I flagged this. It's a crank paper.
Something is wrong in the state of QED - history of physics
11–20 of 22 posts
Re: Something is wrong in the state of QED - history of physics
#12This paper came up previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31217791 I stand by my comment from before: The person who wrote that paper doesn't understand the basics of the field that he's talking about. For example (quote from the other thread): "Consa gives an analogy wherein Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan has claimed that the sum of all positive integers is not infinite, but is instead -1/12. It’…
yes, I agree there paper is nonsense. the author sends obsessed with the fact sooner people didn't shows their work, meaning everything collapses -- but people since then have got the same result but different calculations. everyone in the field knows QED is full of weird Martha's, and isn't the " answer to everything", but no one has a better answer, and it does produce results which line up with reality.
I know nothing about the topic, but respectfully, for me it seems you make two incompatible statements in this answer;
yes, I agree there paper is nonsense.
versus
everyone in the field knows QED is full of weird Martha's, and isn't the " answer to everything", but no one has a better answer
Re: Something is wrong in the state of QED - history of physics
#13I flagged this. It's a crank paper.
Please could you provide some explanations why it is a crank paper?
Re: Something is wrong in the state of QED - history of physics
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, I agree there paper is nonsense. the author sends obsessed with the fact sooner people didn't shows their work, meaning everything collapses -- but people since then have got the same result but different calculations. everyone in the field knows QED is full of weird Martha's, and isn't the " answer to everything", but no one has a better answer, and it does produce results which line up with reality.
I know nothing about the topic, but respectfully, for me it seems you make two incompatible statements in this answer; yes, I agree there paper is nonsense. versus everyone in the field knows QED is full of weird Martha's, and isn't the " answer to everything", but no one has a better answer
As someone who’s worked for the CMS experiment of LHC, I can assure you QED is fucking well tested in reality and isn’t “based on a single experimental value”, so the paper is indeed nonsense.
It isn’t the answer to everything because the electromagnetic force isn’t the only fundamental interaction and we don’t have a theory of everything. But QED explains one of the fundamental interactions far better than the paper tries to paint it. See The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov.
Re: Something is wrong in the state of QED - history of physics
#15I flagged this. It's a crank paper.
Please could you provide some explanations why it is a crank paper?
Mainstream censors non-mainstream, hence for half a century we are staying in place e.g. quantum gravity, there are appearing new problems ...
https://phys.org/news/2022-05-standard-particle-physics-brok...
The paper claims there are problems already with g-factor, could anybody explain why its objections are not valid?
Re: Something is wrong in the state of QED - history of physics
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know nothing about the topic, but respectfully, for me it seems you make two incompatible statements in this answer; yes, I agree there paper is nonsense. versus everyone in the field knows QED is full of weird Martha's, and isn't the " answer to everything", but no one has a better answer
As someone who’s worked for the CMS experiment of LHC, I can assure you QED is fucking well tested in reality and isn’t “based on a single experimental value”, so the paper is indeed nonsense. It isn’t the answer to everything because the electromagnetic force isn’t the only fundamental interaction and we don’t have a theory of everything. But QED explains one of the fundamental interactions far better than the paper…
Thanks for your answer.
I think the linked article agrees with you that QED is well tested.
Their point (IMO) is that there is one free parameter in QED that was not highlighted as such. There is nothing wrong in free parameters, we know very little of the universe. As far I know there are free parameters in the standard model, but it is clearly stated as such so there is no problem.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/172846/free-para...
Re: Something is wrong in the state of QED - history of physics
#17I flagged this. It's a crank paper.
Please could you provide some explanations why it is a crank paper?
The argument is based on theory of historical fraud that is somehow become a mainstream and goes unnoticed. g-factor has been measured again and again. The problems with renormalization have been known. Initial theories have been refined and reformulated to be better, criticizing outdated formulations does not change physics.
It's a conspiracy theory with sparkle of equations.
Re: Something is wrong in the state of QED - history of physics
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please could you provide some explanations why it is a crank paper?
Mainstream censors non-mainstream, hence for half a century we are staying in place e.g. quantum gravity, there are appearing new problems ... https://phys.org/news/2022-05-standard-particle-physics-brok... The paper claims there are problems already with g-factor, could anybody explain why its objections are not valid?
Crank science is easy to separate from non-mainstream approaches. Crank science is "everybody is selling nobody is buying" business. There are no physicists inside *or* outside mainstream who buy Consa's crank theories.
(I explained why the narrative is not valid in another comment).
Re: Something is wrong in the state of QED - history of physics
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know nothing about the topic, but respectfully, for me it seems you make two incompatible statements in this answer; yes, I agree there paper is nonsense. versus everyone in the field knows QED is full of weird Martha's, and isn't the " answer to everything", but no one has a better answer
As someone who’s worked for the CMS experiment of LHC, I can assure you QED is fucking well tested in reality and isn’t “based on a single experimental value”, so the paper is indeed nonsense. It isn’t the answer to everything because the electromagnetic force isn’t the only fundamental interaction and we don’t have a theory of everything. But QED explains one of the fundamental interactions far better than the paper…
Thanks, this is the answer I would have written, and gives some more useful details (rather than my initial irritation).
Re: Something is wrong in the state of QED - history of physics
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mainstream censors non-mainstream, hence for half a century we are staying in place e.g. quantum gravity, there are appearing new problems ... https://phys.org/news/2022-05-standard-particle-physics-brok... The paper claims there are problems already with g-factor, could anybody explain why its objections are not valid?
Crank science is easy to separate from non-mainstream approaches. Crank science is "everybody is selling nobody is buying" business. There are no physicists inside *or* outside mainstream who buy Consa's crank theories. (I explained why the narrative is not valid in another comment).
One can get grants in physics nearly only if being mainstream ...
Consa brings concrete arguments regarding g-factor, I still haven't seen any concrete explanation, only saying that it is fringe science because of criticism of mainstream ... but he quotes mainstream papers.