Resonance Theory
The Unification of Relativity and Quantum Physics
Through the Electromagnetic and Mass Properties of Empty Space
A Special Supplement
by Mark Anderson
Supporting Documents
Addenda
Addendum
1: Refuting
the original referee comments on Resonance Theory.
The
original peer review of this work complained that, by using total energy vs.
energy density, a mistake had been made, thereby “vitiating” the rest of the
work. Printed below is the formula for energy density in a vacuum. Given my
selection of planepolarized electromagnetic radiation, it is clear that the
values of both E and B are simultaneously zero as the fields (strings, branes)
move across the axis of propagation. Plugging these values into the equation,
and contrary to the referee’s comments, we see that total energy density “U”
(as well as total energy) are also zero at such crossings.
The
referee was wrong, and the paper stands.
Energy density of electric
and magnetic fields
Electric and magnetic fields store energy.
In a vacuum, the (volumetric) energy density (in SI units) is given by
where E is the electric field and B is
the magnetic
field.
In the context of magnetohydrodynamics, the physics of
conductive fluids, the magnetic energy density behaves like an additional pressure that adds to
the gas pressure of a plasma.
Addendum
2:
A Visit to Roger Penrose.
In the
summer of 1980, I took it upon myself to visit a number of accomplished
physicists and mathematicians whose work seemed germaine to the discoveries I
had made in working out Resonance Theory. Among those was Roger Penrose, then
working at Oxford, whose creations of Twistor and Spinor object mathematics
struck me as capable of being the future mathematics of Resonance Theory.
At that
time, there was no String Theory.
Having
shared these thoughts with Penrose in his office, I later mailed him several
drafts of the paper on Resonance, but got no response. After seeing him at the
University of Washington some years later, faxing to him again, and still
getting no response, I gave up on having additional communications, other than
an occasional email I sent along.
As
String Theory emerged, my understanding is that Penrose took issue with it, a
battle that lasted for decades. Last year, in a discussion with my friend John
Cramer (now Emeritus Professor of nuclear physics at the University of
Washington), I discovered that Penrose has met with Ed Whitten, the Keeper of
the String Theory keys; and that a truce has broken out, over Penrose’s sudden
discovery that his mathematics, and that of String Theory, are indeed
compatible.
If this
hearsay is correct, it’s exactly what I told him, in Oxford, in his office, in
1980 – before there was a String Theory. It would appear we now agree.
Addendum
3.
Einstein’s Greatest Mistake.
In
publishing various ideas from Resonance Theory in the pages of the Strategic
News Service over the years, I identified the specific problem of Einstein’s
decision to forego discussion of the ether, and wrote about it in an issue
therefore entitled “Einstein’s Biggest Mistake.” The root of the mistake was
clear: by ignoring the ether, Einstein also ended up ignoring charge, and that
ended up in the current schism between Quantum Mechanics and General
Relativity. (The work on Charge Inversion Modes in this paper attempts to
resolve this problem.)
Years
after this paper was written, as my friend Walter Isaacson was writing his
wellknown biography of Einstein, I shared these issues of SNS with him, and he
was able to inform me that Einstein himself recognized this misstep as his
greatest mistake, and referred to it in those terms in a talk at the University
of Leiden in 1920.
Resonance Theory Home
SNS Home
