To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: An Exceptionally Simple Theory Of Everything?
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
Pages: 1, 2

Raphie Frank
A. Garrett Lisi

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

All fields of the standard model and gravity are unified as an E8 principal bundle connection. A non-compact real form of the E8 Lie algebra has G2 and F4 subalgebras which break down to strong su(3), electroweak su(2) x u(1), gravitational so(3,1), the frame-Higgs, and three generations of fermions related by triality. The interactions and dynamics of these 1-form and Grassmann valued parts of an E8 superconnection are described by the curvature and action over a four dimensional base manifold.

(Submitted on 6 Nov 2007 to ArXiv)
Download Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770

for more see:
Laid-Back Surfer Dude May Be Next Einstein
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311952,00.html

PETER WOIT also discusses Lisi's paper on his blog... NOT EVEN WRONG
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=617

==============================

OF NOTE

A very related paper on E_8 Grand Unification to appear in:

Int Jour Geom Methods in Mod Physics vol 4, no. 8 (December 2007).

A Chern-Simons E_8 Gauge theory of Gravity in D = 15, Grand Unification and Generalized Gravity in Clifford Spaces
(received March 22, 2007, accepted July 13 2007)

by Dr. Carlos Castro Perelman
Raphie Frank
There is also a very intriguing comment thread regarding Lisi's paper, mostly between Carl Brannen and Tony Smith on the blog Arcadian Functor. See...
http://kea-monad.blogspot.com/2007/11/np2008.html

The work of physicist Frank (Tony) Smith, who is cited in the acknowledgements of Lisi's paper, is also apparently related.

Also worthy of note for the historical record: Dr. Castro Perelman (dating to 2003), mentioned in the post above, and Dr. Smith (dating to 2002) do not have Cornell ArXiv posting privileges (some might call this "blacklisting"). For more information see the related thread on this forum:

Challenging Dominant Physics Paradigms
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=18909&st=15
Raphie Frank
Not unrelated...
==========

Math research team maps E8
Calculation on paper would cover Manhattan
March 18, 2007
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/e8.html

An international team of 18 mathematicians, including two from MIT, has mapped one of the largest and most complicated structures in mathematics. If written out on paper, the calculation describing this structure, known as E8, would cover an area the size of Manhattan...

=================
The article also gives a basic overview of E8...
=================

E8 (pronounced "E eight") is an example of a Lie (pronounced "Lee") group. Lie groups were invented by the 19th-century Norwegian mathematician Sophus Lie to study symmetry. Underlying any symmetrical object, such as a sphere, is a Lie group. Balls, cylinders or cones are familiar examples of symmetric three-dimensional objects.

Mathematicians study symmetries in higher dimensions. E8 has 248 dimensions...

=================
More on E8
=================

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_(mathematics)

And an image from "Centripetal Notion"
http://centripetalnotion.com/2007/03/22/22:31:00/

User posted image
Raphie Frank
The Opposing View

by Lubos Motl...
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptio...-theory-of.html


======================================

I have some opinions to offer regarding at least Motl's MANNER of critique, but will do my level-headed best to maintain at least some degree of objectivity. I will only make note herein that Motl shares a common trait I have noticed in others. If disagreeing with someone, simply label them a "crackpot" either directly or by association. I am sure Motl and Paul Ginsparg would get on quite well should they not already be acquainted with one another.

======================================

Incidentally, here is an interesting, and actually thoughtful and insightful post from Motl regarding...

"Common Crackpot Errors."
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/08/common-c...ots-errors.html

with a link to John Baez's famous "Crackpot Index"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Raphie Frank
Well, speak of the devil! None other than John Baez, himself, that master of "crackpottery" that Motl refers to in the post I linked to (one post back) has a thing or two to say about Dr. Garrett Lisi...

See...

This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 253)
June 27, 2007
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week253.html

Here is a brief excerpt...

"Briefly, he's been trying to explain the 3 generations of elementary particles using some math called "triality", which is related to the octonions and the exceptional Lie groups. In fact, he's trying to use the exceptional Lie group E8 to describe all the particles in the Standard Model, together with gravity.

I'd like to know if these ideas hold water. So, I should try to explain them! But as usual, in this Week's Finds I'll wind up explaining not what Garrett actually did, but what it made me think about..."

You'll have to visit Dr. Baez's site to learn more, but suffice it to say, that the very man Lubos Motl quotes to discredit Lisi seems to be quite the fan of Lisi. We have indeed, it would seem, entered the Age of Ironic Physics John Horgan foresaw in his book "The End of Science." Just, perhaps, not exactly in the manner that Horgan foresaw.
Beta
I like this, it's too good and simple to be wrong, especially beautiful, relying soley on geometry. Hope the LHC finds one or two of the newly predicted particles, which apparently there's 20 of ?

I think the most exciting part is to truly understanding its implications. Would any of our brighter sparks on the forum care to tell us what might these be? biggrin.gif

Raphie Frank
Perhaps Beta, you might tell us? Not being a physicist or mathematician myself, I'm a bit uschooled on these types of things. Also, just curious, but I noted with interest what John Baez wrote about Garrett Lisi...

"he's been trying to explain the 3 generations of elementary particles using some math called 'triality', which is related to the octonions and the exceptional Lie groups"

That got me thinking -- and just asking a question here, without already knowing the answer -- but I'm just wondering if the following paper, dealing with Octonionic Spacetime and Clifford Spaces (excluded from ArXiv it so happens) might not be related? I downloaded it a few days ago and will freely confess it is just so far above my ahead it makes me rather dizzy.

===========================
Carlos Castro Perelman: Octonionic Spacetime and Grand Unification
On the Noncommutative and Nonassociative Geometry of Octonionic Spacetime, Modified Dispersion Relations and Grand Unification

Center for Theoretical Studies of Physical Systems, Clark Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA. 30314, 30 April, 2007

The abstract is a bit long to post here, but is available on GA Net:
http://gaupdate.wordpress.com/2007/05/05/c...nd-unification/

Or just download the PDF here...
http://podtime.net/sciprint/fm/uploads/fil...avity_apr07.pdf

===========================

Incidentally, as an ASIDE, the word going around, and DO NOT HOLD ME TO THIS! But it's the talk at least in several corners of the cybersphere I have recently visited, is that were Dr. Lisi to have cited the papers of any blacklisted scientists in his paper, say Tony Smith, for instance, who Dr. Lisi graciously mentioned in the Acknowledgements section of his paper, he would have been "flagged" and barred from posting to ArXiv.org.

Now, in all honesty, I find that rather incredulous and hard to believe! Surely this cannot be so and folks must just be just getting a little carried away. All the same... perhaps someone out there may wish to clarify with the Cornell Archives that this is NOT the case lest any scientists be timid about citing the work of "blacklisted" scientists within the bodies of their own papers?
Raphie Frank
Perhaps relevant to the Garrett Lisi discussion is the following paper:
============================================

Carlos Castro Perelman
Center for Theoretical Studies of Physical Systems, Clark Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA 30314, USA
Received 4 June 2005; accepted 13 November 2005. Available online 28 December 2005.
Annals of Physics vol. 321, no.4 (2006) 813-839.

On generalized Yang-Mills theories and extensions of the standard model in Clifford (tensorial) spaces

Abstract

We construct the Clifford-space tensorial-gauge fields generalizations of Yang-Mills theories and the Standard Model that allows to predict the existence of new particles (bosons, fermions) and tensor-gauge fields of higher-spins in the 10 Tev regime. We proceed with a detailed discussion of the unique D4 − D5 − E6 − E7 − E8 model of Smith based on the underlying Clifford algebraic structures in D = 8, and which furnishes all the properties of the Standard Model and Gravity in four-dimensions, at low energies. A generalization and extension of Smith’s model to the full Clifford-space is presented when we write explicitly all the terms of the extended Clifford-space Lagrangian. We conclude by explaining the relevance of multiple-foldings of D = 8 dimensions related to the modulo 8 periodicity of the real Cliford algebras and display the interplay among Clifford, Division, Jordan, and Exceptional algebras, within the context of D = 26, 27, 28 dimensions, corresponding to bosonic string, M and F theory, respectively, advanced earlier by Smith. To finalize we describe explicitly how the E8 × E8 Yang-Mills theory can be obtained from a Gauge Theory based on the Clifford (16) group.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...a17b7e234bcff27


============================================

I might note herein that if Dr. Lisi was familiar with the above cited work, he could be more than a bit forgiven for not making note of it or referring to it in his recent paper in any manner whatsoever given the -- let's be euphemistic here -- somewhat "restrictive" posting policies at ArXiv.org, which humorously enough is described on the User friendly front end mirror site for the archive at UC Davis as containing: "All the research that's fit to e-print."

http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/

The above paper, apparently, was "fit" enough for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, but not upon the ArXiv archives.

Forgive me for injecting a bit of passionate opinion here, but that tag line "All the research that's fit to e-print." is an utter, complete joke and I do hope someone will ask UC Davis to cease and desist from engaging in misleading "advertising."
Raphie Frank
User posted image
Another representation of E8.

Credit: John Stembridge, based on the work of Peter McMullen

from...

Stuff string theory - try E8 to explain the universe
The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/19/ma...rse_everything/

excerpt...

=========================

The most conventional approach to unification right now is string theory, which suggests that the fundamental particles are not actually fundamental at all, but are rather all different expressions of one thing: a string. Different vibrational modes let us "see" different things, so one vibration shows us an electron, another a proton, and so on*.

But Lisi says he doesn't like it because it lacks elegance. He says that when he started to play around with the E8 Lie group structure, it seemed to help the disparate pieces of our knowledge - fundamental forces, particles and so on - fit neatly together.

"It would be kind of nice if it all made sense, mathematically anyway," he is quoted as saying. "It’s nice to think that there’s a bigger picture that’s beautiful and that we’re all a part of it."

=========================

The article includes a link to a simplified explanation of Lisi's ideas "for the rest of us..."

See:
A Theoretically Simple Exception of Everything
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/11/t...ception-of.html

=========================

Oh, and Garrett Lisi has been critiqued for his emphasis on beauty and elegance. At the very least, he is in good company!

K.C. Cole in the Los Angeles Times writes...

In physics, truth and beauty often walk hand in hand. Physicists describe theories as "ugly" or "beautiful," talk about ideas that "smell" or "feel" right. Often, aesthetic judgments lead to discoveries: as in Einstein's theory of gravity and Paul A.M. Dirac's discovery of antimatter. Aesthetics, French physicist Henri Poincare said, is a "delicate sieve" that sorts the true from the misleading. Or as Dirac famously put it: "It is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiments."

via the blog of Mitchell Stevens, professor of journalism at New York University
http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellste...l_stephens.html

See his blog post...

The Aesthetics of Science
http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellste...aesthetics.html
Raphie Frank
Not unrelated Paper to Garrett Lisi's: "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"

From Sets to Quarks
by Frank (Tony) Smith

Version 1: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 19:26:51 GMT
Version 2: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 09:14:26 GMT

Abstract: From sets and simple operations on sets, a Feynman Checkerboard physics model is constructed that allows computation of force strength constants and constituent mass ratios of elementary particles, with a Lagrangian structure that gives a Higgs scalar particle mass of about 146 GeV and a Higgs scalar field vacuum expectation value of about 252 GeV, giving a tree level constituent Truth Quark (top quark) mass of roughly 130 GeV, which is (in my opinion) supported by dileptonic events and some semileptonic events. See

Chapter 1 - Introduction.
Chapter 2 - From Sets to Clifford Algebras.
Chapter 3 - Octonions and E8 lattices.
Chapter 4 - E8 spacetime and particles.
Chapter 5 - HyperDiamond Lattices.
Chapter 6 - Internal Symmetry Space.
Chapter 7 - Feynman Checkerboards.
Chapter 8 - Charge = Amplitude to Emit Gauge Boson.
Chapter 9 - Mass = Amplitude to Change Direction.
Chapter 10 - Protons, Pions, and Physical Gravitons.

Download Paper at UC Davis ArXiv Mirror Site....
http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/9708.2379

==================================================

A LITTLE BACKGROUND...

The author, Frank (Tony) Smith, as mentioned in a previous post, is graciously acknowledged by Dr. Lisi in his paper, although Dr. Smith's work, "From Sets to Quarks" in particular (see Chapters 3 & 4 especially), is not cited. A very, very wise move by Lisi, in my personal view, and eminently reasonable given the current "chilled" environment for theories that counter prevailing orthodoxies within the Physics establishment, issues cogently outlined by Peter Woit in his 2007 publication "Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics."

See: Not Even Wrong @ Google Books

Woit on Lisi - 106 comments to date, including comments by Frank (Tony) Smith and Garrett Lisi
See... http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=617

I might add that even the acknowledgement was a likely risk for Dr. Lisi, as, from what I understand, Dr. Smith, who happens also to be an attorney, has filed a lawsuit against Cornell. He has been barred from posting to ArXiv dating all the way back to 2002.

==================================================

Download Garrett Lisi's

"An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" at ArXiv.org

http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770
truth2k
Do not argue with each other. Be patient for one more month to see the final result of Gravity Probe B. If General Relativity is not proved by any physical experiment then String and E8 etc. are just math not reality!!

AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (truth2k+Nov 19 2007, 11:46 PM)
Do not argue with each other. Be patient for one more month to see the final result of Gravity Probe B. If General Relativity is not proved by any physical experiment then String and E8 etc. are just math not reality!!

Still haven't grasped it, have you?

No model in physics is ever proven, it's only ever vindicated. GPB will not 'prove' GR, it will only vindicate it to a certain level of accuracy.

Besides, you are ignoring the many many other experiments which relativity, and relativity alone, has matched. All those add vindication to GR. None of them prove GR, only support it to a certain level of accuracy.

You continue to whine, yet you make no attempt to even understand scientific methodology (GR related or not) and you ignore all those experiments which have supported GR over the decades.

Besides, even if GPB falsifies GR, it wouldn't mean that the E8 group has nothing to do with reality. The E8 group's applications can be about symmetries and multiplets of particles, it's not intimitely and unavoidably linked to GR. Yet another thing you fail to grasp.

You're so blinded by your dislike of relativity that you wrap up everything in mainstream physics you don't like into the same bundle and in doing so display how little you understand and how little you're willing to learn or think about. You complain about scientific truth and the supposed lack of open mindedness in physicists but you're much more close minded than most mainstream physicists.

As the wave of debate about this E8 paper demonstrates, a great many high profile physicists are willing to discuss the ideas of people who are outside the mainstream, who bring up interesting ideas out of nowhere, provided they can present their ideas in a coherent, methodical manner, making their work and thinking as transparent as possible and as inline with scientific methodology as possible. Your rants (I won't call them 'papers') do not do this. Instead you're too wrapped up in your hatred of relativity to realise you don't even understand it. Or science in general.
truth2k
I guess AlphaNumeric is the friend of the guy:
User posted image

They need to study probability theory:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512614
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (truth2k+Nov 20 2007, 12:28 AM)
I guess AlphaNumeric is the friend of the guy

I know of him but I don't know him. We have some similar views about things but I wouldn't consider myself as ardent in my views as he is.
QUOTE (truth2k+Nov 20 2007, 12:28 AM)
IThey need to study probability theory:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512614
So rather than address any point I made, such as how you fail to grasp how the scientific method works and how experiments and theories relate to one another, you link me to one of your unpublished, uncited crank ramblings which simply demonstrates the validity of my comments about your ignorance.

Good job, you simply back up what I said about you. Thanks.
Raphie Frank
No, truth2k. Please do not insult Alphanumeric in such manner. I cannot imagine he would EVER so flippantly attack the character of another as Lubos Motl did Garrett Lisi. Let's stay "on-topic" here as much as possible. Thank you in advance.

Kindest Regards,
Raphie Frank

P.S. Incidentally, to offer something "useful" within the context of this post, in my view Garrett Lisi may not be correct, but he is asking very valuable questions (IMHO). In a very, very general manner, his "solution" -- just a thought here -- may be a "special case" of a greater Clifford Algebra ToE.

Not dissimilar to the manner in which Grigory Perelman showed the Poincare conjecture to be a "special case." More here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman
AlphaNumeric
In an attempt to be on topic, in relation to E_8, I would be grateful if anyone knows a link or a paper or a book reference which shows how to compute the decompostion of E_8 into E_6 x SU(3). I know that the adjoint of E_8 goes as :

248 = (78,1)+(1,8)+(27,3)+(27',3')

where 27' and 3' are the antifundamental representations, but I don't know how to compute this in a nice way. I can do it using Young Tableaux for SU(N) -> SU(n)xSU(m), but Y.T. only work for the SU groups, not the Exceptional ones.

Anyone come across this?
truth2k
To be on topic. I give the medcine for modern theory of gravity:

Gravity is the spacetime background of other interactions.

Einstein IS considering gravity as background. On the other hand, He the God wants to unify gravity with others and tries to tranform the theory into field theory. Therefore, curvature is considered real matter while reference frames (real background) are no longer the choice of Einstein. General relativity loses connection to real matter.

String and other mainstreams do not dare to challenge Einstein and, therefore, dance on the stage of imaginary matter!
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (truth2k+Nov 20 2007, 01:04 AM)
I give the medcine for modern theory of gravity

Doctors do use laughing gas for some things...
QUOTE (truth2k+Nov 20 2007, 01:04 AM)
Gravity is the spacetime background of other interactions
Only on a classical or effective level. In a full blown quantum theory of gravity, it would be the interaction of gravitons, which themselves weave together to form space-time itself. Loop quantum gravity takes that kind of approach, space-time itself is generated from something more fundamental.
QUOTE (truth2k+Nov 20 2007, 01:04 AM)
Einstein IS considering gravity as background.
Yes, because he wasn't trying to come up with a quantum theory of gravity when he developed GR.
QUOTE (truth2k+Nov 20 2007, 01:04 AM)
He the God
It's funny how you pepper your posts with such jabs at mainstream physicists, as if we consider Einstein a god. Einstein was wrong about many things, noone thinks he or anyone else in history is/was infallible. You make the usual crank mistake of thinking that because GR is seen as an excellent theory it's considered a perfect theory. Not true.

You ignored my comments about how GR has a ton of experimental evidence aside from frame dragging. I guess you aren't man enough to admit that such things exist and go against your claims.
QUOTE (truth2k+Nov 20 2007, 01:04 AM)
String and other mainstreams do not dare to challenge Einstein
GR arises naturally within string theory. There is no choice in the matter, if you have closed strings in your theory then you're lead to a string mode which acts like the graviton (a bosonic rank two symmetric tensor with zero rest mass) and whose equations of motion are that of the Einstein Field Equation on a weak field limit.

Experiments say that the universe has just such a weak field limit when it comes to gravity, hence it's a boost for string theory. It's the reason Michael Green said he first felt string theory was worth investigating.

But that's not the end of the story, string theory has usual GR as a first approximation (just as GR has Newtonian gravity as it's first approximation). It gives corrections to it based on 'stringy effects' and quantum corrections. It's expanded GR.
QUOTE (truth2k+Nov 20 2007, 01:04 AM)
Therefore, curvature is considered real matter while reference frames (real background) are no longer the choice of Einstein. General relativity loses connection to real matter.
You have demonstrated you don't grasp GR, so making claims about various 'beyond GR' models of gravity and attempts at quantum gravity is not particular wise of you to do.

Have you ever studied string theory? Do you know how to generate the Einstein Field Equations from a string construction? Do you know how to compute the string corrections to them? Do you know how second quantisation would give a way of describing the fundamentals of space-time in a quantised manner?

I doubt it. Instead you fall back on assumptions, ignorance and having to ignore it when anyone points out flaws in your claims. What an excellent way to spend your time. You whine again and again about GR, yet you seem adament to avoid learning anything about it. It really does boggle my mind how so many cranks can spend so much time avoiding learning what they complain so much about. Even by slow osmosis you should have picked up how basic science works by now, yet you haven't. So it would seem that not only does passive learning not work for you, you must be actively avoiding learning.
Why Not?
AN,

[QUOTE=AlphaNumeric]I would be grateful if anyone knows a link or a paper or a book reference which shows how to compute the decompostion of E_8 into E_6 x SU(3).

You'll have a better chance of finding an answer here, http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=196498.
AlphaNumeric
I've asked on Physicsforums.com before and while I got something which helped, it wasn't a particularly straightforward method for the exceptional groups.

/edit

I've just noticed that it's explained in a bit more detail on the Wiki page for E8. Either it wasn't there last time I looked or I missed it. smile.gif
Raphie Frank
Dear Alphanumeric,

It might take a while, but I have been in touch (as may be apparent) with a number of physicists behind the scenes, and willl see if I can provide any direction.

Kindest Regards,
Raphie

P.S. I see you updated your post. If you've gotten what you need, GREAT!
Why Not?
Garrett Lisi has been active on that particular Physicsforums thread so you could try asking him directly.
truth2k
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 20 2007, 12:22 AM)
Doctors do use laughing gas for some things...
Only on a classical or effective level. In a full blown quantum theory of gravity, it would be the interaction of gravitons, which themselves weave together to form space-time itself. Loop quantum gravity takes that kind of approach, space-time itself is generated from something more fundamental.
Yes, because he wasn't trying to come up with a quantum theory of gravity when he developed GR.
It's funny how you pepper your posts with such jabs at mainstream physicists, as if we consider Einstein a god. Einstein was wrong about many things, noone thinks he or anyone else in history is/was infallible. You make the usual crank mistake of thinking that because GR is seen as an excellent theory it's considered a perfect theory. Not true.

You ignored my comments about how GR has a ton of experimental evidence aside from frame dragging. I guess you aren't man enough to admit that such things exist and go against your claims.
GR arises naturally within string theory. There is no choice in the matter, if you have closed strings in your theory then you're lead to a string mode which acts like the graviton (a bosonic rank two symmetric tensor with zero rest mass) and whose equations of motion are that of the Einstein Field Equation on a weak field limit.

Experiments say that the universe has just such a weak field limit when it comes to gravity, hence it's a boost for string theory. It's the reason Michael Green said he first felt string theory was worth investigating.

But that's not the end of the story, string theory has usual GR as a first approximation (just as GR has Newtonian gravity as it's first approximation). It gives corrections to it based on 'stringy effects' and quantum corrections. It's expanded GR.
You have demonstrated you don't grasp GR, so making claims about various 'beyond GR' models of gravity and attempts at quantum gravity is not particular wise of you to do.

Have you ever studied string theory? Do you know how to generate the Einstein Field Equations from a string construction? Do you know how to compute the string corrections to them? Do you know how second quantisation would give a way of describing the fundamentals of space-time in a quantised manner?

I doubt it. Instead you fall back on assumptions, ignorance and having to ignore it when anyone points out flaws in your claims. What an excellent way to spend your time. You whine again and again about GR, yet you seem adament to avoid learning anything about it. It really does boggle my mind how so many cranks can spend so much time avoiding learning what they complain so much about. Even by slow osmosis you should have picked up how basic science works by now, yet you haven't. So it would seem that not only does passive learning not work for you, you must be actively avoiding learning.

Mr AlphaNumeric,

Those `adult` mainstreams do understand the first part of http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213 but they want to continue their money-gaining game.

However, I am VERY VERY sure that you do not understand the first part of http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213 because your only ability is repeating Mainstream Bible! You look like a child mainstream.
AlphaNumeric
I notice you continue to avoid addressing anything I actually said and just come back with "You're a mainstream supporter".

Yes, I support a theory which had a lot of experimental evidence. I don't think it's perfect, such implications of my comments are flaws in your understanding. But there's a lot of evidence for GR to a very high level of accuracy. It's not a lie or an exaggeration to say it's a very good effective theory and that any theory which attempts to model gravity must reduce to it in the weak field limit, just as any model must reduce to Newtonian gravity in the very weak field limit (which relativity does).

Time and again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of that. That's how science works. Theories aren't accepted as 'verified' because they look nice, they are actually experimentally verified. Doesn't make them perfect or unquestionable, it makes them valid up to a point. Since any theory must have this, each new theory overlays ontop of the old ones. If theory A replaces theory B, then theory A must explain all the experiments which theory B could, giving the same experimental predictions, because theory B got those predictions right (to the limit of experimental accuracy). That's how it works. You don't grasp this and you don't seem to want to grasp this.

No doubt your reply to this won't bother addressing any point I raise or admit you were wrong about there not being evidence for GR. You're unable to give good responses to those points so you just avoid doing so at all, in the hopes that if you ignore them, they'll go away.

It's complete failing in your understanding like that which is your problem. If what you've said on these forums is true, it's the reason you got chucked from whatever physics course you were doing and it's the reason noone cites your papers. You never want to hear when you're wrong. Precisely what you accuse mainstream physicists of. So that makes you a hypocrite.
truth2k
QUOTE
But there's a lot of evidence for GR to a very high level of accuracy.

I only looked the first several lines of your `arguing`. They are disgusting, no scientific value. If you think and believe GR is proved, why there is Gravity Probe B experiment????
N O M
QUOTE (truth2k+Nov 20 2007, 01:12 PM)
I only looked the first several lines of your `arguing`. They are disgusting, no scientific value. If you think and believe GR is proved, why there is Gravity Probe B experiment????

I only needed to look at the first couple of lines of the stupid site you referred to to see that guy Jin He is a total braindead nutter without a clue about anything to do with physics or maths. What an idiot laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
truth2k
QUOTE (N O M+Nov 20 2007, 03:03 AM)
I only needed to look at the first couple of lines of the stupid site you referred to to see that guy Jin He is a total braindead nutter without a clue about anything to do with physics or maths. What an idiot

Before I read NOM's post I believed that truth would win forever and human could be saved. I used to think that human were a wonderful race. Now I understand that Max Plack is right and I believe that trash, stupidity, mafia are the major part of human.

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the ideas from the beginning.''
A quotation for today
Max Planck (1858 - 1947)
< Autobiography>(New York 1949)
Beta

QUOTE (truth2k+Nov 20 2007, 04:18 AM)

Max Planck (1858 - 1947)
< Autobiography>(New York 1949)



So a quote from his autobiography, 2 years after he died ? blink.gif blink.gif

I'm extremely concerned for the mental wellbeing of truth2k. I thought this was science forum, not an institution for pathetic scramble-headed delusionaries.

sad.gif
bheim
Mr. Garett's work is a sort of geometric mysticism in its current state indeed, but it still doesn't mean, it CANNOT have robust physical meaning. The most important point (which wasn't mentioned till now) is, the Lie group is not just void geometrical structure. It's root system is describing the tightest structure of kissing hyperspheres, where the kissing points are sitting at the centers of another hyperspheres, recursively. The Aether Wave Theory proposes at least two dual ways, how to interpret such structure.

The cosmological one is maybe easier to realize: it considers, the current Universe generation is formed by interior of giant dense collapsar, which behaves like black hole from outer perspective. This collapse was followed by phase transition, which proceeded like crystallization from over-saturated solution by avalanche-like mechanism. During this, the approximately spherical zones of condensing false vacuum have intersect mutually, and from these places the another vacuum condensation has started (a sort of nucleation effect). We can observe the residuum of these zones as a dark matter streaks. The dodecahedron structure of these zones should corresponds the E8 group geometry, as being observed from inside.

The second interpretation of E8 is relevant for Planck scale, i.e. for outer perspective. The dense interior of black hole is forming the physical vacuum, which is filled by spongy system of density fluctuations, similar to nested foam. Such structure has even a behavior of soap foam, because it gets more dense after introducing of energy by the same way, like soap shaken inside of closed vessel. Such behavior leads to the quantum behavior of vacuum and particle-wave duality. Every energy wave, exchanged between pair of particles (i.e. density fluctuations of foam) is behaving like less or more dense blob of foam, i.e. like gauge boson particle. Every boson can exchange its energy with another particles, including other gauge bosons, thus forming the another generation of interacalated particles.

Therefore the E8 Lie group solves the trivial question: which structure should have the tightest lattice of particles, exchanged by another particles? And such question has even perfect meaning from classical physics point of view! Such question has a perfect meaning in theory, describing the most dense structure of inertial particles, which we can even imagine, i.e. the interior of black hole.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (truth2k+Nov 20 2007, 05:18 AM)
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the ideas from the beginning.''

Precisely. Relativity was seen as a pretty outlandish and almost nutty theory when it was first published. It won over the academic community over time because evidence supported it.

You continue to ignore the fact a huge number of experiments support relativity, it's much much more than just Gravity Probe B.
QUOTE (truth2k+Nov 20 2007, 05:18 AM)
If you think and believe GR is proved, why there is Gravity Probe B experiment????
You didn't read anything I said, did you? I specificially said you cannot prove a theory, you can only vindicate it. Relativity has been vindicated many many times and GPB will add more to that.

Of course we know relativity will eventually fail, it's inevitable because it's a weak field approximation to a quantum gravity model. Tests are done because we want to find when and where this discrepency appears. I don't think many physicists expect it to appear in Gravity Probe B, but it's always important to check.

Your comments just demonstrate how you completely ignore everything I say. Are you too scared to address my points?
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Nov 20 2007, 05:18 AM)
It might take a while, but I have been in touch (as may be apparent) with a number of physicists behind the scenes, and willl see if I can provide any direction.
I work in a physics department so I have daily contact with a number of physicists (including my supervisor who is a string theorist) but for little things like that which don't directly relate to my research I don't bother her.
Raphie Frank
Finnish Alternative Theoretical Physicist Matti Pitkanen lays out some of the objections to Garrett Lisi's theory on his blog "TGD diary"

==================================

Objections against Lisi’s theory

The basic claim of Lisi is that one can understand the particle spectrum of standard model in terms of the adjoint representation of a noncompact version of E8 group.

There are several objections against E8 gauge theory interpretation of Lisi.

1. Statistics does not allow to put fermions and bosons in the same gauge multiplet. Also the identification of graviton as a part of a gauge multiplet seems very strange if not wrong since there are no roots corresponding to a spin 2 two state.

2. Gauge couplings come out wrong for fermions and one must replace YM action with an ad hoc action.

3. Poincare invariance is a problem. There is no clear relationship with the space-time geometry so that the interpretation of spin as E8 quantum numbers is not really justified.

4. Finite-dimensional representations of non-compact E8 are non-unitary. Non-compact gauge groups are however not possible since one would need unitary infinite-dimensional representations which would change the physical interpretation completely. Note that also Lorentz group has only infinite-D unitary representations and only the extension to Poincare group allows to have fields transforming according to finite-D representations.

5. The prediction of three fermion families is nice but one can question the whole idea of putting particles with mass scales differing by a factor of order 1012 (top and neutrinos) into same multiplet. For some reason colleagues stubbornly continue to see fundamental gauge symmetries where there seems to be no such symmetry. Accepting the existence of a hierarchy of mass scales seems to be impossible for a theoretical physicistin main main stream although fractals have been here for decades.

6. Also some exotic particles not present in standard model are predicted: these carry weak hyper charge and color (6-plet representation) and are arranged in three families.

==================================

He also offers his views on how some of these issues might be resolved. For more, visit his blog post...

Comments about E8 theory of Garrett Lisi
http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2007/11/comme...of-garrett.html
OldWoman1904
blink.gif
Dallas
QUOTE (N O M+Nov 20 2007, 03:03 AM)
I only needed to look at the first couple of lines of the stupid site you referred to to see that guy Jin He is a total braindead nutter without a clue about anything to do with physics or maths. What an idiot laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

truth2k IS Jin He
We all know it by now.
Raphie Frank
PAPER BY JOHN BAEZ, cited by Garrett Lisi in

=============================
An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything
=============================

The Octonions

John C. Baez
(Submitted on 17 May 2001 (v1), last revised 23 Apr 2002 (this version, v4))
The octonions are the largest of the four normed division algebras. While somewhat neglected due to their nonassociativity, they stand at the crossroads of many interesting fields of mathematics. Here we describe them and their relation to Clifford algebras and spinors, Bott periodicity, projective and Lorentzian geometry, Jordan algebras, and the exceptional Lie groups. We also touch upon their applications in quantum logic, special relativity and supersymmetry.

DOWNLOAD PAPER HERE
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math.RA/0105155
Raphie Frank
"CONSTRUCTIVE" CRITIQUE OF GARRETT LISI'S
Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

Upon further review, surfer's new Theory of Everything may be deficient - UPDATED
By Chris Lee | Published: November 17, 2007 - 08:49AM CT
Ars Technica.com

There are a couple of reasons to be skeptical of Lisi's work. First, he has a problem with units at the very start of the paper, which could cascade through the whole work. It is not yet clear that this problem is fatal, but at this point we just don't know. He has found that the chosen symmetry operations correspond to the symmetry groups of particles—not that surprising, considering the number of symmetry operations he has at his disposal—but at this point, he can't calculate the properties of predicted particles (really, these are just degrees of freedom in the symmetry class), because that requires what look to be extraordinarily difficult calculations. If the unit problem is serious, this will get worse, meaning no predictions at all.

In the Observatory thread on this topic, posters have pointed to a blog article that puts Lisi firmly in the crank category, which I initially agreed with but I have since been persuaded that I was being too hasty. I still think he is probably wrong (because of his early problem with units) and that his predicted particles are not predictions at all since he can't actually tell us where to look for them. In fact nothing beyond their symmetry group is predicted by Lisi at this point. If he can answer the question over units early in the paper, find a way to put masses on his predicted particles, and show that the predicted half-life of the proton is sufficiently long, then his theory will start to look like a winner.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071...-deficient.html

======================

Could anyone elaborate upon what Chris Lee means when he states that Lisi has a "problem with units at the very start of the paper"?

======================

TWO EDITORIAL COMMENTS

======================
Lee writes...

Personally, I dislike New Scientist's arXiv trawling ways; by putting Lisi into the role of the anti-establishment hero (he's a surfer not a scientist...) and publicizing his work before peer review, they (along other media reporting, including our own) may well have compromised Lisi's chance at getting a fair shot a peer review.
======================

1) "he's a surfer not a scientist,"

Excuse me?!? Forgive me, but isn't that a bit like saying that Einstein wasn't a scientist but a patent clerk? That statement alone makes me question Lee's judgement and impartiality, no less so than his initial judgement that Lisi must be a "crank."

Good lord, how I am coming to despise that term!

CRANK == NEW & DIFFERENT POV?


2) "may well have compromised Lisi's chance at getting a fair shot a peer review."

NOT A CHANCE. Though Lisi himself expressed concern on that point over on the blog of Peter Woit, too many physicists out there whose work has been excluded from being given a fair hearing have a stake in Lisi's work getting a thorough going over. FULL STOP. He's got a lot of prominent supporters out there, Lee Smolin, John Baez and Peter Woit, just to name a few.

Related link

PETER WOIT'S "NOT EVEN WRONG"
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
hdeasy
Lisi IS a scientist - he has a PhD in Theoretical Physics! He sort of cultivates a surfer image but this was useful for the media to give it a human angle - the Telegraph made him seem like a playboy dabbling in physics as a hobby. In fact he is another of the disenchanted physicists faced with the choice 'accept ye the dictates of String/Brane/M or depart into the outer darkness'. He continues with a few hour physics per day mixed with a bit of relaxation. With no teaching obligation, he spends as much research time as any physicist.

On the Heim thread I saw some parallels with Extended Heim Theory (EHT) - 8 dimensions in one sense (E8), 57 dim in another (the symmetries are those of a 57 dim cone), while EHT has solutions of base dimensions as 4, 6(8) or 57. If Lisi can predict masses, then he's up there with Heim. By the way, John Reed is making great progress working with the HT group on the mass formula - Neutron resonances are under study right now. Finally, the E8-Lisi theory is purely geometrical. So is EHT, which is a structure theory that may have a solution in SO (10) if the extra 2 grav forces are included. Then we'd have to compare that with E8. Peer review is forthcoming for Heim's successors and it should be no problem for Lisi.
Raphie Frank
Garrett Lisi in the Economist
==================

Theoretical physics
GEOMETRY IS ALL
Nov 22nd 2007
From The Economist print edition

EXCERPT #1 - QUALITATIVE

A shape could describe the cosmos and all it contains

ONE of the mysteries of the universe is why it should speak the language of mathematics. Numbers and the relationships between them are, after all, just abstract reasoning. Yet mathematics has shown itself to be particularly adept at describing both the contents of the universe and the forces that act on them. Now comes a paper which argues that one branch of the subject—geometry—could form the basis of all the laws of physics.

Physicists are an overbearing bunch. They have long sought a “theory of everything”. Such an opus would unite the fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism and the two forces that become apparent only at the atomic scale—with the matter on which they act, in a single, overarching framework. It would describe the universe as it existed at the moment of its creation in the Big Bang.


EXCERPT #2 - SUBSTANTIVE

Using geometry to describe the world is not new. Murray Gell-Mann performed a similar trick 50 years ago in an attempt to make sense of the plethora of particles that was then emerging from experiments. He placed these on the points of a geometric structure known as SU(3), and found that, by manipulating the structure, he was able to reproduce the interactions of the real world. Dr Gell-Mann also identified points that had no known particles associated with them—and predicted the existence of particles that would fill those gaps. He was awarded the Nobel prize after they were detected. Interestingly, some 20 gaps remain in Dr Lisi's model. That suggests that 20 particles (or, at least, 20 different identities of particles) have yet to be discovered. If Dr Lisi can calculate the masses of these, he will have made predictions that can be tested experimentally.

The particles must be relatively massive, because they would otherwise have been discovered already. Detecting massive objects takes energy. (Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2, outlines how energy is equivalent to mass times the square of the speed of light.) When it is completed, the Large Hadron Collider, a machine being built at CERN, the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva, will create particles with greater masses than have yet been seen. It is due to start its scientific work in the summer of 2008, so a test of Dr Lisi's theory could come soon.

Full Story
http://www.economist.com/science/displayst...ory_id=10170958

=================================

About Maurray Gell-man
Murray Gell-Mann (born September 15, 1929 in Manhattan, New York City, U.S.) is an American physicist who received the 1969 Nobel Prize in physics for his work on the theory of elementary particles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Gell-Mann
Raphie Frank
A Very Concise and Clear Description of Lisi's theory...
(from bi-ker-shi on Technocrat...)

Breakthrough on the theory of everything, is Garrett Lisi another Einstein?
http://technocrat.net/d/2007/11/17/30521

E8 is known as the exceptional simple Lie group and is the largest of this category possible. Anything larger has infinite dimensions. Lie groups are continuous groups such as the group of rotations of a sphere or a torus. It is possible to represent the generators of these groups as a set of matrices and in the case of E8 there are 248 of these if the matrices are complex, or 496 if the matrices are real.

The group is thought of as being eight dimensional because every Lie group is related by category theory to a group of transformations to an underlying manifold, which in the case of E8 has 248 complex dimensions, but there are only 8 degrees of freedom so the underlying space is of 8 dimensions. The full structure of E8 was only revealed in March 2007 after hours of computation on a Super Computer.

As quoted in the New Scientist, Sabine Hossenfelder at the Perimeter Institute argues that Lisi’s idea could be complementary to String Theory because string theorists were already looking at E8 in relation to the Calabi-Yau manifolds. String theorists introduced these as a way of explaining why the extra dimensions they required in their string theory were not visible to us at macro scales.

Extending Quantum Field theory into the E8 structure envisaged by Lisi would lead to a new physics very different to string theory. For one thing a component of string theory called super gravity hypothesized a set of super symmetric partners for each known particle as a way of eliminating the infinities that appear when extrapolating the theory to smaller scales. Lisi’s model predicts there are just 20 undiscovered elementary particles. Also Lisi’s model predicts the three generations of particles.

It seems to me that the reason why quantum waves appear to be discrete or particle like at small scales can be explained by the fact that these waves wrap around the underlying manifold and so can only occur as superposition’s of a discreet solutions. This is very different to vibrating strings.

================================
FOR THE "NUMEROLOGISTS"

As a side note, bi-ker-shi 248 points out...

"It is possible to represent the generators of these groups as a set of matrices and in the case of E8 there are 248 of these if the matrices are complex, or 496 if the matrices are real."

496, of course, is a perfect number, one associated with the birth of superstring theory.

From Wikpedia...

The number 496 is a very important number in superstring theory. In 1984 (which incidentally equals four times 496), Michael Green and John H. Schwarz realized that one of the necessary conditions for a superstring theory to make sense is that the dimension of the gauge group of type I string theory must be 496. The group is therefore SO(32). Their discovery started the first superstring revolution. It was realized in 1985 that the heterotic string can admit another possible gauge group, namely E8 x E8.

Read more about the number 496...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/496_(number)

================================

Oh, and what's a torus?
See... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torus

user posted image
DavidD
I think, that all quarks and leptons and all over paticles are created of smallest particles and so this is unpredictible, becouse nobody can understand how smallest particles interact, that they creating now known particles. So this interaction probably is more dificult than from nucleons and electrons to all now created universe. So this smallest particles interaction, without distance between them is very complex and is much more complex than to understand everything about human from atom to brain and organism. So I think no chance to understand how universe work, ever. I can predict smallest particles and I think they are more logical than liquid, becouse liquid don't exploring maximum computation and structure and smallest particles is optimaly maded and don't doing don't need operations like liquid, which is in some sensce nonseanse. Also I think that any over discoveries if they are possible can't give any benefit for humans and never will give. Small black holes nobody can creat and probably never will creat, becouse they even may not exist. And existation of black holes or black energy or matter also nowhere leading, becouse to us is not interesting that is going on milions light years away, which can't afect us. Quarks teory also alsmost nothing give, except create some particles groups.
Raphie Frank
By the way, speaking of perfect numbers, in particular 496, back in June I posted online over on Flickr a little correspondence I found between Lucas numbers, based on phi, and Perfect Numbers.

User posted image

I argued that the SELF should be included when adding up the divisors, and then the total divided by two, which would qualify the number 1 as a Perfect Number. Here is the text (slightly edited):

================================

To clarify, the standard definition of Perfect Numbers is considered to be the sum of all divisors excluding the self. In my opinion this definition is wrong, or rather not complete. Excluding the self, yes, but then PLUS the self divided by two. Under this definition the number 1 would be considered a perfect number and one of the oldest unresolved mathematical puzzles would be solved.

Are there any ODD perfect numbers?

Indeed, there is an odd perfect number... PERHAPS. But we cannot see it because it is excluded by definition. Extrapolate from that in humanistic vein... that which we know is often determined by the manner in which we count inclusion or exclusion in a given set...

Just think Bertrand Russell and his question about the Barber of Seville, a craftsman who cut the hair of every man in town who did not cut his own hair. Did the Barber if Seville cut his own hair?

http://flickr.com/photos/artivist/577397753/
================================

Not sure if it's in any manner connected to Lisi's theory, but I figure it can't hurt to pose the question...


Best,
Raphie

==============================

P.S. Speaking of phi and self duality, here's a "fun" little approximation for the fine structure constant, based on "phi," a modification of Euler's Identity, and using the digits of @^-1 ©-DATA 2006) in sequence. Perhaps also of interest to one or two who may pass this way...

@' = .1*e^(i*phi)^2 + (1 + sqrt 3 + 0.00703599910810831)/10^6
~= 0.00729735257339327264
~= 1/137.03599900682877044
vs.
@^-1 ~= 137.03599910810831 (2006 Co-Data)

More here, including another version based on an updated measurement of alpha from G. Gabrielse,D. Hanneke,T. Kinoshita,M. Nio,and B. Odom* that did not make it in to the 2006 Co-Data...

The Fine Structure Constant As Fractal Construct?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=19245
Raphie Frank
In the initial posting to this thread I mentioned the following paper related to Dr. Garrett Lisi's work. I just tried to find it online myself and was unable, so (by permission), here is a link to the proofs for the article due out in December. Given the acceptance date, of course, there will be no mention of Lisi's paper.

=====================================

Int Jour Geom Methods in Mod Physics vol 4, no. 8 (December 2007).

A Chern-Simons E_8 Gauge theory of Gravity in D = 15, Grand Unification and Generalized Gravity in Clifford Spaces
(received March 22, 2007, accepted July 13 2007)

by Dr. Carlos Castro Perelman

ftp://ftp.wspc.com.sg/incoming/journals/I.../V4N8/00254.pdf

======================================

I will not presume to pass judgement on it, but wished to make the paper available for peer review as you will not find this on ArXiv.org as Dr. Castro Perleman has been banned from posting to the archives dating back to 2003.

Feel free to post the link elsewhere, if only in the interests of academic freedom in the spirit of Peter Woit's book "Not Even Wrong," a book in which he discusses the rather tight stranglehold String Theory has had on the Physics profession.

View Woit's blog post:

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything?
on "Not Even Wrong"
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=617


Kindest Regards,
Raphie Frank
AlphaNumeric
A Chern-Simons E_8 Gauge theory of Gravity in D = 15, Grand Unification and Generalized Gravity in Clifford Spaces

That's a bit odd, because in his opening paragraph he says that it's a supersymmetric construction, but in supersymmetry the size of your spin multiplets relates directly to the number of space-time dimensions. Beyond d=11 in Lorentzian space-time you have the problem that your maximum multiplet involves states with spin s>2. Such spins lead to inconsistent interactions. You can get around this slightly by saying that if you're in d=12 you have 2 time-like dimensions (it's known as F theory) but you cannot go to d=13 or above, even using this trick.

It's stuff like this which gives reason to the notion that M theory (d=11 Lorentzian space-time) isn't going to be some limit of something else in more dimensions. If you go to more dimensions, the theory doesn't work.

And before someone says it, d=26 dimensional string theory is bosonic, it doesn't include supersymmetry. And when you do put in supersymmetry, it naturally reduces the number of dimensions down to 10. And then it turns out each of those d=10 theories is a limit of a d=11 theory. And you can't go any higher. Fits together nicely, doesn't it? smile.gif

Hence why I raise my eyebrow at d=15 in that guy's work and he talks about supersymmetry. Of course you can have theories in more than 11 dimensions, but if you're going to include something which mainstream people know caps your dimensions at less than 15, something's gone squiffy.
Raphie Frank
I am obviously, of course, not qualified to respond to that, but hope someone else may come along who is.

Best,
Raphie

P.S. But since, I am loathe to write useless posts, here at least is a little bit of info from John Baez on Chern-Simons in a post entitled "Symmetries" for others who this way may come...

NOTE: TQFT = Topological Quantum Field Theory

John Baez writes...

People have worked out interesting examples of TQFT's for n = 2 and n = 3, the latter being more interesting since 3-dimensional manifolds are quite sneaky. The most famous 3-dimensional TQFT is Chern-Simons theory. I won't explain this now, but simply attempt to lure the reader into studying it by noting:

The first example of a 3-dimensional TQFT was discovered by Gauss. Gauss showed that if you had two loops that were linked, and ran a unit current around one and did the line integral of the magnetic field around the other, one gets an invariant of the link called the linking number, which simply counts how many times one loop wraps around the other. This aspect of magnetism is what would now be called "U(1) Chern-Simons theory."

Here is a beautiful related result. Say one is in the vacuum and has two linked loops. Let E denote the integral of the electric field through the surface spanned by one loop, and let B denote the integral of the magnetic field through the surface spanned by the other. One can use quantum electrodynamics to show that

?E ?B ? (hbar/2) L

where L is the linking number of the two loops! Thus the canonical commutation relations for E and B in this form are diffeomorphism-invariant - which is curious because quantum electrodynamics is not! I think this result is due to Ashtekar and Corichi.

Wilson loops in the SU(2) Chern-Simons theory allow us to compute the Jones polynomial of knots and links, which is a generalization of the linking number!

Wilson loops in Chern-Simons theory with other gauge groups gives rise to many other link invariants.

Chern-Simons theory is the source of the best-understood states of quantum gravity in the loop representation.

The last part is the most exciting to me, since it says that not only are TQFT's mathematically interesting, they may also shed light on real-world physics, namely, quantum gravity. It's a long story that's not completely understood yet by any means!

Note that a TQFT is a "representation of a category," that is, a functor from some category to a category of vector spaces (or Hilbert spaces). Thus, the concept of symmetry in topological quantum field theories generalize that in earlier theories. Earlier theories only dealt with group representations, while TQFTs are category representations!

So, in modern physics categories are gradually beginning to take over where groups left off, expanding our concept of symmetry. To understand how this actually works, you should probably bone up a bit on categories, and then check out my website on Higher-dimensional algebra and Planck-scale physics.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/symmetries.html

==============================

And a couple posts by Urs Schreiber on the n-Category Cafe

Chern Lie (2n+1)-Algebras
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2007/0...n1algebras.html

On String- and Chern-Simons n-Transport
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2007/1...imons_ntra.html
AlphaNumeric
Related reading
meBigGuy
Wow --- this is all some pretty powerful stuff. Stuff that I will never even begin to understand. What I like though is Lisi's openness about his concept, its posibilities, and its limitations. It's like, here is my idea. Here are some limitations. Let's all have at it. Meanwhile there is this big political/publicity storm completely surrounding all the real science.

When they come out with Lisi E8 potato chips, I'll buy some.

ANyway, from not even wrong,

QUOTE

Garrett Says:

November 10th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Berlin: I should clarify that this is not a complete quantum theory of everything, so in that sense it is incomplete. It will need to be successfully partnered with LQG and/or QFT — this is nontrivial, and time will tell whether it works or not. But the pieces are in place.


Raphie Frank
======
TRINARY
======

PHYSICS

Here is the arXiv.org Full Text Search Results for trinary...
http://search.arxiv.org:8081/?query=trinary&in=grp_physics

And here is a paper by Garret Lisi related to "trinary"...

High Energy Physics - Theory authors/titles recent submissions
Title: On the ternary complex analysis and its applications. Authors: LN Lipatov, M. .... Garrett Lisi. Comments: 31 pages, 7 figures

-------------
OOPS...
-------------

http://search.arxiv.org:8081/?query=trinar...&in=grp_physics

No results shown... that's strange!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh well, I'm sure it's just a temporary error... will post the paper when it becomes available...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

======================================

MATHEMATICS

from Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_numeral_system

Ternary or trinary is the base-3 numeral system. Ternary digits are known as trits (trinary digit), with a name analogous to "bit". One trit contains about 1.58596 (log23) bit of information. Although ternary most often refers to a system in which the three digits, 0, 1, and 2, are all nonnegative integers, the adjective also lends its name to the balanced ternary system, used in comparison logic and ternary computers

The Wikipedia entry makes the interesting observation that baseball, the American past-time is a rare example of the ternary numeral system in daily usage. Each innining represents one "ternary point."

======================================

COMPUTER-SCIENCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_logic

A ternary, three-valued or trivalent logic is a term to describe any of several multi-valued logic systems in which there are three truth values indicating true, false and some third value. This is contrasted with the more commonly known bivalent logics (such as boolean logic) which provide only for true and false.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And an amusing post from Arcadian Functor for the Looking Glass Thinker
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ternary Logic I
Monday, November 19, 2007

Alice stumbles into a garden where she comes across a strange looking man with writhing multicoloured hair, which is tied back in a braid with three strands.

Had Matter: Cup of tea? How do you like it?

Alice: Oh, yes thank you. Milk and no sugar. [Pauses] Excuse me, sir, but how did your hair get like that?

Had Matter: What's wrong with it?

Alice: I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I was just wondering how it got like that.
Had Matter: Two sugars, was it?

Alice: No, no sugar, thank you. You are rather odd. What is it like being a mad hatter?

Had Matter: I'm not a mad hatter. Have you ever met a hatter? I'm Mr Matter. What's it like to matter, you ask? Would you like to try? I'd quite like to be an Alice.

Alice: How did you know my name was Alice?

Had Matter: No information escapes me! Here's your tea, with three sugars, as you like it.

Alice: Er, thank you very much. Yes, I'd like to try being a Mr Matter. Maybe we could exchange places?

Had Matter: Maybe we just did! Maybe I was Alice just a moment ago, only I don't remember being Alice, else I wouldn't be Mr Matter. I think I'm Mr Matter. Hmm.

Alice: Where's Bob? I need to send him a message.

Had Matter: I never invited Bob to my party. Come to think of it, I never invited you either. And you can't send a message, 'cause my butler's on a picnic.

Alice: Oh, I don't need a butler. It's all arranged...

http://kea-monad.blogspot.com/2007/11/ternary-logic-i.html


Cheers,
Raphie

P.S. There is also a connection between trinary logic and perfect numbers, but I would not wish, for now, to offend the "anti-numerology" crowd...
pbelter
I wonder if Lisi's approach can provide explanation for the Koide formula. Any ideas?
Raphie Frank
Of specific possible interest to anyone already doing research into Calabi-Yau Manifolds, as is this board's very own Alphanumeric...

==========================
As quoted in the New Scientist, Sabine Hossenfelder at the Perimeter Institute argues that Lisi’s idea could be complementary to String Theory because string theorists were already looking at E8 in relation to the Calabi-Yau manifolds. String theorists introduced these as a way of explaining why the extra dimensions they required in their string theory were not visible to us at macro scales.
==========================

from Technocrat
http://technocrat.net/d/2007/11/17/30521

=========================
Also referenced on my blog in the post

Toward an EXCEPTIONAL Theory of Everything & Ptolemy's Revenge
http://raphie.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/tow...olemys-revenge/

... which addresses the issue of why the Physics Community, from a socio-political stance may wish to embrace rather than reject Lisi's approach, at least from an open-minded peer review perspective.

Best,
Raphie
Raphie Frank
IS E8 A FRACTAL?

IMAGE OF E8
User posted image

MeBigGuy, called me out over on the Laissez Fairre Libel thread for calling E8 PERHAPS the "motherlode of all fractals," because that this is the case is not at all clear from what best I can discern and I would hate to spread misinformation. Just because it LOOKS like a fractal (think: Richard Darman and the duck...) and just because the E8 Lie group seems to come up in relation to fractal geometry certainly does not mean it's a fractal or, more appropriately, perhaps, a "multifractal," any more than the Mandelbrot Set is NOT a fractal just because it doesn't particularly look like one (think: don't judge a book by it's cover...).

IMAGE OF THE MANDELBROT SET
User posted image

===========================================================
PERHAPS SOME FOLKS OUT THERE MAY WISH TO OFFER THEIR VIEWS OR KNOWLEDGE TO THE DEBATE?
===========================================================

In any case, folks are certainly talking about E8, properly speaking the name of a Lie Group, and asking the question in relation to fractals. There's a very interesting thread over on metafilter that I found rather thought provoking, and the most interesting comment I found was by hattifattener, a comment I will pass along...

--------------------------------------------------------
hattifattener writes...

Trying to answer this question myself, the most concrete occurrence I could find of E8 was that it's related to the symmetry group of the icosahedron. It isn't the same as the symmetry group of the icosahedron, but it's the "root system" of that group. Attempting to understand what a root system of a group is has been beyond me so far.

more here: http://ask.metafilter.com/76466/Help-me-relate-to-E8
--------------------------------------------------------

Would be more than appreciative if any could pass on any confirmation of that...

Also, a nice link for any, including myself, who wish to learn more about fractals, including a section on multifractals, from the Yale website...

Fractal Geometry
http://classes.yale.edu/fractals/

and a little info on E8 Geometry from the E8 page on Wikipedia...

Geometry
The compact real form of E8 is the isometry group of a 128-dimensional Riemannian manifold known informally as the 'octo-octonionic projective plane' because it can be built using an algebra that is the tensor product of the octonions with themselves. This can be seen systematically using a construction known as the magic square, due to Hans Freudenthal and Jacques Tits (see J.M. Landsberg, L. Manivel, (2001)).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_(mathematics)
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Nov 25 2007, 02:30 PM)
IS E8 A FRACTAL?

No. You're going on that one picture and thinking that it has fractal properties. The picture contains 248 points which are joined up in a complex way. They are discrete and there's finitely many of them.

A fractal is self similar, zooming into any particular region you will find that if you magnify your view a particular amount (factor of 4 or 10 or some other set number) you get the same view, which can then be zoomed in again, etc etc.

The E8 root diagram doesn't have this. For example, if you zoom right into that circle in the middle, you don't find more roots appearing, it's an empt hole in the middle.
Raphie Frank
Just to clarify pbelter's question regarding the Koide formula, this is directly from Wikipedia...

See... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula

========================================
Koide formula

This unexplained relation was discovered by Yoshio Koide in 1981, and relates the masses of the three leptons so well that it predicted the mass of the tau lepton.

Let
user posted image

It is clear that 1 / 3 < Q < 1 from the definition. The superior bound follows if we assume that the square roots can not be negative; R. Foot remarked that 1 / 3Q can be interpreted as the cosine squared of the angle between the vector user posted image

The mystery is in the physical value. The masses of the electron, muon, and tau lepton are measured respectively as

User posted image

user posted image

Not only is this result odd in that three apparently random numbers should give a simple fraction, but also that Q is exactly halfway between the two extremes of 1/3 and 1.
This result has never been explained or understood.

========================================
Garrett Lisi mentions Koide in a November 6 posting on Back Reaction, so certainly it does seem not unrelated, but only in a very TANGENTIAL manner given that man and formula are clearly not one and different papers are referenced...
========================================

A Theoretically Simple Exception of Everything

When I saw equation (2.4) I of course thought of the neutrino mixing matrix under the "tribimaximal" assumption, which of course is a cross generational thing. See the matrix in equation (3.2) of Koide's paper, and references, or my recent note on the charged lepton masses.

However, it didn't seem to me, at a first quick read, that this matrix is related to how the generations work in your model. I wonder if, in one of your other versions of this model, you ended up with that matrix having something to do with the generation structure.


for more...
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/11/t...ception-of.html


========================================
The paper of Koide's that Lisi refers to is this one:
========================================

Tribimaximal Neutrino Mixing and a Relation Between Neutrino- and Charged Lepton-Mass Spectra

Yoshio Koide
(Submitted on 8 May 2006 (v1), last revised 7 Aug 2006 (this version, v2))

Brannen has recently pointed out that the observed charged lepton masses satisfy the relation m_e +m_\mu +m_\tau = {2/3} (\sqrt{m_e}+\sqrt{m_\mu}+\sqrt{m_\tau})^2, while the observed neutrino masses satisfy the relation m_{\nu 1} +m_{\nu 2} +m_{\nu 3} = {2/3} (-\sqrt{m_{\nu 1}}+\sqrt{m_{\nu 2}}+\sqrt{m_{\nu 3}})^2. It is discussed what neutrino Yukawa interaction form is favorable if we take the fact pointed out by Brannen seriously.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0605074

===================================================
And the referenced paper on Wikipedia for the Koide formula is this one:
===================================================

New view of quark and lepton mass hierarchy
Yoshio Koide
Laboratory of Physics, Shizuoka Women's University, Yada 409, Shizuoka 422, Japan
Received 26 January 1983

The hierarchical structure of realistic quark and lepton masses is investigated on the basis of a three-family model, where masses and mixings of the first- and second-generation quarks are successfully described by lepton masses only. An excellent prediction m?=1.7866 GeV is obtained from the input data me and m? only.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v28/i1/p252_1
jal
Hi Raphie Frank!
I see that you have earned a very high "feedback score" biggrin.gif
----------
I've been trying to give an explanation for the layperson and the amateurs at http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=198717
Layman's explanation wanted
-------
There might be some explanations there to help some readers understand E8.
jal

ps. Garrett is a cool dude ... he has been coming around to talk, explain and encourage
Raphie Frank
jal, free free to send Garrett over to check out the below, with links and all. It deals with some of the political issues involved these days and I believe he might find it of interest. I would love to have his feedback and maybe ask him for an interview.

You can check out some of my other interviews here:

Raphie Frank, Interview Retrospective
http://gothamist.com/2005/11/28/raphie_frank_in.php

Best,
Raphie

Here is the beginning...

Toward an EXCEPTIONAL Theory Of Everything & Ptolemy’s Revenge

Dear [Friend],

In relation to the issue of Intelligent Design, all the rage in the news these days, you mention that clinging to Aristotle is both Anti-Science and Anti-Evolution. I both agree and disagree. Certainly clinging to Aristotle is both Anti-Science and Anti-Evolution, in my view, anyway, but “Einstein on a Surfboard,” Garret Lisi’s recent Grand Unification theory “An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything,” bringing the poor orphan of Physics, Gravity, out of the cold and into the Standard Model fold with the other three fundamental forces of nature via the E8 Lie Group — which at least some blogs are referring to as “Ptolemy’s Revenge” — would seem to suggest that a dialectical synthesis of old and new together, the precision of the technological Modern Age with the wisdom of the Ancients, may just be possible in a non-partisan, creed-blind manner.

Whatever your personal view of the theory, it has certainly generated a fair amount of interest from such notable Physicists as Lee Smolin, Peter Woit, and John Baez, while string theorists such as Karlovy-Vary, Czech Republic-based Lubos Motl are apoplectic, already proclaiming the fiery apocalypse, not just of planet Earth, but of the entire Universe! (from Motl’s blog post: Telegraph: Cosmologists are killing the Universe on Motl’s blog “Reference Frame“).

I would suggest that what has in large part created the “ruckus” of late in the Physics community is that many believe Lisi’s theory may lead to the New Dark Ages, a reversion to the blind mysticism and ignorance of the Pre-Galileans, with attendant political consequences that could severely threaten separation of church and state, one of the most sacrosanct bedrocks of any free and pluralistic society.

continued at...
Raphie Frank: Business Artivist
http://raphie.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/tow...olemys-revenge/

Best,
Raphie Frank
917-202-2610

User posted image
Raphie Frank
JOHN BAEZ WRITES ON E8

(Week 95 way back in 1996)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week95.html

User posted image
(credit from Wikimedia: E8 graph from Peter McMullen work. Many Thanks to aimath.org site! The edge's color is related to relative edge angle. see full image here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:E8_graph.svg)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In dimension 8 there is only one even unimodular lattice (up to isometry), namely the wonderful lattice E8! The easiest way to think about this lattice is as follows:

Say you are packing spheres in n dimensions in a checkerboard lattice - in other words, you color the cubes of an n-dimensional checkerboard alternately red and black, and you put spheres centered at the center of every red cube, using the biggest spheres that will fit. There are some little hole left over where you could put smaller spheres if you wanted.

And as you go up to higher dimensions, these little holes gets bigger! By the time you get up to dimension 8, there's enough room to put another sphere OF THE SAME SIZE AS THE REST in each hole!

If you do that, you get the lattice E8. (I explained this and a bunch of other lattices in "WEEK65", so more info take a look at that.) In dimension 16 there are only two even unimodular lattices. One is E8 + E8. A vector in this is just a pair of vectors in E8.

The other is called D16+, which we get the same way as we got E8: we take a checkerboard lattice in 16 dimensions and stick in extra spheres in all the holes. More mathematically, to get E8 or D16+, we take all vectors in R8 or R16, respectively, whose coordinates are either all integers or all half-integers, for which the coordinates add up to an even integer. (A "half-integer" is an integer plus 1/2.)

=============================================
So E8 + E8 and D16+ give us the two kinds of heterotic string theory! They are often called the E8 + E8 and SO(32) heterotic theories.
=============================================

In "WEEK63" and "WEEK64" I explained a bit about lattices and Lie groups, and if you know about that stuff, I can explain why the second sort of string theory is called "SO(32)". Any compact Lie group has a maximal torus, which we can think of as some Euclidean space modulo a lattice.

There's a group called E8, described in "WEEK90", which gives us the E8 lattice this way, and the product of two copies of this group gives us E8 + E8. On the other hand, we can also get a lattice this way from the group SO(32) of rotations in 32 dimensions, and after a little finagling this gives us the D16+ lattice (technically, we need to use the lattice generated by the weights of the adjoint representation and one of the spinor representations, according to Gross). In any event, it turns out that these two versions of heterotic string theory act, at low energies, like gauge field theories with gauge group E8 x E8 and SO(32), respectively! People seem especially optimistic that the E8 x E8 theory is relevant to real-world particle physics...


Links referred to
-------------------
WEEK 63 (Lattices & Lie Groups)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week63.html

WEEK 64 (Lattices & Lie Groups)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week64.html

WEEK 65 (A "bunch of lattices")
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week65.html

WEEK 90 (About E8)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week90.html

============================================================

ON THE SAME PAGE, BAEZ WRITES WITH REGARD TO LUCAS NUMBERS IN RELATION TO LATTICES...

------------------------------------------
Also see related post on this thread regarding possible Lucas/Perfect Number Correspondence based on revised definition of Perect Number...
User posted image
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=285199
------------------------------------------

It's a bit funny how one of the most curious features of bosonic string theory in 26 dimensions was anticipated by the number theorist Edouard Lucas in 1875. I assume this is the same Lucas who is famous for the Lucas numbers: 1,3,4,7,11,18,..., each one being the sum of the previous two, after starting off with 1 and 3. They are not quite as wonderful as the Fibonacci numbers, but in a study of pine cones it was found that while most cones have consecutive Fibonacci numbers of spirals going around clockwise and counterclockwise, a small minority of deviant cones use Lucas numbers instead.

Anyway, Lucas must have liked playing around with numbers, because in one publication he challenged his readers to prove that: "A square pyramid of cannon balls contains a square number of cannon balls only when it has 24 cannon balls along its base". In other words, the only integer solution of

1^2 + 2^2 + ... + n2 = m2,

is the solution n = 24, not counting silly solutions like n = 0 and n = 1.

============================================================
he laters goes on to mention...
============================================================
Anyway, what does all this have to do with Lucas and his stack of cannon balls?

Well, in dimension 24, there are 24 even unimodular lattices, which were classified by Niemeier. A few of these are obvious, like E8 + E8 + E8 and E8 + D16+, but the coolest one is the "Leech lattice", which is the only one having no vectors of length 2. This is related to a whole WORLD of bizarre and perversely fascinating mathematics, like the "Monster group", the largest sporadic finite simple group - and also to string theory. I said a bit about this stuff in "week66", and I will say more in the future, but for now let me just describe how to get the Leech lattice.

First of all, let's think about Lorentzian lattices, that is, lattices in Minkowski spacetime instead of Euclidean space. The difference is just that now the dot product is defined by

(x1,...,xn) . (y1,...,yn) = - x1 y1 + x2 y2 + ... + xn yn

with the first coordinate representing time. It turns out that the only even unimodular Lorentzian lattices occur in dimensions of the form 8k + 2. There is only one in each of those dimensions, and it is very easy to describe: it consists of all vectors whose coordinates are either all integers or all half-integers, and whose coordinates add up to an even number.


==================================================
INCIDENTALLY, BAEZ MENTIONS THE FOLLOWING BOOK ON RENORMALIZATION
definitely seems worth a read...
==================================================
1) Laurie M. Brown, ed., "Renormalization: From Lorentz to Landau (and Beyond)", Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993.

It's a nice survey of how attitudes to renormalization have changed over the years. It's probably the most fun to read if you know some quantum field theory, but it's not terribly technical, and it includes a "Tutorial on infinities in QED", by Robert Mills, that might serve as an introduction to renormalization for folks who've never studied it.
inQZtive
raphie frank.. jal..


good link to that other forum.

it looks weird; there are no pimply faced wannabees running around throwing tantrums!

just learning.. something everyone needs.


this forum is losing revenue due to those "gun-toting wannabees", who think they are doing something other than crying for negative attention, like spoiled children do.

low grade vodka does that to the fetus in the womb though, right alpha?
laugh.gif
commie loser! stop praying for McDonalds to come to your bombed out village.
ohmy.gif


attn: moderators
change things or this one is going down the drain, via boycott/ flooding your advertisers with quotes from these white trash posers.

your "rating system" experiment was a dismal failure: you just made things worse.

now, they actually think the silent majority pays attention. only new-comers are affected.. and they just leave.

noticed the membership numbers lately?

ph34r.gif



biggrin.gif


Alpha
QUOTE (inQZtive+Nov 28 2007, 01:35 AM)
low grade vodka does that to the fetus in the womb though, right alpha? laugh.gif
commie loser! stop praying for McDonalds to come to your bombed out village.

Commie? Village?
That cut deep. laugh.gif
Sergey Sorokine
QUOTE (inQZtive+Nov 27 2007, 08:35 PM)

your "rating system" experiment was a dismal failure: you just made things worse.

now, they actually think the silent majority pays attention. only new-comers are affected.. and they just leave.

noticed the membership numbers lately?

ph34r.gif



biggrin.gif

User posted image

laugh.gif
Raphie Frank
Q & A WITH GARRET LISI

For the answers, although I do post one of Lisi's replies related to issue of the "root system," go on over to FQXi Community...
http://fqxi.org/community/forum.php?action=topic&id=107

(Thank you to Lisee for posting this link....)

=============================================

Q: What exactly is a gauge group?

Q: What is a "principal bundle"? If the explanation is very technical, perhaps you could explain in which field principal bundles appear? What are they usually used to describe? How do they help you understand the symmetries that you are looking at?

Q: You talked (in a separate message) about the symmetries of the particles in the standard model. How do you relate particle symmetries with symmetries in general relativity? That is, what features of general relativity have symmetry and then how do you compare those features with the particles of the standard model, in order to unify them? It seems like trying to compare apples and oranges.

Q: What do you mean by a "really weird pattern"? How do you analyse the pattern? If it something purely mathematical, how do you interpret it and what features stand out as weird?

Q: Once you began to see this connection, how did you test it? What convinced you that it was correct? Did the theory predict features that we see in general relativity and the standard model (e.g. masses of the standard model particles, strength of forces)?

Q: Is there a way that we can test your theory? Are there predictions that it makes that will help it stand out from rival theories? Does your theory do away with the need for supersymmetric particles, or predict other particles that we could perhaps look for at the LHC?

Q: You mentioned that you weren't interested in working on string theory? What advantages does your approach have over rival theories, such as string theory, both in terms of what it can explain, and also aesthetic appeal?

Q: What next? If you have unified general relativity and the standard model, does that mean that all the four fundamental forces are now accounted for? What is left for you to do? What do you think you will need to do or demonstrate to gain support for your theory?

============================================

Q: Have theoretical physicists been able to associate the other four exceptional groups with physically observed phenomena? If so, what?

Q: Are these 248 symmetries just symmetries in rotation, and mirror symmetries? Are there other symmetries?

Q: Are there 248 of these particles + forces? Or do you run out of particles and forces to associate with the symmetries and have to postulate the existence of extra particles or forces?

Q: For the cases where they matched the standard model but not gravity to E8, were there "spare" symmetries left over, that hadn't been associated with anything? And if so, why didn't anyone think to stick gravity in?

Q: At first, I thought that you were saying that you *begin* by identifying the particles and the forces with symmetries. But here it sounds more like the elementary particles and fields fall out only after you have set up E8 and started manipulating it? Which is correct?

Q: How do we see or recognise these fields in the maths? Don't they just manifest themselves as other symmetries? What I mean is, intuitively I could imagine associating particles with symmetries and then letting that group "dance over a space" and seeing gravity and other forces appear as interactions. But you have associated the forces _with_ symmetries too, so what sort of interactions and fields are now being created? What do they correspond with physically?

Q: What do you mean by the "root system"?

===================================================
Lisi's answer...
---------------------

A "root" is what the points are called in the pretty pattern that describes the Lie algebra. They're also called eigenvalues. Or, if you're talking about this pattern in eight dimensions, these roots are the vertices of the E8 polytope.

A polytope is a fancy word for a polyhedron in a higher dimensional space.
===================================================

Q: What sorts of things do these interactions correspond to? Specific strengths of forces between any two particles?

Q: How do you model the curvature of spacetime using E8?

Q: So this is an important point for me to clarify. I had thought that if your theory is correct it would do away with the need for people to work on either string theory or loop quantum gravity. But it sounds like maybe your work is showing that LQG is productive. So would the best way to think about it be to say that E8 provides the foundation for LQG?
Raphie Frank
excerpt from an upcoming paper, due out in December...

A CHERN–SIMONS E8 GAUGE THEORY OF GRAVITY IN D=15, GRAND UNIFICATION AND GENERALIZED GRAVITY IN CLIFFORD SPACES

International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern PhysicsVol. 4, No. 8(2007)1–19
© World Scientific Publishing Company

ftp://ftp.wspc.com.sg/incoming/journals/I.../V4N8/00254.pdf

---------------------------------
CARLOS CASTRO PERELMAN
---------------------------------
CenterforTheoretical Studiesof Physical Systems9
ClarkAtlantaUniversity, Atlanta, GA30314, USA
castro@ctsps.cau.edu11
Received: 22 March2007
Accepted: 13 July 2007


To connect with (real) Clifford algebras[8], i.e. how to fit E8 into a Clifford structure, start with the 248-dim fundamental representation E8 that admits a SO (16) decomposition given by the 120-dim bivector representation plus the 128-dim chiral-19 spinor representations of SO (16). From the modulo eight periodicity of Clifford algebras over the reals one has Cl(16)=Cl(2 ×8)=Cl(8)?Cl(8), meaning, roughly, 21 that the 216 = 256 × 256 Cl(16)-algebra matrices can be obtained effectively by replacing each one of the entries of the 28 =256=16 ×16Cl(8)-algebra matri-23 ces by the 16×16 matrices of the second copy of the Cl(8) algebra. In particular, 120=1×28+8×8+28×1 and 128=8+56+8+56, hence the 248-dim E8 algebra 25 decomposes into a 120+128 dim structure such that E8 can be represented indeed within a tensor product of Cl(8) algebras.

Best,
Raphie
Majkl
So if reality were a mathematical object basically then it implies that there are no coincidences. All paths are always known. Infinity wouldnt look any different than it ever looked. And where does this pattern come from? From the mind. And does the mind ever seeks no-patterns? If answers are simple then we are incredibly stupid. Simmetry can be seen for example allready in a 9*2=18, 8+1=9. 9*3=27 2+7=9. In the simplest of the simplest allready. If such was the truth than all one could say is that our inteligence is ignorance. All people that are working on making sense of the fuzz were utterly stupid. Why? Because they ignored the principles of absolute symmetry which shows itself in numbers in geometry... Do you think that is really the case? Isnt it something more like Symmetry in, symmetry out right?
Raphie Frank
Yes, Majkl. Synchronicity, coined by Carl Jung, is certainly one of the implications of Garrett Lisi's theory and it is a step towards unification of mind and matter, animate and inanimate, continuum and bit string. A bit more dramatically stated with an eastern overtone:

The elephant of many parts is coming into the light.

A very good book I suggest is "Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind" by F. David Peat
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/boo...nchronicity.htm

"For the sceptic, coincidences are the jokers in the deck of life. For the searcher, they are the key to synchronicity. As physicists search for a unified field theory, so Carl Jung and others searched for synchronicity -- the unifying principle behind meaningful coincidence, individual consciousness and the totality of space and time. Now, F. David Peat joins these two quests into one intriguing journey to show the connection between quantum theory and synchronicity, and to open the way to an exciting new understanding about the bridge between matter and mind."

=================================================

What is happening right now in the sciences is, in my opinion, a LOGICAL outcome of greater global forces at work, necessity being the mother of invention and I have been working on similar ideas (in heuristic fashion) from the social/psychological perspective dating back to early 2006. Below is an excerpt from a piece I posted to my blog last March. It may be of interest to you Qualitatively speaking and may shed some light on what I mean when I use the term "necessity."

User posted image
"the magic forrest" by Mattijn
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattijn/321728633/

from...

Trickle Up Economics, Conscious Capitalism & Co-Generation
http://raphie.wordpress.com/2007/03/31/tri...-co-generation/

excerpt #1
=======
On the other hand, perhaps a function to some extent of the resulting rapid-fire collision of cultures, the Global Mind is also in increasingly polarized conflict as worldwide reserves of renewable energy dwindle, climate change threatens to displace vast populations, policies of Preemptive Warfare frog-march pariah nations into increasingly defensive postures and the Neo-Gilded Age gap between haves and have-nots emerges into crystal clarity.

Within this Global environment, the “multiple revenue stream, outsourced” economic model brought in with the Digital Age by such New Economy stalwarts as Monster, Inc. (formerly TMP Worldwide) is “adapt or die” morphing into it’s much needed psychic / spiritual twin in a manner that might make Carl Jung and Carlos Castaneda sigh with relief, “Finally! They’re starting to figure it out!”


excerpt #2
=======
... people... are working to figure out ways to use the entire animal called US, all of US. They understand on an intuitive level that we are but small parts of an entirety consisting of countless parts on both sides of the “zero point” called human consciousness and that the the many parts of the self and the many parts of the other are connected not by choice, but by necessity and that if we do not serve one its just desserts we cannot serve the other.

=================================================

Or, to paraphrase Voltaire's thoughts on "God," if Lisi's theory did not exist, we'd have to create it...

All that said, it is too early too tell if Lisi's theory is "correct" or not. For myself, I believe we are yet a step or more away. Nevertheless, the "debate" within the scientific community has already shifted and I don't believe -- just an opinion -- but I don't believe there is any going back now.

Kindest Regards,
Raphie

</edit> If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him -- Voltaire
I originally attributed that quote to Nietzsche. Many thanks to Gorgeous for the catch in time to edit the post!
Gorgeous
Actually, Nietzsche stated that: "God is Dead" - Quite a famous remark. He was alluding to the fact that the metaphor of 'God' is no longer relevant, because it is so often used for abusive purposes.

And if you would wish to know the real comments that Jung himself made upon his own theory of 'synchronicity', you could do no better than read his own work on the subject, instead of some dubious 'interpreter'.


g.
Raphie Frank
Dear Gorgeous,

My mistake on the Nietszsche misquote. Thank you for the catch. As for Carl Jung, I was a Psych major in college, as long ago as that may have been, and I studied his work in depth, reading much of it at a source level. His work was a central part of my thesis and at this point much of it is internalized. Jung's views on the "Final" vs the "Causal" perspectives is what most made an impact on me. Can't remember the specific book, but I read all about it in the basement of a dusty library, well before the Age of Wikipedia and "knowledge by link."

Best,
Raphie

P.S. Related to that Nietzsche quote you mentioned, *God is Dead*... In this pub right behind the National Theatre in Prague, sometime around winter 1994 or 1995, this bearded guy, with long stringy hair and blind drunk, gets up... he pounds one of the wooden tables and lets out this overwrought, hands-twisted in agony scream, in English no less:

"I still believe in God! But God, he does not believe in me! WHY!?! *BEAT* I think maybe it is because... he is dead."

Guess he was having a bad day...
Raphie Frank
E8 AND QUASICRYSTALS

The E8 lattice and quasicrystals: geometry, number theory and quasicrystals

J F Sadoc and R Mosseri
Lab. de Phys. des Solides, Orsay, France
J F Sadoc et al 1993 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 26 1789-1809 doi:10.1088/0305-4470/26/8/009
Print publication: Issue 8 (21 April 1993)

Abstract. The authors study the quasiperiodic structures which can be derived from E8. This lattice, suitably oriented, leads to a 4D quasicrystal which has (3,3,5) symmetry. They develop a modified version of the out and projection method. The high-dimensional lattice is first foliated into successive shells surrounding a vertex. The shells are embedded into 7D S7 spheres. They then use the so-called Hopf fibration of S7 to gather families of E8 shell sites into S3 fibres which contain 24 sites (or a multiple of 24) which are symmetrically disposed in S3. This has two advantages: first, in the selection process, a whole fibre is either selected or rejected, which reduces the computation; more importantly, the selection process for a fiber amounts to simple arithmetical criteria. The whole process leads to a shell-by-shell analysis of the 4D quasicrystal, which can be brought onto a 2D-1D algorithm similar to the Fibonacci chain construction. They propose an arithmetic formula which gives the number of points on the shells. This 4D quasicrystal has the interesting feature that it can be sliced into lower-dimensional quasicrystals, for example with icosahedral and tetrahedral symmetry in three dimensions.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/26/8/009

Related Post on another thread from the psychosocial perspective:
===================
THE QUANTUM GOSPEL
===================

Relevant text
-------------------

Each Gospel is one writer's "truth," but the "Truth" is in the totality and requires the observer POV, the "fifth eye" so to speak, to interpret and recognize that totality. That said, the "Truth" one discerns will always be RELATIVE to one's frame of reference. Think about that in relation to why Jesus the man, spoke in parables and allegories. He was giving shape to what one might term the "crystal," or perhaps better stated the "quasicrystal" of Man and Woman and all manner of lifeform.

Each POV, meaning each observer of life who is also a participant, views this "crystal" from an unique perspective based upon one's specific knowledge-base and life experiences.

To know that the entirety is there, however, what Jung might have called the "Final" rather than the "Causal" perspective requires a "Quantum Leap" of what the religious might term "faith." the artist "imagination" and the businessman "vision."

MORE: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=287904
Raphie Frank
a little refresher...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cross-posted to:
'contextual' Mathematics/number Theory, Enhancing their 'Reality Correlation'
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=303049
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABOUT E8

==================================
Image and Text from Centripetal Notion
http://centripetalnotion.com/2007/03/22/22:31:00/
==================================
E8
User posted image

This is a 2-dimensional projection of E8, a 248-dimensional object seen here simplified into only 8-dimensions to help preserve sanity. Essentially, if I understand it correctly, it’s like a 2-D shadow of a 248-D sphere, an object so symmetrical you could theoretically rotate it in any direction in up to 248 dimensions and it still appear the same. Talk about a stick in the mud. It took 18 mathematicians four years to produce the calculation for this object, its formula weighing in at 60 gigabytes. The computation was announced at MIT by David Vogan this Monday, the 19th of March, 2007.

==================================
Text from American Institute of Mathematics
http://www.aimath.org/E8/
==================================

Mathematicians Map E8

Mathematicians have mapped the inner workings of one of the most complicated structures ever studied: the object known as the exceptional Lie group E8. This achievement is significant both as an advance in basic knowledge and because of the many connections between E8 and other areas, including string theory and geometry. The magnitude of the calculation is staggering: the answer, if written out in tiny print, would cover an area the size of Manhattan. Mathematicians are known for their solitary work style, but the assault on E8 is part of a large project bringing together 18 mathematicians from the U.S. and Europe for an intensive four-year collaboration.

"This is exciting," said Peter Sarnak, Eugene Higgins Professor of Mathematics at Princeton University (not affiliated with the project). "Understanding and classifying the representations of Lie Groups has been critical to understanding phenomena in many different areas of mathematics and science including algebra, geometry, number theory, Physics and Chemistry. This project will be valuable for future mathematicians and scientists."

==================================
Image and Text from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_(mathematics)
==================================

E8
user posted image

In mathematics, E8 is the name given to a family of closely related structures. In particular, it is the name of some exceptional simple Lie algebras as well as that of the associated simple Lie groups. It is also the name given to the corresponding root system, root lattice, and Weyl/Coxeter group, and to some finite simple Chevalley groups. E8 was formulated between the years of 1888 and 1890 by Wilhelm Killing.

The designation E8 comes from Wilhelm Killing and Élie Cartan's classification of the complex simple Lie algebras, which fall into four infinite families labeled An, Bn, Cn, Dn, and five exceptional cases labeled E6, E7, E8, F4, and G2. The E8 algebra is the largest and most complicated of these exceptional cases, and is often the last case of various theorems to be proved.


RELATED BLOG POST:

==================================
Image by Film Gaffer Sean Sheridan; Text by Raphie Frank
http://flickr.com/photos/srsheridan/1601524449/
==================================

Toward an EXCEPTIONAL Simple Theory Of Everything :: Celestial Chiaroscuro
User posted image

excerpt
-----------
As such, in my view at least, the string theory community would do itself a service to embrace the possibility, not of the “miraculous” break through coming via the Standard Model alone, but via what Progressive Physicist David Bohm termed the implicate order (i.e. hidden or “enfolded”) that Lisi’s theory suggests.

In other words, it’s not this or that, but this and that because this is that. Not just the light and the dark — what artists might call the “positive and negative space” — but also the underlying order that threads them both together in celestial chiaroscuro.
http://raphie.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/tow...olemys-revenge/

RELATED PAPER:

An Exceptionally Simple Theory Of Everything?, a new paper by Garrett Lisi
==========================================

All fields of the standard model and gravity are unified as an E8 principal bundle connection. A non-compact real form of the E8 Lie algebra has G2 and F4 subalgebras which break down to strong su(3), electroweak su(2) x u(1), gravitational so(3,1), the frame-Higgs, and three generations of fermions related by triality. The interactions and dynamics of these 1-form and Grassmann valued parts of an E8 superconnection are described by the curvature and action over a four dimensional base manifold.

(Submitted on 6 Nov 2007 to ArXiv)
Download Paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770


Best,
Raphie
Raphie Frank
Related/Not Related :: Perhaps of interest to some (posted in the interests of cross-pollination of ideas and approaches).

For Peer Review:

=====================================
"Yet Another Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"
The Cellular Lattice Model
http://ilja-schmelzer.de/clm/paper.pdf
=====================================

RELATED PHYSORG THREAD
Cellular Lattice Model, it gives SM fermions and gauge fields
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=20726

Abstract (Note: symbols do not translate):

We present the bundle (Aff (3) ? C ? ?)(R 3 ), with a geometric Dirac equation on it, as a three-dimensional geometric interpretation of the SM fermions. Each (C ? ?)(R 3 ) describes two Dirac particles. It has a doubler-free staggered spatial discretization on the lattice space (C ? Aff (3))(Z 3 ). This space has a simple physical interpretation as a phase space of a lattice of cells.
We find the SM SU (3)c × SU (2)L × U (1)Y action on (Aff (3) ? C ? ?)(R 3 ) to be a maximal gauge action preserving E(3) symmetry, symplectic structure, and anomaly freedom, and which can be constructed using two simple types of gauge-like lattice fields: Wilson gauge fields and correction terms for lattice deformations. The lattice fermion fields we propose to quantize as low energy states of a canonical quantum theory with Z2 -degenerated vacuum state. We construct anticommuting fermion operators for the resulting Z2 -valued (spin) field theory. A metric theory of gravity compatible with this model is presented too.

EXPLANATION FOR THE LAYMAN:
http://ilja-schmelzer.de/clm/
BenTheMan
Hi Ralphie---

I don't know if this has been pointed out at all, but most physicists are confident that this work is not correct. For a technical rebuttal of Lisi's work (complete with Lisi's own admission that the critique is correct), see Jaques Dislter's comments.

Essentially his conclusion is that the mathematical structures that Lisi needs simply don't exist in E8.

Further, there has been an attempt to subsume this model in the non-stringy QG community, just as you accused string theorists of doing in this thread.

In fact Lisi's work is not consistent with quantum gravity at present, and so far the only thing he thinks he's shown is that the classical structure of GR can be embedded into E8. (In fact he has not shown this, which is proved by his admission to Distler's critiques.)
BenTheMan
Other people have looked at Lisi's paper in varying detail:

Sean Carroll: http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/11/16/garre...-of-everything/
Lubos: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptio...-theory-of.html

Both of them say the same thing: it violates the Colemann-Mandula theorem.

Sense a pattern?
TheDoc
QUOTE (BenTheMan+Mar 30 2008, 06:08 PM)
Other people have looked at Lisi's paper in varying detail:

Sean Carroll: http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/11/16/garre...-of-everything/
Lubos: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptio...-theory-of.html

Both of them say the same thing: it violates the Colemann-Mandula theorem.

Sense a pattern?

Welcome back Ben cool.gif
Raphie Frank
Dear BentheMan.

Thank you so much for that feedback. What most intriques me about Lisi's theory is that it is shifting the debate. Whether Lisi is correct in the details or not, I believe he has cracked open the door to some new ways of thinking about things much as Veneziano did back in the 1960's. I believe this can only be good for physics, and frankly, for me as well (that's my own self-interest at play), as I wish to go back to school to study the intersection of physics and society (through the lens of "Consilience" in the interests of what I term "Social Cogeneration") a conversation that is just beginning to be had at the top levels of Academia.

SEE: Is There A Physics Of Society?, January 2008 Conference in Santa Fe
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=20774

I have seen the piece Motl wrote on Lisi's theory, by the way, and mention it in the below post on my blog:

Toward an EXCEPTIONAL Simple Theory Of Everything :: Celestial Chiaroscuro

excerpt
============================================================
Whatever your personal view of the theory, it has certainly generated a fair amount of interest from such notable Physicists as Lee Smolin, Peter Woit, and John Baez, while string theorists such as Karlovy-Vary, Czech Republic-based Lubos Motl are apoplectic, already proclaiming the fiery apocalypse, not just of planet Earth, but of the entire Universe! (from Motl’s blog post: Telegraph: Cosmologists are killing the Universe on Motl’s blog “Reference Frame“).

I would suggest that what has in large part created the “ruckus” of late in the Physics community is that many believe Lisi’s theory may lead to the New Dark Ages, a reversion to the blind mysticism and ignorance of the Pre-Galileans, with attendant political consequences that could severely threaten separation of church and state, one of the most sacrosanct bedrocks of any free and pluralistic society.
http://raphie.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/tow...olemys-revenge/
============================================================

... which from a social theoretical standpoint gives my view on why I believe Lisi's views should be given a fair vetting.

I will look at the other links you posted with interest.

Best,
Raphie
Raphie Frank
Also, BentheMan, there is more than one approach to "skinning the cat." Below is one example of a recent paper by Dr. Carlos Castro Perelman, which, while I am not qualified to assess, rather underscores the point.

While some on this board have expressed a rather low opinion of Dr. Castro Perelman both personally and with regards to his work, at least one Nobel Laureate, Brian Josephson, seems to hold a different opinion and I'm just going to have to go with the Nobel Laureate for the time being.

Again, I am not suggesting I understand the below (/edit nor do I believe even Castro Perelman himself believes it complete) and this is exactly part of the problem. It took, what six years for the scientific community to understand the work of another Perelman, Grigori Perelman, who solved the Poincare Conjecture?

One poster on these boards termed that other Perelman "humble." Humble indeed. Perelman became so disiillusioned with the scientific establishment that he turned down the Fields medal and, at least at one point in time, dropped entirely out of mathematics, although perhaps he has since rejoined the scientific community. I don't know.

==========================================================
ABSTRACT

A Chern-Simons E8 Gauge Theory of Gravity in D = 15, Grand Unification and Generalized Gravity In Clifford Spaces

Carlos Castro
Center for Theoretical Studies of Physical Systems
Clark Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA. 30314,
castro@ctsps.cau.edu

To appear in the Int J Geom Methods Modern Phys vol 4,
no. 8, December (2007)
(submitted March, 2007, accepted July 2007).

Abstract

A novel Chern-Simons E_8 gauge theory of Gravity in D = 15 based on an octic E_8 invariant expression in D = 16 (recently constructed by Cederwall and Palmkvist) is developed.

A grand unification model of gravity with the other forces is very plausible within the framework of a supersymmetric extension (to incorporate spacetime fermions) of this Chern-Simons E_8 gauge theory. We review the construction showing why the ordinary 11D Chern-Simons Gravity theory (based on the Anti de Sitter group) can be embedded into a Clifford-algebra valued gauge theory and that an E_8 Yang-Mills field theory is a small sector of a Clifford (16) algebra gauge theory.

An E_8 gauge bundle formulation was instrumental in understanding the topological part of the 11-dim M-theory partition function. The nature of this 11-dim E_8 gauge theory remains unknown. We hope that the Chern-Simons E_8 gauge theory of Gravity in D = 15 advanced in this work may shed some light into solving this problem after a dimensional reduction.

==========================================================

I found out about Lisi's theory, truth be told, through Carlos Castro Perelman himself. He was rather beside himself at the time as his work has been censored by ArXiv for years.

Incidentally, Frank Tony Smith, cited in Lisi's paper, has a 30 million dollar lawsuit against the Cornell Archives for similar suppression of work.

Best,
Raphie
BenTheMan
QUOTE
Thank you so much for that feedback. What most intriques me about Lisi's theory is that it is shifting the debate. Whether Lisi is correct in the details or not, I believe he has cracked open the door to some new ways of thinking about things much as Veneziano did back in the 1960's. I believe this can only be good for physics, and frankly, for me as well (that's my own self-interest at play), as I wish to go back to school to study the intersection of physics and society (through the lens of "Consilience" in the interests of what I term "Social Cogeneration") a conversation that is just beginning to be had at the top levels of Academia.


I think Lisi has accomplished none of this. It is quite clear to those who understand these ideas that his ideas are interesting, but probably wrong. He built an E8 grand unified theory (which is not new, anyone who works on heterotic string phenomenology can probably build ten a day). The novel thing is that he claims that his E8 theory contains SO(3,1), which Dister showed is not the case.

To say that he is ``shifting the debate'' is nonsense, because most people in Academia ignore his work. The only people who seem to think that it is important are Lee Smolin, Garrett Lisi's mom, and Discover Magazine.
AlphaNumeric
Ben, we've been around the block 5 times with Raphie. He doesn't want to know. He just wants to claim he's part of some shift in thinking in science to do with 'social string theory' (which has nothing to do with string theory, he just wants to think he's involved with it). He claims to 'concept mine' things like Polchinski's textbook but cannot actually get a single concept from the book, due to having no understanding of the maths. Pages on RG runnings, conformal invariance and even just residues of contour integrals were over his head. He thought a picture of a contour integral (pg 55, volume 1) related to the G2 or F4 weight diagram from this thread's topic! laugh.gif

He's a nut who gets upset when someone asks "Do you actually understand the concepts you keep name dropping?" Juist see how much he cries about Euler and I ganging up on him in http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=16195 . Apparently we'll be the subject of some publication on social interaction when he gets into Harvard or Yale laugh.gif And his reference? Someone he's only interacted with via email whose well known as a crank in physics and whose website does nothing but complain he's banned from posting papers to ArXiv! laugh.gif

http://archivefreedom.org/
Raphie Frank
(significantly edited)

Suit yourself with the name calling, AN. You consistently attack a social theorist on mathematical grounds and it's just plain silly. As I have mentioned before, I am operating on an interdisciplinary level in the interests of cross-correlating concepts across disciplines.

A few examples of influences, not at all complete and subject to revision:

Evolving Points of Reference - Cognitive Physics (Part IV: Conceptual Influences)
http://raphie.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/evo...l-influences-2/

As for my specific interest in numbers, right along with music, mathematics is a Universal Language. It is to the mind what music is to the heart. And just like music, there is more than one kind of mathematics. And just as different types of music evoke different emotions, different ways of framing numbers inspire different manners of thinking and allow one to perceive patterns otherwise not easily discernible:

===============================
EXAMPLES:

Ulam's spiral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulam_spiral

Goldbach Comet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach's_comet
===============================

As for Page 55 of Polchinski, Alphanumeric, you can map both the Circle of Fifths and 3 standard deviations of the Normal Gaussian distribution directly on to that three tiered circle which I conceive of as a "conformal mapping tool," obviously a loose interpretation. The point in the middle and everything outside can be thought of as anyone more than three standard deviations from the mean.

In human terms, pretty much anyone in that category constitutes a HIDDEN POPULATION, hidden populations being, as you know, a passion of mine. Just because you can't see it, that does not mean it's not there.

'It's a small world' becomes a scientific method for finding people, from jazz musicians to drug addicts
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov00...mpling.ssl.html

matthew salganik :: respondent-driven sampling
http://www.princeton.edu/~mjs3/rds.shtml

Best,
Raphie
BenTheMan
What the *** is a ``social theorist'' anyway? And if we can't talk about ``social theory'' on mathematical grounds, what the *** makes you that you can talk about quatnum gravity on social grounds?
Raphie Frank
QUOTE (BenTheMan+Mar 31 2008, 12:25 AM)
What the *** is a ``social theorist'' anyway?  And if we can't talk about ``social theory'' on mathematical grounds, what the *** makes you that you can talk about quatnum gravity on social grounds?

Social Theorists

Theorist
n One who theorizes (especially in science or art). A theoretician.
http://www.sociologyprofessor.com/socialtheorists.php

For instance, Is there a Physics of Society? At least some folks are asking that question and Mathhew Salganik is one of them.

If I knew it already, for the record, I wouldn't need or want to go to school.

Best,
Raphie
BenTheMan
Ehh...so..pseudoscience?
Raphie Frank
QUOTE (BenTheMan+Mar 31 2008, 12:30 AM)
Ehh...so..pseudoscience?

Pseudoscience, eh? That's utterly absurd, BentheMan. I am only asking questions that others are asking, including at least one well-respected Ivy League Professor, Matthew Salganik who I just mentioned above:

Is There A Physics Of Society?, January 2008 Conference in Santa Fe
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=20774.

Salganik was one of the session leaders at that Conference.

Best,
Raphie
BenTheMan
So Sociology and Psychology are science in the same sense of the word as Physics and Chemistry?
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Mar 31 2008, 12:18 AM)
As for Page 55 of Polchinski, Alphanumeric, you can map both the Circle of Fifths and 3 standard deviations of the Normal Gaussian distribution directly on to that three tiered circle which I conceive of as a "conformal mapping tool," obviously a loose interpretation. The point in the middle and everything outside can be thought of as anyone more than three standard deviations from the mean.

You desperately need to learn some maths. The circles represent paths of integrals. By the use of Cauchy's deformation theorem, they are all equal! This is because, by the Residue Theorem, the total for a closed, simply connected, path integral through the complex plane is 2.pi.i times the sum of the residues of the singularities enclosed within the loop (up to a sign determined by the orientation of the path). If the singularities within the closed path do not change then the value of the expression represented by the integral does not change. Standard deviations have nothing to do with this. Conformal mappings haven't either.

Anyone who have learnt basic 'complex analysis' knows this. It's a simple concept to such people. But, despite all your 'concept mining', you don't know.

That's why I call you an idiot and a fool. You resolutely refuse to even learn the concepts you claim to be interested in. And so you just make up BS from sources you don't understand. Why bother reading Polchinski if it's completely meaningless to you? I don't read books written in Chinese because I cannot read Chinese. Maths is no less 'coded' to someone who is unable to do maths. And the same is true for much of theoretical physics. Particularly string theory!

I went to a conference on vacuum stablisation this week. The vast majority of the talks were exceedingly mathematical. One talk was about constructing non-trivial n dimensional fibres sections over a manifold whose fibres with O(n,n,Z) symmetry with a base manifold which isn't simply connected. The non-contractable cycles in the base meant that sections in the fibre can construct non-geometric fluxes, which are not even uniquely defined due to the 'gauge choice' in taking sections. Such things equate to Buscher transformations breaking down.

Understand any of that? Now I've read around a dozen papers on that and I know all about the terms I just used and I even chatted with the guy giving the talk but damn, it was close to sailing right over my head. How many concepts did you get from it? None I'm certain.

Let me put this plainly : I think you're full of ****. And feel free to use that quote in a paper you publish when you're in Harvard laugh.gif I look forward to it being published in a sociology journal published in the year "When Hell Freezes Over". laugh.gif

Have you ever learnt about conformal maps? Have you ever learnt about gauge theories? Have you ever learnt about path integrals? And I don't mean 'Have you looked at the Wikipedia page on them?", I mean actually sat down with a book like Peskin & Schroder and worked through the examples found in the book, having learnt how to understand all the concepts and methods they use. For instance, you cannot read Polchinski properly without knowing what a path integral is. Do you think you can?

Why do you think you can read Polchinski and yet know nothing of the concepts he talks about? It's not even that you learn about concepts, you don't even learn about the concepts of string theory, you just make up BS.

You're a ****ing pathetic joke. A very sad one at that.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Mar 31 2008, 12:18 AM)
I found out about Lisi's theory, truth be told, through Carlos Castro Perelman himself. He was rather beside himself at the time as his work has been censored by ArXiv for years.
And I'm not suprised. His claims about the Riemann hypothesis being the result of a discrete symmetry in physics (specifically quantum mechanics) is BS. Anyone with even a conceptual understanding of maths and physics can see that. And I explained it to you then and I've explained it to you in this thread.
Raphie Frank
AN,

I won't even waste my time for now reading this post. You are as predictable as a Pavlovian dog at times. This is the bane of the ignorant genius and, believe me, geniuses are a dime a dozen. I come from an entire family of them.

Best,
Raphie

P.S. Go ahead AN, and be predictable as ever. Insult my family now or insult me AGAIN. Or better yet call me a "liar" or a "nut" or "delusional" yet again. I simply cannot take you seriously at times, and already anticipate your reply to this post. Shall I write the essence of your anticipated reply on a piece of paper and give it to someone else to prove the point later?

P.P.S. It's not about being smart, AN, but about how one uses one's intelligence. You use yours extremely, extremely poorly in my very humble opinion, which is a darn shame because you have an immense amount of raw talent, tripled by dedication and hard work, but you lack, it seems, any imaginative spirit that could help you be "great" rather than just "very good."
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Mar 31 2008, 09:13 AM)
I come from an entire family of them.

Must be the runt of the litter then.

You continue to dodge even the simplest questions about things you claim to be doing. You cannot even 'concept mine'.

If you dislike my insults, prove me wrong. People seem to think that I'm inherently antagonistic, that anyone who says "I understand physics" I'm compelled to shout down in order to protect my 'king of the hill' persona. This is false. I consider people like Rpenner, MrHomm and BenTheMan more intelligent than myself and much more widely educated than I. Rpenner is always level headed, articulate and polite. His feedback is almost perfect. Similarly for MrHomm. His ability to pick up a topic like orbifolds and grasp in days what took me months is very impressive. BenTheMan does string theory too and I get the impression does tougher stuff than I do. And then there's Euler. He and I went to university together and are best mates (though we now go to different universities). I know he's very clever and a great guy. Like me I'm sure he comes across as a jerk on these forums but then, like me, he comes here partly because of cranks like you make for such entertainment. And like me, when provoked can churn out pants wettingly complicated maths/physics concepts.

Then there's people like you, Farsight and NeoNo.1. You claim to understand string theory, to be reading/working on material of 'research level' (pretty much all actual string theory is on that level) but when pushed to show a single iota of understanding, you can't.

String theorists, real string theorists, demonstrate a working understanding of huge quantities of physics and maths and so show they deserve a bit of respect in the maths/physics community. If you could show you can do such physics, I'd give you some respect. However you not only show you haven't earnt that respect, you should you don't deserve such respect.

I will give people respect who have earnt it. Show me you've earnt it.
Raphie Frank
(edited before seeing AN"s reply and after seeing Euler's, and edited again after seeing AN's...)

Thank you for proving my point, AN. Sadly I had no one to give the piece of paper to, but, genius that you are, I am sure you will at least accept that I expected you to take the low road as you did. "Runt of the litter" eh? At least by measurable standards, I scored higher than anyone else in my family on aptitude tests. Those tests must be really screwed up and unreliable, which is exactly my point... Richard Feynman supposedly had an IQ of 125. Do you think those tests were accurate in his case? I certainly don't.

Best,
Raphie


Post Facto P.S. Your lapdog, Euler, has come calling...

P.P.S. No, AN, I did not waste my time reading your post. You lost me at the first sentence... "Must be the runt of the litter then"
Euler
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Mar 31 2008, 08:13 AM)
...which is a darn shame because you have an immense amount of raw talent...

I imagine comments like this means absolutely nothing coming from you, and here's why: you have no means of measuring AlphaNumeric's ability in his chosen field. You don't even understand school children mathematics and physics, so there's no way you could understand the stuff he does - let alone how competent he is at it. It's like someone who doesn't speak French commenting on the standard of a French author's novel!

Let's face it: you're some idiot who prances around on internet forums saying things like "1+3=4=2^2=2+2, surely not a coincidence: here's a link to a paper on quantum cosmology, there must be a link!". I wouldn't trust you to mark a 7th grade (11yr olds) science test!
AlphaNumeric
Did you even read my post? I explained why I will respect people who have earnt my respect. Can you show you've earnt it?

Do you respect liars? Since you don't have mindless respect for me you obviously have criteria for how you respect people. So do I. I'm asking you to meet my criteria. When someone says to me "Can you show you understand [such and such?" I can. I do. I have.
Raphie Frank
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Mar 31 2008, 08:38 AM)
Did you even read my post? I explained why I will respect people who have earnt my respect. Can you show you've earnt it?

Do you respect liars? Since you don't have mindless respect for me you obviously have criteria for how you respect people. So do I. I'm asking you to meet my criteria. When someone says to me "Can you show you understand [such and such?" I can. I do. I have.

AN, it is you who must earn my respect, not as an intellect -- because you already have my respect on that count -- but as a compassionate human being capable of creative and non-judgemental thinking.

Best,
Raphie

P.S. If all you're shooting for is a research position, you're golden...
Raphie Frank
QUOTE (BenTheMan+Mar 31 2008, 12:54 AM)
So Sociology and Psychology are science in the same sense of the word as Physics and Chemistry?

Dear BenTheMath,

Ask me this question again, please, after you have read, or at least leafed through (i.e browsed) "Consilience," by Edward O. Wilson. The upshot? Wilson makes the case that the Social Sciences are far, far more the "hard" sciences than those sciences conventionally termed as such.

I happen to agree with him.

Best,
Raphie
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Mar 31 2008, 09:53 AM)
but as a compassionate human being capable of creative and non-judgemental thinking.

I judge people, that's what everyone does. You judge me to be lacking in compassion because I don't display any towards you. You judge me to be knowledgable in physics because I display it.

I judge you to be deluding yourself because you constantly talk about maths and physics you have failed to show any understanding of.

Have you ever learnt and done any contour integrals? Yes or no. Now, if the answer is 'yes', explain where you learnt it. Then explain why you think the picture on page 55 is to do with Gaussians and standard deviations. If no, explain why you're reading sources of physics information whose basic concepts are expressed as path integrals.

On Saturday I was sitting on a train with 3 Oxford postdocs. We all had a slight chuckle at the story that a super clever differential geometry professor from Oxford, whose ideas apply to M theory on the most fundamental level, asked in a seminar "So is the action for this quantum field theory expressed as a path integral?". It's like an English professor asking if 'dog' is a noun. But even this is beyond you, you don't know what a path integral is.

Tell me, how would you view me if I 'waxed lyrical' about social sciences, making things up as I went along, claiming I understand it all? You'd try to correct me, if you have any integrity for your discipline of choice. You want to go to Harvard for sociology of whatever it is. If I claimed I could get into Harvard for sociology you'd ask what makes me think that. What have I done to show I could do a research level topic at a top university. Well I've done nothing so you would say I'm being unrealistic in my expectations. Exactly the same applies to you and string theory. Every person doing string theory research is a very competant physicist and an excellent mathematician. You are neither. That's not an insult, it's a statement of a cold, hard fact. But you think that books pitched at such people are within your grasp. I did linear algebra for 2 years of university and still use it every day, but I don't for a second think I can do research in linear algebra. Textbooks on the matter, aimed at postgrads, are gibberish to me. Just at string theory textbooks are gibberish to you.

Answer me honestly, why do you read Polchinski? We've established you can neither gain quantative or qualitative understanding from it. What concepts you claim to have gleaned are nothing but stuff you made up. So why bother? Why not just make it up immediately?

Do you really think you gained understanding from Polchinski?
Raphie Frank
Dear Alphanumeric,

I'm simply going to respond by telling you a little real life story:

My grandfather, Jules Backman, was a Professor at NYU for 45 years. Every year he began his class by drawing upon the chalkboard. First a dot, then a circle around that dot. Then another circle around the first. He would point at the inner circle and say:

"This is how much you think you know."

Then he would point at the dot in the middle and say...

"This is how much you actually know."

Then at the outer circle and say...

"This is how much there is to know."

He would then continue, more or less...

"One day if you work really really hard, after many trials and tribulations, you'll actually know as much as is in that inner circle. Right at that moment in time, however, you will realize that all you actually know is what is contained in the tiniest fraction of that dot there in the middle."

I know how little I know Alphanumeric. I'm not sure you do.

Best,
Raphie

There is an old saying: Teachers touch eternity. I would add to that that a Great teacher touches an eternity of eternities. In someone else's words, you can read about a Great teacher, my grandfather, in action. Over 60 years later he is still being written about by students and still teaching his grandson though he passed away over 25 years ago.

When Alan Greenspan and I studied economics together
http://octogenarian.blogspot.com/2005/06/w...-i-studied.html
BenTheMan
QUOTE
Ask me this question again, please, after you have read, or at least leafed through (i.e browsed) "Consilience," by Edward O. Wilson.


Ehh...no need.
Moomin
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Mar 31 2008, 05:05 PM)
My grandfather, Jules Backman, was a Professor at NYU for 45 years. Every year he began his class by drawing upon the chalkboard. First a dot, then a circle around that dot. Then another circle around the  first.

So, your grandpappy could draw an eye. laugh.gif - real impressive stuff, you've definitely inhereted his genes.


laugh.gif
BenTheMan
QUOTE (Moomin+Apr 1 2008, 03:10 AM)
So, your grandpappy could draw an eye. laugh.gif - real impressive stuff, you've definitely inhereted his genes.


laugh.gif

Or a BOOB!
Raphie Frank
QUOTE (BenTheMan+Apr 1 2008, 01:11 PM)
Or a BOOB!


Wowza, BentheMan, glad to see our halls of academia are being filled with such incisive intellects as yours.

Another little story: My father left Academia at the Age of 35, only four years after being tenured (He was an adjunct Professor for another 7 years), at least in part because he simply could not stand the utter ignorance of the peers he had to deal with on a daily basis. Guess I inherited some genes from both sides of the family because I become more than a little irritated with ignorance as well and am more than a bit committed to fairness, a trait he has in spades, at times to his own detriment.

Or... whoa... wait, perhaps genes are not hereditary? Sorry for that rather "nutty" supposition. Please do forgive me. I'm a bit "radical" and believe not only in evolution, but also in a round earth, a fourth dimension and even believe there may be something or other out there we have not yet discovered. which is precisely what has been at play with respect to many of my explorations upon this board.

In any case, ironically, my father taught at one of the same schools I wish to go to, not because he went there, and not because my mother went there and not because my sister went there, but because two of the Professors I most wish to study under, coincidentally, happen to teach there:

Paul Dimaggio, who is one of the world's experts on Cultural Capital, and is a committed proponent of both Arts and Education, and Matthew Salganik, whose twin specialties are Network Theory and Hidden Populations.

Best,
Raphie

Paul Dimaggio
http://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/pd_prof.html

Matthew Salganik
http://sociology.princeton.edu/Faculty/Salganik/

Charles R. Frank Jr.
http://www.cetv-net.com/en/about-cme/charles-s-frank.shtml
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Apr 2 2008, 05:06 AM)
He was an adjunct Professor for another 7 years), at least in part because he simply could not stand the utter ignorance of the peers he had to deal with on a daily basis.

So he spent enough time in university to gain a degree, masters, PhD and then tenur but in all those years, plus the several of the 7 he was a member of staff, he didn't realise that his collegues were 'ignorant'?
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Apr 2 2008, 05:06 AM)
because I become more than a little irritated with ignorance as well
Then you should be annoyed at yourself.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Apr 2 2008, 05:06 AM)
and am more than a bit committed to fairness, a trait he has in spades
I give people a fair chance. I see people like Rpenner, MrHomm and BenTheMan as excellent at physics. I see a fair few others here as very good too, despite not being educated to the same level in physics, so it's not all about what letters you have after your name.

You have failed to meet that criteria. I keep giving you more chances. How many times have I asked you to explain the concepts you find in a book you claim to 'concept mine' from? If I asked Ben, he'd manage it easily.

Shall we check? Ben, you have a copy of Schwarz and Becker. I know this from other discussions. What concepts are mentioned on page 55 (I pick the same page number so you don't accuss me of picking an easy, particular, page)?
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Apr 2 2008, 05:06 AM)
In any case, ironically, my father taught at one of the same schools I wish to go to, not because he went there, and not because my mother went there and not because my sister went there, but because two of the Professors I most wish to study under, coincidentally, happen to teach there:
The university I'm currently in is the same uni my parents got their degrees and post graduate qualifications from (well, my mum spent 6 years getting a medical degree). My father teaches fluid mechanics and mathematical methods, at a university which is well known for it's physics department. He has supervised dozens of PhD students over the 30 years he's been a member of staff, 15 or so of which he's been a professor (it's a little different here in the UK, you're a 'reader' or 'lecturer' until you can prove you're worthy of 'professor'. The US calls all members of staff various levels of 'professor'. My father is the most senior grade). He has had visiting lecturerships in the US, currently has one in Singapore. He edits a journal on fluid mechanics. He's got a publication list which makes his CV a thick as a phone book (last time he applied for a job it printed out to over 100 pages!). He's written several books. He has recently been appointed to head one of the largest science and maths groups in the UK. He is, without exaggeration, one of the top people in UK universities for his job.

And all of this is irrelevent to what I can do. My sister has the same father but her maths and physics abilities, despite being slightly above average, fall well short of his and mine. My maths skills actually outstrip my fathers. Unfortunately my work ethic doesn't. She struggled with the maths component of her economics degree. By your logic, she can claim to be excellent at maths because our father is. If you're having to use your fathers abilities as evidence for your own, you're obviously aware of how far short your own abilities fall.

Rather than list your fathers abilities, list your own. Stop dodging the questions asked of you.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Apr 2 2008, 05:06 AM)
Professors I most wish to study under, coincidentally, happen to teach there:

Paul Dimaggio, who is one of the world's experts on Cultural Capital, and is a committed proponent of both Arts and Education, and Matthew Salganik, whose twin specialties are Network Theory and Hidden Populations.
Again, the qualifications of your teachers do not automatically imply your ability. Do you want me to list the world leaders in physics and maths Euler and I studied under? How many do you think there are at Cambridge? laugh.gif Euler and I do not claim to be world leaders in anything we do, though Euler is much closer than I am.

Here's a short example of such people :

Tim Gowers : Trinity College professor in number theory, has a Fields Medal. Michael Green : an originator of string theory. Malcolm Perry : Major contributor to the theory of general relativity (such as proof to the AdS positive energy theorem), did his PhD under Hawking. Garry Gibbins : Same as Perry, including having Hawking as a PhD supervisor.

I could go on.

You talk about your grandfather telling his students "You know a lot less than you think". I know that. I've seen what the top people are capable of and I know I'll never be that good. Instead I have resigned myself to working in a small area of string theory. But it still needs active understanding of compactification, differential geometry and Lie algebras. If I didn't have working knowledge in those, I couldn't do my job. However, you have no such test. You don't have to prove you can do any string theory. The 'concepts' you pull from string theory books are nonsense. You waste your time as a result. Do I bother to read books written in Japanese, only to make up what I think it says? No. But you do the same with string theory. You know a hell of a lot less than you think. You're a prime example of what your grandfather was talking about.

Listen to him. Take a dose of your own medicine. Be a man.
Raphie Frank
The only sentence worth replying to?

"I've seen what the top people are capable of and I know I'll never be that good."

I believe in you Alphanumeric more than you do it seems. I would not "waste" my time with you if I thought otherwise. You most certainly have what it takes to be "great" not just "very good."

You also have what it takes to be very dangerous...

Best,
Raphie
AlphaNumeric
So you think my listing of people I studied under is not worth replying to. You started it.

So you think my listing of my father's acheivements is not worth replying to. You started it.

Nice job on criticising your own posting style.
QUOTE
You most certainly have what it takes to be "great" not just "very good."
How do you know? You don't understand any of the details of my work area. It's all too common for people who don't understand an area to see "very good" and "exceptional" as the same. Because it's all over their head. 2nd year quantum mechanics looks as complicated as Wittens most recent paper to you. The difference is obvious to me. The top string theorists are further beyond me than I am beyond you. And that's a lot.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You most certainly have what it takes to be "great" not just "very good."
How do you know? You don't understand any of the details of my work area. It's all too common for people who don't understand an area to see "very good" and "exceptional" as the same. Because it's all over their head. 2nd year quantum mechanics looks as complicated as Wittens most recent paper to you. The difference is obvious to me. The top string theorists are further beyond me than I am beyond you. And that's a lot.
P.S. Continue to attack my family and it will be a public declaration of war that you will never ever win.
I attacked your view that your father's acheivments somehow reflect well on you. They don't. The only bad comment I made about your father was the first comment. Why did it take him so long to work it out? It is a little strange.

Can you justify why your father's achievement means you'd make a good student?
Raphie Frank
Quite simply AN, I can "see" you but you can not "see" me.

I don't doubt your capabilities. I believe I have made this very clear.

Best,
Raphie

P.S. I use "legacy" as a tool by which you might utilize inductive logic. Shall I publicly state that I am a genius? If it were false I would be a liar. If true a braggart. One must use indirect means....
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Apr 2 2008, 09:48 AM)
Quite simply AN, I can "see" you but you can not "see" me.

And how does that justify criticising your own posting methods or trying to use your dad's achievements to build up your own? Try to answer relevently this time.
Raphie Frank
I replied in the P.S. of the above post.

ORTHOGONAL intelligence, AN.

My constituency is not you. Your intelligence is very clear to even half a dumba$$. I am concerned with the folks society does not see. And... you tell me... how many are there out there with my legacy and commitment who give a cat's meow?

GIFTEDNESS CUTS ACROSS ALL ECONOMIC DIVIDES. IT IS RACE AND COLOR BLIND.

Care to tell me the proportion of the lower classes in the Ivy Leagues?

I don't know specifically but would bet you at least 10,000 pounds that the financially well off are a bit more than well-represented proportionately speaking.

Best,
Raphie
Raphie Frank
As a personal aside, AN...

Thank you for sharing a bit of your personal history. I mean that. On at least one point I know we can agree: We're both proud as heck of our folks. You were right, in my view, on at least that one point. Very worth replying to.

Best,
Raphie
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.