Talk:Quantum gravity/Archive for 2020

Delete Dilaton Section

The Dilaton section describes some interesting but rather specific research. I think it should be moved to a subsection on the Dilaton page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marpauly (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

A problem with this transfer is that if the editors of the dilaton section don't approve of your changes, they could just wipe out that section entirely and we lose the mention of a promising body of work connecting quantum gravity, Bose-Einstein condensates e.g. superfluids and the Higgs' boson. Superfluid models are used in MOND and Superfluid vacuum theory. I did not see you secure approval on the dilaton talk-page (?) I do agree the dilaton is distinct from the graviton and GRT, but that does not mean it should not be in the quantum gravity section. The graviton needs 3+1 dimensions i.e. 3 spatial dimensions in which to propagate. For 2+1 and especially 1+1 quantum gravity theories, you need a dilaton. These lower-dimensional models are easier to solve and theoretically instructive. Also, even if we leave this addition in the dilaton section where you put it, some redundancies have to be removed in order to stream-line the dilaton article. Who will do that? As I said before, I do not want to start a tug of war. I suppose for now, we just make note of this and do nothing more but if the editors of the dilaton section disapprove of your addition, we have to find an alternate solution such as e.g. transfer it to the R=T model section (an acceptable place though the 3+1 material could stick out like a sore thumb). Concerning my earlier comment about supersymmetry on your talk-page, I would say the Current status of Supersymmetry and the Criticisms against String Theory confirm my earlier point though perhaps more politely. As it stands now, the quantum gravity section can only offer optimism for the loop quantum gravity subsection (which actually overlaps with this dilaton work, though that was not made clear - a body of work in loop quantum gravity does consider F(R) theories). May I suggest that you leave a note of explanation on the dilaton talk-page at least? in case the editors take issue with your changes. Kakorn8 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI, the disappointment concerning e.g. String Theory and SuSY has been expressed in the media (e.g. [1] and [2] etc..). This is why I think it important to emphasize alternatives. I suggest the part "other approaches" includes "Dilatonic quantum gravity" with a link to the material put in the dilaton wiki section. Kakorn8 (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I would be fine with adding "Dilatonic quantum gravity" to "Other approaches", feel free to add the corresponding link. Additionally, I am sure it would be very much appreciated if you cleaned up the Dilaton article a bit. Regarding your view of string theory, I agree that it is important to make it very clear that string theory is just one of many possible approaches to quantum gravity and that there are many other interesting and promising ideas. In that regard I would also propose to move everything String- and LQG-related to the String and LQG subsection, respectively, instead of leaving bits and pieces scattered around the quantum gravity article. If noone objects, I will implement that in the future. Marpauly (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)