How do QG people evolve particles into the theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particles Theory
AI Thread Summary
Quantum Gravity (QG) initially focused on developing a quantum theory of spacetime geometry without incorporating particles. Over time, particularly around 2005, significant advancements were made to integrate particle physics into QG frameworks. Alain Connes' geometrical approach inspired researchers to combine the Standard Model with Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG), while Laurent Freidel's work suggested that LQG spinfoams could reveal particle physics in flat space as gravity is diminished. Additionally, Lee Smolin recognized that Bilson-Thompson's model of Standard Model particles could be represented through twists in LQG spin networks. This evolving understanding indicates that particles may fundamentally be manifestations of geometric structures.
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,410
Reaction score
555
How do QG people evolve particles into the theory?
 
Space news on Phys.org
wolram said:
How do QG people evolve particles into the theory?

initially they didn't worry about particles
they just focused on the simpler problem of getting a quantum theory of spacetime geometry

and they put matter into the picture by hand, when they wanted to include that. usually just some simple generic stuff (not worrying about what kind of particles)

around 2005 several things happened that changed this simple situation

1. Alain Connes has an elegant geometrical way of generating the Standard Model and two Danes (Aastrup and Grimstrup) got the idea of taking the LQG configuration space as a basis and building a Connes-style geometry on it----so they started working on combining the Standard Model of particle physics with LQG. It's a major undertaking. They have made some progress on this is the past two years.

2. Also around 2005, Laurent Freidel discovered a form of LQG-spinfoam that seems to have the Feynman diagrams of usual Quantum Field Theory latent in it. According to him, if you gradually turn off gravity by gradually making Newton constant G go to zero, then what appears is particle physics in flat space. This takes more work to make precise and this is one of the things Freidel and others have been pursuing in the past couple of years. One difficulty has been recovering in full 4D some things that work in 3D.

3. Also in 2005 Lee Smolin took note of some work by Bilson-Thompson (a young Australian particle physicist). He realized that B-T's version of the Standard Model particles could be realized in terms of twists and tangles in LQG SPIN NETWORKS.
So B-T was invited to Perimeter Institute and a number of people there have been working on that idea of matter for a couple of years as well.
 
Last edited:
Thankyou Marcus, as far as i can make out then particles are just geometry?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top