Vladimir Leonov
Vladimir Leonov. A. Einstein (1955). Relativistic
theory of the non-symmetric field: General remarks. – E-preprint: Proza.ru, Certificate of
publication No. 221092901064, 2021, https://proza.ru/2021/09/29/1064
ANNOTATION WITH COMMENTS
This posthumous article of 1955 is the
Scientific Testament of Einstein (1879-1955) in which he abandons his
scientific heritage and proposes to start all the work anew with the
development of a new theory [1, 2]. “HOWEVER NOW NOBODY KNOWS HOW TO FIND
A BASIS FOR SUCH A THEORY,” states Einstein at the end of the article and his
life.
So, dear readers, I invite you to get
acquainted in the original about what Einstein thought about his scientific
work at the end of his life in order to eliminate all speculation on this
issue. His opinion is at odds with the generally accepted academic assessment
of the General Theory of Relativity (GTR), which was not completed by Einstein
on the way to the Unified Field Theory (UFT) – the theory of Superunification.
Therefore, there are practically no
references to this article by Einstein, since over the past almost 70 years
there has been an unprecedented parasitization of the scientific community on
Einstein's works on the General Theory of Relativity (GR), which Einstein
himself abandoned at the end of his life. But no one could offer anything
fundamentally new, rewriting Einstein's formulas from left to right, and vice
versa, in thousands and tens of thousands of articles and books that do not
mean anything to science.
This is not about revising Einstein's
fundamental ideas in the field of gravity as deformation (curvature) of
space-time that are unshakable. And we are talking about a mathematical
apparatus in the form of a tensor model of General Relativity (1913)
proposed to Einstein by the Swiss mathematician Marcel Grossman (1878-1936) and
which played a positive role in the formation of GR. But this mathematical
apparatus turned out to be imperfect, and its geometric interpretation of
gravitation became obsolete by 1955, as Einstein states in his article. This
was facilitated by the failures of Einstein in creating the Unified Field
Theory, using the tensor model of GR, on the development of which he spent
30 years of his life in vain.
Therefore, it is important for us to
know the Conclusion of Einstein himself on this article in the original, which
he named as "GENERAL REMARKS"
in only 1.5 pages of text. This article has 25 pages and many formulas.
It was the "GENERAL REMARKS"
that determined the future development of theoretical physics as the creation
in 1996-1999 the theory of SUPERUNIFICATION, which includes the theory of
quantum gravity [3]. The theory of SUPERUNIFICATION this is
the basis of the NEW THEORY, the need for which was pointed out by Einstein in
1955. This fact also applies to GR, already as the Quantum General
Relativity (QGR).
You can also read on this topic an article by Vladimir Leonov "THE EINSTEIN
POSTHUMOUS PHRASE" (2006) [4].
The annotation and comments to this
article by Einstein were written by Vladimir Leonov on September 29, 2021.
So, we read further A. Einstein
himself:
A. Einstein. GENERAL REMARKS (1955) [1]
A. From my point of view, the theory laid out
here is the logically simplest relativistic field theory possible in general. But this does
not mean that nature cannot obey more complex field theories.
More complex field theories have
been proposed frequently. They can be classified according to the following
characteristic features.
a) Increase in the number of
measurements of the continuum. In this case, it is necessary to explain why the
continuum is obviously limited to four dimensions;
b) Introduction of fields of a
different kind (for example, a vector field) in addition to the displacement
field and the tensor field gik (or gik);
c) Introduction of higher order
field equations (in the sense of differentiation).
In my opinion, similar more complex
theories in their combination should be considered only if there are physical
reasons for this based on experiment.
B. Field theory is not yet fully determined by
the system of field equations. Should we admit the existence of singularities?
Should we postulate the boundary conditions? As for the first question, my
opinion is this: singularities should be excluded. It does not seem reasonable
to me to introduce into the theory of continuum points (or lines, etc.) for
which the field equations do not hold. Moreover, introducing singularities is
equivalent to postulating boundary conditions (arbitrary from the point of view
of the field equations) on the “surfaces” surrounding the singularities. This
theory will be too vague without such a postulate. The answer to the second
question, I think, is that it is imperative to postulate boundary conditions. I
will demonstrate this with an elementary example. You can compare the postulate
about the potential of the form ф=m/r with the statement that the equation ф = 0 is fulfilled outside material points (in three dimensions). But if
we do not add the boundary condition, according to which ф vanishes (or
remains finite) at infinity, then there will be solutions that are entire
functions of x [for example,
x12—1/2
(x22 + x32)]
increasing
unboundedly at infinity. It is possible to exclude such fields only by
postulating the boundary condition if the space is "opens".
C. Can you think that field theory will allow you
to understand the atomistic and quantum structure of reality? Almost every
answer to this question is "no." But I believe that no one knows
anything reliable about this at present, since we do not know how and to what
extent the elimination of singularities reduces the set of solutions. You do
not have any systematic method for obtaining solutions, free of singularities.
Approximate methods are not counted here, since it is never known whether an
exact solution free of singularities exists for a particular approximate
solution. For this reason, we cannot currently compare with the experience of
the content of the nonlinear field theory. Here it can only help the
significant progress in the mathematical methods. At present, the prevailing
opinion is that the field theory must first be translated by quantization into
a statistical probability theory, following more or less established rules. I
see in this only an attempt to describe relations of an essentially non-linear
character by linear methods.
D. It can be convincingly proved that reality
cannot be represented by a continuous field at all. From quantum phenomena,
apparently, it follows that a finite system with finite energy can be
completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This, it
seems, cannot be combined with the theory of the continuum and requires a
purely algebraic theory to describe reality. HOWEVER NOW NOBODY KNOWS HOW TO FIND A BASIS FOR SUCH A THEORY [1, 2].
А. Einstein, 1955
This is a translation of Einstein's
article into English from the Russian edition [1]. For this reason, you can see
some differences between the translation and the original [2].
REFERENCES
[1]. А. Einstein. Relativistic theory of
the non-symmetric field. The collected of scientific papers. Volume 2. Works on the theory of relativity 1921-1955. – Publishing house "Science",
Moscow: 1966, p. 849-873, in
Russian.
[2]. А. Einstein. Relativistic theory of
the non-symmetric field. The Meaning of Relativity. Fifth edition.
Princeton, 1955.
[3]. Leonov V. S. Quantum
Energetics. Volume 1. Theory of Superunification. Cambridge International
Science Publishing, 2010, 745 p.
[4]. Vladimir Leonov. The Einstein posthumous phrase. From
book [3], pp. 55-67.
