Discover the Real Gem: Neoclassical Theory of Electromagnetic Interactions

AI Thread Summary
The book "Neoclassical Theory of Electromagnetic Interactions" by Babin and Figotin is viewed with skepticism, particularly due to the authors' backgrounds as mathematicians rather than physicists. While some find their ideas intriguing, it is suggested that the book may not be suitable for those looking to learn standard electromagnetism. Historical examples show that while mathematicians can contribute valuable insights to theoretical physics, caution is advised regarding the physical accuracy of their theories. The discussion highlights concerns about the book's quality and the current state of publishing in the field. Overall, it is recommended to consider other established texts for a more reliable understanding of electromagnetism.
coquelicot
Messages
295
Reaction score
67
TL;DR Summary: Book: Neoclassical Theory of Electromagnetic Interactions - A Single Theory for Macroscopic and Microscopic Scales

I've found the book of Babin & Figotin:
Neoclassical Theory of Electromagnetic Interactions - A Single Theory for Macroscopic and Microscopic Scales.
I like their ideas. This looks good, but do you think it's a good investment?
The problem in modern physics is that there are too many authors and theories. It's not so easy to recognize the real gems.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why are you buying it? If it is to learn electromagnetism, I wouldn't.

A. The authors call it a "new theory"
B. The authors aren't physicists. They are mathematicians, and only one is faculty.

If you want to learn standard E&M, this does not look like the best choice.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Informative
Likes russ_watters, coquelicot, Demystifier and 2 others
Actually, I already know EM pretty well.
But their theory seem interesting, and being myself a mathematician, I think this is only good for physics. I would like to know the opinion of someone who has studied their book.
 
Last edited:
coquelicot said:
No need to open a thread for that. It is only in parentheses, and a reply to the above boiling down statement that physics books by mathematician are necessarily bad.
This is, of course, nonsense. There are brillant books on theoretical physics written by mathematicians. Historical examples are Weyl's, Raum, Zeit, Materie and von Neumann's book on the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics.

What these example also demonstrate is that you must be careful when it comes to the physics part. Weyl had the superficially brillant idea to gauge the scale invariance of the free gravitational field in GR to describe the electromagnetic field as the corresponding gauge field. The only disadvantage is that it's physically impossible, because it contradicts the simple fact that the spatial and temporal scales of charged matter doesn't depend on its electromagnetic history, as both Einstein and Pauli immediately pointed out to Weyl. Nevertheless the idea is indeed brillant, because the principle of making global symmetries local lead to a tremendous success in model building in connection with relativistic quantum field theory and the understanding of the fundamental interactions in terms of the Standard Model of elementary particle physics, which heavily builds on this idea of "gauge invariance".
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, Demystifier, coquelicot and 1 other person
2 authors from the Soviet space working in California cannot even get the „Lorenz gauge” right. Other than that, the book is junk. Tells a lot about the level of Springer nowadays. Anybody can publish a book.
 
  • Sad
  • Love
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, vanhees71, malawi_glenn and 1 other person
Back
Top