Hello to all:

I have made significant progress over the last week on the paper to
develop the connection between the magnetic anomaly and the uncertainty
of an electron. The latest draft is at:

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...hwinger-30.pdf

I will shortly post a tight summary at my weblog, but in the mean time,
I will note the following points of interest.

The calculation of an exact measure of uncertainty for a given
wavefunction is now fully completed and carefully checked. This is in
sections 4 through 8, and is *independent* of the hypothesized
relationship of the uncertainty to the intrinsic spin. So, if you ever
asked yourself, gee, I wonder what the exact uncertainty is for a given
wavefunction, you will find this calculated with precision in sections 4
through 8. The upshot is that (8.5) is the precise uncertainty for a
wavefunction (4.1) with A', B' and V' all real. The reasons for having
these be real are developed in the paper, but suffice it to say that A',
B' real is necessary to avert a divergent uncertainty, and if V' were
imaginary rather than real, the uncertainty would always be exactly
equal to hbar/2.

Section 9 entails a reformulation of my earlier hypothesis into a
theorem which sections 4 through 8 serves to prove. Specifically, I
have rigorously proven the following:

THEOREM: For a wavefunction (9.6), the uncertainty ratio (9.7), to
leading order in running coupling alpha, differs from the intrinsic
Schwinger g-factor g/2 by less than 7 parts in 10^-7.

With some tight definitions of intrinsic versus extrinsic, the base
hypothesis is then reformulated with some more precision as follows:

REFORMULATED HYPOTHESIS: The intrinsic uncertainty associated with the
intrinsic electron wavefunction is identical with the intrinsic g-factor
of the anomalous magnetic moment.

Section 10 then derives the extrinsic effect on the g-factor due to
application of an extrinsic potential. This is given in (10.3). It now
appears that this extrinsic g-factor -- which is driven solely by the
extrinsic potential -- may be directly related to the energy term in
Paschen-Back, and so, one should be able in principle to use these
results to classify observed spectral lines. I will also note that a
tight formulation of this result, ought to proceed from equation (20) of
Ohanian's paper at
http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/file...at-is-spin.pdf.
I suspect that is where my focus will be for the next several days.

Looking for comment as always. I still have a few more sections to add
before this one is a wrap. That includes playing with the electron
versus the muon and tauon.

If you have trouble left-clicking on any of the file links above, then
right click to download, then open.

Best regards,

Jay.
____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email:
co-moderator: sci.physics.foundations
Weblog: http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/
Web Site: http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm

"Jay R. Yablon" wrote in message
...
Hello to all:

I have made significant progress over the last week on the paper to
develop the connection between the magnetic anomaly and the
uncertainty
of an electron. The latest draft is at:

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...hwinger-30.pdf

I will shortly post a tight summary at my weblog, but in the mean
time,
I will note the following points of interest.

I just posted this summary at: http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/.

Looking for your comments; I'd especially be interested in your thoughts
on the material in section 10 as I am presently trying to make sense of
this "extrinsic" g-factor.

Thanks,

Jay.

____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email:
co-moderator: sci.physics.foundations
Weblog: http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/
Web Site: http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm