Hello to all:

As I mentioned previously, DRL earlier pointed out some problems endemic to
general relativity with respect to volume integrations of energy / momentum
in spacetime, and Igor had some comments regarding connections I was
attempting to make between general relativity and quantum mechanics, on SPR.

As a consequence of these extremely helpful comments, I have prepared a
draft paper which I believe begins to address these issues. It is posted on
my web site at http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm, the title is:
"Is Quantum Mechanics a Consequence of Requiring The Laws of Nature in
Integral Form to be Invariant Under Special and General Coordinate
Transformations?" A direct link is below:

http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/Papers/...20and%20GR.pdf

I would appreciate any comments you may have on this draft paper.

Very truly yours,

Jay R. Yablon
_____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email:

$ Dear YAB-a-dab-a-dooOP..
"Is Quantum Mechanics a Consequence of Requiring The Laws
of Nature in Integral Form to be Invariant Under Special
and General Coordinate Transformations?" doesn't include
..within it, "The Laws of Nature" alluded-to, dimwit.?!

You DiD NOT SHOW "The Laws of NATURE" ..in iNTEGRAL FORM, idiot.!!

brian a m stuckless


Jay R. Yablon wrote: Hello to all:
As I mentioned previously, DRL earlier pointed out some problems
endemic to general relativity with respect to volume integrations
of energy / momentum in spacetime, and Igor had some comments
regarding connections I was attempting to make between general
relativity and quantum mechanics, on SPR.

As a consequence of these extremely helpful comments, I have
prepared a draft paper which I believe begins to address these
issues. It is posted on my web site at http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm, the title is:
"Is Quantum Mechanics a Consequence of Requiring The Laws of
Nature in Integral Form to be Invariant Under Special and General
Coordinate Transformations?" A direct link is below:

http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/Papers/...20and%20GR.pdf

I would appreciate any comments you may have on this draft paper.

Very truly yours,

Jay R. Yablon
_____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email: .
Posted Draft Paper: Is Quantum Mechanics a Consequence of Requiring
The Laws of Nature in Integral Form to be Invariant Under Special and
General Coordinate Transformations?

Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Hello to all:

As I mentioned previously, DRL earlier pointed out some problems endemic to
general relativity with respect to volume integrations of energy / momentum
in spacetime, and Igor had some comments regarding connections I was
attempting to make between general relativity and quantum mechanics, on SPR.

As a consequence of these extremely helpful comments, I have prepared a
draft paper which I believe begins to address these issues. It is posted on
my web site at http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm, the title is:
"Is Quantum Mechanics a Consequence of Requiring The Laws of Nature in
Integral Form to be Invariant Under Special and General Coordinate
Transformations?" A direct link is below:

http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/Papers/...20and%20GR.pdf

I would appreciate any comments you may have on this draft paper.

Very truly yours,

Jay R. Yablon
_____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email:

Mr. Yablon has been kind enough to explain his theory to me,
and I would like to render my interpretation, at a lower order,
but still quite sophisticated.

I'll use mathematics "phenomenalogically" as opposed to rigorous.

Lets' look at a simple function, (h= action),

f(x) = h sin x,

and take the 4th derivative to get,

f^4 (x) = h sin x' ,

where x' = x + 1 cycle,

and a "cycle" is an invariant.

We then find the 4th derivative produces "1 invariant cycle".

OK, let's do a 4D integral like,

$ h dV(4) == h x^4 + h sin x (K1)

Now this is where the smart stuff kicks in,

d^4 (h x^4 + sinx) = h + sin x' + 1 cycle.

Please note, the sin x remains, aside from incrementing
a "local" time cycle, from sin x to sin x' through the 4
derivatives, that advances the phase 360.

In that process, the

h x^4 = h + 1 cycle = h + 1 quantum,

where that 1 quantum is in action dimensions, = "h".

Physically, I imagine, a capacitance of Action, stored
in a 4D volume given by,

h x^4 + h sin x

becomes

h + h sin x' + (1 quanta = 1 cycle),

when an upper orbital electron "falls" to a lower orbital.

IMO, Mr. Yablon has interfaced (K1) above to the
Principles of General Relativity, by fully respecting the
Principle of General Covariance, and as I show by this
essay, phenomenalogically, and feel confident we will
snug it up rigorously.

To summarize then,
IMO, the phenomenology above indicates a solution.

Ken S. Tucker

"Jay R. Yablon" wrote in message
...
Hello to all:

As I mentioned previously, DRL earlier pointed out some problems endemic
to
general relativity with respect to volume integrations of energy /
momentum
in spacetime, and Igor had some comments regarding connections I was
attempting to make between general relativity and quantum mechanics, on
SPR.

As a consequence of these extremely helpful comments, I have prepared a
draft paper which I believe begins to address these issues. It is posted
on
my web site at http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm, the title is:
"Is Quantum Mechanics a Consequence of Requiring The Laws of Nature in
Integral Form to be Invariant Under Special and General Coordinate
Transformations?" A direct link is below:

http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/Papers/...20and%20GR.pdf

I would appreciate any comments you may have on this draft paper.

'Here, we take up this challenge, to demonstrate if one demands that the
laws of nature
in integral formulation over finite, non-infinitesimal regions of spacetime
be invariant under
special and general coordinate transformations, that a careful and
deliberate application of these
principles of invariance, expressed in integral form, leads naturally and
unequivocally to the
fundamental tenets of quantum mechanics, and that the Heisenberg principle
of "uncertainty" is
in fact a direct consequence of the integral formulation of the principles
special and general
invariance. In short, quantum mechanics is a phenomenon deriving directly
from special and
general relativity, when carefully developed in an integral rather than
differential formulation.'

The fundamental tenants of QM were laid down by von Neumann in his
Mathematical Foundations of QM. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not
a fundamental tenant of QM - it is a consequence of those tenants. Nowhere
in your analysis can I find a derivation of the second axiom of QM; namely
the collapse of a wavefuntion which says if a system is in a normalized
state q and you observe it to see if it is in normalized state p then it
will be found to be in state p with probability |q|p|^2 or in a state r
orthogonal to p such that q = p + r with a probability 1 - |q|p|^2.
Indeed I can not find a derivation that a systems state forms a Hilbert
space which is the first axiom.

Bill


Very truly yours,

Jay R. Yablon
_____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email:

The fundamental tenants of QM were laid down by von Neumann in his
Mathematical Foundations of QM. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is
not a fundamental tenant of QM - it is a consequence of those tenants.
Nowhere in your analysis can I find a derivation of the second axiom of
QM; namely the collapse of a wavefuntion which says if a system is in a
normalized state q and you observe it to see if it is in normalized state
p then it will be found to be in state p with probability |q|p|^2 or
in a state r orthogonal to p such that q = p + r with a probability
1 - |q|p|^2. Indeed I can not find a derivation that a systems state
forms a Hilbert space which is the first axiom.

Bill

Thanks Bill.

Rather than quibble over where the uncertainty principle fits into the
overall scheme of quantum mechanics or the historical chain of development,
let's cut to the chase.

Would be it a positive step forward if one could find a clear and direct
link between general relativity and the uncertainty principle? If so, I am
happy not to use the phrase "quantum mechanics" anywhere in my paper, and to
refer only to the uncertainty principle.

I don't always use the right words for the mathematical connections I find.
But I think the math hangs together and clearly marries GR and Heisenberg.
Please help me find the right words.

Jay.



Very truly yours,

Jay R. Yablon
_____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email:

"Jay R. Yablon" wrote in message
...
The fundamental tenants of QM were laid down by von Neumann in his
Mathematical Foundations of QM. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is
not a fundamental tenant of QM - it is a consequence of those tenants.
Nowhere in your analysis can I find a derivation of the second axiom of
QM; namely the collapse of a wavefuntion which says if a system is in a
normalized state q and you observe it to see if it is in normalized
state p then it will be found to be in state p with probability
|q|p|^2 or in a state r orthogonal to p such that q = p + r with
a probability 1 - |q|p|^2. Indeed I can not find a derivation that a
systems state forms a Hilbert space which is the first axiom.

Bill

Thanks Bill.

Rather than quibble over where the uncertainty principle fits into the
overall scheme of quantum mechanics or the historical chain of
development, let's cut to the chase.

Would be it a positive step forward if one could find a clear and direct
link between general relativity and the uncertainty principle?

It may be interesting if you did it (and I have my doubts that it is
possible - but I will leave that to those that enjoy nutting out such
things - I do not ) but IMHO it would not necessarily be a step forward
because QM contains a lot more than the uncertainty principle. And the
Kochen-Specker theorem proves QM can not and never can be derived from a
classical theory that has value definiteness and non contextuality - both of
which GR has at its foundations.

If so, I am happy not to use the phrase "quantum mechanics" anywhere in my
paper, and to refer only to the uncertainty principle.

That would probably be wise.


I don't always use the right words for the mathematical connections I
find. But I think the math hangs together and clearly marries GR and
Heisenberg. Please help me find the right words.


Something along the lines of Do connections between the HUP and GR exist?

Thanks
Bill


Jay.



Very truly yours,

Jay R. Yablon
_____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email:

Would be it a positive step forward if one could find a clear and direct
link between general relativity and the uncertainty principle?

It may be interesting if you did it (and I have my doubts that it is
possible - but I will leave that to those that enjoy nutting out such
things - I do not ) but IMHO it would not necessarily be a step forward
because QM contains a lot more than the uncertainty principle. And the
Kochen-Specker theorem proves QM can not and never can be derived from a
classical theory that has value definiteness and non contextuality - both
of which GR has at its foundations.

That is where I am going with this paper. I am coming around (thanks to
several folks who have constructively critiqued my work here and in SPR) to
realizing that GR has an inherent problem such that when one tries to take
certain integral quantities (such as the integral of an energy tensor
divergence), that the resulting first rank, four-component object of
integration (I refrain from calling it a vector) appears at the very least
to be dependent on measurement context because it becomes dependent on
coordinate system / frame of reference, and may therefore also not possess
what one can regard as a *definite* value.

That is, GR *appears* to have "value definiteness and non contextuality . .
.. at its foundations," but when it is pushed toward integration of tensor
densities in curved spacetime, we find that there are no *objective* values
for the integral results, because these results are inherently-observer
dependent and cannot be made otherwise.

So, I am inclined to agree that "QM can not and never can be derived from a
classical theory that has value definiteness and non contextuality," but I
think that what I am coming to realize is that when one tries to integrate
local tensor densities over a finite region of spacetime, that GR itself
yields results that are at least observer-dependent and thus contextual.

Thus, as between GR and HUP, in my view, it is GR that meets HUP partway
down the road, as a result of the problem of integrating tensor densities.
My draft at http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/Papers/...20and%20GR.pdf
has the mathematical details of why I have formed this view.

Thanks again Bill.

Jay.

"Jay R. Yablon" wrote in message
...
Would be it a positive step forward if one could find a clear and direct
link between general relativity and the uncertainty principle?

It may be interesting if you did it (and I have my doubts that it is
possible - but I will leave that to those that enjoy nutting out such
things - I do not ) but IMHO it would not necessarily be a step forward
because QM contains a lot more than the uncertainty principle. And the
Kochen-Specker theorem proves QM can not and never can be derived from a
classical theory that has value definiteness and non contextuality - both
of which GR has at its foundations.

That is where I am going with this paper. I am coming around (thanks to
several folks who have constructively critiqued my work here and in SPR)
to realizing that GR has an inherent problem such that when one tries to
take certain integral quantities (such as the integral of an energy tensor
divergence), that the resulting first rank, four-component object of
integration (I refrain from calling it a vector) appears at the very least
to be dependent on measurement context because it becomes dependent on
coordinate system / frame of reference, and may therefore also not possess
what one can regard as a *definite* value.

That is, GR *appears* to have "value definiteness and non contextuality .
. . at its foundations," but when it is pushed toward integration of
tensor densities in curved spacetime, we find that there are no
*objective* values for the integral results, because these results are
inherently-observer dependent and cannot be made otherwise.

So, I am inclined to agree that "QM can not and never can be derived from
a classical theory that has value definiteness and non contextuality," but
I think that what I am coming to realize is that when one tries to
integrate local tensor densities over a finite region of spacetime, that
GR itself yields results that are at least observer-dependent and thus
contextual.

Thus, as between GR and HUP, in my view, it is GR that meets HUP partway
down the road, as a result of the problem of integrating tensor densities.
My draft at http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/Papers/...20and%20GR.pdf
has the mathematical details of why I have formed this view.

Thanks again Bill.

No problem Jay. I must admit to being skeptical about some of your ideas
but will wait and see the detail.

Thanks
Bill



Jay.

"Jay R. Yablon" wrote in message
...
The fundamental tenants of QM



Tenants! ROFLMAO!

Tenet:
a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one
held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession

Tenant:
one who has the occupation or temporary possession of lands or tenements of
another; specifically : one who rents or leases (as a house) from a landlord

Lieutenant:
a commissioned officer in the navy or coast guard ranking above a
lieutenant junior grade and below a lieutenant commander.

in lieu of : in the place of : instead of

A tenant in place of a tenet is a lieutenet

I wonder why anyone would claim to have written that.
Maybe some idiot snipped in the wrong place.
Androcles.

Androcles wrote: "Jay R. Yablon" wrote
in message ...
The fundamental tenants of QM

Tenants! ROFLMAO!

Go-go Google GROUP SEARCH The EVERLASTiNG GODspell .

Tenet:
a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one
held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession

Tenant:
one who has the occupation or temporary possession of lands or tenements of
another; specifically : one who rents or leases (as a house) from a landlord

Lieutenant:
a commissioned officer in the navy or coast guard ranking above a
lieutenant junior grade and below a lieutenant commander.

in lieu of : in the place of : instead of

A tenant in place of a tenet is a lieutenet

I wonder why anyone would claim to have written that.
Maybe some idiot snipped in the wrong place.
Androcles.

$ My Ka-Nada nada nada ..question
The GOVERNOR GENERAL, COMMANDER-in-CHiEF, of Ka-Nada nada nada is:
1. Military Chief jEAN.
2. Military Chief Hillier.

brian a m stuckless