What Are the Merits and Drawbacks of Kaluza-Klein Theory?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on Kaluza-Klein theory, exploring its merits and drawbacks, particularly in the context of unifying gravity and electromagnetism. Participants express curiosity about its historical significance and its treatment in educational resources, while also touching on its implications for particle physics and quantum field theories.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why Kaluza-Klein theory is not more prominently featured in textbooks despite its derivation of both electromagnetism and general relativity.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the theory's predictions, particularly about an unobserved scalar field, with some uncertainty about its implications.
  • There is mention of the radion field, with participants discussing its origins in Kaluza-Klein theory and its potential connections to other quantum field theories.
  • Some participants express confusion about the historical context of Kaluza-Klein theory compared to other unified field theories, noting a lack of disproof similar to that of Weyl's theory.
  • Participants acknowledge their limited understanding of Kaluza-Klein theory and express a desire for more clarity on its equations and implications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the merits or drawbacks of Kaluza-Klein theory, with multiple competing views and uncertainties remaining throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying levels of understanding among participants, differing interpretations of the theory's implications, and the historical context that may influence its perceived significance.

El Hombre Invisible
Messages
691
Reaction score
0
I'd never heard of Kaluza-Klein theory before today, and from what I've read I think that's rather odd. Taking it from a purely non-quantum, relativistic unification of gravity and electromagnetism, what's wrong with it? I know it has been subsumed into other, more sophisticated theories, but on its own merits, does it work?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks robphy. I'll be getting into the ins and outs of Maxwell's equations next year, and of GR... sometime before I have kids, so I'm not too optimistic about actual understanding K-K theory. I was more interested in why, if both EM and GR are derivable from it, it is not covered more in textbooks, or pop sci books come to that.

Everywhere I see a problem with K-K theory it seems to concern either quantization, particle physics or nuclear forces. Those things aside, I'm wondering if there's any historical reason why what appears to be an extention of GR to cover EM in which Maxwell's equations emerge is any less prominent than GR itself. As the advert says, why take two bottles into the shower when you can take one?

I guess this is more of a science history question.
 
I *think* the situation is that KK theory predicts an unobserved scalar field. But I'm not terribly sure I've got this right, so take this with a grain of salt.
 
pervect said:
I *think* the situation is that KK theory predicts an unobserved scalar field. But I'm not terribly sure I've got this right, so take this with a grain of salt.
This is the radion field, right? Isn't this predicted in certain QFTs though? If the radion field was originally predicted by KK theory (which, so far as I can tell, it was), would not a success in these theories (the discovery of the radion particle) prove an equal success for KK theory?? Or are the two fields dissimilar in the two theories?

I know Einstein disproved Weyl's similar unified field theory (in which Einstein's and Maxwell's equations were also derived in a 5D spacetime) and Weyl believed his own work to be superseded by Schrödinger's, but I cannot find any similar disproof of KK theory, or anything that would suggest it suffered from the same problems. The amount of literature outlining the theory, its history and its problems in the net is very slim.
 
I don't know. What I'm basing my statement on is remarks like
With this assumption, each was successful in obtaining the field equations
of both electromagnetism and gravity from a single five-dimensional theory.
Nordstr¨om, working as he was before general relativity, assumed a scalar
gravitational potential; while Kaluza used Einstein’s tensor potential. Specif-
ically, Kaluza demonstrated that general relativity, when interpreted as a
five-dimensional theory in vacuum ... contained four-dimensional general relativity in the presence of an electromagnetic field ...
together with Maxwell’s laws of electromagnetism.

There was also a Klein-Gordon equation for a massless scalar field, but this was not appreciated and was in fact suppressed — by Kaluza at the time.)
from http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805018
Unfortnately my understanding of Kaluza-Klein theory remains rather sketchy.
 
pervect said:
I don't know. What I'm basing my statement on is remarks like
from http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805018
Unfortnately my understanding of Kaluza-Klein theory remains rather sketchy.
Yes, this is the radion, I think. This seems to pop up in several other theories and seems to be something we're still hunting down.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
733
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K