Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Summary of the Situation
Summary
References
All Topics
Physics
Particle Physics

Something is wrong in the state of QED

Profile image of Oliver ConsaOliver Consa

2021, arXiv (Cornell University)

visibility

…

description

16 pages

link

1 file

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.

Related papers

A Physical Insight into the Origin of the Corrections to the Magnetic Moment of Free and Bound Electron
Nicolae Bogdan Mandache

Journal of Modern Physics, 2020

The main goal of the present work is a unitary approach of the physical origin of the corrections to the magnetic moment of free and bound electron. Based on this approach, estimations of lowest order corrections were easily obtained. In the non-relativistic limit, the Dirac electron appears as a distribution of charge and current extended over a region of linear dimension of the order of Compton wavelength, which generates its magnetic moment. The e.m. mass (self-energy) of electron outside this region does not participate to this internal dynamics, and consequently does not contribute to the mass term in the formula of the magnetic moment. This is the physical origin of the small increase of the magnetic moment of free electron compared to the value given by Dirac equation. We give arguments that this physical interpretation is self-consistent with the QED approach. The bound electron being localized, it has kinetic energy which means a mass increase from a relativistic point of view, which determines a magnetic moment decrease (relativistic Breit correction). On the other hand, the e.m. mass of electron decreases at the formation of the bound state due to coulomb interaction with the nucleus. We estimated this e.m. mass decrease of bound electron only in its internal dynamics region, and from it the corresponding increase of the magnetic moment (QED correction). The corrections to the mass value are at the origin of the lowest order corrections to the magnetic moment of free and bound electron.

View PDFchevron_right
The Zitter Electron Model and the Anomalous Magnetic Moment
Oliver Consa

2025

The Zitter Model of the Electron interprets Zitterbewegung as a real internal motion of the electron at the speed of light, giving rise to its spin and magnetic moment. Based on this model and relying solely on four basic assumptions, we have derived numerous properties of the electron directly from its internal structure, including the de Broglie frequency, magnetic and angular momentum, Compton wavelength, the quantum magnetic flux, the quantum Hall resistance, the Lorentz factor, and the Schwinger critical field limits. By introducing a fifth assumption (a secondary helical motion), we derived the amplitude of this motion and predicted an anomalous magnetic moment with a g-factor of 1.0011607, obtained purely from geometric considerations, without any numerical fitting or free parameters.

View PDFchevron_right
Quantum Electrodynamic Theory: Its Relation to Precision Low Energy Experiments
Stanley Brodsky
View PDFchevron_right
The Anomalous Magnetic Moments of the Electron and the Muon - Improved QED Predictions Using Pade Approximants
E Steinfelds

1994

We use Pade Approximants to obtain improved predictions for the anomalous magnetic moments of the electron and the muon. These are needed because of the very precise experimental values presently obtained for the electron, and soon to be obtained at BNL for the muon. The Pade prediction for the QED contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon differs significantly from the naive perturbative prediction.

View PDFchevron_right
The Present Status of Quantum Electrodynamics
Stanley Brodsky

Annual Review of Nuclear Science, 1970

View PDFchevron_right
AMBIGUITIES IN THE GRAVITATIONAL CORRECTION OF QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS
Marcos Sampaio

Modern Physics Letters A, 2013

We verify that quadratic divergences stemming from gravitational corrections to QED which have been conjectured to lead to asymptotic freedom near Planck scale are arbitrary (regularization dependent) and compatible with zero. Moreover we explicitly show that such arbitrary term contributes to the beta function of QED in a gauge dependent way in the gravitational sector.

View PDFchevron_right
The anomalous magnetic moment of the electron in hydrogenlike ions
J. Verdu

The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 2008

The precise determination of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron bound in hydrogen-like ions allows for a stringent test of quantum electrodynamics (QED) in the presence of strong electric fields. g-factor measurements on the electron bound in hydrogen-like ions 12 C 5+ and 16 O 7+ , using single ions confined in a Penning trap, have yielded values in agreement with theory on the ppb level. If the QED calculations are considered correct, the results can in turn be used for a determination of fundamental constants like the electron mass m e, the fine structure constant α or nuclear parameters. We report about present developments towards g-factor measurements also in medium-heavy and heavy highly-charged ions.

View PDFchevron_right
The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model
Fred Jegerlehner

Physics Reports, 2020

We review the present status of the Standard Model calculation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. This is performed in a perturbative expansion in the fine-structure constant α and is broken down into pure QED, electroweak, and hadronic contributions. The pure QED contribution is by far the largest and has been evaluated up to and including O(α 5) with negligible numerical uncertainty. The electroweak contribution is suppressed by (m µ /M W) 2 and only shows up at the level of the seventh significant digit. It has been evaluated up to two loops and is known to better than one percent. Hadronic contributions are the most difficult to calculate and are responsible for almost all of the theoretical uncertainty. The leading hadronic contribution appears at O(α 2) and is due to hadronic vacuum polarization, whereas at O(α 3) the hadronic light-by-light scattering contribution appears. Given the low characteristic scale of this observable, these contributions have to be calculated with nonperturbative methods, in particular, dispersion relations and the lattice approach to QCD. The largest part of this review is dedicated to a detailed account of recent efforts to improve the calculation of these two contributions with either a data-driven, dispersive approach, or a first-principle, lattice-QCD approach. The final result reads a SM µ = 116 591 810(43) × 10 −11 and is smaller than the Brookhaven measurement by 3.7σ. The experimental uncertainty will soon be reduced by up to a factor four by the new experiment currently running at Fermilab, and also by the future J-PARC experiment. This and the prospects to further reduce the theoretical uncertainty in the near future-which are also discussed here-make this quantity one of the most promising places to look for evidence of new physics.

View PDFchevron_right
Comparison of the electron and positron anomalous magnetic moments: Experiment 1987
Igor Nesterenko

Physics Letters B, 1987

The anomalous magnetic moments of relativistic electrons and positrons have been compared by measuring the spin precession phase difference at a given time interval. The difference in the anomalous magnetic moments between the electron and the positron has been shown to lie within 1 X 10-8 at 95% confidence level, which improves the accuracy of the previous measurements by an order of magnitude.

View PDFchevron_right
Anomalous magnetic moment of a bound electron
Andrzej Czarnecki

Physical Review A, 2000

We study binding corrections to the gyromagnetic factor g e of an electron in hydrogen-like ions. We argue that the leading order binding effects in radiative corrections ∆g rad are universal to all orders in α/π and the complete result reads ∆g rad = (g free − 2) · [1 + (Zα) 2 /6] + O α π · (Zα) 4 . The theoretical uncertainty in the prediction for the experimentally interesting carbon ion is decreased by a factor of about 3.

View PDFchevron_right

References (72)

  1. Feynman R.P. QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton University Press, 1985. ISBN 0691024170
  2. Baez J. Euler's Proof That 1 + 2 + 3 + ••• = -1/12, 2003. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-winter2004/zeta.pdf
  3. The Influence of Retardation on the London-van der Waals Forces Casimir H.B.G., Polder D. Phys. Rev., 1948. v. 73(4), 360-372.
  4. Lamb, W.E., Retherford, R.C. Fine Structure of the Hydrogen Atom by a Microwave Method. Phys. Rev., 1947. v. 72(3), 241-243.
  5. Nafe J.E., Nelson E.B., Rabi I.I. The Hyperfine Structure of Atomic Hydrogen and Deuterium Phys. Rev., 1947. v. 71(12), 914-915.
  6. Breit G. Does the Electron Have an Intrinsic Magnetic Moment?. Phys. Rev., 1947. v. 72(10), 984-984.
  7. Bethe, H.A. The Electromagnetic Shift of Energy Levels, Phys. Rev., 1947. v. 72(4), 339-341.
  8. Schwinger J. On Quantum-Electrodynamics and the Magnetic Moment of the Electron. Phys. Rev., 1948. v. 73(4), 416-417.
  9. Kusch P., Foley H.M. The Magnetic Moment of the Electron. Phys. Rev., 1948. v. 74(3), 250-263.
  10. Dyson F. The Radiation Theories of Tomonaga, Schwinger, and Feyn- man. Phys. Rev., 1949. v. 75(3), 486-502.
  11. Dyson F. The S-Matrix in Quantum Electrodynamics. Phys. Rev., 1949. v. 75(11), 1736-1755.
  12. Gardner J.H., Purcell E.M. A Precise Determination of the Proton Mag- netic Moment in Bohr Magnetons. Phys. Rev., 1949. v. 76(8), 1262- 1263.
  13. Karplus R., Kroll N. Fourth-order corrections in quantum electrody- namics and the magnetic moment of the electron. Phys. Rev., 1950 v. 77(4), 536-549. October 2021
  14. Bethe H.A., Brown L.M., Stehn J.R. Numerical Value of the Lamb Shift. Phys. Rev., 1950 v. 77(3), 370-374.
  15. Baranger, M. Relativistic Corrections to the Lamb Shift. Phys. Rev., 1951 v. 84(4), 866-867.
  16. Dyson F. Divergence of Perturbation Theory in Quantum Electrody- namics. Phys. Rev., 1952 v. 85(4),631-632.
  17. Franken P., Liebes S. Magnetic Moment of the Proton in Bohr Magne- tons. Phys. Rev., 1956 v. 104(4), 1197-1198.
  18. Petermann A. Magnetic moment of the electron. Nucl. Phys., 1957 v. 3(5), 689-690
  19. Petermann A. Magnetic moment of the electron. Nucl. Phys., 1958 v. 5 677-683
  20. Petermann A. Fourth order magnetic moment of the electron. Helvetica Physica Acta, 1957 v. 30, 407-408.
  21. Sommerfield C.M. Magnetic Dipole Moment of the Electron. Phys. Rev., 1957 v. 107(1), 328-329.
  22. Sommerfield C.M. The Magnetic Moment of the Electron. Annals of Physics, 1958 v. 5 26-57.
  23. Sommerfield C.M. Schwingerians. Julian Schwinger Centennial Con- ference, pp. 207-211 (2019). Transcript of the video lecture recorded.
  24. Schwinger J. Particles, Sources, and Fields. Vol. III. Addison-Wesley, Advanced Book Classics, 1989. ISBN-13: 978-0738200552.
  25. Barbieri, Mignaco, Remiddi Electron Form Factors up to Fourth Order. I & II Il Nuovo Cimento, 1972. v. 1(4) 824-916.
  26. Smrz P., Ulehla I. Electrodynamic corrections to magnetic moment of electron Czech. Journ. Phys., 1960. v. 10, 966-968.
  27. Terentiev M.V. Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz., 1962. v. 43, 619.
  28. Louisell W.H., Pidd R.W., Crane H.R. An Experimental Measurement of the Gyromagnetic Ratio of the Free Electron. Phys. Rev., 1954 v. 94(1), 7-16.
  29. Schupp A.A., Pidd R.W., Crane H.R. Measurement of the g Factor of Free, High-Energy Electrons. Phys. Rev., 1961 v. 121(1), 1-17.
  30. Wilkinson D.T., Crane H.R. Precision Measurement of the g Factor of the Free Electron. Phys. Rev., 1963 v. 130(3), 852-863.
  31. Drell, S. D. and Pagels, H. R. Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Electron, Muon, and Nucleon. Phys. Rev., 1965 v. 140(2B), B397- B407.
  32. Brodsky S.J., Drell S.D. The present status of the Quantum Electrody- namics Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci., 1970 v. 20, 147-194.
  33. Rich A. Corrections to the Experimental Value for the Electron g-Factor Anomaly Physical Review Letters, 1968 v. 20, 967-971.
  34. Wesley J.C., Rich A. Preliminary Results of a New Electron g-2 Mea- surement Physical Review Letters, 1970 v. 24, 1320-1325.
  35. Wesley J.C., Rich A. High-Field Electron g-2 Measurement Physical Review, 1971 v. A4, 1341-1363.
  36. Wesley J.C., Rich A. The Current Status of the Lepton g Factors Re- views of Modern Physics, 1972 v. 44, 250-283.
  37. Levine, M.J., Wright J. Sixth-Order Magnetic Moment of the Electron Physical Review Letters, 1972 v. 26, 1351-1353.
  38. Levine, M.J., Park, H.Y., Roskies, R.Z. High-precision evaluation of contributions to g -2 of the electron in sixth order Physical Review D, 1982 v. 25(8), 2205-2207.
  39. Cvitanovic P., Kinoshita T. Sixth-Order Radiative Corrections to the Electron Magnetic Moment Phys. Rev. Lett., 1972 v. 29, 1534.
  40. Cvitanovic P. Asymptotic Estimates and Gauge Invariance Nucl.Phys.B, 1977 v. 127, 176-188.
  41. 't Hooft G. Can we make sense out of quantum chromodynamics? The Whys of Subnuclear Physics, ed. A. Zichichi,, 1978.
  42. Landau L.D. On the quantum theory of fields Niels Bohr and the De- velopment of Physics; Essays Dedicated to Niels Bohr on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. McGraw-Hill, 1955. 52-69
  43. Van Dyck, R.S., Schwinberg, P.B., Dehmelt, H.G. Precise Measure- ments of Axial, Magnetron, Cyclotron, and Spin-Cyclotron-Beat. Fre- quencies on an Isolated 1-meV Electron. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1977 v. 38(7), 310-314.
  44. Van Dyck, R.S., Schwinberg, P.B., Dehmelt, H.G. New high-precision comparison of electron and positron g factors. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1981 v. 47(24), 1679-1682.
  45. Van Dyck R.S., Schwinberg P.B., Dehmelt H.G. The Electron and Positron Geonium Experiments. 9th International Conference on Atomic Physics: Seattle, USA, July 24-27, 1984, 53-73.
  46. Van Dyck R.S., Schwinberg P.B., Dehmelt H.G. New high-precision comparison of electron and positron g factors. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1987 v. 59(1), 26-29.
  47. Laporta S., Remiddi E. The analytical value of the electron (g-2) at order a3 in QED. Physics Letters B, 1996 v. 379(1-4), 283-291.
  48. Odom B., Hanneke D., D'Urso B., Gabrielse G. New Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment Using a One-Electron Quantum. Cy- clotron. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2006 v. 97(3), 030801-030804.
  49. Hanneke D., Fogwell S., Gabrielse G. New Measurement of the Elec- tron Magnetic Moment and the Fine Structure Constant. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2008 v. 100(12), 120801-120805.
  50. Laporta S. High-precision calculation of the 4-loop contribution to the electron g-2 in QED. Physics Letters B, 2017 v. 772, 232-238.
  51. Bennett G.W. et al. Measurement of the Negative Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.7 ppm. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2004 v. 9216, 161802- 161807.
  52. Kinoshita T., Lindquist W.B. Eighth-Order Anomalous Magnetic Mo- ment of the Electron Phys. Rev. Lett., 1981 v. 47, 1573.
  53. Kinoshita T. Improved determination of the fine structure constant based on the electron g-2 and muonium hyperfine structure IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., 1995 v. 44(2), 498-500.
  54. Aoyama T., Hayakawa M., Kinoshita T., Nio M. Revised Value of the Eighth-Order Contribution to the Electron g-2 Phys. Rev. Lett., 2007 v. 99, 110406.
  55. Aoyama T., Hayakawa M., Kinoshita T., Nio M. Tenth-Order QED Contribution to the Electron g-2 and an Improved Value of the Fine Structure Constant Phys. Rev. Lett., 2012 v. 109, 111807.
  56. Aoyama T., Hayakawa M., Kinoshita T., Nio M. Tenth-order electron anomalous magnetic moment: Contribution of diagrams without closed lepton loops Phys. Rev. D, 2015 v. 91, 033006.
  57. Aoyama T., Hayakawa M., Kinoshita T., Nio M. Revised and Improved Value of the QED Tenth-Order Electron Anomalous Magnetic Moment. Phys. Rev. D, 2018 v. 97, 036001.
  58. Dirac P.A.M. The Evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature. Scien- tific American, 1963 v. 208(5), 45-53.
  59. Kragh H. Dirac: A scientific biography. Cambridge University Press, 1990 ISBN 0521017564
  60. Dirac P.A.M. The Inadequacies Of Quantum Field Theory Florida State University, 1987 194-198.
  61. Dyson F. Disturbing the Universe. Henry Holt and Co, 1979 ISBN 9780465016778.
  62. Schweber S.S. QED and the Men who Made it: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga. Princeton University Press, 1994 p. 12. ISBN 0691033277.
  63. Segre G., Hoerlin B. The Pope of Physics: Enrico Fermi and the Birth of the Atomic Age. Henry Holt and Co, 2016 ISBN 9781627790055.
  64. Kroll. N. Interview with Finn Aaserud: (Interview conducted on 28 June 1986), Niels Bohr Library & Archives, American Institute of October 2021
  65. Physics, College Park, MD, USA, 1986, https://www.aip.org/history- programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/28394
  66. Dirac P.A.M. Interview with Paul Dirac, for the CBC radio documentary series "Physics and Beyond". Published in Glimps- ing Reality: Ideas in Physics and the Link to Biology., 1972, http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/dirac.htm
  67. Mehra J., Kimball A.M. Climbing the Mountain: The Scientific Biog- raphy of Julian Schwinger Oxford University Press, 2000 p.117. ISBN 0198527454.
  68. Hans Bethe -Calculating the Lamb shift (104/158) Web of Stories -Life Stories of Remarkable People https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZvQg3bkV7s
  69. Milton K.A. Julian Schwinger: Nuclear Physics, the Radiation Laboratory, Renormalized QED, Source Theory and Beyond, 2008 https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610054.pdf
  70. Mehra J., Rechenberg H. The historical development of Quantum The- ory Springer, 2001. p.1055. ISBN 9780387951829.
  71. Feynman R.P. Letter to Enrico Fermi from Brazil. RPF, 19 Dec 1951
  72. Dyson F. Private letter to Gabrielse, 2006

Related papers

Something is Rotten in the State of Qed
Oliver Consa

viXra, 2020

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 QED history reveals that this value was obtained using illegitimate mathematical traps, manipulations and tricks. These traps included the fraud of Kroll & Karplus, who acknowledged that they lied in their presentation of the most relevant calculation in QED history. As we will demonstrate in this paper, the Kroll & Karplus scandal was not a unique event. Instead, the scandal represented the fraudulent manner in which physics has been conducted from the creation of QED through today.

View PDFchevron_right
Theory of the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Electron
Atoms ( I S S N : 2 2 1 8 - 2 0 0 4 ) (ESCI & Scopus Indexing), Toichiro Kinoshita

Atoms, 2019

The anomalous magnetic moment of the electron a e measured in a Penning trap occupies a unique position among high precision measurements of physical constants in the sense that it can be compared directly with the theoretical calculation based on the renormalized quantum electrodynamics (QED) to high orders of perturbation expansion in the fine structure constant α, with an effective parameter α/π. Both numerical and analytic evaluations of a e up to (α/π) 4 are firmly established. The coefficient of (α/π) 5 has been obtained recently by an extensive numerical integration. The contributions of hadronic and weak interactions have also been estimated. The sum of all these terms leads to a e (theory) = 1 159 652 181.606 (11)(12)(229) × 10 −12 , where the first two uncertainties are from the tenth-order QED term and the hadronic term, respectively. The third and largest uncertainty comes from the current best value of the fine-structure constant derived from the cesium recoil measurement: α −1 (Cs) = 137.035 999 046 (27). The discrepancy between a e (theory) and a e ((experiment)) is 2.4σ. Assuming that the standard model is valid so that a e (theory) = a e (experiment) holds, we obtain α −1 (a e) = 137.035 999 1496 (13)(14)(330), which is nearly as accurate as α −1 (Cs). The uncertainties are from the tenth-order QED term, hadronic term, and the best measurement of a e , in this order.

View PDFchevron_right
The Not-So Anomalous Magnetic Moment
Jean Louis Van Belle

This paper is a didactic exploration of the geometry of the experiments measuring the anomalous magnetic moment. It is argued that there may be nothing anomalous about it. We argue that Schwinger's α/2π factor and the other quantum-mechanical corrections might be explained by a form factor: the electron should, perhaps, not be thought of as a perfect sphere or a perfect disk. If this possibility is allowed for, the anomalous magnetic moment might possibly be explained in terms of a classical explanation. Contents:

View PDFchevron_right
The anomalous magnetic moment: classical calculations
Jean Louis Van Belle

Critics of the Zitterbewegung interpretation of quantum mechanics often ask what predictions come out of the model. The answer to this question must be modest: the model does not yield anything new or explain something that had hitherto remained unexplained. The Zitterbewegung interpretation just comes across as being more logical and consistent because it provides a realist interpretation of what the wavefunction actually is. However, in order to gain some basic credibility, zbw theorists should do more of an effort to show how the model explains standard results obtained by mainstream research. It should, for example, explain the anomalous magnetic moment as measured in single-electron cyclotron experiments. If it could do so in a convincing way, then it should be recognized as a valid and alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics. This paper explores the geometry of the zbw model in very much detail and argues it can be done. In this paper, we do the calculations assuming the naked zbw charge has zero rest mass, and we find an anomalous magnetic moment that's off by a factor equal to 4/π  1.27 only. This is quite encouraging because we've used approximative formulas to calculate volumes. In addition, the model has a flexible assumption (the rest mass of the naked zbw charge may have some value close to zero rather than exactly zero) which we haven't exploited yet.

View PDFchevron_right
On the Electron Magnetic Moment “Anomaly”
André Michaud

2013

It can be shown that the difference between the experimental value of the electron magnetic moment and that of the Bohr magneton is due to the magnetic drift of the electron's carrying energy induced at the hydrogen ground state gyroradius, corresponding to the electron being forced to move on a closed orbit about the nucleus in an isolated hydrogen atom.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Physics
  • Theoretical Physics
  • anomalous magnetic dipole moment
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved