Slashdot Mirror
A New Theory of Everything?
goatherder writes "The Telegraph is running a story about a new Unified Theory of Physics. Garrett Lisi has presented a paper called "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" which unifies the Standard Model with gravity — without using string theory. The trick was to use E8 geometry which you may remember from an earlier Slashdot article. Lisi's theory predicts 20 new particles which he hopes might turn up in the Large Hadron Collider."
If I'm reading this right anyway, which I may well not be.
It's more a very good argument for what he thinks the solution will looks like. The mathematics is low enough that I can (barely) understand it well enough to follow the general argument, but certainly not well enough to be able to catch any oversights. But it's the first thing I've seen in a long time that looked simple enough I felt like I could hit the books and maybe get to a point where I *could* understand it properly. (He says, as if he's really done the last three or four things like that he promised himself he would do. My head exploded reading the first volume of "Art of Computer Programming" and I haven't got in gear to finish *that* yet either.)
But it sure *looks* pretty.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Aging occurs because getting old is not evolutionarily beneficial (on the genetic level) in the original environment.
It's not so much that old age was selected against, it's that old age was not selected for. Obviously, as an organism grows older, its likely survival decreases due to predators, accidents, etc. Thus, those humans who had the gene "good health at old age" were just as likely to reproduce as those humans who did not have such a genetic advantage.
This is easily demonstrated at the bottom of the food chain, where prey organisms have very short lifespans but reproduce in large quantities quickly.
As to stopping aging, humans spend tons of effort and money on that (cosmetics, medicine), but it's not as simple as one quick fix, and short of genetically engineering our progeny, there's not going to be an immortal human.
Further, many genes that deal with aging probably have negative consequences later in life. Simple example: When we're young and learning, rapid growth and pruning of our neural networks is beneficial, but such cellular behavior could be negative for functioning in society at a later age.
In all honesty, I don't want to live forever. I want to get old and die, and I'd much rather know the secrets of the universe than work for hundreds of years and never retire. I think most people would agree - we all just want to age more comfortably.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
First of all, I think it's amusing that that the first post was modded as "redundant", but on to the topic at hand:
Biology has at least 1 famous 'Surfer Dude'; Kary Mullis. The guy was granted the Nobel prize for inventing PCR (polymerase chain reaction) which is arguably the most important processe in modern genetics or biotechnology. From what I know of the guy, he's a complete whack-job as well, claiming that hallucinogenic drugs led him to the discovery. He surfs frequently as well. Add in a few alien abduction stories and some other relatively crazy stuff and you get an idea of what he's like. Still, it's hard to argue with a Nobel prize winner.
"Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
for a double major in two hard science disciplines. This isn't some foo-foo private university where they'll graduate you in 4 no matter what you do, it's two degrees from a University of California campus. Lots of classes that are required are taught only once a year -- or sometimes even every other year. If you can't get a spot in the class, tough. You get to spend an extra year. God forbid you have two required courses that are only taught once a year -- and they're scheduled at the same hour. It's not uncommon for people to get "out of sequence"... and spend an extra year. (I speak from experience on that front)
Clifford Algebras, Grassman Algebras, Spacetime Algebra, and Geometric Algebra are a group of mathematics notations that are related to the ones being used here. The notation in use has interesting properties that make it more likely that an equation will be valid in any number of dimensions, embeds the behavior of complex numbers, quaternions, hypercomplex numbers in a purely real system, etc.
I have read of ideas for unifying physics by using these notations for their superior ability to reason with space. (David Hestenes has good examples.) A good physical theory should be like a consistent programmer's interface. If the "code" continues to become unwieldly over time, then a point will be reached where rewrites must be done in order to eliminate special cases and bring out hidden symmetries.
This particular paper may end up failing important tests, but it does seem clear that at some point Clifford Algebras will end up being the thing that ended up simplifying physics.
Thank you for this summary, it's completely accurate.
-Garrett
(Yes, I'm the author of the paper. Hey look, my server's melting -- must of hit slashdot...)
Ha! I agree.
-Garrett
Garrett,
:) But a hallmark of your theory seems to be that it's conceptually understandable even to those who don't understand all of the intricate parts.
You have no idea how your reply makes me feel, as I'm someone who stopped studying physics as a Freshman in college and can barely grasp the basic ideas behind the whole thing.
I admit I'm still a bit skeptical... I mean, if E8 is the answer, why did none of the other E8 approaches work? But you're doing some unique things in your approach and in them may lie the answer. Almost makes me wish I had stayed in physics, but the math is just beyond me.
Good luck!
I found a cool video that explains it all.
Well, personally I still don't understand a thing, but it looks cool anyways, and hey, what wouldn't one do for karma points!
You just got troll'd!
On the other hand, Grigori Perelman's proof of the Poincare Conjecture was only submitted to the ArXiv, and he actually turned down the Field's Medal.