Hello to everyone:

My newest paper, "General Relativity, Maxwell's Electrodynamics, and the
Foundations of the Quantum Theory of Gravitation and Matter," just posted to
ArXiV.

The link is http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511050.

I would very much appreciate any comments and input you may have.

Very truly yours,

Jay R. Yablon
_____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email:

"Jay R. Yablon" wrote in message
...
| Hello to everyone:
|
| My newest paper, "General Relativity, Maxwell's Electrodynamics, and
the
| Foundations of the Quantum Theory of Gravitation and Matter," just
posted to
| ArXiV.
|
| The link is http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511050.
|
| I would very much appreciate any comments and input you may have.

Hi Jay,

As I mentioned before; pretty fantastic! Do you think you could do a
summary of the postulates and a run down of the major features here?

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com

FrediFizzx wrote:
"Jay R. Yablon" wrote in message
...
| Hello to everyone:
|
| My newest paper, "General Relativity, Maxwell's Electrodynamics, and
the
| Foundations of the Quantum Theory of Gravitation and Matter," just
posted to
| ArXiV.
|
| The link is http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511050.
|
| I would very much appreciate any comments and input you may have.

Hi Jay,

As I mentioned before; pretty fantastic! Do you think you could do a
summary of the postulates and a run down of the major features here?
FrediFizzx

Hi Fred and all...
let me try to explain that, because Jay's helped me understand the
paper,
so I'm a bit 2nd hand, and a bit off-the-cuff.

The paper is Maxwell's Equations (ME's) Super-charged.

Reviewing back to ME's and SR we note the relation of the
E and B fields in the the propagation of EMR is,

E x B = c , ( = indicates direction),

and "c" is the classical constant of the "velocity" of light in a
vacuum.

Consider E and B to be unit vectors then E x B = c = 1 in a vacuum,

and importantly E.B =0 , (scalar product).

When these equations for the propagation of light encounter a
gravitational field, a modification occurs, so that, c is not a
constant velocity. For example, the direction changes, (deflection)
the speed changes (Shapiro) and the frequency changes.

So we can re-write the transformed ME's in a g-field as

E' x B' = c' 1 AND E'.B' 0 ,

the later being crucial in the paper. That is entirely consistent
with taking an orthogonal ME relation E x B = c into a warped
spacetime, consistent with the g-field at the location of E' etc,
as a propagating EM-wave encounters a "nonorthogonal" field.

Underwriting physics is mathematics. What Jay did is to use
the "dual tensors" like

F_uv F*^uv == E.B == F_01 F*^01 = F_01 F_23

to form invariants that become E'.B' anywhere, but included a
coefficient normally marginalized in classical GR denoted,

|g_uv| = g.

such that F*^01 = F_23 / sqrt(-g), to decribe EM-fields.

The theory permits the inclusion of "magnetic monopoles"
and "negative matter", but exists fine even if those concepts
are negated.

Jay, around pg. 13, in the paper introduces what I call the
"Principle of Equilibrium", where matter reforms by the
action of potentials to tend to an entropy, by geodesics,
consistent with GR, so far as a continuum theory permits.

Recall

PRESSURE x VOLUME/ TEMPERATURE

is an invariant for an ideal gas, is firmly related to EM and
GR.

To establish an Equilibrium of the pressure, volume and
temperature when one of those are changed the paper
suggests a differential variation of the geodesics.
Tucker argues the "differential" is quantized, IOW's
the Equilibrium is obtained "inexactly".

But the paper, highlights in specific terms, how to argue
those points, and stands independant of the outcome
of those arguments.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Jay R. Yablon" wrote in message
...
| Hello to everyone:
|
| My newest paper, "General Relativity, Maxwell's Electrodynamics, and
the
| Foundations of the Quantum Theory of Gravitation and Matter," just
posted to
| ArXiV.
|
| The link is http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511050.
|
| I would very much appreciate any comments and input you may have.

Hi Jay,

As I mentioned before; pretty fantastic! Do you think you could do a
summary of the postulates and a run down of the major features here?
FrediFizzx

Hi Fred and all...
let me try to explain that, because Jay's helped me understand the
paper,
so I'm a bit 2nd hand, and a bit off-the-cuff.

The paper is Maxwell's Equations (ME's) Super-charged.

Reviewing back to ME's and SR we note the relation of the
E and B fields in the the propagation of EMR is,

E x B = c , ( = indicates direction),

and "c" is the classical constant of the "velocity" of light in a
vacuum.

Consider E and B to be unit vectors then E x B = c = 1 in a vacuum,

and importantly E.B =0 , (scalar product).

When these equations for the propagation of light encounter a
gravitational field, a modification occurs, so that, c is not a
constant velocity. For example, the direction changes, (deflection)
the speed changes (Shapiro) and the frequency changes.

So we can re-write the transformed ME's in a g-field as

E' x B' = c' 1 AND E'.B' 0 ,

the later being crucial in the paper. That is entirely consistent
with taking an orthogonal ME relation E x B = c into a warped
spacetime, consistent with the g-field at the location of E' etc,
as a propagating EM-wave encounters a "nonorthogonal" field.

Underwriting physics is mathematics. What Jay did is to use
the "dual tensors" like

F_uv F*^uv == E.B == F_01 F*^01 = F_01 F_23

to form invariants that become E'.B' anywhere, but included a
coefficient normally marginalized in classical GR denoted,

|g_uv| = g.

such that F*^01 = F_23 / sqrt(-g), to decribe EM-fields.

The theory permits the inclusion of "magnetic monopoles"
and "negative matter", but exists fine even if those concepts
are negated.

I could not see how to apply to physically large dipoles either.
That is a promising mechanism given that we know they
work and aren't limited to SOL.

Sue...


Jay, around pg. 13, in the paper introduces what I call the
"Principle of Equilibrium", where matter reforms by the
action of potentials to tend to an entropy, by geodesics,
consistent with GR, so far as a continuum theory permits.

Recall

PRESSURE x VOLUME/ TEMPERATURE

is an invariant for an ideal gas, is firmly related to EM and
GR.

To establish an Equilibrium of the pressure, volume and
temperature when one of those are changed the paper
suggests a differential variation of the geodesics.
Tucker argues the "differential" is quantized, IOW's
the Equilibrium is obtained "inexactly".

But the paper, highlights in specific terms, how to argue
those points, and stands independant of the outcome
of those arguments.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:
"Jay R. Yablon" wrote in message
...
| Hello to everyone:
|
| My newest paper, "General Relativity, Maxwell's Electrodynamics, and
the
| Foundations of the Quantum Theory of Gravitation and Matter," just
posted to
| ArXiV.
|
| The link is http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511050.
|
| I would very much appreciate any comments and input you may have.

Hi Jay,

As I mentioned before; pretty fantastic! Do you think you could do a
summary of the postulates and a run down of the major features here?
FrediFizzx

Hi Fred and all...
let me try to explain that, because Jay's helped me understand the
paper,
so I'm a bit 2nd hand, and a bit off-the-cuff.

The paper is Maxwell's Equations (ME's) Super-charged.

Reviewing back to ME's and SR we note the relation of the
E and B fields in the the propagation of EMR is,

E x B = c , ( = indicates direction),

and "c" is the classical constant of the "velocity" of light in a
vacuum.

Consider E and B to be unit vectors then E x B = c = 1 in a vacuum,

and importantly E.B =0 , (scalar product).

When these equations for the propagation of light encounter a
gravitational field, a modification occurs, so that, c is not a
constant velocity. For example, the direction changes, (deflection)
the speed changes (Shapiro) and the frequency changes.

So we can re-write the transformed ME's in a g-field as

E' x B' = c' 1 AND E'.B' 0 ,

the later being crucial in the paper. That is entirely consistent
with taking an orthogonal ME relation E x B = c into a warped
spacetime, consistent with the g-field at the location of E' etc,
as a propagating EM-wave encounters a "nonorthogonal" field.

Underwriting physics is mathematics. What Jay did is to use
the "dual tensors" like

F_uv F*^uv == E.B == F_01 F*^01 = F_01 F_23

to form invariants that become E'.B' anywhere, but included a
coefficient normally marginalized in classical GR denoted,

|g_uv| = g.

such that F*^01 = F_23 / sqrt(-g), to decribe EM-fields.

The theory permits the inclusion of "magnetic monopoles"
and "negative matter", but exists fine even if those concepts
are negated.

Jay, around pg. 13, in the paper introduces what I call the
"Principle of Equilibrium", where matter reforms by the
action of potentials to tend to an entropy, by geodesics,
consistent with GR, so far as a continuum theory permits.

Recall

PRESSURE x VOLUME/ TEMPERATURE

is an invariant for an ideal gas, is firmly related to EM and
GR.

To establish an Equilibrium of the pressure, volume and
temperature when one of those are changed the paper
suggests a differential variation of the geodesics.
Tucker argues the "differential" is quantized, IOW's
the Equilibrium is obtained "inexactly".

But the paper, highlights in specific terms, how to argue
those points, and stands independant of the outcome
of those arguments.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Maxwell's authentic equations applied ONLY between FLAT PLATEs.!!
brian a m stuckless

Jay R. Yablon wrote:

The link is http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511050.


I would very much appreciate any comments and input you may have.

Hi Jay,

So what are your views on string/brane/loop gravity/etc theories? How
do they relate to your own line of thought? Will your approach get to
the ultimate unification to the satisfaction of all concerned?

Also, have you submitted your papers for journal publication? How is
the peer review getting on?

regards,

br

Hi Jay,

As I mentioned before; pretty fantastic! Do you think you could do a
summary of the postulates and a run down of the major features here?

FrediFizzx

Hi Fred:

The paper starts by recognizing that the conservation of total energy
(matter plus gravitation) for an electromagnetic field in General Relativity
(GR) is predicated on Maxwell's magnetic (second) equation = 0. This in
turn is predicated on an Abelian relationship between fields and potentials.
If one wishes to be able to consider non-Abelian field theories (such as
weak and strong interactions) in a GR context, then we must find a way to
free energy conservation from its dependence on Abelian fields. That is, we
need a way to conserve energy that works for non-Abelian as well as Abelian
fields.

To do this, we end up using certain mathematical identities that make use of
the duality formalism pioneered by Reinich and Wheeler based on Levi-Civita
formalism. This formalism inherently allows for magnetic monopoles,
although the ideas presented in THIS paper do not require or exclude
magnetic monopoles. (My earlier papers at
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0508257 and http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0509223
directly explore the magnetic monopole question, which to me is the oldest,
still unanswered question in science. Quark confinement is only ~30 years
old, the magnetic monopole question has this beat by a century.) These
mathematical identities, when used to ensure energy conservation for both
Abelian and non-Abelian fields, lead to a new energy tensor which resembles
the Maxwell tensor, but has a non-zero trace that can give rise to rest
mass. (My equation (2.23), on reflection, should be written in terms of
proper density, because it is not possible to transform the T^0k, T^jk=0
components to zero because of the ~g^uv proportionality that is discussed at
length in section 3.)

From there, we are able to derive a number of energy tensors which apply
equally to Abelian and non-Abelian interactions, and which have non-zero
trace energy (Tensor (3.25) is important to explore, because this tensor CAN
be put into a rest frame, i.e., T^0k, T^jk=0, and seems to derive the energy
out of E^2). And, we come to see that the kappa_v which describe the
exchange of energy between matter and the gravitational field is dependent
on the particular energy tensor one uses, i.e., just as there are a number
of different types of energy tensors which depend on the material phenomenon
being described, so too are there a number of different types of kappa_v and
these are linked to specific energy tensors. This leads to viewing the
Einstein equations as not only second, but also third-order equations in the
metric. This also leads us to understand the T^uv & kappa_v relationship in
terms of principles of equilibrium and disequilibrium which are
gravitationally-based and which also point toward how energy is converted
from one form to another.

But, what may be most significant, is that the T^uv and kappa_v for a
diversity of material phenomena ate all constructed out of the SAME field
strength tensors, just in different configurations, so, conversion of energy
from one form to another amounts to a reconfiguration of these fields. And,
since we know already how to treat these fields as quantum wavefunctions, we
can acquire a set of second and third order equations in the spacetime
metric wherein the second and third derivatives of the metric are set equal
to quantum wavefunctions. This suggests that once we can solve these
equations, we will find that the metric at any given point in spacetime is
itself a wavefunction with an expectation value, rather than a classical
object which has a definitive value. Thus, we quantize gravitation by
feeding into gravitation, wavefunctions derived from what we already known
from QED and QCD and QWD (weak interaction), which sets second and third
order constraint on the metric and allows quantum mechanics to be considered
in a non-linear gravitational context.

My main postulate -- which I will expand on in later reply to Dr. Photon, is
that we build new physics very conservatively, from what works. In my view,
this means three ingredients: Maxwell's electrodynamics, General Relativity,
and Yang Mills / non-Abelian gauge theory. Nothing else unless compelled.

The fourth ingredient I use liberally, is electric / magnetic duality, which
is perhaps less traditional. Duality can be seen both as a "passive
formalism" and an "active symmetry." That is, as a mathematical
proposition, one can use the duality formalism to represent known phenomenon
in different mathematical notation (i.e., P^u = *F^tu_t to represent a
magnetic monopole current and P^u = *F^tu_t = 0 to represent the second
Maxwell equation for vanishing magnetic monopoles), and one can make use of
certain identities (such as (2.1) through (2.5) here) which utilize this
formalism, without making any suppositions one way or the other about the
existence or non-existence of magnetic or chromomagnetic monopoles. That is
how duality is used, passively, in this paper. Additionally, one can use
duality actively as a symmetry principle, to pursue questions such as "why
do we not seem to observe magnetic monopoles in nature?" and "if magnetic
monopoles do exist, how do they hide at low energies?" This is what I do in
my other two papers, to arrive at the view that magnetic monopoles can be
used to explain .003 out of the .005 NuTeV anomaly, and that the other .002
is accounted for with weak magnetic monopoles (which some have called the
Z').

So, that's the basic overview. I'll say more as I can squeeze out some time
to respond to other posts.

Best to all,

Jay.

Hi Jay,

So what are your views on string/brane/loop gravity/etc theories? How
do they relate to your own line of thought? Will your approach get to
the ultimate unification to the satisfaction of all concerned?

Hi Dr. Photon:

I am very conservative as a physicist, and at the risk of sounding like a
wet blanket, am very skeptical many of these "newfangled" theories. More to
the point, I believe that we have not yet learned all we can from what I
take as the three confirmed pillars of theoretical physics, which are
Maxwell's electrodynamics, Einstein's Gravitation (including special
relativity as the limiting case for a flat spacetime), and Yang Mills /
Non-Abelian gauge theories which are really generalizations of Maxwell's
electrodynamics from Abelian to non-Abelian groups. I also take electroweak
theory as a solid pillar (except for the Higgs mechanism for mass
revelation, which I see as a scaffold not a permanent structure). Finally,
I think that duality as developed by Reinich and Wheeler is vastly
underexploited both as passive mathematics (in the sense of simply using the
mathematics of duality in our physical equations) and as an active symmetry
principle (in the sense of postulating some type of duality symmetry and
then asking how it gets hidden at low energies and how it might become
manifest at higher energies, which is what I did in my earlier papers at
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0508257 and
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0509223).

My bottom line in considering anything beyond the "pillars" I have set out
above is "do we really need it? Or, is there a way to explain what we are
trying to explain without it?"

Insofar as 5+ dimensional theories, I do believe that the gamma-5 matrix in
Dirac's equation is the structure matrix of a fifth timelike dimension as
outlined briefly on my website at
http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/Papers/...%20Preview.pdf. But, I
arrive at that conclusion because I believe Dirac's equation (which I view
as the "square root" of Einstein's equation for the spacetime metric, viewed
as an operator equation, via 2g^uv = gamma^u gamma^v + gamma^v gamma^u),
taken to its logical culmination, forces us to the conclusion that gamma^5
underlies a fifth timelike dimension. And because the downstream effects of
the gamma-5 matrix, such as chiral symmetry violations, show up
experimentally throughout particle physics. If I were to entertain higher
dimensions beyond that, it would be because I think there is something that
can't be explained merely by making creative use of the pillars I have
outlined above.

Saying all of the same from a different viewpoint, I am a raving empiricist,
and I wade with trepidation into anything that does not have some clear
empirical grounding. A physicist creatively uses mathematics to describe
empirical phenomena, but is NOT a mathematician per se, which is a
distinction that gets lost sometimes. I want to combine what we know to be
empirically true in new ways to deduce things beyond the scope of what we
know, but -- speaking now as a practicing patent attorney -- by finding
"novel combinations of known elements" rather than wholly new elements. I
think that we can make good headway onto quantum gravity using what we
already know about QED and QCD and QWD and gravitational theory and the
mathematics of duality, and that we don't need to mix in anything else to
make such progress. Okkum's razor: use only what is necessary and nothing
more.

As my paper outlines, what we need to do is develop the quantum
wavefunctions for the fields and currents, plug them into the Energy tensors
and the associated kappa_v, and then relate that all to the metric in second
and third differential order. Then, solve for the metric, and you will
already have built into from scratch, by construction, all that we know
about QED and QCD and QWD.

Now, I come to a place where I can entertain "string/brane/loop gravity/etc
theories." Once we obtain solutions for the metric in this way, we will be
staring at a geometric g_uv entity that embeds what we empirically know
about all of QED and QCD and QWD. It will not look like the metrics we are
used to. It will represent the geometry of quantum mechanics. It will
probably give us a different slant on singularities. My guess is that when
the dust settles and we have some solutions for the metric following the
recipe I have set out in this paper, someone will stare at one of those
metrics and notice that they look very much like something out of brane
theory or string theory or SUSY whatever, and may then find that these
theories provide some further mathematical tools to exploit what we learn
about the metric by solving second and third order differential equation for
the metric in terms of known, empirically-established,
quantum-number-characterized-into-discrete-states wavefunctions.

Once that is the case, that is, once it is possible to identify some form of
isomorphic relationship between spacetime metric derived as the second and
third integral of quantum wavefunctions and some mathematical entities that
show up in "string/brane/loop gravity/etc theories," I will be completely on
board with those theories. Because, it will have been demonstrated that
what they describe is built from the ground up, empirically, or can be
connected to something with a clear empirical grounding. Let's not guess so
much about nature; let's take what we already know and exploit it to the
hilt to learn some new things we don't know.


Also, have you submitted your papers for journal publication? How is
the peer review getting on?

I did not submit the earlier two papers. I DO plan to submit this new
paper, but first want to vet this paper so that I can get any of the "kinks"
out. And, of course, so that any serious flaws (which of course I hope are
non-existent) can be identified. We take one step at a time, and each step
in its proper turn.

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss.

Jay.


regards,

br

Jay, around pg. 13, in the paper introduces what I call the
"Principle of Equilibrium", where matter reforms by the
action of potentials to tend to an entropy, by geodesics,
consistent with GR, so far as a continuum theory permits.

Recall

PRESSURE x VOLUME/ TEMPERATURE

is an invariant for an ideal gas, is firmly related to EM and
GR.

To establish an Equilibrium of the pressure, volume and
temperature when one of those are changed the paper
suggests a differential variation of the geodesics.
Tucker argues the "differential" is quantized, IOW's
the Equilibrium is obtained "inexactly".

Hi Ken:

Please explain as clearly as possible what you are seeing here. I would
agree that in principle, matter must exchange energy with the gravitational
field in discrete "packets" not continuously. Planck's delta E = n h-bar
frequency.

But, you seem to think that this quantization actually emerges out of the
"Principle of Equilibrium" and might be cranked out of the equations already
in the paper. How?

It would be fantastic if these results can self-quantize the energy
exchanges between matter and gravitational field.

Jay.

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
"Jay R. Yablon" wrote in message
...
| Hello to everyone:
|
| My newest paper, "General Relativity, Maxwell's Electrodynamics, and
the
| Foundations of the Quantum Theory of Gravitation and Matter," just
posted to
| ArXiV.
|
| The link is http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511050.
|
| I would very much appreciate any comments and input you may have.

Hi Jay,

As I mentioned before; pretty fantastic! Do you think you could do a
summary of the postulates and a run down of the major features here?
FrediFizzx

Hi Fred and all...
let me try to explain that, because Jay's helped me understand the
paper,
so I'm a bit 2nd hand, and a bit off-the-cuff.

The paper is Maxwell's Equations (ME's) Super-charged.

Reviewing back to ME's and SR we note the relation of the
E and B fields in the the propagation of EMR is,

E x B = c , ( = indicates direction),

and "c" is the classical constant of the "velocity" of light in a
vacuum.

Consider E and B to be unit vectors then E x B = c = 1 in a vacuum,

and importantly E.B =0 , (scalar product).

When these equations for the propagation of light encounter a
gravitational field, a modification occurs, so that, c is not a
constant velocity. For example, the direction changes, (deflection)
the speed changes (Shapiro) and the frequency changes.

So we can re-write the transformed ME's in a g-field as

E' x B' = c' 1 AND E'.B' 0 ,

the later being crucial in the paper. That is entirely consistent
with taking an orthogonal ME relation E x B = c into a warped
spacetime, consistent with the g-field at the location of E' etc,
as a propagating EM-wave encounters a "nonorthogonal" field.

An induced dipole would restructure itself to the sum of
the light and the gravity radiation.


Underwriting physics is mathematics. What Jay did is to use
the "dual tensors" like

F_uv F*^uv == E.B == F_01 F*^01 = F_01 F_23

to form invariants that become E'.B' anywhere, but included a
coefficient normally marginalized in classical GR denoted,

|g_uv| = g.

such that F*^01 = F_23 / sqrt(-g), to decribe EM-fields.

The theory permits the inclusion of "magnetic monopoles"
and "negative matter", but exists fine even if those concepts
are negated.

Magnetic monopoles might be necessary to represent larger
than atom sized oscillators. Whether Jay's interchange of
E and B terms has the coupling to keep a pair of monopoles
matched is some concern. The formalism may need something
like the clocks on Feynman's photons to achieve this... or it
may already be there. I have not gotten that deep in it.



Jay, around pg. 13, in the paper introduces what I call the
"Principle of Equilibrium", where matter reforms by the
action of potentials to tend to an entropy, by geodesics,
consistent with GR, so far as a continuum theory permits.

Recall

PRESSURE x VOLUME/ TEMPERATURE

is an invariant for an ideal gas, is firmly related to EM and
GR.

To establish an Equilibrium of the pressure, volume and
temperature when one of those are changed the paper
suggests a differential variation of the geodesics.
Tucker argues the "differential" is quantized, IOW's
the Equilibrium is obtained "inexactly".

But the paper, highlights in specific terms, how to argue
those points, and stands independant of the outcome
of those arguments.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Also for Jay's qestion about gravitational self quantizing...
which I am not answering on your behalf. but I have given it
some tho't.
Where Biot Savart or triple integration is a spatial modulation,
with magnetism as the non-vanishing component, London
or induced dipole forces can be viewed as a temporal modulation
where charges screen each other but have sky apertures for
tiny windows of time.

If you understand his question differently, scuse me for steppin'
on your toes. )

Sue...