Dear Friends,

It has been awhile since I posted here. But in addition to spending a lot of quality time with my two new grandsons and tending to my patent business, I have been quietly busy with my physics enterprise over the past several months. The result is a draft paper at http://vixra.org/pdf/1710.0159v1.pdf which is still a few week away from completion, but which contains enough new material that I felt compelled to share it publicly at this time.

Briefly, several months ago I submitted by work on Lorentz force geometrization and electromagnetic time dilations to a top journal and it was rejected. The core of the rejection was that the metric which is (3.3) in the present paper was "peculiar" and apparently not in accord with known relativistic physics because of its being quadratic in the line element . I recognized that the reviewer was wrong to have knee-jerk rejected because of an unusual-looking metric, but as I thought about it I realized that the quadratic solution to this metric which is (3.5) in this paper actually did warrant a level of deep development that I had not previously done. I simply was presenting (3.5) as a result but not studying it closely to see where it leads. So although the review made a wrong rejection, it was actually very helpful, because by targeting these two equations it forced my to develop (3.3) and (3.5). The present paper is that development.

Specifically, following this review, I quickly came to realize that (3.5) when pursued to its logical conclusion, leads to a heretofore unknown variant of Dirac's equation which is finally arrived at, at (12.5) and (12.6). This does for Dirac theory what general relativity did for Newton's theory: it contains the earlier theory in the linear limit, but produces even greater precision for the predictions and explanations that the theory offers. And perhaps the most important new precision it offers, is that it naturally encompasses the magnetic moment anomaly in a way that Dirac theory does not.

If somebody is honest about Dirac's equation, they must admit that it does not, by itself, explain the magnetic moment anomaly with a g-factor slightly larger than 2. It only explains the Dirac g-factor being equal to 2. The anomaly requires ad hoc add-ons to Dirac, in the form of renormalization which is very accurate, but also with infinities which are very funky as Dirac and Feynman and many others have recognized. Here, the Dirac equation naturally contains the anomalies without having to add on anything. Using Newton and GR as an example, attempting to explain the anomaly using Dirac's equation is like trying to explain perihelion precession using Newton's equation. It may be possible, but it is rather ugly.

Those who have followed my work will know that I have previously used the EM time dilations to explain the anomaly. But if I am honest, I did so in a way that relied partly upon my own intuition. Here, the anomaly explanation grows out of the rigorous mathematical development with no intuition required, and while as I have always believed the lepton anomalies are connected to the EM time dilations arising from electromagnetic self-interactions (which self-interactions are what the Feynman loop diagrams are all about), the rigorous development taught me that my previous connection of time dilation to the anomaly was off by about a factor of 2.

In sections 19 and 22, for those who would (rightly) demand ways to experimentally test this theory, I have presented seven different tests so far, using my Dirac Hamiltonian (16.13) / (16.14). The final material I plan to develop in the next few weeks before this paper is fully complete, will do for the magnetic moment portion of the Hamiltonian, what present sections 21 and 22 do for the classical Schrödinger portion of the Hamiltonian. I anticipate coming across additional experiments in the process.

So that is the overview. As always, I find value in the feedback I receive from anybody who undertakes a serious review. Thank you for your time, and I hope everybody is doing well.

Jay