Talk:Loop quantum gravity/Archive 3

message: Hi Miguel, hello others,
I don't know whether Tweet-Tweet is another username of yours. At any rate, the user with this nickname keeps on vandalizing the page with the objections, and including rather disorganized replies (Charles Matthews has a lot of work with formatting them). Tweet Tweet is trying to change the page about the problems of LQG into another page promoting the beliefs of LQG.
:Lubos, thank you very much for the thinly veiled accusation that I created a sock-puppet account to vandalize your POV rant, as if I cared. — Miguel 18:04, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
This is just unacceptable. Either this vandalism stops, or the objections will have to be included in the main page. Best wishes, Lubos --Lumidek 12:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Lumidek, why are you smearing me horribly everywhere? Tweet Tweet 04:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism of Tweet_Tweet 

message: I have an idea. Why not just port everything relating to quantum gravity to Wikinfo: and add interwiki links to the quantum gravity articles here? Tweet Tweet 04:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's port everything over to Wikinfo 

message: Since Miguel reasonably suggested a discussion about editing, here we go.  The article says, "a proof by example that it is not necessary to have a theory of everything in order to have a candidate for a quantum theory of gravity."  I have no idea what this convoluted clause means, given that it is not established that LQG is a viable quantum theory of gravity.  (It would have to have gravity as its macroscopic limit, but this is listed later as an open problem, and many people think that it is a false conjecture.)  So I'm going to delete this.  --Greg Kuperberg 01:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. — Miguel 05:08, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
I didn't like Charles' edit about string theorist who "have not informed themselves about the debate", besides that the grammar was convoluted.  The "debate" is not (or not yet) at the level of science.  There is a procedural debate as to whether or not there should be any scientific debate.  So it inaccurate to say that string theorists have not informed themselves. --Greg Kuperberg 19:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to editing 

message: Merging two articles just doesn't mean cut'n'paste from one article to the other. And side-by-side of different POVs is not NPOV. --Pjacobi 01:25, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of the old "equal time" law that the FCC used to enforce on network news & commentary programs?  Well before the 80's they did enforce such a rule wich said that a TV/radio station needed to sell equal ammounts of ad time to both parties.  Or on a new debate show they would have to have a conservative and a liberal like "Crossfire" or "HANNITY and Colmes".
--HFarmer 04:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Equal time', 'balance' etc are not WP policies. The policy is that writing should be NPOV - ideally one should get no information from it with which to reconstruct the writer's POV, just a summing up. Charles Matthews 11:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  @Tweet Tweet 

message: I understand Wikipedia's policy. However, scientific theories are all debateable and all present a scientific POV.  This is different from normal POV in that scientific POV is based on the available information.  Where a regular POV is just an opinion.  A theory could be defined as a point of view that is backed up by facts and predicts what will happen under certain circumstances.  
This may not be the most diplomatic way of putting it but this is the truth.  
An example would be the opinion of expert witnesses at a murder trial.  The lawyers spend much time trying to belittle the opposing sides expert's education or methods.  Then they bring on thier own experts who's scientific opinion is more friendly to them.
have you all looked at the talk pages for other scientific theories.  Basic bedrock science is even controversial.  I'm talking Special relativity and Evolution.  Even they are a source of controversey.--HFarmer 21:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is POV? What is a scientific opinion based on facts?

message: Related to the idea of a scientific POV (SPOV)is the fact that we all have different SPOV's based on our backgrounds.  
The controversial tag should be put on this page and any other page related to quantum gravity. I will bet any ammount of money that many of the people who criticize this article just do not agree with LQG.  They have their SPOV it is a valid opinion and it is addressed in the "objections" section.  That said their ought to be an objections section in each and every article on quantum gravity.  The fact that theri is no accepted theory of quantum gravity says that there are arguments for and against all of them.
--HFarmer 03:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's an idea 

message: A section of this article has been the subject of controversy.  An attempt was made to move the disputed section to a separate article.  As the result of a Votes for Deletion discussion, that page has been redirected back to this article.  The page history has been preserved in case it is useful in the continuing resolution of the dispute.  Rossami (talk) 01:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  from VfD 

message: As someone who is neither a physicist or mathematician (I have an interest in this area), I really don't understand what loop quantum gravity is.  Why?  Nothing in the article actually says what it is.  First it is shown as an alternative to string theory, then it talks about various aspects and problems of it, but never once does the article actually state what the theory is proposing as a solution to the problem of quantum gravity and what brought about the theory in the first place.
It does say so.  But the subject of quantum gravity is just so complex that it is not as simple as saying.  This theory of quantum gravity says..blah..   What I would tell a non physicist of loop quantum gravity is just what I would say of any theory of quantum gravity to such a person.  Theories of quantum gravity are attempts to understand gravity as it exist (if it exist) at the quantum level.  On a higher level I would say that Loop quantum gravity is one canonical theory of quantum gravity whereby space-time is quantized "directly".  Note that statements like this leave out so much information that the question what is LQG may not be satisfied by them. 
Look up this paper for a wealth of technical information on the subject. arXiv:gr-qc/03113V2   I hope this helps--Hfarmer 06:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is loop quantum gravity? 

message: I have a question i couldn't find an answer on this topic so far, maybe somebody here is able to explain: Mass in special relativity is described as based on one's frame of reference, and LQG is based on a relativistic time-space room ... Does this room in LQM include a relativic view of masses as well ? To clearify what i mean: Earth is moving with some speed through space, does this make any difference for an oberserver looking at masses of particle near light-speed if he is in oberserving it in LQG than described so far ? To point out the diffence: I would expect masses in LQM to grow with speed, but an observer with high speed itself should detect that he has gained relativistic mass and not the other system as the intertial system predicts. Thank you. --Yoxx 22:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What will LQG mean for [[Mass in special relativity]] ? 

message: The gravitons section states that gravtions need to be able to occour "in unlimited numbers", to account for field density near heavy stars. But surely - it might possibly be the case that there is an upper limit, which we get at black hole event horizons. 
Pmurray bigpond.com 04:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravitons 

message: someone please make this article shorter why is string theory so short and lqg so long???
edit: for the person above me, time is quantized in lqg but so is space? wow, um, dunno what to say
"time is quantized in lqg but so is space?"  yes Space-time is one unified entity in relativistic physical theory.  As relativistic gravity is a theory of space-time and geometry it makes sense to many physicist to try and quantize some aspect of space time (length, area, curvature, etc).
The reason for the clutter and extra length is that LQG is subject to more criticism than String Theory wich is it's main competition.  It was my idea to move the Objections section to a different article thus cleaning up this article.  That was voted down a while ago.  I propose that we try it again, move the objections section to it's own article with a prominent link on this page.  --Hfarmer 00:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  clean this up