Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Background dependent

  1. May 18, 2007 #1
    What actually is the reaction of string theorists to the complaints that their approach is not background independent? Why is it not such a big concern to them?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 18, 2007 #2

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It IS their concern. Unfortunately, they do not know how to solve this problem. Nevertheless, that is not a reason to reject string theory and accept loop quantum gravity. This is because string theory is MUCH MORE than a quantum theory of gravity. String theory and loop quantum gravity are NOT too different approaches to the same problem.
     
  4. May 18, 2007 #3

    Fra

    User Avatar

    On "The case for background independence", Smolin
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0507/0507235v1.pdf

    I've seen at least one response from some string theorist
    "The case for background independent theories and formulations with background",
    http://mathphys.iu-bremen.de/~robert/background.pdf [Broken]

    I'm sure there are lots of string responses to Smolins paper though.

    /Fredrik
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  5. May 18, 2007 #4

    f-h

    User Avatar

    "string theory is MUCH MORE than a quantum theory of gravity."

    For a physicist that's not neccessarily a good thing of course. We have good reason from established physics to expect a theory of QG to exist in reality, we don't have any physical reasons whatsoever to believe that anything else that ST is exists.
     
  6. May 18, 2007 #5

    Fra

    User Avatar

    I don't think we need to narrow it down to just two options do we? Perhaps the are other options.

    To me at least, there is sufficient issues all over the place for me to motivate a rethinking of the fundaments of physics and it's methods, and and that point I think the options are more than the two mentioned. Part of my motivation is that the foundational physics touches the scientific method and is thus to me at least more than just the traditional physics. Natural extensions I want integration in foundational physics is generic evolutionary models, touching also highly complex physical systems such as the human brain. We may well end up dynamically modelling the models to an even larger extent. In that perspective, string theory is not what comes to my mind. But then that's just a single opinion.

    /Fredrik
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook