Jay R. Yablon
Mar7-08, 05:00 AM
[ Mod. note: Followup set to poster. Discussion of how to better present
a paper are not particulary appropriate for the group. -ik ]
I recently submitted a paper on Kaluza Klein to a top journal. The
paper was not accepted. I have copied over the referee report below,
and added my own comments and queries. I would like whatever objective
input you all can give on this report and how you see this.
The paper 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. And, this is easy to fix.
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? If I were to cite Klein, would
that obviate this point?
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).
But, 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: jyablon@nycap.rr.com
co-moderator: sci.physics.foundations
Weblog: http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/
Web Site: http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm
a paper are not particulary appropriate for the group. -ik ]
I recently submitted a paper on Kaluza Klein to a top journal. The
paper was not accepted. I have copied over the referee report below,
and added my own comments and queries. I would like whatever objective
input you all can give on this report and how you see this.
The paper 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. And, this is easy to fix.
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? If I were to cite Klein, would
that obviate this point?
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).
But, 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: jyablon@nycap.rr.com
co-moderator: sci.physics.foundations
Weblog: http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/
Web Site: http://home.nycap.rr.com/jry/FermionMass.htm