Angular Momentum And Geometric Algebra

[Dubbelosix]

During some breaks from here, I have still been having ideas in physics that needed writing down. One consequence of applying geometric algebra to the total angular momentum led to a very interesting conclusion: Similar to the gravitational bivector theory I created, it predicts there is a type of torsion term related to rotation.

 

https://consciousness1.quora.com/Bivector-Angular-Momentum

[inverse]

@Dubbelosix ;

 

may I ask once again;

 

why don't you try/consider to publish with journals officially?

Edited February 27, 2019 by inverse

[inverse]

or have you tried but got back negative response at all?

[Dubbelosix]

@Dubbelosix ;

 

may I ask once again;

 

why don't you try/consider to publish with journals officially?

 

I will one day... I said to myself, one day. I did consider collecting all my work and putting into a single book. But... you know, that depends on how much I create over the years that is good enough to enter such a thing.

[Dubbelosix]

or have you tried but got back negative response at all?

 

No, not in the context you suggest, I have never presented my work to a publishing firm, though the idea to do so, as I said, is there, the question is when the best time is.

[inverse]

I will one day... I said to myself, one day. I did consider collecting all my work and putting into a single book. But... you know, that depends on how much I create over the years that is good enough to enter such a thing.

 

which day @dubbelosix?

 

you are not a child! be sure that as scientists and/or nominators to be  scientists WE GENERALLY DO NOT TAKE THESE UNOFFICIAL INSTRUCTIONS SERIOUS ...

 

I think you have to do that ...

Edited February 27, 2019 by inverse

[Dubbelosix]

Unofficial though? I think of great scientists in history, who never sought to get their work published. Moreover, a small handful of those scientists never went through to get their PhD, they were in all sense of the words, self-taught. I am not here to try and impress myself with my ability to get published, my desire to spread my own understanding of science as I discover it, is far greater to me. Perhaps, publishing those thoughts will portray that better... perhaps not, but i won't rule out doing so, of course.

[Moronium]

...my desire to spread my own understanding of science as I discover it, is far greater to me.

 

The point, Dubbo, is to submit your revolutionary "discoveries" to established experts for peer review.  See if they hold up under analysis.  That way you would get some reliable feedback as to whether your "own understanding" is even worth considering.

 

I can certainly understand, after seeing you operate, why you hesitate to do that.  You don't seek "feedback.'  You only seek affirmations of your self-perceived genius from others.  If that is not forthcoming, you get extremely defensive and hostile.

 

.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Moronium

[Dubbelosix]

The point, Dubbo, is to submit your revolutionary "discoveries" to established experts for peer review.  See if they hold up under analysis.  That way you would get some reliable feedback as to whether your "own understanding" is even worth considering.

 

I can certainly understand, after seeing you operate, why you hesitate to do that.

 

.

Maybe the best time to publish would be when I am dead then. That way I would become a type of Picasso of physics, even if the picture is ugly as it often is.

[Moronium]

That way I would become a type of Picasso of physics,

 

You would, eh?  Not surprising that you say that, and, like I said, not surprising that you don't care to test that destiny now.

[Dubbelosix]

I am not motivated to publish for the reasons that someone might publish for. This way, I am literally free to think. Peer review isn't always right either.

[Vmedvil2]

Well, I have submitted 11 works in physics and all were accepted but I never wanted to pay the 2000$ to get published for each article getting published costs money which makes it instantly not worth it. I am sure dubbel could get published just does he want to pay the publishing fee, I sure didn't. I would rather pay the 400$ to get in patented for the stuff that is patentable rather than publish it and lose money for nothing more than fame,  I would rather patent the ideas and designs gaining sole ownership of the ideas and designs in that country being the United States for me.

Edited March 1, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

These are only two blog posts, so it is likely you haven't followed the whole derivation?

 

Either way, since they are actually good questions, I will take time to answer.

[Dubbelosix]

These are only two blog posts, so it is likely you haven't followed the whole derivation?

 

Either way, since they are actually good questions, I will take time to answer.

 

A couple of simple questions

 

I have probably missed something, but where did your bivector gravity equation come from on the first line?

 

What are you hoping to show, ie can your theory reproduce the predictions of general relativity ?.

 

The paper doesnt have introductions or summaries which might give the reader a clue where you are headed, other than in the title.

 

∇μDν=∂μ⋅Dkνγkγ0−(Γμ×Dkν)γkγ1γ2γ3

 

The bivector arises from three arguments, I reinterpret the following equations:

 

1) [math]\nabla = \partial + \Gamma[/math]

 

2) [math]\mathbf{J} = \mathbf{S} + \mathbf{J}[/math]

 

and

 

3) [math]\Box = \partial + \Gamma[/math]

 

The first equation is a correction derivative, basically the basis for Einstein's connections which treats [math]+\Gamma[/math] as a correction term. The third equation is also the same, except we show mathematically in the blog, the four dimensional operator adds some new rules, such as the first  term on the RHS being associated to time derivatives.

 

As for your question, it reproduces general relativity, absolutely fine... in fact, arguably better than Einstein's approach, because the bivector approach would have suggested that torsion was not an ad hoc assumption but something fundamental to Poincare symmetry.

Edited March 4, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

Also, you follow the whole derivation, just follow the main link to blog posts. That will show in steps how you get from one thing, to another.

Edited March 4, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

The second part to the last blog link:

 

https://consciousness1.quora.com/Bivector-Gravity-Torsion-Part-II-Equivalence-to-Gauge-Invariant-Berry-Curvature

 

We highlight here, the importance of a phase-dependence with bivector geometry. It extended, means that torsion plays a role in the phase potentially.

[Dubbelosix]

Extensive updates.

 

https://consciousness1.quora.com/Product-of-Bivectors-and-Spinors