A Are these papers on Quantum Electrodynamics true?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of claims regarding Kroll and Karplus in the context of Quantum Electrodynamics. It questions whether Feynman Diagram IIc has been published and whether Kroll and Karplus misled the scientific community. Critics of Kroll and Karplus are deemed largely invalid, with "Progress in Physics" identified as a predatory publisher attempting to imitate a reputable journal. The forum emphasizes that Vixra is not a reliable source for scientific references. The thread is closed, inviting professional references for potential reopening.
jonjacson
Messages
450
Reaction score
38
TL;DR
Did Kroll & Karplus really lied to us?
Physics news on Phys.org
jonjacson said:
Summary:: Did Kroll & Karplus really lied to us?

Are these critics valid?
Probably not. Progress in Physics is most likely a predatory publisher. Very often predatory publishers choose journal names that are similar to respected journals.

In this case “Progress in Physics” is trying to masquerade as “Reports on Progress in Physics” which is a well-known journal that is indexed and has a decent impact factor.

“Progress in Physics”, in contrast, does not even show up on the Clarivate master journal list and has not even been given an impact factor. The low response and deceptive title are indicative of predatory publishers.

This thread is closed. If you find a professional scientific reference on this topic please send me a PM with the reference and I can reopen the thread.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, Demystifier and berkeman
jonjacson said:
Summary:: Did Kroll & Karplus really lied to us?
……
https://vixra.org/abs/2002.0011
The forum rules explicitly disallow Vixra as a source. It’s that unreliable (or more precisely, reliably bad).
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50, vanhees71, Demystifier and 1 other person

Thread 'Angular Momentum Vector and Its Magnitude'

For the quantum state ##|l,m\rangle= |2,0\rangle## the z-component of angular momentum is zero and ##|L^2|=6 \hbar^2##. According to uncertainty it is impossible to determine the values of ##L_x, L_y, L_z## simultaneously. However, we know that ##L_x## and ## L_y##, like ##L_z##, get the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. In other words, for the state ##|2,0\rangle## we have ##\vec{L}=(L_x, L_y,0)## with ##L_x## and ## L_y## one of the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. But none of these...
View full post »

Similar threads

A Something is wrong in the state of QED...?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
A Interesting Paper On QFT and Quantum Measuremets
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
A Recent paper on QED using finite-dimensional Hilbert space - validity?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
I What do the authors of the paper mean here exactly by path integral?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and quantum mechanics
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
B Question about QM and Neuroscience
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
I Prof Mike Wiest's proposed link between quantum and consciousness
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
727
I Electrons keeping dynamical quantum fluctuations?
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
I Relativistic hidden variable quantum mechanics?
  • · Replies 122 ·
5
Replies
122
Views
10K
A Evaluate this paper on the derivation of the Born rule
  • · Replies 326 ·
11
Replies
326
Views
26K