Something is Wrong in the State of Quantum Electro-Dynamics; Something is Wrong in the State of Quantum Chromo-Dynamics
Something is Wrong in the State of QED is the title of a paper posted to the arxiv by Oliver Consa, a physicist with Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya in Spain. He discusses the history of Quantum Electro-Dynamics with a particular focus on the infinities and its derivation of the electron’s g-factor. There are, of course, numerous problems and a suggestion of scientific fraud is implicit. You can watch a related 20-minute video on Unzicker’s Real Physics Youtube Channel:
From his paper:
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.
But Professor Consa is not simply pointing to a problem, rather, he outlines the problem in the above paper and then provides solutions to these problems in his Helical Solenoid Model of the Electron, published in the Progress in Physics Journal in 2018. In that paper, he extends David Hestenes’ Zitter model to a Helical Solenoid model and discovers that (I use Latex code in that I do not know how to properly embed Latex into a Medium draft):
Like the other electron models discussed above, the Helical Solenoid Electron Model postulates that the tangential velocity of the electric charge matches the speed of light and that the electron’s angular momentum matches the reduced Planck constant.
|r’(t)|² = c² = (Rw)² + (rNw)² + v² + rw(2Rw + rw cos Nwt + 2vN) cos Nwt.
This equation can be obtained directly from the helical solenoid geometry without any approximation. This equation shows a component that oscillates at a very high frequency with an average value of zero. Consequently, the Helical Solenoid Electron Model implies that the electron’s g-factor is oscillating, not fixed. Since the value oscillates, there is a maximum level of precision with which the g-factor can be measured. This prediction is completely new to this model and is directly opposite to previous QED predictions.
Furthermore:
The helical g-factor can be expressed as:
(\sqrt {)1 + (rN/R)²)² = 1 + 1/2(rN/R)² + . . .
QED also calculates the g-factor by an expansion series where the first term is 1 and the second term is the Schwinger factor:
g-factor (QED) = 1 + α/2 π + . . .
The results of the two series are very similar. Equaling the second term of the helical g-factor series to the Schwinger factor, we obtain the relationship between the radius of the torus and the thickness of the torus:
1/2(rN/R)² = α/2 π ;
rN/R = (α/π)¹/².
Which gives a value of helical g-factor of:
g = (\sqrt {)1 + \alpha/\pi}.
This gives us a value of the helical g-factor = 1.0011607. This result is consistent with the Schwinger factor, and it offers a value much closer to the experimental value.
His model is also able to explain the origin of the electron’s anomalous magnetic moment:
In calculating the angular momentum, the rotational velocity decreases in the same proportion as the equivalent radius increase, compensating for the helical g-factor. However, in the calculation of magnetic moment, the rotational velocity decreases by a factor of g, while the equivalent radius increases by a factor approximately equal to g squared. This is the cause of the electron’s anomalous magnetic moment.
It also indicates that the electron has a toroidal moment:
According the Helical Solenoid Electron Model, the electron’s theoretical toroidal moment is about T \approx 10^{−40} Am³ . The theoretical toroidal moment value for the neutron and the proton should be one million times smaller. The existence of a toroidal moment for the electron (and for any other subatomic particle) is a direct consequence of this model, and it may be validated experimentally. Notably, QM does not predict the existence of any toroidal moments.
Consa references the 1997 paper which reports on the measurement of the toroidal moments for Cesium-133 and Ytterbium-174; it is his reference 26, Wood C.S. Measurement of parity nonconservation and an anapole moment in cesium, archived on CiteSeer. They used a state transition. In a 2014 paper I found, published in Nature, Magnetic monopole field exposed by electrons, they simulate a magnetic monopole using a nano-needle perched over an aperture and show that electrons interacting with the monopole field change state. It appears to me that they change state from circular zitter to toroidal zitter; they call the toroidal zitter state, vortex electrons. So, it would seem plausible, by analogy, that the toroidal moment of the electron could be validated via this state change.
David Hestenes extends Consa’s work to a non-probabilitic (semi-classical) theory of electromagnetism he calls Maxwell-Dirac Theory in his paper, Zitterbewegung structure in electrons and photons. This theory unites the Maxwell and Dirac theories at the foundational level and:
Zitterbewegung is said to contribute to electron self-energy in QED, though that can be questioned because the integrals are divergent and must be removed by renormalization. Weisskopf [40] was the first to discuss the role of zitterbewegung in QED explicitly. Expressed in our lingo, he argues that zitter generates a fluctuating electric field. But when he calculates the zitter contribution to the energy in the field he gets a divergent result. In contrast, we show here that calculation with the zitter model is not only simpler, but the result is finite and equal to the expected result m_e c² . This is one reason to suspect that the zitter model may generate finite results in QED.
It certainly seems compelling to me and one has to wonder why we never read about Professor Hestenes in the popular science media.
Something is wrong in the state of Quantum Chromo-Dynamics refers to the so-called “cold fusion” debacle.
The presence of anomalous heat power has no scientific explanation at the eleven-year anniversary. Its appearance challenges the law of conservation of energy, for if the power is real (the heterodox opinion) and if there is no nuclear source possible (the orthodox opinion), then that power may have appeared from out of nowhere. This appearance inevitably threatens the theorems of nuclear physics with some degree of change or appendage. For these reasons, a single validated occurrence of anomalous power may reasonably be called revolutionary.
Charles G. Beaudette, Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed
Charles Beaudette received a BSc degree in Electrical Engineering from MIT in 1952 and followed the standard trajectory, building an instrumentation company, most probably founded on novel technologies, which he sold. He claims to have attended an International Conference on Cold Fusion as a lark, but he admits to “investing a modest sum” in a start-up organization researching the phenomena and it led to his writing the book, Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed, a very thorough discussion (350 pages with notes) of the debacle surrounding Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman, two very adept Electro-Chemists, and their demonstration of anomalous heat power. The book was published in 2000 (second edition in 2002) so is a bit dated, but still very much worth reading. A 2000 review published in the Infinite Energy e-zine is available here; an arxiv article posted in 2003, Critical Review of Theoretical Models for Anomalous Effects (Cold Fusion) in Deuterated Metals, examines theory; an open-access journal article published in 2021 in the Journal of ElectroAnalytic Chemistry, Preliminary survey on cold fusion: It’s not pathological science and may require revision of nuclear theory, provides a comprehensive survey (it’s a open-access pdf):
For the total articles found, this work listed a total of 5249 publications, including conference articles, conference presentations, journal articles, and patents. Amongst those, 2202 are experimental works reporting results of experiments, being 1921 successful and 281 unsuccessful. In total, there are 375 distinct research groups involving 3460 researchers. There is, indeed, cooperation between research groups, but they are rather rare, most work is done by isolated groups.
As Mr. Beaudette reports, many of the early unsuccessful replication attempts were either outright frauds or produced by physicists with little to no experience in Electro-Chemistry. It was also later found that success with the deuterium/palladium cell absolutely required a saturation ratio, deuterium to palladium, of .9; many of the early experiments were working in the .6 to .8 range, guarantying failure. But clearly, the 2021 survey shows that “cold fusion” has been established as a fact of nature. In spite of this, we have, from the University of California, Berkeley, Cold Fusion: A Case Study for Understanding Science. That links to a website with 11 sections, “The ingenius idea” to “The smoke clears”; from “The smoke clears” (parentheses mine):
Pons and Fleischmann withheld experimental details from the community and tried to shield their ideas from testing (U. S. law is very specific about how to retain proprietary status on intellectual property). They and the other scientists who “reproduced” cold fusion, only to later retract their results (none retracted), failed to perform adequate tests to evaluate their ideas. And, of course, Pons’ behavior during the helium experiment, as well as the broken publication agreement with Jones, smacked of dishonesty. It’s important to note that even with such unscientific behavior, the process of science still worked. Within a year, the scientific community had investigated Pons and Fleischmann’s claims and come to the consensus that what had been observed wasn’t really cold fusion. However, there was still a price to pay for this misconduct: time, energy, and upwards of 100 million tax dollars were squandered on cold fusion.
Most hilariously, if you have perused Mr. Beaudette’s book, a thoroughly disingenuous open-access article published in 2019 in Nature, Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments, continues the disgusting debacle. Cold fusion being something of a misnomer and contaminated by controversy, the subject is now generally referred to as Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) or Lattice Energy Nuclear Reaction. In spite of what both the UC, Berkeley, and Nature articles contend, the original experiments of Pons and Fleischman have been successfully replicated hundreds of times using a range of methods (see Figure 2 in the Preliminary Survey article).
And I would highlight Section 5.2.2. Biological method:
The authors found eight distinct teams reporting results of elements transmutation caused by biological processes. This subfield, besides explaining some isotopic anomalies in living beings, also proposes the use of bacteria for treating radioactive waste. This subfield has a patent in Russia and, although small, has increasing tendency, as Fig. 8 shows. An important contribution about this technique is the work of Vysotsky [17] (for the pdf, click on the link at the bottom).
This could possibly explain the Wim Hof, aka Iceman, phenomena:
Inside the Superhuman World of the Iceman — VICE Video: Documentaries, Films, News Videos
Thirty years after the original Pons and Fleischman announcement, anomalous heat power is still not understood by the scientific community; as Mr. Beaudette discusses, this is not unusual. I direct attention to this situation as a relevant case study, both for how legitimate scientists and their would-be disrupters work and to show the relevance of calorimetry or the measurement of heat power, i. e. heat capable of producing work, as an experimental tool. The way that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann were treated, and are still being treated, by the American Physics establishment, the American Media establishment, and the American Political establishment is unconscionable, especially in light of Anthropic Global Warming.
This article is related to this one:
