It seems that we can discuss, so I'll answer your questions. Selectively. Commenting the whole post would be too long and diverging. ============= G: > BTW, it's not my cup of tea, but at least I know why > the > most realistic unifying theories are formulated in > 10 Dimensions. Not from some Stanford or other kitchen > almanac, but from my own experience in Physics. > Do you? ================ > jr writes> > Again do we unify 4 fields where three are fantasy, or do > we eliminate > the fantasy fields? I only require three dimensions... > which is really > all we have. If we have an atom built from compacted > electromagnetic > field structures, we eliminate the two particle fields and > gravity at > once. But I am interested in why it must be formulated by > mainstream > in 10 dimensions. =================== G: GR #Space "S" is a 4d #Space unique so far to support the covariance of Mechanics, Electromagnetism and Gravity. Now, curved nd #Space allowing for symmetry is embedded in embedding n*(n+1)/2 d. Thus 4d "S" is embedded in embedding "V" of 4*5/2=10d. (S and V point vaguely to surface/volume). Now, no factually verified Model deals with V and only GR deals with curved S. SR and QFT are limited to the flat Minkowski #Space and ignore V altogether. As there is no empty #Space, V like S must encompass some form of "matter", where by "matter" I mean a metalanguage shortcut for some field(s) and singularities thereof. My postulate is that unification will consist in unifying V and S in a unique #Space. That's where we disagree. Whatever the fabric of the V-matter, it does not interact with EM, unless you deny GR, which would close our discussion here and now. EM is entirely confined to S, whose geodesics never quit it towards V. My postulate is open towards luminous "matter" of S against the dark "mater" of V, indifferent to EM, with gravity gluing together V and S, as well as towards 10d constructs such as superstrings. Apparently in total contradiction to your global EM, but then vive la difference, mother of discussion.
> BTW, below you talk about electric current and its > generated magnetic Field. > Do you know at least what is the mathematic fabric of > the so called "magnetic field vector"? > Again, no sarcasm, very few know and I am ready to help. ================== > jr writes> > Math fabric? Like a background condition??? Again please > do. ================= G: Let me recall Maxwell's equations in vector form as: curl(E)=-pB/pt (B=mu*H) curl(H)=pD/pt (D=eps*E) div(D)=ro div(B)=0 where: E: polar vector of electric field H: axial vector of magnetic field eps: dielectric constant of vacuum mu: magnetic permeability of vacuum ro: charge density D: vector electric induction B: vector magnetic induction Vector equations with axial vectors, curls, etc. may be useful as High School tutorials, but by no means in Relativity research. Actually, they are wrong, starting with H, which is not a vector, but an anti-symmetric tensor of rank 2. It happens to have in 3D #Space 3 independent components, which makes it similar to a vector and allows to consider it in elementary handbooks as "axial vector". Proper tensor expression of Maxwell equations may be seen in my derivation of E=MC2 in http://findgeorges.com/ DB SPECIAL RELATIVITY dbe E=MC^2 Cheers Georges. ================= --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
