How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Ideal linear Penning mode-frequency invariant
1 · Prerequisites
2 · Summary
This page proves the ideal linear Penning mode-frequency invariant as a conditional trace identity for the stated uniform-field, harmonic-quadrupole matrix model. It also supplies a deterministic finite-error estimate for a positive-denominator frequency ratio. The first result uses the matching draft QFT-MX01 mass-energy definition; the definition is not independently accepted in this run. Neither result claims an experimental measurement or a nonlinear, relativistic, or cavity-corrected model.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, postulates, theorems and proofs
Ideal linear Penning mode-frequency invariant
Statement
Let be a signed charge in coulombs, a rest-mass energy in joules, the speed of light in metres per second, and a constant magnetic-field vector in teslas. Set . Let be a real symmetric matrix with , with units volts per square metre, and define the quadratic scalar potential for in metres. Thus and . Put , , and define by . The ideal linear model is the real linear map , , equivalently . Equivalently, its equations are and . The entries of are their real numerical coordinates in the fixed SI units. A state solution on an open time interval is a map satisfying the displayed equations for every . Here has units metres per second, has units inverse seconds squared, and has units inverse seconds.
Define a linear mode to be a complex eigenvector of the complexified state matrix ; its eigenvalue or gives the time factor , with angular frequency in radians per second. Assume the complexification of is diagonalizable with eigenvalues , where each is counted with its eigenvalue multiplicity. Define the free cyclotron angular frequency . Then
Consequently, if and are the corresponding ordinary frequencies in hertz, then . The claim is conditional on the stated uniform-field, harmonic-quadrupole, and complete stable-mode hypotheses; it is an identity for this linear model.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Use the exact planned QFT-MX01 mass-energy convention below, together with the real linear model and spectral hypothesis stated in this item.
QFT example units, metric, gauge, and pairing conventions (QFT-MX01): the current draft Definition at items/def-qft-example-data.md says, “Write for rest energy in joules,” with in metres per second. Its dependency list is empty. Its proof checks the listed unit conventions, but the draft has no independent acceptance stamp. The actual statement matches the use here; the theorem does not rely on the supplier for any dynamics or spectral result.
Model data: , , , , , and ; , , , , and .
Spectral hypothesis: is diagonalizable over with eigenvalues , , where every ; repeated frequencies are allowed and counted with multiplicity.
Proof
By [L1], the inertial-mass coefficient in the SI equation is . Block multiplication gives , so .
By [A2], write the complexification as , where is diagonal with the six stated eigenvalues. Then ; the finite-sum identity gives .
Since and , . In the fixed right-handed Cartesian coordinates, has matrix , so the diagonal entries of are , , and . Therefore and gives by step 1.1.
Equating the trace calculations in steps 2.1 and 1.2 and dividing by gives .
Dividing the angular-frequency identity in step 3.1 by gives the same sum-of-squares identity for .
Remarks
This is a mathematical deduction about the displayed first-order matrix. It does not prove that an actual trap realizes the model or spectral hypothesis. The statement excludes higher spatial multipoles, magnetic-field inhomogeneity, relativistic shifts, radiation or cavity shifts, and nonlinear motion. The Brown–Gabrielse derivation treats the broader quadratic model with field misalignment and ellipticity; the trace proof above supplies the local argument under the stated matrix hypotheses.
The current draft Definition QFT example units, metric, gauge, and pairing conventions has been inspected and its mass-energy interface matches this use. This conditional matrix deduction does not certify the supplier or any physical trap.
Deterministic ratio error and Taylor remainder
Statement
Define by . Here is only the positive denominator variable in this lemma, not the speed of light. For real and nonnegative bounds satisfying and , both denominators are positive and
For the first-order statement, write , , and . Suppose the segment lies in the closed rectangle , where and . Define , , and the real-linear map . The total derivative of at means a real-linear map such that . Then is the total derivative, and
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Let , , and satisfy the conditions in the statement. All variables are real; the inequalities are deterministic interval conditions, with no probability space or sampling assumption.
, , , , and .
For the derivative bound, , , , the segment lies in , , and . Put and .
Proof
From [A1], . Thus both ratio values are defined, and subtracting their fractions gives .
For with , the coordinate difference quotients are and . Their limits give the candidate linear map ; the total-derivative conclusion follows from the full remainder estimate below.
Direct subtraction gives .
The triangle inequality gives , while [A1] gives . Dividing these positive-denominator bounds proves the displayed deterministic ratio-error inequality.
Since the segment lies in , , , and . Also , because . Therefore , and . Combining these estimates with the exact remainder in step 1.3 gives .
For fixed with , choose , so is interior and its lower second-coordinate bound is positive. For every sufficiently small , both endpoints lie in , and convexity places the segment there. Step 2.2 then gives . By the stated definition, .
Remarks
The two local bounds are deterministic consequences of positive denominators and algebra. The proof uses no statistical uncertainty model, independence assumption, Taylor theorem, chain rule, compactness theorem, or probability supplier. Penning-trap frequency ratios motivate the application; the exact finite-error and quadratic-remainder bounds are proved here and are not attributed to an external source.
5 · Examples, experiments and counterexamples
None yet.
Sources
- L. S. Brown and G. Gabrielse, Geonium theory: Physics of a single electron or ion in a Penning trap, Reviews of Modern Physics 58 (1986), §II.A and §II.D, Eqs. (2.1)–(2.17), (2.70)–(2.79)
- Manuel Vogel, Particle Confinement in Penning Traps: An Introduction, Springer Series on Atomic, Optical, and Plasma Physics 100 (2018), Chapter 5, §§5.1–5.3.2, Eqs. (5.1)–(5.27)
- David Tong, Quantum Field Theory, Cambridge Part III complete lecture notes, §0.1 Units and Scales
- X. Fan et al., Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment, Physical Review Letters 130, 071801 (2023), arXiv:2209.13084v2 (2022)
- L. S. Brown and G. Gabrielse, Geonium theory: Physics of a single electron or ion in a Penning trap, Reviews of Modern Physics 58 (1986), §II.A and §II.D
- Manuel Vogel, Particle Confinement in Penning Traps: An Introduction, Springer Series on Atomic, Optical, and Plasma Physics 100 (2018), Chapter 5