[General] HA: Arxiv paper: Something is wrong in the state of QED
Jarek Duda
dudajar at gmail.com
Mon Oct 18 12:54:46 PDT 2021
Dear Oliver,
First of all, many of these issues are resolved e.g. in Manfried Faber
model: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012022/pdf
1) Charge quantization means that Gauss law can only return integer
charge - what can be realized by making Gauss law calculate topological
charge: by interpreting field curvature as electric field:
2) The problem of infinite energy of electric field of point charge can
be resolved by using Higgs-like potential, allowing for deformation to
finite energy:
For example in liquid crystals they experimentally realize this kind of
charge quantization, and long-range e.g. Coulomb interaction for them:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16200-z
Experimental example of finite size effect is running coupling -
deformation of alpha in very low distances, what is also seen in such
models.
Your assumption of perfect point charge means that you have this
infinite energy of electric field problem - you would like to solve with
renomalization ... so let me remind some quotes from your article:
*Dirac*:“I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation
because this so-called
’goodtheory’doesinvolveneglectinginfinitieswhichappearinitsequations,ignoringtheminanarbitraryway.
This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves
disregarding a quantity when it is small – not neglecting it just
because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!.”
*Feynman*: “The shell game that we play is technically called
’renormalization’.But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I
would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has
prevented us from
provingthatthetheoryofquantumelectrodynamicsis
mathematicallyself-consistent.It’ssurprisingthatthe theory still hasn’t
been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now;I suspect that
renormalization is not mathematically legitimate.”
QFT is constructed by Feynman ensemble of fields - with your perfect
point charges, each field of such ensemble has infinite energy ... so
has their ensemble - this infinity has to be regularized before
quanitzation, and it is not a problem to do it.
After postulating this perfect point charge, you assume it being
constrained to a solenoid ... why? What is this solenoid made of?
It resembles me these 1D "magnetic flux tubes/ropes" observed in Sun's
corona - also stable, with helical traveling electrons/ions ...
But such electron would have various masses - not only observed 511keV,
but would be dependent on length of such solenoid - why should it be
fixed in your view?
Also if you already have this point charge, why couldn't it just freely
travel - be seen in experiments as additional charged free particle (not
in solenoid) lighter than electron?
(Also: what are 3 leptons?)
Thanks for suggesting Weber's EM - I have looked at it some time ago,
will take a look again.
Best wishes,
Jarek
On 18.10.2021 18:48, oliver consa wrote:
> Dear Jarek
>
> I postulate that the *electron is a point-particle *("in the case of
> the Helical Electron Model, the geometric static ring is replaced by a
> dynamic point-like electron. In this dynamic model, the electron’s
> ring has no substance or physical properties. It need not physically
> exist. It is simply the path of the CC around the CM.")
>
> A point-particle cannot be divided, then it is natural for a
> point-particle to be a quantum of charge. If you postulate an
> extended-particle, then you have to responde two important questions:
> (1) Why can't the particle divide? And what force holds the different
> parts of the extende-particle together? poincare stress forces? These
> questions have a obvious answer in the case of point-particles, but
> they have a very difficult explanation in the case of extended-particles.
>
> On the other hand, point-particles have their own problems. Mainly
> infinit-mass-density and infinit-charge-density.
>
> Infinit-mass-density is not a problem in a dynamic-point-particle
> model because "The CC has no mass, so it can have an infinitesimal
> size without collapsing into a black hole, and it can move at the
> speed of light without violating the theory of relativity. The
> electron’s mass is not a single point. Instead, it is distributed
> throughout the electromagnetic field. The electron’s mass corresponds
> to the sum of the electron’s kinetic and potential energy. By
> symmetry, the CM corresponds to the center of the electron’s ring.".
>
> The infinit-charge-density is a more complex problem, because it imply
> an infinit electromagnetic energy at that point. This is just the
> problem with infinits that QED try to resolve using illegitime
> renormalizacion.
>
> My hypothesis is that there is a weak in the Maxwell's laws. Maxwell
> discovered its laws before he knew that electric charge was quantized.
> There is an alternative to Maxwell's laws proposed by Weber that allow
> electromagnetic point-particles without singularities
> (http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/ or
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.10082.pdf). Weber's Electrodynamics have
> their own problems but it shows the way in which an improved version
> of Maxwell's laws should be sought.
>
> Best wishes
> Oliver Consa
>
>
>
>
> El sáb, 16 oct 2021 a las 20:25, Jarek Duda (<dudajar at gmail.com>)
> escribió:
>
> 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" <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/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Models of particles" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to models-of-particles+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/models-of-particles/c4c25e4b-66c5-4da5-a84f-1e4127eaa1c9%40gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/models-of-particles/c4c25e4b-66c5-4da5-a84f-1e4127eaa1c9%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
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/20211018/36a744d6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: XhmGFJwNV6WxSnAU.png
Type: image/png
Size: 194008 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20211018/36a744d6/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: YQwYO61fbD6fJ3vr.png
Type: image/png
Size: 207443 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20211018/36a744d6/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the General
mailing list