|
|
|
FQXi BLOGS
CATEGORY: Blog
[back]
TOPIC: An Exceptionally Simple Personal FAQ
[refresh]
|
|
|
|
Over the past month I have been asked many questions about my personal history and opinions on life, the universe, and everything. I have also received many emails of encouragement from the general public, which have been wonderful and completely overwhelming. This blog comment thread will collect my responses to questions about my history and opinions, in chronological order. If you would like to offer your own opinions, encouragement, or discouragement, feel free.
There is a separate, Exceptionally Simple FAQ that has descriptions of E8 Theory suitable for the interested reader.
| | this post has been edited by the author since its original submission |
 |
|
|
|
|
--You're listed at FQXi as being affiliated with something called "Fractured Atlas," and your CV says that you've been doing independent research since 1999. How do you manage to make a living as a physicist without being associated with some sort of academic institution? Was that a personal choice on your part to provide greater independence for your work, or is there some other story there? Has it worked out the way you hoped it would?
When I got my PhD in 1999 I had some tough decisions to make. My three loves in mathematics and physics have always been differential geometry, general relativity, and quantum field theory. At that time, the only positions available related to those interests were in string theory. I did study strings a bit... but I just couldn't drink the cool-aide. There were too many experimentally unjustified assumptions, and it seemed unlikely to me that the universe worked that way. So I had to choose whether to leave physics and make some money, stay in physics and work on something outside my interests, or work on the physics I wanted while squeezing by with odd jobs on a low budget. I loved physics more than anything, so I chose that last path, which has been difficult; very rewarding, but difficult. It's hard to figure out the secrets of the universe when you're trying to figure out where you and your girlfriend are going to sleep next month. But I think I made the right choice -- it's worked out even better than I'd hoped.
I've worked quite a few odd jobs over the years. I either choose short engagements that require a lot of brain power and pay well, or jobs that consist of playing outside and pay terribly, so my mind is free to think. I also invested my graduate student stipend in Apple stock, which mostly went up.
I've never stopped working on physics -- it's what I love and what I spend almost all my time doing. When FQXi announced their request for proposals, I felt as if someone had heard I needed a hand, and extended it. It's wonderful that FQXi exists -- I am very grateful. There was a stretch of time, just as FQXi was taking proposals, that I was in a tight spot; I was damn near broke, but my physics research was going well. At the time, I was also lecturing a physics class at the local college on Maui. This college offered me a full time, tenure track teaching position. It was very tempting, and would have paid well and set me up in Maui for life, but it would have left me no time at all for research. I had to turn it down. That was a hell of a gamble, but it paid off. I love teaching, but I couldn't give up my research, and thanks to FQXi I didn't have to. If it weren't for that chance I had at getting an FQXi grant... I probably would have taken the teaching post, and I wouldn't have had the chance to discover this cool E8 connection.
Fractured Atlas is a 501(c)3 corporation that accepts and manages grants and charitable donations for artists. They charge a modest overhead fee of 6%, which conforms to FQXi's request that the overhead be kept to a minimum. Of course, Fractured Atlas doesn't actually put anything over my head, but that's OK, I manage.
--I understand that you like to surf and snowboard, you're into Burning Man, and you can quote Douglas Adams at will, which makes you a pretty cool guy in my book. How is it possible to be a successful physicist and still be cool?
Ha! Well, you know, I live in a state of constant internal struggle.
More seriously, I think it's important to find balance in life. I spend a hell of a lot of time sitting at home working, then go out in the world every other day and try to have as much fun as I can for a few hours. I also really enjoy living and playing in beautiful places.
--You're using a wiki as part of your research, which I'm not sure I've ever heard of a scientist doing before. Are you the first that you know of? What are the benefits for you? Are there dangers inherent in putting your thinking out there for everyone to see before you've published or anything like that? Do you think more scientists should work that way?
I think scientists should try everything. Technology is constantly improving because people use it and see where and how they can push the envelope. I'm using a personal wiki for my research and it's working exactly as I'd hoped. If I research an area, or gather useful information, it's all linked up on the wiki where I know how to find it in seconds. My memory is terrible, so it really helps to be able to go back and quickly relearn material prepared by a teacher who understands me -- and who usually uses the same notation and sign conventions. The wiki is my augmented brain. It makes for a fantastic and very natural research notebook, because the same associations in my head between different topics are there as links in the wiki.
I did put it online, because I believe in open source and the creative commons. I didn't think it would get many visitors, but it's getting surprisingly many hits per day. I guess more people are interested in equations than I thought. There is the slight possibility that others will take ideas in development and publish them as their own before I do, but I have something protecting me: my ideas are weird! If someone else comes along tomorrow and says they're putting ALL fields in an E8 connection, the people I care about will know that was my idea, even though I haven't published this in a paper yet. Also, it's hard enough to actively GIVE your physics ideas away and get them used by others -- so if someone tries to steal my ideas, that's great, I'll try to make them a colleague.
There have been many people who have kept hyper-linked notebooks for themselves online. And there are groups who use wikis for collaborative research. But I don't know any other theoretical physicists who have a personal, online research wiki they're using extensively. I think it will catch on though.
--What's with the A?
I didn't want people to get me confused with THE Garrett Lisi. No, actually, it was my parents' idea. They named me after my Italian great-uncle, Antony. (My heritage is Italian and English, which makes me very passionate, but I suppress it.) They always called me by my middle name of Garrett, after the USC football player, Mike Garrett. (It's ironic that I've always hated football -- sorry, Dad.) It is kind of a pain to go by my middle name, but it's also useful: when people call on the phone and ask for Antony, I get to hang up on them, because I know they're trying to sell me something.
| | this post has been edited by the author since its original submission |
|
|
|
|
|
--You have some exciting ideas about the E8 structure that we might be able to cover?
Well, what I'm actually working on is unification. Structurally, the Standard Model describing all known particles is kind of a mess. The unification problem is to make sense of it -- to describe where this odd assortment of electrons, quarks, etc. comes from. What I've managed to do is describe all these particles, including gravity, as parts of a single field, with a single gauge group. And, just two months ago, I discovered that this gauge group is E8, perhaps the most beautiful structure in mathematics.
I haven't had time to write this up as a paper yet (working on that now). But I presented at the Loops '07 conference last month (the annual conference in Loop Quantum Gravity) and at the FQXi conference. The work captured the attention of John Baez, who discussed my work in a recent This Week's Finds. I've also been invited out to visit the Perimeter Institute next month (by Lee Smolin and Sabine Hossenfelder). All the attention is a bit much for me, as I'm kind of a hermit. But it's been great to meet so many other physicists.
You see, I left academia ten years ago because I wanted to do theoretical physics but I didn't think string theory was how nature worked -- and it was the only game in town at the time. So I've been working on the puzzle on my own, and it looks like I may have just struck gold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
--When and why did you begin looking into this issue in general, and at E8 in particular?
For the past ten years I've been playing with the equations of general relativity and the standard model, investigating their structural symmetry. About two years ago, I managed to get everything together in a nice, unified mathematical description called a principal bundle. But it wasn't perfect, and there was a really weird pattern in the interactions between fields. Just three months ago, while trying to figure out what the heck this pattern was, I discovered it was a symmetry of the most beautiful group there is: E8. I had been working with the first kind of mathematical symmetry, and it led me to the second. When this happened, the moment I realized how it all could work... my brain exploded with the implications, and the beauty of the thing. I stood up and walked around with my brain tingling. I think that was the happiest I've ever been with my clothes on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
--Why describe E8 as beautiful?
The austere beauty of geometry has been appreciated for eons -- Plato's geometric forms, its appearance in art... and it's all around us in nature. Geometry also plays the central role in many branches of mathematics. The field in which this is most fully developed is in group theory. All the beautiful geometric shapes we know of -- in two, three, and higher dimensions -- all play a role in the representation of various groups. And among the continuous groups (Lie groups) the exceptional groups stand out from the others, with E8 as the pinnacle. It contains all of the other exceptional groups within its structure. This Lie group, E8, is beautiful not only because it contains aesthetically appealing patterns, but because it has deep theoretical connections intertwining through almost all other branches of mathematics. It is both superficially and deeply beautiful, and I will find it very satisfying if this the the geometric structure at the heart of our universe.
--Was its selection motivated in part by mathematical aesthetics?
Yes.
--Can you make predictions that could be tested using this approach?
That is the goal. Right now this theory is still developing. It is sufficiently promising and successful, as a developing theory, that I thought I'd share it rather than continuing to work on it alone. At this point, there are predictions of new particles that come out, but these are tentative predictions and I expect these to change as the theory develops over the coming year. The interesting thing here is that this is an "all or nothing" theory -- it will either continue to be successful as we learn more about it, and make many successful predictions, or it will be spectacularly wrong.
--What do you plan to do in the coming year or two before the LHC starts producing useful data?
What I usually do: play with equations, snowboard, surf, and talk with people occasionally. I've carried out most of my work for the past ten years in isolation, but this E8 Theory has gotten a great deal of attention -- first from the scientific community and now from the press -- so now I'm going to adapt to working on this with others a bit.
--Does this generate - or could it generate - the seemingly arbitrary constants of the universe, including he mass and charge of particles?
Yes. It is a long shot, but all the pieces are in place for these numbers to come out of the theory. The numbers that come out will either agree with our universe, or the theory is wrong. If it's wrong, back to the digital drawing board for me -- but that's science.
--Why is this field called deferential geometry?
Ha! It's not a field, it's a name I made up to describe this general approach. In my opinion, differential geometry is the most beautiful and central field of mathematics -- it deals with the geometry of smooth surfaces in many dimensions. Much of this mathematics applies to physics, the best description we have of our universe. I'm trying to find the parts of this mathematics that describes our universe -- the deferential geometry. I'm afraid it's a pun.
--When did the penny drop that this approach could have such potential?
I've been building this theory up for the past decade, working steadily from the base of General Relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics, as described by Quantum Field Theory. A couple of years ago I had assembled all the pieces into the most coherent structure I could, but this arrangement of pieces was unfamiliar. Then, about six months ago, I was reading an article by John Baez (a brilliant mathematician, polymath, and great guy) and realized in an instant that this structure I had assembled, containing all the known fields of physics, was this exceptional Lie group, E8.
--You mention that the Higgs multiplet popped out - was that the moment and how could I describe the Higgs multiplet?
Yes, I was very excited when the Higgs fit into the theory about three years ago. The Higgs multiplet is a collection of fields (synonymous with particles) that interact with many other particles we know of and give them mass. There is currently only indirect evidence for its existence, but this is fairly compelling. One of the largest motivations for building the LHC is to get a direct measurement of the Higgs.
--How did you break the news to colleagues and friends?
Since I'm not in academia, I only publish papers when I think I've found something cool. Otherwise, I spend my time working on physics on my own. And I don't approach people to tell them about my physics ideas, as I would consider that rude. But a wonderful new organization was created, FQXi, and they put out a request for proposals for foundational theories in physics. I submitted mine, and won a grant, for which I am very grateful -- as otherwise I might have had to get a job. With a little grant money, I was able to go to a conference and present my ideas to physicists in the Loop Quantum Gravity community. That was in June. Almost immediately, I was invited to give further talks, and people started paying me to visit and talk with them. Then, last week I posted the paper to the arxiv, and the response has been phenomenal.
--You describe venturing into the realm of theories of everything as academic suicide - what made you take the risk?
It's what I wanted to work on. We're here for such a short time, you have to decide very carefully what you do with your life. It's too easy to get wrapped up in pursuing goals that are ultimately unsatisfying. I've always been driven to figure out how the universe works, so that's what I've dedicated my time to. I thought string theory was probably on the wrong track, and ten years ago those were the only opportunities in foundational theory, so I decided to work on my own instead. It's been a hard path, and I can't recommend it, but it's worked out. I've spent my time the way I wanted to.
--Have you benefitted from not being part of a university with all the demands on time that can bring?
Yes. No committees, no tenure review, no deadlines, no stress... I've designed my life so I have large swaths of time to work on physics, with no interruptions except for playing outside every other day. I do love teaching, so I do miss that aspect, as well as interacting in person with physics friends. But for the most part, my life has been the way I want it. Of course, I wouldn't turn down a university post if it were near good surf or a good mountain. :)
--How would it effect you if E8 turns out to be a blind alley?
Over the past ten years, I've completely tossed out the theory I was working on three times, and started over. This E8 Theory feels right, and I think it will go well, but if not, I toss it out and look somewhere else. It's useless to argue with nature.
It's unhealthy to be too attached to a particular theory. I try to make the rest of my life good enough that even if the physics I work on isn't successful, I will have had a good life.
--Why are so many people compelled by the prospect of a "theory of everything"?
Well, it would be kind of nice if it all made sense, mathematically anyway. Life is filled with such uncertainty, and then you're dead. It's nice to think that there's a bigger picture, that's beautiful, and that we're all a part of it. And, of course, it's a fantastic puzzle.
--And I appreciate your computer being called Eddie - how much Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy comments have you got so far?
A lot more than 42.
I feel like I should apologize to normal people that this E8 Theory is so complicated, despite being exceptionally simple as these things go. But, you know, I just live here. Complain to the management.
|
|
|
|
|
|
--Some are a little similar to topics you discussed in the New Scientist article, I'm asking them because I feel better about information that comes directly from you than information from a secondary source that I might misinterpret.
Yes, I agree. It's been fascinating (and a little disturbing) to watch inaccuracies sneak in, and then propagate and grow as the next journalist picks them up and amplifies them. Thanks for asking me directly.
--I just noticed you did your grad work at UCSD--I did too!
The years I spent as a grad student at UCSD were some of the happiest of my life, but I was a theorist and got to go outside.
--Can you tell me about your professional background (besides what I just mentioned)?
After my PhD, I wanted to keep working on ideas I had in QFT, GR, and differential geometry. But it seemed like the only postdoc options available back then in those combined areas were in string theory, and I thought string theory was overly speculative. There are many really impressive aspects of strings — anomaly cancelation in particular — but there are other things that just seem wild and physically unsubstantiated. I had gotten lucky by investing my graduate stipend in a company many thought was going out of business (AAPL), so I decided to go to Maui, learn to windsurf, and work on physics on my own. I supported myself with short scientific consulting engagements, and part-time work that involve playing outside -- like being a hiking guide and a snowboard instructor. The whole time, I never stopped working on physics. I've lived on a grad student budget my whole life, so I didn't need to work much, and could devote my time to physics research.
--Why don't you work at a university?
Part of it is the temporal overhead. I need long stretches of uninterrupted time to think and work on physics. I do love teaching, and taught physics a bit at the college on Maui, but it takes a lot of time. On my own, I can spend a week straight doing nothing but working on physics, with no committees or seminars or classes or any interruptions at all. Also, I get to live where I want to -- there aren't many universities in beautiful places with outdoor sports. I'm very spoiled that way. But, all that said, if a good university post in a nice location opened up, I might take it, because I miss the culture and friendships one develops. Because of the unusual path I chose after grad school, academia was no longer an option. That may change... we'll see.
--I noticed your email on the arXiv is at hawaii.edu. Do you maintain an association with them? Do you attend physics colloquia and meetings and such?
No, I only taught there for a year or two, and they let me keep the email address.
--How much time do you spend on physics?
It varies. I can spend a week straight obsessing over a new idea, or have a week where I only read the arxiv and woolgather. Usually I keep a balance every day between physics, playing outside (surfing, snowboarding, biking,...), keeping my girlfriend happy, and talking with people over the net.
--What's your day job?
This is my day job.
--Do you think it's harder for "outsiders" to get attention for their ideas?
Yes, of course. The only circumstance in which it is appropriate to personally present scientists with new ideas, cold, is at a conference. Or, of course, if someone asks. I think it's rude to put your ideas in front of someone unless it's invited.
--How did you get physicists to read your work?
Every couple years, if I think I've found something very interesting, I post a paper to the arxiv. Usually, I'll get a handful of responses, often from people who already know me through my work.
You can't get a physicist to read anything, you can only put it out there and hope someone takes an interest.
Three years ago, I put out a detailed paper that laid out almost all the structure that's in this new E8 Theory, but I hadn't yet realized I was describing E8. I thought it was great, but the paper didn't get much of a response. But it did get one: James Bjorken wrote me out of the blue to tell me how much he liked it. To get fan mail from such a great physicist was extremely encouraging for me. Especially while I was working in isolation.
With my last paper, there's too much media attention. Physicists might not read it seriously because it's over-hyped.
--Do the academics treat you differently then they treat each other?
No. Academics are very democratic, and used to eccentric personalities.
Essentially, I'm a freelance academic.
--Is your paper in press, or have you submitted it to a journal?
I'm considering it. But I think peer review has a lot of problems. I think a better journal system would involve physicists aggregating papers they think are good, instead of being induced to judge whether a paper should be kept out.
--Do you think "outsiders" bring something to the table that academics might not?
Outsiders are non-renormalized. A typical professor is awash in the social background provided by colleagues. This is very powerful, because it allows her to get instant summaries and clarifications of existing topics and new ideas. Also, professors bounce their new ideas off of colleagues, and really wild ideas return a list of reasons why they won't work. That saves huge amounts of time. But what if one of those wild ideas would have worked? A professor would be immediately discouraged from working on it by their peers, but an outsider doesn't have any peers to renormalize them. Usually, this leaves outsiders lost amid their misconceptions, but it's possible one might be careful and lucky.
And outsiders bring amusement. Believe me, in the past week I've gotten more crazy email than anyone.
I'm a very conservative physicist. Working on my own, the only way I've been able to make progress is by being extremely cautious in my adoption of unusual hypotheses. Otherwise my theories would crumble over shaky ground. This isn't to say they can't be wrong -- they can -- but since I know I'm not renormalized, I don't risk building on unsupported ideas. I take what we know, and see if I can fit it together in unusual ways to find out something new.
--Can you tell me about your grant from Foundational Questions?
Two years ago, the FQXi foundation started up and sent out their RFP. At the same time, the college on Maui, where I had been teaching a physics class, offered me a full-time, tenure track teaching position. This was a very nice offer, but I knew if I took it I’d have no time for my physics research. It was a very difficult choice, but I turned it down. I gambled on FQXi. I packed up the best physics I had done over the previous eight years, and sent it off as a grant proposal. And I got it. It's wonderful. I wouldn't of had the research time to find this E8 Theory without their support. They sent me a big check, and flew me to Reykjavik to hang out with many great people. Also, with this support, I felt the timing was right (and that I was somewhat obligated) to talk with others about my work.
--What drives you to work on these ideas?
We're here for such a short time, you have to decide very carefully what you do with your life. It's too easy to get wrapped up in pursuing goals that are ultimately unsatisfying. I want to figure out how the universe works, so that's what I dedicate my time to. The universe seems to be described by some very beautiful mathematics. And the more I learn, the more beautiful it is. It draws me in.
--How long did it take you to develop your theory?
I've been building it up (and down) for the past ten years or so. What I'm working on is very hard, since I'm going after the whole picture at once. I've been trying to continue the traditional unification program by extending it as far as it will go in new directions, and seeing if the whole puzzle fits together. When the pieces I've assembled don't fit, I wipe them off the board and start over. I've had to do this a few times -- the hardest was with Kaluza-Klein theory, which I really like. But this E8 Theory is looking better than anything I've ever seen. It's still in development, and parts of the theory will change, but the whole picture is looking very good.
--Will it be possible to experimentally test your theory?
This is an all or nothing kind of theory. It's either going to be very right, and make many successful new predictions, or it's spectacularly wrong. However, it's not currently sufficiently far along that I feel confident in making predictions from it right now.
There are lots of new things that might turn up in accelerators and prove this E8 Theory wrong. This theory doesn't have superparticles, extra-dimensions, or a lot of other exotics. It's a pretty tight fit to the standard model, with only a handful of new particles possible -- most of which are scalar fields. Also, the theory requires a positive cosmological constant. So there are many experimental results that could prove it wrong.
That's not as good as making solid predictions out to several decimal places, but it is certainly possible in principle to experimentally demonstrate that this theory is wrong. I'll be working on developing the theory more and trying to get solid predictions.
Until it makes good predictions, the theory should be treated with appropriate skepticism. Since it might be wrong.
Also, I don't consider this to be just my theory. I'm trying to continue the unification program, worked on by many others. I just hope I'm advancing it a little further.
--Do you know of other outsider physicists?
Yes, I'm democratic in who I talk with. If I like someone's ideas, and the way they think, I try to stay in touch with them, regardless of their academic status. I end up talking mostly with academics, because they're interested in the same things I am, but with some exceptionally bright outsiders as well.
--Do you think you could do more, or would have developed your theory faster, if you were a full-time physicist?
I am a full time physicist. But I'm not sitting on any committees, or teaching any classes, or sleeping through seminars, or filling out any paperwork. You do the math. :) I'm usually either thinking about physics, playing outside, or hanging out on the net.
| | this post has been edited by the author since its original submission |
|
|
|
|
|
--1. Are you funded for what you do in theoritical physics? If yes by who ? Since when ? What is your current job ?
I received my PhD ten years ago, and left academia to work on my own physics ideas while surfing in Maui. I worked for money as little as I had to, devoting most of my time to equations and enjoying the outdoors. Then, one year ago, I applied for a grant from a new, privately funded research institute named FQXi, and I got it. Now I have enough funding to live, work on physics, and buy a couple of new boards. Without FQXi's support, I wouldn't have had as much time to devote to physics and might not have been able to find this new E8 Theory.
--2. How long does it take to produce these 31 pages ?
I've been working on this theory for about ten years. But it hasn't been steady progress. I tried building many other theories that didn't work out, and kept having to tear them down and start over. It is futile to argue with nature, if she says your theory is wrong. This E8 Theory is mathematically and aesthetically beautiful, and so far it seems to agree with the physics we know. But it is a new theory, and not completely understood yet, and, of course, it may turn out to be wrong.
--3. Did you get the "official" and public support of some "academic" physicists ? Did you receive some non public and discrete encouragements from others ?
Yes, because of FQXi's support, I felt I should talk about the work I had created. When I presented it at physics conferences, many academic physicists were immediately impressed by the theory as a whole. Even though I was an outsider, they liked the ideas. This favorable impression grew in the physics community. And when I published the paper, there was an amazing amount of interest and public attention. It has been overwhelming. There is also skepticism and some criticism, but this is necessary and healthy for any new theory. The mathematics is complicated, and it will take weeks for the best physicists to fully work through it. I know the math is right so far, but only more work and then experiment will determine whether this theory agrees with nature.
--4. How many new particles are predicted in your theory? Some critics say that you do not predict their mass, why ? Is there a possibility to "improve" your theory to make such predictions?
In the current state of the theory, there are twenty new particles predicted. Because the theory is not fully developed, this may change. It is very unusual, because this theory is "all or nothing." Either many predictions will come out all at once and agree with nature, or the theory will be wrong. There is no room to fiddle with parameters, or fancy extra structure. Right now it looks good, but there are still things to figure out. I and others will work on improving the theory, and predictions will come.
--5. Would you accept a position in a university?
Only if it's by a very nice mountain for snowboarding.
--Why didn't you make a classic academic career in a lab?
I wanted to live somewhere beautiful, where I could surf or snowboard and work on my own physics, with no other responsibilities. I am a contemplative hedonist -- I want the deep pleasures in life. And that means not spending too much time in a lab, but finding balance between thinking and playing.
--thanks a lot for your answers.
Certainly, thank you for your interest. Also, please do include my sentiment that this theory is still being developed, and it is appropriate to be skeptical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cosmic Variance readers like the straight, inside story; so this seems a good opportunity to tell mine. Ten years ago, I got my PhD and looked at my options. I love differential geometry, general relativity, and particle physics. But the only options available then for a postdoc in those combined areas were in string theory, and I thought string theory was overly speculative. There are many really impressive aspects of strings — anomaly cancelation in particular — but there are other things that just seem wild and physically unsubstantiated. I had gotten lucky by investing my graduate stipend in a little company many thought was going out of business (AAPL), so I decided to go to Maui, learn to windsurf, and work on physics on my own. I was pretty happy that way, spending most of my time on physics, and posting a paper on the arxiv only if I thought I’d discovered something interesting. But even though I spend money like a grad student, after several years I was broke, and things were looking grim.
Then, two years ago, the FQXi foundation started up and sent out their RFP. At the same time, the college on Maui, where I had been teaching a physics class, offered me a full-time, tenure track teaching position. This was a very nice offer, but I knew if I took it I’d have no time for my physics research. It was a very difficult choice, but I turned it down. I gambled on FQXi. I packed up the best physics I had done over the previous eight years, and sent it off as a grant proposal. And I got it. With this support, I felt the timing was right (and that I was somewhat obligated) to talk with others about my work. I flew down to the LQG conference in Morelia and presented a twenty minute talk. The LQG community is fantastic — their research is branching out in all directions to solve quantum gravity, and they’re all really nice people. Once they saw what I had been up to, Sabine and Lee invited me to visit Perimeter — which I accepted, of course, as this had been a daydream of mine since the institute was founded.
A month later, I was in Iceland at the FQXi conference, eating the best lobster I’ve ever had, across the table from Mark (Hi Mark!) and the science editor for New Scientist. During this dinner, she must have made note of me, because two months later there was an email from a reporter asking for an interview.
I was in the middle of writing up the paper when I visited PI, a fantastic nerd heaven. I talked with people there about this new E8 theory, and it went very well. I returned to Tahoe, where I’m living in a friend’s house, and finished the paper. I also exchanged twenty detailed emails with the reporter, which ended up as… well, it’s not a terrible article, and some of my conservative statements did filter in. I posted the paper to the arxiv, Sabine made an excellent and reasonable review, and the New Scientist published their article. Apparently, this was the beginning of the perfect media storm. The story spread, fast. I attempted to write accurate responses to the growing queue of inquiries from newspaper reporters. And I got a phone call from a friend who runs an ISP and hosts my web pages: “Umm, Garrett, I have the internet bandwidth of the gods, but you’re simultaneously on the front page of Digg, Reddit, and Slashdot… and you just capped it out.” It was right around then that my inbox exploded.
I am answering reporters’ questions, and trying to make it clear that I do think I’ve come up with an exciting and beautiful new theory, but that it’s grounded in a long history involving the work of many others, and that as with any new theory, it may turn out to be wrong. I’ve spent much more time answering questions on blogs, because I want other physicists to understand the content of the paper, which is mathematically sound but presents many new ideas at once. I’ve refused several requests for brief television and radio interviews, because I think they would only serve the media and amplify the spectacle, instead of increasing interest in physics and how physicists think about the world. At the same time, other aspects of the media frenzy have been very cool (Hey, I’m going to be featured in Surfer magazine!) and completely overwhelming.
The media attention will blow over. While I’m in the spotlight, I’ll try to present a message that’s good for physics. It’s not my intent to tear down academia — heck, I’d be thrilled if some academic opportunities arose from this. (Though it’s baffling to me how academics manage to juggle all the responsibilities and research at once.) It’s not even my intent to tear down string theory. I don’t happen to like it, but I think people should be able to work on what they want.
One way or another, this stuff will all work out. I believe what Sean said — science works — even if sometimes things get a little crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When did you know you wanted to be a physicist? What brought you to physics originally? Historicaly, was there any one particular physicist to whom you related to or whose work or methods inspired you to follow physics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Al Van Viet. One of the reasons I posted all the information above is because I didn't want to answer exactly these questions again. If anyone has a question they're dying to ask that I somehow managed to not address so far, I'd still rather not answer it right away, just because I'm getting a bit worn out. But I'll surely come back and look at this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Garrett,
I read all of the Backreaction discussion or blog or whatever. Lubos Motl was true-to-form and simply wonderful. And I’m sure Sabine (sp?) is an excellent physicist and a lovely woman but after she’d asked the same question several times, I was reminded of various Germans I knew when I lived in Europe some yrs ago. (oops).
I just listened to the mp3 of one of your talks last night. You talk fast. With symmetry groups, algebras, etc flying right and left.
I was surprised I comprehended as much as I did. I think a major theme (the major theme in this particular talk?) was that one gets various particles and-or forces from G2 (?) and E6 and that these both then ‘fit into’ E8 (orthogonally). Aka unification. Does this give all your results – by no means.
Now none of G2/E6 had come out in the backreaction ‘discussion’. They seemed completely intent on beating to the death the fact that you add bosons to fermions. And they kept having a problem with how your theory relates to Coleman-Mandula.
My background is in computer science and Japanese from first Cornell and then Berkeley. I work now as a programmer for a ‘quantitative’ (no – it’s true, really) finance firm.
But I have some background in EE (electrical engineering) and I was thinking to myself. Isn’t this E8, the way Garrett has set it up, something like an enormous IC (integrated circuit) where you have a different particle on each of the pins and the interactions are the wires inside? (And [crucially] in the way in which the wires connect together the various pins [particles] – that is, the interactions).
But then there are of course Clifford algebras, etc. First read about Clifford algebras (I think) in a book by John Derbyshire about the history of algebra. I emailed John at a point and what we ended up discussing was the eminent Chinese scholar at Yale, Jonathan Spence. I believe John explained me to that Spence ‘is God’. (mind you – not ‘a god’).
I can understand about no jobs for Physics PHDs in anything but string theory. I’ve read both Smolin’s and Peter Voit’s books on the topic. A colleague graduated from Berkeley some yrs ago with a PHD in mathematics. But in logic. He did find an academic post (but then later abandoned academia [obviously]). But what he told me was that he was maybe 1 of only 2 mathematical logic PHDs that yr to actually find a job. So a market operates in academia as much as in finance.
We live in the SF E Bay. If I had a house near Lk Tahoe (hmm – maybe I should buy one), I’d gladly loan it to you with an open-ended, non-existent contract. I’m sure you’d take good care of it. 'Before I got married' used to ski Squaw all the time. I first skiied Squaw not long after I first arrived in CA and was at Berkeley. Maybe it was March. I'm from New England. We went up to Gold Coast and while I was looking out the large windows, saw a couple of women ski by in bikinis. This ain't your father's New England. I've had many 'Berkeley moments'. That was a California moment.
Looking forward to how this all develops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Garrett! I am delighted to come across someone who also sees the sheer beauty in mathematical forms, and is open enough to 'try anything'. I wonder, though, if you would be willing to take on board the kind of experience I have had all my thinking life with geometries in space and time, and the experiments I have made with certain of these, specifically relating to the circle. When I look at E8, I see home as well - but it is my astrological home, not only full of complex, elegant beauty, but also charged with meaning and purpose in a multiverse that many consider to be devoid of these things. Where do you stand? Am I, with all my experience, beyond the pale, I wonder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, dude, sounds great and good luck with the crazies. You're going to have to go back to the well with FQXi so you can hire secretaries just to screen and classify your emails!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a physicist, but let me ask: How does Lisi theory address quantum superposition of states? Does it say anything about collapsing waveforms? Does it rely upon an observer, permit a different mechanism, or just not address this issue at all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi patfla:
I'm looking forward to how this all develops too.
Hi Pam:
It's great you find the aesthetic aspect inspiring, but personally I don't buy into astrology, Kabbalah, etc. I'm sure you can find plenty of others to talk about it with though. (not here though please)
Hi Tony:
Thanks. At my current rate, I should finish replying to emails by 2042, as long as no more come in. (Damn, there's another one.)
Ack, please don't call it "Lisi theory," or no one else will want to work on it. I'm fine with calling it E8 theory. And I'm afraid it doesn't yet have anything to say about quantum mechanics. There are other FQXi threads about this though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So do you plan on having mass predictions for the new particles ?
(if yes then do you have an idea of the work to do)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it appears now the living room will have to pedal faster to keep up with you. cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do the particles representing gravity interact with the rest of the system, or are they a closed loop of their own? In electromagnetism we can use electricity to generate magnetism and vice versa. Is there an analogous partner to gravity, or no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
First it's good to have found "something" at least apparently really mathematically beautiful. Let wait for a while before saying "congratulations"...
Do you think your theory, through new particles it describes, could tell us how Universe behaves, why galaxies acceleration seem not to be what current theories predict?
|
|
|
|
|
|
mother void
mother void burps up lots of bubbles
all over the placeless. then they align
into building blocks and then they combine
taking bubbles, by singles and doubles,
from 'cycled stardust (stars have their troubles)
arranging, connecting objects so fine
we might call them quarks, following the line
shown in a vision clearer than Hubble's
outside in never works ... never will
you can push all you want, have all your plans laid
all you will get is the turn of their backs
inside out always works, an endless thrill
'cause that's how the whole universe was made
only one thing to do - nothing - relax!
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is fascinating - I speak as a non-scientist.
Has it made you more or less of a philosophical materialist?
(I read between the lines - I might be mistaken).
I have always been intrigued by where Mathematical values exist in a Physical universe - and, beyond Mathematics, all our universal concepts.
Philosophy of Physics is not your domain, of course, I appreciate that. All the same - if you ARE proved right by experimental evidence - what are the philosophical implications? I can just about accept that you might not have given that much thought to the implications qua physicist - but I'd be surprised if you hadn't given any thought to that whatsoever qua human being.
This isn't a request for some kind of existential Apologia - just gently asking whether a Theory of Everything might not be, well, overstating things a little. E8 is beautiful - it truly is - even a layman like myself can glimpse that it is aesthetically and intellectually satisfying. For those who understand its mathematics - contemplating that, grasping that, "seeing" and understanding that - must be truly astonishing - the more so because it might just describe how nature is - it might just be the long awaited discovery. Therefore I do not mean to disparage its importance in any way. But it is not everything - it is only a part of everything. Why, it's not even YOUR everything, is it? Or else why do you freely choose to go up mountains and why do you love another human being? Some things are beyond everything, no? There will necessarily be, curiously enough, an After Everything.
Allow me to wish you all the very best in discovering the different parts that come under your care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Garrett, Congratulations! When a friend of mine sent me a link to your paper I scanned it and said "Holy $&)^, this is IT! Everything I've seen in life says that symetry and inherent beauty mean something. You talk about maybe needing to "fix" this. If you do, then it is wrong. But I can't imagine such a need. I've been interested in this stuff for most of my life (Einstein has been my hero since I was 5 - yup, I was a wierd kid and have only grown older), so this is very exciting news. Best wishes for luck and success!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I congratulate Dr Lisi to his achievements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Lisi,
Congratulations on the paper. I know just enough physics to be astounded as to how this model perfectly describes a framework for what we know. I'm very much looking forward to seeing more work and experimentation. As I was reading it, I kept thinking about an old science fiction story about a group of mathematicians who discovered a way to travel into and through a purely mathematical space that predated the universe. I believe the story is "The Mathenauts" by Norman Kagan, and appears in an anthology by the same name. Might be some nice leisure-time reading material.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why should a fundamental theory of physics involve the real numbers at all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Congrats Garret!
I wanted to ask you if Mach's principle of inertia could emerge from this theory?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dammit, Garrett. You know you've just blown the image of surfers all to hell. I don't know if Windan will ever forgive you. ;-)
Brad Hamilton: Why don't you get a job Spicoli?
Jeff Spicoli: What for?
Brad Hamilton: You need money.
Jeff Spicoli: All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine.
I think you found a cool buzz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Garrett told :
"Thanks. At my current rate, I should finish replying to emails by 2042, as long as no more come in. (Damn, there's another one.)"
Hi Garrett, I guess that the fate of a hero is to become the slave of his fans.
Thank you for bringing fresh air in the world of physics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have thought for some time that the expansion of our universe caused by "dark matter" might be a gravitational force exerted by other, exterior to our own, universe. This thought has been poopooded by academic physicists. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Garret wondering if you knew Mark E. at UCSD through surf house or Black's. If so and still in touch contact him as I have an apartment for you in S. Tahoe for free as long as you desire. Have him call his step dad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I made up a quick blog to try to capture and list the most interesting links and related tidbits regarding this exciting theory.
Link= My blog of links
|
|
|
|
|
|
Garrett,
I once solved a complex physics problem and won a prize for it--sort of a microcosm of what you might be experiencing now (actually, when you finally get time to read this, "now" might not be the appropriate word).
Can you speculate on what sorts of magic--should your theory stand up to the rigors of experimentation--might become possible/commonplace for humanity via application of your principle?
|
|
|
|
|
|
vinouz:
I don't "plan" on it, but that's what I'm shooting for. It's contingent upon figuring out how to get the second and third generation fermions to work properly.
Gannon:
It's more fun to playa-ski behind it on a land board.
TonyC:
The gravitational spin connection interacts with the fermions and with the gravitational frame. The frame, with the Higgs, interacts with the fermions. And the Higgs interacts with the electroweak gauge fields. So it's all interconnected, and in agreement with the Dirac and Yang-Mills action in curved spacetime.
Jean-Marc:
I agree that congratulations are premature. I consider it an interesting new theory, with some problems that need to be solved. Galactic rotation curves are in agreement with the existence of some kind of dark matter.
Oliver:
Inside outside in.
Dice:
Am I still a materialist if I think the material is geometry?
For the paper, I used "Theory of Everything" as a technical term for a theory combinining general relativity and the standard model in a unified framework. That doesn't mean it explains love or where all the ball point pens go -- so don't read too much into it. If this theory does work out, it means the most complex and beautiful structure in mathematics is at the heart of our physical universe -- to me, that's philosophically satisfying.
Caz:
E8 is a beautiful symmetry, and it's a shame to have to break it, but we do.
Andreas:
Thanks.
Ike:
I've always considered myself more of a mathlete than a mathenaut, but thanks for the suggestion, and the encouragement.
Discrete Mathematician:
It seems a rational, if indiscrete, choice.
Mike:
Hmm, since this theory describes gravity with a connection, it might.
turbosurfer:
I doubt anything will change -- Scott Cherry is still going to smile and snake me.
Paul:
Yes, if anyone envies the (in)famous, realize that for me the publicity has mostly meant being chained to my computer, answering emails. But I'm happy if some of these new ideas are useful and interesting for others.
Bob:
The expansion is probably mostly caused by a cosmological constant. In my opinion, if something is considered "exterior to our universe," that's synonymous with not existing.
David:
I don't remember Mark, but I mostly surfed the reefs around La Jolla and not Black's much.
Jeffy:
Thanks for aggregating the links.
A.:
It's still "now." I think the standard model and general relativity are all the magic we need for describing everything we're likely to be able to engineer in our lifetimes. But, I guess that thought has been wrong before, so who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(the FQXi timer logs one out rather quickly)
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Garrett Lisi anonymously wrote:
"Am I still a materialist if I think the material is geometry?"
Now that's a really interesting question! I was talking about your theory to a very bright French Thomist (using the Aristotelian language he speaks - distinction of form and matter - where the form is that which determines the matter i.e. gives the matter a particular intelligibility) and I said to him: (sorry the translation is from French and doesn't quite have the same pzazz as in French):
"one would almost be tempted to say that matter itself seems to be constituted by or composed of intelligibility - and of a mesmerising beauty at that! What a mystery!"
But how matter - "stuff" - could be composed of immaterial intelligibility is beyond me....
Here you are saying the material is geometry.
But its pesky universal values like all mathematical values and like all abstract concepts seem most certainly to go beyond just particular instantiations. And either (on a quantum level) everything really is just everything - which seems profoundly counter-intuitive - a kind of mother of all reductionism that makes the selfish gene biological reductionism look like a quaint local story we living beings tell each other - or Aristotle was on the right track with his Matter and Form making the substantial unity of a thing (so much so that he claimed that the logically inferred Prime Matter - a stuff without intellibility that was capable of receiving the intelligible form could NOT exist per se. He was quite clear: matter can exist only in so far as it is in-formed by intelligibility - a Hylemorphic union.)
You might find that E8 is philosophically satisfying - although I think you mean that in an existential sense - but for me it's philosophically intriguing - as I suspect these few lines betray.
Still, I'm glad to learn that the mountains and the waves and the beautiful girl have their space beyond Everything - and I do not want to take up any more of your time. You have science to do!
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Appreciate it.
With every best wish.
Pax
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listened again to, well maybe 20 minutes of, Garrett’s ILQGS talk (mp3 as found, for one, from http://exceptionallysimpletheoryofeverything.blogspot.com/). I should really add the slides to my ‘mulitmedia experience’ – I’m sure they’ll help. 20 minutes is ‘maybe’ OK because it’s an hr long, except that I think he leaves the last 30 minutes (1/2 the talk) for questions.
Let me correct my earlier post (of which there’s only one). It seems Garrett gets the majority (all) of the standard forces and particles (slightly redundant) from G2 (I got that one right) but the other was F4, not E6. All exceptional, simple Lie algebras of course. Silly me. In particular (what sticks in my memory the next morning) gravo-weak is in F4 but the electro-strong (the force that holds nuclei together) is in G2.
And you don’t _fit these into_ E8. They’re already a part of its structure. Garrett sort of walks people around E8 (which he’s built up at to that point) identifying these structures inside it. “hey look over here – see what we’ve just found”. I’d understood this originally, but simply put it wrong. Slides will probably be particularly useful.
On a second listening you get (of course) more info. It seems that in the very pretty circular (projection) of E8 that’s seen so often these days (the graphic) one should find 8 concentric circles. These correspond to the eight-vectors that are somehow a part of E8’s structure. I ‘think’ I see them. Will work harder at this.
But I’ve also been backing up trying to put together (for myself) some of the underlying machinery. Well for one, symmetry (in this case) = particle. It was Woit’s (a name I miss-spelled in my first post) book I think (I’ve been trying to find the particular passage again [in my copious spare time]). There's something about ‘special’, ‘unitary’ groups (as in SU(x)) that will _completely_ determine an object (assumption here is that an object is a particle). A wonderful fact arising out of some combination of mathematics and physics. Tracing back to the work of Hermann Weyl I think. So this is why one see all these SOs and SUs flying around. (a bit of hand-waving on the ‘O’ in SO).
Well anyway, there’s much more that I’ve put back together or that's been illuminated by Garrett’s new work, but I think that’s about enough for one post. Basta.
Back to programming and spinning large, complicated data objects in the air (actually not wholly unlike the physics going on here). My holy grail is that the objects eventually become holographic (and do indeed hang in the air) and one can then manipulate them (for the benefit of colleagues, clients, etc) with a virtual reality glove. Or something like that (I’m open to alternatives).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah. It was but a Wikipedia page away. SO = special orthogonal (group). Seems this are often (always?) rotation groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why start with E8 and invoke symmetry breaking?
Why not start with the trivial group and invoke symmetry making?
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I think the standard model and general relativity are all the magic we need for describing everything we're likely to be able to engineer in our lifetimes."
Hi Garrett,
I was referring to the idea that electromagnetism gave us levitating trains, so what can "electrogravity" (note: Google gives ~12,000 hits for "electrogravity" and ~3000 hits for "electrogravity AND ufo") give us? Does it--the relationship you have outlined--work this way? My math is limited to a Master's Degree in computer science so it's possible I'm missing something. In any case, congratulations on your profound contribution, and I wish you well, my friend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dude. Do black holes have hair?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have found myself so often disappointed in the people of science and here I am again. It is rude of someone to ask a scientist to consider their ideas? Isn't that somewhat arrogant, somewhat non-imaginative? I guess everyone without an education in mathematics should know their place, realize it as an indicator of intelligence, and not bother the people who are leading us to the promised land. Time constraints are a reality for scientists, but having an education is a incredible privilege in this life, as is fitting in to an educational system. Is it so hard to imagine there might be truly simple ideas undiscovered, and impossible to imagine someone might happen on something profoundly important, something about nature, maybe something even obvious yet as yet unseen. Imagine knowing something that would change how people see reality entirely, something that would advance humanity, bring people together. Imagine feeling responsible to others, to all of humanity, a planet teetering on self destruction. Oh, I am sorry for trying to explain to you this idea I have in my head that would change everything, sorry for being so rude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Garrett
I am the publisher for author/researcher/scholar 'Robert Bruce Baird' who is most interested in your theory. He has a research group community at MSN Groups called Forbidden Past, and a website is currently under construction. He is the author of many books and articles on the net covering a wide range of subjects including science and metaphysics. I am not good at posting links in blogs, but you can find the MSN research group under the History category easily. It is usually in the top three sites. You can also find much of his work on the web by entering his name in your browser (be sure to use his middle name as there are several Robert Bairds).
We would like to take this opportunity invite you to Forbidden Past. He posted some of your work there. I am adding one of his articles on Affinity. Thanks for this blog :) Looking forward to MORE.
By:Robert Bruce Baird
AFFINITY:
Attraction between related things, including even the harmonic forces that pre-exist matter. String Theory tells us ‘one-dimensional harmonic forces’ are the basic building blocks of all aspects of the universe whether visible or not. Jean-Paul Sartre used this phrase to describe love which is a vital part of affinity (or vice versa): "Love is absent space."
There is research going on in the deep mine site formerly used by International Nickel Company (INCO) in Sudbury, Canada where they have separated muons or small cosmic particles. When one is charged by the research team - the other half responds the same way! Such a response must have a vehicle for communication, could it be ESP exists with the most basic of energy and material? Perhaps this is the 'non-force info packets' that Tesla proposed to explain much of what has been prejudicially called paranormal. Here is a response of mine to a debate in a quantum physics forum which I belonged to.
Dear Xojo and Twister
First of all, can I post this initial thread elsewhere?
I think the words are part of the problem for some people, but let me try to put into words what I think we are all saying (except Don, who is a nay-sayer that challenged me to explain what the physicists were saying) here.
In the beginning there was energy in dimensions that the astrophysicists tell us had the properties of hot and cold which came into proximity or shared space. There may be other properties in the primordial cosmic soup but they say this conjunction of energy lead to the creation of matter.
They also say that Dark Matter and Dark Energy constitute 95% of the energy in our known universe and that it is returning to a state of Dark Matter gradually over the next trillion or more years, but I think that depends on creative forces which are as yet not even contemplated in their model which may have been existent in the lattices and inter-relationships of that primordial soup which continue to operate according to laws or principles we are on the verge of understanding.
Dr. Don Robins tells us the macrochips of megalithic time on earth actually contain -and presumably their builders understood - much of this lattice attunement knowledge. He is a Doctor of Solid State Physics and has developed and invented workable equipment in the thermoluminescence field which archaeology now uses. He sees this 'chasm' across which we must travel to regain this knowledge.
That knowledge is in the Harmonic structures of all energy and it has principles inclusive of the ability to communicate as the two muons separated were demonstrated to show while shielded from all other energy in the deep nickel mines of Sudbury Ontario.
How this communication occurs is something I call affinity which operates on the basic building blocks of all energy and matter that String Theory says is a 'one dimensional harmonic force'. There is a universal constant of light in harmonic but that word constant is a weasel word. Yes, we can mathematically formulate for observations and predictions through that fine use of pure language called math but there are some elements or variables not yet understood to the full nature of the purposeful design in our reality. Purposeful design - loaded words - YES!
Why not? Think along these lines, if you will let yourself take a trip on the light fantastic as I often did in the 60s and 70s while these things were uppermost in my mind. Dark Matter and Energy had nothing doing for billions or trillions of years but they had the inter-connections of these affinite communications. The interplay of these energies wore out what could be likened to neural paths as there was no real change - this is what happens in our brains when we do not grow too. But across these lines or lanes of energy transference there were attractions and repulsions of the magnetic sort, which of course still occurs.
The design built or grew and the awareness of what was non-affinite grew. The 'other' energy reached out or responded (YOUR word 'response' is born) and it became a principle of the five motions including mass which is at the dross level of what is seen.
If affinity is just one of the laws of nature in the harmony of the spheres as Shakespeare might have described it, there are many evidences for this Purposeful Design or what is called Intelligent Design. Here is a little part of the synchronicity all around us from the Washington Post and New Scientist.
“A New Science Looks at Things in Sync
By LOUIS JACOBSON
The Washington Post
[...] Synchrony appears throughout the natural world. It is most obvious in schools of fish turning suddenly in unison, or birds wheeling through the sky in formation, or in the perfectly timed chirping of crickets. At Elkmont, for two to three weeks every June, groupings of hundreds of male fireflies flash together four to eight times, with a brief pause between flashes. Then the flashing stops for six to 10 seconds before the cycle begins once again. The display starts at dusk and lasts for hours. [...]
‘It's a theme you see a lot in biology,’ Strogatz says, and not just in birds and fish and crickets. Heart cells beat in synchrony; women who live or work together may find their menstrual cycles coinciding due to subtle chemical communications, and certain kinds of cicadas emerge in unison every 17 years. Odder still is the synchronous behavior often seen in inanimate systems: lasers, electrical grids, quantum mechanics, flows of automobile traffic. [...]
‘Mindless things can synchronize by the millions,’ Strogatz says. ‘It doesn't take a mind, or even have to be alive. Simple laws could lead to groups being in sync. It's counterintuitive, because the usual thinking was that things get more disordered over time.’ [...]” (2)
About the Author
Additional work by Robert Bruce Baird @
World-Mysteries.com, LULU.com, Spirit Quest, The ES Press, gardinerosborn.com, hundreds of sites and Ezines all give little pieces of his work which integrates all science, history and culture.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
