Is somebody here involved with the causal set approach to QG?(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0309009 is a nice introduction to the theme, and I liked among the introduction with some quotes of Riemann.

If so or any of the good people like to give opinion, I would like to make some questions:

Someone figures out how things would have evolved if things were not based in stathistics concepts as havig a Poisson distributions for the causets, the sprinkling, ideas of Random graphs and so on? For instance, having more things like a direct binomial distribution in the causets describing systems, could have the Hauptvermutung a more precise statement than the actual one? I think that the idea of having random graphs as inherent in many ideas developed till now has some atractive features as phase transitions (and I guess it was initially the idea to get the continuum as limit and even for the inclusion of matter), but maybe for advances more than focusing in quantum measures it could be nice for some people working on it to review the fundamentals of the theory.

Also, I think that in the status quo of the theory it could be checked if it has some relations with others, like CDT, since there could be links among path integral approach working with discrete structures. What do you think?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Causal Sets

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**