Lisi's E8 Physics Theory

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

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

We understand fusion relatively well. Our major problem with fusion is primarily one of engineering.

[Lacadaemon]

We understand fusion relatively well. Our major problem with fusion is primarily one of engineering.

If it's understood, then the engineering would be a go/no go question. I don't think we understand it. Hence all the engineering failures. But god forbid anyone questions physics, amirite?

Like I said. I don't question it happens. I can see the sun on average 12hrs a day. Just not sure we have a real handle on it.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

If it's understood, then the engineering would be a go/no go question. I don't think we understand it. Hence all the engineering failures. But god forbid anyone questions physics, amirite?

Like I said. I don't question it happens. I can see the sun on average 12hrs a day. Just not sure we have a real handle on it.

We understand Newtonian mechanics. Now, write a general solution to the three body problem. You can't? That must mean that you don't understand Newtonian mechanics. Oh wait, it doesn't mean that at all.

[New Dracora]

...that's a very pretty graph.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Lisi's ideal also seems to follow the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

[Lacadaemon]

We understand Newtonian mechanics. Now, write a general solution to the three body problem. You can't? That must mean that you don't understand Newtonian mechanics. Oh wait, it doesn't mean that at all.

No. Your logic fails. Because we understand Newtonian mechanics we know that there isn't a general solution to the three body problem - at least not an analytical one - so nobody wastes their time trying to find one. That is not the case with nuclear fusion. Hence me saying it is a matter of not being go/no go. It isn't properly understood. Not with any degree of confidence at any rate.

Just accept that there are limits to understanding at present.

[An archy]

Lisi's theory based on symmetries of E₈ violates the Coleman-Mandula threorem.

Basically, Coleman-Mandula shows that TOEs that have mass gaps don't work unless the symmetries of Einsteinian mechanics and those of Quantum mechanics are connected via supersymmetries as in the supersymmetric extension of the Sine-Gold model.

Note that

a.) The symmetries of E₈ are represented by a Lie algebra, not a Lie superalgebra.

b.) It must have a mass gap because it has a finite number of possible elementary particles, 248.

c.) The assumptions in the Coleman-Mandula theorem, other than the assumption that the TOE is based on Lie algebras and has a mass gap, are taken straight from stardardly accepted observations in quantum mechanics such as "The S matrix is nontrivial in the sense that any two one-particle momentum eigenstates scatter (into something), except perhaps at isolated values of s."

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Lisi's theory based on symmetries of E₈ violates the Coleman-Mandula threorem.

Basically, Coleman-Mandula shows that TOEs that have mass gaps don't work unless the symmetries of Einsteinian mechanics and those of Quantum mechanics are connected via supersymmetries as in the supersymmetric extension of the Sine-Gold model.

Note that

a.) The symmetries of E₈ are represented by a Lie algebra, not a Lie superalgebra.

b.) It must have a mass gap because it has a finite number of possible elementary particles, 248.

c.) The assumptions in the Coleman-Mandula theorem, other than the assumption that the TOE is based on Lie algebras and has a mass gap, are taken straight from stardardly accepted observations in quantum mechanics such as "The S matrix is nontrivial in the sense that any two one-particle momentum eigenstates scatter (into something), except perhaps at isolated values of s."

Coleman-Mandula doesn't allow for mass gaps at the S matrix level. His theory does violate this theorem, which means that, if it's true, we would have to throw away some of the most basic assumptions about the allowable forms of the S matrix.

[Greed and Death]

Can we talk about abortion instead ?


reading a brief over view of the theory I don't find it simply enough.

Perhaps Shakespeare's I think therefore I am. Theory.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Can we talk about abortion instead ?


reading a brief over view of the theory I don't find it simply enough.

Perhaps Shakespeare's I think therefore I am. Theory.

Don't you mean Descartes?

[New Kereptica]

Can we talk about abortion instead ?


reading a brief over view of the theory I don't find it simply enough.

Perhaps Shakespeare's I think therefore I am. Theory.

wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?

[Lacadaemon]

Don't you mean Descartes?

No he means Shakespeare. And unless you can show mathematically that he is wrong, he's right. Or at least the question can't be answered to satisfaction.

[Greed and Death]

Can we talk about abortion instead ?


reading a brief over view of the theory I don't find it simply enough.

Perhaps Shakespeare's I think therefore I am. Theory.

Don't you mean Descartes?

Anyways it reads like this. If you are a straight male the number of times you say I think therefore I am or to be or not to be is directly increases the chance that you are emo.

[Tunizcha]

Actually, he's been misquoted for years. It's "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum," or "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am." He was commenting on the existence of existence.

[Greed and Death]

Actually, he's been misquoted for years. It's "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum," or "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am." He was commenting on the existence of existence.

was actually thinking hamlet I think; therefore I am turned to stone.

[An archy]

Coleman-Mandula doesn't allow for mass gaps at the S matrix level. His theory does violate this theorem, which means that, if it's true, we would have to throw away some of the most basic assumptions about the allowable forms of the S matrix.

Mathematical physicists didn't come to these basic assumptions about the allowable form of the S matrix lightly. Given experimental observations certain S matices would be statistically unreasonable. Connecting classical symmetries and quantum symmetries through a Lie superalgebra would maintain the most basic assumptions of S matrices. This approach seems obviously preferable.

The funny thing is that one of the supposed advantages of Lisi's theory is its falsifiability. Because it violates assumptions that have a great deal of empiracle backing, it's already falsified in my book. This shows that falsifiablility is partially a social phenomenon. If the formulator of a particular theory refuses to admitt when it's been disproven, then in practice it isn't falsafiable.

[Cameroi]

i like the idea that people are thinking, and especially much when they don't limit that thinking to what they are familiar with.

i have a gut of my own, that is probably so full of holes you could use it for a noodle strainer.

in it, the dimention of time, is really a vector of a whole nother cartesian frame of reference. (in which space as we think of it would appear as likewise). there are three of these frames of referance. in each of which the other two apear as such vectors. thus we have 9 dimensions which appear, in any given point of perspective to be five.

there's really no usefulness that i'd have the slightest idea where to bigin to know how to test or demonstrate. other then just a concept to play around with in my head and way of looking at things.

[An archy]

The unfortunate fact is that negative results don't get nearly the attention from the science media that they deserve. The Coleman-Mandula theorem is important in helping theoretical physicists determine what types of TOEs make for the most useful areas of research. This article provides interesting commentary on the preferance for hypotheses that would lead to positive results over those that would lead to negative results.

[An archy]

Can we talk about abortion instead ?


reading a brief over view of the theory I don't find it simply enough.

Perhaps Shakespeare's I think therefore I am. Theory.

It's called exceptionally simple, not because it's easy to understand, but because it's based around a mathematical object called a 'simple exceptional Lie group.'

[Lacadaemon]

The unfortunate fact is that negative results don't get nearly the attention from the science media that they deserve. The Coleman-Mandula theorem is important in helping theoretical physicists determine what types of TOEs make for the most useful areas of research. This article provides interesting commentary on the preferance for hypotheses that would lead to positive results over those that would lead to negative results.

Indeed. I don't know how it is for you craxy kids now. But in my day a master's thesis could have either a positive or negative conclusion, but a PhD could only have a +ve conclusion. (I simplify).

Yet as any forensic engineer could tell you, there is more to learn from failure than from success. But nobody ever really writes about that (not to mention the highly dubious quality of all forensic investigations and academic theses to begin with).

It's the big graveyard of evidence. Nobody will ever write a book called 'how I tried at life and failed'. But without looking at everything that went wrong you can never be sure why you are right: well other than it worked yesterday, and today, so presumably it will work tomorrow.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Mathematical physicists didn't come to these basic assumptions about the allowable form of the S matrix lightly. Given experimental observations certain S matices would be statistically unreasonable. Connecting classical symmetries and quantum symmetries through a Lie superalgebra would maintain the most basic assumptions of S matrices. This approach seems obviously preferable.

The funny thing is that one of the supposed advantages of Lisi's theory is its falsifiability. Because it violates assumptions that have a great deal of empiracle backing, it's already falsified in my book. This shows that falsifiablility is partially a social phenomenon. If the formulator of a particular theory refuses to admitt when it's been disproven, then in practice it isn't falsafiable.

String theory rather seems to do the same thing. It may not be falsified to the same degree, but it keeps creating ad hoc narratives every time it is found to have holes.

[RightLeaningChristians]

Well. It doesn't look that easy to me.

*sits in the idiot corner*

[UNIverseVERSE]

It's an attractive bit of mathematics, but (as always with revolutionary new hypotheses) I'd like to see it tested before accepting it as an accurate model of the world.

[An archy]

String theory rather seems to do the same thing. It may not be falsified to the same degree, but it keeps creating ad hoc narratives every time it is found to have holes.

I agree 100%. String Theorists absolutely create a nonfalsifiable hypothosesis through social mechanisms. Versions of the Georgi–Glashow model that adjust for the fact that it produces a too low bound on proton decay are generally regarded as being less arbitrary than theories under which physicists would have to abandon assumptions about valid s matrix forms.

[New Dracora]

Don't you mean Descartes?

No he means Shakespeare. And unless you can show mathematically that he is wrong, he's right. Or at least the question can't be answered to satisfaction.

Proof:

1 + 1 /= 3


What do I win?