| Title |
On the History of Unified Field Theories. Part II. (ca. 1930–ca. 1965)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Living Reviews in Relativity, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.12942/lrr-2014-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hubert F. M. Goenner |
| Abstract |
The present review intends to provide an overall picture of the research concerning classical unified field theory, worldwide, in the decades between the mid-1930 and mid-1960. Main themes are the conceptual and methodical development of the field, the interaction among the scientists working in it, their opinions and interpretations. Next to the most prominent players, A. Einstein and E. Schrödinger, V. Hlavatý and the French groups around A. Lichnerowicz, M.-A. Tonnelat, and Y. Thiry are presented. It is shown that they have given contributions of comparable importance. The review also includes a few sections on the fringes of the central topic like Born-Infeld electromagnetic theory or scalar-tensor theory. Some comments on the structure and organization of research-groups are also made. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 3 | 27% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 9% |
| Guinea-Bissau | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 82% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 47 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 15 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Physics and Astronomy | 19 | 38% |
| Mathematics | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,380,676
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Living Reviews in Relativity
#29
of 151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,914
of 375,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Living Reviews in Relativity
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 375,353 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.