The Big Idea: Roger Highfield explains why Garrett Lisi, the surfer who drew up a ‘theory of everything’ to explain the universe, is a great role. In November of , physicist Garrett Lisi published an online paper entitled “An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything.” Lisi spent much. Garrett Lisi has a new paper, “An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything.” Many people seem to think that I should have an opinion about it.
|Published (Last):||22 October 2010|
|PDF File Size:||6.62 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.73 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I worded my paper carefully and I would much prefer to spend my time working and writing papers or discussing the technical issues going forward than repeating things that have been already said. Could you explain what you mean by that remark?
Some challenge the idea, which is why it was presented. Archived from the original on 18 October The resulting paper, co-authored by physicist Jacques Distler of the University of Texas, will appear in an upcoming issue of Communications in Mathematical Physics.
Hollywood wants to make ‘Surfer Dude – the Movie’. Since that is not in there, i searched for any hint of an explanation. Why does the laws of nature look like math? But I insist on the primacy of the publication. Every boson can exchange its energy with another particles, including other gauge bosons, thus forming the another generation of interacalated particles. In addition to the mentioned problem with mixing gravity and internal symmetries, the original theory was not unified, not quantized, and somewhat ad hoc.
Haelfix, you kind of miss my point. Which is a likely impression a journalist would get from reading certain physics blogs e. Structures preserved by e8, in which Thomas Larsson said:. If fact, I simply want to know what is true. I really would like to be able to again soon have scientific discussion with Distler, HIGGS whoever he is and everyone else writing here.
The physics blogosphere carried long threads of comments attacking and defending the theory and then attacking the tone of the discussion. Those who do not will have to take my word for it or try to find a local expert to ask. If someone wants to set up and maintain a blog devoted to technical discussions among experts in an environment where civility is enforced, that would be great.
Did Garrett Lisi Have a Wipeout? – Scientific American
Thomas, Yes, quantum entanglement does recognize faster than light cause-effect relationships, which is mentioned in everythin linked article by Halton Arp: The first to comment was Sabine Hossenfelder, summarizing the paper and noting the lack of a dynamical symmetry breaking mechanism.
As soon as he spotted this, he declared: What this is to say is that the scientist needs to be painfully precise in statements made to the public, in papers and in talks. This simple fact ensures that momentum is conserved. But I really think string theorists like yourself should, instead of attacking me and Lee for pointing out a problem, give some thought to how much damage your own partisans anonymous and not are doing to your own interests. In this instance, I would quibble with your use of the present continuous tense.
The way the Lisi discussion has proceeded disturbs me. Physicists record ‘lifetime’ of graphene qubits December 31, Researchers from MIT and elsewhere have recorded, for the first time, the “temporal coherence” of a graphene qubit—meaning how long it can maintain a special state that allows it to represent two logical states simultaneously.
Science is done by scientists. We share a common believe that mathematics is the key to comprehending existence, but few of us have the skills to find our way in this space without a map.
I give a one-paragraph synopsis here. There is now a proposed mathematical argument stating that the proposal, in the form stated, is mathematically incorrect.
Author received a Ph. The paper seems to involve a novel mix-up between internal symmetries and spacetime symmetries, including adding particles of different spin.
I find the trend that science journalism becomes more and more a fictitious story writing very worrisome. Luckily, this includes Jacques, who once again stayed on topic and took the time to provide a thorough analysis of the group theory involved, including where things go wrong.
The paper was posted to the physics arXiv by Antony Garrett Lisi on November 6,and was not submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. No wonder that today, Lisi says things are going “more or less fantastically well”. When someone called you an idiot he was right there and he listened when you argued back. So why all the interest? Accounting for the up or down spin for each of the 16 left-chiral fermions of one generation or 15 fermions if neutrinos are Majoranaeach fermion generation corresponds to 64 or 60 real degrees of freedom.
Einstein was to consider gravity as background. It is simply a clear overstatement to call a paper a Theory of Everything from a start, which is bound to attract unwanted and unnecessary media attention before the theory has been looked at by peers in the science community.
High Energy Physics – Theory
You cannot say, X has been shown, by an argument posted a few days ago that is highly technical and not easy to follow, and then insult someone trying to understand it. Take the anonymous critics here. Re the second, yes, I knew that, the question is, is there some general property of a rep of G that guarantees that or for which this is never the case?
More broadly, there are other embeddings of SL 2,C in the noncompact real form, not related by Wick rotation to embeddings of Spin 4 in the compact real form, which also necessarily yield a nonchiral spectrum.
This places a huge responsibility on the senior physicists that the journalists consult.
If we could have stuck to a serious discussion we farrett have gone further. So the nastiness continues. The scientific standards of the LQG community seem to be really low these days. Every one of them went on to make many spectacular contributions each; their papers have been cited multiple tens of thousands of times, they all turned into the superstars of theoretical physics due to their accomplishments.
Meanwhile, there are better developed ideas about unification such as Chamseddine-Connes that deserve more attention and investigation than they are oc. The first response is that these mirror fermions might exist and have very large masses. Then we have the lf that Jacques changed the subject.
The discrepancy is quite simple to explain. The schoolyard taunts about chiral fermions seemed oddly familiar, I just realized why.