Without quoting any book: "One of the most impressive calculations in theoretical physics"

[vova]

There is not in current theoretical physics an atomistic structure of the electric field, despite more than 70 years ago Wolfgang Pauli said in his Nobel Lecture:

 

"From the point of view of logic, my report on ‘Exclusion principle and quantum mechanics’ has no conclusion. I believe that it will only be possible to write the conclusion if a theory is established which will determine the value of the fine-structure constant and will thus explain the atomistic structure of electricity, which is such an essential quality of all atomic sources of electric fields actually occurring in Nature."

 

 

The book *************** was published in 2021, by ***********.

In the first article of the book, entitled "Relation between QED, Coulomb's Law and fine-structure constant", the theory of the structure of the electric field was proposed, composed of fermions of the quantum vacuum, which move with the speed of light.

In the figure 1 below you can see the atomistic structure of two protons, P-1 and P-2, repelling each other. The electriciton e-1 of proton P-1 is interacting with the electriciton e-2 of the proton P-2, being F1 the repulse force between e-1 and e-2. And the electricitions e-3 an e-4 will interact with a force F2 when they arrive to the point where the electrictions e-1 and e-2 are interacting just at the present instant.

Figure 1

 

On page 92 of the book is shown the calculation of the value of the electric charge of the fermions that make up the electric field. The calculation is very simple, performed between equations 4 and 6, seen in the figure 2. The value obtained is 5.06532x10^-45 C, in the Eq. 6.

 

Figure 2

 

Before be published in the book ******************, the article was rejected by several journals, such as the European Physical Journal C, International Journal of Modern Physics, Foundations of Physics, and many others. One of the Editor-in-Chief of the European Physical Journal Plus rejected the article with this Report:

 

===========================================================

Ref.: Ms. At the. EPJP-D-20-00700R1

Relationship between QED, Coulomb's Law, and fine-structure constant

The European Physical Journal Plus

 

Dear Dr Guglinski,

The main idea of the article is based on classical notions such as particle motion and electric current and magnetic field seem to have received fundamental roles. This is evident from the numbers presented in the newspaper. These notions are untenable in the microscopic world where the wave-particle duality is essential even if the author feels "outsider" and the gauge field plays an essential role. They have been supported by experiments for many years. The paper will not be understood and will never be accepted by any other physicists unless the author provides, not subjective evidence (such as that which the author considers "strange"), but objective evidence of defect in the standard interpretation, which is lacking at present. paper.

I think the article does not meet the scientific standards required by EPJ Plus and therefore I reject it.

yours sincerely

Hiromichi Nakazato

===========================================================

 

But I knew that that simple calculation of the electric charge of the fermions, whose value obtained was 5.06532x10^-45 C, was very simple and not enough to convince the physicists. And so, while Dr. Nakazato was analyzing my article, I dedicated myself to the task of proving that, starting from that value of the charge of the quantum vacuum fermions, it was possible to calculate the value of the electric charge of the proton, if its electric field is really constituted by those fermions, moving with the speed of light.

This calculation was successfully performed in the article "Calculation of proton charges from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum", and the calculation procedure is quite simple, as explained ahead.

 

========Calculation procedure========

Considering that the electric field of the proton is composed of electricitons with charge 5.06532.10^-45 C, as calculated in Relationship between QED, Coulomb's Law, and fine-structure constant, then if we calculate the amount X of electricitons that make up its electric field, the charge of the proton in Coulomb is:

 

e= X.e₀

e= X· 5.06532.10^-45.

The task at hand is to calculate X. However, of course, it's not that easy. It is necessary to consider the quantization of energy.

===========================================================

 

But although the calculation procedure is quite simple, the calculation itself is sophisticated, because it involves several constants of physics, such as Planck's constant, the fine structure constant 1/137, the speed of light, the electrostatic constant of vacuum , and the Bohr radius. The figure 3 below shows where the calculation starts from. There you can see two fermions, A and B, moving in the proton's electric field. They leave the proton's body, where they were captured from the quantum vacuum around the proton's body, and travel with the speed of light for a distance equal to the Bohr radius.

 

Figure 3

 

The result of the calculation is fantastic. The experimentally measured value of the proton's charge is 1.6026x10^-19 C, and the value obtained by calculation is 1.60218x10^-19 C.

The article was submitted to the European Physical Journal Plus, under the care of Editor-in-Chief Hiromichi Nakazato. But two days after the article was submitted, it was rejected by Editor-in-Chief Kumar Gupta. That is, he did not want the article to be evaluated by Nakazato. And obviously Kumar Gupta didn't even read the article, because in two days he couldn't reliably assess the merits of the calculation exposed in the article.

For serious physicists (who are not traitorous pickaxes of the scientific method and who do not spit on Mathematics, like Dr. Gupta) the calculation of the electric charge of the proton, exposed in this article, is one of the most impressive calculations in physics. Any serious physicist, who respects Mathematics, is amazed.

This impressive and successful calculation also justifies what is explained, in the end of the paper, on the properties that fermions start to possess when they are captured by the proton and start to compose its electric field:

 

===========================================================

1-    A fermion e-1 from the electric field of a proton A only interacts with a fermion e-2, from the electric field of a proton B, where the density of the quantum vacuum around each of the protons is sufficient to give to the fermions e-1 and e-2 the property of having interaction.

 

2-    And this quantum vacuum density, sufficient to provide the interaction of the two fermions e-1 and e-2, only occurs within the space limited by the Bohr radius.

 

3-    Figure 4 illustrates these properties, for the attraction proton-electron.

===========================================================

 

Figure 4

And what is the consequence of this fantastic result obtained with the calculation of the electric charge of the proton, from the electric charge of the fermions of the quantum vacuum?

The consequence is that the successful calculation demonstrates that the coupling mechanism of electric fields, according to Quantum Electrodynamics, does not correspond to the existing interaction mechanism in Nature.

According to Quantum Electrodynamics, a proton and an electron attract each other through the emission of photons. In calculus, an abstract mathematical concept is adopted, called bispinor.

But what happens in Nature is that the proton-electron attraction is produced by the interaction force of fermions from the proton field with fermions from the electron field. Each fermion has a spin. And since there are two interacting fermions, there is interaction between two spins. That is why in Quantum Electrodynamics it was necessary to adopt the concept of bispinor, because it was through this concept that it was possible to obtain the mathematical equivalence between what is calculated in Quantum Electrodynamics and what realy occurs in Nature.

At the end of the book ****************, a challenge is proposed to physicists: to demonstrate that the mechanism of photon exchange, between a proton and an electron, adopted in Quantum Electrodynamics, is mathematically equivalent to the mechanism of interaction between fermions of the electric fields of the proton and of the electron, existing in Nature.

This mathematical demonstration, of the equivalence of the two systems, would be the definitive proof that the photon exchange mechanism, of Quantum Electrodynamics, does not correspond to the existing mechanism in Nature, which occurs through the interaction between fermions of the atomistic structure of electric fields.

Invitation

 

to the Rector

 

of the

 

Federal University of Juiz de Fora- UFJF

 

A copy of the book **************** was presented to the Rector of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora- UFJF, at the end of 2021, inviting him to encourage UFJF physicists to look into this mathematical demonstration of the equivalence of the two systems.

This demonstration would prove that Quantum Electrodynamics is developed through a mathematical procedure that gives good results, but the physical mechanism adopted in the theory is different from that existing in Nature.

 

Figure 5 - Photo of the page with the dedication to the Rector of UFJF

 

But it is unlikely that the UFJF physicists have accepted the challenge. They are all terrified of reaching the conclusion that the laws of physics, of current Theoretical Physics, do not correspond to the true laws of Nature.

 

Note: the paper

Calculation of proton charges from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum

was published also in the peer-review journal Physics Essays, in 2021

Anyone who wants to check the calculations, feel free.

Certainly several universities around the world have publications of the journal Physics Essays.

Then it will be easy for any university professor, or any student, to check the calculations.

 

[swansont]

You still have massless fermions and no evidence of them

You’re still posting about an argument between you and a journal.