- #1

- 71

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Alamino
- Start date

- #1

- 71

- 0

- #2

marcus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 24,757

- 788

Alamino said:

your suggested name change "Strings and Quantum Gravity" makes a lot of sense! sounds good too, short and to the point. I hope the management considers it!

About your question, if QG approaches are multiplying rapidly? I don't know, because it seems to me there were about the same number back in 1997 or 1998 when Rovelli did a survey. Since then, some faded out of fashion, while others came in.

Some merge, while others divide like an amoeba. I find it hard to say just how many distinct QG approaches there are, or if they really are growing in number.

it would be great if Group Fields (spinfoam) would merge with CDT would merge with Reuter's QEG----if they would all coallesce into one nonperturbative Approach. How nice that would be!

- #3

marcus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 24,757

- 788

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9803024

Abstract:"...I review the present theoretical attempts to understand the quantum properties of spacetime. In particular, I illustrate the main achievements and the main difficulties in: string theory, loop quantum gravity, discrete quantum gravity (Regge calculus, dynamical triangulations and simplicial models), Euclidean quantum gravity, perturbative quantum gravity, quantum field theory on curved spacetime, noncommutative geometry, null surfaces, topological quantum field theories and spin foam models..."

so they had a confusing proliferation back then too

maybe the situation has even gotten simpler since then!

- #4

- 71

- 0

BTW, thanks for the tip of the paper, Marcus. I will read it.

Share: