Search FQXi


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steven Andresen: "James I am wondering if you will respond to my concept for inertial mass?..." in Alternative Models of...

Steven Andresen: "Jose You said "Did what I wrote appear as if I am referring to a previous..." in Alternative Models of...

Gary Simpson: "Ted, BTW, it is the community vote that matters ... not the public vote...." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Gary Simpson: "Ted, You statement regarding your score does not make any sense. You..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Algernon kk: "Steve Agnew is a legend for doing that. A lot of people at custom..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...

Steve Dufourny: ":) it is fqxi which merits these thanks, me I just share this information. ..." in 2016: The Physics Year in...

Bishal Banjara: "thank you once again .....thank you!!" in 2016: The Physics Year in...

Roger Granet: "Hi. Interesting article! This actually makes sense to me and sounds..." in Quantum Replicants:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)

Rescuing Reality
A "retrocausal" rewrite of physics, in which influences from the future can affect the past, could solve some quantum quandaries—saving Einstein's view of reality along the way.


FQXI ARTICLE
February 27, 2017

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 'L' and 'N':




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 'W' and 'Y':


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