Re: How active is research on other quantum gravity theories than loops or strings
- From: "Juan R." <juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:56:51 +0000 (UTC)
I.Vecchi wrote:
> markw...@xxxxxxxxx ha scritto:
>
> ..
>
> > Twistors emerge naturally from string theory -- a point made by Witten
> > in a recent journal article this year.
>
> Maybe you are referring to [1], maybe not.
> Anyways, such "natural emergence" reminds me of the marvellous
> explanatory power of Aristotelian science.
> I wonder whether there is ANYTHING that does not arise naturally from
> string theory.
>
> IV
>
> [1] http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0403199
> -------------------------
Well, the term 'arises naturally' has, in string theory community, a
different connotation that in the rest of scientific commuities. In the
rest of science, 'arises naturally' means that can be derived from
first principles on any underlying theory. In the string world, means
other thing. In the own words of string theorists Seiberg:
"string theorists are arrogant enough that whatever comes up in their
research, they will call it string theory."
page 6 of
http://www.canonicalscience.com/stringcriticism.pdf
In
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000161.html
this quote is incorrectly attributed to string theorist Maldacena. But
Peter Woit corrects this below.
It is clear that Twistor theory has been introduced in recent versions
of string theory, and thus, it now 'arises naturally'...
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: How active is research on other quantum gravity theories than
- Next by Date: Re: The absolute/relational nature of spacetime
- Previous by thread: Re: How active is research on other quantum gravity theories than
- Next by thread: Why no tensors in quantum mechanics?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
