Jay R. Yablon wrote:

[more good stuff]

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.

so no gravitons then, but still gravity waves, I take it?

Do you feel there is a need to quantise gravity, from a "consistency"
point of view? Or until someone finds a graviton there is no need?

I guess your theory is still compatible with the Higgs boson? (I know
you have alternative thoughts on mass - do you have a problem with the
Higgs?)

Even after you have finished your current line of thought, do you think
there will still be need for a further "underlying" theory, or will you
have got everything? That is, you really will have a "theory of
everything"? (of course I speak of current knowledge, as far as we know
now. We'll ignore fundamental discoveries in the future for the
moment!). What objections do you imagine?

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.

Not being associated with an institution I guess means you have to pay
for publication out of personal cash, but it still seems like a good
idea that you put in the other papers as well. They are highly
relevant, and deserve a proper reference, and with full peer-review you
might get more feedback. On the other hand my reaction to reviewer
objections is often "but the reviewer obviously hasn't even read what I
wrote!"

Has Bjoern read this latest paper?

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss.

I'm only sorry I can't help you more - all those tensors make my head
swim, and I don't have the time

Very best,

br

Autymn D. C. wrote:
Okkum - Ockham
, that is - --that is,
theories," - theories"--

Do you talk about falling neutrons?

you foken stoopid bitch spell cheking usenet....ahaha my dick

you are more ugly then ****, i saw your picture, get lost
ugly bitch

Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Hannu wrote:
I have understood that the total energy is ill defined concept in
General Relativity ?

Well, total energy is defined mathematically as an energy for which
T^uv_;u=0, and the zero must be ensured identically.

T^uv is local energy-momentum _density_, not _total_energy_. To obtain
total energy you need to integrate the local density over the region of
interest, and that's the problem: in general for a curved manifold such
an integral is not well defined.

There are specific cases for which it can be done, such as:
* asymptotically-flat manifolds for which the region of interest
is compact with boundary in the asymptotic region.
* static manifolds (plus some conditions which I forget...)


Tom Roberts

Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Hannu wrote:
I have understood that the total energy is ill defined concept in
General Relativity ?

Well, total energy is defined mathematically as an energy for which
T^uv_;u=0, and the zero must be ensured identically.

T^uv is local energy-momentum _density_, not _total_energy_.

Agreed.

To obtain
total energy you need to integrate the local density over the region of
interest, and that's the problem: in general for a curved manifold such an
integral is not well defined.

Tom,

Are you speaking of a curved spacetime problem or a quantum problem? For
curvature, so long as we have g^uv defined at each point, and the scalar
sqrt(-g), we can in principle take a volume integral "Integral sqrt(-g) T^00
d^3X" that will relate observed physics to choice of coordinates. To Ken
Tucker: Is that right? The problem seems to be, for ANY tesnor defined at
a "local," i.e., theoretically infinitesmal point in spacetime, how do we
carry out integration over a finite region when "points" in physics are not
infinitesmal. It seems almost a problem with using calculus, where delta
x -- dx -- 0, and it suggests that in physics, the best we can do is delta
x where delta is small but finite.

Jay.


There are specific cases for which it can be done, such as:
* asymptotically-flat manifolds for which the region of interest
is compact with boundary in the asymptotic region.
* static manifolds (plus some conditions which I forget...)


Tom Roberts

Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Hannu wrote:
I have understood that the total energy is ill defined concept in
General Relativity ?

Well, total energy is defined mathematically as an energy for which
T^uv_;u=0, and the zero must be ensured identically.

T^uv is local energy-momentum _density_, not _total_energy_.

Agreed.

To obtain
total energy you need to integrate the local density over the region of
interest, and that's the problem: in general for a curved manifold such an
integral is not well defined.

Tom,

Are you speaking of a curved spacetime problem or a quantum problem? For
curvature, so long as we have g^uv defined at each point, and the scalar
sqrt(-g), we can in principle take a volume integral "Integral sqrt(-g) T^00
d^3X" that will relate observed physics to choice of coordinates. To Ken
Tucker: Is that right?

Oops I was lurking...
I think so. The T^00 define a static situation, like two
distant observers A and B at relative rest relating by
radar. They will have a non-ambiguous result in their
distances, although there would be differences since
their clocks may be at different potentials and that
establishes the delta of the sqrt(-g) that occurs between
them.

The problem seems to be, for ANY tesnor defined at
a "local," i.e., theoretically infinitesmal point in spacetime, how do we
carry out integration over a finite region when "points" in physics are not
infinitesmal. It seems almost a problem with using calculus, where delta
x -- dx -- 0, and it suggests that in physics, the best we can do is delta
x where delta is small but finite.
Jay.

The PoR can be clarified by defining it by

U_i =0 , i = 1,2,3.

For example an invariant, (Planck's)

h = p_u x^u = p_0 x^0 = rest energy * rest time

= 6.626*10^-27 ergs.seconds

when p_i = p*U_i =0.

The U_i =0 leads directly to Minkowski's ds^2 = dt^2 - dr^2.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Hannu wrote:
I have understood that the total energy is ill defined concept in
General Relativity ?

Well, total energy is defined mathematically as an energy for which
T^uv_;u=0, and the zero must be ensured identically.

T^uv is local energy-momentum _density_, not _total_energy_.

Agreed.

To obtain
total energy you need to integrate the local density over the region of
interest, and that's the problem: in general for a curved manifold such an
integral is not well defined.

Tom,

Are you speaking of a curved spacetime problem or a quantum problem? For
curvature, so long as we have g^uv defined at each point, and the scalar
sqrt(-g), we can in principle take a volume integral "Integral sqrt(-g) T^00
d^3X" that will relate observed physics to choice of coordinates. To Ken
Tucker: Is that right?

Oops I was lurking...
I think so. The T^00 define a static situation, like two
distant observers A and B at relative rest relating by
radar. They will have a non-ambiguous result in their
distances, although there would be differences since
their clocks may be at different potentials and that
establishes the delta of the sqrt(-g) that occurs between
them.

I'd like to add, as a radio technician, that a standing
wave can always be created in a circuit, so a standing
radio wave could always be created between A and B,
with each observer A and B agreeing to a fixed number
of cycles separating their respective locations, (although
differ on the frequency depending upon their relative
potentials).

The problem seems to be, for ANY tesnor defined at
a "local," i.e., theoretically infinitesmal point in spacetime, how do we
carry out integration over a finite region when "points" in physics are not
infinitesmal. It seems almost a problem with using calculus, where delta
x -- dx -- 0, and it suggests that in physics, the best we can do is delta
x where delta is small but finite.
Jay.

The PoR can be clarified by defining it by

U_i =0 , i = 1,2,3.

For example an invariant, (Planck's)

h = p_u x^u = p_0 x^0 = rest energy * rest time

= 6.626*10^-27 ergs.seconds

when p_i = p*U_i =0.

The U_i =0 leads directly to Minkowski's ds^2 = dt^2 - dr^2.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote: Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Jay R. Yablon wrote: Hannu wrote:
I have understood that the total energy is ill defined concept in
General Relativity ?

Well, total energy is defined mathematically as an energy for which
T^uv_;u=0, and the zero must be ensured identically.

T^uv is local energy-momentum _density_, not _total_energy_.

T^uv is NOT *arithmetically RELATED* to E^2 = m^2 + p^2, in GR.!!

Agreed.

To obtain
total energy you need to integrate the local density over the region of
interest, and that's the problem: in general for a curved manifold such an
integral is not well defined.

Tom,

Are you speaking of a curved spacetime problem or a quantum problem?

NATURE doesn"t care if MKSA (meter)^2 is "curved", "quantum" or BOTH.!!

-- For curvature, so long as we have g^uv defined at each point,

Try just THREE points ..HERE.!!

and the scalar sqrt(-g), we can in principle take a volume integral
"Integral sqrt(-g) T^00 d^3X" that will relate observed physics to
choice of coordinates. To Ken Tucker: Is that right?

No.!! "Observed physics" (i.e. mass) does NOT (CANNOT or will NOT)
*arithmetically* RELATE to the GR "Integral sqrt(-g) T^00 d^3X".!!

Oops I was lurking...
I think so. The T^00 define a static situation, like two
distant observers A and B at relative rest relating by
radar. --

Let T^00 define a static situation, like THREE distant observers
A, B and C, at relative rest relating by radar, E^2 = m^2 + p^2.
Most folks may be better able to grasp Euclid's a^2 = b^2 + c^2.
Most folks might BEST be able to grasp capitals A^2 = B^2 + C^2.!!

-- They will have a non-ambiguous result in their
distances, although there would be differences since
their clocks may be at different potentials and that
establishes the delta of the sqrt(-g) that occurs between
them.

I'd like to add, as a radio technician, that a standing
wave can always be created in a circuit, so a standing
radio wave could always be created between A and B,
with each observer A and B agreeing to a fixed number
of cycles separating their respective locations, (although
differ on the frequency depending upon their relative
potentials).

The problem seems to be, for ANY tesnor defined at
a "local," i.e., theoretically infinitesmal point in spacetime, how do we
carry out integration over a finite region when "points" in physics are not
infinitesmal. It seems almost a problem with using calculus, where delta
x -- dx -- 0, and it suggests that in physics, the best we can do is delta
x where delta is small but finite.
Jay.

The PoR can be clarified by defining it by

U_i =0 , i = 1,2,3.

For example an invariant, (Planck's)

h = p_u x^u = p_0 x^0 = rest energy * rest time

Planck's, h = k*c*{e}
= 2*#*{e}
= 2*(Magnetic Flux quantum)*(Electric charge)
..in MKSA - 2*(Webers - Volt*seconds)*(Ampere*seconds)
..in MKSA - 2*(Volts)^2*(seconds)^2 / (Ohms)
..in MKSA - 2*(Ohms)*(Amperes)^2*(seconds)^2
..in MKSA - 2*(Volts)*(Amperes)*(seconds)^2
..in MKSA - 2*(Watts)*(seconds)^2
..in MKSA - 2*(Joules)*(seconds)
..in MKSA - Angular momentum.

NO Angular momentum expression in GR (i.e. E^2 = m^2 + p^2).

Note MKSA is the OLD SI GiORGi MKSA SYSTEM of standard MEASURE.
Note MKSA is NOW finished; Outdone by: NEW SI GUESS STANDARD.!!

= 6.626*10^-27 ergs.seconds
= 6.626*10^-34 Joules.seconds
Note that you are mixing up your STANDARds, there, dooOP.
Planck's h = 6.535457053*10^-34 NEW SI Joule*seconds, iSS.
PLANCK's h = SLiGHTLY different number in NEW SI GUESS iSS.
Planck's h = a transcendental mathematical constant, like c.
Planck's h = a transcendental mathematical constant, like pi.

when p_i = p*U_i =0.

The U_i =0 leads directly to Minkowski's ds^2 = dt^2 - dr^2.

$ Euclidian PROOF
So RiGHT back to PYTHAGORAS THEOREM: p^2 = e^2 - m^2
..or in non-Ph.Tivity Euclidian: c^2 = b^2 - a^2
..or in general, SiMPLiFYs to .. z^2 = y^2 - x^2
..U_i =0 leads to Minkowski's ds^2 = dt^2 - dr^2.

GR "Integral sqrt(-g) T^00 d^3X" does not RELATE GR m^2, at all.!!

brian a m stuckless


Regards Ken S. Tucker

A CHAiN ..discrete, continuous or BOTH.!!
brian a m stuckless


Autymn D. C. wrote:
Quanta are discrete as molar harmonics of Planckian dimensions, and
don't you forget it.

brian a m stuckless wrote:
....
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
The U_i =0 leads directly to Minkowski's ds^2 = dt^2 - dr^2.

$ Euclidian PROOF
So RiGHT back to PYTHAGORAS THEOREM: p^2 = e^2 - m^2
..or in non-Ph.Tivity Euclidian: c^2 = b^2 - a^2
..or in general, SiMPLiFYs to .. z^2 = y^2 - x^2
..U_i =0 leads to Minkowski's ds^2 = dt^2 - dr^2.

Brian you saw that too. Way to go man! I did this way...

0 = U_i = g_iu U^u = g_ij U^j + g_i0 U^0

g_i0 = - g_ij dx^j/dx^0

ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v = g_00 dx^00 - g_ij dx^ij

g_00 = g_11 = g_22 = g_33 =1

No more negatives = YEA, gives ya...

ds^2 = dt^2 - dr^2 .

Ken

Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
T^uv is local energy-momentum _density_, not _total_energy_.

Agreed.
To obtain
total energy you need to integrate the local density over the region of
interest, and that's the problem: in general for a curved manifold such an
integral is not well defined.

Are you speaking of a curved spacetime problem or a quantum problem?

I am continually amazed at people around here who think they can respond
to articles without reading them. Please elevate your eyes to the part
of my post that you quoted above and actually READ it -- it contains a
clear and direct answer to your question.


For
curvature, so long as we have g^uv defined at each point, and the scalar
sqrt(-g), we can in principle take a volume integral "Integral sqrt(-g) T^00
d^3X" that will relate observed physics to choice of coordinates.

Sure, you can do anything you like. That does not mean it makes sense.
In this case, the value you get will be dependent on the coordinates you
choose, so the result cannot have any physical significance.

BTW: sqrt(-g) is not a scalar....


The problem seems to be, for ANY tesnor defined at
a "local," i.e., theoretically infinitesmal point in spacetime, how do we
carry out integration over a finite region when "points" in physics are not
infinitesmal.

This is nonsense. Points in a manifold have zero extent.

The problem is that for a given integral on a manifold to make sense the
integrand must satisfy certain integrability conditions (which basically
ensure that the integrand is a function on the manifold, as opposed to
being something that is path dependent inside the region of
integration). For the kind of integral required to compute "total energy
in a region" those integrability conditions are essentially that the
Riemann curvature tensor vanish throughout the region of integration.
This can be traced back to the fact that the energy-momentum tensor is a
rank-2 tensor, and to obtain a scalar integral of it one must contract
it with two vectors, and that introduces path dependence into the
integrand (I'm speaking a bit loosely here; this is not my area of
expertise).


For instance, above you wanted to integrate T^00. That is explicitly
coordinate (basis) dependent. Probably what you really want is to
integrate T_uv U^u U^v where U^u are the components of an observer's
4-velocity -- then you get the energy density as measured by that
observer. But note that expressing it this way in an invariant manner
does not ensure that such a volume integral makes sense; in general it
does not. shrug

There's also the problem that U is defined only along the observer's
trajectory, not throughout the volume over which you want to integrate....


It seems almost a problem with using calculus, where delta
x -- dx -- 0, and it suggests that in physics, the best we can do is delta
x where delta is small but finite.

Not true. Modern theoretical physics (specifically GR) is fully
consistent with real analysis.

But nobody really expects GR to be valid all the way own
to the Planck scale. _Mathematically_ it is well founded
on the differential geometry of smooth manifolds, but the
world is not expected to be well-modeled by a manifold
at such small scales. You seem to be trying to apply
this model vs world problem to the mathematics of the
model -- that's invalid.


Tom Roberts