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

Reason McLucus: on 6/4/07 at 4:47am UTC, wrote Do physicists still accept Bohr's theory that the absorption of specific...

Matthew Leifer: on 5/11/07 at 17:21pm UTC, wrote John Baez's protoblog This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics is about...


Lorraine Ford: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

John Cox: "Lorraine, That clarifies, thanks. I'd be in the camp that argues for a..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Steve Dufourny: "We have a big philosophical problem with the strings and the photons like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "If my equation is correct, E=mc^2+Xl^2 , so how can we take this enormous..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...

John Cox: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

John Cox: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

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.

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.

January 21, 2020

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Baez on Quantum Foundations [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Matthew Saul Leifer wrote on May. 11, 2007 @ 17:21 GMT
John Baez's protoblog This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics is about quantum foundational issues this week. It contains a discussion of some of the ideas that people working on the boundary of quantum foundations and quantum information have been thinking about.

I'm mentioning it not lest because he cites some of my recent work, which I consider a great honor coming from the foremost physics protoblogger. My other posting ground "Quantum Quandaries" is actually named after one of John's papers, but fortunately he doesn't seem to have noticed yet so I am safe from being sued for the timebeing.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Reason McLucus wrote on Jun. 4, 2007 @ 04:47 GMT
Do physicists still accept Bohr's theory that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light by a gas molecule affects the energy state of its electrons rather than the old theory of Jean Baptiste Fourier that the process caused the molecule to become hotter. Climatologists seem to favor Fourier.

Fourier's theory may have made sense in the context of a model of the atom in which the atom was considered the smallest particle of matter. However, Bohr's theory is more consistent with atoms comprised of charged particles. It makes more sense for the absorption of radiation to affect the electrons instead of increasing the motion of atom/molecules. Changing motion requires an uneven impact. Absorbing radiation would seem to produce a uniform change in the electrons themselves which would seem incapable of changing motion.

If Bohr's theory is still accepted over Fourier's, why haven't physicists challenged the views of climatologists that Fourier's process is causing "global warming". That isn't the only problem with the theory. They ignore the far more likely ways humans could increase temperature especially the terracalories of heat humans generate daily.

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.