Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-vgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-vgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.physics,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Big Banging
Message-ID: <2007@brl-vgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 14-May-84 11:58:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.2007
Posted: Mon May 14 11:58:07 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 16-May-84 07:35:19 EDT
References: <155@cosivax.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 24

Very interesting references.  Eddington's "Fundamental Theory" (not
"Universal Theory") was indeed brought out by Whittaker (first name
Edmund, I think), who also wrote his own book critiquing Eddington's.
I tried to understand this work when I was younger and smarter but
had only limited success.  My impression is that much of Eddington's
theory is valid but that he was trying too hard to extract patterns
where there might not be any.

It is quite certain that if you take the (Einstein flavor) unified
field theory seriously, then a closed universe will produce field
quantization.  Indeed the "displacement field duality" of such a
theory also embeds a discrete symmetry in the field.  I have much
to say about this in my Masters' thesis.

It seems to me that the Grand Unified Field Theorists of today are
working "inward" from quantum symmetries while Einstein and his small
band of followers started close to the core with the expectation that
they could eventually work their way "outward".  Whether either is
extensible into the complete picture is unclear.  I prefer the
Einstein-Schr"odinger approach because it can be built on explicit
philosophical grounds that I happen to agree with, although this was
not made explicit in the original work.

Philosophy is important, folks.