Advertisement

Early Attempts at a Unitary Understanding of Nature

  • James F. Woodward

Abstract

It is well known that since the turn of the century, and particularly after the development of general relativity theory by Einstein, many attempts have been made to construct a unitary theory of matter and all of its interactions. This work, for the most part, was carried on by a handful of physicists (including Einstein) and was not considered to be in the mainstream of the advancement of physical understanding. In part this was due to a demonstrable lack of success in accomplishing this goal by those so engaged. Particularly intractable was (and is) the problem of interrelating the gravitational and electromagnetic fields in a physically nontrival way. During the past decade or so enthusiasm among physicists for the possible unification of our theoretical understanding of fundamental phenomena has been growing. The work that has inspired this shift in attitude is the ostensibly successful unification of the weak and electromagnetic interactions in the non-Abelian gauge theory of Weinberg and Salam, and the experimental confirmation of key predictions of this theory. The strong and gravitational interactions remain to be incorporated into a fully articulated theory, but many seem confident that this may be accomplished within the foreseeable future. For example, Freedman and van Nieuwenhuizen have recently remarked

In the past 50 years remarkable progress has been made in identifying the elementary particles of matter and in understanding the interactions between them. Of course, many problems remain to be solved; two of the most fundamental ones concern gravitation. First, it is not understood how gravitation is related to the other fundamental forces. Second, there is no workable theory of gravitation that is consistent with the principles of quantum mechanics. Recently a new theory of gravitation called supergravity has led to new ideas on both these problems. It may represent a step toward solving them.1

Keywords

Gravitational Radiation Detection Circuit Total Solar Eclipse Inertial Matter Pneumatic Motor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Notes

  1. 1.
    D. Z. Freedman and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “Supergravity and the Unification of the Laws of Physics,” Sci. Am. 238, 126 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Charles Babbage, The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, 2nd ed. (John Murray, London, 1838), p. 179.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Today Mossotti is almost exclusively known for his contribution to the theory of the atomic polarizability of dielectrics embodied in the “Claussius-Mossotti” equation.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    There are a number of works that deal with the germane issues in physics in the 19th century. Particularly helpful are E. Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, 2 Vols. (Thomas Nelson and Sons, London, 1951 and 1953)Google Scholar
  5. 4a.
    M. B. Hesse, Forces and Fields (New York Philosophical Library, 1961)Google Scholar
  6. 4b.
    W. H. Brock, editor, The Atomic Debates (Leicester University Press, Liecester, 1967)Google Scholar
  7. 4c.
    D. M. Knight, Atoms and Elements ,2nd ed. (Hutchinson, London, 1970)Google Scholar
  8. 4d.
    A. Thackray, Atoms and Powers (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1970)Google Scholar
  9. 4e.
    and T. H. Levere, Affinity and Matter (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971).Google Scholar
  10. B. G. Doran, “Origins and Consolidation of Field Theory in Nineteenth-Century Britain: . . .,” Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 6, 133 (1975)Google Scholar
  11. 4f.
    A. J. Rocke, “Atoms and Equivalents: ...,” Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 9, 225 (1978)Google Scholar
  12. 4g.
    M. Crosland and C. Smith, “The Transmission of Physics from France to Britain,” Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 9, 1 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 5.
    The origins of this view, at least in part, are to be found in the naturphilosophie of the German romantics. But they also seem to have had indigenous roots as well. See P. M. Heimann, “Conversion of Forces and the Conservation of Energy,” Centaurus 18, 147 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 6.
    See Y. Elkana, The Discovery of the Conservation of Energy (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1974), and Heimann, Ref. 5.Google Scholar
  15. 7.
    O. F. Mossotti, Sur les forces qui regissent la constitution intérieur des corps (Turin, 1836). Mossotti’s essay was translated into English and published in Taylor’s Scientific Memoirs 1, 448 (1839).Google Scholar
  16. 8.
    Reference 7, trans., p. 451.Google Scholar
  17. 9.
    P. S. Laplace, Mécanique Celeste (Chelsea Reprint, New York, 1966–69), Vol. 5, pp. 117–121. Laplace’s argument deals with pressure/density relations in the caloric, which he supposed to possess a short-range mutual repulsion. It is, therefore, not obvious that Mossotti’s claimed analogy is correct.Google Scholar
  18. 10.
    I cannot resist the temptation to remark here that it was almost exactly 100 years later that H. Yukawa [Phys. Math. Soc. Jpn, Proc. 17, 48 (1935)] constructed a nuclear force law that differs only trivially from that which follows from Mossotti’s theory. In most discussions of the Yukawa interaction it is implied that his force law requires the transient violation of energy conservation. In light of Mossotti’s theory, it is easily seen that this is not true.Google Scholar
  19. 11.
    These views, which can be found throughout Faraday’s work of the late 1830s, led to to an illuminating correspondence with R. Hare that is published in L. Pearce Williams, editor, The Selected Correspondence of Michael Faraday (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971), Vol. 1, 350–358, 360–370, and 382–392.Google Scholar
  20. 12.
    Faraday to W. Whewell, 13 December 1836, in Correspondence ,Vol. 1, 306–307.Google Scholar
  21. 13.
    C. Babbage to Faraday, 20 January 1837, in Correspondence ,Vol. 1, 308.Google Scholar
  22. 14.
    G.-L. Lesage, “Essai sur l’origine des forces mortes” (ms., Univ. of Geneva Library, 1749). Lesage’s theory is predicated on the assumption that space is filled with high-velocity particles that are slightly attenuated by matter. Gravitation is the consequence of the “shadow” in the sea of these particles cast by matter. Shadow theories of gravitation are still independently rediscovered with high frequency and monotonous regularity. (R. H. Dicke, personal communication.)Google Scholar
  23. 15.
    See the reviews of this lecture in Phil Mag. 10, 317 (1837), and Lit Gazette ,4 Feb. 1837, p. 72.Google Scholar
  24. 16.
    See Ref. 2.Google Scholar
  25. 17.
    Reference 2, p. 183. Note that Babbage has completely missed the main point of Mossotti’s force law—namely, the point of stable equilibrium.Google Scholar
  26. 18.
    Reference 2, p. 181.Google Scholar
  27. 19.
    T. Exley, “Remarks on M. Mossotti’s theory of Physics, . . .,” Phil. Mag. 11, 496 (1837).Google Scholar
  28. 20.
    S. Earnshaw, “On the Nature of the Molecular Forces which Regulate the Constitution of the Luminiferous Ether,” Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc. 7, 97 (1839–42).Google Scholar
  29. 21.
    There is also reason to suspect that Earnshaw may have discussed Mossotti’s theory with Exley, for Exley remarked that, “A very learned and universally admired professor of Cambridge, who honoured my paper with some judicious remarks, . . .” (Note 19, p. 497).Google Scholar
  30. 22.
    This is wrong. If an ether particle of nonvanishing radius is located at and displaced an infinitesimal distance from, the equilibrium point, the equation that actually applies is Poisson’s equation. This, by the way, vitiates the remainder of Earnshaw’s argument.Google Scholar
  31. 23.
    In the 1840s, when others had abandoned Mossotti’s theory, Faraday favorably referred to to it in his famous papers, “A Speculation Touching Electric Conduction and the Nature of Matter” [Phil. Mag. 24, 136 (1844)] and “Thoughts on Ray-Vibrations” [Phil. Mag. 28, #188 (1846)J. And more than a decade later, shortly before his last major series of experiments, he again brought up Mossotti’s theory in his paper, “On the Conservation of Force” [Phil. Mag. 13, 225 (1857)].Google Scholar
  32. 24.
    M. Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity (Taylor and Francis, London, 1855), Vol. 3, p. 161.Google Scholar
  33. 24a.
    L. Pearce Williams, Michael Faraday (Chapman and Hall, London, 1965), pp. 465–470Google Scholar
  34. 24b.
    W. Berkson, Fields of Force (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1974), pp. 112–116.Google Scholar
  35. 24c.
    T. H. Levere, “Faraday, Matter, and Natural Theology— . . .,” Brit. J. Hist. Sci. 4, 95 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 24d.
    P. M. Heimann, “Faraday’s Theories of Matter and Electricity,” Brit. J. Hist. Sci. 5, 235 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 24e.
    J. E. McGuire, “Forces, Powers, Aethers, and Fields,” Boston Stud. Phil. Sci. 14, 119 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 25.
    Expt, Res. Elec. 3, 1–2 (1855).Google Scholar
  39. 26.
    Diary, Vol. 5, p. 150.Google Scholar
  40. 27.
    Maxwell was one of the few to realize that Faraday had put his finger on a key problem in the issue of polarity. As he later remarked to Faraday, “You have also seen that the great mystery is not how like bodies repel and unlike attract but how like bodies attract (by gravation [sic.]).” Correspondence ,Vol. 2, p. 881.Google Scholar
  41. 28.
    Diary, Vol. 5, p. 150.Google Scholar
  42. 29.
    Diary, Vol. 5, p. 151.Google Scholar
  43. 30.
    Recalling that inertial motion is the state of gravitational free-fall in general relativity theory, this view is subsumed under the proposition that gravitational radiation (as we would say today) is accompanied by electromagnetic radiation.Google Scholar
  44. 31.
    Diary, Vol, 5, p. 152.Google Scholar
  45. 32.
    Diary, Vol. 5, p. 152.Google Scholar
  46. 33.
    Diary, Vol. 5, p. 156.Google Scholar
  47. 34.
    Expt. Res. Elec. 3, 168.Google Scholar
  48. 35.
    J. C. F. Zöllner, Erklärung der L/niversellen Gravitation (L. Staackmann, Leipzig, 1882).Google Scholar
  49. 36.
    H. A. Lorentz, “Considerations on Gravitation,” Proc. R. Acad. Sci., Amsterdam 2, 559 (1900).Google Scholar
  50. 37.
    Faraday, Diary, Vol. 7, pp. 334–379.Google Scholar
  51. 38.
    A. Schuster, “Recent Total Solar Eclipses,” Proc. R. Institution 13, 273 (1890–92)Google Scholar
  52. 38a.
    A. Schuster, “A Critical Examination of the Possible Causes of Terrestrial Magnetism,” Proc. Phys. Soc. 24, 121 (1912).Google Scholar
  53. 39.
    Kelvin (Wm. Thomson), in a presidential address to the Royal Society, Proc. R. Soc. 52, 304 (1892).Google Scholar
  54. 40.
    H. A. Wilson, “An Experiment on the Origin of the Earth’s Magnetic Field,” Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 104, 451 (1923).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 41.
    W. F. G. Swann and A. Longacre, “An Attempt to Detect a Magnetic Field as the Result of the Rotation of a Copper Sphere at High Speed,” J. Franklin institute 206, 421 (1928).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 42.
    P. M. S. Blackett, “The Magnetic Field of Massive Rotating Bodies,” Nature 159, 658 (1947).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 43.
    P. M. S. Blackett, “A Negative Experiment Relating to Magnetism and the Earth’s Rotation,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A 245, 309 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 43a.
    C. W. F. Everitt, “Gravitation, Relativity and Precise Experimentation,” in Proc. First Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity (ed. Ruffini, North Holland, 1977), p. 545.Google Scholar
  59. 44.
    J. F. Woodward, “An Experimental Re-examination of Faradayan Electrogravitational Induction,” Gen. Rel. and Grav., 12, 1055 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 45.
    This is the Faradayan equivalent of the Schuster-Wilson-Blackett hypothesis that rotating matter generates a magnetic field.Google Scholar
  61. 46.
    I might mention here that this is a nonnegligible problem. The guide bearings must be free-running, as any stiffness produces torsion that generates an effect comparable in magnitude to that sought. In the apparatus used, however, the torsionally induced charge was found to have the opposite sign (that is, positive) from that of the observed effect. Thus, it could be separated from the observed effect.Google Scholar
  62. 47.
    The chief modifications will be the use of gas bearings and an improved sample geometry.Google Scholar
  63. 48.
    J. Bailey, et al., “Final Report on the CERN Muon Storage Ring . . .,” Nucl. Phys. B 150, 1 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 49.
    J. F. Woodward, “Electrogravitational Induction and Rotation,” Found, of Phys. 12, 467 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • James F. Woodward
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HistoryCalifornia State UniversityFullertonUSA

Personalised recommendations