Referee Report on Kaluza Klein Paper

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Jay R. Yablon

unread,
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.

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


Eric Gisse

unread,
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

George Hammond

unread,
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
=====================================

Johnnie In The Billows

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

Jay R. Yablon

unread,
Mar 1, 2008, 10:32:23 AM3/1/08
to
"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:1s1is3pcu0g2lf74q...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 00:47:26 -0500, "Jay R. Yablon"
> <jya...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
. . .

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