--
_____________________________
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
Law Office of Jay R. Yablon
910 Northumberland Drive
Schenectady, New York 12309-2814
Phone / Fax: 518-377-6737
Email:
"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
Jay R. Yablon says...

Dear friends:

I am just putting the finishing touches on the five-dimensional paper
which I have been working on intensively for the past several weeks,
and
which I have had in mind on and off for several years. I will be
doing
a final proofread tomorrow and posting it to my weblog, then trying to
get it journal-published in the near future. I wanted to give you
all,
and the commentariat at sci.physics.foundations, the first look at
this.

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...in-2-22-08.pdf

It is a long paper, but if you read the introduction, and more
importantly, the conclusion, you should have a pretty good roadmap to
help you navigate through in an efficient way.

I look forward to your comments

I think that the paper is good, except for one small point.
You speculate that the quantity

m d/dtau x_5

represents intrinsic spin. I don't believe that is correct. For
one thing, in your paper, it is already identified with electric
charge. This quantity is nonzero for any charged particle, whether
or not it has intrinsic spin.

Hi Daryl,

You are correct on this. If the electric charge q or a particle is
non-zero, then my (4.3) says that particle must have intrinsic spin.
Conversely, if a particle has no intrinsic spin, it must be neutral in
charge.

The question then turns experimental. Is there any charged particle
without intrinsic spin, i.e., a charged scalar? I don't think so, and,
for example, when SU(2) is broken in electroweak theory, the Higgs comes
out neutral. There are no charged scalars theorized or observed that I
am aware of (except for composites like scalar mesons but that is a
different story because you are canceling two intrinsic spins against
one another).

Your point actually cuts the opposite way: the biggest pain-in-the-butt
particle we know of -- the neutrino -- is neutral. But it has intrinsic
spin. That would seem to contradict my interpretation of (4.3). Need
to think on that. This also means that the neutrino is stationary in
x_5. That damned neutrino always screws up everything. ;-)


It *will* be quantized, because it represents momentum in
the x_5 direction. If the universe is cyclic in that
direction, then that means that any wave function must
be periodic in that direction, which means that the momentum
p_5 is quantized in units proportional to h-bar/(2 pi R)
where 2 pi R is the circumference in the x_5 direction.

Agreed, and an excellent observation.

This is a good example of how these internet groups can be used for
serious collaboration, and not just a forum for people to take out their
frustrations on each other. (I resisted more colorful language.)

What you doing in Ithaca? My son Joshua just graduated from Cornell
last year with a degree in -- what else -- engineering physics.

Jay.


--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Thanks Daryl,

You reply is an example of how great the internet is for scientific
collaboration, if we can get past the people who use these forums to
simply throw mud at each other.

I agree that m d/dtau x_5 is i