Re: Maxwells Equations and Gauge Symmetry

MusicRules wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

MusicRules wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

MusicRules wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Got time to glance at your post,
to get your feet wet see...

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf
...
yaya

I note that you cut out a lot of information which is inconvenient
to you as far as the credibility of your derivation is concerned. I
presume that you have chosen to ignore it.

You have a tendency to effeminately prattle
indecisively for emotional reasons, <yawn>.

This is the sort of ad hominem attack that you use when you can't
intelligently answer what people have written. I made my point clearly
and concisely. My points were sufficiently clear that anyone with actual
intelligence could comprehend what I wrote. If you have trouble with what
I wrote, the problem (psychological or otherwise) is actually with you.

Also, your choice if the word "effeminate" is not an appropriate word for
the context in which you use it. It seems that you have incredible
trouble with English, and you should go to a remedial school to improve
your ability to cope with a language with which you seem to have much
unfamiliarity.

If you would subjugate your enormous ego for once, and actually try to
comprehend what you are reading, then you might actually learn something.

Again that's prattle...<yawn>...why waste time?

But you will remain ineducable and ignorant as long as you mistakenly
believe that you are a genius.

I found out why I keep scoring genius IQ, it's because
I studied up for the tests, my favorite hobby has always
been solving puzzles, other than that specialty I think
I'm as abnormal as anyone else.

You have assumed a uniform energy density (of m/S^3). Is this over a
finite region of space only, or over all of space?

"S" is defined.

That was not what I asked. This is the third time in the last few posts
in the last couple of days that you have either failed to competently
comprehend my question, or statement, or you have chosen to answer a
question that I never asked. Perhaps your capacity for English
comprehension is considerably less than it could be. I can see no other
reason why when I ask a question or make a statement, you are too often
acting as if I had asked or stated something completely different.

I asked whether your uniform energy density is over a finite region, or
over all of space. You chose to ignore that question, and you instead
respond with the completely irrelevant "S is defined". Was my question
too hard for you to answer?

You're seeking *comprehension by analogy*, well
that's fraut with intrepretations in GR. As "S" is well
defined, we would need to provide more deductions
to refine intrepretations/analogies.

I asked a simple question - twice now. Your continued refusal to answer
the question can only be read as an inability on your part to answer the
question.

In general relativity, the size of a region of space is still a
well-defined concept, as there exists a natural measure on the spacetime
manifold which corresponds to the metric.

ok...could tell us the volume used to compute
the energy density component T_00 in GR?

(( IMO, it was needed to move from an infinitesmal
energy density to one that is finite

We never had an infinitesimal energy density. The energy density of an
EM field in vacuo is (1/2) e_0 E.E + B.B/(2 m_0), where e_0 is the
permittivity of free space, and m_0 is the permeability of free space.
This result can be found in several sources (e.g. Weinberg, Panofsky and
Phillips, Bleaney and Bleaney). If either E or B is nonzero, then the
above expression is certainly not infinitesimal.

Those solutions assume "charge density",
do you think charge is quantized?

And the word that you are looking for is not "finite". Even in
nonstandard models of the real numbers, all infinitesimals are finite.

If so then the LIMIT Delta x => h =/= dx ?

and so more
physically comprehensive, (Mr. Yablon's work shows
the possiblities of energy density consistent with a
continuum))).

Please give justification for your Equation (4).

Sure, using Eq.(2),

X^2 = g_00 S^2 = S^2 -ab . (4)

Express this as an integral on a curve (possibly a geodesic curve) between
the two charges, so that we can explicitly see where, and how, g_00 enters
into the calculation, and why none of the other components of g_uv are
involved. Then evaluate the integral so that we can see (4) as a
conclusion to the calculation. Obviously, you have already done this
for yourself, so you should be able to dig up the calculation.

What you are attempting to imagine is the existance
of an infinitely divisible continuum between "a" and "b"
where an integral is necessary, or even possible.

How do you know this? Does this mean that your derivation only works in
quantized general relativity, and that your derivation is invalid for
non-quantized general relativity?

GR depends upon a constant of proportionality (h)
between EM energy and frequency so the mass-
energy conservation law "jives" with time dilation
(a.k.a frequency shift) in a g-field. In that way, GR
predicts the necessity of that constant "h", (it was
introduced in QT as an ad hoc hypothesis by
Planck circa 1900), so in that way GR underpins
QT.

But there's is only ONE length "S", it can be varied by
quantized action input/outputs.

There are some who argue that the noncommutative geometry of Alain Connes
may be the appropriate setting for a theory which unifies quantum
mechanics and general relativity. In that case, there is no
discretization of spacetime.

It would good if you provided the specific work of
his you choose to discuss, for example from arXiv.

In other words, I want to see a fully worked proof starting from
ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v.

No problemo, radar ranging works and so does
interferometry, thus "S" is physically measureable.

But I want to see a THEORETICAL derivation of a THEORETICAL value.

Ok using radar ranging, with c=1, the finite spatial "X"
and the time "T" to target is,

S^2 = T^2 + X^2

= g_00 x^0 x^0 + g_11 x^1 x^1

(g_00~1 , g_11~1)
where the target is at rest, so g_01 =0,
otherwise g_01 ~ -dx/dt.

Please give justification for following sentence:

"We see S(repel) > S(attract), and so Attraction > Repulsion that
difference is in accord with gravitational force, and in accord
with GR, where the solution originated."

Start with how you get from "S(repel) > S(attract)" to "Attraction >
Repulsion".

I think that's crucial to understanding GR.
Repelling charges store + "field energy",
that in turn affects the refractive index of
the space by slowing the speed of light,
so that S(repel) > S(attract).
This modifies the Coulomb relation to be

f = ab/S^2 = ab/(X^2 +ab).

You will have to prove this. Tell us what the electromagnetic field is,
and demonstrate that it satisfies Maxwell's Equations (General Relativity
version, i.e. F^uv_;v = 4 pi J^u (with a sign dependent on your preferred
convention for F), and F_uv;p + F_vp;u + F_pu;v = 0. There is no need to
derive the EM field from first principles.

This will come together...
Consider the asymmetrical terms of g_uv, I'll call A_uv.

Please discuss a physical manifestation of the asymmetric part of a metric
tensor.

You should read threw 1st.

Take the 1st Christoffel symbol , and sub in the
asymmetrics, (the symmetrical metrics don't care),

[ab,c] = A_bc,a + A_ca,b - A_ba,c = 0

Justify.

OR

[ab,c] = A_ac,b + A_cb,a - A_ab,c = 0

Both solutions leave [ab,c] symmetric but
include the asymmetrical metric to provide,

F_uv;p + F_vp;u + F_pu;v = 0

existing in the Christoffel, neat Ay?

Whereas Einstein and Dr. John Moffat use
non-symmetrical connections, in their unified
field theories, I show how we may retain a
symmetrical connection (Christoffel) even using
non-symmetric metrics such as the demo of
the [ab,c] above shows generally.

Ken S. Tucker
The balance is of Musicguys post is considered
too be to primitive to warrant comment...

So you find the fact that qp - pq = i hbar in quantum mechanics (where q
is coordinate and p is the momentum) primitive (or trivial). That's
funny, seeming that equation would appear to bear one of the aspects of
quantum mechanics with which you are having the most trouble.

If you realize that "i =sqrt(-1)" in orthogonal coordinates
can be eliminated in nonorthogonal coordinates then the
problem is defining that equation in GR using metrics.
One solution I use is to accept non-symmetrical metrics.

Everything that you have written suggests that you treat energy in quantum
mechanics as a well-defined quantity which is piecewise constant as a
function of time (i.e. that the energy has a well-defined value, which is
constant for a while, and then the energy jumps to another well-defined
value, which is constant for a while, etc). This is not how the behaviour
of energy is seen by anybody who has actually learnt quantum mechanics.

Do you want to discuss electron orbital transitions
and that relation to nuclear potentials?

You do not answer direct questions about quantum mechanics,

Because Heisenberg tells us to probably answer.
....

One may confirm that by calculating how
GR predicts the strength of electrostatic
force.

Which is what I* asked you to do above.

To do that, use the conversion of

Length = (G/c^4)*Energy.

((1.47 km = Mass of Sun))

Irrelevant.

The variation of the Length "S" from "X" is
convertible to a variation of Energy

Justify this statement rigorously.

and
thus appears as Coulombs force based on
Eq.(4),

Justify this statement rigorously.

so that Eq.(4) explains both gravitation
and EM *forces*.

Justify this statement rigorously.

The later is rarely explained, so you might
study that, it's a key to unified field theory.

As you recently stuffed up a comment on the Heisenberg
Equation in the Heisenberg picture of quantum mechanics,
your credibility as a commentator on unified field
theory is not good.

That connects to QT in a novel way, allow
me to set h = ab,

Is this value of h supposed to be Planck's constant?
Or have you just chosen "h" at random to represent the
product? The former option (Planck's constant) is
untenable.

then Eq.(4) becomes,

S^2 = X^2 + h. (4a)

The way I see that is that X^2 is Newtonian
Flux, but S^2 is GR flux. (I use the word flux
to be a function of area).
When "h" is added the GR Flux is affected
w.r.t the Newtonian Flux - which of course
presumes a flat space, and is unaffected by
any "h" additions and thus is referential.

More gobbledygook designed to impress the
unsophisticated. Do you have a theoretical
foundation for your flux, and how h interacts
with it?

Eq.(4a) shows how to move the unification
of gravitation and electricity to the inclusion
of Quantum Mechanics

And yet there has been no genuine reference to
Quantum Mechanics in what you have written.

You have been asked before whether you really
understand Quantum Mechanics, and you have
always ducked the question (something which
one would not expect you to do if you really
did understand the theory). Every time that
you make a statement about Quantum Mechanics,
you either express yourself very badly, or
you betray a basic non-understanding of the
theory. The most recent example was your
recent response to Bilge's usage of the
Heisenberg Equation in the Heisenberg picture
in Quantum Mechanics. Recently, Non Ame
stated that you regard physical observables
(e.g. position and momentum) as real-valued
variables. If you had any understanding
of Quantum Mechanics, you would know that
physical observables are not real-valued
variables. So, was Non Ame right or wrong?

In Quantum Mechanics, if q is a coordinate
and p is its conjugate momentum, then

qp - pq = i h/(2 pi) = i hbar,

where h in Planck's constant, and hbar is
the reduced Planck's constant.

and in particular the
relation of QM to the Spacetime field "S".

S is NOT a spacetime field. You defined S
to be the distance between the two charges,
i.e. S is a real-valued constant, and nothing
more.

Music - the rhythm of life

From the boon docks
Ken

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Maxwells Equations and Gauge Symmetry
    ... In general relativity, the size of a region of space is still a ... energy density to one that is finite ... of energy is seen by anybody who has actually learnt quantum mechanics. ... Flux, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Quantum Geometry of Spacetime
    ... Unification of the General Relativity Theory and the Quantum Mechanics ... of matter and energy ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Model of Unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
    ... Model of Unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics ... The Physics and the Infinite ... The Quantum Mechanics also makes sure that the energy is expressed and ... We can affirm, that the hypothesis of a Universe continued, it is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The Universe in a Grain of Sand
    ... quantum mechanics rears its head in a very specific way. ... use the combined equations of general relativity and quantum ... understanding of the universe consists of an uneasy union between ... This makes the center of a black hole both enormously massive ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Can our amazing bodies be genetic engineers?
    ... that energy to change conformation and perform functions. ... everyday chemistry and light-harvesting, quantum mechanics, to the best ... from the bat to the ball. ... calcium ion influx through the voltage-gated calcium channels. ...
    (talk.origins)