Hi Jay,

As I mentioned before; pretty fantastic! Do you think you could do a
summary of the postulates and a run down of the major features here?

FrediFizzx

Hi Fred:

The paper starts by recognizing that the conservation of total energy
(matter plus gravitation) for an electromagnetic field in General Relativity
(GR) is predicated on Maxwell's magnetic (second) equation = 0. This in

turn is predicated on an Abelian relationship between fields and potentials.
If one wishes to be able to consider non-Abelian field theories (such as
weak and strong interactions) in a GR context, then we must find a way to
free energy conservation from its dependence on Abelian fields. That is, we
need a way to conserve energy that works for non-Abelian as well as Abelian
fields.

To do this, we end up using certain mathematical identities that make use of
the duality formalism pioneered by Reinich and Wheeler based on Levi-Civita
formalism. This formalism inherently allows for magnetic monopoles,
although the ideas presented in THIS paper do not require or exclude
magnetic monopoles. (My earlier papers at
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0508257 and http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0509223
directly explore the magnetic monopole question, which to me is the oldest,
still unanswered question in science. Quark confinement is only ~30 years
old, the magnetic monopole question has this beat by a century.) These
mathematical identities, when used to ensure energy conservation for both
Abelian and non-Abelian fields, lead to a new energy tensor which resembles
the Maxwell tensor, but has a non-zero trace that can give rise to rest
mass. (My equation (2.23), on reflection, should be written in terms of
proper density, because it is not possible to transform the T^0k, T^jk=0
components to zero because of the ~g^uv proportionality that is discussed at
length in section 3.)

From there, we are able to derive a number of energy tensors which apply
equally to Abelian and non-Abelian interactions, and which have non-zero
trace energy (Tensor (3.25) is important to explore, because this tensor CAN
be put into a rest frame, i.e., T^0k, T^jk=0, and seems to derive the energy
out of E^2). And, we come to see that the kappa_v which describe the
exchange of energy between matter and the gravitational field is dependent
on the particular energy tensor one uses, i.e., just as there are a number
of different types of energy tensors which depend on the material phenomenon
being described, so too are there a number of different types of kappa_v and
these are linked to specific energy tensors. This leads to viewing the
Einstein equations as not only second, but also third-order equations in the
metric. This also leads us to understand the T^uv & kappa_v relationship in
terms of principles of equilibrium and disequilibrium which are
gravitationally-based and which also point toward how energy is converted
from one form to another.

But, what may be most significant, is that the T^uv and kappa_v for a
diversity of material phenomena ate all constructed out of the SAME field
strength tensors, just in different configurations, so, conversion of energy
from one form to another amounts to a reconfiguration of these fields. And,
since we know already how to treat these fields as quantum wavefunctions, we
can acquire a set of second and third order equations in the spacetime
metric wherein the second and third derivatives of the metric are set equal
to quantum wavefunctions. This suggests that once we can solve these
equations, we will find that the metric at any given point in spacetime is
itself a wavefunction with an expectation value, rather than a classical
object which has a definitive value. Thus, we quantize gravitation by
feeding into gravitation, wavefunctions derived from what we already known
from QED and QCD and QWD (weak interaction), which sets second and third
order constraint on the metric and allows quantum mechanics to be considered
in a non-linear gravitational context.

My main postulate -- which I will expand on in later reply to Dr. Photon, is
that we build new physics very conservatively, from what works. In my view,
this means three ingredients: Maxwell's electrodynamics, General Relativity,
and Yang Mills / non-Abelian gauge theory. Nothing else unless compelled.

The fourth ingredient I use liberally, is electric / magnetic duality, which
is perhaps less traditional. Duality can be seen both as a "passive
formalism" and an "active symmetry." That is, as a mathematical
proposition, one can use the duality formalism to represent known phenomenon
in different mathematical notation (i.e., P^u = *F^tu_t to represent a
magnetic monopole current and P^u = *F^tu_t = 0 to represent the second
Maxwell equation for vanishing magnetic monopoles), and one can make use of
certain identities (such as (2.1) through (2.5) here) which utilize this
formalism, without making any suppositions one way or the other about the
existence or non-existence of magnetic or chromomagnetic monopoles. That is
how duality is used, passively, in this paper. Additionally, one can use
duality actively as a symmetry principle, to pursue questions such as "why
do we not seem to observe magnetic monopoles in nature?" and "if magnetic
monopoles do exist, how do they hide at low energies?" This is what I do in
my other two papers, to arrive at the view that magnetic monopoles can be
used to explain .003 out of the .005 NuTeV anomaly, and that the other .002
is accounted for with weak magnetic monopoles (which some have called the
Z').

So, that's the basic overview. I'll say more as I can squeeze out some time
to respond to other posts.

Best to all,

Jay.

Jay, around pg. 13, in the paper introduces what I call the
"Principle of Equilibrium", where matter reforms by the
action of potentials to tend to an entropy, by geodesics,
consistent with GR, so far as a continuum theory permits.

Recall

PRESSURE x VOLUME/ TEMPERATURE

is an invariant for an ideal gas, is firmly related to EM and
GR.

To establish an Equilibrium of the pressure, volume and
temperature when one of those are changed the paper
suggests a differential variation of the geodesics.
Tucker argues the "differential" is quantized, IOW's
the Equilibrium is obtained "inexactly".