An Exceptionally Simple Theory Of Everything?, a new paper by Garrett Lisi

In an attempt to be on topic, in relation to E_8, I would be grateful if anyone knows a link or a paper or a book reference which shows how to compute the decompostion of E_8 into E_6 x SU(3). I know that the adjoint of E_8 goes as :

248 = (78,1)+(1,8)+(27,3)+(27',3')

where 27' and 3' are the antifundamental representations, but I don't know how to compute this in a nice way. I can do it using Young Tableaux for SU(N) -> SU(n)xSU(m), but Y.T. only work for the SU groups, not the Exceptional ones.

Anyone come across this?

To be on topic. I give the medcine for modern theory of gravity:

Gravity is the spacetime background of other interactions.

Einstein IS considering gravity as background. On the other hand, He the God wants to unify gravity with others and tries to tranform the theory into field theory. Therefore, curvature is considered real matter while reference frames (real background) are no longer the choice of Einstein. General relativity loses connection to real matter.

String and other mainstreams do not dare to challenge Einstein and, therefore, dance on the stage of imaginary matter!

Doctors do use laughing gas for some things...

Only on a classical or effective level. In a full blown quantum theory of gravity, it would be the interaction of gravitons, which themselves weave together to form space-time itself. Loop quantum gravity takes that kind of approach, space-time itself is generated from something more fundamental.

Yes, because he wasn't trying to come up with a quantum theory of gravity when he developed GR.

It's funny how you pepper your posts with such jabs at mainstream physicists, as if we consider Einstein a god. Einstein was wrong about many things, noone thinks he or anyone else in history is/was infallible. You make the usual crank mistake of thinking that because GR is seen as an excellent theory it's considered a perfect theory. Not true.

You ignored my comments about how GR has a ton of experimental evidence aside from frame dragging. I guess you aren't man enough to admit that such things exist and go against your claims.

GR arises naturally within string theory. There is no choice in the matter, if you have closed strings in your theory then you're lead to a string mode which acts like the graviton (a bosonic rank two symmetric tensor with zero rest mass) and whose equations of motion are that of the Einstein Field Equation on a weak field limit.

Experiments say that the universe has just such a weak field limit when it comes to gravity, hence it's a boost for string theory. It's the reason Michael Green said he first felt string theory was worth investigating.

But that's not the end of the story, string theory has usual GR as a first approximation (just as GR has Newtonian gravity as it's first approximation). It gives corrections to it based on 'stringy effects' and quantum corrections. It's expanded GR.

You have demonstrated you don't grasp GR, so making claims about various 'beyond GR' models of gravity and attempts at quantum gravity is not particular wise of you to do.

Have you ever studied string theory? Do you know how to generate the Einstein Field Equations from a string construction? Do you know how to compute the string corrections to them? Do you know how second quantisation would give a way of describing the fundamentals of space-time in a quantised manner?

I doubt it. Instead you fall back on assumptions, ignorance and having to ignore it when anyone points out flaws in your claims. What an excellent way to spend your time. You whine again and again about GR, yet you seem adament to avoid learning anything about it. It really does boggle my mind how so many cranks can spend so much time avoiding learning what they complain so much about. Even by slow osmosis you should have picked up how basic science works by now, yet you haven't. So it would seem that not only does passive learning not work for you, you must be actively avoiding learning.

AN,

[QUOTE=AlphaNumeric]I would be grateful if anyone knows a link or a paper or a book reference which shows how to compute the decompostion of E_8 into E_6 x SU(3).

You'll have a better chance of finding an answer here, http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=196498.

I've asked on Physicsforums.com before and while I got something which helped, it wasn't a particularly straightforward method for the exceptional groups.

/edit

I've just noticed that it's explained in a bit more detail on the Wiki page for E8. Either it wasn't there last time I looked or I missed it.

This post has been edited by AlphaNumeric on Nov 20 2007, 12:40 AM

Dear Alphanumeric,

It might take a while, but I have been in touch (as may be apparent) with a number of physicists behind the scenes, and willl see if I can provide any direction.

Kindest Regards,
Raphie

P.S. I see you updated your post. If you've gotten what you need, GREAT!

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 20 2007, 12:42 AM

Garrett Lisi has been active on that particular Physicsforums thread so you could try asking him directly.

Mr AlphaNumeric,

Those `adult` mainstreams do understand the first part of http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213 but they want to continue their money-gaining game.

However, I am VERY VERY sure that you do not understand the first part of http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213 because your only ability is repeating Mainstream Bible! You look like a child mainstream.

I notice you continue to avoid addressing anything I actually said and just come back with "You're a mainstream supporter".

Yes, I support a theory which had a lot of experimental evidence. I don't think it's perfect, such implications of my comments are flaws in your understanding. But there's a lot of evidence for GR to a very high level of accuracy. It's not a lie or an exaggeration to say it's a very good effective theory and that any theory which attempts to model gravity must reduce to it in the weak field limit, just as any model must reduce to Newtonian gravity in the very weak field limit (which relativity does).

Time and again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of that. That's how science works. Theories aren't accepted as 'verified' because they look nice, they are actually experimentally verified. Doesn't make them perfect or unquestionable, it makes them valid up to a point. Since any theory must have this, each new theory overlays ontop of the old ones. If theory A replaces theory B, then theory A must explain all the experiments which theory B could, giving the same experimental predictions, because theory B got those predictions right (to the limit of experimental accuracy). That's how it works. You don't grasp this and you don't seem to want to grasp this.

No doubt your reply to this won't bother addressing any point I raise or admit you were wrong about there not being evidence for GR. You're unable to give good responses to those points so you just avoid doing so at all, in the hopes that if you ignore them, they'll go away.

It's complete failing in your understanding like that which is your problem. If what you've said on these forums is true, it's the reason you got chucked from whatever physics course you were doing and it's the reason noone cites your papers. You never want to hear when you're wrong. Precisely what you accuse mainstream physicists of. So that makes you a hypocrite.

I only looked the first several lines of your `arguing`. They are disgusting, no scientific value. If you think and believe GR is proved, why there is Gravity Probe B experiment????

I only needed to look at the first couple of lines of the stupid site you referred to to see that guy Jin He is a total braindead nutter without a clue about anything to do with physics or maths. What an idiot

Before I read NOM's post I believed that truth would win forever and human could be saved. I used to think that human were a wonderful race. Now I understand that Max Plack is right and I believe that trash, stupidity, mafia are the major part of human.

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the ideas from the beginning.''
A quotation for today
Max Planck (1858 - 1947)
< Autobiography>(New York 1949)

So a quote from his autobiography, 2 years after he died ?

I'm extremely concerned for the mental wellbeing of truth2k. I thought this was science forum, not an institution for pathetic scramble-headed delusionaries.



This post has been edited by Beta on Nov 20 2007, 06:48 AM

Mr. Garett's work is a sort of geometric mysticism in its current state indeed, but it still doesn't mean, it CANNOT have robust physical meaning. The most important point (which wasn't mentioned till now) is, the Lie group is not just void geometrical structure. It's root system is describing the tightest structure of kissing hyperspheres, where the kissing points are sitting at the centers of another hyperspheres, recursively. The Aether Wave Theory proposes at least two dual ways, how to interpret such structure.

The cosmological one is maybe easier to realize: it considers, the current Universe generation is formed by interior of giant dense collapsar, which behaves like black hole from outer perspective. This collapse was followed by phase transition, which proceeded like crystallization from over-saturated solution by avalanche-like mechanism. During this, the approximately spherical zones of condensing false vacuum have intersect mutually, and from these places the another vacuum condensation has started (a sort of nucleation effect). We can observe the residuum of these zones as a dark matter streaks. The dodecahedron structure of these zones should corresponds the E8 group geometry, as being observed from inside.

The second interpretation of E8 is relevant for Planck scale, i.e. for outer perspective. The dense interior of black hole is forming the physical vacuum, which is filled by spongy system of density fluctuations, similar to nested foam. Such structure has even a behavior of soap foam, because it gets more dense after introducing of energy by the same way, like soap shaken inside of closed vessel. Such behavior leads to the quantum behavior of vacuum and particle-wave duality. Every energy wave, exchanged between pair of particles (i.e. density fluctuations of foam) is behaving like less or more dense blob of foam, i.e. like gauge boson particle. Every boson can exchange its energy with another particles, including other gauge bosons, thus forming the another generation of interacalated particles.

Therefore the E8 Lie group solves the trivial question: which structure should have the tightest lattice of particles, exchanged by another particles? And such question has even perfect meaning from classical physics point of view! Such question has a perfect meaning in theory, describing the most dense structure of inertial particles, which we can even imagine, i.e. the interior of black hole.

Precisely. Relativity was seen as a pretty outlandish and almost nutty theory when it was first published. It won over the academic community over time because evidence supported it.

You continue to ignore the fact a huge number of experiments support relativity, it's much much more than just Gravity Probe B.

You didn't read anything I said, did you? I specificially said you cannot prove a theory, you can only vindicate it. Relativity has been vindicated many many times and GPB will add more to that.

Of course we know relativity will eventually fail, it's inevitable because it's a weak field approximation to a quantum gravity model. Tests are done because we want to find when and where this discrepency appears. I don't think many physicists expect it to appear in Gravity Probe B, but it's always important to check.

Your comments just demonstrate how you completely ignore everything I say. Are you too scared to address my points?

I work in a physics department so I have daily contact with a number of physicists (including my supervisor who is a string theorist) but for little things like that which don't directly relate to my research I don't bother her.

This post has been edited by AlphaNumeric on Nov 20 2007, 09:04 AM