Re: Referee Report on Kaluza Klein Paper

On Feb 29, 8:47 pm, "Jay R. Yablon" <jyab...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

I still do not understand why you regard the Lorentz force as
fundamental.

REFEREE REPORT:

The author wants to derive the Maxwell equation from the vacuum Einstein
eqs. in vaccum in a 5-dimensional spacetime. This is of course nothing
but the original Kaluz-Klein idea, which is too well known not to be
viable in this form.

I had been wondering how this iteration was different from the
original. Guess it isn't.


In the manuscript there are a number of confusions, e.g. between
classical and quantum concepts (see page 3, where suddenly h-bar appears
out of the blue), what is means to really derive the Lorentz force, the
55 components of the Christoffel symbols are put arbitrarily equal to
zero, otherwise the author would already fail on page 5, etc.

Having said this, 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.

Most people on this newsgroup wouldn't even get this.


MY COMMENTS:

I did get the dimensional balances messed up on page 3. However, that
is not fundamental to the results, and in h-bar = c = 1, all the
equations are correct anyway.

I do not believe the 55 components are arbitrarily set to zero. First,
this makes it consistent with the Lorentz Force. Second, I explained
this. Third, the deductive consequence of this is that g_55= constant,
which Klein makes clear in his paper is perfectly correct. So, how is
it arbitrary that I do something which implies a result that everyone
starting with Klein knows is correct?

Because you close off a large part of the theory by setting them to
zero. It violates covariance by predetermining the geometry as opposed
to letting the stress tensor and field equations determine the
geometry. If you are ok with this, then whatever. I don't know if the
original iteration of the theory did this.


Now, it is actually heartening to get the paper rejected mainly because
the reviewer thinks it "does not contain anything original," as opposed
to a "riddled with errors, don't know the subject" rejection.

As I have written this, I have studied other folks' work on Kaluza
Klein, and realized that in many ways, I am restating what is known
(though I believe in a thorough and very clear and systematic manner).
And, no matter how nice the exposition, it does have to contain original
work to be accepted for publication. SO:

MY QUESTIONS:

It seems to me that there may be two original things here, and I wonder
a) if they seem right to you and b) if they have been done before to
your knowledge:

1) The deduction in section 4 of the radius of the fifth compacted
dimension in this manner, as well understanding the fourth space
dimension as the intrinsic spin dimension. *If this has not been done
before, this is very important, because it overcomes a primary source of
discomfort that many people have with Klauza Klein, which is that the
fifth dimension has no physical manifestation in our ordinary world.*

Spin is angular momentum - a derived quantity. Arguing that spin is a
dimension seems rather silly.


2) The deduction of the trace matter tensor in section 11.

Also, am I wrong about the 55 Christoffel components? I think this is
OK.

It depends.

Are you willfully tossing general covariance in the theory to the
wind? That's the effect of pre-determining the geometry.

By pre-determining the geometry, you are choosing what you want to see
rather than obtaining what you hope for out of the theory. In doing
that, you undermine what makes general relativity so important.


I do have some quantum result from all of this as well, but those were
not in the paper that was reviewed.

I appreciate your input in helping me to understand the report in an
objective light.

Thanks,

Jay.
____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email: jyab...@xxxxxxxxxxxx
co-moderator: sci.physics.foundations
Weblog:http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/
Web Site:http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm

.

Relevant Pages

  • Looking for Objective Reading on Referee Report
    ... note: Followup set to poster. ... I recently submitted a paper on Kaluza Klein to a top journal. ... I have copied over the referee report below, ... dimension as the intrinsic spin dimension. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Referee Report on Kaluza Klein Paper
    ... The Kaluza Klein paper ... Here is the referee report below, ... which Klein makes clear in his paper is perfectly correct. ... dimension as the intrinsic spin dimension. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: I Need a math guru
    ... It looks to me as if you have to consider which dimension has the ... >> Hi Adam, ... >> If you have two legs, you have three points, haven't you? ... >>>since I took a geometry class..... ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.misc)
  • Single dimensional geometry
    ... I just want to check the rationale, in geometry, of using N ... How about representing the N variables using a single dimension (or ... visualizing numbers and their operations, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: A little challenge for relativists.
    ... That when distance and time are mixed in this way the result has such elegance that it indicates that you have stumbled on something really special, equivalent to the geometry of nature. ... If we multiply that temperature by a constant length then we can represent that on a 3-dimensional diagram with 'temperature' as the third dimension. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast