Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Quantum Gravity

  1. Aug 30, 2004 #1
    I decided to start this thread and it can be moved to wherever people might feel it appropriate, under the heading of Relativity or quantum Mechanics, or New Forum.

    I decided to started collecting links in the event such an idea was to begin.

    Any other quantum Gravity links would be appreciated.
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 30, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Nice. Thanks.
  4. Aug 30, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    thanks sol, you show a welcome lot of enthusiasm and energy in this.
    After thinking some more about the idea, it seems to me that we should
    petition Greg to establish a QG subforum---wherever he sees fit to locate it
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2004
  5. Aug 30, 2004 #4
    yes and thank you Marcus. This is, and has been, the direction I had always wanted to go.

    It is a carry over from this thread

    The question rasied by plum, was to refrain from including Strings or LQG? I do not know how one could do this without incorporating all the necessary links. I tried to provide links that would explain what quantum gravity is so people are a little clearer.

    How diverse is the topic, "Quantum Gravity"? As to how one would monitor this again is a problem, but certainly, if this could be manageable, why not, if Sa is up for it.
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2004
  6. Aug 30, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    that Quantum Gravity page you made, with all the links, is a beauty.

    the Egyptian art is highly appropriate with the quote from Ramanujan

    because for one thing it shows the Scales (which are an equation)

    I think if you look in the Gods' pavilion up near the roof you will see a feather. IIRC this feather was traditionally used to weigh a man's soul, the soul was placed in one pan of the scales and the feather in the other. I do not know whether your soul was supposed to be heavier than a feather or lighter than a feather. I would rather mine were lighter, but the Egyptians might have thought differently. the feather may have had other significances as well---things usually did. anyway lovely choice of graphic thematic
  7. Aug 30, 2004 #6
    The "Lotus" on the main page reminds me of the Planck Epoch, to today :smile:
  8. Aug 30, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    if we talk about things like this a lot people will be confused and think its about art. have to tell you a quote from Italo Calvino, the writer (actually a scientist too, with Engineer background, well educated, but nevertheless a writer)

    this from chapter 3 of his book "Six Memos"

    "For the ancient Egyptians, exactitude was symbolized by a feather that served as a weight on scales used for the weighing of souls. this light feather was called Maat, goddess of the scales. The hieroglyph for Maat also stood for the unit of length---the 33 centimeters of the standard brick---and for the fundamental note of the flute."

    Calvino says he learned this from the philosopher Giorgio di Santillana (sometimes anglicized George Santayana)
  9. Aug 30, 2004 #8


    That is very interesting.

    You would have to conceptualism the deeper meaning of this plate. What your heart means, and what your truth would mean. I choose Benjamin Franklin for "good reason," to show this developement, of reasoning.

    They also used the Eye(music).

    Yes art might have been implied, but also a deeper meaning. You'd get that from any definition of the Lotus. :smile: Even from the Ancient Egyptians

    Measure is important, and from ancient traditions, concepts like line of light and line of darkness, gave a good indication of dualism that could manifest, but it also demonstrated the value of line in contrast. Maybe even, the inceptions of geometries that emerged. Sa had a early inkling of this. :smile:

    Early geometry in Egyptian mode, is what I used in my original paradigmal building. Don't run now :smile: Both Pythagoras and Plato were opposite in their views? I think the Egyptians like to have both?

    Anyway back to QG :smile: I might have bastardize the language, into a form of poetry, that many revolt from :biggrin: Some say math is th ebasis of language, but I would like to think that I am speaking directly to it as well. :confused: :rofl:
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2004
  10. Sep 1, 2004 #9
    How Would the Holographical Principal Apply?

    Dimensional Reduction in Quantum GravityGerard 't Hooft

    We've progress some I'd say. :smile:
  11. Sep 1, 2004 #10
  12. Sep 2, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    I have a problem with that. The statistical geometry they use is not on very sound footing.
  13. Sep 2, 2004 #12
    Ok, define your problems stating any ambiguities you feel are overlooked.
  14. Sep 2, 2004 #13
    To me having defined the length at which this geometry must emerge from, and where it would exist at, is a formal agreement that must be struck?

    So whether we use LQG in its attempts or strings here, we are after a fundamental unit of measure. Does someone else have a method they would liketo include here? :smile:


    So in having done, so we needed formulate, based on the history, so that we could see who was guiding what, through our conceptions, in the attempt at unification of GR and QM. To me, if QM is entertaining, we are implementing subtle thoughts to a diverse probability scenario.

    Are we being true to ourselves by saying how erroeous the ideas are in QM might we of implored in using consciousness?


    Marcus was right to point one in the direction of QG and Planck units to aid in the process of the further model developement. So this, has to be taken into account as a standard. How would we model our perceptions, on the elements of such lengths?

    So is there an agreement here that such mathematics although statistically based, must have recognized the values assigned to planck length in terms of those energies? How each "QG model" assigns itself to these features?

    So to me again we are faced with a highly based mathematical abstractive world, that must arise from fundamental values. In each presentation then we are looking for these consistancies to emerge.

    If from a SRian approach to precede GR, the expression of LQGian perspective saids, " we can arrive at it much differently", then the GRianistic interpretation stringist implore. These are "conceptuals frameswork", that treat the question of a "geometry," that should emerge from those values, discerned from fundamental units?
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2004
  15. Sep 2, 2004 #14
    Wouldn't the existence of gravitons - associated with gravity alone - destroy the equivalence principle that says gravitational mass is the same as inertial mass? Yet, even at the quantum level, how would a particle know the difference between acceleration due to gravity or acceleration by any other means? If the graviton interacts with massive string in some way differently than other particles that cause acceleration, then we should be able to detect the presence of gravity even inside an enclosed box.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Quantum Gravity
  1. Quantum Gravity (Replies: 17)

  2. Quantum Gravity (Replies: 4)

  3. Quantum Gravity? (Replies: 15)

  4. Quantum Gravity (Replies: 9)

  5. Quantum gravity (Replies: 2)