Current status of Horava Lifshitz gravity?

In summary: But what are the biggest problems for the theory ? Do you know?I'm not even close to being an expert, @windy miller, but as I understand it, Hořava's approach is to quantise gravity using quantum field theories and these typically run into Ostrogradsky instabilities. Hořava breaks Lorentz invariance via a Lifshitz-type anisotropic scaling (no guessing where the name of the theory came from 😊) at high energies then recovers the invariance at low energies but if you do that the results must be self-consistent and conform to what we observe in the universe. Initial formulations of the theory have been promising, but it's still
  • #1
windy miller
303
25
Many years I read a lay person friendly article on Horava Lifshitz gravity. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-time-from-space-evidence/
Im curious to know how has this theory developed? Is it taken seriously? What are the outstanding problems ? Have there been any impressive achievements for it since it was first proposed? If anyone can give layperson friendly answer this would much appreciated.
 
  • Like
Likes maline and Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
"impressive achievements"?

It's hard to find anything recent, @windy miller, and nothing I can find is layperson friendly, which is probably to be expected for a theory working to quantize gravity. The Hořava–Lifshitz gravity Wikipedia page has only five references and was last edited mid-2018. And it is not much discussed here on PF from what I can see; indeed your post asking essentially the same question as you've done above in 2017 may be the latest on the topic. And reading that post, it might be worth redoing your Google Scholar search to see how many additional papers have been submitted (noting @jim mcnamara's point that submission does not mean peer reviewed...or even correctly constructed).

But regarding your post, you stated, "the first 4 years it got 2210 articles. the next four years 2240", but was the second four years additional papers? Or did the total just increase by 30 papers? Either way, it might be instructive to compare it a different quantum gravity theory to see whether the number is high or low in terms of publications.

Finally, have you reached out to Petr Hořava directly? I've found that respectful questions via email are often answered, and you may find that he is responsive to your inquiry.
 
  • #3
Melbourne Guy said:
"impressive achievements"?

It's hard to find anything recent, @windy miller, and nothing I can find is layperson friendly, which is probably to be expected for a theory working to quantize gravity. The Hořava–Lifshitz gravity Wikipedia page has only five references and was last edited mid-2018. And it is not much discussed here on PF from what I can see; indeed your post asking essentially the same question as you've done above in 2017 may be the latest on the topic. And reading that post, it might be worth redoing your Google Scholar search to see how many additional papers have been submitted (noting @jim mcnamara's point that submission does not mean peer reviewed...or even correctly constructed).

But regarding your post, you stated, "the first 4 years it got 2210 articles. the next four years 2240", but was the second four years additional papers? Or did the total just increase by 30 papers? Either way, it might be instructive to compare it a different quantum gravity theory to see whether the number is high or low in terms of publications.

Finally, have you reached out to Petr Hořava directly? I've found that respectful questions via email are often answered, and you may find that he is responsive to your inquiry.
Thanks for this i forgot i had laready posted about it back in 2017 so i reread that post but i don't think anyone gave a particularly insightful answer. As to the issue with google scholar yes there next four years were additional papers. I just did a search on the last three years and got 865 papers. I think that means people are still working on it.
 
  • #4
300-odd papers a year is not many, @windy miller, and suggests Hořava–Lifshitz gravity is an incidental approach. There have been about 17,000 papers each on loop quantum gravity and Causal Dynamical Triangulations in the last three years, three times that many on string theory, and even Euclidean Quantum Gravity has seen many thousands of papers written.

Thanks for clarifying the Google Scholar searches were distinct results, by the way, but even with that, a breakthrough resolving the constraints of Hořava–Lifshitz gravity probably has not eventuated.
 
  • #5
Melbourne Guy said:
300-odd papers a year is not many, @windy miller, and suggests Hořava–Lifshitz gravity is an incidental approach. There have been about 17,000 papers each on loop quantum gravity and Causal Dynamical Triangulations in the last three years, three times that many on string theory, and even Euclidean Quantum Gravity has seen many thousands of papers written.

Thanks for clarifying the Google Scholar searches were distinct results, by the way, but even with that, a breakthrough resolving the constraints of Hořava–Lifshitz gravity probably has not eventuated.
Thanks for that comparison, it is helpful. But what are the biggest problems for the theory ? Do you know?
 
  • #6
I'm not even close to being an expert, @windy miller, but as I understand it, Hořava's approach is to quantise gravity using quantum field theories and these typically run into Ostrogradsky instabilities. Hořava breaks Lorentz invariance via a Lifshitz-type anisotropic scaling (no guessing where the name of the theory came from 😊) at high energies then recovers the invariance at low energies but if you do that the results must be self-consistent and conform to what we observe in the universe. Initial formulations Hořava–Lifshitz gravity did not match the physical universe, and various reworking seems to have failed to eliminate all the inconsistencies.

If you're interested in further reading, Anzhong Wang's "Hořava Gravity at a Lifshitz Point: A Progress Report" (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.06087.pdf) is a recent-ish summary.
 

Related to Current status of Horava Lifshitz gravity?

1. What is Horava Lifshitz gravity?

Horava Lifshitz gravity is a theory of gravity proposed by Petr Horava in 2009 as an alternative to Einstein's theory of general relativity. It is a non-relativistic theory that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and gravity by introducing an anisotropic scaling between space and time.

2. How does Horava Lifshitz gravity differ from general relativity?

Unlike general relativity, which is a relativistic theory, Horava Lifshitz gravity is a non-relativistic theory. This means that it does not obey the principles of special relativity, such as the constancy of the speed of light. Additionally, Horava Lifshitz gravity introduces a preferred direction in space, breaking the isotropy of space in general relativity.

3. What is the current status of Horava Lifshitz gravity?

The current status of Horava Lifshitz gravity is a topic of ongoing research and debate. While the theory has shown promise in addressing some of the shortcomings of general relativity, it also faces challenges in terms of its consistency and compatibility with experimental observations.

4. What are some potential applications of Horava Lifshitz gravity?

Horava Lifshitz gravity has been proposed as a possible theory of quantum gravity, which could help to explain the behavior of gravity at the smallest scales. It has also been studied in the context of cosmology, where it may offer an alternative explanation for the accelerated expansion of the universe.

5. What are some current research directions in Horava Lifshitz gravity?

Current research in Horava Lifshitz gravity is focused on addressing some of the challenges and limitations of the theory, such as its lack of full diffeomorphism invariance and its compatibility with experimental data. Other areas of research include exploring the implications of the theory for cosmology and black hole physics.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
39
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
789
Replies
24
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top