0 views

Skip to first unread message

Mar 1, 2008, 12:47:26 AM3/1/08

to

Well, I have to give them credit for turnaround. The Kaluza Klein paper

was not accepted. Here is the referee report below, with my own

comments and queries. I would like whatever objective input you all can

give on this report and how you see this.

was not accepted. Here is the referee report below, with my own

comments and queries. I would like whatever objective input you all can

give on this report and how you see this.

The draft which was reviewed is at the link below:

http://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/kaluza-klein-and-lorentz-force-40.pdf

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.

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.

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?

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.*

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.

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: jya...@nycap.rr.com

co-moderator: sci.physics.foundations

Weblog: http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/

Web Site: http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm

Mar 1, 2008, 1:50:03 AM3/1/08

to

On Feb 29, 8:47 pm, "Jay R. Yablon" <jyab...@nycap.rr.com> 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...@nycap.rr.com

Mar 1, 2008, 3:25:00 AM3/1/08

to

[George Hammond]

Dear J.R. Jablon:

On page 8/9 of the above cited paper, you state:

--------BLOCK QUOTE---------------------

The material body now has a spatial radius R of

rotation through a spatial dimension other than the usual

three spatial dimensions to give meaning to its “intrinsic”

spin, and the compactified fourth dimension now takes on

real, physical meaning as something which is physically

observed, via the phenomenon of intrinsic spin, and not

merely a fictional idea that gives people pause about

Kaluza-Klein theories specifically, and dimensional

compactification in general.

In sum, the understanding of intrinsic spin as cyclical

motion through a fourth dimension of space which is curled

up into a radius on the order of the Planck length, if this

can be developed further and sustained, may be useful to

overcome one of the most nagging objections about

Kaluza-Klein theories, and would underscore a

clearly-observed, physical manifestation of the fourth space

dimension, rather than requiring one to reply, with some

disingenuity, that the extra space dimension is too small so

nobody will ever see it anyway. Thus, we conclude with

the provisional hypothesis, that the fourth spatial

dimension is best thought of as the “intrinsic spin

dimension” of a real, physical, five-dimensional spacetime.

-----------END BLOCK QUITE-----------------------

Are you serious J.R; your paper provides an experimental

justification for String Theory, never mind Kaluza-Klein

theory! This is one of the most elegant scientific papers I

have seen since Prince DeBroglie sent his PhD thesis to

Einstein!.

The reviewer's dismissal of your paper as containing

"nothing original" is an egregious and deliberately

constructed flasehood and shabby, envious treatment of a

highly original math prodigy and stunningly original

physicist.

Sure, the introduction of h-bar on page 3 is "ad hoc" but

the subsequent analysisi and it's stunning scientific

consequence (quoted above) proves it to be supremely

justified since it turns out, as the author clearly

demonstrates, that Kaluza-Klein actually provides the

world's primary "quantum gravity" explanation of "intrinsic

spin", and hence identifies intrinsic spin as the KEY to the

ultimate unification of GR and QM!

Your fundamental Klauza-Klein result for intrinsic spin is

nothing short of a historic demonstration, and perhaps the

most fundamental "semiclassical quantum gravity result" in

all of modern Physics!

I think you have been rudely and shabbily mistreated by

this physics journal, and that it's editor, and its review

board have shamefully rejected an enormously important

scientific paper!

By the way, it takes one to know one, and I have

experienced the same brazen rejection of fundamental

scientific discovery myself, so at least in that department

I know what I'm talking about. Chin up guy, at least you're

not subject to ridicule which is the treatment they give me!

>

>Thanks,

>

>Jay.

>____________________________

>Jay R. Yablon

>Email: jya...@nycap.rr.com

>co-moderator: sci.physics.foundations

>Weblog: http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/

>Web Site: http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm

>

>

=====================================

SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god

mirror site:

http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com

GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)

http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3

=====================================

Mar 1, 2008, 8:06:48 AM3/1/08

to

On Mar 1, 5:47 am, "Jay R. Yablon" <jyab...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

> Well, I have to give them credit for turnaround. The Kaluza Klein paper

> was not accepted.

> Well, I have to give them credit for turnaround. The Kaluza Klein paper

> was not accepted.

Well, well. Give Harvard university as your address on the next paper.

Mar 1, 2008, 10:32:23 AM3/1/08

to

"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message

news:1s1is3pcu0g2lf74q...@4ax.com.... . .

news:1s1is3pcu0g2lf74q...@4ax.com.... . .

Thank you George!

> The reviewer's dismissal of your paper as containing

> "nothing original" is an egregious and deliberately

> constructed flasehood and shabby, envious treatment of a

> highly original math prodigy and stunningly original

> physicist.

I try not to impugn motives to anybody else. But I appreciate the

complement.

> Sure, the introduction of h-bar on page 3 is "ad hoc" but

> the subsequent analysisi and it's stunning scientific

> consequence (quoted above) proves it to be supremely

> justified since it turns out, as the author clearly

> demonstrates, that Kaluza-Klein actually provides the

> world's primary "quantum gravity" explanation of "intrinsic

> spin", and hence identifies intrinsic spin as the KEY to the

> ultimate unification of GR and QM!

The h-bar error on page 3 is independent of and irrelevent to the

intrinsic spin demonstration.

> Your fundamental Klauza-Klein result for intrinsic spin is

> nothing short of a historic demonstration, and perhaps the

> most fundamental "semiclassical quantum gravity result" in

> all of modern Physics!

I will, with humility, not disagree with that statement.

> I think you have been rudely and shabbily mistreated by

> this physics journal, and that it's editor, and its review

> board have shamefully rejected an enormously important

> scientific paper!

Again, I don't get into motives unless I have first hand information.

But, the historical record is there; so in the end, if my paper turns

out to be as you and I think, that will be their loss.

Actually, I can segregate the intrinsic spin proof from the whole rest

of the paper, and base it firmly on Klein's original paper. I plan to

do just that, and resubmit a 5-page paper dealing just with that one

issue. Let's see where that goes!

Remember, back in the 1920s, Einstein and Kaluza and Klein had no clue

that the elementary particles of nature were riddled throughout with

intrinsic spins, and so would have had no motivation to interpret the

"curled up" dimension as the carrier of that intrinsic spin. It was to

them, just an artifact needed to get the job done. In the mean time,

physics has become so hidebound with so many ideas and directions, and

anything that does not start right out with quantum field theory is so

frowned upon, that it has become impossible for anybody working within

the prevailing paradigm to even think that if you are going to refer to

intrinsic spin as a "spin," that you have to be able to provide a

geometric understanding of how such an angular momentum comes to be.

ANGULAR MOMENTUM CANNOT BE A "POINTLIKE" PHENOMENON. THERE MUST BE SOME

SPIN RADIUS INVOLVED. Just calling it "intrinsic" and then walking away

is no more than playing with words (which, as a patent attorney, I have

some experience with). We must know, geometrically, where this spin

that is not through the ordinary three dimensions of space, comes from.

> By the way, it takes one to know one, and I have

> experienced the same brazen rejection of fundamental

> scientific discovery myself, so at least in that department

> I know what I'm talking about. Chin up guy, at least you're

> not subject to ridicule which is the treatment they give me!

>

I cannot say that I go for the "God stuff" on your blog, but we can have

a theological discussion some other time.

For me, it is amazing -- to the point of religiosity -- that nature

follows a set of mathematical laws which human beings -- with great

effort and difficulty -- can actually discern. I view the scientific

enterprise as "reading the mind of God," and whenever a Newton or a

Maxwell or and Einstein eeks out some eqautions which tell us how things

work in the physical world, he (or she) has snatched something new from

the mind of God and given it to humankind.

Jay.

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu