Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Mendel Sachs



You have picked up on some high points quickly.

First, though, he *doesn't* say Einstein got it wrong, but that, conceptually, Einstein got it right. He shows that the solution Einstein sought during his last 30 years for his unified field program was that, while he explicitly wanted general relativity to include all continuous coordinate transformations, he also included discrete reflections. It is ridding discrete reflections that results in the spinor/quaternion (instead of vector/tensor) formalism.

Then he follows through on Einstein's premonition that quantum phenomena would somehow show up from a completed GR, showing that (as you wrote) QM shows up in the flat spacetime limit, while, if QM is taken as the reality, then it is impossible to erect GR from it.

His views on cosmology stem from the fact that he maintains the standard big bang is based on absolute time, which by GR doesn't exist.

I like this stuff because it makes sense of what has seemed to become a hodge-podge. It would be better if people would knock it down rather than ignore it... which they've done for years!

Thanks,

Steve R.


Brian Whatcott wrote:
Steven Rubenstein wrote:
(This is a repeat, due to an e-mail address mix-up.)

Hello. After training and working as a programmer and then as an actuary, I began studying physics, which I am now training to teach. Early on, I found the work of Mendel Sachs (http://compukol.com/mendel/aboutme/aboutme.html), whom I maintain completed Einstein's unified field theory (in the 1960s!), though it seems no one has heard of him. So I run it by this list, too. Any comments?

Sincerely,

Steven Rubenstein
Nashville, TN

This author seems to be cast from a different mold than the usual "How Einstein got it wrong" proponent.
Here's a cut from a recent book blurb of his: "A field that unifies electromagnetism, gravity and inertia is demonstrated explicitly, with new predictions, in terms of quaternion and spinor field equations in a curved spacetime. Quantum Mechanics emerges as a linear, flat-space approximation for the equations of inertia in general relativity."

His mention of an oscillating universe seems to have some currency as an alternative to the usual Big Bang approach, with its various patchwork quilt elements: expansion, second expansion, dark energy etc., etc.

This very very distant overview of mine, is as presumptuous as an outsider should dare to approach, I expect.

Brian W