1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Bee's new paper on QG phenomenology

  1. Nov 1, 2006 #1


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.

    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.

    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:
    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: Nov 2, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 2, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Right, I think the sentence will read as she intended if we replace the "and" with a "but".
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Bee's new paper on QG phenomenology
  1. Bee's best paper yet (Replies: 13)