View Single Post
Sep30-03, 04:17 PM
P: 3,715
Originally posted by marcus
there is a difference of opinion here---relativists will say one thing and particle theorists say another

a review by a relativist will generally explain why the HEP community does want to get rid of GR----replace it with a background-based field theory similar to conventional or stringy theories of other forces.

the replacement for GR should predict the same results in the limit at lower energies or larger scales, but should (in the opinion of the HEP folk as seen by relativists) be fundamentally different because background-based rather than background-independent

in the view of relativists stringy theories do not "contain" GR because they live on fixed background space while GR models gravity by dynamic geometry

if you want to understand the viewpoint of GR side, which really is different from what string-folk say, there are some online reviews for which I can supply links---if you really want to know about it: its a different perspective and takes getting used to

anyway, what you say would not sound right to some people who see stringy theories as, in fact, a way of getting rid of General Relativity (chucking out the geometrical description of gravity, getting rid of GR fundamentally while retaining superficial resemblance of predictions at low energy limit)
I find this odd (though I must confess that you're making sense), since Michio Kaku (one of the strongest supporters of String Theory) has always described it as the next step that Einstein had been trying to take, but couldn't. He (Kaku) always says that String Theory is just like Relativity, except that it requires more dimensions. Now, of course, I know that this is an over-simplification, but I didn't know that string theory was trying to negate GR, in it's attempt at unification.