Search FQXi


If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Meghan Lisson: on 3/31/12 at 17:14pm UTC, wrote To Gary Lisi - In case you didn't know, I wanted to inform you of the...

STEVE A JEFFREY: on 7/9/10 at 11:18am UTC, wrote Einsteins loaded dice.

STEVE A JEFFREY: on 7/9/10 at 11:17am UTC, wrote The mechanism for the big bang is a reversal of gravity in so called...

STEVE JEFFREY: on 7/9/10 at 11:10am UTC, wrote Collary to the law of non contradition. Opposie particles X and Y CANNOT...

Dr. Cosmic Ray: on 4/28/10 at 12:31pm UTC, wrote Have all of the Lisi fans seen his latest publication yet?

Jason Wolfe: on 4/19/10 at 21:00pm UTC, wrote This is about as succinctly as I can describe a hyper-drive propulsion...

Jason Wolfe: on 4/19/10 at 2:37am UTC, wrote Dear Ray, The way gravity works with respect to the tessellated lattice...

Jason Wolfe: on 4/19/10 at 2:14am UTC, wrote Hi Ray, Which lattice sets which length parameter? Mmm... Energy should...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Parry: "John, All I haven't watched all of Leonartd Susskind's lectures yet. ..." in Alternative Models of...

Akinbo Ojo: "SPACE, AN UNSUNG PARTICIPANT IN THE UNIVERSE? "I wish we could derive..." in Alternative Models of...

John Prytz: "Georgina, Does Susskind in his lectures explain anywhere how quantum..." in Alternative Models of...

John Prytz: "CAUSALITY: FOUNDED ON BEDROCK, OR IN QUICKSAND? Every effect has a natural..." in Uncertainty Relations -...

John Prytz: "ASTRONOMERS ON EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE The bulk of books, articles,..." in The Fermi Paradox

larens imanyuel: "Testing for an Isomorphism between Mathematics and the Physical..." in A Physicist and a Science...

Eckard Blumschein: "Georgina, Already Gericke (whose name was written in French de Guericke..." in Faster than Light

Eckard Blumschein: "Pentcho, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon tries to answer your..." in Faster than Light


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Spot the Difference to Reveal Exotic Particles
Questioning the symmetrization postulate of quantum mechanics and the notion that electrons are indistinguishable could reveal whether hypothetical new particles exist.

Life's Quantum Crystal Ball
Does the ability to predict the future—perhaps with quantum help—define the fundamental difference between living and inanimate matter?

The Quantum Truth Seeker
Watching particles fly through an interferometer might help to unveil higher-order weirdness behind quantum theory.

Quantifying Occam
Is the simplest answer always the best? Connecting Medieval monks to computational complexity, using the branch of mathematics known as category theory.

Heart of Darkness
An intrepid physicist attempts to climb into the core of black hole.


FQXi BLOGS
November 28, 2014

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: E8 theory disproved? [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger A. Garrett Lisi wrote on Mar. 29, 2010 @ 18:58 GMT
Here's a note to describe, for those interested, what is going on in the "refutation" of E8 theory by Jacques Distler and Skip Garibaldi.

In a paper I posted to the arxiv in 2007, I proposed that the algebraic elements representing all know forces in physics (gravity, the strong force, the weak force, and electromagnetism) and the algebraic elements representing one generation of fermions (electrons, neutrinos, and up and down quarks) can be identified with algebraic elements of the E8 Lie algebra. For me, this was a very exciting discovery. In this sense "everything" is in E8 -- a remarkable unification of all forces and at least one generation of fermions. Now, in physics we know there are also second and third generation copies of the fermions, which relate to the forces in the same way as the first generation fermions. Algebraically, as far as we know, these particles are identical to their first generation partners. Other than having larger masses, a muon and tau interact just like an electron. Back in 2007, I suggested how these second and third generation particles might be related to other algebraic elements in E8 by triality, but stated that this relation could not work in the conventional way. Specifically, in my paper it says "When considered as independent fields with E8 quantum numbers, irrespective of this triality relationship, the second and third generation of fields do not have correct charges and spins."

What Garibaldi and Distler did was to prove that fitting the second and third generation fermions in E8 can't work in the conventional way. To this I say: yes, and that's what I said in my paper. They also prove that when one puts the first generation fermions in E8, and examines some of the other elements of E8 in a conventional way, some are mirror fermions, matched to the first generation but with opposite charges -- fermions and their mirrors making a "non-chiral" set. Except, they don't say it quite that way. What they say is "it is impossible to obtain even the 1-generation Standard Model." I consider that to be an extremely misleading statement. Their justification for saying it, and for their title, "There is no 'Theory of Everything' inside E8," is to state (buried in a footnote) that mirror fermions make a theory unviable. Specifically, they claim "Whatever intricacies a quantum field theory may possess at high energies, if it is non-chiral, there is no known mechanism by which it could reduce to a chiral theory at low energies." But that statement, crucial to their argument, is just not true. There are many theoretical models which include mirror fermions, and people have worked on ways to deal with them, giving the mirror fermions large masses. Since there is currently no good explanation for why the three generations of fermions exist, or why they have the masses they do, it is incorrect of Distler and Garibaldi to claim that mirror fermions with large masses cannot exist.

Distler and Garibaldi are trumpeting that they have proved E8 unification can't work, and they're doing their best to discredit the theory. To this challenge, I have only one question in response: Do the fields of gravitational and standard model forces acting on a generation of fermions match a subset of algebraic elements of E8, or do they not?

Regardless of this theorist squabbling, the real excitement in particle physics right now is that the LHC is beginning high energy collisions! Personally, I'm hoping they're going to see some particles consistent with unification, such as a Z', multiple Higgs, or -- who knows -- even some mirror fermions. We live in interesting times.

-Garrett

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 29, 2010 @ 20:01 GMT
Hi Garrett,

My own models have evolved such that the 240 roots of E8 are all fermions or 'scalar fermions'/'ghosts'/'tachyons' (huge similarities with your model). The 8 basis vectors of E8 are all bosons (nearly identical to your model) that represent 8 dimensions of spacetime and/or hyperspace. But I have some bosons and dimensions that don't fit in a standard E8 (in fact, this may be the root of your triality problem - yes, E8 has a triality, but we might need a second triality). E8 also has a 'pentality' symmetry, and the recent quasiparticle results by Coldea et al may be confirmation of the relevance of E8 and pentality symmetries (the pentality symmetry leads to the relevance of the Golden Ratio).

I think that the initial fermion is an 8-D E8, the final fermion is a different 8-D E8, and boson (that makes up the third leg of a 3-legged Feynman fermion-boson-fermion interaction vertex) is 11 or 12 dimensional. Thus, the 'TOE' is 27/28 dimensional ((11 or 12) plus 8 plus 8). Lawrence Crowell and I are sharing ideas towards this goal.

I might agree with Distler that your model wasn't perfect, but I think it is relevant, and possibly on the correct path.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 01:40 GMT
Ray,

I need to TeX-ify the g_2 holonomy and QCD stuff I worked up a couple of months ago. I should do so before the dust layer on the calculation stack gets too thick.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 02:03 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

G2 is important to both QCD and Generations. I think the QCD G2 is embedded in E8, and the Generational G2 is external to E8. This is an important flaw in Lisi's E8 TOE, and gets us up to 10 dimensions without other concerns (such as Real and Imaginary Time).

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Meghan Munroe Lisson replied on Mar. 31, 2012 @ 17:14 GMT
To Gary Lisi -

In case you didn't know, I wanted to inform you of the unfortunate news that my brother, Ray Munroe, Jr. passed away from a heart attack on 3/11/12. He still wants his work to continue on beyond his death, and he tells me you are the man to do it. I know you don't know me, and I don't know you, but he tells me you are the one who will complete Einstein's theory with some infomration that I can provide you that originates from him. I'm not a physicist, but he told me to tell you a message & that you would understand. He keeps emphasizing the number "11" and gives me a list to give you: dark matter, anti-matter, nuclear energy, atomic energy, sub-atomic energy, sound, light, speed, time, space, and SPIRIT ENERGY - THIS IS THE MISSING LINK. He didn't completely buy into it before his death, but now he does because he IS spirit energy, and I can hear him. He said that when you complete your theory, that you will be the one to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a creator. Also, he wants you to study extra sensory perception. He and I have a theory that it is largely sound-based. Again, a chance for you to tie God & science together. I can visualize his ideas if you would like to discuss them, but you will have to discuss on a bright instead of brilliant level because I do not have a genius Iq like my brother, nor have I studied your technical physics terms. I have a BA in music therapy from FSU. If you are curious to hear more, then please let me know.

Meghan

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 29, 2010 @ 23:59 GMT
The biggest problem as I see it is that you frame gauge fields with gravitation in a way which is problematic. This is a direct product of an internal symmetry and the Lorentz group, which runs into trouble with the Coleman-Mandula theorem. This is tied in with the so called mass-gap problem. Supergenerators as the framing system introduce additional structure or charges (supercharges) which make this possible.

Your E_8 theory, or a variant of it, I think needs to be extended to a supersymmetric realization. This can I think be accomplished by using the SU(3)xE_6 decomp of the E_8 and realizing that the SU(3) is a holonomy from G_2 which can have supersymmetric structure.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 30, 2010 @ 09:00 GMT
Hello dear Garret , Ray and Lawrence,

I am happy to see you on FQXi Garret.

You know I have nothing against your works.

I think it will be very interesting if you insert the spheres for a good referential with the good numbers of spheres.

Ray and Lawrence are vey competents and thus can help you .

I have read the book of Ray, and I see better your extrapolations.

I think the cause of the mass is intrinsic and it is very important ,That permits to superimpose and to extrapolate the good finite serie of the uniqueness.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 30, 2010 @ 18:01 GMT
Dear Dr Cosmic Ray, Garret, Lawrence,

There is a big problem in the thermodynamical pattern for the different step.

Our gauge is very poor in fact between 1 for strongs forces and the gravity.

In reading your book Ray, I ask me severals questions about the gauge.

Could you explain me why these strenghts above 10 exp -40.

My perception with spheres of the fractal implies a finite serie , the main central sphere seems the limit .At this scale, the energy of fields is maximum and the code of gravity is there too.

Thus there is a problem with all that.If we consider the main central sphere and its volume,let's assume the forces at the maximum at this scale like in all, thus the nuclear force,....and we goes in time evolution, thus we see the complexification of the mass.thus we can perceive the synchro with gravity and light , thus between 1 and 10 exp -39 the fractal is specific , only the density and thus the mass change, but the volume and the quantic number do not change.

Logically the time and the evolution is a constant duration where forces are correlated .Thus they(the entangled sphere) decrease their velocity of rotation during the evolution because the number do not change, that correlates with gravity.

Now the volume is correlated too with the forces .

When a sphere decrease its velocity , it increases its mass(logic if we consider this fusion of evolution) .

The volume is correlated in fact.The fusion is evolutive .

Between 1 and 10exp-40 , all that is confusing in the international system.

The senses of rotations for the stable gravity or the light linearity take a new road if we condider the fusion of evolution between the gravity which fractalizes the light due to the intrinsic code in the main central sphere.

The proportionality seems universal.

In logic all is proportional in fact with the thermodynamics.

If the gravity fractalizes and synchronizes light, that explains several things about the evolution and the increasing of mass.

But the cause of mass is intrinsic, only the density changes and not the number, thus the limit at the planck scale seems proportionals too.

What do you think?

, ps very interesting your book Ray,Thanks still for the sending ,

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 30, 2010 @ 20:00 GMT
Dear Steve,

I'm glad you enjoyed my book. Does your guitar have 6 strings?

This blog is about E8. Can it be proven (or dis-proven) to be the TOE? I have found that many people dispute whether or not a TOE is even possible, and throw Godel's Theorem around like it is a wrecking ball that can destroy any so-called TOE. Perhaps the only way the scientific community would even accept a so-called TOE would be if it could be simplified down to an E8. The conflict here is that (in my opinion) a rank-8 E8 seems too small to encompass a 10, 11 or 12-D String Theory. For better or for worse, you lose part of the scientific community (those of us - like Lawrence, Tom and me - who haven't given up on String Theory) when you turn your back on String Theory. I know that you personally live in a solid 3-D world and could care less about 8 or 11 dimensions.

Your question is more appropriate to Dirac's Large Number. How can a number like 10^40 exist as a stable 'near-infinity'? I am considering fractals in this application, but I do not have a strong mathematical proof (nor does the E-Infinity group so far as I can tell), but Tom Ray may have insight that the rest of us lack. I think that the statement "A stable infinity exists because fractals exist" needs to be proven.

Zamolodchikov (International Journal of Modern Physics A, Vol 4, No 16 (1989), pp 4235-4248) and Coldea et al (Science 327, 177 (2010), pp 177-180) predicted and measured the emergence of E8 phenomena in a quantum Ising chain. Don't ignore this result. These quasiparticles may have High Energy Physics analogues.

I still think that E8 is an important part of the TOE, but I'm doubtful that it could be THE TOE.

Have Fun! (and I'm sure Garrett is having more fun than the rest of us)!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 09:48 GMT
Hi Ray,

Soon for the string hihihi.

I must admit I have been a little strong with E8 and others.

I rest in my opinions, but I have been a little strong.

I understand now it exists enterprizes behind and people livse with a job.

It is not simple this fact .

The sciences community seems lost in this fact.

If people are happy with these researchs, it is like that and I respect that.

But if you insert spheres .....all will be easier ....with humility of course .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 10:40 GMT
ps don't be sure always , the doubt is our sister ,and nothing is made by hazzard.

the doubt and the confusions are not the same, and the serenity of this universality permits to distinguish the essential of the realistic determinism.

what is the nature of the pleasure, what is the real sense of the contemplation, what is the real pleasure when you see this universality.

The secrets of our minds are so secrets in their serenity, only if the universal faith seems on the road of contemplations.

It is personal and universal in fact simply.

I am going to show you dear Ray the different problems with E8 E12...Strings, Superstrings, M theory, extradimensions.With your book that will be easier, I just finish and after I come here in transparence.

The real foundamental problem is in the main physical referential and its limits.It is not a question of EPR or Copenaghen, No it is a real problme of topology and gauge about mass , dimensions and time .

But your math methods are interestings if they are used in the good referential with the respect of our laws and foundamentals equations .

The name TOE has no sense, even with my theory never I d say that, because the evolution exists and we have our limit.Furthermore it is a local hypothesis analyze, that's all.Thus of course the name is not adapted.

Even the name GUT, I say that for my Theory of Spherization by rotating spheres is arrogant because the name evolutive must be inserted like the name complementary.

The real synchros are synchronized with facility simply and naturaly, there the doubt is better than the confusions.

Best Regards

Steve

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 30, 2010 @ 20:39 GMT
Garrett,

While what you say is true (although I think the existence of mirror fermions in your theory is a bigger problem than you make out), you failed to mention a number of other problems with your theory -- ones that Distler and others pointed out for you. This is misleading.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 02:37 GMT
The issue of fermions and mirror fermions is whether one can have an SL(2,C) = sU(1,1)xSU(2) which is graded or Z_2. This does not appear possible with a single E_8.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 1, 2010 @ 14:58 GMT
"There are many theoretical models which include mirror fermions, and people have worked on ways to deal with them, giving the mirror fermions large masses."

That sounds really interesting.

Could you provide some references to papers that do that?

report post as inappropriate


Saibal Mitra wrote on Apr. 1, 2010 @ 15:46 GMT
See here

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 1, 2010 @ 16:00 GMT
Could you be more specific?

That review article lists many, many papers with the word "mirror" in the title. But it doesn't discuss any particular one of them in any detail. And the papers, referenced, seem unrelated to each other and to what Garrett's trying to do.

Which of those papers discusses how to "giv[e] the mirror fermions large masses"?

report post as inappropriate


Saibal Mitra wrote on Apr. 1, 2010 @ 20:32 GMT
The papers by Mohapatra et al. discuss models in which the mirror symmetry is broken. I agree that this is mostly phenomenological stuff and may not be relevant to Garrett's ideas.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 1, 2010 @ 20:58 GMT
The papers by Mohapatra et al discuss a chiral gauge theory, with a spontaneously broken Z2 "parity" symmetry.

The complaint, as I understand it, about Garrett's theory is that it is a non-chiral gauge theory. So what's relevant to Garrett's situation would be a mechanism for giving mass to the mirror fermions in a non-chiral gauge theory.

Are there any papers which do that?

report post as inappropriate

Saibal Mitra replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 02:07 GMT
I'm not aware of any such papers.

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 00:57 GMT
Hot news, hot news… Higgs was found...

For a brief two hour period today, the LHC collider operated at 14 TeV.

The preliminary analysis of the recent collisions showed that the Higgs particle was isolated with a two sigma probability announced the leading computer scientist Dr. Loof Slirpa at an extraordinary press conference today. Stay tuned for updates in the coming days.

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 01:19 GMT
Dear Florin,

April Fools! Although it is still April 1st by my local EDT, it is already April 2nd at CERN.

report post as inappropriate

Nirolf U. replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 02:02 GMT
Ray,

No, it is true, just use Topeka to confirm it. See also this link for a strage bird named after the Cern scientist. http://wilton.patch.com/articles/beware-of-the-loof-lirpa-bi
rd-today

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 02:37 GMT
The Loop lirpa bird has the dinosaur quality to it. I would imagine something like that might well have inhabited the Cretaceous.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Luboš Motl wrote on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 12:40 GMT
Lisi: "To this challenge, I have only one question in response: Do the fields of gravitational and standard model forces acting on a generation of fermions match a subset of algebraic elements of E8, or do they not?"

Of course that they don't, unless you use a definition of "matching" that "matches" whenever there are any objects of any kind on both sides. You can't ever get gravity as a subgroup of a Yang-Mills group in the bulk. You can't ever unite fermions and bosons via a symmetry that only has bosonic generators.

Nothing about your theory has ever worked, not even the most elementary tests. You may have gotten excited but that's because you don't have the slightest clue about high-energy physics.

I also think that Garibaldi and Distler are using a cannon against an ant. It's silly to try to reproduce some detailed tests concerning the number of generations etc. when it's obvious that the basic thing - a field theory with fields of various spin and statistics - can't ever be gotten from anything that resembles your "unification" model.

Don't get me wrong: I think that they're right and even if you ignore that you don't get the right gauge symmetries (including diffeomorphisms) and the right spin and statistics (and you don't solve anything about the non-renormalizability of gravity, either, and so on), the details that you boast to reproduce also fail to work. But because the latter is much less relevant given the absence of the consistency of the former, and given the fact that your paper has never been about physics but about a surfer dude who wants to impress other people who have no idea about physics, it's just a lost P.R. game for Distler and Garibaldi to be launching a "peer-reviewed" battle against your paper.

I am not sure what they want to achieve. It's clear that the people who have no idea about physics and who find it "cool" for a surfer dude to find a theory of everything and to beat the boring non-surfing "professional physicists" will continue to believe that a new genius is being discriminated against, while those who understand that your paper is flapdoodle won't read Distler and Garibaldi's reply, either. So they've manipulated themselves into the role of an appendix of a crank.

report post as inappropriate

mathman replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 16:46 GMT
You leave out an important class of people: mathematicians. Lisi's paper has gotten a lot of interest among the mathematicians working in Representation Theory.

They don't have the background in physics that you do. But they can read the paper by Distler and Garibaldi and understand why the physicists consider Lisi's "theory" to be crackpottery.

report post as inappropriate


Luboš Motl wrote on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 12:51 GMT
Otherwise, your comment that you can get rid of the "mirror fermions" - I suppose that you mean the right-handed portions of Dirac fermions to end up with the chiral ones - by giving them masses is absurd, too.

It violates the very basic facts about their quantum numbers. The reason is simple: the separate 2-component spinors carry nonzero quantum numbers such as the weak hypercharge or the weak SU(2) isospin. It follows that you can't create mass terms by "squaring them" without the complex conjugate - because the squared fermion field would carry nonzero charges, and such a term in the Lagrangian would break the hypercharge U(1) or isospin SU(2) symmetries which is inconsistent for these gauge symmetries.

So the only way to give them masses would be to write the product of a fermion and its mirror pair - but that makes massive all of them.

If you thought that you can write a mass term by writing a "2 component spinor" times "its complex conjugate", let me remind you that this tensor product doesn't include any Lorentz scalar that could be added to the Lagrangian. It's because the complex conjugation changes dotted spinor indices to undotted ones, or vice versa, but a dotted and undotted spinor can't be multiplied to produce a scalar. So no Lorentz-invariant mass term can ever be written down for the "unwanted fermions" only.

What you write is just complete nonsense. You can't get gravity from a gauge group in the bulk, you can't get fermions, you can't get chirality, you can't get renormalizability (of gravity), you can't get anything that matters in high-energy physics. You can only be excited about this rubbish if you're on crack.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 23:46 GMT
The problem is that of “framing,” where triality is presumed to give rise to mirror fermions. A further problem, one even greater IMO, is that gravitation is treated on the same level as internal gauge fields. This runs into trouble with the Coleman-Mandula “no-go” theorem. The only loophole is with the Haag-Lopuszanski-Sohnius theorem with spinor rep of the Lorentz group, which permits a graded algebra or supersymmetry as a route to supergravity.

I think the scheme, or the general philosophy of the scheme, Lisi advances should be reworked in a SUSY format with E_8xE_8, and where the framing of bosons and fermions should be worked with supergenerators.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 13:56 GMT
Hi dear Lubos Motl,

Nice to know you.

It is impossible to make understanding to them.

They wan't understand, they understand but they wan't simply because they want continue their system even if they understand their errors, no it is an other problem dear Lubos , and a real global problem in fact.

It is sad simply.

It is a big joke.It is not a question of EPR or Copenaghen, No it is an other problem dear Lubos,unfortunally still and always the same problem which decreases our evolution and furthermore imply chaotic systems, look our Earth....a big joke where all cosumators are gentle consumators.And to sell something to a stupid man , it's easy, they invent some stupidities adapted for a better selling.

Where is thus the problem???? answer everywhere hihihihi happy to see a real revolutionary dear Lubos, which understand the realism and thus the chaos of this Earth ......

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 13:58 GMT
ooops it was mine , the spheric crazzy man

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 14:07 GMT
Dear Garrett,

I agree with Motl's statement "You can't ever unite fermions and bosons via a symmetry that only has bosonic generators".

Just for fun, let's count degrees of freedom (dgf's). Start with the 90 fermion dgf's of Spin(10). Add in the right-handed neutrinos that we expect from neutrino mass oscillations, and we are up to 96 fermion dgf's. I have suggested that E8 has a pentality symmetry (that is broken). In my models, the pentality is (u_L, d_L, u_R, d_R, and a 'scalar quark'). We could call this 'scalar fermion' a 'ghost' or a 'tachyon' as well. These 'scalar fermions' appear to have an intrinsic spin of 1/2 in 8-D, but appear to have an intrinsic spin of 0 when reduced down to the 4-D of spacetime. Adding in 'scalar fermions', we now have 96 x 5/4 = 120 dgf's, which looks like an H4 120-plet (but remember that 'scalar fermions' are not properly defined in the 4-D of H4), or half of an E8 240-plet (with properly defined 'scalar fermions), but what happens to the other 120 dgf's? These are the questionable mirror fermions. The most logical answer is Supersymmetry. Spin 1/2 quarks introduce spin 0 squark partners. Spin 1/2 leptons introduce spin 0 slepton partners. Spin '0' 'scalar fermions' introduce new, heavier (because Supersymmetry and pentality - if these symmetries exist - are obviously broken symmetries) spin '1/2' 'fermion' partners.

If we fill the 240 roots of E8 using Supersymmetry, then we cannot use exclusively bosons for our eight E8 basis vectors. We actually need *TWO* 8-plets of basis vectors (8 basis bosons plus 8 basis bosinos - such as spin 1/2 gluinos, photino, Zino,...) - which doesn't fit in a standard E8. And it still wouldn't include all bosons - for instance we need eight gluons, not just the two basis gluons. My 'scalar fermions' displaced Garrett's extra gluon, Higgs and W dgf's, but we have to remain true to our symmetries, and a five-fold pentality symmetry is embedded in E8.

Garrett used a Pati-Salam Weak which has a new Z' boson. But discovery of a Z' at the LHC would confirm Pati-Salam without necessarily confiming Lisi's E8.

Dear Lubos,

I agree that Garrett's model has errors. In my opinion E8 is a minimum of 8-D, and not enough dimensions to properly represent String Theory/ M-Theory. What if E8 is a TOE component? How many extra degrees of freedom would we need to make it work?

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 14:10 GMT
What is a lagrangian?

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 15:02 GMT
The Langrangian (an alternative measure is the Hamiltonian) is a measure of the effective energy in a system, a sum of the mechanical dynamics.

You can find it detailed in Wikipedia and elsewhere.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 15:41 GMT
Hi dear all,

I didn't know the brachistochrone curve, it is fascinating in fact.Still and always the sphere dear friends, still and always the sphere and its rotations....the solution always is facilitated by the sphere and its comportments of motion.

About the referential, it is always a question of serie and limits when we want correlate to the realism of the physicality.

That facilitates the understanding of the different steps before the wall.

Still and always the sphere dear friends, still and always the sphere and its rotations....

Here is the question of the day....the identity of euler ...... ,why is it better to write correctly the identity of Euler, a first step was made with e exp i pi + 1 = 0 (first step the - is harmonized in the physicality), but still the zero must be adapted, who has an idea ,hihihihi ?

The groups and the constants in the finite system takes a beautiful road.

The logic has one road if the serie is encircled.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 16:00 GMT
Are you all physcis professors? I am in high school and am debating whether to major in Physics or Engineering. I enjoy science and am currently taking AP physics and calculus. I always wanted to attend Berkeley and got my acceptance letter already and now I just finishing high school and am preparing for next fall. I stated I wished to major in engineering but I am thinking I might go for Physics instead.

The only thing I am worried about is getting a job. With engineering you can get a very nice job with a good salary. With physics, I believe you need a PhD to get a job anywhere. I would certainly like to eventually get a graduate degree but I am not quite sure what to choose.

As far as the stuff here. I find it hard to understand what you guys are talking about when you discuss things like spinors and mirror particles.

report post as inappropriate


onymous wrote on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 15:36 GMT
"There are many theoretical models which include mirror fermions, and people have worked on ways to deal with them, giving the mirror fermions large masses."

There is *no* theoretical model I'm aware of which is nonchiral and gives mass to a "chiral half" of the fermions, which is what you seem to want. If you have such an example, you should post more details. Every example (e.g. the "left-right symmetric model") I'm aware of involving "mirror fermions" is a chiral gauge theory. Indeed, there are obvious reasons to think that one can never get chiral fermions from a nonchiral theory. (There's a reason why it's so challenging to put chiral gauge theories on a lattice; if you have a real solution to this, people would be very excited!)

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 16:13 GMT
I agree. This is the argument in favor of right-handed neutrinos. If neutrinos have mass, then they must travel slower than c according to Relativity. Then we can use a relativistic transformation to 'get ahead' of the neutrino, look back at it, and observe the reversed spin, a right-handed neutrino.

Relativistic transformations should prevent the left- and right-handed neutrinos from having different masses, however the left-handed neutrino couples to the Standard Weak interaction, wheras the right-handed neutrino does not - and is, therefore, much more difficult to observe (right-handed neutrinos have zero color charge, zero electric charge, zero Weak isospin, and a tiny gravitational mass).

I don't think it is possible to have mirror fermions with different masses. These extra degrees of freedom must be either 1) Supersymmetry, or 2) a counting of both the initial and final fermion states of a Feynman interaction vertex.

And yes - I'm just counting degrees of freedom. Deriving an effective Lagrangian is the next step of my approach.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 11:06 GMT
Ray,

You wrote, ""Photons are massless" and therefore "not physical". Their rest mass is zero, but their relativistic mass is non-zero. What about mass-energy equivalence? What about the confinement of photons by Black Holes? I beg to differ. Thanks to the properties of light, electromagnetic waves and second quantization, photons seem as real to me as anything else. Maybe I can't throw a rock of photons at you, but I could blast you with a laser... Which would hurt the most?"

The "photons are not physical" statement was James's straw man. What I actually said was that massless photons are not identical to information, as James falsely claimed. Every boson, as a carrier of information, has to be identified with a fermionic interaction. Because by Pauli's exclusion principle, two fermions cannot occupy the same energy state and yet an infinity of bosons may occupy any point, by James's reckoning every point of space was specially created to contain infinite information and no evolution ever happened. If this were true (and we know it isn't), we would not be able to determine any order to the universe. No real measurement would be possible.

This actually gets back to the discussion of mathematical structure vs. phenomenology. Changes in space points are only determined relative to measurement of changes between mass points ("Their rest mass is zero, but their relativistic mass is non-zero," as you say). James's philosophy, like Lisi's model, begs a bosonic universe. James goes further, though, in that no objective reality can survive at all in his model.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 13:17 GMT
Dear Tom,

I apologize for the typo. I meant to say "Photons are massless and therefore not physical?" (I accidentally left off the question mark.) I thought you were saying the opposite to pick at James - it seems that I mis-understood you.

I find several problems with Lisi's ideas. For the past two years, I have said that E8 is only 8-dimensional, and not large enough to include M-Theory (I think M-Theory is an incomplete theory, but a start in the right direction) and therefore, not large enough to include 'THE TOE'. E8 also has a 'pentality' symmetry that Lisi did not identify. And to Lubos' and your points, the TOE cannot be based strictly on bosonic operators. In my opinion, this requires Supersymmetry. Thus any theory based on E8 must be a minimum of a 16-dimensional SUSY E8 x E8*.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 16:38 GMT
Steve,

You wrote, "Here is the question of the day....the identity of euler ...... ,why is it better to write correctly the identity of Euler, a first step was made with e exp i pi + 1 = 0 (first step the - is harmonized in the physicality), but still the zero must be adapted, who has an idea ,hihihihi ?"

I don't know what you're asking, Steve. If you want a short explanation of the Euler equation, however:

It starts with this geometric relation: e^ix = cos x + i sin x. e is the Euler number ~ 2.718 ... which is the root of the natural logarithm. i is the imaginary number, sqrt -1. The equation is crucial to analysis, because it interprets the complex plane in a geometric way, thus allowing us to define continuous functions by rotating through the axes of the real and imaginary lines -- complex analysis treats what are only points on the Cartesian plane, as line on the complex plane.

When we express the above relation in logarithmic form ((logarithms are the inverse of exponentials), we get, when we substitute the term pi for the term x, ln(-1) = i(pi), which means that the natural logarithm of -1 is the imaginary number multiplied by the constant pi. Then we translate the equation to exponential form, and find, e^i(pi) = -1.

The zero appears in the final reduced equation only because of the simple algebraic operation of transferring -l to the left side of the equation:

e^i(pi) + 1 = 0.

I am among those who think this is one of the most beautiful (perhaps the most beautiful), equations in mathematics.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 17:11 GMT
Yes like said Feynman at the age of 15 , I know but Think by yourself dear Tom Beautiful equation, the sphere dear Tom the sphere , think by yourself and see around you ...and of course forget these strings,

Thanking you for this answer , it's nice in all case.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 17:15 GMT
An other has an interesting idea, because all is there .....a real dance our number ,

Regards

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 17:46 GMT
Steve,

I looked around me, and I didn't see a single atom. So is atomic theory just nonsense?

The Euler equation applies to the ocmplex plane. So now you don't think the "imaginaries" as I've heard you call imaginary numbers, are unimportant?

Just what does it mean to look around and think for myself about spheres?

Tom

report post as inappropriate


mark wrote on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 19:41 GMT
dear mr. garret your model predict changes in the velocity of light ?

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 22:33 GMT
Steve,

What do you mean by "sphere?"

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 09:18 GMT
Hi Tom,

You don't understand ,really it ios bizare..I say they are everywhere

Sphere, spheroid, ellipse, ellipsoid, torus, circles,spiral,....

Glands, eyes, brains,cells, flowers, stars, planets,spherical waves,moons, galaxies,eggs, seeds, water drop,tree,wheel, the favorite sport of humans with spheres , the rotations,fruits, ......

QUANTUM SPHERES(finite number and fractal of the main central sphere, serie specific ) rotation implying mass.....evolution ...cosmological spheres and their polarized coded systems(lifes, minerals, ....) all that in a sphere in optimization with a center where all turns around.It is a little resume.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Bubba Gump wrote on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 19:47 GMT
To the high school student:

Your physics teacher has left time out of the explanation and that is the reason for the confusion. The formulation of GR has, at it's core, the implication that It is not only space that is being 'distorted', but time as well. Time and space are inseparable in this regards. In this framework, one cannot mathematically or physically define one without the other....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Apr. 4, 2010 @ 01:51 GMT
To the high school student:

I am trying to simplify Bubba Gump’s earlier (and correct) explanation. Imagine flat plan geometry and consider the parallel axiom: two parallel lines never intersect. Each of those lines represents the history of one stationary particle moving forward in time.

Now consider two parallel lines on a sphere staring at the equator and going toward North Pole. What happens in this case? The lines come closer and closer and eventually meet at the North Pole. It’s like they “attract” each other. Call this attraction “gravity”. This is the gist of Einstein’s general relativity.

There are a few more conceptual ideas. Most important, what causes the space time to become a sphere instead of a flat plane? (in other words what curves space time?) The answer: the presence of mass: mass tells space-time how to curve. There is the opposite effect as well: the space-time tells matter how to move. The rest of the story is complicated math and the interplay of the 2 effects. The reason this works like this in this geometrical framework is the so-called “equivalence principle”: inertial mass is the same as the gravitational mass, but this is an entire separate discussion.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 4, 2010 @ 08:59 GMT
Hi Florin,

Very beautiful post.

The mass curves and spherisizes ...Have you already tried a sinusoidal exponential inside a sphere, very interesting .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 13:14 GMT
Can you guys please keep on topic? Steve, T Ray, Florin et el etc. Please don't reply to this.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 16:03 GMT
I make pub for E8 ahahahahah and reddit and Twitter .........WAKE UP GUYS OH MY GOD .......

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 18:20 GMT
Anonymous, et al:

Point well taken, Anon. I promise not to get sucked back into off topic discussions.

Back to Lubos Motl's objectiions to E8 however. I won't be Lubosian (good coinage, whoever said that); however, the question is fundamental. I beg to be corrected:

Is E8 a theory of the physical field, or a mathematical field alone?

One can find no physical reason, past the Planck limit of the microscale, to assume continuity of space with time. Inertia can be shown independent of space, while time cannot be shown independent of inertia. I mean, that if Lisi claims to use only the mathematics of general relativity and the standard model, where does one find the physics of relativity? -- the spacetime field is physically real and dynamic in Einstein's theory; GR is a kinetic theory in the classical sense. Mach's Principle, the basis for general relativity, allows time flow among mass points without any consideration for the vacuum; there are no space points. Imparting kinetics to a theory containing only spatial points requires mating time with quantum mechanics. Hawking and Hartle found a way to do it -- I don't see the way in E8.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 19:06 GMT
Dear Tom,

Not to sound like a Lubosian myself, but he made a solid statement when he said "You can't ever unite fermions and bosons via a symmetry that only has bosonic generators". From models that Lawrence Crowell and I have been playing with, I think that this implies the TOE is (minimally) an (E8 x H4 x G2) x (E8* x H4* x G2*) (where the * fields are Supersymmetry) with a minimum rank and dimension of 28. The H4 x H4* might behave like a split-solution supersymmetric E8. These ideas tie in with other ideas by Ferrante (topic 602), Sachdev (article 115) and (to a lesser degree) Dray and Manogue (article 119) that have also been presented on FQXi.

Specifically, Lawrence has been working with a 27 dimensional Jordan transform of an E8 triplet. The E8 triplet works within Ferrante's ideas (if one E8 is 'split'). And the 27 dimensional Jordan transform looks like a more general version of Dray and Manogue's 10-D E8 transform ideas.

For months, I have been pushing the idea of Imaginary Time as the 12th dimension in my models (28th dimension in Lawrence's models), and have been ignored for the most part. But I now realize that I wasn't counting the 13th and 14th dimensions when they were clearly in my face. The problem is that I was confusing the fullerene-like D3-brane at the core of the Black Hole with the graphene-like M2-brane at the edge of the Universe. As such, I was counting 12-D, not 14-D. Supersymmetrize it, and you now have 28-D.

Perhaps Garrett's E8 should more closely resemble the 'split' H4 x H4* solution - in which it would contain SM fermions and their supersymmetric partners, but could not contain all of the interaction bosons.

I think Garrett started something interesting. I think that E8 is a major sub-component of TOE, but it is too small to be THE TOE.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 19:20 GMT
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray,

Like my habit, I am frank, and the shorter way is .....

I think that when an Institute give grants, after they must assume , it's only simple like that.

This point of vue is essential .

The question is ....These institutes are ready to assume their errors,....

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jsson Wolfe replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 22:31 GMT
Hi Steve,

Are you taking the point of view of Occam's razor?

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 20:43 GMT
Hi Ray,

I can't conceive a rational reason that so many have a problem with imaginary time. It's straightforward calculation.

C'est la vie. Et physigues.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 22:36 GMT
Dear T H Ray,

I personally like the idea of imaginary time. But if you think that it is so simple and obvious, can you explain to us as simply as you can why it's straightforward?

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 00:32 GMT
Jason,

Not on this blog.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 04:52 GMT
???

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 13:08 GMT
Ray,

I was just trying to keep my promise not to stray off topic here. I didn't want to get into imaginary time in the context of E8, because time seems to be emergent in Lisi's theory (a simple action principle), and time--imaginary or not -- is primary in classical physics, as a nonseparable element of the spacetime field.

Jason, Steve--first understand that space and time are the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 13:35 GMT
Dear Tom,

It seems that we were both typing responses at the same time, and our responses are complementary.

I agree that the topic of time is getting somewhat off the topic of Garrett's E8, and Garrett is one of my Facebook friends - I want to respect his blog site.

However, E8 implies extra dimensions (that Garrett didn't address) and any TOE must try to explain the concept of 'Time'. How can you have a 'Theory of Everything' if you haven't properly described time?

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 14:28 GMT
Ray,

Yes, it seems that we are on the same wavelength this morning.

I agree, time must play a role or relativity has to be abandoned; I don't see how we can do that without throwing away a lot of validated physics.

You said in your reply to Steve & Jason, "Somehow, gravitational effects that originate in Hyperspace are transferred to Spacetime. Is this transfer of effect accomplished via Kramers-Kronig-like, entropic-like (Verlinde), fractal-like (El Naschie), or entangled (I have conserved quantum numbers in multiple dimensions) means?"

For my own part, I am on the side of Verlinde:

my site

My own formulation of gravity as a fraction of length 1 in hypersapce shows the time metric n-dimensional dissipative, n > 4. As a result time is identical to a 1-dimension information string, as I think Verlinde also has it (Shannon's model of information entropy is mathematically identical to the model of energy entropy). I am in the process of learning more.

Tom

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 19:25 GMT
Dear Tom,

So Space and time are needed to make the physics model fly... OK, I can change the speed of light and make time happen slower or faster; admittedly, slower would by kind of useless.

But what is this "space" thing you call the vacuum? We keep getting more of it which makes the universe expand. If its not isotropic, gravity occurs, geodesic stuff; it's sure as heck not isotropic when I get out of bed in the morning. Why does the sun, so far away, have the ability to reach across space and pull the earth towards it? Can space stretch, distorting isotropic inertia and create a gravity field? Can space collapse into a singularity in the presence of a black hole?

What is the relationship between the speed of light (how faster signaling/communication occurs), AND inertia/geodesic also known as gravity?

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 23:33 GMT
Strings have a tension t = (1/2πα’), which is about 10^{45}N. Here α’ is the string coupling constant. The tension I think is similar to inertial confinement in QCD. It renormalizes to a small value at high energy, and becomes large at lower energy. This is a sort of quantum phase transition. This has connections with “braney” physics, for a string attached to a NS5-brane associated with an event horizon, exhibits a change of behavior. Consider as a toy model a virtual wormhole in a spacetime is defined by a D2-brane which connects two Schwarzschild regions with a “throat.” At high energy, or small scale the string tension T is small. There are two three ball regions in the interior of the wormhole are also connected and define a three sphere S^3, partition by a D2-brane or M2-brane. The dual NS5-brane is the black brane of a black hole. However, if the 3-ball in the interior is large enough under a quantum fluctuation there may be induced a phase transition so the string tension becomes large, or equivalently the string parameter alpha becomes small. The single string illustrated on the left is in a pure state, but when T becomes large the string fragments into an ensemble of string in an entangled state --- with an entanglement entropy. This is then the onset of inflation which stops at reheating and the subsequent thermal entropy.

The 5 and 2 branes have a duality with each other, where the NS5-brane is the actual brane at the horizon or stretched horizon. The stretched horizon is in effect a Dp-brane. The string coupling constant under the quantum phase transition decreases rapidly, increasing the string tension. The string breaks up and increases the number of modes on the brane, N ~ 2^{A/cL_p^2}, and the entanglement entropy increase as S = (A/cL_p^2)log(2), meaning c = 4log(2). This can also be seen according to the string tension t = (1/2πα’). For T \lt T_c, the critical temperature = 0 even for N --> ∞. The entropy for N modes is S = NkT with the temperature T = (1/2π)(ħt/kc) = (1/2π)^2(ħα’/kc) at the critical temperature T = T_c.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 02:28 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Thank you for the braney physics; I'll take a closer look at it.

I get the feeling that physics isn't made of anything that I've ever physically experienced.

It's like space exists as a something in some ways, but as "magical" long range forces in other respects.

So why does the earth experience an inertial path around the sun? What is it that exists between the sun and the earth? Space-time? That's a glib answer.

Can there be a "something" that exists and acts like space-time, a brane or something? Can it be invisible or non interacting to touch, it obeys Newtonian gravity and causes things to accelerate under anisotropic inertial conditions?

Can it be an inertial producing "something"? Can this "something" produce the laws of motion?

It's like the room is spinning... clunk!!!

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 14:24 GMT
Jason,

You wrote, "I get the feeling that physics isn't made of anything that I've ever physically experienced."

Be thankful you live in a low energy world that allows you to live at all.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 15:35 GMT
Jason,

I have been following your questioning, and although the questions you pose certainly are interesting, I believe you are running into confusion because you are attempting to equate a scientific explanation with a framework that attempts to assign to objects certain ontogical properties that exist in and of themselves, and are not dervied from realtionships with other properties or classes of objects that exist in nature.

As an example, someone might ask a scientist, "What is color?". The scientist might reply that color is simply a phenomenon that we identify with the properties of the electrogmanetic field and the manner in which such an entity propogates itself through space and time. The color red, for instance, is simply an electromagnetic wave that posesses a certain frequency. The person might respond, "That's not what I am asking. I want to know what color is in and of itself. How can an electromagentic wave give me the sensation of 'redness' What is 'redness' in and of itself?"

This is pretty much the kind of question you are asking and this can easily lead to circular reasaoning if you insist on requiring categorical defintions for entities and the things which instantiate their properties. On a fundamental level, there are things that must exist in and of themselves or one simply ends up in an infinite causal regress. Such things could not be described in terms of relationships with other entites as they are, by defintion, fundamental, and do not derive their existence from any other entities or causal agents.

Science does not define properties, it assigns them based on what we observe. We can, in turn, only define objects, entities, and forces, by these observed properties. The goal of modern physics is really to eventually reach a level where there are no further properties to be defined and all higher levels of structure can be accountee for by appealing to these fundamental properties. Whether this is possible is another question, but I think you get the point. round.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 23:14 GMT
Physics proceeds in an operational manner. All of the mathematics is meant to understand the relationships between things which are measured or observed. What is observed is indeed just defined, and defined according to how these observables make a device “click.”

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 23:24 GMT
Dr.Crowell,

"Physics proceeds in an operational manner. All of the mathematics is meant to understand..."

A good place to stop. How does mathematics give us understanding? I know it gives us models that repeat the patterns found in empirical evidence.

".. the relationships between things which are measured or observed. ..."

No problem here. The relationships are learned and the models are fitted to those relationships.

What is observed is indeed just defined, ..."

Problem area. What does that mean?

"...and defined according to how these observables make a device "click."..."

So 'click' is the definition of cause? Are you serious?

James

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 02:44 GMT
By click I mean basically I put to connecting probes across a resistor and measure a voltage drop.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 03:25 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

Sorry for the 'Are you serious?' remark. Ok, so click represents the recognition that there were initial conditions and they were observed to change into final conditions. That fits a mathematical equation perfectly. My point is that no one knows what cause is. The relationships between various intitial conditions and final conditions are meticulously studied and recorded. Cause is neither one of those conditions. Cause moves galaxies and makes particles of matter rise up from the earth and become intelligent life.

James

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 21:28 GMT
Bubba Gump,

At the end of the day, we have space, and we have manifestation of energy occurring in space. Some would say space and time; others would say space and motion, etc...

Asking about A priori would be like asking: what is physics made out of? It's not a wrong or a bad question. But science is fundamentally not able to answer that question. The only hope that science can give us is that the Uncertainty Principle can be used like a back door for something, something that might be willing to assist us. If it does, it has to look like a coincidence.

report post as inappropriate

Bubba Gump replied on Apr. 9, 2010 @ 22:32 GMT
It is is a pointless question and one which will only lead to circulalrity in reasoning. Axioms are a-priori categories of defintion. They cannot be derived, they are accepted as given. Regardless of how you proceed with such a line of questioning as the one you are suggesting, you must first start with certain assumptions(axioms) about the nature of the world before you can proceed.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 00:02 GMT
I start with conservation of energy and causality.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 03:39 GMT
Bubba gump,

You said "Regardless of how you proceed with such a line of questioning as the one you are suggesting, you must first start with certain assumptions(axioms) about the nature of the world before you can proceed."

I think you must also operate with the acceptance of certain working assumptions (if not belief in them) or are you a practicing epistemological and meta-physical nihilist?

If one assumes the material world has objective physical existence rather than just being the subjective internally generated fabrication by the mind that is experienced, there must be a least one foundational element that is assumed to exist outside of the mind, so that there is something rather than nothing from which the universe is fabricated. As the something must exist somewhere outside of the mind it does not seem unreasonable to me to assume that there is space in which it has existence.

Not only is there substance there is also change in position of that substance identified as work, heat, kinetic energy etc.I do not think it necessary to consider energy as something separate from the movement of material substance, matter, particle or medium however. I also find it is necessary for me to accept the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum , within observable 3d space, to agree with observation and the physics of relativity. This imo is the foundation on which all other physics can be built.

I do not think it is necessary or helpful for science to assume that either intelligence or time are also foundational elements. Although it can not be proved that they are not.They are just not a necessary component of a working scientific model of reality even if they are part of the unknowable objective reality.I do not think it hurts to speculate but that does not make those speculations a necessary foundation.

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 20:19 GMT
Only one question for you, James:

You that you know these thing ... how?

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 20:47 GMT
Tom,

Well the easy part is that I observe that intelligent life exists. Another easy part is that theoretical physics is defined upon properties that lack intelligence. Another easy part is that theoretical physicist invent new properties out of ignorance. In other words, if it cannot be seen how each property is related to the other, then, properties are assumed to be unique. This practice was especially risky in the early stages of theoretical physics. Afterall much less was known then. The need for making guesses was much greater.

The problem that today's theoretical physics suffers from is that it retains the conclusions of many of those early guesses. It relies upon them. It builds upon them. It insists that they remain fundamentally correct. The excuse given for later learning deviations is that the early theories only apply within the range of theory that was known then. Their fundamental correctness is insisted upon so certainly that all belated theories must show they allegiance to the pioneering theories by successfully reducing down to them. In other words, the understandable misinterpretations and mistakes of the past must be retained in modern physics.

The lack of unity in these early theories is evidence of lack of understanding and even worse lack of correctness. So today's theoretical physicists find themselves debating the relevance of this many dimensions or that many dimensions. What dimensions?!!!!! Stick to empirical knowledge and tell the rest of us what is means in the reall world. You can recognize the real world from your imaginary worlds, because it has intelligent life.

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 20:58 GMT
James,

Unless you can give an objective definition for "intelligence," anything you say about it is indistinguishable from hot air.

Extra dimensions do have an objective construction, from first principles of geometry.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 21:37 GMT
Tom,

"Extra dimensions do have an objective construction, from first principles of geometry."

Therefore, I presume that you can explain how it is that GEOMETRY can cause even intelligence?

James

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 20:21 GMT
Jason,

What god?

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 23:57 GMT
Tom,

What God? Whatever God you deserve.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 00:05 GMT
Jason,

Then I have the best one possible.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 02:41 GMT
Dear Tom,

I want you to; I sincerely mean that.

I like a good chess game. This very logical position allows me to tie the game with the atheists, the skeptics and the doubts in my mind, in a final and unbeatable way. By denying physics an absolute hold on reality, I can be at peace with my spiritual nature. If I meet ten people who think they are psychic, but are just goofy new agers, that doesn't mean that occult phenomena doesn't exist. Physics, in a fundamental way, can't disprove it. It just means that there are a lot of people out there who are not very good at it.

People can interpret their experiences as they see fit.

I can interpret mine, believe in my beliefs, and still be 100% conscious of reality.

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Apr. 11, 2010 @ 00:03 GMT
James,

You wrote, "If you move out of the real universe in order to validate its properties, then you must include intelligence in that effort."

If that's what you think the way to determine intelligence is, then there is no intelligence in the real world, because it's all we've got. If you think intelligence comes from out of the real world, then you are posing a supernatural origin. As I said a while back. Your argument cannot escape its contradictions.

You also wrote, " ...Symbols can only point us to that place where we can find meaning. That place can only be within our own minds."

Also as I said long ago, your view is solipsistic. The symbols of science are not interpreted in _a_ mind. They are written to be objectively meaningful to all minds who understand the language. Why do you think mathematics is universally understood?

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 15, 2010 @ 17:40 GMT
Tom,

I just found this response of yours out of the thread to which it pertained.

""James, You wrote, "If you move out of the real universe in order to validate its properties, then you must include intelligence in that effort.""

"If that's what you think the way to determine intelligence is, then there is no intelligence in the real world, because it's all we've got. If you think intelligence comes from out of the real world, then you are posing a supernatural origin. As I said a while back. Your argument cannot escape its contradictions."

I have always written that intelligence is the most important property of this universe in which we live. The quote of mine was in response to your defense of extra dimensions.

""You also wrote, " ...Symbols can only point us to that place where we can find meaning. That place can only be within our own minds.""

"Also as I said long ago, your view is solipsistic. The symbols of science are not interpreted in _a_ mind. They are written to be objectively meaningful to all minds who understand the language. Why do you think mathematics is universally understood?"

Putting a name tag on me in no way reduces the significance and correctness of what I say. Here is what I say: The symbols of science are definitely and only interpreted in the mind. They have no meaning unless they are presented to a mind that already understands meaning for those symbols. Mathematics is not universally understood. Only those who have learned the meanings of the symbols understand them. Any other person would understand almost nothing from those symbols, and, any other living being located somewhere else in the universe would understand nothing about your mathematical symbolic presentations.

James

Tom

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 15, 2010 @ 20:28 GMT
James,

In principle, every mathematical statement can be expressed in natural language. Of course, it would be exceedingly tedious and impractical to do so, and there would be translation problems between nations. It is not the _symbols_ of math that are objective--(in fact, sometimes the same symbols mean different things in different contexts--the symbol pi has several applications, e.g.)--it is the statements that one constructs of the symbols that are universal. There are no such things as "English mathematics" or "Arab mathematics" or any other such.

Your claim is instructive, however. When Einstein became known, the Nazis denounced his work as "Jewish mathematics." It is only when we allow science to be interpreted in tribal terms, that one can even entertain ridiculously false statements as these. And when taken to its furthest extreme, when truth resides only in the mind of an individual (your view) there is only anti-science. Your opinion is harmless as it is here; one can take it or leave it. Suppose, however, you were a king with limitless power--you issue a decree that henceforth relativity is false because you have seen the truth, and anyone who breathes a word to the contrary shall be beheaded. Don't laugh, it has happened in analogous ways; correction: is happening.

Your opinion that only intelligence creates intelligence is another example of the cultish claims of those who think it natural for some to rule over others. After all, how could Einstein, a non-Aryan, be so smart? That's where this stuff always logicslly ends up. Meanwhile, we know that any objective explanation of intelligence soundly falsifies this claim, by theory supported with evidence.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 15, 2010 @ 20:53 GMT
Tom,

"In principle, every mathematical statement can be expressed in natural language. ..."

What is natural language? Can you please present 2 plus 3 equals 5 in, what you refer to as, natural language?

"...it is the statements that one constructs of the symbols that are universal. ..."

Please use my above example to give an example of what you mean?

"...Your claim is instructive, however. When Einstein became known, the Nazis denounced his work as "Jewish mathematics." It is only when we allow science to be interpreted in tribal terms, that one can even entertain ridiculously false statements as these. And when taken to its furthest extreme, when truth resides only in the mind of an individual (your view) there is only anti-science. Your opinion is harmless as it is here; one can take it or leave it. Suppose, however, you were a king with limitless power--you issue a decree that henceforth relativity is false because you have seen the truth, and anyone who breathes a word to the contrary shall be beheaded. Don't laugh, it has happened in analogous ways; correction: is happening. ..."

Please do not direct your absurd diversionary tactics at me. Whatever your political or tribal or kingly views are have nothing to do with answering my question regarding 'universality of mathematics'. Let me instruct you in something that you really need to know: Mathematics is not the language of the universe. It is a tool for the mechanical interpretation of the universe.

This is an example of Tom referring to me: "...when taken to its furthest extreme, when truth resides only in the mind of an individual (your view) there is only anti-science. ..."

For anyone looking in this is what I said: The symbols of science are definitely and only interpreted in the mind. They have no meaning unless they are presented to a mind that already understands meaning for those symbols. Mathematics is not universally understood. Only those who have learned the meanings of the symbols understand them. Any other person would understand almost nothing from those symbols, and, any other living being located somewhere else in the universe would understand nothing about your mathematical symbolic presentations.

James

report post as inappropriate


T.Roc wrote on Apr. 12, 2010 @ 03:22 GMT
Just wanted to invite responses to a thread on this debate between Lisi, and Garibaldi and Distler at Sapo's Joint.

News on Lisi's "Simple Theory of Everything"

Both sides are welcome!

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Apr. 14, 2010 @ 15:16 GMT
Dear Jason,

I was just reviewing our messages. My attitude about truth is that at this point of development of theoretical physics, truth is relative. You challenged me about truth over duality. That made me think that you see your view as truth. I wouldn't be working on my own if I did not think that I was looking for truth. Our approaches are very different. You have a stronger base for...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 15, 2010 @ 23:58 GMT
Dear James,

"My attitude about truth is that at this point of development of theoretical physics, truth is relative. You challenged me about truth over duality. That made me think that you see your view as truth."

Symmetries and dualities are everywhere, in physics, nature and human relationships. When two groups are both after the Truth, there will inevitably be places where they disagree. These disagreements will fuel passionate debate. If debate can occur without people getting killed or relationships getting destroyed, then real discovery is possible. Believe me, I thrive on the idea of being able to point out something to the physics community that they have overlooked. It's my way of contributing and helping.

Do I know the truth? I am very good counsel. I can lead you to discoveries that you never thought of. But I am not the final word on most issues. I personally think that quantum mechanics and Relativity are correct; however, they can be interpreted in more useful ways. For example, I think that quantum mechanics tells us that our ability to probe the quantum universe is limited to h-bar. But what if we had access to another set of charges/fields/imaginary time-line with a speed of light c'>>c and an h-bar'

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 02:01 GMT
Dear, Jason,

Thank you for your reply. I assume that we can agree to disagree. Best wishes in your pursuits as I continue in a different direction to pursue mine.

James

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 14, 2010 @ 23:48 GMT
T H Ray,

I am taking this off that hugely nested set of posts above. Quantum information is a measure over quantum states or the density matrix. This is different from what I think most people here are conflating with quantum information and for that matter information. Physical information does not have to impart any particular meaning or message per se. A random sequence of bits serves to define information with an entropy.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 15, 2010 @ 11:26 GMT
Lawrence,

Thanks for separating this out. Yes, that's the distinction I was trying to get across.

Because I deal with complex systems, I often get told that self organization is impossible because there has to be some agent directing traffic, so to speak--giving instructions which one conflates with "information" or "intelligence." We know this isn't true, of course. That condition is sufficient, though not necessary.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 15, 2010 @ 18:10 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

"This is different from what I think most people here are conflating with quantum information and for that matter information. Physical information does not have to impart any particular meaning or message per se."

You appear to be saying: It is possible to impart meaning from some information and not possible from other information. Would you please explain the 'impart' part of this statement?

James

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Apr. 15, 2010 @ 00:13 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

Thank you for that clarification. It appears that you are saying that data is information. For example, changes of distance with respect time, without further clarification, would be information. Is this accurate?

James

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 07:05 GMT
It just hit me like a freight train. My God, hyper-drive physics is hard. Our space-time is a crystal lattice that is highly sensitive to twenty or so constants. If the constants change, then the laws of physics change. But only certain constants will produce a stable crystal. I don't know how the constants work, but the constants are responsible for our space-time. If the constants were to change in the right way, then the space where this event occurs will experience a re-crystallization. Since the rest of the universe is already one time of crystal, it will push back on the new-crystallization. If it did not, then recrystallization would travel outwards as a spherical wave-front.

But there are still separate and orthogonal time-lines. Hyper-drive physics comes down to this. Imagine that we have a beach ball whose plastic walls will force/maintain the space-time crystallization of everything inside of it. But in order to travel faster than light, I have to translate the beach ball from time line A (our universe) to time-line B. When I do this, I translate the plastic walls of the beach ball. Those plastic walls sustain the space-time crystal inside of them. I put my spaceship/cargo/crew etc. inside. When translation occurs into hyper-space, the beachball now exists in hyper-space, but it is maintaining the space-time crystal inside of it; along with everything in it.

That is how hyper-drive physics is accomplished. I have no earthly idea how physics constants are changed.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 19:12 GMT
General Relativity states that two particle cannot pass each other, locally, any faster than the speed of light. Yet, there are galaxies that are far away from each other that are measured to have a relative velocity some multiple of the speed of light.

Bottom line - can information be transmitted faster than light or not? For long distance observations, is the speed of light just an assumption?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 20:40 GMT
While working on the hyper-drive, I came up with a possible reason why gravity is necessary. The idea came from discussions about quaternions, etc.

Let's begin with a thought experiment. You're driving down a dark lonely road, when all of the sudden, you see bright lights: it's an alien spaceship. However, these are incompetent aliens who can't build a proper hyper-drive. Anyway, as luck would have it, they fly over you and beam you and your vehicle aboard. They tell you they are going to take you back to their planet for a meet and greet. Huh? As their spaceship jumps into hyper-space, something terrible (or wonderful) happens. The spaceship jumped to hyper-space and left. But they forgot you and your car, which fell about fifty feet and hit hard enough to wreck your car. No the insurance company won't believe you. But what happened? How come you got left behind, accidentally?

This universe, and the coexisting hyper-space(s) are separated by different imaginary time-lines; that's why we don't notice them. But what about the atoms that make up your body and your car? Each little quantum particle has its own teeny weeny gravitational connection to this imaginary time-line, this physical universe. That is what holds us to this universe. The gravitational force that keeps everything from floating away is a secondary benefit. Space-time has a reel-to-reel appearance that is mistaken for time travel. It is the flow of gravity through everything.

Why did you go crashing down to the lonely dark road below when the spaceship transitioned to hyper-space? The aliens forgot to pass the reel-to-reel gravity tape of your particles through their spaceship. If they had done that, you would have become particle of their space-ship. There spaceship still had charges on our imaginary time-line. They kept you from falling while they were in our time-line. When they transitioned to hyper-space, everything else on the spaceship transitioned to hyper-space; except you and your car. Oops!

Gravity is what makes the quantum particles of our universe remain a part of our universe. Gravity extends from the edge of the universe all the way down to each and every fermion and boson.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 21:49 GMT
Dear Jason,

Is it really a Quaternion, or are Florin and Grgin correct about Quantions? Of course, 4-D requires a complex twisted pair of Quantions. I still think that hyperspace is an Octonion, Gravity originates in the Octonion, and we need Associahedra and/or Permutahedra to make sense out of some of the weird Octonion algebra. You need a Black Hole and one of Subir Sachdev's Babel Fish to get into Hyperspace, but would you survive there very long if Gravitational couplings are of order unity rather than 10^(-40)?

If I sound 'crazy', its because I've been at work for 14 hours straight, and we did a month's worth of business since 3 am this morning.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Apr. 17, 2010 @ 00:10 GMT
Dear Ray,

The space-ship with incompetent aliens thought experiment paid off. Here is why. Let's say that some kind of E8 crystal is a fair guess as to the nature of the universe; I like Lawrence Pentachorons; however, I would add causality as a starting condition. Using a tesselation model with a causality requirement allows us to generate fermions at the vertices, and bosons as the struts. This gives us particles and forces. It also gives us a frame that can be dragged (frame dragging). Since the speed of light is tied into everything, I expect light to travel along the crystal, along its vertices and struts, in some kind of way that produces motion and activity, what we observe.

Whatever kind of pentachoron E8 space-time crystal that space-time acts like, why are we so surprised when a fermion or a boson at a vertex or strut puts a tiny amount of stress on the lattice? Why would we be surprised at all? The result is called gravity. Admittedly, it takes a significant amount of mass/energy before we start to notice a gravity field.

In the case of a spaceship jumping to hyper-space; hyperspace is on another crystal. If you forgot to move your abductees to the hyperspace crystal, they get left behind, as in my example.

Does this make sense?

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 17, 2010 @ 01:02 GMT
Dear Jason,

When did it become a Lawrence Pentachoron? Did I oversleep and miss something? If you recall, I am the crazy one who has been talking about n-simplices, pentality symmetries, pentagonal Petrie polygons, and the origin of the golden ratio quite consistently. I may not have used the word pentachoron very often, but that is exactly what I've been talking about.

OK - So you want to talk in terms of stresses and strains. It works like this...

Imagine a soccer ball (buckyball/fullerene) that surrounds the core of a Black Hole. Imaginary Time is the radius of this soccer ball, and Imaginary Time (in conjunction with soccer ball stresses and strains - the fullerene is a very strong shape) prevents the Black Hole core from collapsing into a true mathematical singularity. The surface of the soccer ball has a pattern of hexagons (traditionally white) and pentagons (traditionally black). These pentagons represent Petrie pentagons/pentachorons, and these hexagons represent Petrie hexagons/hexaterons. Each different pentagon represents another Spacetime Universe within the multiverse, and each different hexagon represents another Hyperspace Universe within the multiverse.

In my lattice models, the fermions are vertices, and the bosons are struts (aka the basis/displacement vectors that convert one vertex/fermion into another), but we should not forget Supersymmetry. I think that Supersymmetry must be true, but I doubt the possibility of the dominant paradigm of Weak-Scale Supersymmetry. I have an alternate idea that is too wild and original to mention on this site. The LHC should soon confirm or deny Weak-Scale Supersymmetry. Its supporters cannot keep pushing Supersymmmetry farther from the W/Z masses and still call it 'Weak-Scale' physics. A Supersymmetric model must also contain bosonic vertices and fermionic struts. This goes back to statements made by Lubos and Tom that you cannot build a TOE out of strictly bosonic basis vectors (struts) like Lisi's E8 and my E12 - you need a Supersymmetric E8 x E8* or E12 x E12*.

My ideas are converging with Lawrence's. I have finally backed off from 28 dimensions to 27 (E-Infinity needs to stop talking about 26 + fractal dimensions - that idea is just plain wrong), and I realize that Lawrence has the Babel fish. Now all he needs is a Black Hole...

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 22:39 GMT
Can you people stick to topic? It is wrecking the forums and blogs here.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 16, 2010 @ 22:47 GMT
To anonymous,

Says Who????

James

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Apr. 19, 2010 @ 21:00 GMT
This is about as succinctly as I can describe a hyper-drive propulsion system.

Abstract:

In order to achieve the result of interstellar travel on a reasonable time scale using an apparent faster-than-light propulsion system, the following description of necessary technologies must first be understood. We begin with two models of the physical universe: (1) imaginary-time and (2) a tessellated lattice of Causal Dynamical Triangulation adherent pentachorons called the CDT Lattice. An artificial CDT lattice of space-time is to be generated by the Vacuum Lattice Chamber. The Vacuum Lattice Chamber allows the 19 physics constants to be configured in such a way as to generate, as a standing wave, the CDT lattice. The Vacuum Lattice Chamber itself is designed to transition between the two imaginary time lines of this space-time, and the coexisting faster space-time (hyper-space). The Vacuum Lattice Chamber is a time-line shifting projection from the hyper-space constructed propulsion engines. These propulsion engines obey relativity relative to the faster speed of light, c' >> c.

report post as inappropriate


Dr. Cosmic Ray wrote on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 12:31 GMT
Have all of the Lisi fans seen his latest publication yet?

attachments: 1004.4866v1.pdf

report post as inappropriate


STEVE JEFFREY wrote on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 11:10 GMT
Collary to the law of non contradition.

Opposie particles X and Y CANNOT be in the SAME STATE at the SAME TIME in the SAME PLACE.

EXPEPTION PRIOR TO THE BIG BANG.

Where the maths can be contradictory....................

Four states of matter in one means potential energy is stored from a previous incarnation of our universe and released all at once in a phase change where one state becomes four and one force becomes four forces.

Potential energy becomes kinetic that is the mechanism of the big bang.

This Is JEFFREYS SIMPLE MECHANISM FOR EVERYTHING" KEEP IT SIMPLE & STUPID."

You can calculate the energy that wold have to be stored to make the big bang happen....

Stevo.........

Garett what do you think of the keep it simple and stupid theory.?

report post as inappropriate


STEVE A JEFFREY wrote on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 11:17 GMT
The mechanism for the big bang is a reversal of gravity in so called supergravity which is produced in an explosion of supercritical non newtonian fluids.

Like the molasses explosion of 1917 where supergravity may have been produced.

The universe prior to this one must have been a Godel since time must have been contraidctory since the universe was contracting and time was running backwards.........

A black hole in a contradictory contracting universe can have a penrose equation that gives us a non contradictory big bang in our universe.

So that the math can be understood.

Start with a black hole in a Godel universe.

Then a black hole in a contracting universe.Then do the penrose equation the Hawking equation for penrose equation.

report post as inappropriate


STEVE A JEFFREY wrote on Jul. 9, 2010 @ 11:18 GMT
Einsteins loaded dice.

attachments: 1_clock2.zip.zip, Einsteins_Loaded_Dice.zip

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.