1. By Roger J Anderton -1- Unified Field Theory: from Boscovich to Geometrodynamics

2. 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-

3. What Happened to Einstein's Unified Field Theory? * Well we can consider the Conspiracy side- e.g. -3-

4. Dr. Joseph P. Farrell http://gizadeathstar.com/ -4- http://gizadeathstar.com/

5. 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-

6. What Happened to Einstein's Unified Field Theory? OR we can consider the Mainstream's excuses- -6-

7. For a moment I am going by this book- -7-

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

9. A fair number of Physicists thought Einstein had gone crazy looking for a Unified Field Theory -9-

10. 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-

11. 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-

12. 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-

13. Now not everyone had abandoned Einstein's Relativity, he had one successor (at least)- -13-

14. John A Wheeler -14-

15. 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-

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

18. 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-

19. In Wheeler school – the unified field theory based upon Einstein's Relativity gets called GEOMETRODYNAMICS. -19-

20. 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-

21. Einstein's Unified Field Theory research program carried on after Einstein's death under John Wheeler's school and was called Geometrodynamics. -21-

22. 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-

23. 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-

24. 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-

25. 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-

26. 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-

27. 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-

28. So the first time that they mention there is a unified field theory – from which they are working – is from the 18 th century – this man - -28-

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

30. 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-

31. 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-

32. John Cowperthwaite Graves -32-

33. 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-

35. 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-

36. 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-

37. Boscovich -37-

39. 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-

40. 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-

41. 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-

42. 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-

43. 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-

44. 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-

45. 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-

46. 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-

47. 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-

48. So that is the end of the history part, I will now look at the “theory” - -48-

49. 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-

50. 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-

51. 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-

52. 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-

53. 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-

54. 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-

55. 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-

56. 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-

57. 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-

58. 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-

59. 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 -

60. 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-

61. 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-

62. 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-

63. 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-

64. 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-

65. Example of applications of Boscovich's theory- It explains Cold Fusion- -65-

66. Evan Ragland (Diamondhead,MS), "An Alternate Model of the 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 nuclear fusion mechanics. -66-

67. 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 a proton); and, the nucleus as a field centered organization of protons and neutrons, each confined to a distinct shell location. The neutron's internal electric field is the nuclear strong force. -67-

68. 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 field Centered 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-

69. In his Bakerian Lecture of1920, Ernest Rutherford advanced the concept of an electron/proton doublet as a neutral particle within the 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-

70. 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 constituent elements. 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-

71. According to the Mayer/Jensen Shell Model, the general rules of quantum mechanics restrict nucleons to a shell arrangement of discrete 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 this visualization clarify when the model is applied to the field centered concept of the Alternate Model. -71-

72. Here a set of discrete symmetrical stationary 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 a pair of neutrons of opposite spin may occupy the same state. -72-

73. 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" is Demonstrated -73-

74. in terms of the equivalence of mass and energy. Plausible logic shows their powers of combination about a common origin into atomic 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-

75. 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-

76. 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-

77. 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 18 th century; and that acts as block. I want it to be more widely known about Boscovich. -77-

78. Depending on time- I want to show some things on the web -78-

79. Thank-you. Fin. -79-