Einstein-Cartan-Evans unified field theory

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

jlumartinez
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Spain

Einstein-Cartan-Evans unified field theory

Post by jlumartinez »

A link to a short review about this theory which claims to unify the General Relativity with the Quantum Mechanics using a relativistic approach. A first sight it seems to be a complete theory based on solid mathematics:

http://www.aias.us/documents/eceArticle ... cle_EN.pdf

There are also may others theories which also claim a unification of forces ( Heim, Lissi, Haramein, etc) under different approaches

Professor Science
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:51 pm

Post by Professor Science »

How can you say the mathetmatics seem sound when the article is only 9 pages long and 90+% of it is text? I'm not evening reading this right now.
The pursuit of knowledge is in the best of interest of all mankind.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Professor Science wrote:How can you say the mathetmatics seem sound when the article is only 9 pages long and 90+% of it is text?
I'm not making a comment on this particular text, but mathematics is the study of patterns, NOT the study of numbers and certainly not the study of hieroglyphics and reams of greek letters. There may be a through mathematical treatment given in a text, the 'tools' of mathematics are there only to succinctly describe what would otherwise be verbose in text.

I recall with much satistaction a 30 min test out teacher in Advanced maths sprung on us, the period of small oscillation of a ball rolling around the bottom of a hemispherical bowl, in friction contact with it. Whilst the other guys got down to 'force' or 'energy' treatments, as per the standard approaches, steam literally pouring off their pens, I sat there thinking about it! After 25 mins, most had produced several pages of equations, I had a blank piece of paper in front of me. The teacher was frantically trying to get me to write something! The 'light bulb' went on at some 29 mins. I wrote a paragraph of text and a single equation in the time it took the bell to ring the end of the period. I got full marks.

(To be mediocre is to fail intellect. It is better to fail trying for excellence than to be successfully mediocre.)

AcesHigh
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

chrismb wrote:
Professor Science wrote:How can you say the mathetmatics seem sound when the article is only 9 pages long and 90+% of it is text?
I'm not making a comment on this particular text, but mathematics is the study of patterns, NOT the study of numbers and certainly not the study of hieroglyphics and reams of greek letters. There may be a through mathematical treatment given in a text, the 'tools' of mathematics are there only to succinctly describe what would otherwise be verbose in text.

I recall with much satistaction a 30 min test out teacher in Advanced maths sprung on us, the period of small oscillation of a ball rolling around the bottom of a hemispherical bowl, in friction contact with it. Whilst the other guys got down to 'force' or 'energy' treatments, as per the standard approaches, steam literally pouring off their pens, I sat there thinking about it! After 25 mins, most had produced several pages of equations, I had a blank piece of paper in front of me. The teacher was frantically trying to get me to write something! The 'light bulb' went on at some 29 mins. I wrote a paragraph of text and a single equation in the time it took the bell to ring the end of the period. I got full marks.

(To be mediocre is to fail intellect. It is better to fail trying for excellence than to be successfully mediocre.)
can you tell us what is it that you wrote?

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

I thought the review article was an interesting read. Had the author gone into the background mathematics he would have immediately cast the ECE Theory right in there with Heim Theory in which the mathematics is considered too convoluted to be understandable by most physicists, let alone laymen.
Aero

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

Unfortunately Evan's ECE (conjecture) totally debunked owing to glaring errors and Evan's refusal to respond to criticism and submit to formal review - see here for eg. - http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~ ... _Hooft.bmp, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E ... ans_theory.

shame really - intuitively I like the concept of 'torsion' - but the O(3) symmetry he posits just doesnt work out. (he also has a highly suspect predilection for coats of arms and other forms of self-aggrandizement and is now (rightly) discredited and ostracized by the scientific community)

jlumartinez
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlumartinez »

I don´t know if Evans is right or not. My math level is not so high to jugde his theory. But what I really know is that his concept is elegant and it is an extension of the General Relativity postulates to brace the Quantum Theory into one grand unified theory.

Everyone know that the standar model,although giving good results currently, is not a complete theory. It is just a compilation of results which explain the particle physic.

If anytime one of the unified field theories succeds it will get it through a new focus of the physical concepts, not by trying to follow the same established principles of GR o QM. I don´t understand why people just say that all the theories are incorrect because they don´t follow the exact GR or QM postulates. It is supposed to add something new to complement them. I neither understand why people say they are wrong even if they explain some experimental observations even better than the current theories.

Pr.Science, my first post was just a intro to the theory. The whole mathematical develoment is in : www.aias.com which covers six books (more than 130 papers) and it is based on Cartan´s differential geometry applied to extend the GR theory into the atomic world. Anyway, my post was just to mention this theory into this forum for those who were interested, not to make a defense of it.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Einstein-Cartan-Evans unified field theory

Post by TallDave »

jlumartinez wrote:A link to a short review about this theory which claims to unify the General Relativity with the Quantum Mechanics using a relativistic approach. A first sight it seems to be a complete theory based on solid mathematics:

http://www.aias.us/documents/eceArticle ... cle_EN.pdf

There are also may others theories which also claim a unification of forces ( Heim, Lissi, Haramein, etc) under different approaches
It's pretty silly. It contradicts conventional cosmology in ways that are very difficult to justify.
I don´t understand why people just say that all the theories are incorrect because they don´t follow the exact GR or QM postulates.
Because QM and GR do exceedingly well at explaining and predicting things in the very small and very large realms respectively. Therefore, anything that unifies them must look a lot like both of them, else it would contradict gigantic swathes of experimental data.

Heim theory is at least interesting because of its predictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

AcesHigh wrote: can you tell us what is it that you wrote?
'Fraid I don't recall. I'm not as good at maths now as I might once have been. The ability to perform does fade with age and lack of use... [yeah, sure..with maths as well!! :wink: ]. It was something to do with the relationship of polar angular momentum to the work that could be done by gravity (as sin x tends to x for small x, so it relates the angular displacement, which is in ratio with angular rotation of the ball to that in the bowl as the radii are in ratio), a kind of mixed energy and force equation. Normally you'd do that kind of thing by either 'energy' or by 'forces' (both taking several pages!), so going straight to an equation with both in requires a bit of verbal gymnastics rather than algebraic gymnastics. People forget numbers and algebra are there for us to use and change if we need to describe something else, not for us to suffer!

Professor Science
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:51 pm

Post by Professor Science »

Apologies jlumartinez, I was coming down from a bad week as far as chemistry is concerned. toiling in vain during the week on an anlytical assignment that i'm caring less and less about instead of preparing for an E&M exam i had friday was making me very cranky and I unloaded on you. It was not very polite of me.
The pursuit of knowledge is in the best of interest of all mankind.

jlumartinez
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlumartinez »

Don´t care. I didn´t take it as anything against me. It was just to show that the theory -right or not- was quite developed with many maths behind.

Another scientist which is also trying to include torsion into Einstein´s equations -as Evans- is Nassin Haramein. His theory is quite different but both are trying the same thing: as well as curvature they are trying to include torsion into the equations to unify GR and QM: curvature as the source of gravitation and torsion as the source of electromagnetism. It will be nice if someday any of these theory reveals as a valid unifcation scheme.

BenTC
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:54 am

Post by BenTC »

chrismb wrote:I recall with much satistaction a 30 min test out teacher in Advanced maths sprung on us, the period of small oscillation of a ball rolling around the bottom of a hemispherical bowl, in friction contact with it. Whilst the other guys got down to 'force' or 'energy' treatments, as per the standard approaches, steam literally pouring off their pens, I sat there thinking about it! After 25 mins, most had produced several pages of equations, I had a blank piece of paper in front of me. The teacher was frantically trying to get me to write something! The 'light bulb' went on at some 29 mins. I wrote a paragraph of text and a single equation in the time it took the bell to ring the end of the period. I got full marks.
Reminds me of a past experience, which I also use as an example to emphasise the importance of quality teaching. The subject was Transmission Line theory. The first year I studied it, the lecturer would arrive at class and start copying equations to the board, only occasionally speaking - with a monotone voice. I never got into it, got behind, and failed it dismally at around 25% - and most everyone else did awful but got normalised so there would be sufficient passes.

The next year, the new lecturer, for the first eight lectures, did not write a single equation. He drew pictures and just talked about them, repetitively and with humour. I still distinctly remember the time he described what happens when a switch closes on a transmission line, sending a wavefront down the line. He drew a surfboard on the wave and got us to imagine ourselves riding that wavefront, telling a story about how the charateristic parameters affected the ride. Then when he started with equations, they made sense in view of the model he had got us to internalise. He didn't believe in high pressure exams, so for end of year exam he writes a two hour exam but with three hours to do it - and as he put it "the first question everyone should get 100%, the second most will get most of it right, the third very few people will get." The third question was something like, "for a transmission line with 'T' being the time it takes a wave to travel one length, with an indicator light at the source end and open circuit at the far end, then when the switch at the source end is opened, how long does the light stay on for." (any takers before reading on?)

So having finished the first two questions in 1.5 hours I sat for almost the next 1.5 hours staring dumbfounded at the third question. Then just after being notified there were ten minutes remaining, the proverbial lightbulb went off and I realised that none of the equations we had studied were applicable. The answer actually needed to be derived from the imagery of those very first lectures - which took about half a page. The answer was '2T' - since the falling-wave from the opening switch would travel to the end of the line in '1T' and then bounce back to the source end where it would dissipate through the light at '2T'. I was one of six out of a hundred that got 100% for the exam. A BIG change around from the previous year. I don't think the previous year gave me any advantage (I was that switched off). I put it down to the teaching style.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

chrismb wrote:
AcesHigh wrote: can you tell us what is it that you wrote?
'Fraid I don't recall. I'm not as good at maths now as I might once have been.
I suffer from the same debility. When I have a problem that requires heavy math I call in a mathematician.

I have however corrected my various mathematicians from time to time by being better grounded in physical reality. You know the deal: "that partial differential just doesn't look right to me".
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Ben TC,

Two T until the incandescent light burns out (roughly). Assuming of course a sufficiently long transmission line and a source of rated indicator light voltage.

Update:

And folks. I put that up before reading Ben's answer. Heh.

It really helps being grounded (heh) in reality.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

And you will note that it took me less than seven minutes including reading Ben's question.

Heh. Heh.

I think it took me about 15 to 30 seconds actual time. But then again I have been studying transmission lines and RF since I was 10. An unfair advantage. And I also know that incandescents go fast at 2X rated V.

Edit: I have also studied TDR (time domain reflectometry) so I have seen the voltage rise from a termination higher than a line's characteristic impedance. You see stuff often enough and the patterns get embedded.
Last edited by MSimon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply