Daniele's View on Quantum Gravity and Spinfoam

  • Thread starter marcus
  • Start date
In summary, the new AJL paper "H Hawking's Type of Quantum Gravity with Spin Foam Models" seems to suggest that spinfoam models may provide a way to explore the concept of causality in quantum gravity. However, the paper does not mention Daniele Oriti, the purported author of the paper, and it's unclear if he even agrees with its conclusions. Additionally, the paper seems to suggest that there are two Danieles: one who is associated with spinfoam models and one who is not. It's unclear if this is true, or if there are actually dozens of Danieles out there who are interested in quantum gravity. Finally, the article discusses applications of the proper time formalism to issues surrounding
  • #1
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,775
792
what do you think of the new AJL paper
the computer runs seem to give rise to Hawking's type of quantum gravity
does spinfoam, as you see it, tie into this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Are you talking about Daniele Oriti? There's a Daniele now online. Is him?
 
  • #3
meteor said:
Are you talking about Daniele Oriti? There's a Daniele now online. Is him?

that's a mystery isn't it?
probably it isn't either Daniele -----there are two Loop Daniels:

Daniele Oriti, that we may know from spin foams and his thesis (with its great quotes from Groucho Marx and Homer Simpson)

but also there is
Daniele Collosi who just co-wrote a paper with Carlo Rovelli
I used that article to start the "Ontology" thread.
It is about the contingent existence of particles.

But quite likely our D is just some other D. who knows?
 
  • #4
The mysteriuous daniele is prowling right now in the string and LQG forum. I have catched his/her profile. not much info though
https://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=2335
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
I regret to say, meteor, that I think we must assume that
our D is neither Daniele Oriti nor Daniele Colosi, but is one of
thousands of other Daniels in the world who might also be
interested in Quantum Gravity, but of whom we know nothing.
 
  • #6
Daniele Oriti has answered that question

marcus said:
what do you think of the new AJL paper
...
does spinfoam, as you see it, tie into this?

I just saw that the genuine (not substitute) Oriti has answered the question
asked here about the relation of his "causal" spinfoam to the
Simplicial Gravity: Dynamical Triangulation approach of Ambjorn Jurkiewicz Loll.

today oriti posted this
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0412035
The Feynman propagator for quantum gravity: spinfoams, proper time, orientation, causality and timeless-ordering

and look on page 8:

---quote oriti---
Notice that, if such a relationship is found, not only we would have strenghtened the argument for the validity of our constuction and paved the way for further developments, but we would have also obtained, as a side result (!), the first definition to be found in the literature, to the best of our knowledge, of a proper time expression for the action of simplicial gravity, that reduces to the Regge action when the additional variable is integrated out.

Another application of the proper time formalism could be the issue of Wick rotation in spin foam models, and more gnerally in quantum gravity, since it seems to be the right parameter in which to analytically continue the amplitudes to define an “euclideanized”model. Also, the generalised (proper time dependent) formulation of spin foam models could represent a new starting point for bridging the gap between spin foam models and other approaches to quantum gravity in which proper time plays a significant role, as for example the Lorentzian dynamical triangulations, that have achieved recently important results concerning the issue of continuum limit.

The causal models seem indeed to be the at the point of convergence of simplicial quantum gravity, dynamical triangulations and causal sets, in addition to canonical loop quantum gravity, and therefore represent the easiest context in which to analyse the relationships between all these approaches.

Finally, if the orientation-independent models can be understood as defining the matrix elements of the projector operator onto physical quantum gravity states, then an intriguing possibility is to interpret the new models as defining the matrix elements of an “evolution operator”, whose property could be studied to understand for example whether a notion of unitary evolution is feasible in Quantum Gravity and the “scattering”between quantum gravity perturbations, in absence of an external time coordinate, but with a clearly identified notion of causality.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank gratefully Etera Livine and Florian Girelli for discussions and encouragement, and the organizers and staff of the DICE 2004 Workshop for a stimulating and truly enjoyable meeting.

----endquote---


I also want to quote from page 7

---quote oriti---
VI. CONCLUSIONS

Let us summarise what we have presented. We have discussed in which sense causality may be thought of preexisting (!) time at the most fundamental level, and what notion of causality, interpreted as a ’seed’ from which the usual continuum notion of causality in terms of lightcone structure will emerge in a semiclassical approximation, can instead replace it in deep quantum gravity regime; we have argued that such a fundamental notion of causality can be implemented most naturally in a sum over-histories context; with the aim of implementing this idea in the spin foam context, we have linked the notion of causality with the orientation of the 2-complex on which the spin foam is based...
---endquote---

this has some strong basic ideas
that causality comes before time
that causality is linked to a geometric idea, namely the ORIENTATION of a simplicial complex.

have to go, back later

thanks to that Daniele, if he ever shows up here. really interesting paper
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FAQ: Daniele's View on Quantum Gravity and Spinfoam

1. What is Daniele's View on Quantum Gravity and Spinfoam?

Daniele's view on quantum gravity and spinfoam is a theory that aims to merge the principles of quantum mechanics and general relativity to explain the behavior of space and time at a very small scale. It proposes that the fabric of space-time is made up of tiny "atoms" called spinfoams, which constantly interact and change, giving rise to the dynamic nature of the universe.

2. How does Daniele's View differ from other theories of Quantum Gravity?

Daniele's View differs from other theories of quantum gravity in its approach to the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Instead of trying to quantize gravity, it focuses on the discrete nature of space-time and the interactions between spinfoams, providing a more geometric and intuitive understanding of the universe.

3. What evidence supports Daniele's View on Quantum Gravity and Spinfoam?

Currently, there is no direct evidence that supports Daniele's View on Quantum Gravity and Spinfoam. However, it is a promising theory that can potentially reconcile the discrepancies between quantum mechanics and general relativity, and has gained traction among the scientific community.

4. How does Daniele's View address the information paradox in black holes?

Daniele's View proposes that black holes are not singularities, but rather regions of space where the interactions between spinfoams are extremely intense. This allows for the possibility of information to be encoded in the spinfoam structure, solving the information paradox and providing a new understanding of black holes.

5. Can Daniele's View be tested or proven?

As with any scientific theory, Daniele's View on Quantum Gravity and Spinfoam can be tested through experiments and observations. However, due to the highly complex and abstract nature of the theory, it may be difficult to design experiments that can directly test it. Nevertheless, ongoing research and advancements in technology may provide evidence to support or refute Daniele's View in the future.

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
501
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top