Daniel
May5-04, 06:20 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In 3 roads to QG, by Lee Smolin,\nhe seems to suggest that strings could, if resolved finely enough, be\na coherent symphony of string networks.\n\n[Moderator\'s note: you perhaps meant "spin networks".\nString networks are something that we also study, and\nthey are probably more interesting mathematically than\nthe spin networks. LM]\n\nWhat is the current string theory research on this subject matter?\nCould spin foam make up strings?\n\n[Moderator\'s note: Virtually every string theorist would agree\nthat there exists almost no evidence that the full string theory\ncan be described via spin networks and spin foams. Recent\npapers of Vafa and his collaborators try to change this\nsituation, and Vafa et al. have already found some extremely\nintriguing discrete physics (crystals) dual to a simplified\nversion of string theory, the so-called topological string\ntheory.\n\nBesides the efforts of Vafa, there also exists activity in the\nfield of loop quantum gravity to "include" string theory\n- activity associated with the names such as Lee Smolin,\nThomas Thiemann, Karl Pohlmeyer, and others. The majority\nof string theorists apparently has not found these proposals\nconvincing, interesting or likely, and therefore most of us don\'t\nwork on them seriously.\n\nThe unification of loop quantum gravity\nwith string theory is activity that squarely belongs to the camp\nof loop quantum gravity. This is the camp that apparently thinks\nthat everything goes, and any random conjecture or equation that\ncan be written on the paper or artificially constructed should be\nstudied as a theory of Nature. The other camp, the camp\ncontrolling this newsgroup, are the string theorists, and they\nbelieve that mathematical consistency as well as experimental\nfacts should be treated seriously, and they heavily constrain\nall these new hypotheses and regulate our imagination. LM]\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In 3 roads to QG, by Lee Smolin,
he seems to suggest that strings could, if resolved finely enough, be
a coherent symphony of string networks.
[Moderator's note: you perhaps meant "spin networks".
String networks are something that we also study, and
they are probably more interesting mathematically than
the spin networks. LM]
What is the current string theory research on this subject matter?
Could spin foam make up strings?
[Moderator's note: Virtually every string theorist would agree
that there exists almost no evidence that the full string theory
can be described via spin networks and spin foams. Recent
papers of Vafa and his collaborators try to change this
situation, and Vafa et al. have already found some extremely
intriguing discrete physics (crystals) dual to a simplified
version of string theory, the so-called topological string
theory.
Besides the efforts of Vafa, there also exists activity in the
field of loop quantum gravity to "include" string theory
- activity associated with the names such as Lee Smolin,
Thomas Thiemann, Karl Pohlmeyer, and others. The majority
of string theorists apparently has not found these proposals
convincing, interesting or likely, and therefore most of us don't
work on them seriously.
The unification of loop quantum gravity
with string theory is activity that squarely belongs to the camp
of loop quantum gravity. This is the camp that apparently thinks
that everything goes, and any random conjecture or equation that
can be written on the paper or artificially constructed should be
studied as a theory of Nature. The other camp, the camp
controlling this newsgroup, are the string theorists, and they
believe that mathematical consistency as well as experimental
facts should be treated seriously, and they heavily constrain
all these new hypotheses and regulate our imagination. LM]
he seems to suggest that strings could, if resolved finely enough, be
a coherent symphony of string networks.
[Moderator's note: you perhaps meant "spin networks".
String networks are something that we also study, and
they are probably more interesting mathematically than
the spin networks. LM]
What is the current string theory research on this subject matter?
Could spin foam make up strings?
[Moderator's note: Virtually every string theorist would agree
that there exists almost no evidence that the full string theory
can be described via spin networks and spin foams. Recent
papers of Vafa and his collaborators try to change this
situation, and Vafa et al. have already found some extremely
intriguing discrete physics (crystals) dual to a simplified
version of string theory, the so-called topological string
theory.
Besides the efforts of Vafa, there also exists activity in the
field of loop quantum gravity to "include" string theory
- activity associated with the names such as Lee Smolin,
Thomas Thiemann, Karl Pohlmeyer, and others. The majority
of string theorists apparently has not found these proposals
convincing, interesting or likely, and therefore most of us don't
work on them seriously.
The unification of loop quantum gravity
with string theory is activity that squarely belongs to the camp
of loop quantum gravity. This is the camp that apparently thinks
that everything goes, and any random conjecture or equation that
can be written on the paper or artificially constructed should be
studied as a theory of Nature. The other camp, the camp
controlling this newsgroup, are the string theorists, and they
believe that mathematical consistency as well as experimental
facts should be treated seriously, and they heavily constrain
all these new hypotheses and regulate our imagination. LM]