On Feb 22, 1:01 pm, "Jay R. Yablon" wrote:
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"Jay R. Yablon" wrote in message
...
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.
. . .
Looks fine to me Jay. Good work and thanks for posting it.
The problem with Kaluza Klein is not that it does not unify gravity
and EM - it is the cylinder assumption. This imposes U(1) symmetry
which is known to be the basis of EM. Basically you have assumed EM
to start with. But good work anyway - it is becoming obvious it will
probably form part of future progress eg:
http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~wesson/
Thanks
Bill
Thanks Bill,
Nice to hear something good amidst all the skepticism and cynicism.
I am certainly foursquare in tune with the Space-Time-Matter STM crowd
that is looking at Kaluza-Klein to unify EM and GR and at the same time,
give rise to matter out of the fifth dimension. What has been a bit of
a surprise to me, it the vehemence with which some people are dead set
against this approach.
Best,
Jay.
To Jay, Charles and all.
(I posted this to SPF as well).
On Feb 22, 3:07 pm, Oh No wrote:
Thus spake Jay R. Yablon
To my physics 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
the first look at this, and am taking the liberty of directly emailing
to some folks as well as posting to SPF.
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 believe that this paper fully and
completely unifies gravitation and electrodynamics, and in the scheme of
things, will be as significant in the 21st century, as GTR 1916 was in
the 20th.
Just how do you propose to describe Dirac particles, or any of qed in
five dimensions.
To emphasis Charle's point...
I studied 5D in the 70's for about 3 years, but could
not quite coordinate with physical reality that ultimately
requires descriptions in 4D. I learned a lot of hard math
doing that but I also learned to prefer to use mathematics
to follow hard physics, here's an interesting article,
http://www.artfact.com/catalog/viewL...tCode=0WYUY4JM
(I ended up burning over 2000 pg's of notes on 5D,
my Old Boy almost freaked, but I explained that was
a finished mathematical exercize, obviously Jay has
far more mathematical talent than I'll possess, so my
experience may not be relevent).
I found the mathematics of 5D to be quite beautiful,
and mesmerizing, so much so, I went on to study
tensors allowing the indices to be variables, without
fixing the specific dimensionality.
(I posted on the "Calculus Field" to show the basis
of that, and that fits very well with GR).
I noted that Jay's Eq.(9.7) is equivalent to AE's
GR1916 Eq.(66) and the one following it, (66+).
The equation (66+) depends upon the vanishing of
the Lorentz Force, however Jay bases his reasoning
on his Eq.(2.6), that implies to me a non-vanishing
Lorentz Force, which is a contradiction in my mind.
Regards
Charles Francis
http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/MainIndex
Regards
Ken S. Tucker