Lisi's E8 Physics Theory

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

What does anyone else here think of Lisi's admittedly incomplete theory thus far? I like the fact that it makes predictions that are readily testable, that it perfectly lines up with one of the most studied structures in all of mathematics, and it's predictions leave it essentially immune to ad hoc hand-waving (unlike string theory). It also predicts some new types of interactions (kinda), and really explains exactly why the standard model appears as arbitrary as it does. (It's because the current standard model that we see is only a subset of the complete, more symmetric theory.)

Wat d0 teh Nashun Statez N3rds taht c4r3 'b0ut fizix think ov tihs? (Other than the thought that the previous sentence needs to be taken out back and shot.)

[Lackadaisical2]

I don't know much about it all, I'm more of an old school physics guy myself. I just wnat to know about gravity, momentum and forces

[Buffett and Colbert]

Bless you.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I don't know much about it all, I'm more of an old school physics guy myself. I just wnat to know about gravity, momentum and forces

Most general known statement about gravitation

One of the more general statements about momentum

Most general known statements about electromagnetic force

This is, of course, assuming classical physics.

[Hydesland]

I think it looks unbelievably complicated (to laymen like us anyway), but cool none the less.

[Lackadaisical2]

I don't know much about it all, I'm more of an old school physics guy myself. I just wnat to know about gravity, momentum and forces

Most general known statement about gravitation

One of the more general statements about momentum

Most general known statements about electromagnetic force

This is, of course, assuming classical physics.

I'm sorry I shoudl ahve said thats all I care to know about, I'm quite up to date on those, thanks

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I'm sorry I shoudl ahve said thats all I care to know about, I'm quite up to date on those, thanks

Wait, you have strong familiarity with general relativity? Not too many people do.

[Lacadaemon]

I can't give a peer review of this. But based on experience I'm am guessing that it is probably rubbish.

C'est la vie. Und so weiter.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I can't give a peer review of this. But based on experience I'm am guessing that it is probably rubbish.

C'est la vie. Und so weiter.

What experience?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Essentially, it's nice because it gives charge 8 dimensions, and then states that the symmetry on the charges is E₈. This is great, because E₈ is a very "natural" symmetry for an 8-dimensional space.

[Lacadaemon]

What experience?

My entire life. That something can be expressed with formal mathematics and make sense in a self contained way rarely means that it has any correspondence with shit that actually happens. Physics is unusual in that much of it does correspond to mathematics, and thus physicists have delusions of grandeur: and, often therefore things wrong. Such is life. Graveyard of evidence and such, ask any hydraulic engineer.

So I'm not going to sit here and pour through a bunch of math that really has no effect on my life whether it is right or wrong. Doubly so since even if this hypothesis is correct there is absolutely nothing I, or anyone else, can do with it right now.

I'm sure it is very exciting for the people who are paid to think about this sort of thing. And I won't deny them that fun. But until a flying car or free energy comes from it, I am skeptical.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

quote="Lacadaemon";p="632579"]My entire life. That something can be expressed with formal mathematics and make sense in a self contained way rarely means that it has any correspondence with shit that actually happens. Physics is unusual in that much of it does correspond to mathematics, and thus physicists have delusions of grandeur: and, often therefore things wrong. Such is life. Graveyard of evidence and such, ask any hydraulic engineer.

So I'm not going to sit here and pour through a bunch of math that really has no effect on my life whether it is right or wrong. Doubly so since even if this hypothesis is correct there is absolutely nothing I, or anyone else, can do with it right now.

I'm sure it is very exciting for the people who are paid to think about this sort of thing. And I won't deny them that fun. But until a flying car or free energy comes from it, I am skeptical.[/quote]

Understanding nuclear fusion has, thus far, not produced any practical applications. Does this mean that nuclear fusion does not exist, or that we have any reason to be skeptical of its existence?

[Tunizcha]

I'm rather fond of it. Its rather simple and uses Laymen terms that even the simple may understand it, yet it has enough depth to captivate the heartiest of theoretical physicists.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Within this theory, every single particle can be distinguished by an exact set of charges that is unique to that type of particle.

[Idaho Conservatives]

Well personally, I like reading about quantum mechanics, and I've never heard of this theory before, so thank you very much for bringing that up. It's actually a great framework, although it does need some work. Well, actually that latter statement could be made for a lot of theories.

But 248 freaking dimensions?!?!?! What the hell does that even LOOK like?

[Lackadaisical2]

I'm sorry I shoudl ahve said thats all I care to know about, I'm quite up to date on those, thanks

Wait, you have strong familiarity with general relativity? Not too many people do.

I'm fmailiar with this part

"As well as obeying local energy-momentum conservation, the EFE reduce to Newton's law of gravitation where the gravitational field is weak."

I get to more or less ignore anything but newton

[Fartsniffage]

It's wrong for reasons that will become apparant.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It's wrong for reasons that will become apparant.

How so? I'm not saying it's necessarily correct, but how do you know that it isn't the right theory?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Well personally, I like reading about quantum mechanics, and I've never heard of this theory before, so thank you very much for bringing that up. It's actually a great framework, although it does need some work. Well, actually that latter statement could be made for a lot of theories.

But 248 freaking dimensions?!?!?! What the hell does that even LOOK like?

The charge space has 8 dimensions and regular space-time has 4, in his theory. Only the Lie algebra has 248 dimensions. Dimension does not mean the same thing in Lie algebra that it does in geometry. Essentially, what this means is that there are 248 distinct types of fundamental particles. There are 248 unique types of particles that are elementary, and can't be divided into a more basic form. If you're really interested in what this means, check out the Lie algebra, SU₃, which has 8 dimensions, but which can be used to represent the symmetries of a sphere in 4 dimensions.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I'm fmailiar with this part

"As well as obeying local energy-momentum conservation, the EFE reduce to Newton's law of gravitation where the gravitational field is weak."

I get to more or less ignore anything but newton

1) What work do you do?

2) Why aren't you curious about anything outside of that?

[Fartsniffage]

It's wrong for reasons that will become apparant.

How so? I'm not saying it's necessarily correct, but how do you know that it isn't the right theory?

It's physics. History shows that most theories are proven wrong at some point.

I don't know anywhere near enough to argue this one at your level, I'm just relying on the fact that most scientific theories are disproven at some point in the future.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It's physics. History shows that most theories are proven wrong at some point.

I don't know anywhere near enough to argue this one at your level, I'm just relying on the fact that most scientific theories are disproven at some point in the future.

It's odd, because that's how it works in most sciences, but not how it works in physics. In physics, it's never the case that an old theory is invalidated. It's only ever the case that a new theory comes along which acts like a generalization of the previous theory. Newton's laws still apply, it's just that we now have a set of laws which apply to a broader class of phenomena than Newton's laws.

[Lackadaisical2]

I'm fmailiar with this part

"As well as obeying local energy-momentum conservation, the EFE reduce to Newton's law of gravitation where the gravitational field is weak."

I get to more or less ignore anything but newton

1) What work do you do?

2) Why aren't you curious about anything outside of that?

Civil Engineering, thats why I'm not that interested about anything much more complex, I'm not trying to build something in a black hole. I'd rather figure out how to predict liquefaction in silty sands, or some such, than figure out how having 248 dimensions will apply to a piece of soil.

I am curious, but I don't really have that much desire to do any actual looking into it. In civil we try to keep things as simple as possible, its really more practical that way. Hell, half of my field is people just finding correlations to things with a bare minimum of explanation on why its that way, theres really no point in defining things to exactly since most the time theres no money in finding out that much when you could jsut spend a little more on the construction budget, and forgo an exact solution.

[CIB EMPIRE]

What does anyone else here think of Lisi's admittedly incomplete theory thus far? I like the fact that it makes predictions that are readily testable, that it perfectly lines up with one of the most studied structures in all of mathematics, and it's predictions leave it essentially immune to ad hoc hand-waving (unlike string theory). It also predicts some new types of interactions (kinda), and really explains exactly why the standard model appears as arbitrary as it does. (It's because the current standard model that we see is only a subset of the complete, more symmetric theory.)

Wat d0 teh Nashun Statez N3rds taht c4r3 'b0ut fizix think ov tihs? (Other than the thought that the previous sentence needs to be taken out back and shot.)

Its hard to define everything in one chart but if it can be done...

[Lacadaemon]

Understanding nuclear fusion has, thus far, not produced any practical applications. Does this mean that nuclear fusion does not exist, or that we have any reason to be skeptical of its existence?

Not at all. I don't doubt it exists. I do however question out understanding of it however. And so should you.