Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Yuri Danoyan: on 11/24/12 at 1:47am UTC, wrote The only thing he did not clean up is the case d = 26, which remains a...

Yuri Danoyan: on 11/24/12 at 1:07am UTC, wrote Dear Tony 220-240Gev: 18x(12,13,14) 174-180Gev: 18x(9,10) ...

Benjamin Dribus: on 10/5/12 at 18:21pm UTC, wrote Dear Tony, Thanks, maybe this was evident in your paper, but I am a bit of...

Steve Dufourny Jedi: on 10/4/12 at 15:41pm UTC, wrote Ironical ahahah learn the real spherization band of comics .after perhaps...

Tony Smith: on 10/4/12 at 15:18pm UTC, wrote Ben, yes my triality-based supersymmetry between bosons and fermions does...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:40am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Benjamin Dribus: on 10/4/12 at 4:45am UTC, wrote Dear Tony, Interesting essay. Regarding the spin-statistics theorem, have...

Yuri Danoyan: on 9/18/12 at 14:50pm UTC, wrote I sending to you Frank Wilczek’s 3 keen articles ...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "State latency is an explanation for the results of Stern Gerlach experiment..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Isn't symmetry simply closely related to redundancy even if physicist may..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Robert Rise: "Meet many types of women on ihookup. Some dates better than others. It is..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Steve Dufourny: "FQXI you too I need your help, come all too we have a work to do there..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Wrong Assumption: E8 Cannot Unify Fermions and Bosons. Useful Truth: F4 and E8 Lie Algebras Have Both Commutator and AntiCommutator Structure by Frank Dodd Smith [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Frank Dodd Smith wrote on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 14:41 GMT
Essay Abstract

Realistic Physics models must describe both commutator Bosons and anticommutator Fermions so that spin and statistics are consistent. The usual commutator structure of Lie Algebras can only describe Bosons, so a common objection to Physics models that describe both Bosons and Fermions in terms of a single unifiying Lie Algebra (for example, Garrett Lisi's E8 TOE) is that they violate consistency of spin and statistics by using Lie Algebra commutators to describe Fermions. However, Pierre Ramond has shown in hep-th/0112261 as shown that the exceptional Lie Algebra F4 can be described using anticommutators as well as commutators. This essay uses the periodicity property of Real Clifford Algebras to show that E8 can also be described using anticommutators as well as commutators so that it may be possible to construct a realistic Physics model that uses the exceptional Lie Algebra E8 to describe both Bosons and Fermions. E8 also inherits from F4 Triality-based symmetries between Bosons and Fermions that can give the useful results of SuperSymmetry without requiring conventional SuperPartner particles that are unobserved by LHC.

Author Bio

Frank Dodd Smith, Jr., a/k/a Tony Smith, is a lawyer in Georgia USA, was graduated in 1959 from Cartersville High School, received an A.B. degree in mathematics from Princeton University in 1963, received a J.D. degree from Emory University in 1966, and received an Honorable Discharge as TSG from the United States Air Force in 1971. More recent material is at www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 17:04 GMT
Hi Tony,

Excellent summary of why E8 physics is not dead, by a long shot! I'm glad to see your essay was accepted and is posted here. I like the blue vs red highlighting to indicate the commutating and anticommutating parts of the geometric objects and groups you are dissecting. Let me redact here.

When Lisi first offered his 'Exceptionally Simple TOE' based on E8 it was only a partial triumph, and some view it as a failed attempt, because early versions of E8 physics don't fully explain bosons. But following Ramond's prescription lets us use the anticommutator terms to construct the bosonic sector.

This makes sense if we view the anticommutators as describing the involutive aspect, where the commutators describe the evolutive aspect. Since bosons are gregarious - nesting tighter than close packed spheres - there must be a geometric mechanism. Dimensions higher than 5, or perhaps 7, run out of expansiveness, as I discuss in my essay. Higher dimensions must be compact - curled up, inward facing, or minimal; is this part of the story?

While Lisi's model focused on the outside of E8, and modeling the fermions well, you are suggesting that we also need to look at the inward facing aspects of E8 to reveal the bosons. That's how I interpret your message anyhow. Good luck in the contest!

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 23:34 GMT
are you really conscient of your general reasoning Jonathan ?

You must be rational !Forget so the irrationalities and decoherences.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 17:15 GMT
Ha Ha!

Sorry Tony. It looks like I said it exactly backwards above, and now I have egg I my face - but perhaps some part of my comment makes sense anyhow. I got my inward and outward correct, but misstated the roles of the commutator and anticommutator terms - with respect to Bosons and Fermions. I'm glad you did not mix it up, however.

Thanks for your patience and forbearance, Tony and everyone else.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 00:57 GMT
Thanks anyhow Steve,

Tony knows quite a lot about spheres, and could probably help you get a handle on the mathematical rigor needed for your theory of spherization to be tested. As for extra dimensions, the real question is how big an array of dimensions and mathematical structures do we need to reproduce all the forms and symmetries we can clearly observe. Some think that E8 is 'too small,' but this essay shows there is reason to believe otherwise.

Your ideas for a theory involving spheres and higher spheres sound very interesting, and Tony pointed out some of the cool aspects of higher-order spheres in private correspondence - which give your ideas credence - however your theory is nebulous enough in its current form to be a cool philosophical ideal, but not yet a testable scientific theory.

If you read and can successfully understand what he is saying, you will find that this man is proposing something which can and will be tested - as the results from the LHC keep pouring in. Either we will see super-partners of some of the common particle types soon, as String theory predicts, or we will learn that we need to look elsewhere. We will know if Tony got it right.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 14:38 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

You know I have no probelm for the complementarity and the collaboration. I am a person with universal values.I am not perfect but I have faith in this universality. The probelm Jonathan, you know it , this monney like always.

I cannot accept these strategies. You cannot invent false discriminations with these pseudos maths. You know Jonathan, I don't laugh, I am going...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 12:06 GMT
Frank

Are you familiar with preprint:Identification of the 125 GeV Resonance as a Pseudoscalar Quarkonium Meson? http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.6015

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tony Smith wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 13:33 GMT
Yuri,

thanks for the reference to the recent paper at arXiv 1207.6015 by Moffatt that proposes to identify the 125 GeV LHC observation as a quark-based meson pseudoscalar.

Moffat also has an even more recent version 5 of arXiv 1204.4702 in which he says

"… We conjecture that a 125 GeV resonance … composed of a quark-antiquark state may have been observed at the LHC …".

I had earlier made a similar proposal in papers such as viXra 1203.0027

but Moffatt seems to have been unaware of my efforts because he makes no reference to my work.

However,

in light of the 2012 LHC data released around July 2012,

I think that the 125 GeV observation is most likely the Higgs and not such a pseudoscalar meson.

Prior to that, based on LHC data through 2011, there were two digamma bumps:

around 125 GeV (a cross section somewhat higher than Higgs expectation)

and

around 137 GeV (a cross section somwhat lower than Higgs expectation).

My earlier proposal was that

a Higgs was around 137 GeV

and

a pseudoscalar meson was around 125 GeV.

When the 2012 LHC observations were announced in July 2012

the new data showed in both CMS and ATLAS that the 137 digamma bump had gone away (probably a statistical fluctuation) so that

only the 125 GeV digamma bump remained.

My view now is that the Standard Model shows that a Higgs necessarily exists,

while it is not necessary that such a pseudoscalar meson exits,

so

since the LHC sees only one digamma bump (the one around 25 GeV)

it is almost certainly the Higgs and not a pseudoscalar meson.

Of course, if the 137 GeV digamma bump should reappear in the LHC observations for the second half of 2012, then my pseudoscalar meson (and Moffat's) might again become a possibility

but

I do not expect that to happen.

Tony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 13:45 GMT
Frank

Could you please read my essay?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 21:42 GMT
Tony

See all my answers to you

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 15:27 GMT
Tony

My phenomenon 18 degrees can help you to confirm your calculations.

18x7=126

18x11=198

18x14=252

18x18=324 See http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/08/conformal-standard-model-a
nd-second.html#more

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 14:50 GMT
I sending to you Frank Wilczek’s 3 keen articles

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Ab
s_limits388.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/physt
oday/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_toda
y/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

All the best

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:45 GMT
Dear Tony,

Interesting essay. Regarding the spin-statistics theorem, have you looked at Paul O'Hara's essay about the Pauli exclusion principle and spin statistics? I wonder if this has any bearing on your research program.

Also, I am not quite sure what the triality-based supersymmetry between bosons and fermions results you cite would imply... you say that it doesn't require superpartners of the type predicted by certain versions of string theory and unseen by the LHC. Does it relate bosons and fermions already appearing in the standard model?

Finally, you might like my essay here, though it's about a different area of research. Take care,

Ben Dribus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:40 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tony Smith wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 15:18 GMT
Ben, yes my triality-based supersymmetry between bosons and fermions does relate bosons and fermions already appearing in the standard model in this way:

Bosons = 16 generators for Conformal U(2,2) producing MacDowell-Mansouri Gravity plus 12 generators for the Standard Model SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)

for a total of 28.

Fermions = 8 first-generation particles and 8 first-generation antiparticles

antisymmetric pairs of which produce the 8/\8 = 28 bosons described above.

(Note that the 8 particles are electron, red up quark, green up quark, blue up quark, neutrino, red down quark, green down quark, and blue down quark.)

Sergey, thanks for the information about rankings but I am not interested in trying to game the system to get higher rating. I do not view this "essay contest" as a competitive race but as a place to put ideas that people might find interesting. Therefore, I do not really care about ratings but am content with the fact that my essay is in a place where it might be read by people who might be interested in its ideas.

Tony Smith

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 18:21 GMT
Dear Tony,

Thanks, maybe this was evident in your paper, but I am a bit of a newcomer on some of these issues. Take care,

Ben

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny Jedi wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 15:41 GMT
Ironical ahahah learn the real spherization band of comics .after perhaps you can speak ... irritating, full of hate...logic for the second part of the sciences community.Learn and don't teach ahahah

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Nov. 24, 2012 @ 01:07 GMT
Dear Tony

220-240Gev: 18x(12,13,14)

174-180Gev: 18x(9,10)

130-145Gev: 18(7,8)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Yuri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Nov. 24, 2012 @ 01:47 GMT
The only thing he did not clean

up is the case d = 26, which remains a tantalizing mystery

http://www.math.uh.edu/~tomforde/Articles/Missed-Opportuniti
es-Dyson.pdf

Reference from Dyson's article

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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