Should the name of the forum change?

[Alamino]

I´ve been thinking if it wouldn´t be more appropriate to change the name of the forum from "Strings, branes & LQG" simply to "Strings and Quantum Gravity". Branes aand strings are always associated and LQG is not the only alternative to QG anymore. Indeed, it seems to me that the alternatives are multiplicating each day... Don´t you think so?

 

[marcus]

I´ve been thinking if it wouldn´t be more appropriate to change the name of the forum from "Strings, branes & LQG" simply to "Strings and Quantum Gravity". Branes aand strings are always associated and LQG is not the only alternative to QG anymore. Indeed, it seems to me that the alternatives are multiplicating each day... Don´t you think so?

your suggested name change "Strings and Quantum Gravity" makes a lot of sense! sounds good too, short and to the point. I hope the management considers it!

About your question, if QG approaches are multiplying rapidly? I don't know, because it seems to me there were about the same number back in 1997 or 1998 when Rovelli did a survey. Since then, some faded out of fashion, while others came in.

Some merge, while others divide like an amoeba. I find it hard to say just how many distinct QG approaches there are, or if they really are growing in number.

it would be great if Group Fields (spinfoam) would merge with CDT would merge with Reuter's QEG----if they would all coallesce into one nonperturbative Approach. How nice that would be!

 

[marcus]

Alamino, in case you are interested here is that 1998 survey by rovelli

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9803024
Abstract:"...I review the present theoretical attempts to understand the quantum properties of spacetime. In particular, I illustrate the main achievements and the main difficulties in: string theory, loop quantum gravity, discrete quantum gravity (Regge calculus, dynamical triangulations and simplicial models), Euclidean quantum gravity, perturbative quantum gravity, quantum field theory on curved spacetime, noncommutative geometry, null surfaces, topological quantum field theories and spin foam models..."

so they had a confusing proliferation back then too

maybe the situation has even gotten simpler since then!

 

[Alamino]

I really believe that all these approaches will converge someday when we start to get close to the QG that is used by nature in our universe. At least, I hope so. But after a long time being told that Strings were the only approach that deserved credit, I'm happy to see that it's not quite so and there are a lot of other possibilities. Back when I just knew about strings, I had that feeling that we were so far from QG that I started to lose interest in that. But now, things are becoming more exciting each time I see a new paper!

BTW, thanks for the tip of the paper, Marcus. I will read it.