Torsion Field Theory G.schipov

Note on Gennady Shipov’s Torsion Field Theory by Jack Sarfatti6/5/04, 11:41 AM, page 1 of 12

Shipov’s Torsion FieldNotes by Jack Sarfatti

Work in ProgressSecond Error-Corrected Draft

Shipov’s Torsion Field 1

Work in Progress 1

1. Notation 1

2. ADM 3+1 Foliation and Gravimagnetism 2

3. Space-time in 4D 2

Alchemical Transmutation of Wood to Marble – Einstein’s Vision? 3

4. Frenet-geodesic for passive point test particles 4

5. 10-parameter Shipov torsion not 4-parameter Cartan Torsion 4

6. Frenet’s equations in Newton’s mechanics 4

7. The Incredible Shrinking Lepto-Quarks 5

8. Propagating electro-torsion – Akimov devices? 8

1. NotationIn the tetrad notation, the Einstein equivalence principle (EEP) local passive map fromthe curved gµ! LNIF space-time base space to the flat !ij LIF tangent vector fiber spaceat a fixed point event is

gµ! = eµi"ije!

j (2.1)

The Ricci rotation coefficients T !µ" are defined as

T !µ" # ei

!eµ ,"i

," #$$x"

(2.2)

T ij! = e"

i T "µ!ej

µ

deµi

ds= T i

j"dx"

dseµj

(2.3)


2. ADM 3+1 Foliation and Gravimagnetism

Make a 3+1 ADM foliation of 4D space-time into spacelike hypersurfaces whereShipov’s arc length parameter is essentially the lapse function.

The differential metric squared interval in Einstein's General Relativity theory of gravityas curved four-dimensional space-time geometrodynamics is

ds2 = gµ!dxµdx! (3.1)

Use the Arnowitt Deser Misner (ADM) 3+1 canonical decomposition of 4D space-timeinto a sheaf of 3D space-like surfaces (whose points on a single surface cannot beconnected by light signals), this same metric form can be written as

ds2 = !(" 2 ! #A#A )(cdt)2 + 2#Adx

Adt + $ ABdxAdxB (3.2)

µ,! = 0,1,2,3& i, j = 0,1,2,3& A,B = 1,2,3& a,b = 1,2,3

! = lapse_ function = invariant proper time (under general coordinate transformations)between neighboring space-like surfaces measured by Eulerian observers on weightlessfree float zero g-force time-like geodesics normal to the space-like surfaces. Thegravimagnetic field isi

!! " !1,!2 ,!3( ) = shift _ 3# vector = gravimagnetic_ field

Note the summation convention over repeated subscript-superscript paired tensor indices.

!A!A " !1!

1 + !2!2 + !3!

3 =!! 2 (3.3)

3. Space-time in 4DI will immediately generalize Shipov’s discussion to space-time rather than inside the 3Dspacelike surfaces of the 3+1 ADM foliation. The connection with torsion but zero non-metricity is, in terms of the orthonormal tetrad components eµ

i that connect LIFs withLNIFs at the same local point event on a given wavelet transform coarse-grained scales,!s[ ] (with multi-resolution high-low band pass detector window !s centered at scales )

!"µ# = $"

µ# + T"µ# = ei

"eµ ,#i % ei

" &eµi

&x#(4.1)


The Ricci rotation coefficients are defined, in this special case,ii as the tetrad vorticitycomponents

!"µ# $ T

"µ#[ ] $ %

12ei" eµ ,#

i % e# ,µi( ) (4.2)

The Ricci rotation coefficients in (3.2) are written in a timelike non-geodesic LNIF, whenprojected by the tetrad components into a timelike geodesic LIF we have Jim Corum’s“object of anholonomy.” In this context “geodesic” is relative to Einstein’s symmetrictorsion-free connection !"

µ# in (3.1) not the complete connection with torsion !"µ# . In

my theory, both torsion and curvature come from string singularities in the macro-quantum coherent Goldstone phase field of spontaneous broken QED vacuum symmetrywhere large numbers of virtual electron-positron pairs occupy the same center-of-massbound state. The electron and positron lines are off-mass-shell, but their pair propagatorincluding virtual photon exchange has a bound state pole in the complex energy plane oftheir relative coordinates. This causes a non-perturbative “BCS” analog complex order(ODLRO “More is different”) parameter 0 e+! P( ) e"! ' P( ) 0 at point P, where I includespin indices. One may also want to make an orbital L multi-pole decomposition J = L +S, but this is not the place for those details.

Alchemical Transmutation of Wood to Marble – Einstein’sVision?Vectors and pseudo-vectors can be made from the Ricci torsion as Shipov shows. Thelatter is useful to model the parity-violating part of the weak beta radioactive force as atorsion field effect. The flavor-changing propagating torsion wave is an interesting ideato play with as a way to neutralize radioactive waste perhaps? It is the weak force thatcontrols beta radioactivity. Can the color nuclear strong force also be modeled as atorsion field? One must fit the torsion field into the SU(2) and SU(3) internal symmetrygroups to do that. When we locally gauge the Lorentz group we get 6 parameters. Westill have 5 more parameters if we use the full conformal group that is the symmetry ofRoger Penrose’s massless twistors. There is the issue of compactness of the groups. It isnot at all clear that this approach will work. Note that SU(2) has 3 parameters and SU(3)has 8 making 11. Similarly, locally gauging the full conformal group also gives us 11new parameters in addition to the 4 parameters of the translation group. Perhaps there issome kind of mathematical transformation from the conformal group to the translationgroup with SU(2) and SU(3)? GL(4,R) has 16 with the extra parameter for U(1). That is,locally gauging GL(4,R) is somehow equivalent to locally gauging the translation groupwith U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3)? The Clifford algebra also has 16 members. In Shipov’s 5.2 hesays that the Ricci torsion depends on the 6 parameters of the locally gauged Lorentzgroup in addition to the 4 parameters of the locally gauged translation group. In contrast,the Cartan torsion only depends on the 4 parameters of the locally gauged translationgroup.


4. Frenet-geodesic for passive point test particles

d 2xµ

d! 2+ "µ

#$ + Tµ#$( ) dx

#

d!dx$

d!= 0 (5.1)

The torsion field will cause a deviation away from Einstein’s 1916 zero g-force free floatmotion. We basically do not want that for warp drive unless it is weak and can be used tomake a comfortable 1g gravity inside the flying saucer.

5. 10-parameter Shipov torsion not 4-parameter Cartan TorsionRotational metric for Ricci torsion where all 10 parameters of Poincare group are locallygauge is not found for more limited Cartan torsion where only the 4 parameters of thetranslation group are locally gauged. Shipov’s rotational metric is

d! 2 = T "#µT

#"$dx

µdx$ (6.1)Shipov says that Akimov’s allegations require Ricci torsion with the fully locally gauged10 parameter Poincare group and will not work with Cartan’s torsion using only thelocally gauged 4 parameter translation group. This might explain Lifschitz’s possibleconfusion in his rebuttal of Akimov? I don’t know at this point that is a speculation. DidLifschitz assume Cartan torsion?

6. Frenet’s equations in Newton’s mechanicsIn Newton’s classical mechanics for a point particle at position

!r in a rotating frame ofreference like the surface of Earth with rotation pseudo-vector

!! along its North-South

pole axis

!F ! m d 2!r

dt 2+d !"dt

# !r + !" #!" # !r + 2 !" # !r

$%&

'()= 0 (7.1)

In an inertial frame !! = 0 and we recover Newton’s second law of motion. The Frenet

equations for an arbitrary space curve with string curvature! "( )and string torsion ! "( )with dimensionless unit tangent triad vector

!e1 , unit triad normal !e2 and unit bi-normal

triad !e3 and arbitrarily scaled string arc-length parameter ! iii . Strictly speaking, ! is the

reciprocal of the local curvature radius corresponding to a square root of what wenormally call curvature, which has dimensions of reciprocal area. Torsion ! also hasdimension of reciprocal length in these Frenet equations.


!r = !r !( )!e1 "

d!rd!

d!rd!

d!e1d!

=# !( ) !e2d!e2d!

= $# !( ) !e1 + % !( ) !e3d!e3d!

= $% !( ) !e2!e1 &!e2 &!e3

!e1 = !e2 = = 1

(7.2)

7. The Incredible Shrinking Lepto-QuarksWe can see intuitively from the jerk equation (6.4) that there may be a torsion componentin electromagnetic radiation reaction from an accelerated charged point particle. Shipovwrites for an accelerating point test charge

m d 2!rdt 2

= e!E +

ecd!rdt

!!B +

2e2

c3d 3!rdt 3

(8.1)

This equation is not really complete. It leaves out the explicit representation of theelectromagnetic self-energy inertia radiation reaction term that is buried inside the first


term on the LHS in the sense of mass renormalization. However, I will make that termexplicit below. The electromagnetic self-energy inertia is infinite for the point electron.A point electron is not physically acceptable. However, we need to explain why the lowenergy size of the electron of 10-11 cm from the ionized plasma cloud of virtual electron-positron pairs and virtual photons shrinks to ~ 10-17 cm in deep inelastic electronscattering that also shows internal structure of 3 (and maybe 5) real point-like quarksimmersed in the virtual sea of gluons, weak bosons and virtual quark/anti-quark pairs.The incredible shrinking lepto-quark is a strong space-warp effect of the exotic vacuumcore zero point energy stabilizing the repulsive self-charge of the extended spatialstructure.

Therefore, Shipov writes from the equations in 6 above

d!rdt

=d!rdt!e1 ! v

!e1

d 2!rdt 2

= "v!e1 +"v2!e2 ! a

!e1 +"v2!e2

d 3!rdt 3

= "a #" 2v3( ) !e1 + 3va" # v2 ""( ) !e2 +"$v3!e3

(8.2)

A 1D space-curve without torsion stays in a 2D plane spanned by the tangent and thenormal, which form a closed system no matter how many times we differentiate in aTaylor series sense. Torsion takes the space curve out of the fixed plane spanned by thetangent and the normal into the third dimension along the binormal. One can, therefore,imagine generalized torsions of strings in hyperspace that take the string into the extraspace dimensions that may or may not be compact in M theory with branes. Indeed theclosed strings of gravity are supposed to leak into these extra space dimensionsseparating parallel brane worlds next door to each other. We happen to be stuck on onebrane world like flies on wall paper and like Abbott’s “Flatlanders” unless we metricengineers can open a star gate traversable wormhole with dark energy to the braneuniverses next door? The alleged ETs in flying saucers that Michio Kaku calls “TheMasters of Hyperspace” and that Constantin Ivanenko calls “The Masters of Shamballah”seem to have this ability that we also see as “Q” in “Star Trek: The Next Generation.”Thus, the curvature-torsion cross-term in the last equation of (7.2) that is the “helix” or“spiral” corkscrew term in the direction of the bi-normal of the mobile Cartan triad frameof reference attached locally to the point test charge. The “point” may not be actually apoint and I am using the term tentatively for now. It is clearly an oriented point definedby the triad itself like a tiny spinning gyroscope in which the spatial extension is hidden.The radiation reaction force, that comes from advanced future absorption in Wheeler-Feynman, and is related to the transverse electromagnetic zero point vacuum fluctuationsif you want to use that Haisch-Rueda-Puthoff picture found in Hoyle and Narlikar as Irecall off the top of my head for now, is

!Fjerk! reaction =

2e2

3c3"a !" 2v3( ) !e1 ! 3va" + v2 ""( ) !e2 +"#v3!e3{ } (8.3)


There is still another electromagnetic inertia term that must be added to (7.3)

!Fself ! reaction =

e2

c2rcd 2!rdt 2

=e2

c2rca!e1 +"v

2!e2( ) (8.4)

Note that this term explodes to infinity for a point charge where rc ! 0 . A charge inuniform acceleration cannot radiate without violating the equivalence principle. Anelectric charge in uniform acceleration, at rest in a co-moving non-inertial frame ofreference without any jerk, is equivalent to a charge at rest in a uniform gravity field.Charges at rest on the surface of Earth, a non-inertial frame, do not radiate. Therefore,comparing (7.3) and (7.4) impose constraints that eliminate all terms depending onacceleration a using the lumped curvature parameter ! in the two orthogonal triad unitvector directions

!e1 &!e2 that hides the actual extended spatial structure of the electron as

a tiny micro-geon “Kerr-Newman”iv gyroscope from zero point energy induced strongshort-range gravity that prevents the self-electric charge distribution from exploding. Theinstantaneous orientation of the triad

!e1 &!e2 &!e3 local non-inertial frame of reference

(LNIF) shows that the electron (lepto-quark in general) is really like an extended rotatingrigid body whose direction of the angular momentum pseudo-3 vector is related to theorientation of the triad. The triad description is a lumped parameter representation ofhidden extended spatial structure of the test particle.

e2

c2rca!e1 +!v

2!e2( ) " 2e2

3c3! 2v3!e1 + 3va!

!e2{ } = 0#

e2

c2rca!e1 "

2e2

3c3! 2v3!e1 =

e2

c2rca " 2e

2

3c3! 2v3

$%&

'()!e1 =

e2

c2rca " 2rc

3c! 2v3$

%&'()!e1 = 0

e2

c2rc!v2!e2 "

2e2

3c33va! !e2 =

e2

c2rc!v2 " 2e

2

3c33va!

$%&

'()!e2 =

e2!*c2rc

v " 2rcca$

%&'()!e2 = 0

(8.5)

This simplifies to


a ! 2rc3c

" 2v3 = 0

v ! 2rcca = 0

cv2rc

= a

cv2rc

=2rc3c

" 2v3

1 = 4rc2

3c2" 2v2

(8.6)

Remember, the curvature ! has dimensions 1/(length).

Feynman tried to solve this problem as an undergrad at MIT before he went to Princetonto work with Wheeler. The internal structure of the “electron” seems to be implicit in thetwo “lumped parameters” of curvature ! and torsion ! . See Feynman’s Nobel lecturepart of which is excerpted in the endnote below.v

http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html

8. Propagating electro-torsion – Akimov devices?Shipov in 10.1 makes a numerical estimate of the size of the torsion component in theradiation reaction of a single electron from its spin. More anon.

i This shift 3-vector gravimagnetic field makes the local inertial frame drag of the Lense-Thirring effect to be measured in the EINSTEIN NASA space “Gravity Probe B“http://www.resonancepub.com/gravity.htm .

!! also plays a key role in Ray Chiao's


"gravity radio" superconducting transducer to convert far field gravity waves toelectromagnetic waves and vice versa via the

!! "!A coupling Hamiltonian term, where

!A

is the electromagnetic 3-vector potential. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204012 Weneed the near-field "induction" case for metric engineering the fabric of space-time (AKAthe geometrodynamic field).

Note that Hal Puthoff's wrong PV challenge to Einstein's GR is not able to describe thegravimagnetic field at all so far. We will see that the gravimagnetic field is essential topractical metric engineering on small scales where G*! G . Therefore, PV as formulatedup to present time in publications by Puthoff is irrelevant to the metric engineering ofweightless warp drive and traversable wormhole star gate time travel portals.

ii See section 4 of Richard Hammond’s “Torsion Gravity” in Vol 65 of Rep. Prog. Phys. (2002)for qualifications and an objection to identifying torsion fields with matter fields, e.g. “theequations of motion are completely unspecified.”iii This is a precursor of general coordinate transformations using tensors as shown by Arnowitt,Deser and Misner in their classic 1961 3+1 Hamiltonian canonical decomposition of Einstein’s1916 general relativity using the Palatini form of the action with Lagrange multipliers. All fourcoordinates are arbitrary i.e.! ' = ! ' !( )" xµ ' = xµ ' xµ( ),µ ',µ = 0,1,2,3 This is equivalent to locally gauging the 4displacement parameters canonically conjugate to the total 4-momentum Pµ . If we stop there wecan get Cartan’s torsion, which will not have the dynamics of Shipov’s torsion. To get Shipov’storsion we also need to locally gauge the 3 space-space rotation angles canonically conjugate tothe Casimir rotation 3D pseudo-vector

!J in addition to the 3 space-time “rapidity” Lorentz boosts

canonically conjugate to the second Casimir operator of the Lorentz group. This leaves 6 moreparameters to be locally gauged if we go beyond Shipov’s theory to the GL(4,R) group.Einstein’s 1916 gravity with gravimagnetic zero g-force Alcubierre warp drive using zero pointdark energy corresponds only to locally gauging the 4 translation group parameters and settingthe Cartan torsion to zero. The extra 12 parameters of non-compact space-time symmetryGL(4,R) are suggestive of the 12 gauge force parameters of compact internal symmetryU(1)xSU(2)xSU(3). Is there some mathematical transformation connecting the two?iv Papers by A. Burinskiiv Feynman wrote in 1965: “I worked on this problem about eight years until the final publicationin 1947. The beginning of the thing was at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, when I wasan undergraduate student reading about the known physics, learning slowly about all these thingsthat people were worrying about, and realizing ultimately that the fundamental problem of theday was that the quantum theory of electricity and magnetism was not completely satisfactory.This I gathered from books like those of Heitler and Dirac. I was inspired by the remarks in thesebooks; not by the parts in which everything was proved and demonstrated carefully andcalculated, because I couldn't understand those very well. At the young age what I couldunderstand were the remarks about the fact that this doesn't make any sense, and the last sentenceof the book of Dirac I can still remember, "It seems that some essentially new physical ideas arehere needed." So, I had this as a challenge and an inspiration. I also had a personal feeling, thatsince they didn't get a satisfactory answer to the problem I wanted to solve, I don't have to pay alot of attention to what they did do.


I did gather from my readings, however, that two things were the source of the difficulties withthe quantum electrodynamical theories. The first was an infinite energy of interaction of theelectron with itself. And this difficulty existed even in the classical theory. The other difficultycame from some infinites, which had to do with the infinite numbers of degrees of freedom in thefield. As I understood it at the time (as nearly as I can remember) this was simply the difficultythat if you quantized the harmonic oscillators of the field (say in a box) each oscillator has aground state energy of (_) and there is an infinite number of modes in a box of every increasingfrequency w, and therefore there is an infinite energy in the box. I now realize that that wasn't acompletely correct statement of the central problem; it can be removed simply by changing thezero from which energy is measured. At any rate, I believed that the difficulty arose somehowfrom a combination of the electron acting on itself and the infinite number of degrees of freedomof the field.

Well, it seemed to me quite evident that the idea that a particle acts on itself, that the electricalforce acts on the same particle that generates it, is not a necessary one - it is a sort of a silly one,as a matter of fact. And, so I suggested to myself, that electrons couldn’t act on themselves, theycan only act on other electrons. That means there is no field at all. You see, if all chargescontribute to making a single common field, and if that common field acts back on all thecharges, then each charge must act back on itself. Well, that was where the mistake was, therewas no field. It was just that when you shook one charge, another would shake later. There was adirect interaction between charges, albeit with a delay. The law of force connecting the motion ofone charge with another would just involve a delay. Shake this one, that one shakes later. The sunatom shakes; my eye electron shakes eight minutes later, because of a direct interaction across.

Now, this has the attractive feature that it solves both problems at once. First, I can sayimmediately, I don't let the electron act on itself, I just let this act on that, hence, no self-energy!Secondly, there is not an infinite number of degrees of freedom in the field. There is no field atall; or if you insist on thinking in terms of ideas like that of a field, this field is always completelydetermined by the action of the particles which produce it. You shake this particle, it shakes thatone, but if you want to think in a field way, the field, if it's there, would be entirely determined bythe matter, which generates it, and therefore, the field does not have any independent degrees offreedom and the infinities from the degrees of freedom would then be removed. As a matter offact, when we look out anywhere and see light, we can always "see" some matter as the source ofthe light. We don't just see light (except recently some radio reception has been found with noapparent material source).

You see then that my general plan was to first solve the classical problem, to get rid of the infiniteself-energies in the classical theory, and to hope that when I made a quantum theory of it,everything would just be fine.

That was the beginning, and the idea seemed so obvious to me and so elegant that I fell deeply inlove with it. And, like falling in love with a woman, it is only possible if you do not know muchabout her, so you cannot see her faults. The faults will become apparent later, but after the love isstrong enough to hold you to her. So, I was held to this theory, in spite of all difficulties, by myyouthful enthusiasm.

Then I went to graduate school and somewhere along the line I learned what was wrong with theidea that an electron does not act on itself. When you accelerate an electron it radiates energy andyou have to do extra work to account for that energy. The extra force against which this work is


done is called the force of radiation resistance. The origin of this extra force was identified inthose days, following Lorentz, as the action of the electron itself. The first term of this action, ofthe electron on itself, gave a kind of inertia (not quite relativistically satisfactory). But thatinertia-like term was infinite for a point-charge. Yet the next term in the sequence gave an energyloss rate, which for a point-charge agrees exactly with the rate you get by calculating how muchenergy is radiated. So, the force of radiation resistance, which is absolutely necessary for theconservation of energy, would disappear if I said that a charge could not act on itself.

So, I learned in the interim when I went to graduate school the glaringly obvious fault of my owntheory. But, I was still in love with the original theory, and was still thinking that with it lay thesolution to the difficulties of quantum electrodynamics. So, I continued to try on and off to save itsomehow. I must have some action develop on a given electron when I accelerate it to account forradiation resistance. But, if I let electrons only act on other electrons the only possible source forthis action is another electron in the world. So, one day, when I was working for ProfessorWheeler and could no longer solve the problem that he had given me, I thought about this againand I calculated the following. Suppose I have two charges - I shake the first charge, which Ithink of as a source, and this makes the second one shake, but the second one shaking producesan effect back on the source. And so, I calculated how much that effect back on the first chargewas, hoping it might add up the force of radiation resistance. It didn't come out right, of course,but I went to Professor Wheeler and told him my ideas. He said, - yes, but the answer you get forthe problem with the two charges that you just mentioned will, unfortunately, depend upon thecharge and the mass of the second charge and will vary inversely as the square of the distance R,between the charges, while the force of radiation resistance depends on none of these things. Ithought, surely, he had computed it himself, but now having become a professor, I know that onecan be wise enough to see immediately what some graduate student takes several weeks todevelop. He also pointed out something that also bothered me, that if we had a situation withmany charges all around the original source at roughly uniform density and if we added the effectof all the surrounding charges the inverse R square would be compensated by the R2 in thevolume element and we would get a result proportional to the thickness of the layer, which wouldgo to infinity. That is, one would have an infinite total effect back at the source. And, finally hesaid to me, and you forgot something else, when you accelerate the first charge, the second actslater, and then the reaction back here at the source would be still later. In other words, the actionoccurs at the wrong time. I suddenly realized what a stupid fellow I am, for what I had describedand calculated was just ordinary reflected light, not radiation reaction.

But, as I was stupid, so was Professor Wheeler that much more clever. For he then went on togive a lecture as though he had worked this all out before and was completely prepared, but hehad not, he worked it out as he went along. First, he said, let us suppose that the return action bythe charges in the absorber reaches the source by advanced waves as well as by the ordinaryretarded waves of reflected light; so that the law of interaction acts backward in time, as well asforward in time. I was enough of a physicist at that time not to say, "Oh, no, how could that be?"For today all physicists know from studying Einstein and Bohr, that sometimes an idea whichlooks completely paradoxical at first, if analyzed to completion in all detail and in experimentalsituations, may, in fact, not be paradoxical. So, it did not bother me any more than it botheredProfessor Wheeler to use advance waves for the back reaction - a solution of Maxwell'sequations, which previously had not been physically used.

Professor Wheeler used advanced waves to get the reaction back at the right time and then hesuggested this: If there were lots of electrons in the absorber, there would be an index ofrefraction n, so, the retarded waves coming from the source would have their wave lengths


slightly modified in going through the absorber. Now, if we shall assume that the advanced wavescome back from the absorber without an index - why? I don't know, let's assume they come backwithout an index - then, there will be a gradual shifting in phase between the return and theoriginal signal so that we would only have to figure that the contributions act as if they comefrom only a finite thickness, that of the first wave zone. (More specifically, up to that depth wherethe phase in the medium is shifted appreciably from what it would be in vacuum, a thicknessproportional to l/(n-1).) Now, the less the number of electrons in here, the less each contributes,but the thicker will be the layer that effectively contributes because with less electrons, the indexdiffers less from 1. The higher the charges of these electrons, the more each contribute, but thethinner the effective layer, because the index would be higher. And when we estimated it,(calculated without being careful to keep the correct numerical factor) sure enough, it came outthat the action back at the source was completely independent of the properties of the charges thatwere in the surrounding absorber. Further, it was of just the right character to represent radiationresistance, but we were unable to see if it was just exactly the right size. He sent me home withorders to figure out exactly how much advanced and how much retarded wave we need to get thething to come out numerically right, and after that, figure out what happens to the advancedeffects that you would expect if you put a test charge here close to the source? For if all chargesgenerate advanced, as well as retarded effects, why would that test not be affected by theadvanced waves from the source?

I found that you get the right answer if you use half-advanced and half-retarded as the fieldgenerated by each charge. That is, one is to use the solution of Maxwell's equation which issymmetrical in time and that the reason we got no advanced effects at a point close to the sourcein spite of the fact that the source was producing an advanced field is this. Suppose the source ssurrounded by a spherical absorbing wall ten light seconds away, and that the test charge is onesecond to the right of the source. Then the source is as much as eleven seconds away from someparts of the wall and only nine seconds away from other parts. The source acting at time t =0induces motions in the wall at time +10. Advanced effects from this can act on the test charge asearly as eleven seconds earlier, or at t = -1. This is just at the time that the direct advanced wavesfrom the source should reach the test charge, and it turns out the two effects are exactly equal andopposite and cancel out! At the later time +1 effects on the test charge from the source and fromthe walls are again equal, but this time are of the same sign and add to convert the half-retardedwave of the source to full retarded strength.

Thus, it became clear that there was the possibility that if we assume all actions are via half-advanced and half-retarded solutions of Maxwell's equations and assume that all sources aresurrounded by material absorbing all the the light which is emitted, then we could account forradiation resistance as a direct action of the charges of the absorber acting back by advancedwaves on the source.

Many months were devoted to checking all these points. I worked to show that everything isindependent of the shape of the container, and so on, that the laws are exactly right, and that theadvanced effects really cancel in every case. We always tried to increase the efficiency of ourdemonstrations, and to see with more and more clarity why it works. I won't bore you by goingthrough the details of this. Because of our using advanced waves, we also had many apparentparadoxes, which we gradually reduced one by one, and saw that there was in fact no logicaldifficulty with the theory. It was perfectly satisfactory.”

Documents

Torsion Field Theory G.schipov