MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389786166 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-36.4.450

Completing Dirac’s work. The Dirac electron is a 2D hologram

2023· article· en· W4389786166 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James H. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsDirac equationTwo-body Dirac equationsOperator (biology)Dirac seaElectronQuantum mechanicsCausal fermion systemMathematical physicsDirac (video compression format)Dirac operatorQuantum electrodynamicsDirac fermionFermion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The QED-physical (QED-P) theory [J. H. Wilson, Phys. Essays 35, 5 (2022)] is actually the theory Dirac sought in 1962 in his attempt to predict the muon as an “extensible model of the electron.” Recently, Lerche attempted to produce a classical solution to Dirac’s equation for the radial motion of an extensible, basically classical, model of the electron. Both Dirac and Lerche proceeded in the wrong, classical direction in this effort. The QED-P center of charge (CoC) position operator is derived directly from the Dirac equation (DE) CoC velocity operator, cα with no ad hoc assumptions. QED-P was integrated with QED into a single theory, and that integration is proved by the highly accurate estimates of QED that are dependent on the DE velocity operator cα. Both QED and QED-P are based directly on the same Dirac Equation (DE) four current c(α,I) that QED couples with an external electromagnetic field. QED uses covariant perturbation theory to produce highly accurate results, except for the electron selfenergy, which is infinite. The DE velocity operator, cα, is the spatial part of the free electron four current, and has highly unusual properties compared to classical velocity vectors. QED could not produce highly accurate answers without the 4 × 4 complex matrix cα as the electron CoC “velocity” operator. QED-P simply integrates the same Dirac equation four current used so successfully in QED, and produces the discrete internal spatial and time coordinate operators (ISaTCOs) to give the electron field’s internal structure a very specific, but highly, nonclassical geometric description, with no ad hoc assumptions. QED and QED-P are complementary theories, and both are proven to be true by the accurate results of QED. The physical interpretation of QED-P is discussed in this paper as a two-dimensional, rapidly vibrating “point” charge, that is always located on a 2D CoC sphere in the electron rest frame, oscillating rapidly through eight eigenvalues with an ISaTCO period of ∼10−22 s. The fact that the CoC’s eight ISaTCO spatial eigenvectors are always are located on a 2D shell encompassing the electron’s 3D “space” inside the CoC’s 2D shell is a direct consequence of the DE, and nothing else. In this paper, it is shown that the “discrete” ISaTCOs produce a one dimensional, discrete quantum harmonic oscillator with its ISaTCOs always located on a 2D CoC shell. The CoC shell is an “2D hologram” emerging from a 3D volume inside the 2D CoC shell with a vibrational electronic clock” producing an internal phase that is propagated throughout space/time. The QED-P point electron charge rotates 720° to complete one internal electron discrete period. The electron’s spin and magnetic moment [J. H. Wilson, Phys. Essays 29, 402 (2016); ibid. 31(1), 59‐67 (2018); ibid. 34, 17 (2021)] are generated by the CoC ISaTCO in QED-P, and there is no need for “intrinsic” properties. The QED-P electron properties described above d are far different than the standard model’s very small point particle with intrinsic properties of spin and magnetic moment.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics EssaysSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207