| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Slebalix" |
| Date: |
08 Jun 2004 08:51:45 AM |
| Object: |
Are Unified Field Theories Justified? |
Are Unified Field Theories Justified?
Modern physics seems to be searching for ways to incorporate all physical
phenomena into a single unified theory. The question that comes to mind is why?
The question arises as to the conceptual need for such an activity and whether
the activity only adds to the complexity involved in achieving an understanding
of nature. The only apparent need for the activity seems to be a
quasi-religious motivation among mathematical theorists to make the Science of
Physics "elegant" (whatever that means). No objective reason seems to have been
presented to preclude the likelihood that Nature operates through multiple
independent mechanisms which may or may not interact with each other to produce
more complex phenomena.
Consider first the phenomena described by Maxwell's Equations. These
equations describe the manner in which electric and magnetic fields interact to
produce the electromagnetic field. They show that a changing electric field
produces a changing magnetic field and visa versa. They do not preclude the
existence of unchanging magnetic or electric fields. Indeed, such fields are
common and we have all experienced them. For example, static magnetic fields
are exhibited by permanent magnets and electromagnets operated by a DC current
and, in the region of space surrounding them at least, where the magnetic field
may be quite strong, do not involve an electric field. Similarly, electric
fields are readily observed, as evidenced by the rising of the hair on your arm
when it is placed close to the faceplate of a TV set or when one slides a
polystyrene cup from a stack (such an induced electric field may make the lower
cup "float" inside the cup above it). In these cases an electric field is
observed to be present without an accompanying magnetic field. It is only when
one of those fields (electric and magnetic) has a rate of change with respect
to time that the other field manifests itself in accordance with Maxwell's
Equations. It should be obvious to all that electric and magnetic fields
interact to produce an effect which we denote as the electromagnetic field but
in no way is the electromagnetic field fundamental since both the electric and
magnetic fields can be observed independently. (An analogy from chemistry would
be salt since is composed of atoms of sodium and chlorine which are combined
into a molecule which we call salt. The molecule is hardly a fundamental
entity, it is a compound of two fundamental entities.)
A similar consideration may be made with respect to the combination of
gravitational and inertial accelerations. It is presently accepted that both of
these observable accelerations are aspects of a single phenomena caused by the
curvature of space impelling matter to follow a path termed the null geodesic.
Unfortunately for this view, as is the case with the magnetic and electric
fields, both gravitational and inertial accelerations can be observed
independently of each other. As you sit reading this you can feel the effect of
the force of gravity pulling you downwards (the acceleration of gravity). When
you analyze what is occurring and compare it with the results which would be
observed at the opposite side of the Earth (which undergoes the same inertial
acceleration as occurs at your location to an accuracy of 0.03% or better)
there is no legitimate way to ascribe the force you feel in the seat of your
pants to an inertial acceleration. (The writer has received a few foolish
responses asserting that the force we feel results from the fact that, in
sitting, we are preventing ourselves from following our proper null geodesic
path. That allegation is most certainly true, but what impels us to attempt to
follow that path if it is not the classical force of gravity?) Just as we can
sense gravity as an independent force, we can also sense the force of inertial
acceleration independently of gravitational attraction. This is precisely what
is done during the rocket sled experiments conducted in the latter part of the
last century.
When an object is in freefall about a gravitationally attracting object it
is acted upon by both acceleration and gravitational forces. The gravitational
force acts to impel the object towards the center of attraction while the
inertial effect resists that attractive force and causes the object's velocity
vector to change. The result is an orbital path about the attracting object
which is termed the "null geodesic". Just as is the case of the electromagnetic
field, the result does not represent a single entity, it represents two
individual interacting entities. To attempt to treat that interaction as if it
were and as the current practice seems to do is, in itself, the height of
folly. Gravitational theory does not produce a unified field theory. As with
electromagnetism, there are two independent fields involved!
There seems to be no purpose for the attempts to produce a unified theory
other than the idea that the mathematics of Physics should be pretty (excuse
me, I think the term used is beautiful) other than to satisfy the mysticism pf
mathematicians.
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a
regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as
they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please
do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at
the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Unified Field Theories Justified? |
08 Jun 2004 01:35:44 PM |
|
|
Slebalix wrote:
Are Unified Field Theories Justified?
See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandr Timofeev" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Unified Field Theories Justified? |
09 Jun 2004 05:54:07 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40C606F3.9DF1B979@mchsi.com>...
Dear Sam Wormley,
Slebalix wrote:
Are Unified Field Theories Justified?
See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
What is it all about? >:^)
Mind what you're about!
See Crank Information concerning Uncle's Al messages:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0203020730.54694ebd%40posting.google.com
Best Regards,
TAN
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
