Lab Notes for a Scientific Revolution (Physics)

May 24, 2012

Baryons and Confinement; Exact Quantum Yang Mills Propagators; Mass Gap

To all:

I have started work on physics again this last month after two years “sabbatical.”  I am also again working with my friend Andrej Inopin.

In particular, I am touching up a paper that I was working on in 2008 which shows that baryons are simply magnetic charges in a non-Abelian (Yang Mills) gauge theory, and shows how confinement phenomena are a natural outgrowth of the properties of these “magnetic charge baryons.”  This paper is linked at:

Now, in returning to this paper after several years, I have always known that my equation (3.5) in the above was a “shortcut” to get to the results  afterwards, because it relies upon an analogy from QED and does not fully develop propagators / inverses for Yang-Mills theory.

This is because back in 2008, I did not know how to quantize Yang-Mill theory and obtain exact propagators that embody all of the non-linearity that comes from Yang-Mills.  Nobody knew / knows how to do this.  That is why people still use perturbation theory even though it breaks up the gauge invariance of Yang-Mills, or use lattice gauge theory even though it breaks up Lorentz symmetry and they have to calculate numerically on computers rather than analytically.  These are “compromises” that everybody uses because exact Yang-Mills quantization solutions simply are not known to date.

But in the last several weeks, I returned to this problem that had been a roadblock for me in 2008, and have now solved it!   The link below is the current version of a paper I have written in the last two weeks which contains this solution.

Sections 2 and 3 in the above just link replace the “shortcut” of (3.5) in the previous link further up this page.  Section 4 shows that the perturbation which is an important object in this theory actually transforms just like a GRAVITATIONAL field.  I write this with the view that this is a possible path to non-Abelian quantum gravity, but am reserving judgment on this and would like to hear other views.  But what I think is unmistakable is that this shows that gauge transformations in the perturbation — which might be reason to doubt using this perturbation to calculate invariant numbers — are equivalent to no more and no less that plain old general coordinate transformations.  In essence, the perturbation combines several dot products which alone are not invariant, but which together, are.

The work in this paper lays the foundation and provides the calculating machinery for solving the “mass gap” problem.  I will continue developing this in the week ahead, but I have enough already that I wanted to share.

April 22, 2012

Back to Blogging, Uploaded a paper I wrote in 1986 about Preonic Grand Unification

It has been almost 3 years since my last Blog post.  Much of my time has been diverted into a condo hotel project in Longboat Key Florida, and the focus I need to do good physics has been impossible to come by.  Then, the other day, Ken Tucker, a frequent participant at sci.physics.foundations, emailed me about some new research showing that electrons have constituent substructure.  That brought me back immediately to the half a year I spent back in 1986 developing a 200-page paper about a preonic substructure for quarks and leptons, which culminated six years of study from 1980 to 1986.  I finished that paper in August 1986, and then took an 18 year hiatus from physics, resuming again in late-2004.

Ken’s email motivated me to dig out this 1986 paper which I manually typed out on an old-fashioned typewriter, scan it into electronic form, and post it here.  Links to the various sections of this paper are below.  This is the first time I have ever posted this.

Keep in mind that I wrote this in 1986.  I tend to study best by writing while I study, and in this case, what I wrote below was my “study document” for Halzen and Martin’s book “Quarks and Leptons” which had just come out in 1984 and was the first book to pull together what we now think of as modern particle physics and the (then, still fairly new) electroweak unification of Weinberg-Salam.

What is in this paper that I still to this day believe is fundamentally important, and has not been given the attention it warrants, is the isospin redundancy between (left-chiral) quarks and leptons.  This to me is an absolute indication that these particles have a substructure, so that a neutrino and an up quark both have contain the same “isospin up” preon, and an electron and a down quark both contain the same “isospin down” preon.  Section 2.11 below is the key section, if you want to cut to the chase with what I was studying some 26 years ago.  I did post about this in February 2008 at, though that post merely showed a 1988 summary I had assembled based on my work in 1986, at the behest of the late Nimay Mukhopadhyay, who at the time was teaching at RPI and had become a good friend and one of my early sources of encouragement.  This is the first time I am posting all of that early up-to-1986 work, in complete detail.

Lest you think me crazy, note that seventeen years later, G. Volovik, in his 2003 book “The Universe in a Helium Droplet,” took a very similar tack, see Figure 12.2 in this excerpt: Volovik Excerpt on Quark and Lepton Preonic Structure.

The other aspect of this 1986 paper that I still feel very strongly about, is taking the Dirac gamma-5 as a fifth-dimension indicator.  I know I have been critiqued by technical arguments as to why this should not be taken as a sign of a fifth dimension, but this fits seamlessly with Kaluza Klein which geometrizes the entirely of Maxwell’s theory and is still the best formal unification of classical electromagnetism and gravitation ever developed.  For those who maintain skepticism of Kaluza-Klein and ask “show me the fifth dimension,” just look to chirality which is well-established experimentally.  Why do we have to assume that this fifth dimension will directly manifest in the same way as space and time, if its effects are definitively observable in the chiral structure of fermions?  Beyond this, I remain a very strong proponent of the 5-D Space-Time-Matter Consortium, see, which regards matter itself as the most direct manifestation of a fifth physical dimension.  Right now, most folks think about 4-D spacetime plus matter.  These folks correctly think about 5-D space-time-matter, no separation.  And Kaluza-Klein, which historically predated Dirac’s gamma-5, is the underpinning of this.

After my hiatus of the past couple of years, I am going to try in the coming months to write some big-picture materials about physics, which will pull together all I have studied so far in my life.  I am thinking of doing a “Physics Time Capsule for 2100” which will try to explore in broad strokes, how I believe physics will be understood at the end of this century, about 88 years from now.

Anyway, here is my entire 1986 paper:

Preonic Grand Unification and Quantum Gravitation: Capsule Outline and Summary

Abstract and Contents

Section 1.1: Introduction

Section 1.2: Outline and Summary

Section 2.1: A Classical Spacetime Introduction to the Dirac Equation, and the Structure of Five-Dimensional Spacetime with a Chiral Dimension

Section 2.2: Particle/Antiparticle and Spin-Up/Spin-Down Degrees of Quantum Mechanical Freedom in Spacetime and Chirality, Gauge Invariance and the Dirac Wavefunction

Section 2.3: Determination and Labeling of the Spinor Eigensolutions to the Five-Dimensional Dirac Equation, and the High and Low Energy Approximations

Section 2.4: The Fifth-Dimensional Origin of Left and Right Handed Chiral Projections and the Continuity equation in Five Dimensions: Hermitian Conjugacy, Adjoint Spinors, and the Finite Operators Parity (P) and Axiality (A)

Section 2.5: Conjugate and Transposition Symmetries of the Dirac Equation in Five Dimensions, the Finite Operators for Conjugation (C) and Time Reversal (T), and Abelian Relationships Among C, P, T and A

Section 2.6: Charge Conjugation, and the Definitions and Feynman Diagrams for “Electron” and “Positron” Spinors

Section 2.7: Simple Unpolarized s,t,u Scattering Channels with a Covariant Propagator, and the Covariant (Real and Virtual) Polarization States of Massive and Massless Vector Bosons

Section 2.8: Prelude to Preons: The Spinor Decomposition of Four Real Spacetime Dimensions ct,x,y,z into Two Complex Spinor Dimensions Using the Covariant Polarization States of Vector Bosons

Section 2.9: Introduction to Isospin Preons in Electroweak Theory: The Preonic Decomposition of Four Real Electroweak Bosons A, W+, W-, Z into Two Complex Preons Denoting “Isospin Up” and “Isospin Down”

Section 2.10: Summarization of Prior Discussion, and on the Fundamental Importance of Preons in Particle Physics

Section 2.11: The Four-Preon Flavor SU(4) Unification of the Electromagnetic, Weak and Colorless Strong Interactions Excluding Quantum Gravitation; and the Colorless Flavor Classification of Left Handed Real Fermion and Boson Chiral Projections, for a Single Fermion Generation

Section 2.12: The Four-Preon Flavor SU(4)xU(1) Unification of Electromagnetic, Weak, Colorless Strong and Quantum Gravitational Interactions; and the Colorless Flavor Classification of Left and Right Handed Real Fermion and Boson Chiral Projections, for a Single Fermion Generation

Addendum to Section 2.12

Section 2.13: The Six-Preon Unification of Flavor SU(4)xU(1) with High Energy Color SU(4)xU(1) and Two Overlapping Degrees of Freedom; the Flavor and Color Classification of Real Fermions and Vector Bosons for a Single Generation; and the Derivation of Electroweak and Strong/Hyperweak Massless and Massive Neutral Current Vector Bosons

Section 2.14: On the Replication of Fermion Generations: Four Generational Grand Unification with Eighteen Preons and Nine Independent Flavor/Color/Generation Degrees of Freedom, and a Preonic Discussion of Mesons and Meson Decay

References and Bibliography

December 26, 2008

S=2, mu=0 Meson Mass Spectrum, and some interesting possible ties to experimental meson data

Before I head out on holiday, I also wanted to post one more item:

In equation (11.8) of my earlier post at:

I showed the matrix inverse for mesons based on the values of S=2 and mu=0 using the parameters of the theory developed in that work (which is based on the post I made a few hours ago).

I finished a detailed calculation of the predicted meson masses as a fraction of “.5vg” and put them in ascending order, in the following one-page listing:

This is the type of theoretical result that we need to try to fit to experimental meson masses.  That is, this is where the “rubber meets the road.”

In this regard, I point that there are good reasons from the underlying theory to compare and take the ratios of numbers in the above with the 1+/-i factors, and to consider the SU(3) vector to be (uds) from the old quark flavor models (as opposed to the (RGB) of color).

One of these ratios is that of what is the 4,5 mass matrix element to the 1,2 element:


and this should be related to the ratio of the meson K^0=d s-bar to pi^0=d d-bar.  That experimental ratio is, in fact:

K^0/pi^0 = 497.614 MeV / 134.9766 MeV = 3.6867

This is *very* close (they differ by 1.5 parts per thousand!), and could be an experimental validation of the whole theory, since the only thing not accounted for theoretically are QED corrections!

Another ratio of interest is:


This is because the experimental pi^+/- to pi^0 ratio is:

 pi^+/- / pi^0 = 139.5701 MeV / 134.9766 MeV = 1.0340

This also is rather tantalizing, and is off by just under 2 parts per thousand!

Still trying to figure out the whole fit, but I’ll leave you all with that for now.

Happy new year!


Finite Amplitudes Without +i\epsilon

To all,

I have now completed a paper at the link below, which summarizes the work I have been doing for the past two months (and in a deeper sense, for much of my adult life) to lay a foundation for understanding and calculating particle masses:


I have also taken the plunge and submitted this for peer review. ;-)?

The abstract is as follows:

By carefully reviewing how the invariant amplitude M is arrived at in the simplest Yang-Mills gauge group SU(2), we show how to arrive at a finite, pole-free amplitudes without having to resort to the “+i\epsilon prescription.”  We first review how gauge boson mass is generated in the SU(2) action via spontaneous symmetry breaking in the standard model, and then carefully consider the formation of finite, on-shell amplitudes, without +i\epsilon .

Comments are welcome, and I wish everyone a happy holiday and New Year!


December 11, 2008

Understanding the QCD Meson Mass Spectrum

Dear Friends:

It has been awhile since I last posted and it is good to be back.

Almost two years ago in the course of my work on Yang Mills, I came across what I believe is an approach by which mass spectrum of the massive mesons of QCD might be understood.  I had what I still believe is the right concept, and many of the pieces, but I could not figure out the right execution of the concept in complete detail.  Over the past year and a half I walked away from this to let the dust settle and to also arrive at a place where the basic principles of quantum field theory were no longer “new” to me but had become somewhat ingrained.  Now, I believe I have found the right way to execute this concept, and the results are intriguing.

In the file linked below, which I will update on a regular basis in the coming days:,

 I review how mass is known to be generated in SU(2), as a template for considering SU(3) QCD.  I have tried to explain as simply as possible, what I believe to be the origin of QCD meson masses, as well as to lay the foundation for theoretically predicting these.  Keep in mind, finding out how the vector mesons of QCD obtain their non-zero masses, which make the QCD interaction short range despite supposedly-massless gluons, is one aspect of the so-called “mass gap” problem, see point 1) on page 3 of at

Then, I extend this development, in detail, to SU(3).

Several interesting results are already here:

1)  This approach neatly solves the problem of propagator poles (infinities) in a manner which I believe has not heretofore been discovered.  Goodbye to the +i\eta prescription, off mass-shell particles, and other inelegant dodges to achieve a finite propagator.

2) This approach may solve the confinement and the mass gap problems simultaneously.  It is important to understand that electroweak SU(2)xU(1) is a special case in which the gauge bosons are synonymous with the observed vector mesons, but that in SU(3) and higher order theories they are not.  The gauge bosons aka gluons, which show up in the Lagrangian, are not observed.  What is observed are the vector mesons which pass through to the denominator of the propagator in the invariant amplitude.

3) There emerges is a quantum number that is restricted to three discrete values, and depending on which value of chosen, all the meson masses are scaled up or down on a wholesale basis.  I believe that this may resolve the problem of generation replication.

I expect to be churning out mass calculations in the next day or two.  You may wish to check out the meson mass tables at, because that table contains the data which I am going to try to fit to equation (6.1), via (6.5).

Hope you enjoy!


June 19, 2008

A New Lab Note: Commutation of Linear Rest Mass with Canonical Position

It has been awhile since my last blog entry, but if you want to check out some my recent wanderings through physicsland, check out sci.physics.foundations, relativity, and research.

Here, I would like to show a rather simple calculation, which may cast a different light on how one needs to think about the canonical commutation relationship \left[x_{j} ,p_{k} \right]=i\eta _{jk} ;\; j,k=1,2,3.  I would very much like your comments in helping me sort this through.  You may download this in pdf form at

I.  A Known Square Mass Commutation Calculation

 Consider a particle of mass m as a single particle system.  Consider canonical coordinates x_{\mu } , and that at least the space coordinates x_{j} ;\; j=1,2,3 are operators.  If we require that the mass m must commute with all operators, then we must have \left[x_{\mu } ,m\right]=0, and by easy extension, \left[x_{\mu } ,m^{2} \right]=0.  It is well known that the commutation condition \left[x_{\mu } ,m^{2} \right]=0, taken together with the on-shell mass relationshipm^{2} =p^{\sigma } p_{\sigma } and the single-particle canonical commutation relationship \left[x_{j} ,p_{k} \right]=i\eta _{jk} ;\; j,k=1,2,3, where diag\left(\eta _{\mu \nu } \right)=\left(-1,+1,+1,+1\right) is the Minkowski tensor, leads inexorably to the commutation relationship:

\left[x_{k} ,p_{0} \right]=-ip_{k} /p^{0} =-iv_{k}    (1.1)

where v_{k} is the particle velocity (in c=1 units) along the kth coordinate.  I leave the detailed calculation as an exercise for the reader not familiar with this calculation, and refer also to the sci.physics.research thread at or

 I would ask for your comments on the following calculation, which is totally analogous to the calculation that leads to (1.1), but which is done using the linear mass m rather than the square mass m^{2} , and using the Dirac equation written as m\psi =\gamma ^{\nu } p_{\nu } \psi , in lieu of what is, in essence, the Klein Gordon equation m^{2} \phi =p^{\sigma } p_{\sigma } \phi that leads to (1.1).

2.  Maybe New?? Linear Mass Commutation Calculation

 Start with Dirac’s equation written as:

m\psi =\gamma ^{\nu } p_{\nu } \psi .  (2.1) 

Require that:

\left[x_{\mu } ,m\right]=0   (2.2)

 Continue to use the canonical commutator \left[x_{j} ,p_{k} \right]=ig_{jk} .  Multiply (2.1) from the left by x_{\mu } noting that \left[\gamma ^{\nu } ,x_{\mu } \right]=0 to write:

x_{\mu } m\psi =\gamma ^{\nu } x_{\mu } p_{\nu } \psi =\gamma ^{0} x_{\mu } p_{0} \psi +\gamma ^{j} x_{\mu } p_{j} \psi .  (2.3) 

This separates into:

 \left\{\begin{array}{c} {x_{0} m\psi =\gamma ^{0} x_{0} p_{0} \psi +\gamma ^{j} x_{0} p_{j} \psi } \\ {x_{k} m\psi =\gamma ^{0} x_{k} p_{0} \psi +\gamma ^{j} x_{k} p_{j} \psi } \end{array}\right. .  (2.4)

  Now, use the canonical relation \left[x_{j} ,p_{k} \right]=i\eta _{jk} to commute the space (k) equation, thus:

 \begin{array}{l} {x_{k} m\psi =\gamma ^{0} x_{k} p_{0} \psi +\gamma ^{j} x_{k} p_{j} \psi =\gamma ^{0} x_{k} p_{0} \psi +\gamma ^{j} \left(p_{j} x_{k} +i\eta _{jk} \right)\, \psi } \\ {=\gamma ^{0} x_{k} p_{0} \psi +\gamma ^{j} p_{j} x_{k} \psi +i\gamma _{k} \psi } \\ {=\gamma ^{0} x_{k} p_{0} \psi +mx_{k} \psi -\gamma ^{0} p_{0} x_{k} \psi +i\gamma _{k} \psi } \end{array} .  (2.5)

In the final line, we use Dirac’s equation written as mx_{\mu } \psi =\gamma ^{\nu } p_{\nu } x_{\mu } \psi =\gamma ^{0} p_{0} x_{\mu } \psi +\gamma ^{j} p_{j} x_{\mu } \psi , and specifically, the \mu =k component equation \gamma ^{j} p_{j} x_{k} \psi =mx_{k} \psi -\gamma ^{0} p_{0} x_{k} \psi .

 If we require that \left[x_{\mu } ,m\right]=0, which is (2.2), then (2.5) reduces easily to:

 \gamma ^{0} \left[x_{k} ,p_{0} \right]\psi =-i\gamma _{k} \psi ,  (2.6)

Finally, multiply from the left by \gamma ^{0} , and employ \gamma ^{0} \gamma _{k} \equiv \alpha _{k} and \gamma ^{0} \gamma ^{0} =1 to write:

\left[x_{k} ,p_{0} \right]\, \psi =-i\alpha _{k} \psi .  (2.7) 

If we contrast (2.7) to (1.1) written as \left[x_{k} ,p_{0} \right]\phi =-iv_{k} \phi , we see that the velocity p_{k} /p^{0} =v_{k} has been replaced by the Dirac operator \alpha _{k} , that is, v_{k} \to \alpha _{k} .

3.  Questions

 Here are my first set of questions:

 1)  Is the calculation leading to (2.7) correct, and is (2.7) a correct result, or have I missed something along the way?

2)  If (2.7) is correct, has anyone seen this result before?  If so where?

3)  Now use the plane wave \psi =ue^{ip^{\sigma } x_{\sigma } } so that we can work with the Dirac spinors u\left(p^{\mu } \right), and rewrite (2.7) as:

\left\{\begin{array}{c} {\left(\alpha _{k} -\lambda \right)\, u=0} \\ {\lambda =i\left[x_{k} ,p_{0} \right]} \end{array}\right.  

The upper member of (3.1) is an eigenvalue equation.  Reading out this equation, I would say that the commutators \lambda =i\left[x_{k} ,p_{0} \right] are the eigenvalues of the Dirac \alpha _{k} matrices, which are:

{\bf \alpha }=\left(\begin{array}{cc} {0} & {{\bf \sigma }} \\ {{\bf \sigma }} & {0} \end{array}\right) and {\bf \alpha }=\left(\begin{array}{cc} {-{\bf \sigma }} & {0} \\ {0} & {{\bf \sigma }} \end{array}\right) ,  (3.2)

in the respective Pauli/Dirac and Weyl representations, and that the u are the eigenvectors associated with these eigenvalues \lambda =i\left[x_{k} ,p_{0} \right].  Am I wrong?  If not, how would one interpret this result?  Maybe the commutators \left[x_{j} ,p_{k} \right]=i\eta _{jk} can be discussed in the abstract, but it seems to me that the commutators \lambda =i\left[x_{k} ,p_{0} \right] can only be discussed as the eigenvalues of the matrices \alpha _{k} with respect to the eigenstate vectors u.  This, it seems, would put canonical commutation into a somewhat different perspective than is usual.

Just as Dirac’s equation reveals some features that cannot be seen strictly from the Klein Gordon equation, the calculation here seems to reveal some features about the canonical commutators that the usual calculation based on \left[x_{\mu } ,m^{2} \right]=0 and m^{2} =p^{\sigma } p_{\sigma } cannot, by itself, reveal.

I’d appreciate your thoughts on this, before I proceed downstream from here.



April 24, 2008

Heisenberg Uncertainty and Schwinger Anomaly: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

 In section 3 of Heisenberg Uncertainty and Schwinger Anomaly: Two Sides of the Same Coin?, I have posted a calculation which shows why the Schwinger magnetic anomaly may in fact be very tightly tied to the Heisenberg inequality \Delta x\Delta p\ge {\tfrac{1}{2}} \hbar .  The bottom line result, in (3.11) and (3.12), is that the gyromagnetic “g-factor” for a charged fermion wave field with only intrinsic spin (no angular momentum) is given by:

\left|g\right|=2\frac{\left(\Delta x\Delta p\right)}{\hbar /2} \ge 2   (3.11)

It is also helpful to look at this from the standpoint of the Heisenberg principle as:

\Delta x\Delta p=\frac{\left|g\right|}{2} \frac{\hbar }{2} \ge \frac{\hbar }{2}   (3.12)

The draft paper linked above has details of how I got here.  Below, are some ways to think about this:

 First, if (3.11) is true, then the greater than or equal to inequality of Heisenberg says, in this context, that the magnitude of the intrinsic g-factor of a charged wavefunction is always greater than or equal to 2.  That is, the inequality \Delta x\Delta p\ge {\tfrac{1}{2}} \hbar becomes another way of stating a parallel inequality \left|g\right|\ge 2.  We know this to be true for the charged leptons, which have g_{e} /2=1.0011596521859, g_{\mu } /2=1.0011659203, and g_{\tau } /2=1.0011773 respectively. [The foregoing data is extracted from W.-M. Yao et al., J. Phys. G 33, 1 (2006)]

 Secondly, the fact that the charged leptons have g-factors only slightly above 2, suggests that these a) differ from perfect Gaussian wavefunctions by only a very tiny amount, b) the electron is slightly more Gaussian than the muon, and the muon slightly more-so than the tauon.  The three-quark proton, with g_{P} /2=2.7928473565, is definitively less-Gaussian the charged leptons.  But, it is intriguing that the g-factor is now seen as a precise measure of the degree to which a wavefunction differs from a perfect Gaussian.

 Third, (3.11) states that the magnetic moment anomaly via the g-factor is a precise measure of the degree to which \Delta x\Delta p exceeds \hbar /2.  This is best seen by writing (3.11) as (3.12).

Thus, for the electron, \left(\Delta x\Delta p\right)_{e} =1.0011596521859\cdot \left(\hbar /2\right), to give an exact numerical example.  For a different example, for the proton, \left(\Delta x\Delta p\right)_{P} =2.7928473565\cdot \left(\hbar /2\right).

 Fourth, as a philosophical and historical matter, one can achieve a new, deeper perspective about uncertainty.  Classically, it was long thought that one can specify position and momentum simultaneously, with precision.  To the initial consternation of many and the lasting consternation of some, it was found that even in principle, one could at best determine the standard deviations in position and momentum according to \Delta x\Delta p\ge {\tfrac{1}{2}} \hbar .  There are two aspects of this consternation:  First, that one can never have\Delta x\Delta p=0 as in classical theory.  Second, that this is merely an inequality, not an exact expression, so that even for a particle with \Delta x\Delta p\ge {\tfrac{1}{2}} \hbar , we do not know for sure what is its exact value of \Delta x\Delta p.  This latter issue is not an in-principle limitation on position and momentum measurements; it is a limitation on the present state of human knowledge.

 Now, while {\tfrac{1}{2}} \hbar is a lower bound in principle, the question remains open to the present day, whether there is a way, for a given particle, to specify the precise degree to which its \Delta x\Delta p exceeds {\tfrac{1}{2}} \hbar , and how this would be measured.  For example, one might ask, is there any particle in the real world that is a perfect Gaussian, and therefore can be located in spacetime and conjugate momentum space, down to exactly {\tfrac{1}{2}} \hbar .  Equation (3.12) above suggests that if such a particle exists, it must be a perfect Gaussian, and, that we would know it was a perfect Gaussian, if its g-factor was experimentally determined to be exactly equal to the Dirac value of 2.  Conversely, (3.12) tells us that it is the g-factor itself, which is the direct experimental indicator of the magnitude of \Delta x\Delta p for any given particle wavefunction.  The classical precision of \Delta x\Delta p=0 comes full circle, and while it will never return, there is the satisfaction of being able to replace this with the quantum  mechanical precision of (3.12), \Delta x\Delta p=\left|g\right|\hbar /4, rather than the weaker inequality of \Delta x\Delta p\ge {\tfrac{1}{2}} \hbar .

 Fifth, if (3.12) is correct, then since it is independently known from Schwinger that \frac{g}{2} =1+\frac{a}{2\pi } +\ldots , this would mean that we would have to have:

\Delta x\Delta p=\frac{\left|g\right|}{2} \frac{\hbar }{2} =\left(1+\frac{a}{2\pi } +\ldots \right)\frac{\hbar }{2}   (3.13)

Thus, from the perturbative viewpoint, the degree to which \Delta x\Delta p exceeds {\tfrac{1}{2}} \hbar would have to be a function of the running coupling strength \alpha =e^{2} /4\pi in Heaviside-Lorentz units.  As Carl Brannnen has explicitly pointed out to me, this means that a Gaussian wavepacket is by definition non-interacting; as soon as there is an interaction, one concurrently loses the exact Gaussian.

 Sixth, since deviation of the g-factor above 2 would arise from a non-Gaussian wavefunction such as \psi (x)=N\exp \left(-{\tfrac{1}{2}} Ax^{2} +Bx\right), the rise of the g-factor above 2 would have to stem from the Bx term in this non-Gaussian wavefuction.  In this regard, we note to start, that N\int \exp \left(-{\tfrac{1}{2}} Ax^{2} +Bx\right)dx= \sqrt{2\pi /A} \exp \left(B^{2} /2A\right), for a non-Gaussian wavefunction, versus N\int \exp \left(-{\tfrac{1}{2}} Ax^{2} \right)dx= \sqrt{2\pi /A} for a perfect Gaussian.

 Finally, to calculate this all out precisely, one would need to employ a calculation similar to that shown at, but for the non-Gaussian N\int \exp \left(-{\tfrac{1}{2}} Ax^{2} +Bx\right)dx= \sqrt{2\pi /A} \exp \left(B^{2} /2A\right) rather than the GaussianN\int \exp \left(-{\tfrac{1}{2}} Ax^{2} \right)dx= \sqrt{2\pi /A} , to arrive at the modified bottom line equation of this Wiki section.  That is the next calculation I plan, but this is enough, I believe, to post at this time.

March 3, 2008

Intrinsic Spin and the Kaluza-Klein Fifth Dimension: Journal Submission

   I mentioned several days ago that I had submitted a Kaluza Klein paper to one of the leading journals.  That lengthy paper was not accepted, and you can read the referee report and some of my comments here at sci.physics.foundations or here, with some other folks’ comments, at sci.physics.relativity.  The report actually was not too bad, concluding that “the author must have worked a considerable amount to learn quite a few thing in gravitation theory, and a number of the equations are correctly written and they do make sense, however those eqs. do not contain anything original.”  I would much rather hear this sort of objection, than be told — as I have been in the past — that I don’t know anything about the subject I am writing about.

   In fact, there is one finding in the above-linked paper which, as I thought about it more and more, is quite original, yet I believe it was lost in the mass of this larger paper.  And, frankly, it took me a few days to catch on to the full import of this finding, and so I downplayed it in the earlier paper.  Namely:  that the compactified fifth dimension of Kaluza-Klein theories is the mainspring of the intrinsic spins which permeate particle physics.

   I have now written and submitted for publication, a new paper which only includes that Kaluza-Klein material which is necessary to fully support this particular original finding.  You may read the submitted paper at Intrinsic Spin and the Kaluza-Klein Fifth Dimension.  I will, of course, let you know what comes from the review of this paper.

   I welcome your comments and feedback.


February 29, 2008

Lab Note 2: Why the Compactified, Cylindrical Fifth Dimension in Kaluza Klein Theory may be the “Intrinsic Spin” Dimension


I am posting here a further excerpt from my paper at Kaluza-Klein Theory, Lorentz Force Geodesics and the Maxwell Tensor with QED. Notwithstanding some good discussion at sci.physics.relativity, I am coming to believe that the intrinsic spin interpreation of the compacified, hypercylindrical fifth dimension presented in section 4 of this paper may be compelling. The math isn’t too hard, and you can follow it below: The starting point for discussion equation is (3.2) below,

frac{dx^{5} }{dtau } equiv -frac{1}{b} frac{sqrt{hbar calpha } }{sqrt{G} m} =-frac{1}{b} frac{1}{sqrt{4pi G} } frac{q}{m} . (3.2)

which is used to connect the q/m ratio from the Lorentz law to geodesic motion in five dimensions, and b is a numeric constant of proportionality. Section 4 below picks up from this.

Excerpt from Section 4:

Transforming into an “at rest” frame, dx^{1} =dx^{2} =dx^{3} =0, the spacetime metric equation d/tau ^{2} =g_{/mu /nu } dx^{/mu } dx^{/nu } reduces to dtau =pm sqrt{g_{00} } dx^{0} , and (3.2) becomes:

frac{dx^{5} }{dx^{0} } =pm frac{1}{b} sqrt{frac{g_{00} }{4pi G} } frac{q}{m} . (4.1)

For a timelike fifth dimension, x^{5} may be drawn as a second axis orthogonal to x^{0} , and the physics ratio q/m (which, by the way, results in the q/m material body in an electromagnetic field actually “feeling” a Newtonian force in the sense of F=ma due to the inequivalence of electrical and inertial mass) measures the “angle” at which the material body moves through the x^{5} ,x^{0} “time plane.”

For a spacelikefifth dimension, where one may wish to employ a compactified, hyper-cylindrical x^{5} equiv Rphi (see [Sundrum, R., TASI 2004 Lectures: To the Fifth Dimension and Back, (2005).], Figure 1) and R is a constant radius (distinguish from the Ricci scalar by context), dx^{5} equiv Rdphi . Substituting this into (3.2), leaving in the pm ratio obtained in (4.1), and inserting c into the first term to maintain a dimensionless equation, then yields:

frac{Rdphi }{cdtau } =pm frac{1}{b} frac{sqrt{hbar calpha } }{sqrt{G} m} =pm frac{1}{b} frac{1}{sqrt{4pi G} } frac{q}{m} . (4.2)

We see that here, the physics ratio q/m measures an “angular frequency” of fifth-dimensional rotation. Interestingly, this frequency runs inversely to the mass, and by classical principles, this means that the angular momentum with fixed radius is independent of the mass, i.e., constant. If one doubles the mass, one halves the tangential velocity, and if the radius stays constant, then so too does the angular momentum. Together with the pm factor, one might suspect that this constant angular momentum is, by virtue of its constancy independently of mass, related to intrinsic spin. In fact, following this line of thought, one can arrive at an exact expression for the compactification radius R, in the following manner:

Assume that x^{5} is spacelike, casting one’s lot with the preponderance of those who study Kaluza-Klein theory. In (4.2), move the c away from the first term and move the m over to the first term. Then, multiply all terms by another R. Everything is now dimensioned as an angular momentum mcdot vcdot R, which we have just ascertained is constant irrespective of mass. So, set this all to pm {textstylefrac{1}{2}} nhbar , which for n=1, represents intrinsic spin. The result is as follows:

mfrac{Rdphi }{dtau } R=pm frac{1}{b} frac{sqrt{hbar c^{3} alpha } }{sqrt{G} } R=pm frac{1}{b} frac{c}{sqrt{4pi G} } qR=pm frac{1}{2} nhbar . (4.3)

Now, take the second and fourth terms, and solve for R with n=1, to yield:

R=frac{b}{2sqrt{alpha } } sqrt{frac{Ghbar }{c^{3} } } =frac{b}{2sqrt{alpha } } L_{P} , (4.4)

where L_{P} =sqrt{Ghbar /c^{3} } is the Planck length. This gives a definitive size for the compactification radius, and it is very close to the Planck length. (more…)

February 16, 2008

Lab Note 2 Intermezzo: Change of View to a Spacelike Fifth Dimension, as the Geometric Foundation of Intrinsic Spin

(A PDF version of this Lab Note may be downloaded from Lab Note 2 Intermezzo.) 

 Those who have followed the development of this lab note know that I have been working with a Kaluza-Klein theory which regards the fifth dimension as timelike, rather than spacelike.  After reviewing some key literature in the field including a Sundrum Lecture recommended by Martin Bauer and several articles by Paul Wesson linked over at The 5-D Space-Time-Matter Consortium, I have undergone a conversion to the view that the fifth dimension needs to be spacelike – not timelike – and specifically, that it needs to be a compact, spacelike hypercylinder.  In this conversion, I am motivated by the following reasoning, which gives a geometric foundation to intrinsic spin: 

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at