Quantum Gravity with a Positive Cosmological Constant

jamso
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I have been reading the paper "Quantum Gravity with a Positive Cosmological Constant" by Lee Smolin (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0209079), and am having some trouble making the constants in Part I, Sections 2, 3, and 4 match with what I would calculate them to be when I try to go through the derivations for myself. I wondered if anyone else has gone through these derivations and knows if there are typos or maybe a different normalization convention for Levi-Civita symbol than what I am used to (+-1), or if I am making some mistake? Please help! I have gone through the calculations several times and am not sure what is going wrong.
Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Hello,
I have also read the paper and have gone through the derivations myself. I did not encounter any typos or errors in the calculations, but it is possible that there may be a difference in normalization conventions. I suggest reaching out to the author, Lee Smolin, for clarification on any specific calculations that you are having trouble with. Additionally, you may want to consult other sources or textbooks on quantum gravity to compare the results and see if there are any discrepancies. Good luck with your research!
 
Thread 'LQG Legend Writes Paper Claiming GR Explains Dark Matter Phenomena'
A new group of investigators are attempting something similar to Deur's work, which seeks to explain dark matter phenomena with general relativity corrections to Newtonian gravity is systems like galaxies. Deur's most similar publication to this one along these lines was: One thing that makes this new paper notable is that the corresponding author is Giorgio Immirzi, the person after whom the somewhat mysterious Immirzi parameter of Loop Quantum Gravity is named. I will be reviewing the...
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top