Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Einstein-Schrodinger Theory

  1. May 19, 2004 #1
    The Einstein-Schrodinger Theory:


    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. May 19, 2004 #2


    User Avatar

    Dear Russell E. Rierson,

    If you ask my opinion, then no real change in any scientific field (abstract or non-abstract) will take place, if we ignore our own cognition's abilities to develop these areas.
  4. May 19, 2004 #3
    It seems that a lot of new math has been derived since 1953. The question is how to explain the fundamental forces in terms of a unifying symmetry?

    Einstein and the unified field:

    http://www.alexander-unzicker.de/ae1930.html [Broken]

    http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~aunzicker/einst.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  5. May 19, 2004 #4
    Dear Russel E. Rierson, to work about an unification is quite my hobby; you could have a look on my modest contribution at http://www.alititi.privat.t-online.de [Broken] (in french, in englisch or in german language). Compared to all what I can read on the subject, I would say that my work is a kind of development of some other theories trying to include a polarized vacuum (described with Maxwell's Laws) in the general relativity. (e.g. Puthoff). Are you interesting in?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  6. May 19, 2004 #5


    User Avatar

    In the secont address ( http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~aunzicker/einst.html [Broken] ) I have found this question:

    "The question arises: How can we join to our riemannian spaces in a naturally logical way an additional structure that provides a uniform character of the whole thing ?"

    My question therefore is: What is a naturally logical way?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  7. May 19, 2004 #6
    I was wondering can gravity be unified with electromagnetism by the following:

    Using only forces and no heavy math, the gravity force, [itex]F^{-}_G[/itex] and antigravity [itex]F^{+}_G[/itex] are both proportional to the difference between electric force, [itex] F_E[/itex] and magnetic force, [itex]F_B[/itex].

    [tex] F^{-}_G = k(F_E - F_B)[/tex]

    [tex] F^{+}_G = k'(F_B - F_E)[/tex]

    where k and k' are the constants of proportionality.
    Last edited: May 20, 2004
  8. May 20, 2004 #7
    Entropy and gravity become closely linked, via black hole thermodynamics. The thermodynamic arrow of time is the direction of increased entropy.

    Here is mathematician John Nash's "Einstein field equation" where he talks about gravity "compression" waves:


  9. May 20, 2004 #8
    Tensors are higher dimensional generalized vectors beyond the three we normally encountered. Their transformations created the calculus of tensors. To keep things simple, I am only using tensor of rank 0 and rank 1 in my research. A rank 0 tensor is really just a scalar and a rank 1 is really a vector in the usual sense. A rank 2 is, I think, a matrix. What is a rank 3 tensor? Is it a cube? What is a rank 4 tensor? Is it a hypercube?
  10. May 20, 2004 #9
    Expanding the gravity form

    [tex]G^{-} = k(qE - qv \times B)[/tex]

    [tex] G^{-} = kq(E - v \times B)[/tex]

    [tex] G^{-} = kqL [/tex]

    where [itex] L = E - v \times B[/itex] and if the positions of v and B are interchanged then L is the Lorentz force.

    But the question is, in reality, who decides the changing of position for v and B? In vector analysis, this distinction is taken care of by the introduction of axial and polar vectors. But is this necessary? Aren't we introducing a directionality into the equation by putting v before B? Aren't all physical equations supposed to be in directionally symmetric forms? It seems that a principle is needed to assert this type of invariance of nature, the Principle of Directional Invariance.

    Further, let [itex] L' = v \times B - E [/itex]. So depending on the positions of v and B in the equations:

    [itex] G^{-} = kq(E - v \times B)[/itex] or [itex] G^{-} = kq(E + v \times B)[/itex] and for the antigravity forms: [itex] G^{+} = k'q(v \times B - E)[/itex] or [itex] G^{+} = -k'q(v \times B + E)[/itex].

    And [itex] (E - v \times B) \equiv (v \times B - E) [/itex] at only the vacuum where [itex] \nabla \cdot E = 0[/itex] and [itex] \nabla \cdot B = 0 [/itex] and v is equal to the speed of light in vacuum.
    Last edited: May 20, 2004
  11. May 20, 2004 #10
    food for thought

    Einstein's unified field theory (relativistic theory of the non-symmetric field) was not the first such unification theory (Weyl theory, Kaluza-Klein theory) and certainly isn't the last such unification theory, but as far as I know it is the only one whose main result has been written in frosting on a cake.
  12. May 21, 2004 #11
    The gravity tensor should be able to rotate into the electromagnetic tensor and the electromagnetic tensor should be able to rotate into the gravity tensor.



    Here is an interesting quote:


    It does not work but it is still interesting...
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  13. May 21, 2004 #12
    Sorry that I introduce me in this discussion and sorry if my question seems to be a little bit simple (I am just an amateur and I like physics) but to get an answer to your question who "...decides the changing of position for v and B? In vector analysis, this distinction is taken care of by the introduction of axial and polar vectors. But is this necessary? Aren't we introducing a directionality into the equation by putting v before B? Aren't all physical equations supposed to be in directionally symmetric forms?" ... would it not be relevant to make a systematic analysis of the following equation u x w = [matrix].w + rest (E) -whwere "x" between u and w is here the wedge product- ? (which is indeed one of my preoccupations in the work that you can visit on this forum). This equation (E) is exactly the equation allowing me to calculate the temporal variations of the Poynting's vector making use of the Maxwell's equations in vacuum to get a dynamic equation valid for the vacuum... Blackforest
  14. May 21, 2004 #13
    I'm still not clear about your equation? Please elaborate more. Thanks.
  15. May 22, 2004 #14
    some explainations

    See the attachment (Discussion.doc) for the answer. Thank you for the question. Blackforest
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2006
  16. May 23, 2004 #15
    Abhay Ashtekar has some excellent ideas IMHO:



    Imagine there is no space and time in the background; no canvas to
    paint the dynamics of the physical universe on. Imagine a play in
    which the stage joins the troupe of actors. Imagine a novel in which
    the book itself is a character...

    Yes, one can still do physics without sacrificing any mathematical
    precision. In classical physics, Einstein taught us how to do this by
    weaving the gravitational field into the very fabric of space-time. In
    the resulting theory, general relativity, there is no background
    space-time, no inert arena, no spectators in the cosmic dance. Matter,
    through its gravity, tells space-time how to bend and curved
    space-time, in turn, tells matter how to move. However, classical
    physics is incomplete; it ignores the quantum world. Can we fuse the
    pristine, geometric world of Einstein's with quantum physics, without
    robbing it of its soul? Can we realize Einstein's vision at the
    quantum level?


    "Space" could be a Bose Einstein condensate at the Planck scales?



    Such equations can be used, for example, in discussing
    Bose–Einstein condensates in heterogeneous and highly nonlinear systems.
    We demonstrate that at low momenta linearized excitations of the phase of the
    condensate wavefunction obey a (3 + 1)-dimensional d'Alembertian equation
    coupling to a (3 + 1)-dimensional Lorentzian-signature ‘effective metric' that
    is generic, and depends algebraically on the background field. Thus at low
    momenta this system serves as an analogue for the curved spacetime of
    general relativity. In contrast, at high momenta we demonstrate how one
    can use the eikonal approximation to extract a well controlled Bogoliubovlike
    dispersion relation, and (perhaps unexpectedly) recover non-relativistic
    Newtonian physics at high momenta. Bose–Einstein condensates appear to
    be an extremely promising analogue system for probing kinematic aspects of
    general relativity.

    end quote.

    If it can be formulated in terms of "background independence"...?
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  17. May 24, 2004 #16
    Isn't the search for a background the same as the search for an absolute rest frame of reference like the aether frame?

    I think what both special and general relativity theory are telling us is that spacetime is the absolute background of all of reality which include the quantum reality. Spacetime is used in quantum field theory, in superstring theory, and in M-theory as well.

    But in the quantum domain, the reality of quantized spacetime is the same as the quantization of one-dimensional space. A plausible theory can be built and this theory can describe the true meaning of mass and charge.
  18. May 25, 2004 #17
    Stage (geometric structure), players (EM fields), rigth, wrong, theory developing the idea (and the calculations) that there are different forces in vacuum resulting of the random fluctuations 1) of the EM fields 2) of the structure... It's my theory ! But you certainly noticed one of my important hypothesis: we should be able to define frames where all forces vanish to get the sensation that vacuum is a region which can be refered to an inertial frame at rest... and so verify what we usually verify: vacuum is the main part of the volumes defined in the universe and the universe is quasi-flat (Minkowski) ... There is no absolute rest frame but just circumstances giving us a play in which we could believe all players are at rest because they are exactly moving with and like the stage. Maybe not a good description but do you think it is a good approach even if it is a first incomplete scheme?Blackforest
  19. May 25, 2004 #18
    There is no frame (at rest or in motion) of any kind in my proposed theory. The conserved quantity is the the LIM (local infinitesimal motion). There are two structures for the LIM. These are denoted by [itex]H^{+}[/itex] and [itex] H^{-}[/itex]. Further, in vector notations, they are given by the following

    [tex] H^{-} = r_i \times F_i \cdot r_j \times F_j [/tex]

    [tex] H^{+} = F_i \times r_i \cdot r_j \times F_j [/tex]
  20. May 26, 2004 #19
    Where can I read more details about your theory? How can you verify the validity of your theory if you never precise a frame where you will make experiments and measurements to test it in our reality? As the gravitational force is a central field the conserved quantity in your theory must be 0 except if you introduce a new special definition of the wedge product. But if you do that, you will have to give more precision about the frame where your new definition is valid... Best regards Blackforest
  21. May 26, 2004 #20
    I have not published any about my research except what I wrote in this forum. The frame that I must be using is the frame of the vacuum. At this time, I definitely have problem verifying the existence of LIM in the vacuum by thinking of a physical experiment. The grouping of H+ and H- leads to the formation of matter and energy. So how can I use matter and energy going backward to find H+ and H-?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook