"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.

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.

Please, see if you can find some time to take a good look. And, keep an
eye on my weblog as well as SPF over the coming days, for final updates
before I take this to the journals.

Any support, help, ideas, etc., would be greatly appreciated at this
time.

Best regards,

Jay.
____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email:
co-moderator: sci.physics.foundations
Weblog: http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/
Web Site: http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm


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

"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.

On Feb 22, 3:47*am, "Jay R. Yablon" wrote:
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,

xxein: Weeks! It must then contain all thruths to be known.

"xxein" wrote in message
...
On Feb 22, 3:47 am, "Jay R. Yablon" wrote:
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,

xxein: Weeks! It must then contain all thruths to be known.

Sure does! ;-) Jay.

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.

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.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

--
_____________________________
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

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

On Feb 23, 5:49 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
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).

What's a metric signature, Ken?


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

On Feb 23, 7:17 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

What's a metric signature, Ken?

Now you have to explain why the masses of the planets as determined
through Kepler's 3rd law is wrong,...

Doesn't the Equivalence Principle imply that a satellite's orbit isn't
a function of its mass?

Where am I going wrong?

Love,
Jenny

On Feb 23, 4:44 pm, wrote:
On Feb 23, 7:17 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

What's a metric signature, Ken?

Now you have to explain why the masses of the planets as determined
through Kepler's 3rd law is wrong,...

I didn't say that in this thread.


Doesn't the Equivalence Principle imply that a satellite's orbit isn't
a function of its mass?

Where am I going wrong?

Love,
Jenny