Quantum Gravity with a Positive Cosmological Constant

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the paper "Quantum Gravity with a Positive Cosmological Constant" by Lee Smolin. Participants express concerns about discrepancies in constants from the derivations in Part I, Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the paper. One user suggests that differences in normalization conventions for the Levi-Civita symbol may be the cause, while another user recommends contacting the author for clarification and consulting additional quantum gravity resources for comparison.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum gravity concepts
  • Familiarity with the Levi-Civita symbol and its normalization conventions
  • Ability to perform mathematical derivations in theoretical physics
  • Knowledge of academic research methodologies
NEXT STEPS
  • Read Lee Smolin's paper "Quantum Gravity with a Positive Cosmological Constant" for context
  • Investigate normalization conventions for the Levi-Civita symbol in theoretical physics
  • Consult textbooks on quantum gravity for additional derivations and explanations
  • Reach out to experts or forums specializing in theoretical physics for further clarification
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, graduate students in physics, and researchers exploring quantum gravity and cosmological constants.

jamso
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I have been reading the paper "Quantum Gravity with a Positive Cosmological Constant" by Lee Smolin (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0209079), and am having some trouble making the constants in Part I, Sections 2, 3, and 4 match with what I would calculate them to be when I try to go through the derivations for myself. I wondered if anyone else has gone through these derivations and knows if there are typos or maybe a different normalization convention for Levi-Civita symbol than what I am used to (+-1), or if I am making some mistake? Please help! I have gone through the calculations several times and am not sure what is going wrong.
Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Hello,
I have also read the paper and have gone through the derivations myself. I did not encounter any typos or errors in the calculations, but it is possible that there may be a difference in normalization conventions. I suggest reaching out to the author, Lee Smolin, for clarification on any specific calculations that you are having trouble with. Additionally, you may want to consult other sources or textbooks on quantum gravity to compare the results and see if there are any discrepancies. Good luck with your research!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
17K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K