Forward
Throughout my years of education, I heard teachers and professors state ?This is what we now know? when presenting the latest findings of science or the latest theoretical formulation. As the years went on, I was amused by the fact that such pronouncements were later found to be in error when new experimental observations or new theoretical constructs overturned the outdated concepts. However, the scientific community never seemed to miss a beat. Those old ?What we thought we knew? concepts were just replaced by the new ?What we now know? proclamations.
It has been said by others that science has two kinds of practitioners ? those who are ?Keepers of the Flame? and those who truly exercise original thought and challenge the sanctuary of ?what we now know.? The ?Keepers? are very important to science in that they maintain the base of knowledge and transmit it to following generations of scientists. These worthies add knowledge incrementally through extensions of current theory or through more detailed and precise experiment. I certainly do not mean to belittle these folks. They are the backbone of science and without their contributions there would not be a science to carry forward. In my humble estimation, the ?Keepers? make up almost all of the scientific community. We are all ?Keepers? to a certain extent.
However, the earthshaking new directions in science have come from the very few who are the original thinkers. The most obvious member of this august group is Albert Einstein. His Special and General Relativity Theories brought about a revolution in scientific thought that resonates even today. Others ? I would call them ?Keepers? ? applied and extended his theories, but his thoughts remain the basis of all current physics. Such scientists are very rare indeed. I firmly believe that I have had the great pleasure of associating with a member of this rare breed.
I met Pharis E. Williams in 1973 at the U. S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. We were classmates in the Nuclear Physics curriculum and all 18 ?Nuke? students had been assigned study offices in room 008 in the basement of the Physics building. While I was studying for upcoming classes, a fellow walked into my cubicle sporting the kind of southern twang that belonged in a farmer?s field somewhere. Willie, as we learned to call him, was already holding forth on the fundamental basis of physics before we had even started our upper level course work on the subject. Our classmates and I quickly learned that this
Willie learned quickly that I would take any opportunity to lay aside my studies to hear him pontificate at the white board. I was fascinated by his questioning approach to ?what we now know? of physics. He wanted to start from the foundational assumptions of physics and ask ?Why?? ? Why those assumptions and not others? Had we ? the physics community ? gone down the wrong paths by making ever more ?simplifying? assumptions? Were we ignoring contrary experimental evidence in order to maintain our cherished theories? I was captured by his imagination immediately. I objected to the oft repeated admonition that ?We are not allowed to ask that question? when dealing with certain areas of advanced physics and I suspected that ?what we now know? had serious flaws. Willie was a kindred soul who had better math skills than I and I wanted to hear more.
As we advanced through the physics curriculum, Willie was able to put deeper thought and more mathematical rigor into his developing theory and I was able to follow most of his thoughts and some of his math. As the theory took on more structure and more of our classmates became convinced we were in the presence of genius, we started to campaign for a symposium to display what Willie was thinking. We wanted to have Willie put his work before a gathering of the math and science faculty. As his reputation grew throughout the Postgraduate School, they finally agreed and a symposium was arranged. When the day arrived, I sat at the back of the meeting to observe the reactions of the assembled professors as Willie displayed his command of the broad expanse of physics and math. As the briefing started I noticed that many in the audience appeared to be disdainful of this countrified junior naval officer who had such radical ideas about the fundamental basis of physics. However, as Willie laid out his logical thought progression using all the tools of advanced mathematics, including tensor analysis, the attitudes changed perceptibly. That day, Willie made many converts among the Math, Science, and Computer Science faculties. They were not ready to accept his challenge to the fundamentals of science, but they were convinced he possessed the ability and the tools to cause many to think afresh about ?What we now know.? His classmates were convinced we were in the presence of a true ?Original Thinker.? I remain convinced to this day.
Upon graduation we each went our separate ways as service in the Navy required. I had adopted the view that sailors belong on ships and ships belong at sea. I was a sailor and, therefore, I reported to my new ship and continued my career as a naval officer. However, I never forgot those days of listening to Willie?s theory and tilting against the windmills of science. Throughout the intervening years wherever we were, Willie kept me informed about the newest developments in the theory until that day he called to ask if I would consider coming to Los Alamos, New Mexico, to assist with his research. With the help of a friendly admiral, we arranged for me to be assigned to Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) as a Military Research Associate and I set my naval career aside for a life of research.
My first duties at LANL were to reacquaint myself with the mathematics of the Dynamic Theory such that I could properly support its claims to others. In doing this I started with the three fundamental assumptions ? the conservation of energy, Caratheodory\'s statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (generalized to mechanical entropy or you can?t get somethin? for nothin?), and a rule for comparing one system?s mechanical entropy to another?s. If we allow the need for a fifth dimension (and that seems to be the case) these three laws lead inexorably to an expansion of Maxwell?s well known equations of electromagnetism. Once I had convinced myself of that fact, I approached several scientists at LANL and other research organizations to seek their response to such a result. What I found was disheartening. Some responded that ?Mister Williams? theory is too simplistic.? Others said that ?Mister Williams? theory is too complicated.? I even stumbled across scientists who were still smarting from Willie?s uncovering of the shortcomings of the Nuclear Laboratories in determining the yield of certain weapons and the resultant dangers posed by that revelation. I was thrown out of several offices. I have been thrown out of better places. There were also positive responses. Gian Carlo Rota, a well known and respected mathematician from Princeton University and a Fellow at LANL, remarked that ?Mister Williams does not make mathematical errors? after he reviewed the entire theory.
Ignoring the naysayers as suffering from ?not invented here? syndrome or possibly ?I?ve spent my whole career climbing this tree and now you say I?m in the wrong tree?? I took my findings on the road to try and garner funding for research. We were able to stir up quite a lot of interest, but no principal.
One such foray was a briefing I gave to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Executive Panel ? the staff responsible for new technical initiatives. After several weeks of exposing the staff to Willie?s theory, the Director approached me and asked if he could borrow my viewgraphs. I agreed and he promised to tell me what he could about their use. A few days later I received a call from him saying that I should watch TV that night and I would understand the impact of my briefing. That night President Reagan was on all channels with his Strategic Defense Initiative speech, later called the ?Star Wars? program. The Director of the Executive Panel called later and said that my viewgraph showing the expanded Maxwell Equations was on the President?s desk as he made the speech. As I returned to Los Alamos, I was floating on the euphoria of hoped for research funding from such a successful trip.
When I returned to the LANL DoD Program office, where Willie and I worked, the corridor was abuzz with the prospect of billions of dollars in funding that would be made available to conduct the innovative research required to meet the President?s vision. Our protestations that the Dynamic Theory was one element of the President?s calculations had no effect on the thinking of the DoD Program staff. They were busy dusting off every unfunded wild and semi-wild idea they had put forth for years and could not be bothered with an unproven theory. LANL scientists were not being irresponsible or un-American. They were just captive to the ?what we now know? philosophy and trying to put flesh on the President?s vision with science and technology that they understood and agreed with. After all, Los Alamos got its start with the development of nuclear weapons and that was one area they understood well. Use of those types of devices and countering them were natural research for the LANL scientific staff.
In the years since, Willie has made several attempts to publish his theory in various journals with some limited success. However, the physics establishment has yet to pay serious attention to the inescapable logic and solid mathematical basis for the theory. This book is a long envisioned attempt to publish a layman?s summary of the theory so that more people are exposed to the thinking that Pharis Willie Williams has done over the years. The Dynamic Theory gores too many sacred oxen of current physics to be considered by the ?Keepers.? It also clearly indicates an inductive coupling among electric, magnetic, and gravity fields, something that needs serious investigation. Read this book with an open mind and the mindset of an ?Original Thinker.? I hope you will be stimulated to think further.
James O. Shannon
