Natures zoo of elementary particles is not a random mishmash; it has striking patterns and interrelationships that can be depicted on a diagram corresponding to one of the most intricate geometric objects known to mathematicians, called E8.
Image: Illustrations by Chad Hagen
In Brief
- In 2007 physicist A. Garrett Lisi wrote the most talked about theoretical physics paper of the year. Outlets from the New Yorker to Outside magazine were drawn to the story, partly on account of his surfer lifestyle. Lisi and others have continued to develop the theory.
- Most physicists think reconciling Einstein’s general theory of relativity with quantum theory will require a radical shift in our conception of reality. Lisi, in contrast, argues that the geometric framework of modern quantum physics can be extended to incorporate Einstein’s theory, leading to a long-sought unification of physics.
- Even if Lisi turns out to be wrong, the E8 theory he has pioneered showcases striking patterns in particle physics that any unified theory will need to explain.
Modern physics began with a sweeping unification: in 1687 Isaac Newton showed that the existing jumble of disparate theories describing everything from planetary motion to tides to pendulums were all aspects of a universal law of gravitation. Unification has played a central role in physics ever since. In the middle of the 19th century James Clerk Maxwell found that electricity and magnetism were two facets of electromagnetism. One hundred years later electromagnetism was unified with the weak nuclear force governing radioactivity, in what physicists call the electroweak theory.
This quest for unification is driven by practical, philosophical and aesthetic considerations. When successful, merging theories clarifies our understanding of the universe and leads us to discover things we might otherwise never have suspected. Much of the activity in experimental particle physics today, at accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN near Geneva, involves a search for novel phenomena predicted by the unified electroweak theory. In addition to predicting new physical effects, a unified theory provides a more aesthetically satisfying picture of how our universe operates. Many physicists share an intuition that, at the deepest level, all physical phenomena match the patterns of some beautiful mathematical structure.
This article was originally published with the title A Geometric Theory of Everything.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
72 Comments
Add CommentHello, I hope you enjoy the article. I'll be happy to address relevant questions from readers here on this discussion forum for a few days. However, if people ask me questions about their pet theories, I'm out of here. (The worst thing about having a working theory of everything is that people want you to fix theirs.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first issue I want to address is a typo near the top of page 60. Where it reads "three spaces and one time direction," that should be "three space and one time direction." I apologize for not catching that.
Also, if you're interested in particle physics, I do encourage you to play with the Elementary Particle Explorer:
http://deferentialgeometry.org/epe/
It was recently updated to match the particle glyphs described in the article.
And finally, because a Theory of Everything needs to look good on a T-shirt, I'm helping an undergraduate physics student put together some shirts for E8 Theory. These should be available in one week, and I'm looking forward to getting mine soon here in Maui, in time for the cold winter months.
Best,
Garrett
http://garrettlisi.com
Mr. Garett’s E8 group model can be understood on background of Aether theory easily. This is because Lie E8 group is not just some void geometrical structure. It’s root vector system is describing the tightest structure of kissing scale invariant hyperspheres ("unparticles"), where the kissing points of spheres are sitting at the centers of another hyperspheres, recursively. The dense aether model provides at least two dual ways, how to interpret such structure:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cosmological one is maybe easier to realize: it considers, the current Universe generation is formed with interior of giant dense collapsar, which is behaving like black hole from outer perspective. This collapse was followed by phase transition, which occurred 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 (i.e. from past perspective due the Universe "expansion").
The second interpretation of E8 is relevant for Planck scale, i.e. for outer perspective (the future). 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 foam 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 intercalated particles.
Therefore the E8 Lie group solves the trivial question: "Which structure should have the tightest lattice of particles, exchanged/formed by another particles?". And such question has perfect meaning even 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 ever imagine, i.e. the interior of black hole.
Hi Garrett. Do you have any idea on how to find the Standard Model? It seems you still have 1 generation + 1 mirror matter generation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Daniel, yes, there's a new idea on this. Before the E8 symmetry breaks, the mirror-fermions and 64 other generators in E8 can be related to generations of fermions by an E8 gauge transformation corresponding to so(8) triality. I had this idea in vague form back in 2007, but at the Banff conference we came up with a concrete way to realize it. I'm working on that now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is to prevent the "chia pet" from having cowlicks? Can fibers be orthogonal to their neighbors, as in the Hopf decomposition of the three-sphere into circles? If not, why not? If it is possible, what is the physical significance of this phenomenon (it would have to be rare)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you did a great job of presenting these ideas to the popular audience.
Hi David, good question. In order to answer whether two directions in a space are orthogonal, one needs to have a metric or frame for that space. For a fiber bundle with connection, there is a natural metric along each fiber -- so we can tell when directions within a fiber are orthogonal, such as the generators of different circles. And, if we choose an appropriate connection, it can determine a frame for the four dimensional base spacetime -- so we can tell when two directions in our spacetime are orthogonal. But what the connection does not provide is a metric on the entire space, on the entire chia pet, that would allow us to answer whether or not two fibers are orthogonal. If you want to see how this works mathematically, you'll want to look at a description of the "Ehresmann Connection," which is the fancy name used for the connection field on the entire chia pet. I'm afraid it's kind of complicated -- I've tried to describe it here in my wiki:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://deferentialgeometry.org/#%5B%5BEhresmann%20connection%5D%5D
Although the connection does not tell you whether two neighboring fibers, as spaces, are orthogonal, it does tell you which directions inside each of those fibers are parallel to each other. This is called "parallel transport." And, in a way, the fiber bundle can have a "cowlick" similar to the one you describe if the connection is singular, such as at the singularity of a black hole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI appreciate those places to look. I've heard the terms but am now interested to learn more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, I passed the link to this page onto a friend who replied with, amongst some other comments, a link to a blog by Distler that deeply questioned the foundations of this approach (we can always hope to question our beliefs, even the ones we "know" are true). He was surprised that the idea made it this far, into SA. Would you care to comment on this? It's been about 3 years since Distler's blog, and I've not read all the commentary there. Would you put all that in a nutshell? How relevant are those criticisms now, three years on down the road?
When the original paper came out introducing the theory, it got a lot of attention, and a lot of criticism. You are correct that Distler's criticism was especially effective at scaring away other physicists. Here's a summary of the criticism, and how it played out:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) Impossible mixing of bosons and fermions in a superconnection.
This was quickly agreed on by mathematicians to be viable.
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/...onnection.html
(2) Violation of the Coleman-Mandula theorem.
The novel loophole in the theorem is addressed in the Scientific American article, and was described in more detail here: http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0303
(3) The dynamics is not described (with an action) invariant under the full E8 symmetry.
A couple of LQG researchers and I recently found such an action: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.4866
(4) Even one generation of fermions does not fit in E8.
This misconception, introduced and propagated by Distler and Garibaldi, is directly addressed and cleared up here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4908
It was one of the more enjoyable experiences of my life to see this issue discussed in Banff, with Garibaldi in attendance.
(5) The theory is not quantized.
The formulation of the theory is compatible with the usual methods of quantum field theory. Although extensive renormalization calculations have not been carried out, I think they can and will be. The lack of a background spacetime does make this difficult though -- a known problem with quantizing gravitational theories.
(6) The theory does not accommodate three generations of fermions.
This issue was identified (by me) as a problem from the beginning, with a potential solution coming from triality. As of a year ago I was discouraged, but with some insights gained at Banff I now think triality will indeed work. It's tricky though, and I'm working on that now.
So, things have gone well with the development of the theory since its debut, which I suppose is one of the reasons it's here in SciAm. If I've left out any substantial criticism, I'd be happy to address it.
Hi Dr. lisi
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisquantum physics should be viewed at a far smaller scale, than the particles we currently believe are fundamental.In just such a paper the fundamental quantum is some 20 orders smaller than the electron, and at this level quntum gravity emerges automatically.
Question 1). can your E8 lie series go down to that level of smallness?
Question 2). Does the series encompass/ explain the constancy of the speed of light.
Question 3). Does the E8 lie series explain quantum gravity.
for reference:
The formulation of harmonic quintessence and a fundamental energy equivalence equation. Physics Essays 23: 311-319.
String quintessence and the formulation of advanced quantum gravity. Physics Essays 22: 364-377.
Congrats Garrett!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(2 SciAm articles on E8 in 3 months)
I created a few projections from my VisibLie_E8 tool (one emulates the picture in this article).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jgmoxness
or go to the related blog post on my TheoryOfEverything.org website
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://theoryofeverything.org/wordpress/?m=201011
Eureka999:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) Yes, if E8 Theory is right, it goes all the way down.
(2) Yes, the speed of light comes from the scale of the gravitational frame, which is part of the structure of E8 and how its symmetry breaks.
(3) E8 Theory does not, by itself, explain quantum gravity; however, the concepts and methods of quantum field theory and loop quantum gravity applied to E8 Theory might.
jgmoxness:
Looks like you're having some fun with E8.
There are some really nice new E8 Theory Tshirts (being sold by a physics undergrad friend) available here:
www.blondegeek.net/E8/
"Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of exquisite geometry."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, indeed; and that geometry is now displayable in the simple frame of three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time - of Newtonian mechanics, which has taken man to the moon and has also brought him safely back home again. A quick glimpse of this geometry may be had in this related letter sent to some of our top physicists today: www.sittampalam.net/NobelResponse.pdf.
Thank you all for your time. Cheers!
Hi Garett,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like the looks of E8 and wondered if it could explain some of the particle symmetries I am exploring.
Can you build into E8 a relationship which relies on root functions of the speed of light. If so we might have hit on something.
Hi Doctors Lisi and Weateherall.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thoroughly enjoyed your article in the Decemeber issue of Scientific American. I've been a reader since the 1970s and these are the types of articles that keeps me coming back for more.
Quick question. In Heterotic String Theory, E8xE8 is one of the symmetry groups. Could there be some relation between your theory and String Theory (i.e. duality )?
Thanks
Hello Ervin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the kind comment. You are correct that E8xE8 is one of the symmetry groups used in heterotic string theory. However, string theory and E8 Theory are fundamentally different. In heterotic string theory, strings are postulated to exists in a 10 dimensional spacetime with its own gravitational metric, with E8xE8 as the gauge group. In E8 theory, there is only an E8 gauge group over a four dimensional spacetime -- with the gravitational field described as part of the E8 gauge field. So, E8 Theory is "smaller," and uses a different version of E8 that includes gravity. I won't be so foolish as to say the two theories are unrelated, but they are distantly related.
Regarding criticism point 6 - The theory does not accommodate three generations of fermions, I have the distant perspective of an information systems analyst: these 'generations' strike me as probable artifacts of test procedures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand, the three generations have 'appeared' in atomic collisions; particle collisions and higher velocity particle collisions. I suggest that the increasing fermion mass estimates may be produced by the increased velocity of collision imparted to the collision products as increased momentum, which is in turn interpreted as increased particle mass. In this case it can be expected that the increased velocity of particle collisions produced by the LHC may produce apparent 'gen IV' fermions.
I can't offer any more than this lose description, but I offer it in case it may help.
I should have added: if this scenario is correct, there is only one 'generation' of fermions; those identified with higher masses are misinterpretations of test results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, "surfer dude", please note that I did not ask you to fix my theory - I offered a suggestion to help you to fix your theory. Please feel free to forget about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjt: There are many ideas out there for why there might be three generations of fermions, and you're welcome to think up new ones. I'm currently busy seeing if I can get it to work using triality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's fine, thanks, but I do suggest the evidence and methods used in identifying the three be reexamined by someone capable. Of course an effective analytical model for the three identified may be developed even if in fact there is only one 'generation', IMO.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a dangerous book named Tertium Organum, -A key to the enigmas of the world, P.D. Ouspensky presents a new model of the universe and brillantly explains the solution for the problems with our limited time-space sence and gives one whole picture of what is truly existing and what is not so. As the author says "The enigma was solved long ago. But different thinkers, living in different epochs, finding the solution, expressed it differently, and often, not knowing one another, trod the same path amid enourmous difficulties, unaware of their predecessors and contemporaries who had gone and were going the selfsame path."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Ether", "gravity", "time", "motion" and much else are concepts only for our own limitations in not seeing where dimensions and cosmoses "starts" and "ends". -From zero to infinity.
Just as an example.. "black holes" are allready included but named differently in his works, and likewise minut "particles" and their place in being "smaller than zero" and therefore belong to their "own time" ..far to fast for our sences. We don't see the atoms or electrons in what we percive as materia, but "their" fifths and sixths dimensions -their traces in "our" dimensions
"Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of exquisite geometry" Sounds like further confirmation of intelligent Design to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that scientist need to apply vast amounts of intelligence and reason to understand the natural world necessitates that the natural world must itself be intelligent and rational. Similarly, scientists instinctively recognize design when they see computer code or an electric motor. This strongly suggests that the vastly complex DNA code of the cell, and the functional motor of the flagella must also be designed. There is no scientific alternative. Evolution and blind natural selection hasn't the foggiest notion where anything and everything is evolving to, or even why. As such evolution totally lacks the necessary overall perspective to arrange specific parts, in a specific way, to serve a specific function, which is the basis of Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design.
Intelligent design is foundational to science. Indeed, it would be impossible to do science on any other principle. For no scientist operates on the principle that we live in an "unintelligent" "irrational" universe. Nor does any scientist conduct science on the premise that there is no order, regularity, structure or design in nature. This means that all of science functions on the foundational principle of Intelligent Design. And, therefore, to argue that Intelligent design has no place in science is to effectively saw off the limb all of science is sitting on. Yet that is precisely what is now being suggested by the grand thinkers of the ‘scientific’ establishment, and most mainstream science publications.
Sounds to me like a rationalization of the otherwise unfounded belief in a creator, thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImpressive high level academic cartesian theory !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut on my side i prefer the fractal scale relativity theory which is closer to my intuition (http://luth.obspm.fr/~luthier/nottale)
10. Eureka999 08:09 AM 11/20/10:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour question: "Does the theory explain the constancy of the speed of light" neglects the fact, that special relativity has been refuted experimentally several times, besides its incompatibility with quantum theory (see, for example, Sciam, March 2009 "Was Einstein Wrong?"). Light speed is not constant or, better, isotropic in all inertial frames as Einstein had postulated. GPS works because it includes the Sagnac Effect due to the earth's rotation, indicating that on earth the speed of light is not isotropic.
So a new theory of everything has to refute relativity theories as well, and I hope, it does, if it wants to explain everything correctly.
Another (more humorous) question: does the new theory explain why so many people on earth prefer wars rather than love?
Another question: Why are so many banks and so many European Union Countries (Greece, Ire) go bankrupt?
The first article which appeared on the arXiv by garret Lisi entitled ‘An exceptionally simple theory of everything’ dated 6th November, 2007. Subsequent to the publication and unprecedented media hype followed mainly due to an article in the Telegraph. There was an enormous publicity and controversy. A second article followed in the Telegraph. The first article in the Telegraph announced that Garrett Lisi is the new Einstein. The second article announced that he is no Einstein. Of course all that has nothing to do with science. However scientists are sometimes, and maybe wrongly so, touchy about priority. They are also touchy about people using their work and not giving them credit. It is understandable to a point. Payment and everything worldly in science is very little. The main thing which remains for scientists is reputation, a sense of being appreciated and the hope that they will be remembered for their scientific contributions. It is really not much to ask when you think about the benefits and financial gain which other people make of science. Commercial publishers alone make billions in profit from publishing scientific work. The people who invented computers died in poverty. Computer companies are multi-national billion dollar enterprises. The guy who invented the internet is anything but a millionaire. Do not ask how much Google earns a day. For this reason maybe it is not unreasonable that there was a great deal of controversy about Lisi’s paper not giving credit to anyone who used E8, his exceptional Lie symmetry group. String theoreticians used it long ago. Of course they used it differently. To super strings, E8 E8 gives an otherwise non-super symmetric theory super symmetry and that way they get rid of many contradictions and maladies which the 26 dimensional Bosonic theory possesses. Lisi however uses E8 itself. He did not need to refer to strings, quantum gravity loops or any other physical model. The only model he had was the model of E8 itself only which is a pure geometrical model. Well you could argue that any model is at the end a mathematical model. That is true but Lisi did not invent any model, physical or mathematical. He simply took over the mathematical model of E8 as established by a mathematician thinking about mathematical structures with little if any physical thoughts in the back of their mind. Some critics thought that this is the ingenuity of Lisi. Other critics thought that this is the naivety of Lisi. You can argue any way you like.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnd of Part I
Part II
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is however a fact that one of the principle members of our group, Prof. M.S. El Naschie did the same thing within E-infinity theory long ago around 2004. Other members, for instance Prof. Marek-Crnjac and Prof. He as well as Prof. Iovane also considered the exceptional Lie group in a far wider context than Lisi and this was before Lisi published his paper. Referring explicitly to E8 and publishing papers with E8 in the title was also done long before Lisi. For instance one of the early papers on E-line exceptional Lie group was published in Int. J. of Nonlinear Sci. & Num. Simulation, 8(3), p. 445-450 (2007), entitled ‘Exceptional Lie groups hierarchy and the structure of the micro universe’. This is several months before the appearance of the first paper by Lisi on the arXiv. From the end of 2006 to roughly the time when Lisi published his paper on 6th November, 2007 Prof. El Naschie and his group published more than a dozen papers on the exceptional Lie groups and its application and physics and cosmology. He also recognized many things which are now coming to play a role in the newest of Lisi’s paper in Scientific American entitled ‘A geometric theory of everything’, December 2010. Needless to say, Lisi did not acknowledge any work of Prof. El Naschie or our group not in 2007 and not now although it is absolutely clear from even a superficial reading of his newest article in Scientific American that he benefited from the publications of the E-infinity group and could have benefited more. This is of course very regrettable but it is not the end of the world and we take it in the same spirit in which we took and endured many things before, mostly coming from the same sources. Before we turn our attention to the scientific mathematical part of our comment, we must note that the Editors of Scientific American made a claim on behalf of Lisi which Dr. Lisi himself did not make, namely that Lisi pioneered what in their words they call ‘showcases striking patterns in particle physics’. This is quite inaccurate on behalf of whoever is responsible in Scientific American for writing that while ignoring the efforts of so many other people. Let us come now to scientific issues.
End of part II
Part III
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Lisi still does not recognize that there are 8 exceptional Lie symmetry groups and not only 5. He still thinks that the exceptional Lie symmetry groups are E8, E7, E6, F4, G2. The corresponding dimensions are 248, 133, 78, 52 and 14. This is wrong. There are 8 E-line exceptional Lie symmetry groups and when you add F4 and G2, then we have 10. However the E-line has only 8. El Naschie is not the first to find out this fact which is not well known. However El Naschie is the first to emphasize this fact and use it in physics. Lisi overlooks this because he does not appreciate the importance of what mathematicians call Dynkin diagrams. This is explained thoroughly in the following paper by Mohamed El Naschie ‘Exceptional Lie groups hierarchy and some fundamental high energy physics equations’, Vol. 35 (2008), p. 82-84, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. This paper appeared on the net of Science Direct in 2007 before Lisi’s paper appeared. You can see clearly from this paper that there is an E5 which is identical to the unification group SO(10). In addition there is an E4 which is identical to the unification group SU(5). With unification we mean grand unification theories which only excludes gravity. The fact that these are exceptional groups is exciting and has many ramifications for E-infinity theory once they are extended transfinitely. It seems that the first person to notice that was Howard Georgi. The dimension of E5 is naturally 45 and that of E4 is 24 which matches the additional bosons of this unification theory. Later on El Naschie noticed that there is an E3, E2 and E1. Again based on the Dynkin program, E3 is nothing but SU(3) SU(2). It has a dimension 11. Then there is an E2 which is equal to SU(3) with the well known dimension 8 and finally we have E1 equal to U(1) with the dimension 1. All this may be found in many of El Naschie’s papers and there are a few nice summaries and review articles of which we give the following: Symmetry group prerequisite for E-infinity in high energy physics, CS&F, 35 (2008), p. 202-211, Average exceptional Lie and Coxeter group hierarchies with special reference to the standard model of high energy particle physics, CS&F, 37 (2008), p. 662-668, High energy physics and1. Lisi still does not recognize that there are 8 exceptional Lie symmetry groups and not only 5. He still thinks that the exceptional Lie symmetry groups are E8, E7, E6, F4, G2. The corresponding dimensions are 248, 133, 78, 52 and 14. This is wrong.
End of Part III
Part IV
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is wrong. There are 8 E-line exceptional Lie symmetry groups and when you add F4 and G2, then we have 10. However the E-line has only 8. El Naschie is not the first to find out this fact which is not well known. However El Naschie is the first to emphasize this fact and use it in physics. Lisi overlooks this because he does not appreciate the importance of what mathematicians call Dynkin diagrams. This is explained thoroughly in the following paper by Mohamed El Naschie ‘Exceptional Lie groups hierarchy and some fundamental high energy physics equations’, Vol. 35 (2008), p. 82-84, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. This paper appeared on the net of Science Direct in 2007 before Lisi’s paper appeared. You can see clearly from this paper that there is an E5 which is identical to the unification group SO(10). In addition there is an E4 which is identical to the unification group SU(5). With unification we mean grand unification theories which only excludes gravity. The fact that these are exceptional groups is exciting and has many ramifications for E-infinity theory once they are extended transfinitely. It seems that the first person to notice that was Howard Georgi. The dimension of E5 is naturally rogram, E3 is nothing but SU(3) SU(2). It has a dimension 11. Then there is an E2 which is equal to SU(3) with the well known dimension 8 and finally we have E1 equal to U(1) with the dimension 1. All this may be found in many of El Naschie’s papers and there are a few nice summaries and review articles of which we give the following: Symmetry group prerequisite for E-infinity in high energy physics, CS&F, 35 (2008), p. 202-211, Average exceptional Lie and Coxeter group hierarchies with special reference to the standard model of high energy particle physics, CS&F, 37 (2008), p. 662-668, High energy physics the standard model from the exceptional Lie groups, CS&F, 36 (2008), p. 1-17. All these papers were published on Science Direct at the beginning of 2007.
End of Part IV
Part V
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. The most remarkable thing about he hierarchy of the E-line of exceptional Lie groups is that the sum of all its dimensions is exactly four multiplied with the inverse of the electromagnetic fine structure constant 137. This is by no means numerology. It shows that electromagnetism s an averaging over symmetries. We know from Feynman’s path integral that you can sum over paths. This could be extended to summing over topologies as used by many mathematical physicists. The same idea could be extended to summing over Lie symmetry groups. El Naschie is the first to find this explicit result. Please try it yourself and see that 248 + 133 + 78 + 45 + 24 + 11 + 8 + 1 = 548 = 4 multiplied with 137. To show that this has nothing to do with numerology is very simple. Just use the transfinite version of all these numbers. A transfinite version is always an integer plus a transfinite tail represented by an irrational number. The number of digits fixing an irrational number is infinitely large.Because of that, to fit together by a mere numerical coincidence would require a probability which is exactly equal to zero. A numerical coincidence is by virtue of this transfinite nature excluded as an impossible event. There are far more physically accessible explanations for why this is not numerology. It is not numerology because there are theories behind it . The theory behind it also has another theory behind it. And all these theories fit together seamlessly. If this agreement is coincidence and numerology, then it would be advisable to study only the science of numerology, a proposition which we definitely refute.
End of Part V
Part VI
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this3. Lisi acknowledges in his newest paper SO(10) and gives it a prominent place but he does not recognize or mention that it is equivalent to E5. The same may be said about SU(5) which he does not recognize as E4. However he follows an Italian colleague of his in appreciating SO(11) which he made only recently and is mentioned again in an article in Scientific American under the title ‘Rummaging for a final theory, September 2010. The first suggestion which makes use in this context of SO(11) came however from El Naschie. It is well documented in the literature on the subject. For instance in his paper From E-eight to E-infinity, CS&F, 35 (2008), p. 285-290 El Naschie draws attention to SO(11) with a dimension 55 which plays an important role in finding the total number of particles in the standard model as well as playing a role in Edward Witten’s 5-Bran theory with 528 particle-like states. Lisi does not make full use of these facts but he partially makes use of it.
4. Lisi never spoke about fiber bundles except in his last paper. Of course we appreciate very much fiber bundle theory because it is mathematically well developed. We dare however to say that transfinite set theory used by El Naschie and his group is far more mathematically developed and far more fundamental. Consequently fractals are far more developed and far more fundamental than fiber bundles. In fact fiber bundles is not simple enough nor is it complex enough. It moves from smooth manifold to somewhat hairy manifold. However it does not go to infinity like fractals. In a sense it is a middle of the way approach. In a sense it is not fish nor meat but something in between. We most definitely think that the natural geometry and the most sophisticated geometry required by high energy physics is fractals. That is to say transfinite set theory interpreted geometrically. A paper by Prof. T.N. Palmer published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society testifies to the same ‘The invariant set postulate: a new geometric framework for the foundations of quantum theory and the role played by gravity’, July 2009 (doi: 10.1098/rspa.2009.0080).
There are many other things which we would like to talk about but we leave that for future communications. Thank you.
E-infinity Group.
Part 1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Dr. Lisi,
I think I wrote to you a few years ago on your blog asking if you are familiar with the work of Prof. Mohamed El Naschie on E8 theory. You said you will look into it. I am pretty sure I know your answer by now. Never the less it would be beneficial, at least for the history of science, to say that Mohamed El Naschie proposed not E8 only but the entire E-line of the Lie symmetry group. This means super positioning the dimensions of all of the E-line. Restricting our attention to dimensions only, this would be 248 for E8, 133 for E7, 78 for E6, 45 for E5, 24 for E4. So far this adds to 528. You may recall that this is the number of isometries in Edward Witten’s 5-Bran theory. Adding E3 and E2 and E1 with a total dimension of 20, the complete sum comes to exactly 548. You see that summing over all the E-line exceptional group leads to a remarkable result which is 4 times 137 where the 137 is the well known inverse electromagnetic fine structure constant. Some have tried to take a cheap shot at that by saying it is numerology. This has nothing to do with numerology.
Part2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA very simple proof of that is the following. If you take the exact value of the above which includes infinitely long irrational numbers after the comma, the exact sum would be 548.3281573. It is impossible to have number coincidences when the numbers involved are infinite irrational. Let me give you a well known example from mathematics. The golden mean which is 0.618033…. and its square value, namely 0.381966…. when added together give exactly 1. This matching is unique to irrational numbers and even more to golden mean binary based numbers. It follows then that the possibility that anything of that which Mohamed El Naschie produced based on number theoretical consideration is numerology, is zero. A very clever physics and mathematics professor, Christian Beck at Queen Mary’s College, London, UK wrote a fantastic book called Spatio-Temporal Chaos and Vacuum Fluctuations of Quantized Fields (published by World Scientific, 2002) and calculated the probability that results connected to high energy physics using deterministic chaos and fractals could be numerological coincidences. He found that the probability of such coincidence is almost of the order of a Planck area when gauged in centimeters. It is 10 to the power of minus 60, practically zero. You may ask why add all the exceptional Lie groups? The simple answer is in order to have fuzziness which is essential for any alternative formulation than the classical approach. It is amazing to note what El Naschie found regarding non-compact Lie symmetry groups. When you consider the twelve symmetry groups of this category, the sum of dimensions comes exactly to 5 multiplied with the inverse of the electromagnetic find structure constant. When you take the exact value it comes to exactly 685.4101966. You obtain the same value if you add the 17 two and three Stein spaces.An American physicist, Ray Munroe, conjectured based on this result that there may be another E12 exceptional group, something which is against current theoretical wisdom. It is believed that the largest exceptional Lie group which could exist, besides E10 is E11. Both were studied in Max Planck Inst. near Berlin. On the other hand E12 is quite exotic but the reasons given by El Naschie and Munroe are quite convincing and it may well be that there is indeed an E12.
I hope you do not mind me talking about El Naschie and I hope you will concentrate only on theoretical physics
Best regards and a lot of luck
Being only loosely connected to E-infinity working group and Prof. Mohamed El Naschie I was slightly astonished that the last communication of this group dismissed fiber bundle theory just because it was mentioned by Dr. Garrett Lisi in his last paper published this month in Scientific American. My reason for being slightly astonished is my definite knowledge that E-infinity is a set theoretical reformulation of the fiber bundle theory. Fiber bundle theory is a mathematical sophistication of what physicists developed under the name of gauge theory. Nobel laureate Yang wrote a very nice paper sometime ago with a small dictionary translating one language into the other. For instance field strength is called curvature, connection is a guage and so on. In fact Prof. El Naschie wrote something similar but I cannot remember where. Even far more to the point a Kazan Russian professor wrote some time ago a paper entitled ‘E-infinity as a fiber bundle and its thermodyanics’, published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 33 (2007), p. 717-724 authored by A.M. Mukhamedov. We cannot therefore dismiss fiber bundle theory lightly. I can see that fractals may be more general and of course slightly more fashionable but it seems to me they are different languages for the same thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Garett’s E8 group model can be understood on background of Aether particle theory easily. This is because Lie E8 group is not just some void geometrical structure. It’s root vector system is describing the tightest structure of kissing scale invariant hyperspheres ("unparticles"), where the kissing points of spheres are sitting at the centers of another hyperspheres, recursively. The Aether Wave Theory proposes at least two dual ways, how to interpret such structure:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cosmological one is maybe easier to realize: it considers, the current Universe generation is formed by interior of giant dense collapsar, which is behaving 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 (i.e. from past perspective due the Universe "expansion").
The second interpretation of E8 is relevant for Planck scale, i.e. for outer perspective (the future). 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 foam 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 intercalated particles.
Therefore the E8 Lie group solves the trivial question: "Which structure should have the tightest lattice of particles, exchanged/formed by another particles?". And such question has perfect meaning even 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 ever imagine, i.e. the interior of black hole.
jtdwyer in reply to johnhei:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Sounds to me like a rationalization of the otherwise unfounded belief in a creator, thanks."
Ouspensky:
"Contrary to Kant, the positivist are sure that "more clear knowledge of phenomena makes them acquainted with things in themselves." They think that in looking upon physical phenomena as the motion of the ether, or as electrical or magnetic phenomena, and calculating their motion, they begin to know the very substance of things, i.e., the causes of phenomena; in other words, they BELIEVE exactly in the possibility of what Kant denied - the comprehension of the true substance of things by means of the investigation of phenomena. Moreover many physicists do not consider it necessary to know Kant; and they could not themselves exactly define in what relation they stand toward him. Of course it is possible not to know Kant, but it is impossible to controvert him. Every description of physical phenomena, by its every word, is related to the problems set fourth by Kant - remains in this or that relation to them.
In general, the position of "science" in regard to this question of "subjectively impozed" or "objectively cognized" is more than tottering, and in order to form its conclusions "science" is forced to accept many purely hypothetical suppositions as things known - as indubitable DATA, not demanding proof."
Further:
"The "positivist" will remain unconvinced. He will say: prove to me that thought can act without a brain, then I will belive it.
I shall answer him by the question: WHAT, in the given case, will constitute a proof?"
Still further:
"The world of noumena cannot be three-dimensional and there cannot be anything three-dimensional in it, i.e. commensurable with physical objects, similar to them in outward apperence, having form - there cannot be anything having extension in space and changing in time. And most important, there cannot be anything dead or inanimate. In the world of causes everything must be alive, because it is life itself: the soul of the world."
Regarding Garrett Lisi’s new paper and Mohamed El Naschie’s average symmetry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe following may be an important insight into the meaning of average symmetry. I refer here explicitly to Table 3, page 1033 of “The internal dynamics of exceptional Lie symmetry groups”, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 38 (2008) and to Table 4, page 959 of “Deriving the largest expected number of elementary particles using the maximal compact sub Lie group H”, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 38 (2008). Alternatively the reader should consult the excellent book first mentioned by El Naschie in his paper and now by Lisi in the references of his recent paper “Lie groups physics and geometry” by R. Gilmore, Cambridge University Press (2008) and in particular, Table 12.2, page 193 of that book. As shown by M.S. El Naschie in his paper a trivial back of an envelope computation using the total number of dimensions of the H groups and the P groups and the surface of both gives us as average the intrinsic dimension of E8 which is (57) as well as the dimension of the important F4 group (52). In addition El Naschie finds the SO(11) dimension of (55). Averaging the summing over Lie groups connects us to deeper mathematical and physical reality.
Bye Kids, have fun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisComments on Lisi’s new 2010 paper in Scientific American ‘The vital importance of the concept of average symmetry and summing over Lie symmetry groups Part1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne could of course use a superficially mathematical language and terminology to suggest that Dr. G. Lisi’s work on E8 is pure numerology. For instance why E8 and why did he never mention E7. Maybe because E8 is the largest with 248 dimensions. If this is the reason then he may be mistaken because in the Max Planck Inst. for Gravitation near Berlin, Germany as well as elsewhere people have found E10 and E11. In fact there are many papers by leading mathematical physicists suggesting a relation between E11 and the eleven dimensional M-theory of E. Witten, so why not E11? This is by no means the end either. There is a well documented 12 dimensional F-theory and both American physicist Ray Munroe and Mohamed El Naschie conjectured that there may be out there a 685 dimensional E12 symmetry group. Worse still if we grant that E8 is the main relevant exceptional group, then Lisi’s work could be termed numerology because he merely fits a certain number of real or hypothetical elementary particles to certain numbers fixing the geometry and topology of E8, for instance the dimension 248 or the number of roots 240. Of course we do not view Lisi’s work in this way.We were only playing the devil’s advocate because of all the trivial and cheap charges of numerology which emanate from certain quarters for reasons best known to themselves. However it is important to emphasize the importance of super positioning many exceptional compact and non-compact Lie symmetry groups to obtain fuzzy or fractal-like larger symmetry groups which represent a symmetry on average or a real world average symmetry like the well known average symmetry of chaotic strange attractors (see for instance Symmetry in Chaos by M. Field and M. Golubitsky, Oxford (1992)). The chapter on page 27 is entitled ‘Symmetry on Average’. It is worth summarizing what the author says on pages 27-30:“To make 100 iterations we require 5000 arithmetic computations and if we work by hand without a computer we need 3 days and this does not include plotting and colouring of the strange attractor and yet we will not observe any symmetry. The symmetry hidden in these strange attractors needs at least 1500 iterations and to see it clearly we need 60,000 iterations which is a hopeless task without a computer and that is why the concept of symmetry in chaos or average symmetry was not discovered earlier.”
Part2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the earliest papers on average symmetry in physics and E-infinity nonlinear dynamics was El Naschie’s 1994 paper entitled ‘Average symmetry, stability and ergodicity of multi-dimensional Cantor sets’, Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol./ 109, N.2, February (1994), p. 149-157. In this paper both the golden mean and random Cantor sets were involved on a very fundamental level.Later on El Naschie considered summing over two and three Stein spaces as well as exceptional Lie groups.This led to the discovery that the sum of the dimension of these Stein spaces is 5 multiplied with the inverse fine structure constant 137. This means 685 which is the dimension of the conjectured E12 exceptional Lie group.The second discovery was that the sum of all of the E-line exceptional Lie groups is equal to 4 multiplied by 137 which is 548.Having spoken so strongly against numerology and number coincidence we fear we could be giving a wrong impression about the role of number theory and number coincidence in physics.It was not only the well known Cambridge Professor Sir Arthur Stanley Edington who was deeply engaged in what many suspected of being numerology in his fundamental theory.In fact Nobel Laureate of Physics of the caliber of Paul Dirac we well as more recently Steven Weinberg were considering Eddington’s work and certain large number coincidence.Even more surprisingly Richard Feynman had great interest in the work of Eddington but he was talked out of it, probably by his friend Herbert C.Corben around 1942 as recounted in the autobiography of Feynman “The Beat of a Different Drum” by J. Mihra (Oxford 1994).There are many excellent papers written by members of the E-infinity group explaining what is numerology and what is not.For instance L. Marek-Crnjac “On the vital difference between number theory and numerology in physics”,CS&F, 38 (2008), p. 1239-1242 as well as the paper by Ting Zhong “From the numerics of dynamics to the dynamics of numerics and visa versa in high energy particle physics”, CS&F, 42 (2009), p. 1780-1783.Next we would like to briefly mention the paper of Prof. A.Mukhamedov of Kazan University, Russia which connects E-infinity with the fiber bundle mentioned by Lisi.This paper is entitled “E-infinity as a fiber bundle and its thermodynamics”, CS&F, 33 (2007), p. 717-724.Finally we have to again consider the embedding of E8 in the context of E-infinity which was strangely not taken up by Lisi although the view point was communicated to him in many comments years ago.
Part3
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point is that once we embed E8 with its 248 dimensions in the 26 bosonic dimensions of string’s spacetime, we find that 248 + 26 = 274. Taking a shadow world like E8 E8 sper symmetry theory then we find (2)(274) = 548 which is exactly 4 times 137 found earlier on in summing over all exceptional Lie symmetry groups.There is an even more striking embedding this time with the kissing number of all the E-line exceptional groups.The sum of these kissing numbers is 522 and embedding in 26 leads to 522 + 26 = 548 exactly as above.This kissing number which may be interpreted physically as the contact point of hyper-sphere packing could be thought of as a tangible geometrical picture for the massless gauge boson of higher order theory of particle physics.Thank you.
E-infinity Group.
How do you address an assertion of Skip Garibaldi and Jacques Distler that your theory is faulty? Here's a link to the article in Science Daily - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100326132341.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisno single lie group is a t.o.e. there are many like E10 and larger, being largely fine-structure constant models using both known and undetected dark matter particles. john webb nasa believes alpha varies in strength along a preferred dipole axis, which changes varies constants including light speed and gravity. alpha strengthens along a roughly aligned direction with the dark flow singularity 150 billion light years away, and weakens in the opposite direction. gravity force decreases with distance apart but EM forces shape the largest cosmological structures in the universe, as these lie groups show.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisE-infinity Communication No. 42 Part 1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisK-theoretical foundation f E-infinity and the real meaning of counterfactuals and contexuality
As the reader becomes more and more familiar with E-infinity and provided he has a strong interest in pure mathematics and set theoretical foundational work he will realize the K-theoretical origin of E-infinity theory. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who already sees E-infinity as a concrete realization of von Neumann-Connes’ noncommutative geometry. In fact there are many other unsuspected relations to E-infinity theory stemming from the relation of Yang-Mills theory and quantum gravity with the notion of connection on vector bundles. There is complete equivalence between the category of vector bundles over compact space and bundle maps as well as projective modulus of all sorts in the smooth case. They may explain the reaction of people like John Baez against E-infinity which was more elementary and easier to understand without abstract mathematics and achieved substantial and testable results in high energy physics while others, with the exception of Connes and of course Penrose were still deeply involved in abstraction. In fact much of the recent work by Nobel Laureate G. ‘t Hooft and particularly his 2006 paper “The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics”, arXiv: quant-ph/0604008V2, 26th June 2006 could be understood at least partially as translating E-infinity theory and K-theory to his language, namely the language of the very successful quantum field theory. We in E-infinity gratefully acknowledge the unique achievements of classical quantum field theory but it is time to expand this theory either piecemeal as is happening most of the time or in one great quantum jump to noncommutative geometry, E-infinity and K-theory. For instance the problem of indistinguishable large sets of quantum data forming equivalence classes is understood in E-infinity or K-theory as an algebraic K-theory analogous to topological invariant of corresponding virtual spaces and sets such as the infinitely many sets with negative Menger-Urysohn dimension and yet finite positive Hausdorff dimension.
Part2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe minus one empty set for instance has a dimension equal to the golden mean in E-infinity theory as well as the K-theory of noncommutative Penrose tiling or Penrose universe as pointed out some time ago by M.S. El Naschie and Ji-Huan He. The totally empty or truly empty set at minus infinity where all kinds of geometrical objects including any Cantor set or dust disappears completely still has a non-negative Hausdorff dimension, namely exactly zero.
We note here on passing that the notion of counterfactuals was introduced to quantum mechanics only because quantum mechanics did not directly consider negative topological dimensions nor empty sets. Similarly contexuality is only the consequence of the indistinguishability between union and intersection in the basic geometrical-topological structure of a geometry which accounts not only for the zero set (0,ϕ) but also for all empty sets ( ̶ 1,ϕ2), ( ̶ 2, ϕ3), … and so on until ( ̶ ∞, 0) on a very fundamental level.
To see the connection between G. ‘t Hooft’s limit cycles given in the 2006 paper mentioned above and the work of E-infinity, the reader is advised to read in depth the paper of Mohamed El Naschie “Coupled oscillations and mode locking of quantum gravity fields, scale relativity and E-infinity space”, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 12 (2001), p. 179-192. For instance equation (7.4) on page 13 of ‘t Hooft’s paper is exactly identical to Dunkerley’s theorem of equation (10) and the elasto-plastic Rankin-Merchant formula given by equation (11) in El Naschie’s paper. Prof. El Naschie knew these equations from his research in engineering science and his work in buckling and vibration of elastic and elasto-plastic structures. We find it really fascinating how pure mathematics such as K-theory can be connected however indirectly with applied-applied engineering research while in between we have theories such as gauge theory and Yang-Mills theory. This cross fertilization is not unique to E-infinity but is very characteristic for the working of our E-infinity group.
In the next communication we will expand on all the aspects which we have only touched upon in this communication.
E-infinity Group.
E-infinity Communication No. 43 Part1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this‘t Hooft dilaton proposal and the inbuilt natural conformal invariance of E-infinity and Nottale scale relativity
Nobel Laureate Professor Gerard ‘t Hooft is one of a handful of leading mainstream physicists who have an enduring interest in reforming quantum field theory and therefore by necessity amending the basic structure of quantum mechanics itself. This interest continued despite considerable criticism from many other leading scientists, for instance Nobel Laureate D. Gross who recently said in an article entitled “The major unknown in particle physics and cosmology” with respect to ‘t Hooft’s deterministic quantum mechanics that if we were to go back to deterministic classical theory, things would only get worse. In our view this is a total misunderstanding of what ‘t Hooft is trying to do as well as a total misunderstanding of classical mechanics. Classical mechanics is generically deterministically chaotic. In fact this is a well known result of the major work of Poincaré on the three body problems. The four body problem is even worse and at the time of writing there is no computer in the universe which is large enough to even start numerically integrating the problem of how five planets move under mutual influence. It was in fact Nobel Laureate Max Born, the teacher of Werner Heisenberg who disputed that classical mechanics is deterministic. A very readable and relatively short paper discussing the work of Max Born and contrasting ‘t Hooft’s work on deterministic quantum mechanics with Mohamed El Naschie’s work on E-infinity theory is “Deterministic quantum mechanics versus classical mechanical indeterminism”, published in Int. J. of Nonlinear Sci. & Num. Simulation, 8(1), 5-10 (2007). The article of Max Born is “Ist die Klassische Mechanik tatsächlich deterministisch?”, published in Physikalishe Blätter II, pp. 49 (1955). A second paper by El Naschie is in the same volume where Prof. ‘t Hooft’s paper is published entitled “What is quantum mechanics?”, pp. 84-102. The volume is a publication of the American Inst. of Physics, Vol. 905 (2007). El Naschie’s paper is entitled “Deterministic quantum mechanics versus classical mechanical indeterminism and nonlinear dynamics”, pp. 56-66. In our opinion the most important new developments in the work of ‘t Hooft is that he seems to have discovered fractals and consequently El Naschie’s zero and empty transfinite-fractal sets for quantum field theory.
Part2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn his 2008 paper “Locally finite model for gravity”, published on arXiv: 0804.0328U1[gr-qc]2, April, 2008 he clearly says in the abstract that the model is not finite because the solutions tend to generate infinite fractals. Furthermore in Fig. 2 on page 5 his deficit and surplus angles are the reason for introducing fractal simplicticity a la Mohamed El Naschie and thus Cantor dust and fractals. In fact it is the dilaton, which is known from all superstring theories which bring the scale invariance of the fractal geometry of Nottale and El Naschie through a backdoor into ‘t Hooft’s quantum field theoretical model. He admits trouble due to the negative sign of the new field but that is a little price to pay to enter into the paradise of zero and empty transfinite-fractal sets which are the basic building blocks of spacetime and consequently of E-infinity. We hope ‘t Hooft remains in Cantor paradise with D. Hilbert.
I am nobody as compared to these scientists…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not a professional physicist, I am not a mathematician, and I am not a writer of articles in Scientific American let alone a writer!
Yet I have a hard time trying to understand why the author, while reminding us that according to Einstein ‘s fundamental discovery, space and time are unified, at same time ignores that new concept altogether!
Page 60, left column, lines 4, 5, 6, I read, quote:
“This rotation can be an ordinary rotation in space or, because Einstein showed that space and time are unified, a rotation of space into time.”
end quote.
Rotating space into time maintains space as being an independent entity of time and maintains time as being something else than space!
There is an easy way to follow Einstein’s path though and to merge space and time in such a way that they disappear once and for all as individual entities!
Instead of considering that motion and rotation occur in space, just consider that space and time occur into motion!
Visit:
http://www.gravimotion.info/tour/tour-en/space.html
I did enjoy the article…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I am nobody as compared to you… I do not understand yet why, while reminding us Einstein’s fundamental discovery that space and time are unified, you at the same time ignore that unification altogether!
Page 60, left column, lines 4, 5, 6, I read, quote:
“This rotation can be an ordinary rotation in space or, because Einstein showed that space and time are unified, a rotation of space into time.”
end quote.
Rotating space into time (in my opinion) maintains space as being an independent entity of time and maintains time as being something else than space!
There is an easy way to follow Einstein’s path though and to merge space and time in such a way that they disappear once and for all as individual entities!
Instead of considering that rotation and generally motion occur in space, just consider that space and time occur into motion!
Visit:
http://www.gravimotion.info/tour/tour-en/space.html
I wish I didn't write this and I whish you do not read it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead the next one please, thank you...
Henri Salles
I am not too good with these forums...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the previous comment I whish I did not write!
Henri salles
The return of E-infinity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisE-infinity is back
We will follow its track
Don't mention Ambjorn or Lisi
El naschie wouldn't take it easy
It is written on gold
E-infinity is a triple fold
After any time lapse
E-infinity can explain wave collapse
E-infinity is a true unification
But after a careful fuzzyfication
Choosing E-infinity or E eight
El naschie never tolerates
The great man starts to foliate
bringing eggs and doing omelet
Dear E-infinity:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn your previous very long post you still didn't mention the ontological basis of E-infinity through its topological perspective. The idea of weird topology is the backbone of E-infinity leading to weird results that seems very natural in E-infinity context. The transition from classical traditions of physics (here I mean classical and quantum) to E-infinity paradise is a paradigm shift and it could last many centuries for the ideas to be familiar and understood. In fact we have reached the extreme boundary of knowledge without being matured enough, except the great man (El naschie) with his brave soul and his goodself holding the torch to illuminate our route for knowledge through darkness of ignorance.
"We are just a tiny fractal of very large fat fractal, to be precise we are just remnant of fractal dust."
Anonymous
"No one can take us out of the E-infinite paradise created for us by El naschie, I see it but I can't believe it"
Ping-Bong He
" El nascheism is a new brand of physical and mathematical theories that always flourishes into gold, for example golden quantum field theory, golden differential geometry, golden topology, golden market etc.... The essence of the idea is to make gold more cheap that could solve the global economic crisis beside scientific ones ."
Ed. Nash (From the game of life)
"All knowledge are fractals or counting on our golden fingers"
Unknown primary school student
Dear Dr. Lisi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm working on book reviews of two recently published popular books aimed at the general reader on quantum physics/"theory of everything," but don't find a clear-cut answer to two of my basic questions. Could you help by gearing your answers for the layperson (and me)? Thanks for the opportunity.
1) I understand that the photon is a "mass-less" particle. If the photon is a material/physical thing, how can it not have a mass?
2) On quantum entanglement/"spooky action at a distance" -- does this really indicate there is such a thing as "faster than light" (or instant) interaction/communication between quantum particles separated by, say, several million miles?
Richard Harkness
Prevention Magazine Expert Drug Advice columnist
McClatchy-Tribune Health & Medicine columnist
1224 King Henry Drive
Ocean Springs, MS 39564
rharkn@aol.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother incidence for showing the supreme capability of E-infinity theory that can explain any thing, nothing and every thing. One can look at the article whose title is
The brain and E-Infinity
Published in International journal of nonlinear sciences and numerical simulation, volume:7,issue: 2, pages:129-132 and published in the year 2006
Abstract:
This short letter, in fact, this short telegram is mainly intended
to point out a recent and quite unexpected realization that E-Infinity space time (E-infinity) theory (M. S. El Naschie,Chaos, Soliton & Fractals, 29 pp. 209-236 2004) could be of a considerable help in deciphering one of the greatest secrets and impenetrable questions of our own existence, namely what is consciousness and how does it relate to the brain(G. M. Edelman. Consciousness. Penguin Books, London,2000).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear E-infinity
I do appreciate telling us about El naschie's local and global coherence.
How these coherence is intimately connected to the idea of negative dimension and VAK conjecture. This coherence could help in explaining the non-Guassinty deviation which has been observed in negative binomial state. The same results recently popped up again in Helmoholtz institute experiment.
In fact the empty set could be assigned negative dimension, by empty set you can generate all integer numbers through a recursive power set construction. The idea of random cantor set of golden and silver dimension is deeply rooted in our experience, even brain reveal strange behavior when these words (Gold and Silver) are mentioned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe future generations would remember us as the golden era of physics and mathematics. In fact, golden in all aspects of knowledge. It was more than enough to have the great man (El naschie) bridging the second and third Melina.
Also would remembered us that we lost the golden chance with experimenting with ropes with knots and instead spending billions of Euros on LHC experiment on CERN.
How many opportunities have been lost without using those ropes with knots.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEl naschie is a real spark in the human written history, he is startling . Al his predictions based on E-infinity theory are well verified. Among many and just to name:
1-The well experimentally verified results about fiber wool pioneered by Huan. Who showed that the Hausdorff dimension of fiber wool is to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360. According to Huan this reveals an optimal structure for wool fibers. This is an easy proved fact and it doesn’t need high energy.
Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 41, Issue 4, 30 August 2009, Pages 1839-1841
Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu
2- A remarkable achievement of El naschie is his unique extra ordinary talent in revealing a deep connection between double slit experiment and particle physics. That is really a breakthrough in the field has never been acheived.
The two-slit experiment as the foundation of E-infinity of high energy physics
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 25, Issue 3, August 2005, Pages 509-514
M.S. El Naschie
3- El naschie is gifted in doing simple calculations and getting non-perturbative results. While ordinary people can get results by using supper computers in a one year, El naschie get the same results straight forward by counting on his fingers without using computer at all. These are due his GOLDEN FINGERS.
On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 1289-1291
M.S. El Naschie
Quarks confinement
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 37, Issue 1, July 2008, Pages 6-8
M.S. El Naschie
4- With a simple rope with knots El naschie could derive the spectrum of possible Elementary particles, and realy this is the discovery of the century.
Any one can just bring a rope with knots and could easily testify El naschie’s conjecture.
Fuzzy multi-instanton knots in the fabric of space–time and Dirac’s vacuum fluctuation
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 38, Issue 5, December 2008, Pages 1260-1268
El naschie may be the greatest thinker in the history of mankind and his theory is the most important discovery since the invention of wheel. El naschie maybe the most remarkable event after cosmic big bang. His theory can describe every thing after big bang and I’m sure El naschie will extend his theory to accommodate what has been before big bang. Please don’t wonder it is an E-infinity theory that could deal with such a long history of time.
Part I
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is true that there is a friendship between the great man El naschie and G. Thooft. It is also true that Thooft knows very well that El naschie is a crackpot, and Thooft himself tried to advice El naschie to do physics in a proper way and to listen his criticis, but no way.
Thooft devoted a page on his website descriping the cruteria of a bad theoretical physicist which nicely fits the case of El naschie. This of course reflects the deep relationships and mutual understanding of each other.
According to tHoof definition and criteria .
Thooft criteria are:
(http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoristbad.html)
1-It is much easier to become a bad theoretical physicist than a good one.
I know of many individual success stories.
El- For sure El Naschie is one of those stories.
2- Compare yourself with Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Paul
Dirac.
El- This happened in many occasions. In his 60th
birthday celebration in China one reads in the preface of the
proceeding dedicated to him the following:
“Our Chinese Scientists on Nonlinear Dynamics are in infinite love
and admiration to both the man and his science.”
“Treading the path of El Naschie, we gather together to celebrate
the century’s greatest scientist after Newton and Einstein,
and share his greatest achievement.”
One can find more on the following link: www.ijnsns.com/conf/China1.doc
3- You may consider the option of connecting your work with mystery
topics such as telepathy and consciousness.
EL- This is one of El Naschie' papers.
The brain and E-Infinity
Published in International journal of nonlinear sciences and numerical simulation
volume:7,issue: 2, pages:129-132 and published in the year 2006
Abstract: This short letter, in fact, this short telegram is mainly intended
to point out a recent and quite unexpected realization that E-Infinity space time (E-infinity) theory (M. S. El Naschie,Chaos, Soliton & Fractals, 29 pp. 209-236 2004) could be of a considerable help in deciphering one of the greatest secrets and impenetrable questions of our own existence, namely what is consciousness and how does it relate to the brain(G. M. Edelman. Consciousness. Penguin Books, London,2000).
Part 2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this5-The bad theoretical physicist, in anticipation,
names his own equations and effects, and even his entire theories, after himself right away.
EL- Feynman-El Naschie Hypothesis, El Naschie local
coherence...etc
6- Try to overshout all your critics, and have your work published anyway.
If the well-established science media refuse to publish your work,
start your own publishing company and edit your own books.
EL- El Naschie founded Chaos Solitons and Fractals journal and has to do with the one in China.
7- Your next step should be to advertise your work. Your reputation may have
caused the xxx ArXives and Wikipedia to refuse your submissions.
EL- El Naschie has been black-listed in xxx ArXives for affiliation arrogating
( forging).( http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0004152). More detail can
be found in ( http://archivefreedom.org/freedom/Cyberia.html).
8- You have convinced your friends at your local bar, your family, your pizza vendor, your dog, and even a local radio station of the superiority of your theory.
El- Mohamed El Naschie answers a few questions about this month's new
hot paper in the field of Engineering. In addition, Dr. El Naschie gives an audio interview about his work.
This is can be found in: http://esi-topics.com/nhp/2006/september-06-MohamedElNaschie
.html
Beside many interviews and TV shows in Egyptian channels.
9- But then there are those few physicists such as one bloke called Gerardus 't Hooft,
who shamelessly have pointed out to you that your theory is nonsense!
Should you take them seriously? Of course not.
Don't even try to show them the details of your derivations,
which you forgot anyway and you might not be able to reproduce on the spot.
Here is what you do to establish your reputation forever: JUST GIVE THEM HELL.
Compare those obnoxious puppets of the establishment with nazis and
threaten them with law suits. That'll teach them.
El- This is can be easily seen from his comments in different
blogs including this blog.
10- Lastly, we ask El Naschie to measure his John Baez index or
crackpot index mentioned in tHooft web
page. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) of course
don't confuse this with Atiyah-Singer or Witten index....
I think with the above ten commands we have shown in an irrefutable way that El Naschie is in one to one correspondence with the criteria of a BAD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST. Congratulations for
being a champ!
Really a good friendship
For me, December's issue of Scientific American was the best in perhaps 35 years - thanks to the Lisi-Weatherall article. Now, how about a 70-page Special Issue to expand on the dozens of concepts that tantalize non-specialists like me?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe appeal of E8 is so deep that it will surely count as the biggest disappointment of the 3rd Millennium if it fails to model reality. I wonder if the same objections still hold as you reported in March/December 2008: "One way of stating the problem is that if the new theory really describes bosons and fermions, then the structure it places them in cannot possibly be a Lie group at all."
Leading-edge physics is littered with claims and counter-claims that turn out to rely on unwarranted assumptions or exhibit unexpected loopholes, so this particular argument probably still has a long way to run. Congratulations to Mr Lisi for having had a
vision and the courage to promote it in the teeth of spectacular venom (and jealousy?).
Thank you, Paul.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wish some mathematician would prove that a theory of everything is impossible so scientists would stop wasting their time and regrettable amounts of money on it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Garrett Lisi!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot so long ago I read your E8 Theory . In your speech on TV TED, you talked about the fact that some particles in your model are not open yet but the logic must be present there, for its completion. You have added their thoughts to complete such a beautiful picture.
I would like to introduce you to a hypothesis which is a particle. Therefore, I venture to suggest that even with the Large Hadron Collider will not be able to open them.
In your speech on TV TED, you cited the analogy with the corals for a better understanding of the theory. Allow me to do the same, because the using of analogies (similarities) are very effective at times)
Analogy:
As shown by our human life, and virtually any science, any physical, chemical, biological, etc. processes can be described and described using mathematics. From the set of all the laws of nature, my favorite is the Law of conservation of energy) on the analogy with the corals you have built a simple theory of everything.
What is the mathematical description? - This INFORMATION.
I venture to suggest that the very particles you have added to the model E8, nothing more than a basic pieces of information!Which are actively interacting with each other and other particles form our consciousness and the world. They are the ones that allow you the basics of the other particles and preparation of these complex combinations in the form of atoms, molecules, etc.
Thus receives energy-information theory of everything)
If we now look at the world with the help of this theory,it is simply divine picture!Though I am an atheist and a pragmatist.
Waiting for your reply.Michael Shevchenko.
In general relativity, we have two quantities:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) Metric, g(x,t), and tensor, G(g),(or R(g)), with the assumption of the existence of space-time. This is one representation of the universe.
(2)Energy -momentum, (P,E), and the energy-momentum stress tensor, T(P,E), with the assumption of the existence of energy-momentum. This is an alternative representation of the same universe.
In general relativity, are we allowed to write: R=constant*T? Are these representations map into the same truth?
Readers Respond to "A Geometric Theory of Everything" .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhysics and Geometry. / My opinion./
---------.
The Modern Physics was started from two points:
thermodynamics and light.
1.
By studying the effect of thermodynamics, physicists came to the
opinion that the physical parameters like volume, temperature and
density (of particles mass) are enough to discover the laws of
thermodynamics, and they didn’t need to know something
concrete about single particle. But then, soon or later, all mass of this
particles will stop it’s moving and the thermal/ radiation death
will come. Is it possible? No, it isn’t , some particles will radiate
and then QT evolved from this idea. Now the situation radically change.
From studying mass of particles in thermodynamics Planck and Einstein
began to study one individual particle (quantum of energy). It seams that
it was logical to think about geometrical form of this particle, but this
did not happen. And still now physicists do not think about concrete
particles, they are concerned about the “mathematical point”.
2.
When physicists studied the behavior of light, they came to the
conclusion that light ( light quanta) can sometime be a particle as a
“ mathematical point” and sometime a wave as a “ mathematical
wave". From behavior of light the SRT was born and here the particle
is also “ mathematical point”. It is hard to understand, why nobody think
about geometrical form of light quanta if it is real particle.
3.
For many years, physicists used Euclidian (static and firm ) geometry
for solving physical problems, and they thought there was only one geometry.
But Lobachevsky and Bolyai had another opinion.
They thought that to use only Euclidian geometry was not enough to
explain all the effects in the Universe. Why, because our Universe is not
static and firm. The physical processes in Universe change all the time
so the Euclidian geometry also has to change. This lead Lobachevsky and
Bolyai to discover Non-Euclidian geometry which is not static but elastic.
4.
Between the XIX and XX century, many physicists such Abraham,
Poincare, Lorentz and Einstein came to the conclusion that the particle
(electron) does not have constant mass, energy and length. This means
that an electron is not a firm particle. The electron is an elastic particle ( SRT)
and therefore his geometrical form can change. All physicists know about
this fact and took this fact in their calculations. But which conclusion can
be done from this fact? They have no answer. Nobody interested about
the borders of this changes.
5.
In 1915 Einstein said the mass and speed (moving mass) can change the
geometry of space. (GRT). It means the physics without geometry is a
limited part of science. It means the physics without geometry is not
complete (whole) part of science.
6.
The situation we see today is similar to the years between 1900 and
1928 when QT was created. Nothing changes.
Mathematicians use Non- Euclidian geometry and they do not know
the power of these changes from Euclidian to Non-Euclidian geometry.
They do not interested how these changes came.
And physicists use forces (energy, impulse, …etc) without know
anything about geometrical changes of particles. They do not think about
this. For them the particle is only represented by a “mathematical point”.
After all, they say the situation in QT is crazy, the Nature is paradoxical.
I know why they say this, because one hand “physical” doesn’t know that
the other hand “geometrical” does.
7.
Can we understand our “ paradoxical” world?
The answer is clear. In the Natural world, physics and geometry
are one unit part in the evolutionary process, and this fact must be
reflected in any future theory of the evolution of matter (as a mass
and as an individual particle).
8.
There are two ways to reflect this process.
One way explained by Einstein in GRT as a man who observed
the situation from outside.
Another way can be explained by Lobachevsky / Bolyai geometry
using it in conjunction with the inner (!) impulse of Planck-Einstein (h)
and the inner (!) impulse of Goudsmit – Uhlenbeck (h=h/2pi)..
Questions:
1) Where does the Planck/Einstein factor h come from?
2) Where does the Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck factor h=h/2pi come from?
3) What is the physical difference between h and h=h/2pi in the Nature.
4) Can the process of evolution go without geometrical changes?
Without the physical/ geometrical theory we cannot answer these questions.
-----------------------.
The Natural world is not a “mathematical point”.
Even the smallest object must have a geometrical form.
And on my opinion, only when we begin to think about light quanta as
a particle with a geometrical form we come from image to reality.
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
dear mr.Lisi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Mr.Lisi
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi am currently doing a project for my 8th grade science class, the project is a research mini-teach on a selected topic. the topic i chose to compleat my project on is ofcourse the hardest one your "E-8 theory of everything"(i chose it because i am a thick headed nimrod who likes to be challenged and i am interested in your theory even though i had only heard about it 2 days ago)i would like to get in touch with you about your theory because of this(a simple reply to this reply would be nice)
sincearly,
James
"The worst thing about having a working theory of everything is that people want you to fix theirs."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you, Dr Lisi Garrett, I have taken note of that, but this is no request for 'fixing' anything; it's simply to humbly draw your kind and expert attention to the fundamental fact that that I sincerely hold as paramount to any physics 'unionist': Ours is a universe of vibrations, where frequencies and wavelengths abound and dominate at all levels, from the subatomic to the cosmic, with the atom as the basic vibrant entity, absorbing mass-energy over its inhalation half cycle and emitting an equal quantum over the following exhalation half cycle (at steady state), the effect of which we detect as the atom's natural frequency of vibration. In oblivion of this vibrational reality of matter, or mass-energy, in our universe, no theory “leading to a long-sought unification of physics,” I am sorry to say, is ever going to transpire. Do care to take a few minutes of your valuable time to check out the one-page summary (1).
It’s history now, but the late Dr Eugene F Mallove, Editor-in-Chief of Infinite Energy (2), impressed with the presentation of my concept at the APS meeting in Washington DC on 30 April 2001, published my paper (3) with a bold, two-page editorial: “Why We Are Publishing Eugene Sittampalam’s ‘Cosmic Microwave Background and the Unification of Physics,’” preceding my six-page paper, in Issue 53 (Jan-Feb 2004)of the magazine (4). He defended the publication against critics in the following issue. It was most unfortunate for good science that he was mysteriously murdered just a month later (May 2004) in his parents' home by, what the police believe was, a burglar. And we all lost a great defender of truth and transparency in science, a science sans bias and vested interest. But good, clean science will and must prevail!
(1) http://www.sittampalam.net/Summary.pdf
(2) http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Eugene_Mallove
(3) http://www.sittampalam.net/Synopsis.htm
(4) http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue53/index.html
Thank you all for your time here. Cheers!
......at the deepest level, all physical phenomena match the patterns of some beautiful mathematical structure....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear GarrettLisi
Isn't this beauty that Plato implies in his Timaeus [ "MOST BEAUTIFUL TRIANGLE" and " MOST BEAUTIFUL BOND"
but interpreting and decoding was, apparently, obscure?
Regards from Athens,
Panagiotis Stefanides