Approaches To Quantum Gravity

TL;DR

This paper reviews two contrasting approaches to quantum gravity, Loop Quantum Gravity and the Topos theoretic approach, highlighting their philosophical differences and potential for mutual enrichment.

Contribution

It compares and contrasts two distinct theoretical frameworks for quantum gravity, emphasizing their philosophical foundations and exploring possibilities for integration.

Findings

Loop Quantum Gravity inherits formalism from GR and Quantum Theory.

Topos approach advocates radical conceptual change for space and time.

Partial successes suggest potential for combining approaches.

Abstract

One of the main challenges in theoretical physics over the last five decades has been to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity into a theory of quantum gravity. However, such a theory has been proved to be hard to attain due to i) conceptual difficulties present in both the component theories (General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Theory); ii) lack of experimental evidence, since the regimes at which quantum gravity is expected to be applicable are far beyond the range of conceivable experiments. Despite these difficulties, various approaches for a theory of Quantum Gravity have been developed. In this thesis we focus on two such approaches: Loop Quantum Gravity and the Topos theoretic approach. The choice fell on these approaches because, although they both reject the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, their underpinning philosophical approach to formulating a quantum theory of gravity are radically different. In particular LQG is a rather conservative scheme, inheriting all the formalism of both GR and Quantum Theory, as it tries to bring to its logical extreme consequences the possibility of combining the two. On the other hand, the Topos approach involves the idea that a radical change of perspective is needed in order to solve the problem of quantum gravity, especially in regard to the fundamental concepts of `space' and `time'. Given the partial successes of both approaches, the hope is that it might be possible to find a common ground in which each approach can enrich the other.