3 ms·
First, advice about arXiv.org links: for me, at least, it's nice to see a link to the main abstract page rather than directly to the full PDF. Here, that link w
by Steuard 14y ago
First, advice about arXiv.org links: for me, at least, it's nice to see a link to the main abstract page rather than directly to the full PDF. Here, that link would be http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0310077 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0310077
And second, this isn't "When physicists chat over lunch". This is "A nine year old dialog by a loop quantum gravity specialist putting words into the mouth of an imaginary string theorist." That may or may not be worth reading, but I think the context is important. [The date "2008" on the final page is some sort of typo: the arXiv time stamp on the first page makes the submission date clear.]
- shardling 14y ago>The date "2008" on the final page is some sort of typo: the arXiv time stamp on the first page makes the submission date clear. The latex source (another reason to link the abstract and not PDF) just has a macro for "todays" date there -- perhaps arxiv recompiled the paper in 2008. (This is actually pretty common to see in papers on the arxiv.)
- pfedor 14y agoWorth noting that nine years and one LHC later, the supersymmetric particles still haven't been found.
- shardling 14y agoI don't think anyone really expected the LHC to find supersymmetric particles by now.
- mck- 14y agoI would love to see sequel: "A chat over lunch, 9 years later."
- Steuard 14y agoI doubt it would be any different. LQG folks still seem to resent the greater attention that string theory gets. String theorists still mostly don't spend any time thinking about LQG. Neither has made any great breakthroughs or grand new predictions for experiments in that time. And it's just as easy to make up a straw-man character today as it was in 2003.