An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

[Wintermute]

There seems to be some excitement among physicists about this paper. Having tried and failed myself to get past the abstract:

All fields of the standard model and gravity are unified as an E8 principal bundle connection. A non-compact real form of the E8 Lie algebra has G2 and F4 subalgebras which break down to strong su(3), electroweak su(2) x u(1), gravitational so(3,1), the frame-Higgs, and three generations of fermions related by triality. The interactions and dynamics of these 1-form and Grassmann valued parts of an E8 superconnection are described by the curvature and action over a four dimensional base manifold.

... I'm wondering if anyone on here would care to comment? Does it smack of bullshit? Could it be the holy grail of physics?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.0770v1.pdf

 

[Belushi]

I dont understand the first sentence.

 

[Detroit City]

Does it smack of bullshit? Could it be the holy grail of physics?

most likely and no....

 

[weltweit]

A "Simple Theory of Everything" which uses no simple words in its explanation, and no simple sentences, no I think this is measurebation by physicists

 

[weltweit]

/ to be said in a Homer Simpson voice

My World Revolves Around Me ... He He He He

/ Now that's a simple theory of everything

 

[gurrier]

I'm wondering if anyone on here would care to comment? Does it smack of bullshit? Could it be the holy grail of physics?

It does not smack of bullshit and it could provide a path to a unified quantum theory incorporating gravity (the major thing missing from the standard model). It presents a mathematical model which, it claims, can be used to represent a model of how particle interactions work in our universe.

This type of stuff is really complicated and there are very few people in the world with the required expertise to even attempt to understand the mathematics to the point where they could really critique it. The theory is predictive and thus should be falsifiable - within a certain period of time, there will be computer-based tests which will confirm or deny the author's claims (ie they will be able to demonstrate that reality does or does not obey the posited mathematical model).

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

is this work towards a Unified Field Theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unified_field_theory

 

[Dillinger4]

most likely and no....

You are just so full of wisdom DC. Is there anything you don't know. Or have a fucking opinion on.

 

[laptop]

Does it smack of bullshit? Could it be the holy grail of physics?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.0770v1.pdf

I've read only the New Scientist feature (subscriber only ) - and from that it smacks of "very, very interesting - let's sit down and think about what it might mean sometime soon."

 

[gurrier]

is this work towards a Unified Field Theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unified_field_theory

If it is right, it is pretty much the unified field theory, as far as I understand it.

 

[laptop]

And here it is:

The result of this program is a single
principal bundle connection with everything,
: A
= 1
2! + 1
4e + B +W + g +
+  e + : e + : u + : d) +  + :  + : c + : s) +  + :  + : t + : b)

Damn. Hang on:

It sort-of fits the criterion that it should fit on a t-shirt...

 

[goldenecitrone]

It also contains the numbers 4 and 2. Coincidence?

 

[kyser_soze]

The theory proposed in this paper represents a comprehensive unification program, describing all fields of the standard model and gravity as parts of a uniquely beautiful mathematical structure. The principal bundle connection and its curvature describe how the E8 manifold twists and turns over spacetime, reproducing all known fields and dynamics through pure geometry. Some aspects of this theory are not yet completely understood, and until they are it should be treated with appropriate skepticism. However, the current match to the standard model and gravity is very good. Future work will either strengthen the correlation to known physics and produce successful predictions for the LHC, or the theory will encounter a fatal contradiction with nature. The lack of extraneous structures and free parameters ensures testable predictions, so it will either succeed or fail spectacularly. If E8 theory is fully successful as a theory of everything, our universe is an exceptionally beautiful shape.

Fuck me, that forum thread is like physics porn...

Sure, I talk about them on pages 21 and 22. They're weakly interacting colored scalar fields. These seem like a decent dark matter candidate.

I have a vague (VERY vague) idea of what this means - but fuck me it sounds sexy.

So now we wait for them to get a pooter big enough to do the math, and wait for the LHC to discover the Higgs, and then physics ends, right?

 

[laptop]

Here, though, is the t-shirt!

To hell with equations that fit on a t-shirt.

This am the 21st century. Is I can having a picture now?



Yes!

 

[Dillinger4]

To hell with equations that fit on a t-shirt.

This am the 21st century. Is I can having a picture now?



Yes!

Is that the face of god?

coz he sure is a bit weird lookin'

 

[kyser_soze]

OOO...purdey...

 

[laptop]

of the E8 group rotating...

 

[nosos]

"It's all bullshit" is a theory of everything.

It's just not a very good theory.

Could someone persuade me why this theory of everything is better?

 

[Dillinger4]

"It's all bullshit" is a theory of everything.

It's just not a very good theory.

Could someone persuade me why this theory of everything is better?

It unifies the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravity and electomagnetic force.

 

[laptop]

Could someone persuade me why this theory of everything is better?

I don't know that it is better. As its author says, it's an all-or-nothing thing.

Why? Because it's testable - possibly in the near future.

How? It predicts the existence of 18 previously-unseen particles. He's working on predicting their masses. By the time the new Large Hadron Collider is turned on, he hopes to be ready to say "if my theory works, you will observe this and this... and if you don't, it's all over for my theory."

And why would it be better if it worked?

Because it would provide a neat pattern that relates all the fundamental particles that make up the entire universe to each other. And that pattern emerges from some fundamental (and, to mathematicians, beautiful) mathematics.

The two current theories - general relativity for big things, and the standard model of quantum mechanics for very very very small things - both work rather well in their field, but are incompatible with each other. The favoured attempt to reconcile them - string theory - is not in the slightest testable.

 

[gurrier]

Could someone persuade me why this theory of everything is better?

If correct, it will allow you to predict the future with 100% accuracy.

Well, as long as you measure the state of every particle in the universe with 100% accuracy.

In practice, the effect of an accurate unified field theory will be the fact that it should enable scientists and technologists to do cool stuff at small scales more easily - which will lead to cool gizmos and capabilities at a larger level. It will also inevitably lead to all sorts of other advances in other scientific areas.

On the other hand, your theory will will at most elicit a stoned nod.

 

[nosos]

Unthinking reductivism ahoy!

It unifies the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravity and electomagnetic force.

In what way is that "everything"?

 

[nosos]

On the other hand, your theory will will at most elicit a stoned nod.

 

[Jonti]

In what way is that "everything"?

In so far as the world is considered to be a sort of space-time container, there's only four sorts of basic stuff in it (enumerated above). Hence 'theory of everything'.

 

[nosos]

It's the sense of the term "basic" I'm questioning. Likewise the explanatory scope of the theory. You can accept heirarchical statification in reality without saying that a theory that unifies explanations on the most fundamental strata thereby "explains" all higher stata. There's a massive reduction implicated in this which needs some further argument to license it. To act as if it's self-evidently licensed is pure scientism.

 

[nosos]

If correct, it will allow you to predict the future with 100% accuracy.

Well, as long as you measure the state of every particle in the universe with 100% accuracy.

Leaving aside the debate about the impossibility of this: if we did do it are we thus saying that our concious experience of debating on the internet could be determined by 'looking' at our microphysical structures? Would this not rule out emergence?

 

[Jonti]

I certainly agree that it's an open question (to put it mildly) whether emergent properties can always be exactly deduced from those of the constituent parts.

I don't get too exercised about reductionism as a metaphysical stance; it has long been of enormous help in advancing science, and that cuts it a lot of slack in my eyes. But, to be clear, no, it isn't always useful or helpful. More 'understandable' explanations are often available; whatever a person's underlying beliefs, reductionism just doesn't do the job everywhere and for everything.

 

[xenon]

It's the sense of the term "basic" I'm questioning. Likewise the explanatory scope of the theory. You can accept heirarchical statification in reality without saying that a theory that unifies explanations on the most fundamental strata thereby "explains" all higher stata. There's a massive reduction implicated in this which needs some further argument to license it. To act as if it's self-evidently licensed is pure scientism.

Christ. I think I'd have a better chance of understanding this theory (well it's implications at least) than your post here.

 

[gurrier]

I certainly agree that it's an open question (to put it mildly) whether emergent properties can always be exactly deduced from those of the constituent parts.

An emergent behaviour is the sum total of its parts and their behaviours, just observed on a higher conceptual level. For example, while climate cannot be deduced from the weather one day, it can be exactly deduced from the weather on all days.

A unified field theory will tell us all the ways in which matter interacts at the lowest levels. Interactions at higher levels are merely a summary of the sum-total of interactions at the lowest levels - anything else violates occam and therefore requires definite evidence before it should be considered.

I don't get too exercised about reductionism as a metaphysical stance; it has long been of enormous help in advancing science, and that cuts it a lot of slack in my eyes. But, to be clear, no, it isn't always useful or helpful. More 'understandable' explanations are often available; whatever a person's underlying beliefs, reductionism just doesn't do the job everywhere and for everything.

The reason being that we know that it is impossible to ever gain a perfect measure of the state of all matter in the universe (the simplest representation of this is the universe itself). The dynamics of complex systems are such that no matter how good a model we build, we will never be able to predict complex, high level future outcomes to any degree of confidence and there will be no guarantee that the future turns out to be remotely similar to our predictions. That is why reductionism is next to useless in higher level analysis, not because emergent properties can't be deduced from constituent parts.

 

[Jonti]

An emergent behaviour is the sum total of its parts and their behaviours, just observed on a higher conceptual level. For example, while climate cannot be deduced from the weather one day, it can be exactly deduced from the weather on all days.

Well, I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying the claim can't be proved (which is not to deny it's essential as a null or working hypothesis). And these explanations always seem to work backwards anyway. No one predicted this -- but now we see that it happens, we may find our way to understanding how.

A unified field theory will tell us all the ways in which matter interacts at the lowest levels. Interactions at higher levels are merely a summary of the sum-total of interactions at the lowest levels - anything else violates occam and therefore requires definite evidence before it should be considered.

Poor ockham keeps getting violated! But yes, the multiplication of entities has to be a last resort. That's not to say it won't happen tho' -- we still have to look and see how things actually are.

The reason being that we know that it is impossible to ever gain a perfect measure of the state of all matter in the universe (the simplest representation of this is the universe itself). The dynamics of complex systems are such that no matter how good a model we build, we will never be able to predict complex, high level future outcomes to any degree of confidence and there will be no guarantee that the future turns out to be remotely similar to our predictions. That is why reductionism is next to useless in higher level analysis, not because emergent properties can't be deduced from constituent parts.

While I understand this, I find it a tad problematic. One has to allow that we may be able to recognise that a reductionist approach has failed without knowing exactly why.