Re: magnetic monopoles


FrediFizzx wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1126256184.639466.12740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [snip]
> | Sure, pardon the obsolete ref, but see W. Pauli's
> | "Theory of Relativity", pgs 33-34 as the definition
> | of "Dual tensors".
> |
> | To assist mobilization, I used D.F. Lawdens "Intro
> | to...Tensor Calculus and Relativity", pg 32...
> | to define tensor densities.
> |
> | Also M.R. Spiegel's "Vector Analysis..." pg 173
> | for the definition of permutation, and pg 175
> | to define Relative Tensors, (using the Jacobian).
> |
> | To get to a specific, use (*F^30 is a dual),
> |
> | *F^30 = F_12 /sqrt(g) == B(z).
> |
> | By convention
> |
> | F_12 = A_2,1 - A_1,2 (1)
> |
> | and rewriting the high above covariantly,
> |
> | *F_30 = M_0,3 - M_3,0 (2)
> |
> | so far no sweat,
> |
> | *F_30 = F_12 provided g=|g_uv| ~ 1.
> |
> | In order for (1) and (2) to depart then "g" will
> | need to depart from unity so g =/=1.
> |
> | When "g" departs from unity, a definite nonorthogonal
> | field is present. So the assumption that "g" remains
> | constant as the energy increases to depart (1) from
> | (2) is erreoneous, IOW's General Relativity (GR) by
> | the variation of "g" is involved in Jay's higher
> | energy fields, such that a "magnetic monopole" may
> | become apparent when "g" is deviated sufficiently
> | from unity as he predicts.
>
> Ken, so is this what is going on with the complexion angle that Jay
> uses? Is it a representation of the "non-orthogonality"?
>
> | I'll comply with the convention, the covariant
> | derivative,
> |
> | g;u = 0 , g = |g_uv|.
> |
> | and a finite (quantized) increment to "g" called Dg
> | follows,
> |
> | g' = g + Dg .
> |
> | Physically two relating particles are getting
> | pumped by Dg inputs, like pushing a pair of
> | repelling charges together.
> |
> | As I understand, Jay suggests Eq.(2) above
> | departs from (1) due to "Dg".
> |
> | IMHO I think that's all GR. IOW's the apparent
> | monopole is relative, i.e. virtual.
> |
> | To summarize, IMHO, the monopoles Jay finds
> | result from CS artifacts, however they are
> | an excellent example of virtual particles.
>
> Hmm... CS artifacts as virtual particles. Interesting.
>
> FrediFizzx
>
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
> or postscript
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
>
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com

Yes, Fred and Ken, this is very interesting indeed!

But I don't think, Jay was planning to integrate EM with Gravity
in that paper, maybe that's why he omit the g-factor?

BTW, over 24 hours passed since Jay posted to SPR and nothing
appeared!? Maybe we should ask him to post sci.physics as well?

Andy

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: First publication: "On the Dynamical Origins of QCD Confinement"
    ... Jay R. Yablon wrote: ... specification "covariant", but the middle term ... of Tensors within your math. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: magnetic monopoles
    ... > | to define Relative Tensors, ... Jay may want to correct this post... ... > | monopole is relative, ... CS artifacts as virtual particles. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: magnetic monopoles
    ... >> | to define tensor densities. ... so is this what is going on with the complexion angle that Jay ... >> FrediFizzx ... Hi Andy, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: magnetic monopoles
    ... andy wrote: ... so is this what is going on with the complexion angle that Jay ... CS artifacts as virtual particles. ... >> FrediFizzx ...
    (sci.physics)