magnetic moment ektheory Dirk Freyling

Are there, besides the obviously plausible argument, that one can not simply ignore the energy contribution of the magnetic field (as usual in QM, QED and QCD), any further indications for an additive contribution to the magnetic moment of the tested particles? It is the magnetic moment of the electrically uncharged neutron, which does not exist in the semiclassical view and gets it magnetic moment of the postulated neutron substructure. But is the magnetic moment of the neutron really a proof of a substructure? Or is this assumption just a theory-laden interpretation of the standard model?

A look at the "naked" numbers confirms the thesis that the magnetic moment of the electrically neutral (proton-elcetron-based) neutron results exclusively from the magnetic field contribution that the neutron induces in the (applied) magnetic field:

∆μB (n) = μB_n(exp) - μB_n(th) = 0,96623650e-26 J/Tesla

0,96623650e-26 J/Tesla - 0 J/Tesla

μB_n(exp) = ∆μB(n)

Consistent assumption: The measured value μB_n(exp) ~ 9,66237e-27 J/T for the (electron-proton-based) neutron magnetic moment is "nothing more" than the measurement-inherent contribution of the magnetic field generated by elementary body-based matter-forming (charge-internal) interaction of electron and proton, "induced" in the magnetic field. Which also means that only the neutron in a magnetic field has a magnetic moment!

"Proof": If the assumption is right, then the magnetic moment of the electron-proton-based neutron (μB_n(exp) = ΔμB_n) must be calculated from the measurement-inherent magnetic field contributions of electron and proton (ΔμB_e and ΔμB_p). A "simple" way to connect the three quantities ΔμB_n, ΔμB_e and ΔμB_p without explicit knowledge of the magnetic field embodiment is: (ΔμB_n) ² equate to ΔμB_e · ΔμB_p. Here it must be taken into account that the neutron is composed of the q₀-electron and e-proton charge interaction.

"just remember"...

phenomenologically based neutron mass, details see the calculation of the neutron mass

m_e = 9,10938356e-31 kg m_e(q₀)= (4/α) · m_e = 4,99325391071e-28 kg c = 2,99792458e+08 m/s

m_p = 1,672621898e-27 kg α = 0,0072973525664 e = 1,6021766208e-19 As

∆m = 1,4056006801e-30 kg ∆E_ee = 1,26329089045e-13 J ~ 0,78848416 MeV

Taking into account the phenomenologically-based, approximation-free approach, in formal-analytic form of the equation: m_n = m_p + m_e + Δm [mq0e], the "theoretical" result of elementary particle theory based neutron mass calculation (according to charge-dependent proton-electron interaction) is “sensational”.

The neutron mass m_n arises from a matter-forming charge interaction of the electron and proton and can be understood and calculated by the interaction of the elementary body charge q₀ for the electron and the elementary electric charge e for the proton. To calculate the magnetic moment of the neutron this contribution can be phenomenologically-based expressed by the factor 1 + (e/q₀) = (1 + (√α/2)). The resulting - consistently phenomenologically justified - value [equation μn] is remarkable...

Equation [μn] can be "refined" phenomenologically, by including an explicit mass dependence of the neutron in the calculation, which expresses the effective charge-dependent mass reduction (inherently coupled to a charge-dependent proportional charge-radius magnification) in relation to the total neutron mass. Similar to the hydrogen atom, the object radius increases in dependence of the charge, only that in the case of the neutron the proton interacts as an elementary body carrier e (e-p) with the electron as an elementary body carrier q₀ (q₀-e). Furthermore, the neutron energy as such is "conserved" overall, whereas the H-atom emits half of the total energy as (α/4) -scaled binding energy. The result for the neutron is the factor 2 for the effective charge mass in comparison to the total neutron mass.

phenomenologically based "refined" calculation of the neutron (anomalous) magnetic moment

compare with CODATA [2014] neutron magnetic moment ∆μ_Bn_exp

m_e = 9,10938356e-31 kg m_p = 1,672621898e-27 kg α = 0,0072973525664

∆m = 1,4056006801e-30 kg ∆μB(p) = 0,90553163e-26 J/T ∆μB(e) = 1,075462795e-26 J/T

m_p + m_e + ∆m = 1,67493844e-27 kg

Conclusion

The consistently phenomenologically-based, formalized prediction of the magnetic moment of the neutron (equations [μn] and [μn2]) based on charge-interaction magnetic contributions of electron and proton (ΔμB_e and ΔμB_p), identifies the neutron as electron-proton-based. The magnetic moment of the neutron is a pure "magnetic field embodiment", which is caused in a magnetic field, meaning: The "magnetic field free" neutron has - compared to proton and electron - no intrinsic magnetic moment, μB_n(exp) consists solely of the magnetic field measurement inherent contribution ΔμB_n.

∆μB_n = μB_n(exp) - μB_n(th) = 9,6623650e-27 J/Tesla μB_n(exp) = ∆μB_n

9,6623650e-27 J/Tesla - 0 J/Tesla

Nothing less than a Paradigm Shift

It is anything but trivial to consider space and time as physical "objects". Space and time are primarily "order patterns of the mind". To "get" physics from these, phenomenological observations and explanations are needed. The central real object question was already at the beginning of the 20th century, is there a mass-decoupled space?

This question was answered in the affirmative at the latest since the introduction of the recognised inflationary phase within the framework of the ΛCDM model. This was and is phenomenologically wrong and was fatal for the theory developments.

It is psychologically easy to understand that a new model (phenomenologically based on space-mass-coupling), which will ultimately abolish the S(tandard) M(odel) - to put it bluntly - is not "welcomed". Especially when one realises that several generations of physicists have been working on this for more than 100 years...

...but remember early "warnings"...

...some quotations about QM, QED, infinities, normalisation procedures, etc.

²Albert Einstein..."The ψ function is to be understood as a description not of a single system but of a system community [Systemgemeinschaft]. Expressed in raw terms, this is the result: In the statistical interpretation, there is no complete description of the individual system. Cautiously one can say this: The attempt to understand the quantum theoretical description of the individual systems leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which immediately become unnecessary if one accepts the view that the description refers to the system as a whole and not to the individual system. The whole approach to avoid 'physical-real' becomes superfluous. [Es wird dann der ganze Eiertanz zur Vermeidung des ‘Physikalisch-Realen’ überflüssig.] However, there is a simple physiological reason why this obvious interpretation is avoided. If statistical quantum theory does not pretend to describe completely the individual system (and its temporal sequence), then it seems inevitable to look elsewhere for a complete description of the individual system. It would be clear from the start that the elements of such a description within the conceptual scheme of the statistical quantum theory would not be included. With this, one would admit that in principle this scheme can not serve as the basis of theoretical physics.”

² A. Einstein, Out of my later years. Phil Lib. New York 1950 Seite 498

…”Even considering the accuracy of the theory at lower energies, Schwinger considered that the renormalization procedure, that permits avoiding the infinites in the results of the calculations, ultimately has to be excluded from physics. Regarding this problem the position of Paul Dirac was even less sympathetic: “I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so-called “good theory” does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations.³”…

³Kragh, H. (1990, 184). Dirac: a scientific biography. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

…”Landau considered that the limitations of quantum electrodynamics were even more drastic, because they would be due to very basic structural problems in the design of the theory: “for them the very concept of a local field operator and the postulation of any detailed mechanism for interaction in a microscopic spacetime region were totally unacceptable” ⁴”…

⁴Cao, T. Y., & Schweber, S. S. (1993). The conceptual foundations and philosophical aspects of renormalization theory. Synthese, 97, 33-108.

Richard Feynman schrieb in The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (1985)

…”The shell game that we play is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate.”…

Paul Dirac schrieb 1963 in dem Artikel The Evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature

…”Most physicists are very satisfied with the situation. They say: 'Quantum electrodynamics is a good theory and we do not have to worry about it any more.' I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation because this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, ignoring them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves disregarding a quantity when it is small – not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it“…!

Abdus Salam schrieb 1972 in Infinity Suppression Gravity Modified Quantum Electrodynamics II

„Field-theoretic infinities — first encountered in Lorentz's computation of electron self-mass — have persisted in classical electrodynamics for seventy and in quantum electrodynamics for some thirty-five years. These long years of frustration have left in the subject a curious affection for the infinities and a passionate belief that they are an inevitable part of nature; so much so that even the suggestion of a hope that they may, after all, be circumvented — and finite values for the renormalization constants computed — is considered irrational.“

update / "side note"

A "muon" thought experiment

Since the muon is part of the decay cascade pion* ► muon ► electron, we assume that the inherent magnetic field contribution to the magnetic moment is approximately equal to that of the electron.

This results in: 4,49044830e-26 J/T - 1,07546279e-26 J/T = 3,41498551e-26 J/T = [μBμ(th)]

If we calculate this back to the semiclassically defined mass as a function of the magnetic moment m([μBμ(th)]) we get a mass value of 2,4738177e-28 kg.

This corresponds to ~ 0,994274 · m_π of the mass of charged pions.

m_π = 2,4880644e-28 kg = 139,570180 MeV/c²

This leads to the thesis that in the supposed muon g-2 experiment not the magnetic moment of the muon but that of the (charged) pion is measured**.

**Contrary to the statement that - SM-postulated - the pion has no QM-Spin and no magnetic moment, (but) remember...

...how "unnatural" pions are postulated and constructed in the SM is, among other things, due to the preferred mathematical “acquisition mechanism”. In the meantime, all experimental arrangements and measurement data interpretations are adapted to the theoretical specifications.

[side note ...SM linguistic usage…

Particle physicists generally use the phenomenologically wrong term decay although they mean transformations. Decay would mean that the decay products were (all) components of the decaying. But this is not the case, at least not within the framework of the theoretical implications and postulates of the Standard Model of particle physics.]

The fact that charged pions should transform SM-based to ~ 99.99% into leptons, i.e. muon and muon neutrino, and the neutral pion, which has a mass ~ 3% smaller than the electrically charged version, transforms to 98.82% into two photons, should already give some doubts regarding the phenomenology. The consideration respectively construction of a consistent phenomenological approach turns out to be difficult altogether, since the totality of the postulated pion conversion processes requires a whole set of new interaction-mechanisms, which also have to be mathematically interacted and nested.

One question could be: What is the further implementation with respect to other postulated theory objects? According to the SM, neutrino research "means", for example:...One measures the fluxes of kaons and pions and indirectly determines the flux of neutrinos....

As briefly indicated, however, already pions (π⁰, π ^-,π⁺) are highly constructed entities of the standard model and even more kaons (K⁺, K^-, K⁰, K⁰). Means: The number of existence postulates, like mass, charge, spin, flavor(s), lifetimes and quark composition is already "considerable". The possible transformations result in "manifold" interaction scenarios. Furthermore: The neutral kaon is not its own "antiparticle", this leads (more generally) to the construction of the particle-antiparticle oscillation and the neutral kaon is supposed to exist in two forms, a long-lived and a short-lived form.

To conclude from this now on properties of "flavor-oscillating" neutrinos, potentiates the arbitrariness again. By the way: There is not a single direct neutrino proof. It is always a matter of strongly theory-laden interpretations of experimental results.

To understand all this (reproducibly), one needs the absolute faith in axiomatic creations.

As a reward, however, then the carte blanche beckons that any experimental result becomes "explainable" (...that we must make until then - in connection with the "experimental side" - roughly estimated some dozens of further result-oriented assumptions, ... doesn't care SM-believers).

however

take into account...

Since the pion obviously cannot spontaneously transform into a muon and a muon obviously cannot spontaneously transform into an electron, the specification of a concrete magnetic moment of the muon is a "measurement fiction" if you take a look at the details of the measuring process. Altogether it is to be noted that the magnetic moment of the muon is not measured directly. Consequently thought further, the question of the effective mass of the muon in the g2 experiments arises.

To think along: In connection with the "g=2 - generating" Dirac equation there is a fundamental "approximation problem" of first instance for the muon. In the Dirac equation, for the calculation of g = 2, it is assumed that the "Dirac particle" to be observed moves slowly, this is definitely not the case in the experimental determination of the magnetic moment of the muon, which moves in the storage ring with a relativistic velocity (E_kin ~ 30 · E0 !). For this reason, the Dirac equation can formally logically not give any result for g for the muon. But without g = 2 there is no "normal" magnetic moment of the muon and consequently the "anomalous" magnetic moment of the muon without ("normal") reference is meaningless. So, if one wants to make a statement about the (normal) magnetic moment of the muon by means of the Dirac equation, then only experiments in which the muon moves "slowly" come into question.

Further more...

*That pions, unlike the electron and the muon postulated in the framework of the SM, are supposed to consist of (up and - down) quark and anti-quark is unhelpful and more precisely, phenomenologically more than questionable. Pions are SM-postulated fermion-antifermion pairs. In addition it should be noted: From the Dirac equation follows that the product of the (eigen)parities of fermion and antifermion is equal to -1. Therefore, there are two ways to define the parities of quarks: P(quark) = -1 and P(antiquark) = 1, or P(quark) = 1 and P(antiquark) = -1. Since pions (like all mesons) consist of quark and antiquark, this gives a factor -1 for the product of the intrinsic parities in both cases (for the total parity, the relative orbital angular momentum also plays a role). Since nucleons are postulated to consist of 3 quarks, the product of the eigenparities is +1 or -1, depending on the definition.

In the framework of the SM pions have no spin and no magnetic moment, as already mentioned. The arbitrariness of the SM statements concerning the pions finds a further increase in form of the uncharged pion, as likewise already mentioned, which leads to the postulated quarkonium.

For the sake of completeness it should be noted, that pions somehow contribute (slightly) to magnetic moments which is theoretically shown by the following exemplary elaborations based on SM-views...

Pion contributions to baryon magnetic moments 1984 by Jerrold Franklin

Charged Pion Contribution to the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon 2013 by Kevin Engel

Pion-Loop Contribution to the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon 2013 by B.Sc. Jan Hass

In the framework of elementary body theory, pions can be formed as charged pions from the proton-electron-q₀-q₀ interaction and uncharged from the electron-positron-q₀-q₀interaction.

Prehistory

Dirac's electron theory 1928 stated ... "The new angular momentum (quantum mechanical spin = QM-spin) has nothing in common with what one can imagine under this name as a mechanical quantity. It does not arise from any motion, but from the interaction of a spatial vector with the Dirac matrices in the space of their four abstract dimensions."...

Quantum mechanical spin postulate and epicycle theory

The omnipresent pathological description procedures of prevailing physics (didactics) by means of concepts like spin or spin-orbit-interaction suggestively "to couple" mentally to real physical objects, which possess mass, occupy space and rotate, is schizophrenic since introduction of quantum mechanics. Consider: The electron is "denied" a radius by postulate. Protons are asymmetrically charge-fragmented, asymmetrically substructured and their quarks, among other things, provide only one percent of the proton's mass and no intrinsic spin contributions. Discrete orbits have been replaced by probability wave functions leading to "probable", "smeared" locations and momenta.

Schizophrenic also because likewise the analog-mechanically motivated suggestion is explicitly expressed as in numerous illustrations and semantic secretions.

From this consideration follows that all theoretical explanations and calculations about spin-interactions ("spin-orbit-coupling" ► fine-structure, nuclear spin-"shell angular momentum" ► hyperfine structure) have no vividness. They are merely - more or less - complex computational rules without real object connection. At this point, the dilemma of quantum mechanical considerations is revealed in an exemplary way. Spectral line splittings can be calculated from a set of quantum mechanical rules. In this context, however, any connection to real physical objects is cut off. The question, why mathematical procedures deliver solutions, which can be assigned to experimental values, cannot be answered due to the missing phenomenology. Furthermore, the question arises in principle, to what extent measurable things are intrinsic? The general “error of thinking” lies in the methodical neglect of the structure - the interaction energy brought in from "outside". Energy splittings are mostly not self-induced. By "applying" homogeneous or inhomogeneous electric fields or magnetic fields, energy is introduced from outside. Phenomenologically, physical fields are unfounded. From the point of view of an object under investigation (...electron, atom, molecule) they represent infinite energy reservoirs which interact with the "test objects" under investigation. To end this more or less arbitrary situation, it would be mandatory to determine the "field phenomenology" of spectroscopic measurements and in general. This is not possible in the context of the mathematically founded QM further QED and QCD in the context of the standard model of particle physics as well as their (symmetry-) extension (supersymmetry = SUSY), because the objects of the theories possess all no real physical claim.

In other words

Basically, the "modern" misunderstanding for the interpretation of a (quantum mechanical) experiment starts with the "idealization", respectively reduction, that the experimental setup - which "provides" additive energy in form of electric or magnetic fields - is not perceived as (energetic) interaction partner. Values of supposedly intrinsic object quantities, as for example the fine-structure of the spectral lines or here magnetic moments arise however only by the "application" of external "fields". This logically comprehensible unavoidable "observation effect" is categorically suppressed by the protagonists of the standard model physics. It is pretended as if the additional energy only brings to "light" the inner energetic conditions which already exist also without observation, i.e. without external energy supply. This assumption is not only worth discussing, this assumption is fatal and wrong.

The question arises psychologically how it was/is possible that experimental conspicuities were not perceived as such by theorists and experimenters or are always shifted in the direction of quantum field theoretical approaches, although the arbitrariness resulting from the superficially mathematical concepts of QED and QCD did/do not provide a consistent phenomenology.

Anomalous magnetic moments of proton and electron

”Quantum electrodynamics is not a foundational theory of natural philosophy because it obtains the right result by arbitrary means: dimensional regularization, which changes e, and renormalization, which artificially removes infinities of the path integral method. Quantum electrodynamics is Lorentz covariant only (it is a theory of special relativity). Quantum electrodynamics uses the sum over histories description of the wavefunction. This is an acausal description in which the electron can do anything it likes, go backwards or forwards in time for example. This acausality or unknowability Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Electron is contradicted fundamentally and diametrically in QED by use of the Huygens Principle, which expresses causality or knowability - the wavefunction is built up by superposition in causal historical sequence - an event is always preceded by a cause, and nothing goes backwards in time. For these and other reasons QED was rejected by Einstein, Schrödinger, de Broglie, Dirac and many others from its inception in the late forties.”…

To get an impression of the fundamental theory problem of "radiation corrections" in a historical context, we recommend the following contribution of Mario Bacelar Valente: The renormalization of charge and temporality in quantum electrodynamics

Using concrete examples, Valente shows how result-oriented, partly arbitrary "mathematical extensions and transformations" are included in the calculations and how "here and there" terms are declared to be unphysical and their divergences are not taken into account. This is highly problematic, since no binding axiomatic rules apply. It also becomes clear that there are no physical interpretations that fill the mathematical procedures with phenomenological content."

Magnetic moments - the experimental site ...

The Penning trap is a device for the storage of charged particles using a homogeneous axial magnetic field and an inhomogeneous quadrupole electric field to measure magnetic moment. This type of "ion cage", in which the oscillatory motion of individual particles can be detected and controlled with great accuracy, has become established as a measuring instrument for high-precision measurements thanks to the work of Hans Georg Dehmelt (Nobel Prize 1989).

Idea: By superimposing an electric 3D multipole field with a magnetic dipole field, it is possible to "fix" an ion. In this case, the magnetic field applied in the z-direction prevents the ion from breaking out in the radial direction, while the electric field ensures the axial confinement. The first experiments of this kind go back to Frans Michel Penning in the 1930s.

See exemplary :

Direct high-precision measurement of the magnetic moment of the proton 2014

Physics of a single electron or ion in a Penning trap 1986 by L.S. Brown and G. Gabrielse

Regarding the magnetic moment of the electron today's desired predictability equates to the distance Earth-Moon with proverbial hair-width accuracy. Metrologically, the question arises as to whether the information has been lost, that the propagated measurable "mirror current" or "spin-flip" of individual electrons and protons, for example in the double Penning trap, are influenced by the measuring apparatus as a "quantum mechanical observer".

The basic "modern" misunderstanding of interpreting a (quantum mechanical) experiment with "idealization" or “reduction” means that the experimental setup - which "provides" additive energy in the form of electric or magnetic fields - does not act as an (energetic) interaction partner. But supposedly intrinsic “values” of objects, such as the fine structure of the spectral lines, or magnetic moments, are partly “created” by the "application of external fields". This logically comprehensible unavoidable "observation effect" is categorically denied respectively ignored by the protagonists of standard-model physics.

Although the accuracy requirements and corrective measures are understandable, it remains the suspicion of complex idealizations that produce the results that go far beyond the capabilities of macroscopic experimental setups. In relation to a single electron or proton, it is easy to comprehend that "everything" is - so to speak - macroscopically. It would be nice if researchers of the Penning trap experiments are less influenced by theory-laden thinking and much more analytic.

Detached from historical quantum mechanical fantasies (the Copenhagen interpretation) and resulting inherent observer-observation object-interactions that influence the measurement result, as well as subsequently adventurous-precise measurement constellations, the overarching natural-philosophical basic problem is quickly named. There is simply no decoupling between theoretical conception and experimental realization and no consensus on the anatomy of the measurer from the point of view of prevailing physics. Means: The measurements are heavily theorie-laden and considering that the propagated theory objects belonging to the measurement are a wild mixture of classical and quantum field theoretical terms and sizes. The plausible and logically comprehensible statement that both the (applied) electric field and the magnetic field, even contribute to the supposedly intrinsic magnetic moments of the charge carriers to be examined, is suppressed by the QED-theorists and experimenters.

Based on the experimental values for the magnetic moments of electron, proton and neutron, it is concluded that the magnetic field itself provides an additive, measurement-inherent contribution to the supposedly intrinsic values.

First conspicuties

It is noticeable that the experimental values of the magnetic moments (μB_e(exp)/μB_p(exp) ~ 658,2107) are significantly different, but the absolute difference values ΔμB_e and ΔB_p to the theoretical values μB_e(th) and μB_p(th) are similar.

This means: If one subtracts from the experimental value of the magnetic moment of the proton μB_p(exp) the (semiclassical) "theoretical" expectation μB_p(th) (equation [μintm]) and compare this difference with the experimental value of the magnetic moment of the electron μB_e (exp) minus the "theoretical" value of the magnetic moment of the electron μB_e(th), it is found that these are "order of magnitude similar" (ΔμB_e / ΔμB_p ~ 1.19 / 1).

... additive [J/Tesla] - magnetic field contributions to the proton, neutron und electron magnetic moments ...

∆μB_p ~ ∆μB_n ~ ∆μB_e [ ! ]

0,9055316e-26 ~ 0,96623650e-26 ~ 1,075463e-26

1 : 1,0670379 : 1,18766569

numerical values

electron m₀(e) = m_e = 9,10938356e-31 kg r₀(e) = r_e = 2h/(πcm_e) = 1,5446370702e-12 m λ_C(e) = λ_e = (π/2) · r_e

9,27400999205404e-24 J/Tesla μB_e(th) (semiclassical) theoretical value of the electron magnetic moment

9,284764620e-24 J/Tesla μ_Be(exp) measurement of the electron magnetic moment

(-) 2,00231930436182 [CODATA2014] g_e electron g factor

μB_e(exp) = ( 1 + 0,00115965218091) · μB_e(th) ► f_e = 0,00115965218091

1,075462794596e-26 J/Tesla : difference value ∆μB_e = μB_e(exp) - μB_e(th)

__________________________________________________________________________

proton m₀(p) = m_p = 1,672621898e-27 kg r₀(p) = r_p = = 2h/(πcm_p) = 8,412356403e-16 m λ_C(p) = λ_p = (π/2) · r_p

5,0507836982111e-27 J/Tesla μB_p(th) (semiclassical) theoretical value of the proton magnetic moment

1,4106067873e-26 J/Tesla μB_p(exp) Meßwert, magnetische Moment des Protons

5,585694702 [CODATA2014] g_p Proton g Faktor

μB_p(exp) = ( 1 + 1,7928473512) ·μB_p(th) ► f_p = 1,7928473512

9,0552841747889e-27 J/Tesla : Differenzwert ∆μB_p = μB_p(exp) - μB_p(th)

__________________________________________________________________________

electron-proton-ratios

1836,15267376007 = m_p/m_e = μB_e(th) / μB_p(th)

2,78961237051261160 = ( m_p/m_e ) / ( μB_e(exp) / μB_p(exp) ) = ( μB_e(th) / μB_p(th) ) / ( μB_e(exp) / μB_p(exp) )

658,21068660613 = μB_e(exp) / μB_p(exp)

1,187662993831791717 = ∆μB_e / ∆μB_p

1546,021626754602 = f_p / f_e = ( m_p/m_e ) / ∆μB_e / ∆μB_p

__________________________________________________________________________

physical constants

α = 0,0072973525664 1/α = 137,03599913815451 e = 1,6021766208e-19 As : electric elementary charge

h = 6,626070040e-34 Js : Planck constant c = 2,99792458e+08 m/s : speed of light

f₇ = 4πε₀c² = 1e7 A²s²/(kg·m) elementary body charge : q₀ = 2·e/√α = 3,7510920453946e-18 As

Charge-carrier-dependent dimension of the measurement-inherent contribution to the magnetic moment

Let us continue our analytical „expedition” with a fundamental consideration, which becomes a surprising calculation. One question is: Is the inherent magnetic field contribution to the magnetic moment multi-directional?

If the magnetic field contribution were proportional ("normal") to the mass of the magnetic field interacting charge carrier, the ratio of f_e to f_p would be equal to the ratio of m_e to m_p.

That's obviously not the case. Measured: 1546.021626754602 = f_p / f_e = (m_p / m_e) / (∆μB_e / ∆μB_p)

Suppose that the magnetic contribution contributes one-dimensionally "abnormally" to the two-dimensional "normal" charge-carrier mass dependence in three-dimensional space. With this assumption we obtain, to a good approximation, for the one-dimensional ("anomalous") part ~ α/8.

details Anatomie anomaler magnetischer Momente.

Comparing the above parameter-free equation [gp] with the gigantic efforts of standard model physicists to determine the magnetic moment of the proton, shows impressively clear, what plausible reasoned, analytically observational physics is and how extremely minimalistic and expedient the model of a mass-radius coupled space is in connection with an inherent contribution of the external magnetic field to the magnetic moments. Equation [gp] can be easily transformed to the g-factor of the proton :

[CODATA 2014] g_p

electron anomalous magnetic moment calculation

We calculate the electron (anomalous) magnetic moment with "simple" means, that is, based solely on α-terms (... as precisley as it is specified in the "ultra-precise" measurement and QED computer simulations). We start reciprocal-proportional with the same α-terms that were used to (exactly) calculate the g-factor of the proton.

details Anatomie anomaler magnetischer Momente.

For a first orientation, compare the above equations with ~ 13,000 (in words, thirteen thousand !!!) Feynman diagrams and the resulting millions of numerical calculations, of which analytical results are available only up to and including the 3rd order. The (only) analytical QED calculation has a relative standard deviation of only ~ 4.37e-8 rather than the ~ 2.6e-13 (CODATA 2014) to the experimental reading. The "rest" is "faith work" in the form of years of Monte Carlo integrations on computer clusters.

Equation [fe] is a parody of the result-oriented QED "perturbation calculation" (including postulated hadronic contributions) for the determination of the g-factor. For example, the measurement-oriented, numerically-determined "blue terms" could originate from the electric (quadrupole) field of the Penning trap.

The natural-philosophical standards within elementary-body theory allow only »fine-tuning« - expressed by equation [fe2] - to appear consistent and "argumentatively tenable". Thus the magnetic field gives an additive contribution to the magnetic moment of the electron ΔμB_e respectively to the f_e-value, which depends only on "alpha terms", in very good agreement with the experimental value.

The "red terms" : 1+ (α/8) + (α/8)² + (α/8)³ represent a sequence that could be thought of fractally terms, but mathematically the conceivable supplementary terms (α/8)⁴, (α/8)⁵, ..., (α/8)ⁿ lay outside the measurable. For even the additive term (α/8)⁴ increases f_e '' only by 0.000000000000101 to 0,00115964931173901 instead of 0,001159649311738. So already clearly outside the specified measuring possibilities.

Present results in the context of a phenomenologically justified mass-radius-coupled magnetic field embodiment stringently followed the numerical analytical conspicuousness of the experimental measurement results and the resulting assumption of measurement-inherent magnetic field contributions. The central "(Schwinger) oscillator term" = (α/2π) is derived from the embodiment of the magnetic field, taking into account the energetic ratios of the electrical energy and the electric elementary charge e compared to the total energy, expressed by the elementary body charge q₀. The ratio e/q₀ = √α/2 is also consistently decisive for the calculation of the magnetic moment of the neutron from the proton and electron magnetic field contributions ΔμB_e and ΔμB_p, see equations [μn] and [μn2].

The α-correction calculations for the oscillator term - which lead to fe ('', ''') - are worthy of discussion, since here a (complete) model of the still unknown "(magnetic and electric) field phenomenology" is missing.

In this context, coincidence is phenomenologically (due to the consistency of the model), logically and methodically excluded. The result: Leptonic and quark-based fantasies crumble away. Further consequences: The neutron is electron-proton-based and like the proton without (quarks & Co) substructure. QED has (now) an unsolvable problem; we do not really need to "talk" about QCD here for reasons of insignificance...

to be continued...

All cosmological "observational studies" are not controllable laboratory experiments. The postulated theoretical implications strongly influence the experimental interpretations. The human observation period is extremely small compared to the periods of time in which cosmic movements took place and played out. To substantiate assumptions with the data from the human observation period is "far-fetched" to put it casually. All current supposedly empirical measurements are (big bang) theory laden. Postulated time spans, distances, and energy densities are subjective-theoretic. The entire present physical view is based on the paradigm of "physical space-time".

Already Isaac Newton thought that the idea that gravitation could work through empty space was absurd. It is - superordinate and considered as a whole - anything but trivial to regard space and time as physical "objects". Space and time are primarily "order patterns of the mind". In order to "preserve" physics from these mind-patterns, a phenomenological examination and explanation are absolutely necessary.

“Remember”: Spacetime is not measurable. The postulate states that within the framework of the (formalised) consideration of the theory of relativity, time and space only exist as a unity. One consequence: we cannot record events in the postulated general relativistic cosmos as a „snapshot” in time, because time does not exist in space-time. According to the theory of general relativity (GR), there is only spacetime and spacetime cannot be experienced by the senses or by measurement.

Despite the impossibility of depicting various mathematically generated theoretical objects and interaction scenarios in a generally understandable and plausible way, it is didactically widespread to convey knowledge with "simplified" (unfortunately wrong) views. An example is the balloon inflated with markings (which are supposed to represent planets, stars, galaxies), which is supposed to depict the cosmic expansion after the Big Bang. This creates a sense of vivid understanding in the viewer. Only this balloon analogy is fundamentally wrong. Because…

space or, in simplified form, a balloon surface that expands, but the mathematical construct of space-time.

iii) According to today's ΛCDM-model ideas the expansion is accelerated. In the "balloon understanding", the radius expands uniformly or at a slower rate (up to a material-related maximum before the balloon bursts).

iv) Also concealed are the (faster-than-light, strongly limited in time) postulated, theory-dependent inflation-time-period as well as the assumptions and effects of the postulated dark matter and dark energy, which do not occur in the balloon model.

And overall the arbitrariness problem of the free parameters is compounded by the unavoidable "axiomatic violation" of the covariance principle. The general theory of relativity was born, among other things, out of the demand to be able to use any coordinate system to describe the laws of nature. According to the covariance principle, the form of the laws of nature should not depend decisively on the choice of the special coordinate system. This requirement is causally mathematical and leads to a variety of possible coordinate systems [metrics].

The systems of equations (Einstein, Friedmann) of the General Theory of Relativity, which form the basis of the statements of the Standard Model of Cosmology, do not provide analytical solutions.

According to GR postulate, not only mass but also every form of energy contributes to the curvature of space-time. This applies including the energy associated with gravity itself. Therefore, Einstein's field equations are non-linear.

But only idealisations and approximations lead to computable solutions to a limited extent. The unavoidable ("covariant") contradictions come with the obviously inadmissible idealisations and approximations of the system of nonlinear, chained differential equations. Mathematically, the covariance principle cannot be "violated" because it is axiomatically justified. Only this axiomatic premise "disappears" with the mutilation" (idealisations and approximations) of the actual equations. In other words, the mathematically correct equations have no analytical solutions. The reduced equations (approximations, idealisation) do have solutions, but these are not covariant. Thus, no solution has a real-physics-based meaning. This way of using mathematics is arbitrary, since different results are obtained depending on the "taste" of the (self-)chosen metric.

The 'big bang problem' as a 'primordial singularity' only occurs theoretically if Einstein's credo (: irreversibility is an illusion) is true. This conclusion means, however, that thermodynamics is consistently negated from the outset and one restricts oneself to the flawless Hamiltonian mechanics as the basis of GR, or at least only isentropic processes (no entropy change) are considered in order to at least 'save' the phenomenon of background radiation...

..the mirage: the connection between information and entropy. Two words, which - according to John von Neumann - both cannot be understood, are linked by a logarithm and a constant that provides dimensions. What is even more astonishing: Many cosmologists believe in all seriousness that this will bring thermodynamics and its entire conceptual apparatus on board. Hence Hawking's 'logic': “The problem in Bekenstein's argument was that a black hole, if it had a finite entropy proportional to the area of its event horizon, would also have to have a finite temperature. It would follow that a black hole could be in equilibrium with thermal radiation at any temperature other than zero. But in classical terms, such a balance is not possible because the black hole would absorb without emitting. What the international elite of theoretical cosmologists never took notice of was the simple fact that 'their entropy' is more of a 'Shannonian entropy', namely information regarding however, no thermodynamic entropy. In addition, the main principles of thermodynamics and the equations of motion derived from them are formulated with process variables that locally have nothing to do with the Einstein geometry of GTR. This immediately leads to the problem of the extent to which the Second Law is compatible with the ART at all. If one absolutely wants an 'informal temperature' conjugated to information, one has to derive it from 'information theory'; but it certainly has nothing to do with the Kelvin temperature and therefore nothing at all with physical radiation processes. The 'big bang problem' as a 'primordial singularity' occurs theoretically only if Einstein's credo (: irreversibility is an illusion) applies. However, this conclusion then means that one consistently negates thermodynamics from the start and restricts oneself to flawless Hamilton mechanics as the basis of GTR, or at least only envisages isentropic processes (no change in entropy) in order to at least 'save the phenomenon of background radiation '.

The “secret” of very weak gravitation in relation to the electrical interaction and strong interaction is based on the false assumption that there is generally a mass decoupled space existing. If one considers inherent space that elementary particles and macroscopic bodies contain, by their object expansions and by their radius of interactions, then it becomes clear that the "missing" energy is (in) the space itself. To create space(-energy) space-coupled mass(-energy) must be transformed in such. One consequence, inflation is ruled out. Another consequence of the observed “real object physics” is, the “massless concept” of the SM is ruled out.

The gravitational constant γ_G used in the "known" Newton's law of gravitation refers to the "length-smallest" body G {elementary quantum}. This is not obvious since the "normal formulated" law of gravity does not explicitly disclose this original connection.

The secret of very weak gravitation in relation to the electrical interaction and strong interaction is based on the false assumption that there is generally a mass decoupled space. If one considers the space that the macroscopic body spans both by its object expansion and by its radius of interaction, then it becomes clear that the "missing" energy is (in) the space itself. In this sense, the gravitational constant γ_G is the "measure of things" for macroscopic bodies.

Macroscopic bodies and gravity

For bodies with radius-mass ratios different from r_G / m_G, this means „colloquially simply” that "work" had to be done to span a larger (body) space than is naturally-coded in the smallest, most massive elementary quantum {G}. Taking energy conservation into account, this energy can come only from the mass-dependent resting energy. In the mass-dependent interaction of gravitation, only the mass fraction (effective mass), which is available after deduction of the mass of equivalent space energy, is then carried.

Well-known macroscopic objects (... billiard ball, football, earth, sun, ...) obviously do not satisfy the mass-radius-constant equation [F1]. Its real size is larger by many orders of magnitude (even before the interaction) than Equation [F1] demands mass-radius-coupled for elementary bodies.

In addition, the ratio (R_O / M_O) is many orders of magnitude greater than the governing elementary quantum. Without knowing the concrete nature of many-body interleaving, it can be generally understood that the [space] energy of the gravitational interaction, which seems to be missing in relation to the rest energy, lies in the real physical object expansion, which is determined by the object radius r₀ and by the Interaction distance r (interaction radius).

Space energy calculation :

Practical definition

Assuming that the elementary quantum {G} is the smallest in length and inherently most massive body, it follows that the space energy zero point is present here. This means that all values for the space energy E_R equation [ER] are additive relative to this zero point of the space energy.

From this follows the effective interaction mass Meff = (r_G / r) · m_x, which is indirectly expressed by the gravitational constant in Newton's law of gravitation. The gravitational self-energy equivalent to the effective interaction mass can be derived (also) from the radius-mass-coupled energy of the elementary body (compare equation [E1r]), taking into account the "scaling" using r_G / R_O.

It follows from these simple plausibility considerations that gravitation, on the basis of the phenomenology of an energy-conserving, mass-radius-coupled space, can be formally analytically determined within the framework of „simplest” mathematics. The inner spatial composition and interleaving of the atomic or molecular structure of the macroscopic many-body objects has no influence on the gravitational force or gravitational energy as long as the interaction radius r is greater than the object radius R_O (r > R_O = "elastic interaction").

Self-similarity

The assumption is that the ratio of time-dependent universe radius to time-dependent universe mass is time-independent(!). The multiplication of (r_Uni / m_Uni) with c² is equal to the gravitational constant γ_G. These assumptions include a "beautiful" correspondence between cosmos, gravitational constant and the elementary quantum {: G with r_G, m_G} respectively the Planck sizes for mass (m_Pl = ½ · m_G) and length r_PL (radius, m_Pl= ½ · r_G). These assumptions lead to concrete calculations, such as the maximum universe mass, the maximum universe radius and with the help of the hydrogen parameters (electron, proton mass and ground state energy) to the calculation of the background radiation temperature.

Ernst Mach (1838 - 1916) noted that the "weakness" of gravitation is related to the "enormous" size of the universe. He suspected a relation between universe mass, universe radius and gravitational constant. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington (1882-1944) obtained the ratio of universe radius to universe mass by dividing the gravitational constant by c² (... formally equal in the context of the correspondence described here between "length lesser" and lenght-largest And Erwin Schrödinger had already expressed this as a possibility as early as 1925. Source: Mach's Principle - Relating Gravity to the Universe

Why this simple assumption did not prevail has most likely to do with the (later) favored (inflationary) big bang theory. There was no room for "(corresponding) simple thoughts".

elementary body based universe

(more) details, phenomenology, ... see here

Hydrogen is by far the most abundant matter of the universe. Hydrogen accounts for approximately 90% of interstellar matter. As shown, the omnipresent hydrogen in the universe is the "source" of 3K background radiation.

For reasons of consistency, the Rydberg energy value results stringently from the elementary-body theory-based proton-electron interaction. This ensures that all the equations used can be linked together without any approximation. The deviation from the spectroscopically measured Rydberg energy (E_Ryexperimental) is: E_RyEB-theory/E_Ryexperimental ≈ 1.0000025.

Electric charge is a secondary term/concept of standard phycics that suggests a "phenomenological entity" that is uncoupled from the mass (and the radius) of the charge carrier.

Based on elementary-body theory all charge interactions are clearly traceable to mass-radius couplings. Conveniently, electrical charges in the elementary-body model occur only as an implicit function of the Sommerfeld fine-structure constant α as a (formal) result of the mass-radius coupling.

"Keys" for understanding the formation of matter are the phenomenologically founded charge possibilities. First, the energetically (strong) elementary body charge q₀ (which energetically equals m₀) and the elementary electric charge e.

f₇ was "introduced" to show that the [elementary body] charge q₀ is ("only") a scaled mass-radius function.

Side note

Particle physicists generally use the phenomenologically incorrect term decay even though they mean transformation. Decay would mean that the decay products were (all) components of the original particle. But that is not the case, at least not within the theoretical implications and postulates of the Standard Model of particle physics (SM).

For convenience, "powers of ten" are written as follows: 1.23 · 10^-3 = 1.23e-3. This has the advantage that the interested reader can take over the corresponding numerical values in the "computer" for "control" (copy & paste).

The uncertainties of the (CODATA) (mass) values and the natural constant values are not explicitly named. Example: Mass of the electron: 9,10938356e-31 kg 9,10938356 (11) e-31, means a standard deviation of ± 0,00000011e-31 kg. It is calculated here with the value 9,10938356e-31 kg.

Charge-dependent matter formations

Basics

The extended charge principle leads beyond elementary-body theory-based hydrogen atom-forming to additional proton-electron interactions. From the generalized, clear phenomenological process stringently follow the neutron (e-q₀ interaction) and pions (q₀-q₀ interaction) as energetically possible (time-instable) "particles". Without concretizing this here, the charged pions “decay” (convert) into muon and anti-muon and then into electron and positron. Overall, "diverse elementary particles" can be formed in the context of the extended charge concept in "formal analogy". Noteworthy is the fact that this formalism provides simple, without free parameters solutions that are in good agreement with the (energy and mass) values of the "formed particles".

On the basis of the reduced mass of the electron it can be easily shown how a model view "works wrongly". Considering celestial mechanics, a "small" centroid shift results from the proton to the electron, since the mass of the proton is finite. From the point of view of two equal charges, this assumption is unfounded, since masses in the standard view of physics only have an effect via the (misunderstood) gravitation, which is smaller by almost forty powers of ten to the electrical force. Overall, in the world view of the prevailing physics, a mass can not interact with a charge, because there exists simply no such phenomenology. It is astonishing how this fact was ignored mass psychologically over generations and is still ignored.

... there is no mass-center-shift "between two equal I charges I

BUT : The model view that the interaction between "charges" that are at a distance r from each other does not occur in matter-forming elementary-body theory. In elementary-body theory, the "charges" overlap with/in a common origin.

Reduced mass alternative in a mass-space-coupled model

Let's start with the superposition of two elementary bodies A and B, with the masses m_A and m_B and the mass-coupled radii r_A and r_B. By mass-radius-constant equation [F1] there is no "room" for interpretations ► The result applies to all charge carrier constellations (... A-B, proton-electron, proton-muon, ...)

Here one can clearly see that the alleged center-of-gravity correction of the "celestial-mechanical model has nothing to do with (for example proton and electron) with focus on two interacting charges (at a distance r), since electron and proton, as equal charges, can not undergo a shift, either phenomenologically or computationally.

NOTICE! Equating an electrical centripetal force with a (only) mass-dependent centrifugal force is phenomenologically unfounded in the context of physics and is reminiscent of the epizykel theory. The expression for the resulting mass m(r_A + r_B) in equation [MAB] is mathematically identical to the celestial-mechanical centroid correction of two macroscopic masses (reduced mass) which computationally interact elastically as point masses, but the phenomenology for the equation [MAB] is a completely different one.

Furthermore, the calculation of ground state energies is neither quantum mechanically nor quantum electrodynamically possible. Since a significant amount is determined by the ratio of the interacting masses. There is neither QM nor QED based the possibility of introducing the reduced mass m_red = m_A / (1 + m_A / m_B) quantum-field-phenomenologically. The reduced mass - whether one wants it to be true or not - is historically derived from "Newtonian celestial mechanics" within the framework of standard physics. This means in plain language that in terms of atomic interactions, these are neither QM nor QED justified. QM and QED are "epicyclic".

Mass - inherent radius (of the electron) r_e

The SM-based postulated theoretical implications strongly influence the experimental interpretations of the SM protagonists ... The resulting complex expectation construct leads to a series of fatal misunderstandings. By way of example, the "typical" energy-dependent electron radii, less than 10^-19 [m], in connection with particle accelerators are not "false" (measured), but the inferences concerning resting electrons resulting from elementary particle physics are false. The elementary-body theory (on the other hand) consistently describes both the behavior of the "conventional" scattering energies of the scattering partners (of the electron) and of high-energy particles in accelerators.

[Practical note: If you can't "follow" respectively won't accept logic based facts, consider the "following"...

Since almost all successfully SM-indoctrinated people get a crisis by „hearing“ the term electron radius and "instantaneously" think of the unpopular classical electron radius, they should “replace” the electron mass inherent radius (r_e) through the "problem-free" Compton wavelength of the electron (λ_e) and postpone their "communication problem". Don't dramatize the model view : λ_e = ½ · π · r_e]

First of all, the differential scattering cross section dσ/dΩ always comprise the form : dσ/dΩ = (e²/m_e4πε₀c²)² · f_W for electrons in "conventional" scattering experiments.

f_W indicats the specific type of scattering. The „communication problem” of the prevailing physics with respect to the (unpopular) classical electron radius r_e(classical) is resolved by analyzing the recurrent mass-radius-coupled term (e²/m_e4πε₀c²) energetically. Finally, the term (e²/m_e4πε₀c²) consists of the ratio: electrical energy to total energy (α/4) and the electron mass inherent electron radius r_e [ = (dσ/dΩ) / ((α/4) · f_W)], multiplied by π/2 corresponds to the Compton wavelength of the electron (λ_e = ½ · π · r_e).

Furthermore, the object radius changes with the velocity radially symmetric and not just one-dimensional in the direction of movement. Here, too, elementary-body theory provides a phenomenologically-based, consistent, realobject-oriented model.

One can not mention it often enough: Apart from "SM-based interpretations" of particle accelerator physics, the electron mass inherent electron radius r_e respectively the classical electron radius r_e(classical) = ((α/4) · r_e), is used in all (!) equations for the calculation of the scattering cross sections for elastic and inelastic scattering of electrons (keywords: Møller scattering, Compton scattering, electron-positron pair production, photoelectric effect, Klein-Nishina equation, Bethe-Bloch-Sternheimer equation, Kramers-Heisenberg formula, etc .). r_e has a phenomenologically based connection with the Compton wavelength (of the electron). Here, so to speak, "avenges" the lack of a consistent, phenomenologically motivated (standard physics) concepts of electric charge. See the various mathematical approaches of classical electrodynamics, quantum electrodynamics (QED), quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and in particular the electroweak theory. In the context of elementary-body theory, the electric elementary charge (e) and the associated electrical energy E(e) expresses a mass-radius-coupled energetic ratio. For this »understanding problem« exists the biggest emotional outbursts and a methodical plausibility refusal from standard physicists and their followers (... more details see the chapter electron radius).

Charge-dependent matter formation possibilities

The charge-dependent matter formation generally describes the A-B interaction possibilities. A and B are elementary bodies with the masses m_A and m_B and the reciprocal proportional radii r_A and r_B. The following applies: m_A · r_A = m_B · r_B = F_EK = 2h / πc [F1]. The phenomenologically founded formalism leads to the equations:

In the above (matter-forming) α-function-equations, only the masses m_A and m_B of the interacting elementary bodies occur as variables. The charge as such, or more precisely the charge size, is implicitly determined by the functional relationship of the Sommerfeld fine structure constant α. (Details and derivations see »Ladungsabhängige Materiebildungen«)

e-e interaction

The term e-e interaction means that two elementary charge carriers interact. The most prominent example of this type of interaction is the proton-electron-based hydrogen atom.

m_A = m_e = 9,10938356e-31 kg : electron-mass m_B = m_p = 1,672621898e-27 kg : proton-mass

c = 2,99792458e+08 m/s α = 0,0072973525664

e-q₀ interaction

elementary body carrier A(q₀) interacts with elementary carrier B(e). The most prominent example of this type of interaction is the proton-electron-based neutron.

m_e = 9,10938356e-31 kg m_e(q₀)= (4/α) · m_e= 4,99325391071e-28 kg c = 2,99792458e+08 m/s

m_p = 1,672621898e-27 kg

∆m = 1,405600680072e-30 kg ∆E_ee = 1,263290890450e-13 J ~ 0,78848416 MeV

q₀-q₀ interaction

Charge carriers A and B interact via the elementary body charge q₀. The most prominent example of this type of interaction is the proton-electron-based charged pion.

m_A = m_e = 9,10938356e-31 kg : electron-mass

_q0m_A= (4/α) · m_e = 4,99325391071e-28 kg

m_B = m_p = 1,672621898e-27 kg : proton-mass

_q0m_B= (4/α) · m_p = 9,16837651891e-25 kg

c = 2,99792458e+08 m/s α = 0,0072973525664

[mq0q0]

∆m = 4,99053598e-28 kg (∆m/2) / m_π(exp) ~ 1,00289525

... ∆m means the mass of two charged pions (matter creation)

The extent to which experimental particle physics can accurately determine resting pion masses is highly doubted. The neutral pion is a "pion" due to the different mass of the charged pions only in the SM requirement. The abstraction, which is "equal" to particles with different masses according to postulated QM superpositions (keyword: quarkonia), is one of the many arbitrariness hypotheses within SM (see SM-quark mass uncertainty in the percent error range) and "outside" of mathematical formalism of the SM unfounded.

For mass-like interaction partners (for example, proton-antiproton or electron-positron) the general α-function equations simplify - for example the q₀-q₀ interaction - to the equations ([Eq0q0] and [mq0q0]):

"Surprising" is the "circumstance" that in the context of "charge-dependent matter formation the strong proton-antiproton interaction follows a matter-formation energy of ~ 257 GeV depending on the (anti) proton mass and the Sommerfeld fine-structure constant α which, according to charge conservation, produces as a variation possibility two mass-radius-coupled "small mass heaps" (Masse-Häufchen) which map uncharged and charged Higgs-boson masses. The final equation [2q0q0] is unbeatable in terms of simplicity.

α = 0,0072973525664

m := m_p = 1,672621898e-27 kg : (anti-)proton-mass

∆E( p⁺, p^-) = 257,15410429801 GeV

∆m( p⁺, p^-) = 4,584188259456e-25 [kg] [2q0q0]

(∆m( p⁺, p^-) / 2) = 128,57705215 GeV/c²

m_H⁽⁰⁾ ~ 2,228e-25 kg ~ 125 GeV/c²

(∆m( p⁺, p^-) / 2) / m_H⁽⁰⁾ ~ 1,02861642

This means that with an "error" ~ 2.9%, based on the Higgs boson mass "detected" at the LHC (m_H⁽⁰⁾ ~ 125 GeV / c²), elementary particle theory predicts an event which exists in the standard model of Particle physics (SM) only as a theoretically predetermined methodical circular conclusion.

by the way ...

There are aspects of the Higgs-Boson-mass predictions which are barely known.

David and Sidney Kahana's predictions about the Higgs-Boson-mass and the Top-Quark-mass (1993!!!) in a “parameter free fashion” are very precise. Source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9312316.pdf

According to the standard model (SM) predictions are not possible. How do you explain the obvious discrepancy?

Peter Higgs knew about their work … he said, “You’re from Brookhaven, right. Make sure to tell Sid Kahana that he was right about the top quark 175 GeV and the Higgs boson 125 GeV” [Kahana and Kahana 1993].”… Source:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.06934.pdf

One would assume that highly accurate calculations about the Top-quark-mass and the Higgs-mass are remarkable. Why didn’t the “Kahanas” get the “proper” attention? Why is there no adequate mention about these theoretical achievements?

I strongly believe that Sidney and David Kahana’s predictions need to be published and discussed again. With reference to Nambu Y and Jona-Lasinio G 1961 Phys. Rev. 122 (1) 345-358 (https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.122.345) it seems that the entire SM-project had already been completed (…“methodical circular conclusions") at the beginning of the 1960s.

For further reading see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.2794.pdf ... "predictions by the authors D. E. Kahana and S. H. Kahana , m_H = 125 GeV/c² uses dynamical symmetry breaking with the Higgs being a deeply bound state of two top quarks. At the same time (1993) this model predicted two years prior to the discovery to the top its mass to be m_t = 175 GeV/c²..."

Notice! There is just one outstanding »prediction paper« (1993 https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9312316.pdf) which leads to the Higgs-Boson-mass and the Top-Quark-mass with the same theoretical approach prior to the experimental confirmation in 1995 (Top) and 2012 (Higgs).

The uncharged pion ... a pion matter possibility from q₀ - q₀ interaction

m_A = m_B = m_e^±= 9,10938356e-31 kg : electron-mass = positron-mass

_q0m_A= (4/α) · m_e = 4,99325391071e-28 kg

∆E( e⁺, e^-) = 140,05050232093 MeV [E2q0q0]

∆m( e⁺, e^-) = 2,496626955355e-28 kg [2q0q0]

2,4061764315e-28 kg m_π⁰ SM - theory laden

∆m( e⁺, e^-) / m_π⁰ ~ 1,037591

SM linguistic usage…

Wishful thinking and reality

I find it quite amusing and right to the point how Claes Johnson, a Professor of Applied Mathematics, classifies ...

Claes Johnson about QM and SRT

Concerning the crisis of modern physics it is commonly accepted that one reason is that the two basic building blocks, relativity theory and quantum mechanics, are contradictory/incompatile. But two theories which are physical cannot be contradictory, because physics which exists cannot be contradictory. But unphysical theories may well be contradictory, as ghosts can have contradictory qualities.

The Special Theory of Relativity of Einstein is unphysical because the Lorentz transformation is not a transformation between physical coordinates, as strongly underlined by its inventor Lorentz, but misunderstood by the patent clerk Einstein believing that the transformed time is real and thus that time is relative. Quantum Mechanics is unphysical because its interpretation is statistical which makes it non-physical, because physics is not an insurance company. Here Einstein was right understanding that God does not play dice.

Professor of Applied Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) Stockholm , Sweden

Claes Johnson Blog

______________________________________________

Albert Einstein

It could be helpful to remember what Albert Einstein wrote on quantum mechanics: [¹] "The ψ function is to be understood as a description not of a single system but of a system community [Systemgemeinschaft]. Expressed in raw terms, this is the result: In the statistical interpretation, there is no complete description of the individual system. Cautiously one can say this: The attempt to understand the quantum theoretical description of the individual systems leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which immediately become unnecessary if one accepts the view that the description refers to the system as a whole and not to the individual system. The whole approach to avoid 'physical-real' becomes superfluous. [Es wird dann der ganze Eiertanz zur Vermeidung des ‘Physikalisch-Realen’ überflüssig.] However, there is a simple physiological reason why this obvious interpretation is avoided. If statistical quantum theory does not pretend to describe completely the individual system (and its temporal sequence), then it seems inevitable to look elsewhere for a complete description of the individual system. It would be clear from the start that the elements of such a description within the conceptual scheme of the statistical quantum theory would not be included. With this, one would admit that in principle this scheme can not serve as the basis of theoretical physics.”

[¹] A. Einstein, Out of my later years. Phil Lib. New York 1950 Seite 498

According to the Copenhagen interpretation of 1927, the probability character of quantum theoretical predictions is not an expression of the imperfection of the theory, but of the essentially indeterministic (unpredictable) character of quantum physical natural processes. Furthermore, the "objects of formalism" "replace" reality without possessing a reality of its own.

The Copenhagen interpretation is characterized by the „comfort” it provides to its "believers”. The wave-particle dualism allows a "transition" to the "wave" with an e-function with complex exponent, which according to Fourier theorem in turn allows "ALL" piecewise monotonous, so also any experimental result to represent formally mathematical. The statistical interpretation refrains from the effort to explore the physical process, because in principle only probability statements in quantum processes are possible

In the time after the Second World War, the Copenhagen interpretation had prevailed, in textbooks was now only the Heisenberg-Bohr quantum theory without critical comments to find.

___________________________________________

Brigitte Falkenburg writes in Particle Metaphysics: A Critical Account of Subatomic Reality (2007) among other things…

"It must be made transparent step by step what physicists themselves consider to be the empirical basis for current knowledge of particle physics. And it must be transparent what the mean in detail when the talk about subatomic particles and fields. The continued use of these terms in quantum physics gives rise to serious semantic problems. Modern particle physics is indeed the hardest case for incommensurability in Kuhn’s sense."… Kuhn 1962. 1970

…"After all, theory-ladenness is a bad criterion for making the distinction between safe background knowledge and uncertain assumptions or hypotheses."

… "Subatomic structure does not really exist per se. It is only exhibited in a scattering experiment of a given energy, that is, due to an interaction. The higher the energy transfer during the interaction, the smaller the measured structures. In addition, according to the laws of quantum field theory at very high scattering energies, new structures arise. Quantum chromodynamics (i.e. the quantum field theory of strong interactions) tells us that the higher the scattering energy, the more quark antiquark pairs and gluons are created inside the nucleon. According to the model of scattering in this domain, this give rise once again to scaling violations which have indeed observed.44 This sheds new light on Eddington’s old question on whether the experimental method gives rise to discovery or manufacture. Does the interaction at a certain scattering energy reveal the measured structures or does it generate them?"

44 Perkins 2000, 154; Povh et al 1999, 107 – 111

…"It is not possible to trace a measured cross-section back to its individual cause. No causal story relates a measured form factor or structure function to its cause"…

…"With the beams generated in particle accelerators, one can neither look into the atom, nor see subatomic structures, nor observe pointlike structures inside the nucleon. Such talk is metaphorical. The only thing a particle makes visible is the macroscopic structure of the target"…

…"Niels Bohr’s quantum philosophy…Bohr’s claim was that the classical language is indispensable. This has remained valid up to the present day. At the individual level of clicks in particle detectors and particle tracks on photographs, all measurements results have to expressed in classical terms. Indeed, the use of the familiar physical quantities of length, time, mass and momentum-energy at a subatomic scale is due to an extrapolation of the language of classical physics to the non-classical domain."...

The Quark Parton Model (QPM), developed by Richard Feynman in the 1960s, describes nucleons as the composition of basic point-like components that Feynman partons called. These components were then identified with the quarks, postulated by Gell-Mann and Zweig at the same time a few years earlier. According to the Quark-Parton Model, a deep inelastic scattering event (DIS deep inelastic scattering) is to be understood as an incoherent superposition of elastic lepton-particle scattering processes.

A cascade of interaction conjectures, approximations, corrections, and additional theoretical objects subsequently "refined" the theoretical nucleon model.

A fundamental (epistemological) problem is immediately recognizable. All experimental setups, implementations, and interpretations of deep elastic scattering are extremely theory based.

Fundamental contradictions exist at the theoretical basis of the Standard Model of particle physics, which, despite better knowledge, are not corrected. An example:

The nonexistent spin of quarks and gluons

A landmark, far-reaching wrong decision was made in 1988.

The first assumption was, due to the theoretical specifications of the mid-1960s that in the image of the SM the postulated proton spin is composed to 100% of the spin components of the quarks. This assumption was not confirmed in 1988 in the EMC experiments. On the contrary, much smaller, even zero-compatible components were measured (ΔΣ = 0.12 ± 0.17 European Muon Collaboration). Also the next assumption that (postulated) gluons contribute to the proton spin did not yield the desired result. In the third, current version of the theory, quarks, gluons (...virtual Quark-anti-Quark pairs if one wishes too) and ... their dynamical-relativistic orbital angular momentum generate the proton spin.

On closer inspection, the second readjustment has the „putative advantage” that the result in the context of lattice gauge theory and constructs, such as "pion clouds", algorithmically "calculated", can’t be falsified. But this purely theoretical based construction obviously does not justify the classification of quarks as fermions. No matter how the asymmetrical ensemble of unobservable postulated theoretical objects and interactions is advertised and will be advertised in the future, the quarks themselves were never "measured" as spin-½ particles.

Summary in simple words: It is possible to create a theory-laden ensemble of Quarks and “other” theory objects and their postulated interactions, but the Quark itself - as an entity - has still no intrinsic spin -½ in this composition. That means that Quarks aren’t fermions, no matter what the actual theoretical approach would be! This is a basic, pure analytical and logical statement.

Generally speaking: If one postulates a theoretical entity with an intrinsic value but one discovers that one needs to add theoretical objects and postulated interactions to get the desired intrinsic value, one has to admit that ones entity has no physical characteristic as such.

Further more:

In sum, the quark masses postulated according to the SM do not yield the nucleon masses by far. Gluons are massless.

Postulated Up-Quark mass: 2.3 ± 0.7 ± 0.5 MeV / c² up (u)

Postulated down-quark mass: 4.8 ± 0.5 ± 0.3 MeV / c² down (d)

938,272 0813 (58) MeV / c² Proton mass duu ~ 0,8 - 1,2% (!!!) Quark mass fraction

939,565 4133 (58) MeV / c² neutron mass ddu ~ 1,1 - 1,4% (!!!) Quark mass fraction

Thus, also heavy ions composed of protons and neutrons (such as lead or gold nuclei) can not be represented by quarks and gluons. This means that according to the principle of mass-energy equivalence, nucleons and, ultimately, heavy ions consist almost entirely of phenomenologically indeterminate binding energy. Even more complicated is the fact that the ions are accelerated to almost the speed of light before they collide. This means that there is also a considerable amount of external energy added to the binding energy. Neither the theory of relativity neither the SM does tell us how these phenomenologically can be divided into translational energy and "mass equivalence."

Protagonists of the SM are so convinced of their belief that they have obviously lost sight of the essential. Why should a postulated complex, multi-object-asymmetric, charge-fragmented, dynamic substructure create a spin value ½ and an elementary charge of exactly 1·e over dynamic states in the temporal or statistical mean? The comparison with the SM point-postulated, "leptonic" electron, with spin value ½ and elementary charge 1·e, which are "created" without "dynamic effort" and structure, identifies the quarks-gluon thesis as a fairy tale.

The Quark Parton Model describes a complex theory situation and associated theory-laden (high-energy) experiments, the understanding of which is characterized by diverse aspects and a whole series of postulates. How the (here relatively simply described) nested theory-experiment-construct looks like, see representative the explanations (part 1 -3) of the Institute for Nuclear and Particle Physics Dresden.

Part1 fails early on the interpretations of the presented model based on "theory-internal" assumptions.

... "This is remarkable, especially the neutron as an electrically neutral particle should have vanishing magnetic moment. This already indicates that protons and neutrons are not point-like, but have an internal structure..."

Is the magnetic moment of the neutron really evidence for a substructure? Or is this assumption just a theory-laden measurement interpretation of the Standard Model?

The interpretation of a neutron-quark (sub)structure loses its meaning if one examines the situation numerically (independent of the thought model). The supposedly anomalous magnetic moments of electron and proton as well as of the neutron are finally a combination of the "semi-classical" - most simply calculated - "normal" magnetic moments and measurement-inherent contributions, which originate from the magnetic field, which is used for the measurement. This qualitative statement can be concretized (in accordance with the measured values). See further the remarks on the neutron from the point of view of a mass-radius-coupled model, with which both the mass and the magnetic moment of the neutron can be calculated from the neutron-forming interaction of electron and proton in a phenomenologically understandable and exact way.

The quark-parton model is an excellent teaching piece from the series of creeds (like once the epicycle or phlogiston theory). Experimental result interpretations led to some theoretical assumptions, which then quickly reach a substructured complexity by means of further interpretations with the help of new theory objects and postulated interactions, which finally eliminate any inappropriate experimental results by appropriate measures. First there were the postulated quarks. These required a fragmentation of the elementary electric charge. Then followed gluons, since quarks did not provide corresponding spin contributions of the nucleons. After that, so-called "sea quarks" were introduced as a supplement, since the postulated gluons also did not provide a corresponding spin contribution. Details of the "established" nucleon model see part 2 and part 3 (The Quark-Parton-Model) ... The analysis of the believers ends then with the belief finale

... "The nucleon is therefore built up from valence quarks, sea quarks and gluons. But for the properties of the nucleon (and all hadrons) like charge, mass and spin only the composition of the valence quarks is responsible. Therefore one often speaks of constituent quarks and means the valence quarks plus the surrounding cloud of sea quarks and gluons. Sea quarks and gluons do not contribute to the (net) quantum numbers, but they do contribute to the mass of the hadron, since they carry energy and momentum. While the bare mass of the valence quarks is only a few MeV/c², the constituent quarks carry the respective fraction of the hadron mass, in the case of the nucleon thus about 300 MeV/c². This is thus predominantly contributed by the gluons and sea quarks. In other words, the vast majority of the hadron masses (and thus the visible mass in the universe) is not carried by the bare masses of the constituents, but is dynamically generated by the energy of the interaction!"

Isn't that nice. There are clouds and naked and the God-analogous indeterminate, which is about 99%, given the postulated masses of the "matter-forming" quarks. But here the faith fairy tale is not really at an end. In a bigger picture (ΛCDM-model) it is now postulated that the visible mass is again only a small part of the mass in the universe. For the most part, for today's Standard Model believers, the universe consists of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Dark stands here for not detectable. No miracle that the Vatican invites year after year highly delighted to the science prayer. That neither the preachers nor the people a light rises has Theodor Fontane so formulated:

We are already deep in decadence. The sensational is valid and only one thing the crowd favours even more enthusiastically, the bare nonsense."

The "fragmentation of matter" as an »end in itself« of mathematical theories and the inevitable increase of irrelevant knowledge, especially in the form of virtual particles, has become established standard thinking. Instead of simplification, the concepts of formal postulations and "refining theories" obviously do not end in the growth of knowledge but in scientific arbitrariness. Mathematical-based fundamental physics urgently requires a natural-philosophical oriented regulation.

You might consider the following notes about neutrinos…

There is no single direct neutrino proof. They are always strongly theory-laden interpretations of experimental results.

To generate the fermion masses by coupling the fermions to the Higgs field, the following conditions must be met: The masses of the right-handed and left-handed fermions must be equal. The neutrino must remain massless. This basic condition is in blatant contradiction to neutrino oscillations (Nobel Prize 2015), which require neutrino masses. Consequence: Either we say goodbye to the Standard Model of particle physics (SM) or to neutrinos with mass.

For the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned that ...since one does not want to part with the Standard Model, there is always the possibility of "somehow" incorporating neutrino masses within the framework of mathematical additions. However, this is only possible because the construct of the SM has no verifiable real-physics reference at all, i.e. all SM-associated alleged object proofs are indirect, strongly theory-laden experimental interpretations.

Energetically, no binding process of the transformation of a d-quark into a u-quark exists.

Independent of the SM-constructed lepton number, the following should be remembered: The neutrino was introduced historically because the energy spectrum of the (emitted) electrons does not show a discrete but a continuous distribution. But if the anti-electron neutrino, with whatever lower mass limit, "kidnaps" the "missing" energy from the laboratory system and can only "act" (effectively*) through the Weak Interaction, then this simply means that a kinetic energy continuum of the postulated neutrino already had to exist during the process of the Weak Interaction. Because after this process, according to the postulate, there is no further possibility of interaction. But how is this to be explained phenomenologically?

The terse statement of the SM that the beta-minus decay of the neutron takes place according to the conversion of a d-quark into a u-quark by means of a negatively charged W-boson says nothing about the concrete process of how, from where and why the anti-electron neutrino now absorbs different amounts of energy during the weak interaction in order to compensate for the "missing" energy in the electron spectrum.

On closer inspection, the situation is far more complex, since both postulated quark-based neutron and quark-based proton consist of ~ 99% of undefined binding energy and thus the weak interaction (energetically) affects only ~ 1% of the decay process.

The postulated mass of the d quark is 4.8 (+0.5 / - 0.3) MeV/c², the mass of the u quark is 2.3 (+0.7 / - 0.5) MeV/c² quark masses : http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/tables/rpp2013-sum-quarks.pdf

This means that the mass difference is between 1.5 and 3.5 MeV/c². The electron anti-neutrino with a mass (lower limit) of ≤ 2.2 eV/c² can absorb a maximum of ~ 0.78 MeV. According to the electron energy spectrum, however, the average energy is much smaller than 0.78 MeV, which is "abducted from the laboratory system" by the neutrino. What happened to the missing weak interaction energy? "Gluonic binding energy" it could not have become, since gluons do not participate in the postulated transformation of a d-quark into a U-quark. Nor can the virtual magic of the ~ 80.4 GeV/c² W boson absorb anything in real-energy terms. Here, it is more true than ever for the prevailing physics: "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is."...

So in the picture of the SM we have initially 1 u-quark and 2 d-quarks, in the meantime a W-boson and ~ 99% binding energy (whatever that should be phenomenologically) and after the transformation 2 u-quarks, 1d-quark, 99% binding energy, 1 anti-electron neutrino, 1 electron and additionally ~ 0.78 MeV energy. No matter how the energy distribution possibilities of the ~ 0.78 MeV to proton (2 u-quarks, 1d-quark, 99% binding energy), electron and anti-electron neutrino look like, the process of the weak interaction would already have to be such that these distribution possibilities are guaranteed, since after the weak interaction no more energy transfer of the neutrino to the proton and electron is possible. This means, however, that there can be no discrete transformation process of a d quark into a u quark.

Non-discrete means here in particular: Energetically, there is no binding process of the transformation of a d-quark into a u-quark. From a neutron-u quark, energetically different electron-anti-neutrinos are created by the weak interaction, since after the creation, other interaction possibilities apart from the weak interaction are excluded. Thus, there is no energetically unambiguous transformation of a u quark into a d quark.

Detached from this problem, it should also be remembered for the sake of completeness that experimentally we are not dealing with single objects but with many-particle objects (more than 1 neutron) and accelerated charges radiate energy. It is probably not to be assumed that the protons and electrons created "suddenly" exist with a constant speed. "Where" is the associated photon spectrum of beta-minus decay? What does it look like?

According to SM, neutrino research "means", for example:

...One measures the currents of the kaons and pions and indirectly determines the flux of the neutrinos...

However, pions (π π π+) and even more so kaons (K+, K-, K0, K0) are highly constructed entities (for initial understanding see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaon , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion ) of the Standard Model. Means: The number of existence postulates, such as mass, charge, spin, flavour(s), lifetimes and quark composition is already "considerable". The possible transformations result in "manifold alternation-interaction-fantasy scenarios”. Furthermore: The neutral kaon is not its own "antiparticle", this leads (more generally) to the construction of the particle-antiparticle oscillation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_particle_oscillation ) and the neutral kaon is said to exist in two forms, a long-lived and a short-lived form.

To conclude from this that there are properties of "flavor-oscillating" neutrinos increases the arbitrariness even more. To understand all this (reproducibly), one needs absolute faith in axiomatic creations. As a reward, however, there is then the carte blanche that any experimental result becomes "explainable" ...that until then - in connection with the "experimental side" - we have to make, roughly estimated, several dozen further result-oriented assumptions, ... does not matter to SM-believers.

To quote Egbert Scheunemann: "They first shoot an arrow at a barn door, then paint concentric circles around the bullet and cheer about their "bull's eye".

Without question, ad hoc hypotheses and thought experiments were and are fundamental concepts. It is just that "physical" theses must sooner or later be substantiated by stringent, consistent “models of thought” using simple mathematical means, if they are to have any epistemological value. The bad habit of iteratively glossing over missing knowledge and missing phenomenology within the framework of parametric creeds etc. means arbitrariness and knowledge standstill. Renormalisation, variable coupling constants, free parameters, endless substructuring, perturbation theory with an affinity to Taylor series just correct the "physical crap" that one has primarily brought upon oneself over decades through a lack of insight.

By the way…At a conference in Rome in 1931, Niels Bohr expressed the view that understanding beta decay did not require new particles, but rather a similar serious overthrow of existing ideas as in quantum mechanics. He doubted the theorem of the conservation of energy, but without having developed a concrete counter-proposal…