Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / January 2007

Yes, I think *the* motivation to create his general theory.

Dirk Vdm

[anip]

 http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
"We use 3 inertial reference frames" [because Dorks can't get the result
they want in two].
"In neither of these frames any form of acceleration is felt" [neither one of
all three].
"In order for the travelling twin to make HIS trip, SHE must be in frame S'
while going away".
"if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will have aged
10 years".

Belgium is where the farts blow.

"Your conclusion is dead wrong.
Start over, but skip the first part and the conclusion." -- Dork Van de
fuckhead.

"You made a mistake" -- Dork Van de psychotic fumble mumbler.

ASSistant professor Paul B. Andersen, tusseladd:

"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
 t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
 x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
 tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
 xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)"

Steve Lawrence (sal) the hypocrite:
"In general I'd say there are three main reasons people ignore
questions in this forum.
1) They accidentally overlook the question (not really ignoring it)
2) They think it's boring and don't want to discuss it
3) They can't answer it and don't want to admit that."
Ref: news:pan.2007.01.14.14.05.37.850117@nospam.org.

***{What's grim is this ceaseless flame war between academic
irrationalists and mostly unschooled people who reject academic nonsense
based on common sense. Here is the way it came about:

(1) The advent of government funding created a system of punishments and
rewards that benefitted irrationalists who worshipped the state.

(2) Said irrationalists, being the preferred beneficiaries of government
funding, filled the chairs formerly occupied by rationalists, as they
became vacated due to age and/or attrition.

(3) In the fullness of time, every field of academic endeavor became
polluted by howling nonsense that flew in the face of common sense.

(4) The aforesaid howling nonsense was shielded from public view by a  
cloak of academic jargon, and subject to direct public contact only
within classrooms, where the instructor was always in the power
position, able to silence intelligent critics without dealing with their
arguments, by exuding hostility, by refusing to permit questions during
class or, for critics who were persistent, by handing out bad grades.

(5) With the advent of the internet, with its open discussion groups
where everyone could take part, academic nonsense lost its protection.
Academics who posted in open groups discovered that intelligent members
of the general public recoiled from nonsense, and that when such
doctrines were discussed in open groups, they had to deal with the
criticisms that they had so easily avoided in their classrooms. Result:
they employed scathing sarcasm, blatant evasion, ad hominem attacks,
"crank lists," and other non-substantive rejoinders, in the hope of
driving the critics out of the supposedly open groups.

(6) Most of the critics were successfully intimidated into silence (they
became lurkers) or else driven out of the supposedly "open" groups
entirely. Some, however, adopted the same techniques as those employed
by the academics, and worse: to the scathing sarcasm, evasion, and ad
hominem attacks, they added gutter language of the foulest sort, and
they dug in their heels and refused to be silenced.

(7) The situation became "grim." A perpetual flame war became
established in open ("unmoderated") groups, to the utter disgust of any
sensible person who bothered to read the groups in question, and
reasoned discussion became an endangered species.

What is the solution?

Short term, an individual can transform any group into what he wants by
simply killfiling those who introduce ad hominems into discussions. Stop
using web browsers to read usenet. Get a newsreader with a good killfile
capability, and use it instead.

Longer term, the solution would be to end government funding of
"education," on the grounds that when government funding is provided,
education is automatically transformed  into religion. Hence government
funding of "education" is a  direct violation of the principle of
separation of church and state.

Of course, it ain't gonna happen. There is no way to turn back the
clock. What's done is done. Government funding of "education," growing
slowly in America for more than a hundred years, has affected the
culture of the country in much the same way as a gradual accumulation of
plaque affects the brain of an Alzheimer's patient. The disease is now
terminal, because the patient has become too stupid to take the actions
needed to save himself. Americans are no longer proud, independent
minded, honorable, self-sufficient individualists. Now they are whining,
begging, thieving, resentful, government worshipping collectivists, and
there is no power of persuasion or force of logic that can rectify that
state of affairs before economic collapse and social disintegration take
the country down.

All living things, whether considered as individuals or as groups, age,
grow old, and die. Civilizations are not exempt from the rules, and  
Western Civilization, the highest achievement of which was the United
States of America, is very old, very senile, and in its death throes as
we speak.

--Mitchell Jones}***

*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ

 

 

 

This can be done.  As far as I know, the possibility first appeared in print
as an "exercise for students" in Bryce DeWitt's 1963 Les Houches lectures.
In fact, you can get out the Standard Model interactions from seven extra
dimensions with the right geometry.  There was a lot of interest in this in
the early 1980s, but apart from the problem of quantization, it turns out
that it's very difficult to get "chiral" fermions -- that is, elementary
spin 1/2 particles whose "left-handed" versions are different from their
"right-handed" versions -- from a higher dimensional theory, and chiral
fermions are what we observe in Nature.

Incidentally, while string theory is certainly not just Kaluza-Klein
theory, it has extra dimensions, and it's routine to get extra "geometric"
interactions from these in the same fashion as Kaluza-Klein theory.

Quantization means taking a classical physical theory and making it into a
quantum mechanical one (with wave functions, observables as operators,
probabilistic predictions, etc.).  If you want to unify gravity with other
interactions, you *must* do this, since the other interactions are observed
to be quantum mechanical.  If you're not trying to unify things, there is
no completely conclusive proof that gravity must be quantized, but it turns
out to be extremely hard to consistently couple nonquantum gravity to quantum
matter (where "extremely hard" should be understood as "no one has a clue how
to do it").

Steve Carlip

Steve Carlip already fielded a few of your questions, I will try a few more.

The problem is that nobody knows how to make K-K theory compatible
with chiral fermions in a nice way.

In extra-dimensional theories you usually postulate that the extra
dimensions are compact and small.  Your choice of compact manifold
produces different interactions when projected down onto the four
large dimensions.

Ok, my cohomology theory is too rusty to answer that, but perhaps you
could get John Baez to tell you either on sci.physics.research or on
his blog, The n-Category Cafe.  You can also read his book, _Gauge
Fields, Knots, and Gravity_, although that takes mostly an associated
vector bundle approach and avoids principal bundles.

I can tell you that the connection (i.e. the electromagnetic or
Yang-Mills field), gives you the phase shift of a quantum mechanical
particle when it is transported along a path.

If you take a G-connection A where G is a Lie group, then Yang-Mills
theory is the equation of motion you obtain from finding the
stationary point of the action \int tr(F^*F), where F is the curvature
2-form ("field strength") associated with A, ^ is the wedge product,
and * is the Hodge dual.  A is the Yang-Mills field.  Maxwell's
equations for electromagnetism obtain when G=U(1).  You get extra
terms in the Yang-Mills field equations (equations of motion) beyond
what appear in Maxwell's equations when G is non-Abelian.

Note the key point: the field strength is not any old 2-form, but the
curvature associated with a G-connection, which is the field itself.
The field strength is automatically closed from the Bianchi identities.

The charge-to-mass ratio is encoded in 5th-dimensional momentum.
Momentum is a tangent (or really cotangent) vector and classically can
have any magnitude, even on a compact manifold.

I elided a 6 at the beginning.  It should be:

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=6i2h82$95q$1@crib.bevc.blacksburg.va.us

As Steve said, it's the incompatibility of the theory with the
experimental fact that that left-handed and right-handed fermions can
be different.  (Left-handed and right-handed refers to spinning
clockwise or counterclockwise.. really it comes from spinor
representations.)

Cor Blimey! does that mean I've been communicating through "Hyperspace"
for all these years.
Cliff Wright ZL1BDA