Fig 5 - uploaded by Oliver Consa
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
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....
Similar publications
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 ca...
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. However, this precision is limited to a single experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (g-factor). The calculation of the electron g-factor was carried out in 1950 by Karplus and Kroll. Seven years later, Petermann detected and...
Citations
... Therefore, I find such reasoning to be absurd and not worthy of further discussion just for the sake of destructive criticism. And besides that, as far as the credibility of quantum electrodynamics is concerned, the foundations are still very embarrassingly questionable[81]. ...
Physical dimensions like "mass", "length", "charge", represented by the symbols [M ], [L], [Q], are not numbers, but used as numbers to perform dimensional analysis in particular, and to write the equations of physics in general, by the physicist. The law of excluded middle falls short of explaining the contradictory meanings of the same symbols. The statements like "m → 0", "r → 0", "q → 0", used by the physicist, are inconsistent on dimensional grounds because "m", "r", "q" represent quantities with physical dimensions of [M ], [L], [Q] respectively and "0" represents just a number-devoid of physical dimension. Consequently, due to the involvement of the statement "lim q→0 , where q is the test charge" in the definition of electric field leads to either circular reasoning or a contradiction regarding the experimental verification of the smallest charge in the Millikan-Fletcher oil drop experiment. Considering such issues as problematic, by choice, I make an inquiry regarding the basic language in terms of which physics is written, with an aim of exploring how truthfully the verbal statements can be converted to the corresponding physico-mathematical expressions, where "physico-mathematical" signifies the involvement of physical dimensions. Such investigation necessitates an explanation by demonstration of "self inquiry", "middle way", "dependent origination", "emptiness/relational existence", which are certain terms that signify the basic tenets of Buddhism. In light of such demonstration I explain my view of "definition"; the relations among quantity, physical dimension and number; meaninglessness of "zero quantity" and the associated logico-linguistic fallacy; difference between unit and unity. Considering the importance 1 of the notion of electric field in physics, I present a critical analysis of the definitions of electric field due to Maxwell and Jackson, along with the physico-mathematical conversions of the verbal statements. The analysis of Jackson's definition points towards an expression of the electric field as an infinite series due to the associated "limiting process" of the test charge. However, it brings out the necessity of a postulate regarding the existence of charges, which nevertheless follows from the definition of quantity. Consequently, I explain the notion of undecidable charges that act as the middle way to resolve the contradiction regarding the Millikan-Fletcher oil drop experiment. In passing, I provide a logico-linguistic analysis, in physico-mathematical terms, of two verbal statements of Maxwell in relation to his definition of electric field, which suggests Maxwell's conception of dependent origination of distance and charge (i.e. [L] ≡ [Q]) and that of emptiness in the context of relative vacuum (in contrast to modern absolute vacuum). This work is an appeal for the dissociation of the categorical disciplines of logic and physics and on the large, a fruitful merger of Eastern philosophy and Western science. Nevertheless, it remains open to how the reader relates to this work, which is the essence of emptiness.
... worthy of further discussion just for the sake of destructive criticism. And besides that, as far as the credibility of quantum electrodynamics is concerned, the foundations are still very embarrassingly questionable [69]. 9 Necessary premise for the definition of electric field Although I have briefly mentioned the necessary assumption to have a definition of electric field, let me now write it clearly as a postulate 38 , followed by some crucial comments. ...
Physical dimensions are {\it not numbers}, but used as {\it numbers} to perform dimensional analysis by the physicist. The law of excluded middle falls short of explaining the contradictory meanings of the same symbols. The statements like ``'', ``'', used by the physicist, are inconsistent on dimensional grounds because ``r'', ``q'' represent {\it quantities} with physical dimensions of respectively and ``0'' represents just a number devoid of physical dimension. Consequently, the involvement of the statement ``, where q is the test charge'' in the definition of electric field leads to either circular reasoning or a contradiction regarding the experimental verification of the smallest charge in the Millikan-Fletcher oil drop experiment. Considering such issues as problematic, by choice, I make an inquiry regarding the basic language in terms of which physics is written, with an aim of exploring how truthfully the verbal statements can be converted to the corresponding physico-mathematical expressions (involving physical dimensions). Necessarily I demonstrate the meaning of the terms ``self inquiry'', ``middle way'', ``dependent origination'', ``emptiness/relational existence'', which signify the basic tenets of Buddhism. In light of this, I explain my view of ``definition''; the relation among quantity, physical dimension and number; the logico-linguistic fallacy of ``zero quantity''; difference between unit and unity. I present a critical analysis of the definitions of electric field due to Maxwell and Jackson. A postulate regarding the existence of charges becomes necessary which, however, resolves the contradiction regarding the oil drop experiment. This work is an appeal for the dissociation of the categorical disciplines of logic and physics and on the large, a fruitful merger of Eastern philosophy and Western science.
Universe is actually gigant quantum computer (Seth Lloyd) made of ether – multi coloured, multilayered super conductor (Frank Wilczek). Ether constantly creates elementary particles (electron and proton), which are subjet of universe quantum computer macro instruction – Charge Neutralization Process –CNP. After matter creation (periodic table of elements), single cell organisms and life itself (rna and dna) emerged.
In this paper, we try to show where and why quantum mechanics went wrong-and why and when the job of both the academic physicist as well as the would-be student of quantum mechanics turned into calculating rather than explaining what might or might not be happening. Modern quantum physicists effectively resemble econometrists modeling input-output relations: if they are lucky, they will get some kind of mathematical description of what goes in and what goes out, but the math does not tell them how stuff actually happens. To show what an actual explanation might look like, we bring the Zitterbewegung electron model and our photon model together to provide a classical explanation of Compton scattering of photons by electrons so as to show what electron-photon interference might actually be: two electromagnetic oscillations interfering (classically) with each other. While developing the model, we also offer some reflections on the nature of the Uncertainty Principle. Finally, we also offer a brief history of the bad ideas which led to the current mess in physics.
