<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear Oliver, Colleagues,</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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:<br>
</p>
<p><img src="cid:part1.RpsdHS62.NxAUGzs0@gmail.com" alt=""
width="312" height="39"></p>
<p>Hence not to exceed electron's mass with its electric field
alone, we need to deform electric field in fm-scale.</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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):<br>
</p>
<p><img src="cid:part2.607DazLj.URZiXGbv@gmail.com" alt=""></p>
<p>> 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".</p>
<p>"The forces" are topology - observed e.g. for quantization of
magnetic filed:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscopic_quantum_phenomena">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscopic_quantum_phenomena</a> ... or
in mentioned liquid crystals - for which topological charges they
observe long-range interactions.</p>
<p>This kind of soliton models are entering mainstream e.g. for
nuclei models:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.232002">https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.232002</a></p>
<p>> 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".</p>
<p>Massive particles cannot travel at the speed of light - again
requiring infinite energy.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Best wishes,</p>
<p>Jarek</p>
<p>ps. Just finished and submitted Mathematica demonstration
visualizing topological defects of biaxial nematic resembling 3
leptons - attached.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">W dniu 19.10.2021 o 13:45, oliver consa
pisze:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFu_9GVk+89-ak-jpPzW8n+p0nS=ONjmwpYFY3eJGnVgOqiW3g@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Colleages:
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Summing up my arguments to avoid misinterpretations:<br>
<br>
- 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.<br>
<br>
- 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. <br>
<br>
- 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.<br>
<br>
- 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.<br>
<br>
- 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".<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- 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".<br>
<br>
- 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.<br>
<br>
- 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.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best Wishes,</div>
<div>Oliver Consa</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">El lun, 18 oct 2021 a las
21:54, Jarek Duda (<<a href="mailto:dudajar@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">dudajar@gmail.com</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">
<div>
<p>Dear Oliver,</p>
<p>First of all, many of these issues are resolved e.g. in
Manfried Faber model: <a
href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012022/pdf"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/361/1/012022/pdf</a></p>
<p>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:</p>
<p><img src="cid:part3.8o9u0PHN.9QFO5vpP@gmail.com" alt=""
class="" width="430" height="49"></p>
<p>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:</p>
<p><img src="cid:part4.EJE45Ppq.ENNI30PP@gmail.com" alt=""
class="" width="204" height="139"></p>
<p>For example in liquid crystals they experimentally
realize this kind of charge quantization, and long-range
e.g. Coulomb interaction for them: <a
href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16200-z"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16200-z</a></p>
<p>Experimental example of finite size effect is running
coupling - deformation of alpha in very low distances,
what is also seen in such models.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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:</p>
<p><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"><b>Dirac</b>:</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">“I must say that I </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">am very dissatisfied
with the situation because this so-called </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">’good</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">theory’</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">does</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">involve</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">neglecting</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">infinities</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">which</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">ap</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">pear</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">in</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">its</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">equations,</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">ignoring</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">them</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">in</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">an</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">arbitrary</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">way. </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">This is just not
sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">involves disregarding a
quantity when it is small – not ne</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">glecting it just because
it is infinitely great and you do not </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">want it!.”</span></p>
<p><b>Feynman</b>: <span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">“The shell game that we
play </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">is technically called
’renormalization’.</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">But no matter how </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">clever the word, it is
still what I would call a dippy process! </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">Having to resort to such
hocus-pocus has prevented us from</span><br
role="presentation">
<span style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">proving</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">that</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">the</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">theory</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">of</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">quantum</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">electrodynamics</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">is </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">mathematically</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">self-consistent.</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">It’s</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">surprising</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">that</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">the </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">theory still hasn’t been
proved self-consistent one way or the </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">other by now;</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"> </span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">I suspect that
renormalization is not mathe</span><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">matically legitimate.”</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">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.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">After postulating this
perfect point charge, you assume it being constrained
to a solenoid ... why? What is this solenoid made of?</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">It resembles me these 1D
"magnetic flux tubes/ropes" observed in Sun's corona -
also stable, with helical traveling electrons/ions ...</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">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?</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">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?</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">(Also: what are 3
leptons?)<br>
</span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Thanks for suggesting Weber's EM - I have looked at it
some time ago, will take a look again.</p>
<p>Best wishes,<br>
Jarek<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 18.10.2021 18:48, oliver consa wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Jarek
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I postulate that the <b>electron is a
point-particle </b>("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.")</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On the other hand, point-particles have their own
problems. Mainly infinit-mass-density and
infinit-charge-density. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.".</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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 (<a
href="http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/</a>
or <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.10082.pdf"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.10082.pdf</a>).
Weber's Electrodynamics have their own problems but
it shows the way in which an improved version of
Maxwell's laws should be sought.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes</div>
<div>Oliver Consa</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">El sáb, 16 oct 2021
a las 20:25, Jarek Duda (<<a
href="mailto:dudajar@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">dudajar@gmail.com</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">
<div>
<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="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
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="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
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="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">The main initial
remarks:</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
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="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
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="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">- there is very
strong experimental confidence that electron
is nearly point-like (some gathered: <a
href="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/397022/experimental-boundaries-for-size-of-electron"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">Best wishes,</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:16.6043px;font-family:sans-serif"
role="presentation" dir="ltr">Jarek</span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>W dniu 16.10.2021 o 19:40, oliver consa
pisze:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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"
target="_blank" 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"
target="_blank" 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></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:dudajar@gmail.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">dudajar@gmail.com</a>
<a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/dudajar%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"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 cols="72">--
dr Jarosław Duda
Institute of Computer Science and Computer Mathematics,
Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland
<a href="http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/</a></pre>
</div>
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed
to the Google Groups "Models of particles" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
emails from it, send an email to <a
href="mailto:models-of-particles+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">models-of-particles+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion on the web visit <a
href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/models-of-particles/c4c25e4b-66c5-4da5-a84f-1e4127eaa1c9%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/models-of-particles/c4c25e4b-66c5-4da5-a84f-1e4127eaa1c9%40gmail.com</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a
href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre cols="72">--
dr Jarosław Duda
Institute of Computer Science and Computer Mathematics,
Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland
<a href="http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/</a></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</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>