Copenhagen interpretation QGsquared

[jal]

The Copenhagen interpretation, (the wavefunction collapse) is not what caught the interest and imagination of the scientific community.
It was the Schrödinger's Cat. Is the cat alive or dead?

“QGsquared” will not catch the imagination of the 10’s of thousands of interested people by saying that they have found a mathematicall way of connecting dimensions.
http://echo.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/qg/wiki/index.php/QGsquared-slides

To generate interest and funding they must ask interesting and imaginative questions.

“Did the Clock Tick?
“Is the cat in 2,3,4, or 6d?”
“ Playing golf with a perfect golf ball - a black hole”
--------
jal

 

[f-h]

“ Playing golf with a perfect golf ball - a black hole”

Might be difficult to find a suitable T.

 

[marcus]

I like the acronym QGQG
because it is straightforward and says directly the conference is about
Quantum Geometry and Quantum Gravity

(which makes an important point already---that in that conference context
gravity = geometry
gravity is therefore to be quantized as geometry)

so I think it was really smart of the Nottingham, or the ESF, people to call the conference QGQG.

The further abbreviation of QG² does not appeal so much to me because it has a kind of arch in-joke quality or cuteness. It is harder to type and is not so upfront as QGQG.

Is there going to be a QGQG-2009 or a QGQG-2010?

 

[marcus]

On the page that Jal linked, the menu of downloadable QGQG talks audio and slide-sets,
there isn't a Renate Loll talk.

She was scheduled to talk on Monday in room C19, just before Andrzej Goerlich.
Did Loll have to cancel? Or did she give a talk but there has been a delay in posting the slides?

Goerlich did a highly satisfactory job presenting CDT, from the looks of it---judging by his slides.
Maybe Loll looked at what he had prepared and decided that it was adequate and she would just cut class and let him solo

 

[f-h]

It is possible that she used transparencies. The next conference will be in Beijing. The name was a matter of debate, but in the end I think it was good, though you somewhat missed the point. The conference had a dual purpose: Provide the successor for Loops 08 in Morelia as the central QG conference of the year (which would have suggested Loops08), and secondly to get people from Noncommutative Geometry and and QG to talk to each other.
So quantum geometry is not the same as quantum gravity. A Lie Group is a differential manifold but a quantum group is not. I think quantum geometry refers to noncommutative geometry. So the QGQG expresses it perfectly, there are really different fields that seem like they should have something to say to each other.

 

[marcus]

...The next conference will be in Beijing. The name was a matter of debate,...

will the 2009 conference in Beijing be called QGQG? I hope. I hope.

Actually I did get that point about the name QGQG, to bring NCG and Loop people together. That was one of the exciting things about the conference-----Rivasseau, Chamseddine, Majid etc.
That was my initial take on the name when I read the announcement. It was bringing two research communities together. Barrett already having bridged, with work in both areas. The other point I mentioned was just later second-layer interpretation---definitely not the explicit meaning.

Is there anything online about Beijing plans? Who is organizing it?

BTW congratulations to all the Nottingham people! You all clearly produced a great success.

 

[f-h]

Re the name, I doubt it. There is an active group in Beijing hosting it, I know of no online information yet, it's a bit early for that.

My point was that the quantization of geometry the mathematicians like is somewhat different from what physicists mean with quantization. I don't think the idea is that gravity should be quantized in the mathematicians sense directly. But noncommutative geometry is popping up all over the place. I don't think anybody has a clear (or even vague) idea about what that means though.

 

[jal]

Does the fact that they have discovered a way of mathematically connecting dimensions imply that you can have connections that used to work and now will no longer work and that you will have new connections that start working?
jal

 

[marcus]

...There is an active group in Beijing hosting it...

A name that comes to mind is Yongge Ma, at Beijing Normal University. He participated at QGQG 2008 and has posted several LQG papers including very recently a Loop Cosmology one.
======================

f-h, one of the things conferences can do is change the mental map of the field. How do you see the Quantum Gravity research picture evolving at the moment?

You were just at the conference, so you probably have the panorama in particularly sharp focus and some definite hunches.

What I see (correct me if I am mistaken) are three really strong research directions which I will tag with the names of people although one name is hardly enough (the Freidel direction could just as well be called the Rovelli direction, I make arbitrary choice here).

Loll triangulations path integral
Freidel spinfoam path integral
Ashtekar loop cosmology and black hole

Again, I could call the first of these Ambjorn-Loll, because both are responsible, and I could call others Ashtekar-Bojowald, or Rovelli-Freidel. But the nametag is not the important thing. I think these three research directions, whatever you call them, are the main thrusts.

Conceivably you could see it differently or disagree with the whole idea of having such a simple map...comments are welcome.

 

[jal]

To see the context of my question. What kinds of papers should we expect?
https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=280
"Travel Between Dimensions"
jal

 

[f-h]

jal, I don't understand your question. Marcus, I was organizer so I didn't necessarily get a good overview of what's happening scientifically.

There are as far as I see three major fronts: The mathematical front, the model front and the observational front. This does not include dynamical triangulations which I'm really quite unfamiliar with.

The observational front includes on the one hand propagator calculations, but more importantly cosmology and DSR, Rovelli and Vidotto have an interesting proposal to finally get LQG and LQC properly connected, on the cosmologist front a lot remains to be done.

On the model front analysis of the new vertices is happening (this of course ties in with observational considerations but is more a background on which they can rest). What is the status of the semiclassical analysis of Barrett Crane (Eugenio Bianchi and Leonardo Modesto showed that BC matches perturbative Area Regge calculus)

On the mathematical front NC geometry keeps poping up everywhere and there is a lot to be done to work out the real mathematical engine at the core of all these things. There are also new possibilities to figure out there. What else can this engine support?

That's just what pops into my mind, there is of course a lot going on, I personally find none of these fronts entirely satisfactory to work on for various reasons. Often the more interesting things are at the fringes...

 

[marcus]

Marcus, I was organizer so I didn't necessarily get a good overview of what's happening scientifically.

Maybe not necessarily, but I still find your view of it interesting and helpful.

There are as far as I see three major fronts: The mathematical front, the model front and the observational front. This does not include dynamical triangulations which I'm really quite unfamiliar with.

The observational front includes on the one hand propagator calculations, but more importantly cosmology and DSR, Rovelli and Vidotto have an interesting proposal to finally get LQG and LQC properly connected, on the cosmologist front a lot remains to be done.

On the model front analysis of the new vertices is happening (this of course ties in with observational considerations but is more a background on which they can rest). What is the status of the semiclassical analysis of Barrett Crane (Eugenio Bianchi and Leonardo Modesto showed that BC matches perturbative Area Regge calculus)

On the mathematical front NC geometry keeps popping up everywhere and there is a lot to be done to work out the real mathematical engine at the core of all these things. There are also new possibilities to figure out there. What else can this engine support?

...Often the more interesting things are at the fringes...

Luckily, the more these fronts advance the more interesting fringe is exposed along the flanks. Or so I think. Exciting times.

This seems like a good map to me. I will try to assimilate and paraphrase it after a while.

 

[jal]

Synchronization of dimensions

At Planck Scale the circle, the sphere and the line are imaginary.
One assumption, is that a particle has a Planck size area and that the point is the center of that area.
A dimensions is two points existing at the same time that are separated by two Planck units.
The two points must be synchronized, (their position/location), in time, for a dimension to exist.
The synchronization of points increases with each additional dimension.
Symmetry is conditional on the synchronization of all the points at every “tick” of Planck time.
For example, a 4d figure must have all of its 8 points synchronized.
If the figure is “stable” then that means that the synchronization is stable over multiple “ticks” of the Planck clock.
What are the permitted “movements” that do not break the established symmetry?
In 3d we have 6 points. We do not have enough points to make a cube.
What happened? Why can we make a cube in “macro 3d”?

IMAGE ( If one link does not work try the other.)
http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/synchronization.gif"
http://www.geocities.com/hubbletrouble2000/synchronization.gif



The other assumption, is for the Planck size particles to be located between two dimensional points (the corners of the cube). This would result in having 12 particles, which is the densest packing.

Arivero, Is this what you were looking for in your thread “Who has 12 of 8?”?
I would ask how did you get 12 vibrating string nodes when you started out with only 4 strings? Why are there no nodes on the square root of two or the square root of three?

Since I am learning, I would appreciate any corrections.

Perhaps, an e-mail to some of the participants of QGSquared, by f-h, of this thread, would stimulate a participation to this thread and help to resolve some of my questions.
=======
~~~ Since I’m learning … I reserve the right to change my mind ~~~