Yesterday night, I got this email from a very bright young physicist: Dr. Oliver Consa. He is someone who – unlike me – does have the required Dr and PhD credentials in physics (I have a drs. title in economics) – and the patience that goes with it – to make some more authoritative statements in the weird world of quantum mechanics. I recommend you click the link in the email (copied below) and read the paper. Please do it!
It is just 12 pages, and it is all extremely revealing. Very discomforting, actually, in light of all the other revelations on fake news in other spheres of life.
Many of us – and, here, I just refer to those who are reading my post – all sort of suspected that some ‘inner circle’ in the academic circuit had cooked things up:the Mystery Wallahs, as I refer to them now. Dr. Consa’s paper shows our suspicion is well-founded.
Dear fellow scientist,
I send you this mail because you have been skeptical about Foundations of Physics. I think that this new paper will be of your interest. Feel free to share it with your colleagues or publish it on the web. I consider it important that this paper serves to open a public debate on this subject.
Something is Rotten in the State of QED
“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.” (12 pag.)
5 thoughts on “Mainstream QM: A Bright Shining Lie”
Tja … und da wären wir dann … irgendwo dazwischen (ihm, mit an den Extrempositionen und dir, Walter und Thomas die niemals lügen würden oder das decken)
Tja … viel Spaß. Ich hab übrigens Mathematica 12 und wir können und sollten alles (aber wirklich alles was uns in den 48 zitierten Artikeln zugänglich ist) selbst nachrechnen
Ist ja nur ca. 1 Jahr Arbeit das alle Wochenenden verbrät 🤪🙄😜😆
Christian Wolf, Geschäftsführer forty-two times ten GmbH cw@42×10.de – http://www.42×10.de iPhone +49-160-8233717
Thanks for reacting. I’ll reply in English because my German is quite rusty – even if I was perfectly fluent while studying in Berlin back in 1990 – one of the first batches of Erasmus students there. So… Well… Yes. I see what you want to say and, yes, I’ll am aware I may be exaggerating here and there. 🙂 But then extremist positions fuel good discussions, don’t they? The important thing is: I do believe in what I say. Equations talk. And the only equation we need to explain is the Planck-Einstein Law, really. All the rest can be derived from that one – and the other ‘classical’ (or pre-WWII) equations, so that’s Maxwell’s laws of electromagnetism and relativity theory.
For the rest, I can’t say all that much. I can assure you, however, that there is very heavy ‘bias’ in editorial lines of journals: I tried to publish and reviewers/editors just won’t take the risk to go on with it. The reason for it? I’d say: read Dr. Oliver Consa. He has a proper PhD in physics, and his latest article is quite revealing: https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0011v1.pdf. As I write in my last post (on Freeman Dyson’s demise: see https://readingfeynman.org/2020/03/09/freeman-dysons-death/), I would think that US$600 m projects would, effectively, require a good PR campaign. Physicists just can’t admit humanity has sort of cracked the nut, and there’s no ‘Mystery’ (read: God) involved. 🙂 Cheers – JL
PS: Sorry for being rough here, but so… Well… Yes. I try to be true. My objective is not to be different – although I am: my objective is, effectively, “um alles selbst nach zu rechnen.” Although my ‘math’ is more about concepts than formulas. 🙂
PS 2: I guess you know German was the language of science before… Well… Before English took over. 🙂 It is nice to read Einstein in the language he wrote in. If you have time left (which you haven’t), I’d say: please download all of his 1905 Annalen der Physik articles in German. They’re much more readable in German than in their English translations – at least that’s why I think. 🙂