A Recent paper on QED using finite-dimensional Hilbert space - validity?

Summary
Seems to be opposite QFT - unclear about Feynman diagrams...
I've been struggling with a somewhat-recent paper by Charles Francis, "A construction of full QED using finite dimensional Hilbert space," available here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605127.pdf

But also published in Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 10(28):27–80 · May 2006.

Francis introduces a lattice-based technique of sorts, based on measurement limitations. Space is also not fundamental -> "In the present treatment quantum properties are understood to arise precisely because space does not appear as a fundamental physical concept. Measurement results are seen as relationships between the matter (or radiation) under study and reference matter 3 used to defined the measurement"

Note that: "The fundamental physical concepts are particles, and Feynman diagrams have a natural interpretation in terms of interactions between particles in the absence of spacetime background. The predictions of perturbative QED are unaltered."

I'm bothered by Section 7.4 of the paper (Finite quantum electrodynamics - Interpretation of Feynman diagrams), where the author states that: "In standard treatments of QED, Feynman diagrams are regarded merely as aids to calculation, not descriptions of underlying structure. By contrast, in this treatment the perturbation expansion is interpreted directly as a quantum-logical statement, meaning that any number of interactions might be found taking place at any time and any position if we were to do a measurement ... in a particle interpretation, Feynman diagrams also give a pictorial representation of the fundamental structure of matter."

The above to me seems like a major step back from QFT, and also like ontological status is given to individual Feynman diagrams (a no-no, I thought). I'm not sure at all what this says about virtual particles, etc. If anyone is will to have a look and chime in (@A. Neumaier perhaps in particular!) I'd be grateful.
 

A. Neumaier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
6,254
2,366
Summary: Seems to be opposite QFT - unclear about Feynman diagrams...

I've been struggling with a somewhat-recent paper by Charles Francis, "A construction of full QED using finite dimensional Hilbert space," available here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605127.pdf

But also published in Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 10(28):27–80 · May 2006.

Francis introduces a lattice-based technique of sorts, based on measurement limitations. Space is also not fundamental -> "In the present treatment quantum properties are understood to arise precisely because space does not appear as a fundamental physical concept. Measurement results are seen as relationships between the matter (or radiation) under study and reference matter 3 used to defined the measurement"

Note that: "The fundamental physical concepts are particles, and Feynman diagrams have a natural interpretation in terms of interactions between particles in the absence of spacetime background. The predictions of perturbative QED are unaltered."

I'm bothered by Section 7.4 of the paper (Finite quantum electrodynamics - Interpretation of Feynman diagrams), where the author states that: "In standard treatments of QED, Feynman diagrams are regarded merely as aids to calculation, not descriptions of underlying structure. By contrast, in this treatment the perturbation expansion is interpreted directly as a quantum-logical statement, meaning that any number of interactions might be found taking place at any time and any position if we were to do a measurement ... in a particle interpretation, Feynman diagrams also give a pictorial representation of the fundamental structure of matter."

The above to me seems like a major step back from QFT, and also like ontological status is given to individual Feynman diagrams (a no-no, I thought). I'm not sure at all what this says about virtual particles, etc. If anyone is will to have a look and chime in (@A. Neumaier perhaps in particular!) I'd be grateful.
A 13 year old paper is not recent....
Its a crackpot paper that you may safely ignore . He does not construct full QED, in spite of the title of the paper.
 
Thanks @A. Neumaier as usual for shedding some light on the validity of the work ... I suspected since it has almost no citations.

Is it possible to ask what (possibly obvious) parts of QED Francis has missed? (to help my own study)
 

A. Neumaier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
6,254
2,366
Thanks @A. Neumaier as usual for shedding some light on the validity of the work ... I suspected since it has almost no citations.

Is it possible to ask what (possibly obvious) parts of QED Francis has missed? (to help my own study)
I'd need to reread the paper - wrote from memory, being on holidays. He had a long history of fighting established physics...
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"Recent paper on QED using finite-dimensional Hilbert space - validity?" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top