Discover the Real Gem: Neoclassical Theory of Electromagnetic Interactions

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the book "Neoclassical Theory of Electromagnetic Interactions" by Babin & Figotin, which claims to unify macroscopic and microscopic electromagnetic theories. Participants express skepticism regarding the authors' qualifications, noting that they are mathematicians rather than physicists, which raises concerns about the book's value for learning standard electromagnetism (E&M). While some acknowledge the potential interest in the theory, they caution against its use as a primary resource for E&M, suggesting that established texts like Post's "Formal Structure of Electromagnetics" or Lechner's "Classical Electrodynamics" are more reliable alternatives.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of classical electromagnetism (E&M)
  • Familiarity with gauge invariance in theoretical physics
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical foundations in physics
  • Awareness of the distinction between mathematical and physical approaches to theories
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of gauge invariance in the context of the Standard Model of particle physics
  • Explore Post's "Formal Structure of Electromagnetics" for a solid foundation in E&M
  • Investigate Lechner's "Classical Electrodynamics" for advanced insights into electromagnetic fields
  • Review historical contributions of mathematicians to theoretical physics, such as Weyl and von Neumann
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students of theoretical physics seeking to evaluate new theories in electromagnetism and those looking for reliable advanced texts in the field.

coquelicot
Messages
301
Reaction score
68
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   Reactions: 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:
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy
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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: Astronuc, vanhees71, malawi_glenn and 1 other person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
10K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
7K