11–19 of 19 posts
I wouldn't put too much stock into this, the author is some random post-doc with a YouTube channel and the barrier to entry for arXiv is not very high. QED not not nearly as suspect as the author portrays and this should be considered against the entire field of Physics which is built on QED.
True but still seems more like something one will find ViXra.
In another discussion on HN today Feynman's little book "QED" came up. It is still a great read and I think it conveys the theory's elegance very well. So I would suggest to read it instead of this article.
Unfortunately I do not know any good books explaining renormalization to the general public. Maybe someone else has an idea?
A sad sight: so much effort and background research went into this paper, and yet so superficial is the author's understanding of QED and renormalization. In another discussion on HN today Feynman's little book "QED" came up. It is still a great read and I think it conveys the theory's elegance very well. So I would suggest to read it instead of this article. Unfortunately I do not know any good books explaining reno…
A sad sight: so much effort and background research went into this paper, and yet so superficial is the author's understanding of QED and renormalization. In another discussion on HN today Feynman's little book "QED" came up. It is still a great read and I think it conveys the theory's elegance very well. So I would suggest to read it instead of this article. Unfortunately I do not know any good books explaining reno…
"Renormalization, in this example, mathematically replaces the initially postulated mass and charge of an electron with the experimentally observed mass and charge."
That sure sounds like adding an arbitrary constant into your theory and turning the knob until the theory matches the results. The comments here suggest that's not the case, but it's easy for me to see where the skepticism comes from.
This has already been posted a few times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431033 The summary is that the author doesn't know what he's talking about.
Also, you say that his calling the Karpus and Kroll result a fraud is “libel,” but the paper references “Karplus and Kroll confessed that they had not independently reached the same result; instead, they had reached a consensus result.”
There’s even a Feynman quote saying, “It turns out that near the end of the calculation, the two groups compared notes and ironed out the differences between their calculations, so they were not really independent.”
You seem to be trying to discredit this paper. Why is that so? Trying to frame it as “libel”, in particular, is quite ridiculous in this setting and seems to betray some personal wish for the author to be punished for his audacity of criticizing physics research.
This has already been posted a few times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431033 The summary is that the author doesn't know what he's talking about.
I don’t understand how because a mathematical technique has existed since the 1800s, it makes sense to use it in a physics setting. This does not seem like an argument. Also, you say that his calling the Karpus and Kroll result a fraud is “libel,” but the paper references “Karplus and Kroll confessed that they had not independently reached the same result; instead, they had reached a consensus result.” There’s even a…
I dislike the paper because it is sensationalist and highly misleading. For example, as far as I can tell, Karplus and Kroll didn't "confess" to anything (no direct quote is provided in the paper); we just have a secondhand assertion by Feynman. Nothing they did is "fraud," as the author claims - this is false and defamatory. Further, the issue got wrapped up by Petermann in 1957; the author is just annoyed that he didn't publish full details of the calculations. The suggestion that there is somehow lingering uncertainty is just wrong.
I no particular wishes for the author, other than that he cease writing bad papers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand how because a mathematical technique has existed since the 1800s, it makes sense to use it in a physics setting. This does not seem like an argument. Also, you say that his calling the Karpus and Kroll result a fraud is “libel,” but the paper references “Karplus and Kroll confessed that they had not independently reached the same result; instead, they had reached a consensus result.” There’s even a…
If a mathematical technique helps understand and predict nature, why not use it? The quote criticizing the method misunderstands it. It's certainly not "wrong" or "absurd." I dislike the paper because it is sensationalist and highly misleading. For example, as far as I can tell, Karplus and Kroll didn't "confess" to anything (no direct quote is provided in the paper); we just have a secondhand assertion by Feynman. N…
I see no valid argument in what you're saying, sorry. I also just want to point out that you used the word "just" three times in four phrases, to minimize and psychologize the author's arguments. For me, not being able to neutrally expose someone's point of view is a sign of emotional bias.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a mathematical technique helps understand and predict nature, why not use it? The quote criticizing the method misunderstands it. It's certainly not "wrong" or "absurd." I dislike the paper because it is sensationalist and highly misleading. For example, as far as I can tell, Karplus and Kroll didn't "confess" to anything (no direct quote is provided in the paper); we just have a secondhand assertion by Feynman. N…
I don't think that's a bad paper, it was quite interesting to me. I see no valid argument in what you're saying, sorry. I also just want to point out that you used the word "just" three times in four phrases, to minimize and psychologize the author's arguments. For me, not being able to neutrally expose someone's point of view is a sign of emotional bias.