Dirac was not working in vaccum . Klein-Jordan equation was the simplest and the most obvious extension of Schrodinger equation in relativistic manner.So historically, Dirac was focused on correcting the Klein-Gordon equation, which had issues with negative probabilities and describing electron behavior. His goal was to find a relativistic equation that resolved these problems while maintaining consistency with his own matrix mechanics formulation of quantum mechanics.By extending his matrix mechanics formalism, Dirac derived an equation that not only addressed the issues with the Klein-Gordon equation but also predicted the existence of antimatter. I would argue that Dirac&#x27;s approach was consistent with his established framework, and while he found renormalization mathematically unsatisfactory, it does not diminish the validity of his method in deriving the Dirac equation. I doubt he focused on any elegant solutions, he was actually quite happy working with matrix mechanics framework.

That reformulation doesn&#x27;t let you avoid renormalization, does it?

&gt; Yet the technique employed to make the theory useful — renormalization — repulsed Dirac because he found it mathematically ugly.Perhaps if he had used quaternion the solution will not be mathematically ugly or can even be beautiful [1].[1] A quaternion formulation of the Dirac equation:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mauritssilvis.nl&#x2F;research&#x2F;publications&#x2F;silvis-rug10.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mauritssilvis.nl&#x2F;research&#x2F;publications&#x2F;silvis-rug10....</a>

The LLNL fusion result was not a breakthrough. The fusion output was about 1% of the energy input. The exaggerated press release was just a PR ploy to get support for continued DoE funding, which was expiring at the end of 2022.

Alright, so we&#x27;re spherical cow-philosophers... (jk, I like your point!)

We aren&#x27;t spherical philosophers in a vacuum. We are emotional animals trying our best. This fact requires constant consideration and management lest it all come crumbling down.

The announcement was correct and precise. I am not sure what misinformation you are describing here.Regarding your 100 more energy claim. It overlooks key facts about the NIF breakthrough. The fusion reaction itself achieved net energy gain, producing 3.15 MJ compared to 2.05 MJ of input laser energy - far from consuming &quot;100 times the power it produced.&quot; While the total facility power usage was indeed higher due to laser inefficiencies, this misses the crucial scientific achievement. This was basically humanity&#x27;s first controlled fusion reaction producing more energy than was directly input to the fuel. Dismissing this as a &quot;minor, arbitrary improvement&quot; understates its significance. This wasn&#x27;t just about efficiency metrics - it demonstrated fusion ignition was possible, a fundamental physics milestone that had eluded scientists for decades. Though challenges remain for commercial fusion power, the breakthrough proved a critical theoretical concept that many thought impossible. Many critics before that were referring to this point as the reason why it isn&#x27;t worth it to keep researching. And they were proved wrong.Trying to redefine the announcement and experiment result to mean something else so that you can attack it is a dishonest behavior.

&gt; The fusion power breakthrough of 2022 by Lawrence Livermore National Lab would still dominate the news.If our society were sane, rational, advanced, it would recognize that that &quot;breakthrough&quot; was a minor, arbitrary improvement in reaction efficiency, that realistically brings us no closer to commercially viable fusion power, and doesn&#x27;t prove anything about the possibility of that.That reaction still consumed something like 100 times the power that it produced, and the &quot;power&quot; that it produced was just heat energy, which would still entail losses when converted into usable form.On top of that, the nature of the Livermore reaction is not one that&#x27;s even intended or suitable for commercial power production.At this point, we simply don&#x27;t even know whether controlled, commercially viable fusion will ever be able to produce more power than it consumes. There&#x27;s no guarantee that it will.If you&#x27;re not aware of what I&#x27;m referring to, this article is a starting point: &quot;Why the nuclear fusion ‘net energy gain’ is more hype than breakthrough&quot;: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;whyy.org&#x2F;segments&#x2F;why-the-nuclear-fusion-net-energy-gain-is-more-hype-than-breakthrough&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;whyy.org&#x2F;segments&#x2F;why-the-nuclear-fusion-net-energy-...</a>While this might all seem like an irrelevant aside to the point being made above, it&#x27;s relevant because it shows how pervasive misinformation is, even when coming from supposedly scientific sources.

Some many years ago some people collected some negative traits to describe the foibles of people. Unfortunately, these negatives seem to dominate much of the news:Pride, Greed, Lust, Anger, Gluttony, Envy, Sloth.If we could somehow dim the influence of these human traits, we might get closer to the world you described

If our society were sane, rational, advanced, the headlines would be all about scientific and technological progress. The fusion power breakthrough of 2022 by Lawrence Livermore National Lab would still dominate the news. Large corporations would compete to create the first Star Trek replicator (at least for organic matter, food, etc) by advancements in nanofabrication. Politicians would debate R&amp;D topics and strategy, figuring out which path leads to greater broad-sector economic progress.One can dream. :) Instead, we have a society almost entirely dependent on many kinds of technology, and yet very few understand any of it, nor care to. Wonder how long this trend can persist until some sort of phase transition appears on the horizon.

January 1928: Dirac equation unifies quantum mechanics and special relativity