Slides from my first Physics Lecture, and a New Draft Paper Summarizing the Experimental Points of Contact which Affirm my Work

This past week I gave my first physics lecture on the research in my recent four published papers establishing that proton and neutrons are actually a particular type of magnetic monopole (based on a theory called Yang-Mills because those are the names of the two fellows who invented its foundations).  In the lecture, I consolidated all four of my papers totaling about 140 pages into a 70 minute lecture (50 minutes talk, 20 minutes Q&A discussion) and 64 slides which you can download from Physics Lecture Slides.

It would probably take someone a couple of weeks to read through and thoroughly understand my four papers.   The slides were designed to allow someone to assimilate the same information within a couple of hours.  Please take a look.

Also, I prepared a new paper which you may read at Fitting the 2H, 3H, 3He, 4H Binding Energies 3  which in ten pages lays out the multiple relationships I have found which very clearly connect to experimental data that had never before been explained.  This is the “tip of the iceberg” in terms of the multiple ways in which nature herself validates my theoretical work at the parts-per-million level.   My hope is that people in the physics community will see these results, realize that there is something real here, and then take the time to backtrack to understand the theoretical foundations that got me to that point.  A sort of “inversion” of my work to lead with the experimental results in order to catalyze interest.  Everything in this paper by the way, is simple arithmetic (as in, numbers calculated and compared to other numbers), and about the only complexity is that you need to understand a tiny bit about matrix multiplication (like that the “Trace” of a square matrix is just the sum of all the entries long its upper left to lower right diagonal).  If you do not want to even sort through the matrix stuff, then just look at equations (14) through (20).  These are pure numbers, and you will see how close I get to the experimental data each and every time.  Nobody has ever before explained this experimental data with such high precision!

People, I am usually careful not to toot too loudly about my work.  But I have to say that this is real, it is fundamental, and it will revolutionize nuclear and particle theory.  The question is no longer if, but when.  The discoveries have been made and they are in print and all they need is attention from the right places.  My “lab notes” and related work will soon spark a “scientific revolution” toward which I have been working for over 40 years.  Real results in hand, I am now doing all that I can to make that happen sooner rather than later.  I welcome any help or support my friends can provide in making that happen.

Jay

Advertisement

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:

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/su-3-paper-20.pdf

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:

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/s2-mu0-mass-spectrum.pdf

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:

 .625727090299/.169470755895=3.69220577135

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:

 .169470755895/.163577444819=1.03602765089

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!

Jay.

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:

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/su-3-paper-20.pdf,

 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
http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Yang-Mills_Theory/yangmills.pdf at
http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Yang-Mills_Theory/.

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 http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/tables/rpp2008-qtab-mesons.pdf, because that table contains the data which I am going to try to fit to equation (6.1), via (6.5).

Hope you enjoy!

Jay.

Further Considerations on the Energy Tensor: Metric versus Torsion

After reviewing some very helpful discussion on sci.physics.foundations and sci.physics.relativity in the threads I initiated regarding non-symmetric energy tensors and a suggested Kaluza-Klein experiment, and going back to Misner, Thorne and Wheeler’s “Gravitation,” I am starting to shift my viewpoint to be in opposition to the idea of using a non-symmetric (Cartan / Torsion) energy tensor because of the adverse impact this has on formulating a metric theory of gravitation.

There is a non-symmetric energy tensor in equations (15.11) to (15.13) of:

Kaluza-Klein Theory and Lorentz Force Geodesics Rev. 6.0

which is based upon the *non-symmetric* energy tensor of trace matter derived in (11.6).  What I have been turning over, is whether I ought to be comfortable with this result, and my sense runs against it.

However, at the point of original derivation in sections 8-11, there is actually a choice: one can construct the variation of the Lagrangian density of matter with respect to  such that a symmetric tensor will result, or one can choose not to, by creating a symmetric term or not.  This is actually a form of gravitational “symmetry breaking” that occurs in the process of taking the variation of the matter Lagrangian density with respect to the metric tensor.  I think both paths need to be developed, because they lead to on the one hand to a symmetric energy tensor, and on the other to a non-symmetric energy tensor.  In either case, the key term distinguishing this energy tensor from the Maxwell tensor is .

If we impose symmetry on the energy tensor, then the Maxwell tensor will be the  special case of a broader tensor which includes a term and which applies, e.g., to energy flux densities (Poynting components) , for “waves” of large numbers of electrons.

Then, the experiment becomes — not a test of the torsion tensor — but a test as between an energy tensor with and without torsion.  That is, the experiment as reformulated, becomes a test of metric-style versus Cartan-style theories of gravitation.

Dealing with the currents  is clear.  Regarding how to deal with the potential  in doing the experiment, think about a beam of electrons. They of course will all repel, so the beam will emerge conically from the electron gun if nothing is done to force them onto a parallel path. Now, take a circular cross section of electrons from the beam striking an energy flux detector.  One can think of the cross-sectional surface where the electron stream meets the detector as a “disk,” not unlike a charged, flat, frisbee, which is also productively thought about as a dielectric.  I would submit that one can assign a “zero” potential to the center of the cross section, and a varying non-zero potential to the periphery.  That is, if one were to take a circular dielectric disk and fill it with electric charge, then float some positive charge nearby, the positive charge — I believe — would be attracted toward and seat itself at the center of the disk, and so that would be a natural place to define the zero of potential.

This would also mean that regional detections of flux toward the fringes of the detector will be different than toward the center, assuming uniformity of charge distribution, because the energy created by the potentials among the electrons are different in different regions.  So, there is a way to assign potentials even without applying an external voltage, though someone conducting this experiment may want to also apply an external voltage simply to vary the range of experiments.

Now, to the main point: one should do the experiment with random, unpolarized electrons, and then again with spins aligned with and against the direction of propagation, merely to test the symmetric versus non-symmetric energy tensors one to the other.   One will win, the other not.  Metric versus torsion.

I am planning a restructuring of the paper at the above link.  In the near future, I will outline the proposed restruturing — what I would plan to keep and what I plan to change.

Jay.

A Possible Kaluza-Klein Experiment

It has been suggested — appropriately so — that I consider whether there might be one or more experiments which can be designed to validate or falsify some of the Klauza-Klein results which I have been posting of late. I believe that one possible experiment resides in the non-symmetric energy tensor of trace matter derived in (11.6) of my latest posted paper. Thus, I have added a new section 15 to this paper, and reposted the entire paper, with this new section 15, at Kaluza-Klein Theory and Lorentz Force Geodesics Rev. 6.0 Because this is of particular interest as it may open some new experimental windows, I have posted section 15 below as well. Please note: the specific discussion of the connection between the compactified fifth dimension, and intrinsic spin, is not updated in this paper, and the latest discusssion I have written up on this topic, is at Intrinsic Spin and the Kaluza-Klein Fifth Dimension.

  Section 15: At this juncture, we have enough information to propose an experiment to validate or falsify some of the results derived thus far.  We turn for this purpose to the stress energy tensor of matter (11.6), which we raise into contravariant notation as follows:

. (15.1)

The Maxwell tensor is, of course, a symmetric tensor.  But the added trace matter term is not necessarily symmetric, that is, there is no a priori reason why must be equal to .  The origin of this non-symmetry was discussed earlier in Section 9.

 With an eye toward conducting an experiment, let us now consider (15.1) in the linear approximation of (13.6) where .  In the linear approximation, as used to reach (13.3), (12.11) reduces to , and (15.1) becomes:

, (15.2)

where we have also used and , and divided out .  The transpose of this non-symmetric energy tensor is:

, (15.3)

 Now, it is known that a non-symmetric energy tensor, physically, is indicative of a non-zero spin density.  In particular, using (15.2) and (15.3), the non-symmetry of the energy tensor is related to a non-zero spin density tensor according to: [A good, basic discussion of the spin tensor is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_tensor.]

. (15.4)

For such a non-symmetric tensor, the “energy flux” is not identical to the “momentum density, as these differ by (15.4), for , and vice versa.  If the spin density , then  in this special case, (15.4) yields:

. (15.5)

So, for , (15.3) may be written using (15.5) as the explicitly-symmetric tensor:

. (15.6)

 Now, let’s consider a experiment which is entirely classical.  The “Poynting” components of (15.4), (15.6) represent the energy flux across a two-dimensional area, for a flux of matter which we will take to be a stream of electrons, while the components represent the momentum density.  The proposed experiment, then, will be to fire a stream of a very large number of electrons thereby constituting an electron “wave,” and to detect the aggregate flux of energy across a two-dimensional surface under various spin preparations, in precisely the same manner that one might test the flow of luminous energy across a surface when using light waves rather than electron waves.  Specifically, we propose in test I to fire electrons without doing anything to orient their spins, so that, statistically, the number of electrons flowing through the flux surface with positive helicity is equal to the number with negative helicity and so the spin density is zero, and (15.6) applies.  In test II, we fire electrons, but apply a magnetic field before detecting the flux, to ensure that all of the electrons are aligned to positive helicity.  In this event, the spin density, by design, is non-zero, and one of (15.2) or (15.3) will apply.  In test III, we do the same, but now apply the magnetic field to ensure that all of the electrons have negative helicity, before detecting the flux.