Bee's new paper on QG phenomenology

marcus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
794
It's a good paper. She delivered it in June at the Irvine SUSY 06 conference but we didnt get to see it until now.

It has a confusing passage on page 2, at the bottom, right before the Feynman diagram on page 3.
===quote===

In contrast to the asymptotic momenta p, the wave-vector k of the particle in the interaction region will behave non-trivially because strong gravitational effects disturb the propagation of the wave. In particular, it will not transform as a standard (flat space) Lorentz-vector, and obey the MDR.

===endquote===
I suppose the intended meaning is " In particular, it will not transform as a standard (flat space) Lorentz-vector, but* WILL INSTEAD obey the MDR."

As an English speaker the literal meaning I get is opposite to this:
" In particular, it will not transform as a standard (flat space) Lorentz-vector, and (also will not) obey the MDR."

In any case there is some linguistic ambiguity.

Here is the paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0611017
Phenomenological Quantum Gravity
S. Hossenfelder
To appear in Proceedings of SUSY06, the 14th International Conference on Supersymmetry and the Unification of Fundamental Interactions, UC Irvine, California, 12-17 June 2006

"Planck scale physics represents a future challenge, located between particle physics and general relativity. The Planck scale marks a threshold beyond which the old description of spacetime breaks down and conceptually new phenomena must appear. In the last years, increased efforts have been made to examine the phenomenology of quantum gravity, even if the full theory is still unknown."

[EDIT] selfAdjoint suggested saying "but" and I adopted that and edited it in. See his next post.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Marcus (from Bee's paper) said:
In particular, it will not transform as a standard (flat space) Lorentz-vector, and obey the MDR.

Right, I think the sentence will read as she intended if we replace the "and" with a "but".
 
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
I'm trying to understand the relationship between the Higgs mechanism and the concept of inertia. The Higgs field gives fundamental particles their rest mass, but it doesn't seem to directly explain why a massive object resists acceleration (inertia). My question is: How does the Standard Model account for inertia? Is it simply taken as a given property of mass, or is there a deeper connection to the vacuum structure? Furthermore, how does the Higgs mechanism relate to broader concepts like...
Back
Top