ajb

Nothing in loop quantum gravity has been experimentally confirmed. It is not even clear that classical gravity really comes out of this - string theory at least has that

Loop quantum gravity has given some nice results about the entropy of black holes - which agree with calculations via string theory. It seems that either both theories agree on something or one is unable to say something where the other can.

For sure we cannot do mathematics without time! But that is another issue. Again, this is about doing mathematics - we are all subject to time. Not really... it represents another number that we denote as 2. Again, we are not timeless. ------------------------------- So how do we think of the example given earlier [math]\frac{C}{d} = \pi[/math] ? Where is the time in this? The key point is that [math] \frac{C}{d}[/math] represents another number, which we know is [math]\pi[/math] for any given circle. Thats it... no time here. (and this would be true if we use some other notations) Time comes into it when we calculate the left hand side or work on presenting some proof of this statement. But this is expected as we are in the Universe and subject to time.

Again, you seem to be mixing how we do mathematics with mathematics. Do you agree that as a universal and timeless statement the ratio of any circle's circumference and its diameter is always the number pi? This is irrespective of if it took me time two write that?

At least that is the general thinking - showing this carefully has proved to be tricky. It is not properly understood if one can get general relativity as a limit of loop quantum gravity. The last time I spoke so someone on that they said there are some results in this direction.

Again, this is how we do mathematics and is really tied to our notation. I disagree. There is a universal truth there that does not have anything to do with the physical notion of time. The real numbers have an operation on them that we call addition - we use the notaion '+' for this. We have a specified number, that we denote as '1' and another we denote as '2'. It is a universal and unchanging truth that 1+1 =2 as we write it. Nothing to do with time here in any deep way. The only place where time comes into it is that I am subject to time as you are. Thus how we do mathematics is constrained by time - but not the mathematics itself. Time is not written into mathematics in any deep way.

Sometimes the order does not matter - and when it does we pick a convention. This is again a thing to do with notation than anything deep in mathematics itself. Still, mathematicans being subject to time does not tell us anything about time in mathematics.

You seem to be talking about how we do mathematics, how we write mathematics and so on... but not really the mathematics itself. Writing out some random equation does not tell us anything about time or that time is some how inherent in mathematics.

Smolin had publsihed works on loop quantum gravity for sure. Loop quantum gravity is not something I know much about.

Yes... I wonder if people I meet a suprised by that. I don't wear tight black jeans and a leather jacket anymore.

What? Yes, it took me time to write that... but so what? I wonder if you are just messing with us all now.

Where is the time in [math]ax^2 + bx + c =0[/math] More than a language I think ... but anyway what has this to do with the physical notion of time? And what has this to do with time? What do you really mean by static? I think we are missing each other here. Mathematicans are not static. Mathematics is not static in the sense that we do develop/discover new things as time goes on. But still, mathematics as mathematics need not say anything about time. Mathematic is static in the sense that once a proof of a statement is given that statement is considered true for ever and was always true. It is how we apply mathematics that may or may not say something about time.

This depends on what you mean... so what do you mean?

What do you mean by static? I think we have some crossed wires here. I cannot because I exist in a Universe that has time... but that does not mean that mathematics itself has time written into it.

But time is not inherent in mathematics. We can disucss mathematical theoerms that do not used the notion of time. For example, the quadratic formula itself says nothing about time - though that formula maybe useful in phsyics.

The universal truths of mathematics are independent of the notation used. You seem to have missed what one means in mathematics by 'dynamics'. We are not talking about how mathemaics is written. You were talking about how space and time could arise as non-fundamental features of a theory in some kind of limit - right?

I remember Dio more for his later stuff, but of course including Black Sabbath. I really like is live works including in London 2005 \m/ ------- Maybe is is worth saying 1978 was the year Judas Priest released the album Stained Class.

Fat Bottom girls was released in 1978 - the same year DIO left Rainbow... a little fun fact for you there. Dio then joined Black Sabbath in 1979 -- that lead to this beast of a tune

I never really got into queen ... still a good band.

However, the vast majority of people working in physics are not looking into quantum gravity. Anyway, Rovelli is know for loop quantum gravity. This approach interests you?

Elvin Bishop had a degree in physics... so we approve his music! -------------------------------------------------------- Together we are stronger... fu*king leave voters.

Rovelli is well known - but he is in France at the moment? Another well known Italian here is Giovanni Landi.

You are mixing mathematics, the notation of mathematics, the writing and reading of mathematics.

Dynamical means that 'something changes' with respect to some paramaters - sometimes this can mean just 'time'. For example, just think about how to describe the position of a particle moving in 1d. Why? Like I said, no one is sure how to do physics without time. Doing so will require some new mathematical notions. You maybe able to prove that it is impossible within a given framework - but for in total generality. Meaning you want to see space and time as not being fundamental in a theory, but rather coming as a macrosopic limit and/or a classical limit or something similar. The point is that you do not want to start with space or time.

So while nothing in law has changed - and it may be two or more years until it does - practice has changed. It is the just not knowing what will replace the existing systems that is the problem. But it is not all doom and gloom. The UKs participation in large projects like CERN are not through the EU. ESA works with the EU, but again it is not part of the EU. However ITER is funded by the UK through the EU. This will need looking at. As for the Horizons 2020 and so on, it is possible for the UK to pay into that pot and take money out. However, no one in governmant has actually said that we will contuine to pay into the EU science pot.