Did Einstein actually Identified a Universal force(Unified force)in His Field Equation ?

Answer 1

Wow! Rhio9 certainly answered your question correctly and in great detail. No, Einstein was never able to unify all of the 4 known forces. It is true that scientists have unified 3 of the forces - electro-magnetism, the weak force and the strong force - by using strong colliders. But they have yet to show if and how the gravitational force is related. There is a theory beyond Einstein's called string theory which they hope will unify all 4 of the forces. They are building an instrument now which should be strong enough to prove if string theory is correct. Until then string theory still remains unproven.

Answer 2

If you mean did he come up with a field equation that defined the Universal force, no.

The Universal force is the merging of the four forces into one, at high energy levels.

They have show that the weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force combine to form the electro-weak force, with a corrosponding force carrying vector boson. Energy levels have not been attained to show combining the electro-weak and strong nuclear forces, and no where close to demostrating that force combining with gravity.

Answer 3

c=b+a is permitted to Professor Penfold and Einstein yoinked this well known equation from him, the position b=stupid questions, and at the same time as further to "a" (the set of human beings without humorousness), it equals "c" (a contravention word). e=mc2 signifies that the quantity of power (in Jules) in count number is an same because the mass of that count number (in grams) cases the speed of sunshine (in centimeters consistent with second) squared.

Answer 4

No, he died trying.

Answer 5

Three of the four known forces in physics have been unified via the standard model: electromagnetism, the weak and the strong force. The holdout remains gravity, the first force characterized mathematically by Isaac Newton. The parallels between gravity and electromagnetism are evident. Newton's law of gravity and Coulomb's law are inverse square laws. Both forces can be attractive, but Coulomb's law can also be a repulsive force. Neither law is consistent with special relativity, requiring different modifications. Newton's law of gravity needs the field equations of general relativity to be consistent with the finite speed of light.[kraichnan1955] Coulomb's law requires the Lorentz force terms. A longstanding goal of modern physics is to explain the similarities and differences between gravity and electromagnetism.

Albert Einstein had a specific idea for how to formulate an acceptable unified field theory. One unusual aspect of Einstein's view was that he believed the unified field would lead to a new foundation for quantum mechanics, an idea which is not shared by some of today's thinkers.[weinberg1992] Most of Einstein's efforts over 40 years were directed in a search to generalize Riemannian differential geometry in four dimensions.

To a degree which has pleasantly surprised the author, Einstein's vision to unify gravity and electromagnetism has been followed. The mathematical tool used is a four-dimensional algebraic field known as the quaternions. Hamilton's quaternions must be modernized in two ways. First, they must be expressed in a coordinate-independent way. This property will be essential for the connection to a generalization of the equivalence principle. Second, the derivative of a quaternion function with respect to a quaternion variable needs to be defined. Quaternion analysis leads to a new foundation for quantum mechanics, consistent with the vast body of previous work. That will be included in a subsequent paper. This paper explores the hypothesis that Riemannian quaternions, modernized to deal with changes in basis vectors, is the mathematical tool necessary for the goals set by Einstein.

The basis of Einstein's general theory of relativity is the audacious idea that not only do the metrical relations of spacetime deviate from perfect Euclidean flatness, but that the metric itself is a dynamical object. In every other field theory the equations describe the behavior of a physical field, such as the electric or magnetic field, within a constant and immutable arena of space and time, but the field equations of general relativity describe the behavior of space and time themselves. The spacetime metric is the field. This fact is so familiar that we may be inclined to simply accept it without reflecting on how ambitious it is, and how miraculous it is that such a theory is even possible, not to mention (somewhat) comprehensible. Spacetime plays a dual role in this theory, because it constitutes both the dynamical object and the context within which the dynamics are defined. This self-referential aspect gives general relativity certain characteristics different from any other field theory. For example, in other theories we formulate a Cauchy initial value problem by specifying the condition of the field everywhere at a given instant, and then use the field equations to determine the future evolution of the field. In contrast, because of the inherent self-referential quality of the metrical field, we are not free to specify arbitrary initial conditions, but only conditions that already satisfy certain self-consistency requirements (a system of differential relations called the Bianchi identities) imposed by the field equations themselves.

The self-referential quality of the metric field equations also manifests itself in their non-linearity. Under the laws of general relativity, every form of stress-energy gravitates, including gravitation itself. This is really unavoidable for a theory in which the metrical relations between entities determine the "positions" of those entities, and those positions in turn influence the metric. This non-linearity raises both practical and theoretical issues. From a practical standpoint, it ensures that exact analytical solutions will be very difficult to determine. More importantly, from a conceptual standpoint, non-linearity ensures that the field cannot in general be uniquely defined by the distribution of material objects, because variations in the field itself can serve as "objects".

Furthermore, after eschewing the comfortable but naive principle of inertia as a suitable foundation for physics, Einstein concluded that "in the general theory of relativity, space and time cannot be defined in such a way that differences of the spatial coordinates can be directly measured by the unit measuring rod, or differences in the time coordinate by a standard clock...this requirement ... takes away from space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity". It seems that we're completely at sea, unable to even begin to formulate a definite solution, and lacking any definite system of reference for defining even the most rudimentary quantities. It's not obvious how a viable physical theory could emerge from such an austere level of abstraction.

These difficulties no doubt explain why Einstein's route to the field equations in the years 1907 to 1915 was so convoluted, with so much confusion and backtracking. One of the principles that heuristically guided his search was what he called the principle of general covariance. This was understood to mean that the laws of physics ought to be expressible in the form of tensor equations, because such equations automatically hold with respect to any system of curvilinear coordinates (within a given diffeomorphism class, as discussed in Section 9.2). He abandoned this principle at one stage, believing that he and Grossmann had proven it could not be made consistent with the Poisson equation of Newtonian gravitation, but subsequently realized the invalidity of their arguments, and re-embraced general covariance as a fundamental principle.

It strikes many people as ironic that Einstein found the principle of general covariance to be so compelling, because, strictly speaking, it's possible to express almost any physical law, including Newton's laws, in generally covariant form (i.e., as tensor equations). This was not clear when Einstein first developed general relativity, but it was pointed out in one of the very first published critiques of Einstein's 1916 paper, and immediately acknowledged by Einstein. It's worth remembering that the generally covariant formalism had been developed only in 1901 by Ricci and Levi-Civita, and the first real use of it in physics was Einstein's formulation of general relativity. This historical accident made it natural for people (including Einstein, at first) to imagine that general relativity is distinguished from other theories by its general covariance, whereas in fact general covariance was only a new mathematical formalism, and does not connote a distinguishing physical attribute. For this reason, some people have been tempted to conclude that the requirement of general covariance is actually vacuous. However, in reply to this criticism, Einstein clarified the real meaning (for him) of this principle, pointing out that its heuristic value arises when combined with the idea that the laws of physics should not only be expressible as tensor equations, but should be expressible as simple tensor equations. In 1918 he wrote "Of two theoretical systems which agree with experience, that one is to be preferred which from the point of view of the absolute differential calculus is the simplest and most transparent".

This is still a bit vague, but it seems that the quality which Einstein had in mind was closely related to the Machian idea that the expression of the dynamical laws of a theory should be symmetrical up to arbitrary continuous transformations of the spacetime coordinates. Of course, the presence of any particle of matter with a definite state of motion automatically breaks the symmetry, but a particle of matter is a dynamical object of the theory. The general principle that Einstein had in mind was that only dynamical objects could be allowed to introduce asymmetries. This leads naturally to the conclusion that the coefficients of the spacetime metric itself must be dynamical elements of the theory, i.e., must be acted upon. With this Einstein believed he had addressed what he regarded as the strongest of Mach's criticisms of Newtonian spacetime, namely, the fact that Newton's space acted on objects but was never acted upon by objects.