Something is wrong in the state of QED...?

  • A
  • Thread starter haushofer
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Qed State
In summary, the conversation revolves around a paper by Oliver Consa that questions the accuracy of the theory of Quantum electrodynamics (QED) and its use of renormalization. The author's claims are met with skepticism by experts, who point out flaws in his arguments and his lack of mainstream support. The conversation also touches on the history of QED and its precision in predicting experimental values, particularly the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron.
  • #1
haushofer
Science Advisor
Insights Author
3,029
1,560
TL;DR Summary
Asking an opinion about the author's claim that QED was put into agreement with measurements in a suspicious way.
Dear all,

recently I came across this paper by one Oliver Consa,

https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.02078

The recap is

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.

I'm curious whether experts think this is historically right. To me it seems that the author is mainly rephrasing critical sounds from the past regarding renormalization, before the advent of Wilson's effective field theory paradigm. His claim that renormalization is applied "arbitrarily" seems flat out wrong. Also, his treatment of the regularization used in e.g. the Casimir force is a bit dubious. But the mentioning of the calculated Feynman diagrams being in agreement with incorrect experimental values seems rather interesting. Does this author have a point?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes Motore
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
There are other QED observables that has been measured with extremely high precision.

Author has basically the same paper, but uploaded 2010 on the ArXiV too...
 
  • #3
haushofer said:
TL;DR Summary: Asking an opinion about the author's claim that QED was put into agreement with measurements in a suspicious way.

Dear all,

recently I came across this paper by one Oliver Consa,

https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.02078

The recap is
I'm curious whether experts think this is historically right. To me it seems that the author is mainly rephrasing critical sounds from the past regarding renormalization, before the advent of Wilson's effective field theory paradigm. His claim that renormalization is applied "arbitrarily" seems flat out wrong. Also, his treatment of the regularization used in e.g. the Casimir force is a bit dubious. But the mentioning of the calculated Feynman diagrams being in agreement with incorrect experimental values seems rather interesting. Does this author have a point?
The author is definitely not in the world of mainstream physics. We will not discuss his work at PF.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71

FAQ: Something is wrong in the state of QED...?

What does "Something is wrong in the state of QED" mean?

This phrase refers to the realization that certain predictions of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), while extremely accurate in many cases, may not fully account for all experimental observations. It suggests that there could be underlying issues or missing components in the theory that need to be addressed to achieve a complete understanding of electromagnetic interactions.

What are some examples of discrepancies in QED?

Discrepancies in QED can include unexpected results in precision measurements, such as the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron or the Lamb shift in hydrogen. These phenomena indicate that while QED is a robust theory, there may be subtle effects or new physics that have not yet been incorporated into the standard model of particle physics.

How does the phrase relate to the search for new physics?

The phrase highlights the ongoing quest for new physics beyond the standard model. When QED predictions do not align perfectly with experimental results, it prompts scientists to investigate potential extensions to the theory, such as supersymmetry, quantum gravity, or other interactions that could provide a more comprehensive framework for understanding fundamental forces.

Are there any proposed modifications to QED?

Yes, several modifications and extensions to QED have been proposed, including the introduction of additional particles or fields, adjustments to the coupling constants, and the incorporation of quantum gravity effects. These modifications aim to resolve discrepancies and enhance the predictive power of the theory in extreme conditions, such as near black holes or at very high energies.

What is the significance of addressing issues in QED?

Addressing issues in QED is crucial for advancing our understanding of fundamental physics. QED is one of the cornerstones of the standard model, and resolving its inconsistencies can lead to breakthroughs in our comprehension of particle interactions, the unification of forces, and the overall structure of the universe. It also has implications for technology, as QED principles underpin many modern devices and applications.

Similar threads

Prospects of the canonical formalism in loop quantum gravity [Alexandrov, Roche]
Replies
26
Views
8K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top