lkcl wrote:from wikipedia:

Kaluza's original hypothesis was purely classical and extended discoveries of general relativity. By the time of Klein's contribution, the discoveries of Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and de Broglie were receiving a lot of attention. Klein's Nature paper [4] suggested that the fifth dimension is closed and periodic, and that the identification of electric charge with motion in the fifth dimension be interpreted as standing waves of wavelength {\displaystyle \lambda ^{5}} \lambda ^{5}, much like the electrons around a nucleus in the Bohr model of the atom.

it is not a coincidence that in dr randall mill's theory, the definition of a particle is that a photon is trapped in a circularly standing-wave pattern with itself.

Hi Luke,

Let me use this to reply to all of your recent comments.

It is especially important regarding the issues you raise, to be mindful that the 5th dimension that I uncover in

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... -klein.pdf is

timelike not spacelike, and that the metric tensor first found at (3.11) decouples the timelike signature of the fifth dimension from the scalar field

. So as I elaborate in the first full paragraph of page 22, the curling up of an extra spacelike dimension is off the table, to be replaced by whatever epistemology ends up attaching itself following deep analysis to the existence of two time dimensions. One question this raises is the following: take what we know about the probabilities that are endemic to nature because of quantum theory, whereby the "could have happened" separates itself from the "did happen" as time progresses, and see if there is an isomorphic mapping of probability theory onto a time

plane rather than a time axis. For now, I will leave this to others who may find it interesting to pursue. A second question which I will pursue in the near term, is the "matter dimension" viewpoint which I elaborate upon in a recent thread / post at

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... pDPRRKNkiA.

I have long had an intuitive problem with there being a fourth spacelike dimension, but only with the paper being discussed here have I become convinced of this. This is because as I prove in this paper, the usual KK theory is not generally-covariant in five dimensions at the Dirac level, without having the metric (3.11) with a timelike signature for the fifth dimension. And to me, any anyone who firmly believes in the Einstein did with GR, general covariance is a must.

Jay