Lisi's E8 Physics Theory

by **HC Eredivisie** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:01 am

Lacadaemon wrote: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.

By that logic: The Romans had steel and could build bridges so they could build the Golden Gate bridge. :roll:

by **Risottia** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:02 am

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote: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.

Looks interesting, but if you tailor a new theory so that it fits closely the current knowledge, my experience tells me that there are chances that you're doing more mathematics than physics - that is, bothering more about the technicalities of description than of the actual workings of nature.

Will read more about it, anyway, definitely.

by **UnhealthyTruthseeker** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:25 pm

An archy wrote: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.

What theory of quantum gravity do you favor? Since this one is caput and string theory is extremely complex, I think I'm going to look at loop quantum gravity right now and see how it holds up.

by **North Suran** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:27 pm

Always bet on Unhealthy Truthseekers to produce a complicated scientific discussion that makes my brain haemorrhage.

by **UnhealthyTruthseeker** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:27 pm

Risottia wrote:Looks interesting, but if you tailor a new theory so that it fits closely the current knowledge, my experience tells me that there are chances that you're doing more mathematics than physics - that is, bothering more about the technicalities of description than of the actual workings of nature.

Will read more about it, anyway, definitely.

Every new theory has to fit our current level of knowledge. If a new theory does not reduce to an older known theory in limiting cases, that new theory is junk, no matter how pretty it is.

by **UnhealthyTruthseeker** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:23 pm

*bump*

by **Tunizcha** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:45 pm

"So my house can't travel through time anymore?"

by **UnhealthyTruthseeker** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:47 pm

Tunizcha wrote:"So my house can't travel through time anymore?"

Wut?

by **Tunizcha** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:54 pm

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:
Tunizcha wrote:"So my house can't travel through time anymore?"

Wut?

The capacitor in my air conditioning unit broke.

by **Northwest Slobovia** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:03 pm

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote: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.)

Let 'im make a falsifible prediction, ideally one that leads to an experiment we can conduct w/in his expected lifetime, and we'll see what happens when it's tested. Is any other opinion on a new(ish) theory significant?

Lisi's E8 Physics Theory

Who is online