Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

My thoughts Emergent physics: Fermi point scenario G.E. Volovik

  1. Jan 6, 2008 #1
    My thoughts "Emergent physics: Fermi point scenario G.E. Volovik"

    Emergent physics: Fermi point scenario
    G.E. Volovik

    What if Volovik is correct that the true TOE is some sort of Fermi point scenario?

    1 string theory is dead, and SM particles are not strings in 11 D space. page 4 "In the fermi point scenario spacetime is naturally 4 dimensional...this is a property of fermi point topology which is distinct from string theory does not require higher dimensional spacetime"

    2 lqg, cdt and other BI approaches are dead "one cannot obtain qg from full quantization of Einstein's equation"

    3 GUT are limited, GUT at best are low energy effective theories, and Volovik's idea is that above GUT there is anti-GUT, and scale goes beyond planck scale, Anti-GUT is based on the idea that symmetry is emergent

    4 - prediction no DSR at planck scale, but energy scale does go beyond planck scale where there is lorentz violation

    5 Smolin arguments about BI and geometry encoding spacetime as the central lesson of GR are physically incorrect

    Wen and Levin pattern their TOE after boson string net condensation, Volovik after fermionic topology.

    Going forward, condense matter physics models represents the model by which fundamental physics can be explained (if Volovik is correct)

    If Volovik is correct, it seems unlikely the current investment in string theory and LQG will pay off, in developing a physically correct TOE; at best some form of spin foam could be useful if it offers a suitable spacetime atom, whose collective properties can be described by a fermi point or string net.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 8, 2008 #2
    From Wikipedia's LQG page, under "LQG & Particle Physics":
    "Xiao-Gang Wen and Michael Levin are two solid-state physicists who have attempted to model elementary particles such as electrons and photons as resulting from a discrete lattice structure of spacetime in analogy to phonons in solid state physics. They attempt to model elementary particles as emergent properties of a string-net condensation in analogy to phonons in solid state physics, and LQG's spin networks have the properties necessary to reproduce the Standard Model as the result of the collective behavior of a group of spin networks.[10] [11] This approach differs from the preon approach, in that Wen and Levin see particles as an emergent property of quantum spacetime, rather than built up of smaller substructures as is the case with Bilson-Thompson's preon theory."
    Ensabah6, are you lumping them with Smolin & the rest of LQG versus Volovik?
    Thank you, GR
  4. Jan 8, 2008 #3
    Volovik clearly regards canonical LQG as a physically incorrect approach to QG and TOE (though he regards string-M-theory in much the same way) but some for of spin foam/spin network theory which has a discrete quantum structure could be the basis of QG and TOE, so not necessarily "versus".
  5. Jan 8, 2008 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Grosquet the Wikipedia LQG page has been recently edited to reflect a highly idiosyncratic viewpoint, to the extent that in a few places it reads more like a tract than a conventional encyclopedia article. My tendency would be to let it be, since it is self-discrediting and can (I think) do little harm. It would be a lot of work to get the crank stuff out. You need a PhD student who actually studies the stuff, not an autodidact, at this point.
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2008
  6. Jan 8, 2008 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    A lot of the edit on Wikipedia "LQG" article is not what you'd call controversial, but just distorted---as by an opinionated autodidact with his own personal views. Seemingnly unpublishable research of little or no importance is set beside published, widely cited work and discussed on an equal footing. I guess you could call it creative editing. Or private speculation editing. And the creative editor could turn out to be prophetic----spectacular longshots can be right. (I'm not an authority or prophet myself and don't estimate the odds of this.) But that is not usually what encyclopedias do. They normally don't push spectacular longshots or personal viewpoints.

    I looked back at some quirky edits in the history section and found the IPS responsible

    The idiosyncratic editing that I noticed began 28 November 2006, if the rough notes I made are right
    and there was especially lot of Bayardo (which is the worst I think) in Fall 2007,
    my notes say around 15 October 2007. Can't be precise without going back and checking but would be some time thereabouts.

    Not sure what to advise. If you shut Bayardo off you might be able to get an advanced LQG PhD student or postdoc. But no busy person would want to get in there if it could all be undone by a crank.
    Names to contact? These randomly come to mind:
    Jonathan Engle---Marseille
    Bianca Dittrich--Perimeter
    Johannes Tambornino--Perimeter
    Kevin Vandersloot---Portsmouth
    Hanno Sahlmann---Utrecht
    Etera Livine---Tours (he is faculty but he comes here to PF sometimes and helps)

    there are a dozen others who come to mind, these names are not special or in any order.

    But another option is just to let it be and not struggle, on the "caveat lector" principle. Critical readers will understand how much or little they can rely on the article. And uncritical ones will probably not be harmed by some fringe distortion.

    Love Wikipedia, of course, use it several times a day, gratefully----but just with normal caution.
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2008
  7. Jan 8, 2008 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    marcus, what do you mean? The IP whois for etc., work out to be University of Missouri at Kansas City.

    By the way, I like that the paper agrees with me that Painleve-Gullstrand coordinates are natural for black holes, and I also like using the fact that the observed particles, even in high energy particle experiments, are at extremely cold temperatures compared to Planck scale.
  8. Jan 8, 2008 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    just going by notes I made a while back Carl. Bayardo's edits were the most peculiar (and the most recent). Who Mr. 134.193 could be, at U. of M., no idea but still doesn't belong in an encylopedia article IMO.
    An undergraduate physics major or someone else affiliated with a university (just not doing LQG research) can still try to impose his own particular notions on an encyclopedia article. Maybe institutional affiliation doesn't matter, what matters is do you go to conferences and present your research, do you publish etc. Can you accurately present a mainstream conventional view. I have to call it as I see it.

    UMKC has about 10 active physics faculty, nobody in any type of theoretical physics (QFT, string, CMT...)
    only one theorist of any sort (a theoretical astrophysicist) with the rest in experimental or physics education
    about 30 undergrad physics majors, and 20 graduate students (seems a lot for such a small department)
    here are the graduate courses in physics UMKC offers
    I can see nothing in the curriculum relevant to theoretical particle physics or to quantum gravity of any kind.
    The department offers a Masters, but no PhD in straight physics. An interdisciplinary PhD connecting physics with engineering and other applied areas is possible.

    Don't get me wrong, small, medium level institutions play a vital role in US education. they give people good professional training and prepare them for productive lives. Nobody should feel they have to be at a place that does theoretical physics. It is not a question of snobbery. It is a practical question of who do you get to work on an encyclopedia article.

    Where are there people who can give a balanced overview of the salient research in LQG, with some sense of proportion about the relative importance.
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2008
  9. Jan 11, 2008 #8
    I only skimmed this paper, but how does it not violate the Weinberg Witten theorem. I mean wasn't this the reason why the concept of emergent gravity died out in the eighties.
  10. Jan 12, 2008 #9
    I forget to mention just this in my review
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?