News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Electromagnetism as a Purely Geometric Theory by pdonis on Saturday April 19, 2025 @09:38PM (#43740910)
I don't think so. The paper doesn't talk about gravity at all. It talks about electromagnetism.
Re:Electromagnetism as a Purely Geometric Theory by philipov on Saturday April 19, 2025 @09:59PM (#43741000)
If the paper is attempting to express electromagnetism in terms of the metric tensor, then it is putting it into a form that makes it potentially compatible with gravity, which is also a metric tensor. Quantum theories use a completely different type of math, and trying to express gravity in that way (quantizing gravity) results in a bunch of broken equations. If both systems can be described using differential geometry, that is a step in the direction of unifying the theories, even if it's not a hole-in-one.
Re:Electromagnetism as a Purely Geometric Theory by pdonis on Sunday April 20, 2025 @04:31PM (#43746332)
> If the paper is attempting to express electromagnetism in terms of the metric tensor, then it is putting it into a form that makes it potentially compatible with gravity, which is also a metric tensor.

But the metric tensor of spacetime, in General Relativity, which is our best current classical theory of gravity, only explains gravity. Gravity, by itself, uses up all of the degrees of freedom in the metric tensor. There aren't any left for electromagnetism or anything else.

To get classical electromagnetism, you need to add another, different tensor to your model--a stress-energy tensor with the appropriate properties to describe an electromagnetic field. Of course doing this in standard GR is straightforward and is discussed in GR textbooks; but it does not involve somehow extracting electromagnetism from the metric tensor. It involves describing electromagnetism with the stress-energy tensor, i.e., with different degrees of freedom from the ones that describe gravity.(And if you want to describe the sources of the field, you need to add even more degrees of freedom to the stress-energy tensor to describe charged matter.)

The paper does not, as far as I can see, address this issue; the authors don't even appear to be aware that it is an issue. Which makes me extremely skeptical of the paper's entire approach.

Re:Electromagnetism as a Purely Geometric Theory by Iwan-Zotow on Sunday April 20, 2025 @11:21PM (#43748279)
Metric tensor has 10 components, minus 4 for diffeomorfisms. How do you fit EM into that?