Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

The MIT Press eBooks

QED

Published Jul 14, 2017• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.7551/mitpress/10488.003.0017

Related papers

QED

Peter Swirski

McGill-Queen's University Press eBooks•Oct 1, 2013•0 citations

The QED-physical theory of electron spin and quantum entanglement

James H. Wilson

The QED-Physical (QED-P) theory described in four previous papers [J. H. Wilson, Phys. Essays 28, 1 (2015); 29, 402 (2016); 31, 59 (2018); 34, 17 (2021)] is combined with QED into a single theory in this paper, since both are based on the same Dirac Equation four current c(α,I). QED couples this four-vector with an external electromagnetic (EM) field and uses covariant perturbation theory to produce results that are very accurate computationally [M. L. Eides et al., Phys. Rep. 342, 63 (2001)], except for the electron self-energy, which is infinite. The reason for QED’s accuracy is its Dirac equation velocity operator, cα, with highly unusual properties compared to classical velocity vectors. QED could not produce highly accurate answers without the 4 × 4 complex matrix cα as the electron “velocity operator.” QED-P starts with the same Dirac Equation four current used so successfully in QED, and the discrete internal spatial and time coordinate operators (ISaTCOs) are derived in QED-P to give the electron internal structure a very specific, but highly, nonclassical geometric description with no ad hoc assumptions. The QED/QED-physical (QED-P) unification theorem is stated and proved in Sec. VII. However, one should ask what new physical measurements are predicted by QED-P that are not determined by the very accurate QED? The answer is none yet, due to the very rapid fluctuation of the ISaTCOs with a period of ∼6.4 × 10−22 s. This induced electron field fluctuation is in addition to any vacuum fluctuation that exists without the electron field present. This paper presents a highly speculative, but testable, experiment, in which the ISaTCO rapid fluctuations may be confirmed indirectly as the physical basis of field quantum entanglement (QE). The electron’s ISaTCO produce a digital internal clock that’s locked out of phase with its entangled positron, and they communicate spin states at the phase speed of 2c2/vCoM. The communication of spin state information is instantaneous for vCoM = 0 but “slows down” to 4c at vCoM = 0.5c, still very fast.

Physics Essays•Mar 18, 2022•5 citations

CQED

Daniel F. Walls, Gerard J Milburn

Springer eBooks•Dec 6, 2007•1 citation

There are two solutions to the equations of Feynman’s Quantum Electrodynamics (QED): the newly discovered solution is free of quantum weirdness

Jeffrey H. Boyd

No one previously noticed there is a second solution to the equations of Richard Feynman’s Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). It makes identical predictions in the lab. The new solution (Reverse-QED) is closer to nature: it is free of quantum weirdness. For example, it eliminates Schrödinger’s cat. This article is the first time the equations of R-QED have been published. The R-QED amplitude is the negative of Feynman’s amplitude. Because of the Born rule, both amplitude and negative amplitude, when squared, produce the same probability to be tested against empirical data. If you were to measure the distance from Los Angeles to New York City with R-QED’s accuracy, it would be exact to the breadth of a human hair. If reality corresponds to the newly discovered R-QED equations, but scientists use the old QED equations, the result would be predictions for the lab that are precisely accurate, but scientists would be unable to construct a coherent picture of the quantum world. R-QED is based on a different picture of how the quantum world is organized. Experiments, including a neutron interferometer experiment we review, show that particles follow waves backward. R-QED integrates in the same direction that the waves travel.

JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS•Aug 17, 2020•7 citations

A Quiet Answer

Scientific American•Sep 25, 1847•0 citations

Superradiant Phase Transitions and the Standard Description of Circuit QED

Oliver Viehmann, Jan von Delft, Florian Marquardt

We investigate the equilibrium behavior of a superconducting circuit QED system containing a large number of artificial atoms. It is shown that the currently accepted standard description of circuit QED via an effective model fails in an important aspect: it predicts the possibility of a superradiant phase transition, even though a full microscopic treatment reveals that a no-go theorem for such phase transitions known from cavity QED applies to circuit QED systems as well. We generalize the no-go theorem to the case of (artificial) atoms with many energy levels and thus make it more applicable for realistic cavity or circuit QED systems.

arXiv:1103.4639•Physical Review Letters•Sep 8, 2011•200 citations
The QED-Physical (QED-P) theory described in four previous papers [J. H. Wilson, Phys. Essays 28, 1 (2015); 29, 402 (2016); 31, 59 (2018); 34, 17 (2021)] is combined with QED into a single theory in this paper, since both are based on the same Dirac Equation four current c(α,I). QED couples this four-vector with an external electromagnetic (EM) field and uses covariant perturbation theory to produce results that are very accurate computationally [M. L. Eides et al., Phys. Rep. 342, 63 (2001)], except for the electron self-energy, which is infinite. The reason for QED’s accuracy is its Dirac equation velocity operator, cα, with highly unusual properties compared to classical velocity vectors. QED could not produce highly accurate answers without the 4 × 4 complex matrix cα as the electron “velocity operator.” QED-P starts with the same Dirac Equation four current used so successfully in QED, and the discrete internal spatial and time coordinate operators (ISaTCOs) are derived in QED-P to give the electron internal structure a very specific, but highly, nonclassical geometric description with no ad hoc assumptions. The QED/QED-physical (QED-P) unification theorem is stated and proved in Sec. VII. However, one should ask what new physical measurements are predicted by QED-P that are not determined by the very accurate QED? The answer is none yet, due to the very rapid fluctuation of the ISaTCOs with a period of ∼6.4 × 10−22 s. This induced electron field fluctuation is in addition to any vacuum fluctuation that exists without the electron field present. This paper presents a highly speculative, but testable, experiment, in which the ISaTCO rapid fluctuations may be confirmed indirectly as the physical basis of field quantum entanglement (QE). The electron’s ISaTCO produce a digital internal clock that’s locked out of phase with its entangled positron, and they communicate spin states at the phase speed of 2c2/vCoM. The communication of spin state information is instantaneous for vCoM = 0 but “slows down” to 4c at vCoM = 0.5c, still very fast.
No one previously noticed there is a second solution to the equations of Richard Feynman’s Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). It makes identical predictions in the lab. The new solution (Reverse-QED) is closer to nature: it is free of quantum weirdness. For example, it eliminates Schrödinger’s cat. This article is the first time the equations of R-QED have been published. The R-QED amplitude is the negative of Feynman’s amplitude. Because of the Born rule, both amplitude and negative amplitude, when squared, produce the same probability to be tested against empirical data. If you were to measure the distance from Los Angeles to New York City with R-QED’s accuracy, it would be exact to the breadth of a human hair. If reality corresponds to the newly discovered R-QED equations, but scientists use the old QED equations, the result would be predictions for the lab that are precisely accurate, but scientists would be unable to construct a coherent picture of the quantum world. R-QED is based on a different picture of how the quantum world is organized. Experiments, including a neutron interferometer experiment we review, show that particles follow waves backward. R-QED integrates in the same direction that the waves travel.
We investigate the equilibrium behavior of a superconducting circuit QED system containing a large number of artificial atoms. It is shown that the currently accepted standard description of circuit QED via an effective model fails in an important aspect: it predicts the possibility of a superradiant phase transition, even though a full microscopic treatment reveals that a no-go theorem for such phase transitions known from cavity QED applies to circuit QED systems as well. We generalize the no-go theorem to the case of (artificial) atoms with many energy levels and thus make it more applicable for realistic cavity or circuit QED systems.