Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Narendra Nath: on 12/19/09 at 13:08pm UTC, wrote We are too tiny both space and time wise to comprehend the universe. But...

Peter van Gaalen: on 10/12/09 at 21:11pm UTC, wrote I agree with Terry. String theory is not a background independend theory....

Terry Padden: on 10/12/09 at 5:36am UTC, wrote Gordon I was a skeptic towards String Theory but your essay very lucidly...

Ray Munroe: on 10/4/09 at 3:37am UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kane, I spent the day at the beach. And on my way home, I...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/3/09 at 20:19pm UTC, wrote Hello dear Mr Gordon Kane, Nice to meet you . Interesting essay .Good...

Arjen Dijksman: on 10/3/09 at 16:59pm UTC, wrote Dear Professor Kane, I read with interest your essay which I assume gives...

Ray Munroe: on 10/3/09 at 12:39pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kane, Oops! Upon skimming your arXiv paper, I realize you are...

Ray Munroe: on 10/2/09 at 21:20pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kane, It is good to see you in this contest. Of course, the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Anonymous: "Searching for a Quantum connection to your consciousness? Search no more,..." in Bohemian Reality:...

Eckard Blumschein: "Ethics tells us what is good and what is wrong. Traditionally one considers..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

alex: "bạn đang tìm một địa chỉ bán các dòng máy photocopy RIcoh..." in Wrinkles in Spacetime

Gary Simpson: "Lorraine & Eckard, Why, I was completely unaware of my acronym ... gee,..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

James Putnam: "Sears and Zemansky 13th ed. Summary of Chapter ! (page 26): "Physical..." in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "Isent this email: March 25, 2017 Ref: Simple reality Dear..." in Bohemian Reality:...

Steve Agnew: "These are operational definitions just as S&Z state in the 13th Ed. just..." in Alternative Models of...

jay grey: "Thanks for the link, I believe it will be very useful for personal..." in Santa Barbara Gravity...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

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)


FQXi FORUM
March 30, 2017

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Finally it is possible to understand our universe and its implications by Gordon Kane [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Gordon Kane wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 09:43 GMT
Essay Abstract

Abstract : It is proposed that existing theoretical frameworks, and existing and forthcoming data, arguably finally allow us to achieve a testable, final understanding of the string vacuum we live in, and its relation to ultimate questions.

Author Bio

Kane is Victor Weisskopf Collegiate Professor of Physics at the University of Michigan, and Director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics. He has published nearly two hundred research papers, and written or edited nine books, two of which are for general readers.

Download Essay PDF File




Ray Munroe wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 21:20 GMT
Dear Dr. Kane,

It is good to see you in this contest.

Of course, the Supersymmetric Standard Model makes important predictions that have not yet been disproven, and might ultimately represent our Universe.

I also agree on the relevance of String Theory, but the Standard Model seems to be an ugly but practical bottom-up theory, whereas String Theory is top-down in its formulation but plagued by lack of input parameters and data. Can the two theories really meet in the middle?

I see that I now need to read arXiv:0906.4765v3 as well - I always expected the LSP to be a photino/ neutralino, not a wino/ chargino. Perhaps Nature wanted to surprise us!

Good luck in the contest!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 12:39 GMT
Dear Dr. Kane,

Oops! Upon skimming your arXiv paper, I realize you are talking about a neutral wino LSP (in your Pamela abstract). I probably would have called it a zino or bino to minimize confusion with the charged wino. I see that a 180 GeV neutral wino fits much of the data, but we should expect this bino-neutralino to also have higgsino and trace amounts of photino characteristics. Can we fit the data better by mixing in some higgsino?

I don't think we ever met, but I studied under Howie Baer with your former post-doc, Mike Brhlik. Mike was a year behind me, but we were officemates.

You mention a string theory model compactified on a manifold with G2 holonomy. Lawrence Crowell (also in this contest) and I are also trying to build models that might connect with a multi-dimensional supersymmetric string theory on the high-energy side and the Standard Model on the low-energy side. Lawrence also has a G2 holonomy. I have a G2 buried in the Color theory component of my model, but can't decide if the SUSY part of my model is G2 or I2(7) (details in my Ref.3 - A Case Study 3.3.pdf posted on my essay blog site).

Be careful! There are rogues in this voting process. The majority of my votes have been 8's or 1's - they either love or hate me! It seems that you are getting the same response.

Good Luck!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Arjen Dijksman wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 16:59 GMT
Dear Professor Kane,

I read with interest your essay which I assume gives the state of the art of string theory tests. I must admit I'm a bit confused about your optimistic view on physics, with respect to the opinion expressed by Ginzburg in his 2003 Nobel lecture. His "we are facing a boundless sea of unresolved problems" contrasts so strongly with your "it is now finally possible to achieve a complete understanding of our universe and its underlying laws of nature within the next few years". I can hardly understand how the 6 years separating both statements have brought such a reversal. Maybe your statement relates only to the situation in string theory?

By the way, in order to promote the contest, I publish essay quotes on my twitter profile and blog. Would you mind if I quote some of yours (with a link to your essay of course)? For example : "What is exciting about string theory is that it addresses in one consistent framework all the questions we want to address about understanding our universe."

Regards,

Arjen Dijksman

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 20:19 GMT
Hello dear Mr Gordon Kane,

Nice to meet you .

Interesting essay .Good luck for the contest .

hihihih and me who say ,it's the end of strings ....

Could you tell me what is exatly this vaccuum ?

And second what are these extra dimensions ,their physical rules and properties too ?

And finally what about the rotations ,the rotating quantum spheres for me implying mass ???

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Oct. 4, 2009 @ 03:37 GMT
Dear Dr. Kane,

I spent the day at the beach. And on my way home, I realized I had been very sloppy about my MSSM notation. For the sake of other blog readers, I will clarify.

In Electroweak, the neutral W and B mix with each other and with Higgs components to form the Z and photon. When we add SUSY to the picture, we mix neutral Wino (related to the Zino) and Bino (related to the photino) with a variety of Higgsinos to form four different Neutralinos. I probably would not have gotten confused if you had called it neutral wino every time (zino is a crude approximation of the neutral wino).

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Terry Padden wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 05:36 GMT
Gordon

I was a skeptic towards String Theory but your essay very lucidly gave me a view of it that was refreshingly understandable, pragmatic, and practical. I am now a "maybe it can make sense". Some comments:

1. Re the > 3 dimension issue. I am not sure we really understand what Dimensions are.

2. If I understood him correctly John Baez, at one time a leader in the opposing camp of QG, was against String Theory because it was not "Background Free". Obviously the issue of Dimensions is relevant to the background. Do you think ultimately the background issue will go away = be resolved ?

3. My chief criticism, as reflected in my essay, is that String Theory is "progressive' (and so is QG). That is it accepts the mathematical science inherited from its predecessors as sound but unfinished and needing progressive (only) revision. I give 10 elementary reasons why the accepted foundations are unreliable and we need a regressive revision before "ultimate" goals can be achieved. Any structure built on dodgy foundations must be suspect - even String Theory.

report post as inappropriate


Peter van Gaalen wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 21:11 GMT
I agree with Terry. String theory is not a background independend theory. M-theory is supposed to be background independend. I found a 16 dimensional classical relativistic background independend metric. In this metric there are only three spatial dimensions. Next to the vector quantity length l there are three more vector quantities: burst b, momentum p and quantity s. And 4 scalar quantities: time t, gmflux f, energy E and mass m. 10 dimensional string theory has no idea what to do with the supposed 9 spatial dimensions. So they rolled them to tiny circles. I think that Superstring theory is wrong about those 9 spatial dimensions. There are only three spatial dimensions.

The general metric could be the missing link. I wonder what will happen when this metric is incorporated into Stringtheory. According to Jens Koeplinger it is possible that my approach from the product of two octonions would not result in a spin 2 model. But better take a look at what Jens exactly said, so that he is not misunderstood.

But realise the consequences for both String theory and Quantum gravity when there is no graviton.



report post as inappropriate


Narendra Nath wrote on Dec. 19, 2009 @ 13:08 GMT
We are too tiny both space and time wise to comprehend the universe. But our mind / intellect exists to speculate about the Universe as well as to study it as best as we can. Some speculations were provided by this author in the last year's FQXI contest on the theme ' The Nature of Time'.With the lapse of one year, i wonder if i have leart any thing more. What i find is that i have learnt more how wrong i may be about the ideas i tried to present as 'perspectives'. Let me say how much i understand the concept of ' vacuum'? Is it just a volume of space free from any matter? Then what about the equivalence of matter and energy? Can space be really free from both matter and field? How can we sense the same with precision and surety? What is then the secret of vacuum in Physics? May be what lies in vacuum is the life force of the Universe itself? We go on looking at the matter and energy physically while the 'source in vacuum' continues to lie in the 'non-phyical' range as per our present day Physics. How wide can we make our methodology in Physics? May be we ourselves are restricting Its growth through the methodology that we think we have evolved for developing the same!

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'Q' and 'S':


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