[General] HA: Arxiv paper: Something is wrong in the state of QED
Jarek Duda
dudajar at gmail.com
Tue Oct 19 07:03:34 PDT 2021
Dear Oliver, Colleagues,
The infinity problem is not just of value, but of total energy: its
density for electric field (rho~|E|^2) around perfect points charge
(E~1/r^2) integrates to infinite energy due to singularity in zero.
In contrast, annihilating electron with positron, we get 2x511keV EM
radiation - energy stored in electric field of electron cannot exceed
511keVs, we get if integrating energy density from ~1.4fm:
Hence not to exceed electron's mass with its electric field alone, we
need to deform electric field in fm-scale.
Renormalization sweeps this infinity under the rug. Seeing QFT as
Feynman ensemble of fields, each field has this infinity - to repair the
problem, we need to regularize fields in such ensemble.
Here are Faber's regularized energy densities of electron - the red line
is from electric field, normally it would go to infinity in zero -
integrating to infinity. Instead, it goes to zero thanks to mentioned
activation of Higgs-like potential (blue, accompanied with green):
> An alternative hypothesis to this problem is to postulate that
elementary particles are extended-particles. But this involves other
problems, mainly it is necessary to explain what force holds the parts
together and why the charge cannot be divided into fractions of "e".
"The forces" are topology - observed e.g. for quantization of magnetic
filed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscopic_quantum_phenomena ...
or in mentioned liquid crystals - for which topological charges they
observe long-range interactions.
This kind of soliton models are entering mainstream e.g. for nuclei
models: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.232002
> To explain other effects such as the compton effect, the spin, the
magnetic moment of the electron or the zitterwebegung, my hypothesis is
that the electron is a point particle of charge "e" that always moves at
the speed of light following a helical path. My hypothesis is that the
force that makes the particle rotate in a helical movement is of
magnetic origin and forces the particle to move in such a way that
always produce a quantizied magnetic flux of value "h/e".
Massive particles cannot travel at the speed of light - again requiring
infinite energy.
The mechanism used for quantization of magnetic field can be also used
for quantization of electric charge - see e.g. liquid crystals or
Faber's model.
Best wishes,
Jarek
ps. Just finished and submitted Mathematica demonstration visualizing
topological defects of biaxial nematic resembling 3 leptons - attached.
W dniu 19.10.2021 o 13:45, oliver consa pisze:
> Dear Colleages:
>
> Summing up my arguments to avoid misinterpretations:
>
> - Any calculation with QFT gives infinite results. This is something
> that has been known since the 1930s. The only way to obtain finite
> results is by cheating mathematics (Renormalization). This is totally
> illegitimate as Dirac denounced on multiple occasions.
>
> - QED not only obtains finite results but it obtains some incredibly
> precise ones. All its prestige is due to its precision of 12 decimal
> places. My paper shows that this precision is a FRAUD. The
> calculations are manipulated, secret and cannot be reproduced
> independently. There is nothing to be saved o fixed in the QED. QED
> is totally worthless.
>
> - According to Maxwell's laws, an electrically charged-point-particle
> has an infinite charge density and therefore an infinite energy. These
> infinities are what the QED and QFT tried to fix with Renormalization.
> But in an illegitimate and fraudulent way.
>
> - My hypothesis is that elementary particles are point-particles and
> that the infinite energy derived from the infinite charge density is
> not real, but a deficiency of Maxwell's equations. Therefore, it is
> necessary to improve Maxwell's equations taking into account the
> existence of indivisible point charges of charge "e". With Weber's
> electrodynamics this is possible. Weber's equations are not perfect
> either, but they point the way that should be followed to improve
> Maxwell's laws.
>
> - An alternative hypothesis to this problem is to postulate that
> elementary particles are extended-particles. But this involves other
> problems, mainly it is necessary to explain what force holds the parts
> together and why the charge cannot be divided into fractions of "e".
>
> - To explain other effects such as the compton effect, the spin, the
> magnetic moment of the electron or the zitterwebegung, my hypothesis
> is that the electron is a point particle of charge "e" that always
> moves at the speed of light following a helical path. My hypothesis is
> that the force that makes the particle rotate in a helical movement is
> of magnetic origin and forces the particle to move in such a way that
> always produce a quantizied magnetic flux of value "h/e".
>
> - The "Vortex electron" model (or "ring electron" or "zitter electron"
> or "helical electron") is not an original idea of mine but is shared
> by several dozen researchers before me like Huang, Hestenes, Rivas,
> Barut, Parson, Allen, Lucas, Gauthier, Vassallo, Burinskii, etc ...
> with many similutes and many differences between each model.
>
> - The great contribution of my electron model ("Helical Solenoid") is
> that the very geometry of the electron trajectory implies a "g-factor"
> value that affects the magnetic moment of the electron. I have been
> able to calculate as g = sqrt (1+ alpha / pi) = 1.0011607. This
> calculation has been highly appreciated by David Hestenes, who has
> incorporated it into his Zitter Electron model.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Oliver Consa
>
>
> El lun, 18 oct 2021 a las 21:54, Jarek Duda (<dudajar at gmail.com>)
> escribió:
>
> 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/
>
--
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/20211019/599337d4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ISRGPe09eSU1bvzU.png
Type: image/png
Size: 16353 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20211019/599337d4/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tuVqJ0FO8hyPwa4Q.png
Type: image/png
Size: 62874 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20211019/599337d4/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- 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/20211019/599337d4/attachment-0002.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/20211019/599337d4/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: liquid crystal biaxial nematic topologial charges.nb
Type: application/vnd.wolfram.nb
Size: 16224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20211019/599337d4/attachment.bin>
More information about the General
mailing list