"Juan R. González-Álvarez" wrote in
message news
George Hammond wrote on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:43:58 +0000:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:28:03 +0100 (CET), "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:53:19 -0700:

[Ken S. Tucker]
Do you want me to use a pile of 11D horsy- poop as intergeneration
propagation of info- mation?

[J. R.González-Álvarez]
I have zero evidences for existence of extra dimensions.


[G.Hammond]
J.R.Yablon claims to have discovered evidence that the
Kaluza-Klein 5th dimesnion (4th spatial dimension) is the cause of
intrinsic spin, specfically of the charged leptons; notably the
electron.
Do you have any short, straight, comment about that pithy
prognostication!

When Jay started a thread on a supposed geometric unification of
gravity
and electromagnetism I remarked that he was doing mistakes on both the
field and the geometric part.

For the field part i recommend him to read

{Chubykalo & Smirnov-Rueda 1996}
Action at a distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell equations:
The
basis and application of the separated-potentials method. 1996. Phys.
Rev. E 53, 5373. Chubykalo, Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda , Roman.

Erratum: Action at a distance as a full-value solution of Maxwell
equations: The basis and application of the separated-potentials
method
[Phys. Rev. E 53, 5373 (1996)] . 1997. Phys. Rev. E 55, 3793.
Chubykalo,
Andrew E; Smirnov-Rueda , Roman.

This article alone, when correctly interpreted and generalized,
already
invalidates a geometric (local time explicit potentials) approach. Jay
is
repeating a series of well-known mistakes are very common in
relativistic
literature. Einstein also did those mistakes.

.. . .

Juan, first, I want to thank you for pointing out some references in
prior posts which I have found helpful.

I simply do not buy the notion that one cannot obtain a geometric
foundation for quantum theory and if I repeat some mistakes along the
way, especially those which an earlier scientist of good repute was bold
enough to make, then I'll live with that, nor will I be shy about it.
That is the only way to do science. If one is bound to make mistakes as
we all are, at least those should be the right mistakes! A proof that a
geometric theory cannot be sustained is to me a proof only that a
sustainable geometric theory has not yet been found. Yes, that is a
philosophical outlook, but I am putting the elbow grease into proving
that outlook mathematically and physically and not just stopping with
the philosophy.

What I am attempting is, in essence, to deconstruct quantum theory, and
then reconstruct it on a geometric foundation. I believe I have already
achieved that with respect to the non-classical two-valuedness of spin,
and the Heisenberg commutation relations, at the link below.

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...ic-spin-22.pdf

Thanks to some observations by Daryl McCullough in another post, I will
be shortly extending those results to deriving Dirac's equations from
the ground up out of the compactified fifth dimension. This does not
change anything about quantum theory. We do not abandon its remarkable
predictive power, but rather add another layer at its base which is
Riemannian geometry. It is to me as if physics and physicists have been
living in the a house built of quantum theory for over a century, but
unable to find the foundation of that house. I am down in the basement
exploring those foundations, which do not change the house one iota, but
demonstrate that the foundation is still geometry. And it is out of the
much-maligned compactified fifth dimension, that the "non-classical"
two-valuedness which more than anything else sits at the base of quantum
theory, arises.

Jay.

On Mar 24, 11:22 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:40:47 -0700:



Hi Juan.

On Mar 24, 4:14 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:57:56 -0700:

One of conditions of GR *connections* is precisely g_ab = g_ba,
which does not hold for particles rotating around.

The connection is not g obviously, correct it like

"One of conditions of GR *connections* is precisely gamma_ab =
gamma_ba, which does not hold for particles rotating around."

The thing that buggered up Einstein (and Moffat) was the use of the
nonsymmetrical *connection*, they are a serious problem. What I use
is nonsymmetrical metrics with symmetric connections, which is quite
beautiful. Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Ken,
It seems that Steven Weinberg also rejects to consider nonsymmetrical
gammas as something fundamental:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/st...ird-physicists...

I think the reasoning was that a NonSymmetrical metric required a NS
Christoffel, and that NSC, has been a bitch for Einsteins team and also
Dr. Moffats. Dr. Moffat came to our place for dinner, and did express a
frustation with NSC's, that I shared. So what I/we did is made the NSC
vanish.

Weinberg (and Feynman and me also) line of reasoning is more against
rejecting geometry as a basis for gravity.

This is why Weinberg and Feynman (and me also) are considered heretics by
relativists (see above blog).

To cover my ass I did a brief post on how to do that in another thread
(NS Christoffels's), and still use the NS metric.

Hi Juan.

Have care Ken, "i-study-physics" already misunderstood you wrote :-)
He also seems unaware of Einstein early work on NS metrics.

I realize that too Juan, but respecting
your code here,
--http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt

and knowing Jay, and it's his thread, I'm
trying to ignore "i-study-physics".
I guess I should just kill-file her.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Hi Juan and all...

As a brat, I figured 5D to be obvious, for
example at a x,y,z,t location is a mass such
as a Nitrogen atom or Oxygen atom and in metal
a Fe atom, that would be a finite 5th dimension.
That conception maybe primitive, but I could
honestly sell it to a group of grade school
students.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

When I 1st learned about Co-ordinate Systems
was from a book I was reading in my bedroom.
I imagined I could choose a corner on the floor
as the origin, and describe where all my stuff
in my room is. So I had a plastic dinosaur at
xyz,(dinosaur) sitting on a shelf.

Every kid at one time had a fake dinosaur in
his room, that is a scientific fact ;-).

So anyway, I moved the dinosaur with a well
directed tennis ball, with a broken dinosaur
on the x-y plane, as a result of the potential
energy in the z-axis + kinetic energy of the
said ball.

So now I went from xyz(dinosaur) to
xyzt,(dinosaur pieces), time was needed,
because my dinosaur was differentiated
(into lot's of little pieces).

Therefore the dinosaur became bits of
plastic.

So little Kenny decides to re-chart his room,
based on xyzt(matter), at some point in time,
however, as we know, Kenny is a brat, and with
a new tennis ball, re-organizes his room by
throwing said ball, with the result that my
new dinosaur suffered again from,

Dx Dy Dz Dt D(matter).

Next I hear, is that the differential of matter
makes noise as it shatters, and produces energy.
OK, I agree, a plastic dinosaur falling on the
floor makes noise. So ok, I need to write, that
Occurance as,

Dx,Dy,Dz,Dt,DE.

As you know, little Kenny tries to keep track
of what is happening in his room. The dinosaur
made a loud noise when it crashed that would be
from DE/Dt, that is Power (W for Mr.Watt).

We are are in 5D here.

I used the above to demo a certain frustration
I have. We speak of an "event" at xyzt, relative
to an event x'y'z't' , without mentioning power.

Power moves our meters or lights our LED's,
when we measure, thus it is necessary to
consider the change in energy between events,
(xyzt) and (xyzt)' using

D(xyzt)DE, = D(xyzt)' DE'

as my dinosaur broke, energy was transmited.

The DE = DE' using a photonic transmission
with spin 1 confirms spin can move in that
5th dimension "DE", easily defined as compact.

That is why I want to assist Dr. Yablon
with his 5D program.

Some of the readers may have noticed that I
have transformed Dr. Yablon's 5D into a
non-symmetric 4D. That is ancillary to 5D.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:27:09 -0700:

I realize that too Juan, but respecting your code here,
--http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt

Thanks, Ken!

and knowing Jay, and it's his thread, I'm trying to ignore
"i-study-physics".
I guess I should just kill-file her.

I just did for "i-study-physics", for the girl of the tiny yellow stars,
for the Belgian spy, and some other.

I read informative posters from rest of people and try to help.

--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

Jay R. Yablon wrote on Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:46:55 -0400:

Juan, first, I want to thank you for pointing out some references in
prior posts which I have found helpful.

I simply do not buy the notion that one cannot obtain a geometric
foundation for quantum theory and if I repeat some mistakes along the
way, especially those which an earlier scientist of good repute was bold
enough to make, then I'll live with that, nor will I be shy about it.
That is the only way to do science. If one is bound to make mistakes as
we all are, at least those should be the right mistakes! A proof that a
geometric theory cannot be sustained is to me a proof only that a
sustainable geometric theory has not yet been found. Yes, that is a
philosophical outlook, but I am putting the elbow grease into proving
that outlook mathematically and physically and not just stopping with
the philosophy.

Jay, the research on the cited works is mathematical and with an eye on
experimental results. No philosophy here.

It has been proved in basis to rigorous mathematical analysis of Maxwell
equations that former solutions given by relativists are incomplete and
that popular claims about the propagation of EM signal were plain wrong
(and experimentally unfounded).

The Newtonian limits draft cited on foundations extended their work to
gravitation. The equation of motion in both AAAD and field theories of
gravity remain practically unchanged, since only a complement to the
computation of the force is needed. In the dualism notation, Feynman
theory of gravity is corrected like

ma = F^* -- ma = F^* + F_0

With F_0 the term irreducible to local time explicit interactions.

The situation for General Relativity is poor. Since motion is considered
to be described on a geometrical basis,

a = -GAMMA vv

Your equation of motion using connection coefficients GAMMA^d_ab is /at
the best/ only valid in the local time explicit limit of a general theory
of gravitational interactions

g^* + g_0 -- g^*

The introduction of the dualist structure for the interaction breaks the
metric and no geodesic motion is possible in the general. General
Relativity is not a complete theory of classical motion for bodies under
gravity.

This is (one) of reasons that your attempt to get electrodynamics from a
5D geometric theory cannot be trusted.

Of course, in science one is permitted to make mistakes. But repeating
old mistakes are corrected in more recent literature is not a good
research methodology.

What I am attempting is, in essence, to deconstruct quantum theory, and
then reconstruct it on a geometric foundation. I believe I have already
achieved that with respect to the non-classical two-valuedness of spin,
and the Heisenberg commutation relations, at the link below.

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.co...ic-spin-22.pdf

Thanks to some observations by Daryl McCullough in another post, I will
be shortly extending those results to deriving Dirac's equations from
the ground up out of the compactified fifth dimension. This does not
change anything about quantum theory. We do not abandon its remarkable
predictive power, but rather add another layer at its base which is
Riemannian geometry. It is to me as if physics and physicists have been
living in the a house built of quantum theory for over a century, but
unable to find the foundation of that house. I am down in the basement
exploring those foundations, which do not change the house one iota, but
demonstrate that the foundation is still geometry. And it is out of the
much-maligned compactified fifth dimension, that the "non-classical"
two-valuedness which more than anything else sits at the base of quantum
theory, arises.

Jay.

The work of above references is essentially classical.

However, actually i am working in a derivation of the dualism principle
from a generalized theory (technically i am working a Liouville space
extension of both classical and quantum mechanics).

This extension gives a quantum version of Chubykalo and Smirnov-Rueda
dualism, and explains why QM cannot be reduced to geometry.

Again geometry (gauge derivatives, fibre bundles...) arise as
approximated description. Even the own concept of spacetime (SR, GR, QFT)
arises as an approximation!

Now you seem interested in 'deriving' Dirac theory in a geometrical 5D
basis. Well, i already explained my points several times on limitations
of geometric descriptions of motion, what are usual mistakes in
relativistic literature, and why usual derivations and proofs are
incorrect. I also could start now a thread on what is wrong with the
Dirac equation and with QFT, but I see no reason since i am already
heretic enough for relativists :-)

A thing i can do is recommend you to check my recent message on
sci.physics.research "What is the velocity of a relativistic electron?"

On that thread i remark basic differences between the two Dirac equations
(wave and field) and its link with classical spacetime:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...se_frm/thread/
f56672519e32c1a7/f8424f5731e29535#f8424f5731e29535

The corresponding PF thread has an extra reply from Hans de Vries who also
correct the mistake of Igor Kahvkine about velocities. This extra reply
is neither on the Google archives nor on my newsreader server,

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...=215338&page=2


--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

Hi Juan.

On Mar 26, 3:43 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:27:09 -0700:

I realize that too Juan, but respecting your code here,
--http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt

Thanks, Ken!

and knowing Jay, and it's his thread, I'm trying to ignore
"i-study-physics".
I guess I should just kill-file her.

I just did for "i-study-physics", for the girl of the tiny yellow stars,
for the Belgian spy, and some other.

I read informative posters from rest of people and try to help.

Well revisiting, reviewing and seeing a fresh
approach to 5D is very interesting since Jay
is doing most of the hard work just now.

I posted some refs to give, what I think
are legitimate reasons to consider 5D that
you may want to review...
++++++
Here's a ref about "volume tensors",
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...2007-1&page=ar...

Best text book ref I've found is in Pauli's
"Theory of Relativity" Eq.(55), that looks
something like,

X*^a = (1/sqrt(g)) X_bcd.

I'll paraphrase what is developed in that chp.

The X*^a is a vector perpendicular to all of
the lengths enclosing volume X_bcd, proportional
to that volume. A permutation may be used like,
X_cbd = -X_bcd, to produce
Y*^a = - X*^a.

Just as we have the relativity of a + and -
end of a number line, we also have + and -
volumes.

Essentially, X*^a is a 4th dimensional spatial
vector. By unitizing (quantizing) the volume
X_bcd, one achieves 2 spatial magnitudes
perpendicular to the 3D as the 4th using
X*^a and -X*^a, that are unitary apart from
the sqrt(g).

6 *area* equations follow from that,
X12, X23, X31 and X14, X24, X34.

These are asymmetrical X12=-X21 etc.

IMO the first 3 maybe regarded as spins, with
a magnetic component projected into 3D, and
the last 3 electric field components.
-----------------------

In the metric tensor are 16 equations, 10
symmetrical and 6 antisymmetrical, (in 4D).
So the antisymmetrical components (Auv) I/we
have studied relate to X12 = A12 ...etc.

My interest is to transform from 5D to 4D,
generally, in physics.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:52:36 -0700:

Well revisiting, reviewing and seeing a fresh approach to 5D is very
interesting since Jay is doing most of the hard work just now.

I posted some refs to give, what I think are legitimate reasons to
consider 5D that you may want to review...
++++++
Here's a ref about "volume tensors",
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...2007-1&page=ar...

Best text book ref I've found is in Pauli's "Theory of Relativity"
Eq.(55), that looks something like,

X*^a = (1/sqrt(g)) X_bcd.

I'll paraphrase what is developed in that chp.

The X*^a is a vector perpendicular to all of the lengths enclosing
volume X_bcd, proportional to that volume. A permutation may be used
like, X_cbd = -X_bcd, to produce
Y*^a = - X*^a.

Just as we have the relativity of a + and - end of a number line, we
also have + and - volumes.

Essentially, X*^a is a 4th dimensional spatial vector. By unitizing
(quantizing) the volume X_bcd, one achieves 2 spatial magnitudes
perpendicular to the 3D as the 4th using X*^a and -X*^a, that are
unitary apart from the sqrt(g).

6 *area* equations follow from that,
X12, X23, X31 and X14, X24, X34.

These are asymmetrical X12=-X21 etc.

IMO the first 3 maybe regarded as spins, with a magnetic component
projected into 3D, and the last 3 electric field components.
-----------------------

In the metric tensor are 16 equations, 10 symmetrical and 6
antisymmetrical, (in 4D). So the antisymmetrical components (Auv) I/we
have studied relate to X12 = A12 ...etc.

My interest is to transform from 5D to 4D, generally, in physics.

Hi Ken, as explained to Jay, geometric unified theories were a day a very
hot topic but are not in the light of developments in last 10 years.

The geometric description, the geodesic equation of motion, the Hilbert/
Einstein field equations... are not fundamental not even at classical
level!

Moreover, as I remarked on "Finite time QED and closed time path
formalism" on sci.physics.research

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...ee/browse_frm/
thread/f56672519e32c1a7/03ad1af9c5f4cafe?rnum=11&_done=%2Fgroup%
2Fsci.physics.research%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Ff56 672519e32c1a7%
2Ff8424f5731e29535%3F#doc_80ed2c951de039e4

Even the own the concept of spacetime is *only* valid in a well-defined
limit of a more general theory is not geometrical.


See also two related references:

Is Minkowski space-time compatible with quantum mechanics? 2002:
Found. Phys. 32, 673. Stefanovich, E. V.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501222


--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

Hi Juan. Studied your post.
I provided a ref to explore a 3D +1compactified,
X_bcd = X*a (sqrt(g)).

Two possibilities, (1) Our understanding is improved,
or (2) we are wiser by our errors.

Where Jay's 5D is concerned, I posted a math ref,
supporting his *5D conjecture*. (my ref is so dang
simple it's almost child proof).

For now, let's hold a steady course as Jay sets.
Arrr matey, he might have his wind to his back!!
If he's wrong, then we mutiny, make him walk the
plank and take over ship.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Mar 27, 11:17 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:52:36 -0700:



Well revisiting, reviewing and seeing a fresh approach to 5D is very
interesting since Jay is doing most of the hard work just now.

I posted some refs to give, what I think are legitimate reasons to
consider 5D that you may want to review...
++++++
Here's a ref about "volume tensors",
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...2007-1&page=ar...

Best text book ref I've found is in Pauli's "Theory of Relativity"
Eq.(55), that looks something like,

X*^a = (1/sqrt(g)) X_bcd.

I'll paraphrase what is developed in that chp.

The X*^a is a vector perpendicular to all of the lengths enclosing
volume X_bcd, proportional to that volume. A permutation may be used
like, X_cbd = -X_bcd, to produce
Y*^a = - X*^a.

Just as we have the relativity of a + and - end of a number line, we
also have + and - volumes.

Essentially, X*^a is a 4th dimensional spatial vector. By unitizing
(quantizing) the volume X_bcd, one achieves 2 spatial magnitudes
perpendicular to the 3D as the 4th using X*^a and -X*^a, that are
unitary apart from the sqrt(g).

6 *area* equations follow from that,
X12, X23, X31 and X14, X24, X34.

These are asymmetrical X12=-X21 etc.

IMO the first 3 maybe regarded as spins, with a magnetic component
projected into 3D, and the last 3 electric field components.
-----------------------

In the metric tensor are 16 equations, 10 symmetrical and 6
antisymmetrical, (in 4D). So the antisymmetrical components (Auv) I/we
have studied relate to X12 = A12 ...etc.

My interest is to transform from 5D to 4D, generally, in physics.

Hi Ken, as explained to Jay, geometric unified theories were a day a very
hot topic but are not in the light of developments in last 10 years.

The geometric description, the geodesic equation of motion, the Hilbert/
Einstein field equations... are not fundamental not even at classical
level!

Moreover, as I remarked on "Finite time QED and closed time path
formalism" on sci.physics.research

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...ee/browse_frm/
thread/f56672519e32c1a7/03ad1af9c5f4cafe?rnum=11&_done=%2Fgroup%
2Fsci.physics.research%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Ff56 672519e32c1a7%
2Ff8424f5731e29535%3F#doc_80ed2c951de039e4

Even the own the concept of spacetime is *only* valid in a well-defined
limit of a more general theory is not geometrical.

See also two related references:

Is Minkowski space-time compatible with quantum mechanics? 2002:
Found. Phys. 32, 673. Stefanovich, E. V.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501222

--http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt

Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:12:50 -0700:

Hi Juan. Studied your post.
I provided a ref to explore a 3D +1compactified, X_bcd = X*a (sqrt(g)).

Two possibilities, (1) Our understanding is improved, or (2) we are
wiser by our errors.

Where Jay's 5D is concerned, I posted a math ref, supporting his *5D
conjecture*. (my ref is so dang simple it's almost child proof).

For now, let's hold a steady course as Jay sets. Arrr matey, he might
have his wind to his back!! If he's wrong, then we mutiny, make him walk
the plank and take over ship.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Ken, I think that i have done clear my points.

--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

On Mar 23, 10:15*am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:

For non symmetric metrics {g_ab =/= g_ba} see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsymm...ational_theory

Huh. That takes a little hot air out of my sails. ;-/ How
tantalizing...

attempt to meld GR and EM via symmetric/antisymetric tensor -- loss
attempt to meld GR and EM via 5 dimensional GR -- tie

It's an interesting game. And nobody has answered my big dumb
question yet!

Aside from quantization, is this the game of string theory?

and also its possible relation with string theory

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/st...ird-physicists...

Can't find that URL.

--http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt

:-)