Forget about Quantum Electrodynamics 

I have come back to this video a year later with some more comments on this video. Firstly you mention that Schwinger's paper is only an approximation. This is slightly untrue, Schwinger means that he is taking the first term in a series solution in the hopes that it is enough. Next, it is true that Dyson showed the perturbation series to diverge but this is now well understood as an asymptotic series, which generally diverge but still contain meaningful information (c.f. Carl Bender's Perturbation theory book) which can be extracted through techniques such as Borel Summation. Finally in Bethe's original work he does use a `fudge' numerical cut-off on the integral but people understood at the time that that would make a big difference, and these cut-offs were understood through Ken Wilson's work on the renormalisation group.

I love RU-vid. The fact that you hear all arguments and not just the approved™ ones is amazing.

The presentation mentions Freeman Dyson in passing. I once met Freeman Dyson and his wife. I was (many years ago) helping a couple use AOL (that tells you how long ago it was). After a while, I realized who the couple was. I was astounded.

Well done. This is the second one of these I have seen in the last 2 days

thanks for been so open about it. I'm currently finishing my master's thesis in an extension of the Standard Model, and to be honest, after really trying to find some sense to the to QED I couldn't.. The information that you present closes a cicle for me. Now i'm looking for new horizons where to continue my passion for physics, it seem like going back to the lab is going to be way...

This is one of your best videos!

All the videos I click on your channel just keep getting better and better

Liked, subscribed, commented, and thank you. I luckily stumbled upon this video second in my search and so saving me! I look forward to hearing what fundamental physics are.

As Francis Bacon said "We learn more readly from error than from confusion" QED is a scafold that has done it's job - explain light at small level of detail -Glad the great Physicist of the past left many more things to be discovered.

Thanks for a very interesting video. I will check Consa's papers.

Really well put together, quite decisive. I've spent hours trying to argue as you've argued more comprehensively and clearly in a matter if minutes. Brilliant, subscribed.

I don't know is this video is some kind of hoax or if it meant to be taken seriously... In the latter case, I would like to make a few comments for those who might watch it and think that indeed QED is flawed in some way. First, the fact that the series is divergent is well known, and it's not a problem, the concept of asymptotic series explains why it's still useful and provides the right answer. Second, renormalization is now well understood, and the quotes from 50 years ago mean nothing in this respect (they simply reflect the status of the field as viewed by their author at the time). Finally, for possible errors in the computation of magnetic moments, I have not checked myself and there might have been errors in the past, but this computation has been checked several times by independent teams by now, so I consider it very unlikely that there remain such mistakes as the omission of a diagram. Globally a very deceptive video...

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: Introduction to *the Muon Anomaly and its significance (**00:09**)* QED's reputation *as the most precise theory in physics (**00:22**)* Invitation to *delve into the history of QED's development (**00:36**)* Postwar physics *conference with no participation from earlier generation (**01:02**)* Willis Lamb's *discovery of the Lamb shift in hydrogen (**01:30**)* Hans Bethe's *approximate calculation using QED (**01:59**)* Introduction of *the g-factor and its precise measurement (**02:28**)* Richard Feynman's *diagrams and their tantalizing resemblance to experiment (**02:58**)* Challenges with *Feynman's theory and its lack of mathematical rigor (**03:29**)* Julian Schwinger's *469-formula theory and its questionable accuracy (**04:25**)* Sin-Itiro Tomonaga's *seemingly incompatible third theory (**04:53**)* Freeman Dyson's *1950 paper unifying the theories and its impact (**04:53**)* Purcell and *Gardner's experimental g-factor value and its agreement with theory (**05:55**)* Karplus and *Kroll's correction calculations using Feynman diagrams (**05:55**)* The discovery *of errors in both the experimental value and theoretical calculations (**06:25**)* Peterman and *Sommerfeld's new calculations and their starkly different results (**06:53**)* The unprecedented *lack of scrutiny and unpublished nature of key calculations (**07:25**)* Oliver Consa's *discovery of deliberate falsification by Karplus and Kroll (**07:56**)* - The series used in QED calculations doesn't converge, making it unreliable and potentially yielding nonsensical results. - This undermines the theoretical basis of QED, known as perturbation theory, which is crucial for predicting particle behavior. - Dyson's discovery received little attention, with no significant impact on physicists' acceptance of QED. - This suggests a reluctance to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy within the physics community. - Dyson eventually expressed regret for his role in promoting QED, acknowledging its inherent inconsistencies. - This highlights the lack of transparency and critical examination within the field. - QED was originally conceived as a temporary solution, expected to be replaced by a more robust theory. - Its continued persistence, despite known flaws, raises questions about the scientific rigor of its validation.

If anyone is curious, the quote from Feynman about renormalization (at 13:18-13:40) is found in his book QED (1990[1985]) p. 128. I had certainly "noted it" myself when reading QED, but failed to grasp its full significance. Many thanks to Unzicker for putting it in the spotlight and giving a complete explanation of its context and implications!

Great efforts... many thanks and all the best.

Great perspective. Thank you.

I'm a complete layman with only the most superficial understanding of QED so came across this by accident. It is clear and concise but even more than this is outstandingly brave of Dr Unzicker considering his admitted prior support of the status quo

Having stumbled upon this channel for the first time today, and not having viewed any other of your presentations, I'm curious as to what your feelings are as to the use of the concept "emergent" in physics, cosmology, and the like. Would you agree that the scale at which a process is viewed determines what rules apply? (not a physicist or mathematician)

Thanks for the extraordinary presentation.

Thank you for putting this into a proper context context. The lengths to which they stretch their bad assumptions is ridiculous.

The comments on this channel are internet gold👍🏻

It would be extraordinary if Unzicker could team up with Sabine Hossenfelder and make a series of videos where they review all those suspicious achievements in physics like the ones mentioned in Wolfgang Kundt"s book

Thank you for this forensics!

I truly did not knew about this until I have seen your video! Dear Mr. Unzicker Thank you for your Work and Integrity by telling everyone the Scientific Truth as it is! Finally someone with Integrity talking about science and physics in particular!

In Feynman's book QED, a transcript from his lectures, he starts by saying the lecture is about a part of physics that we now about, "that has been very thoroughly analyzed". But in the last chapter he discuss loose ends, giving a feeling that there is much we don't know. The book ends with proofreader's ("fact checkers") comments, smoothing over the problems. My concern is, can we rely on QED? What part can we trust, and where should we be suspicious?

Very interesting ! Though i remember that many divergences are not a problem at all, since we have an error typically of (N/137)^N. Ok this error diverges. But if we take N=100, the error is tiny and that's all we need.

This world is beyond me is so many ways ..... but I get the feeling the same thing has happened with Pharmacology ...... Thank you for standing up & questioning ...... so important.

Did Mr. Unzicker hear about Kenneth Wilson? Maybe he could make a video about him and the renormalization group?

Maybe I can contribute a little appraisement of the addressed topic. I do not want to claim, that I am able to finally assess the statements about QED. But I have specialized in quantum field theory within my master studies. I liked the concept very much, because it is very impressive and you really learn to calculate, when you deal with it! But there is one thing, that disturbed me about it from the beginning until today: It is not possible to fundamentally calculate the dynamics of a physical process using this theory. And by "not possible" I mean, that I did not find any person so far, that came up with a calculation about it. Nor have I been able to come up with such a calculation. In the beginning I thought this was the consequence of my incomprehension. But after years of studying and talking to other people, that are deeply within this topic and not finding any satisfying answer to simple questions like "how do electrons move, when repelling each other" I started to consider the idea, that the theory might not be fundamentally consistent/definable. The problem is, that people do not care about this. They only want to know how particles move out of the experiment after having hit each other. And they think that so called correlation functions, that can be calculated out of the theory, tell them something about the probability distribution of that process. Well, it might be that this works quiet well for certain processes. But in my opinion this does not provide us an explenation of fundamental processes. Because it is simply "not possible" to simulate or calculate such processes. You can only calculate probability distributions for the outcome of measurments (what ever that fundamentally means, no one can define this, really, no one can!). In contrast it is possible (on a very abstract level) to calculate constants like the gyromagnetic ratio. So it would be really remarkable, if even such calculations are on a dubious mathematical level. Therefore I consider the addressed topic of Dr. Unzicker to be very important. I think it is worth to investigate the mentioned papers further.

Simplifying infinities in calculations is like sweeping some big problem under the rug. ..

What about the cross sections of particle collisions? Have the theoretical predictions from QED ever been compared to empirical cross sections? When speaking about tests of QED, people always speak about anomalous magnetic dipole moment or Lamb shift, but what about the particle collisions?

There is a very important fact is missing in the video: EVERYBODY in the field knows exactly that the mathematics is not on solid ground. This is true even for beginners, it is constantly made fun of in lectures etc. I think there is a misconception what a theory should be. Even if mathematical steps are not justified on a mathematical level, if you apply them and you get results that fit data with precision that chance can not explain (say 5 digits) then you are onto something. Of course general principles of logic have to be respected, for example circular reasoning has to be avoided. And it is very much so that you can compute different physical quantities with impressive precision using QED methods by yourself (at least if you spend a semester on the problem ;)). So there has to be something going right with QED but surely it's current form is not satisfactory at least for every mathematician who got a glimpse of it. But this is standard for new theories: A classic example would be classical mechanics with Newtons calculus. It was widely believed that infinitesimals are mathematically unjustified, and it took some centuries until a solid understanding of differentials emerged.

The Stern Gerlach experiment used a beam of silver ions and a non uniform magnetic field to demonstrate quantization of spatial orientation. The interpretation involves the interaction of the orbital electron’s intrinsic angular momentum or magnetic moment with the magnetic field. But a magnetic field is a consequence of the relativistic motion of electrons , or so it can be shown. The magnetic field is a secondary effect of the electric field, but the way it arises is complex compared with the electric field. How the relativistic motion of electrons can give rise to quantization of spatial orientation relative to any arbitrary axis I find quite baffling.

The amount of energy an electron gives off at any given moment is definitely not infinite, but the total energy an electron has the potential to give off over its lifetime can definitely be quite large for some scenarios? and what is the electron's energy source? other than the relationship it has with photons through the photoelectric effect

And what about analytic continuation of the Riemann Zeta function methods used in cases like the Casimir effect?

Unpublished computer code is the bane of any research area. From my own experience over 40 years doing actual analysis and correction and maintenance of computer applications, it has been common during that time for the actual code to be shown as rubbish. I am particularly sceptical of all systems for which we have no access to the code.

A very interesting video. I like your idea's and have subscribed to your channel. One advice: use a better microphone and/or do something regarding the audio quality of your video's; the audio "drowns" in a certain way.

This is a great video - Thank you! These offending theories (QED and QFT) are still actively used and serious replacements are not in sight. What has happened instead is that the "embarrassment" has gone away. We have learned to accommodate renormalization and the removal of infinities as just one of the rules of the game. Jack Dikian

Great video. Thank you.

I waited for this moment since I was a teenager. Since then I been convinced that QED don't make what I call "sense". My question now is: why I never seen other people talking about this?

Re-normalization was the first indication to me that something was very wrong. The weird orbits of electrons around the nucleus seemed unreal to me, especially when Atomic Force Microscopes showed spherical atoms. Feynmann also pushed for a particle oriented theory, where fields were constructed with virtual particles and most particles were going backwards in time. The more it all seemed like fantasy to me, and that we needed a complete different approach to the problems. I do have some ideas of how we can solve this, but that is by approaching electromagnetism with only the electric field, and no photons. So magnetism comes from some kind of relativity effect, or whatever. And photons come from thresholds in the observer. Photon explained: The Electric vibrations cause a resonance in the electron band. So the electron band collects some of the energy. At a certain time the electron-band has so much vibration that the electron moves to a different band. And backwards the electron-band can vibrate towards a lower state, causing the emission of light. In lasers we can see that the electron bands can be phase-locked with the incoming light. And the delays in the transition between quantum states shows that something is going on. (Similarly in super-conductivity, superfluids, etc) But we still need to investigate more.

As a newcomer to all this, a physics novice, I am finding your talks extremely interesting. I am being liberated of many of my preconceptions about everything. I have ordered your book and look forward to exploring your channel content.

14:55 are these “E” not all different, like one is electric field one is the energy in all the mass?

I am much older and wiser now, than when I was at university and soon after, and my B.S. meter is much more finely tuned. As well is my understanding of human nature, and the need of many, otherwise fine people of the mind, to pursue fame and fortune at the expense of integrity. I find it strange and so out of the ordinary to me . . . but such is life. I am saddened, but at the same time glad that you made this video.

Thank you very much for explaining patiently with facts and figures (as much as possible without a pen and paper). I am not a physicist. I am an engineer and PhD researcher in medical imaging. But what you mentioned at time point 11:39 about no published code really resonates with me. This is something I also find in my field, medical imaging and engineering. Increasingly, I find in current literature, there is no way of checking someone's models and findings because the codes for the algorithm are not available. Not only that, the Methods section in scientific articles are becoming less and less detailed to the point of being almost eliminated. I do not understand how the reviewers are even reviewing without knowing about the Methods?! In spite of this feeling, I have been also almost forced into reducing details (which I thought were very important) from my own articles.

Maybe it is best to say that there has been a lot of channeled thinking; with the use of words that some find convenient because they are more consistent with a preferred view. For example, saying that a molecule has zero-point energy avoids saying that there is a transmission medium with enormous zero-point energy. Some physicists don't accept that there is a transmission medium. What is the best way to model the transmission medium? A packing of spheres with gaps such that a displacement of a sphere - a clove - gives an enormous restoring force produced by the frame energy, tending to equalise the clove density. Modeling a neutron as a spinning 4-ring and the proton as a spinning 6-ring, how does their stored Force x distance compare with the frame energy? Minimal influence at distance. Gravity is from the contribution of particles to the frame energy, causing the slowing of the motions of all mutually-influencing particles and the recentring of their motions. It is a very small force compared to the charge force. That is a great discovery of Clove Theory. All particles are wave systems and in the frame they continually undergo interference, propagating with all the energy-dependent excitations available, Why don't they dissipate completely? Spin condenses. Spin condensation counters all the mathematically doubtful, infinite-like energy claimed for electrodynamics. A linear-like excitation may be modelled reasonably as oscillating opposed spins. To be fair about it, Stückelberg's theory, an extension of Huygens' theory for any such wave system, does seem to work. What excitations are accepted in a computation may depend on the basic model, from photons, then onward through the energy scales. Once started, with some good guessing, it could be tightly constrained, leading to the depth of belief in electrodynamics that there is today.

I noticed that Feynman diagram of a positron shows it going back in time but still forward in space.

Elsewhere i found mentioned about problems of renormalization. Only Unzicker's brilliant article made me look for the 'problem. I knew about Dyson's brilliance, but only now I discovered how nonconvergent series were at the heart of the problem and wanted to know if the problem was solved. ANNA CLARA Fenyo believes it is, but I think it isn't. However, the problem seems to me to be related to infinite axiom algorithm, if so then there is no solution. I would like to know if any solution surfaced in the last70 years, Unzicker should know.

Oliver Consa’s “Something is wrong in the state of QED” is misleading, and the state of the muon g - 2 calculation has been historically controversial. (another side: the quote about fermi’s reaction to dyson is misattributed to renormalization when it is really about a well-known erroneous calculation in meson theory which was subsequently amended) The techniques used to calculate the newest theoretical /experimental value are still under scrutiny, and should not be taken wholesale as fact. Science is a human endeavor, and error (as shown in consa’s paper) followed by subsequent correction is part of the process. Physics is not always “simple,” the messiness is part of the process and we shouldn’t expect the most elegant theory to be the most “correct” one (most elegant is subjective anyway).

Hello, Professor, Have I invited you to look at "Lightning in Super Duper Slow Motion"? This and similar videos seem to show instrument recordings of the atmosphere's reaction to the activity of a quantum Gamma Photon. You can apparently watch the photon spread as a wave of nodes and then collapse to a definite state and sometimes (in other videos) into two definite states. If we saw no wave we could assume that alternative pathays were being written in alternate worlds and this would give reason to trust "Many Worlds". But seeing a wave and its collapse seems to really strongly buttresses "Copenhagen". Ciao! Allex

Before we even come to the idea of renormalizing particular Feynman diagrams, the whole basis of the perturbative approach rests on the definition of the path integral. Of course, the path integral is mathematically rigorous via the Feynman-Kac formula... which only applies when the equations for your probability distribution are parabolic! I am curious if you have an opinion: is it reasonable to pursue the construction of a "hyperbolic" Feynman-Kac formula (so to speak) and then work out quantum field theory from there, or is the whole path integral approach nonsense from the get-go?

Hmmm very truely spoken...thank you.

Thank you for your very interesting videos. It's about time someone calls out the almost 100 years of seemingly getting nowhere in physics.

I found this really interesting, and I'm sure I will look for more evidence regarding your insightful ideas. I gotta admit, as I like mathematics, I have always been skeptical ever since I heard of renormalization, but of course I always thought I should not comment on a theory I haven't studied yet (I'm 16). I will try to dive into QFT keeping in mind your view, because this theory still seems somewhat intriguing to me. (I'm on the way to read the book "quantum field theory in curved spacetime" by Parker and Toms)

Fascinating thanks

Hello Mr Unzicker. I just revisited your video and mused myself reading the comments. I just wanted to let you know that all your efforts of raising concern about these theories is well appreciated and well-founded. I am among one of those individuals that have put great effort and energy into building a serious alternative model of atomic physics. The work has been on hold for a period of time, but great strides have been made, probably much beyond your reasonable expectation. You seem like a rare breed of physicist with healthy skepticism towards modern particle physics approaches. You are a leading physics expert of our time. Why - you might ask. It is because you have a great talent for recognizing what good physics is what it is supposed to do, and simultaneously you easily recognize what bad physics looks like and have a willingness to be frank about it when you observe it. This combination of attributes is seemingly very rare and makes you a very valuable voice in the conversation about modern theoretical particle physics.

How do we bring this to people's attention in an intelligent way? It's so unglamorous, it casts some fan-favorite physicists in a bad light and it's already hard to understand what they're proposing let alone the errors in it. But it's absolutely necessary.

I am about to get PET scan. I read up on it and I am quite exited to be a source of anti-matter. However when I checked some of the mechanism the existence of quarks was taken as a given. This was Wikipedia though. Obviously the fact of the phenomena are correct but if the underlying explanations, QED ands quarks and stuff, are wrong, what is the explanation? Or, is the actual explanation yet to be discovered?

Thanks for speaking out! There is a general worship of science as being able to accurately explain the universe from macro to micro that alarms me... it doesnt take terribly long to realize that opinions are all over the place, are usually completely contrary to one another, and that generally an astounding amount of "science" is quite frankly bunk.

I’d rather hear Feynman’s assessment of QED in retrospect, but, alas, he is not here to give us one. I’m not taking sides, though. I’m not a physicist but know a little physics as an engineer. QED is something for physicists to debate. It doesn’t affect anyone else whichever way it turns out. My outsider’s question is: If QED is still an accepted theory, doesn’t it have some utility? If not, why wouldn’t it be discarded?

Perhaps it is also useful to recall the era in which QED emerged. In the post-WWII atomic physics boom period. physicists were suddenly superstars, with unlimited funding opportunities and the attention of the most powerful political personalities in the world. In such an environment, confirmation bias and group-think becomes a survival mechanism. Or, in the words of Guido, a character in the 1983 American teen coming-of-age movie _Risky_ _Business:_ "In times of economic uncertainty, never ever f*** with another man's livelihood." The physicists of Richard Feynman's time were smart enough to figure that one out, just as they are today.

What is your opinion on octionic cosmology ?

Ok, who can explain the double slit experiment results correctly now?

Those equations are really nice. If only I could understand them

This zigzagging would be Zitterbewegung as found by Schroedinger and explains the anomalies without virtual particles and vacuum energy (apart from Higgs expectation value). Puzzles me that neither Penrose or current Fachleute have spotted this. It would be nice to have a theory explaining inertia, mass and anomalies without recourse to magic particles and misuse of Heisenberg indeterminancy. Hestense studied Zitter closely and produced an elegant phenomenology but missed the connection to electro-weak theory. Appreciate your view. Sorry for truncation!

Musings into history, and a ride via photons to the electron shell and positrons, the neutron-new-shell layer and proton, quarks and graviton, and finally into vacuum and antimatter. One Atom.

Your assertions remind me of the work of Mendel Sachs. I'm wondering if you've heard of him. He was a theoretical physicist at University at Buffalo whose opinions of QED were similar to your own. He developed his own nonlinear field theory inspired by Einstein's own work and made many remarkable claims for it. It did not suffer from infinities and he was able to show that QED was a linear approximation to it. He was widely seen as a "crackpot" but I haven't come across anyone who has formally refuted him. I think he did make some claims though that have turned out to be wrong regarding black holes, the twin paradox, gravitational waves. But I'm not sure these wrong predictions are a necessary outcome of his ideas.

All physicists understand that all models are temporary. There's always the one problem, the one experiment, that will lead us to new insights, and ignoring them halts progress towards better understanding. The fear is in the inability to figure these things out. QED already required genius breakthroughs in how to handle complex math. There are lots of new theories around, but we may be reaching the limits of what is humanly possible to understand and experimentally verify.

Maybe it would help to consider crazy idea that removes bottom size limit on matter. No bottom limit. Any interaction measurable with any instrument demands physical carrier which means "that" we call field is in fact a lot of currently invisible (due to inadequate technological advances)smaller building blocks of matter. Actually, it makes perfect sense to only speak in terms of actual 3d objects interacting with each other. Energy and field are two concepts, or to be more precise two names given to phenomena we currently can't directly observe - we only perceive "it's" influence on other particles of matter that are big enough to be perceived. Allowing for size to go on indefinitely "down" can only make sense of many observed interactions. Smaller it is, more powerful it gets - consider force difference between handgranade and and equally sized atomic bomb. So, no bottom limit, strictly 3d object interaction, speeds way faster than speed of light to explain billions and billions of interactions before it becomes noticable on our scale size as for example push between magnets. So there, crazy idea.

please do more video

I remember hearing stuff about QED being built on sand at the start of my working life in the 80's and it sounds like it still is today. How on earth can these physicists get away with it and why has nobody corrected it from the ground up, surely with so many years and advances in technology they could work out something that did not rely on this Carte Blanche Maths? I also from time to time read about Physicists that suppossedly put Re-normalisation on a secure bedrock of respectability unfortunately nobody seems to be able to explain it in simple english. Thankyou for a very interesting video. Happy New Year.

I find your labelling of Lamb as a 'radar technician' at 1:40 as dishonest and disingenuous. He was a skilled theorist and experimentalist famous for the Lamb-Retherford experiment and the Lamb shift.

Excellent video. Time to grab a new generation of quants, roll back into 1947 conference and science settings and start over.

Dr Unzicker, are you concluding that the g factor wasn't recalculated and the derivation not dissected and discussed by the numerous PhD students over the last 60+ years?

I’m not commenting about the rest, but wkb series are usually divergent yet Borel summable so Dyson’s argument does not quite hold ;)

Thank you for the great video and reference to interesting articles by Consa. Here is a loosely related question to all: Why did physicists ignored further development of the quantum mechanical model of atom created by Arnold Sommerfeld in favor of the Schrodinger equation based models?

Wonderful!

I linked one of O. Consa's papers in a PBS Space time video, stating about what it contains, and I just can't find my comment anymore. Seems like it got deleted.

I personally see renormalization as a (poor) way to localize a fundamentally non-local theory. I believe it is possible that all the divergences in QED arise from the electromagnetic vacuum (and thus the whole field) being described as a global manifold in energy space. Renormalization just "localizes" the energy space. Arbitrarily selecting the ball over which the energy is localized is not a good way to select an appropriate neighborhood. QFT needs to be localized and GR needs to be delocalized a little. The boundaries need to be well defined somehow. I don't agree that renormalization is nonsense...it arises out of necessity. Is it good? No. Is it not physical? No. Infinite spaces are hard to deal with. That doesn't make it wrong, it is just not quite right.

Yes, go back to the beginning and start over. Step-1 Derive (wave) equations for single photons. electrons, protons and neutrons. No statistical functions allowed. Use only directly measurable quantities, such as E and H. It is incomprehensible that physics has no equation of a single photon? Nor any curiosity whatsoever to discover the equation?

Because of Computational irreducibility, for observers like us, Re-normalization and Coarse-graining may be a necessary abstraction to understand the world around us even with imperfect precision as long as that "understanding" is useful for our survival.

Shelldrake pointed out the inconsistencies with the history of measurement with the speed of light. When so-called 'constants' vary, how can anyone possibly trust calculations based on these constants. He got booted off the TED talk program for such dire suggestions. Paracelsus asked, "What to do when doctors disagree?" Alexander Unzicker asks, "What if the Speed of Light varies?" Love what you do Dr. Unzicker!

To be honest, when I was grappling with QED renomalization techniques for the first time, during my MSc course at Imperial College in the late 1990s, I had this nagging feeling that this was all just a mathematical fudge! And that we only got "accurate" results based on a fluke! Well, when you're combining infinite quantities that magically cancel out to give you the result you wanted... What else can you call it?! And now with these new muon anomalies? Time to go back to the black board methinks!!!

Consa says in his paper "However, the Riemann function is defined only for positive values, since for negative values the Riemann function diverges to infinity. The Riemann function of -1 is equal to the sum of all positive integers. " however that is false as the "Riemann function" is defined everywhere except for a simple pole at 1.

This topic is also covered here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xaC_aKqjCXU.html&ab_channel=SeethePattern

QED theory is only consistent in nuclear dimensions where the Electromagnetic interactions among the quarks are confined into nuclear dimensions (similar to general theory of relativity) resulting in the field condensation called "gluons".

It is so refreshing to see some truth in this field, please keep making videos. Physics is beautiful in itself as it is a reflection of the Creator.

Finally, someone competent to say the things I have thinking for a long time. While I spent my career in law, I always enjoyed science, and especially physics/math. I have used much of my retirement time in that study. I have often read "explanations" in physics that have the ring of a fudge factor. Sometimes after reading something on the inflation theory, dark matter, dark energy or quantum mechanics, I think, "Seriously? Do you guys just make up this crap as you go along?" Sabine Hossenfelder wrote a book called "Lost in Math", which looks at much of the unprovable rabbit hole theories of modern physics. It is a good, if depressing, read.

Is there any way to contact you privately.

In that case I will scratch learning QED off my bucket list of things to do.

The math in QED is too difficult for me.

It is a sad story, I am dyslexic and outside of mainstream physics maybe that is a good thing! Math should represent the geometry of a three dimensional process in my opinion. It is a good idea to look all the way back to the ideas of Ancient Greece, Plato, Aristotle and Pythagoras. Equations are a great tool, but geometry is real!

It would be interesting to feed all the measurements we have so far by experiment into a neural network that is trained to find the smallest possible mathematical function that explains every measurement. If the status q is true it should give out the standard model

"That ramshackle structure" keeps solving real problems. Any replacement will only be on the margins

Another one of these videos that make a stink about renormalization that does not cover or even mention the work by Weinberg and Salem that demonstrated that all quantum field theories are effective field theories, which explained why renormalization was required to remove these infinities. As for the early papers in QED, it not a surprise to me at least that they were some what fudged to match the experiment. As for the agreement with experiment, yes it seems that Karplus and Kroll manipulated there results to better match experiment, but results for g after them both moved the number closer and further from the experimental value at different times. Also, it is clear that any publication accepting a QFT result should require a supplement containing all diagrams used and their value whether computed by human or computer. Lastly, the Dyson paper where he proves that all Dyson series (actually for phi 4 theory not QED, but it turned out the same was true in QED) also had a latter development that dealt with this issue. It is called Borel re-summation and it is somewhat obscure, so I don’t think you excluded this fact out of malice. Borel re-summation allows you to take a divergent perturbative expansion at a non-analytic point like free field theory and turn it into a good approximation of the underlying function. It sees standard use in high order Dyson expansions. More generally, the first terms of a divergent power series can actually provide a good approximation of the underlying function if their magnitude decreases to a minimum before increasing. The magnitude of the minimum term in series sets the order of the error in the result. This is exactly the situation in QED. You can calculate that the terms in included in the series for g are decreasing in all of the examples you show.

The collective quackery!

Excellent.

Hans Bethe once featured in an advertisement for Tefal

Oh dear... oh dear... oh dear ! ... now there is just NOTHING left which is sacred !!! STRANGE... as I went to hit the like button I saw the current number of likes was '666' ... oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... Nosmo.

I have read the two articles by Oliver Consa. I found them very interesting. If the Dyson series diverges in the calculation of the g-factor, this surely represents the most serious problem of QED. As a matter of fact, the cut-off technique (which ignores the rest of the terms of the series) doesn't seem very convincing. However, if one could develop a rigorous mathematical proof why the results of Feynman diagrams cancel each other out, providing an explanation that the total result remains on the order of 1, then I think the theory would be valid. I don't know if Dyson has provided a rigorous demonstration of the divergence of the series that bears his name. In any case, I think a confirmation from a mathematician is needed because physicists, generally, have a tendency to "approximate".