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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

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

Thomas Ray: on 2/7/13 at 12:07pm UTC, wrote I too thoroughly enjoyed this short talk. Like Andreas Albrecht I have...

Zeeya Merali: on 2/6/13 at 17:10pm UTC, wrote Hi Paul, Thank you for your kind words! We hope you enjoy future editions...

Paul Carr: on 2/6/13 at 16:41pm UTC, wrote Really enjoyed this podcast. This was the first I have listened to of this...

Anonymous: on 1/25/13 at 13:39pm UTC, wrote This is a discussion of the FQXi Podcast from January 25, 2013



FQXi FORUM
May 24, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Podcast [back]
TOPIC: FQXi January 25, 2013 Podcast [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

The FQXi Editors wrote on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 13:39 GMT
This is a discussion of the FQXi Podcast from January 25, 2013

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Paul Carr wrote on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 16:41 GMT
Really enjoyed this podcast. This was the first I have listened to of this series, and I plan to subscribe. I have to confess I didn't fully grok Anders Albrecht's idea about the choice of time in the early universe and the physical laws, but it is a fascinating idea. I think,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 17:10 GMT
Hi Paul,

Thank you for your kind words! We hope you enjoy future editions too.

I think Andreas Albrecht would admit that even he didn't fully grok the implications of his work immediately! You can read more about it in this article by Bob Swarup: "The Accidental Universe." There you'll also find a discussion thread about his theory. Occasionally, our physicists dip into those threads and answer questioned posed to them there.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 7, 2013 @ 12:07 GMT
I too thoroughly enjoyed this short talk. Like Andreas Albrecht I have long been satisfied with Hugh Everett's many worlds hypothesis -- not at all a fantastic or preposterous notion -- and requiring fewer ad hoc assumptions than conventional interpretations of quantum theory.

Albrecht finds that clock ambiguity "deeply undermines" the "concreteness of physical laws." Perhaps -- however, when one discards a probabilistic wave function for continuous measurement functions, concreteness ceases to be an issue, because concreteness was always the product of probabilistic theories; statistical mechanics and its extension to quantum mechanics.

Albrecht asks whether our input assumptions might be wrong, and I agree that it's a critical question. The idea of random Hamiltonians strikes me as identical to a continuous range of input variables. I addressed the issue in similar terms in conference papers from 2006 & 2007 .

Zeeya, I don't know if you saw the compliment I paid to you on a Nature article written in 2011 (in the thread you closed for comment):

It was a happy result of my looking into the current unpleasantness of the Bell's Theorem debate that I found a link to your June 2011 Nature article, "The Power of Discord." I have done some investigation into Shor's algorithm and quantum discord -- your article is tops, and reinforces my opinion that FQXi hosts some of the best science writers in the world.

Thinking further into the non-quantum-entangled Discord Model, I am reminded of L.E.J. Brouwer's much-neglected Intuitionist philosophy of mathematics of a hundred or so years ago. Brouwer's philosophy rejects the law of the excluded middle and the admission of nonconstructive mathematical proofs built on it. This set of proofs includes the mathermatical proof of Bell's Theorem.

Tom

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.