<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>\nHi,\nI was wondering what testable predictions there were coming out of Loop\nQuantum Gravity? I tried looking up phenomenology related to LQG on arXiv\nand came up empty handed. Are there any deviations from the Standard\nModel that we should see at LHC or other next generation colliders due to\nquantum gravity effects?\nThanks\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>Hi,
I was wondering what testable predictions there were coming out of Loop
Quantum Gravity? I tried looking up phenomenology related to LQG on arXiv
and came up empty handed. Are there any deviations from the Standard
Model that we should see at LHC or other next generation colliders due to
quantum gravity effects?
Thanks
Uncle Al
Jul23-04, 03:18 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>\nCreighton Hogg wrote:\n>\n> Hi,\n> I was wondering what testable predictions there were coming out of Loop\n> Quantum Gravity? I tried looking up phenomenology related to LQG on arXiv\n> and came up empty handed. Are there any deviations from the Standard\n> Model that we should see at LHC or other next generation colliders due to\n> quantum gravity effects?\n> Thanks\n\nTo the best of my knowledge, LQG cannot reproduce General\nRelativity or any other macroscopic prediction (the\nreconstruction problem). Theorists can describe what seems like\nthe stage of spacetime but they do not yet know which lines and\ndirection to give the actors so that they recreate the play.\n\nThat is as good as theory can be for its practitioners - pencil,\npaper, but no wastebasket.\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\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>Creighton Hogg wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I was wondering what testable predictions there were coming out of Loop
> Quantum Gravity? I tried looking up phenomenology related to LQG on arXiv
> and came up empty handed. Are there any deviations from the Standard
> Model that we should see at LHC or other next generation colliders due to
> quantum gravity effects?
> Thanks
To the best of my knowledge, LQG cannot reproduce General
Relativity or any other macroscopic prediction (the
reconstruction problem). Theorists can describe what seems like
the stage of spacetime but they do not yet know which lines and
direction to give the actors so that they recreate the play.
That is as good as theory can be for its practitioners - pencil,
paper, but no wastebasket.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
FrediFizzx
Jul25-04, 09:16 AM
<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>\n\n"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message\nnews:Pine.LNX.4.44.0407231008130.3660-100000@erodium.hep.wisc.edu...\n|\n| Hi,\n| I was wondering what testable predictions there were coming out of Loop\n| Quantum Gravity? I tried looking up phenomenology related to LQG on arXiv\n| and came up empty handed. Are there any deviations from the Standard\n| Model that we should see at LHC or other next generation colliders due to\n| quantum gravity effects?\n| Thanks\n\nIn January 2004 there was an article in Scientific American, "Atoms of Space\nand Time" by Lee Smolin in which he talks about predictions and tests of\nLQG. IIRC, they are highly "interpretive" so far. I don\'t think there were\nany predictions that LHC would be able to test.\n\nFrediFizzx\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>"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0407231008130.3660-100000@erodium.hep.wisc.edu...
|
| Hi,
| I was wondering what testable predictions there were coming out of Loop
| Quantum Gravity? I tried looking up phenomenology related to LQG on arXiv
| and came up empty handed. Are there any deviations from the Standard
| Model that we should see at LHC or other next generation colliders due to
| quantum gravity effects?
| Thanks
In January 2004 there was an article in Scientific American, "Atoms of Space
and Time" by Lee Smolin in which he talks about predictions and tests of
LQG. IIRC, they are highly "interpretive" so far. I don't think there were
any predictions that LHC would be able to test.
FrediFizzx
Creighton Hogg
Jul25-04, 09:16 AM
<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>\n\n\nOn 23 Jul 2004, Uncle Al wrote:\n\n>\n> Creighton Hogg wrote:\n> >\n> > Hi,\n> > I was wondering what testable predictions there were coming out of Loop\n> > Quantum Gravity? I tried looking up phenomenology related to LQG on arXiv\n> > and came up empty handed. Are there any deviations from the Standard\n> > Model that we should see at LHC or other next generation colliders due to\n> > quantum gravity effects?\n> > Thanks\n>\n> To the best of my knowledge, LQG cannot reproduce General\n> Relativity or any other macroscopic prediction (the\n> reconstruction problem). Theorists can describe what seems like\n> the stage of spacetime but they do not yet know which lines and\n> direction to give the actors so that they recreate the play.\n>\n> That is as good as theory can be for its practitioners - pencil,\n> paper, but no wastebasket.\n\nWell I\'m hoping it\'s not as bad as all that. I\'m working in experimental\nparticle physics now, and I probably will for quite some time. I\'d like\nto know what the current theories can give us to look for.\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>On 23 Jul 2004, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> Creighton Hogg wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I was wondering what testable predictions there were coming out of Loop
> > Quantum Gravity? I tried looking up phenomenology related to LQG on arXiv
> > and came up empty handed. Are there any deviations from the Standard
> > Model that we should see at LHC or other next generation colliders due to
> > quantum gravity effects?
> > Thanks
>
> To the best of my knowledge, LQG cannot reproduce General
> Relativity or any other macroscopic prediction (the
> reconstruction problem). Theorists can describe what seems like
> the stage of spacetime but they do not yet know which lines and
> direction to give the actors so that they recreate the play.
>
> That is as good as theory can be for its practitioners - pencil,
> paper, but no wastebasket.
Well I'm hoping it's not as bad as all that. I'm working in experimental
particle physics now, and I probably will for quite some time. I'd like
to know what the current theories can give us to look for.
Thomas Dent
Jul27-04, 01:50 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>\n\n\n\nCreighton Hogg <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0407231501460.3660-100000@erodium.hep.wisc.edu>...\n> On 23 Jul 2004, Uncle Al wrote:\n>\n> >\n> > Creighton Hogg wrote:\n> > >\n> > > Hi,\n> > > I was wondering what testable predictions there were coming out of Loop\n> > > Quantum Gravity? I tried looking up phenomenology related to LQG on arXiv\n> > > and came up empty handed. Are there any deviations from the Standard\n> > > Model that we should see at LHC or other next generation colliders due to\n> > > quantum gravity effects?\n> > > Thanks\n> >\n> > To the best of my knowledge, LQG cannot reproduce General\n> > Relativity or any other macroscopic prediction (the\n> > reconstruction problem). Theorists can describe what seems like\n> > the stage of spacetime but they do not yet know which lines and\n> > direction to give the actors so that they recreate the play.\n> >\n> > That is as good as theory can be for its practitioners - pencil,\n> > paper, but no wastebasket.\n>\n> Well I\'m hoping it\'s not as bad as all that. I\'m working in experimental\n> particle physics now, and I probably will for quite some time. I\'d like\n> to know what the current theories can give us to look for.\n\nThere is a decent wikipedia article about LQG. You know how to search\nWikipedia, yes? (Google search for \'wikipedia LQG\').\n\nBasically every particle apart from gravity is put in by hand, so\nthere are no particle physics predictions at least as far as colliders\ngo.\n\nPeople have tried to argue that Lorentz invariance is broken so you\nget a modified dispersion relation at energies near the Planck scale\n(hence you might see some effects with very distant astrophysical\nsources), but that is far from being a firm prediction.\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>Creighton Hogg <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0407231501460.3660-100000@erodium.hep.wisc.edu>...
> On 23 Jul 2004, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> >
> > Creighton Hogg wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I was wondering what testable predictions there were coming out of Loop
> > > Quantum Gravity? I tried looking up phenomenology related to LQG on arXiv
> > > and came up empty handed. Are there any deviations from the Standard
> > > Model that we should see at LHC or other next generation colliders due to
> > > quantum gravity effects?
> > > Thanks
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge, LQG cannot reproduce General
> > Relativity or any other macroscopic prediction (the
> > reconstruction problem). Theorists can describe what seems like
> > the stage of spacetime but they do not yet know which lines and
> > direction to give the actors so that they recreate the play.
> >
> > That is as good as theory can be for its practitioners - pencil,
> > paper, but no wastebasket.
>
> Well I'm hoping it's not as bad as all that. I'm working in experimental
> particle physics now, and I probably will for quite some time. I'd like
> to know what the current theories can give us to look for.
There is a decent wikipedia article about LQG. You know how to search
Wikipedia, yes? (Google search for 'wikipedia LQG').
Basically every particle apart from gravity is put in by hand, so
there are no particle physics predictions at least as far as colliders
go.
People have tried to argue that Lorentz invariance is broken so you
get a modified dispersion relation at energies near the Planck scale
(hence you might see some effects with very distant astrophysical
sources), but that is far from being a firm prediction.
Creighton Hogg
Jul28-04, 04:58 AM
<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>\nOn 27 Jul 2004, Thomas Dent wrote:\n>\n> Creighton Hogg <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0407231501460.3660-100000@erodium.hep.wisc.edu>...\n<snip>\n\n> > I\'d like to know what the current theories can give us to look for.\n>\n> There is a decent wikipedia article about LQG. You know how to search\n> Wikipedia, yes? (Google search for \'wikipedia LQG\').\n\nThank you for the reference. I found the wikipedia article rather\nhelpful, though somewhat frustrating in its implications.\n\n> Basically every particle apart from gravity is put in by hand, so\n> there are no particle physics predictions at least as far as colliders\n> go.\n\nWell it sounds even worse than that! The wikipedia article states "the\nquestions about graviton scattering cannot be answered in LQG" because it\nis not yet shown whether there is a graviton. There goes my hopes for\nsomeone having calculated a missing E_t signal for graviton radiation at\nthe LHC.\n\nSo from the point of view of someone who works in LQG, is there any\ninterest to what we\'re doing at LHC or future colliders?\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>On 27 Jul 2004, Thomas Dent wrote:
>
> Creighton Hogg <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0407231501460.3660-100000@erodium.hep.wisc.edu>...
<snip>
> > I'd like to know what the current theories can give us to look for.
>
> There is a decent wikipedia article about LQG. You know how to search
> Wikipedia, yes? (Google search for 'wikipedia LQG').
Thank you for the reference. I found the wikipedia article rather
helpful, though somewhat frustrating in its implications.
> Basically every particle apart from gravity is put in by hand, so
> there are no particle physics predictions at least as far as colliders
> go.
Well it sounds even worse than that! The wikipedia article states "the
questions about graviton scattering cannot be answered in LQG" because it
is not yet shown whether there is a graviton. There goes my hopes for
someone having calculated a missing E_t signal for graviton radiation at
the LHC.
So from the point of view of someone who works in LQG, is there any
interest to what we're doing at LHC or future colliders?