Why does Stephen Hawking omit all mention Loop Gravity?

Click For Summary
Stephen Hawking's omission of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) in his popular works is attributed to LQG's status as a non-mainstream theory, contrasting with his focus on more widely accepted concepts like supergravity and string theory. His books tend to recycle established ideas rather than explore emerging theories that lack consensus in the scientific community. The discussion highlights that LQG has not yet been shown to connect with known physics, and mainstream physicists often view it as a dead end due to its inconsistencies with supergravity. Furthermore, the landscape of quantum gravity research has shifted, with contemporary work increasingly centered around LQG, yet Hawking's writings reflect earlier paradigms. This situation illustrates the evolving nature of theoretical physics and the sociological dynamics influencing scientific discourse.
  • #61
MTd2 said:
In fact, Marcus just post a tiny part of what is posted about Horava gravity. I guess this article is not there, so, here it goes:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3563 and its citations.

This one is more recent, from the same author, and make a nice job of reinterpreting Horava Gravity bugs as nice features:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.5069

If you want some heavy criticism, this one is the best, uploaded last week:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1636

It hits the theory at its most fundamental base, that is, about the existence of a fixed point. But these authors make a constructive criticism, since they point out possible solutions to solve them. I personaly think that the nature of said solutions will lead to a convergence to the assymtotic safety situation similar to that of einstein quantum gravity.

Thanks! Also for pointing out the latest Wen paper on Marcus's thread! He'd indicated the results at the end of this talk http://pirsa.org/08110003/, so I was hoping for the details to be out soon.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Hum, I have seen that you repeatelysay "SUSY/SUGRA is not renormalizable".

I am not sure why civilzed or others didn't mention it, but nowadays the general belief is that SUGRA (D=4, N=8 at least) is very probably renormalizable: See for example: http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.4630
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K