Graduate Were there any valid classical unified field theories ?

Click For Summary
The discussion explores the validity of classical unified field theories from the early 20th century, questioning whether their abandonment was due solely to their inability to account for quantum phenomena rather than observational failures. It suggests that some of these theories, while incomplete, may still hold value as classical theories, similar to Maxwell's electromagnetism, which remains useful despite its quantum limitations. The conversation highlights the attempts of theorists like Einstein to unify general relativity with electromagnetism and to provide alternatives to quantum mechanics. Additionally, it addresses the challenges posed by higher-dimensional theories, such as Kaluza's, particularly the issue of stabilizing extra dimensions. The potential constraints imposed by the unique properties of four-dimensional manifolds on these theories are also considered.
Rohan
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Amongst what seems like a plethora of classical Unified Field Theories; that seemed to exist in the first half of the 20th century;
were they all abandoned because of failure to account for quantised phenomena, as matter consisting of discrete particles and fields;
as opposed to observational failure in the classical realm ?
1/ Amongst what seems like the plethora of classical Unified Field Theories; that seemed to exist in the first half of the 20th century; see for example https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2014-5
[caution 50MB download]
were they all abandoned just because of failure to account for quantised phenomena, as matter consisting of discrete particles and fields; as opposed to observational failure in the classical realm ?

2/ Is it possible that any of them, whilst incomplete in this way never-the-less are valid as purely classical theories ? here I have in mind that Maxwell's Electro-Magnetism, fails utterly in the quantum realm, yet retains great utility in the classical !

Contextually many of these theories , (eg Einstein seemed to have considered several ) ; seemed to have been not just attempting to unify General Relativity and Maxwell's Electro-Magnetism but also attempting to offer an alternative to Quantum Mechanics. Thus it seems the possibility of an "incomplete" Classical Unified Field Theory
may have been overlooked ! I suppose the hope which such a theory seems to represent to me is the possibility of (in Wheeler's terminology) :
-electro-geometrodynamic phenomena ...strange electrical 'forcefield' effects; at everyday energies !
General Relativity and Maxwell's Electro-Magnetism don't seem to predict such interactions;
until the mass/ energies approximate the mass of stars and then only as an electromagnetic contribution to the gravitational field !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There's Maxwell, that unified electricity and magnetism. Then there's Kaluza, which immediately ran into the problem that we don't live ina 5-D world.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
There's Maxwell, that unified electricity and magnetism. Then there's Kaluza, which immediately ran into the problem that we don't live ina 5-D world.

We don't live in a 10, 11, or 26D world either but that doesn't stop some people.

Cheers
 
Vanadium 50 said:
There's Maxwell, that unified electricity and magnetism. Then there's Kaluza, which immediately ran into the problem that we don't live ina 5-D world.
That's not the real problem. The problem was to stabilize this extra "small dimension". GR dictates that if you start out small spatially, it doesn't need to stay that way.

String theory exhibits the same problem. It's solution is called "moduli stabilization" (where the "modulus" is roughly the radius of the small circle in this case).
 
As an addendum to my query above; I wonder whether the peculiar mathematical properties of 4 dimensional manifolds; (apparently they unlike higher dimensional manifolds " don't have a unique differentiation structure"..Simon Donaldson 1982 Oxford Uni.); places any constraints on these theories, some of which required more than 4 dimensions ?
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
544
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
11K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K