E8

[Papes]

I recently read an article about the next Einstein, a surf/snowboard bum who just wrote a new model of the universe on the same scale of string theory. What i remember of it was that the 244(?) verticied shape that, when the equation of the shape was written out in newspaper print would cover the same space as the island of Manhattan. Can anyone help fill me in?

Edited May 3, 2008 by Papes

[y_feldblum]

The paper was an attempt to unify all of physics into an extremely complicated mathematical structure known as E8.

E8 is not a shape. However, it is possible to capture a small fraction of the information contained within E8 in some extraordinarily complicated graphs and even

- but these depictions, unfortunately, are much more entertaining than enlightening.

Garrett Lisi's paper contains no new physical predictions and is not based on physical evidence. It is based on a technique of capturing essential similarities between different kinds of equations. But his paper tends not to stand up to scrutiny.

Edited May 4, 2008 by y_feldblum

[EC]

Is this a form of M-theory?

[y_feldblum]

According to Wikipedia, M-theory is a unification of various approaches to string theory. Garrett Lisi's approach is not a kind of string theory.

[punk]

Is this a form of M-theory?

No, it is a conventional quantum field theory with the symmetries of E8.

As I understood the paper, the inclusion of gravity would go by way of loop quantum gravity.

I recently read an article about the next Einstein, a surf/snowboard bum who just wrote a new model of the universe on the same scale of string theory. What i remember of it was that the 244(?) verticied shape that, when the equation of the shape was written out in newspaper print would cover the same space as the island of Manhattan. Can anyone help fill me in?

E8 is just a very very complicated algebra.

People had actually been looking at E8 for a while for some sort of unification.

As I recall he is simply trying to establish that the U1xSU2xSU3 algebra of the standard model comes out as a subalgebra of E8, and of course that other particles are predicted (since the full algebra will contain more particles than the subalgebra).

I recall also that he got the three generations of leptons and quarks to come out fairly nicely as well.

The generations of leptons are:

electron / electron neutrino

muon / muon neutrino

tauon / tauon neutrino

The generations of quarks are:

up / down

charmed / strange

top / bottom

[eriatarka]

I recently read an article about the next Einstein, a surf/snowboard bum[...]

This is media sensationalism: the guy had a PhD in theoretical physics, he just happened to like surfing. Yeah, he wasnt working in academia at the time but its not like he was some random beach dude who woke up one day with a new theory in his head.

Edited June 17, 2008 by eriatarka

[ruveyn ben yosef]

I recently read an article about the next Einstein, a surf/snowboard bum who just wrote a new model of the universe on the same scale of string theory. What i remember of it was that the 244(?) verticied shape that, when the equation of the shape was written out in newspaper print would cover the same space as the island of Manhattan. Can anyone help fill me in?

I think the article implied that the "next Einstein" would not be a member of the academic research establishment. The "first Einstein" was not a university employed physicist*; rather he was a patent office clear. Perhaps the n.E. will be employed by a corporation in some technical capacity, or perhaps physics will be a hobby for him. There are instances of amateurs making significant contributions to physics.

For example, Johann Jakob Balmer, a math teacher found a number theoretic formula for wave lengths in various spectra. At first, his discovery was dismissed as numerology, but it turns out he got a special case of action multiples of Planck's Constant. His result was not appreciated until Niels Bohr discovered why spectral lines from a hydrogen atom were discrete.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmer_series

and

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~histor...ies/Balmer.html

ruveyn

*prior to gaining fame and notice for his theory of electrodynamics, the "first Einstein" (Albert) was a somewhat failed student of physics. He had rubbed some physics teacher in academe the wrong way.

[eriatarka]

I think the article implied that the "next Einstein" would not be a member of the academic research establishment. The "first Einstein" was not a university employed physicist*; rather he was a patent office clear. Perhaps the n.E. will be employed by a corporation in some technical capacity, or perhaps physics will be a hobby for him. There are instances of amateurs making significant contributions to physics.

For example, Johann Jakob Balmer, a math teacher found a number theoretic formula for wave lengths in various spectra. At first, his discovery was dismissed as numerology, but it turns out he got a special case of action multiples of Planck's Constant. His result was not appreciated until Niels Bohr discovered why spectral lines from a hydrogen atom were discrete.

Do you not think that things have changed significantly since then? In the early 1900s it was somewhat possible for a layman to be informed about the fronteirs of physics whereas now it takes many many years even to understand the problems which are being studied in cutting edge research let alone come up with a solution. Theoretical physics is a lot more complicated now than it was back then and theres much more that you would need to know before you could start addressing relevant problems. Yeah its still possible for amateurs to make signifncant contributions but it seems less likely.

The same applies to mathematics: amateurs making significant contributions wasnt very unusual a few centuries ago, but it would be very surprising if an amateur made a significant contribution to one of the more established branches of pure mathematics now, since the field has enlarged so much.

Edited June 17, 2008 by eriatarka

[ruveyn ben yosef]

The same applies to mathematics: amateurs making significant contributions wasnt very unusual a few centuries ago, but it would be very surprising if an amateur made a significant contribution to one of the more established branches of pure mathematics now, since the field has enlarged so much.

You are probably right about physics. As for mathematics, it is a low capital undertaking. One needs is

1. talent

2. effort to learn the field

3. the time to spend on solving outstanding problems.

4. And some kind of sponsorship or contact within academe. Being employed by a university is helpful but not absolutely necessary.

One does not need zillion dollar laboratories or particle accelerators.

If a mathematically talented person has a job that is not too time and energy demanding and pays a sufficient wage to keep the person healthy, such a person could make contributions. He would probably need an academic sponsor to back up entries he makes on arXive but if he work is up to snuff he has a reasonable chance of being published. Einstein had such a job and he had some backing from Max Planck to get published. Since his work was in the theory, he did not need equipment. All he need was access to the literature. One could still do theoretical physics that way, but to be taken seriously one needs some contacts either in industry or in academe.

Mathematics is easier to break into from the outside than physics, chemistry or any of the high capital sciences. It is easier still if the outsider is willing to accept co-authorship with someone on the inside.

ruveyn

[EC]

Do you not think that things have changed significantly since then? In the early 1900s it was somewhat possible for a layman to be informed about the fronteirs of physics whereas now it takes many many years even to understand the problems which are being studied in cutting edge research let alone come up with a solution. Theoretical physics is a lot more complicated now than it was back then and theres much more that you would need to know before you could start addressing relevant problems. Yeah its still possible for amateurs to make signifncant contributions but it seems less likely.

This is not true, most people are just scared of physics, thinking that they have to be some sort of genius to

understand advanced physics. This is simply not true. Because of financial problems and other setbacks I still have about a year to go to get my B.S. in theoretical physics, which I will still do "one day". But even as a freshman I was attending and understanding advanced colloquium's and was invited to do a summer internship at Cornell University studying the strong force potential that I had to turn down do to medical problems at the time. My point is I'm definitely NOT a genius-- my I.Q. is only about 130 +/- 5 points. So if I can do it anyone can.

[eriatarka]

You are probably right about physics. As for mathematics, it is a low capital undertaking. One needs is

1. talent

2. effort to learn the field

3. the time to spend on solving outstanding problems.

4. And some kind of sponsorship or contact within academe. Being employed by a university is helpful but not absolutely necessary.

One does not need zillion dollar laboratories or particle accelerators.

Theoretical physics is largely just mathematics though. The E8 thing is an example: its a purely mathematical result, as was the example you mentioned. There's no specialised equipment needed to do this sort of stuff.

What you said would be true if we were talking about contributing to experimental physics though.

This is not true, most people are just scared of physics, thinking that they have to be some sort of genius to understand advanced physics. This is simply not true. Because of financial problems and other setbacks I still have about a year to go to get my B.S. in theoretical physics, which I will still do "one day".

Theres a pretty huge difference between having a BSc and being able to read cutting-edge journals though, especially in a subject like theoretical physics where the gap between undergraduate level and advanced research is quite large. I have a masters degree in mathematics but that doesnt mean I'm going to be able to read an article on the Langlands program and understand more than the first sentence.

I'm not even sure what a BSc in theoretical physics means really, I doubt youd get anything more than the most basic exposure (if that) to quantum field theory/general relativity at undergrad level, and thats all 50 years old anyway. I dont think most universities even teach QFT to undergrads.

My point is I'm definitely NOT a genius-- my I.Q. is only about 130 +/- 5 points. So if I can do it anyone can.

Well I dont really believe in IQ as a measure of intelligence and I've no idea how it correlates with research potential, but even if it did measure something important then an IQ of 130 would put you in the top 2.5% of the population so I'm not sure that supports the claim that "anyone can do it". Edited June 17, 2008 by eriatarka