3 ms·
Yes, but the "geometry" in question is not the geometry of spacetime, it's the geometry of spacetime plus an abstract space that's sort of "attached" to spaceti
by pdonis 2y ago
Yes, but the "geometry" in question is not the geometry of spacetime, it's the geometry of spacetime plus an abstract space that's sort of "attached" to spacetime. (In the original Kaluza-Klein viewpoint, it was viewed as an extra 5th spacetime dimension, basically a circle at every point of spacetime.)
What this paper appears to be doing (although I can't make complete sense of it) is to somehow derive Maxwell's Equations (or more precisely a nonlinear generalization of them--which seems to me to mean that they aren't actually deriving electromagnetism, but let that go) as a property of the geometry of spacetime alone, without any abstract spaces or extra dimensions or anything of that sort.
- guerrilla 2y agoWhy would nonlinear generalizations be an issue? Wouldn't adding some constraints get us Maxwell's Equations? It seems significant that this can be done at all even if its not complete but maybe I'm missing something. It reminds me of Einstein's original geometrization, possibly even a breakthrough if it turns out to have uses in further development of theory.
- Iwan-Zotow 2y agoNonlinearity is not observed
- ajkjk 2y agoThe fact that it's some generalization of Maxwell makes it more fun, though---should means it's testable.