Talk:Classical unified field theories

message: Since somebody added the  box, I have tried to get ratings established for it.
The "importance" assessment was tricky, since when one looks up the criteria this article fits between "High" and "Mid"; however, since it does provide a considerable amount of information not found elsewhere in the Wikipedia, I opted for a "High" assessment.  (Note that is not supposed to mean that physicists find the topic essential.)
I also nominated the article as a "Good Article", but somebody who hasn't contributed to the article needs to rate it against the GA criteria (which I think are well met, except for the optional pictures which we don't really have any use for). — DAGwyn 21:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Physics ratings

message: This approach to the Unified field theory added today, has been overlooked. It was based upon the idea of an organising process called the Unitary Principle. The experimental work on this theory was carried out by Leo Baranski.
: I ripped this out. On reading it, it looked heavily dodgy. How did something written by someone (User:Roger Anderton) whose website is "www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk" survive so long? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Several years ago, removing it caused an editing war.  The version that was left in the article was a compromise.  As I noted in the Talk page, I don't think it needs to be included. — DAGwyn (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Unitary Field Theory of Lancelot Law Whyte added 24 May 2006 by R.J.Anderton

message: CH wrote on my Talk page:
What are you doing to this article? Any expansion should use the Hubert Goenner review article (see citation in previous version) as the basic source, not Albert Einstein. ---CH 21:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, I wrote "What are you doing to this article? Any expansion should use the Hubert Goenner review article (see citation in previous version) as the basic source, not Albert Einstein."  See the difference? ---CH 07:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I wrote "use the Hubert Goenner review article as the basic source" not "rely on a single source"!  Sheesh!  Have you studied the article by Goenner, Harald?  If not, please read it ASAP.  I think you will soon see why I feel that revised article Classical  unified field theories should seek similar coverage, scope, and emphasis.  This is a fine review article!---CH 07:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Harald, what is so difficult about understanding my suggestion?  I am suggesting that anyone planning major edits to Classical unified field theories, he/she/it should first study the review article by Hubert Goenner and use this as the primary source for new additions.  This LRR article is available on-line and I had previously entered the citation into the article. ---CH 22:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The new additions unbalance the article.  And why is there a picture of Einstein's Princeton residence in this article?  This article is about classical unified field theories, not about Einstein or Princeton landmarks.  Please move the picture back to Albert Einstein. ---CH 22:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently for 1 (one) year the section remained empty, and I also won't invest time in this. But I now added a precise pointer to your info into the article space. Harald88 20:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material copied from [[Albert Einstein]] by [[User:Harald88]] 

message: The first sentence in this section describes mass-energy equivalence as being pivotal to understand why the electromagnetic field energy has a corresponding stress-energy tensor.
This actually threw me off a bit while trying to understand Einstein's approach to a classical unified field theory.
If mass-energy equivalence was the reason the electromagnetic field energy had a stress-energy tensor, then wouldn't every form of energy curve spacetime? Heat energy should curve spacetime. Sound should curve spacetime. All via mass-energy equivalence.
I feel a more valid explanation has to do with the fact that the electromagnetic field energy  creates attractive and repulsive forces via electrical charges. And given that general relativity describes the attractive forces of gravity with stress energy tensors/spacetime curvature, one would expect that a field theory unifying gravity and electromagnetism would also represent the attractive/repulsive forces of electromagnetism with stress-energy tensors/spacetime curvature.
Tamedu quaternion (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein's geometric approaches (On Why Electromagnetism curves spacetime)