Should PF Have a Separate Quantum Gravity Forum?

[marcus]

It would be nice if there were a Quantum Gravity Forum at PF

It's rather a separate business from string
and in a combined forum with string the buzz
of interest in other matters is a mite distracting

Dividing might make it more convenient to both pursuits
and interested parties

(btw jeff proposed this several months back and I thought
it was a constructive suggestion, he said one forum
named TOE and one forum named QG, or words to that
effect. No one commented. the suggestion got lost in
the clutter I suppose.)

 

[marcus]

At the arxiv
most of the Quantum Gravity papers are in the division
called "gr-qc"
which means General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology


here at PF, General Relativity (and any kind of cosmology)
is in the "Astronomy and Cosmology" forum

Arxiv gives a clue of how people classify stuff in their heads.
Almost every paper anyone writes in QG, the author(s) tag it
"gr-qc"
which would mean that it goes in the PF Astronomy/Cosmology
forum, since that is where PF puts GR and any kind of C
(including presumably QC)

I know, this is counter-intuitive.

So let's think about it from another angle.

 

[marcus]

the main action in Quantum Gravity now
is whether you can astronomically observe certain effects:
observation of Crab Nebula synchrotron radiation has
already excluded some variants of QG
and people are expecting Gammaray bursts to constrain
the theories-under-construction still further

To date the most visible theoretical results in QG are probably those having
to do with black hole and big bang (singularity removal
among other things)

If you classify General Relativity as belonging in the
"Astronomy/Cosmology" group of interests----and PF does---
then that is where Quantum Gravity belongs too.

 

[sol2]

It would be nice if there were a Quantum Gravity Forum at PF

It's rather a separate business from string
and in a combined forum with string the buzz
of interest in other matters is a mite distracting

I am interested in this aspect more then anything and how we might describe it.

The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene, pg 231 and Pg 232 Whereas general relativity asserts that the curved properties of the universe are described by Reinmannian geometry, string theory asserts this is true only if we examine the fabric of the universe on large enough scales. On scales as small as Planck length a new kind of geometry must emerge, one that aligns with the new physics of string theory. This new geometry is called, quantum geometry."

I found it very important to keep these side by side for determining differences, so I was able to see the inferences held up in LQG by Marcus's bias, by links choosen. If it was felt that a distraction arose, then it might have seemed in contrast to opposite views, or views that using theoretcial discriptions versus roads to scientific validations? No one could be faulted here.

That strings might have gone further should not dissaude its usefulness, as a means to understanding the geometrical defintiveness as a topological move to explain the nature of reality, while being subject to the standards of LQG perspective. This bias has to be removed, and discernation, of differences highlighted, to help us orientate current perspective with LQG and continued attempts at describing the anomalies of energy dissappearing in those colliders?

Dividing might make it more convenient to both pursuits
and interested parties

It might be helpful for some people to choose the directions in which they might want to based on bias felt in regards to how LQG is percieved, and that would be okay I think , but at the same time, without the current back board held to current persepctive this stand alone would not advance the understanding necessary from both points of views. I again refer here to Solvay as a example of the different perspectives view from high valued perspective as points raised for refutation.

(btw jeff proposed this several months back and I thought
it was a constructive suggestion, he said one forum
named TOE and one forum named QG, or words to that
effect. No one commented. the suggestion got lost in
the clutter I suppose.)

Jeff does not contribute much from the supersymmetry point of view. What makes you think he would contrbute then?

SCi physics strings as a link here works quite well. Would such a adventure work through google and attached back here as strings is done?

The mix mash, contained in physics forum would allowed perspective view to bounce back and forth while the purity of discussion held in regard to sci physics string moderation. Lqg perspective would value from this route taken by the moderators trying to retain strngs perspective , would have been applicable to those in the Lqg camp?

Peace maker

 

[marcus]

Jeff does not contribute much from the supersymmetry point of view. What makes you think he would contrbute then?

I am not talking strategies or politics sol. I respect his logic. he said that logically there should be a TOE subforum and a QG subforum. It was an intelligent and mentally-orderful point to make. It does not have anything to do with whether jeff would personally contribute to this or that.
The suggestion was also worded in a completely dispassionate way, without any spin. Moments like that are to be treasured

 

[Chronos]

Interesting thought. More discussion and controversy? Many of us take one side or the other. Personally, I wouldn't mind hearing from the other side. I am violently opposed to string theory, but, still willing to hear a really good argument. Let's fight! [er, let's not fight, just have fun trading ideas! The truth is probably somewhere in between].

 

[kurious]

I am all for a quantum gravity and GUT forum that does not include strings or LQG.The mentors want to close down theory development so why not use its server space for a new forum.

 

[plum]

That would make very good sense, since quantum gravity is still in its infancy (making it a developing theory and largely separate from strings) and it would narrow the scope by which crackpots can expurge their fantasies, and hence narrow the crackpots.

Assuming most people don't come here to learn about basic physics but to learn about emerging ideas in physics, the yet-to-be theory of quantum gravity definitely deserves a forum of its own.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

I actually have a website with hosting cabilities which comes with great forums (invision forums) I would be willing to make a forum for discussing certain areas of physics while we wait for a particular subject to be created here If there is any interest just let me know

 

[Tom McCurdy]

I actually already made the forum it is primed and ready for use www.quantumninja.com/QG[/url] or you can use the redirect [PLAIN]www.quantumgravity.tk if the site gets ennough attention I will prob buy a domain but I think i am buying a domain for my string theory site so i don't want to get to excited

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Also please note: the quantumgravity.tk may take a few days to activitate

 

[marcus]

I actually have a website with hosting cabilities which comes with great forums (invision forums) I would be willing to make a forum for discussing certain areas of physics while we wait for a particular subject to be created here If there is any interest just let me know

that is a nice offer, Tom
if you have a good space for it and if you want
an LQG forum specifically,
or an LQG-and-allied approaches forum, then I can recommend
someone to ask about mentoring.
I would suggest that you ask a young grad student
of John Baez who has an interest in public service/educational
activities and evidently plenty of energy
He was one of the authors of the Wikipedia article on LQG.
His name is Alvarez. He has a website that shows he has
strong interests in various ways of having fun, not just in
writing his PhD in LQG with Baez.
So even tho he probably should not take on a volunteer
mentoring job he might just be willing to.
So I would ask.
You can get his email at UC riverside if you go to Wikipedia LQG
article and look in the history of the article where they give
the various contributors names.

If you really make a QG forum, and you ask Alvarez, and he
turns you down, I would seriously consider taking pilot's job
on a temporary basis till someone else was found.

but if you want to do it you should ask him, since he has
authority, smarts, and a sense of humor (see his home page)

 

[marcus]

the name is Miguel Alvarez
I will try to get a link to his homepage
from the Wikipedia LQG article background page
then you can see how you like him

[edit: here's his page at Wiki]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miguel

[edit: the game of Go, fencing, blogger, interests in math education
here is his homepage at riverside]
http://math.ucr.edu/~miguel/

[edit: for email make the obvious changes ]
miguelATmathDOTucrDOTedu

 

[Tom McCurdy]

ty I am working on emailing him right now

 

[Tom McCurdy]

I just sent the email-- Keep your fingers crossed-- although I do believe it would be hard to find a better mentor than you for the forum

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Do you have any preference on forums--- I was thinking invision boards incase you don't know what they look like i created a little forum for now www.quantumgravity.tk[/URL]
tell me if you think this would work