Here is some mathematician/physicist explaining his new unification of Gravity and EM on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeGgmE2w ... re=related
Is his mathematics sound?
How does this compare to Kaluza-Klein theory?
http://feynman.physics.lsa.umich.edu/se ... ture11.gif
Gravity and Electromagnetizm unification
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
-
Enola Straight
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 793
- Joined: 2002-12-04 11:01pm
- Location: Somers Point, NJ
Gravity and Electromagnetizm unification
Masochist to Sadist: "Hurt me."
Sadist to Masochist: "No."
Sadist to Masochist: "No."
-
Zixinus
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 6663
- Joined: 2007-06-19 12:48pm
- Location: In Seth the Blitzspear
- Contact:
Another one? These things tend to pop up every month or so around here.
From the first looks of it, he might be unto something. He doesn't use pseudo-scientific claims and certainly talking in the monotonous and halfway incomprehensible way that some physicists do.
A quick search reveals nothing critical. But I am sure some of the board physicists will tell you more.
From the first looks of it, he might be unto something. He doesn't use pseudo-scientific claims and certainly talking in the monotonous and halfway incomprehensible way that some physicists do.
A quick search reveals nothing critical. But I am sure some of the board physicists will tell you more.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
-
Kuroneko
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 2469
- Joined: 2003-03-13 03:10am
- Location: Fréchet space
- Contact:
I'm not a physicist, so it's likely that I'm missing some of the nuances and significance of what he's doing, but no obvious errors are apparent to me. Of course, it should be emphasized that writing down a Lagrangian and studying its qualitative behavior is different from having it quantitatively correspond to physical reality.
That's major difference with Kaluza-Klein theory; the KK theory is actually just general relativity on a five-dimensional vacuum. It reproduces both four-dimensional GTR and Maxwell's equations exactly. The reason it is not popular as a unification is because quantizing KK is just about as hard as quantizing GTR. It's fairly clear that this proposed theory can't reproduce GTR exactly, but in itself that's actually a good sign, since it will at least be open to falsifcation by experiment. All of our tests of GTR are of fairly low order, so it's not as if we should be taking GTR as correct to all orders.
That's major difference with Kaluza-Klein theory; the KK theory is actually just general relativity on a five-dimensional vacuum. It reproduces both four-dimensional GTR and Maxwell's equations exactly. The reason it is not popular as a unification is because quantizing KK is just about as hard as quantizing GTR. It's fairly clear that this proposed theory can't reproduce GTR exactly, but in itself that's actually a good sign, since it will at least be open to falsifcation by experiment. All of our tests of GTR are of fairly low order, so it's not as if we should be taking GTR as correct to all orders.
"The fool saith in his heart that there is no empty set. But if that were so, then the set of all such sets would be empty, and hence it would be the empty set." -- Wesley Salmon