« on: 12/10/2018 11:02:20 »
Did he ever come around to thinking of it as a geometry?No. In fact he wrote to Lincoln Barnett on June 19, 1948, sayingQuoteI do not agree with the idea that general relativity is geomterizing physics of a gravitational field. The concepts of physics have always been geometrical concepts and I cannot see why the gik field should be called more geometrical han f.i. the electromagnetic field or the distance between bodies in Newtonian mechanics. The notion probably comes from the fact that the mathematical origin of the gik[/dub] field is the Gauss-Riemann theory of the metrical continuum which we are wont to look at as part of geometry. I am convinced, however, that the distinction between geometrical and other kinds of fields is not logically founded.
Were there any practical consequences to this disagreement?Is it simply a matter of interpretation ?
When theoretical physicists explore possible versions of a quantum gravity do these interpretations assume a greater importance?
Am I right to assume ** that the curvature of spacetime does not feature in any of the current (successful) quantum theories ?
**clearly I can only assume when I have very little personal understanding of those theories....