Are Particles and Anti-Particles Identical in LQG and String Theory?

[wolram]

Can someone tell me if particles and anti particles, are considered
to have the same properties, other than sign reversal, in LQG and
String theory.

 

[marcus]

Can someone tell me if particles and anti particles, are considered
to have the same properties, other than sign reversal, in LQG and
String theory.

so far LQG is about spacetime geometry
and it is not a theory of matter
people include matter in LQG models, by putting some extra labels on the spin networks, but the matter they include is very basic rudimentary stuff (like e.g. a scalar field) just to have something that can interact with gravity.

I think the idea here is that you do one thing at a time:
first get a model of spacetime geometry that works (a quantum replacement for General Relativity)
and then, when you have that, add matter to it

so I would not expect LQG to say anything about parity reversal until
(and if) it is fully developed and checked out as a theory of spacetime geometry. I could be surprised though and it might start providing clues about what matter is and how matter symmetries (like parity reversal) arise and how matter interacts with space----it could, I suppose, start to provide clues about that BEFORE it is complete and the first goal is reached of getting a quantum theory to replace general relativity.

 

[wolram]

It was just a thought, that if a massive body polarised the local
field, then because there is a small cp violation between matter
and anti matter, and that gravity may be granular, that a small
amount of stress in this local would produce a time difference
that is due to the quantum nature of gravity.

 

[marcus]

It was just a thought, that if a massive body polarised the local
field, then because there is a small cp violation between matter
and anti matter, and that gravity may be granular, that a small
amount of stress in this local would produce a time difference
that is due to the quantum nature of gravity.

sounds to me like a reasonable line of speculation. I would email some
academic person like Parampreet Singh a postdoc at penn state
who is becoming an expert in LQG phenomenology---in analyzing possible observable effects.

singh@gravity.psu.edu

he might think the idea is too loony and incoherent to bother with
but you never know, he might not,
and he might answer

any kind of observable effect is at a premium these days and worth at least a few moments of thought

PS wolram, I don't quite grasp what you are talking about. and you may not fully understand what you are talking about either. but that is not the issue and should not prevent you from pursuing the idea

it sounds like you are guessing at the possible presence of a LQG signal in the radiation from the accretion disk of a black hole, or in the CMB, or in the cosmic neutrino background when and if we are able to see it---that is, you are guessing about possible traces of LQG in radiation from something with very strong gravity like the bigbang or black holes.

so, if he thinks your idea is foolish for some reason, what's the harm?
if he doesn't reply to your email, what's lost?
I don't see anything wrong with writing some LQG phenomenologist

a prominent leader in the QG phenomenology business is Giovanni Amelino Camelia, if Parampreet Singh doesn't reply you could write him.

I personally do not know enough about LQG effects to respond properly
if you do write one of those guys, be brief----then theyr more apt to answer

 

[wolram]

PS wolram, I don't quite grasp what you are talking about. and you may not fully understand what you are talking about either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is true, i have an idea but it won't form properly into
understanding, i will give it some more thought, and hopefully
be able to refrase the question.
Thank Marcus.