The church of SM physics

    Quote from Toffoli

    Any comment ?


    "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. These traps included the fraud of Kroll & Karplus, who acknowledged that they lied in their presentation of the most relevant calculation in QED history. As we will demonstrate in this paper, the Kroll & Karplus scandal was not a unique event. Instead, the scandal represented the fraudulent manner in which physics has been conducted from the creation of QED through today."


    Something is Rotten in the State of QED

    That's an excellent paper. Only I'd say the situation is even worse than Oliver Consa thinks. QED was wrong from the very beginning. I've studied the history, and spent a lot of time looking into this. Here's some articles I've written on the subject:


    The old quantum theory begins
    The old quantum theory and Bohr
    A potted history of quantum mechanics
    Quantum electrodynamics in the 1920s
    Quantum electrodynamics in the 1930s
    Quantum electrodynamics
    The hole in the heart of quantum electrodynamics

    Misconceptions in particle physics

    Even physicists don’t understand quantum mechanics


    QED is badly wrong, and the Standard Model is a development of it. Only it's worse, because of the Higgs mechanism which contradicts E=mc², and because of the massive messenger particles. Have a read of Carlo Rubbia and the discovery of the W and Z by Gary Taubes, and The Higgs Fake by Alexander Unzicker. When a church needs a miracle, a church gets a miracle.

    Quote from JohnDuffield

    When a church needs a miracle,

    Cheers John

    The W and Z ,,, higgs bosons are miracles of particles


    Testified by mathematics

    I like the comment by Andy Hall on your blog


    Mathematicians should only be allowed to participate in physics under close supervision. Unfortunatley it appears they long since overran the field.


    BTW the last two links on your post are found here..

    http://physicsdetective.com/articles/

    Quote from Alan Smith

    RIP Freeman Dyson.

    One of the last interviews..
    when you are old enough there is no point to grinding axes..

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Natalie Wolchover Interviews Freeman Dyson and Karen Uhlenbeck

    Oliver Consa has written some papers on the helicoidal electron model


    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/670d/21c1c38de1ec56ed67053390436b4bd21f69.pdf


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…oid_Model_of_the_Electron


    https://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2017/03/18/consa-theory-of


    Consa write:

    "One of the most controversial interpretations of QM waspostulated by Bohr and Heisenberg. The “Copenhagen In-terpretation” described QM as a system of probabilities thatbecame definite upon the act of measurement.

    This interpretation was heavily criticized by many of the physicists whohad participated in the development of QM, most notably Albert Einstein."


    Hestenes write:

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…arks_in_Quantum_Mechanics

    "Debate on the interpretation of quantum mechanics is centered on the meaning of the wave function ψ and ψψ* as probability density for particle states (Born). Broadly

    defined, there are two major schools: The Copenhagen school (Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, . . .) holds that ψ provides a complete description of a physical state.

    Probability is regarded as frequency expressing an inherent randomness in nature. The realist school (Einstein, de Broglie, Bohm, Jaynes, . . .) holds that ψ provides an incomplete description of a physical state ––

    only a statistical ensemble of similarly prepared states. Probability expresses incomplete knowledge about the physical state.

    In physics textbooks the Copenhagen hegemony is so dominant that realist views are seldom mentioned."

    Quote from Toffoli

    Debate on the interpretation of quantum mechanics is centered on the meaning of the wave function ψ and ψψ* as probability density for particle states (Born). Broadly

    defined, there are two major schools: The Copenhagen school (Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, . . .) holds that ψ provides a complete description of a physical state.

    Probability is regarded as frequency expressing an inherent randomness in nature. The realist school (Einstein, de Broglie, Bohm, Jaynes, . . .) holds that ψ provides an incomplete description of a physical state ––

    only a statistical ensemble of similarly prepared states. Probability expresses incomplete knowledge about the physical state.

    In physics textbooks the Copenhagen hegemony is so dominant that realist views are seldom mentioned."


    Today we know that this was educated coffee gossip as both sides are somehow wrong but differently. If you believe that mathematics defines nature (what some these folks really did at that time) then you understand why such nonsensical discussion made it into our memory. The statistical wave function interpretation only works exactly for photons but not for any form of dense mass or bound electrons. But QM is exact as it holds the same information like the classic view. So its not nonsensical from a classical point of view. Of course all real quantities like magnetic moment are missing in a probability wave and must be fudged in for concrete interactions, that's why QM is really incomplete.

    Thus we know that QM is only an engineering method limited to Virial potential like structures. But QM is a good method to use where the magnetic effects are small e.g. below 0.0001eV potential and large sets of particle must be treated.


    see also :The church of SM physics

    Quote from Toffoli

    Oliver Consa has written some papers on the helicoidal electron model

    Consa may point out the speck in the eye of the Bohr -quantum atom but has a log in his own eye


    I can't really make much sense of Consa here.. especially infinitesimal point

    "On the other hand, the physical existence of the ring is not necessary.

    We can assume that the entire electron charge is concentrated in a single infinitesimal point, which we call the Center of Charge (CC),
    which rotates at the speed of light around a point in space that we call the Center of Mass (CM).

    With this model of infinitesimal electron rotation, the ring has no substance or physical properties;

    the ring is simply the path of the CC around the CM

    Quote from Toffoli

    If yes, how it compares with Consa model?

    Toffoli .. you might consider the NPP2 model..

    it takes a little bit of reading..and calculation,..I have been at it for months..

    You might compare for a start how well the Consa model .or other models..

    calculates the ionisation energy(eV) of the hydrogen electron

    "

    measured Ionization energy 13.5984344900
    final calculated value (spin/spin corrected) 13.598434489

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336107679_Nuclear_Particle_Physics_version_20_SO4_physics_Main_achievements

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…ics-Main-achievements.pdf

    Page 17

    Quote from Toffoli

    Do you have an electron model? If yes, how it compares with Consa model?


    If you like to understand the electron then read about R.Mills electron g-factor derivation that is exact for all classic contribution and only misses the tiny higher ones.


    The problem with the electron is that the current physical system of units has been defined by a combination of the two electron properties called charge and mass. In SO(4) physics we strictly distinguish charge and mass and there is no constant relation between them. This makes it difficult to find and exact deep model for the electron. We can exactly derive the electron mass from the proton mass as the change in the form factors is known. But what exactly is a charge radius for a particle that is claimed to be the charge ??????


    When and why do electrons have a mass? In dense mass they have no!! orbiting mass. Their mass is given by the field interaction only. (Sorry for Mills as he only has one model) On the other side in dense mass we call the electron charge mass. Some particles like the neutron own 2 charge masses also Deuterium others like 4-He contain only virtual charge mass and two potential forming EM-mass waves.


    Thus the most recent modeling clearly shows the mass of the charge only pops up if the electron moves independent of dense mass.


    The last answer is: SO(4) modeling has 6 degrees of freedom and the electron uses 4 so we have at least two possible models that are equivalent and if you learn to live with such view than we can say we have a model of the electron. It just depends on what you want to model.


    But using classic relativity to model charge is a beginners error...

    Quote from RobertBryant

    Consa may point out the speck in the eye of the Bohr -quantum atom but has a log in his own eye

    I can't really make much sense of Consa here.. especially infinitesimal point

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    The problem with the electron is that the current physical system of units has been defined by a combination of the two electron properties called charge and mass. In SO(4) physics we strictly distinguish charge and mass and there is no constant relation between them.


    RobertBryant , Wyttenbach

    Seems that there are other helicoidal (or toroidal) electron models where the charge size is not an infinitesimal point and where there is a "precise constant relation" between mass and charge i.e. m/e = A/c, where A is the vector potential "associated" with the current loop "generated by the rotating charge". Apparently, one of these models has a loose connection with Klein-Gordon, Proca, Dirac and Aharonov-Bohm equations, but utilizes an uncommon mathematical notation.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroidal_ring_model

    https://sureshemre.wordpress.com/2016/11/15/a-guide-to-richard-gauthiers-electron-models/

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336797048_Zitterbewegung_structure_in_electrons_and_photons

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336319923_Electron_Structure_Ultra-Dense_Hydrogen_and_Low_Energy_Nuclear_Reactions


    "A geometric−electromagnetic interpretation of mass, relativistic mass, De Broglie wavelength, Proca, Klein−Gordon, Dirac and Aharonov−Bohm equations in agreement with the model is proposed. "

    Quote from Toffoli

    Seems that there are other helicoidal (or toroidal) electron models


    Quote from the Physics detective..


    "There’s more papers like this every day. They don’t all get it right, but they’re getting warm and barking up the right tree.

    It won’t be long before the ice melts and the new dawn comes. It won’t be long before the dark ages are over."


    http://physicsdetective.com/a-worble-embracing-itself/


    "renormalization was a kludge and ,,the Standard Model is a patchwork-quilt Frankensetin’s monster of a theory.



    Quote from RobertBryant

    "There’s more papers like this every day. They don’t all get it right, but they’re getting warm and barking up the right tree.

    It won’t be long before the ice melts and the new dawn comes. It won’t be long before the dark ages are over."

    http://physicsdetective.com/a-worble-embracing-itself/

    "renormalization was a kludge and ,,the Standard Model is a patchwork-quilt Frankensetin’s monster of a theory.


    In the same link:

    Because it’s like Frank Wilczek said: “to understand the electron is to understand the world”.


    http://physicsdetective.com/the-mystery-of-mass-is-a-myth/

    "The electron’s kinetic energy is a measure of the extra energy that makes it move. It tells you how fast this energy that’s going nowhere fast, is going somewhere. But it can never go as fast as light because it is light, going around and around. Accelerating an electron can be likened to stretching a helical spring. Getting the electron moving is like deforming an open circle of spring steel into one turn of a helix. The energy required increases as we attempt to deform it further."

    see Fig 6 p. 17 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.11085v2.pdf

    Good thread:


    Open call

    - Seeking physicist with understanding of advanced E&M, optics, fourier analysis, and the Array theorem.

    - We are software modeling an existing extended particle concept

    - Goal: explain double slit phenomenon is diffraction and not interference

    - 3-4hrs/week to change the world

    - Volunteer project, but if interested could be Founding role in new business Physics.fm

    - Courage is the most important of virtues, in 2020 you should be afraid of stagnancy in physics, as new ideas/paradigms once catalyzed will engulf the mainstream

    - Inquire [email protected] and I'll send some docs and we can discuss

    Can beams of light experience "interference" in an experiment without matter being involved (except at the source of emission of the light and at the detector)?

    I don't think so. Because of this I think Mills has it right.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    like a laser interferometer?

    No. You should know that in interferometry the light passes though lenses and bounces off mirrors, before detection.

    I want to hear of light from different sources interact only in empty space and cause "interference" patterns, as seen on a detector.


    If you're like me, in high school physics you got to experiment with water waves and see the constructive and destructive interference.

    That is water on water interference. Then we were told that light is like that. Well, tell me where light on light interference occurs in the absence of matter.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.