G.W. Bruhn
Abstract:This note corrects an erroneous article by M.W. Evans on his GCUFT theory which he took over in his GCUFT book. Due to Evans' bad habit of suppressing seemingly unimportant indices type match errors occur that cannot be removed. In addition some further errors of that article/book chapter are pointed out.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
This paper mainly analyzes and criticizes the core errors in the ECE theory proposed by M. W. Evans. Specifically, the paper attempts to address the following key issues:
1. **Invalid field definition**: The paper points out that there are type - mismatch problems in the ECE theory, which lead to the invalidity of its field definition. This is because M. W. Evans often omits seemingly unimportant indices, such as the four - dimensional indices \(a\) and \(b\), during the derivation process, which results in theoretical errors. For example, in equation (3.29)/(27), there are no four - dimensional indices on the left side, while there are on the right side. This type - mismatch makes the equation mathematically invalid.
2. **Irreparable theory**: The paper further points out that these errors in the ECE theory cannot be solved by simple corrections. Even if an attempt is made to eliminate the four - dimensional indices by introducing a weighting factor \(\chi_{ab}\), it will eventually lead to the right side of the equation becoming zero, thus making the entire theory meaningless.
3. **Incorrect construction of spacetime manifold**: The paper also criticizes M. W. Evans' method of constructing the spacetime manifold. He assumes a spacetime embedded in Euclidean space, which results in the metric tensor being positive - definite, rather than the indefinite metric required by the Minkowski metric. Therefore, the ECE theory cannot describe the local Minkowski spacetime in general relativity.
4. **Logical error**: The paper also points out a logical error in the ECE theory. In equation (3.2)/(43), M. W. Evans assumes a proportional relationship between the curvature tensor \(R_\mu^a\) and the four - dimensional vector \(q_\mu^a\), but provides no proof. The paper points out that even if this relationship is assumed to hold, it is impossible to back - derive from equation (17) to equation (16), which means that this assumption may be wrong.
In summary, the main purpose of this paper is to reveal the core errors in the ECE theory and show that these errors make the ECE theory mathematically and physically infeasible.