See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342534347

Prospects of a Unified Field Theory Including Gravity

Preprint · May 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 247

1 author:

Lucian Ionescu
Illinois State University
48 PUBLICATIONS   168 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mathematical-Physics View project

Mathematics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lucian Ionescu on 29 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Prospects of a
Unified Field Theory Including Gravity
Lucian Miti Ionescu
Mathematics Department, Illinois State University, Normal IL 61790-4520,
lmiones@ilstu.edu

Abstract. The generic relativistic version of a particle-field theory,

with non-isotropic sources, includes a Gravity force perturbation of
Coulombian Force, with the usual Magnetic Force resulting from Lorentz
transformations.
The quark model of Standard Model, with fractional charge struc-
ture of nucleons enveloped by electronic clouds, mandates such non-
isotropic charges.
Dynamic Nuclear Orientation (DNO), via electronic spin and LS-
coupling, allows to invert the population of low energy Gravitational
attraction states, and achieve Gravity Control.
The 1994 scientific experiment of Dr. Frederick Alzofon has con-
firmed Gravity Control can be achieved via DNO.
Other researchers have contributed in the same general direction of
unifying Electromagnetism and Gravity, supporting the non-isotropic
charge concept, including Paul LaViolette, author of Subquantum Ki-
netics.

(Extended version - April 1, 2020)

Ionescu Electro-Gravity

1. Introduction
Our goal (“Problem”), is to provide the design specifications for a theoretical model
of Gravity that allows to control it, at engineering level. Then it can be said it explains
Gravity.
It should be simple and beautiful, so that we all could understand the ideas of the
theory, like we understand E = mc2 and E = hν.

1.1. Brief overview of Prior Physics, relevant to our Problem. Newton’s

Theory of Gravity addressed a special case, that of neutral matter, as a test probe
moving around a large source of the interaction.
Maxwell’s Theory, addressed mathematically the Field Theory aspects of Electro-
magnetism, after Oerstead, Ampere, Faraday, Biot-Savart etc. This time charges
were comparable in size and their moving contributions could not be ignored.
Lorentz Force and Lorentz transformations revealed the hidden “source” of Mag-
netism: transforming the electric field due to a static charge, yields a magnetic com-
ponent.
Yet at this stage all charges, as sources of field, were assumed spherically symmetric,
with no internal structure, hence satisfying Poisson equation.
General Relativity recast (Relativistic) Mechanics from “curved motion in flat
space-time” to “geodetic flat-motion in curved space-time”, with its initial goal of
implementing Mach’s philosophy: there is no intrinsic space or time, only matter and
its properties:
ma = F ⇒ G = χT.
Physics remained hidden in the “constitutive force” / energy-momentum tensor, with-
out additional explanations, including of course, Gravity.
A closer look, avoiding the natural and expected separation of these theories, due to
the historical development, will reveal the on-the-nose the Unified Field Theory, as a
generic Particle-Field Theory: test probe dynamics “a la Newton-Lorentz” (relativis-
tic), and charges as sources of the whole field, without separation according to the
type of charges and index of singular points of the associated vector field.
The “closer look” benefits from the tremendous progress in Elementary Particle
Physics, thanks to the Standard Model, with its known limitations ... and inertia:
“recycling” Gauge Theory, for ease of design, to the point of calling particle decays
an interaction due to a Weak “Force” 1 and mistakenly taking Space-Time 3D-pixels
(conform Smolin [1]), as made of “three elementary, actual particles” (conform Gell-
Mann [2]), requiring an extra force to confine them: QCD.
A longer story, short (see also [3] p.8, [4]), there is no need to worry about these
last two “interactions”, since the SM has to be remodeled anyways, in the language of
1Remember Mach, Einstein, Heisenberg etc.? ... there is no “Space”!

2
Ionescu Electro-Gravity

Quantum Computing, started also by Feynman2; and mesons are quantum channels
exchanging Quantum Information ... a different story, for now.

2. From Newton, Maxwell and Lorentz to a Generic Particle-Field

Theory
“Hypothesis non fingo” said Newton ... Thus let’s not implicitly assume we are
modeling EM or Gravity, but whatever total force field some particles, isolated or as
a 3D-density object, might have as sources of this Unified Field F on just one test
particle, of charge q (real or complex, as needed later).
Now such a force can be decomposed as F = Fl + Ft , into a tangential component
Fl in the direction of the motion of the text probe, which does the work, and an
orthogonal component Ft that curves the trajectory3. Assuming Fl is conservative,
its intensity is a gradient E = grad(φ), with divergence div(E) = ρ yielding the
density of its sources, which we will call E-charges. The transversal “geometric” force
can be represented as F t = v × B, arriving at the usual Lorentz force of this Unified
Field:

(1) F = q(E + v × B).

Again we emphasize the necessary steps, the uniqueness of definitions, when starting
from an arbitrary force field, which includes “everything”: EM and G contributions,
as well as Weak and Strong if they would exist.
Remark 2.1. Since in hindsight we know “reality” is Lorentz invariant (EM, relativity,
QFT etc.), we expect that the dynamics equation F = ma of Newtonian Mechanics
must be completed with the velocity Lorentz term (Eq. 1), since any Coulomb field
(harmonic potential), when Lorentz transformed acquires a “curly compagnion”, e.g.
magnetic field (intensity) B in EM.
From the above one also derives an analog of Maxwell’s equations:

Helmholtz decomposition : curl(E(t)) = 0, div(B(t)) = 0

Sources def inition : div(E(t)) = ρ(t), curl(B(t)) = j(t).

Here the time dependence of the vector fields and source distributions refers to the
“Lab” reference frams, and at this stage we don’t know how to transform if we change
the coordinate system.

2More known is Feynman’s Path Integral and Diagrams approach to quantization.

3A more transparent treatment requires the linear DE in phase space, i.e. using the Hamiltonian
formalism.

3
Ionescu Electro-Gravity

2.1. What about the Sources!? The Helmholtz decomposition is based on the
polar decomposition of the conformal group of transformations, locally consisting of
similarities and rotations; hence the two SO(3)-invariant operators div and curl.
Under this assumption, the Laplace equation for the sources emerges, together with
its fundamental solution (distribution), the Coulomb law [5]:
1
∆φ = ρ, φ = ρ ? (P oisson integral).
r
This is all classical, and we arrive at the question: what are the “signs” of the charges?
2.2. Dynamic Gravity. All positive yields Dynamic Gravity, a Lorentz invariant
form of Newton’s Gravity, with a correction due to an analog of the magnetic field,
due to rotating masses, playing the role of mass currents.
This is expected, and of course can be neglected when considering motion around
the Sun, as long as we place our “Lab”-Coordinate System attached to the largest
(by far) charge in the system, so that it’s static, not moving, and hence the B-analog
term vanishes. Similarly when we analyze motions close to a planet, like how the
apple falls, or even a satellite orbits Earth4.
2.3. The Electromagnetism Case. If the charges are + and −, again assuming the
elementary charge isotropic, i.e. SO(3)-invariant, we end-up with Coulomb potential
1/r. If we allow for the larger conformal group, we include in this way Lorentz
tranformations, with the resulting Maxwell’s Equations 5.

3. Electro-Gravity: Let the Charges be “Anything”

If we allow the charges to have an internal structure, in hindsight of the Stan-
dard Model, we should take into account that “quarks” have fractional charge and a
fermion, like the electron, is an “electrically” charged cloud (i.e. responsible for the
work component of EM), but with a “magnetic” moment (due to a magnetic charge
6
).
Hence we assume 7 that matter, mainly composed of neutrons, protons and electrons
have the following types of charges, in terms of the index of the singularities of the
corresponding (unified) vector field they generate:
• Electron (0, 3),
• Proton p+ (uud): index type (2, 1), and
• Neutron n = (udd): index type (1, 2),
in units of −1/3 of the electron’s charge.
4Maybe? Or we can blame the differences on “gravitational anomalies” ...?
5They are easier to be understood from a Gauge Theory viewpoint, especially under the form
F = dA, F ∗ = J, including Hodge duality, as a substitute for Helmholtz decomposition.
6
A “magnetic charge” should be thought of not as a pointwise divisor yielding a period in Gauss
Law, but rather a 1-cycle divisor, yielding a 1-period: the fluxon as a unit of magnetic charge.
7
... it’s just modeling, Master Newton ...

4
Ionescu Electro-Gravity

3.1. What about the Field Equations? In this article (and perhaps for a while
longer), we will not address the complete Mathematical Model needed to implement
the above considerations. here we present the “Plan” to include Gravity as a defor-
mation of Electro-Magnetism, which requires the full SU (2)-Gauge Theory with its
SU (3)-symmetry group.
The natural, easy way to go, to implement such a theory is to look for a modification
of the Electro-Weak Theory, to include the Gravity Interaction as a perturbation.
On the other hand it is known that the Standard Model as is, based on U (1)L ×
SU (2) × SU (3) is an approximation, since for instance particle masses are not con-
sistent with the SU (3)-flavor invariance8.
3.2. Other Electro-Gravity Theories. The idea that the “Universe is Electric”
and that the ether “does exist” abound [6] etc.
That the elementary constituents of matter do not have a spherically symmetric
symmetry, also appears at least in the theory of Subquantum Kinetics of Paul LaVi-
olette [7].
But the practical confirmation come from an experiment designed to test the Uni-
fied Field Theory of Frederick Alzofon, based on a “hint out-of-this-world” ...
4. Gravity Control
Although not based on the internal structure of elementary particles via the quark
model within the Standard Model, in the 1960s a tentative of a Unified Field Theory
was proposed by Frederick Alzofon [8] 9.
4.1. Dynamic Nuclear Orientation. Let us briefly recap the main point: atoms
have a G-force polarity, a result of the break of SO(3)-symmetry of the “extended”
Electromagnetic Theory10.
The corresponding split of energy levels, for “up/down” in a bi-atom interaction,
is orders of magnitude lower in energy to then the “pure” U (1)-EM hyperfine energy
split.
Now the random transitions of orientations of the protons11 in a nucleus lead to
the lower energy state corresponding to gravitational attraction.
A mechanism for exciting the nuclei to the higher state, and to invert the population
in the same way as in a LASER is via a resonant microwave excitation with a pumping
8SU (3) − color is a good symmetry; it is explained naturally in the Qubit Model, based on the
Hopf bundle U (1) → SU (2) → S 2 and SU (3) as a “Galois group” of symmetries.
9
Einstein’s attempts, as well as Kaluza-Klein Theories are historically among the first, yet unsuc-
cessful attempts to “unify” interactions; unfortunately GR does not explain Gravity: it just models
it differently then Newton, while subsequently trying to recast the “other” interactions “as is”, i.e.
as separated theories, in a similar way to the case of Gravity, within the new framework.
10In the specialized literature appears under different names: SO(3) − EM [10], scalar waves [11],
torsion fields [12] etc.
11The neutron is conjecturally “perfectly” bi-Platonic group 2T, 2O, 2I symmetric.

5
Ionescu Electro-Gravity

mechanism which allows for the stimulated emission, and hence leads to a coherent
multi-particle state, in the essentially the same way as with the LASER technology;
or if you wish, visualize the process as pushing a swing, in sync with its resonant
frequency. The phenomenon of synchronization of phase occurs in a similar manner
to “adiabatic magnetization of para-magnetic salts” [13] p.42, or perhaps in a more
direct relation to the one observed by Huygens to take place on his collection of
pendulum clocks ... whatever the reason, it does happen!
This is referred to as Dynamical Nuclear Orientation (DNO) [14], p.117, 220 (see
[9] for technical details).

4.2. The Evidence. The actual scientific experiment, using a microwave radiation
to alter was carried out confirmed that gravity can be controlled in this way [14],
Ch.21, p.135. The story of the prior R & D leading to this experiment can be found
in [14, 13] 12
Similarly, Dynamical Gravity predicting the coupling between moving masses, char-
acteristic of a gravitational analog of magnetic induction, and demanded by the
Newton-Lorentz relativistic model, coined and explained at the beginning of this
essay, was actually experimentally observed [15]; except that the authors tried a dif-
ferent approach for explaining the coupling between a pendulum, isolated from a
rotating mass. Our qualitative explanation comes naturally from demanding rela-
tivistic invariance, and we emphasize “qualitative”, since we did not carry out the
computations to check the match with the actual measurements.

5. Conclusions
In brief, a Coulomb perturbation of EM has to be included in the classical EM. In
fact there are 2D-EM tentative theories, extending the familiar Maxwell-Faraday EM
Theory13.
Moreover the Standard Model demands this too, at a conceptual level, but physi-
cists are too much used to neglect Gravity, as being too weak; yes, weak, but impor-
tant, and a major “clue” that the “reality” differs from what the SM portrays ... The
author’s opinion is that the Electroweak Theory is “not beautifull”, yet, precisely
because it misses this possibility, to include a Coulomb G-correction, to match the
quark structure of protons, with the electronic shells/clouds around them!
Next, Newton’s Gravity can, and has to be upgraded to a relativistic theory, by
the inclusion of the characteristic Lorentz force term, yielding Dynamic Gravity, and
12... including the role of the instrumental “involuntary, out-of-this-world hint” from a UFO to a
1957 encounter with a “ ... USAF B-47 on an electronic countermeasures training mission over the
Gulf of Mexico” [13], p.13, providing the right parameters to try: microwave frequency, pulse width
and repetition, sweep rate and vertical polarity.
13The role of the vector potential is crucial, and usually neglected; but Aharonov-Bohm effect
demands otherwise!

6
 Ionescu Electro-Gravity

rendering the similarity to EM even more obvious: it’s a question of what charges we
allow, as sources.
Whatever the “beautiful and simple” theory might turnout to be, the experiments
are here, right now, to confirm the effective theories proposed ... Any takers, to
(re)try them?
References
[1] Smolin, “Three roads to Quantum Gravity”, ...
[2] David Griffiths, “Introduction to Elementary Particles”, John Wiley & Sons, 2008; see Ch.2.
[3] L. M. Ionescu, “e, π, χ · · · α”, https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0360, 2019.
[4] L. M. Ionescu, “A Wholistic approach to Quantum Physics”, AASCIT Com-
munications, Vol.4 , No. 4, Publication Date: Sep. 14, 2017, Page: 19-26,
http://www.aascit.org/journal/archive2?journalId=940&paperId=5323
[5] Wikipedia, “Poisson equation”, “Helmholtz decomposition”,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz decomposition
[6] The Electric Universe Theory, https://www.electricuniverse.info/
[7] Paul LaViolette, “Introduction to Subquantum Kinetics”, Physics Procedia, Volume 38, 2012,
Pages 326-349, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389212025205
[8] Frederick Alzofon, “The Unity of Nature and the Search for a Unified Field Theory”, MUFON
Symposium Proceedings, MUFON Journal, No. 170, April 1982.
[9] Carson D. Jeffries, “Dynamic Nuclear orientation”, Interscience Publishers, 1963;
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015003427351&view=1up&seq=9
[10] Terence W. Barrett, Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism, World Scientific Studies in
Contemporary Chemical Physics, Vol. 26, 2008.
[11] Konstantin Meyl, “Scalar Waves”, https://www.meyl.eu/go/indexb830.html
[12] Wikipedia, Torsion field, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion field (pseudoscience)
[13] David Alzofon and Frederick Alzofon, The Top-Ten UFO Riddles: Solutions from Science,
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; First edition (April 6, 2018).
[14] Frederick Alzofon and David Alzofon, Gravity Control with Present Technology, CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform; First edition (June 14, 2018).
[15] Sarkadi Dezső, “Gravity beteen artificially moved masses”, Research for Fundamental Physics,
Hungary, Oct. 2019,
www.academia.edu/39001762/GRAVITY BETWEEN ARTIFICIALLY MOVED MASSES
[16] Thierry de Mees, “Is there gravitational induction created by moving masses?”, Aug. 2017,
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is there gravitational induction caused by moving masses

View publication stats