Stephen Hawking's omission of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) in his popular works is attributed to its non-mainstream status compared to theories like supergravity and string theory. Hawking focuses on established theories that align with mainstream physics, as LQG has not demonstrated consistency with supergravity, which is considered a more predictive framework. The discussion highlights that LQG lacks experimental validation and has not been widely accepted in the scientific community, leading to its exclusion from Hawking's writings. The conversation also touches on the sociological dynamics within the physics community regarding funding and research focus.
PREREQUISITESPhysicists, researchers in quantum gravity, and students of theoretical physics seeking to understand the dynamics between mainstream theories and emerging alternatives like Loop Quantum Gravity.
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.