[General] HA: Arxiv paper: Something is wrong in the state of QED
Jarek Duda
dudajar at gmail.com
Sun Oct 17 11:47:14 PDT 2021
Dear Chandra,
We have more active models-of-particles mailing list with physicists
working on particle models (e.g. as solitons, of photon) - I can add if
somebody is interested.
Also we have online seminar, speakers are welcomed:
http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/QMFNoT
Best,
Jarek
On 17.10.2021 17:40, Roychoudhuri, Chandrasekhar wrote:
>
> Thank you very much, Consa, for your great papers, along with
> historical backgrounds, and the follow-on discussions by Burinskii,
> Duda, etc.
>
> Keep up the good work!
>
> Chandra.
>
> (Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri)
>
> *From:*General
> <general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>*On
> Behalf Of *Jarek Duda
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 16, 2021 2:26 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org;
> models-of-particles at googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [General] HA: Arxiv paper: Something is wrong in the
> state of QED
>
> *Message sent from a system outside of UConn.*
>
> 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
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fphysics.stackexchange.com%2Fquestions%2F397022%2Fexperimental-boundaries-for-size-of-electron&data=04%7C01%7C%7C43d6077183504718bf5908d990d25a27%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637700055412694418%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2BdBzI%2BoTka7xONqANaRq7jdwQDpEa8q3BMFIWfP9EOM%3D&reserved=0>
> ) - 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
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ptep-online.com%2F2018%2FPP-53-06.PDF&data=04%7C01%7C%7C43d6077183504718bf5908d990d25a27%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637700055412704413%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Y1sCchbpDszLkBcRHpank8Od7CKptlezXLbhkT8ehtQ%3D&reserved=0>),
> 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
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2110.02078&data=04%7C01%7C%7C43d6077183504718bf5908d990d25a27%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637700055412714407%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=fItRU7WxXqRJ%2FPBs%2FAd7f2Nefwn7g1Gd48f9n0xyjf4%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 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
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.natureoflightandparticles.org%2Foptions.cgi%2Fgeneral-natureoflightandparticles.org%2Foliver.consa%2540gmail.com%3Funsub%3D1%26unsubconfirm%3D1&data=04%7C01%7C%7C43d6077183504718bf5908d990d25a27%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637700055412714407%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=k6fMTvUsakSHxqV80H8XtVLgd8wfWoUw1bESHIj9nb4%3D&reserved=0>">
> 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" <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.natureoflightandparticles.org%2Foptions.cgi%2Fgeneral-natureoflightandparticles.org%2Fdudajar%2540gmail.com%3Funsub%3D1%26unsubconfirm%3D1&data=04%7C01%7C%7C43d6077183504718bf5908d990d25a27%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637700055412724398%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=4Nx7BRrGwgC0ktc4XfQT8roe3q%2BR8C1XwwUzmMQAWiw%3D&reserved=0>>
>
> 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/ <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fth.if.uj.edu.pl%2F~dudaj%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C43d6077183504718bf5908d990d25a27%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637700055412724398%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=19ldHiE7hosaOX4yflEmogZn%2Ff%2BwNCJe0p2KNvpx4XA%3D&reserved=0>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211017/797862d2/attachment.html>
More information about the General
mailing list