 | |  | | ![]() On a related subject, last week a guy called Garrett Lisi published this "exceptionally simple theory of everything", that puts all elementary forces together with gravity in a common geometrical pattern, and has been raising quite some enthusiasm since. Here is a comprehensive article on The Telegraph.
Needless to say, however "simple" they call it, I don't have a clue. | |  | |  |
|
| written by Deanfrz on Nov 21, 2007 03:07 |
| written by Bgreman on Nov 25, 2007 15:10 |
 | |  | | ![]()  | Barebones said: | On a related subject, last week a guy called Garrett Lisi published this "exceptionally simple theory of everything", that puts all elementary forces together with gravity in a common geometrical pattern, and has been raising quite some enthusiasm since. Here is a comprehensive article on The Telegraph.
Needless to say, however "simple" they call it, I don't have a clue. |
I read through this paper, and it's a pretty elegant formulation. Really looking forward to the testables on this one. | |  | |  |
|
 | | | | ![]() | Bgreman said: | | I read through this paper, and it's a pretty elegant formulation. Really looking forward to the testables on this one. |
Brock, if you are around, maybe you could tell me if Garrett Lisi's project (or any other unification theory, for that matter) sheds some light on this curiosity of mine (or, at least, you can give an informed opinion):
Three centuries ago, Newton provided a mathematical model for gravity, while recognizing his belief troubles with a force that acts at such a distance. (And so fenomenology was born.)
Today, physical contact is hardly a requirement for a force, and in fact "physical contact" would refer you to the strong nuclear force, which acts at a (smaller) distance. For us today, science is not as much about explanations, as it is about mathematical models capable of verifiable predictions; "forces", or "force fields", exists only because F=ma in some vector model.
In the case of gravity, though, general relativity makes an incredible effort in describing acceleration as a result of time distortion, rather as due to some "force": Newton's second law is replaced by a topological description of spacetime. (Not that I have the slightest idea of differential geometry.)
The question is: I wondered if a similar insight, regarding not only gravity but any force, is present in unification theories, in particular in Lisi's. (Then, "forces" in general would dissapear, except as an engineering convenience.) | | | | |
|
  | written by Bgreman on Dec 31, 2007 20:48 |
 | |  | | ![]() Barebones,
It should be noted that Lisi's formulation does not involve a differential geometry. Most of his analogies are presented in standard model terminology. There are really very few UTs that try to work within a gemoetric framework. They tend to just take the gauge field formulations and apply more and more mathematical symmetry and group theory tricks to them to make connections.
I hope this answered your question a little bit. | |  | |  |
|
| written by Alex on Mar 07, 2008 08:22 |
 | |  | | ![]() An E8??
And they call it simple?  | |  | |  |
|
|
