Distance Corresponding to the Length Contraction Associated with a Measure of Blackbody Radiation

Jody A. Geiger

Informativity Institute

Chicago, IL USA 60605

jodygeiger@informativity.org

ORCID: 0000-0001-5389-0447

ABSTRACT

We examine the count of fundamental lengths associated with the finite-count reduced Planck quantity in Measurement Quantization (MQ). The derivation distinguishes the dimensionless MQ coefficient from its momentum realization and distinguishes finite-count action from its upper-count value. Historical source calculations report a blackbody count of 84.6005496647(07) and a fundamental length of 1.6161999120(35) × 10⁻³⁵ m. These numerical values and uncertainty annotations are retained as source-reported results, rather than newly verified precision determinations. Charge-coupling and auxiliary elementary-charge constructions give nearby counts, using shared MQ relationships. Their numerical proximity is a comparison of shared model constructions; the reported uncertainties do not establish agreement between the counts. A ground-state orbital relation then connects the count correction with the inverse fine-structure forms. After substitution, the orbital length count multiplied by the electron mass count equals the dimensionless frame-normalization expression. This result preserves the distinction between physical measures and their count representation. The blackbody interpretation is adopted from the source model; the derivation does not establish a measured contraction of a radiation spectrum.

Keywords: Length Contraction, Blackbody Radiation, Planck, Count, Fundamental Measures, Demarcation

1. INTRODUCTION

We investigate the blackbody demarcation, the electromagnetic-demarcation count obtained from the source blackbody construction, as a calculated dimensionless length count ${\mathit{n}}_{\mathit{L}}$. The fundamental measures ${\mathit{l}}_{\mathit{f}}$, ${\mathit{m}}_{\mathit{f}}$ and ${\mathit{t}}_{\mathit{f}}$ have units m, kg and s, respectively; they are the MQ quantities distinguished from conventional Planck units [1] ([2], Appx. W). The symbol ${\mathit{p}}_{\mathit{s}\mathit{i}}$ denotes the momentum realization of the invariant MQ coefficient and has units kg m s⁻¹. Italic $\mathit{\hslash }$ denotes the finite-count reduced Planck quantity, with units J s; upright $\mathrm{ħ}$ denotes its upper-count value. Equation (1) expresses the count in terms of momentum, length and finite-count action. Its positive mathematical branch requires positive measures and finite-count action greater than twice the momentum–length product. The relation is developed below using the count-resolved gravitational expression ([2], Appx. C, AB). The association with blackbody radiation is a source-model interpretation, rather than a consequence of a temperature-dependent spectral calculation in this paper.

Equation (1) gives a count-dependent relationship within the MQ model. The charge-coupling and historical elementary-charge routes provide comparison values obtained from other source constructions. The source counts round to the same seven-significant-digit value. Their differences exceed the quoted uncertainty annotations, whose propagation is not established here. They are not statistically independent measurements. The role of realized separation and its count correction is addressed below ([2], Appx. D).

The Internal Frame is the discrete count configuration domain of MQ fundamental measures. The System Frame is the continuous relational representation of those configurations, in which observables are expressed. The Frames mapping connects these descriptions. The historical framework discussion appears in [2], Appx. K. These definitions are distinct from an observer’s conventional inertial reference frame. A choice of reference standards fixes the meaning of physical measures, while the MQ mapping specifies their realized representation. The framework and its proposed applications to physical constants are described in [3].

The Informativity differential is the MQ non-Lorentz contraction associated with realization of discrete count structure under the Frames mapping ([2], Appx. D). Its distinction from Lorentz contraction must be maintained. The historical relativistic framework is discussed in [4]. Here ${\mathit{Q}}_{\mathit{L}}$ is the dimensionless right-triangle residual entering the count geometry. Its product with the positive length count controls the finite-count correction, and twice that product tends to unity as the count increases. Equation (5) defines the residual explicitly. The present algebra does not independently demonstrate this contraction as an observed effect.

The associated dimensionless mass and time counts are denoted by ${\mathit{n}}_{\mathit{M}}$ and ${\mathit{n}}_{\mathit{T}}$ ([2], Appx. W). The quantity $\mathit{c}$ is the speed of light, with defined value 299,792,458 m s⁻¹. The relation between fundamental length and time is ${\mathit{l}}_{\mathit{f}}=\mathit{c}{\mathit{t}}_{\mathit{f}}$. The MQ account of countability uses the speed of light, gravitational curvature, escape velocity and quantum uncertainty as its starting context [5] ([2], Appx. W, AB, AE, AN). Section 2 identifies the source resources used here.

2. METHODS

Measurement Quantization expresses physical quantities in terms of fundamental measures, their counts and their realized relationships. We use the count-resolved gravitational and reduced-Planck expressions to derive the blackbody count, then compare the charge-coupling and historical elementary-charge routes. Published MQ applications supply broader context [2, 3, 6–10]; the present calculation establishes the algebraic relationships used in this paper.

The count assumptions, their derivations and the proposed evidence for them are presented in Measurement Quantization [2]. That work supplies the referenced appendices and fuller definitions. This paper uses those definitions to interpret the equations; it does not treat internal agreement among their consequences as a new experimental test. A preprint can also be found in Online Resources.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361148724_OnlineResources

Two supplementary spreadsheets accompany the source presentation. Suppl. 1 records calculations for the introductory paper and its appendices. Suppl. 2 records calculations for this paper and other MQ applications. The unrounded inputs, their correlations and the uncertainty-propagation calculation needed to reproduce the retained blackbody precision are not supplied here. The numerical tables preserve historical source reports; their uncertainty annotations are not adopted as validated uncertainties of this calculation.

3. RESULTS

1. Calculations

The dimensionless invariant MQ coefficient is denoted by ${\mathit{\theta }}_{\mathit{s}\mathit{i}}$. It must not be used as a dimensional momentum; the latter is ${\mathit{p}}_{\mathit{s}\mathit{i}}$, introduced before Eq. (1). The classical fine-structure form ${\mathit{\alpha }}_{\mathit{c}}$ is dimensionless. Its historical source value is 7.2973525693(11) × 10⁻³ [11]. Equation (2) relates it to the count geometry and the coefficient ([2], Appx. AA, AD). The mixed left-floor/right-ceiling brackets denote rounding to the nearest whole-unit value. They preserve the source rounding arguments; no exact half-unit tie is used in these calculations. Equation (3) gives the canonical momentum relationship to the fundamental measures and upper-count action. The 2011 X-ray paper calculates angular solutions for specified diamond-crystal geometry and photon energies [12]. The later studies examine down-conversion count rates [13] and X-ray/optical wave mixing [14]. These results supply the historical comparison context; they do not measure the momentum in Eq. (3).

Let $\mathit{r}$ denote realized separation, in m, with $\mathit{r}={\mathit{n}}_{\mathit{L}}{\mathit{l}}_{\mathit{f}}$. Italic $\mathit{G}$ is the finite-count gravitational coupling and upright $\mathrm{G}$ its upper-count value, both in m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻². Equation (4) first uses the finite-count coupling and then its upper-count limit; those symbols must remain distinct. Equation (5) specifies the positive-count geometry required to rearrange the finite-count relation ([2], Appx. C).

Combining the finite-count gravitational and reduced-Planck expressions gives the substitution in Eq. (6). This is a relation between the corresponding finite-count quantities, rather than an instruction to mix a finite-count action with upper-count coupling ([2], Appx. C, AB). Rearrangement gives Eq. (7). For positive length count, multiplying by the residual gives Eq. (8); squaring and expanding gives Eq. (9). Cancellation yields Eq. (10), and the positive root yields Eq. (11). The positivity restriction stated before Eq. (1) excludes a zero or negative radical denominator.

Equations (12)–(14) retain the reported historical count, its corresponding length and the residual-count product ([2], Appx. AB). Their numerical values and parenthetical uncertainties are source annotations, not a new uncertainty calculation. The count and length are finite-source evaluations; they are not universal photon wavelengths or independent laboratory observations. The residual-count product is the quantity used in the Informativity differential comparison ([2], Appx. D). The residual-count product follows from Eq. (5), but the quoted uncertainty in Eq. (14) is not reproduced by propagating the count uncertainty in Eq. (12) alone.

2. Source Comparisons

The distinction between finite-count and upper-count action is explicit in Eq. (15). The finite quantity is the momentum–length product divided by the residual-count product. At the upper-count limit that product tends to one half, giving the upright action quantity in Eq. (3). This limiting step is essential; replacing the finite action by its upper-count value in Eq. (1) would remove the finite solution.

Eliminating the momentum–length product using Eq. (3) gives Eq. (16). The numerator and subtracted action are the upright upper-count quantity; the remaining action factors are finite-count quantities. Equation (16) is therefore a second expression for the same positive count, rather than a subtraction of two identical constants.

The difference between finite-count and upper-count action encodes the same count normalization used in Eq. (15). Table 1 retains a historical comparison with conventional Planck-unit calculations and the 2010 values recommended by the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA). The quotient column uses historical source calibration and has momentum units; it is not a current numerical definition of the invariant coefficient or momentum realization. The infinity entry denotes the upper count limit.

Table 1. Historical Planck-unit comparison for finite-count and upper-count reduced Planck evaluations. Numerical data from [2], Table AB.1; historical numerical values and unvalidated source uncertainty annotations retained.

a The historical calculations use the upper-count gravitational coupling. The quotient column divides the corresponding reduced Planck quantity by twice the fixed source fundamental length. The result has momentum units. The Planck-form lengths in the other column are separate calculations.

b Historical 2010 CODATA comparison [15].

Equation (17) supplies the dimensionless charge-coupling count relation ([2], Appx. AE). Equation (18) supplies the historical elementary-charge comparison ([2], Appx. AN). Here ${\mathit{e}}_{\mathit{c}}$ denotes elementary charge in C, and $\mathit{\gamma }$ is the auxiliary transformation parameter with units m⁶ C⁻² s⁻⁴. The count in each route is evaluated with that route’s source inputs. Nearby values do not make the charge-coupling and blackbody numerical results interchangeable. In the revised International System of Units (SI), the elementary charge and Planck constant have exact defined values [11]. A historical calculation of charge is therefore a comparison with a defined value, not a new measurement of that defining constant.

The historical gamma approach uses an auxiliary electromagnetic constant ([2], Appx. AR, AS). The symbols ${\mathit{\epsilon }}_0$, ${\mathit{\mu }}_0$ and ${\mathit{k}}_{\mathit{e}}$ denote vacuum permittivity in F m⁻¹, vacuum permeability in N A⁻² and Coulomb’s constant in N m² C⁻². Equations (19)–(21) express the same auxiliary parameter using these related constants and the upper-count gravitational coupling. Their quoted numerical annotations are retained from the source. This auxiliary gamma is not identified with the later fundamental realization factor. The earlier elementary-charge construction is discussed in [2], Appx. AM. Here $\mathit{\pi }$ denotes the dimensionless circle constant.

Equation (22) rearranges the same historical relation to solve for elementary charge. The gamma units make its right side a charge. Table 2 records the source calculations obtained from the three demarcation routes and three related electromagnetic inputs. These columns are cross-consistency calculations, rather than independent determinations of charge. The historical elementary-charge row label uses the standard SI charge symbol for the same quantity introduced before Eq. (18).

Table 2. Historical elementary-charge calculations from the demarcation counts and auxiliary gamma inputs. Numerical data from [2], Table AS.1; numerical values retained with unvalidated source uncertainty annotations.

a The associated count is solved using the fine-structure source and defined SI elementary charge [11].

The historical gamma route depends on auxiliary source quantities rather than fundamental measures alone. Vacuum permittivity, permeability and Coulomb’s constant are algebraically related, so agreement among the three columns of Table 2 is expected. It does not establish three independent experimental validations. The table compares the retained source construction using related inputs; it does not independently establish closure at the quoted precision.

The common count structure can be expressed through the dimensionless marker ${\mathit{n}}_{\mathit{\theta }}$, the System Frame count associated with the coefficient and adjusted for the metric differential ([2], Appx. T). The metric differential describes the discrete–continuous representation mismatch; here it concerns the coefficient-weighted marker and its nearest-whole-unit realization. Equation (23) evaluates the source nearest-whole-unit marker at 42. This marker organizes the frame-normalization expression used in the fine-structure forms; it is not a separate physical distance or a momentum.

A calculated noninteger demarcation count represents realized separation in the System Frame. It should not be confused with an independent primitive integer configuration of the Internal Frame. Equation (23) applies the declared nearest-whole-unit operation to obtain the corresponding marker. The following orbital comparison uses that normalization and the residual-count correction separately.

The source nomenclature distinguishes the dimensionless fundamental and Planck-like fine-structure forms ${\mathit{\alpha }}_{\mathit{f}}$ and ${\mathit{\alpha }}_{\mathit{p}}$ from the classical form already introduced ([2], Appx. AA). These are the discrete Internal Frame, intermediate continuous System Frame and classically realized forms, respectively. The marker contribution enters the fundamental form; the metric differential enters the Planck-like form; and the Informativity differential connects the latter to the classical form ([2], Appx. T, D). In Table 3, ${\mathit{m}}_{\mathit{e}}$ is electron mass in kg and ${\mathit{a}}_0$ the Bohr radius in m. Table 3 retains the source comparison. Its values describe the specified historical inputs and do not by themselves constitute a new precision agreement test. The Planck-like form is an MQ-defined combination using MQ fundamental measures, not a separately recommended CODATA constant. The Bohr radius and electron mass in the CODATA adjustment are correlated derived quantities [11].

Table 3. Historical fundamental, Planck-like and classical inverse fine-structure comparisons. Numerical data from [2], Table AA.1; historical difference annotations retained without a validated uncertainty calculation.

a The input-comparison column reproduces the source calculation using 2018 CODATA information [11] and MQ measures. Only the classical inverse fine-structure value is directly recommended by CODATA. The angular-comparison column reproduces the MQ source conversion of [12], not a measured inverse fine-structure constant. The reported difference column does not establish exact equality or zero uncertainty.

For the ground-state orbital comparison, ${\mathit{n}}_{\mathit{L}\mathit{a}}$ denotes the dimensionless orbital length count, with ${\mathit{a}}_0={\mathit{n}}_{\mathit{L}\mathit{a}}{\mathit{l}}_{\mathit{f}}$. The local symbol ${\mathit{n}}_{\mathit{m}}$ specifies the dimensionless electron instance of the fundamental mass count, ${\mathit{n}}_{\mathit{m}}={\mathit{m}}_{\mathit{e}}/{\mathit{m}}_{\mathit{f}}$; it is distinct from the generic mass count in Eq. (30). Equation (24) uses the momentum realization to express the orbital radius ([2], Appx. BL). Equation (25) writes that radius as a count of fundamental lengths. Equation (3) then gives the momentum–time product needed for the first equality of Eq. (26). Substituting the inverse fine-structure relation from Eq. (2) cancels the residual-count factor in its second equality. Equation (27) follows by multiplying by the electron mass count. Using Eq. (15) and the fundamental length–time relation, Eq. (24) reduces to the conventional Bohr-radius relationship listed in [11]. It is a characteristic Coulomb length scale, rather than a measured electron trajectory or an independent test of atomic stability.

Equation (27) relates the orbital length count and electron mass count to the dimensionless frame-normalization expression. The residual-count factor has canceled after the preceding substitution; it is not an additional multiplier on the left side. The equation therefore does not equate the orbital count with the demarcation count. Their relationship is mediated by the fine-structure and orbital expressions already used.

Every quantity in Eq. (27) is dimensionless. The coefficient is not the momentum realization, even though the latter entered the dimensional orbital relation. Cancellation of fundamental measures produces a count representation of that relation. It does not establish that physical measures, angle and momentum share the same dimensions.

4. DISCUSSION

The equations give a consistent symbolic expression for the blackbody count and distinguish finite-count action from its upper-count value. The retained source calculations place the blackbody, charge-coupling and historical elementary-charge counts near the same interaction scale. Their shared inputs and count geometry permit a comparison within MQ, but the retained uncertainty annotations do not establish precision agreement. The symbolic result is conditional on the MQ finite-count relationships and does not independently establish an observed blackbody contraction.

Equations (28) and (29) collect two constraints already used. The former repeats the dimensionless charge-coupling relation, and the latter repeats the nearest-whole-unit marker. They organize the allowed source count description without establishing a new measured universal parameter.

Equation (28) refers to the charge-coupling construction ([2], Appx. AC); Eq. (29) refers to the marker associated with the metric differential ([2], Appx. T). Equation (30) expresses the MQ escape-speed restriction for positive length and mass counts in the source escape model ([2], Appx. G, H). Equality is the boundary and is excluded by the strict inequality. The length and mass counts in Eq. (30) refer to source separation and gravitating source mass in that escape model. Equation (31) instead rearranges the ground-state orbital relation for the interaction length count, with the residual evaluated at that same count. This is not the orbital-radius count introduced before Eq. (24).

These constraints have different roles. The escape condition restricts the positive count ratio in its stated domain, while the orbital expression relates an atomic radius to the source fine-structure and momentum quantities. Varying model parameters would require preserving those dependencies and the fundamental length–time relation. These equations alone do not establish the full range of atomic stability or a measured change in the speed of light.

5. APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: TERMS

The historical MQ term and keyword glossary appears in Measurement Quantization [2], Appx. BQ. This appendix indexes notation introduced in the paper and distinguishes historical source context from the current representation definitions.

${\mathit{\theta }}_{\mathit{s}\mathit{i}}$ is introduced before Eq. (2), and ${\mathit{p}}_{\mathit{s}\mathit{i}}$ before Eq. (1). The angular realization ${\mathit{\Theta }}_{\mathit{s}\mathit{i}}$ carries radians and is assigned the coefficient through the MQ angular realization map. The source-specific X-ray comparison and its evidential limits are described before Eq. (3) [12–14]. Questions concerning conserved quantities in general relativity [16] are a different physical setting and are not used here as a dimensional identification between angle and mass.

$\mathit{c}$ and the fundamental length–time relation are introduced in Sec. 1. The defined SI speed of light is also listed in [11]; that source does not establish the MQ count mapping.

$\mathit{G}$ and $\mathrm{G}$ are introduced before Eq. (4). Their typography distinguishes finite-count and upper-count coupling throughout the equations. The source numerical calibration is historical.

${\mathit{l}}_{\mathit{f}}$, ${\mathit{m}}_{\mathit{f}}$ and ${\mathit{t}}_{\mathit{f}}$ are introduced before Eq. (1), together with their units.

The conventional Planck units ${\mathit{l}}_{\mathit{p}}$, ${\mathit{m}}_{\mathit{p}}$ and ${\mathit{t}}_{\mathit{p}}$ denote length, mass and time quantities in m, kg and s. Table 1 retains the source comparison with those units.

${\mathit{n}}_{\mathit{L}}$, ${\mathit{n}}_{\mathit{M}}$ and ${\mathit{n}}_{\mathit{T}}$ are introduced in Sec. 1 as dimensionless counts associated with the fundamental measures.

The length count in the radial expressions uses the realized separation $\mathit{r}$ introduced before Eq. (4).

A radial separation referred to a center of mass uses the same length-count symbol; no second radial-count subscript is retained.

${\mathit{n}}_{\mathit{L}\mathit{c}}$ denotes the dimensionless length count associated with a change in the position of light in the source nomenclature.

${\mathit{n}}_{\mathit{\theta }}$ and the metric differential are introduced before Eq. (23). The numerical marker is a nearest-whole-unit count, not a physical momentum.

The mixed rounding convention is introduced before Eq. (2). Ordinary floor and ceiling retain their standard meanings when used separately.

${\mathit{Q}}_{\mathit{L}}$ is introduced in Sec. 1 and defined explicitly by Eq. (5), for positive length count.

The Informativity differential and its residual-count normalization are explained in Sec. 1 and used in the finite-count action and orbital comparisons.

$\mathit{\hslash }$ and $\mathrm{ħ}$ are introduced before Eq. (1). Equations (3), (15) and (16) distinguish their momentum relationships and count limits. Numerical action values in the retained tables remain historical source annotations.

${\mathit{m}}_{\mathit{e}}$ is introduced with Table 3, and the electron mass count before Eq. (24).

${\mathit{a}}_0$ is introduced with Table 3, and its orbital length count before Eq. (24).

The three fine-structure forms are distinguished in Sec. 3 and Table 3. Their coefficient normalization is distinct from the momentum realization.

$\mathit{\gamma }$ and its units are introduced before Eq. (18). Equations (19)–(22) use the historical auxiliary construction; its source inputs and dependence are discussed with Table 2.

STATEMENTS AND DECLARATIONS

The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

The author has no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

DATA AVAILABILITY

The historical numerical calculations are associated with the supplementary spreadsheets described in [2]. The unrounded input and joint uncertainty records needed to reproduce their stated precision are not supplied in this manuscript.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Planck, Über irreversible Strahlungsvorgänge, fünfte Mitteilung, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1899, I, pp. 440–480.

[2] J.A. Geiger, Measurement Quantization, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 20(04), 2350069, CC BY 4.0 (Jan. 2023), doi: 10.1142/S021988782350069X.

[3] J.A. Geiger, Measurement Quantization Describes the Physical Constants, Int. J. Theor. Math. Phys., 11(1), pp. 29-59 (Jan 2021), doi:10.5923/j.ijtmp.20211101.03.

[4] A. Einstein, Die formale Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, pp. 1030–1085 (1914). English translation in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 6, The Berlin Years: Writings, 1914–1917, Doc. 9, pp. 30–84. Reprint doi:10.1002/3527608958.ch2.

[5] Heisenberg, W., Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, Zeitschrift für Physik, 43 (3–4): 172–198 (1927), Bibcode:1927ZPhy.43.172H, doi:10.1007/BF01397280, S2CID 122763326.

[6] J.A. Geiger, Measurement Quantization Unites Classical and Quantum Physics, J. High Energy Phys. Gravit. Cosmol., Vol. 4, No. 2, 262–311 (Apr 2018). https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2018.42019.

[7] J.A. Geiger, Quantum Model of Gravity Unifies Relativistic Effects, Describes Inflation/Expansion Transition, Matches CMB Data, J. High Energy Phys. Gravit. Cosmol., Vol. 4, No. 4 (Oct 2018). https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2018.44038.

[8] J.A. Geiger, Measurement Quantization Describes Galactic Rotational Velocities, Obviates Dark Matter Conjecture, J. High Energy Phys. Gravit. Cosmol., Vol. 5, No. 2 (Apr 2019). https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2019.52028.

[9] J.A. Geiger, Physical Significance of Measure, J. High Energy Phys. Gravit. Cosmol., Vol. 6, No. 1 (Jan 2020). https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2020.61008.

[10] J.A. Geiger, Measurement Quantization Describes History of Universe – Quantum Inflation, Transition to Expansion, CMB Power Spectrum, J. High Energy Phys. Gravit. Cosmol., Vol. 6, No. 2 (Apr 2020). https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2020.62015.

[11]E. Tiesinga, P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell and B. N. Taylor, CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2018, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025010 (2021), doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93.025010.

[12] S. Shwartz and S. E. Harris, Polarization Entangled Photons at X-Ray Energies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 080501 (2011), arXiv: 1012.3499, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.080501.

[13] S. Shwartz, R. N. Coffee, J. M. Feldkamp, et. al., X-ray Parametric Down-Conversion in the Langevin Regime, Physical Review Letters, 109, 013602 (July 6, 2012), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.013602.

[14] T. E. Glover et al., X-ray and optical wave mixing, Nature, 488, 7413, 603–608 (2012), doi:10.1038/nature11340.

[15]P. J. Mohr, B. N. Taylor and D. B. Newell, CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2010, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1527–1605 (2012), doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.84.1527; arXiv:1203.5425.

[16] Po-Ning Chen, Mu-Tao Wang, Ye-Kai Wang and Shing-Tung Yau, Conserved quantities in general relativity – the view from null infinity, in The Physics and Mathematics of Elliott Lieb, The 90th Anniversary Volume I, pp. 211–224 (EMS Press, 2022), doi:10.4171/90-1/9; arXiv:2204.04010.