Search FQXi


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: "Neil, I have a rather different take on the Born Rule: Wave-functions are..." in Inferring the Limits on...

Neil Bates: "Robert, I've had similar problems and I sympathize. REM that this system is..." in Inferring the Limits on...

Eckard Blumschein: "John C, "... fundamentals have long since been abandoned. I just, naively..." in Ripping Apart Einstein

Georgina Woodward: "I was trying to express certain concepts in a very precise way that are not..." in Ripping Apart Einstein

Patrick: "Its amazing post. I blog often and I truly appreciate your content. The..." in Your Invitation to FQXi's...

John Cox: "Georgina, Okay, thanks. That is a clear example of what you seem to be..." in Action and Excitement and...

Georgina Woodward: " Lampa-Terrell-Penrose effect Distortion within output images (from..." in Action and Excitement and...

Lorraine Ford: "Clarification: I was suggesting above that in quantum decoherence a..." in Your Invitation to the...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Inferring the Limits on Reality (that Even the Gods Must Obey)
The fuzziness of the quantum realm could arise from mathematical restrictions on what can ever be known.

The Quantum Thermodynamic Revolution
Combining theories of quantum information with the science of heat and energy transfer could lead to new technologies.

Face Off: Building a Toy Universe to Pit Quantum Theory Against Gravity
Using superconducting circuits to create a curved-spacetime analog with stronger gravity than our cosmos.

Is Gravity Time's Archer?
A new model argues the forces between particles in the early universe loosed time's arrow, creating temporal order from chaos.

Purifying Physics: The Quest to Explain Why the “Quantum” Exists
A new framework for the laws underlying reality could explain why nature obeys quantum rules, the origin of time’s arrow, and the power of quantum computing.


FQXI ARTICLE
July 5, 2015

Bookmark and Share

Comment on this Article

Please read the important Introduction that governs your participation in this community. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated and posts containing such language will be deleted. Otherwise, this is a free speech Forum and all are welcome!
  • Please enter the text of your post, then click the "Submit New Post" button below. You may also optionally add file attachments below before submitting your edits.

  • HTML tags are not permitted in posts, and will automatically be stripped out. Links to other web sites are permitted. For instructions on how to add links, please read the link help page.

  • You may use superscript (10100) and subscript (A2) using [sup]...[/sup] and [sub]...[/sub] tags.

  • You may use bold (important) and italics (emphasize) using [b]...[/b] and [i]...[/i] tags.

  • You may also include LateX equations into your post.

Insert LaTeX Equation [hide]

LaTeX equations may be displayed in FQXi Forum posts by including them within [equation]...[/equation] tags. You may type your equation directly into your post, or use the LaTeX Equation Preview feature below to see how your equation will render (this is recommended).

For more help on LaTeX, please see the LaTeX Project Home Page.

LaTeX Equation Preview



preview equation
clear equation
insert equation into post at cursor


Your name: (optional)



Important: In order to combat spam, please select the letter in this menu between 'U' and 'W':




Recent Comments


Yes, my comment also mentioned that he cited Volovik and others. But this is not what the fqxi article sounds.

By the way, Universe in a Helium Droplet is a book, not a paper.

Also, I don't think he has ever mentioned quarks in his papers.


Tung, Olaf Dreyer does infact list several authors, including Volovik, see his recent paper

titled:How Things Fall.

What is new from Dreyers perspective, is that there is nothing smaller than Quarks?

There are some really interesting probabilities to consider, and Volvoliks' "Universe in a

helium croplet" is a facinating paper in itself.

Tung, Olaf Dreyer has a recent paper Why Things fall

where he certainly cites Volovik's "Universe in a Helium...


This article mentioned Dreyer's work and some possible consequences of it. I think this article does not do justice by omitting to mention that the theory so called "internal relativity" is not an invention of him. As mentioned by Dreyer in his papers, this view is already proposed by others like Grigori Volovik (see eg. his book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet"). More accurately, his work is just based on their work. Even its possible consequence on cosmological constant problem is dealt with...

read all article comments

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'L' and 'N':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.