<div dir="ltr"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Dear colleagues:</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><a href="https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=118760" target="_blank" style="text-decoration-line:none"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;text-decoration-line:underline;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">First Results from Fermilab's Muon g-2 Experiment show strong evidence that our best theoretical model of the subatomic world is incomplete.</span></a></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">This evident discrepancy of the experimental data with respect to the theoretical data should make us doubt about the validity of Quantum electrodynamics (QED). However, it seems that no one is willing to question the validity of the QED and the scientific community prefers to propose new hypotheses to solve the discrepancy (new elementary particles, new fundamental forces, etc ...).</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">A year ago, we already anticipated this situation and published this paper:</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><a href="https://vixra.org/abs/2002.0011" target="_blank" style="text-decoration-line:none"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;text-decoration-line:underline;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Something is Rotten in the State of QED</span></a></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-style:italic;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">"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 QED history reveals that this value was obtained using illegitimate mathematical traps, manipulations and tricks. These traps included the fraud of Kroll & Karplus, who acknowledged that they lied in their presentation of the most relevant calculation in QED history. As we will demonstrate in this paper, the Kroll & Karplus scandal was not a unique event. Instead, the scandal represented the fraudulent manner in which physics has been conducted from the creation of QED through today." (12 pag)</span></p><br><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">The paper is fun to read and is already in the </span><a href="https://www.vixrapedia.org/wiki/Vixra_Top_500" target="_blank" style="text-decoration-line:none"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;text-decoration-line:underline;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Vixra Top 500</span></a><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">. But if you think that vixra is an unreliable source and the tone of the paper is too rude for your taste, you can also read a more objective and polite version published in ARXIV: </span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">"</span><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.10345" target="_blank" style="text-decoration-line:none"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;text-decoration-line:underline;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">The Unpublished Feynman Diagram IIc</span></a><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">"</span></p><br><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Best Regards,</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Oliver Consa</span></p></div>