IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"
[link|http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.0770v1.pdf|arXiv] (31 page .pdf).

[link|http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626303.900|New Scientist]:

GARRETT LISI is an unlikely individual to be staking a claim for a theory of everything. He has no university affiliation and spends most of the year surfing in Hawaii. In winter, he heads to the mountains near Lake Tahoe, California, to teach snowboarding. Until recently, physics was not much more than a hobby.

That hasn't stopped some leading physicists sitting up and taking notice after Lisi made his theory public on the physics pre-print archive this week (www.arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770). By analysing the most elegant and intricate pattern known to mathematics, Lisi has uncovered a relationship underlying all the universe's particles and forces, including gravity - or so he hopes. Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (PI) in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, describes Lisi's work as "fabulous". "It is one of the most compelling unification models I've seen in many, many years," he says.

That's some achievement, as physicists have been trying to find a uniform framework for the fundamental forces and particles ever since they developed the standard model more than 30 years ago. The standard model successfully weaves together three of the four fundamental forces of nature: the electromagnetic force; the strong force, which binds quarks together in atomic nuclei; and the weak force, which controls radioactive decay. The problem has been that gravity has so far refused to join the party.

Most attempts to bring gravity into the picture have been based on string theory, which proposes that particles are ultimately composed of minuscule strings. Lisi has never been a fan of string theory and says that it's because of pressure to step into line that he abandoned academia after his PhD. "I've never been much of a follower, so I walked off to search for my own theory," he says. Last year, he won a research grant from the charitably funded Foundational Questions Institute to pursue his ideas.

[...]


I can't understand the mathematics, but this paper may be a very big deal. Unifying gravity with the Standard Model of all the other forces has stumped a lot of people for a very long time. This may be an important step in the solution. What makes it compelling is that it is a natural extension of existing models and it has no free parameters.

The arXiv paper has lots of pretty figures. :-)

It would be neat to hear what DRL thinks about it.

Cheers,
Scott.
[link|http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=006978452673906630972%3A_5xhnlvpsn4|IWeThey Custom Search Engine]
New interesting, put it together you have the seal of solomon
what are the chances kabalah is right? The E8 root diagram is a tibetan mandala but when rotated slightly becomes an alternating jewish and Buddhist prayer wheel. Good find.
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Re: "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"
This guy isn't impressed:
[link|http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-theory-of.html|http://motls.blogspo...le-theory-of.html]
Needless to say, the visually intriguing and colorful paper is a huge joke. The first place where I exploded in laughter was the equation (1.1). It says, using words, the following:

My connection of everything = connection for gravity + weak force + strong force + electromagnetism + electron + neutrino + up-quark + down-quark + other-generations

That's pretty cute! :-) The author is not constrained by any old "conventions" and simply adds Grassmann fields together with ordinary numbers i.e. bosons with fermions, one-forms with spinors and scalars. He is just so skillful that he can add up not only apples and oranges but also fields of all kinds you could ever think of. Every high school senior excited about physics should be able to see that the paper is just pure junk. I understood these things when I was 14.

Concerning the title, I present it as a joke but I agree with Freedom of Science that if the title is viewed seriously by some important readers and if the author allows it, it is a case of scientific fraud.

There is not a glimpse of physics in that paper. You won't find anything like a "Lagrangian", "amplitudes", "masses", "cross section", "energy", "force", "Hamiltonian", "entropy", "path integral", "temperature", or other words that you expect in physics paper. When he talks about actions, they're always wrong actions from some previous obscure papers that have clearly nothing to do with observable physics either. On the other hand, you find a lot of random assignments of particles to vertices of polytopes - something that you know from papers about the octopi.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New Hmm.
Motl's certainly opinionated, isn't he? He's a little too smarmy, but that's common among too many theorists (unfortunately). I'm taking his comments with a grain of salt.

I took the paper as being one that's mainly about geometry, so I wasn't surprised that there wasn't much discussion of Hamiltonians and the like. The article in the New Scientist with the interviews with Smolin and Finkelstein certainly didn't make it seem like he was a crank.

I like Peter Woit's comments on [link|http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=617|Not Even Wrong].

Lisi's [link|http://deferentialgeometry.org/|blog] seems very straight-forward, but that means nothing in the greater scheme of things.

I think this topic has an undercurrent of String Theory lovers versus ST haters. Where the truth is, I don't know.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
[link|http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=006978452673906630972%3A_5xhnlvpsn4|IWeThey Custom Search Engine]
New Aha! Doesn't have the right Big Words . . .
. . it's got to be a joke.

Yup, that's an intellectual at work, all right.

I have no idea if this paper means anything, but I'm quite sure that sort of critique doesn't mean anything.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New Danny has at least seen it:
[link|http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/11/theoretically-simple-exception-of.html|http://backreaction....exception-of.html]

A good ways down the page:
At 5:37 AM, November 12, 2007, D R Lunsford said...

This entire discussion reveals what sad shape academic physics finds itself in. The main actor professes his love for KK theory, something shown to be conceptually empty in the 30s by Pauli, while his enemies resort to personal attacks. Meanwhile, the work itself is nothing but the same old numerology that started with Gursey and is just as hopeless and empty now as it was then. There are no ideas that get next to the problem of matter. Furthermore, Tony Smith has already done all of this to death with a real idea to back it up (Wyler's), and he's ignored and banned. It makes me sick.

-drl


Edit: there's more in there from him as well.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Expand Edited by admin Nov. 14, 2007, 09:54:59 PM EST
New Thanks. He's commented on NEW, too.
[link|http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=617|Not Even Wrong] - scroll down to 11/11 at 2:53 pm.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who is still reading through the comments.)
[link|http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=006978452673906630972%3A_5xhnlvpsn4|IWeThey Custom Search Engine]
New Just remember the root of "Exceptionally" :-D
works for everything *except* this.


<rimshot>


Someone buy me a drink :-)
Smile,
Amy
     "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" - (Another Scott) - (7)
         interesting, put it together you have the seal of solomon - (boxley)
         Re: "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" - (admin) - (2)
             Hmm. - (Another Scott)
             Aha! Doesn't have the right Big Words . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
         Danny has at least seen it: - (admin) - (1)
             Thanks. He's commented on NEW, too. - (Another Scott)
         Just remember the root of "Exceptionally" :-D - (imqwerky)

Searching for a distant star, heading off to Iscandar!
96 ms