- #1
- 13,317
- 5,744
In your opinion, what theorethical objects are the most likely to represent the most fundamental constituents of nature?
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.
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.
In your opinion, what theorethical objects are the most likely to represent the most fundamental constituents of nature?
In your opinion, what theorethical objects are the most likely to represent the most fundamental constituents of nature?