by roger j anderton -1- unified field theory: from boscovich to geometrodynamics

By Roger J Anderton-1-

Unified Field Theory: from Boscovich to Geometrodynamics

Last week was good on unified field theory. But I think – some of the background needs to be

gone into of the history of unified field theory before getting so technical as last week's lecture.

So the question I ask is:

What Happened to Einstein's Unified Field Theory?

-2-

What Happened to Einstein's Unified Field Theory?

* Well we can consider the Conspiracy side- e.g. -3-

Dr. Joseph P. Farrellhttp://gizadeathstar.com/

-4-

Where there is a Massive Cover-up and Unified Field Theory is used for secret technology starting

with Nazis using it for anti-gravity etc. -5-

What Happened to Einstein's Unified Field Theory?

OR we can consider the Mainstream's excuses--6-

For a moment I am going by this book-

-7-

Oppenheimer – Father of A-Bomb says Einstein is cuckoo -8-

A fair number of Physicists thought Einstein had gone crazy looking for a Unified Field Theory

-9-

There are other excuses like – Einstein went to America; and in America they did not think

Einstein's philosophical approach to physics had practical applications and hence were not money making ventures, unlike Quantum physics which they saw had money making uses and so had it

research funded.-10-

So in that scenario – Einstein was pursuing work on his Unified Field theory practically alone and ignored by rest of American Physics Academia which was more interested in Quantum physics.

-11-

Which from my perspective I think is unfortunate, because what Einstein was doing was working on

his Relativity theories - that I think were full of mistakes that needed sorting out. So ignoring Einstein's Unified Field Theory program was

ignoring sorting out the problems with Einstein's Relativity.

-12-

Now not everyone had abandoned Einstein's Relativity, he had one successor (at least)-

-13-

John A Wheeler-14-

The Wheeler School seems to be where all the big names of the Relativity's mainstream are

related to, usually by Wheeler having mentored them, or being in the chain of mentoring from it.

And – have books like this --15-

Where Wheeler is co-author of Bible of Relativity -17-

So it is interesting to know what happened to Einstein's Relativity after Einstein died, and answer is - it was picked up by the Wheeler

school.-18-

In Wheeler school – the unified field theory based upon Einstein's Relativity gets called

GEOMETRODYNAMICS.-19-

The Media likes saying Einstein never achieved his Unified Field Theory.

So that leads a lot of people interested in physics to dismiss that line of study.

BUT – what they should be saying is – -20-

Einstein's Unified Field Theory research program carried on after Einstein's death under John

Wheeler's school and was called Geometrodynamics.

-21-

And maybe they might like to add that it is not agreed - because that is Einstein's Relativity side of Physics, with the other side of physics being

based on Quantum physics. And its also not fully developed.

-22-

Ideally at Physics undergraduate level – there should be a Unified Field Theory course.

But there isn't. - what is taught is – of course – Einstein's relativity.

-23-

What is taught at undergraduate level is – Special Relativity in one year, and next year General

Relativity – as course options. And then that's the end of the University degree course.

-24-

They don't have a follow up course after doing General relativity to then do the next course –

Geometrodynamics.-- not at ordinary degree level at least. They can carry on and do it at PhD level.

But they don't seem to be making it clear that when they are dealing what they call General

relativity or Geometrodynamics at PhD level that they are in fact dealing with Einstein's Unified

Field Theory OR rather –-25-

They are dealing with parts of Einstein's Unified Field Theory because – Einstein's Unified Field Theory has not been totally agreed upon to be

made into a complete theory. -26-

Anyway, its an interesting thing to look at the History of this Geometrodynamics (or Einstein's

Unified Field Theory) program – and they do claim quite a long history on working on this theory,

starting long before Einstein.-27-

So the first time that they mention there is a unified field theory – from which they are working

– is from the 18th century – this man - -28-

Boscovich's unified field theory 18th century -29-

Mainstream Relativity is working from Boscovich's unified field theory.

You probably don't know that – because they haven't bothered to tell anyone.

(Its a specialist subject not part of ordinary degree level physics.)

Any problems with accepting that “they” don't tell you everything at university and choose to omit

some very significant things ?-30-

The Point I am trying to make is that the Mainstream is working from Unified Field theory of

Boscovich – just they have not bothered to tell anyone; and even those dealing with Unified Field Theory – most of them are unaware of the History of the subject. Hopefully you are happy with that

then I can move onto my information source.-31-

John Cowperthwaite Graves-32-

John Cowperthwaite Graves philosophy professor; the first out gay professor at the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology in the early 1970's, he taught the first gay studies course at MIT.

http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biog3/graves01.html

And he wrote this book -

-33-

The Book deals with the History of Geometrodynamics/General relativity.

And the Book has a foreword by John Wheeler, so I am taking it that John Wheeler endorses the

History. -35-

Of course – some people might disagree. But some people are able to argue that black is white. Going by this book – we can look at where in the time-line there is the first mention of a unified field

theory, and of course its this guy--36-

Boscovich -37-

John Cowperthwaite Graves says that Boscovich's theory is unified field theory.

He also says that Geometrodynamics is unified field theory.

So putting it in historical context – the unified field theory before Einstein was Boscovich's theory.

The unified field theory (which is incomplete and not agreed on) based on Einstein's unified field theory

research program is Geometrodynamics coming from Wheeler's school of researchers.

-39-

So of course - John Cowperthwaite Graves is endorsing the unified field theory post-Einstein and not pre-Einstein.

But that does not bother me – because from my perspective – Einstein made a great many mistakes- and

so my conclusion is that the unified field theory pre-Einstein is the correct one; before Einstein and his

supporters started making the mistakes.

-40-

And its in the History of Physics that the Einstein supporters adhere to that there was a unified field

theory before Einstein came along!Now for a few problems-

-41-

Its taken me a Great deal of research to find out what was the unified field theory before Einstein

came on the scene with his supposed revolutions 1905- onwards.

And I find its hidden away in the mainstream History of physics.

-42-

Geometrodynamics/Einstein's relativity is now a vast body of scientific literature based on a lot of

peoples' research.The Bible of relativity is the book – Gravitation co-

authored by Wheeler and its over a thousand pages of very technical complicated maths. And its only a summary of the technical stuff. And its

not even a comprehensive summary, a great deal has happened since its publication. Reading that Book and reading extra texts for what is missed out – constitutes a massive investment of time.

-43-

And the Book does not even mention Boscovich – I have bought the Book.

Its not dealing with the History!Just dealing with the History involves a massive

investment of time on research.So those of the Wheeler school are probably unaware of things like Boscovich. They have instead concentrated on the technical stuff

and not history.-44-

From my perspective – the mainstream has gone wrong with Einstein, they followed Einstein's lead for research and what that leads them to create

massive books like Gravitation which cannot summarise the mainstream's version of unified

field theory in a few pages of explanation- because their version is fragmented, incomplete,

full of things that don't fit properly together.-45-

In short – their version of unified field theory is an ongoing research program, and its generating

massive amounts of literature.Whereas my perspective is simpler- Einstein

made a lot of mistakes which the Einstein supporters are still blindly going down that path,

and unified field theory is pre-Einstein.-46-

Of course – looking at unified field theory pre-Einstein would now be a massive research

project, because it would take a massive amount of work to counter the massive amount of work

that has now gone into unified field theory Post-Einstein.

-47-

So that is the end of the history part, I will now look at the “theory” -

-48-

I will now deal with what John Cowperthwaite Graves has to say about Boscovich's theory. From his perspective – it is pre-Einstein and he is looking for excuses to ignore it

and go on to post-Einstein attempts at unified field theory.

So from my perspective – although he is admitting it is a unified field theory he is misrepresenting it so that he can ignore it. To take a proper analysis of Boscovich's theory

would take a large amount of time invested in it, and already he and others like him have invested large

amounts of time on post-Einstein unified field theories, so incentive for them is to quickly jump over pre-Einstein

unified field theory.

-49-

Also I would like to add that maybe the main reason why they don't want to teach unified field theory at undergraduate level would be that they would expose themselves to students as having

lots of disconnected ideas that don't fit together in a coherent manner. And they would find that as lecturer embarrassing to be unable to dictate to undergraduate students - one set of supposed

truths.-50-

i.e. an overview of unified field theory research reveals it to be a mess. But in a specialist

postgraduate level it would be concentration on just one or two aspects of unified field theory and

not on the overview.-51-

John Cowperthwaite Graves says: - “But most important of all insofar as Boscovich may be said to have a field theory,

it is a unified field theory.”

So I am going to spit that down – it is said that way (1) to cause doubt that Boscovich had a field theory and (2) if you accept that Boscovich had a field theory then its a

unified field theory.

The objective is to cause doubt, because its not the type of unified field theory they are interested in, and they want people to skip over it to the type of unified field theory

they are interested in.

-52-

Now I want to quote what Wheeler says - “This book is intended to be a comprehensive account of the

philosophically significant aspects of a particular physical theory, general relativity or “geometrodynamics” as its

contemporary version is now called. I firmly believe that the theory should be taken seriously, even if it has not yet been

perfectly confirmed, and that it has important and sometimes surprising implications for both physics and philosophy. At

least some theories, and this one in particular, include among the explanatory features the task of trying to construct a

coherent and intellectually satisfying picture of the world, and philosophy should be concerned to explicate and evaluate

this picture.”-53-

I want to split that down -“This book is intended to be a comprehensive account of the

philosophically significant aspects of a particular physical theory, general relativity or “geometrodynamics” as its

contemporary version is now called.”

So they are wanting Boscovich's theory as part of their construction towards their

“geometrodynamics”.

Of course they don't have to accept completely Boscovich's theory – they can take

what they want and throw away the rest.-54-

But I am equally at liberty to accept Boscovich's theory in as much of its entirety and throw away

their Geometrodynamics as being a mess of mistakes.

-55-

Wheeler “I firmly believe that the theory [i.e. Geometrodynamics] should be taken seriously, even if it has

not yet been perfectly confirmed, and that it has important and sometimes surprising implications for both physics and

philosophy.”

And I am taking it – Geometrodynamics to be in a mess.

The philosophy behind Boscovich's theory is what I want to go by.

So the philosophy behind what Geometrodynamics might also be a bit of a mess from my perspective if they have deviated

too much from Boscovich's philosophy.-56-

Wheeler: “At least some theories, and this one in particular [i.e. Geometrodynamics] , include among the explanatory

features the task of trying to construct a coherent and intellectually satisfying picture of the world, and philosophy should be concerned to explicate and evaluate this picture.”

That is an admission that Geometrodynamics is not coherent, and the project is ongoing to make it so.

Boscovich's theory is coherent, so deviation from that leads to them being incoherent.

-57-

So hopefully you get the general idea of where my perspective is coming from-- they are going to

make claims about Boscovich's theory based on their belief in a post-Einstein unified field theory

instead of a pre-Einstein theory and I am going to argue against them.

Its rather tiresome to continue so enough of that.-58-

Back to the History again – this time around Einstein becoming famous circa 1919 – there was

no proper debate on the merits of Einstein's relativity, as to whether Einstein had genuinely overturned Newtonian physics. And I had dealt with this in previous lectures. When it came to acceptance of Einstein's relativity there was a

great deal of criticism. Maybe that contributed – to-59 -

Why People like Oppenheimer thought Einstein was cuckoo. Maybe that contributed to blocking

too many physicists being interested in Einstein's unified field theory research program while

Einstein was alive?

If it blocked it then it did not completely block it because a small part of that project survived with the Wheeler school of Geometrodynamics. And –

-60-

It is recorded after Einstein died there was a sudden resurgence of interest in Einstein's

General relativity, what is called sometimes the Renaissance of Relativity.

A great deal of papers were suddenly started to be written about Einstein's relativity.

-61-

So I want to look at that another way-- the critics of Einstein maybe managed to block as much as

possible Einstein's research program while Einstein was alive. But after Einstein died, many of these critics were themselves getting very old

and dying. So the critics were dying off.There was no tradition of keeping the critics going

as a program in the same way as Einstein's program.

-62-

Thus with this Renaissance of Einstein's relativity – suddenly the Einstein relativity program faced a lot less of its old enemy critics, and it was able to expand and pull in a new generation of physicists ignoring the criticisms that it had originally faced , and pretending like there was no real criticism in

the past- so as to ignore it - and deciding to denounce any new critics as cranks.

-63-

So on the Einstein's unified field theory research program it is still tied into the numerous mistakes that Einstein made, and trying to build on those

mistakes.

While throw away that mountain of mistakes and revealed to us is pre-Einstein unified field theory =

Boscovich's theory. -64-

Example of applications of Boscovich's theory-

It explains Cold Fusion- -65-

Evan Ragland (Diamondhead,MS), "An Alternate Model ofthe Atomic Nucleus," presented at ICCF4.

The many successes of the Standard Model, and the promise it holds for development of a unified field theory,

have gained such wide acceptance that other atomic models are seldom considered.

Nevertheless, there are often distinct advantages to be gained from alternative viewpoints. The Alternate Model theorizes a field centered atomic model which may offer

further insight into nuclearfusion mechanics.

-66-

The Standard Model constructs the atomic nucleus as a cluster or clump of protons and

neutrons each of which contains three electric charges (quarks) bound together by three carriers of the nuclear strong force (gluons). The Alternate Model constructs the neutron as the complement

of the hydrogen atom (an electron inside aproton); and, the nucleus as a field centered organization of protons and neutrons, each

confined to a distinct shell location. Theneutron's internal electric field is the nuclear

strong force.-67-

The construct builds on Rutherford's electron/proton doublet, the

Mayer/Jensen Shell Model of the nucleus, and the Boscovich action of forces to develop a systematic

geometry and logic for fieldCentered nucleons at rest in stationary states with harmonious spins. The model treats the electron,

proton, and the composite neutron internal field as force fields of common origin.

-68-

In his Bakerian Lecture of1920, Ernest Rutherford advanced the concept of an electron/proton doublet

as a neutral particle withinthe atomic nucleus. He visualized the particle as an electron in orbit about a proton within the nucleus.

This is an untenable arrangement as the energy required to confine the electron to an

orbit within the nucleus is greater than the binding energy of the nucleus.

-69-

The Alternate Model proposes the doublet arrangement of the neutron to be an electron

captured into stationary state within the proton. Again, the energy required to confine the electron is greater than the binding energy of the doublet; thus, the system must,in time (half life - 12minutes),decay

into lighter constituentelements. Most often, before decay, the neutron

reacts by binding to another nucleon. This reaction can form a stable nucleus. For

example, a neutron reacting with a proton to form a deuteron creates a stable nucleus with binding energy

greater than the confinement energy of its constituent parts. -70-

According to the Mayer/Jensen Shell Model, the general rules of quantum mechanics restrict nucleons

to a shell arrangement ofdiscrete states within the nucleus similar to the shell

structure of atomic electrons. When the model is applied to the clump or cluster

concept of the Standard Model, nucleons are envisioned as occupying discrete orbits within the

nucleus. Ambiguities of thisvisualization clarify when the model is applied to the

field centeredconcept of the Alternate Model.

-71-

Here a set of discrete symmetricalstationary states can only be occupied by nucleons with particular energies and motions at the time of

nuclear acquisition and assembly. The Pauli exclusion principle holds in the Alternate

Model; i.e., no more than one proton or one nucleon can occupy a discrete energy state with the exception

that a pair of protons or apair of neutrons of opposite spin may occupy the

same state.-72-

The Alternate Model treats the electron, proton, and neutron as Boscovich point sources of field force or

charge rather than as particles. While a point cannot be a real source, it can mark the

origin within a real field of an extinct causative source. That real fields exist for electrons, protons,

etc. about "Boscovich points" isDemonstrated

-73-

in terms of the equivalence of mass and energy. Plausible logic shows their powers of combination

about a common origin intoatomic nuclei. A symbolic flow diagram for the progression, proton field through alpha field,

supported by a Boolean algebra further exemplifies field treatment of the atomic nucleus.

-74-

In summary, the Alternate Model is another way of viewing the atomic nucleus. It may be more suitable

than the Standard Model for examination of low energy nuclear effects in condensed matter.

In particular, it seems to better explain the absence of the neutron branch in cold fusion deuteron/deuteron

reactions.-75-

i.e. Mainstream dismissed Cold Fusion because there were no neutrons produced. But by model based

on Boscovich's theory – no neutrons are produced.

-76-

I am looking for Endorsements for Boscovich.I want as many people saying Boscovich should

not be ignored.The attitude I get too much is of disbelief that

there was a unified field theory in the 18th century; and that acts as block. I want it to be more widely

known about Boscovich. -77-

Depending on time- I want to show some things on the web

-78-

Thank-you.Fin.-79-