I Is Gravity Part Of The Standard Model?

  • Thread starter bhobba
  • Start date

DarMM

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,232
1,265
I'll read a bit more first and come back with better questions on another thread.
 
214
88
Coherent states aren't necessarily perturbatively connected to the vacuum right? i.e. it being nonperturbative doesn't preclude that right
I suppose this depends on your definition of coherent states. I think of them being defined in terms of a particular set of states in a Fock basis, but a generic quantum field theory is not necessarily spanned by a Fock basis
The claim in string theory at least is all low energy gravitational backgrounds are indeed coherent states of graviton mode/spin 2 strings. This is discussed in Tong's note ch 7, https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0333, and these papers from Nick Huggett, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11116/, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15434/
 

ohwilleke

Gold Member
1,469
373
Feynman shows it is exactly the same as GR.
Do you know any place that has those in open access? I have a lot of his other writings (at least as dead trees) but not that one.
 
9,188
2,097

Haelfix

Science Advisor
1,948
209
Do you know any place that has those in open access? I have a lot of his other writings (at least as dead trees) but not that one.
There are three people who showed essentially the same thing. Feynman in the aforementioned book, Deser did it by a bootstrap method as well as by deriving the full nonlinear GR as the unique theory from the classical limit of the quantum gravity of a spin 2 field, and Gupta as well independently.

Amusingly the quantum gravity derivation is actually (imo) the cleanest.

Note that there are several technical details that make answering some of the previous questions a little challenging. For instance spin2 GR is strictly speaking *not* identical to the full Einstein theory b/c of the Vainshtein discontinuity, however there are fixes for this.
 
630
389
Feynman shows it is exactly the same as GR. However I just know what I read in the book, others may know more details. A book that follows a similar approach classically is Ohanian - Gravitation:

Its different - but equivalent - to the usual and perhaps more elegant geometric approach as is shown in the book.

Thanks
Bill
It has been a while, but from what I recall this equivalency certainly wasn't true at the level of rigour of mathematical physics instead of at the level of rigour of theoretical physics, where it is of course generally accepted as being true.

Myself, I'd wager on the geometric interpretation being more correct with the field theoretic interpretation being merely an approximation: this wager is based purely on mathematical intuition, biased by more sophisticated geometric and (complex-)analytic aesthetics.
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"Is Gravity Part Of The Standard Model?" You must log in or register to reply here.

Related Threads for: Is Gravity Part Of The Standard Model?

Replies
96
Views
15K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top