THE DYNAMIC THEORY

A New View of Space-Time-Matter

by

Pharis E. Williams
Dedication

I dedicate this work to my family; to my father and uncle

who encouraged my thinking and individualism, to my
mother for her steady love, to my brothers and sister for
their confidence in my ability, to my children for growing
up with 'Dad's theory', and to my wife Jeri for she bore the
brunt of my mental absence.

Copyright  1993 by Pharis E. Williams

 PREFACE

Present books, such as "The Arrow of Time" by Roger Highfield and

Peter Coveney and "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner, talk of a
new revolution is science. The first points to work by Ilya Prigogine and
others with regard to the flow of time and the dichotomy between the time
flow in the universe and physical theories wherein time may flow forward
and backward. The "Unended Quest" in " The Arrow of Time" is to find
how a foundation of science might be laid that describes dynamic systems
showing this one-way aspect in time. In "The Big Bang Never Happened"
Lerner also points out the need to find physical theories which correspond
to the directivity of nature's time. The main discussion though concerns
explanations of cosmological phenomena in terms of plasmas and
Maxwellian electromagnetic concepts.
I am in agreement with the authors of both these books with regard
to the majority of their points. I disagree with Highfield and Coveney in
that a foundation for physical theories restricted by a flow of time has been
found and reported starting in 1976. My disagreement with Lerner is very
limited, but may point out an important difference in our thinking. Let me
quote from Lerner's introduction where he states; "Today we again hear
renowned scientists, such as Stephen Hawking, claiming that a 'Theory of
Everything' is within our grasp, that they have almost arrived at a single
set of equations that will explain all the phenomena of nature --gravitation,
electricity and magnetism, radioactivity, and nuclear energy --from the
realm of the atoms to the realm of the galaxies and from the beginning of
the universe to the end of time. And once again they are wrong. For
quietly, without much fanfare, a new revolution is beginning which is likely
to overthrow many of the dominant ideas of today's science, while
incorporating what is valid into a new and wider synthesis." I believe
Lerner is correct. But only in the sense that I do not believe it possible to
know all of the phenomena of nature "from the beginning of the universe to
the end of time." What I put forth in this book is my research which shows
that one can start with a small, simple set of equations and derive the
basis for the currently accepted branches of physics by imposing restrictive
assumptions.
The search for a unifying field theory began in the early 1800's when
scientists began searching for a way of unifying the electromagnetic and
gravitation fields. When the proton-proton scattering results showed a
deviation from Coulombic scattering, once again scientists began trying to
find a way of unifying the fields, or forces, of nature. This was done
immediately upon the heels of assuming that the deviation from Coulombic
scattering must come, not from changes in Maxwellian electromagnetism,
but from an independent strong nuclear force. It has always appeared to
me that one should go back and address this assumption of independence
before seeking a means of unification.
i
 One doesn't need to read too much of the scientific literature from
the 1930's to the present to see how much has been devoted to the notion
of unifying the forces, and/or fields, of nature. Within this body of work
lies the basis for Hawking's "Theory of Everything." I believe this work
misses the point of unification.
For instance, if we wish to approach a unification, what should we
unify? Should we unify the fields, or should we unify the various branches
of physics? It seems rather difficult to believe that nature is divided into
the different branches of physics, such as thermodynamics, Newtonian
mechanics, relativistic mechanics, and quantum mechanics, just because
we learned how to formulate the basis for each branch at different times in
our scientific advancement. Further, given a variational principle and a
metric we know how to derive field equations and force laws. Therefore,
shouldn't we be seeking to unify the various branches of physics and
deriving the necessary fields from that unification rather than trying to
unify the fields and not reconciling the difference between the foundations
of the different branches?
In my research I chose to seek a way of unifying the various
branches of physics. This entailed seeking a simple set of physical laws
from which one may derive the foundations of the different accepted
branches of physics as subsets of this more general set of laws. What has
emerged from this work is that there is a logical necessity for the branches
of physics that comes from the imposition of different restrictive
assumptions. The type of geometry need not be assumed as Newton and
Einstein did, but is dictated by the fundamental laws. The laws produce,
not one, but two variational principles from which we may derive the field
equations and force laws.
What resulted from the attempt to unify the branches of physics
produced not only the desired result, but, also that of unifying the fields
and forces of nature also. The fundamental laws, which could be written
on a T-shirt, produce field equations and force laws which accurately
describe phenomena intended to be included in Hawking's "Theory of
Everything." It does not, however, allow for the existence of a Big Bang or
beginning or end of time. Furthermore, since the fundamental laws are
based upon generalizations of classical thermodynamics, the equations of
motion derived from them come complete with an Arrow of Time built in. I
first reported this predicted flow of time in 1981.
If I were asked to explain why the research reported in this book has
not gained any wider distribution than it currently enjoys, I would have to
offer up our system of refereed journals as the most important reason. But
hand-in-hand with this must go the notion that "everyone knows that one
may derive classical thermodynamics from any number of different force
laws by using statistical mechanics." This notion was refuted by Peter G.
Bergmann in 1979, yet it persists today.
ii
 On the other hand, if one were to accept the potential of having
equations of motion derived from generalizations of classical
thermodynamics, then it is not difficult to imagine an Arrow of Time
accompanying them. But this is small incentive to a referee. Neither is the
ability to derive the field equations and the force laws for the different
branches of physics much more incentive for the referee to give a thumbs-
up for such a theory which 'everyone' knows is doomed before it gets
started.
The many attempts to get portions, or all, of this research published
in the refereed journals have produced many interesting comments. These
comments are interesting from the point of view that they expose the
human side of referees, not that they are based upon scientific evaluation.
Let me offer three excerpts as examples: from the physics department of a
name university, "While the equations you've derived are not wrong, we
somehow like it better the old way," from a scientist at a government
laboratory, "If you ask me to shoot you down, I can't. If you ask me to help
you, I won't. I suggest that you learn to play the game and then someone
may listen to you," and from a journal dedicated to speculation, "We no
longer have the time to consider articles which look into the foundations of
physics."
What I sought to do was to answer some personal questions about
science using all of the rigor contained in the logic of mathematics. What I
found was a methodology by which we may see how the various physical
phenomena from the nuclear realm to the cosmos come from a single,
simple set of three fundamental assumptions. Many current
interpretations concerning fundamental aspects of several existing theories
are shown to be wrong, misleading, or too restrictive. Notice that I said
many current interpretations are wrong, not many current theories are
wrong. What I found is that there is a much more general theory available
in which the current theories are subsets or first, or second, order
approximations. That doesn't mean these theories are wrong any more
than the validity of the Special Theory of Relativity means that Newton's
equations of motion are wrong. It only means that Newton's dynamics
applies only to a limited range of velocities . If we then use Newton's
equations of motion for velocities approaching the speed of light our
interpretations will of necessity be wrong. However, we didn't know these
interpretations were in error until Einstein put forth his more general
theory. The same is found to be true of many interpretations based upon
the current theories which the Dynamic Theory shows to be wrong when
viewed in its more general light. Also, the reported research shows how the
various branches of physics fit together into a unified picture of a nature
built upon the dimensions of space, time, and mass.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface i

Chapter 1 1

Overview

1.1 Questions concerning the theoretical basis 1

1.2 Possible new theoretical approach 2
1.3 A new view of space, time, and matter 6

Chapter 2 36

New Theoretical Fundamentals

A. General Laws
2.1 First Law 36
2.2 Second Law 39
2.3 Absolute Velocity and Einstein's postulate 45
2.4 The concept of Entropy 49
2.5 Third Law 51
B. General Relations
2.6 Energy and Maxwell's Relations 52
2.7 Equilibrium conditions 55
2.8 Stability conditions 56
C. Geometry
2.9 Geometry required by fundamental laws 58
D. Mechanical systems near equilibrium
2.10 Special relativistic and classical mechanics 71
2.11 Energy concepts 77
2.12 Non-isolated systems 81
E. Quantum mechanics
2.13 Quantum Mechanics derived 82
2.14 On the derivation of thermodynamics from
statistical mechanics 85
F. Summary
2.15 Summary of new theoretical fundamentals 87

Chapter 3 90

Five-Dimensional Systems
A. Systems near an equilibrium state
3.1 Equations of motion 91
3.2 Energy equation 95
B. Systems with non-Euclidean manifold
3.3 General variational principle 97
 3.4 Gauge function field equations 99
3.5 Energy-momentum tensor
100
3.6 Force density vector 104
3.7 Equation of energy flow 106
3.8 Momentum conservation 106
3.9 Gauge field pressure 108

Chapter 4 110

Five-Dimensional Quantization
A. Quantization in five dimensions
4.1 Quantization 110
4.2 Five-dimensional Hamiltonian 111
4.3 Five-dimensional Dirac equation 112
4.4 "Lorentz" covarience 113
4.5 Spin 114
4.6 Dirac equation with fields 115
4.7 Allowed fundamental spin states 116
B. Quantized fields
4.8 Quantum condition applied to particles 119
4.9 Radial field dependence 121
4.10 Self-energy of charged particles 127
4.11 Nuclear phenomena 132
4.12 Hiesenberg's Uncertainty Principle and geometry 138
4.13 Nuclear masses 144

Chapter 5 157

Five-Dimensional Gravitation
5.1 Charge-to-Mass ratio and magnetic moments 157
5.2 Perihelion advance 167
5.3 Redshifts 171
5.4 "Fifth" force 183
5.5 Inertial and Gravitational mass equivalence 192
5.6 Cosmology 194

Chapter 6 198

Electromagnetogravitic Waves
6.1 Wave equations 198
6.2 Wave solutions 198
6.3 Non-thermal transmission 205
6.4 Wave boundary conditions 208
6.5 Reflection and refraction 217
6.6 Complex refraction angles 224
 6.7 Assumptions and wave solutions 227

Chapter 7 239

Hydrodynamic Systems
7.1 First fundamental quadratic form 241
7.2 Second fundamental quadratic form 245
7.3 Tensor derivatives 249
7.4 Relativistic hydrodynamics 256
7.5 Classical hydrodynamics 257
7.6 Shock waves 259
7.7 Mass conservative electrodynamics 262

Chapter 8 267

Experimental Tests
8.1 Speed-of-light 268
8.2 Index of refraction 269
8.3 Neutron interferometer 270
8.4 Nuclear masses 271
8.5 Gravitational rotor 271
8.6 Nuclear Lamb shift 276

Chapter 9 277

Epilogue
9.1 Only three basic assumptions 277
9.2 Geometry is specified 279
9.3 The Arrow of Time 279
9.4 Mass as a coordinate 280
9.5 Non-singular gauge potential 280
9.6 Unification of the branches of physics 281
9.7 The pedagogical aspect of the Dynamic Theory 281
9.8 Where to from here? 282