RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXI ARTICLE

September 21, 2019

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!

function ValidatePostText_main () {
form = document.addPostForm_main;
var recaptcha = $("#g-recaptcha-response").val();
if (recaptcha === "") {
event.preventDefault();
alert("The reCaptcha Box below must be checked before you submit the form");
}
else if (form.postText_main.value == '') {
alert ("The post contains no text");
return false;
}
else {
return true;
}
}

**Your name:**
(optional)

Recent Comments

read all article comments

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 (10

^{100}) and subscript (A_{2}) 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

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

Attachments
[hide]

You may optionally attach up to two documents to your post. To add an attachment, use the following feature to browse your computer and select the file to attach. The maximum file size for attachments is 1MB.

Once you're done adding file attachments, click the "Submit New Post" button to add your post.

You may optionally attach up to two documents to your post. To add an attachment, use the following feature to browse your computer and select the file to attach. The maximum file size for attachments is 1MB.

Once you're done adding file attachments, click the "Submit New Post" button to add your post.

TUNG wrote on November 23, 2007

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.

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.

PAUL VALLETTA wrote on November 14, 2007

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...

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...

TUNG wrote on November 10, 2007

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...

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