Muon desperation

 PSI Blog 20210426 Muon desperation


Thanks to Marilyn, Mike, and others who wondered about this latest ground-breaking news on the muon, which is just an extra heavy electron:


Here is the most reasonable explanation:




And another:




And a skeptic:




Why be a skeptic? [GB: Because no theory can be “complete” in an Infinite Universe. There may be some hope for regressive physicists yet]:


“Since it was first put together in the 1970s, the standard model has passed all tests and has survived almost unchanged. But physicists are convinced that it must be incomplete, and some hope that muons will reveal its first failure.”





Oliver Consa said...

Dear colleagues:

First Results from Fermilab's Muon g-2 Experiment show strong evidence that our best theoretical model of the subatomic world is incomplete.

This evident discrepancy of the experimental data with respect to the theoretical data should make us doubt about the validity of Quantum electrodynamics (QED). However, it seems that no one is willing to question the validity of the QED and the scientific community prefers to propose new hypotheses to solve the discrepancy (new elementary particles, new fundamental forces, etc ...).

A year ago, we already anticipated this situation and published this paper:

Something is Rotten in the State of QED

"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." (12 pag)

The paper is fun to read and is already in the Vixra Top 500. But if you think that vixra is an unreliable source and the tone of the paper is too rude for your taste, you can also read a more objective and polite version published in ARXIV: "The Unpublished Feynman Diagram IIc" https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.10345

Andy said...

"It’s a discrepancy that may seem insignificant and laughable to anyone else, yet what seems like nothing to the layperson is an entire ocean of difference to the physicist."

Well, I don't know which layperson this writer seems to be referring to, but it doesn't take a physicist to understand that if a+b=d experimentally, and the theoretical prediction is supposed to equal c(+/-), there's a problem with the original theory that predicted c.

Doesn't seem like nothing to this "layperson". Actually, it seems pretty simple to understand. Something is broke or missing in the original theory. And it's quiet possibly wrong.

The only thing laughable is this writers arrogance.