"Are Unified Field Theories Justified?"

Modern physics seems to be searching for ways to incorporate
all physical phenomena into a single unified theory. The question that comes
to
mind is why? The question arises as to the conceptual need for such an
activity
and whether the activity only adds to the complexity involved in achieving
an
understanding of nature. The only apparent need for the activity seems to be
a
quasi-religious motivation among mathematical theorists to make the Science
of
Physics "elegant" (whatever that means). No objective reason seems to have
been
presented to preclude the likelihood that Nature operates through multiple
independent mechanisms which may or may not interact with each other to
produce
more complex phenomena.

Consider first the phenomena described by Maxwell's Equations.
These equations describe the manner in which electric and magnetic fields
interact to produce the electromagnetic field. They show that a changing
electric field produces a changing magnetic field and visa versa. They do
not
preclude the existence of unchanging magnetic or electric fields. Indeed,
such
fields are common and we have all experienced them. For example, static
magnetic
fields are exhibited by permanent magnets and electromagnets operated by a
DC
current and, in the region of space surrounding them at least, where the
magnetic field may be quite strong, do not involve an electric field.
Similarly,
electric fields are readily observed, as evidenced by the rising of the hair
on
your arm when it is placed close to the faceplate of a TV set or when one
slides
a polystyrene cup from a stack (such an induced electric field may make the
lower cup "float" inside the cup above it). In these cases an electric field
is
observed to be present without an accompanying magnetic field. It is only
when
one of those fields (electric and magnetic) has a rate of change with
respect to
time that the other field manifests itself in accordance with Maxwell's
Equations. It should be obvious to all that electric and magnetic fields
interact to produce an effect which we denote as the electromagnetic field
but
in no way is the electromagnetic field fundamental since both the electric
and
magnetic fields can be observed independently. (An analogy from chemistry
would
be salt since is composed of atoms of sodium and chlorine which are combined
into a molecule which we call salt. The molecule is hardly a fundamental
entity,
it is a compound of two fundamental entities.)

A similar consideration may be made with respect to the
combination of gravitational and inertial accelerations. It is presently
accepted that both of these observable accelerations are aspects of a single
phenomena caused by the curvature of space impelling matter to follow a path
termed the null geodesic. Unfortunately for this view, as is the case with
the
magnetic and electric fields, both gravitational and inertial accelerations
can
be observed independently of each other. As you sit reading this you can
feel
the effect of the force of gravity pulling you downwards (the acceleration
of
gravity). When you analyze what is occurring and compare it with the results
which would be observed at the opposite side of the Earth (which undergoes
the
same inertial acceleration as occurs at your location to an accuracy of
0.03% or
better) there is no legitimate way to ascribe the force you feel in the seat
of
your pants to an inertial acceleration. (The writer has received a few
foolish
responses asserting that the force we feel results from the fact that, in
sitting, we are preventing ourselves from following our proper null geodesic
path. That allegation is most certainly true, but what impels us to attempt
to
follow that path if it is not the classical force of gravity?) Just as we
can
sense gravity as an independent force, we can also sense the force of
inertial
acceleration independently of gravitational attraction. This is precisely
what
is done during the rocket sled experiments conducted in the latter part of
the
last century.

When an object is in freefall about a gravitationally
attracting object it is acted upon by both acceleration and gravitational
forces. The gravitational force acts to impel the object towards the center
of
attraction while the inertial effect resists that attractive force and
causes
the object's velocity vector to change. The result is an orbital path about
the
attracting object which is termed the "null geodesic". Just as is the case
of
the electromagnetic field, the result does not represent a single entity, it
represents two individual interacting entities. To attempt to treat that
interaction as if it were and as the current practice seems to do is, in
itself,
the height of folly. Gravitational theory does not produce a unified field
theory. As with electromagnetism, there are two independent fields involved!

There seems to be no purpose for the attempts to produce a
unified theory other than the idea that the mathematics of Physics should be
pretty (excuse me, I think the term used is beautiful) other than to satisfy
the
mysticism of mathematicians.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm .

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not
monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the
same
courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of
our
parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that
you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:-

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for
over 5 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF
THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals
who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it.
If
anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered,
the
material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed
only
the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was
provided.

There is actually a good argument for unifications of the type executed
in UFT's. This is the stability arguments made by Segal. It basically
goes like this:

Given the group structure is hypothesized and then verified by
empirical evidence, we can at best determine that structure up to small
perturbations.
In looking at the mathematical structure of a group we see that some
are more stable under such perturbations than others. The more unified
groups allow as accurate a prediction system as the pre-unified at any
finite level of percision should the unstable group be the actual "all
the way down" correct group. However the reverse will not be the case.


Example: Galilean relativity (group of velocity transformations is
ISO(3)) vs Einsteinian relativity (group of velocity transformations is
SO(3,1)).

In short one can disprove an unstable group with sufficient percision
but one cannot disprove the stable, more unified group. Furthermore in
order to formulate the experiment in which the unstable group is
disproved one must work within a theory based on the stable-unified
group. One essentially asks if a parameter derived from empirical
measurements is in fact zero or just small but measurably non-zero.
Example above: 1/c as a component of the time-dialation and
length-contraction calculations.

In shorter: Unified theories allow us to formulate more questions which
may be answered by experiments than do non-unified theories.

However of course you must first formulate a unified theory which is as
much in agreement of empirical data as the prior non-unified theory.
This has not quite been acheived. I would argue that this is because
the obvious next unification: of space-time and field components, has
been avoided. Such a unification precludes a "field theory" or any
other "fiber-bundle" based theory except as a de-unification limit.

Regards,
James Baugh