CATEGORY:
Blog
[back]
TOPIC:
An Exceptionally Simple Personal FAQ
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Blogger Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 04:34 GMT
Over the past month I have been asked many questions about
my personal history and opinions on life, the universe, and everything. I have also received many emails of encouragement from the general public, which have been wonderful and completely overwhelming. This blog comment thread will collect my responses to questions about my history and opinions, in chronological order. If you would like to offer your own opinions, encouragement, or discouragement, feel free.
There is a separate,
Exceptionally Simple FAQ that has descriptions of E8 Theory suitable for the interested reader.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Blogger Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 04:37 GMT
--You're listed at FQXi as being affiliated with something called "Fractured Atlas," and your CV says that you've been doing independent research since 1999. How do you manage to make a living as a physicist without being associated with some sort of academic institution? Was that a personal choice on your part to provide greater independence for your work, or is there some other story there? Has...
view entire post
--You're listed at FQXi as being affiliated with something called "Fractured Atlas," and your CV says that you've been doing independent research since 1999. How do you manage to make a living as a physicist without being associated with some sort of academic institution? Was that a personal choice on your part to provide greater independence for your work, or is there some other story there? Has it worked out the way you hoped it would?
When I got my PhD in 1999 I had some tough decisions to make. My three loves in mathematics and physics have always been differential geometry, general relativity, and quantum field theory. At that time, the only positions available related to those interests were in string theory. I did study strings a bit... but I just couldn't drink the cool-aide. There were too many experimentally unjustified assumptions, and it seemed unlikely to me that the universe worked that way. So I had to choose whether to leave physics and make some money, stay in physics and work on something outside my interests, or work on the physics I wanted while squeezing by with odd jobs on a low budget. I loved physics more than anything, so I chose that last path, which has been difficult; very rewarding, but difficult. It's hard to figure out the secrets of the universe when you're trying to figure out where you and your girlfriend are going to sleep next month. But I think I made the right choice -- it's worked out even better than I'd hoped.
I've worked quite a few odd jobs over the years. I either choose short engagements that require a lot of brain power and pay well, or jobs that consist of playing outside and pay terribly, so my mind is free to think. I also invested my graduate student stipend in Apple stock, which mostly went up.
I've never stopped working on physics -- it's what I love and what I spend almost all my time doing. When FQXi announced their request for proposals, I felt as if someone had heard I needed a hand, and extended it. It's wonderful that FQXi exists -- I am very grateful. There was a stretch of time, just as FQXi was taking proposals, that I was in a tight spot; I was damn near broke, but my physics research was going well. At the time, I was also lecturing a physics class at the local college on Maui. This college offered me a full time, tenure track teaching position. It was very tempting, and would have paid well and set me up in Maui for life, but it would have left me no time at all for research. I had to turn it down. That was a hell of a gamble, but it paid off. I love teaching, but I couldn't give up my research, and thanks to FQXi I didn't have to. If it weren't for that chance I had at getting an FQXi grant... I probably would have taken the teaching post, and I wouldn't have had the chance to discover this cool E8 connection.
Fractured Atlas is a 501(c)3 corporation that accepts and manages grants and charitable donations for artists. They charge a modest overhead fee of 6%, which conforms to FQXi's request that the overhead be kept to a minimum. Of course, Fractured Atlas doesn't actually put anything over my head, but that's OK, I manage.
--I understand that you like to surf and snowboard, you're into Burning Man, and you can quote Douglas Adams at will, which makes you a pretty cool guy in my book. How is it possible to be a successful physicist and still be cool?
Ha! Well, you know, I live in a state of constant internal struggle.
More seriously, I think it's important to find balance in life. I spend a hell of a lot of time sitting at home working, then go out in the world every other day and try to have as much fun as I can for a few hours. I also really enjoy living and playing in beautiful places.
--You're using a wiki as part of your research, which I'm not sure I've ever heard of a scientist doing before. Are you the first that you know of? What are the benefits for you? Are there dangers inherent in putting your thinking out there for everyone to see before you've published or anything like that? Do you think more scientists should work that way?
I think scientists should try everything. Technology is constantly improving because people use it and see where and how they can push the envelope. I'm using a personal wiki for my research and it's working exactly as I'd hoped. If I research an area, or gather useful information, it's all linked up on the wiki where I know how to find it in seconds. My memory is terrible, so it really helps to be able to go back and quickly relearn material prepared by a teacher who understands me -- and who usually uses the same notation and sign conventions. The wiki is my augmented brain. It makes for a fantastic and very natural research notebook, because the same associations in my head between different topics are there as links in the wiki.
I did put it online, because I believe in open source and the creative commons. I didn't think it would get many visitors, but it's getting surprisingly many hits per day. I guess more people are interested in equations than I thought. There is the slight possibility that others will take ideas in development and publish them as their own before I do, but I have something protecting me: my ideas are weird! If someone else comes along tomorrow and says they're putting ALL fields in an E8 connection, the people I care about will know that was my idea, even though I haven't published this in a paper yet. Also, it's hard enough to actively GIVE your physics ideas away and get them used by others -- so if someone tries to steal my ideas, that's great, I'll try to make them a colleague.
There have been many people who have kept hyper-linked notebooks for themselves online. And there are groups who use wikis for collaborative research. But I don't know any other theoretical physicists who have a personal, online research wiki they're using extensively. I think it will catch on though.
--What's with the A?
I didn't want people to get me confused with THE Garrett Lisi. No, actually, it was my parents' idea. They named me after my Italian great-uncle, Antony. (My heritage is Italian and English, which makes me very passionate, but I suppress it.) They always called me by my middle name of Garrett, after the USC football player, Mike Garrett. (It's ironic that I've always hated football -- sorry, Dad.) It is kind of a pain to go by my middle name, but it's also useful: when people call on the phone and ask for Antony, I get to hang up on them, because I know they're trying to sell me something.
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Blogger Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 04:50 GMT
--You have some exciting ideas about the E8 structure that we might be able to cover?
Well, what I'm actually working on is unification. Structurally, the Standard Model describing all known particles is kind of a mess. The unification problem is to make sense of it -- to describe where this odd assortment of electrons, quarks, etc. comes from. What I've managed to do is describe all these particles, including gravity, as parts of a single field, with a single gauge group. And, just two months ago, I discovered that this gauge group is E8, perhaps the most beautiful structure in mathematics.
I haven't had time to write this up as a paper yet (working on that now). But I presented at the Loops '07 conference last month (the annual conference in Loop Quantum Gravity) and at the FQXi conference. The work captured the attention of John Baez, who discussed my work in a recent This Week's Finds. I've also been invited out to visit the Perimeter Institute next month (by Lee Smolin and Sabine Hossenfelder). All the attention is a bit much for me, as I'm kind of a hermit. But it's been great to meet so many other physicists.
You see, I left academia ten years ago because I wanted to do theoretical physics but I didn't think string theory was how nature worked -- and it was the only game in town at the time. So I've been working on the puzzle on my own, and it looks like I may have just struck gold.
report post as inappropriate
Blogger Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 04:55 GMT
--When and why did you begin looking into this issue in general, and at E8 in particular?
For the past ten years I've been playing with the equations of general relativity and the standard model, investigating their structural symmetry. About two years ago, I managed to get everything together in a nice, unified mathematical description called a principal bundle. But it wasn't perfect, and there was a really weird pattern in the interactions between fields. Just three months ago, while trying to figure out what the heck this pattern was, I discovered it was a symmetry of the most beautiful group there is: E8. I had been working with the first kind of mathematical symmetry, and it led me to the second. When this happened, the moment I realized how it all could work... my brain exploded with the implications, and the beauty of the thing. I stood up and walked around with my brain tingling. I think that was the happiest I've ever been with my clothes on.
report post as inappropriate
Blogger Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 05:41 GMT
--Why describe E8 as beautiful?
The austere beauty of geometry has been appreciated for eons -- Plato's geometric forms, its appearance in art... and it's all around us in nature. Geometry also plays the central role in many branches of mathematics. The field in which this is most fully developed is in group theory. All the beautiful geometric shapes we know of -- in two, three, and higher...
view entire post
--Why describe E8 as beautiful?
The austere beauty of geometry has been appreciated for eons -- Plato's geometric forms, its appearance in art... and it's all around us in nature. Geometry also plays the central role in many branches of mathematics. The field in which this is most fully developed is in group theory. All the beautiful geometric shapes we know of -- in two, three, and higher dimensions -- all play a role in the representation of various groups. And among the continuous groups (Lie groups) the exceptional groups stand out from the others, with E8 as the pinnacle. It contains all of the other exceptional groups within its structure. This Lie group, E8, is beautiful not only because it contains aesthetically appealing patterns, but because it has deep theoretical connections intertwining through almost all other branches of mathematics. It is both superficially and deeply beautiful, and I will find it very satisfying if this the the geometric structure at the heart of our universe.
--Was its selection motivated in part by mathematical aesthetics?
Yes.
--Can you make predictions that could be tested using this approach?
That is the goal. Right now this theory is still developing. It is sufficiently promising and successful, as a developing theory, that I thought I'd share it rather than continuing to work on it alone. At this point, there are predictions of new particles that come out, but these are tentative predictions and I expect these to change as the theory develops over the coming year. The interesting thing here is that this is an "all or nothing" theory -- it will either continue to be successful as we learn more about it, and make many successful predictions, or it will be spectacularly wrong.
--What do you plan to do in the coming year or two before the LHC starts producing useful data?
What I usually do: play with equations, snowboard, surf, and talk with people occasionally. I've carried out most of my work for the past ten years in isolation, but this E8 Theory has gotten a great deal of attention -- first from the scientific community and now from the press -- so now I'm going to adapt to working on this with others a bit.
--Does this generate - or could it generate - the seemingly arbitrary constants of the universe, including he mass and charge of particles?
Yes. It is a long shot, but all the pieces are in place for these numbers to come out of the theory. The numbers that come out will either agree with our universe, or the theory is wrong. If it's wrong, back to the digital drawing board for me -- but that's science.
--Why is this field called deferential geometry?
Ha! It's not a field, it's a name I made up to describe this general approach. In my opinion, differential geometry is the most beautiful and central field of mathematics -- it deals with the geometry of smooth surfaces in many dimensions. Much of this mathematics applies to physics, the best description we have of our universe. I'm trying to find the parts of this mathematics that describes our universe -- the deferential geometry. I'm afraid it's a pun.
--When did the penny drop that this approach could have such potential?
I've been building this theory up for the past decade, working steadily from the base of General Relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics, as described by Quantum Field Theory. A couple of years ago I had assembled all the pieces into the most coherent structure I could, but this arrangement of pieces was unfamiliar. Then, about six months ago, I was reading an article by John Baez (a brilliant mathematician, polymath, and great guy) and realized in an instant that this structure I had assembled, containing all the known fields of physics, was this exceptional Lie group, E8.
--You mention that the Higgs multiplet popped out - was that the moment and how could I describe the Higgs multiplet?
Yes, I was very excited when the Higgs fit into the theory about three years ago. The Higgs multiplet is a collection of fields (synonymous with particles) that interact with many other particles we know of and give them mass. There is currently only indirect evidence for its existence, but this is fairly compelling. One of the largest motivations for building the LHC is to get a direct measurement of the Higgs.
--How did you break the news to colleagues and friends?
Since I'm not in academia, I only publish papers when I think I've found something cool. Otherwise, I spend my time working on physics on my own. And I don't approach people to tell them about my physics ideas, as I would consider that rude. But a wonderful new organization was created, FQXi, and they put out a request for proposals for foundational theories in physics. I submitted mine, and won a grant, for which I am very grateful -- as otherwise I might have had to get a job. With a little grant money, I was able to go to a conference and present my ideas to physicists in the Loop Quantum Gravity community. That was in June. Almost immediately, I was invited to give further talks, and people started paying me to visit and talk with them. Then, last week I posted the paper to the arxiv, and the response has been phenomenal.
--You describe venturing into the realm of theories of everything as academic suicide - what made you take the risk?
It's what I wanted to work on. We're here for such a short time, you have to decide very carefully what you do with your life. It's too easy to get wrapped up in pursuing goals that are ultimately unsatisfying. I've always been driven to figure out how the universe works, so that's what I've dedicated my time to. I thought string theory was probably on the wrong track, and ten years ago those were the only opportunities in foundational theory, so I decided to work on my own instead. It's been a hard path, and I can't recommend it, but it's worked out. I've spent my time the way I wanted to.
--Have you benefitted from not being part of a university with all the demands on time that can bring?
Yes. No committees, no tenure review, no deadlines, no stress... I've designed my life so I have large swaths of time to work on physics, with no interruptions except for playing outside every other day. I do love teaching, so I do miss that aspect, as well as interacting in person with physics friends. But for the most part, my life has been the way I want it. Of course, I wouldn't turn down a university post if it were near good surf or a good mountain. :)
--How would it effect you if E8 turns out to be a blind alley?
Over the past ten years, I've completely tossed out the theory I was working on three times, and started over. This E8 Theory feels right, and I think it will go well, but if not, I toss it out and look somewhere else. It's useless to argue with nature.
It's unhealthy to be too attached to a particular theory. I try to make the rest of my life good enough that even if the physics I work on isn't successful, I will have had a good life.
--Why are so many people compelled by the prospect of a "theory of everything"?
Well, it would be kind of nice if it all made sense, mathematically anyway. Life is filled with such uncertainty, and then you're dead. It's nice to think that there's a bigger picture, that's beautiful, and that we're all a part of it. And, of course, it's a fantastic puzzle.
--And I appreciate your computer being called Eddie - how much Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy comments have you got so far?
A lot more than 42.
I feel like I should apologize to normal people that this E8 Theory is so complicated, despite being exceptionally simple as these things go. But, you know, I just live here. Complain to the management.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Blogger Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 05:50 GMT
--Some are a little similar to topics you discussed in the New Scientist article, I'm asking them because I feel better about information that comes directly from you than information from a secondary source that I might misinterpret.
Yes, I agree. It's been fascinating (and a little disturbing) to watch inaccuracies sneak in, and then propagate and grow as the next journalist picks them up...
view entire post
--Some are a little similar to topics you discussed in the New Scientist article, I'm asking them because I feel better about information that comes directly from you than information from a secondary source that I might misinterpret.
Yes, I agree. It's been fascinating (and a little disturbing) to watch inaccuracies sneak in, and then propagate and grow as the next journalist picks them up and amplifies them. Thanks for asking me directly.
--I just noticed you did your grad work at UCSD--I did too!
The years I spent as a grad student at UCSD were some of the happiest of my life, but I was a theorist and got to go outside.
--Can you tell me about your professional background (besides what I just mentioned)?
After my PhD, I wanted to keep working on ideas I had in QFT, GR, and differential geometry. But it seemed like the only postdoc options available back then in those combined areas were in string theory, and I thought string theory was overly speculative. There are many really impressive aspects of strings — anomaly cancelation in particular — but there are other things that just seem wild and physically unsubstantiated. I had gotten lucky by investing my graduate stipend in a company many thought was going out of business (AAPL), so I decided to go to Maui, learn to windsurf, and work on physics on my own. I supported myself with short scientific consulting engagements, and part-time work that involve playing outside -- like being a hiking guide and a snowboard instructor. The whole time, I never stopped working on physics. I've lived on a grad student budget my whole life, so I didn't need to work much, and could devote my time to physics research.
--Why don't you work at a university?
Part of it is the temporal overhead. I need long stretches of uninterrupted time to think and work on physics. I do love teaching, and taught physics a bit at the college on Maui, but it takes a lot of time. On my own, I can spend a week straight doing nothing but working on physics, with no committees or seminars or classes or any interruptions at all. Also, I get to live where I want to -- there aren't many universities in beautiful places with outdoor sports. I'm very spoiled that way. But, all that said, if a good university post in a nice location opened up, I might take it, because I miss the culture and friendships one develops. Because of the unusual path I chose after grad school, academia was no longer an option. That may change... we'll see.
--I noticed your email on the arXiv is at hawaii.edu. Do you maintain an association with them? Do you attend physics colloquia and meetings and such?
No, I only taught there for a year or two, and they let me keep the email address.
--How much time do you spend on physics?
It varies. I can spend a week straight obsessing over a new idea, or have a week where I only read the arxiv and woolgather. Usually I keep a balance every day between physics, playing outside (surfing, snowboarding, biking,...), keeping my girlfriend happy, and talking with people over the net.
--What's your day job?
This is my day job.
--Do you think it's harder for "outsiders" to get attention for their ideas?
Yes, of course. The only circumstance in which it is appropriate to personally present scientists with new ideas, cold, is at a conference. Or, of course, if someone asks. I think it's rude to put your ideas in front of someone unless it's invited.
--How did you get physicists to read your work?
Every couple years, if I think I've found something very interesting, I post a paper to the arxiv. Usually, I'll get a handful of responses, often from people who already know me through my work.
You can't get a physicist to read anything, you can only put it out there and hope someone takes an interest.
Three years ago, I put out a detailed paper that laid out almost all the structure that's in this new E8 Theory, but I hadn't yet realized I was describing E8. I thought it was great, but the paper didn't get much of a response. But it did get one: James Bjorken wrote me out of the blue to tell me how much he liked it. To get fan mail from such a great physicist was extremely encouraging for me. Especially while I was working in isolation.
With my last paper, there's too much media attention. Physicists might not read it seriously because it's over-hyped.
--Do the academics treat you differently then they treat each other?
No. Academics are very democratic, and used to eccentric personalities.
Essentially, I'm a freelance academic.
--Is your paper in press, or have you submitted it to a journal?
I'm considering it. But I think peer review has a lot of problems. I think a better journal system would involve physicists aggregating papers they think are good, instead of being induced to judge whether a paper should be kept out.
--Do you think "outsiders" bring something to the table that academics might not?
Outsiders are non-renormalized. A typical professor is awash in the social background provided by colleagues. This is very powerful, because it allows her to get instant summaries and clarifications of existing topics and new ideas. Also, professors bounce their new ideas off of colleagues, and really wild ideas return a list of reasons why they won't work. That saves huge amounts of time. But what if one of those wild ideas would have worked? A professor would be immediately discouraged from working on it by their peers, but an outsider doesn't have any peers to renormalize them. Usually, this leaves outsiders lost amid their misconceptions, but it's possible one might be careful and lucky.
And outsiders bring amusement. Believe me, in the past week I've gotten more crazy email than anyone.
I'm a very conservative physicist. Working on my own, the only way I've been able to make progress is by being extremely cautious in my adoption of unusual hypotheses. Otherwise my theories would crumble over shaky ground. This isn't to say they can't be wrong -- they can -- but since I know I'm not renormalized, I don't risk building on unsupported ideas. I take what we know, and see if I can fit it together in unusual ways to find out something new.
--Can you tell me about your grant from Foundational Questions?
Two years ago, the FQXi foundation started up and sent out their RFP. At the same time, the college on Maui, where I had been teaching a physics class, offered me a full-time, tenure track teaching position. This was a very nice offer, but I knew if I took it I’d have no time for my physics research. It was a very difficult choice, but I turned it down. I gambled on FQXi. I packed up the best physics I had done over the previous eight years, and sent it off as a grant proposal. And I got it. It's wonderful. I wouldn't of had the research time to find this E8 Theory without their support. They sent me a big check, and flew me to Reykjavik to hang out with many great people. Also, with this support, I felt the timing was right (and that I was somewhat obligated) to talk with others about my work.
--What drives you to work on these ideas?
We're here for such a short time, you have to decide very carefully what you do with your life. It's too easy to get wrapped up in pursuing goals that are ultimately unsatisfying. I want to figure out how the universe works, so that's what I dedicate my time to. The universe seems to be described by some very beautiful mathematics. And the more I learn, the more beautiful it is. It draws me in.
--How long did it take you to develop your theory?
I've been building it up (and down) for the past ten years or so. What I'm working on is very hard, since I'm going after the whole picture at once. I've been trying to continue the traditional unification program by extending it as far as it will go in new directions, and seeing if the whole puzzle fits together. When the pieces I've assembled don't fit, I wipe them off the board and start over. I've had to do this a few times -- the hardest was with Kaluza-Klein theory, which I really like. But this E8 Theory is looking better than anything I've ever seen. It's still in development, and parts of the theory will change, but the whole picture is looking very good.
--Will it be possible to experimentally test your theory?
This is an all or nothing kind of theory. It's either going to be very right, and make many successful new predictions, or it's spectacularly wrong. However, it's not currently sufficiently far along that I feel confident in making predictions from it right now.
There are lots of new things that might turn up in accelerators and prove this E8 Theory wrong. This theory doesn't have superparticles, extra-dimensions, or a lot of other exotics. It's a pretty tight fit to the standard model, with only a handful of new particles possible -- most of which are scalar fields. Also, the theory requires a positive cosmological constant. So there are many experimental results that could prove it wrong.
That's not as good as making solid predictions out to several decimal places, but it is certainly possible in principle to experimentally demonstrate that this theory is wrong. I'll be working on developing the theory more and trying to get solid predictions.
Until it makes good predictions, the theory should be treated with appropriate skepticism. Since it might be wrong.
Also, I don't consider this to be just my theory. I'm trying to continue the unification program, worked on by many others. I just hope I'm advancing it a little further.
--Do you know of other outsider physicists?
Yes, I'm democratic in who I talk with. If I like someone's ideas, and the way they think, I try to stay in touch with them, regardless of their academic status. I end up talking mostly with academics, because they're interested in the same things I am, but with some exceptionally bright outsiders as well.
--Do you think you could do more, or would have developed your theory faster, if you were a full-time physicist?
I am a full time physicist. But I'm not sitting on any committees, or teaching any classes, or sleeping through seminars, or filling out any paperwork. You do the math. :) I'm usually either thinking about physics, playing outside, or hanging out on the net.
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Blogger Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 05:58 GMT
--1. Are you funded for what you do in theoritical physics? If yes by who ? Since when ? What is your current job ?
I received my PhD ten years ago, and left academia to work on my own physics ideas while surfing in Maui. I worked for money as little as I had to, devoting most of my time to equations and enjoying the outdoors. Then, one year ago, I applied for a grant from a new, privately...
view entire post
--1. Are you funded for what you do in theoritical physics? If yes by who ? Since when ? What is your current job ?
I received my PhD ten years ago, and left academia to work on my own physics ideas while surfing in Maui. I worked for money as little as I had to, devoting most of my time to equations and enjoying the outdoors. Then, one year ago, I applied for a grant from a new, privately funded research institute named FQXi, and I got it. Now I have enough funding to live, work on physics, and buy a couple of new boards. Without FQXi's support, I wouldn't have had as much time to devote to physics and might not have been able to find this new E8 Theory.
--2. How long does it take to produce these 31 pages ?
I've been working on this theory for about ten years. But it hasn't been steady progress. I tried building many other theories that didn't work out, and kept having to tear them down and start over. It is futile to argue with nature, if she says your theory is wrong. This E8 Theory is mathematically and aesthetically beautiful, and so far it seems to agree with the physics we know. But it is a new theory, and not completely understood yet, and, of course, it may turn out to be wrong.
--3. Did you get the "official" and public support of some "academic" physicists ? Did you receive some non public and discrete encouragements from others ?
Yes, because of FQXi's support, I felt I should talk about the work I had created. When I presented it at physics conferences, many academic physicists were immediately impressed by the theory as a whole. Even though I was an outsider, they liked the ideas. This favorable impression grew in the physics community. And when I published the paper, there was an amazing amount of interest and public attention. It has been overwhelming. There is also skepticism and some criticism, but this is necessary and healthy for any new theory. The mathematics is complicated, and it will take weeks for the best physicists to fully work through it. I know the math is right so far, but only more work and then experiment will determine whether this theory agrees with nature.
--4. How many new particles are predicted in your theory? Some critics say that you do not predict their mass, why ? Is there a possibility to "improve" your theory to make such predictions?
In the current state of the theory, there are twenty new particles predicted. Because the theory is not fully developed, this may change. It is very unusual, because this theory is "all or nothing." Either many predictions will come out all at once and agree with nature, or the theory will be wrong. There is no room to fiddle with parameters, or fancy extra structure. Right now it looks good, but there are still things to figure out. I and others will work on improving the theory, and predictions will come.
--5. Would you accept a position in a university?
Only if it's by a very nice mountain for snowboarding.
--Why didn't you make a classic academic career in a lab?
I wanted to live somewhere beautiful, where I could surf or snowboard and work on my own physics, with no other responsibilities. I am a contemplative hedonist -- I want the deep pleasures in life. And that means not spending too much time in a lab, but finding balance between thinking and playing.
--thanks a lot for your answers.
Certainly, thank you for your interest. Also, please do include my sentiment that this theory is still being developed, and it is appropriate to be skeptical.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Blogger Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 06:05 GMT
Cosmic Variance readers like the straight, inside story; so this seems a good opportunity to tell mine. Ten years ago, I got my PhD and looked at my options. I love differential geometry, general relativity, and particle physics. But the only options available then for a postdoc in those combined areas were in string theory, and I thought string theory was overly speculative. There are many really...
view entire post
Cosmic Variance readers like the straight, inside story; so this seems a good opportunity to tell mine. Ten years ago, I got my PhD and looked at my options. I love differential geometry, general relativity, and particle physics. But the only options available then for a postdoc in those combined areas were in string theory, and I thought string theory was overly speculative. There are many really impressive aspects of strings — anomaly cancelation in particular — but there are other things that just seem wild and physically unsubstantiated. I had gotten lucky by investing my graduate stipend in a little company many thought was going out of business (AAPL), so I decided to go to Maui, learn to windsurf, and work on physics on my own. I was pretty happy that way, spending most of my time on physics, and posting a paper on the arxiv only if I thought I’d discovered something interesting. But even though I spend money like a grad student, after several years I was broke, and things were looking grim.
Then, two years ago, the FQXi foundation started up and sent out their RFP. At the same time, the college on Maui, where I had been teaching a physics class, offered me a full-time, tenure track teaching position. This was a very nice offer, but I knew if I took it I’d have no time for my physics research. It was a very difficult choice, but I turned it down. I gambled on FQXi. I packed up the best physics I had done over the previous eight years, and sent it off as a grant proposal. And I got it. With this support, I felt the timing was right (and that I was somewhat obligated) to talk with others about my work. I flew down to the LQG conference in Morelia and presented a twenty minute talk. The LQG community is fantastic — their research is branching out in all directions to solve quantum gravity, and they’re all really nice people. Once they saw what I had been up to, Sabine and Lee invited me to visit Perimeter — which I accepted, of course, as this had been a daydream of mine since the institute was founded.
A month later, I was in Iceland at the FQXi conference, eating the best lobster I’ve ever had, across the table from Mark (Hi Mark!) and the science editor for New Scientist. During this dinner, she must have made note of me, because two months later there was an email from a reporter asking for an interview.
I was in the middle of writing up the paper when I visited PI, a fantastic nerd heaven. I talked with people there about this new E8 theory, and it went very well. I returned to Tahoe, where I’m living in a friend’s house, and finished the paper. I also exchanged twenty detailed emails with the reporter, which ended up as… well, it’s not a terrible article, and some of my conservative statements did filter in. I posted the paper to the arxiv, Sabine made an excellent and reasonable review, and the New Scientist published their article. Apparently, this was the beginning of the perfect media storm. The story spread, fast. I attempted to write accurate responses to the growing queue of inquiries from newspaper reporters. And I got a phone call from a friend who runs an ISP and hosts my web pages: “Umm, Garrett, I have the internet bandwidth of the gods, but you’re simultaneously on the front page of Digg, Reddit, and Slashdot… and you just capped it out.” It was right around then that my inbox exploded.
I am answering reporters’ questions, and trying to make it clear that I do think I’ve come up with an exciting and beautiful new theory, but that it’s grounded in a long history involving the work of many others, and that as with any new theory, it may turn out to be wrong. I’ve spent much more time answering questions on blogs, because I want other physicists to understand the content of the paper, which is mathematically sound but presents many new ideas at once. I’ve refused several requests for brief television and radio interviews, because I think they would only serve the media and amplify the spectacle, instead of increasing interest in physics and how physicists think about the world. At the same time, other aspects of the media frenzy have been very cool (Hey, I’m going to be featured in Surfer magazine!) and completely overwhelming.
The media attention will blow over. While I’m in the spotlight, I’ll try to present a message that’s good for physics. It’s not my intent to tear down academia — heck, I’d be thrilled if some academic opportunities arose from this. (Though it’s baffling to me how academics manage to juggle all the responsibilities and research at once.) It’s not even my intent to tear down string theory. I don’t happen to like it, but I think people should be able to work on what they want.
One way or another, this stuff will all work out. I believe what Sean said — science works — even if sometimes things get a little crazy.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Al Van Vliet wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 13:47 GMT
When did you know you wanted to be a physicist? What brought you to physics originally? Historicaly, was there any one particular physicist to whom you related to or whose work or methods inspired you to follow physics?
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Nov. 20, 2007 @ 16:52 GMT
Hello Al Van Viet. One of the reasons I posted all the information above is because I didn't want to answer exactly these questions again. If anyone has a question they're dying to ask that I somehow managed to not address so far, I'd still rather not answer it right away, just because I'm getting a bit worn out. But I'll surely come back and look at this discussion.
report post as inappropriate
patfla wrote on Nov. 21, 2007 @ 01:16 GMT
Hi Garrett,
I read all of the Backreaction discussion or blog or whatever. Lubos Motl was true-to-form and simply wonderful. And I’m sure Sabine (sp?) is an excellent physicist and a lovely woman but after she’d asked the same question several times, I was reminded of various Germans I knew when I lived in Europe some yrs ago. (oops).
I just listened to the mp3 of one...
view entire post
Hi Garrett,
I read all of the Backreaction discussion or blog or whatever. Lubos Motl was true-to-form and simply wonderful. And I’m sure Sabine (sp?) is an excellent physicist and a lovely woman but after she’d asked the same question several times, I was reminded of various Germans I knew when I lived in Europe some yrs ago. (oops).
I just listened to the mp3 of one of your talks last night. You talk fast. With symmetry groups, algebras, etc flying right and left.
I was surprised I comprehended as much as I did. I think a major theme (the major theme in this particular talk?) was that one gets various particles and-or forces from G2 (?) and E6 and that these both then ‘fit into’ E8 (orthogonally). Aka unification. Does this give all your results – by no means.
Now none of G2/E6 had come out in the backreaction ‘discussion’. They seemed completely intent on beating to the death the fact that you add bosons to fermions. And they kept having a problem with how your theory relates to Coleman-Mandula.
My background is in computer science and Japanese from first Cornell and then Berkeley. I work now as a programmer for a ‘quantitative’ (no – it’s true, really) finance firm.
But I have some background in EE (electrical engineering) and I was thinking to myself. Isn’t this E8, the way Garrett has set it up, something like an enormous IC (integrated circuit) where you have a different particle on each of the pins and the interactions are the wires inside? (And [crucially] in the way in which the wires connect together the various pins [particles] – that is, the interactions).
But then there are of course Clifford algebras, etc. First read about Clifford algebras (I think) in a book by John Derbyshire about the history of algebra. I emailed John at a point and what we ended up discussing was the eminent Chinese scholar at Yale, Jonathan Spence. I believe John explained me to that Spence ‘is God’. (mind you – not ‘a god’).
I can understand about no jobs for Physics PHDs in anything but string theory. I’ve read both Smolin’s and Peter Voit’s books on the topic. A colleague graduated from Berkeley some yrs ago with a PHD in mathematics. But in logic. He did find an academic post (but then later abandoned academia [obviously]). But what he told me was that he was maybe 1 of only 2 mathematical logic PHDs that yr to actually find a job. So a market operates in academia as much as in finance.
We live in the SF E Bay. If I had a house near Lk Tahoe (hmm – maybe I should buy one), I’d gladly loan it to you with an open-ended, non-existent contract. I’m sure you’d take good care of it. 'Before I got married' used to ski Squaw all the time. I first skiied Squaw not long after I first arrived in CA and was at Berkeley. Maybe it was March. I'm from New England. We went up to Gold Coast and while I was looking out the large windows, saw a couple of women ski by in bikinis. This ain't your father's New England. I've had many 'Berkeley moments'. That was a California moment.
Looking forward to how this all develops.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pam Crane wrote on Nov. 21, 2007 @ 17:40 GMT
Hi, Garrett! I am delighted to come across someone who also sees the sheer beauty in mathematical forms, and is open enough to 'try anything'. I wonder, though, if you would be willing to take on board the kind of experience I have had all my thinking life with geometries in space and time, and the experiments I have made with certain of these, specifically relating to the circle. When I look at E8, I see home as well - but it is my astrological home, not only full of complex, elegant beauty, but also charged with meaning and purpose in a multiverse that many consider to be devoid of these things. Where do you stand? Am I, with all my experience, beyond the pale, I wonder?
report post as inappropriate
Tony C. wrote on Nov. 21, 2007 @ 18:26 GMT
Wow, dude, sounds great and good luck with the crazies. You're going to have to go back to the well with FQXi so you can hire secretaries just to screen and classify your emails!
report post as inappropriate
Tony C. wrote on Nov. 21, 2007 @ 19:06 GMT
I'm not a physicist, but let me ask: How does Lisi theory address quantum superposition of states? Does it say anything about collapsing waveforms? Does it rely upon an observer, permit a different mechanism, or just not address this issue at all?
report post as inappropriate
Blogger Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 21, 2007 @ 21:59 GMT
Hi patfla:
I'm looking forward to how this all develops too.
Hi Pam:
It's great you find the aesthetic aspect inspiring, but personally I don't buy into astrology, Kabbalah, etc. I'm sure you can find plenty of others to talk about it with though. (not here though please)
Hi Tony:
Thanks. At my current rate, I should finish replying to emails by 2042, as long as no more come in. (Damn, there's another one.)
Ack, please don't call it "Lisi theory," or no one else will want to work on it. I'm fine with calling it E8 theory. And I'm afraid it doesn't yet have anything to say about quantum mechanics. There are other FQXi threads about this though.
report post as inappropriate
vinouz wrote on Nov. 22, 2007 @ 02:55 GMT
So do you plan on having mass predictions for the new particles ?
(if yes then do you have an idea of the work to do)
report post as inappropriate
Gannon Burleigh wrote on Nov. 22, 2007 @ 07:18 GMT
it appears now the living room will have to pedal faster to keep up with you. cheers.
report post as inappropriate
TonyC wrote on Nov. 22, 2007 @ 13:13 GMT
Do the particles representing gravity interact with the rest of the system, or are they a closed loop of their own? In electromagnetism we can use electricity to generate magnetism and vice versa. Is there an analogous partner to gravity, or no?
report post as inappropriate
Jean-Marc "JM La Galette" wrote on Nov. 22, 2007 @ 21:38 GMT
First it's good to have found "something" at least apparently really mathematically beautiful. Let wait for a while before saying "congratulations"...
Do you think your theory, through new particles it describes, could tell us how Universe behaves, why galaxies acceleration seem not to be what current theories predict?
report post as inappropriate
Oliver wrote on Nov. 23, 2007 @ 05:34 GMT
mother void
mother void burps up lots of bubbles
all over the placeless. then they align
into building blocks and then they combine
taking bubbles, by singles and doubles,
from 'cycled stardust (stars have their troubles)
arranging, connecting objects so fine
we might call them quarks, following the line
shown in a vision clearer than Hubble's
outside in never works ... never will
you can push all you want, have all your plans laid
all you will get is the turn of their backs
inside out always works, an endless thrill
'cause that's how the whole universe was made
only one thing to do - nothing - relax!
report post as inappropriate
Dice wrote on Nov. 23, 2007 @ 22:11 GMT
This is fascinating - I speak as a non-scientist.
Has it made you more or less of a philosophical materialist?
(I read between the lines - I might be mistaken).
I have always been intrigued by where Mathematical values exist in a Physical universe - and, beyond Mathematics, all our universal concepts.
Philosophy of Physics is not your domain, of course, I appreciate that. All the same - if you ARE proved right by experimental evidence - what are the philosophical implications? I can just about accept that you might not have given that much thought to the implications qua physicist - but I'd be surprised if you hadn't given any thought to that whatsoever qua human being.
This isn't a request for some kind of existential Apologia - just gently asking whether a Theory of Everything might not be, well, overstating things a little. E8 is beautiful - it truly is - even a layman like myself can glimpse that it is aesthetically and intellectually satisfying. For those who understand its mathematics - contemplating that, grasping that, "seeing" and understanding that - must be truly astonishing - the more so because it might just describe how nature is - it might just be the long awaited discovery. Therefore I do not mean to disparage its importance in any way. But it is not everything - it is only a part of everything. Why, it's not even YOUR everything, is it? Or else why do you freely choose to go up mountains and why do you love another human being? Some things are beyond everything, no? There will necessarily be, curiously enough, an After Everything.
Allow me to wish you all the very best in discovering the different parts that come under your care.
report post as inappropriate
Caz wrote on Nov. 24, 2007 @ 17:44 GMT
Garrett, Congratulations! When a friend of mine sent me a link to your paper I scanned it and said "Holy $&)^, this is IT! Everything I've seen in life says that symetry and inherent beauty mean something. You talk about maybe needing to "fix" this. If you do, then it is wrong. But I can't imagine such a need. I've been interested in this stuff for most of my life (Einstein has been my hero since I was 5 - yup, I was a wierd kid and have only grown older), so this is very exciting news. Best wishes for luck and success!
report post as inappropriate
Andreas wrote on Nov. 25, 2007 @ 01:32 GMT
I congratulate Dr Lisi to his achievements.
report post as inappropriate
Ike Hall wrote on Nov. 25, 2007 @ 02:47 GMT
Dr. Lisi,
Congratulations on the paper. I know just enough physics to be astounded as to how this model perfectly describes a framework for what we know. I'm very much looking forward to seeing more work and experimentation. As I was reading it, I kept thinking about an old science fiction story about a group of mathematicians who discovered a way to travel into and through a purely mathematical space that predated the universe. I believe the story is "The Mathenauts" by Norman Kagan, and appears in an anthology by the same name. Might be some nice leisure-time reading material.
report post as inappropriate
Discrete Mathematician wrote on Nov. 25, 2007 @ 03:40 GMT
Why should a fundamental theory of physics involve the real numbers at all?
report post as inappropriate
Mike wrote on Nov. 25, 2007 @ 06:59 GMT
Congrats Garret!
I wanted to ask you if Mach's principle of inertia could emerge from this theory?
Thanks!
report post as inappropriate
an LJ turbosurfer wrote on Nov. 25, 2007 @ 17:49 GMT
Dammit, Garrett. You know you've just blown the image of surfers all to hell. I don't know if Windan will ever forgive you. ;-)
Brad Hamilton: Why don't you get a job Spicoli?
Jeff Spicoli: What for?
Brad Hamilton: You need money.
Jeff Spicoli: All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine.
I think you found a cool buzz.
report post as inappropriate
Paul Le Bourdais wrote on Nov. 26, 2007 @ 09:00 GMT
Garrett told :
"Thanks. At my current rate, I should finish replying to emails by 2042, as long as no more come in. (Damn, there's another one.)"
Hi Garrett, I guess that the fate of a hero is to become the slave of his fans.
Thank you for bringing fresh air in the world of physics.
report post as inappropriate
bob kambic wrote on Nov. 26, 2007 @ 19:04 GMT
I have thought for some time that the expansion of our universe caused by "dark matter" might be a gravitational force exerted by other, exterior to our own, universe. This thought has been poopooded by academic physicists. Thoughts?
report post as inappropriate
David B wrote on Nov. 26, 2007 @ 21:15 GMT
Garret wondering if you knew Mark E. at UCSD through surf house or Black's. If so and still in touch contact him as I have an apartment for you in S. Tahoe for free as long as you desire. Have him call his step dad.
report post as inappropriate
Jeffy wrote on Nov. 27, 2007 @ 02:50 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
A. Guy (on the street) wrote on Nov. 28, 2007 @ 14:09 GMT
Garrett,
I once solved a complex physics problem and won a prize for it--sort of a microcosm of what you might be experiencing now (actually, when you finally get time to read this, "now" might not be the appropriate word).
Can you speculate on what sorts of magic--should your theory stand up to the rigors of experimentation--might become possible/commonplace for humanity via application of your principle?
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Nov. 29, 2007 @ 22:06 GMT
vinouz:
I don't "plan" on it, but that's what I'm shooting for. It's contingent upon figuring out how to get the second and third generation fermions to work properly.
Gannon:
It's more fun to playa-ski behind it on a land board.
TonyC:
The gravitational spin connection interacts with the fermions and with the gravitational frame. The frame, with the Higgs, interacts with the fermions. And the Higgs interacts with the electroweak gauge fields. So it's all interconnected, and in agreement with the Dirac and Yang-Mills action in curved spacetime.
Jean-Marc:
I agree that congratulations are premature. I consider it an interesting new theory, with some problems that need to be solved. Galactic rotation curves are in agreement with the existence of some kind of dark matter.
Oliver:
Inside outside in.
Dice:
Am I still a materialist if I think the material is geometry?
For the paper, I used "Theory of Everything" as a technical term for a theory combinining general relativity and the standard model in a unified framework. That doesn't mean it explains love or where all the ball point pens go -- so don't read too much into it. If this theory does work out, it means the most complex and beautiful structure in mathematics is at the heart of our physical universe -- to me, that's philosophically satisfying.
Caz:
E8 is a beautiful symmetry, and it's a shame to have to break it, but we do.
Andreas:
Thanks.
Ike:
I've always considered myself more of a mathlete than a mathenaut, but thanks for the suggestion, and the encouragement.
Discrete Mathematician:
It seems a rational, if indiscrete, choice.
Mike:
Hmm, since this theory describes gravity with a connection, it might.
turbosurfer:
I doubt anything will change -- Scott Cherry is still going to smile and snake me.
Paul:
Yes, if anyone envies the (in)famous, realize that for me the publicity has mostly meant being chained to my computer, answering emails. But I'm happy if some of these new ideas are useful and interesting for others.
Bob:
The expansion is probably mostly caused by a cosmological constant. In my opinion, if something is considered "exterior to our universe," that's synonymous with not existing.
David:
I don't remember Mark, but I mostly surfed the reefs around La Jolla and not Black's much.
Jeffy:
Thanks for aggregating the links.
A.:
It's still "now." I think the standard model and general relativity are all the magic we need for describing everything we're likely to be able to engineer in our lifetimes. But, I guess that thought has been wrong before, so who knows.
report post as inappropriate
Blogger Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Nov. 29, 2007 @ 22:07 GMT
(the FQXi timer logs one out rather quickly)
report post as inappropriate
Dice wrote on Nov. 30, 2007 @ 00:36 GMT
A. Garrett Lisi anonymously wrote:
"Am I still a materialist if I think the material is geometry?"
Now that's a really interesting question! I was talking about your theory to a very bright French Thomist (using the Aristotelian language he speaks - distinction of form and matter - where the form is that which determines the matter i.e. gives the matter a particular intelligibility) and I said to him: (sorry the translation is from French and doesn't quite have the same pzazz as in French):
"one would almost be tempted to say that matter itself seems to be constituted by or composed of intelligibility - and of a mesmerising beauty at that! What a mystery!"
But how matter - "stuff" - could be composed of immaterial intelligibility is beyond me....
Here you are saying the material is geometry.
But its pesky universal values like all mathematical values and like all abstract concepts seem most certainly to go beyond just particular instantiations. And either (on a quantum level) everything really is just everything - which seems profoundly counter-intuitive - a kind of mother of all reductionism that makes the selfish gene biological reductionism look like a quaint local story we living beings tell each other - or Aristotle was on the right track with his Matter and Form making the substantial unity of a thing (so much so that he claimed that the logically inferred Prime Matter - a stuff without intellibility that was capable of receiving the intelligible form could NOT exist per se. He was quite clear: matter can exist only in so far as it is in-formed by intelligibility - a Hylemorphic union.)
You might find that E8 is philosophically satisfying - although I think you mean that in an existential sense - but for me it's philosophically intriguing - as I suspect these few lines betray.
Still, I'm glad to learn that the mountains and the waves and the beautiful girl have their space beyond Everything - and I do not want to take up any more of your time. You have science to do!
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Appreciate it.
With every best wish.
Pax
report post as inappropriate
patfla wrote on Nov. 30, 2007 @ 21:01 GMT
Listened again to, well maybe 20 minutes of, Garrett’s ILQGS talk (mp3 as found, for one, from http://exceptionallysimpletheoryofeverything.blogspot.com/).
I should really add the slides to my ‘mulitmedia experience’ – I’m sure they’ll help. 20 minutes is ‘maybe’ OK because it’s an hr long, except that I think he leaves the last 30 minutes (1/2 the talk) for questions.
Let me correct my earlier post (of which there’s only one). It seems Garrett gets the majority (all) of the standard forces and particles (slightly redundant) from G2 (I got that one right) but the other was F4, not E6. All exceptional, simple Lie algebras of course. Silly me. In particular (what sticks in my memory the next morning) gravo-weak is in F4 but the electro-strong (the force that holds nuclei together) is in G2.
And you don’t _fit these into_ E8. They’re already a part of its structure. Garrett sort of walks people around E8 (which he’s built up at to that point) identifying these structures inside it. “hey look over here – see what we’ve just found”. I’d understood this originally, but simply put it wrong. Slides will probably be particularly useful.
On a second listening you get (of course) more info. It seems that in the very pretty circular (projection) of E8 that’s seen so often these days (the graphic) one should find 8 concentric circles. These correspond to the eight-vectors that are somehow a part of E8’s structure. I ‘think’ I see them. Will work harder at this.
But I’ve also been backing up trying to put together (for myself) some of the underlying machinery. Well for one, symmetry (in this case) = particle. It was Woit’s (a name I miss-spelled in my first post) book I think (I’ve been trying to find the particular passage again [in my copious spare time]). There's something about ‘special’, ‘unitary’ groups (as in SU(x)) that will _completely_ determine an object (assumption here is that an object is a particle). A wonderful fact arising out of some combination of mathematics and physics. Tracing back to the work of Hermann Weyl I think. So this is why one see all these SOs and SUs flying around. (a bit of hand-waving on the ‘O’ in SO).
Well anyway, there’s much more that I’ve put back together or that's been illuminated by Garrett’s new work, but I think that’s about enough for one post. Basta.
Back to programming and spinning large, complicated data objects in the air (actually not wholly unlike the physics going on here). My holy grail is that the objects eventually become holographic (and do indeed hang in the air) and one can then manipulate them (for the benefit of colleagues, clients, etc) with a virtual reality glove. Or something like that (I’m open to alternatives).
report post as inappropriate
patfla wrote on Nov. 30, 2007 @ 22:21 GMT
Ah. It was but a Wikipedia page away. SO = special orthogonal (group). Seems this are often (always?) rotation groups.
report post as inappropriate
Discrete Mathematician wrote on Dec. 1, 2007 @ 09:52 GMT
Why start with E8 and invoke symmetry breaking?
Why not start with the trivial group and invoke symmetry making?
report post as inappropriate
A. Guy (on the street) wrote on Dec. 2, 2007 @ 16:59 GMT
"I think the standard model and general relativity are all the magic we need for describing everything we're likely to be able to engineer in our lifetimes."
Hi Garrett,
I was referring to the idea that electromagnetism gave us levitating trains, so what can "electrogravity" (note: Google gives ~12,000 hits for "electrogravity" and ~3000 hits for "electrogravity AND ufo") give us? Does it--the relationship you have outlined--work this way? My math is limited to a Master's Degree in computer science so it's possible I'm missing something. In any case, congratulations on your profound contribution, and I wish you well, my friend.
report post as inappropriate
Hippie wrote on Dec. 2, 2007 @ 17:11 GMT
Dude. Do black holes have hair?
report post as inappropriate
anon wrote on Dec. 4, 2007 @ 07:40 GMT
I have found myself so often disappointed in the people of science and here I am again. It is rude of someone to ask a scientist to consider their ideas? Isn't that somewhat arrogant, somewhat non-imaginative? I guess everyone without an education in mathematics should know their place, realize it as an indicator of intelligence, and not bother the people who are leading us to the promised land. Time constraints are a reality for scientists, but having an education is a incredible privilege in this life, as is fitting in to an educational system. Is it so hard to imagine there might be truly simple ideas undiscovered, and impossible to imagine someone might happen on something profoundly important, something about nature, maybe something even obvious yet as yet unseen. Imagine knowing something that would change how people see reality entirely, something that would advance humanity, bring people together. Imagine feeling responsible to others, to all of humanity, a planet teetering on self destruction. Oh, I am sorry for trying to explain to you this idea I have in my head that would change everything, sorry for being so rude.
report post as inappropriate
ravenglen wrote on Dec. 5, 2007 @ 01:33 GMT
Hello Garrett
I am the publisher for author/researcher/scholar 'Robert Bruce Baird' who is most interested in your theory. He has a research group community at MSN Groups called Forbidden Past, and a website is currently under construction. He is the author of many books and articles on the net covering a wide range of subjects including science and metaphysics. I am not good at...
view entire post
Hello Garrett
I am the publisher for author/researcher/scholar 'Robert Bruce Baird' who is most interested in your theory. He has a research group community at MSN Groups called Forbidden Past, and a website is currently under construction. He is the author of many books and articles on the net covering a wide range of subjects including science and metaphysics. I am not good at posting links in blogs, but you can find the MSN research group under the History category easily. It is usually in the top three sites. You can also find much of his work on the web by entering his name in your browser (be sure to use his middle name as there are several Robert Bairds).
We would like to take this opportunity invite you to Forbidden Past. He posted some of your work there. I am adding one of his articles on Affinity. Thanks for this blog :) Looking forward to MORE.
By:Robert Bruce Baird
AFFINITY:
Attraction between related things, including even the harmonic forces that pre-exist matter. String Theory tells us ‘one-dimensional harmonic forces’ are the basic building blocks of all aspects of the universe whether visible or not. Jean-Paul Sartre used this phrase to describe love which is a vital part of affinity (or vice versa): "Love is absent space."
There is research going on in the deep mine site formerly used by International Nickel Company (INCO) in Sudbury, Canada where they have separated muons or small cosmic particles. When one is charged by the research team - the other half responds the same way! Such a response must have a vehicle for communication, could it be ESP exists with the most basic of energy and material? Perhaps this is the 'non-force info packets' that Tesla proposed to explain much of what has been prejudicially called paranormal. Here is a response of mine to a debate in a quantum physics forum which I belonged to.
Dear Xojo and Twister
First of all, can I post this initial thread elsewhere?
I think the words are part of the problem for some people, but let me try to put into words what I think we are all saying (except Don, who is a nay-sayer that challenged me to explain what the physicists were saying) here.
In the beginning there was energy in dimensions that the astrophysicists tell us had the properties of hot and cold which came into proximity or shared space. There may be other properties in the primordial cosmic soup but they say this conjunction of energy lead to the creation of matter.
They also say that Dark Matter and Dark Energy constitute 95% of the energy in our known universe and that it is returning to a state of Dark Matter gradually over the next trillion or more years, but I think that depends on creative forces which are as yet not even contemplated in their model which may have been existent in the lattices and inter-relationships of that primordial soup which continue to operate according to laws or principles we are on the verge of understanding.
Dr. Don Robins tells us the macrochips of megalithic time on earth actually contain -and presumably their builders understood - much of this lattice attunement knowledge. He is a Doctor of Solid State Physics and has developed and invented workable equipment in the thermoluminescence field which archaeology now uses. He sees this 'chasm' across which we must travel to regain this knowledge.
That knowledge is in the Harmonic structures of all energy and it has principles inclusive of the ability to communicate as the two muons separated were demonstrated to show while shielded from all other energy in the deep nickel mines of Sudbury Ontario.
How this communication occurs is something I call affinity which operates on the basic building blocks of all energy and matter that String Theory says is a 'one dimensional harmonic force'. There is a universal constant of light in harmonic but that word constant is a weasel word. Yes, we can mathematically formulate for observations and predictions through that fine use of pure language called math but there are some elements or variables not yet understood to the full nature of the purposeful design in our reality. Purposeful design - loaded words - YES!
Why not? Think along these lines, if you will let yourself take a trip on the light fantastic as I often did in the 60s and 70s while these things were uppermost in my mind. Dark Matter and Energy had nothing doing for billions or trillions of years but they had the inter-connections of these affinite communications. The interplay of these energies wore out what could be likened to neural paths as there was no real change - this is what happens in our brains when we do not grow too. But across these lines or lanes of energy transference there were attractions and repulsions of the magnetic sort, which of course still occurs.
The design built or grew and the awareness of what was non-affinite grew. The 'other' energy reached out or responded (YOUR word 'response' is born) and it became a principle of the five motions including mass which is at the dross level of what is seen.
If affinity is just one of the laws of nature in the harmony of the spheres as Shakespeare might have described it, there are many evidences for this Purposeful Design or what is called Intelligent Design. Here is a little part of the synchronicity all around us from the Washington Post and New Scientist.
“A New Science Looks at Things in Sync
By LOUIS JACOBSON
The Washington Post
[...] Synchrony appears throughout the natural world. It is most obvious in schools of fish turning suddenly in unison, or birds wheeling through the sky in formation, or in the perfectly timed chirping of crickets. At Elkmont, for two to three weeks every June, groupings of hundreds of male fireflies flash together four to eight times, with a brief pause between flashes. Then the flashing stops for six to 10 seconds before the cycle begins once again. The display starts at dusk and lasts for hours. [...]
‘It's a theme you see a lot in biology,’ Strogatz says, and not just in birds and fish and crickets. Heart cells beat in synchrony; women who live or work together may find their menstrual cycles coinciding due to subtle chemical communications, and certain kinds of cicadas emerge in unison every 17 years. Odder still is the synchronous behavior often seen in inanimate systems: lasers, electrical grids, quantum mechanics, flows of automobile traffic. [...]
‘Mindless things can synchronize by the millions,’ Strogatz says. ‘It doesn't take a mind, or even have to be alive. Simple laws could lead to groups being in sync. It's counterintuitive, because the usual thinking was that things get more disordered over time.’ [...]” (2)
About the Author
Additional work by Robert Bruce Baird @
World-Mysteries.com, LULU.com, Spirit Quest, The ES Press, gardinerosborn.com, hundreds of sites and Ezines all give little pieces of his work which integrates all science, history and culture.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
ravenglen wrote on Dec. 5, 2007 @ 01:47 GMT
I should have mentioned he wrote this article several years ago.
report post as inappropriate
Casuistry Disciple wrote on Dec. 5, 2007 @ 02:05 GMT
I read about E8 in the
Economist. I'll try to read through the E8, but in the meantime I'm getting a kick from this forum! Hope this exposure brings benefits.
Cheers!
report post as inappropriate
anand srivastava wrote on Dec. 5, 2007 @ 11:28 GMT
Responding to the Discrete Mathematician.
Reason is the second law. Symmetry means highly ordered state, meaning low entropy. Breaking would increase entropy which is OK. Going the other way is not. Actually Entropy may be the reason that the universe could be based on a symmetric mathematical object.
Dr.Garrett a question for you. What do you think about Dr. Charles H.T. Wang's conformal LQG. Can it affect your theory if it has a grain of truth. I guess you are using equations from LQG. Will you need to use them to predict particle masses for gravity related fields.
Thanks for giving us something with exceptionally simple beauty.
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist.
report post as inappropriate
Josechu wrote on Dec. 6, 2007 @ 22:27 GMT
I would like to ask if E8 is the biggest multidimensional regular "polihedra".
report post as inappropriate
Blogger Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Dec. 7, 2007 @ 23:13 GMT
Dice,
Have fun with the philosophy, and thanks for the encouragement.
patfla,
Thanks for helping out with the description. Each of the eight concentric circles in the Gosset projection of E8 corresponds to a simple root of the system. Symmetry=particle is exactly right. In my opinion, this is a very beautiful possibility. Good luck with the holographs, I look forward to seeing and working with them.
Discrete,
Because nature seems to work by symmetry breaking.
A.Guy,
Even if this theory turns out to be right, I can't conceive of how electrogravity could be practically achieved and applied to technology within our lifetime -- the necessary energies would be too high. But my imagination is limited.
Hippie,
Not where you can see it.
anon,
Yes, it's rude and arrogant to approach someone uninvited and present them with your ideas. It's called being pushy. Look for times and places where your ideas are invited.
ravenglen,
That post was too long for me to read, sorry.
Casuistry,
I've always liked the Economist. It was kind of odd that they wrote that without contacting me though. And it has brought benefits -- Lars from
42 surfboards is shaping me a new board. :)
anand,
His work looks very interesting, and there may be connections. LQG will be necessary to develop a background independent description of E8 Theory.
Josechu,
No, but it's the prettiest.
report post as inappropriate
Blogger Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Dec. 7, 2007 @ 23:15 GMT
There was a new question from a reporter:
--What were the differences between the reception of your work by the public and the popular press versus the scientific community?
It has been an interesting progression. These ideas were first presented to the scientific community at the Loops '07 quantum gravity conference in June. There was an unusually large amount of interest, and I was...
view entire post
There was a new question from a reporter:
--What were the differences between the reception of your work by the public and the popular press versus the scientific community?
It has been an interesting progression. These ideas were first presented to the scientific community at the Loops '07 quantum gravity conference in June. There was an unusually large amount of interest, and I was immediately invited out to the Perimeter Institute. And I was invited to speak at the International Loop Quantum Gravity Seminar in November. At the end of July, I gave a talk at the FQXi conference in Iceland -- this is where New Scientist noticed there was a bit of a buzz around this new theory. In September, while I was writing up the paper, I visited Perimeter and gave a talk that was very well received. At the same time, I was answering questions for the New Scientist reporter, who was also interviewing other scientists about my work. This was all happening very VERY fast by scientific standards. I posted the paper to the arxiv, and a few of the best physics bloggers wrote about it. I then gave the talk for ILQGS, and the New Scientist article came out.
At this point, things were going as well as I could possibly hope for. Keep in mind, this E8 Theory is still a developing theory -- it has some problems, and is certainly not the final word in physics. It's just a new idea, along similar lines as many old ideas, and may or may not turn out to be true about nature. But every physicist who's opinion I value is in agreement that it is an interesting new idea, and worthwhile (for me) to pursue. I also received a few tentative speaker requests, and some interesting emails from curious physicists and mathematicians. Now, this is pretty much as good as things get for a new theory in academia. And I figured the New Scientist article would be a nice piece that I could point my friends to so they could see what I've been getting up to. But that's not what happened.
What happened was that I got compared to Einstein, which is unjustified for many reasons. When Einstein proposed his theory of General Relativity, he revolutionized physics by introducing a geometric description of the universe. Even if this theory I've proposed turns out to work (a big if), it will not be nearly as significant as what he did for physics. At best, I am only advancing physics a little. But journalists jumped on the fact that someone without an academic position (and a surfer no less) was coming up with a significant new theory, and used this to justify the comparison. The good journalists made it clear that this new theory was untested and might be wrong, and that it was part of a larger research program -- the work of many people and not just me. But even good journalists don't get to write the titles for their articles, and the editors write titles that sell... This resulted in a lot of hype, and physicists HATE hype. The hype has been extremely stressful for me. I am enjoying the attention to a degree, but I was happier before, when physicists were considering the theory as one of many new and interesting ideas that come along occasionally. Now many physicists are justifiably annoyed that some upstart is getting all this attention. I am trying to use the attention to promote the idea that physics is beautiful, and worth time and effort to understand even by people who aren't, or aren't yet, physicists. That seems to be going well, and is good for the field.
The other thing that's going on is that this new theory relates to some physics politics. Physicists, you see, are human. And humans never get upset about math -- humans get upset about politics. Most level-headed physicists see this paper for what it is -- an interesting idea, with some problems, that might say something new about nature. But some physicists are angry, and trying to criticize the paper, and me personally, in ways that just make them look bad. You see, I've been very careful with the math in the paper, and have openly discussed the problems with the theory. So, this makes for a very subtle situation. I've put forward this interesting new theory, with problems that may or may not be resolved, and some in the media have overhyped it. The few attempts to claim the paper is nonsense have backfired, because I've been very careful with the math. The best opponents have been able to do is point out problems that I already discuss in the paper, and that's fine for cooling the hype a bit -- I've been doing the same thing.
As far as I can tell from my inbox, the story of a surfing physicist who has spent his life working on an interesting new theory... is inspiring to the public, and it's true. And even though I do work outside of academia, I like academia and it is not my intent to tear it down. Instead, I'll do what I can to raise public interest in physics, because I think it's interesting and beautiful.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
doranj wrote on Dec. 7, 2007 @ 23:15 GMT
Hi Garrett,
Keep on going man, it looks cool. Stay you.
report post as inappropriate
anon wrote on Dec. 9, 2007 @ 14:46 GMT
Lisi wrote:
"Yes, it's rude and arrogant to approach someone uninvited and present them with your ideas. It's called being pushy. Look for times and places where your ideas are invited."
Physicists that are active in constructing and maintaining the scientific paradigm assume an innate responsibility that comes with having that power, similar I suppose to politicians who have a responsibility to listen to the society they represent. For physicists that responsibility is to adhere to evidence, reasoning, logic, just conclusion. You rightfully expect others to judge your work according to certain scientific principles, and not politics or ego. However, you expect that just evaluation and are receiving it to a measure based on your status as a member of the scientific community. You received a grant, your accomplishments are accepted, you are a member, because you have an educational degree. Doors are open for you that aren't open for other people, and apparently you think that is how it should be. The problem is that there are exceptions to the rules. There are people who don't fit into the mold at all. There are people discover something unexpected or see things in a new way, things even relevant to science. Such cases are exceptionally rare, but they naturally exist. Amongst all the people who erroneously think they have something important to contribute occasionally there is someone who does. Consequently, it cannot be rude or arrogant to approach a physicist uninvited attempting to communicate to them. It is foolish and confused and misled for the majority who try, but on rare occasions it is a just appeal, based on someones genuine knowledge that they understand something important. The flash of insight that went through your head when you first realized E8 as a model of nature. The way it is piecing together. That is not going to ever go away. No, you are wrong to make a blanket statement that sharing uninvited ideas is wrong. Sometimes it is someone doing the responsible thing. Education does not make a genius and genuine understanding is thorough and different from the misguided souls out pedaling short sighted ideas. There are people who are not sharing their ideas to get approval, they are sharing them to educate others.
report post as inappropriate
inaki wrote on Dec. 9, 2007 @ 19:04 GMT
hi from spain
like you i am also surfer, snowboarder (hard and soft bindings),ex-hanglider(i have two kids) skater and taichi practician and profesionaly an architect and in my case and suposse in yours too, gliding helps me to feel-understand universe and exprese it through architecture.keep surfing life, for sure it´s key to let us understand it and to you exprese it through phisics
report post as inappropriate
ed wrote on Dec. 10, 2007 @ 01:04 GMT
It seems reasonable, warranted speculation, to this pedestrian, that the twenty unassigned symmetries might offer the coordinates serving to define dark matter. But is it? Your dynamic balance befits a surfer.Hope you catch a wonderful ride; it's shaping up as iconic.Wonderfully graceful.
report post as inappropriate
patfla wrote on Dec. 10, 2007 @ 21:46 GMT
Downloaded (the pdf of) the slides, from the ILQGS talk. Should have done so sooner – very useful.
You have freeze frames of The Video (as in New Scientist, youtube) etc. Garrett: it’s probably written down somewhere on the web, but did you do The Video yourself? Guess you must have if we have these 19 snapshots in the slides. #1 = #19 bringing one back to the beginning. ...
view entire post
Downloaded (the pdf of) the slides, from the ILQGS talk. Should have done so sooner – very useful.
You have freeze frames of The Video (as in New Scientist, youtube) etc. Garrett: it’s probably written down somewhere on the web, but did you do The Video yourself? Guess you must have if we have these 19 snapshots in the slides. #1 = #19 bringing one back to the beginning. Which means there are 18 transitions. 18 must mean something (in viewing the root system) I’m sure – but what I don’t know. Will work on this.
Here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1513
141
John Baez writes:
> To understand this stuff you mainly need to
> understand the theory of
> root systems for simple Lie algebras, and its
> application to exceptional
> Lie algebras.
OK – the root system. Back to the slides – now the equations. “Roots are the eigenvalue coefficients (of the eigenvectors of C in the Lie bracket)” [Garrett in the slides].
For eigenvalue and vector you need to have what I think of as college Linear Algebra II, which might also be seen as Calculus III. Except that it’s not.
A Lie bracket is harder. Looking at “Wikipedia Lie Algebra” it appears that the Lie _bracket_ is a ‘commutator’. Which appears to me to be some kind of operation. Bracket might make one think noun, but operation implies verb.
But a possible aha (!). _Coefficients_ of the eigenvalues. Huh. Oh wait a minute, that computation of E8 (presented March of 2007 or thereabouts) that Garrett depends on. It’s a huge array of the unitary representations of E8 (every ‘basic’ form that E8 could take on). Except that many of the matrix elements are filled not with scalars, but, actually, with polynomials. Probably many of them complex.
Hence coefficients (remember: the terms in polynomials have coefficients – as in the quadratic equation). That is the eigen_values_ are actually polynomials. The roots of E8 are the coefficients of those polynomials.
Here I’ll take a huge flying leap (if I haven’t already). That matrix elements can be polynomials (either in the case of the team that computed E8 or Garrett’s work) may have to do with a space of infinite dimensions (is this a Hilbert space?). The point (heh) being that every point in that space is a polynomial – or potentially a polynomial. That is, if it’s an infinite dimensional space, each point in the space is described by a vector of infinite length. Which can also be though of as a function (polynomial).
Or something like that.
One needs something fun to fill up one’s spare time (aside of course from taking care of my family, our house, etc).
One last thing (for now). Down on p. 39 (E8 connection) where you have the restatement of the connection, A with a bar and dot under it (Garrett’s notation is explained in the talk) = the combination (addition) of 5 terms. The last three are Greek letter psi’s, with subscripts I, II and III. Psi usually (in modern physics) implies the Schroedinger wave equation (fundamental to quantum mechanics). Is that what we have here? (yes I know: the details are broken out immediately below – need to read this part more carefully).
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Don wrote on Dec. 12, 2007 @ 18:16 GMT
Garrett,
Congratulations and thanks for being willing to humbly share your story along with your ideas.
I created a Facebook Group "E(8) Rules!" where anyone is welcome to come and celebrate, speculate or pontificate.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6338349054
Maybe if we all would entertain one another someplace else, you can get back to your fruitful life.
report post as inappropriate
Jonas Pate wrote on Dec. 14, 2007 @ 09:12 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
ann wrote on Dec. 14, 2007 @ 19:48 GMT
Garrett,
could/will you pursue Anand's comment about conformal LQG?
it's what i did in graduate school (math, but didn't finish)
AND at work for conformal mappings of data.
conformal LQG possibly a very interesting connection for you?
have read all the math/phys hysterical professional crowd. this is all so amusing and amazing...good luck, love the beauty of your take on E8. PLEASE keep us all posted.
report post as inappropriate
Blogger Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Dec. 15, 2007 @ 22:12 GMT
doranj,
Thanks for the encouragement.
anon,
If you are clever, you will be able to attract interest in your ideas without being pushy.
inaki,
Right on.
ed,
This dark matter is still a dark matter.
patfla,
Yes, I made the original movie. And took a few snapshots to make a flipbook pdf movie for the talk -- there's no special significance to how I chopped it up. For the technical questions you're asking: you're sort of on the right track, but you should ask these questions over at Physics Forums, where there's a technical discussion.
Don,
Thanks, I'll check it out.
Jonas,
I believe... the truth is out there. I did pick the symbols, but I'm trying to describe the universe that I believe exists independently of my or anyones conscious or unconscious. It may end up to be a good description, or not, but I feel I'm discovering it rather than creating it.
ann,
I'm open to the idea of incorporating conformal LQG, but I haven't yet worked with it enough to say anything about it. The hysteria has been stressful, but certainly interesting.
report post as inappropriate
anon wrote on Dec. 17, 2007 @ 09:36 GMT
Lisi Wrote:
"Anon, If you are clever, you will be able to attract interest in your ideas without being pushy."
Garrett, that has not been my experience, and historically I think we know cleverness has sometimes attracted fierce opposition, Thomas Young as the best example. But still, my central point is that it is sometimes necessary for someone without status to rely on those with status. You said it is rude to ask a physicist to read your work. I just think there is an innate responsibility for any scientist to acknowledge a valid scientific work regardless of its source. We all have time constraints, I don't mean anyone is required to read unsolicited material, but no one should close themselves off. Just as you expect others to acknowledge your model if it is logically consistent in describing so much of nature, I can reasonably expect scientists to acknowledge my work for the same reason. But that has not happened, and not for lack of cleverness, quite the contrary. I haven't been pushy, I have always made simple clear statements which deserve recognition. I wrote three full sized books arguing as my theme that expansion will stretch the universe perfectly flat and time will end at absolute zero, in 1994, 96, 97, all prior to the discovery of accelerating expansion in 98. I have greatly extended David Bohm's work. I have created the first complete modeling of all possible states. I explain very simply why the universe is ordered, why the universe exists, why time has a direction. My work could not be more logically consistent. FQXi has awarded large grants to people researching questions which I already have provided the most comprehensive answers to date. I asked to talk to you about symmetry. I may know more about symmetry than anyone on this planet. No, the problem is rejecting someone that isn't a member of the club, and that is where the community is today, and that isn't science, that is more like religion. Looking back, wouldn't you say Thomas Young was the real scientist, and those of the Royal Society were of something else. I will break through, my fourth book is my compiled masterpiece, but apparently it will have to be through the mainstream public, because of an arrogance and short sightedness that unfortunately comes with status.
Everything Forever: Learning To See Timelessness
by Gevin Giorbran
everythingforever.com
report post as inappropriate
A. Guy (on the street) wrote on Dec. 17, 2007 @ 18:14 GMT
"I can't conceive of how electrogravity could be practically achieved and applied to technology within our lifetime -- the necessary energies would be too high. But my imagination is limited."
How ironic coming from a person who may have just made the biggest intuitive leap in the history of mankind. I've been watching the media since your paper came out, and in Google terms, you have 83,000 hits and are already 1/1000 as popular as Madonna and 4/1000 as popular as Albert Einstein. YET, my friend, you have only 13 hits on Google News. What gives? Also, please tell me where you get the high energy requirement for the magic stuff.
report post as inappropriate
anand srivastava wrote on Dec. 18, 2007 @ 09:43 GMT
I just had a thought could it be that conformal LQG may define an E8. Currently I believe LQG doesn't admit any high level structure to the loops. But could it be possible that due to the conformal invariance a structure is imposed on the loops and it actually is an E8.
If that happens it will be very beautiful and natural indeed.
On the other hand I could be just talking nonsense.
report post as inappropriate
Rafael wrote on Dec. 21, 2007 @ 13:44 GMT
Isn´t your theory very similar to: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/d4d5e6hist.html?
How do you predict SM parameters?
Yhanks!
report post as inappropriate
Manny wrote on Dec. 29, 2007 @ 06:50 GMT
Hi Garett,
First of all I am in no way a physicist, I'm just a average Joe interested in this kind of stuff (not sure why, just am LOL). Anyway I didn't see the question I had in mind posted earlier unless I missed it. Ok so my question is, if your theory turns out to be right, do you know if it would prove or disprove the big bang? Or are you soley focused on working out the mathematics of unification that the implications for cosmology would be more of an after thought? Hopefully that's not a stupid question.
PS
Perhaps my interest in science and physics stems from the nagging feeling that something "big" is going to impact our world in the not too distant future (what you might call a paradigm shift, I think). I wonder what will become of ourselves if a theory of everything can be worked out at about the same time the technological singularity arrives (Ray Kurzweil's hypothesis).
report post as inappropriate
patfla wrote on Dec. 29, 2007 @ 18:21 GMT
> but you should ask these questions over at Physics
> Forums, where there's a technical discussion.
Looks like that hasn't worked so far, if you'll look at the last post (#113) in topic "Layman's explanation wanted".
That may not have been the right topic for the particular question. I read all of "Layman's" before posting (kind of funky), but also glanced at the "An...
view entire post
> but you should ask these questions over at Physics
> Forums, where there's a technical discussion.
Looks like that hasn't worked so far, if you'll look at the last post (#113) in topic "Layman's explanation wanted".
That may not have been the right topic for the particular question. I read all of "Layman's" before posting (kind of funky), but also glanced at the "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" topic which is more technical. When, towards the end, I saw that someone needed to explain that abelian basically means commutative, I figured "yeah I could post here too".
But I figured I'd start at the start. Which I interpreted to be "Layman's explanation".
Although it's not related to my question at physicsforums, I'm still studying why particle physics can be formulated in terms of special, unitary (determinant = 1) Lie groups. So determinant implies these are groups of matrices (and they are). Matrices populated (I believe) by quantum numbers. I.e. stuff like 1 and 1/2. And as I said above, I also understand that "symmetry = particle".
So all this represents a certain level of understanding, but of course there's more to it than that. And besides, it seems (to me) an absolutely fundamental question if you want to understand anything about modern particle physics. Um, i.e. you don't point people immediately to Lie groups, rather you encourage them to try and figure out why modern particle physics is best treated with formalisms from group theory. Not at all obvious.
It's sometimes useful, even in science or math, to understand things in their historical context. So at the risk of leaving out most of the context. Subject = Clerk Maxwell's laws for electromagnetism and then later the Lorentz (Larmor) transform. My brother-in-law is an astrophysicist at Berkeley - his father was a particle physicist at Columbia. They and others were over for dinner on Christmas. I think what my brother-in-law's father told me is that the Lorentz transformation was necessary (or at least some part of the reason for it) is because Clerk Maxwell's equations were _not_ time and space invariant !?!
(and so herein would lie some part of the genesis of special relativity).
I thought that was amazing. In-and-of-itself of course, but more so that the many books that purport to explain electromagnetism (or at least the ones I've read) never actually just come out and say that.
'Domains' and domain-speak are quite interesting (somewhere along the way I've also been a linguist). I'm now a computer scientist and to judge by the feedback a quite good one. For one, it seems that genuine creativity is in shorter supply than raw analytical horsepower (this is people's head of course). But then Einstein did say "imagination is more important than knowledge" (ok the parallel's not exactly complete). Something though I'd somehow not expected was that I'd be better able to communicate abstruse ideas in computer science to non-practitioners better than many of my geekly peers.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Dec. 29, 2007 @ 18:55 GMT
anon:
It sounds like you expect too much from people.
A. Guy:
Hey, that's not a bad idea... using "Madonnas" as a unit for Google popularity. It's somewhat frustrating that Google Trends doesn't label their graphs with numbers. It means we need to institute some baseline popularity measure for comparison, and I imagine Madonna is fairly constant. It's disheartening that I was only ever a .004 Mad... but, I can't sing worth a damn.
anand:
I'd be surprised if E8 came from that, but good luck with it.
Rafael:
Yes, Tony's work and mine share many similarities and overlaps.
Manny:
I'm working on unification, and the relation to cosmology is a bit of a tangent -- but an interesting one. I mostly agree with the idea of a technological singularity, but I think it will be gradual, and it might not happen within our lifetimes.
patfla:
Ah, I see your question over there in "Layman's explanation wanted" on PF -- and I think it's too technical a question for that thread. If you want others to answer it, copy and paste it to the "AESToE!" thread there. Or, if you want me to answer it, paste it to the "Technical" thread -- as I think it's appropriate, and a good question.
I actually do point people directly to Lie groups when I have to explain particle physics from the ground up -- but I try to do it slowly, so it's not scary.
report post as inappropriate
A. Guy wrote on Jan. 11, 2008 @ 14:38 GMT
Garrett: Now things are really dropping. I googled you with the added search term "Physics" to get a truer data sample, and your GI is at 12,500, or .0001 Madonnas. However, if we use another constant, the Madona, you rise to .004 Madonas, and the beauty of that is most surfers won't know the difference.
Anyway, to get the index higher, I think we need a famous equation, like e=mc2, However, G=.004M doesn't seem to have the staying power or resonance needed, so I'll leave that up to you. Note, however, that E8 is a sort of nebulous, effervescent concept for the general masses and you might think about giving them something more tangible to grasp onto (it's sort of like a book versus an ebook). Once you give them something real, they will love you and your GI will rise precipitously.
report post as inappropriate
A. Guy wrote on Jan. 11, 2008 @ 15:01 GMT
"It's disheartening that I was only ever a .004 Mad"
But, dude, it's still one of the best waves I've ever seen, and they always look smaller from the back.
report post as inappropriate
Margarita M. wrote on Jan. 17, 2008 @ 17:11 GMT
Lisi:
Ésta teoría que propones es muy buena, estas dando el paso hacia el futuro. El primer paso lo ha dado Einstein, y tú has dado el banderazo de salida para alcanzar la llave de la nueva Era futurista".
Todavía sabemos que faltan algunos eslabones que añadir a ésta teoría, y la clave esta en comprender la complejidad y transdisciplinariedad, que nos rodea. Para entender el Todo y encontrar ésa fórmula que unifique las leyes del universo. Estamos contigo, y para envidia de muchos haz logrado avanzar históricamente hablando más que ninguno.
Sonora, M{exico
report post as inappropriate
VMV wrote on Jan. 28, 2008 @ 07:28 GMT
Loved E8 Theory. Beautiful.
Have a question re space:
Why isn't there a model of space? Like, when a mass bends it, what exactly is being bent?
On the grand scale we have a decent model, but on the atomic scale, the masses of particles, together with their spins, colors and charges, seem to imply a complex geometry at the boundary between matter and space - and yet, there is not a word about what exactly "empty space" is. It is as if there is nothing there :). But why would such a fundamental concept be ignored.
How properties of space are represented in E8T?
report post as inappropriate
David wrote on Jan. 29, 2008 @ 19:58 GMT
Garrett, are you familiar with the work of MS El Naschie? It appears that your TOF and his work (which for the most part appeared in the Elsevier journal Chaos,Solitons & Fractals) have a lot in common? I would appreciate hearing your opinion.
report post as inappropriate
Diego wrote on Feb. 9, 2008 @ 19:59 GMT
Do you think you would be able to predict some masses for your new particles before LHC starts?
report post as inappropriate
paul valletta wrote on Feb. 20, 2008 @ 16:13 GMT
I notice this Äô appears to be infecting a large number of postings?
report post as inappropriate
paul valletta wrote on Feb. 20, 2008 @ 16:17 GMT
I am assuming it (maybe "alpha-Äô-omega" is a form of "anti-social" graffiti, it has definately appeared after posts have been completed?
Just drawing attension to it.
report post as inappropriate
A. Pisko wrote on Mar. 24, 2008 @ 11:32 GMT
Dear Dr. Lisi
Please do not make the same mistake of the members of the string theory community by ignoring competing ideas. El Naschie has been working in the same direction as yourself for almost two decades. Before him there were many others such as G. Ord, L. Nottale, M. Green and J. Schwarz. Could we have your views on question posed by David on Jan 29, 2008 for the benefit of the scientific community at large.
Thanks
report post as inappropriate
Blogger Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on Mar. 25, 2008 @ 17:52 GMT
A. Guy:
I'm not so disappointed that my GI is dropping a bit. The media evolution appears to be: physics blogs, physics news sites, newspapers, other blogs and web news, science magazines, other magazines, ... and I don't know what comes next, maybe wait for the movie? Life's been kind of crazy.
Margarita:
My spanish has deteriorated a bit since the summer I spent in Mexico, but I still understand enough to appreciate your kind words and encouragement -- thanks.
VMV:
Yes, this is what I'm after. This E8 theory describes the geometry of spacetime and all elementary particle fields as an E8 principal bundle -- a very specific and beautiful mathematical construction.
David:
I've heard of him, but haven't spent a lot of time with his work.
Diego:
Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Paul:
I'm not sure what you're referring to, so maybe those posts have been removed.
A. Pisko:
Given the very frequent and insistent requests to look at his work, I'd guess he already has quite a supportive following, and doesn't need me as another disciple.
report post as inappropriate
franklin wrote on Apr. 20, 2008 @ 22:07 GMT
What books or other methods of learning would you suggest to someone who is interested in physics, but has very little physics knowledge?
Thanks! :)
report post as inappropriate
Cynthia wrote on Apr. 22, 2008 @ 19:47 GMT
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein
I like to share my inner experience of the E8. I think you will find it interesting. I have been meditating for most of my...
view entire post
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein
I like to share my inner experience of the E8. I think you will find it interesting. I have been meditating for most of my life. In the past year, I have found that the inner light of consciousness is awakening within me and I often see the organizing power of Cosmic Intelligence moving within the Silence of the Self.
Know Thyself
Inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi
The other day, I was on Google images searching for models of physics. When I saw some of your models of the physical interpretations of the vertices and how the patterns of vertices transform under rotations, I was excited to realize that your model was what I seeing glimpses of from within myself. This was fulfilling to me because it must mean that I am perceiving an aspect of the structuring mechanics of the Unified Field—the self coming to know itself by itself.
In ancient Vedic tradition, there is a description of the structure and function of the universe from the cosmological to the unmanifest Unified Field level. I have been using the technologies of Maharishi’s Vedic Science, and I've been practicing Transcendental Meditation, TM-Sidhi’s program and Yogic Flying from Maharishi Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras for most of my life. Due to the process of transcending thought through these Vedic technologies, the conscious thinking mind is able to identify with the source of thought—the Unified Field, the Self of every individual.
As you are probably aware, historically, individuals have had these kind of experiences of different aspects of nature's organization. Now, even scientific research shows that the regular practice of Transcendental Meditation leads to permanent and beneficial changes in mind and body, and in particular, the brain. These changes in brain functioning lead to the development of more and more of our infinite creative potential. Changes in brainwave functioning and integration are strongly correlated with improved cognitive functioning.
I'm on a special course at the University here, with about 2000 other individuals from all over the world enjoying an extended program of meditation--about eight hours a day to help create world peace and individual enlightenment.
The special, extended program seems to accelerate the process of brain rewiring leading to changes in thinking, perception, feeling and behavior. It seems that the experience I shared with you is quite common among course participants even though essentially none of them have either an academic or professional background in physics.
Dr. John Hagelin, whom you may have heard of, has a suggested that these experiences support an understanding of the Unified field as a field of consciousness, available to human direct perception.
You probably don't get these kinds of e-mails very often--you might even think I'm totally out there. Doesn't matter! If you are at all interested to find out more or have a dialogue, please let me know. I am sure I have left you either thinking that this is a waste of time or, hopefully, one of the most exciting things you have ever heard…. In either case, thank you for your time and attention.
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein
Here is to our eyes opening to the inner Light of Truth so we can really fathom how man is made in the image of God....
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on May. 5, 2008 @ 06:45 GMT
http://www.lulu.com/content/2479754
My book SUPERMAN SYDROME is about the need a loner has for teamwork.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Mike F wrote on May. 13, 2008 @ 05:49 GMT
Hi Garrett,
I've been fascinated both with John Baez's and Tony Smith's fantastic sites, as well as the highly interesting, albeit mostly incomprehensible work of the superstring and quantum gravity theorists. It would really be nice, however, if the details of these ideas and the mathematics behind them were more accessible to layfolk. Ever consider taking a year off to write a really good book for us? You know, cleverly written prose augmented with lots and lots of illuminating diagrams might substitute well for countless thousands of references to lie algebras and principle fiber bundles. Just think, it might prove far more challenging than what you've experienced in finalizing your theory. Any chance?
Also, thanks kindly for your work. It's pretty cool and will have a profound impact on us all.
report post as inappropriate
James wrote on May. 31, 2008 @ 14:44 GMT
Hello Garrett,
I am a retired physicist (retired at 30!) who used to work on the detection of the Quark-Gluon plasma at RHIC. Since then, I turned all my attention to music production. I hope you are finding great enjoyment and enlightentment in pursuing the quest to modern physics's holy grail, as much I am in diving inside myself to come up with music that would otherwise sit dormant most of the time :)
Good luck, I will follow up your progress!
Cheers!
J.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Jun. 15, 2008 @ 14:37 GMT
Wim Dokter wrote on Jun. 23, 2008 @ 00:57 GMT
Hello Garrett,
Do you have any idea whether your article caused any 'waves' in Holland? Can't seem to remember reading anything about it until I stumbled upon it on the Web.
I studied astronomy and have a degree in theoretical physics but did not pursue any career in it - have been working in scientific publishing and ICT instead.
Just read Peter Woit's book "Not even wrong" and it's very gratifying to immediately afterwards come across a development he was wishing for: a strikingly beautiful AND falsifiable theory! In addition, one which stays in line with established theories very closely, as opposed to String Theory. I followed a class in it as well; it looked pretty outlandish to me at the time (early 90-ties).
Apart from now and then working on some ideas to arrive at GR from SR in a more natural and appealing way (I especially mean appealing to graduate students), I don't do anything in physics anymore. Have a couple of questions, though:
- How about infinities? Is the theory, esp. the gravity part, renormalizable? In QLG, the higher order terms are still infinite as far as I know. In Supergravity, some of the graviton infinities were cancelled by gravitino ones. Is there a part of E8 which takes care of this?
- Does E8 have anything to say about the structure of spacetime at the Planck scale?
Wish you lots of success and perpetuated independency and fun,
Wim Dokter
Groningen
Holland
report post as inappropriate
fi wrote on Jul. 14, 2008 @ 12:24 GMT
hi !
can you tell me what the 1877 discovery was that inspired you
thanks
report post as inappropriate
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Aug. 5, 2008 @ 02:10 GMT
Feynman put it the best when he said: "Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."
"Next time a girl speaks ten words listen" Garrett Lise.
So maybe it is funny that Dr Ray Monro will be at the test of my atomic bomb in the Las Vegas test site.
When it goes off he will laugh and his false teeth will be vaporised.
If my theory of everything was not fun I would not have suggested it.
report post as inappropriate
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Aug. 6, 2008 @ 06:43 GMT
SKIN OF EVIL............Episode 23 Season 1 TNG.
PLAN B FOR NASA
2+2=4 is the energy equation for the unviverses.I do mean plural because a big crunch must preceed the big bang to make sense out of it.
After all it is the conversion of potential energy to kinetic.
And what we need is a way to store that energy.
When the four states of matter are one and a...
view entire post
SKIN OF EVIL............Episode 23 Season 1 TNG.
PLAN B FOR NASA
2+2=4 is the energy equation for the unviverses.I do mean plural because a big crunch must preceed the big bang to make sense out of it.
After all it is the conversion of potential energy to kinetic.
And what we need is a way to store that energy.
When the four states of matter are one and a contradiction in mathematical terms.
Then the potential energy from the big crunch is stored.
And when the one state of matter becomes four again the potential energy is released as kinetic.
And thus there is a big bang.
Maybe this can or cannot be reproduced in the lab as conditions may not be the same in our present universe as they were before the big bang.
If we can store infinite amounts of energy using this primordial sink.
Then we can power starships or the next generation motor car.
The motor car would be powered by a supercritical non newtonian fluid battery.
But what would make the starship go maybe supercritical non newtonian plutonium or some exotic material like that.
A contradictory maths applies to the Godel universe where time is contradictory.
So we make the big crunch a Godel universe just to be positivist.
And to get the maths that we want from a model.
The contradictory Godel universe gives rise to a big crunch that is contradictory.
1/3 Liquid+ 1/3 Solid+ 1/3 Gas= 1 Solid/Liquid/Gas.
And this results in a non contradictory big bang.
Which means the math in our universe is understandable Godel would like this.
And predictable and adds up it is non contradictory.
Whiteheads Principia Mathematica argues for math that is non contradictory.
The question of the energy equation for the two universe is one that cannot be answered.
And it can be answered.
Two universes must balance for E=MC^2.
2E=2M*2C^2 And they must add up to 4 2+2=4.
The equation for mass and energy doesn't balance.Now this is where I could have it wrong.
But a Little energy is lost in conversion in the big bang the conversion of mass to energy so that 2+2 does not equal four.
The further back in time we cycle the more energy is lost to time.
So that 2+2=3 can be true at one point on the graph.
If 2+2=3 is right for the big bang Principia is wrong for origins.
We might as well throw away the text book and write a new one.
But wait a moment what if we reverse the math for a contradictory in time balck hole in a Godel universe we get a non contradictory big bang.
And that is the math that makes sense to the matematicians.
That is reasonable evidence and that is inadmissable.
It is inadmissable because I say 2+2=4 balances when we fetch a bale of water from dimension X nihilo.
We fetch a bale of energy to balance the equation.
Now this isn't evolution.
But for evolution we must propose that light speed increases with every cycle just so much that the unvierse is a little more massive as we go backward in time.
And as a result mass becomes infinite when time is forever.
This is a paradox one of those that proves Erasmus Darwins theory of the evolution of the universe wrong.
If you can find another way to balance the loss of energy than making the universe more massive as you go back in time lets hear it.
Of course it is a straw man because nobody believes Erasmus anymore but the big bang is the creation of energy..
Which is against the laws of thermodynamics and thus of evolution.
So you cannot create a universe by evolution you have to resort to creation ex-nihilo.
The big bang is thus a new source of energy that can power the world.
You can store any sort of energy.
And release it all at once.
Maybe it would make a great laser if we could store light in one state and let it become four states.
But that is just conjecture.
Particle X and Y cannot be in the same place at the same time in the same state EXCEPT BEFORE THE BIG BANG AND MAYBE IN CERN.
Cern can confirm that Bose Einstein and fermis dirac statistics can be added in 1/3s.
1/3 BOSE EINSTEIN STATS+ 1/3 FERMI DIRAC STATS+ 1/3 FERMI DIRAC STATS= 1 BOSE EINSTIEN/FERMI DIRAC STATS.
This doesn't make sense mathematically since APPLES CAN"T BE ADDED TO ORANGES AND GET ONE IN OUR UNIVERSE.
But before the big bang they can be added to get one.
This is a prediction of a new type of particle which CERN will detect.
The particle that is the mechanism for the big bang.
The worker particle I call it.
Because it actually does the work of the unviverse.
Nothing could please me more if you would write Stephen jeffreys wrong and prove me wrong.
This isn't true I would like to be right.
But we will learn something from CERN if my predictions are wrong.
The universe may well be a stranger place than we can imagine.
Narcissus is the root of all evil.
And there is nothing as bad as Narcissus.
he the demon behind it all.
And he is juts ourselves just our own love of self.
And maybe there is a postive side to our love of self.
And there is we can love God too.
If we can love oursleves.
And it is isn't easy to be Narcissus in a world that hates him.
And is is easy to be hated.
And that is why everybody wants to love themselves.
CERN EVERY CLOWN HAS AN OPINION.
And that is what Iam writing for everyone to see.
Because CERN has an opinion about every clown.
And they down.
They are all clowns and maybe everyone who isn't CERN is a clown.
So send them in to CERN send in the clowns.
And that is a great idea There should be clowns.
Send them in to CERN.
Where are the clowns they certainly are not at CERN.
All I can say is there should be clowns then everybody will laugh.
And that is the main thing anyway.
And it is.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Aug. 6, 2008 @ 06:49 GMT
I apologise for being the HOGSTAR of your forum.
Maybe my HOG STAR does not shine as brightly as yours.
But we all find our way to shine.
My theory has the advantage of being non geometrical unless Garrett can work out a geometry and extremely simple which is what Garrett claims his theory is.
But can Garrett explain it to his grandmother that is the test of the theory of everything you have to be able to explain it to the layperson.
And the layperson simply can't understand this theory it is only for scientists.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Aug. 22, 2008 @ 04:34 GMT
My theory may lead to an atomic bomb.
But does Garrett Lises theory lead to anything atomic.?
http://www.zshare.net/image/174312759b8d8617/
report post as inappropriate
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Aug. 22, 2008 @ 09:23 GMT
"Richard Thomas is on another planet and his thoery is way out there."-STEPHEN HAWKING.
"but it is not so far removed from what we believe.
When Lise is forgotten we will still remember Thomas.
Rich.
report post as inappropriate
SOMEWHERE BEYOND ANTARES wrote on Aug. 23, 2008 @ 04:49 GMT
Calling occupants of interplanetary craft (...)
You´ve been observing our Earth
And we´d like to make
A contact with you
We are your friends...
Carpenters.
What applications does Lises theory have to warp drive.?
report post as inappropriate
RICHARD THOMAS wrote on Sep. 22, 2008 @ 10:21 GMT
Reasoning 1/ There are a million and one reasons to believe evolution, but it doesn’t lead anywhere.( the extra reason is because you don't want to believe, and change your life)
Example Archoptryx JPEG and link.
Reasoning 2/ There are a million reasons to believe in intelligent design and Gods wonderful plan for your life. Now this does lead to life.
Example Platypus JPEG and link.
Reasoning 3/ You have to want to believe in Gods wonderful plan for life/for your life.
Reasoning 4/ I will choose the reasons to believe in Gods plan so I can have life.
Are you satisfied with Life without Christ.?
Everybody has a God shaped ( cross shaped) Hole.
This can only be filled by the cross. (Picture of a key fitting into a cross shaped hole in a heart.)
Box with random shapes for thoughts this is the mind without Christ.
When we fit in the key of believing in the cross our thoughts are tranformed and they are all cross shaped.
A box with thoughts that are everything is cross shaped.
These four reasonings are in the public domain and can be printed by any concerned christian.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Damien R. wrote on Sep. 24, 2008 @ 17:08 GMT
Dear Garrett,
Head AND tail ?
In my understanding, since superunification aims at unifying the causality of relativism and the probability of quantum theory, a coin tossed would fall back on both sides in the universe taken in all its dimensions - if the theory proves right.
Whatever the number of pages, if the probability exists that a monkey can write a master piece, it would too ...
So the question is, of course, about the LHC : are we not talking about "colateral" affects at the scale of the universe in all its dimensions ?
Knowing that one goal of the experiment being to prove the validity of superunification ... it really is a catch situation.
Where is the error in the above reasoning ? I would greatly appreciate your opinion or guidance.
Best regards,
Damien R.
report post as inappropriate
tpape wrote on Sep. 26, 2008 @ 10:03 GMT
Considering your areas of research and interest, I was wondering if you have considered an approach similar to this model, based entirely upon perspective and perspective exchange within physics and mathematics, or if it is of any interest to you.
Consider that there are three fundamental and interrelated relationships of reference for perspective. The three fundamental relationships...
view entire post
Considering your areas of research and interest, I was wondering if you have considered an approach similar to this model, based entirely upon perspective and perspective exchange within physics and mathematics, or if it is of any interest to you.
Consider that there are three fundamental and interrelated relationships of reference for perspective. The three fundamental relationships of reference for perspective are the relationship of the dimensions of Cartesian coordinates with the dimensions of polar coordinates, the relationship of finite with the infinite, and the relationship of 'still' with motion (or constant motion with accelerated motion). Each of these three fundamental relationships are not, in-and-of themselves, a 'given' (that is, not an independent and necessary foundation of physics), but rather, the result of the ‘overlapping’, or exchange, of the designated parameters of the other two. And so, it is the relationships of fundamental references that define tiered perspective (that is, a perspective co-existin g within an ‘Other’ overriding perspective) and perspective exchange (that is, consideration, or ‘thought’) as the foundation for all perception (physical observations and symbolic considerations). That is, there is no 'point' of origin, but instead, a relationship determines existence and experience through tiered interrelated combinations of fundamental references into perception ternaries. In other words, various tiers, or ternary combinations, of the constituent references of the three fundamental relationships represent all perspectives and perspective exchanges. The three fundamental relationships are not completely independent of each other, but rather, are interrelated and overlapping (like interacting ‘whirlpools’), in one or two of the three constituent references comprising the involved respective perception ternaries. So, every ‘object’, number, and experience, every physical and mathematical observation and consideration, is represented by overlapping ternary combinati ons of the constituent references within the three fundamental relationships of reference. And the relationship of tiered combinations forms the perception ternary—the perceived, the perceiver, and the reference of measurement. The model/metaphor is a self-proving totality that is entirely perspective-based, and the necessitated foundation for existence that results from the tiered-ternary relationships of fundamental references, providing its own inter-exchanging context and its own reciprocating cause.
This presents a physics/mathematics continuum, or overlapping exchange, that is based upon the binary relationship of ‘within’ and ‘without’, representing the one-or-two-of-three of the constituent references in a perception ternary. That is, the overlapping of one, or the overlapping of two of the constituent references in the vario us constituent tiers, or ternary combinations, determines the relationship as ‘without’ or ‘within’, respectively. Thus, in physics (or ‘without’—reference paired with perceived in perception ternary), the three fundamental relationships of reference form, by perspective, the three fundamental overlapping and interrelated concepts of distance, time/speed, and mass/acceleration; and in mathematics (or ‘within’—the symbolic pairs the reference with the perceiver in the perception ternary), the three fundamental relationships of reference form, by perspective, the three overlapping and interrelated fundamental ‘constants’ which divide, or provide the exchange for, the three fundamental concepts of physics—namely, epsilon, pi, and phi (the golden ratio). That is, epsilon represents mathematically the divide, or reference of exchange, between distance and speed, pi represents mathematically the divide, or reference of exchange, between linear distance and rotational distance, and phi re presents mathematically the divide, or reference of exchange, between linear distance and area (dimensional shift). Further, every ‘physical’ observation is symbolic in one-of-three of the perception ternary; and conversely, every ‘mathematical’ consideration is physical (more truly, of other tiered consideration) in one-of-three of its analogous perception ternary. So, mathematics, whether as numerical values, operations, or their corresponding geometry, is the result of tiered co-perception (or, tiered perspective and perspective exchange), just as with physics, with overlapping and exchanging references ‘within’ and ‘without’, so that each completes the other.
In this way, all values can therefore be defined completely only through the multiple and interrelated contexts (references) of tiered perspectives, thereby representing a ‘ number’ (or perception ternary) not as an exact, or ‘given’, absolute, but rather in relation to another perception ternary which is separated by one-or-two of their constituent fundamental references—for instance, relating, as a perceived proportion, a fundamental concept like that of time or dimensions to distance. So, ‘value’ and ‘path’ (or, act of calculation) ‘trade places’ (exchange) and are defined in the same way that ‘observer’ and ‘object’ do in their physical correlation. That is, the ‘constants’ (constant only by co-perspective), pi, phi, and epsilon, as well as the exchanges between them, represented by the polar and Cartesian forms of complex numbers (‘i’), frame the foundation for the mathematical correlate of perspective and perspective exchange. And, as with the three fundamental concepts of physics, these values are overlapping and interrelated.
So, the exchange of perspective represents the only non-contextual and irreducible truth, such that there is no‘thing’ to learn but the act of learning itself, which is communication. It is a self-proving and self-generating totality as purely relational existence—the communication across tiers of the various forms of infinite separation to Other of ‘self/want’ until, ultimately, communication is recognized as the Self, and is then, all that is wanted.
________
This is a summary of conclusions that resulted directly from working on a model. The model is that of a ‘whirlpool’, which I first began to use for a better way of describing and understanding the concept of wave/particle duality. I felt that it was a very helpful way to visualize this phenomenon, but as I thought about it further, I realized that it described many other aspects of physics. So for several years, I worked on a model of whirlpool interaction as a ToE to describe the fundamental particles and the unification of the forces. But later, I found that the ‘whirlpools’ and interacting (overlapping) ‘whirlpools’ represented, more fundamentally, the concepts of perspective and perspective exchange, respectively, and that this applied to mathematics as w ell as physics, relating as tiered symbols of reference. So, the model of interacting ‘whirlpools’ thus became, in its various forms, useful for its straightforward expression of the different forms of reference exchange, and, in this way, eventually provided a self-contained logic/analysis totality based upon reciprocating axioms of cause and context. And I would encourage anyone to use this model/metaphor to help in trying to understand all of the concepts of physics, such as mass/energy conversion and the relationship of gravity to e/m, as well as quantum effects. It is difficult to write about concepts such as these, but I thank you for your time and I hope that this is of some interest to you. Thanks.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Bob Romanelli wrote on Oct. 27, 2008 @ 20:36 GMT
Dear Garrett,
Thank you for doing what you're good at and what you love. God bless you for offering hope to a hopeless world. One of your readers is correct: something big is about to happen. Far more than a paradigm shift or quantum leap is on the horizon. Maybe your ideas are a prelude to that.
The work you are doing, within the context of being a genuine human being, is important for many reasons. I am fascinated by one. Aesthetics. Your awareness of the power of beauty in physics and the mathematics you use to bring your ideas to life are reflections in the eyes of the Creator. To say that you are on to something is an understatement.
If serious scientists would take seriously the interconnectedness between the physics (or mathematics?) of music, and color, and dance, and poetry, perhaps they would discover a key to the universe that looks like Garrett Lisi's E8.
I do not think it strange at all that you are drawn to surfing and snowboarding. Instead I find that very appropriate. The universe was designed by a mathematician who is also an artist. He enjoys surfing time-space continuums. Why should it surprise anyone that you would enjoy surfing. The best logic in grounded in aesthetics.
I offer you a promise for the future:
I know we are destined to go to the stars,
Far beyond Jupiter, Saturn or Mars.
Our feet shall descend where no feet have trod.
Our children shall romp across nebular sod.
The edge of the galaxy's merely a reef,
The color of coral a shade of belief.
I wrote a poem called "Menorah" that also reflects the coming of something far more potent than a paradigm shift or quantum leap. It portents the rolling possibilities of an E8 open door. Maybe I should have made the Sexton a Physicist--not dumb and blind, but visionary and awesome:
http://www.sheavesville.org/poe/p015.htm
Since Elvish is more beautiful than English, I'll close with "Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo." A Star shines upon the hour of our meeting. Perhaps it is a six-pointed star within an E8 configuration.
May the God of all wonder support you and your explorations with health, happiness, hope, and abundant wisdom.
Bob
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Kavita Rajanna wrote on Dec. 5, 2008 @ 13:53 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: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/395. If you wish to post something further about El Naschie, please do so at this new topic page.
Thanks,
K Rajanna
FQXi
report post as inappropriate
Prince Philip wrote on Jan. 13, 2009 @ 13:15 GMT
To Kavita Rajanna
By removing the comments of Dr. Ray Munroe and others you proved the point about scientific apartheid. You also make it clear that it is a pure waste of time to write comments on this site. What is the point of writing to somebody who despises the commenter. Lisi is now a member of the establishment, albeit at the absolute end of the food chain. It is amazing how people could be proud for being insulted by those who are higher up. It reminds me of something very British which you should tell Lisi. British commoners where traditionally very proud when their wives were chosen to be mistresses of the upper and nobel classes. You should all think about that and exercise more humility.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 15, 2009 @ 20:54 GMT
Dear Prince Philip,
Thank you for the support. I'm not easily offended and I intend to stay around. It amuzes me that some of my more off-topic comments stayed on the blog site, while other on-topic comments were moved for mentioning a person's name.
Sincerely, Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
Ed Nash wrote on Feb. 19, 2010 @ 21:15 GMT
Now you can rest assured that E8 and the golden mean are real physics. The Helmholtz Inst. in Germany in cooperation with the University of Oxford and the Bristol University as well as Appleton Laboratory found experimentally the golden mean in quantum mechanics. Long ago El Naschie married E8 and the golden mean into the transfinite E8 exceptional Lie group. To obtain the dimension you simply multiply the exact theoretical inverse fine structure constant with three plus phi where phi is the golden mean 0.618033989. You divide the result with two and you get the dimension which is slightly less than 248. This is all explained in many papers published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. This journal being unique, successful, daring and avante garde is now shut down. The order to shut down the journal came from you know who. I am sure no one is particularly surprised when you read the entire history of this saga starting from the work of Lissi passing by the Scientific American Renate Loll paper and finally landing in the High Court in London in a Writ issued against Nature. You can read about this Writ in Sarah Limbrick’s blog.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 20, 2010 @ 01:04 GMT
I keep hearing about an infinite or transfinite E_8. I am not clear what this is. The only thing I can figure is there is a Kac-Moody realization of some representation of E_8.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 20, 2010 @ 02:37 GMT
Dear Lawrence,
El Naschie's E-Infinity has a transfinite order of 685.3 = 100 (1.618)^4 and an infinite dimension. My E12/ K12' has an order of 684 and a dimension of 12. There are similarities between Kac-Moody and E-Infinity and E12. For nearly two years, I've wondered if a relationship exists whereby those extra dimensions (past 12) can be represented by a simple fractal expression. Or perhaps the difference between 685 and 684 is a Grand 'Higgs' that breaks the original symmetry. I don't know. I don't know if I have sufficient mathematical skills to prove that E-Infinity should even exist.
El Naschie likes the Golden Ratio, and he uses double part of Fibonacci's sequence 4, 6, 10, 16, 26, 42 on a regular basis and relates it to String Theory dimensions.
I think the relevant point is that the Golden Ratio arises out of pentagonal symmetries. The Petrie pentagon represents the 4-simplex.
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Feb. 20, 2010 @ 16:15 GMT
I suppose I don't quite get the big picture or the "Ah ha" of what this means.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 20, 2010 @ 16:24 GMT
Dear Lawrence,
I have some references at work. I could e-mail some of this on Monday.
Ray
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 20, 2010 @ 12:31 GMT
Important thing,
0 - infinity do not exist in the physicality , furthermore if an infinity appears it is with an add or serie towards a human invention which areinfinity in their referential.Thus for one quantic system of for the cosmological number, this serioe is finite and specific.That has no sense to say what the infinity is in the quantum architecture.
You confound all dear Friends and I invite thus the readers to make the difference between irrationalities and the realism, the rational, the logic, the pragmatism......
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steev Dufourny wrote on Dec. 4, 2010 @ 13:13 GMT
ahahaha a t shirt now ahahaha .....
E x E y E z are pure jokes for the sceinces community, rational .
Well Where are we where are we in a film in fact where irrationalities dance with business and vanity, ....but fortunally the Universe is logic , it .
Steve from Belgium
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry wrote on Dec. 8, 2010 @ 07:17 GMT
Joe,
it does not necessarily have to agree with space-time if space-time is only one part of reality, the observer perspective of what exists rather than "concrete" reality.
I don't know what all the other dimensions represent, it seems a lot, but if they are to do with properties of the particle, rather than space, perhaps it is just showing the pathway of a particle through timeless space, superimposing a history onto that space.(historical path is imaginary not really existing as a thing itself in the space)
report post as inappropriate
JOE BLOGS replied on Dec. 8, 2010 @ 08:29 GMT
Gorgina,
Space time is the stuff out of which realiy is made.
And there is no other reality other than space time.
The other dimenisons whatever they are have to convert from a circular orbit in higher dimenensions to an eliptical one.
An eliptical one has to be in three dimesions.
If you can't convert backwards from Einsteins equations it proves string theory wrong.
If there to do with the properties of a particle rather than space then they are quantum theory and not Einsteins thoery.
With this we are dealing with astring theory of gravity and not a quantum theory.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Dec. 8, 2010 @ 09:06 GMT
Joe,
you said "Space time is the stuff out of which realiy is made.
And there is no other reality other than space time."
That sounds very much like a confession of faith to me. Science is not a religion. Space-time is a model of reality, a representation. I regard it to be an incomplete representation. Representing only a part of the whole of reality.
report post as inappropriate
JOE BLOGS replied on Dec. 14, 2010 @ 09:27 GMT
Gorgina,
Space time is accepted by everybody in the physics community.
Now is not the place to argue against it's existance.
The method I have descibed is both very simple and very elegant and powerful.
It means we can put string theory into Einsteins equations and Einsteins equations in terms of string theory.
Which by faith may prove string theory wrong if the equation is not reversible.
Do you really understand what Iam getting at.
You can find something about it in Hawkings new book.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Dec. 14, 2010 @ 10:47 GMT
Joe,
I am not arguing against space time. I agree that space-time is real in that it is observed and experienced and the mathematics of space-time fit with experimental observation.
It has to be an incomplete model though. It causes paradoxes, can not explain causality, does not allow free will, it contradicts Newton, it does not allow finality of events, it does not fit well with quantum physics. It is therefore not a complete and satisfactory explanatory model.
You said "And there is no other reality other than space time." That has to be incorrect because space-time alone causes the time paradoxes and can not answer all of the questions.If it is not incorrect it has to be incomplete. You are basing the conclusion that "there is no other reality than space time" on a false premise "that there is no other reality." It sole reality has to be -assumed- for it to claim sole reality.
When I mention a concrete reality I am not talking about fairy land or imaginary multiverse universes or imaginary time realms but what is "really real" The actual stuff, rather than the image that is perceived from detection of data in the environment.(Intercepted by sense organ or artificial detector.)
No I probably don't really understand what you are saying. I gather that you wish to disprove string theory because it is incompatible with Einstein's mathematics.You have a way to show this. As Einstein's mathematics has been shown to be correct and is accepted by science, it must be string theory that is wrong. Go ahead but do not think that you will be able to answer all of the questions and solve all of the paradoxes with space-time alone.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Dec. 11, 2010 @ 06:44 GMT
Hey check this out. Let's say that the energy that gave us the Big Bang plus all of the gravitational energy add to zero. That would mean that energy comes from some anti-energy gravity "thing". Well, if that's the case, then why can't we get more?
What if there were some secret way to violate conservation of energy?
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 28, 2010 @ 14:11 GMT
There needs to be a policy change here to prevent this. I check this site about every day, and I am dismayed at seeing on the "Recent Blog Comments" the continual list of rubbish submitted. In this case a long past blog site is being used by who I suspect is Frank DeMeglio to write rubbish. I am sure this is a repellant to many people who might otherwise write something of at least a semi-serious nature. A look at the "Recent Blog Comments" suggests this is a site for cranks and the mentally disturbed.
As a suggestion I would give the authors of these blog pages the power to delete nonsense posts. This could cut down the huge number of comments on these blog areas (some into the many hundreds), where many are trash. I would also suggest giving these blog areas a 60 or 90 day period of life, where after that they are closed. That would liberate the author from tracking their site in perpetuity. This should also be extended to the essay authors as well.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Ray replied on Dec. 28, 2010 @ 15:40 GMT
I agree with Lawrence. The blog authors rarely seem to contribute to these threads any more. Are they driven off by non-sensical comments? Once upon a time, Garrett Lisi contributed to this thread. Perhaps FQXi could even consider blocking certain URL addresses. According to ENW, Frank posts from the Baltimore Public Library URL. They seem to allow some Frank comments for comic relief, but they won't allow Frank to monopolize a thread.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray wrote on Dec. 28, 2010 @ 15:34 GMT
I sympathize with the site administrators, though I do agree that the nonsense is way out of control.
Your suggestion to put the power in authors' hands is probably the optimal solution -- though I would be in favor of an administrator option to restore deleted posts on appeal, to prevent authors from blocking honest and valid criticism. An author should not be burdened, however, with responding to patently wrong conceptions of fundamental physics or straw man arguments.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe wrote on Dec. 28, 2010 @ 19:46 GMT
I thought that Frank DeMeglio was banned from this website for viciously attacking other bloggers. He's never written anything that is helpful or interesting. He uses sock puppets to disguise his identity, but they all say the same nonsense. The thread authors should feel free to delete Frank DeMeglio's sock puppets without remorse.
But where do you draw the line between a sincere physics question or comment versus intentional trash? It's interesting to read the defense of what some might consider an "ill conceived" idea. We should keep those. The other issue is that sometimes we like to just chat about politics or other stuff. There should be an open discussion thread where comments only last 30 days.
However, if the real problem is that the author of a thread abandons the thread to off topic conversation. then that underscores the need for a General Discussion thread.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell replied on Dec. 29, 2010 @ 14:03 GMT
There is no perfect solution. Clearly this can lead to blog authors deleting comments they simply disagree with, or playing little Orwellian blog-games like Motl does. However, something probably should change, for these blog pages become weighed down with hundreds of nonsense comments. The authors could then delete rubbish, and after 60 to 90 days the blog entry should be closed. This should at least eliminate the comments made by the small handfull of cranks who post here very frequently, and who are pretty clearly delusional or personality disordered.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Dec. 29, 2010 @ 16:13 GMT
Closing a thread after 90 days seems to punish the innocent. I have a better idea. The webmaster should write a program that scans each article for non physics word like "dreams". If detected, the post is transferred to a "General Conversation" thread.
Or, at the thread author's discretion, the "non-topic" related entry can be moved to a General Conversation thread. Freedom of speech is upheld, and the topic can remain topic related.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Dec. 29, 2010 @ 16:21 GMT
I have a better idea. Under "Report post as inappropriate", create another link that says, "This Post is not Topic related".
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Dec. 31, 2010 @ 19:20 GMT
Great link as to why Penrose comes up short:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/44458#commen
ts
report post as inappropriate
rand3289 wrote on May. 9, 2011 @ 22:01 GMT
I just watched:
http://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_
of_everything.html
Don't know much about physics... have questions that probably don't make sense:
Your projections remind me of drawing a truth table for mutually exclusive events.
If the particles weren't there - would that mean the forces/charges are not independent?
Analogy to truth table there would be a "don't care" instead of T or F and they would not be mutually exclusive.
Would this mean you could manipulate one vs the other?
Knowing that some particles are very stable and some are very unstable, another question pops in my mind:
If a "shape is twisting accross a curved surface" is there anything else other than energy levels that constrains the movement contributing to the stability of some particles?
If you put broken glass into the Kaleidoscope, the pictures come out beautiful and symmetric. Does looking at the projections still makes sense?
to reply: rand3289 (at) yahoo (dot) com
report post as inappropriate
Claude Revilliod wrote on Nov. 7, 2011 @ 21:43 GMT
Dear Mister Lisi,
I am very interested by your theoretical approach of the universe description. I am not a physicist but my formation as chemist allow me to appreciate globally your approach of your unification theory.
However, I have a dream which would correspond to a description of the universe which might include some psychic phenomenon observed by human and now recognized by science (eg, telepathy and premonitions) and other intriguing phenomena of parallel realities (spiritual travel out of the body, etc. ...). Indeed, these phenomenon could be explained by the presence in particles around us a source of information included in the feature vector of these particles and, in some cases, could be perceived by our perceptual system.
An other physicist, Mister J. E. Charon (The complexe relativity)has tried in the past to introduce this spiritual aspect into its model, with a relatively good success.
What do you think about this approach as part of your theory?
Would it be possible to integer this kind of information parameters into your model?
Thank you in advance for your response.
Best Regards
Claude Revilliod
Chemist Engeneer, PhD
report post as inappropriate
Eric T, Rich wrote on Apr. 9, 2012 @ 08:34 GMT
Dear Mr. Lisi,
I am a student at the univerisity of west georgia and I am currently enrolled in an astronomy class, which at first, I believed to be a massive waste of time due to my aspirations to make a career in the music businiess. Though I was not very interested intially, I still made good grades to ensure my own personal success. At the end of the class we were told to pick any topic in the realm of astronomy and right a paper on the chosen topic. I had no clue what to write about b/c I was compelled to write about something other than aliens or moon conspiricies. As I searched for an appropriate topic I watched "Through the Wormhole", a series that you were the first appearence discussing your E8 theory and your awesome life in Hawaii. I had previously decided to write about neutrinos but immediately changed my topic after watching you for just 5 min. I just wanted you to know how intriguing it is to me that you put all of this together and had the balls to put your reputaion on the line for something you believe in. Thank you for making me interested and the best of luck to you in the long road to new discoveries.
Sincerely,
The 20 y/o who's mind was captivated by your profound insight
Eric T. Rich
report post as inappropriate
Myriam wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 11:52 GMT
Thank you for your theory !
To my mind, the creation of universe can't be anything else that this geometrical form or structure. I imagine that the laws of our universe are included in this structure and revealed by it, and I think this beautiful structure was born from the nil to our reality in this exceptional instant we called the Big Bang.
But I have a question for you : do you think that the laws included in this structure could exist before the Big Bang ?
The complexity of this structure make me think that there was something before the birth of our universe that gave life to this structure, even if there was no space and no time before the Big Bang. But what ? or should we consider that the nil is the nil and that there wasn't any rule inside the nil?
To your opinion, where begins the science and where begins the religion ?
Myriam, Toulon (France)
Ps : sorry for the mistakes I don't speak english very well, but I hope you will understand what I've tried to say....
report post as inappropriate
Lee Bloomquist wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 02:23 GMT
Garrett, What if (a) now = (moment, now) and (b) moment = (nonStandardPast, standardPresent, nonStandardFuture)? ____ (in the languages of non-wellFounded sets and nonStandardAnalysis)? and also it = (bit, it) ____ a "non-wellFounded Set" _____ in the nonstandardFuture, two possibilities exist for the 'bit' that are nonzero: 1 and 0 _____ while the shadow of "it" is either 1 or 0 in the nonStandardPast_____ and here's how it works: (1) it = (bit, it) (2). it = (bit, (bit, it)) (3) it = (bit, (bit, (bit, it))) _____and so on: a "stream" of bits named "it".
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lee Bloomquist wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 02:29 GMT
To exist, an "it" must have non-zero possibilities existing in its nonStandardFuture, and leave a shadow behind it in its nonStandardPast. It rides a unique proper time, just as the youth in Parmenides' poem rides a chariot.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.