Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies

The Art of Science

Oscar Wilde wrote that art is the most intense form of individualism that the world has ever known. The same applies to physics or natural philosophy. My ancestral cousin Francis Bacon (attached) defined science as a valid hypothesis tested against experimental data and not against a brick wall (the dogmatist). So the unified field theory that I proposed in 2003 has reached all the countries of the world, and all the best minds in the world. This is because it is based in the most objective way possible, on well known geometry. Its hypotheses turn geometry into physics. This method goes back to the ancient peoples, who turned geometry into art. For example Mathew 1.18 of the Book of Kells, the famous chi rho iota page reproduced in PECE1, is inscribed with great brilliance on vellum, and based on spirals and triskeles on the wild island of Iona, never far from the roaring sea. "Christi autem generatio sic erat:…." The page is dominated by a large chi, a large rho and a large iota to abbreviate the word "Christi" – Latin for "of Christ". These large letters are decorated with incredible brilliance using geometry. The hypotheses of ECE have been described by the theoretical physicist Diego Rapaport as brilliant and economical. The geometry is turned into wave equations and field equations. ECE has been accepted in a radically new way, by going straight to the vast worldwide readership. Nothing is allowed to interfere with this process, least of all the plastic potties that litter the sewerage works of history. The result is overwhelming international acclaim. We know this from computer feedback meticulously collected over nearly fifteen years every day. The old physics known as the standard model has been riddled with unanswered refutations. So it has been reduced to pseudoscience. This always happens in physics and in any area of thought. If it did not, there would have been no thought. Extrapolation shows that the powerful unified field theory will be intensely studied for the foreseeable future, as long as humankind doesn’t blow itself pieces or mutilate the environment. It has already been here for almost twenty years. This is a magnificent achievement by any historical standards, and all those who helped develop the theory can take great pride in it. I think that any objective system would recognize this. If it does not then it is a plastic pottie, the detritus of ancient prejudice. The theory is like the emergence of les fauves, the wild animals or post impressionists. It is like the emergence of cubism in 1905, the same year as special relativity or Stravinsky’s "Sacre du Printemps" in 1913. This caused a riot. It is like Rodin’s statue of Balzac, which caused another riot, potties flying everywhere, or like Dylan Thomas’ "Eighteen Poems" in 1934.

afamilylinesrelationtofrancisbacon.pdf

UFT88 read again at the University of Zurich

Zurich is ranked 89 in the world by webometrics, 90 by Times, 56 by QS and 54 by Shanghai. It was founded in 1833 and is affiliated with 23 Nobel Laureates, including Roengten, von Laue, Einstein, Schroedinger, Debye and Muller. It has 25,732 students. I was a Guest of the University from 1990 to 1991, working with Wagniere, a Dean in theoretical chemistry. This work paved the way for the discovery of the B(3) field at Cornell in Nov. 1991, using a radically new explanation for the inverse Faraday effect. In 1993 Vigier realized that B(3) is evidence for finite photon mass, thus overturning the idea of massless photon using a well known effect, the inverse Faraday effect. The B(3) field therefore refutes the Higgs boson. UFT88 refutes Einsteinian general relativity (EGR) by incorporating torsion into the second Bianchi identity, changing its structure completely into the Jacobi Cartan Evans identity of UFT313. Therefore the correct structure of the Einstein field equation is completely different from the one used by Einstein in 1915, when torsion was unknown, so no conclusions in physics can be gleaned from the Einstein field equation, and standard model general relativity collapses completely. UFT88 and UFT313 are classics and there have been no objections to them, so the enlightened view of physics is that the EGR theory is obsolete and riddled with refutations. In a sense, the establishment of physics has also become ossified, and obsolete, because it clings on to ideas that have been refuted to the satisfaction of the overwhelming majority of the colleagues in two hundred countries. It has been replaced by ECE unified field theory. The situation is historically similar to the appointment of the enlightened theologian David Friedrich Strauss as Professor of Theology in Zurich in 1839. This was met with uproar, because Strauss argued that the miracles of the New Testament were mythology devised by early Christians. Strauss was give a pension before he could take up his post and retired super early. His book "Das Leben Jesu" also caused intense uproar and was translated in 1846 by Marian Evans (George Eliot, the novelist). This translation was described by the Earl of Shaftesbury (now long forgotten) as the most pestilential book ever vomited out of the jaws of hell. He didn’t seem to like it. I think that the Strauss theology is by now the standard interpretation worldwide. The same can be said for B(3) and ECE theory, the standard modellers are no longer able to reply to the seven hundred or so papers and books on ECE and not able to reply to any refutation. So the colleagues have made the establishment irrelevant in a coup d’etat of thought.

Relativistic Quantum m Theory
OK thanks, m(r1) is taken outside the bracket in Eq. (22) to give gamma = (m(r1)) power minus half A, where A is (1 – (v1/c) squared / m(r1)) power minus half, then take the limit v1 << c. So Eq. (33) should be m(r1) power half. I will rewrite the note and post a final version with all consequential typo’s corrected. The aim is to get to the point at which the effect of m(r) on fine structure can be computed. It should be possible to compute the Lamb shift using this method.

Relativistic Quantum m Theory
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

I do not understand how eq.(32) was derived. What did you do with the
m(r1) in the gamma factor?

Horst

Am 12.01.2019 um 12:59 schrieb Myron Evans:
> This is the first note on the relativistic quantum m theory. I will
> break off now and write UFT427 on the Hamilton Jacobi m theory and
> UFT428 on quantization of m theory..

427(3): Quantization of m Theory in the H Atom

Many thanks indeed! This looks to be full of interest. The most general spherically symmetric spacetime changes the energy levels of the H atom according the function discovered by Dr. Horst Eckardt numerically and given below. In the first approximation the unperturbed wave functions of the H atom were used as in previous work. The results are analytical for constant m(r) but in general a mainframe or supercomputer could be used to compute the energy levels of all atoms and molecules with any m(r). Any experimentally observed anomalies could be attributed to m(r).

Quantization of m Theory in the H Atom

The energy levels of Hydrogen can be determined including an m function accoring to eq. (16) of the note. However ananlytical results for the integrals are only obtained for constant m(r). I re-activated my library of Hydrogen functions. The total energy in dependence of m(r)=x=const. is:

E =

for atomic units. Then E=-1/2 is the ground state of H. This ground state is altered by x as shown in the graph. It rises for m<1.
Should this calculation be changed according to the results of note 427(4)?

PS: in eq.(16) a factor h_bar squared seems to be missing for the kinetic energy.

Horst

Am 11.01.2019 um 08:06 schrieb Myron Evans:

427(3): Quantization of m Theory in the H Atom

These are interesting remarks, to extend to the fermion equation should be straightforward, using the expression (1) of Note 427(3), because E squared is simply multiplied by m(r1) in frame (r1, phi). One should look for anomalies in the usual quantum theory, using your Ph. D. Thesis, and try to explain them with the m theory. A modified spin orbit interaction should come out of Eq. (1), a lot of work on this type of theory has been completed in previous UFT papers. So I will proceed to relativistic quantum mechanics in m theory from Eq. (1). Your computations of Eq. (2) are also very interesting, I have used one type of approximation, but several are no doubt possible, so we get several types of quantum mechanics on the non relativistic level. Expectation values and energy levels could be computed for each type of approximation. We could name this new subject "Quantum m Theory". The theory could be extended to nuclear physics, and eventually the particle zoo can be explained with m functions. In early UFT papers nuclear theory was unified with gravitational theory, and low energy nuclear reactions were explained in UFT226 ff. An infinite combination and permutation of ideas is now possible in ECE theory, limited only by imagination.
427(3): Quantization of m Theory in the H Atom

The quantum mechanical changes by the m function will mainly affect s states because they have highest density at r=0. The implications for Dirac theory, in particular the fermion equation, will be interesting because effects will probably to expected for heavy elements.

I have evaluated the Hamilton equations for m theory with the alternative Hamiltonian (2) of the note. We can compile the same table as in UFT 426,3. There are contributions of dm/dr1 as found in Lagrange theory.

Horst

Am 10.01.2019 um 10:35 schrieb Myron Evans:

427(3): Quantization of m Theory in the H Atom

This is the first attempt at quantization of m theory following its rigorously consistent development on the classical level in immediately preceding notes and papers. The relativistic energy levels of the H atom in m theory are given by Eq. (16), in which the H atom wavefunctions can be used as a first approximation as in many previous papers. It is seen that the classical energy levels are all shifted to a different extent by m theory. It may also turn out from the computation that the energy levels are split, i.e that the well known multiple degeneracy of Schroedinger’s H is lifted. In other words the energy levels may become dependent on l and m as well as on n. Furthermore the m theory may eventually lead to a new explanation for the Lamb shift, which is a difference in energy between 2S sub half and 2P sub half. this is because the Lamb shift is caused by vacuum energy in the form of fluctuating electric and magnetic fields of the vacuum. In order to achieve that result however, the present first attempt must be refined to include spin the SU(2) basis. The m theory produces the spin connection and the vacuum force, so should be able to produce the Lamb shift. In fact the spin connection has already been used to describe the Lamb shift in recent UFT papers. So the concepts of ECE theory and m theory are rigorously self consistent over a span of 426 papers and books to date. About 300 have been translated into Spanish.

428.pdf

Latest Papers Doing Well

All the latest papers are already doing well, in the order 425, 421, 422, 426, 424, 420, 423, 417, 419, ……, and all seven hundred or so ECE papers and books are read all the time in all the countries and territories of the world. This is a consensus of acceptance by any historical measure.There have been no technical objections to ECE for a decade.The Einstein Cartan Evans (ECE) unified field theory is such a rich theory, and there are so many self consistent concepts, that it is capable of infinite development. It was originally designed in 2003 to be rigorous and objective by using Cartan geometry. There was a notorious and short lived conspiracy during the early years of ECE propagated by a few personally hostile individuals who have clearly been overwhelmingly rejected by the international community of scientists. The standard model has been refuted and overturned and the censorship of the standard model dogmatists has been dissolved by using a new method of publication that sends new work directly to the vast worldwide readership. The new work swims or sinks according to merit. This method removes the calcification caused by ossified dogmatists, the stalactites and idols of Bacon’s famous philosophy. So congratulations to all staffs on a historic achievement. The highly skillful and diligent use of computer algebra by co author Horst Eckardt means that any valid criticism of ECE must also use computer algebra to counter our computer algebra. This has never occurred, so the conspirators against ECE were not scientists, they were motivated by nonscientific reasons and dogma and the precursors of today’s disgusting hate groups. The ECE theory is based on a Cartan geometry that has been unchanged for a hundred years. Any valid criticism of ECE must disprove Cartan geometry. This is the same Cartan geometry as used by Sean Carroll in lecture notes to graduate students at Harvard, Chicago, UCSB and elsewhere. Carroll has described ECE has a plausible theory in a communication to the late Prof. John B. Hart, one of the referees for my successful nomination by the Royal Society of Chemistry for a rarely awarded Civil List Pension. The mathematical physicist Diego Rapaport, a leading expert on differential geometry, has described the ECE hypothesis as being "brilliantly economical". this is because the same hypothesis transforms the structure relations of Maurer and Cartan into the potential definitions, and the Cartan identity into the field equations. Cartan geometry is used in chapter three of Carroll’s online book: "Spacetime and Geometry: an Introduction to General Relativity". This is essential reading and the book is free online. In the UFT series, Carroll’s proofs are greatly developed and given in all detail. Any valid criticism of ECE must counter both Carroll and myself, and also counter our use of computer algebra. The earlier B(3) theories and O(3) electrodynamics are also rigorously correct, and are studied all the time at all the best places. There are fifteen years of very detailed feedback, filtered statistics, and scientometrics, to prove this beyond reasonable doubt. So almost any criticism of ECE is now rejected automatically. The standard model of physics has been overwhelmingly rejected and should be seen as history of science. The ECE theory is fifteen years old and by direct parallel with relativity has developed into a mature theory studied by millions, some of them the brightest people in the world of physics. In fifteen years, relativity would have developed from 1892 to 1907, from the Michelson Morley experiment to the Einstein hypotheses of 1905 and to the beginnings of general relativity. To advanced thinkers, classical physics would have been entirely rejected by 1907. Similarly after fifteen years, the standard model of physics has been entirely rejected by advanced thinkers.

427(3): Quantization of m Theory in the H Atom

These are interesting remarks, to extend to the fermion equation should be straightforward, using the expression (1) of Note 427(3), because E squared is simply multiplied by m(r1) in frame (r1, phi). One should look for anomalies in the usual quantum theory, using your Ph. D. Thesis, and try to explain them with the m theory. A modified spin orbit interaction should come out of Eq. (1), a lot of work on this type of theory has been completed in previous UFT papers. So I will proceed to relativistic quantum mechanics in m theory from Eq. (1). Your computations of Eq. (2) are also very interesting, I have used one type of approximation, but several are no doubt possible, so we get several types of quantum mechanics on the non relativistic level. Expectation values and energy levels could be computed for each type of approximation. We could name this new subject "Quantum m Theory". The theory could be extended to nuclear physics, and eventually the particle zoo can be explained with m functions. In early UFT papers nuclear theory was unified with gravitational theory, and low energy nuclear reactions were explained in UFT226 ff. An infinite combination and permutation of ideas is now possible in ECE theory, limited only by imagination.
427(3): Quantization of m Theory in the H Atom

The quantum mechanical changes by the m function will mainly affect s states because they have highest density at r=0. The implications for Dirac theory, in particular the fermion equation, will be interesting because effects will probably to expected for heavy elements.

I have evaluated the Hamilton equations for m theory with the alternative Hamiltonian (2) of the note. We can compile the same table as in UFT 426,3. There are contributions of dm/dr1 as found in Lagrange theory.

Horst

Am 10.01.2019 um 10:35 schrieb Myron Evans:

427(3): Quantization of m Theory in the H Atom

This is the first attempt at quantization of m theory following its rigorously consistent development on the classical level in immediately preceding notes and papers. The relativistic energy levels of the H atom in m theory are given by Eq. (16), in which the H atom wavefunctions can be used as a first approximation as in many previous papers. It is seen that the classical energy levels are all shifted to a different extent by m theory. It may also turn out from the computation that the energy levels are split, i.e that the well known multiple degeneracy of Schroedinger’s H is lifted. In other words the energy levels may become dependent on l and m as well as on n. Furthermore the m theory may eventually lead to a new explanation for the Lamb shift, which is a difference in energy between 2S sub half and 2P sub half. this is because the Lamb shift is caused by vacuum energy in the form of fluctuating electric and magnetic fields of the vacuum. In order to achieve that result however, the present first attempt must be refined to include spin the SU(2) basis. The m theory produces the spin connection and the vacuum force, so should be able to produce the Lamb shift. In fact the spin connection has already been used to describe the Lamb shift in recent UFT papers. So the concepts of ECE theory and m theory are rigorously self consistent over a span of 426 papers and books to date. About 300 have been translated into Spanish.

427(3).pdf

Section 3 of UFT 425

Many thanks again, I agree about the typo in Eq. (30). The graphical results are most interesting as usual. The assumption gamma = 1 means that dm(r1) / dr1 is zero, because gamma = 1 means m(r1) = 1, and v goes to zero. This choice also introduces a singularity. So it may be better to integrate the unapproximated Eq. (30) numerically at some future stage, although it is a difficult equation. I will have a look at Eq. (30) to see if I can find another approximation that does not introduce a singularity.
Section 3 of UFT 425

I tried a solution for m(r1) in section 3. There are some
inconsistencies, indicating that further work has to be done on this.
BTW, there is a typo in eq.(30) of the paper, the plus and minus sign
should be interchanged in the rhs parenthesis.

Horst

paper425-3.pdf

427(2): Comparison of HJ and Schroedinger Equations

Many thanks for checking this note. P is derived from the radial wavefunction R in Eq. (11). Eq. (25) is simply the usual way that the Schroedinger equation is written, and after psi = R sub nl Y sub lm, expands out as you know into the radial R and spherical harmonic Y components of the complete wavefunction psi. This procedure results in Eq. (12), where the angular part enters. |Eq. (26) is simply the Hamilton Jacobi equation from the hamiltonian (25), which is the quantized version of the hamiltonian (1).

427(2): Comparison of HJ and Schroedinger Equations
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

It was not explained what the variable bold P is in eq.(12). Shouldn’t a wave function stand there?
In eqs.(25,26) the angular part seems to be missing.

Horst

Am 08.01.2019 um 11:38 schrieb Myron Evans:

427(2): Comparison of HJ and Schroedinger Equations

This note prepares the way for quantization of m theory and a new explanation of the Lamb shift, because the method used in Note 427(1) is the route towards quantization in special relativity first used by Dirac and greatly developed in the UFT series. Quantization of m theory ought to lead to a great deal of new information about atoms and molecules Quantization in a more general space than Minkowski is a clear demonstration of the fact that new energy appears, because in Minkowski space (Dirac theory for example) there is no Lamb shift, contrary to experiment. The Lamb shift is the classic example of the radiative correction due to "the vacuum", which has been developed in recent UFT papers in many complementary ways, all rigorously self consistent.The concept of "vacuum" has also been developed in many different ways throughout the twentieth century. All these theories conserve total energy and momentum, charge current density and so on. The reason for this is that the vacuum is not a "nothingness", it is filled with energy in modern physics.So energy is transferred from the vacuum to matter and total energy is conserved. Anyone who thinks that the Lamb shift is perpetual motion should reexamine their thoughts on physics, or take up gardening. However, in the next note, we will first look firstly at the classical limit of m theory as defined in recent papers UFT415ff, and proceed to quantize that limit on the Schroedinger level. It is anticipated that the wavefunctions and expectation values of the H atom will all be affected by the m(r1) function, and in different ways.