Thanks for the overview henry_m! I've always found a bit of a synopsis about what I'm about to study keeps me more focused :)
I'm kind of starting a bit before i). I'm trying to get up to speed on "groups" in general before proceeding on to Lie Groups. I've download a few pdf books.
Anyway...
Hi,
Ya..I'm getting most of my info off wikipedia (garbage-in garbage-out).
I was trying to extrapolate from E8 (which I thought was a Lie group) to to the Leech lattice. On wikipedia the entry for E8 says..."E8 is any of several closely related exceptional simple Lie groups, linear algebraic...
Hrm...ya-I guess maybe this would work huh? It results in a never ending race between measure/countermeasure which would be...tiring. But it could work. It doesn't necessarily follow that 'would' work, but it would at least be possible.
I dunno...I guess time will tell. Judging by the...
You are preaching to choir here :)
But nukes are 'controlled.' It need not be the case the next BIG discovery requires such difficult to obtain materials...maybe a trip to Radioshack is all that's needed.
And while true, major conflicts seem to have diminished due to fear of the horror...
What if a discovery would result in putting a huge amount 'power' into the hands of everyone?
Ya know? e=mc^2 "just" resulted in nukes, and they are hard to make. What if a discovery brought that kind of power into the hands of anyone that wanted it?
Just a thought! :)
I am not saying that all. I am just asking for people to be careful.
Also, I don't know what the solution is. I think some secure way of 'doing science', and discussing it ought to be implemented. But what form would that take? How would it be implemented? How would you decide who a 'good'...
A Plea for "THINK before you PUBLISH!"
I posted this here because this is really an ethics question. This is a plea to those here at PF that actually 'work' in physics and publish papers. And those who may 'one day' publish.
So I'm pretty much a 'nobody' in the science world, but I've been...
Right! And the more I think about it, the more I realize that in a 'TRUE' TOE some of the items in this list would imply other items (and vice versa). And some items would just be redundant.
Great-thank you.
So, so far I'm on the right track in compiling a list of the 'big' observations that must be explained?
Oh..I forgot. g) dark energy dark matter ratio
Anything else?
Another silly question here :)
What are some of the cosmological observations a TOE must agree with? (I'm making a list)
Some that I can think of...
a) redshift data (Type 1a supernovas, etc.)
b) element ratios (Hydrogen, Helium,...)
c) bias toward 'matter' rather than 'antimatter'
d) CMB...
Hello,
Maybe a strange question here (I'm not 100% current with the standard model), but does the standard model say anything about a change in the ratios of fermions as the universe expands?
(I see Generations I, II & III listed)