Physics Forums - View Single Post - An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything!

**marcus** · Nov15-07, 10:06 PM

I'm concerned about simple question-answering fatigue. (Not on my part. I'm laid back and quite often let questions go for a day or two.)

the two that keep coming up, though answered by G.L. many times at Bee's, are
1)adding fermions and bosons
2) Colemandula

Abhay Ashtekar, the wise old Elephant of quantum gravity, has given us plenty with which to beat down the Colemandula objection if we just get up the gumption to do it.
He said it was a "completely different framework". He's smart and saw this right away.

But there are some string theorists who are slow to get it (like AzMa's kken on reddit, and like some at Bees blog). Read my lips, says Ashtekar: Colemandula does not apply here.

the other question I have the feeling CarlB could explain to me why 'tis not a problem.
I keep hearing about Z₂ graded algebras. That is a very simple mathematical idea, just a direct sum of two and a rule that when multiplying you add the grades mod 2.
I have this idea, please tell me if I am wrong, that it would ease things if only everyone in discussion was familiar with the idea of a Z₂ graded algebra. If I'm wrong, don't bother to explain why, just tell me I'm on the wrong tack.
===================

Ashtekar said another really wise thing at the seminar: "You have to solve problems one at a time."

I think that means that a theory is developed by successive approximations. If some facet looks almost right, you leave it for the moment and go fix something else. The next time round, with the next version, it's better and so on.
Something the present version seems to have in spades is predictivity. Instead of yelling all these reasons why they think the theory can't possibly work (which tend to be based on misunderstanding) you'd think we could all accept the fact that it MIGHT work and wait politely to see some of the predictions, which are surely going to be derived.

Nov15-07, 10:06 PM	Last edited by marcus; Nov15-07 at 10:37 PM.. #95
marcus marcus is Offline: Posts: 14,996 Recognitions: PF Contributor Science Advisor	I'm concerned about simple question-answering fatigue. (Not on my part. I'm laid back and quite often let questions go for a day or two.) the two that keep coming up, though answered by G.L. many times at Bee's, are 1)adding fermions and bosons 2) Colemandula Abhay Ashtekar, the wise old Elephant of quantum gravity, has given us plenty with which to beat down the Colemandula objection if we just get up the gumption to do it. He said it was a "completely different framework". He's smart and saw this right away. But there are some string theorists who are slow to get it (like AzMa's kken on reddit, and like some at Bees blog). Read my lips, says Ashtekar: Colemandula does not apply here. the other question I have the feeling CarlB could explain to me why 'tis not a problem. I keep hearing about Z₂ graded algebras. That is a very simple mathematical idea, just a direct sum of two and a rule that when multiplying you add the grades mod 2. I have this idea, please tell me if I am wrong, that it would ease things if only everyone in discussion was familiar with the idea of a Z₂ graded algebra. If I'm wrong, don't bother to explain why, just tell me I'm on the wrong tack. =================== Ashtekar said another really wise thing at the seminar: "You have to solve problems one at a time." I think that means that a theory is developed by successive approximations. If some facet looks almost right, you leave it for the moment and go fix something else. The next time round, with the next version, it's better and so on. Something the present version seems to have in spades is predictivity. Instead of yelling all these reasons why they think the theory can't possibly work (which tend to be based on misunderstanding) you'd think we could all accept the fact that it MIGHT work and wait politely to see some of the predictions, which are surely going to be derived.