Re: Query about non-symmetric energy tensors

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.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.

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.physics.research/browse_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/showthread.php?t=215338&page=2


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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Query about non-symmetric energy tensors
    ... I have zero evidences for existence of extra dimensions. ... and electromagnetism I remarked that he was doing mistakes on both the ... foundation for quantum theory and if I repeat some mistakes along the ... demonstrate that the foundation is still geometry. ...
    (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)