sidebar
"On the History of Unified Field Theories. Part II. (ca. 1930 – ca. 1965)"
Hubert F. M. Goenner 
Abstract
1 Introduction
2 Mathematical Preliminaries
3 Interlude: Meanderings – UFT in the late 1930s and the 1940s
4 Unified Field Theory and Quantum Mechanics
5 Born–Infeld Theory
6 Affine Geometry: Schrödinger as an Ardent Player
7 Mixed Geometry: Einstein’s New Attempt
8 Schrödinger II: Arbitrary Affine Connection
9 Einstein II: From 1948 on
10 Einstein–Schrödinger Theory in Paris
11 Higher-Dimensional Theories Generalizing Kaluza’s
12 Further Contributions from the United States
13 Research in other English Speaking Countries
14 Additional Contributions from Japan
15 Research in Italy
16 The Move Away from Einstein–Schrödinger Theory and UFT
17 Alternative Geometries
18 Mutual Influence and Interaction of Research Groups
19 On the Conceptual and Methodic Structure of Unified Field Theory
20 Concluding Comment
Acknowledgements
References
Footnotes
Biographies

14 Additional Contributions from Japan

We already met Japanese theoreticians with their contributions to non-local field theory in Section 3.3.2, to wave geometry as presented in Section 4.3, and to many exact solutions in Section 9.6.1. The unfortunate T. Hosokawa showed, in the paper mentioned in Section 4.3, that “a group of motions of a Finsler space has at most 10 parameters” [287]. Related to the discussion about exact solutions is a paper by M. Ikeda on boundary conditions [299]. He took up Wyman’s discussion of boundary conditions at spacelike infinity and tried to formulate such conditions covariantly. Thus, both spacelike infinity and the approach to it were to be defined properly. He expressed the (asymmetric) metric by referring it to an orthormal tetrad tetrad gij → aAB = gijξiAξjB, where ξiA are the tetrad vectors, orthonormalized with regard to eAδAB, eA = ±1. The boundary condition then was aAB → eA δAB for ρ → ∞, where ∫ Q ∘ -----i--j ρ (P Q ) := P γijdu du and the integral is taken over a path from P to Q on a spacelike hypersurface k k 1 2 3 x = x (u ,u ,u ,σ ) with parameters i u and metric γ.

Much of the further research in UFT from Japan to be discussed, is concerned with structural features of the theory. For example, S. Abe and M. Ikeda generalized the concept of motions expressed by Killing’s equations to a non-symmetric fundamental metric [1]. Although the Killing equations (43*) remain formally the same, for the irreducible parts of gab = hab + kab, they read as:

h c h c h c h ℒ ξhab = 2∇ (aξˇb) = 0, ℒξkab = ξ ∇ckab + k b ∇aξˇc + ka ∇b ˇξc = 0. (497 )
In (497*), ˇξ = h ξr c cr. All index-movements are done with h ab. The authors derive integrability conditions for (497*); it turns out that for space-time the maximal group of motions is a 6-parameter group.267

Possibly, in order to prepare a shorter way for solving (30*), S. Abe and M. Ikeda engaged in a systematic study of the concomitants of a non-symmetric tensor gab, i.e., tensors which are functionals of gab [301*, 300]. A not unexpected result are theorems 7 and 10 in ([301], p. 66) showing that any concomitant which is a tensor of valence 2 can be expressed by hab,kab,karkr ,karkr ks b s b and scalar functions of g, g h k as factors. In the second paper, pseudo-tensors (e.g., tensor densities) are considered.

A different mathematical interpretation of Hoffmann’s meson field theory as a “unitary field theory” in the framework of what he called “sphere-geometry” was given by T. Takasu [598]. It is based on the re-interpretation of space-time as a 3-dimensional Laguerre geometry. The line element is re-written in the form

2 1 2 22 3 2 k s k 2 ds = (dξ ) + (dξ ) + (dξ ) (ϕs(x )dξ + ϕ4(x )dt) . (498 )
It can be viewed as “the common tangential segment of the oriented sphere with center ξk and radius r = ∫ [ϕsxk )dξs+ ϕ4 (xk )]dt dt …” ([599].


  Go to previous page Scroll to top Go to next page