I will keep updating this thread as the theory matures. Enjoy :
Is mathematical pattern the theory of everything?
17 November 2007
Zeeya Merali
Magazine issue 2630
GARRETT LISI is an unlikely individual to be staking a claim for a theory of everything. He has no university affiliation and spends most of the year surfing in Hawaii. In winter, he heads to the mountains near Lake Tahoe, California, to teach snowboarding. Until recently, physics was not much more than a hobby.
That hasn't stopped some leading physicists sitting up and taking notice after Lisi made his theory public on the physics pre-print archive this week (www.arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770). By analysing the most elegant and intricate pattern known to mathematics, Lisi has uncovered a relationship underlying all the universe's particles and forces, including gravity - or so he hopes. Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (PI) in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, describes Lisi's work as "fabulous". "It is one of the most compelling unification models I've seen in many, many years," he says.
That's some achievement, ...
The complete article is 1474 words long.
Video explanation here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xHw9zcCvRQ
Source : <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626303.900" target="_blank">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626303.900</a>
UPDATE : It has now reached Fox news : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311952,00.html
Full Version: The new unifying theory
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Metaphysics, Psychology & Psychic Phenomena
YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW AMAZING THAT IS TO ME!!
science and physics just excite me so
science and physics just excite me so
I'm sure it would be amazing to me aswell if i could only hear the damn audio 
*runs to buy new headphones
*runs to buy new headphones
that is pretty amazing! It's nice to know we're still making advancements in the attempt to understand everything. 
I saw this yesterday, and almost posted it on here as well. I am not a physicist, nor a mathematician, so I am not really able to understand. I wasn't able to find the original paper that started it all either.
Is anyone in here able to explain this to me? I am intelligent, but I don't know the terminology. I would greatly appreciate someone breaking it down for me!
Is anyone in here able to explain this to me? I am intelligent, but I don't know the terminology. I would greatly appreciate someone breaking it down for me!
In simple words?
I'd advice everyone to give it a little time. Theory is very fresh so right now science magasines are trying to harvest some money on it.
If it holds water, you're all gonna hear about it trust me. And you're gonna feel the effects because it could be one of the hugest breakthroughs in understanding and exploiting the very core energy that makes gravity pull, and time running. The "god" energy if you will.
I have never seen a unifying theory recieve such positive feedback from actual scientists. String theory and dark matter theories always smelled like fantasy to me, and finally it seems someone has found a link without having to "invent" invisible matter and dimensions.
A unifying theory that makes sense, is the first step toward TOTAL DOMINATION OF THE UNIVERSE *a lightning strikes and III lifts his hands toward the sky* MUAHAHAHAHA MUAAAAAHAHAHHAHA MUUUUUUUUAAAAAHAHAHAHAH *lightning strikes and hits III in the head* *silence*
UPDATED with more info from fox news : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311952,00.html
If it holds water, you're all gonna hear about it trust me. And you're gonna feel the effects because it could be one of the hugest breakthroughs in understanding and exploiting the very core energy that makes gravity pull, and time running. The "god" energy if you will.
I have never seen a unifying theory recieve such positive feedback from actual scientists. String theory and dark matter theories always smelled like fantasy to me, and finally it seems someone has found a link without having to "invent" invisible matter and dimensions.
A unifying theory that makes sense, is the first step toward TOTAL DOMINATION OF THE UNIVERSE *a lightning strikes and III lifts his hands toward the sky* MUAHAHAHAHA MUAAAAAHAHAHHAHA MUUUUUUUUAAAAAHAHAHAHAH *lightning strikes and hits III in the head* *silence*
UPDATED with more info from fox news : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311952,00.html
The "theory" can be read HERE. I have not read it all yet. At the moment it is a purely mathematical construct with no observation. Math can be made to do funny things in unifying theories. From what I have read thus far it is very intricate. The theory though has many serious kinks that will be need to get worked out.
To those of you jumping with glee, not to be a downer, but a unifying theory of everything is proposed at least once a year. And there is always some distinguished professor of physics somewhere to jump on board and call it the most extravagant and best ToE he has read in years.....
It will be interesting to see if some of the minor predictions of this theory hold out, that will open up grants to search for some more of these particles he has predicted. At this point, it is another hypothesis (not actually a theory) and nothing to get to excited about.
To those of you jumping with glee, not to be a downer, but a unifying theory of everything is proposed at least once a year. And there is always some distinguished professor of physics somewhere to jump on board and call it the most extravagant and best ToE he has read in years.....
It will be interesting to see if some of the minor predictions of this theory hold out, that will open up grants to search for some more of these particles he has predicted. At this point, it is another hypothesis (not actually a theory) and nothing to get to excited about.
Can anyone elaborate a little ?
Sama
Sama
QUOTE (Sama @ Nov 18 2007, 01:32 AM) 
Can anyone elaborate a little ?
Sama
Sama
The best i can do is tell you that, so far a man has made a diagram that prooves that there's a mathematical link between all forces in the universe. But if he wants it to work on not just paper, he's gonna have to proove the existance of quite a few new particles that his theory relies on. It's interesting, but personally after more careful reading i think it's flawed at it's fundament. I think he's running his head against a wall by building this on standard theory.
I am a firm "follower" of "Space Time Mass" theory. A theory that is beeing overlooked way too much. I can write abit about this theory here since some of you seem to be insterested in alternative theories. I'll start a new thread on it.
I have read it.
I've been meaning to comment on this now for some time but refrained since (forgive me) it may be a bit too much for some here but since some are genuinely asking here it goes...mind you I'm trying not to be too technical so if you believe I'm using the wrong terms - it's intentional just so that it is more easily understood (still not easy though).
What Garrett Lisi has done is employ an EXCEPTIONAL and SIMPLE (not in the terms we're used to) LIE (pronounced "LEE") group, specifically E8, to unifiy all the forces (weak, strong, EM and gravity), particles and interactions defined in the Standart Model (SM) in one STRUCTURE - the Lie E8 group. Hence the quite appropriate "Exceptionally simple Theory of Everything" - now you have somewhat of an idea why the title of the paper was called what it is.
The STRUCTURE is purely a mathematical 8 dimensional space that 'maps' onto our 3+1 (3 space + 1 time) dimensions and describes ALL the interactions that are allowed between ALL the particles that we know of (and some 20 new particles that we have not yet detected).
As it currently stands, the Standard Model (the resultant model of Quantum Mechanics) is described by a handful of Lie groups (resultant of Lie Algebra), however, Garett has recognised that a larger-encompassing group (E8) that was found a long time ago but only solved earlier this year (the solution of which if written in 6pt font would cover Manhattan btw) had similar equations to what he's been working on. He then broke up this E8 group into the groups that QM/SM has been utilising and found that everything fits and has the correct relationships as we find in nature.
HOWEVER, here's the problem, it does not EXPLAIN nature even if it is right - and it is early days for that, although I am quite optimistic about his work. By this I mean that he may have found the structure that 'binds' all the particles and interactions we find in nature but everything had to be put into it to fit what we find in nature. Think of it like a mathematical structure (Lie Groups) ie. some buckets that hold equations and mathematics (Lie algebra) that say how the buckets work together and then someone comes along and puts, 'by hand' the right 'things' into the buckets and it all seems to fit. Furthermore, for those that are familiar, there is such a thing as symmetry breaking that has also been put in 'by hand' into the structure. What this means is that the whole setup does NOT explain things such as symmetry breaking or why nature should even use such a mathematical structure that for the time being (whilst having not been peer-reviewed much as yet) seems to fit.
If it is found to be correct, what it means for physicists (AS IT STANDS) is that instead of using a handful of seemingly disconnected Lie groups for the Standard Model, they will be using a Larger group (E8) that is an encompassing group of these seemingly disconnected ones. EXCEPT for having these new particles/interactions that should prove/disprove the theory when the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) goes functional next year.
Don't worry though, most people here will still be asking all the philosophical questions that have always been asked except maybe we'll have an extra layer to consider in all of it - or maybe not, it's too early to tell.
The biggest impact this would have, if true, would be on string theory, it would truly spell its demise, IMO.
Cheers
Guardian
I've been meaning to comment on this now for some time but refrained since (forgive me) it may be a bit too much for some here but since some are genuinely asking here it goes...mind you I'm trying not to be too technical so if you believe I'm using the wrong terms - it's intentional just so that it is more easily understood (still not easy though).
What Garrett Lisi has done is employ an EXCEPTIONAL and SIMPLE (not in the terms we're used to) LIE (pronounced "LEE") group, specifically E8, to unifiy all the forces (weak, strong, EM and gravity), particles and interactions defined in the Standart Model (SM) in one STRUCTURE - the Lie E8 group. Hence the quite appropriate "Exceptionally simple Theory of Everything" - now you have somewhat of an idea why the title of the paper was called what it is.
The STRUCTURE is purely a mathematical 8 dimensional space that 'maps' onto our 3+1 (3 space + 1 time) dimensions and describes ALL the interactions that are allowed between ALL the particles that we know of (and some 20 new particles that we have not yet detected).
As it currently stands, the Standard Model (the resultant model of Quantum Mechanics) is described by a handful of Lie groups (resultant of Lie Algebra), however, Garett has recognised that a larger-encompassing group (E8) that was found a long time ago but only solved earlier this year (the solution of which if written in 6pt font would cover Manhattan btw) had similar equations to what he's been working on. He then broke up this E8 group into the groups that QM/SM has been utilising and found that everything fits and has the correct relationships as we find in nature.
HOWEVER, here's the problem, it does not EXPLAIN nature even if it is right - and it is early days for that, although I am quite optimistic about his work. By this I mean that he may have found the structure that 'binds' all the particles and interactions we find in nature but everything had to be put into it to fit what we find in nature. Think of it like a mathematical structure (Lie Groups) ie. some buckets that hold equations and mathematics (Lie algebra) that say how the buckets work together and then someone comes along and puts, 'by hand' the right 'things' into the buckets and it all seems to fit. Furthermore, for those that are familiar, there is such a thing as symmetry breaking that has also been put in 'by hand' into the structure. What this means is that the whole setup does NOT explain things such as symmetry breaking or why nature should even use such a mathematical structure that for the time being (whilst having not been peer-reviewed much as yet) seems to fit.
If it is found to be correct, what it means for physicists (AS IT STANDS) is that instead of using a handful of seemingly disconnected Lie groups for the Standard Model, they will be using a Larger group (E8) that is an encompassing group of these seemingly disconnected ones. EXCEPT for having these new particles/interactions that should prove/disprove the theory when the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) goes functional next year.
Don't worry though, most people here will still be asking all the philosophical questions that have always been asked except maybe we'll have an extra layer to consider in all of it - or maybe not, it's too early to tell.
The biggest impact this would have, if true, would be on string theory, it would truly spell its demise, IMO.
Cheers
Guardian
One day physicists will come to realize that everything is infinite consciousness and has always been eternally One. The mystics of long ago have always had it right. Physics has still hardly caught up. There needs to be a change of focus. That is less focus on matter and more focus on consciousness.
I am intrigued by this new theory, I just hope that it is not pounced upon by those wishing to promote some sort of 'religious unification' as has happened with so much other wonderful science.
yeah its gonna be a heartbreaker if its disproved next year. but theres such big gaps. I mean 30 something or whatever slots to fill in, are they even arranged correctly? but I am a believer and hoppe it plays out. but even if it does what does it really answer, nothing. Its a little more abour how but not about why. It also diminshes our chances of mattering. If math really can explain everything, then there really is no free will. Unless we through some sort of chaos equation into the mix.
Thank you AI_Guardian~
Your explanation helped a little bit, I appreciate it. I just don't think I know enough about quantum mechanics or mathematics to be able to get the whole picture.
The title of the paper is kind of misleading lol. It's only simple if you have an understanding of what the question of everything was in the first place.
Your explanation helped a little bit, I appreciate it. I just don't think I know enough about quantum mechanics or mathematics to be able to get the whole picture.
The title of the paper is kind of misleading lol. It's only simple if you have an understanding of what the question of everything was in the first place.
Just wanna update because i mistakenly deleted the link to the video explanation during a quickedit. Here it is again for anyone who missed it : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xHw9zcCvRQ
QUOTE (camlax @ Nov 17 2007, 03:25 PM)
The "theory" can be read HERE. I have not read it all yet. At the moment it is a purely mathematical construct with no observation. Math can be made to do funny things in unifying theories. From what I have read thus far it is very intricate. The theory though has many serious kinks that will be need to get worked out.
To those of you jumping with glee, not to be a downer, but a unifying theory of everything is proposed at least once a year. And there is always some distinguished professor of physics somewhere to jump on board and call it the most extravagant and best ToE he has read in years.....
It will be interesting to see if some of the minor predictions of this theory hold out, that will open up grants to search for some more of these particles he has predicted. At this point, it is another hypothesis (not actually a theory) and nothing to get to excited about.
To those of you jumping with glee, not to be a downer, but a unifying theory of everything is proposed at least once a year. And there is always some distinguished professor of physics somewhere to jump on board and call it the most extravagant and best ToE he has read in years.....
It will be interesting to see if some of the minor predictions of this theory hold out, that will open up grants to search for some more of these particles he has predicted. At this point, it is another hypothesis (not actually a theory) and nothing to get to excited about.
I tend not to trust math so much. I don't know the exact site/source, but supposedly according to mathmatics humans dont exist. Some mathmatician produced an equation and porbably checked it over a few times... Wow, I'd really put my faith into a system that says WE DONT EXIST!
QUOTE (The_Wiccan_Psychic @ Nov 19 2007, 12:13 PM)
I tend not to trust math so much. I don't know the exact site/source, but supposedly according to mathmatics humans dont exist. Some mathmatician produced an equation and porbably checked it over a few times... Wow, I'd really put my faith into a system that says WE DONT EXIST!
You should put your faith in us not existing. You are being sarcastic but you also are ill-informed and havent thought it through. You simply have to question what does it mean to be something? it means to not be nothing right? well thats a double negative so tackle that problem and define nothing and understand what nothing means and you'll be on the way to understanding why and how we must not exist in order to exist.
Funny i was thinking that as i was walking along today. I don't exist, my body exists, i'm just the cause of that effect. A passenger along for a ride, who vanishes when it's over, like when a dream stops. I'm nothing, how could i be anything ?
The deep question is 'define nothing'. How can we define something that doesnt exist?
QUOTE (III @ Nov 20 2007, 03:38 AM)
Funny i was thinking that as i was walking along today. I don't exist, my body exists, i'm just the cause of that effect. A passenger along for a ride, who vanishes when it's over, like when a dream stops. I'm nothing, how could i be anything ?
How could you be nothing when you are something?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.