- #1
- 11,205
- 3,864
In your opinion, what theorethical objects are the most likely to represent the most fundamental constituents of nature?
I agree. And I would say that "fields" and "spin networks" are essentially the same option, because a spin network is just a way to describe a field without committing to a prior choice of background geometry.I'm missing one alternative: none of the above...
Maybe I should slightly reformulate the question:I'm missing one alternative: none of the above.
This, indeed, is how LQG is usually formulated. Such a formulation assumes that continuous topology is prior to fields, metric, and spin networks.I agree. And I would say that "fields" and "spin networks" are essentially the same option, because a spin network is just a way to describe a field without committing to a prior choice of background geometry.
That's right! The usual LQG version is that the world is made of fields..This, indeed, is how LQG is usually formulated. ...
In the not-so-new lectures written by Thiemann (gr-qc/0210094), at page 44 he writes: "One may spaculate that the discrete structure is fundamental and that the analiticity assumptions that we began with should be unimportant, in the final picture everything should be only combinatorical."Do you mean some new papers by Thiemann where he uses the term "algebraic quantum gravity"? That is interesting, but it was just last year and i haven't had enough time to assimilate the new direction. Perhaps the AQG approach really does describe fields, but in a new way, so that it has the same basic ontology.
It seems to be more related to the interpretations of QM (see the poll inI would like to suggest a write in candidate: bits.
That is pretty much a useless question.In your opinion, what theorethical objects are the most likely to represent the most fundamental constituents of nature?
Time as a one dimensional object, or if you would time with any duration, is the most fundamental part of our universe. I think of a point not as being a zero dimensional object but as being a single duration of time. I voted for particle, now if you would like to add one more dimension, motion, you could show a field durning this same expanding duration.In your opinion, what theorethical objects are the most likely to represent the most fundamental constituents of nature?