live blogging: Mattingly

Discussion:

Audience:  Philosophers can explain what “beauty” in a final theory could be like.

James:  Really good art historians become physicists, not philosophers.

Audience:  Conceptual work can be contributed by philosophers.

James:  But who can do it when it’s coupled technically with the physics?

live blogging: Mattingly

Two other approaches:  hydrodynamic and condensed matter.

James:  Intriguing ideas but not well-developed as yet.

Virtues of general method:

– it’s a *method* and not speculative ontology.

– it holds promise of making contact with other approaches

– self-correcting

– it’s worked in the past

live blogging: Mattingly

Basic tenets of stochastic gravity:

– assume a complete micro theory incorporating gravity

– assume it’s a quantum system

It must be open.  (And a couple other characteristics that flew by me…)

One direction is “kinetic theory”…

live blogging: Mattingly

James:  This is not a theory of quantum gravity.  This is a proposal for how to move towards a theory of quantum gravity in incremental steps.

Audience input:  This is not an attempt to define a fundamental theory.

James:  The incremental extensions may intersect other approaches at various points (condensed matter approach for instance).

live blogging: Mattingly

Enter stochastic gravity:  add a term corresponding to a heat bath (?) to the semi-classical Einstein equation.  Use this term to probe the nature of further corrections.

Audience input:  The extra term represents quantum fluctuations of the stress-energy tensor.

live blogging: Mattingly

A conservative extension of SCG.  In Virginia, you buy old houses, tear them down, and build new ones (apparently).

No theory of quantum gravity here; i.e., it’s not an end state.  (No membranes vibrating in various ways.)

Just a way of generating progressive modification of theories we have:  the “Lorentz strategy”.