Dear Friends:

I have written earlier about the possibility that the compactified
fifth dimension in Kaluza-Klein is an intrinsic spin dimension. I have
previously written about this in relation to charged leptons with spin
½, in a very recent thread, with paper linked at:

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

Now, I have been thinking about compactification as regards the spin-1
photon. I'd like to get your feedback as to whether the following makes
sense.

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...ication-10.pdf

Please take a look and let me know. I am still getting used to these
results, and they seem almost too simple to be true. I'd like your
feedback.

Thanks,

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

"Jay R. Yablon" wrote in message
...
Dear Friends:

I have written earlier about the possibility that the compactified
fifth dimension in Kaluza-Klein is an intrinsic spin dimension. I have
previously written about this in relation to charged leptons with spin
½, in a very recent thread, with paper linked at:


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

Now, I have been thinking about compactification as regards the spin-1
photon. I'd like to get your feedback as to whether the following makes
sense.


http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...ication-10.pdf

Please take a look and let me know. I am still getting used to these
results, and they seem almost too simple to be true. I'd like your
feedback.

Thanks,




"no file found" for both links

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.

--
_____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email:
"philo" wrote in message
. ..

"Jay R. Yablon" wrote in message
...
Dear Friends:

I have written earlier about the possibility that the compactified
fifth dimension in Kaluza-Klein is an intrinsic spin dimension. I
have
previously written about this in relation to charged leptons with
spin
½, in a very recent thread, with paper linked at:


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

Now, I have been thinking about compactification as regards the
spin-1
photon. I'd like to get your feedback as to whether the following
makes
sense.


http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...ication-10.pdf

Please take a look and let me know. I am still getting used to these
results, and they seem almost too simple to be true. I'd like your
feedback.

Thanks,




"no file found" for both links

Dear philo:

"philo" wrote in message
. ..
"Jay R. Yablon" wrote in message
...
....
http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...-dimension.pdf
....
http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...ication-10.pdf
....
"no file found" for both links

Both work for me.

David A. Smith

Please take a look and let me know. I am still getting used to these
results, and they seem almost too simple to be true. I'd like your
feedback.


I don't agree, but thats based on a model that is not common sense cause
developed by me. I wouldn't introduce dimensions without good reasons. Space
and spacetime are quite different things, not only one dimension added to
space. You may view space as observation of spacetime if you are an object
(what you are) and follow a worldline, that governs your time direction. If
you add more dimensions you have to have *very* good reasons- what you don't
have. You might see spacetime as build out of tiny blocks, that you can
describe by a quaternion. Those quaternions have an intrinsic property of
rotation. So you can describe spacetime and rotations without an extra
dimension.

Thomas Heger

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

"Jay R. Yablon" wrote in message
...
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.





I tried again today and got them
so I must just have had some monor glitch yesterday...
will read the stuff over later
_____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email:
"philo" wrote in message
. ..

"Jay R. Yablon" wrote in message
...
Dear Friends:

I have written earlier about the possibility that the compactified
fifth dimension in Kaluza-Klein is an intrinsic spin dimension. I
have
previously written about this in relation to charged leptons with
spin
½, in a very recent thread, with paper linked at:



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

Now, I have been thinking about compactification as regards the
spin-1
photon. I'd like to get your feedback as to whether the following
makes
sense.



http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...ication-10.pdf

Please take a look and let me know. I am still getting used to these
results, and they seem almost too simple to be true. I'd like your
feedback.

Thanks,




"no file found" for both links

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
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

George,

Thanks for the input, and I agree. I will put the photon analsis in the
back burner. I posted the photon results to get precisely the type of
feedback you provided. The electron results are more than enought at
this time.

Jay.

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:14:44 -0500, "Jay R. Yablon"
wrote:



George,

Thanks for the input, and I agree. I will put the photon analsis in the
back burner. I posted the photon results to get precisely the type of
feedback you provided. The electron results are more than enought at
this time.

Jay.

[Hammond]
If electron spin is circulation in the 5th Kaluza-Klein
dimension then the magnetic moment is concomitant charge
circulation. Given that the electron magnetic moment is the
most accurately known physical constants in all of physics,
I would certainly point out in your paper that your result
explains the magnetic moment of the electron!
Finally, and by the way, if your thesis is correct (and I
have an eerie feeling it is), this means that you are the
only man in the world who "knows for sure that there is at
least one more dimension beyond 4d spacetime". The only man
who has found an elementary physical proof- proof of
something that half the physics community already believes,
but no one can prove.
I personally find this utterly fascinating because, I am
embarrassed to admit, "misery loves company".
To wit, I personally claim to have discovered the world's
first scientific proof of God... again, a result which
confirms something half the world already believes but no
one can prove.
So... I have encouraged your result which I noticed quite
by accident and immediately recognized as a fortuitous
miracle by a highly dedicated but unknown researcher....
because, I wanted to see what another dedicated scientist
would do if he found himself in the position of proving
something nobody else in the world has ever been able to
prove, but everybody suspects is true. Now at least, I have
company... welcome to the club.
Therefore it is with great interest, indeed fascination,
that I will be following your attempt to get your "5th
dimension Kaluza-Klein spin explanation" published and
recognized.
Good luck Jay, even a highly competent physicist like you
is in for a lot of trouble if my experience is any guide.
But, I eagerly look forward to the publication of your truly
remarkable discovery. For the first time in history, the
average physicist will have the opportunity to see for
himself the mysterious new world of "higher dimensions" in
Physics.