Bartosz Milewski on Nostr: nprofile1q…ufa4k "Of course you could argue that somehow those infinitely many ...
nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqknzsux7p6lzwzdedp3m8c3c92z0swzc0xyy5glvse58txj5e9ztqaufa4k (nprofile…fa4k) "Of course you could argue that somehow those infinitely many constraints aren't enough to fix the free parameters. But let's see your argument!"
I think the burden of proof goes the other way. It's certainly possible that effective QG gives a good approximation, or that QG is asymptotically safe. But the machinery of perturbation theory is horrifically complex. For instance, a naive cutoff would break local Poincare symmetry, so you'd get non-symmetric counter-terms and ghosts. (For this reason we used dimensional regularization in supergravity.)
I think the burden of proof goes the other way. It's certainly possible that effective QG gives a good approximation, or that QG is asymptotically safe. But the machinery of perturbation theory is horrifically complex. For instance, a naive cutoff would break local Poincare symmetry, so you'd get non-symmetric counter-terms and ghosts. (For this reason we used dimensional regularization in supergravity.)