<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear Oliver,</p>
<p>Thank you for the interesting article, great motivation - I
didn't know about it. <br>
</p>
<p>I see you emphasize <span style="left: 517.752px; top: 1005px;
font-size: 16.6043px; font-family: sans-serif; transform:
scaleX(0.937928);" role="presentation" dir="ltr">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.</span></p>
<p><span style="left: 517.752px; top: 1005px; font-size: 16.6043px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.937928);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="left: 517.752px; top: 1005px; font-size: 16.6043px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.937928);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">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.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="left: 517.752px; top: 1005px; font-size: 16.6043px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.937928);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">The main initial remarks:</span></p>
<p><span style="left: 517.752px; top: 1005px; font-size: 16.6043px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.937928);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">- 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),</span></p>
<p><span style="left: 517.752px; top: 1005px; font-size: 16.6043px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.937928);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">- the most basic interaction for
electron is Coulomb - how would you like to get it? Why charge
is quantized - e.g. no half-electron?</span></p>
<p><span style="left: 517.752px; top: 1005px; font-size: 16.6043px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.937928);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">- there is very strong
experimental confidence that electron is nearly point-like (some
gathered:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/397022/experimental-boundaries-for-size-of-electron">https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/397022/experimental-boundaries-for-size-of-electron</a>
) - yours is much more complex, what might be crucial objection.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="left: 517.752px; top: 1005px; font-size: 16.6043px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.937928);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">Best wishes,</span></p>
<p><span style="left: 517.752px; top: 1005px; font-size: 16.6043px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.937928);"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">Jarek</span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">W dniu 16.10.2021 o 19:40, oliver consa
pisze:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFu_9GUBsMqwxYFcopLRZMk7tU4VMwzgG6BnrNxixOvo15f88g@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear Alexander,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you very much for your interest in this paper. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
In my paper "Helical Solenoid Model of the Electron" (<a
href="http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-06.PDF"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-06.PDF</a>),
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.</div>
<div><br>
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. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My conclusion is that the quantization of the
electromagnetic field is an incorrect hypothesis that only
leads to infinite results.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes, </div>
<div>Oliver Consa</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">El vie, 15 oct 2021 a las
9:55, Burinskii A.Ya. (<<a href="mailto:bur@ibrae.ac.ru"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bur@ibrae.ac.ru</a>>)
escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Dear
Oliver,<br>
<br>
Thank you very much for new version of your article.<br>
It is very interesting, and I expect to cite it in my further
publication.<br>
I am working now for a stringy version of the Dirac electron
as a Kerr-Newman black hole.<br>
What is your opinion about the point that anomalous magnetic
momentum<br>
is result of interaction of the electron with external em
field, and thus,<br>
it is not proper electron's magnetic momentum.<br>
<br>
Best regards, Alexander<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
От: oliver consa [<a href="mailto:oliver.consa@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">oliver.consa@gmail.com</a>]<br>
Отправлено: 10 октября 2021 г. 13:06<br>
Кому: oliver consa<br>
Тема: [General] Arxiv paper: Something is wrong in the state
of QED<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear colleague,<br>
<br>
<br>
I am sending you this paper because I am convinced will be of
interest to you:<br>
<br>
<br>
Something is wrong in the state of QED<br>
<br>
<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.02078" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.02078</a><br>
<br>
<br>
“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.”<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
I hope you enjoy it<br>
<br>
<br>
Best Wishes,<br>
<br>
Oliver Consa<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a
href="mailto:oliver.consa@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">oliver.consa@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/oliver.consa%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/oliver.consa%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dudajar@gmail.com">dudajar@gmail.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" 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"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
dr Jarosław Duda
Institute of Computer Science and Computer Mathematics,
Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/">http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/</a></pre>
</body>
</html>