Re: Query about non-symmetric energy tensors

"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:pan.2008.03.25.19.23.28@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
<juanREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.com/2008/03/intrinsic-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.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Query about non-symmetric energy tensors
    ... foundation for quantum theory and if I repeat some mistakes along the ... If one is bound to make mistakes as ... demonstrate that the foundation is still geometry. ... heretic enough for relativists :-) ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gravitational Field
    ... I am always very careful when I use Geometry to "prove" any claim, ... I'd find an example of a "self-evident truth" welcome. ... non-euclidian geometry in a real experimental test. ... by testing the Quantum Theory, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • A typo in a statement demanding properties for a lattice to be a logic?
    ... from p. 281 in "Geometry and Meaning", by D. Widdows, who quotes V. S. ... Varadarajan's "Geometry of Quantum Theory", ... Remark 2: that can be interpreted as defining a characteristic function. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Questions (Space)
    ... Euclid's geometry is *not* the true geometry, ... there's no observational evidence that forces us ... General relativity treats gravity as something other than a force. ... are inclined to believe that quantum theory and thermodynamics are the ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)