Dear friends:

Following up on the referee's report which said of my previous Kaluza
Klein that "the author must have worked a considerable amount to learn
quite a few thing in gravitation theory, and a number of the equations
are correctly written and they do make sense, however those eqs. do not
contain anything original," I have extracted to stand on its own, what
now I believe is the most original and important aspect of that paper.

That is now in a new, brief paper linked below:

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...-dimension.pdf

titled "Intrinsic Spin and the Kaluza-Klein Fifth Dimension."

The abstract is as follows:

Kaluza-Klein Theories provide a compelling unification of classical
gravitation with classical electrodynamics, but have long been plagued
by the perceived absence of physical evidence of a compactified,
hypercylindrical, spacelike fifth dimension. We examine the possibility
that this fifth dimension may in fact exist physically, and be
fundamentally responsible for the quantized "intrinsic" spins which,
with the exception of the hypothesized Higgs boson, are exhibited by all
of the known elementary particles in nature.

I plan as a follow up to resubmit this for refereed publication, but
wanted to first get this posted, and ask my friends to kick it around
for a few days to see if I am missing anything or could perhaps
strengthen or clarify some things.

For those who may have been averted by the detailed maths in some of my
other papers, these maths are much easier to follow.

Looking forward to your feedback.

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

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 23:54:46 -0500, "Jay R. Yablon"
wrote:

Dear friends:

Following up on the referee's report which said of my previous Kaluza
Klein that "the author must have worked a considerable amount to learn
quite a few thing in gravitation theory, and a number of the equations
are correctly written and they do make sense, however those eqs. do not
contain anything original," I have extracted to stand on its own, what
now I believe is the most original and important aspect of that paper.

That is now in a new, brief paper linked below:

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...-dimension.pdf

titled "Intrinsic Spin and the Kaluza-Klein Fifth Dimension."

The abstract is as follows:

Kaluza-Klein Theories provide a compelling unification of classical
gravitation with classical electrodynamics, but have long been plagued
by the perceived absence of physical evidence of a compactified,
hypercylindrical, spacelike fifth dimension. We examine the possibility
that this fifth dimension may in fact exist physically, and be
fundamentally responsible for the quantized "intrinsic" spins which,
with the exception of the hypothesized Higgs boson, are exhibited by all
of the known elementary particles in nature.

I plan as a follow up to resubmit this for refereed publication, but
wanted to first get this posted, and ask my friends to kick it around
for a few days to see if I am missing anything or could perhaps
strengthen or clarify some things.

For those who may have been averted by the detailed maths in some of my
other papers, these maths are much easier to follow.

Looking forward to your feedback.

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


[G. Hammond]
Bravo J. R., your new 10 page paper is a fait accompli as
a milestone in Physics. It will not only endear you to the
String Theorists who have been searching for an empirical
justification of compactified dimensions in gravity, but the
paper also has the remarkable property of being readable by
the general physics community.
It still amazes me that Einstein who originally
recommended Kaluza's paper for publication as we all know,
and especially after Klein suggested "rolled up
compactification" of the extra dimension, that they didn't
discover that q/m is a "spin frequency" which would make the
angular momentum independent of particle mass... and thus
tumble to the fact that 5th dimension circulation would
explain spin. If they had, the history of modern physics
since 1925 would have been considerably different!
After your discovery has been published in Physical
Review, and you are comfortably resting on your laurels, I
hope we can have that discussion about my "scientific proof
of God", and perhaps a glass of Champagne!
In the meanwhile,
Regards, G. Hammond

On Mar 2, 12:08 pm, George Hammond wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 23:54:46 -0500, "Jay R. Yablon"



wrote:
Dear friends:

Following up on the referee's report which said of my previous Kaluza
Klein that "the author must have worked a considerable amount to learn
quite a few thing in gravitation theory, and a number of the equations
are correctly written and they do make sense, however those eqs. do not
contain anything original," I have extracted to stand on its own, what
now I believe is the most original and important aspect of that paper.

That is now in a new, brief paper linked below:

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...-spin-and-the-...

titled "Intrinsic Spin and the Kaluza-Klein Fifth Dimension."

The abstract is as follows:

Kaluza-Klein Theories provide a compelling unification of classical
gravitation with classical electrodynamics, but have long been plagued
by the perceived absence of physical evidence of a compactified,
hypercylindrical, spacelike fifth dimension. We examine the possibility
that this fifth dimension may in fact exist physically, and be
fundamentally responsible for the quantized "intrinsic" spins which,
with the exception of the hypothesized Higgs boson, are exhibited by all
of the known elementary particles in nature.

I plan as a follow up to resubmit this for refereed publication, but
wanted to first get this posted, and ask my friends to kick it around
for a few days to see if I am missing anything or could perhaps
strengthen or clarify some things.

For those who may have been averted by the detailed maths in some of my
other papers, these maths are much easier to follow.

Looking forward to your feedback.

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

[G. Hammond]
Bravo J. R., your new 10 page paper is a fait accompli as
a milestone in Physics. It will not only endear you to the
String Theorists who have been searching for an empirical
justification of compactified dimensions in gravity, but the
paper also has the remarkable property of being readable by
the general physics community.
It still amazes me that Einstein who originally
recommended Kaluza's paper for publication as we all know,
and especially after Klein suggested "rolled up
compactification" of the extra dimension, that they didn't
discover that q/m is a "spin frequency" which would make the
angular momentum independent of particle mass... and thus
tumble to the fact that 5th dimension circulation would
explain spin. If they had, the history of modern physics
since 1925 would have been considerably different!
After your discovery has been published in Physical
Review, and you are comfortably resting on your laurels, I
hope we can have that discussion about my "scientific proof
of God", and perhaps a glass of Champagne!
In the meanwhile,
Regards, G. Hammond

It was my job to service medical imaging
equipment, such as gamma-ray imagers in
nuclear medicine, ultrasonics, and then
X-ray and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI),
PET scanners etc...

I'm certain we or our loved ones have been
subject to that type of imaging, and those
imagers are serviced and operated by
technicians.

As theoreticians, we have a responsiblity
to provide theory to help design engineers
to improve their ability to build better
imaging machines, and we also need to make
sure our theory is as clear possible to the
staff that uses and services said imagers.

Mr. Yablon knows I'll bend over backwards
to help him develope an operational theory.

I hope we do not need to go to 5D to explain
to the staff how MRI works visa-vie spin.

Eventually, theoretics, if it's any good,
is applied industrially, and certainly in
experimental physics, and we theoreticians
have a responsibility to make absolutely
certain we've done our best to make things
as clear as possible.

That is why I want to make certain 5D is
absolutely necessary in theoretics going
forward.
Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker