SciPhysicsForums.com

Dear SPF Friends:

Over the last few months I have carefully extended my paper on the geometrodynamic foundation of classical electrodynamics, into quantum electrodynamics. This may be found here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0387v1.pdf.

It had been my intention to keep this paper tightly focused on classical electrodynamics because that is a problem that had not been solved for a full century despite best efforts by Weyl, Kaluza-Klein and Einstein himself. But several factors combined motivated me to extend this to quantum electrodynamics.

First, the paper was rejected from the top journal to which I earlier reported I had submitted, not for being wrong or contradictory, but because "If it is to have any observable consequences, then it is a proposal for an alternative to standard electromagnetism, a theory that is [sic] has passed many experimental tests to very high precision (e.g., the magnetic moments of the electron and muon). A requirement for publication in ... would be a detailed demonstration that this alternative theory can fit the experimental data equally well. You have not does [sic] this, and I doubt that it can be done."

Second, I had already seen strong hints six months ago, some of which I have discussed here, that the lepton magnetic moment anomalies are in fact tied into the electromagnetic time dilation that I found at the start of the year and have discussed here at length. I stayed away from putting that in the paper to keep the paper strictly classical, but that was a strategy decision not a science decision. Once challenged to connect to the magnetic moments, and feeling that in fact it "can be done" and I can do it, I changed the strategic decision and over the last few months worked to rigorously make this connection. The entire Part III of this paper now contains a complete and rigorous connection of the magnetic moment anomalies to electromagnetic time dilation, and also, in section 16, contains a direct tie which I only discovered these past two weeks, to the DeVries formula for the running fine structure constant, see http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2004 ... stant.html. I also decided to "go quantum" because I realized that even if I had completely nailed the classical theory correctly, in this day and age it is really not possible to gain the attention of others to study this work without also including the QED material and relating my theory to the magnetic moment anomalies. So if I am in, I am all in.

You will see a few other changes here over the last time I posted earlier incarnations of this work. First, a couple of months ago, as I was carefully reviewing my prior development to prepare for this QED extension, I realized that I had introduced a bias that if two gravitating bodies which are attracting dilate time as we know they do from GR, then two electrical charges which are attracting should also dilate time. But when I carefully walked through the calculations in section 9 and 10 and the sign conventions which I have detailed in section 2, I realized I had gotten the sign flipped, partly because I preconceived a result rather than faithfully followed the math and stowed any bias on the shelf. So in fact, time is dilated for electromagnetic interactions between two like-charges as in gravitation, not as between two attracting charges as in gravitation. So for electromagnetism, time is dilated by repulsive not attractive interactions. That is why I did not answer Ben a few weeks ago, because everything was flipped from what I said earlier and I was not ready to explain all that yet. And by the way, the quantum field theory reason for this, is that the propagators for spin 2 gravitations have an opposite sign from those for spin 1 photons.

But the most important upshot of this is that this was the key link needed to get to the magnetic moment anomalies, with the g-factors g>2. This is because as I show in sections 13 and 14, the g-factors scale with the time dilation. So because the anomalies arise from lepton self-interactions, and because self-interactions among various "parts" of a lepton probability density are necessarily repulsive, my earlier incorrect sign would have given g<2, while the corrected sign gives g>2. So fixing that sign is what allowed me to sink the golf ball into the cup on the magnetic moments. And the structural change in the time dilation formula also teed up the DeVries formula connection.

The other change here, more in tone than substance, resulted from Thomas Ray's comments here where he was struck by the connections I was making between time and energy. I realized from reading Tom's comments that this could not be emphasized enough, and it grew to be central to my thinking. And when it came to including the electroweak and hadronic contributions in the magnetic moments as I did in section 14, this was not only a helpful view, but was critically dispositive. I have coined this connection that Tom likes into the phrase "Time Sees All Energy," and it is a very powerful unifying principle across all interactions for all energies no matter what their form or origin.

I have not yet submitted this for publication, because a couple of folks are reviewing this for me privately in the coming days. So I look forward to any comments as always, and if you have specific points that could be better clarified for a reader and would like me to consider them before I submit for publication, this would be a good time to pass them along.

Thanks, and best regards to all,

Jay

Hi Jay

Jay wrote ... So for electromagnetism, time is dilated by repulsive not attractive interactions. ...

Not read the new paper yet but I will try my best later.

spin odd (QED)
q1q2 < 0: attractive
q1q2 > 0 : repulsive

spin even (Gravitation)
q1q2 > 0 : attractive
q1q2 < 0 : repulsive

It will be very interesting to try to read your paper and see why a gut reaction turned out to be untrue. Amazing! I don't believe it yet.
Take terms 3 and 7 from eqn 2.10 of the old 28-page paper. Are time dilations/contractions for both these terms expressed through gravitation (spin 2) calculations?
[ Term 3: Coulomb interaction energy of the charged mass
Term 7: the gravitational energy of the Coulomb energy ]
Or is time dilation/contraction for term 3 implemented by the photon [using rules for odd spin] and term 6 by the graviton [using rules for even spin], or....?

Best wishes
Ben

Ben6993 wrote:spin odd (QED)
q1q2 < 0: attractive
q1q2 > 0 : repulsive

spin even (Gravitation)
q1q2 > 0 : attractive
...

It will be very interesting to try to read your paper and see why a gut reaction turned out to be untrue. Amazing! I don't believe it yet.

Hi Ben, above, I took out the second inequality you had for gravitation, because there is no gravitational repulsion.

I have a pretty good gut for this stuff, but it is very important to do the math rigorously and confirm the gut feels.

I explain my walk down this path at the start of section 11 and here is the summary:

"Does time dilate for the electromagnetic interaction between two like-charges as it does for gravitation? Or, does time dilate for the electromagnetic interaction between two attracting-charges as is does for gravitation? This is a critical question, because the answer can only be one or the other but not both."

I felt that it had to be like gravitation, and originally seized upon the attraction of gravitation. But I could have also seized on the like-charge interaction of gravitation. In fact, it had to be one or the other but not both. The correct answer cannot be obtained by a guess. I had to check and recheck the signs (which is why I have section 2), and I had to carefully lay out how this worked for motion and gravitation to make certain I was approaching the time dilations consistently across the board (which is why I have section 9), and I had to make sure my deduction of the time dilation for electromagnetism was done in the same way as it is done for motion and gravitation (which why I laid this out carefully in (10.1) through (10.11) of section 10).

Jay

PS: I will say, having written many papers over the years, that I have found that at least 10% of the time spent on a paper, sometimes more, is spent making sure you get the signs right. They are pesky details. But if you get them wrong, then when you drop something, it will fall up!

Jay wrote:

I took out the second inequality you had for gravitation, because there is no gravitational repulsion.

That's fine. Which is not to say that I completely rule out negative mass as a gut feeling. (That is gut as in stomach rather than anything grand and unified.)

Jay wrote:

PS: I will say, having written many papers over the years, that I have found that at least 10% of the time spent on a paper, sometimes more, is spent making sure you get the signs right. They are pesky details. But if you get them wrong, then when you drop something, it will fall up!

I found an important sign error in my boss's PhD and in his journal article on the same topic, requiring a retraction. Completely changed the thrust of one of the conclusions.
I was also going to mention Bell wrt interpretation of signs but thought better of it.

I have read quite a lot of your new paper and note your thoroughness wrt "is it dilation or is it contraction". It will take a while for me to take it in properly though. I like the muon anomaly and DeVries' Formula connections. Also the anti-commonsense EM time dilation direction is in itself very interesting as a result.

I am still struggling with what EM dilation means wrt the photon and the hypothetical graviton.
Presumably there is an EM time contraction for an electron & positron caused by exchange of photons. And at the same time (well, not exactly the same time) the same two particles would undergo a time dilation caused by exchange of hypothetical graviton?



P.S.
A couple of typos: do you want to keep "gotten" on page 42 or replace it?
"As now embark upon" on page 43 needs editing.

This is exciting, Jay! Looking forward to reading.

Yablon wrote:You will see a few other changes here over the last time I posted earlier incarnations of this work. First, a couple of months ago, as I was carefully reviewing my prior development to prepare for this QED extension, I realized that I had introduced a bias that if two gravitating bodies which are attracting dilate time as we know they do from GR, then two electrical charges which are attracting should also dilate time. But when I carefully walked through the calculations in section 9 and 10 and the sign conventions which I have detailed in section 2, I realized I had gotten the sign flipped, partly because I preconceived a result rather than faithfully followed the math and stowed any bias on the shelf. So in fact, time is dilated for electromagnetic interactions between two like-charges as in gravitation, not as between two attracting charges as in gravitation. So for electromagnetism, time is dilated by repulsive not attractive interactions. That is why I did not answer Ben a few weeks ago, because everything was flipped from what I said earlier and I was not ready to explain all that yet. And by the way, the quantum field theory reason for this, is that the propagators for spin 2 gravitations have an opposite sign from those for spin 1 photons.

I fail to follow the reasoning. Why not, instead of making likeness of charge the criteria, make altered potential the more logical criteria? Do that, and one is back to having *effective inertial mass* increased/reduced for unlike/like charges. A more logical analogy with gravitation surely. As I explained in a previous thread, the Rydberg formula shows that contrary to vaive thinking, increased effective inertial mass corresponds to a shift to higher frequency spectral lines. In other scenarios e.g charged mass in a SHO mass-spring system, 'time dilation' would be expected i.e. lowered natural frequency. Hence a fundamental break with analogy to gravitation where regardless of system details, reduced gravitational potential always means time dilation (relative to an observer at higher gravitational potential of course).

Above comments supposes there is such an EM coupling going on at all, and in that other thread:http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=266
I argued there isn't. On both observational and logical grounds. Absolute and relative accelerations are fundamentally different in EM. Charge A accelerating wrt an inertial charge B sees only the instantaneously Lorentz transformed static field of B, but the converse is not true. If B accelerates and A is inertial, A experiences the usual retarded fields of B according to the Lienard-Wiechert formula.
Feedback from any referee(s) regarding submission to a journal of your revised manuscript should be interesting.

Q-reeus, there is a paper that is commented on by oleg d jefimenko, by Oliver Heaviside:

A GRAVITATIONAL AND ELECTROMAGNETIC
ANALOGY.
BY OLIVER HEAVISIDE.
[Part I, The Electrician, 31, 281-282 (1893)]

it may be found online easily: i feel it may be relevant to answer the question / points that you make. oleg has kindly performed a conversion to modern mathematical notation.

lkcl wrote:Q-reeus, there is a paper that is commented on by oleg d jefimenko, by Oliver Heaviside:

A GRAVITATIONAL AND ELECTROMAGNETIC
ANALOGY.
BY OLIVER HEAVISIDE.
[Part I, The Electrician, 31, 281-282 (1893)]

it may be found online easily: i feel it may be relevant to answer the question / points that you make. oleg has kindly performed a conversion to modern mathematical notation.

Hi ikci,
Oliver Heaviside was an unsung self-taught genius, responsible among many other things for transforming Maxwell's original 20-odd cumbersome equations into the compact form we know today, and actually predicted Cerenkov radiation 40 or so years before the duo officially credited with discovering it. His gravitational analogue with EM was logical at the time but was pre-relativistic and missed some crucial factors.
A quite recent theory modelled along very similar lines is Carver Mead's G4v:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.04866
http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.00333
https://www.caltech.edu/content/gravita ... -seminar-6
https://youtu.be/XdiG6ZPib3c
http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=G4v
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... ark-energy
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... bservation

I like it - especially keen to see how a detailed comparison to GR's GW's re aLIGO results eventually pans out.
Given this is off-topic, probably best to leave it at that this thread, and start another one if desired.

Q-reeus wrote:I fail to follow the reasoning. Why not, instead of making likeness of charge the criteria, make altered potential the more logical criteria? Do that, and one is back to having *effective inertial mass* increased/reduced for unlike/like charges.

Hi Kevin:

Actually, the "effective inertial mass" which we spoke about a few months ago, is now an important part of my paper in relation to the magnetic moment anomalies. This is best seen at (13.16). Also (14.1) where I add in the electroweak and hardonic loops.

In quantum electrodynamics, there is a "bare mass" and a "dressed mass," the latter of which is IMHO the same as your "effective inertial mass." It is well-established that the dressed mass which is larger than the bare mass comes about by virtue of electromagnetic self-interaction as represented by Feynman loop diagrams. And it is clear that for a lepton, the EM self-interaction will necessarily be repulsive as among different "parts" of the probability density. And the self-repulsion raises the energy, otherwise the dressed mass would be smaller than the bare mass. The question then is in which direction does the time go, dilation or contraction? Ultimately, that has to be a consequence of the math not of any preconception. But, what the math shows is that the g-factor goes up proportionately to the dressed-to-bare energy ratio, and the math shows that all of this is also proportional to the time dilation. The "break" with gravitation is the same break that occurs insofar as two like-EM-charges repel yet two like-gravitational-charges (masses) attract. This comes from the quantum field theory of the gravitation and photon propagators. In fact, if the time dilation were reversed, we would have g<2 rather than the observed g>2, so it all fits empirically. The magnetic moment anomalies now themselves become confirming evidence of the EM time dilation.

Jay

Yablon wrote:In quantum electrodynamics, there is a "bare mass" and a "dressed mass," the latter of which is IMHO the same as your "effective inertial mass." It is well-established that the dressed mass which is larger than the bare mass comes about by virtue of electromagnetic self-interaction as represented by Feynman loop diagrams. And it is clear that for a lepton, the EM self-interaction will necessarily be repulsive as among different "parts" of the probability density. And the self-repulsion raises the energy, otherwise the dressed mass would be smaller than the bare mass.

Hi Jay,
Where do you obtain that position from? Above is afaik actually the opposite of standard position in the 'dressed' approach. Which is that the bare mass of a notional point electron is infinite (divergent self-field energy density and total energy as r -> 0), with the observed i.e. dressed mass far less than the former. See e.g.
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physf ... ctron.html
But I notice different attitudes to the 'dressed' formulation:
https://meopemuk2.blogspot.com/2006/07/ ... ch-to.html
Anyway, a classical analogy to 'dressed electron' is the electrostatic energy of a parallel plate capacitor in vacuo vs with a dielectric medium added. For fixed 'bare' plate charge, adding the dielectric 'dresses' the plates and reduces the net field energy by factor 1/k. Compensated for by the mechanical energy gain when inserting the dielectric. In the electron case, virtual particle dressing must become highly nonlinear at small r such as to increase the effective dielectric constant of quantum vacuum.

Q-reeus wrote:Where do you obtain that position from? Above is afaik actually the opposite of standard position in the 'dressed' approach. Which is that the bare mass of a notional point electron is infinite (divergent self-field energy density and total energy as r -> 0), with the observed i.e. dressed mass far less than the former.

jay, please do correct me if this analogy is wrong: q-reeus, if i can give a non-scientific analogy (i read jay's paper in its entirety and helped do spelling corrections) if you're familiar with customs duty, customs duty is charged on the VAT as well as the shipping duty. if you break down the terms individually, you get: item, VAT on item, duty-on-item, duty-on-VAT, duty-on-VAT-on-item, then shipping, VAT on shipping, duty-on-shipping and duty-on-VAT-on-shipping. the last one is my favourite insanity.

there is a similar equation that jay outlines, where those equations are based on a similar principle, and may be broken down in effect into *eight* separate terms, where some of those terms rely on the particle being in motion, some of them rely on the particle being within a charged field, and so on. if the particle is *NOT* in motion, or the particle is *NOT* in a charged field, *THOSE TERMS ARE ZERO*.

now, it turns out that the term which is the cumulative multiplication of all the effects that he's noted is so small that it has been totally overlooked. that term is the one which involves, if i recall without actually looking at the paper again, the one where the particle is moving, and it's in a charged field. it is so incredibly small because it is like the equation KE=1/2mv^2 is an approximation when v <<< c so we normally completely ignore einstein's extra terms.

what's really nice is that he's been able to come up with an actual experiment that may demonstrate that this effect is real.

jay, i spoke to an engineering friend of mine: he says that the experiment, when it is carried out, may actually need to either be done in space, or at the north or south magnetic pole, *OR* that it may be necessary to use one of the machines that he is aware of which creates magnetic zero-point fields (a fancy word for saying that it measures the magnetic field then uses magnetic coils to counter-balance the detected fields so that they are all zero).

the reason for needing to create a zero-balanced magnetic field is because the effects that you're looking to measure are so ridiculously small that they may be overwhelmed by the effect of the earth's own magnetic field.

we also discussed that if magnetic field zero-balancing is *NOT* carried out, that it may be necessary to run the experiment for several decades in order to accumulate the level of discrepancy sought, given that the magnitude being sought is something insane like 1e-8.

the other alternative is so simply use a 0.1 gram (or even smaller) clock on the one hand, and something insane like a 10 ton clock on the other. however, the electricity required for the 10 ton clock, to create a correspondingly proportionate field such that q/m is the same for both experiments, would be so enormous and would need to be sustained for such a long time that it would be insanely expensive and quite possibly just bloody dangerous

better to do that field-cancellation trick, ehn? anyway so you'd need a "control" which would be simply an empty chamber in a faraday cage, everything made of brass and copper (no iron at all), a long LONG way away from anything, with three coils in it where you can measure the earth's magnetic field (i remember our school had equipment like this: it was a very unusual school - Stonyhurst College. they provided the Met Office with weather and magnetic reports for decades). if i recall, there was some distilled water in a jar, and a coil round it. the coil was switched off after a while, and the water would actually move (rotate in the glass). apparently, according to my physics teacher who explained it to us 30 years ago, the speed measured indicated the strength of the earth's magnetic field. kinda cool.

anyway, having taken those measurements, it would then be possible to apply a series of electro-magnetic coils around the "control", such that the end result is that, when you once again take the measurements, there is *zero* reading in all three axes.

what you then do is - making sure that the two clocks are in *exactly* the same equipment - send the *exact* same field strengths to the *exact* same electro-magnetic coils.... and hope like hell that it has the exact same effect. which will also need to be measured and confirmed.

basically it's quite a complex but perfectly doable experiment, jay.

I like the Customs analogy, despite not knowing much about taxes. Using the customs tax analogy, I will translate my own question.

For two particular slices of tax to be paid: 1) duty on item and 2) vat on duty of item, say the paid sums for duty and vat each go to the government. At one time in the distant past the GOVT was a single agent for collecting tax but with time had devolved its work into two separate agencies: the DUTY agent (the photon) and the VAT agent (the hypothetical graviton).

The VAT agent seems to get a slice of most of all the action, and also collects sums on the item and on the shipping and all combinations.

So you can certainly expect the VAT agent to knock on your door for 'VAT on duty', and when the agent visits he will also collect all the monies due to him in one visit.

The query is, does the VAT agent collect money on 'duty on item'?
When the VAT agent arrives with his list of eight combinations of types of revenue, he demands money for 'duty on item'.
I say why?
He says it is in the bible (i.e. Jay's list of the eight energies).
I say, 'but the description of this money does not mention VAT, or shipping, or anything in your remit'.
The VAT agent says: 'It is on Jay's list-of-eight-types of energy so it is in my remit and I need to collect on it'.
I say: 'I know I have to pay you for the other seven items' but the DUTY agent will arrive soon and I need to pay him money for 'duty on item' and I don't see why I should pay twice for exactly the same thing.
The VAT agent says: you are paying me because I collect on everything in Jay's list. And the fact that this one payment is also collected by the DUTY agent is just an unfortunate side effect of there being two agencies when at one time there was only a single agency.

The VAT agent concluded by offering me a little extra time to pay the monies. But he noted that the DUTY agent would arrive earlier than schedule.

Q-reeus wrote:

Yablon wrote:Hi Jay,
Where do you obtain that position from? Above is afaik actually the opposite of standard position in the 'dressed' approach. Which is that the bare mass of a notional point electron is infinite (divergent self-field energy density and total energy as r -> 0), with the observed i.e. dressed mass far less than the former. See e.g.
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physf ... ctron.html
But I notice different attitudes to the 'dressed' formulation:
https://meopemuk2.blogspot.com/2006/07/ ... ch-to.html
Anyway, a classical analogy to 'dressed electron' is the electrostatic energy of a parallel plate capacitor in vacuo vs with a dielectric medium added. For fixed 'bare' plate charge, adding the dielectric 'dresses' the plates and reduces the net field energy by factor 1/k. Compensated for by the mechanical energy gain when inserting the dielectric. In the electron case, virtual particle dressing must become highly nonlinear at small r such as to increase the effective dielectric constant of quantum vacuum.

Hi Kevin,

In the first link you provide, note the statement about 60% of the way down as to one reference:

the link from Kevin wrote: In QED, things are analogous, though significantly more complex. Again the dressed electron state is stable and has trivial scattering behavior since there is no way to decay into other products without violating charge or 4-momentum conservation. Again, the dressing is generated by perturbation theory from undressed point particles satisfying the free Dirac and Maxwell equations.
This is the case even in the nice, infinity-free treatment of QED in
G. Scharf, Finite Quantum Electrodynamics: The Causal Approach, 2nd ed. Springer, New York 1995.
The difference of the treatment there to the usual treatment lies solely in the fact that he uses point particles with the physical masses and charges to start the perturbation theory, while the standard approach begins with bare particles of infinite mass and charge that are made finite only in a mathematically questionable renormalization procedure.

I am doing the same thing as that author Scharf, i.e., using an infinity-free treatment with point particles with the physical masses and charges to start the perturbation theory. But I would agree that I should clarify that, and will do so. I think I will also add Scharf as a reference, so I thank you for binging that to my attention.

Jay

lkcl wrote:jay, i spoke to an engineering friend of mine: he says that the experiment, when it is carried out, may actually need to either be done in space, or at the north or south magnetic pole, *OR* that it may be necessary to use one of the machines that he is aware of which creates magnetic zero-point fields (a fancy word for saying that it measures the magnetic field then uses magnetic coils to counter-balance the detected fields so that they are all zero).

Hi Luke,

Glad to see you on our forum. Actually, the two simplest macroscopic experiments I can envision, because they obviate the need for calibrating two separate clocks, are the following:

1) Take a neutral material body A that we can call a geometrodynamic clock insofar as it is emitting periodic signals. Place it in an external potential. Use another "lab clock" to track the signals from A, which to say, use a device that can record the color/frequency of light emitted by A. Then, simply charge up A with as much charge as you can get to stick, and see if the signals from A are redshifting slightly. The theory predicts time will dilate because of the self-repulsion within clock A, so this result would prove that, qualitatively.

2) Charge clock A and put it at a distance r from the source of the (point charge, Coulomb) potential. Measure the frequency of the signals from A. Then, without changing anything else, move the clock to 2r. The time dilation (over and above ) should be cut in half. Then move the clock to r/2. The time dilation over and above 1 should double. This would be a quantitative proof. Other variations would include doubling and halving the charge on the clock and showing a proportionate change in the time dilation over and above 1.

In all cases, the clock we charge up should be as light as possible because the magnitude of the time dilation effect grows inversely to the rest mass. Which you can think of as the inertial mass "resisting" the time dilation in a Newtonian a=F/m acceleration sense.

Jay

Yablon wrote:1) Take a neutral material body A that we can call a geometrodynamic clock insofar as it is emitting periodic signals. Place it in an external potential. Use another "lab clock" to track the signals from A, which to say, use a device that can record the color/frequency of light emitted by A. Then, simply charge up A with as much charge as you can get to stick, and see if the signals from A are redshifting slightly. The theory predicts time will dilate because of the self-repulsion within clock A, so this result would prove that, qualitatively.

2) Charge clock A and put it at a distance r from the source of the (point charge, Coulomb) potential. Measure the frequency of the signals from A. Then, without changing anything else, move the clock to 2r. The time dilation (over and above ) should be cut in half. Then move the clock to r/2. The time dilation over and above 1 should double. This would be a quantitative proof. Other variations would include doubling and halving the charge on the clock and showing a proportionate change in the time dilation over and above 1.

In all cases, the clock we charge up should be as light as possible because the magnitude of the time dilation effect grows inversely to the rest mass. Which you can think of as the inertial mass "resisting" the time dilation in a Newtonian a=F/m acceleration sense.

Jay,
What kind of clock? Mechanical oscillator (e.g. spring-flywheel), phase-locked crystal oscillator (e.g. digital watch), atomic clock e.g. Cesium, other?

How would one meaningfully be able to charge up any of those types? Electrostatics ensures any added charge will move to the outer extremities in order to form an equi-potential environment. It's not possible to 'paint' charge uniformly onto a desired part(s) - say the flywheel in first option above. That means the net effect will be to induce appreciable electrostatic stresses between watch components. Which no doubt would effect clock-rate, and probably by many orders of magnitude greater than any hoped for purely electrodynamic effect. Further, the charge distribution would be complex and unlikely to 'paint' desired components in anything like the way hoped for.

I believe the ideal 'clock' has been proposed in that other thread - ionized atomic/molecular spectral lines - i.e. gas discharge lamp. Place such a lamp within a Faraday cage, and one completely avoids any issue with overwhelmingly larger effect from very difficult to calculate electrostatic stresses. Orbital electrons provide the ideal 'charged clock' - enormous charge-to-mass ratio, coupled with easy and accurate to measure optical frequencies generated in a very precise and frequency stable manner.

One disadvantage of a discharge lamp is spectral spread owing to the thermal motions, so an even better option would be to measure absorption lines of a test sample within the cage. You need small windows in order to inject and receive reflection/transmission from an incident, frequency stable laser beam. No big deal to do that. Now all that is needed is to vary the electrostatic potential of the Faraday cage. Look for any spectral shifts. You know my position on what to expect. At any rate, a very doable exercise, with none of the (likely fatal) disadvantages of 'charging up' a macroscopic clock.

[PS - once again, I was cut out of email notification re response to my previous post this thread!]

Q-reeus wrote:Jay,
What kind of clock? Mechanical oscillator (e.g. spring-flywheel), phase-locked crystal oscillator (e.g. digital watch), atomic clock e.g. Cesium, other?
...discussion about different clocks...

Kevin,
I very deliberately use the term "geometrodynamic clock" because such a clock is discussed widely in the literature. See e.g. section 16.4 for Misner, Wheeler, Thorne's (MTW) Gravitation. I have no plan to reinvent the wheel (or the clock) . I will leave it to people on the experimental side to a) understand that we need a "good clock" as MTW and others lay that out, and b) figure out the best such clock to use given that one needs to charge the clock. As I did point out, we do want such a clock to be as light-as-possible because the EM time dilation varies inversely with the mass. And I gave several scenarios for establishing necessary experimental "controls."

Also, Part III of my paper about the magnetic moment anomalies uses these to show that proof of this time dilation is already built in to the anomalies; the anomalies prove time dilation and are proportionate to the time dilation factor minus 1, see (13.16) and (14.1) of http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0387v1.pdf. I have in effect proposed using the electron itself as a clock because it is already naturally charged and very light. And I have shown shown that when one does so, the time dilation is one plus the anomaly, .

Jay

Q-reeus wrote:PS - once again, I was cut out of email notification re response to my previous post this thread!]

Under and the the left of where you submit replies (save draft, preview, submit buttons) there are five boxes than can be checked. One says "Notify me when a reply is posted."

Yablon wrote:Also, Part III of my paper about the magnetic moment anomalies uses these to show that proof of this time dilation is already built in to the anomalies; the anomalies prove time dilation and are proportionate to the time dilation factor minus 1, see (13.16) and (14.1) of http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0387v1.pdf. I have in effect proposed using the electron itself as a clock because it is already naturally charged and very light. And I have shown shown that when one does so, the time dilation is one plus the anomaly, .

Jay,
No matter how well your theory may tally with known values for particle self-interactions such as anomalous g-factor for electron, given the explicit predicted coupling to external charge distributions, it's there you will need to experimentally show a consistent physics exists. Which as we have gone over in this and earlier threads, should be relatively easy and low tech once the obvious choice of 'clock(s)' is made. Of course, electrons, 'on their own' or as part of atoms/molecules, cannot be beat re enormity and precisely known charge-to-mass ratio, perfect repeatability.

Has your presumably finalized paper been submitted to a journal yet?

Under and the the left of where you submit replies (save draft, preview, submit buttons) there are five boxes than can be checked. One says "Notify me when a reply is posted."

Right, thanks for tip. Never bothered to notice such given my personal preferences have from the start been set to include just that. But see it is ticked anyway. Did get notified of your above post - without doing anything differently when last responding this thread. Go figure. No big deal - pays to just look in from time to time anyway.

Q-reeus wrote:No matter how well your theory may tally with known values for particle self-interactions such as anomalous g-factor for electron, given the explicit predicted coupling to external charge distributions, it's there you will need to experimentally show a consistent physics exists. Which as we have gone over in this and earlier threads, should be relatively easy and low tech once the obvious choice of 'clock(s)' is made.

apologies to jay, but it's not easy, and it's not obvious, because the approach being taken by mainstream QCD (which jay is trying to replicate - apologies for pointing that out, jay) is completely wrong. if you examine dr randall mill's paper he explains that (just as jay does in a similar way) the electron g-factor is divided into several separate parts. what dr mills managed to do is: work out that those *are* entirely separate, and that they may be separated into entirely unrelated formula, then summed up. the sum therefore comprises *only four* terms, the first of which is "1.0", is incredibly simply, and comes ****EXACTLY***** repeat *****EXACTLY***** - i repeat again - ****EXACTLY**** to the current best-known experimentally-measured value for g/2.

the problem with the current approach being taken by mainstream QCD is that they attempt to use partial differentiation to calculate the (four) contributions all at once. using this (completely wrong) approach, when you *happen* to make some guesses and include a hell of a lot of postulation, you can pick some arbitrary magic constants that *happen* to give you the coefficients in the series, but there is absolutely ZERO real explanation for them. this should tell you everything that you need to know.

by contrast, dr mills has ALREADY BROKEN DOWN g/2 into its magnetic and electro-magnetic constituent parts, solved the equations from first principles based on low-level solutions to Maxwell's Equations, done the math and got the answer to within the current experimental uncertainty (somewhere around 11 to 12 d.p.).

jay: a clue to follow up is to read Bracewell Chaper 12. the formula on page 241 (two-dimensional fourier transform) should be immediately recognised. it contains that all-familiar e^(-pi.xxxxx) as do the subsequent Hankel Transformations that Dr Mills successfully applies in GUTCP.

http://lkcl.net/reports/fine_structure_ ... Chap12.pdf

lkcl wrote:...
jay: a clue to follow up is to read Bracewell Chaper 12. the formula on page 241 (two-dimensional fourier transform) should be immediately recognised. it contains that all-familiar e^(-pi.xxxxx) as do the subsequent Hankel Transformations that Dr Mills successfully applies in GUTCP.

http://lkcl.net/reports/fine_structure_ ... Chap12.pdf

Luke, that link is not working. Thanks, Jay

Hi Jay

This is all very exciting.

I hope I may put a few varied points in here some of which are not physics.
First, good luck with publishing the paper. I always enjoy reading your papers because it is like following an adventure story and I am tempted to think I understand things which I probably don't. However, that is not the case when I read other peoples' papers. Maybe you should be more ruthless in deleting/condensing everything that is available in another paper ... like other folks are ruthless. I have started to read a particular paper on the 3-3-1 SUSY model and I have next to read a number of others' papers first, even to get me as far as half way down page 1. Even better, you should write the long and full exciting papers, then later guillotine them ruthlessly right down to something under 20 pages for a journal. Just because journals like 20 page papers in preference to 60+ pages.

Luke wrote that his was a very unusual school - Stonyhurst College.
I once visited Stonyhurst College, Lancashire, on a guided tour. Saw the famous grafitti by Conan Doyle on his desk. Mostly I remember the story of the school's origins in France via RC exiles and returners about 400 years ago. I had just read a biography of John Donne before visiting the school and had read about a number of his immediate family who had fled to France in c1580s. So it all seemed relevant (though no school connection with Donne himself) . Also I had traced my paternal line back to c1550 at that time.

I keep mentioning my thoughts about the bosons effecting the gravitational and electric forces between particles. Perhaps I should say that I have difficulty in believing in the function of the graviton. In my preon model, I have worked out a preon structure for the graviton. So my doubts are not about the possibility of the existence of the graviton. My doubts are about mass acting as a "charge".

I am being kept away from physics by decorating and tiling the kitchen ...