Garrett Lisi paper subject of Baez TWF 253

In summary, JB starts This Week's Finds talking about the paper Garrett just presented at the Loops '07 conference. He says that Garrett's work is not very good and that it is better to start from C^4 instead of C^5. He also suggests further developments of this discussion here: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=572#comment-26533 or other nntp: reader, such as http://groups.google.es/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/680c64423923229e/0189a3018b31fcd4.
  • #1
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,775
792
JB starts This Week's Finds talking about the paper Garrett just presented at the Loops '07 conference

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week253.html

what the Standard Model looks like
and why steps toward unification (like Garrett's) look the way the do.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
marcus said:
JB starts This Week's Finds talking about the paper Garrett just presented at the Loops '07 conference

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week253.html

what the Standard Model looks like
and why steps toward unification (like Garrett's) look the way the do.

I wouldn`t waste too much time on Garrett's work. It's baloney
 
  • #3
josh1 said:
I wouldn`t waste too much time on Garrett's work. It's baloney

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Hey Josh, send your real name so I can quote you on that, rather then just attributing it to "random string theorist."
 
Last edited:
  • #4
I've put up an executive summary for physicists on the Deferential Geometry welcome page:

http://deferentialgeometry.org

(The reason I'm on the net right now instead of talking to conference people is because I've come down with the flu, and I don't want to spread it. :( I need to get some sleep now so I can get better and not miss too much.
 
  • #5
Note that Baez jumps straight to C^5; it is better to start chyral, in C^4.
 
  • #6
josh1 said:
I wouldn`t waste too much time on Garrett's work. It's baloney
Agreed, you won't, but I will. What specific objections have you in mind?
 
  • #7
I like to start from C^4 instead of C^5 because in that way the structure is very much as spacetime, signature (1,3). And 1-3= 6 mod 8

The 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 forms (The Clifford algebra, if you prefer) are generated from a charged but uncoloured and three coloured generators:

[tex]\nu = . [/tex]

[tex]e^+= dt[/tex]
[tex]d_r = dx [/tex]
[tex]d_g = dy [/tex]
[tex]d_b = dz [/tex]

[tex]u_r = dt \wedge dx [/tex]
[tex]u_g = dt \wedge dy [/tex]
[tex]u_b = dt \wedge dz [/tex]
[tex]\bar u_b = dx \wedge dy [/tex]
[tex]\bar u_g = dx \wedge dz [/tex]
[tex]\bar u_r = dy \wedge dz [/tex]

[tex]e^-= dx \wedge dy \wedge dz[/tex]
[tex]\bar d_r = dt \wedge dy \wedge dz [/tex]
[tex]\bar d_g = dt \wedge dx \wedge dz [/tex]
[tex]\bar d_b = dt \wedge dx \wedge dy [/tex]

[tex]\nu = dt \wedge dx \wedge dy \wedge dz [/tex]

This idea is based on Unified Theories For Quarks And Leptons Based On Clifford Algebras by R. Casalbuoni (CERN) , Raoul Gatto (Geneva U.) . UGVA-DPT 1979/11-227, Nov 1979 Published in Phys.Lett.B90:81,190 and Families from Spinors by Frank Wilczek , A. Zee . Phys.Rev.D25:553,1982.

The cap product by the volume form maps particle to antiparticle, or almost. Chyrality considerations pending, a volume form seems very much as a mass term (or a higgs term)

From two copies (left and right) of it, you build the C^5 Baez is speaking about. And
it is possible to built the C^4 thing from two copies in C^3, using only the coloured generators. In that way it is very close to Harari-Shupe.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Another thought: if you want to introduce triality, it can be more reasonable to build it when you add the generators to jump from SO(6) to SO(8), or from SO(8) to SO(10). But if one waits to have SO(10) and further, then one is going to need to go backwards to see the SO(8) representations hidden under the carpet.
 

What is the Garrett Lisi paper subject of Baez TWF 253?

The Garrett Lisi paper subject of Baez TWF 253 is a scientific paper written by physicist Garrett Lisi and discussed by mathematician John Baez in his course TWF 253 at the University of California, Riverside. The paper proposes a new theory of everything that unifies the four fundamental forces of nature.

What is the theory of everything proposed in the Garrett Lisi paper?

The theory of everything proposed in the Garrett Lisi paper is called the "E8 Theory" and it attempts to unify the four fundamental forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force) by using the mathematical structure of the E8 exceptional Lie group.

Why is the Garrett Lisi paper subject of Baez TWF 253 controversial?

The Garrett Lisi paper subject of Baez TWF 253 is controversial because it challenges the established theories in physics, such as string theory, and proposes a new and unconventional approach to understanding the laws of nature. Additionally, some critics argue that the paper lacks experimental evidence and mathematical rigor.

What are some potential implications of the Garrett Lisi paper subject of Baez TWF 253?

If the E8 Theory proposed in the Garrett Lisi paper is proven to be correct, it could lead to a better understanding of the fundamental forces of nature and potentially revolutionize our understanding of the universe. It could also have practical applications in fields such as energy production and space travel.

How has the scientific community responded to the Garrett Lisi paper subject of Baez TWF 253?

The response from the scientific community to the Garrett Lisi paper has been mixed. Some scientists have praised the paper for its bold ideas and potential to advance our understanding of physics, while others have criticized it for lacking empirical evidence and being overly speculative. The paper continues to be a topic of debate and further research is needed to fully evaluate its validity.

Similar threads

Replies
67
Views
16K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
2
Replies
61
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top