UNITIVITY

To Jay, Peter et al.

On May 8, 4:12 pm, "Jay R. Yablon" <jyab...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Peter" <end...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:4a332b85-098a-4c04-aeb0-af34ef6a0bf3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On 8 Mai, 19:36, "Jay R. Yablon" <jyab...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello to all.

I would normally keep revisions of a work in progress in a single
thread, but I have today been able to connect the principle of
general
coordinate invariance from gravitation theory, not only to
electrodynamic gauge theory, but also to Planck's quantization of
energy.

This is at the link below:

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/covariance-and-gauge-4.pdf

In twelve pages, we show how both electrodynamics, and the very
root
of
quantum theory -- energy quantization -- both derive from
gravitational
theory.

I plan to spruce this up in the next day or two, and unless
someone
points out some fundamental flaw, to submit this for publication.

(2.8) looks strange:

lhs = 0 for my =/= sigma

while, in general,

lhs =/= 0 for my =/= sigma

please explain

Peter,

I assume "my" should be "mu"?

yes - sorry!

That is a good question. (2.8) is what the math gives. That formula
is
not easily understood until the end in (4.16),

there is no (4.16)

oops, (4.15).



where the diagonal
components do make sense as Planck's formula for energy quantization.
And even there, the interpretation of the off-diagonal components is
a
challenge, not because it is wrong, but because it is saying
something
deep about energy quantization that needs to be deciphered.

For the off-diagonal components, (2.8) looks plain wrong to me, I'm
afraid to have to say - but this does not yet devalue your basic
idea :-)

No, it is absolutely correct, and it the the source of quantum reality!
;-) To reconcile the off- with the on-diagonal components, the vectors
MUST be non-commuting operators. What will make sense in (2.8)?
Canonical quantum operators!

What is now the bottom line to all of this is as follows: because
spacetime coordinates x^u do not transform as a vector under general
coordinate transformations, one cannot arrive at a complete description
of nature if one assumes that the coordinates are simple numbers. In
order to describe nature in a generally covariant manner, one MUST -- no
choice about it -- promote the coordinates to infinite dimensional
operators in the manner of Heisenberg matrix mechanics.

Succinctly: One CANNOT describe nature in a generally
coordinate-covariant fashion, without quantum mechanics!

I very much agree with you Jay.
The evolution of that unified field theory provides QT with a
GR/GC foundation, however, by doing so, one invalidates
the classical Maxwell Equations, since partial diffs become
quantized, at the microscopic (quantum) level.

So I/we wrote up the paper (1996), and in the abstract, wrote
that Maxwell's Equation's are not valid in QFT, because there
is *no such thing* as a derivative of a photon, which in plain
terms means one cannot divide a photon into two parts and
have each physically detectable. The paper was rejected,
for invalidating ME's.

A very brief synopsis of the paper is simplified here,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf

Therein the operational equation is (4), which in more detail

S^2 = X^2 + 4k(ab) , Eq.(4d) detailed

(k= G/c^4 , (length to energy conversion))

to create a metric compatible with finite lengths.

Eq.(4d) renders gravitation, Coulomb force and QT.

In vectors, the root of Eq.(4) can be written,

S> = X> + 4k(a or b)> .

With appropriate units, h = ab, yielding,

S^2 = X^2 + h,

to quantize the field in accord with GR.

That program we termed "Unitivity". It goes on to
predict g-radiation does NOT exist, also an unpopular
result. Further study revealed "frame-dragging" as an
artifact, and that too is unpopular.

Jay, it takes guts to make hard predictions, what say
you about LIGO and GP-b results?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: UNITIVITY
    ... components do make sense as Planck's formula for energy quantization.. ... Canonical quantum operators! ... Eq.renders gravitation, Coulomb force and QT. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The creaky old Standard Model
    ... Gravitation has and probably always will be my area of interest so I ... More recent fun stuff consists of dark matter, ... Cosmology is more of a challenge to particle physics than it is to GR. ... Are you familiar with so-called geometric quantization? ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast