Maybe we mean something different by Julia Sets? I mean the well-known classical fractal sets of that name; these were devised by Prof. Raoul Julia who fought in WWI and I don't suppose is around anymore.Marcus said:[MY COMMENT: this is "Julia sets" Julia. I didn't know to expect him to show up at a Loops conference
thanks, mistake correctedselfAdjoint said:Maybe we mean something different by Julia Sets? I mean the well-known classical fractal sets of that name; these were devised by Prof. Raoul Julia who fought in WWI and I don't suppose is around anymore.
it definitely is not a silly questionBerislav said:This might sound like a silly question, but...
Is the picture on their homepage a rendering of CDT?
One has to observe the interchanging three "logos" at the top left hand corner sidebar?..the one which emerges with a G ..where the tail-end is contained within a "background/foreground" !...the actual letter G goes through a 'loop' in its upper part. The bottom tail of G appears out of a fractal border of the 'white square'/'brown square, curve's around and back onto the brown square, which is embedded onto the "background"? really cool and interesting.marcus said:it definitely is not a silly question
the "icon" chosen for a line of research can be a helpful handle on it
I think that the picture is actually a unification of two or more theories where in the FOREGROUND near the viewer I see the triangles of CDT
and FURTHER AWAY more in the background, I see loops emerging, or perhaps they are nonperturbative strings and branes, as some largerscale structures, already kind of foggy or blurred, emerge out of the primitive small scale triangles.
at least one of the pictures has this suggestive foreground-blending-into-background thing
If I were to meet hermann nicolai, I think I would ask him did he choose the artist or the pictures for this AEI website?
I think he is a clever far-seeing man and although his specialty is string, I think he WANTS THE BEST for all approaches to quantum gravity and he believes that they can work in a synergistic way to test each other and so on. a man like Nicolai could have decided on that picture.
(if anyone doesnt know: nicolai directs the Unified theories and Quantum gravity department of AEI-Potsdam where they are hosting the conference)
there is another thing that changes how I see the Loops05 programme, or shed some light on it for me and that is a passage from an earlier JB post on the same thread. it is hard to understand but points to somethingmarcus said:the most illuminating thing I have seen since Friday when the program came out (bearing on the current QG picture) is this comment on Woit blog by JB
this post is #53 in the comments...
elegance is an interesting standard. perhaps not entirely straightforward either, I think new and noble mathematics might sometimes sprout from a mere pragmatic contrivance---something cobbled together just to get it to work. I think the awkward could sometimes harbor the seeds of elegance. Maybe one just needs to understand the inelegant thing better.---quote JB on Woit blog---
But, to answer your question, what could get me working harder on quantum gravity is some evidence that we can find a mathematically elegant background-free quantum theory that can reduce to general relativity in a suitable limit. I see no reason why such a thing can’t be found if we drop the restriction on “mathematical elegance” - but I like things that use beautiful math.
This is precisely why I mentioned Carlo Rovelli’s new paper...
Marcus, one of the main things to consider is what Olaf Dreyer:http://loops05.aei.mpg.de/index_files/abstract_dreyer.htmlmarcus said:
Hi Spin, I may have missed something you said earlier. How will we know anything about what they say at the conference until much later if at all? I am unable to attend---comes at the wrong time for me and it's far away. It would be wonderful of course if someone were to attend and put reports up on a website.Spin_Network said:Marcus, one of the main things to consider is what Olaf Dreyer:http://loops05.aei.mpg.de/index_files/abstract_dreyer.html
appears to tackling?
I have one or two things I would be very interested in finding out regarding Quantum to Macro transitions, having my own ideas, I am going to see how close I am to what the Theorists predict, but I ll leave that till about two days before the programme gets under way.
Regarding the "new hypotheses" from Smolin,http://loops05.aei.mpg.de/index_files/abstract_smolin.html
I wonder what it could involve?..I have a number of calculated guesses, but,again this will go onto my website no later than two days before the start date.
Chronos and Marcus thanks for the great thread, keeping everything in check.Chronos said:Terno and Markopoulou are giving presentations based on quantum information theory on Monday [Markopoulouday on my calender]. I'm a big fan of QIT. FM's presentation should be quite interesting
Title: Erorr-free quantum gravity
Abstract: We investigate the possibility that a background independent quantum theory of gravity is not a theory of quantum geometry. We provide a way for global spacetime symmetries to emerge from a background independent theory without geometry. In this, we use a quantum information theoretic formulation of quantum gravity and the method of noiseless subsystems in quantum error correction. This is also a method that can extract particles from a quantum geometric theory such as a spin foam model.
Instead of the usual 'sum of geometries' approach to quantum gravity, FM is suggesting the geometry itself may be emergent. How is that for background independence? This appears to build upon a presentation from late 2004. Here's a link if anyone is interested: