Timeline for Mathematical explanation of the failure to quantize gravity naively
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 1 at 16:27 | comment | added | LSpice | @Esmond, thanks for your edit! It is generally considered appropriate not to bump old questions just to add MathJax. Since you also fixed a typo, this concern might not apply, and anyway it's not a problem as long as it's done sparingly. | |
| S Feb 1 at 11:22 | history | suggested | Esmond | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
corrected a word and added mathjax notation
|
| Feb 1 at 9:45 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 1 at 11:22 | |||||
| Dec 6, 2010 at 22:19 | comment | added | user1504 | One would have to prove that different regularizations give the same limiting path integral measure. This should follow from the same arguments that demonstrate existence. But people mostly worry about existence for lattice theories at the moment; we don't have any other regularization schemes which work nearly as well. | |
| Dec 6, 2010 at 20:55 | comment | added | timur | Thank you very much! I feel my understanding is finally becoming one connected piece, although very scarce. Maybe it is very late for a question, but I presume there are ways to regularize the theory other than the lattice method. If there are, one has to prove that they all give the same result in the end, or is it automatic given that the theory is renormalizable? | |
| Jan 28, 2010 at 7:52 | vote | accept | Harry Gindi | ||
| Jan 28, 2010 at 0:32 | history | answered | user1504 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |