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


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

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

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 5:20am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 7:53am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Joseph Conlon: on 10/1/12 at 18:46pm UTC, wrote Dear Ben, Thanks for reading and for your detailed questions. I am sorry I...

Joseph Conlon: on 10/1/12 at 18:37pm UTC, wrote Dear Lawrence, Thanks for reading the essay and for the enjoyable link. I...

Joseph Conlon: on 10/1/12 at 18:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Hai, Thanks for reading and commenting. I am glad you found the...

Lawrence B. Crowell: on 9/26/12 at 22:27pm UTC, wrote Joseph, I just read your essay. What you advocate is similar to something...

Hoang Hai: on 9/26/12 at 4:18am UTC, wrote Dear Joseph Conlon Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us...

Benjamin Dribus: on 9/25/12 at 16:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Joseph, I found your essay to be quite illuminating and inspiring! In...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

Georgina Woodward: "Quite right Lorraine, ( to be clear perhaps I should have said..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Honestly Georgina, Wake up! Change of number is NOT energy." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...

Roger Granet: "By the way, this post was from Roger." in First Things First: The...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
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.

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

Gravity's Residue
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.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
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 FORUM
July 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: More Is More Than Different by Joseph P Conlon [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Joseph Conlon wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 10:56 GMT
Essay Abstract

There is an implicit assumption that the search for new fundamental laws of physics requires ever smaller distances with ever greater precision. I argue that new laws could be found instead in many-body systems, where the number of particles provides an enhancement factor that makes weak effects strong. The gravitational force is a counter-factual example, and I motivate and describe other potential possibilities.

Author Bio

Joseph Conlon in a Royal Society University Research Fellow and proleptic lecturer at the University of Oxford, and a tutorial fellow at New College. Prior to that he spent nine years at Cambridge as an undergraduate, graduate student and postdoc.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 16:01 GMT
Joseph

Are you agree with my abstract?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Conlon replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 21:31 GMT
As I mostly work on string theory I can happily agree that spacetime is not four-dimensional, that gravity is not fundamental but admits a deeper structure at higher energies and that c and h are not fundamental as they simply express what we mean by dimensions.

So yes :)

Bookmark and Share


Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 17:17 GMT
Joseph

This is my solution problem of cosmological constant

Appendix 4 Solution of cosmological constant problem

Theory: Cosmological constant is 10^94 g/sm^3

Practice: Cosmological constant is 10^-28 g/sm^3

Planck constant h=10^-28 g x sm^2/sec in 2D space embedding in 3D space

Only right value is experimental value.

Also please read my essay 1413

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 22:49 GMT
Hi Joseph,

I found your essay interesting. I wonder whether the residual effects of the new charge you propose amplified by a large particle number would not somehow detectably show up in large bodies as a deviation from electric neutrality i.e. an incomplete cancellation of opposite charges.

Nonetheless, I tend to agree with the general idea that more is (or can be) new.

In my paper, one of the arguments is that dimensionality of spacetime itself (and therefore gravity) may be a an emergent feature with a relevant limit that has units of action. This limit does not preclude the possibility that what contributes to attaining it is a large number of (lower-dimensional) objects but it would seem to help explain why gravitons have not shown up in any collider experiments.

All the best,

Armin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 21:43 GMT
Hi Armin,

Thanks for reading the essay and for your supportive comment. I think it is always true that for sufficiently small 'fundamental' new charges then you can hide it however large the body is, and also agree that a residual incomplete cancellation would be a good way to detect such a new force.

I agree with the idea that dimensionality of spacetime is emergent, this is also the picture that holds in string theory where different solutions can have different numbers of `classically geometric' dimensions.

Best wishes

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Conlon replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 21:44 GMT
Sorry, I was trying to reply as author but seem to have been spontaneously logged out....

Best wishes

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 09:14 GMT
Dear Joseph,

What is your opinion about the idea of strong gravitation , which is supposed at the level of atoms?

Sergey Fedosin Essay

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Conlon replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 21:47 GMT
Dear Sergey,

I am afraid I cannot follow it, but thanks for commenting.

Best wishes

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 16:17 GMT
Dear Joseph,

I found your essay to be quite illuminating and inspiring! In particular, it seems to give a much more hopeful view for experimental physics than seems common today, what with the concerns that practical energy considerations may severely limit discoveries beyond the Standard model. I have a few questions.

1. You mentioned the cosmological constant as an extreme example...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Conlon replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 18:46 GMT
Dear Ben,

Thanks for reading and for your detailed questions. I am sorry I have taken a few days to reply, I have been at a conference.

I certainly am a strong believer that new physics discoveries does not necessarily require higher energies. Obviously high energies are great, and are essential for some things - but it is one part of the story and not all of it.

Yes, dark matter is also something that needs large scales to see, although here the scales are those of galaxy scales rather than the scales associated to the whole universe.

The question of top-down causation, and the difference between classical and qauntum pictures, is not something I have thought very much about and I don't have anything special to say. I don't see a way of making sharp statements, and if there is no way of being sharp then there is only so much one can do.

Thanks for the link to your own essay - certainly thought provoking.

Best wishes

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 04:18 GMT
Dear Joseph Conlon

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Conlon replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 18:31 GMT
Dear Hai,

Thanks for reading and commenting. I am glad you found the article interesting.

Best wishes

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 22:27 GMT
Joseph,

I just read your essay. What you advocate is similar to something I worked a couple years ago. I found that a three body problem will amplify the non-Newtonian effects of general relativity. The results are contained in the paper . The system involves a star, a large Jovian planet treated according to Newtonian mechanics and a small “Mercury” planet close to the star. The precession of the orbit in the small planet serves in a sense as the “butterfly flapping” which is amplified by chaotic dynamics/

I have pondered whether this is possible with quantum gravity. Of course the problem is that gravity is very weak. We might think of this as due to the very small masses of elementary particles. We might generate a coherent system near the Planck mass M_p = sqrt{ħ/Gc} ~ 10^{-5}g formed from about 10^{17}Ce atoms. Of course given that current Bose-Einstein condensate experiments involve around 10^5 atoms doing this on such a scale might be quite a challenge. Yet if that could be done the BEC would gravitationally act similar to a Planck mass blackhole.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph Conlon replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 18:37 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Thanks for reading the essay and for the enjoyable link.

I like the analogue about chaotic effects in the three body problem a lot - it would be really nice if something like that could be found. Ir certainly has the feature of something originally tiny becoming bigger and more and more important as time goes on. Of course, as you say it is not easy to realise with quantum gravity!

With the Ce atoms, I wonder if there is a difficulty in the fact that Ce is fundamentally composite? So once you started getting close to the gravitational scale then you would have to deal with the fact that Ce is really made up of fermions and these fermions do not want to sit in the same quantum state.

Best wishes

Joe

Bookmark and Share



Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 07:53 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:20 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

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.