Something is wrong in the state of QED

Abstract: 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.

• The paper critically examines Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), arguing its acceptance relies heavily on the electron's anomalous magnetic moment derived through methods deemed suspicious.
• It questions the mathematical legitimacy of renormalization techniques used to handle infinities and details historical errors in calculating the electron's g-factor.
• Despite QED's empirical accuracy, the paper calls for a critical re-evaluation of its theoretical foundations and methodologies due to perceived inconsistencies.

An Examination of Quantum Electrodynamics: Critique and Historical Context

The paper by Oliver Consa provides a critical examination of the development and consistency of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), a cornerstone of modern theoretical physics. The primary focus is on the historical context and the perceived flaws and challenges in QED, specifically in relation to the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (g-factor).

Historical and Scientific Context

In the aftermath of World War II, American physicists, buoyed by the success of the Manhattan Project, spearheaded a series of conferences aimed at advancing modern physics, notably QED. The foundational premise of QED was to provide a unified theory explaining electromagnetic interactions through quantum field theory (QFT). However, the paper argues that QED's acceptance and presumed accuracy stemmed largely from the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, which was derived through methods deemed suspicious by the author.

The Problem of Infinities and Renormalization

A significant critique within the paper is directed at the mathematical legitimacy of renormalization techniques used in QED. These techniques, introduced to deal with infinite results that arise in QFT calculations, are argued to be arbitrary and lacking a sound mathematical basis. The paper cites key figures like Dirac and Feynman, who expressed dissatisfaction with the discarding of infinities, labeling it as nonsensical mathematics.

Conferences and Key Figures

The paper guides readers through pivotal conferences—Shelter Island, Pocono, and Oldstone—where renowned physicists including Feynman and Schwinger made significant contributions to QED. However, these contributions were met with skepticism and criticism, notably from physicists like Dirac and Oppenheimer, who doubted the physical realism and mathematical consistency of the theories being presented.

Calculations and Corrections

The paper explores detailed accounts of calculations, particularly emphasizing the errors and subsequent corrections in determining the coefficients of Dyson's series—a representation of the electron's g-factor. It critiques how historical calculations, such as those by Karplus and Kroll, initially claimed to agree with experimental data, were later corrected, exposing substantial discrepancies that were resolved only through subsequent recalculations by Petermann and others. This narrative underscores the concern over the reliability and reproducibility of QED calculations.

Implications and Theoretical Consistency

While discussing the implications of QED, the paper remains skeptical about its theoretical consistency, highlighting instances where corrections to theoretical predictions coincided conveniently with revised experimental results, raising questions about the integrity of the process. Despite the mathematical intricacies and challenges, QED remains a pillar of physics due to its empirical accuracy.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The paper concludes by reiterating the fragile balance upon which the acceptance of QED rests, a combination of empirical success and theoretical skepticism. It calls for a critical re-evaluation of the foundations of QED and the methodologies employed in its predictions.

In light of these insights, future developments in theoretical physics may require a paradigm shift that treats renormalization with more rigor or an entirely new framework to reconcile these longstanding inconsistencies. The history and evolution of QED serve as a cautionary tale for the scientific community about the complexities of theoretical physics and the ongoing quest for a more robust and self-consistent theory.