\documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\linespread{1.2}
\begin{document}
\sloppypar
{\large
\begin{center}
\textbf{What the Geometric Theory of~Fields is~Good~for}\\
\end{center}}
\begin{center}
\emph{Ulrich \textsc{Bruchholz}}\footnote{Dipl.-Ing.
\textsl{Ulrich Bruchholz},~http://www.bruchholz-acoustics.de}\\
{\footnotesize 6. August 2006\\}
\normalsize
---
\end{center}
First, I'd like to comment quotations, that Manfred
\mbox{\textsc{Geilhaupt}}\footnote{
\mbox{http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/\textasciitilde{}physik07/index.html}}
has kindly got. These quotations return the presently predominant
opinion characteristic way.
From Richard P. \textsc{Feynman}'s book ``The Character of Physical
Law'' (1964):
\begin{itemize}
\item
Up to now, nobody has succeeded in making electricity and gravity
to two different aspects of the same and only the same matter.
(back-translated)
\end{itemize}
Exactly that has been managed with the Geometric theory of fields.
This ``same matter'' is the geometry of the space-time
unified in the theory of relativity.
\begin{itemize}
\item
Our physical theories of today, the laws of physics, consist of
lots of different parts that do not match. \dots I can only speak
of the equalities of the different laws.
The context between them evades our comprehension.
(back-translated)
\end{itemize}
That is an apt description of the situation. But it is useless
to unify these ``parts'' with power, because these are based
on different \emph{methods}. One can unify only under one
method. That turned out well with gravitation and
electromagnetism. As well, the quantum phenomena are taken
into consideration. The phenomena, mind you, not the theory~!
\begin{itemize}
\item
If you have assembled with your own hand a theory about the same origin
between electric and gravitational forces, you need to ask yourself how
such a big discrepancy can appear?
\end{itemize}
It is possible that extreme proportions appear. We have to take notice
of them. The term ``discrepancy'' does not belong to natural science.
That is purely subjective.\\
If we compare the \emph{forces} between charges and those between
masses at the same distance, we see privileged areas of action of them.
So what~? However, the influence from mass, spin, charge, magnetic
momentum to metrics amounts to each about $ 10^{-40} $ for a radius
of $ 10^{-15} $m.\\
By the way, the try ``assembling with the own hand a theory'' is
condemned to fail from the beginning. A common theory of electromagnetism
and gravitation results from itself, if one tackles that properly.
It is false too searching for a ``same origin''. That does not exist.
The right question to nature consists in it, what the concrete
quantities are at all.
\begin{itemize}
\item
To the end of this lecture I'd like to point to some properties
that the gravity has in common with other laws.
First, it is mathematically expressed, the other too. Second,
the law is not exact. Einstein must modify it, and it is right
not quite nevertheless, because we have to insert the quantum
theory. The same is true also for all other laws, they are not exact
without exception. A rest of mystery keeps throughout, we must
everywhere patch something more in. (back-translated)
\end{itemize}
Why \emph{has} one \emph{to} insert the quantum theory~? What's
the idea of this patchwork~? The different methods do never harmonize.
Of course, a complete theory has to take the quantum phenomena
into \emph{consideration}. The phenomena are not identical with
the theory~! (The Geometric theory of fields takes the quantum
phenomena into consideration.)
\begin{itemize}
\item
It is strange in physics that we even always need mathematics
in order to express the basical laws. (back-translated) --
(Manfred's personal remark: The laws of physics should be derived
from basical principles. See Einstein, who has derived Newton's
gravitation law from the principle ``one cannot distinguish inert
mass from heavy mass''.)
\end{itemize}
Mathematics and physics meet in the geometry :-)
\begin{itemize}
\item
After all, nobody knows the last cause [of the gravitation laws].
With it, we have up to now no other model of the gravitation
theory than the mathematical formula. (back-translated)
\end{itemize}
Oh well, the geometry is more than a mathematical formula.
The geometry is probably the ``last cause'', as \textsc{Feynman}
means it.
\begin{itemize}
\item
Each of our laws of nature is a purely mathematical statement of
rather complex abstruse mathematics. Why~? I have no pale idea.
As sorry I am, it seems to be impossible to explain the beauties
of the laws of nature without cheat that way, that also non-mathematicians
can feel them. (back-translated)
\end{itemize}
Mathematics is abstruse, as long the contexts are missing. The
entire beauty of the laws of nature unfold under the roof of
the geometry.
\begin{itemize}
\item
Again and again, however, it turns out to be that all the great
discoveries leave them [concrete models] and take on a lot more
abstract forms, briefly, that models are no good for the really
great achievements.\\
\dots ~However, all tries to grasp them with philosophical principles,
or to invent them from imagination, can be forgotten.
(back-translated)
\end{itemize}
With the presently usual model-related methods, it is only consequent
that the discoveries more and more leave specific models. The only
one principle that proves successful up to now, is the geometry.
It has fully proved successful for the gravitation, and experiences
its climax with the Geometric theory of fields, in that also the
geometry of the electromagnetic fields is settled. As well, the
quantum phenomena are not disregarded.\\
It becomes obvious, that the geometry is more than a model.\\
According to Boris \textsc{Unrau}\footnote{http://www.einsteins-erben.de}:
\begin{itemize}
\item
Up to now, the General theory of relativity has withstood all
experimental verifications. But it is a classical theory and
does not take quantumphysical phenomena into consideration.
\end{itemize}
Yes, it is. The Geometric theory of fields takes them into
consideration, though it is a classical theory \emph{too}.
(But it establishes new thinking.)
\begin{itemize}
\item
The quantum theory again is experimentally excellently confirmed, \dots
\end{itemize}
Not throughout. This is a conglomeration of different theories,
of them each considers special phenomena.
\begin{itemize}
\item
It were interesting to hear, at what distance from singularities
the General theory of relativity loses reliability.
\end{itemize}
At 1E-15m. This statement refers to the co\"ordinate system of the
observer. Locally, the area around the singularity does not exist !\\
With it, the Geometric theory of fields gives reliable evidence
about singularities. The Geometric theory of fields includes all
proportions. It does not need special quantum theories, because
it itself takes the quantum phenomena into consideration.
Objection by Manfred (for all physicists):\\
``Then you should be able to clarify all quantum phenomena,
also which have been not explained up to now~???''
My answer to it:\\
Yes, on principle. Of course, human being, I don't know all.
I can offer following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Diverse particle quantities (mass, spin, charge, magnetic momentum),
also mutually conditional~(!).
\item
Qualitative derivation of \emph{h} from \textsc{Maxwell}'s equations
(with diverse predictions).
\item
Plausible interpretation of electrical conductivity and tunnel effects
(inclusive of super-lightspeeds as noticed by the outer observer).
\item
Clarification as it is with causality, and why at all it is possible
to use statistical methods.\\
\end{enumerate}
\begin{itemize}
\item
I [Boris] also think, that it is the deciding question, where these
both powerful theories [theory of relativity and quantum theory]
meet.
\end{itemize}
The theories do not meet at all. The phenomena meet in \emph{one}
theory, and that is the Geometric theory of fields.\\
The following quotation looks me as quintessence.
\begin{quote}
Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we
grasp it - in a decade, a century, or a millennium - we will all say to
each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so
stupid for so long? $ \quad $ -- $ \quad $
\emph{John~Archibald~Wheeler}\footnote{quoted by John \textsc{Baez} in
\mbox{http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html}}
\end{quote}
\textsc{Wheeler} is right !\\
This ``simple idea'' is a new kind of thinking, that Werner
\textsc{Mikus}\footnote{Entwicklungstherapie \textbf{1}, p. 9
and 28, 2001.}
has formulated in psychology. But it is relevant for all sciences !
It replaces the time-related thinking by a geometric (four-dimensional,
static). With it, one does not need to ask for any cause of the
state of the space-time. Any source like distributed mass or distributed
charge is not needed. The space-time \emph{IS}.
The statical view as such is not new, and has been suggested
by \textsc{Minkowski} for physics. As well, it is ignored
due to habits of seeing, that the sources must be necessarily
cancelled.\footnote{Reasons see in \mbox{http://bruchholz.psf.net}}
Because official physics does not know how to properly deal with
pictures respectively analogies. \textsc{Minkowski}'s suggestion
is only seen as aid to simplify calculations. Conversely, dynamics
of the three-dimensional reality results by itself from the
geometrical reality.\\
A new science on contexts, that one can experience, (as suggested
by \textsc{Mikus}) can help
to grasp the contexts, and to imagine the mathematical formalism.
\end{document}