A Geometrodynamic Foundation for Classical and Quantum Electrodynamics, in Four Spacetime Dimensions

In 1915 Albert Einstein laid a geometrodynamic foundation for classical gravitational motion based upon least action principles.  For an entire century since, although many attempts have been made, we still do not have a comparable theory even of classical electrodynamics, much less quantum electrodynamics.

Since December 2015 I have been focused exclusively on solving that long-standing challenge, aside from diverting for the last few weeks to help mediate a Bell’s Theorem discussion on Retraction Watch at http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/physicist-threatens-legal-action-after-journal-mysteriously-removed-study/.

The latest draft of my paper on geometrodynamic electrodynamics, both classical and quantum, which is substantially complete and ready for journal submission, is available at lorentz-force-geodesics-brief-4-2.  As I engage in a final review and revision of this paper prior to submission, I certainly welcome any comments you may have.  You may post them here, or email me privately at yablon@alum.mit.edu.

Thanks, Jay

Advertisement

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

My first published paper “Why Baryons Are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles” at Hadronic Journal, Volume 35, Number 4, 399-467 (2012)

My first paper “Why Baryons Are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles” has now been published in Hadronic Journal, Volume 35, Number 4, 399-467 (2012). Though the Hadronic Journal has not yet put this issue online, I have a hardcopy of this and have uploaded a scan at the link below:

Hadronic Journal, Volume 35, Number 4, 399-467 (2012)

As I have advised on some earlier blog entries, I have two more accepted papers which will be published next month (April 2013) in the Journal of Modern Physics, Special Issue on High Energy Physics.

Jay

Two New Papers: Grand Unified SU(8) Gauge Theory Based on Baryons which are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles . . . and . . . Predicting the Neutron and Proton Masses Based on Baryons which are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles and Koide Mass Triplets

I have not had the chance to make my readers aware of two new recent papers. The first is at Grand Unified SU(8) Gauge Theory Based on Baryons which are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles and has been accepted for publication by the Journal of Modern Physics, and will appear in their April 2013 “Special Issue on High Energy Physics.”  The second is at Predicting the Neutron and Proton Masses Based on Baryons which are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles and Koide Mass Triplets and is presently under review.

The latter paper on the neutron and proton masses fulfills a goal that I have had for 42 years, which I have spoken about previously in the blog, of finding a way to predict the proton and neutron masses based on the masses of the fermions, specifically, the electron and the up and down quark (and as you will see , the Fermi vev).  Between this latter paper and my earlier paper at Predicting the Binding Energies of the 1s Nuclides with High Precision, Based on Baryons which are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles, I have made six distinct, independent predictions with accuracy ranging from parts in 10,000 for the neutron plus proton mass sum, to an exact relationship for the proton minus neutron mass difference, parts per 100,000 for the 3He binding energy, parts per million for the for the 3H and 4He binding energies, and parts per ten million for the 2H binding energy (based on the proton minus neutron mass difference being made exact).  I have also proposed in the binding energies paper, a new approach to nuclear fusion, known as “resonant fusion,” in which one bathes hydrogen in gamma radiation at certain specified frequencies that should catalyze the fusion process.

In addition, the neutron and proton mass paper appears to also provide a seventh prediction for part of the determinant of the CKM generational mixing matrix.  And the GUT paper establishes the theoretical foundation for exactly three fermion generations and the observed mixing patterns, answering Rabi’s question “who ordered this?”.

All of this in turn, is based on my foundational paper Why Baryons Are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles.  Taken together, these four papers place nuclear physics on a new foundation, with empirical support from multiple independent data points.  The odd against six independent parts per 10^6 concurrences being mere coincidence are one in 10^36, and I now actually have about ten independent data points of very tight empirical support.  If you want to start learning nuclear physics as it will be taught around the world in another decade, this is where you need to start.

Best to all,

Jay

New Paper: Predicting the Binding Energies of the 1s Nuclides with High Precision, Based on Baryons which are Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles

Dear Friends:

I wanted to let you all know that I just posted a new paper, which you can review at the link below:

http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0165

The abstract is as follows:

We employ the thesis that baryons are Yang-Mills magnetic monopoles to predict the binding energies of the alpha ⁴He nucleus to less than four parts in one million, of the ³He helion nucleus to less than four parts in 100,000, and of the ³H triton nucleus to less than seven parts in one million, all in AMU.  Of special import, we exactly relate the neutron–proton mass difference – which pervades all aspects of nuclear physics and beta decay – to a function of the up quark, down quark, and electron masses, which in turn enables us to predict the binding energy for the ²H deuteron nucleus most precisely of all, to just over 8 parts in ten million.  The thesis that Baryons are Yang-Mills magnetic monopoles thereby appears to have ample, indeed irrefutable empirical confirmation, establishes a basis for finally “decoding” the mass of known data regarding nuclear masses and binding energies, and may lay the foundation for technologically realizing the theoretical promise of nuclear fusion.

I have also submitted this for journal publication, and hope that this will become my second journal-published paper.  The first one as I have advised previously has already been accepted and will be released any day now.

I welcome your comments, as always.

Time to go party!  Happy new year to all!

Jay

Might Baryons be Yang-Mills Magnetic Monopoles?

If you have followed my blog the past few years or been a participant sci.physics.foundations, you will know that since early 2007 I have been advocating that baryons are Yang-Mills magnetic monopoles, hiding in plain sight.   Now, finally, I have developed rigorous mathematical proof of this, and it is in a paper you may read at:

2012 Baryon Paper Final

The equation which encapsulates the entire thesis, is (8.1), and I have copied it below into this post.  Now you can read the paper, see how I got to (8.1), and understand exactly what this equation is saying about nuclear physics.

Jay

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:

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/baryon-paper-3-1.pdf

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.

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/quantum-yang-mills-3-for-spf.pdf

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.

Starting a new paper on Baryons and Confinement

Today, I began work on a new paper dealing with the Yang-Mills foundations of baryons and QCD confinement.  The first draft is linked below, and I will provide updates as they develop.

Yang-Mills Foundations of Baryons and Confinement Phenomena

I may get diverted a bit by my US tax filing the next few days, and I am quite busy at work right now so this will mostly be a weekend and after-midnight project, but I do hope to get this paper, which I hope will synthesize many individual insights I have had and subjects I have studied over the past several years, into a something of value for others.

Constructive comments are always appreciated.

Thanks to the Princess and Peter and Ken and Igor and Ben for feedback and insights posted on the various newsgroups.

Jay.

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:

finite-amplitudes-without-i-epsilon

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 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.

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

Jay.

How Precisely can we Measure an Electron’s Heisenberg Uncertainty? (or, How Certain is Uncertainty?)

   In a May 24 post Heisenberg Uncertainty and Schwinger Anomaly: Two Sides of the Same Coin?, I set forth the hypothesis that the anomalous magnetic moment first characterized by Schwinger, may in fact be a manifestation of the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship, and in particular, that the excess of the uncertainty over may in fact originate from the same basis as the excess of the intrinsic spin magnetic moment g-factor g, over the Dirac value of 2.  This hypothesis is most transparently written as , where  is the running electromagnetic coupling for which at low probe energy .  I also pointed out that a crucial next step was to employ a calculation similar to that shown at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Wave_mechanics, but for a non-Gaussian wavefunction.

   I have now concluded a full calculation along these lines, of the precise uncertainty associated with a particle wavefunction of the general form .  (The primes are a convenience used in calculation where we define , etc. when calculating expected values, to take into account the possibility of the wavefunction parameters being imaginary.)  While I refer to  as an “intrinsic potential,” it is perhaps better to think about this simply as an unspecified, completely-general polynomial in x, which renders the wavefunction completely general.  I have linked an updated draft of my paper which includes this calculation in full and applies it to the hypothesis set forth above, at Heisenberg Uncertainty and the Schwinger Anomaly. While the calculation is lengthy (and took a fair bit of effort to perform, then cross-check), the essence of what is contained in this paper can be summarized quite simply.  So I shall lay out a brief summary below, using the equation numbers which appear in the above-linked paper.

   The essence of the results demonstrated in this paper is as follows.  Start with the generalized non-Gaussian wavefunction:

  (4.1)

Calculate its uncertainty by calculating its Fourier transform (see (6.1)), by calculating each of its variances (5.4) and (7.4), and then by multiplying these together and taking the square root to arrive at the uncertainty.  The calculation is lengthy but straightforward, and it leads to the bottom line result:

 .   (8.5)

   It is important to emphasize that (8.5) is a mathematical result that is totally independent of the hypothesized relationship of the uncertainty to the intrinsic spin.  So, if you ever been dissatisfied with the inequality of the Heisenberg relationship and wondered what the exact uncertainty is for a given wavefunction, you will find this calculated with precision in sections 4 through 8, and the answer is (8.5) above.  The upshot is that (8.5) above is the precise uncertainty for a wavefunction (4.1) with A’, B’ and V’ all real.  We cannot give a position and momentum with precision, but we can give an uncertainty with precision.  The reasons for having A’, B’ and V’ be real are developed in the paper, but suffice it to say that A’, B’ real is necessary to avert a divergent uncertainty, and if V’ were imaginary rather than real, the uncertainty would always be exactly equal to .

   Now, with the result (8.5) in hand, we return to the original hypothesis which, if it is true, would require that:

   (9.1)

   Using the series expansion for , we then make the connection:

    (9.5)

   Now, it behooves us to return to the wavefunction (4.1), and use (9.5) to write: 

,    (9.6) 

and to rewrite the uncertainty relationship (9.1) as:

(9.7)

   Now, let’s get directly to the point: an electron with the wavefunction (9.6), with and real, will have the uncertainty relationship (9.7), period.  For , the leading uncertainty term , while the leading anomaly term .  These two terms differ by just under 7 parts in .  Therefore, we can state the following:

   Theorem:  For a wavefunction with and real, the uncertainty ratio , to leading order in , differs from the intrinsic Schwinger g-factor by less than 7 parts in .

   We have stated this as a theorem, because this is a simple statement of fact, and involves no interpretation or hypothesis whatsoever.  However, in order to sustain the broader hypothesis

,   (3.4)

we do need to engage in some interpretation.

   First, we define (9.6) as the intrinsic wavefunction of a ground state electron with no orbital angular momentum and no applied external potential.  And, we define (9.7) as the intrinsic uncertainty of this intrinsic wavefunction.  Not every electron will have this wavefunction or this uncertainty or this g-factor, but this wavefunction becomes the baseline electron wavefunction from which any variation is due to extrinsic factors, such as possessing orbital angular momentum or being placed into an external potential, for example, that of a proton.  Thus, our hypothesis (3.4) is a hypothesis about the intrinsic uncertainty associated with the intrinsic wavefunction, and it says that:

   Reformulated Hypothesis:  The intrinsic uncertainty associated with the intrinsic electron wavefunction is identical with the intrinsic g-factor of the anomalous magnetic moment.

   The final section 10 of this draft paper linked above, is in progress at this time.  What I am presently trying to do, is make some sense of what appears to be a “new” type of g-factor , emanating from an extrinsic potential (polynomial)  in the wavefunction:

   (10.1)

This new g-factor is defined in (10.2), and is isolated in (10.3) as such:

.   (10.3)

In section 10, I have provided my “first impression” of where this new g-factor may fit in, in relation to the Paschen-Back effect, but would be interested in the thoughts of the reader regarding what to make of the above g-factor (10.3) and where it might fit into the “scheme of things.” 

Thanks for listening, and for your thoughts.

Jay.