Fwd: Another Non-Standard UFT and Representing Physics with Quaternions


Subject: Fwd: Another Non-Standard UFT and Representing Physics with Quaternions
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 05:04:00 EDT

Attachment: Einstein%27s vis.pdf

Dear Prof. Evans,

I came across an interesting website by a fellow (Doug Sweetser) proposing his own UFT – what he labels ‘GEM’ (short for Unifying Gravity and EM by Analogy to EM):

http://quaternions.com/ (He also has another site: http://visualphysics.org/)

One interesting aspect is that he uses quaternions (as the name of the site indicates) to represent the physics.

He provides a variety of downloadable PDF files (two examples are attached) and has links to some of his YouTube videos. He is also critical of the following:

— Black Holes

— Dark Matter

— Higgs particles

— String Theory

On the other hand, he does the same thing as Standard Modelers by assuming Torsion Free (& metric compatible) connection.

However.(and this what I’m not adept enough mathematically to discern) it appears that his metric can be influenced by electric charge, so I’m not sure if this is the same as getting torsion in through the ‘back door’. The way he puts it in one PDF on his site that I read is that curvature is coupled ONLY to mass, but spacetime curvature is influenced by a change in potential of EITHER electric charge or ‘mass charge’ (attractive only).

I was wondering if you or Prof. Eckardt could determine what are the merits/flaws of this UFT?

In any case, would ECE Theory benefit by representing it in terms of quaternions?

As an Engineer, the quaternion aspect appealed to me because a 4-D version of complex numbers/vectors seems to be a lot simpler than tensors.


Raymond Delaforce

Attachment: Einstein%27s vis-1.pdf

Thanks, yes I have been familiar with this theory for some years. Of course I agree about the rejection fo of standard pseudoscience such as black holes. However, there are several immediate problems that include the following.

1) The theory is not generally covariant, i.e. it does not include B(3). 2) It still uses the incorrect symmetric connection. 3) It does not use the advances of Cartan geometry. 4) It still uses an incorrect U(1) sector symmetry for electromagnetism, and still describes the Heavisde equations as the Maxwell equations.

So I rejected it long ago on these grounds.

%d bloggers like this: