No Lorentz property of M W Evans'O(3)-symmetry law

Abstract

The paper (Evans 2000 Phys. Scr. 61 287–91) ‘On the nature of the B(3) field’ essentially refers to a hypothesis that was proposed in 1992 by M W Evans: Evans claimed that a so-called O(3)-symmetry of electromagnetic fields should exist due to an additional constant longitudinal ‘ghost field’ B(3) accompanying the well-known transversal plane em waves. Evans considered this symmetry, a fixed relation between the transversal and the longitudinal amplitudes of the wave, as a new law of electromagnetics. In the paper (Evans 2000) in this journal the authors claim ‘that the Maxwell–Heaviside theory is incomplete and limited’ and should be replaced with Evans' O(3)-theory the centre of which is Evans' O(3)-symmetry law. Later on, since 2002, this O(3)-symmetry became the centre of Evans' CGUFT which he recently renamed as ECE theory. A law of physics must be invariant under admissible coordinate transforms, namely under Lorentz transforms. A plane wave remains a plane wave also when seen from arbitrary other inertial systems. Therefore, Evans' O(3)-symmetry law should be valid in all inertial systems. To check the validity of Evans' O(3)-symmetry law in other inertial systems, we apply a longitudinal Lorentz transform to Evans' plane em wave (the ghost field included). As is well-known from SRT and recalled here the transversal amplitude decreases while the additional longitudinal field remains unchanged. Thus, Evans' O(3)-symmetry cannot be invariant under (longitudinal) Lorentz transforms: Evans' O(3)-symmetry is not a valid law of physics. Therefore it is impossible to draw any valid conclusions from that wrong O(3)-hypothesis. The paper (Evans 2000) has no scientific basis.

An Assessment of Evans’ Unified Field Theory I

“…In Sec. 4 we will see that it has to be the total spin of all matter and the electromagnetic field, with exception of gravity. 5 In his rebuttal, see footnote 1, Evans argues in the following way: Let us write (1) in terms of…”

“…5 We will see further down in detail that this is, indeed, the case. 4 "There are two fundamental differential forms...that together describe any spacetime, the torsion or spin form and Riemann or curvature form." See Evans [25], p.434.…”

“…Such a statement, which overlaps with the last subsection, seems necessary since there are numerous inconsistencies and mistakes in Evans' work, see Bruhn [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] and Rodrigues et al [19,61], such that it is necessary to distiguish between the relevant and the irrelevant parts of Evans' articles.…”

“…Bruhn [4] has even shown explicitly that a plane wave in Evans' O(3) electrodynamics, if subject to a Lorentz transformation, will not be any longer a plane wave. A proof cannot be more telling.…”

“…The evaluation of Evans' theory is made more demanding since his articles contain many mathematical mistakes and inconsistencies, as has been amply shown by Bruhn [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and Rodrigues et al [19,61]. Let me just illustrate this point with two new examples.…”