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 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.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger 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


Thomas Ray: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...." in 2015 in Review: New...

Lorraine Ford: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..." in Alternative Models of...

Lee Bloomquist: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..." in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..." in “Spookiness”...

Thomas Ray: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..." in “Spookiness”...

Joe Fisher: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..." in Inferring the Limits on...

click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

February 23, 2018

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: New Podcast: Cosmic Beginnings & Quantum Domination [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on May. 31, 2012 @ 20:53 GMT
Just to let you know a new edition of the podcast is now up: It’s a bit longer than usual because we’ve given some time over to discussing the essay contest launch. Those planning to “question the foundations” can pick up some tips on what the judges do and don’t want to see. (Mainly the latter.)

In this edition, cosmologist Alex Vilenkin asks whether the universe could have existed forever into the past -- without a beginning. In his extended interview (scroll down and click on the individual item) he also looks into whether, if it did have a beginning, there may be some way we could pick up evidence of *where* it happened.

There’s a bit of a “quantum theory applied in unexpected places" theme too. If you enjoyed Sophie Hebden’s profile of FQXi grant winner and “quantum linguist” Bob Coecke, you can listen to her interview with him. Quantum perfumer Luca Turin also talks about his controversial theory of smell.

And finally, string theorist Joe Polchinski and Nobel laureate particle physicist Frank Wilczek take questions on extra dimensions and underwater sound, from listeners.

I’m going to experiment and blog this as well as posting in the automatically-generated podcast discussion thread -- sorry for the double post!

Let me know what you think.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 2, 2012 @ 15:15 GMT
Incredible , like if they were obliged to continue on these false roads of extradimensions and strings. Baez, Lisi, Witten ??? But what do you do ?

And the integrity in all that ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jun. 3, 2012 @ 03:00 GMT

It's all about the math. Information is foundational to reality. It's interesting that for billions of years, biology has evolved co-existing systems to process information and energy; The central nervous system processes information, while the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems process energy. Considering the energy processing systems evolved long before the central nervous system, one would think energy is foundational to information, yet what does biology know? It doesn't have a PhD in physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 3, 2012 @ 06:59 GMT

The systems do not process "information". They receive, and then process, physically existent phenomena which, in that form, existed before the systems started to take 'advantage' of them. Indeed, over the years, these systems have improved to take better 'advantage' of what is available, and we now enhance that with technology. We do not need to know, and it would be preferable if we did not have to get involved in, the process as of the point of receipt. However, unfortunately, the only way we can discern what was received, and hence what originally occurred, is via the outcome of that sensory process.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Duifourny replied on Jun. 3, 2012 @ 11:25 GMT
You think what with your about the information? I class animals and vegetals since the age of 16, and you say what, a course of biology.Let me laugh band of strategists.

The information is foundamental indeed, but, your informations no, mine yes !

Let's play !

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Jun. 9, 2012 @ 01:59 GMT

"What does it mean for an event to "recede?" Sounds to me identical to dying."

Entities, be they events or objects, are finite in space and time. They do have a beginning and an end. But the processes which create them are continuous. A minute has a beginning and an end, but the hand of the clock moves onto the next. Individuals are born and die, but the species moves onto the next generation. Even in terms of a Big Bang universe, it came into being and will eventually fade away, but the energy will disperse and move on to other fates.

Think in terms of a factory; The products go from beginning to end, but the production line faces the other direction, consuming raw materials and expelling finished product. Your mind is essentially a thought factory; Consuming information and forming particular thoughts and impressions, then replacing them.

Of course processes do die, much as a factory will shut down, or your mind will die, but that is because it is a unit within some even larger process.

This goes to the dichotomy of time, as the present goes from past to future, while the events go future to past. Your life, thoughts, etc. are in the future prior to their occurrence and then recede into the past, yes, die, after they are done. Meanwhile the process moves onto the next thought, or next generation.

So, yes, units do die, but the process moves on.

I suppose I will get the classic Tom hurrumph for this, but it would nice if you tried to use actual logic and not just appeals to authority.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 9, 2012 @ 07:00 GMT

"They do have a beginning and an end"

'They' do not. This is the whole point. 'They' have one existent state. Alteration then occurs. So, actually, ie in terms of physical existence, 'they' are different. It is really something else. But because similarities persist between these different existent states, we deem them to be 'the same'. Put another way round, we should not speak of 'they' and 'it'.


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jun. 9, 2012 @ 10:52 GMT

That's my point. The process has one existent state. Commonly referred to as the present. It's the interactions within this state which creates discreteness, not a bunch of different presents attached to particular events. Because there is just this one state, in order for new forms to arise, old forms have to be erased.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jun. 9, 2012 @ 11:03 GMT
So this process is constantly moving onto the new and discarding the old, as these forms go from being new to being old. Much like that factory and its production move in opposite directions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.