Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

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

 RSS feed | RSS help

January 19, 2018

CATEGORY: High Energy Physics [back]
TOPIC: An Exceptionally Simple FAQ [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 04:29 GMT
A new paper, "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything", has attracted a great deal of interest, from both the scientific community and the general public. This forum comment thread will collect my short descriptions of this new theory, in response to questions posed from reporters serving different readerships. It's in chronological order -- sorry for the chaos.

Please don't add comments here (they won't be replied to) -- if you wish to discuss the theory, an appropriate thread is the FQXi forum post where I first speculated on E8 Theory. If you'd like to read more about me personally, or leave an opinion or encouragement, there is an Exceptionally simple personal FAQ.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 04:40 GMT
--Can you sum up your current work in a way that a layman could understand? I understand that you're applying differential geometry to the problem of uniting general relativity and quantum field theory, but at the risk of sounding too simplistic, how does that work? And exactly what is differential geometry, anyway?

Differential geometry is the study of smooth manifolds, usually in many...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 04:53 GMT
--Can you talk a little bit about the background of relating symmetries in mathematical structures to physical theories? Can you give our readers an example of when this has been done in the past, and how successful it has been?

Well, there are two different kinds of mathematical symmetry that have been extremely useful for physics.

The first is structural symmetry of the physical laws themselves. The shining example of this was in Maxwell's work on electromagnetism. Basically, Maxwell was playing with the equations as they were known at the time and noticed they were not structurally symmetric -- there seemed to be a term missing. When he added this term, the equations came together in a much more elegant whole. With this new, unified theory, he was able to describe the propagation of light as an electromagnetic wave -- when previously light had been considered an independent phenomenon. It was a very dramatic theoretical achievement. The biggest advances in physics have often come from unifications: Euler, Lagrange, and Hamilton's reformulation of mechanics; Einstein's special relativity; Feynman's path integrals; etc. The guiding principal is that the equations themselves -- the mathematics describing the universe -- should be symmetric and beautiful.

The second type of mathematical symmetry is more specific and familiar: the symmetry of patterns and shapes. In mathematics this goes by the name of group theory -- and the success of twentieth century high energy physics can largely be attributed to this kind of symmetry. A notable application was the construction of the quark model in the sixties, by Murray Gell-Mann and others. At the time, there was a large zoo of independent particles and no one knew why they had the properties they did. He managed to explain these properties in terms of symmetric patterns -- later understood as the group theory of SU(3). Currently, our best model of how the universe works at small scales, the standard model of particle physics, is based on group symmetries.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 05:02 GMT
--Question 1: What exactly is a gauge group?

A gauge group is a high dimensional surface with many symmetries. Basically, it's a pretty shape. The complete set of these shapes was discovered and organized by mathematicians at the beginning of the twentieth century, and they're the centerpiece of modern mathematics and theoretical physics. Among the groups there are five "exceptional" groups...

view entire post

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 05:14 GMT
--Question 1: Have theoretical physicists been able to associate the other four exceptional groups with physically observed phenomena? If so, what?

No, as far as I know this hasn't been done before. In the paper, I describe how each of these exceptional groups are related to a known subset of particles and interactions, and how they all combine into E8.

I should have a first draft of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 05:17 GMT
For a magazine image, you may want to use the image of G2 and use some arrows and text box overlays to describe how the interactions between particles correspond to visually adding together the points in these diagrams. This will be the best part of this theory for most people -- you can actually determine how all the particles interact by how these points add together in these pretty pictures.

For example, if you look at the picture of the G2 root system in the paper: Take the green up triangle (that's a green quark) and add the blue circle on the far right (a red-anti-green gluon) and you get the red up triangle (a red quark). This is how the quarks interact with the gluons. It's vector addition -- maybe you can overlay some arrows over the G2 picture to describe how this works for your readers.

When we do the same thing with the points in any of the E8 pictures, we get all the allowed interactions between the particles. :)

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 05:20 GMT
--If there was no universe -- to my naïve thinking -- we wouldn't have (or need) string theory or LQG. But the logic of E8, as a pure mathematical object would still exist and the mathematical properties it has would still be true without there having to be an actual universe in which E8 is realized. So, intuitively, it seems to me that E8 should be more fundamental than LQG (and string theory). Does that make sense? And if not, what is wrong in my reasoning?

That's not so naïve -- that's the Platonist world view, and is shared by many physicists and mathematicians. The E8 Lie group is a more central structure in mathematics than spin networks or strings. But spin nets and and strings are mathematical structures in this same way you're describing -- so you can't necessarily exclude them just for being more messy.

What I think is that the universe is pure geometry -- basically, a beautiful shape twisting around -- and this shape is described by mathematics. This is a slightly different view than believing the universe IS mathematics, but it's close. Since E8 is perhaps the most beautiful structure in mathematics, is very satisfying that nature appears to have chosen this geometry. And quantum mechanics seems necessary for everything to happen.

--2) Also, I was reading something Lee Smolin is quoted as saying about LQG. He mentioned that LQG may need to invoke a multiverse, just like string theory. Does E8 do away with the need for a multiverse? (At last, we can explain why everything is the way that it is -- and it's down to the shape of E8.)

I'm afraid E8 doesn't say anything directly about quantum mechanics, so it doesn't help that way. Although there are hints of how it might connect to quantum mechanics, algebraically.

The multiverse is what you get when you think about quantum mechanics operating on the scale of cosmology. Personally, I think "many worlds" and "multiverse" are just fanciful ways of saying there are many possibilities for what can happen.

--3) Does your analysis of E8 explain the relative strengths and ranges of the forces, and the relative masses of particles? (Sorry, if you have answered this one already.)

This is the goal. Right now it looks promising, but it's not there yet. All the pieces are in place to calculate these things, but some parts aren't perfectly clear, and it's going to take more work to find out one way or the other whether the correct coupling constants (force strengths) and masses come out. This is an "all or nothing" kind of theory -- it's either going to be exactly right, or spectacularly wrong. I think it has a good chance of making successful new predictions, which is why I work on it, but it could still turn out to be wrong. It aint over 'til the LHC sings.

report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 05:26 GMT
-You probably answered this in another email that I buried, but I'm not sure whether to refer to E8 as an 8-dimensional object or a 248-dimenisonal object (or something else.)

The E8 Lie group is a 248 dimensional object. It is a very complicated, and very beautiful, smooth, curved manifold with many different symmetries. ("Manifold" is a fancy name for "surface.") This Lie group is the pretty shape at the heart of E8 theory.

The E8 root system, which is what's shown in the pictures, is a pattern of 240 points in 8 dimensions. This pattern of points describes the shape of the E8 Lie group, through its Lie algebra. The pattern in 8 dimensions is projected onto the 2 dimensional page from different angles to make the different pictures. By understanding this pattern, we get a better understanding of the E8 Lie group.

The elementary particles correspond to points in the E8 root system, which correspond to elements of the E8 Lie algebra, and thus to symmetries of the E8 Lie group.

I'm sorry this is so complicated, but I hope that's clear.

--Thinking in terms of a hypercube when we say, think of a cube in 3D and then you can think of another axis, orthogonal to the first three and that would give you 4D, etc...and in that way you can keep going and describe an n-dimensional cube. In THAT sense is E8 eight-dimensional (existing in the same space an 8D cube)? Or is it 248-dimensional, existing in the same space as a 248-dimensional cube.

The E8 root system is eight-dimensional in this sense. And it is a polytope, like the cube and 8D cube are polytopes.

The E8 Lie group is not a polytope, it is a smooth, 248 dimensional surface.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 05:33 GMT
--I also wondered if the NS version is correct, see below.

It has some slight errors (physics has never been just a hobby for me -- it's my life), but for the most part it is accurate. I don't see any significant embarrassing errors or misstatements in the article.

--Does this mean we do not need any more than four dimensions, for example?

That's correct -- this E8 Theory only works in four dimensions.

--And how likely is it that the LHC could find one of those 20 new particles?

The theory is very young, and still in development. Right now, I'd assign a low (but not tiny) likelyhood to this prediction. For comparison, I think the chances are higher that LHC will see some of these particles than it is that the LHC will see superparticles, extra dimensions, or micro black holes as predicted by string theory. I hope to get more (and different) predictions, with more confidence, out of this E8 Theory over the next year, before the LHC comes online.

--If you could let me know today, that would be great.

Certainly. Things are developing very quickly with this new theory.

I posted the paper to the physics arxiv on Wednesday, Nov 7:

It received an unusual (perhaps unprecedented) amount of attention from physics bloggers (in chronological order):

(This is the best and most informative review of the paper.)

(This is string theorist who, not surprisingly, hates it. Fortunately, his only real arguments against it are vacuous.)

(Another level headed review)

Those are the main reviews and discussions of the paper so far, though there are several others (Physics Forums, etc).

Two hours ago, I presented a one hour talk on the theory to the International Loop Quantum Gravity Seminar:

That is a weekly teleconference with a consortium of researchers at fourteen universities around the world. I'm happy to say it went very well.

I'm a little overwhelmed by all the attention, as I'm a bit of a hermit. But I'm quite pleased the physics community is as excited as I am about this new E8 Theory.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 05:55 GMT
--1. First of all, in laymans terms: What the heck are you talking about?! Seriously, is there any way to impart to the average Joe what a unifying theory is, and why it's important?

Most people may be familiar with some of the various kinds of elementary particles, like electrons, quarks (that make up protons and neutrons) and photons (particles of light). These particles have charges. The...

view entire post

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 21:29 GMT
--You added the charges of each quantum particle and came up with the E8 group. Or did you plug the particles into the E8 and found that they corresponded correctly? (What I mean is, would it be closer to likening your process as plotting out different particles as a different symmetry, and overlaying them accurately coincides with E8; or did you calculate the charges of each particle and, on a graph, what emerges is E8?)

The two different descriptions you're giving are related (thus the confusion). The E8 Lie group is a large (248 dimensional) symmetric manifold. It has 248 symmetries, each corresponding to a Lie algebra element. The relationship between these symmetries can be described by a pattern of points in an abstract eight dimensional space, with each point corresponding to a symmetry of E8. This is where the pretty patterns come from. Each elementary particle corresponds to a symmetry of E8, and hence to one of these points in the pattern. And each of these has eight coordinates, corresponding to the eight quantum numbers (charges) for the particle.

The main thing I've done is to figure out all the quantum numbers of the particles in the standard model, and found that these match the points corresponding to E8.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

berlin wrote on Nov. 21, 2007 @ 18:22 GMT
Can the triality matrix (whcih 'rotates' the different fermion generations), be considered as an 'operator' working on the E8 'eigenstates'? If so, there will probably be some root vectors for which T does not 'commute'. Otherwise the fermion generations would be degenerate states with equal mass. Could the simple search for these roots (without second quantisation) result in the mass gaps for the generations and maybe even the kiode relation? Something like: m(e)=||^2=||=..=factor.||^2

report post as inappropriate

Eudoxus wrote on Nov. 22, 2007 @ 07:53 GMT
Garrett, thanks for offering a venue for the closure to 20th century theoretical physics. Perhaps you shall have liberated some talented theorists who will pick themselves up and move on to new phenomena. A slightly larger "everything." In addition to various "mysteries" that the experimentalists have meekly assembled over the last 20 years while the theorists have been engaged in synthesis, I am hoping for insight into some traditional issues like the existence of conciousness. Is the 'substance' of mind a topic for physics or not? Does some principal bundle describe my sensations of taste? Is my sensation part of everything or not?

Here is another/same issue. Any application of manifolds assumes some degree of smoothness in overlap maps. Often there is an implicit degree of differentialbilty of any vector fields on the manifold. All the more so for principal bundles. What are the consequences of relaxing the differentiability requirements? How should this be done? I am thinking, in Newtonian mechanics, if all the force fields are assumed to be at least once differentiable then there are always unique solutions determined by initial conditions. On the other hand, if one assumes the the force fields are simply continuous, then there are always solutions for the motion of a particle, say, but the solutions may not be unique for any set of initial conditions. (theorem by Cauchy) I am wondering under what criteria the dynamics implied by a connection imply there will exist non-unique solutions.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Defourny wrote on Nov. 22, 2007 @ 15:12 GMT

I actually like your title "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" and this post is to suggest you that your work might might concern "absolutely everything".

I hate to talk about me - but I need to etll firts that I just completed the report of an experiential learning in socio-eceonomy - that ended with a geometrical method to handle problems in those fields with an unexpected - and seemingly universal - manner.

Our experiential developments did drive us at constructing maps, next within the difference group - to which belongs "mathematically speaking" the well known double-entry accounting system - and from there we constructed a spheroid manifold that may embed all or any reality.

Everything we did is not out of theory but out of experience - and it looks that you only proposed the global theory that may encapsulate - say explain - all of our operational methods.

Of course we only know an experimental side of our methods and still we have to check how much a generalization of your work would fit with them - but in case the answer would be positive, your proposition may lead applications in many other domains than only physics.

In any case, congratulations for your work and your proposition.

(note the report of our experiential work is at Introduction to Holotomial Analysis


Paul Defourny

report post as inappropriate

Alain wrote on Nov. 23, 2007 @ 08:57 GMT

This question is surely out of subject, and probably naive, but let me ask this : if particles are travelling in the time dimension in the "opposite" direction, could they be detected ? Are there exemples of particles travelling to "the past". Is the causality principle a scientific concept, and why ?

report post as inappropriate

Gary D Knight wrote on Nov. 23, 2007 @ 17:07 GMT
You mention in the xrv article that symmetry breaking should have a mathematical explanation. Why is that, philosophically? To my mind, symmetry-breakings are where we find all the creativity in the Universe, from the matrix of symmetries (however beautiful they are!) -- call it Deontic if you will. It's where all the 'meaning' of interaction, 'chaos - aka complexity', and serendipity (eg. fluctuation-dissipation, or even just information transported on momenta transfer) comes out, informing us rather than we informing it. Kind of like those rogue breakers that really get your heart going.


Gary Knight, PhD (Condensed matter and plasmonics)

report post as inappropriate

Derek Neely wrote on Nov. 24, 2007 @ 00:37 GMT

I have been following the cosmology world for 40 years. For the last 20 I have used this as a thought problem for countless hours on many long drives. By the time Brian Greens book came out, I was comfortable through roughly the first half, and then it went out of control. As you say, working to hard to force a fit.

At times on those drives, I would almost sense a ghost of what was needed, but it was far to complex to imagine. But I did predict to all of my peers that the person who solved it would not one of those sought the answer from bashing particles together, but rather the solution would come from someone who rubbed thoughts together. You proved me right on that.

For what it's worth, although I could only imagine a ghost of the E8, the instant that I saw the shape in the Aim E8 website, I felt the same as you describe above, Holy crap, that could be it. I could never imagine it but when I see it is just what is needed. If it isn't it is is so damn close.

Credentials.....Just a guy whose friends say thinks too much.

Good job and good luck to you in solving the details. Thank you for opening the door closed for 100 years.

report post as inappropriate

Daniel Young wrote on Nov. 24, 2007 @ 13:48 GMT

First, congratulations for developing a beautiful testable physical theory, for making it reasonably accessible at this early stage to interested non-mathematical laypersons such as myself and for expressing your balanced personal philosophy of life.

My question (and concern)is this. Does the development of your theory have the potential to lead to the development of weapons which will exploit this more unified understanding of the physical structure of the universe and be even more destructive than present weapons?

report post as inappropriate

Plato wrote on Nov. 25, 2007 @ 06:49 GMT
Garrett:"The Riemann curvature of spacetime is part of the curvature of the E8 connection"

It would of course be wondeful to see this in it's natural setting. Would the Riemann Hypothesis be such a place?

"On the occasion described by Mr. Derbyshire, Hugh Montgomery, a graduate student was chatting with the great physicist Freeman Dyson, when Montgomery happened to mention his findings on the distribution of prime numbers based on Riemann's Zeta function.

Dyson, one of the most highly-regarded scientists of his time, poignantly informed the young man that his findings into the distribution of prime numbers corresponded with the spacing and distribution of energy levels of a higher-ordered quantum state."

I asked Tommaso Dorigo such a question happening at the heart of the colliders. About gravity.

"It looks as though primes tend to concentrate in certain curves that swoop away to the northwest and southwest, like the curve marked by the blue arrow. (The numbers on that curve are of the form x(x+1) + 41, the famous prime-generating formula discovered by Euler in 1774.). See more info on Mersenne Prime."

Do you see any relation?

report post as inappropriate

Plato wrote on Nov. 25, 2007 @ 07:07 GMT
See picture

attachments: 3.gif

report post as inappropriate

Bo Lundholm wrote on Nov. 25, 2007 @ 20:29 GMT

If I Have understood this correctly the whole idea can be understood by picturing the concept in the same way Mr Carl Sagan did in his televison series from the 80th. In this science program an idea was put forward to give understanding of more than 3 or 4 dimensions to reality as we can persive them. The consept eas explained by relating to a world that had only 2 dimensions - and this world was named Flatland. If a 3-dimensional body were to manifest itself in this 2-dimensional world it would be like if you cut an apple in two - and "stamped" it on this flat surface. To the inhabitants of Flatland a sudden shape would emerge from out of noware - and leave a mark - and then disapear - without a trace.

So if I have grasped the idea here - the quarks and other manifistations in our space time continium is mearly a manifistation in our 3 or possibly 4 dimension wourld from this 8 or 256 dimensional reality that this E8-theory predicts

My question now is - have I got the idea or not?

Regards and keep up the good work

report post as inappropriate

Lee wrote on Nov. 26, 2007 @ 11:48 GMT
You describe your theory as a "principle bundle" - a mathematical structure (G) of one sort connected to a manifold (M) a "connection": C(G,M) -

if we "connected" different Gs do we get other (but presumably non-actual) self-consistent physics ? Or does M's structure constrain the choice of G?

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 27, 2007 @ 02:53 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate

Jeffy wrote on Nov. 27, 2007 @ 02:54 GMT
Oops. Previous post is mine.

report post as inappropriate

RD Padouk wrote on Nov. 28, 2007 @ 01:04 GMT
Garret - I abandoned physics in the mid 1980s because the GUTs at the time were so ugly. I am delighted that you are proposing such a beautiful theory, and inspired by the way you enthusiastically embrace the importance of experimentation.

report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Dec. 7, 2007 @ 23:56 GMT
I requested that there not be comments here. But there are some that I like enough that I'll respond to them anyway, but not necessarily seriously.


Something like this may happen, yes. If the three generations didn't have different E8 quantum numbers, there would be no way for them to be different in this theory, and no way for them to have different masses.


Damn, what the heck's the point of building a secret doomsday device if you're just going to blab about it?

If someone does use E8 to blow up the world, it will be long after we're already gone.


Just because I don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hmm, but that image does happen to look exactly like my right thumbprint... very odd.


The E8 principal bundle over spacetime is a 252 dimensional space, called the "entire space." But, unlike in Kaluza-Klein theory, the 248 dimensional E8 Lie group is a "frozen" shape over spacetime points.


I never described this theory as a principle bundle, it has no moral fiber.




I recommend teaming up with Daniel and designing sugar frosted E8, with doomsday machine surprise included in every box. "THEY'RE GRE8!" Please don't shout though, I'm sensitive.

report post as inappropriate

Andrew Smyth wrote on Dec. 8, 2007 @ 17:50 GMT
Do you think the day will come when you understand:

1) Why E8 theory describes the universe, and

2) Why E8 theory requires that "something" rather than

nothing exists?

In other words, will you have a eureka moment where you

think, "Aha, that's why it has to be like this"?

report post as inappropriate

Phil wrote on Dec. 10, 2007 @ 18:39 GMT
The idea of E8 is awesome! We need a great unifying theory, and this seems to fit very well. It does suggest that the universe, etc, must have a designer, much in the same way that a clock's operation suggests the existence of a clock designer and maker. The study of objects seems to have mankind looking for an ultimate of some sort.

report post as inappropriate

Andrew Smyth wrote on Dec. 10, 2007 @ 22:12 GMT
If existance requires that the universe be configured as an E8 manifold, and if this perfect geometrical structure allows life, then I am going to start attending church again.

I can understand the idea of trillions of universes with randomly selected laws of nature, a few of which just happen to be conducive to life.

However it seems unlikely that the "life friendly" universes will have perfect and beautiful geometry, or that

such geometry should result in "life".

report post as inappropriate

JONAS PATE wrote on Dec. 14, 2007 @ 09:03 GMT
I'm a complete non-scientist, but in trying to understand your theory, I was reminded of Carl Jung, who believed that mankind often created symbols in an attempt to reconnect with the unconscious " archetypes" that he believed formed the essence of the universe.

Jung was convinced that these archetypes were psychoid, that is, "they shape matter (nature) as well as mind (psyche)" That archetypes are elemental forces which play a vital role in the creation of the world and of the human mind itself.

so when I saw your youtube video of E8-- it looks so much like so many primal man-made symbols that Jung would flip over-- suddenly your theory had a real power for me, even if I couldn't understand the details of the science. so for that -- thanks, dude. you're my official new hero.

I don't know if the theory is "factually" correct, but I'm sure it's instinctually correct

as a soul surfer my bet is you've had some of these same thoughts. care to comment?

report post as inappropriate

Gerry wrote on Dec. 15, 2007 @ 10:06 GMT
Andrew wrote: "If existance requires that the universe be configured as an E8 manifold, and if this perfect geometrical structure allows life, then I am going to start attending church again. I can understand the idea of trillions of universes with randomly selected laws of nature, a few of which just happen to be conducive to life."

What makes you believe the unrealizable trillions of universes with randomly selected laws have any reality outside your imagination? The existence of the universe is the greatest mystery, but arguments like this seem a cop-out shortcut to its solution. I prefer to live with the mystery. Why do you accept three space and one time dimension as mundane, but consider E8 exotic?

report post as inappropriate

Andrew wrote on Dec. 15, 2007 @ 23:12 GMT
If E8 theory is correct then:

1) There is only one universe or type of reality,

2) That universe has a structure that is beautiful and symmetrical,

3) And because of that structure intelligent beings must evolve.

Either you believe in a Creator or that life came about through random selection. If you believe the latter then

there must have been a huge number of different types of random universes to be selected from in order to find one with something as improbable as life.

There seems to be no reason that the "lucky winner" would, by chance, have life, and also by chance, be based on a simple, orderly, and beautiful geometry. This would only happen if one required the other---and that idea has hints of religion about it.

As someone once said, "Maybe the universe is complicated, chaotic, and ugly."

report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Dec. 29, 2007 @ 19:40 GMT

1) I hope so -- maybe.

2) This is a much harder question -- probably not.


Why is it sensible to believe in a designer that's more complicated than the design?

Clocks can come from evolution.


Could I keep you out of mass if allow you to play with the Higgs VEV dials that determine all the particle masses?


Yes, this is where my own search for meaning has brought me. It will be very satisfying if these symbols work to give correct predictions for our physical world.


I mostly agree, in this universe anyway.


There are plenty of dynamic parameters that could take different values. However, the anthropic principal is based on an assumption that life isn't very flexible, whereas I think the converse is true. I think life could exist in universes we can't even imagine.


There are many differences. For example, Tony likes to remove parts of the Lie algebra structure when it suits his purposes -- that's probably the main difference.

report post as inappropriate

Andrew wrote on Dec. 29, 2007 @ 20:27 GMT

Could I keep you out of mass if allow you to play with the Higgs VEV dials that determine all the particle masses?"

Yes--because you said so I will just take it on faith that variable particle masses allow me to skip mass w/o fear of eternal discomfort.

OTOH being an "infidel" in regard to your theory, which is not punished, might be the safer course.

report post as inappropriate

Deborah wrote on Jan. 11, 2008 @ 03:22 GMT












report post as inappropriate

bibou wrote on Jan. 16, 2008 @ 21:09 GMT
hihou !!

Me, I find the theory of nothing :

report post as inappropriate

bidou wrote on Jan. 16, 2008 @ 21:25 GMT
Yahou !!

Me, I found the exeptionnaly simple theory of nothing :



Garett, What do you think about my theory ?

report post as inappropriate

N. Tantilov wrote on Jan. 24, 2008 @ 03:15 GMT
Dear Dr. Lisi,

just a question regarding TOEs:

Kurt Gödels Incompleteness Theorem ...

so *any* TOE will end up being a "TO almost E".

Guess this doesn't touch your present work at all, but in the long run you must have some sort of opinion about it ... ? Hope it's not too indiscreet to ask about it.

One more thing - I liked your statement about trying to find a beautiful theory. The search for truth and the search for beauty are in a way related - the ancient Indian seers called the Ultimate Reality Satyam, Shivam, Sunderam: the True, the Good and the Beautiful.

report post as inappropriate

Raven wrote on Mar. 25, 2008 @ 16:18 GMT
I was thinking about the methods to test the theory: are the current and under-construction particle accelerators able to discover these new particles? If not, how much time should we wait?

report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Mar. 25, 2008 @ 18:08 GMT

You have successfully proved that making sense is not a barrier to conveying sarcasm -- nice.


The consideration of multiverses is largely independent from what I've been doing. Glad you like these new ideas, but I wish you wouldn't type in all caps.


Nothing shouldn't be said twice.

N. Tantilov:

(addressed in other thread)


What compelled you to post this same question multiple times?


Don't wait at all, go out and play. More seriously, without mass predictions it's impossible to say when new particles associated with this E8 theory might be seen.

(Please don't post in this thread -- use one of the others for questions or comments. This thread is mostly for posting interview responses. If you post here anyway, I will make fun of you.)

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Mar. 27, 2008 @ 02:51 GMT
A. Pisko and N. Elsfeld:

El Naschie's work looks rather complicated, and I'd just rather not spend a lot of time with it right now. Also, I seem to need to repeat this again:

Please don't post in this thread -- use one of the others for questions or comments. This thread is mostly for posting interview responses. If you post here anyway, I will make fun of you.

It is impressive that your fanaticism overrides respect for my wishes. You aren't perchance also involved with the Ron Paul campaign?

report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Mar. 27, 2008 @ 02:56 GMT
From a recent interview:

--Here at SciAm we never jumped on the bandwagon regarding your E8 theory,

I had kind of wondered about that, since the representation theory involved has a visually appealing aspect that would probably make for a good SciAm article. But I certainly appreciate and commend conservatism, especially since some of the media response went overboard.

--but I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jim Freeman wrote on Apr. 6, 2008 @ 18:09 GMT
While I don't understand the incredibly difficult math and other operations you have used to assemble this theory dude I think you may have gotten it.

I have been trying to get a feeling that string theory was the way to go for many years now. To no avail. Calebi Yau? Vibrating strings? While it was getting close, it IMO missed some things. Things that I could not get. Brian Greens book was the best book out there that I read.

Intuitively, it seems that you have something here.

Keep at it and good luck.

report post as inappropriate

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Apr. 7, 2008 @ 11:14 GMT

Can BANG CRUNCH BANG be right if it is a balanced equation.

The energy equation for ex-nihilo does not balance it is 2E=2M*2C^2.

But the energy equation for the big crunch balances it is.


Iam amazed by the intolerance of this community.

The equation for the universe must balance for evolution since you cannot get energy from outside the universe from another dimension like in ex-nihilo.

The four states of matter become one.


And one unstable state of matter explodes to become four.

Of course this can be a better bomb but it can also be a better nuclear reactor.

Particles X an Y cannot be in the SAME STATE at the SAME TIME in the SAME PLACE except before the big bang.

The previous universe may have been a Godel one and a contradiction in terms of time so that it gives rise to a non contradictory explosion and the laws to our universe.

What is so silly about that that you can't print it.

Are people not allowed to talk anymore about religion.


report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Apr. 7, 2008 @ 18:12 GMT

Thanks for the encouragement.


I will put this as politely as I can: As far as I can tell, you are spouting complete nonsense. I don't wish to insult or anger you, but you should consider whether you want to waste your time communicating with someone (me) who doesn't appreciate your effort.

report post as inappropriate

Stefano Marzocchi wrote on Apr. 13, 2008 @ 18:43 GMT
Hello Garrett,

I'm only a physics amateur, I write from Pesaro, Italy; I would ask you this question (or more probably to correct my question if badly formulated):

Which kinds of "charge" are beyond the 8 dimensions of the E8 root space illustrated in the famous beautiful animation ?

Perhaps I did't understand enough your phrase ("And each of these has eight coordinates, corresponding to the eight quantum numbers (charges) for the particle"), but I would expect somewhat like:

Axis 1: electric charge

Axis 2: strong interaction "colour"

...and so on.

Of course, I'm an enthusiastic fan of your E8 theory, I'm 45 and it is what I hoped to see when I was 20 and I read about electroweak unification... Please continue to keep us prophanes informed! Thank you and good work!

report post as inappropriate

K. Willmore wrote on Apr. 15, 2008 @ 19:25 GMT
Dear Dr. Lisi

I am 85 years old and thought the following may encourage you to continue your excellent work. What the young W. Heisenberg had to do to get his Nobel prize and invent quantum mechanics was to make sense of thousands of numerical results found

experimentally. Without really knowing what he was doing, he told me he went on making patterns out of these numbers and invented rules to make them follow any system at all. Later on his Prof. Max Born discovered that his student Heisenberg had rediscovered an obscure part of mathematics called matrix multiplication which does not commute. You and your colleagues are not doing numerology when you are fitting the standard model into E8. You are doing basic and fundamental physics modeling. Those who say this is numerology do not understand either physics or mathematics, or in fact numerology which was an important part of the work of Backmeister Fuller.

With my best wishes to you, El Naschie, Lee Smolin and all free thinking and adventurous young men like you.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Apr. 23, 2008 @ 17:30 GMT
Hi Garrett,

Have you had an opportunity to read my book on “New Approaches Towards A Grand Unified Theory”?

Upon reading your theory again (and I still don’t understand everything!), I think I can better translate the bosonic component of your theory into my theory. As a Particle Physicist, I preferred to call my theory a GUT, because TOE is String Theory nomenclature, and I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

L.M. Cran wrote on May. 4, 2008 @ 17:26 GMT
If I understand Lisi’s work correctly, he does not develop an ad hoc model for the spacetime of particle physics nor put a model of particle physics into a spacetime of this or any other dimensionality. In other words, he does not proceed as in string theory or in loop quantum gravity. He also does not extend quantum field theory to become a quantum gravity field theory.

What Lisi does is take an already existing symmetry group and its corresponding Gosset, i.e. a four-dimensional polytope upon which the E8 manifold is based. Then he works carefully a one-to-one correspondence between the different points marked by eight-dimensional vectors called octonions and particles with the aim of recovering the standard model and making some prediction for extending it to conform at ultra high energy to the idea of unification, by showing that all the fields of all the different fundamental interactions could be obtained from the same E8 manifold. Professor Lee Smolin an open-minded guiding light in quantum gravity concluded that it is a neat way to seek the unification of all fundamental interactions in this basically non-conventional way.

Lisi’s work is therefore combinatoric in the spirit and quite near to that of Sir Roger Penrose’s program. Also not surprisingly it does not collide with the loop quantum gravity philosophy or with the basic ideas of Mohamed Elnaschie E-Infinity theory except for not admitting irrational numbers at a fundamental level. Seen in this light, Lisi’s theory is not restricted by mathematics used traditionally in this field which is an advantage.

I think people tend to forget that the founding fathers of quantum mechanics were appalled by Feynman’s path integral and string theory took even much longer to be accepted. All what I am saying is give Lisi a chance. I am not directing this toward the young researcher but I am addressing the establishment, particularly the strings community.

As for Lisi, my only advice is that he extend combinatoric as the factorial function was extended to gamma function and topological dimension was extended to non-integer Hausdorff dimension. This would be a revolution similar to Einstein bending spacetime and making it curved.

Dr. L. M. C.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 4, 2008 @ 22:18 GMT
I am a lay person, and I have read Brian Greene's book about string theory. String theory does not allow for the existance of singularities and quantum chaos. What implications does your "Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" have regarding singularities and quantum chaos.

report post as inappropriate

Sara wrote on May. 6, 2008 @ 18:38 GMT
Maybe I missed something, but I'm confused as to the relationship of this model with time. Maybe I'm being to simple here, but is there any way this model reflects the concept of infinty? The E8 design is a very defined shape that appears to have a definate beginning and end.

report post as inappropriate

Robert Fýsher wrote on May. 6, 2008 @ 19:18 GMT
Yes of course you have týme ýn Lýsý's E8. It ýs the same sýtuatýon as wýth Eýnsteýn. If Einsteýn's space týme ýs compact and closed, then ýt ýs lýke on a sphere. There ýs no begýnnýng and no end although ýt ýs closed and compact. The E8 you see ýs a projectýon of what ýs close and compact but has ýnfýnýte týme. There ýs no problem here at all. However Lýsý dýd not embed E8 ýn any spacetýme. But he can very easýly. Someone on thýs sýte poýnted out that embeddýng 248 ýnto the 26 bosonýc dýmensýons you get at the end 548 dýmensýons or 4 x 137. It ýs somewhere on thýs sýte. You wýll easýly fýnd Sara.

Dr. Robert Fýsher

report post as inappropriate

Robert Fisher wrote on May. 6, 2008 @ 19:34 GMT
Yes of course you have time ýn Lisi’s E8. It is the same situation as with Einstein. Ýf Einsteýn’s space time is compact and closed, then it is like on a sphere. There is no beginning and no end although it is closed and compact. The E8 you see is a projection of what is closed and compact but has infinite time. There is no problem here at all. However Lisi did not embed E8 in any spacetime. But he can very easily. Someone on this site pointed out that embedding 248 into the 26 bosonic dimensions you get at the end 548 dimensions or 4 x 137. Ýt is somewhere on this site. You will easily fýnd it Sara.

Dr. Robert Fisher

report post as inappropriate

D. Wong wrote on May. 13, 2008 @ 18:00 GMT
Sorry dear friend but the correct word is Gibov copies. I hope it is only a misprint. There are many similar maladies in the quantum theory of fields. All these problems can be solved by summing over all compact and non-compact harmonic exceptional two and three stein spaces. For an in-depth consideration of this and related problems, see Chaos, Solitons and Fractals in science direct. The paper is titled “The internal dynamics of the exceptional Lie symmetry groups hierarchy and the coupling constants of unification”. See also related papers by L. Crnjac, Ji-Huan He, Ayman Okaby as well as the various papers by Garrett Lisi and Lee Smolin.

D. Wong

report post as inappropriate

A. Mehra wrote on May. 14, 2008 @ 09:35 GMT
A mathematical derivation of the mass spectrum using essentially Lisi’s E8 theory extended to exceptional family has been given recently. The paper is in an Israeli journal published by Freund in Tel Aviv “International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation”. 9(3) pp. 307 – 208 (2008). The paper is called Montonen-Olive duality and the mass spectrum of elementary particles via E-Infinity.

A. Mehra

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Ray Munroe wrote on May. 22, 2008 @ 18:25 GMT
Dear Garrett,

I think I have worked out the similarities and differences between my ideas and your ideas, and the answer is E12 with a rank and effective dimension of 12 and an order of 684. Of course, several mathematicians just said “There’s no such thing”, and maybe someone can prove that my “E12” should be defined differently, but that’s what I used for my TOE.

Your ideas inspired me so much that I had to write a new Section, reference your work, and publish the Second Edition of my book “New Approaches Towards A Grand Unified Theory”. I published this book through, and free partial previews of “Section 7.7 – A Deceptively Simple E12 Theory of Everything” are available through Lulu. Lulu will have the 2nd edition – I’m not sure which edition (if any) the other online book retailers will have this month.

I didn’t need any ghost particles – I was able to fill all available particle states with my SU(11) boson GUT and Hyperflavor fermions. I concluded that a Supersymmetric Exceptional group MUST have fermion singlet representations, and that these fermions become the basis vectors for the adjunct Supersymmetric representation. A simple example is your G2 of color, with 2 basis vectors: g3 and g8; twelve roots: 6 gluons, and 6 up quarks/ anti-quarks; and a 2-dimensional fermion color singlet: electron/ positron. In the adjunct Supersymmetric representation, the 2 basis vectors are now: selectron/ anti-selectron; the twelve roots are: 6 gluinos, 6 up squarks/ anti-squarks; and the 2-dimensional singlet is gluino-3/ gluino-8. When we add a 4-dimensional fermion singlet to an F4 group, then our 24-plet of fermions with a 3-fold triality symmetry becomes a 28-plet of fermions with the 7-fold “septality” symmetry that is characteristic of Hyperflavor.

Table 19 is a symbolic E12 TOE. Unfortunately, Lulu’s preview software didn’t like Table 19, so I excluded it from the preview. Dr. Robert Fisher is correct that we need a Lagrangian, but I have exhausted this month’s inspiration…

Any new ideas from you?

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 29, 2008 @ 06:36 GMT
such a symmetry...

as it's "everything": there is no more left&right...

how we can more speaking about "symmetry"

is it a "point" symmetrical?



report post as inappropriate

Lou Abshire wrote on Jun. 18, 2008 @ 13:03 GMT

An article I've read describes E8 as encapsulating the symmetries of a 57-dimensional geometric object and is itself 248-dimensional.

Do these numbers in reality refer to the number of variables in this particualr Lie group and the geometry described by it? Discussing this with a friend, there remains some confusion about how these multiple 'dimensions' relate to the 4-dimensional world we're familiar with. Are these multiple dimensions merely characteristics of this particular mathematical tool used to describe our 4-dimensional world? In other words, are they real-world dimensions or merely the mathematical/geometrical structure of the E8 formalism?


Lou Abshire

Houston, Texas

report post as inappropriate

RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Aug. 2, 2008 @ 09:07 GMT
Some people seemed determined to supress different ideas.

But everybody should have their say whether scientist or layperson.

The snobbery that prevents Garretts own work from being published should not be repeated here.


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 14, 2008 @ 08:57 GMT
El Nacho es grande

report post as inappropriate

Mousami wrote on Sep. 23, 2008 @ 17:24 GMT
E8 theory really fantastic, The natural things like flowers and man made beautiful things are equated by this E8 everything theory


[url=]For Sale By Owner[/url]

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Kavita Rajanna wrote on Dec. 4, 2008 @ 21:59 GMT
Please note that off-topic posts will be deleted or moved. The discussion about Mohamed El Naschie that has taken over this forum, has been moved here: If you wish to post something further about El Naschie, please do so at this new topic page.


K Rajanna


this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 1, 2009 @ 23:31 GMT
does your theory predicts the existence of gravitons and the higgs bosson?

report post as inappropriate

Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Jan. 3, 2009 @ 06:30 GMT

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 5, 2009 @ 15:14 GMT
Dear 1/1/09 Anonymous,

Your question was an astute one, and worthy of more than a simple “yes” answer.

Lisi’s Table 9 on page 16 summarizes the 240 roots of E8. Most of these particles have an obvious meaning. Lisi dedicates 192 degrees of freedom to the three generations of Fermions. Certain relevant particles, such as the gravitational frame-Higgs, e-phi, and the generation-Higgs, x-phi, have an unclear meaning.

In his matrix equation on page 18, Lisi specifies his 8 basis vectors and thus completes the 248 “dimensions” of E8. These 8 basis vectors include mixtures of gluon 3, gluon 8, photon, Z, Pati-Salam B, a new generational boson associated with the w quantum number, and two graviton degrees of freedom (omega L and omega R).

In Section 3.1, Lisi decomposes the e-phi and x-phi terms. The implication is that the 16 degrees of freedom of e-phi yield the Standard Model Higgs plus some extra Higgs, and the 18 degrees of freedom of x-phi may yield either the CKM and PMNS matrices or something similar to the X and Y bosons of a Georgi-Glashow SU(5) GUT (similar in that these allow lepton-quark transitions, different in that they are generation dependent).

Dear Garrett,

“Yes” was a short-cut answer. I hope my answer is satisfactory. Please reply if I goofed.

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 7, 2009 @ 13:12 GMT
does your theory actually account for the direction of time?

if so how and how does it actually take into account the amount of space not = 1 and can it function on a level less than a plank length. fancy mathematics are cool but the string theorists have already proven that.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 14, 2009 @ 15:46 GMT
Dear 1/7/09 Anonymous,

By “direction of time” are you referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics or the Minkowski metric?

I don’t think that Lisi has developed E8 to the extent that he can answer your question. I think Lisi’s E8 has other weaknesses as well, but he has convinced me to consider the possibility of an Exceptional TOE despite my prior biases in favor of SU(N) or SO(N) GUT’s or TOE’s.

Is this a winner-take-all contest between E8 and String Theory, or could both contain a hint of truth? I’m working on a transfinite quasi-exceptional E12 because I think it is large enough to contain both E8 and a 12-dimensional String Theory.

Dear Garrett,

I need to get Exceptional TOE’s out of my system. I see other interesting projects on the horizon. Specifically, Leonard Malinowski’s upcoming paper in CS&F has renewed my interest in Dirac’s Large Numbers Hypothesis. Would you be interested in working together to develop E12?

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 15, 2009 @ 14:21 GMT
OK – Here goes my best shot at answering the Anonymous 1/07 question…

Lisi wrote down the Action S, not the Entropy S. It is simple enough to define Entropy. Following the methods of Claude Shannon, we could define S = (-k)*(Sum over i of (pi*ln(pi))) where pi is the occupation probability of the ith particle state.

The problem is deriving this from the first principles of an Exceptional TOE, but I think it can be done.

The first step is to determine the correct Exceptional TOE. E8 is nice, but E8, E10, E11, E12, E14, etc. all lead to different particle multiplets and branes. The correct gravity-brane and spinors (or twisters) will reproduce General Relativity (including Minkowski’s metric) and Dirac’s Large Number. Anything else is a waste of time.

The second step is to take the limit as this Exceptional TOE approaches E-infinity. I think this intersection is the key to the statistical nature of Thermodynamics (including Entropy) and the Path Integral formulation of Quantum Mechanics. I think that this is also the root of String Theory’s 10^500 parameters, the Planck scale, Einstein’s Hidden Variables, and Dirac’s Large Number – some of the greatest mysteries of Modern Physics. Please refer to the upcoming papers by Leonard Malinowki in CS&F for more details.

Lisi’s “Theory of Everything” is not intended to include “everything” at this point, but it (or a similar Exceptional TOE) certainly has the capacity to include such.

And I would like to restate that an Exceptional TOE is not necessarily opposed to String Theory. The correct Exceptional TOE should be able to reproduce parts of String Theory (if both the Exceptional TOE and String Theory are true, then the Correspondence Principle would demand this). The wrong Exceptional TOE will understand its deficiencies relative to String Theory and will, therefore, oppose String Theory.

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Kavita Rajanna wrote on Jan. 15, 2009 @ 21:21 GMT
Dear S. Marek,

Please note that we moved the El-Naschie discussion even though some comments were partially relevant to this thread, because it strayed completely away from FAQs for Lisi (or even discussion of his work) and grew too large to be contained on this thread.


K Rajanna

report post as inappropriate

Daniel wrote on Jan. 16, 2009 @ 20:27 GMT
thank you ray. (I was anonymous 1/07 )

Actually yes I was referring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A theory of everything will have to explain the 2nd law which quantum mechanics and relativity and string and e8 and loop quantum gravity etc. have not done as far as I can see. Its OK to include shannons mathematical model but insufficient to explain the 2nd law as a must.

also you forgot to include space not = 1. yes anything smaller than a plank length has been neatly looked past not explained

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 16, 2009 @ 21:44 GMT
Dear Daniel,

You are correct that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is extremely important, and it would be relevant to understand why the 2nd law is a must.

I did mention that the Planck scale is one of those myteries of modern physics (and I goofed Leonard Malinowski's name). Yes, maybe that isn't a very good answer.

I realize that the name "theory of everything" pompously implies that we actually understand "everything", and we clearly aren't there yet. But the physics community prefers to use TOE over GUT (Grand Unified Theory) when Gravity is included.

I still think that E-infinity should be important to both of these questions.

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

JK wrote on Jan. 22, 2009 @ 22:26 GMT
I still see a strong correlation between Quantum E8 theory and M-Theory.

report post as inappropriate

atomiton1 wrote on Jan. 25, 2009 @ 17:42 GMT
I can tell you right now that the human race is incompetant. I mean the very idea that matter is actually something is just stupid...Something being created from nothing. Thats the "smartest" thing i've ever heard from the scientific community. You think that atoms have positive and negative charges, and thats that. Well, heres a little question. Why? Mabe if you "scientists" would figure this out. I wouldn't have to tell you how the universe was created. Oh, and I can tell you right now. God didn't do it.

report post as inappropriate

atomiton1 wrote on Jan. 25, 2009 @ 18:35 GMT
Guess what, i'm feeling generous. I'll tell you the meaning of life, and how life is made. LIFE has no meaning. Life is just a continuous chemical, and phisical reaction put together like a computer, but instead of wires and metal. We consist of numerous reactants and catalisks that, because they are so unstable. Couldn't stop reacting and growing. Eventually adapting to its surroundings to enable it to keep growing. Moving, talking, and even thought itself are just bi-products of it.

report post as inappropriate

atomiton1 wrote on Jan. 25, 2009 @ 18:42 GMT
My lifes dream is to create androids capable of downloading our minds to. To chat my email is

report post as inappropriate

Len Malinowski wrote on Jan. 30, 2009 @ 08:53 GMT
I was 19 when I realized if I wanted to visualize quantum objects I could not mention it in Academic circles. I spent 18 years as a Chemist at Merck saving money and developing my ideas. I spent the past 3 years developing Fractal Physics. CS&F is about to publish a summary of some of my findings. I continue to have amazing success in every field of Physics that I apply Fractal Physics.

I am attaching my summary article. Please look at it and try to apply its ideas to you field of choice. You will be impressed with your progress.

attachments: CHAOS_6566.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Len Malinowski wrote on Jan. 30, 2009 @ 08:57 GMT
Sorry, the last post did not take.

This next attachment is the first of a series of 5 articles.



attachments: Scaling_Fractals__the_5th_Dimension.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 30, 2009 @ 13:32 GMT

Scientists like you, Garrett Lisi, Tevian Dray, and “Prof. E.” continue to inspire me. But I can’t find Malinowski LJ. Fractal Physics theory and scale relativity. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (2009), doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2009.01.002 on the internet yet. Good Luck!

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

Martin Klicken wrote on Mar. 4, 2009 @ 14:15 GMT
Dear Mr. Malinowski,

this may be not the right place, but I am very impressed by your papers and I want to ask you if I can work with you in my post-doctoral phase. I think your work is able to bring E-Infinity to the next step and together, we could work on the fractal aspects of E-Infinity+1 theory which will make predictions for all particles that may be found in the LHC or the VLHC (to take up duty autumn 2025). I was reading all your papers and publications and would be very happy if you would take my unhumble request to accept my admiration.

For any details of our future work, contact me, or better, check your email and your phone mailbox and get back to me.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Klicken

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 7, 2009 @ 17:58 GMT
Hi all ,

What a beautiful thread ,relevant ,...

Let's unify all centers of interest(Math,Phys,.....astronomy,.universe ,philosophy ) ,I think always about the spherization like foundamental ,the velocity ,the mass ,the space ,the time ,the codes ,the borders between the math world and the physic world .

I repeat ,the Universal limit are different than E infinity .

Dear Garret ,what do you think about an ultimate spheroidal coded particle with its numerous combinations,and the spherization in Time Space Universal future sphere

...small coded ultimate spheres with an intrinsic coded ,like a coded incompressible liquid .Let's imagine .

In all case many extrapolations are possible .

Thanks for your ideas dear all ,I m happy to see this kind of discussions

Kinds Regards


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 7, 2009 @ 18:51 GMT
Hi all ,

dear Garret ,I have seen your work on arxiv .I like a lot because it's in correlation with my spherization Theory ,always the balance between the walls (Math/Phys).

All systems are in correlation with the sphere ,the spheroid ,...the spherization is foundamental and that everywhere in all topics of interest .

The problem is this one ,the combinations before the ultimate spheric coded particles and its comportments in Time Space ,how many strenghts ,forces before the ultimate particle ?

I see now the fractal theory ,personnally ,its states are interesting to extrapolate ,but I see that as a a detail of the globality ,the Time too is important to encircle this theory, the fratal is a ,a part of evolution,the rapport between logarythmes is interesting to build some geometries .

Sorry all, but it's new for me Fractals and all these new theories ,

I am going to continue to make some links between these new datas and my theory .

Thanks all for your works and your minds .It completes my research about foundamental spherization and the perfect balance and harmony.

Kinds Regards


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 8, 2009 @ 13:33 GMT
Hi all ,

It' s a pleasure to read your ideas ,works and researchs.

Dear Mr Malinowski,

I read 1 h ago ,on your website,some articles ,

I understand better now the globality and relation between fractals ,strings,chaos...cosmology,quantum mechanics .

I like too the correlation cosmology,quantum dynamic and the method to improve some datas .

The relations between Universe and quantum physic reality is so important ,

personally the chaos is a instant, a specific phase where Time is short .

I think that the E.infinity is interesting in math to elaborate some extrapolations and applications on technology.The ration between ln will be always in mathematic infinity with these decimal improvments ,it's the same with many ratios and numbers ,pi,gold number ,Dirac Large Number.,and many others we see the infinity but I think on thing important ,if we insert the evolution and a building in correlation with spherization for me ,that's why one day the time could stop the mathematic infinity ,time is constant but there is a begining and thus an end in uour physical universe ,of course in correlation with spherization evolution ,that's why these numbers stop their infinity ,I agree this question is a little spiritual but ....could you explain me your point of vue about the evolution correlation and the Time as a constant builder .

For me Universe will be a perfect harmonious sphere and its incredible evolutive dynamics with limits between mathematic world and physic world .Our mass Universe increase ,our energy too ,but there is a paradox with energy ,but it's an other question.

About Time ,what do you think about a begining and an end of the physical dynamic ,it will stop the infinite relative mathematique in the physical reality .?

Let's take our global Earth system ,the chaos is an human invention and not a foundamental law ,some inventions like borders ,weapons,money,economy are dedicated to disapear in Time and Space ,I see the chaos like a short instant ,a kind of foto,all systems are balanced since the begining and always return quickly to a foundamental balance,it's there it's interesting ,the link between the two worlds ,the math/physic walls and its relations.

On Earth ,many systems can be chaotics and in dangerous exponentials,but the balance is foundamental and is easier to apply.

I see fractals in our biologic ecosystem like specific codes to build some structures ,like some plants ,ice , fact theirs applications are numerous indeed,thanks for that.

I think that the nature is fascinating ,so much polarized Time/Space particles and a beautiful diversity around us.Many structures are fascinatings in our ecology (AN/VEG)

Many applications exist to improve our life when we see the nature and its secrets .

Kinds Regards


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 8, 2009 @ 16:04 GMT
Hi ,

Dear Mr Malinowski ,

Just now I finished to read your last posts (february 2009),I like this article ,because there is the correlation always with a perfect balance in ultimate particles towards a physical universal spherization .

I like read all these articles and I am happy to see all these links with the foundamental spherization .

In some days via FQXi ,I have lean a lot ,it completes the Spherization Theory .

Let's see in globality ,Smal perfect spheric symetry and spheres and its numerous interactions before the ultimate particle is a specific comportment and different specific codes to a specific comportment ,the parameters in this local dynamic are relativist ,in one word,we must focus to a perceptible dynamic where we are catalysts in physical reality and motion .

In all case dear Mr Malinowski ,I like the different methods you use to calculate .The quantum gravity is so fascinating ,so much steps and states before this ultimate coded particle ,there is a wall there too ,an other link between the limits Math/Phys .

I think that if works and rational ideas focus on a spherization logic,many accelerations of improvement and of resolution ....

The quantum dimensions and cosmologic dimensiosn are linked ,I didn't know the Dirac 's Work about the large number and the ratio ,it's very interesting ,I think these results and hypothesis can help us to find our peceptible borders and these relative limits ,always the ultimate research of truth like your works Mr Malinowski about quantum gravity which I have read this day on your website.

What do you think ?


report post as inappropriate

Len Malinowski wrote on Mar. 10, 2009 @ 06:01 GMT
I am greatful that scientists are starting to think about infinity and time and that my ideas seen usefull. I have always believed there can not be limits to size, smale or large. The universe must exist everywhere and all the time. All scientists are taught that they can not visualize the happenings inside the atom, nor can we visualize the other side of the Big Bang. Science is like a train, with everyone inside not ever allowed to open the windows and look out. You can't see out the window. So I got off the train, and walked the tracks for 23 years.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 10, 2009 @ 13:10 GMT
Dear Mr Malinowski ,

Thanks to answer me and nice to meet you .

You say a important thing,

You can't see out the window.I agree with this idea ,some secrets shall stay .Our limits always and our rules of catalysts .

You say

"I have always believed there can not be limits to size, smale or large. The universe must exist everywhere and all the time."

Yes indeed ,if we take the univesal link between math/phys world .

You say "All scientists are taught that they can not visualize the happenings inside the atom, nor can we visualize the other side of the Big Bang."

Yes of course ,the relative responsability in fact ,these limits are unknew and it's well as that .

We are all in the train ,and in relative perception ,it's a fantastic evolution towards the knowledges and its perfect harmony.

Kinds Regards


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 21, 2009 @ 10:26 GMT
Dear Mr Malinowski ,

I d like speak a little about the walls and our limits .

In spherization ,I think that it exists a specific spheres fractal in each particle and their spherical fractal fields and interactions ,implying many comportments.

Let's imagine our Universal Sphere and its volume at this moment ,and its dynamic of evolution(expansion/contraction) .


view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Stillman wrote on Mar. 27, 2009 @ 22:24 GMT
As far as you know, has any one else stumbled across your idea, and if not, why do you believe you are the first one to do so?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 28, 2009 @ 09:14 GMT
Hello dear Jason ,

Could you develop your message I don't understand all .




report post as inappropriate

Steven Kayser wrote on May. 15, 2009 @ 19:54 GMT
Is this thread still active?

report post as inappropriate

GF wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 10:31 GMT
(please delete above post because the brackets used to represent Mean for Mass do not show up and the whole post makes no sense sorry)


mean Mass = sum U(SampleSpace) divided by DegreesOfFreedom

( ex. dodecahedron .... meanM=U/DOF


meanM=7 )



( ex. dodecahedron .... 91/13=(13+1)/2


7=7 )

Works for ANY length of string or ANY size of sphere


(props to whoever defined "sample space" - that quality haunted me for years until I came across it at Wikipedia)

report post as inappropriate

GF wrote on Oct. 4, 2009 @ 04:34 GMT
I may sound condesending or arrogant ... but unfortunately people capable of grasping these things are in the minority. Add in the fact that most physicists let ego rule their logic and you will understand that I face an uphill battle.

Quantum physics is an illusion. It exists in the 5th dimension called "ether" or "spirit" or "thought" or "the existential" etc. etc. I may even go as far as...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

re castel wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 12:13 GMT

I am not adept at these very advanced maths - blame my aberrant schooling. I envy your skill in the advanced maths.

Now, I understand the idea of a "principal bundle" in terms of kinematic constructs, with each particle field represented by a resolved tensor vector, and thus the bundle would be a group of particle fields (with each field represented by a resolved tensor vector). And my understanding is that a "group dance" corresponds to the interactions of all the particle field tensors in the group. My understanding is that our knowledge of the particle field tensors that have already been 'measured' allows the prediction of the existence of unknown particles on account of the force/vector discrepancies in a given group.

My question is:

Do you see a hierarchy of the particle field tensors in terms of what pf tensors initiate the twists and what pf tensors dominate a given group? Or, do you arbitrarily assign what pf tensor initiates a twist?

To give you a little background of where I come from - I have been working on my version of the theory of kinematic relativity. And I believe I am thus far still just scratching at the surface of the theory of kinematic relativity. My theory of kinematic relativity describes motion transformations within a 3-d space 'dimension' and absolute duration transformation along a 1-d time 'dimension'. I use the idea of a kinematic continuum as the matrix of the physical transformations (i.e., the obervable phenomena), which is why I have the idea of kinematic (i.e., kinetic or motion) constructs examined using a pure 'vectorial analysis' approach instead of the prevalent (mixed-up) 'dimensional analysis' approach.

Both my logical language and my mathematical language can be considered unconventional. But I hope you won't mind so much.

Kind regards...

report post as inappropriate

alejandro wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 15:10 GMT
GF, your formula works for any N. The (25,1) dimension has a very nice formula which works only for n=25-1. Sum the squares from 1 to 24. You will get an square.

report post as inappropriate

GF wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 04:26 GMT
Ya, I know my equation works for any N(dimensions). I know because I tested it to the first 300 numbers so I know its empirical!!! -I considered using the letter N for Degrees of Freedom since that implies the number of N but I was more specific and chose Degrees of Freedom (DOF). I could have used Cells but cells can be different sizes inside a shape so DOF was more appropriate.

I hope people see my equation is empirical.

I said my equation (String/Sphere Law) works FOR ANY SIZE string OR sphere so on that alone is what gets me so excited yet frustrated that in a couple weeks so far noone has realized it. Although I havent really showed this to any scholistic authorities yet.

report post as inappropriate

GF wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 23:22 GMT
yes I know I spelled scholastic wrong :P

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Dec. 28, 2009 @ 23:44 GMT

Could the very nice structure of the E8 have a possible geometric connection with the sub-structure of the universe? Could logic be the pre-geometric precursor to such a structure i.e. could a simple rule of logic create in an explosive process this E8 structure as a sort of fractal?

( I am thinking about the basic quantum of time evolution, a small explosion with an actual structure that translates into specific sizes, shapes and masses from sub-atomic particles to crystallographic systems…)



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.