Talk:Causal dynamical triangulation

Physics C‑class Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scientific American article

The February 2007 issue of Scientific American on page 24 included a one page article discussing causal dynamical triangulation. While the science is a bit over my head, it does seem to present some additional information about the theory and its possible advantages over other theories such as string theory and loop quantum gravity. Perhaps an interested editor would care to review the SA article and add appropriate information from it to this Wiki stub? Dugwiki 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I read that article, and some of the related sources, as well. John Baez devoted a fair amount of his talk at Loops 2005 to CDT and also extols the advantages of this approach. I will probably take some time to re-work this topic, as it is indeed an exciting new approach to Quantum Gravity. I'm trying to get a grasp on it myself, and I think I'm fairly close to a conversant understanding. Of course, I'll be including some of what's covered in Mark Alpert's SA article. JonathanD 08:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to report that Jan Ambjorn, the theory's primary author, has agreed to answer questions about CDT and review my summary of the topic for the wiki. Expect to see something more in the article section, very soon. JonathanD 02:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title was changed to Causal dynamical triangulation, as that is the proper name for the theory, as used by all the experts who refer to this subject (notably its framers). I went ahead and moved it first, and will probably merge with Discrete Lorentzian gravity on the morrow. Waiting 8 hours (or so) should insure there will be no complications from bad re-directs. JonathanD 03:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still hoping to merge

My plans are to move material from Discrete Lorentzian QG to Derivation segment of article. I wanted to clean things up here first, and assure there were no obvius errors. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to merge things later today, or tomorrow. JonathanD 17:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

"The Loops '05 conference, hosted by many loop quantum gravity theorists, included several presentations which discussed CDT in great depth, and revealed it to be a pivotal insight for theorists." This sounds quite biased to me... the "in great depth" is out of place, and "pivotal" must surely be removed or at least very well justified, given that this approach is not currently mainstream? --mcld (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course the notion of a pivot, in this context, rather makes one's head spin...

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take some of the hype out of this article in about a week, and mark missing references. About the only think I like is that there is that it attempts to say what CDT in terms that anyone can understand, which should be a minimum requirement for a technical article. CDT deserves much better; I wish I knew enough to do a thorough job cleaning this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.134.75 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Scientific American

In the first paragraph there is a clickable link to "Scientific American," and clicking on it informs us that "Scientific American (informally abbreviated SciAm) is an American popular science magazine."

Wonderful! I'm sure this is information everyone who came to this page wanted to know.

That would help us all understand how it could have a particular page, which, however, is not linked...

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page completely unclear (and not neutral, as mentioned above by some)

The theory is of course very interesting, but the article has serious issues; sources are almost invariably from scholars directly working on the theory, there are no footnotes, etc. In details, and among other, at the beginning it is said that the "dimension" might vary, but in the section "Derivation" it seems that d is fixed (and the dimension is fixed anyway in Regge calculus). Moreover it seems that there is an absolute time in the theory; I do not see how can you get anything similar to General Relativity, that way.78.15.173.175 (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image 'Simulated LHC CMS data ..."

This Image does not illustrate the Lemma at all, but is rather general contemporary HEP iconography. Please remove or replace with something like this or this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.216.246.111 (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]