Group Abstract Group Abstract

Message Boards Message Boards

1
|
11.1K Views
|
9 Replies
|
5 Total Likes
View groups...
Share
Share this post:

Where would magnetism fit in this model?

Posted 6 years ago

I am looking to the "A Class of Models with the Potential to Represent Fundamental Physics" document and I find it lacking of mentions to electromagnetism.

Some sentences I found: "In traditional physics, local gauge invariance already occurs in classical theories (such as electromagnetism), and it is notable that for us it appears to arise from considering multi‐way systems." and "electric/gauge charges: counts of local hyperedge configurations". Later on there is some discussion on the size of the electron.

As seen that the model can explain mass, momentum, and gravity in a relatively nice way, I wonder if electromagnetism would also have a similar explanation. More specifically, could Lorentz force and Maxwell's equations emerge somehow? Or are they expected to be tied to specific rules.

9 Replies

Here is a classic paper from 1994 that might be of interest with regard to Kaluza-Klein theory. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9410046

Posted 6 years ago
POSTED BY: Detlef Hoyer
Posted 6 years ago

Keep in mind, electromagnetism is a special case of a gauge theory. We are not currently trying to find electromagnetism itself, which will likely be rule-specific (although we will search for it in the future). We are now just trying to understand how gauge theories would work in our models in general.

POSTED BY: Max Piskunov
Posted 6 years ago

"it is used that if the size of a ball of radius r grows as N=a*r^n then the dimension is n."
That is in general only an indication (only true in the absence of cutvature).
It differs a little bit when there is curvature an r is not small compared to a geodesic curve.

"And also that r^(n+2) terms are associated to curvature."
Where did you read that? But nevertheless, only "associated", only a hint where it goes to.

Curvature is a very complicated thing. Usually you need a metric in a space.
For example take a x,y,z space which is curved an embedded in a 4D space: x²+y²+z²+u²=R².
You can get an impression of the curvature by comparing PI r² with r²=x²+y² with the size of the area included in the circle and you have to do it in the xy, yz and zx plane. For 5D you get even more coordinate planes ...
The total number of algebraically independent components of the curvature tensor
is in N dimensions 1/12 n²(n²-1) n=3--> 6, n=4-->20, n=5-->50
(bottom of https://www.mathpages.com/rr/appendix/appendix.htm)

POSTED BY: Detlef Hoyer

Thanks. I have yet much to read and process. Currently, I am reading Jonathan's paper on relativity and I got a related question to this matter. When computing dimensionality, it is used that if the size of a ball of radius r grows as N=a*r^n then the dimension is n. And also that r^(n+2) terms are associated to curvature. Could it be that any non-zero r^(n+1) term would cause a Kaluza-Klein-like effect? It would not be a fifth dimension, but it seems related. And we can extend to question to fractional terms such as r^(n+0.3).

In the Curvature section of the technical introduction https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/limiting-behavior-and-emergent-geometry/curvature/ there is a little discussion on how there is not any apriori restriction on which kind of function is N(r). Yet it only addresses dimension and curvature, without hinting possible meanings of other terms.

Posted 6 years ago
POSTED BY: Detlef Hoyer
Posted 6 years ago
POSTED BY: Detlef Hoyer
Reply to this discussion
Community posts can be styled and formatted using the Markdown syntax.
Reply Preview
Attachments
Remove
or Discard