- #36
- 24,775
- 792
the history of quantum theory since 1925 or so
has been one of drastic innovations
with people occasionally getting the Nobel prize
for coming up with drastically different ways to
solve persistent nagging problems.
You have shifted from saying that LQG is not
"canonical" to suggesting that LQG is "drastically different"
in its style of quantizing the gravitational field.
That is flattering to LQG. But I guess it could be an overstatement, I mean from an historical perspective---compared with
some other major steps in quantum theory the extent of innovation may be less radical---but innovative steps are
hard to measure.
It occurs to me that a lot of physicists have not been paying
attention to LQG and are only begining, some of them, to take notice.
The newness in the Loop approach has certainly not been concealed!
Rovelli, for instance, has stated loudly several ways he considers Quantum Gravity to be a radical departure. And given arguments to the effect that they are necessary. If anyone did not notice differences it is their own fault for being inattentive.
Someone who has so far only noted one "difference", may possibly not have been listening.
Urs you keep mentioning a 2002 paper I haven't read by someone who is somewhat of an out-lying figure. He strikes me as being enough on the margin that I can't decide whether he does recognizable LQG or not. I could be wrong but I should think any criticism you wanted to make would connect with reality better if you would direct it to widely-read papers by core people.
has been one of drastic innovations
with people occasionally getting the Nobel prize
for coming up with drastically different ways to
solve persistent nagging problems.
You have shifted from saying that LQG is not
"canonical" to suggesting that LQG is "drastically different"
in its style of quantizing the gravitational field.
That is flattering to LQG. But I guess it could be an overstatement, I mean from an historical perspective---compared with
some other major steps in quantum theory the extent of innovation may be less radical---but innovative steps are
hard to measure.
It occurs to me that a lot of physicists have not been paying
attention to LQG and are only begining, some of them, to take notice.
The newness in the Loop approach has certainly not been concealed!
Rovelli, for instance, has stated loudly several ways he considers Quantum Gravity to be a radical departure. And given arguments to the effect that they are necessary. If anyone did not notice differences it is their own fault for being inattentive.
Someone who has so far only noted one "difference", may possibly not have been listening.
Urs you keep mentioning a 2002 paper I haven't read by someone who is somewhat of an out-lying figure. He strikes me as being enough on the margin that I can't decide whether he does recognizable LQG or not. I could be wrong but I should think any criticism you wanted to make would connect with reality better if you would direct it to widely-read papers by core people.