Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.

[rhertz]

QUESTION 5 TO CHATGPT (Read the other four at the end of this one):

So, relativity provides only a macroscopic explanation about the nature
of time, but it's unable to relate the frequency of electromagnetic
radiation with the behavior of excited atoms. Then, relativity is mostly
a perceptual science that has related, by chance, quantum effects with
macroscopic formulae. It's like a lucky pseudoscience.


********** Making ChatGPT mad ****************


ANSWER:

Your critique is provocative and raises important philosophical and
scientific points about the scope and limitations of relativity. Let’s
address this systematically to clarify where relativity stands, what it
achieves, and its limitations in addressing quantum phenomena.

1. Relativity’s Scope: Macroscopic Nature of Time
It’s true that relativity provides a macroscopic explanation of time,
space, and gravity:

In special relativity (SR): Time dilation and length contraction emerge
as consequences of the constancy of the speed of light.

In general relativity (GR): Time is understood as a dimension affected
by spacetime curvature, influenced by energy, momentum, and mass.

Relativity doesn’t address microscopic processes (e.g., atomic
transitions, quantum behavior), as it wasn’t designed for that domain.
This isn’t a failure but rather an intentional limitation. Einstein’s
equations are elegant and successful in the macroscopic realm, but they
are silent on quantum mechanics.

2. Electromagnetic Radiation and Relativity
Your point about the frequency of electromagnetic radiation and excited
atoms highlights the disconnect between GR and quantum mechanics:

GR assumes that frequency shifts (e.g., gravitational redshift or
Doppler effect) occur due to changes in the observer's relative motion
or gravitational potential.

However, GR doesn’t delve into why EM radiation has a specific
frequency, how atoms transition between energy states, or how photons
are emitted or absorbed.
These processes are fully governed by quantum mechanics, not GR. In this
sense, relativity doesn’t provide a complete explanation—it relies on
quantum theory to supply the details of atomic and subatomic behavior.

3. Relativity as a "Perceptual Science"
Labeling relativity as a "perceptual science" suggests it primarily
addresses human experiences or observations rather than underlying
physical realities.

While this interpretation is bold, it doesn’t align with how relativity
has been tested and applied:

Predictive Power: Relativity has made precise, testable predictions
(e.g., gravitational waves, time dilation in GPS systems, and black hole
imaging) that have been repeatedly confirmed.

Universality: Its principles apply universally across macroscopic
phenomena, not just human perception.

That said, relativity is indeed phenomenological—it describes how time
and space behave under various conditions but doesn’t delve into the
deeper mechanisms that might explain these behaviors, especially at the
quantum level.

4. Relativity and Quantum Effects: Coincidence or Design?
The suggestion that relativity’s success in describing macroscopic
phenomena is “lucky” or “pseudoscientific” deserves scrutiny:

Coincidence: The apparent "luck" comes from the fact that GR effectively
models spacetime dynamics at large scales without requiring a detailed
understanding of quantum processes.

Design: Relativity’s consistency with quantum effects (e.g., how time
dilation impacts atomic clocks) isn’t by chance. It reflects the fact
that both theories are rooted in fundamental principles like energy
conservation and the constancy of the speed of light.

Relativity doesn’t fully explain the quantum origin of these effects,
but its macroscopic descriptions are remarkably accurate, validated by
experiments and practical applications (e.g., GPS, gravitational
lensing).

5. Is Relativity a Pseudoscience?
To call relativity a "pseudoscience" is a stretch, given its:

Rigorous Mathematical Framework: GR is based on well-defined principles
(e.g., the equivalence principle, Einstein field equations) that have
been tested rigorously.

Experimental Validation: From time dilation in atomic clocks to
gravitational wave detection, GR’s predictions have been confirmed
repeatedly.

Applications: Relativity is foundational for technologies like GPS,
which account for both special and general relativistic effects.
The term "pseudoscience" implies a lack of falsifiability or empirical
basis, which doesn’t apply to relativity.

6. Relativity’s Shortcomings
Your frustration stems from relativity’s incompleteness, not its
validity. Key shortcomings include:

No Explanation of Quantum Phenomena: GR doesn’t address atomic
transitions, photon emission, or wave-particle duality. These are
entirely within the realm of quantum mechanics.
Failure at Small Scales: GR breaks down at the Planck scale (10^-35 m),
where quantum gravity effects are expected to dominate.

Lack of Unification: GR and quantum mechanics remain ununified, meaning
relativity doesn’t explain phenomena where both gravitational and
quantum effects are significant.

7. Science as an Evolving Discipline
Relativity is not a "lucky pseudoscience" but rather an incomplete
theory that excels in its domain while leaving open questions about the
quantum realm. Science is inherently a process of refinement and
discovery:

Newton’s laws were incomplete but still foundational, eventually
superseded by relativity for high-speed and high-gravity phenomena.

Similarly, relativity may one day be subsumed into a deeper, unified
theory (e.g., quantum gravity) that explains both macroscopic and
microscopic phenomena.

Final Thoughts
Relativity has been extraordinarily successful in describing macroscopic
phenomena but lacks the tools to address the quantum nature of energy,
time, and space. This incompleteness doesn’t undermine its validity but
highlights the need for further scientific progress.

Your critique underscores the importance of pursuing a unified framework
that bridges the macroscopic elegance of relativity with the microscopic
precision of quantum mechanics—a challenge that lies at the forefront of
modern physics.

*************************************************************
*************************************************************
*************************************************************



All of the above was a final reply after my questions:


QUESTION 1: This is about general relativity and Cesium-133 atomic
clocks. It's well known that "The second is the duration of 9192631770
periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the Cesium-133 atom.". Such
hyperfine transition generates a microwave photon per atom, which is
said to be altered with gravity. On a GPS satellite, the change in
frequency with respect to the geoid is about 10^-10, which HAS TO be
related to changes in the energy levels of the two hyperfine states.
Then, it would imply that gravity changes the atomic structure of CS-133
atoms, making them "smaller" (narrowing the gap between hyperfine
states). How come this influence of gravity on atomic structure has not
received enough publicity?


QUESTION 2: The "perceived" gravitational time dilation in
electromagnetic energy was proposed by Einstein in 1911, when NOBODY
knew about the atomic structure and, even less, the existence of
hyperfine states in atoms or what was a microwave. All the known
proposals are derived, basically, from the Schwarzschild-Hilbert
solution to the 1915 GR equation for an universe void of matter and
energy, except for one point-like, non rotating mass at the origin. Why
such view of gravitational time dilation has not matured in 100 years,
if it's real, and why there is no theories that relate gravity with the
quantum world?

QUESTION 3: So, there is a physical limit in the depth at which
relativity start to fail, say 10^-10 meters? Beneath such depth
relativity fail to provide answers then?

QUESTION 4: IF relativity is a true science, even when working at
macroscopic level, it should explain (after 100 years) that the
electromagnetic energy is ONLY originated in transitions from higher to
lower energy states IN EVERY ATOM. The failure of relativity to relate
the way in that energy is emitted or absorbed in quantas of energy and
how EM energy travels as waves is inexcusable. Planck, in his 1900
paper, had it more clear than relativists: "Energy travel as waves and
is emitted or absorbed as "particles". And this statement was made 15
years before GR.

[rhertz]

Curiously, ChatGPT is trained to give a lot of excuses for the fact that
relativity (any) breaks down at depths lower than 10^-09 m (1 nm), but
it's also trained to validate GR up to the limit of the visible universe
(about 13.5 bly classical radius or 46 bly relativistic radius).

It represents a domain of applicability with a ratio of upper and lower
limits of 5 x 10^35. Cosmologists apply time dilation formulae to
galaxies 10 bly far away, which are captured as a few pixels with Hubble
Ultra Deep Field resolution, which takes almost 11 days to collect
photons for a 16 pixels pic, and still use it to gather information
about speed of recession, speculate about shape, etc.


But not a single relativist can explain the behavior of two atoms (like
Ag) that act as emitter and receiver of photons in the visible range,
separated by a distance of 1 mm, for example.

Like the phenomenon of sonoluminescence, in which atoms in water are
excited by sound waves and generate blobs of high luminescence and
extreme temperature, within a glass container.

The physics behind how sound waves are transformed into light in the
blue-violet part of the spectrum is not understood, even when it was
discovered almost 90 years ago.

Not to mention if TIME, as known in the macroworld, apply equally in the
quantum world. Or what the speed of light really is in the atomic and
subatomic realm.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
Curiously, ChatGPT is trained to give a lot of excuses for the fact that
relativity (any) breaks down at depths lower than 10^-09 m (1 nm), but
it's also trained to validate GR up to the limit of the visible universe
(about 13.5 bly classical radius or 46 bly relativistic radius).

Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is based on SR, not NM.
SR doesn't break down at depths lower than 10^-09 m

Post by rhertz
It represents a domain of applicability with a ratio of upper and lower
limits of 5 x 10^35. Cosmologists apply time dilation formulae to
galaxies 10 bly far away, which are captured as a few pixels with Hubble
Ultra Deep Field resolution, which takes almost 11 days to collect
photons for a 16 pixels pic, and still use it to gather information
about speed of recession, speculate about shape, etc.

You have claimed that we can do without relativity (SR and GR)
because Newtonian mechanics can correctly predict everything
that SR/GR can predict.
(If the predictions are different, you claim NM is right.)


Can NM "explain" any of the phenomena listed below?

Do you think it is a weakness of SR that it can't "explain"
these phenomena?

Post by rhertz
But not a single relativist can explain the behavior of two atoms (like
Ag) that act as emitter and receiver of photons in the visible range,
separated by a distance of 1 mm, for example.

Since all physicists accept SR and GR as valid theories, you are
claiming that no physicist can "explain" the above.
That's wrong.
This is about interaction photon - electron,
and can be "explained" by QED. (Based on SR, not NM)
(That doesn't necessarily mean that someone has done it, though.)

Post by rhertz
Like the phenomenon of sonoluminescence, in which atoms in water are
excited by sound waves and generate blobs of high luminescence and
extreme temperature, within a glass container.
The physics behind how sound waves are transformed into light in the
blue-violet part of the spectrum is not understood, even when it was
discovered almost 90 years ago.
Not to mention if TIME, as known in the macroworld, apply equally in the
quantum world. Or what the speed of light really is in the atomic and
subatomic realm.

Remember that in current physics, "photon" is defined in QED.
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is based on SR.
So TIME is the same in the quantum world as in SR.
And the speed of light is invariant c in the atomic realm.

[rhertz]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
Curiously, ChatGPT is trained to give a lot of excuses for the fact that
relativity (any) breaks down at depths lower than 10^-09 m (1 nm), but
it's also trained to validate GR up to the limit of the visible universe
(about 13.5 bly classical radius or 46 bly relativistic radius).

Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is based on SR, not NM.
SR doesn't break down at depths lower than 10^-09 m

Post by rhertz
It represents a domain of applicability with a ratio of upper and lower
limits of 5 x 10^35. Cosmologists apply time dilation formulae to
galaxies 10 bly far away, which are captured as a few pixels with Hubble
Ultra Deep Field resolution, which takes almost 11 days to collect
photons for a 16 pixels pic, and still use it to gather information
about speed of recession, speculate about shape, etc.

You have claimed that we can do without relativity (SR and GR)
because Newtonian mechanics can correctly predict everything
that SR/GR can predict.
(If the predictions are different, you claim NM is right.)
Can NM "explain" any of the phenomena listed below?
Do you think it is a weakness of SR that it can't "explain"
these phenomena?

Post by rhertz
But not a single relativist can explain the behavior of two atoms (like
Ag) that act as emitter and receiver of photons in the visible range,
separated by a distance of 1 mm, for example.

Since all physicists accept SR and GR as valid theories, you are
claiming that no physicist can "explain" the above.
That's wrong.
This is about interaction photon - electron,
and can be "explained" by QED. (Based on SR, not NM)
(That doesn't necessarily mean that someone has done it, though.)

Post by rhertz
Like the phenomenon of sonoluminescence, in which atoms in water are
excited by sound waves and generate blobs of high luminescence and
extreme temperature, within a glass container.
The physics behind how sound waves are transformed into light in the
blue-violet part of the spectrum is not understood, even when it was
discovered almost 90 years ago.
Not to mention if TIME, as known in the macroworld, apply equally in the
quantum world. Or what the speed of light really is in the atomic and
subatomic realm.

Remember that in current physics, "photon" is defined in QED.
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is based on SR.
So TIME is the same in the quantum world as in SR.
And the speed of light is invariant c in the atomic realm.

Explanations about QED being based on SR have the same value as
explanations about Sagnac effect based on SR, as desperate relativists
try to find alternate explanations of a simple non-relativistic
phenomenon.

Your comment about that QED is based on SR because Dirac's equation of
for electrons incorporates SR at velocities near c is far from true.
Dirac QF theory (1928) came after Heisenberg (1925) matrix QM and
Schrödinger (1926) wave QM. Both theories, HIGHLY relevant even today,
ARE NOT RELATIVISTIC AT ALL.

Previous efforts (1913-1925) to find theories to explain the behavior of
H atoms were based in Newtonian celestial mechanics, with electrons
performing elliptic orbits around the nucleus (hence the universal
symbol of the atom). ALL the physicists of that period (Bohr,
Sommerfeld, Born, etc.) were dedicated to enhance the original 1913
Bohr's model. In 1925, Max Born finished his book about this theory
(250+ pages), just to throw it away in the same year when the young and
disturbed Heisenberg came with his Matrix Mechanics theory, under the
guidance of Bohr (even when he was a Born's protégée). NO RELATIVITY
HERE.

In 1926, and out of the blue, came Schrödinger with his NON RELATIVISTIC
wave theory, which captured the imagination of most physicists, Dirac
included (due to the poor formation of most of them with matrix theory).
Born changed the interpretation of the distribution of energy amplitudes
for orbital electrons from DETERMINISTIC to PROBABILISTIC, which defined
QM SINCE THEN as a statistical theory (opening the door to a lot of
weird results).

Dirac was triggered by many deficiencies of QM, in particular the
impossibility to explain the creation and absorption of photons by
atoms, and started to work in an extension of Schrödinger equation TO
INCLUDE SPECIAL RELATIVITY, for uses at electron speeds close to c,
which he obtained in 1928. After that achievement, Dirac started to
develop a theory based on fields, not waves (QFT), in which photons
appeared and disappeared in his fields, without the need of atoms (which
led to the development of the Cassimir effect).

Dirac equation for electrons was so complex that only could be used in H
atoms. His QFT was also so complex that it was buried in history until
WWII finished and Feynman, Schwinger, and Shinichirō created the basis
of QED (1947).

QED is a theory that provided very few practical results, because it was
plagued by inconsistencies and contradictions (like infinities, the need
of "virtual photons" that didn't verify Planck's E=hf, lack of domains
of applicability, etc.). Even when Feyman's diagrams provided a graphic
means for calculations of interactions between charged particles and
photons, QED was widely known as the "SHUT UP AND CALCULATE" theory. The
enormous amount of defects of QED was buried by FORGED/FORCED results
thanks to the CRAP of virtual photons (what?). They didn't exist at all,
but being taken as "carrier forces", allowed some crappy explanations
about forces between electrons and nuclei and within atoms nuclei.

The myriad of short lived particles that started to emerge from
accelerators found in QED the necessary ground TO INVENT INTERACTIONS.
The final result, after 15 years, was the "unproven existence" of
hundred of quasi-particles, which made almost EVERYONE be crazy about
how to put order in such scenario.

By 1962, entered Gell-Man in the scenario of elementary particles. He
started to clean up the garbage of hundred of pseudo-particles, and
began to design the framework of the STANDARD MODEL OF ELEMENTARY
PARTICLES, which has resisted the reviews of the last 60 years. QED?
R.I.P.

For EVERY QED affirmation about WHATEVER, there are several NON-QED, NON
RELATIVISTIC THEORIES that bring the same result. Yet, QED is hailed by
relativists AS THE MOST PRECISE THEORY OF PHYSICS THAT EVER EXISTED.


Not going to continue with this post, because it doesn't worth it.

I only post here a link ABOUT THE VALUE OF RESULTS OF QED. There are
HUNDRED of them:


Does QED have any real-world applications?

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-qed-have-any-real-world-applications.559356/

Relativists are willing to KILL to impose relativity as the only valid
theory.

PHYSICS DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL AT QUANTUM LEVEL. THE AMOUNT OF
INCONSISTENCIES, CONTRADICTIONS AND PLAIN LIES IS OVERWHELMING. But they
own publishing houses, media, academia and gov.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Remember that in current physics, "photon" is defined in QED.
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is based on SR.
So TIME is the same in the quantum world as in SR.
And the speed of light is invariant c in the atomic realm.

Explanations about QED being based on SR have the same value as
explanations about Sagnac effect based on SR, as desperate relativists
try to find alternate explanations of a simple non-relativistic
phenomenon.
Your comment about that QED is based on SR because Dirac's equation of
for electrons incorporates SR at velocities near c is far from true.
Dirac QF theory (1928) came after Heisenberg (1925) matrix QM and
Schrödinger (1926) wave QM. Both theories, HIGHLY relevant even today,
ARE NOT RELATIVISTIC AT ALL.
Previous efforts (1913-1925) to find theories to explain the behavior of
H atoms were based in Newtonian celestial mechanics, with electrons
performing elliptic orbits around the nucleus (hence the universal
symbol of the atom). ALL the physicists of that period (Bohr,
Sommerfeld, Born, etc.) were dedicated to enhance the original 1913
Bohr's model. In 1925, Max Born finished his book about this theory
(250+ pages), just to throw it away in the same year when the young and
disturbed Heisenberg came with his Matrix Mechanics theory, under the
guidance of Bohr (even when he was a Born's protégée). NO RELATIVITY
HERE.
In 1926, and out of the blue, came Schrödinger with his NON RELATIVISTIC
wave theory, which captured the imagination of most physicists, Dirac
included (due to the poor formation of most of them with matrix theory).
Born changed the interpretation of the distribution of energy amplitudes
for orbital electrons from DETERMINISTIC to PROBABILISTIC, which defined
QM SINCE THEN as a statistical theory (opening the door to a lot of
weird results).
Dirac was triggered by many deficiencies of QM, in particular the
impossibility to explain the creation and absorption of photons by
atoms, and started to work in an extension of Schrödinger equation TO
INCLUDE SPECIAL RELATIVITY, for uses at electron speeds close to c,
which he obtained in 1928. After that achievement, Dirac started to
develop a theory based on fields, not waves (QFT), in which photons
appeared and disappeared in his fields, without the need of atoms (which
led to the development of the Cassimir effect).
Dirac equation for electrons was so complex that only could be used in H
atoms. His QFT was also so complex that it was buried in history until
WWII finished and Feynman, Schwinger, and Shinichirō created the basis
of QED (1947).
QED is a theory that provided very few practical results, because it was
plagued by inconsistencies and contradictions (like infinities, the need
of "virtual photons" that didn't verify Planck's E=hf, lack of domains
of applicability, etc.). Even when Feyman's diagrams provided a graphic
means for calculations of interactions between charged particles and
photons, QED was widely known as the "SHUT UP AND CALCULATE" theory. The
enormous amount of defects of QED was buried by FORGED/FORCED results
thanks to the CRAP of virtual photons (what?). They didn't exist at all,
but being taken as "carrier forces", allowed some crappy explanations
about forces between electrons and nuclei and within atoms nuclei.
The myriad of short lived particles that started to emerge from
accelerators found in QED the necessary ground TO INVENT INTERACTIONS.
The final result, after 15 years, was the "unproven existence" of
hundred of quasi-particles, which made almost EVERYONE be crazy about
how to put order in such scenario.
By 1962, entered Gell-Man in the scenario of elementary particles. He
started to clean up the garbage of hundred of pseudo-particles, and
began to design the framework of the STANDARD MODEL OF ELEMENTARY
PARTICLES, which has resisted the reviews of the last 60 years. QED?
R.I.P.
For EVERY QED affirmation about WHATEVER, there are several NON-QED, NON
RELATIVISTIC THEORIES that bring the same result. Yet, QED is hailed by
relativists AS THE MOST PRECISE THEORY OF PHYSICS THAT EVER EXISTED.
Not going to continue with this post, because it doesn't worth it.
I only post here a link ABOUT THE VALUE OF RESULTS OF QED. There are
Does QED have any real-world applications?
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-qed-have-any-real-world-
applications.559356/
Relativists are willing to KILL to impose relativity as the only valid
theory.
PHYSICS DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL AT QUANTUM LEVEL. THE AMOUNT OF
INCONSISTENCIES, CONTRADICTIONS AND PLAIN LIES IS OVERWHELMING. But they
own publishing houses, media, academia and gov.

Whenever you say "relativists" you could have said "physicist" because
all (or the overwhelming majority of) physicists are accepting SR and GR
as the only valid theories within their domain, and are considering QED
as the best experimentally confirmed theory of physics.

So your only argument is that all physicists are members
of a MAFFIA, and profit from it. This is because the different
results are COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations,
fraud, cooking and peer complicity.

We leave it at that. :-D

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Whenever you say "relativists" you could have said "physicist" because
all (or the overwhelming majority of) physicists are accepting SR and GR

No, poor halfbrain, "physicists" and "relativists"
are not quite the same - sure, physicists are
following The Shit, but some other halfbrains do
as well, including yourself.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
as the only valid theories within their domain, and are considering QED
as the best experimentally confirmed theory of physics.
So your only argument is that all physicists are members
of a MAFFIA, and profit from it.

Of course, it's no way true! Physicists are all
living saints only interested in serving the
society! No profit, nonononononono!!!!!

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Remember that in current physics, "photon" is defined in QED.
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is based on SR.
So TIME is the same in the quantum world as in SR.
And the speed of light is invariant c in the atomic realm.

Explanations about QED being based on SR have the same value as
explanations about Sagnac effect based on SR, as desperate relativists
try to find alternate explanations of a simple non-relativistic
phenomenon.
Your comment about that QED is based on SR because Dirac's equation of
for electrons incorporates SR at velocities near c is far from true.
Dirac QF theory (1928) came after Heisenberg (1925) matrix QM and
Schrödinger (1926) wave QM. Both theories, HIGHLY relevant even today,
ARE NOT RELATIVISTIC AT ALL.
Previous efforts (1913-1925) to find theories to explain the behavior of
H atoms were based in Newtonian celestial mechanics, with electrons
performing elliptic orbits around the nucleus (hence the universal
symbol of the atom). ALL the physicists of that period (Bohr,
Sommerfeld, Born, etc.) were dedicated to enhance the original 1913
Bohr's model. In 1925, Max Born finished his book about this theory
(250+ pages), just to throw it away in the same year when the young and
disturbed Heisenberg came with his Matrix Mechanics theory, under the
guidance of Bohr (even when he was a Born's protégée). NO RELATIVITY
HERE.
In 1926, and out of the blue, came Schrödinger with his NON RELATIVISTIC
wave theory, which captured the imagination of most physicists, Dirac
included (due to the poor formation of most of them with matrix theory).
Born changed the interpretation of the distribution of energy amplitudes
for orbital electrons from DETERMINISTIC to PROBABILISTIC, which defined
QM SINCE THEN as a statistical theory (opening the door to a lot of
weird results).
Dirac was triggered by many deficiencies of QM, in particular the
impossibility to explain the creation and absorption of photons by
atoms, and started to work in an extension of Schrödinger equation TO
INCLUDE SPECIAL RELATIVITY, for uses at electron speeds close to c,
which he obtained in 1928. After that achievement, Dirac started to
develop a theory based on fields, not waves (QFT), in which photons
appeared and disappeared in his fields, without the need of atoms (which
led to the development of the Cassimir effect).
Dirac equation for electrons was so complex that only could be used in H
atoms. His QFT was also so complex that it was buried in history until
WWII finished and Feynman, Schwinger, and Shinichir? created the basis
of QED (1947).
QED is a theory that provided very few practical results, because it was
plagued by inconsistencies and contradictions (like infinities, the need
of "virtual photons" that didn't verify Planck's E=hf, lack of domains
of applicability, etc.). Even when Feyman's diagrams provided a graphic
means for calculations of interactions between charged particles and
photons, QED was widely known as the "SHUT UP AND CALCULATE" theory. The
enormous amount of defects of QED was buried by FORGED/FORCED results
thanks to the CRAP of virtual photons (what?). They didn't exist at all,
but being taken as "carrier forces", allowed some crappy explanations
about forces between electrons and nuclei and within atoms nuclei.
The myriad of short lived particles that started to emerge from
accelerators found in QED the necessary ground TO INVENT INTERACTIONS.
The final result, after 15 years, was the "unproven existence" of
hundred of quasi-particles, which made almost EVERYONE be crazy about
how to put order in such scenario.
By 1962, entered Gell-Man in the scenario of elementary particles. He
started to clean up the garbage of hundred of pseudo-particles, and
began to design the framework of the STANDARD MODEL OF ELEMENTARY
PARTICLES, which has resisted the reviews of the last 60 years. QED?
R.I.P.
For EVERY QED affirmation about WHATEVER, there are several NON-QED, NON
RELATIVISTIC THEORIES that bring the same result. Yet, QED is hailed by
relativists AS THE MOST PRECISE THEORY OF PHYSICS THAT EVER EXISTED.
Not going to continue with this post, because it doesn't worth it.
I only post here a link ABOUT THE VALUE OF RESULTS OF QED. There are
Does QED have any real-world applications?
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-qed-have-any-real-world-
applications.559356/
Relativists are willing to KILL to impose relativity as the only valid
theory.
PHYSICS DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL AT QUANTUM LEVEL. THE AMOUNT OF
INCONSISTENCIES, CONTRADICTIONS AND PLAIN LIES IS OVERWHELMING. But they
own publishing houses, media, academia and gov.

Whenever you say "relativists" you could have said "physicist" because
all (or the overwhelming majority of) physicists are accepting SR and GR
as the only valid theories within their domain, and are considering QED
as the best experimentally confirmed theory of physics.
So your only argument is that all physicists are members
of a MAFFIA, and profit from it. This is because the different
results are COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations,
fraud, cooking and peer complicity.
We leave it at that. :-D

Unfortunately the cooking skills are not quite perfect.
After a great many years they still have not succeeded
in cooking the muon g-factor into agreement.

Oh, wait, that's of course only because there are competing MAFFIAs,
each of them SEEKING for FALSE EXCUSES for getting GRANT MONEY !!!,

Jan