Arxiv: new categories and reorganization

[marcus]

http://arxiv.org/new/physics.html

Jacques Distler alerts us to this, on his blog.

The advisory committee has proposed a whole different bunch of categories

quantum field theory on CURVED spacetime is here:

"physics.GR Gravity (Donald Marolf, Matt Visser)
general relativity and related theories, numerical and experimental results, black holes, gravity waves, quantum gravity, quantum field theory in curved space-time (gr-qc)"

other quantum field theory is here:

"physics.HT High-Energy -- Field Theory and String Theory (Jacques Distler, Paul Fendley)
quantum field theory, supersymmetry and supergravity, conformal field theory, string theory, M-theory (hep-th)"

In the past Lee Smolin and Renate Loll have mostly been posting in HEP-TH, which becomes physics.HT, and other quantum gravity people have been mostly posting in GR-QC, which becomes physics.GR

so we will have to see whether Smolin and Loll choose to post with other field theory or with field theory specifically on curved spacetimes.

THERE IS NO proposed background independent field theory category where you do field theories on a spacetime which is NEITHER CURVED NOR FLAT nor anything specified in advance but which is dynamic.

A lot of the papers to be presented at Loops 05 conference have to do with including MATTER in a background independent/nonperturbative way. Like for example here are a Freidel abstract
http://loops05.aei.mpg.de/index_files/abstract_freidel.html
and a Rovelli abstract
http://loops05.aei.mpg.de/index_files/abstract_rovelli.html

So if one is doing quantum matter fields on a new-type spacetime which is neither curved nor flat but is a quantum object, then where does one post one's research.

Looks like it is expected to be segregated from string theory in the new proposed setup. Looks like by its description "physics.HT" explicitly designates string/M and tacitly redirects competing alternatives, whatever they might be e.g. spinfoam, CDT, Loop.

one of the moderators for physics.HT is Jacques Distler himself

We will see how it sorts out. It should be interesting to watch.

 

[marcus]

The new proposed categories raise interesting issues

http://arxiv.org/new/physics.html

For example with Freidel, where do you put this?
http://loops05.aei.mpg.de/index_files/abstract_freidel.html
Effective Field theory from quantum gravity
"The Coupling of matter fields to spin foam models of quantum gravity will be discussed. We will show in the case of three dimensional gravity how the integration of quantum gravity degrees of freedom coupled to matter can be explicitely described in terms of an effective field theory. This theory is a new non commutative field theory obeying the principle of doubly special relativity. We will conclude on the extension of this approach to the four dimensional case."

And with Rovelli, where do you put this?
http://loops05.aei.mpg.de/index_files/abstract_rovelli.html
GENERAL RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM PHYSICS: Background independent scattering amplitudes, boundary formalism, local particles and partial observables
"(i) I present some preliminary results on background independent calculations of particle scattering amplitudes. In particular, I discuss the derivation of the graviton propagator, from loop quantum gravity and the spinfoam formalism.
(ii) I illustrate the boundary formulation of quantum field theory, its role in a background independent context, and how "particles" emerge in this language.
(iii) More in general, I discuss how systematic physical predictions can be extracted from a general relativistic quantum field theory: I illustrate the notion of "partial observable", and discuss the issue of the physical significance of the spectrum of these observables, which controls the interpretation of the area and volume discreteness."

Do you put the Freidel and Rovelli papers here?

"physics.GR Gravity (Donald Marolf, Matt Visser)
general relativity and related theories, numerical and experimental results, black holes, gravity waves, quantum gravity, quantum field theory in curved space-time (gr-qc)"

Or do you put them here?

"physics.HT High-Energy -- Field Theory and String Theory (Jacques Distler, Paul Fendley)
quantum field theory, supersymmetry and supergravity, conformal field theory, string theory, M-theory (hep-th)"

 

[marcus]

In the proposed new arxiv categories, where does
the GENERAL RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM PHYSICS of matter
belong?

That is, suppose one eventually wants to construct particle physics including something containing the Standard Model of particle physics
on a spacetime foundation which is GR style------no fixed geometry, dynamic geometry.

One wants to rebuild quantum physics, not on the usual flat Minkowski spacetime, or even on specific fixed curved domain, but on a Loll spacetime or a Freidel spacetime.

It is quantum physics one is doing, with matter fields and particles, but it is no longer just specialrelativistic, it is fully relativistic this time. What Rovelli calls GRQP, in his talk title-----general relativistic quantum [particle] physics----general relativistic quantum [high energy] physics.

This is not just gravity, then, so where does it belong in the proposed menu?

it looks almost as if String/M is being insulated from alternative approaches, so to speak enshrined (or embalmed) by the category definitions.

It will be fascinating to see how this eventually plays out.

 

[Locrian]

Thanks for the update.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I get almost a conspiracy theory feeling about this. Is this a move by fanatical partisans of strings (yes I mean Distler) to control the nowadays central mode of physics publication?

 

[marcus]

I get almost a conspiracy theory feeling about this. Is this a move by fanatical partisans of strings (yes I mean Distler) to control the nowadays central mode of physics publication?

to me it comes across as the influence of one person on a committee
where Distler is dismissive of alternatives to string (just does not see them as significant and has this rationalized to his own and his colleagues satisfaction)

and other committee members would naturally defer to him because HEP-TH is his territory

I see the operation of prejudice, but no sign of (or need for) conspiracy. Distler is an ARXIV insider, he is influential (probably longtime pal of Ginsparg, who I think is great!), he is really really smart, he sits on a key committee-----well without any particular malice or ill intent what happens is a little unfortunate.

here I am talking, I shouldn't be---not really knowing the process.

but I share what I suspect is your feeling that the proposed new categories could have been crafted with more openness to developments in background independent quantum gravity-----what Loops 05 conference is trying to assemble a complete picture of the threads of----and what Rovelli is calling
general relativistic quantum physics

 

[ohwilleke]

In fairness, the current categories aren't great. Cross-listing of papers is often necessary and it isn't at all obvious which bin papers go under in the current system. One imagines that the main reasonable goal is to distinguish string theory papers from LQC and related discipline papers.

The categories should be designed so that people who constitute a community of researchers in an area need only search one category (or at any rate fewer categories). The ideal classification system therefore should distinguish papers published by the different communities of researchers to the extent possible.

 

[marcus]

In fairness, the current categories aren't great. Cross-listing of papers is often necessary ...
... The ideal classification system therefore should distinguish papers published by the different communities of researchers to the extent possible.

plus allow for some growth

yeah, I want to get on your "In fairness" boat, ohwilleke. I think maybe it was time to at least consider and propose a re-hashing of the categories. Especially in ASTRO-PH which is too broad. It gets so many papers that it is a chore to go thru. Some other categories, like hep-th, are not getting so many papers that it impresses me as a problem.

And the people on the committee would have been doing their best to be helpful---along the lines of improved convenience you mentioned.
but if something like this is too detailed it could seem to freeze or fossilize somebody's schematic conception of physics.