View Full Version : Einstein's attempt at a unified field theory -- any value for today's research?
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>I\'ve been reading popular books like Michio Kaku and Briane Greene and\nEinstein\'s biography.\n\nI know he spent the final 30+ years of his life on a unified field\ntheory of gravity and electromagnetism.\n\nDoes his papers in his late work have any contemporary value in\nphysics research? Did Einstein know of the strong and weak nuclear\nforces? DId he ever attempt to quantize General Relativity?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I've been reading popular books like Michio Kaku and Briane Greene and
Einstein's biography.
I know he spent the final 30+ years of his life on a unified field
theory of gravity and electromagnetism.
Does his papers in his late work have any contemporary value in
physics research? Did Einstein know of the strong and weak nuclear
forces? DId he ever attempt to quantize General Relativity?
Doug Sweetser
May11-04, 05:10 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Hello Daniel:\n\nThe best resource to read about Einstein\'s scientific life is by A.\nPais, "Subtle is the Lord ...". Kaku and Greene may well have used\nthis as a resource.\n\n\n> I know he spent the final 30+ years of his life on a unified field\n> theory of gravity and electromagnetism.\n\nHe split his efforts between that goal and finding a new foundation for\nquantum mechanics. Causality is different for quantum mechanics than\nit is for classical mechanics. Einstein was interested in why that had\nto be. He was an optimist. He thought on several occasions he was\nclose to unifying gravity and EM. I don\'t know if he ever felt that\nway about his struggles with quantum mechanics.\n\n\n> Does his papers in his late work have any contemporary value in\n> physics research? Did Einstein know of the strong and weak nuclear\n> forces? Did he ever attempt to quantize General Relativity?\n\nThe later paper that gets cited the most is the one on hidden\nvariables, and that proposal has been demonstrated to be false.\nEinstein must have known of the weak force, the cause of radiation, but\nI do not know about the history of the strong force. The standard\nmodel became a standard after his death.\n\nIf Einstein were to have made a breakthrough in the two major research\nefforts, he would then be able to quantize the unified field equations.\nThat was the promised land he did not reach.\n\n\ndoug\nquaternions.com\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hello Daniel:
The best resource to read about Einstein's scientific life is by A.
Pais, "Subtle is the Lord ...". Kaku and Greene may well have used
this as a resource.
> I know he spent the final 30+ years of his life on a unified field
> theory of gravity and electromagnetism.
He split his efforts between that goal and finding a new foundation for
quantum mechanics. Causality is different for quantum mechanics than
it is for classical mechanics. Einstein was interested in why that had
to be. He was an optimist. He thought on several occasions he was
close to unifying gravity and EM. I don't know if he ever felt that
way about his struggles with quantum mechanics.
> Does his papers in his late work have any contemporary value in
> physics research? Did Einstein know of the strong and weak nuclear
> forces? Did he ever attempt to quantize General Relativity?
The later paper that gets cited the most is the one on hidden
variables, and that proposal has been demonstrated to be false.
Einstein must have known of the weak force, the cause of radiation, but
I do not know about the history of the strong force. The standard
model became a standard after his death.
If Einstein were to have made a breakthrough in the two major research
efforts, he would then be able to quantize the unified field equations.
That was the promised land he did not reach.
doug
quaternions.com
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nDoug Sweetser <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<c7k0nd\\$a2r\\$1@pcls4.std.com>...\n>\n> I do not know about the history of the strong force. The standard\n> model became a standard after his death.\n>\n\nThat some strong force existed had to be known since Ernest\nRutherford\'s experiment in 1911 when he discovered the atomic nucleus.\nIt was surounded by a cloud of negative electrons, the atom is\nelectrically neutral, so you must have a bunch of positively charged\nparticles bound together at the center, so there must exist some force\nstronger than electromagnetism that kept them together dispite\nelectric repulsion.\n\nDavid\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Doug Sweetser <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<c7k0nd$a2r$1@pcls4.std.com>...
>
> I do not know about the history of the strong force. The standard
> model became a standard after his death.
>
That some strong force existed had to be known since Ernest
Rutherford's experiment in 1911 when he discovered the atomic nucleus.
It was surounded by a cloud of negative electrons, the atom is
electrically neutral, so you must have a bunch of positively charged
particles bound together at the center, so there must exist some force
stronger than electromagnetism that kept them together dispite
electric repulsion.
David
Charles Francis
May12-04, 01:42 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In message <ba566c17.0405051319.590aa535@posting.google.com >, Daniel\n<ensabah6@yahoo.com> writes\n>I\'ve been reading popular books like Michio Kaku and Briane Greene and\n>Einstein\'s biography.\n>\n>I know he spent the final 30+ years of his life on a unified field\n>theory of gravity and electromagnetism.\n>\n>Does his papers in his late work have any contemporary value in\n>physics research?\n\nI think so. Einstein worked on teleparallelism, and I believe it will be\nessential in the unification of qm and gtr.\n\n>Did Einstein know of the strong and weak nuclear\n>forces?\n\nCertainly. But I don\'t think he worked on them.\n\n> DId he ever attempt to quantize General Relativity?\n>\nNo. He tried to formulate it in a way that was more consistent with\nelectromagnetism, using teleparallelism. It didn\'t work, quite. But the\nargument which lead him to think that a teleparallel formulation was\nnecessary holds, I think, for qm also.\n--\nCharles Francis\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In message <ba566c17.0405051319.590aa535@posting.google.com>, Daniel
<ensabah6@yahoo.com> writes
>I've been reading popular books like Michio Kaku and Briane Greene and
>Einstein's biography.
>
>I know he spent the final 30+ years of his life on a unified field
>theory of gravity and electromagnetism.
>
>Does his papers in his late work have any contemporary value in
>physics research?
I think so. Einstein worked on teleparallelism, and I believe it will be
essential in the unification of qm and gtr.
>Did Einstein know of the strong and weak nuclear
>forces?
Certainly. But I don't think he worked on them.
> DId he ever attempt to quantize General Relativity?
>
No. He tried to formulate it in a way that was more consistent with
electromagnetism, using teleparallelism. It didn't work, quite. But the
argument which lead him to think that a teleparallel formulation was
necessary holds, I think, for qm also.
--
Charles Francis
Corrado Massa
May14-04, 04:05 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Daniel" <ensabah6@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio\nnews:ba566c17.0405051319.590aa535@posti ng.google.com...\n\n> I know he spent the final 30+ years of his life on a unified field\n> theory of gravity and electromagnetism.\n> Does his papers in his late work have any contemporary value in\n> physics research?\n\nEinstein\'s unified field theory, developments > 1955\n\nD.H. Boal and J.W. Moffat:\n" Physical consequences of a solution of the\nnonsymmetric unified field theory "\nPhysical Review _D 11_ , 2026 - 2030 ( 1975).\n\nS. Ragusa: " Nonsymmetric unified theory of\ngravitation, electromagnetism and Yang-Mills field "\nClassical and Quantum Gravity\n_19_ 5969 - 5986 (2002).\n\nand references therein.\n\nSearch with Google; keywords:\n\n" J.W. Moffat, D.H. Boal "\n\nor:\n\n" nonsymmetric unified theory "\n\n>Did Einstein know of the strong and weak nuclear\n> forces?\n\nyes; the weak and strong interactions were discovered\nby Fermi in 1933 and Yukawa in 1935, respectively.\n\n> he ever attempt to quantize General Relativity?\n\nA. Einstein and N. Rosen, " The particle problem in the\ngeneral theory of relativity ", Physical Review (2) _48_,\n73 - 77 (1935).\nSee also " Out of My Later Years " (Philosophical Library,\nNew York, 1950) , in chapter: " Year 1936 ".\n\nbye\nCorrado\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Daniel" <ensabah6@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:ba566c17.0405051319.590aa535@posting.google.c om...
> I know he spent the final 30+ years of his life on a unified field
> theory of gravity and electromagnetism.
> Does his papers in his late work have any contemporary value in
> physics research?
Einstein's unified field theory, developments > 1955
D.H. Boal and J.W. Moffat:
" Physical consequences of a solution of the
nonsymmetric unified field theory "
Physical Review _D 11_ , 2026 - 2030 ( 1975).
S. Ragusa: " Nonsymmetric unified theory of
gravitation, electromagnetism and Yang-Mills field "
Classical and Quantum Gravity
_19_ 5969 - 5986 (2002).
and references therein.
Search with Google; keywords:
" J.W. Moffat, D.H. Boal "
or:
" nonsymmetric unified theory "
>Did Einstein know of the strong and weak nuclear
> forces?
yes; the weak and strong interactions were discovered
by Fermi in 1933 and Yukawa in 1935, respectively.
> he ever attempt to quantize General Relativity?
A. Einstein and N. Rosen, " The particle problem in the
general theory of relativity ", Physical Review (2) _48_,73 - 77 (1935).
See also " Out of My Later Years " (Philosophical Library,
New York, 1950) , in chapter: " Year 1936 ".
bye
Corrado
Doug Sweetser
May17-04, 07:57 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Hello David:\n\n> That some strong force existed had to be known since Ernest\n> Rutherford\'s experiment in 1911 when he discovered the atomic nucleus.\n> It was surounded by a cloud of negative electrons, the atom is\n> electrically neutral, so you must have a bunch of positively charged\n> particles bound together at the center, so there must exist some force\n> stronger than electromagnetism that kept them together dispite\n> electric repulsion.\n\nGood point. When did we first have a theory that kind of worked?\nThis represents a problem without a solution.\n\ndoug\nquaternions.com\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hello David:
> That some strong force existed had to be known since Ernest
> Rutherford's experiment in 1911 when he discovered the atomic nucleus.
> It was surounded by a cloud of negative electrons, the atom is
> electrically neutral, so you must have a bunch of positively charged
> particles bound together at the center, so there must exist some force
> stronger than electromagnetism that kept them together dispite
> electric repulsion.
Good point. When did we first have a theory that kind of worked?
This represents a problem without a solution.
doug
quaternions.com
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.