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

Tue Oct 19 09:13:39 PDT 2021

Dear Prof. Bopp,

If I may, the QFT infinities can also be cured by observing that in physical reality, localized elementary particles are not idealized mathematical points without spatial dimensions, just like the Earth and Moon are not idealized mathematical points even if we treat them as such in the equations used to calculate their orbits.

No really new theory is required to reconcile physical reality with our idealized mathematical representations, only becoming aware of the electromagnetic nature of these elementary particles.

Such a tentative analysis is available in this Internet resource:

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/2460

Best Regards, André

--
André Michaud
"GSJournal admin" <ntham at gsjournal.net>
http://www.gsjournal.net/
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2740-5684
http://www.srpinc.org/

Actif Tue, 19 Oct 2021 15:00:31 +0200, "Prof. Fritz W. Bopp" <bopp at physik.uni-siegen.de> écrit :

Dear Oliver,

Some of your introductory comments are not precise.

The QFT infinities are cured by regularization.
Renormalization makes, if applicable, regularized
theories managaable.

It means that at the regularization scale, a new
theory is needed. To go in the soliton direction is possible
but might be too much oriented on macroscopic concepts which
somehow dominate our intuition. The pleasant feature
of renormalizable theories is such regularization details
do not affect current scales calculations.

Best Fritz

_____________________________________signature file:__
Prof. Dr. Fritz W. Bopp / Tel.: (0(049) 271) 740-3736
Department Physik / Universitaet Siegen / 57068 Siegen
EM: bopp at physik.uni-siegen.de EM: boppfw at yahoo.de

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021, oliver consa wrote:

> 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 () 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 ’good theory’ does involve neglecting infinities
>> which appear in its equations, ignoring them in an arbitrary way. 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
>> proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically
>> self-consistent. It’s surprising that the 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 ()
>> 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. ()
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at dudajar at gmail.com
>>> >
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> dr Jarosław Duda
>>> Institute of Computer Science and Computer Mathematics,
>>> Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Polandhttp://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
>>>
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>> --
>> dr Jarosław Duda
>> Institute of Computer Science and Computer Mathematics,
>> Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Polandhttp://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/CAFu_9GVk%2B89-ak-jpPzW8n%2Bp0nS%3DONjmwpYFY3eJGnVgOqiW3g%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at srp2 at srpinc.org

Click here to unsubscribe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20211019/f3f553d2/attachment.html>