Without using greek or latin: models where e&m charges dont alter the curvature of space are close approximations to the real thing. Contemporary physicists ca

Without using greek or latin: models where e&m charges dont alter the curvature of space are close approximations to the real thing. Contemporary physicists call this a “constant coupling” https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3901/what-is-a-good-mathematical-description-of-the-non-renormalizability-of-gravity#3908 https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3901/what-is-a-g... This is not true for the strong force, but you wont get nonsense either if you zoom out far enough (coarse graining, right). [So “perturbation theory works for SM”, but saying gravity is “non-renormalizable” gives the impression that Manuel Bronstein didnt already anticipate this before he was purged.] mtw have a mnemonic “space tells matter how to move, matter tells space how to curve”. you arent allowed take short cut as in em “charges tell charges how to move”. Indeed (already true in SR) the fields themselves have mass, so short cuts blow up your face.. Otoh, if you try to take the proper path (integral) you run into the issue of nobody knowing how. Roughly, you need the intrinsic curvature for the integral but you need the integral for the intrinsic curvature.. See Dyson equation, no lucky initial guesses, 3+1d 2010.10500 Yep Percival knew what was up, but even at the phySE page above “algorithmic compression” was spoken. Gisin you linked had “Kolmogorov complexity”, no delvings?