Re: The Quantum Gravity Problem

From: Kenneth Downs <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:35:16 -0400
Message-ID: <5d1qkc.m52.ln@mercury.downsfam.net>

Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:

> "Kenneth Downs" <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net> wrote in message
> news:n72pkc.f8h.ln_at_mercury.downsfam.net...

>> Here is a little its-been-a-good-week Friday musing.
>>
>> I wonder if database theory is suffering from a version of what is going

> on

>> in Physics.  In Physics for the past few decades they have had to
>> struggle with the fact that the two fundamental theories of the twentieth
>> century

> do

>> not play nice together.  Relativity describes gravity well, but it is not

> a

>> quantum theory.   Quantum theory is considered the most successful theory
>> in history, but does not describe gravity.  Since most physicists believe
>> that the underlying truths are quantum in nature, everyone is searching

> for

>> a quantum theory of gravity, instead of searching for the relativistic
>> theory of E & M and nuclear forces.
>>
>> So can we draw any useful analogy here, with perhaps the RDM being
>> quantum
>> and Hierarchies being Relativity?  This choice is not arbitrary, it

> implies

>> that we can find a way to add hierarchies to the RDM before we will get

> RDM

>> into a hierarchical form.

>
> Yes, yes -- I have used this analogy before. The fun thing about it is
> that the answer to how to combine the disperate theories is the same for
> both (physics theory of everything and database theory) -- one word:
> Strings. (OK, I know that is simplistic in both cases, but it could be
> more true than some might think on the database side).

Strings, very cool, I'm guessing some kind of network? I'd like to understand this, but could you help me connect the dots? (get it? connect-the-dots, graphs? asking for help? ooh, ha ha ha.) Do I start at the wikipedia on di-graph? How do I get from 3Nf TO branes?

>
> Hierarchies are one thing, but navigating data is another challenge. Yes,
> if you HAVE all of the data, you can treat it as sets and similate
> navigation with joins and all, but I think we ought to be able to navigate
> data just as we navigate the web -- we don't have to have all of the web
> available in order to select an entire set before zeroing in on the page
> we
> want to go to. I didn't say that well (as usual), but hopefully that
> helps to show why I would suggest we are not talking about hierarchical vs
> relational, but about di-graphs vs relations. What's common to both?
> String, for one, but also functions. cheers! --dawn
>

Bringing the web into it tends to raise flags for me. Have you read Hans Reiser's views on information models? It can be found at:

http://www.namesys.com/whitepaper.html

I haven't read his whitepaper in a couple of years, but he is looking at search engines, file formats like XML, and databases, and asking what can be done to create a uniform system of information management. Your mention of the web caused me to realize I need to reread the whitepaper myself.

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Use first initial plus last name at last name plus literal "fam.net" to
email me

Received on Fri Oct 15 2004 - 21:35:16 CDT