Theory of Everything

I don't have the smarts to argue safely on this subject, but this guy's got some great graphs going on here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything.html

What do you boffins think?

Im underqualified, but I like site.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I don't have the smarts to argue safely on this subject, but this guy's got some great graphs going on here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything.html

What do you boffins think?

I stopeped following Lisi's idea on 2008 or 2009 or something like that but I guess that the consensus is that his program won't just cut it.

You can read about it on Distler's blog Musings: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/ (at one time he and Lisi exchanged very good banter back and forth and it was evident that Lisi himself didn't fully understand some of the more technical aspects of modern quantum field theory), if you want I can get you the said posts and you just take a look at the comments.

Another good blog to know why Lisi's program can't work without a major overhaul is Not Even Wrong by Peter Woit. Once again if you like I can give you some links and then you read and tell me what you made of it.

If I'm not mistaken there were also some good posts on the n category café on why Lisi's program is at fault.

There was a lot of buzz on the physics blogosphere as this was truly happening but I feel that these three blogs I talked about are the best ones for people that aren't physicists (though Distler's blog gets pretty heavy and sometimes I'm not quite sure that I'm understanding what's happening)

Edit: take a look at this http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3292&cpage=1#comments and links and comments therein.

Edit2: Read this comment very carefully: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3292&cpage=1#comment-69590 I think that this may be a very good intro for débutantes in these issues.

Originally posted by adam warlock
I stopeped following Lisi's idea on 2008 or 2009 or something like that but I guess that the consensus is that his program won't just cut it.

You can read about it on Distler's blog Musings: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/ (at one time he and Lisi exchanged very good banter back and forth and it was evident that Lisi himself didn't fully un ...[text shortened]... nt-69590 I think that this may be a very good intro for débutantes in these issues.

It sure does look like he's got some pretty sharp detractors with some pretty solid objections there - and that's a shame 'cos, damn, that E8 graph really would look good on T shirt.

It doesn't look like he's given up the fight though. Sounds like he thinks it's possible to cope with all the objections - I'd love to have the necessary nous to be able to make my own opinion!

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
It sure does look like he's got some pretty sharp detractors with some pretty solid objections there - and that's a shame 'cos, damn, that E8 graph really would look good on T shirt.

It doesn't look like he's given up the fight though. Sounds like he thinks it's possible to cope with all the objections - I'd love to have the necessary nous to be able to make my own opinion!

It is a nice idea but apparently it can't work with what we know about Physics today.

There is this article that apparently shows that a theory of everything on E8 possible isn't possible: http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658
As far as I know no one has found any loopholes or errors in Distler's and Garibaldi's analysis but of course that doesn't mean that they aren't there.

I'm hardly a specialist at this topic but from what I can understand Lisi's idea about E8 just won't cut it.

I'd love to have the necessary nous to be able to make my own opinion!

There is something going on about Quantum Mechanics on this forum though... 😉

Originally posted by adam warlock
It is a nice idea but apparently it can't work with what we know about Physics today.

There is this article that apparently shows that a theory of everything on E8 possible isn't possible: http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658
As far as I know no one has found any loopholes or errors in Distler's and Garibaldi's analysis but of course that doesn't mean tha ...[text shortened]... quote]
There is something going on about Quantum Mechanics on this forum though... 😉

You certainly sound like you know what you're on about, so I'm just gonna go ahead and take your word for it. I still like the graph though.

As to following your QM trainer, I've got lots of lols! Seriously dude, it sounds interesting, but I don't even know what lateX is, my maths is soooo not up to it and I have little appetite for hard work! Thanks for the offer though.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You certainly sound like you know what you're on about, so I'm just gonna go ahead and take your word for it. I still like the graph though.

As to following your QM trainer, I've got lots of lols! Seriously dude, it sounds interesting, but I don't even know what lateX is, my maths is soooo not up to it and I have little appetite for hard work! Thanks for the offer though.

You certainly sound like you know what you're on about

Certainly not at the level of Distler, Baez or even Lisi.[/quote]

I don't even know what lateX is, my maths is soooo not up to it and I have little appetite for hard work!

That's a damn shame...

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I don't have the smarts to argue safely on this subject, but this guy's got some great graphs going on here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything.html

What do you boffins think?

How he can add multiple dimensions onto 2D and still represent an accurate picture is questionable at best. I think that is just intended to impress people with the visuals without any real substance.

I do share his disliking of string theory but that is about it.