Quantum Gravity on the Computer: Impressions of a Workshop
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer simulations allow us to explore non-perturbative phenomena in physics. This has the potential to help us understand quantum gravity. Finding a theory of quantum gravity is a hard problem, but, in the last several decades, many promising and intriguing approaches that utilize or might benefit from using numerical methods were developed. These approaches are based on very different ideas and assumptions, yet they face the common challenge to derive predictions and compare them to data. In March 2018, we held a workshop at the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics (NORDITA) in Stockholm gathering experts in many different approaches to quantum gravity for a workshop on “Quantum gravity on the computer”. In this article, we try to encapsulate some of the discussions held and talks given during this workshop and combine them with our own thoughts on why and how numerical approaches will play an important role in pushing quantum gravity forward. The last section of the article is a road map providing an outlook of the field and some intentions and goalposts that were debated in the closing session of the workshop. We hope that it will help to build a strong numerical community reaching beyond single approaches to combine our efforts in the search for quantum gravity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it