|
|
|
FQXi FORUM
CATEGORY: High Energy Physics
[back]
TOPIC: Pieces of E8
[refresh]
|
|
|
|
There are very few moments in theoretical physics that qualify as... thrilling -- moments that send shivers of excitement down the spine and make the brain tingle. It's such an abstract pursuit, you wouldn't think the effects would be so visceral. The thoughts take years to accumulate, and are often disjoint and haphazardly organized. On a very rare occasion, a new insight brings a cascade of ideas together at once -- a chain reaction in the mind. It's very cool. Of course, the idea could still be wrong. And usually one needs to set about the hard work of trying to prove it wrong, before airing it in public. But, in this case, with a recent idea I think is significant, that work will likely take me a long time -- and I want to share the main idea now. So here it is:
If we take seriously the idea that fermions may be gauge theory ghosts, there is one gauge theory in particular that stands out: that of a principal E8-bundle. The exceptional group of rank 8 is the largest of the exceptional Lie groups, and perhaps the richest in structure. Pirating an appendix from Superstring Theory, the 248 dimensional Lie algebra of E8 is described as:
e8 = so(16) + S(16)
the special orthogonal group (with 120 elements) acting on the space of 128 dimensional chiral spinors. This is remarkable as it is, since it says there's a Lie algebra in which the Lie bracket of two elements gives one element acting on another as a Clifford algebra element, B, of so(16) acting from the left on a spinor, Psi, of so(16):
[ B, Psi ] = B Psi
There is also a lesser known, equivalent description of e8 that I read about in John Baez's This Week's Finds:
e8 = so(8) + so(8) + (V(8) x V(8)) + (S(8) x S(8)) + (S(8) x S(8))
In this description, the 28 elements, H, of so(8) act from the left on three 64 element blocks, Psi1,Psi2,Psi3:
[ H, Psi123 ] = H Psi123
and the other 28 elements, G, of so(8) act on these from the right. Now, if we build a Yang-Mills theory with E8, and take the three blocks to be ghosts, the BRST extended connection:
A = H + G + Psi1 + Psi2 + Psi3
and its curvature,
F = d A + AA
= (dH+HH) + (dG+GG) + (dPsi1+HPsi1+Psi1G) + (dPsi2+HPsi2+Psi2G) + (dPsi3+HPsi3+Psi3G)
fits the standard model -- complete with three generations of fermions and gravity! This is mostly laid out in my last paper. The gravitational connection, frame, Higgs multiplet, U(1), and SU(2) fit in H, while SU(3) and another piece of U(1) fit in G. And three generations of leptons and quarks fit in the Psi's, related by triality. This is a beautiful thing -- exactly what one would hope for in a TOE!
If it's true, it would explain a lot of complicated structures in the standard model in terms of a simple E8 Yang-Mills field: exactly what and why spinors are, why the particles get the charges they do, why there are three generations, and possibly why the masses are what they are. And there's very little wiggle room. It will have to be a real form of complex E8, since we need a non-compact gauge group for gravity. But there will be only a handful of ways to consider the E8 symmetry breaking to the standard model. After all, it's just a Yang-Mills theory, with no other fancy stuff flying around. It will either clearly work, or it clearly won't.
There is a lot of work to do. I haven't gotten exactly the right particle assignments down yet. And I don't know if someone's tried this before, since the literature is somewhat obfuscated by the use of E8 in heterotic string theory, which is quite different. (I doubt it's been done before though, since it relies on my crazy idea of replacing some gauge fields with fermionic ghosts.) I expect to be working on this for quite a while -- studying the structure of E8, which is quite beautiful, and many other aspects -- trying to see if the fermions will fit properly and the KM matrix pops out of it. It's not a completed theory, which is why I didn't write it up as a paper. But I think it's interesting and exciting enough to put here, for the enjoyment and puzzlement of others.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Is anything recursive/self referential in the mathematics of your theory?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any experiments that could be done in the near future that might test predictions of your theory? Or will the energies be out of reach for a long, long time, like they are for other grand theories of everything?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being only a humble carpenter, would this mean that since we know how weak, strong, e/m, and now gravitional forces are linked, can we now begin to learn to artifically manipulate a gravitational field?
Because we specialize in difficult and unusual builds, I thought it might be nice to offer my clientel anti-gravity sleeping quarters on earth or maybe a house that floats.
I apologize if this insults anyone, but I can't hang mentally with the bunch of you for long. Seriously though, can gravity now be manipulated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any implications or unknown properties of Gravity or Magnetism that are implied by this theory? For that matter are there any other implications of this theory on other known laws or theories?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear M Lisi,
Can your interpretation of the E8 group shed some light on the "Cosmic Galois Group" conjonctured by M P.Cartier(*) which acts as an universal group of symmetries on the coupling constants of renormalizable physical theories and which is expected to solve the problem of divergences in quantum field theory.
(*) A Mad Day's Work : From Grothendieck to Connes and Kontsevich. The evolution of concepts of space and symmetry.
Bull.Amer.Math.Soc. (N.S.) 38 (2001) ,no. 4 389-408
| | attachments:
001_from_grothendieck.pdf,
Connes_Marcolli.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
Mark:
Is anything recursive/self referential in your question?
St?©phane:
It's still to early to say what they are, but the theory appears to be sufficiently restrictive that as it develops there will certainly be testable predictions, right or wrong.
Andrew:
We're still stuck with gravity -- just do the best you can with wood. Be creative.
Matthew:
The theory is built from the ground up to match what we know. If all goes well, it will continue to agree with what we know and predict some new things that we don't.
Emile:
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a long-time artist/meditator I applaud your method of study. It allowed you to spend a lot of time in altered states of consciousness (like surfing, snowboarding) so that you COULD come up with this kind of theory. Very clever of you, indeed.
If you (or anyone reading) are not a student of sacred geometry, you might want to check into the work of Ibrahim Karim, an Egyptian architect who is studying/teaching sacred geometry from the inner chambers of the Egyptian pyramidal tombs, and further developing the studies of the French Radiethesiests. There is some VERY interesting information there. Sacred geometry is apparently how spirit creates matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your E8 theory shows that the smallest known bricks of matter and force fit a very beautiful (and complex) symmetry.
Up in the biosphere, symmetry in shape (or a flower, a runner, etc.) is not a free gift; it is achieved by an evolutionary process.
Is it at all conceivable that the E8-particles and their symmetry be the result, by emergence, of the evolutions of
an exceptionally simple (maybe deterministic, discrete, computational) system, in the spirit of, say, cellular automata?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I may ask this question clumsily, but bear with me a moment. The symmetries of the particles extend to the forces themselves which govern them. Fusion (strong nuclear) is balanced by fission (weak nuclear) and they are, in some way, inverses of one another. Aristotle coined the word for "gravity" to describe the force which causes things to sink or fall and Newton picked it up. But Aristotle coined two words for opposing balanced forces: gravity and levity. There was some talk in the past decade about an antigravity fifth force in the universe, indetectable at micro scales, but readily apparent in the macrocosm -- Einstein's Fudge Factor, the force propelling the acceleration of expansion in the universe, etc. And the famous "inflationary universe" soon after the Big Bang signals its separation from the symmetry. Does E8 allow for a missing force? Are the 20 missing elements related in some way as a family? Or are they scattered through the matrix? What is your opinion on levity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PS: The fellow who asked about recursive or self-referential (Mark) was asking, I think, whether E8 has the nature of a fractal or if it is fractal geometry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lois:
Wow, "altered states of consciousness"... here I thought I was just having fun. ;) Also, I do like geometry a great deal, but "sacred" seems too strong a word. It would be impossible (and arrogant) for me to say with certainty that ancient philosophers couldn't have obtained deep insights into the geometry of the universe through omphaloskepsis, but I prefer using math. If people are struck by the beauty of geometry, I would encourage them to use this as motivation to learn a bit of the related mathematics. Physics and math are the best magic I know -- most of the other kinds are fake.
Tommaso:
Yes, this is possible. I try to follow Occam's razor in these matters, but it's conceivable that there's a simple system for which E8 is an emergent symmetry. Though I'm going to spend more time working on the E8 Theory itself first, before I consider how it might emerge from something else.
Bryan:
Yes, I feel levity is very important in physics. (I think that's apparent from my paper title.) And if this E8 Theory turns out to be true about nature, it will include a few new particles, corresponding to new forces. But these are going to have to be sufficiently weak that they don't contradict the standard model, which very accurately describes the world on our human scale.
Bryan II:
If so, then the answer is no, E8 is a complicated (simple) Lie group, but not a fractal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To the extent human tropical water monkeys see randomness in events ... time is a ride exactly between quantum and astronomical. That would make self conscious life actually THE unifed field and quite a beautiful answer as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Occam's razor is one of my favorite tools too (maybe not for posts, though...). After your november 2007 paper, precisely two distinguished concepts are filed in my mind under 'particles' + 'beauty': one is the system of roots for the 248 symmetries of the E8 manifold; the other is Wolfram's elementary cellular automaton 110, with its amazing interacting particles emerging from basically any initial condition, including the simplest.
While it is clear that the universe can't be a cellular automaton, one can expect a lot of beautiful things to emerge when trying to transpose the simple ideas behind them -- and the computational-universe view -- to the discrete, graph-like structures considered in LQG (spin networks, foams, knots, braids...), or just to plain, finite trivalent graphs, as suggested by Wolfram himself.
That's what I am after, and although I well understand that your priority is still on the internals of the E8-Theory, I wonder whether you'd have at hand a 'natural' candidate for a sequence of increasingly complex symmetries X1, X2, ..., Xn, with Xn = E8, so that research and experimentation on emergence in graphs could be more realistically directed towards cracking X1 first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A piece of the answer hides in the Coral Castle. See you in the water sone day.TG. http://www.coralcastle.com/9tonbig.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like I'm going to have to go back to math school for a few years to anwer my own questions about how your idea affects cosmology. In the meantime...
Have you considered that some of the unnasigned points on E8 could apply to "dark matter"? Does your idea rule out dark matter or make it easier to know how and what to look for?
As an alternative to dark matter, does your idea show that the effect of gravity is not perfectly linear in its relation to space?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's imazing now to look at the 12th century cathedral's roses (copies of Solomon temple probably)?
| | attachments:
valencia_cathedrals_rose.jpg,
rose_nord__de_Notre_Dame_de_Paris.JPG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible that quark spinors, emulating electron spinors in magnetism and sigma and pi chemical bonding, could be responsible for gravity and inertia?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this related to Star Trek Voyager's episode regarding the Omega Project, where there find the ultimate element? Seven says the element is symbolic of Perfection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a few questions:
Would not a theory of *everything* have to say something about the consciousness that created it, or through which it emerged?
(I suggest that a theory of *everything* would have to be able to explain its own origin. This is not my idea. It was told to me by another searcher for Truth back in 1972.)
Inasmuch as science originates in self-reflection and the thought of the 'thinker', a true theory of *everything* would have to determine whether this is the only dimension of consciousness. (It isn't. There is also the chaotic Lorentz attractor form descriptive of "psychosis", as well as the "observing consciousness" which is capable of observing the 'movement' of self-reflection in the first place.) (The 'classical' consciousness originating in self-reflection and thought cannot observe this because it does not yet exist.)
Would not a rigid adherence to Occam's Razor result in the conclusion that there is neither a 'mind', nor a 'thinker', nor a 'self' but merely thoughts?
If this E-8 is, in fact, a theory of everything in the physical world, how could it be related (through metaphor, archetype, synchronicity etc.) to a complete description (based upon observation, not thought or self-reflection) of the full dimensions of human consciousness?
In other words, maybe E-8 is not a TOE but a crucial *half* of a theory of everything: a TOEBH or a theory of everything by half.
Michael Cecil
http://science-of-consciousness.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
"consciousness that created it, or through which it emerged?"
-Michael Cecil wrote on Dec. 11, 2007 @ 11:56 GMT
Not so much. If I were write down 2+2=4. that doesnt tell you anything about my consciousness. Nor does it tell you anything about its "inventors" consciousness. Of course 2, +, =, and 4, are all different theories, the most basic part of these theories were developed in multiple places without any intereference from outside forces. (Unless there was aliens! woooOOOoo!, but I'll put that theory on the dusty shelf where it belongs for now) Because the same theory was developed by multiple, and entirely different consciousness' it is impossible to say that the theory has anything to do with its inventor, the theory is of itself.
I think you are trying to say that there may be "bias" in the equation, which is a perfectly valid question. But some things simply "can't" have bias. But of course I can not tell you for sure about this quation, because I havn't read All of the original creators work. And to have an equasion work out, while biasing the numbers to your own "whim" is an accomplishment of its own accord.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not so much. If I were write down 2+2=4. that doesnt tell you anything about my consciousness.
Eric Bremer wrote.
Of course it does. It tells me that the origin is the 'classical' consciousness originating in self-reflection and thought.
And, if I tell you that thought originates in fear and desire, that also tells you something about the consciousness that makes this observation: it is not the 'classical' consciousness, which is incapable of observing thought.
The bias I am referring to is the bias which requires the preservation of the 'classical' consciousness itself. Descartes, for example, postulated the thought of the 'thinker' in order to escape the psychosis described in the opening passages of Meditation II. Of course, it is necessary, in some sense, to preserve sanity; but, at the same time, the resultant view of reality is distorted by that motivation. It is not an objective view of reality.
The observations of the "observing consciousness", on the other hand, have nothing to do with fear or desire; and, for that reason, can provide an objective view of reality beyond the view of the 'classical' consciousness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
mike:
We always see randomness in events, but I think self conscious life is a question, not an answer.
Tommaso:
Yes, this is a great way to proceed. And I think LQG is the best place to start if one is going to work up to a fully quantum description of the whole enchilada.
TG:
Amusing, but within the realm of coincidence.
Tom:
The theory isn't developed well enough yet to say anything definitive about dark matter.
anna:
Yes, the appeal of symmetry has spanned many centuries. It's interesting to consider to what degree this aesthetic appeal is grounded in the fundamental nature of the universe.
Daniel:
Sounds kinda weird.
Phil:
Shh! Don't give away my sources!
Michael:
For the paper's title, I used "Theory of Everything" in the technical sense of combining a description of general relativity and gauge symmetries as parts of a single, larger symmetry group. The theory has nothing to say about consciousness. If you want to build up from fundamental physics to an understanding of consciousness, that's a long hard path -- but a potentially worthwhile and successful one.
Eric:
Yep.
Michael:
You're correct that we're all biased. However, science works, so this is promising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been looking at E8 and a couple other TOE mathematical models that imply unobserved dimensions. The thought occurred to me that what we percieve as a 2 dimensional timeline could potentially be a vector through multidimensional time.
While this concept can very neatly address the issue of missing dimensions, proving it experimentally is an interesting exercize.
Perhaps this idea may prove of some use to your work...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yahou !!
Me, I found the exeptionnaly simple theory of nothing :
"
"
Garett, What do you think about my theory ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Garrett, are you familiar with the work of MS El Naschie? It appears that your TOF and his work (which for the most part appeared in the Elsevier journal Chaos,Solitons & Fractals) have a lot in common? I would appreciate hearing your opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great Job Mr Lisi, this is a really logical theory. I hope you will soon be able to test this with the new CERN scientist toy. ;)
But... I started reading your AESTE and it seems you postulate the Higgs' boson exists. As the Higgs as been created to fill the holes in the standard theory and as far as I heard of, it's never been seen (maybe it will with the LHD but who knows...)don't you think it's going to bias (blow) the geometry if the actual gravity explanation is false.
I read another Theory by Lafreniere that explains all the forces maybe it will help... or not. but both your theories seems valid, well Lafreniere is not a physician and is axplainations are far less mathematical but it sounds coherent too...even if is...hum writing style is... weird. just take a look if you have some time and let us know what you think of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Dr. Lisi,
I'm sorry - I posted in the the wrong thread, which won't be replied to, so once more my question regarding TOEs:
Kurt G??dels Incompleteness Theorem ...
means *any* TOE will end up being a "TO almost E".
Guess this doesn't touch your present work at all, but in the long run you must have some sort of opinion about it ... ? Hope it's not too indiscreet to ask.
One more thing - I like your statements about a beautiful theory. The search for truth and the search for beauty are in a way related - the ancient Indian seers called the Ultimate Reality they found:
Satyam, Shivam, Sunderam - the True, the Good and the Beautiful.
- And pardon me for mentioning still one more thing - you have a nice way of using words. The titling of your paper, "Pieces of E8" ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can anybody translate this theory in Ukrainian,or russian?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Lisi-
I know you are a "surfer dude", but somehow, I think it is best to start off with a salutation more appropriate for someone who really has earned his PhD.
Anyway, on to the real topic: I see you say you have a lot of calculation to do. Have you found a Computer Algebra package suitable for it? Is Octave, Axiom or Sage suitable? As I read the descriptions of these packages, they sound somewhat promising, but they all seem to be missing something. GAP, for example, my old favorite, only handles Lie Algebras over fields of prime characteristic and small dimension or over GF(2). But if you want to know the Normalizer etc. of the Weyl group, that GAP can do -- if you tell it the Weyl group;)
Then again Atlas sounds promising too, though the only description of it I found on the Net is rather dated
(www.liegroups.org), and sparse in describing what else other than "Kazhdan-Lusztig-Vogan polynomials" it will compute. Somehow, "structure theory and admissible representations of real groups" still sounds too vague. And their "Spherical Unitary Explorer" works only for the Classical Groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Lisi,
(Condensed matter physicist speaking :-)
The action in Eq. 3.8 involves an integral over a 4-manifold. I assume this is a Cartesian 3+1 space, is this correct?
So, how would you quantize the theory? Would you find the field modes and their conjugate momenta on this manifold and proceed in the usual way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Lisi,
How does this have anything to do with 42?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
As your theory is a gauge theory with all its apparatus, for it to make sense it should be renormalizable or even finite(what string theory are). I just run across your papers, but didn't took the time to read it, so I ask you:
Is your theory renormalizable ? (which is, as far as I can remember the main plague of quantum gravity and the reason to look at supersymmetry and string theory. Is it not so ?)
Thanks for you answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
What fun it's been reading about this new idea!
Just like I may never be able to play linebacker in a pro football game, I can still love the game as a spectator.
Being new to this game, there are so many *really* basic questions. I'll just ask one or two here:
- The dimension thing. Very confusing. (Except, strangely enough, for the vertices corresponding to elementary particles. Perhaps because it's such a neat idea (as in tidy): So, E8 is an 8-dimensional polytope. But has a 248-dimensional surface. To help me encapsulate this concept, how many dimensions would the surface of a 3-dimensional *dodecahedron* have? (Would that be 20 dimensions? Same as vertices?)
*A little homage to the late Gary Gygax.*
- So, we have an 8-dimensional polytope. A 248-dimensional surface. Where/how does 4-dimensional space-time fit into E8?
- Okay, three questions: So, it looks like this might describe all the fundamental particles in nature and all their possible interactions. But, does General Relativity naturally arise from the model? Can it explain why there are three spatial dimensions and only one time dimension? Or, why time is so different?
Really more than three questions. But hey, it's such a fascinating idea!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a complete layman, not at all a amthematician, so I hope it's OK for me to post here with a very basic question, because I don't know where else to ask.
Is the rlationship between the E8 shape, and particles, in any way similar/parallel to the relationship between position on the Periodic Table, and characteristics of elements...? Similarly, would the "colored lines" connectivng the vertices relate to some sort of commonality and/or transition from the qualities of one particle, to those of adjoining particles? IOW, if one "line" is blue, and anotehr "red", do the colors represent different correspondences of qualities between the particles, where A could have X in common with B, but Y in common with other adjoining particle C...?
TIA, and thanks for your patience with my simple question...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neat stuff, Dr. Lisi.
I am excited about progress with this theory so I won't hinder it by posing you self-indulgent questions. I trust understanding will filter down to me in time. You keep at it, and good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
And if 'All' happened in the Bulk?
Big Bangs, big explosion's big 'everything', Branes colliding and so on...
In the out there Dark is just what we can yet see, if we ever seen...
We are happy to be in a small universal blt of stars...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom:
A lot of people have considered multiple timelike dimensions -- it is a neat idea, but tends to run into problems by predicting tachyons.
bidou:
It lacks something.
David:
I'm more curious about his fanatical followers...
Kotatsu:
There are some theories that work without a Higgs, but they tend to be more complicated. It's a good bet that the Higgs will be seen in a few months at the LHC.
I'm afraid I don't have time to look at Lafreniere's stuff.
N. Tantilov:
I'm not sure that just because Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem can be posed and proved within the universe that it is a fundamental part of its structure. I'm convinced that the universe can be described by mathematics, but not that it is mathematics -- though it's an interesting idea. Also, good to know you enjoy humor -- it sees us through the dark times.
Sava:
The mathematics should translate easily enough.
Matt:
"Dr. Surfer Dude" maybe? I've been using Mathematica a lot ( > 20 years!), and sometimes Maple. GAP looks very cool, and I may end up using it. I think the Atlas website isn't particularly user friendly yet. Maybe all the attention will motivate some improvement, there and with my stuff too.
JKD:
Aren't we all condensed matter physicists? The base manifold is naked -- it's a four-manifold of arbitrary topology. It doesn't have a signature or metric -- these are part of the E8 fiber moving over it.
I like the path integral approach to quantization. But using canonical quantization in a flat spacetime approximation would be fine.
Ford:
What do you get when you multiply 4 by 2?
Guglielmo:
It should be accessible to some of the same tools as non-abelian quantum field theory. However, it's a lot messier since the spacetime frame is part of the fiber, and this spacetime can be curved. So the usual QFT methods probably won't give a fully consistent quantum E8 theory. I'm counting on using the methods being developed by the quantum gravity community to consistently quantize this theory.
Albert:
Being a linebacker isn't as much fun as it sounds... A twenty sided die lives in 3 dimensions, otherwise you'd never make your saving throws. The E8 Lie group is a 248 dimensional smooth surface -- there are 248 directions one could move in when on this surface. Each of these directions is a symmetry which can be plotted as a unique point in an abstract 8 dimensional space, giving the E8 polytope. (Does that make things clear?)
The four dimensional base spacetime, over which the E8 Lie group moves, must be assumed from the beginning. General relativity does come from considering how part of the E8 Lie group surface moves over our base spacetime. To get time, we have to assume a specific noncompact form of E8, and it's not clear why nature would make that choice.
Kris:
Yah, that's pretty close.
Ray:
Thanks. Coming up with good questions isn't a hinderance though -- it helps clarify this stuff for me and others.
Nelson:
Whoa, dude, cosmic... It is lunch time though, so I'm gonna make a small universal blt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Garrett,
How about another exceptionally simple theory of everything.That is Particles X and Y can be in the same place at the same time in the same state in the big bang contrary to the law of non contradition.
1/3 Fermi Dirac+ 1/3 Bose EInstein Equation+ 1/3 Bose Einstein equation= 1 Einsetin bose/fermi dirac.
That means particles are in between existance and non existance.
You can add equations in 1/3s if a big crunch preceeded the big bang and the force of gravity was converted to four states of matter in one.
And then the big bang was unstable becuase one state of matter violates the law of non contradiction.
So potential energy was converted to Kinetic.
And one state of matter became four and the dependant variable one force became four.
Can you prove this with E8.?
My book MY SCIENCE THESIS-TAKE EINSTEIN TO INFINITY is available on Amazon.
and you can get HOW TO FAIL EINSTEIN AT COLLEGE on LULU.
Richard Thomas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creation Ex-nihilo means the equation for the universe does not balance.
The equation for the unviverse balances if there was a big bang and the four states of matter were compressed into one state and one force as Einstein sais.
Then the potential energy of the big crunch was converted to the kinetic energy of the big bang..
But E=MC^2 does not balance for 2 2E=2M*2C^2.
So the universal energy equation does not balance for creation ex-nihilo creation ex-nihilo means a contradictory equation for the big bang is wrong and all of the maths is non contradictory.
So we can add equations 2+2=4 to get an equation for the universal energy.
Which means that we have to "get" energy from outside of the universe.
To make the equation balance.
Can you prove ex-nihilo that the equations for everything are 2+2=4 and don't balance.?With E8.
This is a personal request to Garret Lise from Richard Thomas the author of How To Fail Einstein at College.
Richard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOHN 11 verse 9 Are there not 12 hours in a day.Jesus is deliberatley wrong and sais 12 not 24.
Jesus equation is the opposite to Douglas Adams.
42. 21+21=42
It is 12+12=24.
So you see the direct opposite to Douglas Adams answer.
2*6+28^=4*6.
Six is not right for seven but is right for six.
2+2=4 is right for six.
The light that is in some people is darkness so how great is that darkness
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOHN 11 verse 9 JESUS SAIS THE ANSWER IS NOT 21 TIME DIMENSIONS BUT 12. Can you test this with E8.?
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another exceptionally simple theory of everything.
| | attachments:
BLOG_1.wps,
MyScienceThesis.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANOTHER EXCEPTIONALLY SIMPLE THEORY OF EVERYTHING
| | attachments:
BLOG_4.wps,
BLOG4.txt |
|
|
|
|
|
The quantum weirdness equation is ZIGGY it is a computer that can be used to add up millions of equations and get one equation.
1/3 GOOGLEPLEX EQUATIONS+ 1/3 GOOGLEPLEX EQUATIONS+ 1/3 GOOGLEPEX EQUATIONS= 1 GOOGLEPLEX/GOOGLEPLEX= 1 EQUATION.
And 1/3 APPLE+ 1/3 ORANGE+ 1/3 ORANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE.
This is the case for Einsteins equation it is a contradiction of state space and time.
It has to be a contradiction of apples and oranges if the big bang is right.
But ex-nihilo is 2 APPLES+ 2 ORANGES= 4 APPLE/ORANGES.
You can add 2000 equatsions+ 2000 equations= 4000 equations/1000= 2+2-4.
So you get one equation for 2000 or 2000000 equations.
And the equaton is rational even though it does not balance for E=MCsquared.
2+2=4 is a non contradiction equation and thus agrees with a christian theory of everything.
The four force would always be four and the four states of matter would always be four in ex-nihilo creation.
But the equation for energy and momentum depends of the four states being four.
And a new equation can be drawn up and tested empirically that means the four states are one and the four forces are one as a dependant variable.
Steve A Jeffrey
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard/Steve:
Nah, I'm sticking with 42.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Garrett,
12+12=24 is the reverse of 21+21=42.
So could it be Jesus is trying to tell us that six is right for 2+2=4 2*6+2*6=4*6
Thanks for not deleting my posts.
Maybe you saw the film expelled and developed some tolerance for the christian worldview.
If you really must stick with 42 then you must recognise that opposites like 1+1=2.
And 2+2=4 are important.
1 ODD+ 1 EVEN= 2 ODD.
And 2 ODD+ 2 EVEN=4 EVEN.
This is what I call the YING/YANG equation for E=MCsquared.
2E=1M+1C^2 4E=2M*2C^2 (this balances but is not right the correct equation is 2E=2M*2C^2)
That is why I say the universal energy equation does not balance for ex-nihilo.
Cheers I think Douglas Adams adds up to 9*42=378(18*21)
(6+6+6*7+7+7)
I have called my book on Lulu A CREATIONIST NONSENSE.
30 40 50% OFF.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/3 PARTICLE EQUATION FOR LIGHT+ 1/3 PARTICLE EQUATION FOR LIGHT+ 1/3 MAXWELL EQUATION FOR LIGHT= 1 EQUATION FOR LIGHT AS A PARTICLE AND A WAVE.
Here is our model for adding equations if it works with light it should work with all physics equations.
To get one equation from a million other equations.
Richard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The theory of everything can be biological.
Kinds can be contradictory.And they can be non contradictory.
But if kinds are contradictory then you need reverse engineering to change one kind into another.
To give you an example you can reverse engineer an AM radio to do what it was never intended to do and become a two way radio.
You cannot do this without information even a college professor would not be able to do it without the net.
Random chance has a high IQ but much lower than a college professor.And without information random chance woudl not be able to reverse engineer the radio.
What do you think Garrett a biological Simple theory of everything.?
Who makes the waves man.?
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Dr. Garrett Lisi,
I recently published a book on “New Approaches Towards A Grand Unified Theory” and noticed some interesting similarities between your research paper “An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything” and my book – despite the fact that we approached the problem from very different perspectives, and I just read your paper (so it didn’t influence the ideas in my book).
Similarities – 1) Both approaches expect at least a minimal left-right symmetric weak force, 2) both approaches need 16 Higgs scalars (my book uses two complex Higgs scalar doublet fields, one of the complex doublets couples to the Standard Higgs vev of 246 Gev, and the other appears to couple to an energy scale of 20,000 TeV), 3) both approaches may explain the CKM and PMNS matrices (my book unifies and complicates these matrices), 4) both approaches contain SO(8) algebras that may not have been expected, 5) both approaches may explain the three generations of matter – your “triality” – although my book predicts a total of five generations that condense into three low-mass generations, and 6) both approaches derive their gravity representations from Clifford algebra (although they yield different conclusions).
Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that a 14-dimensional Supersymmetric SU(15) Lie Algebra may be the best effective theory (short of the over-kill “True” 26-dimensional theory), and that this theory can condense into a 10-dimensional SU(11) “Boson GUT”, an effective 8-dimensional SO(16) “Fermion GUT”, and a 4-dimensional SU(5) Supersymmetry. Within the framework of my book, your E8 representation may be a good effective theory in 8 dimensions, and with an order of 8 x 31 it is large enough to contain two SO(16)’s of order 8 x 15. It isn’t clear to me whether the 10-dimensional SU(11) “Boson GUT” is collapsing into an effective 8-dimensional SU(9) or whether it is being misrepresented by an 8-dimensional SO(16).
Most of my ideas on GUT Lie Algebras are in Chapter 7. The earlier parts of my book address grand unification from a thermodynamic perspective. And I have a few pages on the Creation –Design – Chance – Necessity Debate as it relates to the Anthropic Principle that might appeal to your “blog followers”.
I received my Ph.D. in Particle Physics from Florida State University in 1996 under Prof. Howie Baer, taught full-time until 1999, taught part-time until 2003, and I’ve been in the business world full-time since 1999.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ray Munroe
Tallahassee, FL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phillip Adams stole his book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or is it Douglas Adams.?
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHy did you answer me Garrett and not Dr Monro.?
It is a terrific thing to have a non contradiction.
It is a terrific thing to have a non itchy dick.
But unless you have the contradiction an itchy dick you cannot have the non contradiction a non itchy dick.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Garrett,
Somebody mentioned 2+2=4 in respect to your theory.
What does 2+2=4 have to do with an exceptionally simple theory of everything.
To me 2+2=4 means non contradictory mathematics.
The opposite to the quantum weirdness equation 1/3 APPLE+ 1/3 ORANGE+ 1/3 ORANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE.
Because 2+2=4 = 2 APPLE+ 2 ORANGE= 4 APPLE/ORANGES.
That is there are two apples and two oranges and that multiplies togther to get four.
Just like 1*1=1 And it is 2*2=4 so the eqautions are not foru in one.You can divide by four to get one equaton but that will be contradictory.
Or is it.?
What do you think Garrett.?
| | attachments:
1_BLOG_4.wps,
oddeven.exe |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review of my book MY SCIENCE THESIS by the HAKWING OF ALGEBRA At USQ Maths Prof WALTER SPUNDE.
| | attachments:
X1100tmp.jpg |
|
|
|
|
|
If the basis of your theory is 42.
Then John 11:verse 9 sais that the opposite of your theory is right.
Instead of 21+21=42.
The answer is 12+12=24.
Why 2+2=4 when it is six is 12+12=24.
And that means 1+1=2=2+2=4.
2*6+2*6=4= 1*12+ 1*12= 2*12.
Make 2E=1M+1C^2= 4E=2*6M*2*6C^2.
That makes E=Mcsquared right for two.
So that is Jesus equation and his answer not Phillip Adams of 7*6.
So come up with a new theory that is exactly the opposite of your own and you might be right about a theory of everything.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thought experiment.
A clock wound up is potential energy and is like the big crunch of an earlier universe.
It winds up the clock as it reverses exapansion the energy is stored in this equation 1/3 Bose Einstein+ 1/3 Fermi Dirac+ 1/3 Fermi Dirac= 1 Bose Einstein/Fermi Dirac.
particles X and Y are in the SAME STATE AT THE SAME TIME in THE SAME PLACE.
So when the energy is released it is like removing a little cog from a clock the clock spins releasing the energy as expansion of the spring.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Garrett for the title of you next book you are welcome to use "MONKEYS WITH CAR KEYS AND A CHALK BOARD."
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is my program for the theory of everything in my book HOW TO FAIL EINSTEIN AT COLLEGE by L&R publishers Murwillumbah.
Here is the source code for the updates of the Physics Knowledge Cards.

unit uMain;
interface
uses
Windows, Messages, SysUtils, Classes, Graphics, Controls, Forms, Dialogs,
StdCtrls, ExtCtrls, Menus;
type
TForm1 = class(TForm)
Panel1: TPanel;
Panel2: TPanel;
Button1: TButton;
Button2: TButton;
Edit1: TEdit;
Edit2: TEdit;
Image1: TImage;
Label1: TLabel;
Label2: TLabel;
Button3: TButton;
Button4: TButton;
Button5: TButton;
MainMenu1: TMainMenu;
Hlep1: TMenuItem;
contents1: TMenuItem;
Index1: TMenuItem;
N1: TMenuItem;
wwwcjwcom1: TMenuItem;
N2: TMenuItem;
About1: TMenuItem;
File1: TMenuItem;
Contents2: TMenuItem;
Index2: TMenuItem;
N3: TMenuItem;
wwwcjwcom2: TMenuItem;
N4: TMenuItem;
About2: TMenuItem;
procedure Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
procedure Edit2KeyPress(Sender: TObject; var Key: Char);
procedure Button2Click(Sender: TObject);
procedure Button5Click(Sender: TObject);
procedure About1Click(Sender: TObject);
procedure Button3Click(Sender: TObject);
procedure Button4Click(Sender: TObject);
private
{ Private declarations }
public
{ Public declarations }
end;
var
Form1: TForm1;
implementation
uses About, Unit3, Unit4;
{$R *.DFM}
procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
Edit1.ReadOnly := false;
Edit2.ReadOnly := false;
Button2.Caption := '&Store Equation in File';
end;
procedure TForm1.Edit2KeyPress(Sender: TObject; var Key: Char);
begin
if (Key = #13) then
begin
Label1.Caption := Edit1.Text;
Label2.Caption := Edit2.Text;
end;
end;
procedure TForm1.Button2Click(Sender: TObject);
var
TFile : TextFile;
begin
AssignFile(TFile, 'physics.txt');
Reset(TFile);
Append(TFile);
Writeln(TFile, Edit1.Text);
Writeln(TFile, Edit2.Text);
Writeln(TFile, ' ');
Flush (TFile);
CloseFile(TFile);
Button2.Caption := 'Done';
Edit1.ReadOnly := true;
Edit2.ReadOnly := true;
end;
procedure TForm1.Button5Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
Close;
end;
procedure TForm1.About1Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
Form2.ShowModal;
end;
procedure TForm1.Button3Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
Form3.Show;
end;
procedure TForm1.Button4Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
Form4.Show;
end;
end.

unit Unit3;
interface
uses
Windows, Messages, SysUtils, Classes, Graphics, Controls, Forms, Dialogs,
StdCtrls, ExtCtrls;
type
TForm3 = class(TForm)
Panel1: TPanel;
Button1: TButton;
Button2: TButton;
Button3: TButton;
Panel2: TPanel;
Image1: TImage;
Image2: TImage;
Image3: TImage;
Button4: TButton;
Button5: TButton;
Button6: TButton;
Button7: TButton;
Label1: TLabel;
Label2: TLabel;
Label3: TLabel;
Label4: TLabel;
Label5: TLabel;
Label6: TLabel;
Shape1: TShape;
Shape2: TShape;
Shape3: TShape;
procedure Button3Click(Sender: TObject);
procedure Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
procedure Button2Click(Sender: TObject);
procedure Button5Click(Sender: TObject);
procedure Button6Click(Sender: TObject);
procedure Button7Click(Sender: TObject);
private
{ Private declarations }
public
{ Public declarations }
function ActivateCard(pThisCard : integer) : boolean;
end;
type
TPlrCard = class
public
Name : string;
Expression : string;
constructor Create;
end;
type
TDisplay = class
public
Activated : boolean;
constructor Create;
end;
var
Form3: TForm3;
PlrCard : array[1..55] of TPlrCard;
Display : array[1..4] of TDisplay;
implementation
uses uMain, Unit4;
{$R *.DFM}
constructor TPlrCard.Create;
begin
end;
constructor TDisplay.Create;
var
i : integer;
begin
{set Display cards to false}
for i := 1 to 3 do
begin
Display[i].Activated := false;
end;
{read in values for the Plrcards}
{SetUpPlrCards;}
end;
procedure TForm3.Button3Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
Form1.Close;
end;
procedure TForm3.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
Form1.Show;
end;
procedure TForm3.Button2Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
Form4.Show;
end;
procedure TForm3.Button5Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
Display[1].Activated := ActivateCard(1);
end;
procedure TForm3.Button6Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
Display[2].Activated := ActivateCard(2);
end;
procedure TForm3.Button7Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
Display[3].Activated := ActivateCard(3);
end;
function TForm3.ActivateCard(pThisCard : integer) : boolean;
var
i : integer;
begin
if Display[pThisCard].Activated = true then
begin
if (pThisCard 4 ) then
Display[pThisCard].Activated := false;
case pThisCard of
1: Shape1.Brush.Color := clTeal;
2: Shape2.Brush.Color := clTeal;
3: Shape3.Brush.Color := clTeal;
4: begin
for i := 1 to 3 do
begin
Display[i].Activated := false;
end;
Shape1.Brush.Color := clTeal;
Shape2.Brush.Color := clTeal;
Shape3.Brush.Color := clTeal;
end;
end;
end
else
begin
Display[pThisCard].Activated := true;
case pThisCard of
1: Shape1.Brush.Color := clYellow;
2: Shape2.Brush.Color := clYellow;
3: Shape3.Brush.Color := clYellow;
4: begin
for i := 1 to 3 do
begin
Display[i].Activated := true;
end;
Shape1.Brush.Color := clYellow;
Shape2.Brush.Color := clYellow;
Shape3.Brush.Color := clYellow;
end;
end;
end;
Result := Display[pThisCard].Activated;
end;
end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The language is Delphi.
The algorythymn is 1/3 APPLE+ 1/3 ORANGE+ 1/3 ORANGE= 1 APPLE/ORANGE.
Where apple and orange stand for different kinds of physics equations electromagnetism and gravity.
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.
The five string theories.
Or even Garrett Lises equations.
You can add 100 or a million equations and reduce them by division to one equation.
Garrett why not you come up with a non contradictory theory fo ex-nihilo creation by adding big bang equations 2+2=4.
The equation for the universe and Ex-Nihilo doesn't balance you have to get energy from another universe.
To make it balance.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Garrett,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Garrett,
Have you had an opportunity to read my book “New Approaches Towards A Grand Unified Theory” yet? I’m trying to resolve my ideas with your ideas with String Theory and with Supersymmetry.
My wife, daughter and I came to the beach this weekend. The Florida Gulf coast doesn’t have the waves that you’re used to, but it is relaxing. And suddenly, the answer hit me in the middle of the night.
The E8 group is based on the 5-simplex, the Hexateron (which has 30 nearest neighbors). I think that the natural extension to E8 would be based on the 6-simplex, the Heptapeton (which has 42 nearest neighbors), and this group would have an order of 430 (10 x 43), and a rank of 10. For lack of a proper name, can we call this E(10)? In my book, I related rank and dimension – thus, I expect this group to exist in 10 dimensions, which should delight the String Theorists. (Yippee!) With an order of (10 x 43), it is large enough to include my 10-dimensional SU(11) “Bosonic GUT” o | | |
