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

Volvovik's Fermi-point scenario of emergent gravity as TOE

  1. Sep 13, 2007 #1
    String theorists (i.e Josh1) and LQG'ers (i.e Marcus) how promosing do you think Volvovik's Fermi-point scenario of emergent gravity as a TOE,

    he denies more than 4D as required by String theory, and denies quantizing GR and seems to denigrate gravity as spacetime, in favor of condense matter helium-3 models, that GR is just a low energy hydrodynamic theory, nt a fundamental theory in its own right.
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 13, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I posted that article of Volovik back on 10 September in the bibliography thread

    It is good if you want to discuss it to have a separate discussion thread, so I'm glad you started one.

    It seems like more and more people these days are saying you can have something like string theory in just 4D.
    John Baez, Alejandro Perez are two that come to mind. I seem to recall Steve Giddings writing something about this. Isn't Warren Siegel also a proponent? Also Derek Wise and Alissa Crans. Others may be able to supply further names.

    Anyway be that as it may you seem to have taken a fancy to Volovik. I will put the link and abstract here in case anyone wants to discuss.

    Fermi-point scenario of emergent gravity
    G.E. Volovik
    10 pages, 6 figures, draft for proceedings of conference "From Quantum to Emergent Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology", Trieste June 11-15 (2007)
    (Submitted on 9 Sep 2007)

    "Let us assume, that gravity is emergent low-energy phenomenon arising from the topologically stable defect in momentum space -- the Fermi point. What are the consequences? We discuss the natural values of fermion masses and cosmological constant; flatness of the Universe; bounds on the Lorentz violation; etc "

    Francesca, who sometimes posts here, is at Trieste and actually ATTENDED this very conference where Volovik gave this particular paper. If she is around she might be able to tell you how it went over.

    Volovik was one of the people that Lee Smolin invited to that workshop at Perimeter that I told you about before----where that MIT condensed matter guy was also. Smolin and Volovik seem to like each other and have often cited each other's papers.

    I personally don't know what to make of Volovik. I think maybe he works on long shots (which you always need someone to do.)
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2007
  4. Sep 13, 2007 #3
    I don't have an opinion on string 4D, does string 4D require SUSY, and if so, what would happen to SUSY 4D string theory shoudl LHC not find any evidence for SUSY?

    In the paper you cite, Volovik states that quantizing the field equations of GR, as done in LQG, is fundamentally wrong, and that GR is not a fundamental description of Spacetime (which I wonder whether this implies the LQG arguments about BI are rendered irrelevant). Volovik also argues there is a condense matter physics theorem which states that the physics of condense matter only works in 4D, and that more than 4D (i.e 11D in m-theory) is not needed, nor is SUSY needed.

    Volovik work reminds me of Xiao-Wen's rotor model and string net condensation, and both are condense matter physicists. Perhaps neither string nor LQG but condense matter physics is the route to TOE.

    Personally I wish there were more papers and publicity on condense matter physics inspired TOE's (SM+GR).
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook