An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

  • #201
Sorry! I have a question about Lisi's theory.
What different between Lisi's theory and Chaos theory?
Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #202
Lisi's theory is a theory about what the fundamental particles are and how they interact.

Chaos theory is about a type of unpredictability which happens because small uncertainties are amplified into large uncertainties. Such "chaos" is a very general phenomenon and happens everywhere there are even moderately complicated interactions. You should look it up on Wikipedia to understand it better.
 
  • #203
mitchell porter said:
Lisi's theory is a theory about what the fundamental particles are and how they interact.

Chaos theory is about a type of unpredictability which happens because small uncertainties are amplified into large uncertainties. Such "chaos" is a very general phenomenon and happens everywhere there are even moderately complicated interactions. You should look it up on Wikipedia to understand it better.

Sorry! If Lisi's theory is correct, then chaos & lisi's theory must be some relations between them.

and Do you believe the fate? I see something in the future, and it relate with chaos.
 
  • #204
Like I said, chaos is a very general phenomenon. Every physics theory since Newton's gravity allows chaos. Read the Wikipedia article.
 
  • #205
I understand precisely 0% of this subject.

However, at http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/001505.html where Jacques Distler blasts the theory in an extremely rude and inappropriate way, demonstrating an inability to interact like a human being and making physics look like an ugly, ugly little world in the process, he sure does appear to win the heck out of whatever argument he's having, at least to my uncomprehending eyes.

Am I correct to understand that Distler claims to have mathematically proven that E8 theory is inconsistent with the existence of third-generation fermions?

I also noticed that G. L. responds and gets into a one-sidedly civil conversation in which he appears to admit that:

1. Distler is right, though Lisi thinks there's still something useful about his theory, and
2. Distler has correctly pointed out another error in his reasoning (see the "WHILE YOU'RE HERE" thread in the comments).

Is my understanding correct?
 
  • #206
In the news:

Did Garrett Lisi Have a Wipeout?
...Perhaps the longest public debate on the merits of Lisi’s theory took place primarily between Jacques Distler of the University of Texas at Austin and Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario, the latter of whom had been widely quoted in the media with unqualified praise for the theory. (Smolin says he was quoted out of context.) Smolin had also quickly written a paper suggesting ways to correct certain flaws in the E8 proposal. For the particles in the E8 theory to represent the known particles properly, the combination of smaller groups used to form the Standard Model must be embedded inside E8 in just the right way. Distler had demonstrated in his blog that this is a mathematical impossibility. So far as he was concerned, the theory was dead and not worth trying to resuscitate. Yet argument raged on over details of Distler’s proof and ultimately ended with neither side conceding. Lisi, incidentally, played very little part in these disputes.

Today the theory is being largely but not entirely ignored. Lisi, naturally, continues to work on it, as does Smolin. Lisi says that even if what Distler claims is true, it would only be true for the variant of E8 (“real E8”) originally used in his paper and that another variant (“complex E8”) would certainly work. Smolin argues that the press coverage gave the false impression that Lisi’s proposal was a finished work. “In reality,” he says, “almost every new theoretical proposal is first presented in a way that is flawed and incomplete, with open issues that need to be filled in... While Lisi’s proposal has exciting aspects, this is the case with it as well.”
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=garrett-lisi-e8-theory
 
  • #207
Garrett doesn't get any more exposition from the media or whatever simply because he, or his collaborators like Smoling, haven't published more about his theory. I hardly think he is ignored.
 
  • #208
I think of a way to reproduce the CKM and PMNS matrices by taking quarks and leptons as vectors with 3 variables which is Σa Q_a e_a and L_b e_b respectively where Q and L are quarks and leptons respectively, a are colors and b are the generations. Then you may find that for particles it will be just w+xΦ and for antiparticles it's just the antiparticle of w+xΦ.
 
Last edited:
  • #209
Perhaps could someone here point those of us that are having trouble overcoming the math here to a resource to clarify some of this?
 
Back
Top