Talk:Teleparallelism

unification

Any reason for the article not to note that gravity has successfully been unified with EM? Just, that it's done by using the faraday tensor plus standard GR. Wasn't this already known when Einstein attempted this alternative formulation, or was it still an outstanding problem back then? Cesiumfrog (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The approach you described treats the gravitational and electromagnetic fields as separate physical entities, with different mathematical structure. Einstein thought that a better theory should treat them as different aspects of a single object, thus the "unified field". — DAGwyn (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are thinking of Kaluza-Klein theory, which unifies GR+EM. Einstein spent some of his later years working on that. Its basically gravity in 5 dimensions, the fifth dimension is "compacticified" into the U(1) electromagnetic gauge fibre. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

relation to Einstein-Cartan gravity?

Is this topic different from Einstein-Cartan gravity? How?Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

issues

This is a poorly written article, and should be considered for deletion or replacement. A good article on the work of Elie Cartan's correspondence with Einstein could merit inclusion in the Wikipedia. But teleparallelism landed in the junk-heap of history for good reason. No argument is made here why modern dabblers in the subject have achieved anything new, or worth taking seriously.

Incidentally, who is it that attributes anything in this subject to Weitzenbock? There is no citation of his original work. Somehow, it seems that his followers have attached his name to things he had nothing to do with. Please prove that this is not a case in point!

— Preceding unsigned comment added on 21 January 2014 by 108.54.240.198 (talk • contribs)

Hmm. Agree on some points, disagree on others. The nature of mathematics is to dabble for dabbling's sake, and so that is harmless, and if people want to study it, that's fine. (teleparallelism is continued to be studied in the context of supersymmetry, it gets a page of discussion in a book I'm reading.) The problem with this article is that its criminally vague and confusingly written. e.g. "the fiber is some affine space" Whaa?? Which affine space? Any one? Some particular one? Then, statements like "gravitation arises from torsion" !?? How? A more correct statement might be: "particles, although moving in a flat manifold, feel forces that are equivalent to gravitational forces" or something like that. And the mouse-pad thing could not possibly be more confusing. There's about 20 or 30 things to nit-pick with this article, not clear where to begin. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't describe the topic nearly enough to understand why it doesn't work. Really can't even tell what the idea was from this article.98.156.185.48 (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

replacement source

Despite being a physicist, I don't feel up to the task of rewriting this section. A good source is: http://cartan-einstein-unification.com/go/ 112.209.210.45 (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That website no longer exists. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Too technical (and other issues)

The article is too technical: namely, it is almost completely incomprehensible to non-specialists, even those with a working knowledge of GR. Normally, one would expect at least the intro to be largely comprehensible, but here this is not the case.

What is missing is:

• An accessible introduction (perhaps along the lines of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.03654.pdf?)
• What does this theory imply or predict?
• What is the status of this theory w.r.t. the mainstream research?

Currently, e.g. Quantized inertia provides a much higher overall value for the reader. GregorB (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)