Is Loops '06 the Future Name for Quantum Gravity Conferences?

[marcus]

"Loops" has become a defacto provisional collective name for all the main efforts to get a nonperturbative backgroundindependent theory of QG.

If these approaches are going to coalesce into one broad field of research and have an annual meeting, should it be called Loops '06 like it was this year or should it be QG '06 or something else?

 

[CJames]

I voted QG because it seems that most people working in "LQG" actually seem to be working on several theories at once.

(Incidentally Marcus I wanted to thank you for connecting me to a paper on cosmological natural selection. Also, I wanted to let you know that I wrote an article on it at wikipedia so feel free to make some changes to make it more accurate.)

 

[marcus]

I voted QG because it seems that most people working in "LQG" actually seem to be working on several theories at once.
(Incidentally Marcus I wanted to thank you for connecting me to a paper on cosmological natural selection. Also, I wanted to let you know that I wrote an article on it at wikipedia so feel free to make some changes to make it more accurate.)

!

here's a chance to say thanks in general to those who devote the time and care to contributing Wikipedia articles, and to you in this one specific instance

BTW so far 4 people voted in the poll and they all preferred QG '06.

Somehow this makes me chuckle, nobody said Loops. Nobody came up with some other name to suggest! Maybe we should give some of the prospective organizers the benefit of our wisdom

 

[marcus]

thanks to JB for the idea that a conference
could be called QG '06
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=800861#post800861

 

[selfAdjoint]

It should be QG 06 because all the threads may come together, some of them even before the next meeting! Consider the running of spacetime dimension that showed up in CDT and now has been confirmed (in a stronger sense of "running" IMHO) in the asymptotic safety version of QG.

 

[Chronos]

Breaking the mold. How about the BIG [Background Independent Gravity] 06 conference. Who would want to miss that gathering?

 

[rtharbaugh1]

Perhaps we could have more influence and a modest beginning with a vote to change the name of this forum from the current "Strings, branes, and LQG" to the mere and humble contraction, and henceforth be known only as Quantum Gravity?

Two thoughts. First, it would protect our musings from the typing fingers of those who think they can learn fundamental physics by watching a half-hour television program, and second, it would no doubt result in a decline in the number of people who visit this forum. I venture no opinion about which if either of these outcomes is desirable.

Richard

 

[marcus]

...
Two thoughts. First, it would protect our musings from the typing fingers of those who think they can learn fundamental physics by watching a half-hour television program,..

the image that comes to mind is of an ecology
or coral reef
as a fish I find most of those arthropod and crustacean species inedible but am not bothered, a colorful variety seems to have been part of the plan, and just swim amongst the different life-forms

we probably benefit in some subtle way that we haven't figured out yet

 

[rtharbaugh1]

Yes, I agree that is best. Monoculture is more productive in some situations but no one wants to live in a cornfield. I have to say that I have found it useful to my own understanding when I have undertaken advancing the understanding of others in areas I feel I have already mastered. One theory of education which appeals to me is that you have not really understood a topic until you can teach it, or perhaps even have taught it, to someone else.

On reconsideration I suppose it is best to leave the forum title as it is. That reasoning may or may not apply to the Loops question. Is it indeed a goal of the conference to attract and draw in outsiders? But perhaps the reason for a change is not to do with advertising but with truth in labeling, these being in some sense two competeing ethics.

I don't guess anyone will want to call it "MY BIG TOE?" But that may lead to new nomenclature problems. Someone may suggest that time is not a landscape but an anatomy, and then there will be more months of discussion about anthropery. If man is created in God's image, and God is another term for The Universe and Everything, clearly the universe must be shaped like a man. I do not wish to speculate what part of the universe such thoughts may lead us into.

Be well,

Richard

 

[Kalimaa23]

I'm actually in favour of renaming this section Quantum Gravity. In fact, I've often referred to it as such to other people.

 

[Kea]

Hang on a minute. Why wasn't the forum called Quantum Gravity to start with?

 

[Chronos]

What about the visitors who stop by because they know what a string is, [courtesy of their large, wrinkled branes] but are curious what LQG means?

 

[rtharbaugh1]

What about the visitors who stop by because they know what a string is, [courtesy of their large, wrinkled branes] but are curious what LQG means?

Yes, string theory is nothing if not popular. Nearly everyone with any interest at all in physics has heard of it, and as such it is a term that generates lots of visitors. It could well be that some of them are actually curious and will want to know what a loop is, what a brane is, what current thinkers in these fields are thinking.

In fact I was brought here by the String label. I am aware that not everyone at PF is happy with my presense. But I would not want to close this door to others who may follow. Quality of thought is readily apparent. Surely members who want to ignore neophytes can do so fairly easily. Maybe it takes a second to check to see if they have anything new to say, but if that irritates the old-timers, they don't have to talk to anyone they don't already know. Why not let new thinkers have a chance to try out their ideas, stretch their typing fingers a little?

Anyway censorship always tends to go too far once it gains a toe-hold. Who is to decide what posts should be booted? I remember hearing an interview with a recording executive who once had an unknown bumpkin named Elvis Presley thrown out of his studio. He told the staff not to let people like that in the door any more. Of course that record company has long ago gone out of business.

I like PF and want it to stay around. I would like to tell the censors to lighten up a little. Remember Chaos theory? See what is happening to the neocon revolution? Over-control has always led to catastrophic failure. Sometimes it is best to relax, steer with two fingers, feel the bumps in the road. You can learn a lot by observing idiots. Just don't be one yourself, if you can help it.

Be well,

Richard

 

[Kea]

Surely members who want to ignore neophytes can do so fairly easily.

Dear Richard

Neophytes may be a pain ... but you are most certainly not one of them.

Kea

 

[Chronos]

Richard, I'm just a visitor here, like you. I have no 'censorship' priveleges. I can't think of any posts you have made that anyone would find inappropriate or offensive.

 

[rtharbaugh1]

Kea and Chronos, and any others interested

Yes, we seem to have had this conversation before. I am thankful for the forum. It gives me good reading nearly every day. Even more thankful for the chance to talk with people who have like interests. I guess I am overly sensitive about the censorship thing. I am still in contact with some people by email who have been removed from the forum because their ideas were not scientific, and I know of others who feel they have to be very careful about what they say here. Oh well. I offer an apology to those who remain unnamed, who are doing the difficult work of keeping the area clean. They must balance the need for sanity with the danger of sterility. Overall I think they seem to be doing a very good job of it.

Thanks,

Richard

 

[Terry Giblin]

Calling alll Douglas Adams fan's

How many people who went to loops 05 at the Albert Einstein Institute, Potsdam, Berlin in October 2005, are fans of Douglas Adams.

Why don't we hold this years conference, half in Utrecht and the other half in Durham, simply book 150 apartments on the over night ferry from Newcastle to Amsterdam and vice versa, for 7 nights.

Half the days we spend in Durham the other half we spend in Utrecht, at night we can all sit in a restaurant or bar or casino discussing Douglas Adams, bring your wives for a week's cruise, it will be a party and its cheaper than stopping in a hotel?

If you would like, I'll offer to arrange it myself, if anyone would be interested?

Regards

Terry Giblin

I apologise to Durham and Utrecht, in advance, I have not spoken to or corresponded with them at all regarding this simple idea and suggestion I wished to make, in a sincere jesture of good will, its good to talk.

We could always hold it in October in Jarrow.

Loops 05 - Answer 42

 

[marcus]

Hang on a minute. Why wasn't the forum called Quantum Gravity to start with?

Good question Kea!

(this thread was started back when the subforum was called
"Strings, branes, and LQG")

The old name didn't adequately suggest the range of interesting approaches to quantum gravity and matter. Maybe this thread, even though it was intially about naming a conference, by spilling over to be about naming the forum, helped a bit to focus attention on the mast-head. And not too much longer afterwards we became "Beyond" forum.
I hope everyone's content with the new rubric (I, for one, am happy with it.)

 

[marcus]

In case anyone is wondering, it looks as if the non-string QG community will this year have a collective anthology instead of a conference.
About every researcher you can think of has contributed to a book edited by Daniele Oriti called

"Approaches to Quantum Gravity: towards a new understanding of space time and matter"

being published by Cambridge U. P.

As I guess everybody has noticed there are over a dozen chapters of Oriti's book available at arxiv to download, and they keep appearing. Another posted on arxiv today
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606108
Quantum Gravity and Precision Tests
C.P. Burgess
Contribution to `Towards Quantum Gravity,' edited by D. Oriti, Cambridge University Press, 2006; 18 pages

=================

there is a September conference on the Tuscan coast south of Livorno, that Francesca told us about.
http://mail.df.unipi.it/~elze/DICE2006.html
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=123438
Several of the same people that were at Carlo Rovelli's Marseille 2004 conference. also 't Hooft, Padmanabhan... But, according to Francesca, Lee Smolin (invited to give one of the talks) has declined. He has a different book scheduled to appear on the market in September and has said he's too busy with that and other matters. Maybe next year.

 

[arivero]

Hang on a minute. Why wasn't the forum called Quantum Gravity to start with?

A very good point. The forum was renamed to "Beyond the standard model" but even then it happened that most readers understood that elementary particle physics was to live in the forum HE, Nuclear, Particle. This roots in the belief that the real "beyond standard" theory is a theory of gravity. Personally I find this kind of thinking, when done at research level, very damaging, because contact with Nature happens either via General Relativity or via Quantum Field Theory.

 

[selfAdjoint]

A very good point. The forum was renamed to "Beyond the standard model" but even then it happened that most readers understood that elementary particle physics was to live in the forum HE, Nuclear, Particle. This roots in the belief that the real "beyond standard" theory is a theory of gravity. Personally I find this kind of thinking, when done at research level, very damaging, because contact with Nature happens either via General Relativity or via Quantum Field Theory.

I agree. The name of the forum was very much a committee-type choice, everybody's second best preference. An important angle was not to slight string theory, even though the representation of string theory is declining here and the "Not Even Wrong" attitude is so often expressed here. It is really the result of all Marcus' hard work that this forum is seen as a venue especially for quantum gravity.

 

[marcus]

Hi selfAdjoint and arivero,
I must say the new name seems to me to work fine.
Phrases like "beyond the standard model" acquire conventional meanings based on researchers' expectations, and these can change.
I think the name makes one think twice, and that's not bad.

maybe QG will in time provide a way to go beyond the standard model of particle physics.

Oriti's book title---"towards a new understanding of space time and matter"

rebuilding quantum field theory on a new model of spacetime---it might be just what is needed for people to go beyond the current quantum physics of matter.

so the forum name can serve to call attention to something worth pointing out.
===============

however this thread is one I would happily have let disappear. Someone else re-activated it yesterday [post #17?]. The thread doesn't seem to have much intrinsic interest at the moment.

Thanks for the mention of "hard work". thoughtful and responsible moderating is what i'd call hard work. Librarianship and stirring the discussion-pot is work, but rather fun on the whole.

Alejandro are you still considering spending some time in UK, or have you let that plan drop?

 

[arivero]

Hi selfAdjoint and arivero,
I must say the new name seems to me to work fine.

A yes, the name works fine because it reflects the sentiment of the community: that the "Beyond SM" final theory will not be a theory of fields.

Alejandro are you still considering spending some time in UK, or have you let that plan drop?

Indeed I plan to move last week of August; if anybody can suggest cheap lodgement near Cambridge please email me, the town is expensive.

 

[Terry Giblin]

Fundamental Structure of Space and Time

Dear Marcus,

Have you not answered your own question.

Is the conference being held at the Isaac Newton at Cambridge not the next logical step for QG and Strings.

I originally suggested a collaberation between Utrecht and Durham, but Utrecht and Cambridge is as good.

Regards

Terry Giblin