IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

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]
     "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)

I am the Walrus.
68 ms