Related to other approaches on fundamental physics than Strings or LQG:

What do you think of this paper here?
For me it seems to be a very interesting point the author is raising.

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0705.2568

The work has something to do with this earlier work of the same author in Annalen der Physik (the journal where Einstein published):

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/104544152/ABSTRACT

If true, it could change our opinions on quantum mechanics and very likely be used to build a very sound theory of quantum gravity.

(These two papers which were released by now are in fact only a part of a still unpublished book. If the author will publish its content on quantum field theory and renormalisation, it will be definitely of interest for quantum gravity. From this content (which lies on my desk here) it becomes clear that a true Quantum gravity must, in some sense use strings. But a very different version of String Theory which is used by now.

Thanks for your supportive words. We’ll keep doing our best to make FQXi as helpful as possible to its consitutuent community.

Sean and Neil B:

A fundamental question that I really feel like I can shed light on is what FQXi stands for. ‘i’ is definitely ‘insitute’, though I like the theories of Neil B. ‘x’ can be either ‘Physics and cosmology’ as in “foundational questions about physics and cosmology”, or as per the logo, it can signify ignorance as in “Our foundational questions are a function of our ignorance.”
Neil B:

Your associate is certainly welcome to submit an application in our next ‘big grant’ round in 2007-8; and hopefully we will have some other potentially interesting programs of interest to her as well — stay tuned.

Lab Lemming:

I personally see no contradiction between ‘pro rigour’ and ‘anti-incremental’. In many senses, it’s much more important to be rigorous when you are doing something very new/risky/speculative. But beyond that, I would not say that FQXi is anti-incemental (as the vast majority of scientific progress is incremental, and we applaud it) — it’s just not FQXi’s niche.

On many pages, they show fq(x), and then the blurb under says,
“Foundational Questions in Physics & Cosmology”.
So, the “x” is the unknown, and the “i” is subscript for the many questions we have. It is also maybe the “I” in the equation: we have to think about it; each person is a relative “I” (and eye) that is his or her own relative center (also like an “eye”, like the eye of a hurricane, which looks a lot like a galaxy by the way…)
It could even be thought of in terms of those odd ideas of observers making the conditions neccesary for their existence what they were, like Wheeler’s ideas (which I don’t buy, but it’s worth thinking about.)

This means that if the Higgs doesn’t exist you must have new physics to prevent the violation of unitarity.

http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/programmes/NCG/Poster2/harrell.ppt

It is a summary of the concepts, some general background and some her own ideas.

She applied for a NSF grant a few months ago, is still waiting, and you know how that goes…
What sort of chance does she have for a modest grant in that area of fundamental theory, from the FQXi or similar? Any tips on how to best go about it, besides the obvious? Also, any tips on how to find an ArXiv sponsor if hard to get in the immediate vicinity?

thanks

See here

You mean the Higgs Bison?