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

Steve Dufourny: on 11/3/09 at 12:22pm UTC, wrote Hi all , Dear Mr Jackson , Do you beleive the surface of an expanding...

Ben Baten: on 10/30/09 at 2:00am UTC, wrote Hi Peter (part 2)- 5. The 'do you believe questions' that you raise. ...

Ben Baten: on 10/30/09 at 1:59am UTC, wrote Hi Peter (part 1)- Thanks for reading the essay in more detail and I...

Peter Jackson: on 10/29/09 at 16:31pm UTC, wrote Ben I've studied it and considered it and all it's implications very...

Jonathan Dickau: on 10/22/09 at 3:13am UTC, wrote Hello again, Yes, it was me above. Login expired, or maybe I had logged...

Anonymous: on 10/22/09 at 3:11am UTC, wrote Greetings, I've downloaded your essay. It may take me a while to digest,...

Ben Baten: on 10/19/09 at 18:04pm UTC, wrote Posted to keep material together, since it could be useful for other reader...

Ben Baten: on 10/19/09 at 17:53pm UTC, wrote Posted to keep material together, since it could be useful for other reader...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "why the post about the team of Nassim and his friends cannot be accepted..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Rob,Eckards, Dear Rob,it is well said all this indeed.Friendly" in First Things First: The...

Georgina Woodward: "I suggested the turnstiles separate odd form even numbered tickets randomly..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant. I can..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, "You referred to..." I was referring only to my final comments..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...


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
October 17, 2019

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Ultimate Possibilities of Physics by Ben Baten [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Ben Baten wrote on Sep. 9, 2009 @ 12:13 GMT
Essay Abstract

In an attempt to describe the ultimate possibilities of physics, I would like to present a theory of physics referred to as Quantum Field Mechanics that, in my opinion, unifies quantum theory and relativity, and collapses many speculative ideas pursued by the physics community. In this way, a consistent basis is obtained for further research.

Author Bio

Ben Baten received his Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Twente in The Netherlands in 1987. He hopes to make a contribution to fundamental physics by creating interest in, and contributing to, alternative approaches to current physics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 10, 2009 @ 07:17 GMT
Hello dear Mr Baten ,

It's relevant .Congratulations .

I like those words,"the electromagnetic protofield is much more mobile than the gravitational protofield"

It's logic indeed in an evolution point of vue .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Ben Baten wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 23:57 GMT
I would like to add a few thoughts. This could not be included in the essay due to the size restriction.

In the write up, I wanted to give the reader a general overview of QFM, originally developed by Andrei P. Kirilyuk, and how it compares to other theories. I realize very well that QFM is unconventional and that it takes a while to comprehend its essence, since it brings many notions of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 10:08 GMT
Hello ,

Thanks for these developments.

Tghe equation E=pc is relevant .

I search the ultim equation for E.

E=mc² wasn't finished because the evolution point of vue and the increase of mass must be inserted in my opinion by very weak interactions .It's a little if the Energy was on the road of the maximum in the two senses of relativistic perception.

At this...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 16:39 GMT
A well presented theory mr Baten, but I couldn't find where the inductive evidence, to give it more solidity than etherial strings and membranes, was hidden. The comment; "faster than light gravitiational interaction seems to be required to ensure stability of the solar system" is contrary to most evidence and unsubstantiated.

The central analysis that GR "..needs to be sacrificed to unify Quantum and relativistic behavour" is a common postulate that normally consigns theories to stasis at best. A theory proposing that would have to be exceptionally well evidenced (however right it may be) to not end up on the scrapheap.

This is a shame as much of the theory is well thought through and holds out much promise.

But, if you wish to keep SR, answer me this, and advise if the theory has any comment:

If an experiment on the Space Station sent light pulses down a long fibre optic cable (fixed to the outside), and we and the station passed each other on a contra orbit at a significant speed, would we observe the pulse only at 'c', or at greater than 'c', (or lesser subject to direction of travel). you may also send the pulse through the vacuum rather than a FO cable if you wish.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Ben Baten wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 03:37 GMT
Dear Peter-

Thanks for your feedback. I partially agree with your comment on 'inductive evidence'. This is surely due to the 'controversial' nature of the two issues that you bring up. An expanded version of the essay (a research report) would be necessary to illuminate some of the issues that were only briefly touched upon.

Let me try to address some of your concerns.

1. In...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 10:11 GMT
A brave man, pushing a theory against concensus with no real evidence. But I'm a great supporter of your right to do so and wish you luck. Read my own essay 'Perfect Symmetry' which suggests the current 'system' is critically flawed in this regard.

Interesting answer to my riddle and view on Relativity; You say it has to be abandoned, propose as solid a background field as is possible, in fact two!, which would destroy SR anyway, yet still go for the paradoxical SR postulate that 'c' is invarient from any frame!!

I understand, it's just so ingrained, but check out such phenomina as the gas jets of M87, a feature moving within a galaxy moving within a cluster in a moving nebulae, so the jets are doing well over 'c' from our frame (recently confirmed by Hubble). The explanation is in the Article attached to post 4 under my essay. I'd be interested in your view as there are some similarities between your theory and my model.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Ben Baten wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 15:41 GMT
Dear Peter-

With respect to pushing a theory against consensus I can say the following. To me, it has become 'consensus' that the search for a unified theory of physics should be a math expert exercise instead of a physics exercise. There appears to be a trend in physics to 'solve unification' by piling up more and more abstractions, such as multi-dimensional spaces, which have never been...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Leshan wrote on Sep. 22, 2009 @ 22:15 GMT
I have analyzed the essay 'Ultimate Possibilities of Physics' by Ben J. Baten (QFM theory), the review is below.

I do not see any logical reasoning in this theory. The main postulates of QFM appear from nothing. The properties of protofields also are not derived but appear from nothing. It is not logic, it is the free fantasy only. The author wrote: 'By applying the principle of parsimony, it is postulated that..' The notion 'principle of parsimony' is used here only to create the illusion that QFM is scientifically derived. What is the protofield in general? What is protofields made of? The authors do not know the answers. Nevertheless they endue protofields with imaginary properties, for example homogeneous and frictionless. Then authors postulate 'that the two protofields are mutually attractive'. 'As postulated, the electromagnetic protofield is much more mobile than the gravitational protofield'. The entire essay contains postulates and fantasy only; I do not see any logic in general. The question is when fantasy ends and science begin in this theory.

The author is not able to explain the nature of protofields. The most part of phenomena they explain by the 'quantum beat process and synchronization'.

The QFM is not able to describe gravitation and the curvature of space-time. The author wrote: 'General Relativity, as a fundamental theory of physics, needs to be sacrificed to unify quantum and relativistic behavior'. But I'm sure that the QFM theory needs to be sacrificed to clean the physics.

Conclusion: I do not found any logical reasoning in QFM theory, it is not the consequential theory at all; I'm sure it is a free fantasy only. The protofields appear from nothing. All properties of protofields appear from nothing. The description of all phenomena like mass, charge, gravitation is a pure fantasy only. Not General Relativity, but QFM theory needs to be sacrificed to clean physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Ben Baten wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 01:41 GMT
Dear Leshan-

I thank you for your feedback, but I absolutely disagree with your 'sure' assessments and your specific remarks. I get the impression that you are more impressed with abstract postulates of e.g. Quantum Mechanics (looks more 'scientific') than any serious attempt to explain the origin of those postulates, at the expense of introducing simpler postulates that have not been...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Leshan wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 17:36 GMT
Dear Ben Baten,

The gravitational and electromagnetic interactions have a totally different nature. Gravitation is a curvature of space-time whereas electromagnetism is the exchange of photons. However, both these incompatible theories are described in QFM theory by the same 'protofield' with God-like properties (pre-time, pre-space structureless entities). In my view, it is impossible for some real entity to curve space-time and create electromagnetic fields at the same time.

There have been dozens of experimental tests of General Relativity. The scoresheet is pretty impressive. If QFM theory denies the curvature of space-time, it contradicts to experimental data. The gravitational time dilation and length contraction has been detected experimentally already.

Sincerely,

Leshan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Ben Baten wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 19:13 GMT
Dear Leshan (part 1)-

I does not seem that we are converging. Let me give answers on the issues that you bring up, although I doubt I can convince you given the strong opinions that you have. Obviously, a theory must be self-consistent. I believe that QFM is self-consistent, but an essay format may not be the best way to present it, since many details had to be left out and be diverted to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Ben Baten wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 19:18 GMT
Dear Leshan (part 2)-

5. The quantum beat process of a massive particle is an unceasing oscillation combined with a rotation and random motion. The quantum beat process is basically a combined perturbation in both protofields caused by their attraction. Since the protofields attract to one another, also an opposite tress is created in both protofieldswhich attempts to counteract the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Ben Baten wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 19:34 GMT
Dear Leshan-

It seems that you have edited and significantly reduced your originally posted feedback. So, now there is a mismatch between the issues that you originally brought up and the items that I have addressed in my last two postings.

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 24, 2009 @ 12:43 GMT
Hi Leshan and Ben ,

HIHIHI Mr super critic is there ,it's well like that ,that catalyzes .

Thus thanks .

Dear Leshan you say ,

The gravitational and electromagnetic interactions have a totally different nature. Gravitation is a curvature of space-time whereas electromagnetism is the exchange of photons. However, both these incompatible theories are described in QFM theory by the same 'protofield' with God-like properties (pre-time, pre-space structureless entities). In my view, it is impossible for some real entity to curve space-time and create electromagnetic fields at the same time.

I agree it's totally different .But ....

if we insert the rotations of quantum spheres ,thus the synchronization is important for the polarisation in an evolutive point of vue .

The weak interactions needs perhaps light to become an encoded evolutive system in the quantum architecture and its properties .

The senses ,the directions ,the velocities ,the angles ....thus imply polarity of evolution.

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 29, 2009 @ 23:50 GMT
Dear Ben Baten,

You might be surprised, my background arose from EE too (Dipl.-Ing. 1966, Dr.-Ing. 1971). Look into my essay in order to find a lot of selected hints to what I found out as at least questionable in very basic areas of physics and even mathematics. I did never intend to present a theory of physics but I successfully performed practical R&D, and I felt uncomfortable as a university teacher of EE each time when I suspected, the ubiquitously accepted theory, which my students had to learn, is possibly not quite correct. Perhaps you are in position to prove old practitioners like Uncle Al and me wrong? Please do not hesitate doing so.

Incidentally, what caused you to contribute to physics?

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ben Baten wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 22:03 GMT
Dear Eckard-

I agree with your assessment of the basic areas of physics and use of mathematics. In your essay, you mention two absolutely critical elements for developing a theory of physics:

- theory has to obey reality, not the other way round

- the traditional concept of causality is indispensable

The first element has been a major issue in physics, since...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ben Baten wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 23:23 GMT
Posted to keep material together. This is based on a question from Eckard Blumschein elsewhere on the FQXi site.

Q: I do not imagine electrons like circulating points. Wouldn't such point need a velocity in excess of c as to compensate the electrostatic force?

A: In my view, the notions of electrostatic force and charge are long-range notions. So, they cannot be applied to extremely short ranges when non-linear weak interaction comes into play. Current theory mixes the short- and long-range perspective and then ends up with fractional charges. In my essay, I try to explain this (with shortcuts, but see ref in essay).

In QFM, particles are dynamic entities created by the attractive interaction between two different fundamental fields, which have different mobilities. Because the protofields have different mobilities and they are attracted to one another, any moving protfield perturbation must also rotate (spin). At any 'distance' from the dynamically created space point, the perturbation moves at the speed-of-light, but gets twisted ('entangled') like water flowing down a drain.

The electrons are not circulating points. Electrons are dynamic oscillating protofield perturbations which, as part of their reduction-expansion behavior caused by protofield attraction, dynamically create space points at the rate of their oscillation frequency. Calculation gives an oscillation frequency of 10^20 Hz, which is backed by [1].

Reference

1. M. Gouanere, M. Spighel, N. Cue, M.J. Gaillard, R. Genre, R. Kirsch, J.C. Poizat, J. Remillieux, P. Catillon, L. Rourrel. Experimental observation compatible with the particle internal clock. http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-301/aflb301m416.pdf.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ben Baten wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 03:28 GMT
Posted to keep material together, since it could be useful for other reader to read this in conjunction with my essay. This is based on my reply to Alan Schwartz' essay on the FQXi site.

I partly agree with the abstract of your essay, where you say:

"Gravitation and quantum mechanics are separately accurately predictive to the limits of observation but together are utterly incompatible. No contemporary quantum gravitation theory offers testable predictions."

There is a potential solution for those issues. QM becomes a somewhat realistic local theory when the paradoxical results from interference experiments are ignored.* Elements of this local theory were developed by de Broglie, without relying on abstract QM postulates [1]. According to de Broglie, an electron exhibits an oscillating behavior. This behavior has been experimentally confirmed [2]. On the other hand, GR is a rather global theory. It has oscillating (big bang - big crunch) solutions, which suggest temporarily local relativistic behavior. To my mind, the spatial oscillation allowed by GR is way too large. When an electron performs a local oscillation, then it unifies quantum and relativistic behavior in a single process. My essay covers some details. Please also consult the comments on the essay, which offer important additions and clarifications.

* Traditional QM does not say anything about photons and therefore, strictly, cannot say anything about photon interference. The 'non-local behavior' that supposedly occurs in (photons and massive particle) interference experiment requires an instantaneous (faster-than-light / non-physical) collapse of the wave function. This phenomenon remains to be explained in a different 'realistic' fashion.

References

1. L. de Broglie. Non-linear wave-mechanics – A causal interpretation.

2. M. Gouanere, M. Spighel, N. Cue, M.J. Gaillard, R. Genre, R. Kirsch, J.C. Poizat, J. Remillieux, P. Catillon, L. Rourrel. Experimental observation compatible with the particle internal clock. http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-301/aflb301m416.pdf.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ben Baten wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 17:57 GMT
A link to my website.

A summary slide deck of QFM and reports can be found under on Physics Articles page.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 4, 2009 @ 11:39 GMT
Hello Mr Baten,

Congratulations for your website .

I have seen an article about photon matter interaction ,could you tell me more a little please ?

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ben Baten wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 17:53 GMT
Posted to keep material together, since it could be useful for other reader to read this in conjunction with my essay. This is based on my (slightly edited) reply to Stephen Wolfram's essay on the FQXi site.

Dear Stephen-

Thank your for your interesting essay, although I have a different opinion about the suitability of a computational approach to fundamental physics. Basically, I...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ben Baten wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 18:04 GMT
Posted to keep material together, since it could be useful for other reader to read this in conjunction with my essay. This is based on my (slightly edited) reply to the essay of Philip Vos Fellman, Jonathan Vos Post and Christine Carmichael on the FQXi site.

Dear Philip, Jonathan Vos Post, Christine,

I enjoyed reading your essay. The introduction gives a good overview of the issues...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 03:11 GMT
Greetings,

I've downloaded your essay. It may take me a while to digest, but I will have comments before long.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 03:13 GMT
Hello again,

Yes, it was me above. Login expired, or maybe I had logged out. Back to you soon.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 16:31 GMT
Ben

I've studied it and considered it and all it's implications very carefully. There's some good imaginative thinking there, and there's no solid disproof. But I'm now convinced you're riding slightly the wrong horse. That's not because it flies in the face of GR, I have no problem with that at all in pronciple, but it's because it doesn't resolve any of the big issues in physics or astronomy, and that's what we need to find. In this case we musn't be distracted by thheories that don't acheive that.

I say that with some confidence as the similar but critcally different field based Discreet Field Model (DFM) does exactly that, and is far more inductively provable.

Do you believe math alone can make EM waves (light) blue shift when it reaches a planet moving towards it's source? Do you beleive 'lateral waves' can actually exist in nature, without something actually moving, as well as just on an oscilloscope? Do you beleive the surface of an expanding light sphere stays exactly spherical when part of it moves into a galaxy moving relative to the space outside the galaxy. How could that possibly be so if it moves through the galaxy at 'c'. etc.

The answers to these are all derived simply from the DFM. I implore you to have a proper look and think about it. It was very hidden beneath my essay 'Perfect Symmetry' as I was testing the interest of self interested scientists in agendas other than their own! But you'll see from the posts just a few have had that eureka moment. Check it at http://vixra.org/abs/0909.0047

Bets wishes

Peter Jackson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ben Baten wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 01:59 GMT
Hi Peter (part 1)-

Thanks for reading the essay in more detail and I appreciate the effort to understand it. You're one of the few people to provide feedback. I get the impression that people just vote without taking the time to really understand my essay. I can deduct this from scores varying from 1 to 10, both from the community and public, without leaving comments. I don't care so much...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ben Baten wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 02:00 GMT
Hi Peter (part 2)-

5. The 'do you believe questions' that you raise.

Obviously, math alone does not make something physics. I hope that you do not deduce this from my essay in which all behavior is obtained from the protofields and their interaction (which is better motivated in the notes associated with the essay on the website), and motion of perturbations in protofield. Also waves can only exist if there is 'something' moving. Current physics cannot say what is moving, it ignores the existence of something (aether = protofields). I will read your paper in detail. In general, I learn more from alternative views than current formal models, since the former often raise more interesting issues.

* Note that this equation was also obtained by David Bohm with a different interpretation of dt and dx and can also be found in other literature assuming continuous time. In the essay, I also refer to an experiment that appears to confirm the internal oscillation of electrons.

Ben Baten

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 12:22 GMT
Hi all ,

Dear Mr Jackson ,

Do you beleive the surface of an expanding light sphere stays exactly spherical when part of it moves into a galaxy moving relative to the space outside the galaxy. How could that possibly be so if it moves through the galaxy at 'c'. etc.?

???????? It is confused that .Don't complicate the simplicity .A real dynamic exists .The evolution is specific .

Could you elaborate a little please your words pragmatically ?

Regards

Steve

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.