On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 19:49:41 -0500, "Jay R. Yablon"
wrote:

Hmmm. I got both files fine, from the links in your email. Philo, Let
me know at the email address below, if you'd like me to email the files
to you. Jay.

[Hammond]
Both files worked fine for me, not a problem. I do have
a brief comment on your photon-spin result however.
First, my physics education stopped in the middle of
Bjorken & Drell 30 years ago so I am a rank amateur in this
discussion.
Nevertheless, it appears to me that you have superimposed
a semiclassical quantum calculation on Kluza-Klein (K-K) to
show that quantum spin CAN be interpreted as literal mass
circulation in the 5th K-K dimension and that the
compactification radius of said dimension is near the Planck
length. This in itself is an absolutely electrifying and
previously unknown result. It means that quantum spin is an
actual experimental measurement of the otherwise
undetectable 5th K-K dimension!
However, there seems to be a problem with massless or
chargeless particles, e.g. the photon and the neutrino. The
calculation doesn't seem to work for neutrinos, and gives
the uncomfortable result that the compactification radius
for a photon is it's wavelength. Uncomfortable since all
theorists (1920 and onwards) predict the compactification
radius of higher dimensions generally to be "extremely
small"... in fact on the order of the Planck length. Low
frequency e.m. waves have wavelengths of meters or even
kilometers... this is counter to prevailing opinion and
suggests that such a 5th dimension would somehow be
physically observable.
Since GR and Maxwell are both completely classical
theories, and since GR is founded on mass and Maxwell is
founded on charge, could it be that your QM/K-K calculation
actually fails in the case of chargeless or massless
particles? This would mean that the QM/K-K result is
CORRECT for charged spin 1/2 leptons such as the electron,
but that actually there are OTHER more complicated
quantum-gravity mechanisms at work that make the explanation
of massless/chargeless spin too complicated for a simple
semiclassical QM/K-K model!
After all, K-K only contains ONE additional dimension,
and they now think quantum gravity involves 10 or more
dimensions.
Could it be, that your QM/K-K explanation of intrinsic
spin is sort of a:
"Bohr Model of Quantum Gravity"
which amazingly DOES explain "intrinsic spin" as the
circulation of mass in the 5th dimension for simple charged
mass particles..in particular the electron, but just like
the Bohr Model failed for complicated atoms, a more complex
full blown quantum-gravity theory is needed to derive the
spin of the chargeless and massless particles.
I would certainly put your result for the photon in a
footnote, unless you think a compactification radius of 100
meters can somehow be compellingly explained. Otherwise,
Like the Bohr Model, I wouldn't expect that such an
astoundingly simple model could be expected to provide a
completely detailed theory of intrinsic spin.... after all,
simply explaining the intrinsic spin of the electron is
enough to make front page news in Science magazine!
Regards,
G. Hammond