Two methods evolved in the theory of elementary particles to describe such quantized flux tubes. The one, called the loop method, studies them using the basic laws of electricity and magnetism, combined with quantum theory. The second, called string theory, postulates that the quantized flux tubes may be treated as fundamental in their own right, and the laws of electricity and magnetism derived from them.

Many theorists believe that these two points of view are actually equivalent—just different ways of studying the same thing from different points of view. The idea that they are the same is called duality, which here, as in other areas, signals that the same object is being studied with different ideas and methods.

Sometimes, this is taken to another level of actual “feuding,” yet, it is understood, that they are all working towards the same end?

Wouldn’t this be a good prerequisite of knowledge as to what makes a “good scientist?”

Or is it “a game” that fuels each other with which to encourage advancingly so “more roads and tools of math” by developing the “expert relations” on Quantum Gravity?
Thus, Lee Smolin may be a “moderate of sorts,” while being criticized? A well balanced approach?

So what’s new with the arrow of time? Now *there’s* something that a lot more people could be thinking about!
I wonder what Andrei Linde thinks about this? He can usually be relied upon to blow several fuses at the hint that there is something that Inflation can’t do….

If you could not include “dynamcial thinking” into the world around us, then what use the statement, “about what is real or not?”

Perimeter’s Institute Principal Mandate

There is no more foundational problem than that of discovering the quantum theory of gravity. This is the theory that will unify the two main theories on which all of science is now based: quantum theory and general relativity.

We can’t see a lot of things, yet we know “particle creations” are really important to the way we talk about the very beginning of the universe? Some may “color” particle creations in a different way?

That’s not real?:)

But the universe contains everything, including all its possible observers. This means that quantum theory must be extended (or re-invented) to allow observers to be part of the system they are observing. This is presently a lively area of research, to which scientists at PI have contributed important ideas and results.

Thanks a lot for linking to my blog and the report on your talk! The brief notes on Prof. Wilczek’s talk is already available too.

Best,
Yidun

Thanks for the reference but I am in no way speaking about the observer/observable duality here.

On the Effects of External Sensory Input on Time Dilation.” A. Einstein, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J.

Conclusion: The state of mind of the observer plays a crucial role in the perception of time.

I just thought it might be important for some?
In Einstein’s book on “Relativity” (1952)he writes,

“Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent “now” objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

May be useful, or not?

By and large, I find it more appealing to contemplate an infinite range of Cosmological Constants within a boundless array of Hubble-Bubbles within an endless landscape. In contrast, I find it less appealing to contemplate a single finite Cosmological Constant within the confines of an isolated, self-contained Hubble-Bubble devoid of an endless landscape. Unfortunately, the more appealing scenario is purely nebulous without the backbone of science.

Best regards,

Jack, the talks referred to some things that had already appeared, but were mostly about new work that extended those results. Conferences are a mixed bag; the big lecture talks are often wastes of time, but the small conversations can be immensely useful. This was a very small and focused workshop, so it was more useful than most.

(of course the same argument could be applied to religious explanations for things as well.)

Elliot