar%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-- 
dr Jarosław Duda
Institute of Computer Science and Computer Mathematics,
Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland
http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20211016/2740264a/attachment.html>