Myron Evans ECE (Einstein - Cartan - Evans) theory

  • Dear physicists !


    I would like you to tell your opinion of one of the (maybe so much hated) unified theories, ECE (Einstein - Cartan - Evans ) by Myron Evans.
    I'm asking this because i'm not familiar at all with the mathematics that is used to prove this theory (tensors etc.). Why this theory attracts me is the addition of torsion in space-time geometry.
    Here's a general slide-presentation of the ideas:
    http://www.aias.us/documents/m…aneous/ECE-popular-en.pdf
    And this is more complete description of the theory:
    http://www.aias.us/Books/PECE.pdf


    So does this theory have anything to do with reality or is it pure non-sense ?

  • I spent a few minutes flying over the pages and it's not fair to call the few words I will say a summary:


    The authors claim that the photon has a rest mass, which is very, very, very small and thus unproovable, because it's far below the Plank scale which are the limits of measurements.


    This does not imply that the assumption is wrong. May be at cosmic scales, effects can be measured.


    From the philosophical/technical point of view I feel quite a lot of sympathie with their arguments. This steams from the view point, that most of the current physical reasoning is 3D where as the real space is 4D. To dig deeper into their arguments I would need some additional math. May be somebody else can take over.


    But please keep one thing in mind:


    The signal that LIGO recently measured has already "in advance" been calculated using the Einstein ART equations. The union of two dark holes is a two second long event, with a measured signature that matches the theory very, very well.


    So ART cannot be completely wrong...


    I repeat it once more: A theory is measured on it's abilty to predict or completely describe (un-) known phenomens.


    May be you should present us such concrete new predictions or correction.

  • Before the practical predictions it would be interesting to know if the basics of the theory make sense.


    With mathematics you can prove "anything". But I don't believe that anybody will look at a theory which assumes that a photon has a gravitational (barionic?) restmass.


    Nevertheless such a try is interesting, if we look at it "like a disturbance of the real theory", thus under the aspect, what would happen if...


    Sometimes also the same mathematics evolves later under a different point of view, e.g. when we finally find a theory for "ether" / "empty space".

  • On a philosophical level it's OK to think that the photon has a "real" (not equal the energy-equivalent) mass.


    But in our physics photons travel at the speed of light, which can be measured at the highest accuracy!


    If it (the photon) would have a "real mass", it could never reach the speed of light. As a consequnce ECE reduces the speed of light, which is really, really a stupid act of despair.

  • Happy New year 2017!


    First i'm sorry that i keep asking these questions about ECE again this year. I probably started in a wrong way 2016 ?


    My key point was to get some kind of opinion of the real basis of the ECE theory. And as far as i understand the basis of ECE is this:
    1) Einstein = space-time + curvature, however not enough to describe reality =>
    2) + Cartan, Evans = + torsion


    So does the addition of torsion make sense ?


    Just as an irritating comment from the latest UFT-paper:
    "..., which uses the commutator method to show that if torsion is zero then curvature is zero. So neglect of torsion means that the Einstein theory is fundamentally erroneous. The Einsteinian curvature
    is zero, so its gravitational field is zero, ..."


    Unfortunately that is based on mathematics and as such worthless if we agree Wyttenbach (2016-07-15) "With mathematics you can prove "anything"."

  • "..., which uses the commutator method to show that if torsion is zero then curvature is zero. So neglect of torsion means that the Einstein theory is fundamentally erroneous. The Einsteinian curvature
    is zero, so its gravitational field is zero, ..."


    Rjzk : In Russia there was a lot of research regarding effects of so called torsion fields.


    If you are interested in a more elaborate theory than Einsteins ART, then go on and read R.Mills GUT-CP from Chapter 31, which explains the difference between radial time dilatation and the tangential one. Of course one could talk of a torsion effect in space time like movements, which is sufficient to explain the light deviation traveling along heavy masses or even the Merkur Perhelion changes.


    The basis of Mills theory is the recognition that in a rotating frame, that undergoes radial acceleration, only the radial part is subject to relativistic effects (length contraction)! Of course there is more ...

  • The torsion of space-time wouldn't generate gravity field, yet it would still generate the lensing and gravitomagnetic charge - therefore it would violate the equivalence principle by behaving like the dark matter (which can also result from sheer of twisted space-time at the perimeter of galaxies). IMO paradoxically just the ability of CE theory to incorporate this aspect of dark matter behavior is the reason, why it has been dismissed by mainstream physics, which appreciates the equivalence principle a lot. But such aspect also makes the CE theory internally inconsistent: you shouldn't derive violation of equivalence principle with theory based on equivalence principle. But the intrinsic consistency is neither very strong aspect of general relativity, in which the stress energy tensor is considered massless despite the E=mc^2 mass energy equivalence and Einstein's pseudotensor depends on reference frame of itself. The failure of the Einstein gravitational field equation to include a tensor characterizing the gravitational field is a severe limitation. So we still should consider the CE theory a more realistic description of curved space-time, despite that all low-dimensional approaches have their limits there.


    Quote

    The authors claim that the photon has a rest mass, which is very, very, very small and thus unproovable, because it's far below the Plank scale which are the limits of measurements. If it (the photon) would have a "real mass", it could never reach the speed of light. As a consequnce ECE reduces the speed of light, which is really, really a stupid act of despair.


    This controversy is explained here, for example: the photons are solitons of EM waves and as such they're not required to propagate with the same speed like the EM waves. The photon is concept of quantum mechanics and the special relativity has nothing to say about it - its existence ipso-facto violates it. BTW even in in linearized, Einstein–Maxwell theory on flat spacetime, an oscillating electric dipole is the source of a spin-2 (graviton) field, which should be therefore massive.


  • BTW The irregular path of photons can explain the anomalous results of double slit experiment, like these ones (example of weak retrocausality).
    The retrocausality observed implies, that this massive part of photons gets balanced with superluminal propagation of portion of light energy.


  • Zephir_AWT thanks for clarifying the situation among the mainstream physicists.


    I am still wondering what is the value of the mathematical proof that ties curvature and torsion together ? If it is valid, can it be just ignored like that ?
    Wouldn't that mean that if you ignore torsion you also throw curvature away at the same time ?


    As little as i understand these things to me it looks that this connection is essential for the whole theory and its consequences.

  • Whereas the motion along geodesics can be interpreted like the Hamiltonian flow of Newtonian fluid, the torsion is higher-dimensional effect. Even the elastic Newtonian fluid or gas can exhibit waves - but it can not exhibit torsion and torsion waves. Like I said, the existence of space-time torsion would violate equivalence principle. Therefore mainstream physicists sacrificed this component of curvature on behalf of consistency (and also simplicity) of theory in four dimensions. I'm of course aware, that the space-time can exhibit torsion like jelly rather than gas: the spin angular momentum of light is based on torsion field and the high spin photons with angular momentum exhibit dark matter behavior.

  • Quote

    To increase the probability of the occurrence of looped trajectories, the researchers designed a three-slit structure that supports surface plasmons, which the scientists describe as "strongly confined electromagnetic fields that can exist at the surface of metals." The presence of these electromagnetic fields near the three slits increases the contribution of looped trajectories to the overall interference pattern by almost two orders of magnitude.


    Nanoplasmonics effects how light behaves in the near field.

  • Quote

    Nanoplasmonics effects how light behaves in the near field


    I can understand: nanoplasma is AxilAxil's hype for this week. Before it was Bose-Einstein condensate, superconductivity, Rydberg matter, spin waves, muons, quark soup, monopoles, tachyons, whatever else.


    BTW Nanoplasma <> nanoplasmons.. Go figure...


  • I can understand: nanoplasma is AxilAxil's hype for this week. Before it was Bose-Einstein condensate, superconductivity, Rydberg matter, spin waves, muons, quark soup, monopoles, tachyons, whatever else.


    BTW Nanoplasma <> nanoplasmons.. Go figure...


    LENR is no simple thing. All the above and more...a lot more... are included in this business.

  • General relativity also handles equivalence principle - so it cannot predict dark matter, which violates it. For example MOND theory proposes that the equivalence principle breaks at low accelerations. There is also a relativistic version of MOND called TeVeS, which satisfies the equivalence principle, but it doesn't explain the rotation curves. You simply cannot have working relativistic theory of dark matter in 4D, which satisfies equivalence principle at the same moment.

  • Torsional Monopoles and Torqued Geometries in Gravity and Condensed Matter

    Torsional degrees of freedom play an important role in modern gravity theories as well as in condensed matter systems where they can be modeled by defects in solids. Here we isolate a class of torsion models that support torsion configurations with a localized, conserved charge that adopts integer values. The charge is topological in nature and the torsional configurations can be thought of as torsional `monopole' solutions. We explore some of the properties of these configurations in gravity models with non-vanishing curvature, and discuss the possible existence of such monopoles in condensed matter systems. To conclude, we show how the monopoles can be thought of as a natural generalization of the Cartan spiral staircase.

  • About dark matter - it looks like ECE doesn't need it ! OK, i don't have any opinion about this but at slide 35 in this general presentation,

    http://www.aias.us/documents/m…aneous/ECE-popular-en.pdf

    they mention:


    "Dark Matter


    - Standard physics assumes that more than 90% of matter are of unknown type


    - no radiation interaction, „dark matter“


    - What the hell do we know then from the universe???


    - ECE theory has explained the laws of the universe without such assumptions
    "


    Quite strong a statement, isn't it ?

  • The dark matter is misnomer - it's colloquial denomination of quite diverse range of phenomena, which may or may not have something to do with matter concept as we know it. In perspective of dense aether model, every steady-state fluctuation of vacuum or curvature of space-time can and should be considered as a matter already, as it should have reference frame assigned, speed, velocity and also gravitational and inertial behavior assigned.


    Therefore in my understanding, the dark matter really IS a matter - except that the majority of it remains formed with extremely volatile and short-leaving density fluctuations of vacuum, which are on the verge of virtual particles and quasiparticles, rather than quasiparticles and resonances. But as a whole these temporary and sparse fluctuations have the similar material behavior (lensing and inertia), like finely divided particles of real matter. These "particles" are just way more lightweight, than the mainstream physics expected so far. The reason of this stance is, the mainstream physicists cannot imagine the gravitational lensing of dark matter without breaking of equivalence principle of general relativity and without presence of some massive particles - so they they obstinately searched for quite heavy particles first WIMPs and gradually it decreased the upper limit of their mass (SIMPs).

    4nY9vy4l.png


    Currently the physicists have (nearly) nowhere to go with this approach already, because the lower limit of their speculations represents the neutrino background, the noise of which prohibits further increase of sensitivity of dark matter detectors. A precarious situation, isn't it true?


    The authors of modifications of general relativity (MONS, MOD, TeVeS and MOND) together with Cartan-Evans theory believe, they can derive the main aspects of dark matter behavior without consideration of some material background at all. But they have no chance with it anyway, until they want to preserve the equivalence principle - just because the dark matter has been originally recognized by its equivalence principle violation. Therefore the violation of equivalence principle and fundamental general relativity equations is the only way where to go.

  • Torsional Monopoles and Torqued Geometries in Gravity and Condensed Matter


    These guys still use Minkovski metric. On a small scale you can't neglect relativistic effects! Thus the only metric that work so far is the one MIlls is proposing/using for all his atomic calculations!


    But then, suddenly, all unexplained torsion effects disappear...

  • You have to use at least five-dimensional general relativity for to predict at least the cold dark matter effects (filaments) consistently (the equivalence principle will get violated in 4D space-time but still preserved in 5D space-time).


    Why not directly moving to 6D and getting rid of time? In 6D time is just the quotient of two 3D spaces...Worth a try!

  • Rjzk . Interesting thread. I totally missed this before. Really glad to see it now.


    Is this the first place Wyttenbach mentions 6D space? And it s quotient of two 3D spaces nature?


    I’m curious about this concept and if and how it relates to his recent 4D and 6D descriptions


    I wonder if there is a coupling between 2 3D spaces. Perhaps through spin? Or if each 3D dimension is split in two some common 4 th dimensional source. And what kinds of vector or scalar spaces it relates to. And how that explains time. Probably it’s deep in the maths but I wonder if there is a simple visualization?


    (I like the idea of a coupling of two 3D spaces 3D seems quite fundamental consequence to me in spinning or rotating systems. Would the two 3D spaces need resonances to couple. And could it imply resonant coupling in the near field is required when they occur?)

  • Sorry, I have very limited understanding of this theory (or any other theory...), but one starting point for "Spin Connection Resonance" could be found here, starting at slide 39:

    http://www.aias.us/documents/m…aneous/ECE-popular-en.pdf