MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153161189 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-34.1.17

The quantum electrodynamics physical (QED-P) theory to complement quantum electrodynamics (QED)

2021· article· en· W3153161189 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAtomic and Molecular Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsQuantum electrodynamicsElectronRenormalizationPropagatorAnomalous magnetic dipole momentQuantum mechanicsLamb shiftOperator (biology)Classical electromagnetismPhotonElectromagnetic fieldDirac equation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electronic and muonic hydrogen energy levels are calculated very accurately [M. L. Eides, H. Grotch, and V. Shelyuto, Phys. Rep. 342 , 63 (2001)] in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) by coupling the Dirac Equation four vector c( α , I) current covariantly with the external electromagnetic (EM) field four vector in QED’s Interactive Representation. While QED has been extraordinarily successful computationally, it presents no physical description of the electron, or other charged leptons. The QED-Physical (QED-P) theory presented in this paper is equivalent to QED in that it is based only on the four-current c( α , I) that is the reason that QED is so accurate computationally. However, QED-P describes the electron geometrically through the internal time/coordinate operators derived directly from c( α , I) with no assumptions. QED-P’s internal coordinate operators define an electron Center of Charge (CoC) point vibrating rapidly in space and time in its unique vacuum, creating the current that produces the electron’s magnetic moment and spin, and eliminating the need for “intrinsic” properties. QED-P also cuts off the photon propagator in a natural way so that the electron self-energy is finite and ad hoc renormalization procedures are not necessary. The c α -Non Exclusion Principle states that, if QED accepts c( α , I) as the electron current operator because of the very accurate hydrogen energy levels calculated, then one must also accept the QED-P electron internal spatial and time coordinate operators (ISaTCO) derived directly from c( α , I) without any other assumptions. QED-P shows the electron to be in both spin states simultaneously, and it is the external EM field that forces the electron’s spin state to be measured up or down. QED-P describes the bizarre, and very different, situation illustrated in Fig. 1 when the electron and muon are located “inside” the spatially extended proton with their CoCs orbiting the proton at the speed of light in S energy states of hydrogen, shedding some insight into the proton radius puzzle. The electron only appears to be a point particle with intrinsic properties when observed/measured from the far field. The Dirac‐Maxwell‐Wilson Equations are derived directly from the electron ISaTCO, and its EM fields “look” like they are from a point particle in far field scattering experiments in the same way the electric field from a sphere with evenly distributed charge “e” looks like a point charge with the same charge in the far field (Gauss Law). A physical basis for Quantum Entanglement is derived that can be measured experimentally.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it