by **Yablon** » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:10 pm

Dear friends:

Back on February 5 I posted a revamped version of sections 16 and 17 of my paper. But I was still uncomfortable with how I was interpreting the Lagrangian potential interaction energies of any given particle with the the vacuum, and also, with the inordinately large Z-to-Higgs boson number ratios I was predicting as a prelude to reviewing beta decay. In addressing this discomfort, I have made a new fundamental discovery about the nature of

particle lifetimes and widths, which you can read about at the file linked below. Note: all the new material is in section 17.

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... .1-spf.pdfSpecifically, referring to (17.1c), consider the example of a photon which has zero rest mass and so has a potential energy of interaction with the vacuum of -514.890 GeV. This of course is a hugely negative energy. The problem is that I was trying to account for these energies at particle vertexes as if they were observable conserved energies just like kinetic and potential and rest energies. But this would mean that every time a photon was emitted or absorbed, there would be more than .5 TeV worth of energy to account for, and this, of course, is nowhere to be found in nature. So I had to believe that these vacuum interaction energies were not directly observed as conserved energies, but were only indirectly observed in some other way.

The other type of energy number that we know about in nature, is the full width of a particle, which of course, is the reduced Planck constant over its mean lifetime. So I tackled the question of whether these vacuum interaction potential energies might in fact be manifest through these widths and lifetimes which need not accounted for in energies at a Feynman diagram vertex, rather than as kinetic or potential or rest energies for which a vertex accounting is required. If true, then the energy accounting at the vertex works as it should and the observable meaning of the potential energy of a particle's interaction with the vacuum becomes clear through its lifetime and width. Moreover (not in this draft but slated for the next one), this means that because I no longer have to account for these huge vacuum interaction energies at the vertex, the Z-to-Higgs population ratio is greatly reduced, in fact, down to 2:1 which means that whenever there is a live Higgs boson there are also two live Z bosons.

This exact result, by the way, has recently been observed and reported by Atlas out of CERN to greater than 5 sigma confidence. So this is a Z-to-Higgs ratio I can stand firmly behind with experimental backing. Finally, this also solves how to handle the gigantic 50 to 100 TeV vacuum interaction potential energies that I later encounter for leptons (now this just means some shorter virtual particle lifetimes), which has been nagging at me for six months and is the main thing that has been in the way of my becoming comfortable with wrapping this paper up and sending it off for review for publication.

This new section 17 in the file linked above, shows that this is a correct approach, and it shows how

the individual lifetimes of Z bosons are quantized, as are the rest masses of individual Z bosons which appear in the Breit-Wigner probability distribution. To conclude, in the final (17.27) (which I just realized is misnumbered and ought to be (17.29)), I show how this is all just another incarnation of Max Planck's E=nhf which started the quantum revolution in the 20th century, albeit not for particle energies and frequencies a.k.a. inverse periods, but for particle rest energy widths and lifetimes.

I wanted to get this new discovery into the public domain right now for two reasons: First, so that it is in the public domain. Second, because I will be travelling for 4 of the next 5 weeks including a three week stint in Europe at the end of March into early April. So I need to stop for awhile, and wanted to get this done and out before I leave.

Best to all,

Jay

Dear friends:

Back on February 5 I posted a revamped version of sections 16 and 17 of my paper. But I was still uncomfortable with how I was interpreting the Lagrangian potential interaction energies of any given particle with the the vacuum, and also, with the inordinately large Z-to-Higgs boson number ratios I was predicting as a prelude to reviewing beta decay. In addressing this discomfort, I have made a new fundamental discovery about the nature of [i]particle lifetimes and widths[/i], which you can read about at the file linked below. Note: all the new material is in section 17.

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/revised-sections-16-and-17-quark-beta-decay-2.1-spf.pdf

Specifically, referring to (17.1c), consider the example of a photon which has zero rest mass and so has a potential energy of interaction with the vacuum of -514.890 GeV. This of course is a hugely negative energy. The problem is that I was trying to account for these energies at particle vertexes as if they were observable conserved energies just like kinetic and potential and rest energies. But this would mean that every time a photon was emitted or absorbed, there would be more than .5 TeV worth of energy to account for, and this, of course, is nowhere to be found in nature. So I had to believe that these vacuum interaction energies were not directly observed as conserved energies, but were only indirectly observed in some other way.

The other type of energy number that we know about in nature, is the full width of a particle, which of course, is the reduced Planck constant over its mean lifetime. So I tackled the question of whether these vacuum interaction potential energies might in fact be manifest through these widths and lifetimes which need not accounted for in energies at a Feynman diagram vertex, rather than as kinetic or potential or rest energies for which a vertex accounting is required. If true, then the energy accounting at the vertex works as it should and the observable meaning of the potential energy of a particle's interaction with the vacuum becomes clear through its lifetime and width. Moreover (not in this draft but slated for the next one), this means that because I no longer have to account for these huge vacuum interaction energies at the vertex, the Z-to-Higgs population ratio is greatly reduced, in fact, down to 2:1 which means that whenever there is a live Higgs boson there are also two live Z bosons. [i]This exact result, by the way, has recently been observed and reported by Atlas out of CERN to greater than 5 sigma confidence.[/i] So this is a Z-to-Higgs ratio I can stand firmly behind with experimental backing. Finally, this also solves how to handle the gigantic 50 to 100 TeV vacuum interaction potential energies that I later encounter for leptons (now this just means some shorter virtual particle lifetimes), which has been nagging at me for six months and is the main thing that has been in the way of my becoming comfortable with wrapping this paper up and sending it off for review for publication.

This new section 17 in the file linked above, shows that this is a correct approach, and it shows how [i]the individual lifetimes of Z bosons are quantized[/i], as are the rest masses of individual Z bosons which appear in the Breit-Wigner probability distribution. To conclude, in the final (17.27) (which I just realized is misnumbered and ought to be (17.29)), I show how this is all just another incarnation of Max Planck's E=nhf which started the quantum revolution in the 20th century, albeit not for particle energies and frequencies a.k.a. inverse periods, but for particle rest energy widths and lifetimes.

I wanted to get this new discovery into the public domain right now for two reasons: First, so that it is in the public domain. Second, because I will be travelling for 4 of the next 5 weeks including a three week stint in Europe at the end of March into early April. So I need to stop for awhile, and wanted to get this done and out before I leave.

Best to all,

Jay