July 15, specified on July 17, 2008
After just having criticized Evans' New Math rules of tensor calculus I came across Evans' most recent paper #116(2). On first glance I saw the following calculation:
. . .
where
ωκμb = qκa
ωaμb
(20)
Finally use:
The index λ appears four times on the right hand side while at most twice is
admissible. To write this flaw in ''slow motion'' and by means of brackets and avoiding
four times appearing of the index λ by means of primes:
ωκμb T~bμν =
(ωκμλ
qλb)
(qbλ'
T~λ'μν) = . . .
Now we can drop the brackets: Using
qλb
qbλ' = δλλ' yields
ωκμb T~bμν =
ωκμλ
δλλ'
T~λ'μν = ωκμλ T~λμν
(21')
differing from Evans' result (21) by a factor 4. This implies that the factor 4
must be dropped in the eqs. (22) and (28).
And I ask you:
However, someone who cannot distinguish between
between 1 and 4 should better change his profession. Doing math is not his best ability.
Evans' main problem and unproven claim is the validity of the dualization of
the 1st Bianchi equation:
DÙTa =
RabÙqb
(1)
?Û?
DÙT~a =
R~abÙqb
(23)
What he correctly shows is not the same and hence useless:
D[μ Taνρ] = Ra[μνρ]
(4)
Û
Dμ T~aμν =
R~aμμν
(10)
and (under unprovable assumption of the dualized Bianchi eq. (23))
D[μ T~aνρ] = R~a[μνρ]
(24)
Û
Dμ Taμν =
Raμμν
(27)
The gap (1)?Û?(23) cannot be closed. The transition from
Ra[μνρ] to
R~a[μνρ]
would require a common Î factor which does not exist
due to the changing lower index positions.
I had pointed to that flaw already in a
former remark but without any effect on Dr. Evans. There are guys who do not learn from their
faults.
ωκμb T~bμν =
qλb
qbλ
ωκμλ
T~λμν =
4 ωκμλ
T~λμν
(21)
What is a factor 4 under friends?
2. The serious flaw
HOME