Is there some agreement on properties of a theory of quantum gravity?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the lack of a unified theory of quantum gravity, highlighting the need for specificity in discussions about proposed models. Participants emphasize that while concepts like gravity as a field and granular space are reasonable, they require more concrete definitions and references to existing literature. The forum allows discussions on specific models found in published papers, such as string theory and loop quantum gravity, but discourages vague generalizations. The thread concludes with a reminder to adhere to established guidelines for future discussions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum gravity concepts
  • Familiarity with string theory and loop quantum gravity
  • Knowledge of academic publishing standards in physics
  • Ability to analyze scientific literature
NEXT STEPS
  • Research specific models of quantum gravity, such as string theory and loop quantum gravity
  • Examine the criteria for publishing in academic journals versus platforms like viXra
  • Explore the implications of viewing gravity as a field in theoretical physics
  • Investigate the concept of granular space and its relevance in quantum gravity theories
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in theoretical physics, and students interested in the complexities of quantum gravity and its proposed models.

KurtLudwig
Messages
146
Reaction score
31
TL;DR
Do physicists have a list of probable properties and equations which a future theory most likely will contain. Such as: Will quantum gravity be a field? How to make quantum gravity re-normalizeable ?
Having read many times that there is no theory of quantum gravity, yet physicists at Physics Forums must have some ideas of what a theory of quantum gravity will contain.
Is it allowed to discuss these questions at Physics Forums? Wikipedia does allow some current theoretical work to be published, such as string theories and loop quantum gravity and some others. Wikipedia does not allow any personal ideas to be published. viXra allows most ideas to be published, but does not review any papers, with the result that these papers will most likely not be read by anyone.
It seems reasonable to posit that gravity is a field? All the other forces arise out of fields and interact with each other.
It seems reasonable to posit that space is granular? This would prevent infinities from arising.
The gravitational field may be the base field, as posited by loop quantum gravity.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
KurtLudwig said:
Is it allowed to discuss these questions at Physics Forums?

Specific proposed quantum gravity models ("proposed" meaning "appears in an actual paper in the literature, which you should provide a link to") can be discussed in the Beyond the Standard Model forum.

Other discussions are too general and vague to be useful. For example:

KurtLudwig said:
It seems reasonable to posit that gravity is a field?

Ok, now go look at the literature and see how many different versions of "gravity is a field" there are. You need to focus discussion on something more specific than that.

KurtLudwig said:
It seems reasonable to posit that space is granular?

Ok, now go look at the literature and see how many different versions of "space is granular" there are...
 
The previous response describes the appropriate ground rules for future threads. This thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K