
return to homepage return
to updates
The
Unified Field Theory
by Miles
Mathis
It
is not the arrangement of new systems, nor the discovery of new
facts, which constitutes a man of science; but the submission
to our eternal system, and the proper grasp of facts already
known.—Ruskin
First posted July
12, 2007
This paper
is not a historical overview of failed Unified Field Theories. Nor
is it a philosophical treatise on the idea of the Unified Field.
Nor is it an esoteric model based on extravagant and untestable
hypotheses. Nor is it the revelation of some new math, so
difficult it requires large computers just to store the equations.
This paper is the announcement of the Unified Field that we have
always had, but not recognized. This paper is the solution of a
very long mystery.
I will show
that Newton’s famous gravitational equation is a compound
equation that expresses both the gravitational field and the E/M
field. I will separate the two fields mathematically, showing the
distinct equations and how they fit together. I will then do a
Relativistic transform on each new field, showing that a new
Relative field equation can be achieved directly without tensors
or any difficult math. I will then reunify these two Relative
field equations into a Unified Field Equation, which I will show
is just Newton’s classical field with a simple transform.
Once
that is done, I will derive the new number for g
by novel means, showing that the gravitational
acceleration—newly divorced from the acceleration caused by the
charge field—must be marginally greater than 9.8. I will show
that this is because the gravitational field and the charge field
are in vector opposition.
As a leadin
to this solution I will show some interesting facts, so far
uncompiled in the correct way, but related to the solution
revealed here. The first, surprisingly enough, is a quote by
Jonathan Swift. As a matter of science, Swift is most famous (or
notorious) for making strange and precise statements about the
moons of Mars, statements that turned out to be very near true.
Somewhat less well known in our own time is a statement he made
regarding gravity and his friend Newton’s efforts to explain it.
In Gulliver’s Travels, on the sorcerer's island of
Glubbdubdrib, Gulliver met the apparition of Aristotle, who
admitted his own mistakes and predicted the same fate for others'
ideas. Specifically,
He
[Aristotle] predicted the same fate for ATTRACTION, whereof the
present learned are such zealous asserters.
Swift
lampooned the idea of attraction as being unmechanical, and went
on to say that when gravity was really and truly solved, it would
be by a mechanism not yet thought of by the worthies of the age.
It turns out that he was even more prescient regarding
this than he was about the moons of Mars. Some have thought he
must be talking about Einstein, since Einstein assigns the cause
of the field to curvature, not attraction. But this cannot be
true. General Relativity changes the geometry, but it does not
change the direction of the gravity vector. For Einstein the
acceleration still points in, so it is still an attraction. For
Einstein, massive objects curve space, and the space then impels
objects in it. But for massive objects to curve space, they must
act upon it in some way, and this action must be a curved
attraction. Einstein has not done away with attraction, he has
only cloaked it—mechanically removing it one more step.
I
have shown in other papers that the only way to completely
dispense with attraction is to treat gravity as a real
acceleration outward. Once this is done, it allows us to define
all interaction as mechanical. It also allows us to pinpoint a
unified field that has existed for a long time—that existed even
in Swift’s day.
So far there has been some confusion as
to whether this treatment of gravity as an acceleration outward is
just a mathematical treatment, or whether it is physically true. I
find the whole question shocking, coming from three generations of
physicists who have had no trouble accepting Minkowski’s math or
Feynman’s math, or anyone else’s. They accept quantum leaps
and imaginary time and infinite renormalization and dimensions
curled up like pillbugs without blinking an eye, but they balk at
pursuing Einstein’s equivalence literally. One would come to the
conclusion that they will accept anything that they and their
friends think up, no matter how opaque, but nothing that an
outsider thinks up, no matter how transparent.
For the
past eighty years or so, the great problem in creating a Unified
Field Theory has been including gravity in it. The quantum field
is now the primary field in the eyes of most physicists, and the
problem is writing equations that include gravity in the quantum
field. That is why there is so much work now on quantum gravity.
The gravitational equations that must be unified into the quantum
field are the equations of Newton and Einstein, of course.
Newton’s equations are still considered the fundamental
equations of gravity, and Einstein only finetunes them by taking
into account time differentials. Einstein never disputed Newton’s
basic field assignments, he simply extended them.
But I
will show that the reason Newton’s and Einstein’s
gravitational equations cannot be imported into a unified field is
that these equations already describe a unified field. Newton’s
equations already include charge and its resulting EM, and
so do Einstein’s. The only problem is that Newton and Einstein
did not see that. Newton could not have been expected to see it,
since electromagnetism was not known in his time. And no one since
then has seen that his equations describe a compound force. His
equations already describe this compound force as written, with no
extension and no recalibration needed.
Before I prove
this with math, I would like to show some data that pushes us
where we are already going. In the 1940s the Dutch geophysicist
and ocean explorer F. A. Vening Meinesz showed that gravity is
very slightly stronger over deep oceans. This phenomenon has never
been explained, although Vening Meinesz attributed it to
continental drift and the standard model how tries to explain it
as an outcome of plate tectonics and isostasy. Using the offered
mechanics of isostasy and plate tectonics, the solution is both
fuzzy and unverifiable. Proof would require measurement of large
sections of deep earth that we simply cannot measure. And even
then the postulated mechanisms are farfetched and everchanging.
The phenomenon is quite easy to explain with a single
postulate, a postulate that can be tested directly in any number
of ways. If what we have always called gravity is actually a
compound field, then variations in that field can be explained
without recourse to ad hoc and external theories. That is,
if the force on a given object is actually a vector difference
between the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force,
then variations are immediately explained by variations in the
electromagnetic field of the Earth—or even more directly by
variations in the electromagnetic field produced by given
substances.
To be specific, I will show that the
gravitational force is always a force in vector opposition to the
electromagnetic force, and that these two subtract to give us a
resultant force. This resultant force is the one we measure and
call gravity. This explains gravity at sea because seawater will
be expected to have slightly less electromagnetic resistance than
land masses. Seawater is a fine conductor, but it is not the same
sort of source of E/M radiation that land is. Both
conductivity and creation of radiation must be considered,
and due to molecule density alone almost no liquid would be
expected to be as strong a source of basic E/M radiation as a
solid. This difference is tiny, but given deep enough water, the
affect will add up and become measurable. If the electromagnetic
vector is smaller, the total vector will be larger. The object
will weigh more, since it is being held up by less electromagnetic
bombardment.
A similar
phenomenon is explained in much the same way. In the 1850s J. H.
Pratt showed that the Himalayas do not exert the expected
gravitational pull. They do not deflect a plumbline. This result
was so surprising that the scientific world has really never
gotten over it. They have never explained it either, except by
more desperate theorizing. The astronomer G. B. Airy came up with
the idea that there are “reverse” Himalayas under the ones we
see, buried in the subcrust magma like a mirror image. There is
no way to prove or disprove that, short of a lot more digging than
we are prepared to do, but the reverse mountains wouldn’t solve
the problem anyway. This was basically the invention of isostasy,
but isostasy doesn’t solve the problem of the Himalayas. True,
the plumbline would then be affected by both the upper and lower
mountains, but the upper mountains should still deflect the
plumbline. The whole fix is absurd and counterintuitive, since it
was never thought the real mountains were sitting on a void. They
were assumed to be sitting on a huge mass already, a mass called
the Earth. Putting reverse mountains down there doesn’t solve a
thing. Even if the reverse mountains were made of gold or lead,
the real mountains would still be expected to affect a plumbline,
according to the given theory of gravity. The mountains have a
huge mass, and talking about masses underneath is not to the
point. The only new mountains that could offset the plumbline
would be mountains directly behind the plumbline (assuming the
real Himalayas are in front of it). Dr. Airy needed to postulate
very heavy ghost mountains behind him no matter what way he
turned.
The problem of the Himalayas is easy to solve once
you realize that gravity is not an attraction. It is a motion. It
is real acceleration, and it is a real acceleration in the
direction that a real acceleration is required to create the
force. That is, its direction is outward from the center of the
Earth. As a matter of gravity, the Himalayas are moving up, they
are not moving sideways.
Now, it is true that by this
assumption all objects are expanding, not just the Earth. So the
Himalayas should be expanding in all directions, too. But of
course it is easy to explain why objects on the Earth are not
getting closer to eachother due to this expansion. They are fixed
to the Earth by roots (in the case of mountains or trees) or by
friction (in the case of people and chairs and so on). And the
distance between them is also expanding. The tree and I are
expanding sideways, but the ground between us is, too. Since the
rate of expansion is equal for all of us, there is no relative
motion. The tree and I would get closer only if the ground between
us was not expanding like we were. This is why we don't see this
motion that causes gravity.
You will say that the
plumbline is not affected by either roots or friction. It is free
to swing. Am I saying that the friction of the air keeps it from
deflecting toward the mountains? No, logically there would be no
deflection even in a vacuum. Gravity is no longer a pulling force,
it is an apparent motion caused by expansion, so deflection of
this sort is impossible. There is nothing to cause it, so it does
not happen. It is that simple. The real motion of the mountains is
up, like everything else on Earth. That motion does not cause any
sideways deflection. The only thing that was wrong was our
expectation that it would.
This plumbline experiment could
not have been better prepared to test the given theory of gravity,
and it could not have given clearer evidence against the given
theory. But the story of its reception by the scientific community
is only proof that no evidence is ever strong enough to keep
people from believing what they want to believe. There is always
some way to come up with an absurd and untestable hypothesis that
allows you to keep your old theory, no matter what your eyes or
instruments tell you. For over 150 years, the standard model has
refused to hear what Mr. Pratt’s experiment is telling it.
[You may now go to a
new paper on isostasy for more on this.]
Now that I
have shown a couple of experimental proofs of my assertion, let us
look at the mathematical proof. We will start with Newton’s
equation. Newton’s famous gravity equation is a heuristic
equation, and Newton admitted that from the very beginning.
F
= GMm/R^{2}
Neither the numerator
nor the denominator were chosen for theoretical reasons. They were
chosen because they work. That is very clear with the constant G.
But it is true with the mass variables, too. Newton chose to
multiply them instead of add, subtract, or divide them, simply
because multiplying got the right answer. He could have added the
masses, for instance, and that would have given him a different
value for G. But then G would not be a constant. It would vary
from problem to problem. To get a constant, Newton had to
multiply. This is why he multiplies; not for any theoretical
reason.
The denominator is also mainly heuristic, although
there was some theory there in the beginning. Newton and others
could see that there was a drop off, and given the barebones
theory of gravity, they could see that it needed to be
exponential. Two was the first exponent to try, and it worked, so
mission accomplished.
This was experimental science in the
old way: run the experiments and try some equations until you
found one that worked. Science still works that way, to a large
extent, and no harm done. But in this case, the fact that a
heuristic equation so quickly became dogma was very bad for
physics and the theory of gravity. The equation became the theory
and no one ever felt it necessary to create a real theory—one
that could tell us why the masses were multiplied or why the
exponent of R was 2, for example. Most felt unqualified to do so,
and those with the confidence apparently couldn’t sort through
the math and mechanics at the same time.
Below I will show
that the reason the exponent is two and not three or four or any
other number is simply due to the electrical field. It has nothing
to do with the gravitational field. Notice for starters that
despite the fact that gravity is an acceleration, and despite the
fact that everyone knows that, there is no acceleration in
Newton’s equation. Not only that, there is no distance variable
in the numerator and no time variable in the denominator. How do
we get a force given no acceleration, especially considering that
Newton himself defined force in terms of acceleration? It is very
strange if you think about, but fortunately for Newton and the
physics of gravity, most people have never thought about it.
Here’s another thing that most people never notice.
Thanks to Einstein and others, we know that time and distance are
equivalent and interchangeable, in many ways. From Special
Relativity, we know that the two variables change inversely, one
getting bigger as the other gets smaller (in transforms). And more
than that, we know that in rate of change problems—even when
there is no transform—a time variable in a denominator can act
the same way a distance variable acts in a numerator. Knowing
this, we could actually rewrite the radius in Newton’s equation
as a time. If we rewrote the radius as the time it takes light to
travel between the objects, we would skip directly to a sort of
Einsteinian gravitational equation, without the tensors. I will do
just that below, proving that Newton’s equation can be
“Relativized” without fancy equations and curved fields and
long matrix derivations.
You will say, "All very
interesting, I am sure, but what does this have to do with a
unified field?" I am just showing you how Newton’s equation
can be analyzed, to prepare you for greater discoveries. Just as
we have analyzed the denominator, we can analyze the numerator,
discovering things that no one has seen before us.
If
force is really due to acceleration and mass alone, as Newton said
(and as I still accept), we shouldn't expect the gravitational
equation to look like it does. For one thing, we seem to have more
force than we have mass capable of producing it. We have a mass
times a mass, which is always going to be more than a mass plus a
mass. How can we have more mass in our equation than we have in
our field? It doesn't make sense. Then we have a distance in the
denominator instead of the numerator. In the basic force equation
F = ma = ms/t^{2}
the distance is in the
numerator. Again, somewhat strange. But strangest of all is the
constant G, a tiny number with lots of mysterious parameters.
G
= 6.67 x 10^{11}m^{3}/kgs^{2}
[This value comes from
Cavendish, but Newton knew a ballpark figure for the constant.]
Talk about a fudge. The variables in Newton’s equation don’t
even come close to giving us a force without a gigantic juggling
of dimensions. Even worse than that is the fact that G is so very
tiny. If it were just a matter of squaring up incommensurate
initial definitions, as I say (somewhat obliquely) in another
paper, then G would be fairly close to one. Kilograms, meters, and
seconds are not 11 orders of magnitude away from eachother. Why do
we need a constant that squashes our number to such a huge extent?
Without the constant, our force would be 11 orders of magnitude
too large. What does it all mean?
These questions and any
like them were asked precious little in Newton’s own time and
are not asked now at all. In Newton’s time, no answers were
forthcoming, either from Newton or from his critics. Critics like
Bishop Berkeley could describe some of the mysteries of the
equation, but he could not solve them.
Notice for a start
that one thing that G does is jettison one of the mass dimensions.
This means that the final answer needs the extra number we get
from the second mass, but it doesn’t need the extra dimension.
The equation likes the extension of the mass, but it doesn't like
the fact that it is a mass. It wants the number but not the
kilogram. The equation also wants the length dimension in the
numerator, not in the denominator, and again the constant takes
care of that. And we have time in the final answer, although it
was not measured in the field.
That may be the strangest
thing of all. We don't measure time or even have a variable for it
in our equation, but we achieve it in our answer.
What
could it mean?
What it means is that the equation Newton
has sprung on us—a heuristic equation with almost no theory
underneath it and even less explanation of the variables and
constants—is a compound equation. It is a compressed result of
several other more basic equations, equations that Newton could
not tease out of it. No one else has ever been able to tease them
out either.
I have already done part of the teasing work
in my paper on the Universal
Gravitational Constant. There I show that part of the dirty
work G does is in allowing Newton to create a dimension called
mass. Newton gives the dimensions he should have given to mass,
and gives them to G instead. So the first thing we can do in our
housecleaning is dump that ad
hoc dimension
m, returning to length and time. Maxwell showed in one of his
papers* that mass can be expressed as length^{3}/time^{2}
( L^{3}/T^{2}),
and if we do that then G loses most of its mystery. G loses all
its dimensions, and force is then L^{4}/T^{4}
or (V^{2})^{2}.
Force becomes a velocity squared squared.
Still, why
multiply the masses? In the equation F = ma, we have the same sort
of problem. We have a mass times a length, but what is a kilogram
times a meter? It is not a kilogram working through a meter, as in
a Joule; it is a kilogram times a meter, as if the two dimensions
are equivalent. Well, Maxwell’s dimensions would imply that they
are equivalent, even more than the meter and the second are
equivalent in Relativity. The absolute speed of light does not
give us the equivalence of mass and distance; no, they seem to be
dimensionally equivalent in a different sense than that. By
Maxwell’s dimensions, mass looks like motion in three
dimensions. It is a length over a time. More like a velocity or an
acceleration, but still, directly comparable to length, and
therefore capable of being multiplied by it in a sensible fashion.
And if we treat mass as a threedimensional acceleration, then
force becomes a velocity squared squared. All very suggestive, as
I think you will admit.
But where can we take this
suggestion? I have already proposed that the electromagnetic force
is expressed in Newton’s equation, so the smartest thing to do
is see if we can subtract it out directly.
And here we
come across the other problem, since we have reached the halfway
mark and are now meeting the problem from the other end. What I
mean is that the E/M field equations are exactly like Newton’s
equation. They already express a unified field without being aware
of it. Classically, the equation for electrostatic force is the
same as Newton’s equation, substituting charge for mass and
using a different constant.
E = kQq/R^{2}
This is no accident,
since this is another heuristic equation. Like Newton’s
equation, it has existed for centuries with little or no
underlying theory or full explanation of variables.
More
than this, QED is in the same boat. It has created a much more
extensive and useful set of equations, but at bottom it is also a
unified field. QED now resists being unified with gravity, and
this is due to the fact that it already contains gravity without
knowing it.
What we need is not a unified field; what we
need is a segregated field. We don’t need to bring the two
forces together, we need to separate them. Only then can we
reunify them with full understanding.
QED suffers from
the opposite problem of Newton and Einstein, since in quantum
mechanics gravity is the small effect that needs to be teased out
of the larger one. With Einstein's and Newton's equations, the E/M
field is the much smaller of the two, and it has been lost in the
shadows. In QED, E/M is itself the shadow that hides the obvious.
I will come back to QED later, but the short version is
that if mass is a threedimensional acceleration, the proton and
electron will be accelerating by that equation just as will stars
and planets and people. The electron orbit, no matter how complex
and probabilistic it is (or is not), must express both repulsion
and apparent attraction, since all relationships in the universe
are a balancing of the two. QED has measured the resultant forces
very accurately (all of which it assigns to E/M), but it has not
yet assigned the mechanical causes of these forces in the correct
way. It assumes that gravity is absent or negligible, but this is
not true. QED has misassigned a motion, and this misassigned
motion hides gravity
at the quantum level.
But now I must return to Newton,
since his equation is much easier to fix than QED. I must prove I
can make the smaller fix before I tackle the larger one. I
digressed into electromagnetism to show that I cannot simply take
the electrical force equation and pull it out of Newton's
equation, leaving gravity without E/M. This is clear on first
glance, since it is obvious to anyone that subtracting one
equation from the other will leave us with something very close to
zero.
Let us return to G. We have already dismissed the
dimensions of G as so much fluff. They allow us to use the new
dimension of mass but don't really do anything else. To put that
in stronger terms, the dimensions of G compel
us to think that mass is a new
sort of dimension. Newton achieves this compulsion not by telling
us what mass is, but by forcing us to give up length and time. If
we used the dimensions of length and time, like Maxwell, we would
think that mass is defined by motion, and Newton does not want us
to do that. He wants mass to be what Einstein called "ponderable",
and he does not think that motion alone can supply that. So he
creates ponderability by a sort of fiat. The mass dimension stands
for ponderability, therefore ponderability must exist. Not
terribly rigorous, but there it is.
But now let us look at
the tiny size of G. That is a fantastically small number, and to
my mind it can only mean that a large amount of math has been
lost. This equation of Newton is skipping entire books' worth of
derivations, and is just giving us the equation on the last page
of the last chapter. That number is not coming from nowhere, and
therefore we must assume it is coming out of the electromagnetic
field. Some E/M field equation yields that number when it meets
the gravitational field, and we must find that equation.
So
let us attack this problem from another direction. If we cannot
easily find the E/M field equation buried here, getting it from
known electrical or QED equations, then we must find a
gravitational equation. I have said that Newton’s equation is
not how a straight gravitational field equation should look, so
how should one look?
Let us say that you are an electron
and I am an electron. We are both trapped in some field, so that
although we may be moving very fast relative to other things,
relative to eachother we are not moving. Let us also say that we
believe in Einstein's theory of equivalence. That is,
mathematically, a gravitational acceleration down is equivalent to
a normal acceleration up. We don't have to talk about expansion or
any of that here, we just need to believe in mathematical
equivalence. Just as with Einstein's elevator car in space, we
believe we can switch the vector and get the same answer either
way. So, let us do that. We each of us have a gravity vector, and
we switch it, as a game. My vector points toward you and yours
points toward me. What is the force?
Given the vector
reversal that Einstein allows us, there is no force of attraction.
But what is the equivalent of this force? Another way of putting
it is, what would be the force required to prevent us from moving
toward eachother? That would have to be a force exactly the same
size as the force impelling us toward eachother, if that force
existed. Newton gives us that equation, and it is F = ma. If I am
the little variables and you are the big, then the force to keep
both of us from moving would be
F = ma + MA
But to
keep us from getting nearer, we don’t really need to include
both masses in the equation. Notice that if we must stay the same
distance apart, we can achieve that in two different ways. One is
the way we just wrote an equation for: we keep you from moving and
we keep me from moving. To keep both of our accelerations from
being expressed we need ma + MA amount of force. But we can keep
the distance between us the same in another way, with much less
force. Say you weigh a lot more than I do, and we want to apply
all our force to me instead of you. That will get your mass out of
the equation. So we let you move toward me freely, and then we
apply a force to me to accelerate me away from you at the same
rate you are approaching. That gives us a whole different
equation, but exactly the same effect.
F = ma + mA = m(A +
a)
The first part, ma, keeps me from moving toward you.
The second part, mA, pushes me away from you at the same rate you
are approaching. Therefore, we stay in equilibrium.
That
is the logical force for gravity, defined as it is. The force to
keep gravity from working is the same as the force of gravity. To
completely nullify a force, you apply an equal and opposite force.
We have done that, and so we have found the size of gravity. But
let us label that force in a new way, to differentiate it from
Newton’s F. Let us use the letter H.
H
= m(A + a)
Now,
if we subtract that from Newton’s equation, we should find an
electromagnetic field equation.
F = GMm/R^{2}
E = F – H E = [GMm/R^{2}
] – [m(A + a)] E
= (m/R^{2}
)[GM – AR^{2}
– aR^{2}]
That is the E/M field
equation that was buried in Newton’s equation. I could
manipulate it into other forms, but I won’t bother with that
right now. Notice that we don’t need the larger mass to
calculate a gravitational force, but we do need it to calculate an
electromagnetic force. This is logical since we assume that both
masses are creating a real bombarding field with subparticles, in
order to mechanically express the E/M repulsion. We do not assume
this with the gravitational field, since we are expressing the
gravitational field with motion only.
I put the constant G
with the larger mass, since that is why it is in the equation to
start with. It acts as an electrical field transform from the mass
or density of the atomic field to the density of the foundational
E/M field (charge), so that the two fields can be compared
correctly. Notice that if both masses are very small, G loses much
of its power. If we use that equation with quanta, for example,
the two acceleration terms will do most of the work, since the
mass terms and G will become negligible.
Also notice that
the gravitational field has nothing to do with distance of
separation or with the constant G. These variables enter Newton’s
equation only as part of the field E. In fact, I show in
another paper that G can be used directly to transform the
radius of the E/M photon to the radius of the average atom in the
objects. G is a SIZE transform, more than anything else.
We
would expect the electromagnetic field to diminish with the
inverse square of the distance. Why? Simply because our objects
are spherical. If, as I have proposed and is already assumed by
many, the E/M field is caused by a bombarding field of
subparticles (like tiny photons), then this field will disperse
simply due to the spherical way it is emitted from the surface of
the body.
But we would not expect an acceleration field to
diminish that way, classically, for the reason I have shown. The
distance between the objects makes no possible difference, and it
cannot enter the equations in a logical way.
Does this
equation get the right number? Let's apply it to the Moon, as
affected by the Earth. Using the values of A and a that I derive
below, it gives us a total force of 9.17 x 10^{23}N.
If we divide that by the mass of the Moon, we get A_{E}
= 12.477 m/s^{2} That
offsets the total acceleration A + a, leaving a difference of
.00272m/s^{2},
which is the current acceleration due to the compound field at the
distance of the Moon. But if we divide by the combined mass of the
Earth and Moon, instead we obtain, A_{E}
= .151m/s^{2}
We
divide by the combined mass because the E/M field has to repel
both bodies. To counteract both accelerations, it has to work in
both directions. So we have just found a number for the total
acceleration of the E/M field of the Moon and Earth. I will show
below that this is in fact the correct number.
I have now
ununified Newton’s classical equation of gravity, showing that
it is a compound equation of two force fields (or one force field
and one acceleration field). But I have some work left to do,
since in order to create a completely updated and modern Unified
Field Theory, I have to include Relativity. Meaning, I have to
express the time differential in my equations above. I will not do
this with the tensor calculus. I will do it in the same way that I
have solved other major problems of General Relativity: I will
solve by keeping that acceleration vector pointing out and by
looking at the absolute time separation between events provided by
the speed of light. If you don’t know what I mean by that, I
recommend you to my papers on bending
of starlight, Mercury’s
perihelion, and the Metonic
Cycle, where I solve GR problems very quickly, without
tensors.
In the equations above, I assumed that we were
measuring from some God's eye pointofview in the field. This is
what Newton did and that is why his equation is considered
classical. It also makes my equations classical. But to modernize
the equations, we must measure from one defined position, and keep
an eye on how light is skewing our data. Instead of measuring from
"anywhere in the field" we now measure from one electron
or the other. We have to choose to measure either from my
perspective or your perspective, since there is no such thing as
an absolute perspective.
Since we made you bigger above,
let us say you are a proton and I am an electron, and let us
choose to measure from my perspective. We will measure from the
electron. To solve, we will calculate how light skews each field
separately, then we will join the fields back together in a
reUnified Field. This new equation will replace both Newton and
Einstein (and also, at the highest levels, QED).
Let us
take the gravitational field first, understood as the combined
acceleration field only. How will the finite speed of light skew
that problem? It will skew it since I need to know your
acceleration in order to match it. In order to stay the same
distance away from you and maintain equilibrium, I have to know
what your acceleration is. Say you have a speedometer, and you are
sending me light messages saying something like, "It is ten
o'clock PM and I am going 10km/s." Well, if I am a 300,000 km
away, then your message is going to be 1s late. Since you are
accelerating, you aren’t going to be going 10km/s one second
later. Your speed will have changed a bit. If I don’t make some
corrections, you are going to catch me, because I am always going
to be matching my speed to an old version of you. In other words,
my acceleration is going to be too small, and that will be because
my force is too small.
You can see that this correction is
going to be pretty small, even in the example here. If we were
really talking about protons and electrons, where the distance
separation is tiny, the correction would be negligible. This is
one reason that QED can pretty much ignore any Relativistic
corrections on the gravitational acceleration field. But we need
to go ahead and run the equations, since they will not be
negligible in all situations at the macrolevel, as we have seen
with GR.
So we return to our equation H = m(A + a) and
notice that A must be a received number, not a given number. It
must come in as data, and that data is compromised by the time
separation. So we need a transform for it. As I showed, A is
arriving too small, so we need to make it a bit larger. This
knowledge will help make sure we develop the proper transform. Let
us define our initial velocity as zero, as if the acceleration
just started when we started to measure.
A_{M}
= 2v_{M}/t A_{m}
= 2v_{m}/t
R = ct t = R/c
v_{m}
= v_{M}
+ A_{M}tR
= v_{M}
+ A_{M}R/c A_{m}
= 2[v_{M}
+ A_{M}R/c
]/t A_{m}
= 2[v_{M}
+ A_{M}R/c
]/2[v_{M}/A_{M}] A_{m}
= A_{M}
+ A_{M}^{2}R/v_{M}c
A_{m}
= A_{M}
(1 + 2R/ct) H
= m(a + A + 2AR/ct )
That
is the new relativistic gravitational equation. We have to know a
velocity or time for the larger mass, not just an acceleration.
Obviously this is because an acceleration doesn’t tell us a
relative velocity. You and I could both have the same
acceleration, but you would still catch me if your initial
velocity was greater than mine.
You may ask, what is this
a velocity or time relative to? I have assumed that R is constant,
so you and I have no velocity relative to eachother. And I have I
have described no other field here. The answer is that this is a
velocity of the surface of the larger object relative to its
center. Or, to say the same thing, it is the velocity of the
surface of the larger object relative to the previous position of
its surface. That is the gravitational field, once we reverse the
vector. This field is exactly the same as Einstein’s
gravitational field, as his postulate of equivalence attests. The
only difference is that his field curves and mine doesn’t. So I
can do this simple math and he requires tensors.
Now we
have to go on and do the same thing for the E/M field. How does
the finite speed of light affect that field?
E = [GMm/R^{2}
] – [m(A + a)]
Clearly,
the second term being the same, it will be affected in the same
way we just found. The first term requires a mass transform on the
larger mass. We are measuring from the smaller mass, remember, so
we don’t need a transform on it in either term. It is a local
number and can be left asis.
The reason we need to
transform the larger mass may be stated in two ways. One is that
Relativity demands a mass transform, and so we better do it. This
is the reasoning by authority. The better reason is one that will
make sense of it much quicker, for those who find Relativity
difficult (and who doesn't?). Maxwell showed how mass is L^{3}/T^{2},
and that looks just like a 3D acceleration to me. So I treat it
just like an acceleration. Therefore we transform it for the same
reason and in the same way we just transformed the acceleration,
because it is an acceleration.
There is one difference,
however. I showed that we needed a bigger acceleration due to the
time difference. But we will need to find a smaller mass. The
reason is simple. In that first term we are multiplying masses. As
I showed earlier, there is no reason to multiply masses to find a
gravitational field. You multiply masses to compute the E/M field,
and this is because you are finding a field density. That is also
why you need the distance between the objects. You need to compute
the bombarding force of your radiation field, and to get that you
need a density. We already know that from current equations,
whether Maxwell’s field equations or others. Well, multiplying
masses makes sense in that case, since the density is made up of
radiation from both objects, and collisions are found by
multiplying densities.
Anyway, this means that the
distance will cause a sort of double dropoff in the force of the
radiation field. We already have part of that dropoff with the
inverse square of the radius. That is the classical dropoff of
the field. But the field will dropoff due to Relativity, too, and
the reason is that while the radiation is moving from one object
to the other, the second object will have gotten bigger. According
to that logic, the radiation will also get bigger, but due to
Relativity all the expansions don't exactly match. Even without
expansion, Relativity tells us that. We know from Einstein that
masses increase and that lengths contract and that time dilates.
Problem is, they don't change equally. Time and length change in
inverse proportion, which basically offsets. But mass changes at a
slightly different rate than length and time. You might have to go
back to Einstein’s transforms to verify it, but it is true
whether you accept my corrections to him or not. Either using my
new transforms or his old ones, mass and length transform at
different rates. I have shown precisely why this is, in a simple
visualization in my paper on Mercury's perihelion, but without
reading that paper you will just have to take Einstein's and my
word for it.
This being so, the force increases less than
the mass increases, which causes the force to seem smaller once it
actually arrives. This caused a 4% drop in Mercury's total
perturbation, and it causes us to have to correct the mass down
here. We must find less Relativistic force than classical force,
and that is the way to do it here. This also mirrors Einstein,
since Einstein's field equations do the same thing. He finds less
force than Newton, and his change is caused by this same double
dropoff, part caused by the spherical nature of the field and
part caused by the time separation.
So, again, I am going
to treat mass as an acceleration, and run the equations just as
with acceleration, only reversing the sign.
A_{M}
= 2v_{M}/t A_{m}
= 2v_{m}/t M_{M}
= 2L^{2}v_{M}/t M_{m}
= 2L^{2}vm/t v_{M}/t
= M_{M}/2L^{2} v_{m}/t
= M_{m}
/2L^{2} R
= ct t = R/c
v_{m}
= v_{M}
– A_{M}tR
= v_{M}
– M_{M}R/L^{2}c M_{m}
/L^{2}
= 2[v_{M}
– M_{M}R/L^{2}c
]/t M_{m}
/L^{2}
= 2[v_{M}
– M_{M}R/L^{2}c
]// 2L^{2}v_{M}/M_{M} M_{m}
/L^{2}
= M_{M}/L^{2}
– M_{M}^{2}R/L^{4}c
v_{M}
M_{m}
= M_{M}
– 2M_{M}R/ct
E =
(GmM/R^{2}
)(1 – 2R/ct ) – m(a + A
+ 2AR/ct )
That's
the new Relativistic E/M field equation. It describes the
repulsion between any two objects. It is always in vector
opposition to the gravitational force. According to this equation,
no two objects attract eachother due to the E/M field, not
macroobjects and not quanta. Therefore, all objects have the same
charge. Any apparent attraction is only a result due to compound
motions or fields.
Now let us reunify the field.
F
= E + H F = (GmM/R^{2}
)(1 – 2R/ct ) F
= (GmM/R^{2})
– (2GmM/Rct )
That
is the new Relativistic compound equation, which can replace
Einstein's equations. Einstein's field equations are updates of
Newton, so his equations are also compound equations. This
equation includes both the gravitational field and the E/M field.
Therefore it is a Unified Field Equation. Einstein’s field
equations are also Unified Field Equations, and it is sad that he
never realized it. He spent half his life trying to solve a
problem that was misdefined.
I have been told that if we
make R=ct, that equation solves back down to Newton's equation,
giving us no new information. But that misses the point. Of
course it solves back down the Newton's equation. That was my
whole point. Newton's equation has always been a UFT itself. All
I am doing is expanding it here, to separate out the solo gravity
field and the charge field, proving it is a compound equation of
two fields. You can always deexpand an expanded equation. But
the expansion we just discovered should look tantalizing to you,
since it is a differential in a form you should recognize. It
looks a lot like the Lagrangian, if you haven't noticed. More
recently, I have used this unified field equation to replace the
Lagrangian. See my paper Unlocking
the Lagrangian to see how my UFE mirrors the Lagrangian while
correcting it. See my paper on Schrodinger's
Equation to see how replacing the Hamiltonian with my UFE
clarifies and corrects many problems there. And see my paper on
Lev Landau's orbital
proof to see how replacing the Lagrangian with my UFE updates
and simplifies the badly compromised textbook proof. [Also see my
paper on Perturbation
Theory, where I show that Newton had his own UFT/Lagrangian in
a differential form that was astonishing close to correct. His
biggest problem was that although he got within a whisper of the
correct UFT equation, he never understood that it contained a
second major field—the charge field. So, although his math led
to the current (misnamed) Lagrangian, it also led to the current
misunderstanding. Because Newton didn't realize his field was
compound, no one else realized that until I came along.] I have
also now used this relativistic unified field equation to solve
the problem of galactic rotation, one of the greatest problems
of current astrophysics. I develop a velocity equation straight
from this UF equation, showing how the problem can be solved
without either dark matter or any modified Newtonian dynamics
(MOND). The problem is solved with nothing but charge.
So this
rederivation and reexpansion of Newton's equation must be very
important for many reasons. Not only does it allow us to see the
equation is a compound equation, but it allows us to rederive the
Lagrangian, by a completely novel means. More than that, my
rederivation clears up the centuries' old misunderstandings and
misinterpretations of the Lagrangian, allowing us to see the
pretty simple mechanics buried there. Thanks to those such as
Landau and Feynman, physics has hidden out in path integrals and
other nonmechanical posturing for a long time, but my discoveries
in this paper allow us to see the actual mechanics underlying the
big equations like the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian.
But let
us move on to more discoveries. In the thought problem above, I
let one body flee the other in a line, but in real life, it rarely
works out that way. In the unified field, we don't see bodies
responding to one another in that fashion, do we? We see them
orbiting.
In other words, we see one body fleeing the other by using a
circle or ellipse. The flight path is a closed curve. Yes, the
orbit can actually be thought of as a flight
from gravity.
And what is it that allows for this flight? Said another way,
what is that provides the energy for this endless flight?
Newton's Innate Motion? No. We have just seen it is charge. All
bodies are “attracting” one another—or moving at one
another—but they are also repelling one another with this real
bombardment of photons and ions. Since this bombardment is a
constant force, it creates an acceleration as well. Not just a
velocity, but an acceleration. So we have the balancing of two
accelerations, in a closed curve. However, my UFT above doesn't
take this curve into account. How can we include this curved
motion in the equations? In a
later paper I began to show you how. In short we take the
time in the equation to equal 1/8^{th}
of the orbit. This makes the tangent equal to the radius in the
orbital equations, at which point we can substitue one for the
other, acting as if the orbiting body is fleeing the central body
in a straight line along that radius. See my papers on Newton's
Lemmae and on replacing
pi for
much more on that simplified manipulation. It allows us to solve
without calculus or going to zero. It also allows us to find a
velocity with the equation directly, which is of course the
tangential velocity of the orbiter. Beyond that, it allows us to
jettison pi
from the
circular motion equations completely, which at the same time
allows us to clean up and correct them. Not only are the current
circular motion equations buggy and confusing, they are actually
wrong. They give us the wrong numbers—which explains why our
rockets missed the Moon by large margins back in the 1950s and
60s.
To continue:
Notice that R/t can be thought of as a velocity. Since the problem
is gravitational, we are dealing with accelerations, not
velocities. Nonetheless, we get a transform in a familiar form. 1
– (2R/ct) then becomes 1 – {2/[1 – (v/c)]},
which should look familiar to all experts on Relativity. My new
unified field equation includes the Relativity transform. I
remind you of that for a reason: it means the current Lagrangian
is not only unified without anyone knowing it, it includes
Relativity without anyone knowing it. Look back over my steps
above, and notice that my UFT doesn't start to look exactly like
the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian until after
I do my simple Relativistic transforms. Until then, my expansion
looks pretty humdrum. But after I do the Relatistic transforms on
both terms, we get what looks like the Lagrangian, but with c
expressed in the equation explicitly. This will help us a lot in
later manipulations.
Before we close, let us look at a
couple more things. First let us reanalyze the new E/M field
equation.
E = (GmM/R^{2}
)(1 – 2R/ct ) – m(a + A +
2AR/ct )
I showed above that the mass could be treated as
a sort of acceleration, according to Maxwell, and I used this
equation:
M = AL^{2}
That gives us L^{3}/T^{2}.
But let's take it even further. Notice that we have been treating
the acceleration due to gravity and the acceleration due to mass
as the same thing. What I mean is that the same acceleration can
be used to explain the apparent gravitational attraction and the
"ponderability" of the object. We don't have two
accelerations here, we have one. The only difference is that in
the case of mass, we add an L^{2}.
So let's combine the two accelerations in the equation, too, and
get rid of some of the redundant variables.
E = (GmAL^{2}/R^{2}
)(1 – 2R/ct ) – m(a + A +
2AR/ct ) E = mA[(GL^{2}/R^{2}
) – (2GL^{2}/Rct
) – (a/A) – (2R/ct) – 1]
Looks great, but what does
it mean? Since we have taken L/T^{2}
to be the acceleration of M
coming right at us (measured from the smaller mass, remember) we
must take L^{2}
to be the motion in the other
two dimensions. If we take the xdimension as running from m to M,
then L^{2}
is the yz plane. Since we are
defining both mass and gravity as motion, this planar motion must
stand for mass in that plane. If so, then it must give us the mass
of the field over some infinitesimal interval and over some square
"footage." The question then becomes, how big is the
square and how small is the interval? That question translates
into this one: Can the acceleration give us a mass? If we
calculate a gravitational acceleration from our new equation, can
we then use it to get a mass directly? It looks possible from
here. In that case, we won't just have dimensions for Maxwell's
length and time expression of mass, we will have a number.
In
pursuing this number, let us first apply the new Relativistic
equation to the Earth and Moon. According to Newton's equation,
the force between the two should be 2 x 10^{20}N.
According to my correction, 2GmM/Rct, where we find t in this way:
s = (a + A)t^{2}/2 t
= √[2s/(a + A)] = √[2(384,400,000)/(2.671 + 9.78)] =
7855s 2GmM/Rct = 6.49 x 10^{16}N
That is a .03% change due to Relativity. That works out
perfectly, since, as I said, I previously found a 4% change for
Mercury due to Relativity. Mercury’s mass is 4.5 times that of
the Moon, its density is 1.62x, and its distance is 390x.
.03%
x 390 x 1.62/4.5 = 4.2%
But now let's find L for the
Earth, using this equation,
F = (GmM/R^{2})
– (2GmM/Rct )
But doing the same thing to it we did to
the equation for E.
M = AL^{2} F
= (GmAL^{2}/R^{2})
– (2GmAL^{2}/Rct
)
To obtain a number for L, we only need the first term
and our numbers that we just derived.
GmAL^{2}/R^{2}
= 2 x 10^{20}N
L = √ [(2 x 10^{20}N)(R^{2})/(GmA)] L
= 7.84 x 10^{11}m
M = AL^{2} 6
x 10^{24}kg
= (9.8m/s^{2})(7.84
x 10^{11}m)^{2}
= 6 x 10^{24}m^{3}/s^{2} 1kg
= 1m^{3}/s^{2}
That works out
perfectly. But it would be expected to, since we used A = 9.8m/s^{2}.
Problem is, we get that number from experiment, and in experiment
we are measuring a compound or resultant force. In every
historical experiment to measure g, both the gravitational field
and the E/M field are present. We have never tried to isolate one
from the other. But we need a number for the gravitational field
alone, so we will have to keep working.
In the equations
above, A and a stand for raw gravitational accelerations; they are
not compound numbers, expressing the resultant acceleration that
also includes the E/M field. Therefore we cannot use 9.8 in those
equations. This means that trying to find A from the equations we
already have appears to be circular. I need another trick in order
to find a variance from 9.8. We are looking for a number that is a
fraction larger than 9.8, since we need to subtract the E/M field
from it in order to get 9.8. That much is clear, I hope. The trick
to obtain this number is in another paper of mine from last year,
The
Moon Gives up a Secret.
There I do the math to find the segregated field numbers for the
Moon and Earth, simply by looking at the way they are related.
I
use several postulates. The first is that the gravitational
acceleration is dependent only upon radius. It is not dependent on
density. The density affects only the E/M field, not the
gravitational field. Perhaps you will have noticed that this is
one of the necessary outcomes of my math above, although I did not
make it a postulate it in this paper. If we define mass in the way
of Maxwell's suggestion, as L^{3}/T^{2},
then clearly mass is defined only by extension. This has the
curious affect of making mass not dependent upon mass. The density
of the object must now contain all idea of mass, by the old
definition, and density is not necessary to calculate acceleration
or gravity. So, in a way, mass is no longer necessary to calculate
gravity. You only need a radius. If you also have a time, then the
two together will give you the acceleration and therefore the
gravitational field numbers.
The second postulate is that
the E/M field drops off at 1/R^{4}.**
I have already shown the math for the double dropoff above. We
had an inverse square law even before we made the field
Relativistic (from the spherical shape of the field), then we
added a second dropoff due to the time differential. The
transform, as written above, does not make this clear, since I
actually have an R in the numerator [1 – (2R/ct)]. But an
analysis of the mechanics, as I gave above, shows that there is
indeed a double dropoff due to distance.
g_{E}
 E_{E}
= 9.8 m/s^{2} g_{M}
 E_{M}
= 1.62 m/s^{2}
R_{E}/R_{M}
= g_{E}
/ g_{M}
= 3.672 g_{M}
= .2723 g_{E}
E_{E}
/E_{M}
= 1/3.672^{4}
= .0055 E_{M}
= 181.81 E_{E}
But that last equation
is assuming that the Earth and Moon have the same density. So I
must now correct for density. Notice we are correcting the E/M
field for density, not the gravitational field.
D_{E}
/D_{M}
= 5.52/3.344 = 1.6507 =
1/.6057 E_{M}
= 110.12 E_{E}
So, we just
substitute:
.2723 g_{E}
 110.12 E_{E}
= 1.62 m/s^{2} g_{E}
 E_{E}
= 9.8 m/s^{2} .2723g_{E}
 .2723E_{E}
= 2.6685 m/s^{2}
[subtract the two
equations] 109.85E_{E}
= 1.0485 m/s^{2}
E_{E}
= .009545 m/s^{2} E_{M}
= 1.051 m/s^{2} g_{M}
 E_{M}
= 1.62 m/s^{2} g_{M}
= 2.671 m/s^{2}
We check that against
our first postulate, and find that indeed the gravitational field
is dependent on radius alone.
R_{E}/R_{M}
= g_{E}
/g_{M}
6378.1/1738.1 = 9.81/ g_{M}
g_{M}
= 2.673 m/s^{2}
[In a subsequent paper
I have confirmed this number .009545 m/s^{2}
for the charge field of the
earth, in an unrelated problem with unrelated math. In
my paper on atmospheric pressure, I calculated an effective
weight of the atmosphere, as a percentage of the gravity field.
Using novel but very simple math and diagrams, I found that the
force down on any gas semicontained in the curved field of the
Earth would be .00958 m/s^{2}.
Since this matches the force up, the atmosphere is effectively
weightless. That these two numbers match with such simple math and
postulates is one of the outstanding outcomes of my unified field
theory, and I highly recommend you take the link, if you haven't
already read that paper.]
So we have achieved the golden
ring. We have found actual numbers for our new fields. We see that
the gravitational field of the Earth must be .009545 m/s^{2}
greater than we thought, since
the rest must apply to acceleration caused by the E/M field. Even
more shocking is the difference we found on the Moon. Why is the
Moon's difference so much greater? It is due simply to my second
postulate. Because the Moon is smaller, it is nearer in size to
the E/M field it is creating. The field doesn’t have as much
space in which to dissipate. Because the field is created from the
surface of the body, it must be exponentially denser. This is
precisely why the quantum field is so strongly electromagnetic,
and so weakly gravitational. The Moon, being smaller, is nearer
the quantum field.
We must be surprised that the affect is
so great, just moving from the Earth to the Moon. The E/M field of
the Earth is only a small part of the compound field, which goes a
long way to explaining why we have ignored it. But on the Moon,
the numbers betray a gigantic secret, very close to home.
Physicists have assumed that the Moon's field must be
proportionally weaker than the Earth’s, since the Moon is known
to be almost nonmagnetic, as a whole. But this has turned out to
be spectacularly wrong. Even before my paper here, we knew that an
E/M field continues to exist in the absence of the expression of
its magnetic component. Venus and Mars exclude the Solar Wind just
as if they had powerful magnetospheres, even though they do not.
To see a fuller explanation of the Moon's E/M field, see my The
Solution to Tides.
I said above
that I would show that my E/M Field Equation got the right answer,
and now that I have all my numbers I can show that. We found that
the total E/M repulsion created an acceleration of .151m/s^{2}.
But we want to know the acceleration on the Moon only, so that we
can compare it to the new numbers I just found. You will say,
"Didn’t we do that above already, and find 12.477? We
divided by the mass of the Moon and got that number, therefore
that is the acceleration applied to the Moon." Yes, in a way,
but that was comparing the acceleration to the mass, so that we
could use our numbers as a correction to Newton’s equation. But
now we want to find the acceleration as a function of radius and
density. You would think the two methods would get the same
number, since mass is supposed depend on radius and density. But,
Newton finds that the Moon has 1/81 times the mass of the Earth.
What I want to do here is simply multiply the radius differential
and the density differential, like this 3.67 x 1.65 = 6 That
is the number we need here, not the mass differential.
So,
if the Moon’s (radius x density) is 1/6 that of the Earth, then
if the Moon’s number is 1, the Earth’s number is 6. And the
total number for the combined field would be 7. But we want to
give the entire effect to the Moon, keeping the Earth as a fixed
point. So we multiply .151 x 7 to get 1.057m/s^{2}.
In
my equations on the Moon (just above), I found that the Moon has
an acceleration due to E/M at its surface of 1.051m/s^{2},
which I would call a match. My mathematical proof is complete.
Let us move
from the Moon to the Earth. We have famous experimental proof of
my number for the Earth's foundational E/M field. The number
.009545 m/s^{2}
is about .1% of the unified
field 9.8 m/s^{2}.
As it turns out, this is the margin of error between the Bohr
magneton and the experimental value for the magnetic moment of
the electron. This error has never been explained, except by
tenuous ad hoc
theories that invoke Dirac's
sea of virtual particles. My unified field explains it simply and
mechanically. The experimental value for the magnetic moment of
the electron is .1% away from the Bohr magneton because it is
measured at the surface of the Earth, where the foundational E/M
field must affect it physically. Since physicists do not currently
understand that this field is hidden in Newton's equation, and
hidden in the gravity field, they do not include it in their math.
But once we realize that the total field in any experiment on
Earth is a compound field, we must include this E/M correction.
The foundational E/M field causes both the electric and magnetic
fields, via emitted photons and the stacked spins on these
photons. So a .1% variance in the unified field will directly
cause a .1% variance in the expected value for the magneton. My
unified field, as seen in this paper, resolves the difference
between the Bohr magneton and the magnetic moment of the electron,
making the two numbers exactly the same.
Now that we
have made some progress in refining the gravitational field, let
us return to the E/M field. If we look for equations to compare
our new equations to, we don’t find any. I said earlier that I
would have more to say about QED, but now the we get here, you
will find that it is mostly of a negative sort. [For a more
positive answer, you may now go to my paper on gravity
at the quantum level and my paper on Coulomb's
equation, both of which explain how the unified field works at
the quantum level.] I have nothing at all to say about matrix
mechanics, which, like Planck, I find "disgusting." But
Schrodinger's wave equations don't give us anything either. This
is because QED is not interested in describing the field as a
whole, and it is especially not interested in describing the field
in simple mechanical terms. It is mainly concerned with describing
statistical interactions of quanta. And even when it gets beyond
statistics, as with Schrodinger, it is concerned with the motions
in a given field. QED mainly accepts the field of Maxwell, but
adds some novel postulates that allow it to track the motions of
quanta. This has many experimental uses and benefits, but
theoretically it is a nearly total wash. No, it is even worse than
that. QED, looked at theoretically, is worse than Maxwell's
equations, since it is even more opaque.
Maxwell's
equations were bad enough theoretically, since they worked mainly
as a heuristic device for engineers. They include terms like
permeability and permittivity and susceptibility, which are poorly
defined and are given magnitude only after the fact. As a matter
of theory, for instance, it is not clear that free space should
have permittivity or permeability, or if it does, why it does. So
Maxwell's equations are just a collection of unexplained heuristic
equations. It is no wonder Einstein found them impossible to unify
with anything. In addition, by the time of Maxwell we had already
left the days of transparent math. The field equations are
littered with complex and abstract terms, some of which still have
little or no mechanical meaning. By the end of the 19th century,
physics was already being inundated with operators and fluxes and
Lagrangians and Hamiltonians and other action variables. The
mechanical imprecision of Newton’s variables had not been
cleared up, it had simply been cloaked by action. In short, all
the problems were buried by the creation of compound variables.
Instead of a naked variable like distance or time, we now had the
same variables pushed into little groups and blanketed over, to
keep them out of sight. Potentials and energies were also pushed
together in little tents, and the entire world became more and
more abstract. And this was before the tensor and the matrix took
over.
QED only added to this cloaking, and now the field
does not even try to be mechanical. Quantum physicists have never
been able to physically assign even their major terms, and no one
is sure what the wave function refers to, to this day. We are told
that the amplitude of the wave function tells us the probability
of finding a quantum in that state, but that is not mechanical,
much less physical. A mathematical extension tells us an
existential probability? Bosh on that. Talk about a disgusting
piece of metaphysics. How could anyone ever expect to unify such
garbage, and why would they want to?
To unify a field,
that field has to have some meaningful axioms, and the current E/M
field has very few. The fields of both Maxwell and QED are made up
of equations hanging in the air from sky hooks. Neither field is
defined mechanically, and neither field has transparent variables
that could hope to be unified with any others. To create a field
capable of unification requires a sensible field with some
sensible theory underneath it, and historically we have never had
that with the E/M field. I have come closer to creating a sensible
field in my few short papers on the subject, but these are
admittedly just the first tentative steps in that direction. First
we have to redefine the basic mechanics of the field, and I have
done that by demanding that the field be caused by real radiation,
that it be defined by motion and collision, and that no
attractions or opposite charges be allowed. Likewise, and for the
same reason, we can have no messenger particles, virtual
particles, or any other magic or myth. No spooky forces, no
quantum leaps, no sumover histories, no infinite renormalization,
no slipshod math or logic.
What I have supplied in this
paper is what we should have had to begin with—a foundation. A
mathematical expression of the basic field and the basic force, in
terms of simple and transparent variables. This will allow us to
put in order a great deal of the heuristic equations we already
have.
Up to now we have had no way to calculate the E/M
field of large objects, and this may be why we have resisted
admitting that the field existed for so long. We did not want to
admit something existed that we had no hope of expressing in
equations. The equations of Newton and Einstein gave us a big
impressive gravitational field, so we stayed with what we knew. If
we had known that all that impressive math already included the
E/M field, we might have embraced the field long ago, on the
macrolevel. As it is, only the arrival of plasma research has
forced us to accept the ubiquity of the field, and our lack of
basic equations has caused much prejudice in that direction as
well. Plasma research has not been theoretical any more than
quantum research was, and this has meant that its findings did not
arrive with the necessary underpinning. My equations may begin to
supply some of that underpinning, or at least suggest where it may
be found.
My equations above apply to the E/M field, but I
have expressed only the electrical part of the field. That is the
part of the field that is in vector opposition to the
gravitational acceleration. The magnetic field is, as we know,
orthogonal to that, so we would expect it to have no affect in the
direction of gravity. However, I have assumed in other papers that
the magnetic component of the field is active in solar system and
orbital perturbations, since it gives us the most direct
explanation of sideways shoves. Since celestial mechanics
describes the interaction of all the various parallel and
perpendicular shoves, it is clear that the magnetic field
interacts with gravity in this way. I have not included those
interactions here, but I think it is clear how they must evolve
out of my theory.
I have already shown how many of the
coincidences of celestial mechanics can be explained once the
orbital field is shown to be a compound field, and I will continue
to demystify these relationships as I can. The greatest mystery
solved so far is that of the ellipse, which I have shown is
completely unexplained by a solo gravitational field, but which is
easily explained by a
compound field of resultant forces.
*Article
5 [chapter 1] of Maxwell's Treatise
on Electricity and Magnetism
**To
see a full discussion of how this rate of absolute increase
affects smaller spheres, see my paper The
Solution to Tides.
If this paper was
useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or
more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to
continue writing these "unpublishable" things. I have
joined the boycott against Paypal, and suggest you use Amazon
instead. It is free and does not enrich any bankers. AMAZON
WEBPAY donate from your cellphone or computer donate to
mm@milesmathis.com.
