Third quarter QG research poll: nominations (1 Viewer)

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,650
781
the third quarter is July thru September
by the end of this month we will have some perspective on the non-string QG research posted this quarter--or at least we'll know what was posted.

What research do you think should be nominated for third quarter "MIP" ("most influential paper") so far?

For concreteness here are some preprints that have appeared on arxiv since 1 July. Several are collaborations but I won't bother to say "et al." in this listing. It was a tossup between Speziale and his co-author Etera Livine, who sometimes visits PF.

One by Freidel
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0607014 [Broken]

One by Speziale
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0608131 [Broken]

Two by Bojowald
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0608100 [Broken]
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0607130 [Broken]

Five by Thiemann
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0607075 [Broken]
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0607100 [Broken]
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0607101 [Broken]
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0607380 [Broken]
http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0608210 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,650
781
BTW the last one in the "five by Thiemann" is the controversial survey paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0608210
Loop Quantum Gravity: An Inside View

in case anyone is curious, here are links to the earlier MIP polls

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=124951

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=116791

as far as past results go, in the first poll Gerard 't Hooft topped the list, and in the second it was a three-way tie----with John Baez (who occasionally shows up and posts here) being one of those in first place.

For me, part of the interest is how well different people FORECAST the future significance or influence of research. In a forecast poll you can see who guessed which papers and look back and see if those papers did in fact get cited a lot in later research or had some other kind of significance.

Like here are the names of the guessers and what they picked
https://www.physicsforums.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=817 [Broken]

You can see that the smart money may, in this case, have been on Padmanabhan, even tho he didn't actually win the poll.
Anyway try to nominate research you think actually will contribute to progress and be useful to future researchrs and get cited by them in the footnotes and so on. Good hunting!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,650
781
maybe it should be single papers, no bundles this time, and the line-up should be

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0608210
Thiemann Loop Quantum Gravity: An Inside View

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0608100
Bojowald Large-scale effective theory for cosmological bounces

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607014
Freidel Kowalski-Glikman Starodubtsev Particles as Wilson lines of gravitational field

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0608131
Livine Speziale Group Integral Techniques for the Spinfoam Graviton Propagator

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0608221
Barrett A Lorentzian version of the non-commutative geometry of the standard model of particle physics

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0608226
Connes Noncommutative Geometry and the standard model with neutrino mixing
 
my nomination

I think Torsten and Helge's "Calculation of the Cosmological Constant by Unifying Matter and Dark Energy" will be influential. It showed that General Relativity still has a few tricks up its sleeves.

The Standard Model does not say much about dark matter, and nothing about dark energy, so any development in this area will be huge.
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,650
781
Energex42 said:
I think Torsten and Helge's "Calculation of the Cosmological Constant by Unifying Matter and Dark Energy" will be influential...
thanks for your input Energex42,
I'm open to lots of nominations and if I construct a poll out of it later (as we did in first and second quarters of the year) I'll probably narrow it down some.
 

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,691
5
For me it's between Freidel Kowalski-Glikman Starodubtsev, Barrett, and Connes. They are all key papers about promising new physics.

Ummmmmm..... Connes, mostly because of the name, and because he claims he can do neutrino mixing, whih is pretty damn good for a (sort of) first principles theory. It's all about what will attract the attention of bright followers.
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,650
781
There are several excellent papers to choose from in the 3rd quarter, but I suspect a landslide favorite. In any case here is what we have. Is everyone happy with this range of choices? Any others to suggest?

marcus said:
maybe it should be single papers, no bundles this time, and the line-up should be

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0608210
Thiemann Loop Quantum Gravity: An Inside View

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0608100
Bojowald Large-scale effective theory for cosmological bounces

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607014
Freidel Kowalski-Glikman Starodubtsev Particles as Wilson lines of gravitational field

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0608131
Livine Speziale Group Integral Techniques for the Spinfoam Graviton Propagator

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0608221
Barrett A Lorentzian version of the non-commutative geometry of the standard model of particle physics

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0608226
Connes Noncommutative Geometry and the standard model with neutrino mixing
 

Chronos

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,392
731
I have one more in mind:

Towards Quantum Gravity: A Framework for Probabilistic Theories with Non-Fixed Causal Structure
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0608043
Authors: Lucien Hardy

The author is definitely a newcomer having submitted only two papers to date - the other, a related treatise, appeared earlier this year.
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,650
781
I've made some fairly arbitrary choices to narrow the field down.


A. Barrett and Connes

These two are listed together, since Barrett and Connes arrived at the same result at the same time.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0608221
A Lorentzian version of the non-commutative geometry of the standard model of particle physics
Barrett

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0608226
Noncommutative Geometry and the standard model with neutrino mixing
Connes

B. Freidel et al

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607014
Particles as Wilson lines of gravitational field
Freidel, Kowalski-Glikman, Starodubtsev
19 pages, to be published in Phys. Rev. D

"Since the work of Mac-Dowell-Mansouri it is well known that gravity can be written as a gauge theory for the de Sitter group. In this paper we consider the coupling of this theory to the simplest gauge invariant observables that is, Wilson lines. The dynamics of these Wilson lines is shown to reproduce exactly the dynamics of relativistic particles coupled to gravity, the gauge charges carried by Wilson lines being the mass and spin of the particles. Insertion of Wilson lines breaks in a controlled manner the diffeomorphism symmetry of the theory and the gauge degree of freedom are transmuted to particles degree of freedom."

C. Gambini et al

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0608243
Relational physics with real rods and clocks and the measurement problem of quantum mechanics
Rodolfo Gambini, Jorge Pullin
19 pages

"The use of real clocks and measuring rods in quantum mechanics implies a natural loss of unitarity in the description of the theory. We briefly review this point and then discuss the implications it has for the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. The intrinsic loss of coherence allows to circumvent some of the usual objections to the measurement process as due to environmental decoherence."

D. Smolin

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609109
Could quantum mechanics be an approximation to another theory?
Lee Smolin
10 pages

"We consider the hypothesis that quantum mechanics is an approximation to another, cosmological theory, accurate only for the description of subsystems of the universe. Quantum theory is then to be derived from the cosmological theory by averaging over variables which are not internal to the subsystem, which may be considered non-local hidden variables. We find conditions for arriving at quantum mechanics through such a procedure. The key lesson is that the effect of the coupling to the external degrees of freedom introduces noise into the evolution of the system degrees of freedom, while preserving a notion of averaged conserved energy and time reversal invariance.
These conditions imply that the effective description of the subsystem is Nelson's stochastic formulation of quantum theory. We show that Nelson's formulation is not, by itself, a classical stochastic theory as the conserved averaged energy is not a linear function of the probability density. We also investigate an argument of Wallstrom posed against the equivalence of Nelson's stochastic mechanics and quantum mechanics and show that, at least for a simple case, it is in error."
 
178
0
selfAdjoint said:
For me it's between Freidel Kowalski-Glikman Starodubtsev, Barrett, and Connes. They are all key papers about promising new physics.

Ummmmmm..... Connes, mostly because of the name, and because he claims he can do neutrino mixing, whih is pretty damn good for a (sort of) first principles theory. It's all about what will attract the attention of bright followers.
I voted Freidel's paper b/c it could give Bilson's ribbons preons a more concrete theoretical basis and allow calculations for particle masses from first principles. Spin and mass-energy and 2nd/3rd generations seem to be unaccounted for with the current preon models. I've suggested Yershov ground his preons in similar models. Also, a concrete derivation of charge of e/3 based on spinfoam would be highly desirable.
 
Last edited:

The Physics Forums Way

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
Top