Surfer-Physicist Garrett Lisi Offers Alternative to String Theoryand AcademiaBy John Horgan | October 20, 2014 | Comments18In 2007 Garrett Lisi was a 39-year-old physicist, unaffiliated with any institution, toiling in obscurity on what he called An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, which could account for all of natures forces. Over the next year he became a celebrity, after The New Yorker, Outside, Discover and other publications described him as a rootless surfer and snowboarder whose unified theory intrigued big shots like Lee Smolin. I first heard about Lisi from my friend and former colleague at Stevens Institute of Technology, physicist and philosopher, James Weatherall, who helped Lisi co-write an article about his theory for Scientific American. In the fall of 2008 I met Lisi at a party thrown for him in New York City by physicist and string critic Peter Woit. Lisi was refreshingly down to earth, his ego utterly uninflated by all his fame. I was impressed not only by his theoretical ambition but also by his desire to help other researchers pursue non-traditional career paths. Lisi, who has settled down in Hawaii, agreed to answer my questions about what hes been up to. (See also Lisis website and my Further Reading links at the end of this post.) Garrett Lisi says his "Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" represents an alternative to string theory, which has become "a postmodernist monstrosity, lumbering forward on self-provided momentum without ever receiving the pruning from experimental verification that physics demands."Horgan: Do you ever regret all the attention you got back in 2008 for being the physicist surfer dude (as British journalist Roger Highfield put it)?Lisi: It was very, very strange. I was pretty happy with my life before 2008, spending my time on physics and surfing. The most negative repercussion of the attention was that the physics I love got thrown into a black vs. white media machine. My emphasis on proposing a new research direction and not a completed ToE (theory of everything) was ignored, and there were premature attacks, such as rock climber proves surfers theory cant work, and other foolishness. The attention was fun, but bad for development of the theory, which had been building interest among physicists before the media storm got ridiculous. Fortunately, things have calmed down and Im happily back on my island, working on physics and surfing a bit.Horgan: Can you give a brief description for non-physicists of your Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything?Lisi: Brief? No, but I can give a description. The paper title was a pun based on the principal geometric object of the theory, a wonderfully intricate and beautiful 248-dimensional mathematical structure, the largest simple exceptional Lie group, named E8. The research direction proposed in that paper is called E8 theory.Our current best understanding of the universe consists of Einsteins theory of gravity and the Standard Model of quantum particle physics. Matter particles, called fermions (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.), and the Higgs particle interact via electromagnetic, weak, and strong-force particles, called bosons. This model of spacetime and particles can be understood geometrically as different Lie groups (pretty, smooth mathematical surfaces made from joining circles and hyperbola) twisting over our four-dimensional spacetime. The fermions and Higgs also twist around the Standard Model Lie groups, with twist numbers equal to their electric, weak, strong, and gravitational charges. This very successful model, well established by experiment, was largely completed by the early 1970s. It is a wonderful geometric description of our universebut its a mess.In the mid 1970s, physicists figured out that the three non-gravitational forces could be nicely combined as parts of one larger Lie group, with matter particles twisting around it, forming a Grand Unified Theory (GUT). This was a big step in explaining the Standard Model as part of something larger, but its not a complete picture. What I found in 2007, by extending this work, is that the gravitational Lie group, fermions, and Higgs can also be combined, forming parts of just one Lie group, E8, twisting over spacetime. All the known elementary particles, each with different charges and interactions, match parts of what many consider to be the most beautiful structure in mathematics. The fact that this unification works so well is, I think, beyond coincidence. But it does have a big problem. The parts of E8 which one might hope would correspond to the second and third generations of fermions (muons, strange and charm quarks, etc.) dont have the right charges. Theyre horribly wrong, even their spins. Until this gets figured out, the theory is incomplete. But so much of E8 theory works I think it has a shot at becoming the ToE.Horgan: Have you made any progress in the theory lately?Lisi: Yes, I think Ive got a line on it. I have two papers in preparation, but can tip my hand a little. Theres an unusual description of spacetime called Cartan geometry thats very interesting. You start with a single ten-dimensional Lie group (a rigid geometric surface) and let it deform along four directions. The resulting structure is our four-dimensional spacetime with the six-dimensional gravitational Lie group twisting over it. It is a very efficient model. A year ago I worked out a generalization of Cartan geometry, allowing spacetime to embed in larger Lie groups. When I do this for E8, theres a symmetry called triality linking three different sheets of spacetime; with respect to each different sheet, each of the three different generations of fermions comes out right. If this all works, it would mean the reason we see Lie groups everywhere in physics is because were inside of one, looking out. Our universe and everything in it might be excitations of a single Lie group.Horgan: Edward Witten, when I asked him in a recent Q&A if string theory had any serious rivals for a unified theory, replied, There are not any interesting competing suggestions. Comment?Lisi: That stings a little. I dont imagine other physicists working on fundamental non-string theories appreciate it either. Ed Witten has done incredibly impressive work, opening new doors with his insights in mathematics and physics. His papers are things of beauty. He, his students, and his colleagues have dominated the high-energy theoretical physics community with string models for decades now. However, even the most enlightened foresight from the most brilliant mind can be wrong, so it would be better if he wasnt a dick about it.And how are things going with string theory? The promises and hopes from the 1980s have not worked out. They thought theyd find the right Calabi-Yau manifold and the fermion multiplets and masses would pop out and theyd have the whole thing wrapped up before lunch. But that didnt happen. String models grew increasingly complicated. And with every fanciful step they made away from the Standard Model, the more likely they were to be wrong; they were mesmerized by their own mathematical constructions, which kept them busy but were much more complex than the Standard Model they were trying to explain. String theory became a postmodernist monstrosity, lumbering forward on self-provided momentum without ever receiving the pruning from experimental verification that physics demands. The closest thing to a physical prediction that string theory has ever produced is that there should be superparticles, but these have not shown up. String theory models lost connection to the physical world. Other physicists and mathematicians were left wondering if string theorists had joined some sort of cult. I escaped to Maui to get away from the train wreck.There are many Loop-Quantum-Gravity researchers who have attempted to extend spin networks, spin foams, and spin connection fields in general to describe the Standard Model or parts of it. A few examples: Bilson-Thompson, He, Wan, Schiller, (with their braid models and preons), Alexander, Nesti, Percacci, (graviweak unification), and several others. There are also some outlandish non-stringy but geometric unification approaches in various stages of development, such as Weinstein and his Geometric Unity, myself and E8 Theory, etc. Theres also the noncommutative geometry program, which is not inherently stringy, and several unification models based on condensed matter physics, such as spin condensates, superfluids, and even Wolfram with cellular automata. Therere also people working on quantizing gravity more directly, with some promising findings for asymptotic safety, with the Standard Model and gravity possibly consistent up to very high energies with only slight modification. And there are many researchers working even more closely to the Standard Model, without strings, trying to find geometric explanations for the structure of the fermion masses, which would certainly speak to unification. There are also fundamental issues that string theory doesnt address, such as an explanation for quantum mechanics itself, which only brave outliers such as t Hooft have worked on. So, there are MANY interesting fundamental theories in active development, bearing on unification, that have nothing to do with strings. Of course, since string theory has become a huge toolkit and not a unified particle model, you can use it to describe all these things with enough effort, but since string models are more complicated than what they explain, theres no reason to think nature works that way. Lisi (third from right) and friends at the "Pacific Science Institute," a cluster of cabins that he built on Maui to provide a place for scientists to "work and play." Lisi adds, "I do have to let students know I am not a degree-granting institution, but they're welcome to visit."Horgan: In 2009, you bet Frank Wilczek that super-symmetric particles would not be detected by July 2015. Are you confident youll win this bet?Lisi: I respect and admire Frank Wilczek a great deal. Hes done brilliant work, has a wonderful sense of humor, and hes also just plain kind. While he was giving a lively conference talk, he expressed an unusual confidence in the existence of superparticles. His main reasoning was that superparticles would help the forces combine in a Grand Unified Theory, with the forces having the same strengths at tiny distances, becoming part of just one force. And he likes superparticles for other reasons, including that string theorists need them to exist. But I knew, from a review paper on renormalization, that you could get a similar unification result from having a bunch of Higgs particles and no superparticles. So, I was a bit of a punk at the end of his talk and challenged Frank to a bet on whether superparticles would be discovered. He accepted, and chose the date and amount (July 8, 2015, $1K). We both figured the Large Hadron Collider would have collected plenty of data by then. But things at the LHC didnt go entirely smoothly. We did get a good run at 7 TeV, discovering the Higgs particle (which was fantastic) and, much to the disappointment of many physicists who arent me, no superparticles. And it now looks like our bet will come due before the LHC is able to collect much data from its run at 13 TeV in 2015. So, yes, Im very likely to win. And if Frank would like to place another bet with a date further out, Id be happy to do that. I dont think superparticles exist, and I hope many physicists, if they dont like losing their money and their time, will re-consider non-stringy unified theories.Horgan: Do you ever worry that the quest for a unified theory will turn out to be a dead end?Lisi: Einsteins description of gravity and spacetime as a curving four-dimensional geometry is so elegant and experimentally successful that it has to be essentially true. The Standard Model of particle physics is similarly successful, but not elegant, and doesnt mesh easily with Einsteins theory. But everything has to work together somehow. The universe is just one thingits right there in the name. And it does feel like most of the puzzle is filling in; were getting closer. String theory may have been a wrong turn. Maybe if we try understanding physics using deforming Lie groups and representation theory, well have this wrapped up before lunch.Horgan: Do you ever regret your non-traditional career path?Lisi: I do miss universities. But I spend most of my time surfing, hiking, kitesurfing, and paragliding around Maui, working on physics and other projects when I like. Friends and students visit and talk, and I take them out to play on this beautiful island. Life isnt so bad.Horgan: Is your passion for surfing and other sports in any way connected to your passion for physics?Lisi: I dont knowmaybe. Im half English and half Italian, so Im very passionate, but I suppress it.Horgan: If young physicists ask you about the risks and benefits of a path like yours, what do you tell them?Lisi: Im a weird data point they should probably throw out. There was no path where I went. I do have to let students know I am not a degree-granting institution, but theyre welcome to visit. In general, I advise people to do what they love, and what interests themeven if its string theory.Horgan: Can you describe and give an update of your proposal to create a network of science hostels?Lisi: Twenty years ago, research scientists were anchored to academic libraries and laboratories. The internet has now set them free. Where can they go? What is an ideal theoretical research environment? I think we need something like artist retreats, but for scientists. While working on physics, I spent a decade visiting friends vacation homes in nice locations, and group-living communities, and I think a network of such placesScience Hostelswould be a great resource for scientists and science-friendly creatives. One year ago I bought a small ranch house with a nice view here on Maui and built three guest cabins with a friend of mine (who likes beer, pizza, and nail guns a little too much). We named it the Pacific Science Institute, and over the past eight months weve had about twenty visitors come through and stay with us, for free, for a few days to a few months, to work and play. Its been great! A nice house in a beautiful location, populated by selectively social science geeks, makes for a pretty ideal living and working environment. Its the flagship Science Hostel. We also own a larger piece of land here on Maui, maybe for PSI 2.Thank you very much for your interest. Sorry for the length. I guess I had a lot to say.Further Reading: See my recent Q&As with physicists George Ellis, Carlo Rovelli and Edward Witten. John HorganAbout the Author: Every week, hockey-playing science writer John Horgan takes a puckish, provocative look at breaking science. A teacher at Stevens Institute of Technology, Horgan is the author of four books, including The End of Science (Addison Wesley, 1996) and The End of War (McSweeney's, 2012). Follow on Twitter @Horganism.More The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.Tags: physics, string theoryPrevious: Quest for Intelligence Genes Churns Out More Dubious Results MoreCross-CheckNext: New Hawking Film Brilliantly Dramatizes Paradox of Modern Science Rights & Permissions inShare12 submit to redditComments 18 CommentsAdd Comment1. cshbar7:44 am 10/21/2014Its disappointing to see Scientific American stoop to such uninformed promotion of outright psuedoscience. It has been known for many years that there is no embedding of the standard model into E8 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2658). This is a mathematical, group-theoretical fact, which Garrett Lisi has made a career out of obscuring. His would-be theory is also precisely the kind of word-level-idea that is ruled out by the no-go theorem of Coleman and Mandula. It would be another story if Lisi actually could find a way to deform the standard logic of group theory as it appears in particle physics without sharply contradicting quantum mechanics or relativity, i.e. without blatantly contradicting experiment. Nobody has any idea how to do that, so a demonstration of such a consistent deformation would actually merit this kind of attention. But since Lisi hasnt done that, the idea is entirely without substance and entirely unworthy of this kind of promotion.I am also mystified by the complete inability of either of you to understand what standards that matter in theoretical physics. The fact is that any serious candidate for a theory of everything had better be able to prove that at sufficiently low energies it reduces to standard quantum field theory (with gauge forces, scalars and fermions) coupled to Einstein gravity. This is a sharply posed mathematical property that is non-negotiable: if you do not have this property then you do not have a candidate unified theory of physics. Maybe you can claim you work on something that you _hope_ to have this property one day, but until you do, you really dont have grounds to complain that your theory isnt getting its due. Besides this obvious requirement to reproduce known physical frameworks, a theory of everything also has to be self-consistent. For one thing, it should exhibit the holographic property, one of the few clear implications of quantum gravity. In both of these categories, string theory is the only candidate that has met these requirements. If youre motivated to do better, then really best of luck to you, but stop these ridiculous pretentions that Witten is being a dick just because hes assessing your idea by the standards that really matter.Link to this2. mabundis11:49 am 10/21/2014My understanding is that Lisi has never published his concepts for peer review and I have two papers in preparation doesnt really tell me much. Does he even present at conferences? Another alternative ToE physicist Nassim Harriman has written peer reviewed papers, no? But then he doesnt seem to garner the same attention that Lisi does. I find this puzzling. When will you be interviewing him?Link to this3. JohnDuffield3:18 pm 10/21/2014Interesting reading. I was struck by lost connection to the physical world, and noticed trying to find geometric explanations for the structure of the fermion masses. IMHO physicists focus on the electron taking a tip from TQFT, and appreciate that theres a photon self-interaction that yields a bispinor trivial knot at 4pn/vc. The n has the right dimensionality but a value of 1. Amazingly, Witten abandoned this stuff, and whilst Atiyah knows about it, hes old now. Take a look at http://www.math.ist.utl.pt/~rpicken/tqft/. See those blue trefoil knots at the top? Pick one, start at the bottom left, and trace around it anticlockwise calling out the crossing-over directions: up down up. Smash this thing, and you wont be seeing any free quarks any time soon. Only it was Frank Wilczek who get a Nobel for asymptotic freedom. Small world.Link to this4. AndrewFrancisOliver3:23 pm 10/21/2014First of all Churchs Thesis and Hilberts heuristics of axiomatics mean that one needs at least two forces based on incompatible dimensional characterics to build any universe that could Synge and Griffiths anthropic principle contain life as we know it Therefore if as Norman Feather hypothesized packets (particles) move as waves and interact at points, what is string theory all about? Stability of solid systems ????Solids and supercooled liquid semisolid structures manifest themselves as various phenomena and we observe such. The problems often relate to the dimensionality of the enclosing Euclidian space to the embedded tensor-spaces if dense real three space be embedded in four dimensional algebraic hyperspace attached to a rational divisible inferable but not observable arrow of time dimension according to Hilberts hyperseparability of hyperspace principle credited where credit is due given that algebraic space not continuous nor complete Simmons / Hilbert the question remains as to how many of Hilberts Problems as announced 1900 remain to be solved ????Link to this5. Andrei Kirilyuk4:11 pm 10/22/2014In this kind of world proposing ANY alternative to the mainstream science, its organisation, or anything else is absolutely senseless, irrespective of the quality of alternatives and the mainstream. The majority (in science and society) never wants to seriously change anything any more because its absolutely dominating material needs are already quasi-completely satisfied (including huge excesses in the developed countries). Exclusions are excluded by the majority dictatorship (called democracy).The only way to succeed with any alternative starting from that magic point is to pass to an alternative universe. By a strange coincidence, they have the increasing flux of film fantasies about it last time Would you like to discover the real, qualitative alternative to everything?Link to this6. Luckylife7:34 pm 10/22/2014I think that it is far more relevant to begin to exclude gravity from quantum calculation in much the same way that the Strong Nuclear Force is excluded from macro-calculations of gravitational attraction.When the Strong, Weak and Electro-magnetic forces are compared to gravity they are rated. Strong force 10^39 greater, Weak 10^32 greater, Electro 10^36 greater. This is a result of macro-physics being mathematically compared to sub-atomic forces, not an actual sub-atomic measurement of gravity. Thus far gravity is not described by the Standard Model. But if you question why the Strong Nuclear Force is not a part of the calculation of an ordinary objects weight you will be told in no uncertain terms that beyond a specific atomic length, the Strong Force is not felt on ordinary, neutral matter and thus no longer has a part to play in the real world. With that terminology in place should we not theorise when we enter the Quantum realm, that Gravity has so diminuished an effect as to be disregarded? To further compartmentalise Gravity: there must surely be a minimum dual mass or twin aggregate of particles that begin to exhibit mutual attraction but below that mass threshold Gravity has no effect and no relevance or value. It could be deci-grams to pico-grams before the minimum weights are reached and matter would be ignorant of its partner but reach it, Im sure we would.A method of finding this minimum dual mass would require a zero-G laboratory because any Earth bound experiment will be compounded by the 5.9721910^24 kg mass beneath us. That this might help with the detection of a Force Carrier is unlikely, there is already an argument that Gravity is an emergent phenomenon from the thermodynamic concept of entropy.Link to this7. AndrewFrancisOliver9:05 pm 10/22/2014There are those who think the weak nuclear decay force is not only non-local but also incorporates genuine randomness a real mystery in a universe where as Einstein says God does not play dice!That some interconnectedness between the strong weak and electromagnetic forces at a deep computational nature of reality level raises the distinctions between the Aitkens The Logic Of Commands digital command packets that rule the universal computer via the trees of life tripole waste recycling aspect of solutions to the Hypergeometric Transform analogue subsystems approach to the life forces planet existence hypothesis in the solution space of The Biology Of Galaxies problem in 1930's speculative science fiction of when will the green men come to save us or the red devils come to subjugate us Terror Keep debate Link to this8. Andrei Kirilyuk2:35 pm 10/23/2014Contrary to Lisis scientific alternative as such (which is but another nonsense of mathematical reality kind, the same as for the string theory), his alternative way of doing and organising science is interesting and rich in further development perspectives. On this way the quest for new knowledge, however complicated it may be, is densely involved with usual life, or life (individual and social) in general, instead of being separated from it by impenetrable walls of conventional bureaucratic establishment. Correspondingly, in the first case we have the driving sincere motivation for finding the new (ever deeper) truth, while in the second case (now absolutely dominating) this announced purpose is tacitly but definitely replaced by purely subjective, fruitless technical games driven by selfish ambitions and top positions in the establishment (determined by themselves). Its even surprising how quickly the externally triumphant science has degraded from basically the first, original case (untill the new physics advent at the beginning of the 20th century) to the worst version of the second case (modern industrial science practice). Hence the end of science, inevitablyThat true, living science practice of the first kind can and should, of course, be further amplified by various practical and interdisciplinary connections within the same kind of self-organised, dynamically changing structure. But this would need the decisive change of mind of so many key players, now totally consumed by the evidently fruitless and self-destructive second kind of science organisation In the meanwhile, those dissident efforts outside of the system give rather the impression of a minor retreat, or sanctuary, for what should normally constitute the basis for the healthy mainstream knowledge progressWe could transform the end into the new beginning by returning from the second, parasitic, to the first, original and genuine way of doing science. Only the motivation (potential energy) is missing, as usually.Link to this9. AndrewFrancisOliver7:35 pm 10/23/2014p196 Methods of Mathematical Physics II C & H 1962 Since the wave equation does not contain dispersion terms, we can construct the rotationally symmetric wave Deconstructing the English grammar with a view to reconstructing the original intuitive German grammar concepts, one finds that summing series of terms in terms of Euclidian three linear dimensionality might perhaps lead to a few pathological space filling curves existing which if imposed on a particular summation of series problem might hit the Kummer Jenson Tests conundrum of series proving convergent or divergent dependent on rather irrational criteria to do with the telescopic and periscopic approaches to organizing the selection choice sequences and deferring summations of excluded series into error bounded error terms irrelevancies leading to that irrationalist Niels Bohr boasts at dinner that does not compute !!!!Therefore, using a three space adjusted to the centre of mass of the entire observable universe rotating frame of reference or not as the case may be and furthermore using spherical spatial coordinates too might perchance lead to better convergence criteria given the plausible existence of the right sort of multi valued normed measure dense real three space of full rotational freedom locally and globally via forcing principles utilizing Courants fractional integral integration adjoint smooth operators of partial integral dimensionality to one third one fifth one seventh one eleventh and one thirteenth plausible given Riemanns results on Riemannian manifolds and Riemanns Hypothesis that such dense real three spaces might be forced into existence by God precomputing a table of the real unit ball to wit the observable universe itself fourteen billion years ago Link to this10. AndrewFrancisOliver8:38 pm 10/23/2014pp339-340 Differetnial and Integral Calculus II R. Courant 1936 English Ed. 7. Differentiation and Integration to Fractional Order. Abels Integral Equation. [paraphrasing] Using our knowledge of the gamma function, we shall now carry out a simple process of generalization of the concepts of differentiation and integration. If D symbolically denotes the operator in differentiation and D-1 denotes the integral operator which is the inverse of differentiation, we may write But it is now very natural to contruct a definition for the operator D-lambda even when the positive number lambda is not necessarily an integer. The following worked examples suggest that this generalization works naturally for rational fractional lambda!If the dense real three space which exist by reason of the vector cross product and dot product operators being adjoint operators that allow interiority adjointments to linear and planar subspaces into the dense three space and hyperspatial extensions with rotational freedoms exist by reason of interiority adjointments of subspaces to the hyperspatial extension by adjoint operators D D-1/2 D-1/3 D-1/5 D-1/7 D-1/11 and D-1/13 proven by this argument to be coherent smooth operators leading to complex space being generalizable into quaternion space into Cayley number eight space into sorta s p d f g h sorta 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 and 128 dimensional spaces leading to space filling packing of functional heat displacement recycling curves into atomic nuclei and atomic electronic shells Doubt. What about neutron star sized atomic nuclei held together by nucleonic bonding strong force ??Doubt. Do the eightfold way groups get computed through matrix algebras of standing waves in these telescopic exponentally dimensionality monotone 2 spaces of doubling dimensionality matrix simulations of rational adjoint e pi field extensions over the rationals ????Link to this11. brodix8:53 pm 10/24/2014What about gravity as more of a composite effect, than a force in its own right?When energy is released from mass, mechanical, chemical, nuclear, the result is pressure, so wouldnt the effect of energy coalescing into mass in the first place, result in some residual form of vacuum effect, as much of the energy is radiated away in overall feedback loops?That would explain why it is best modeled as a form of cosmic curvature and no quantized properties are detected.As for spacetime being so elegant that it must be true, we are left with blocktime and no explanation for why it is asymmetric. Epicycles were pretty mathematically elegant, given we are the center of our view of the universe, but they never did find those cosmic gearwheels.My thought on time is that we only experience it as a sequence of events and so think of it as the present moving from past to future, which physics codifies as measures of duration, while the underlaying reality is this is is change of what physically exist, ie. is present, which forms and dissolves these events, thus turning them from future potential, to present actual, to past residual. Duration doesnt transcend this point of the present, but is the state of what is present during and between events.Basically with time we are measuring frequency, just as with temperature, we measure cumulative amplitude. There is no universal clock, because it is just that composite effect of multitudes of changes. Faster clocks only age/burn quicker and so fade into the past that much faster.Link to this12. AndrewFrancisOliver6:29 am 10/27/2014Dear brodix,I see you refer to Martin Knudsens kinetic theory of gases Im afraid those who put Hilbert and Courant on their bookshelves do not so place Knudsen because several academic chemists who didnt really like their departments receiving not two marks nor two pfennigs of government funding yeah wouldnt even take student loan subsidies rather escalate the call-in of the bequests got caught out watching Frequency as you would see it what used to be referred to as building glass time radios having looted the septodes and pentodes and diodes and inductive coils and resistances and so on from stores yet knew so little of real agenda politics that they didnt know how to tell who they were talking to obviously lefty dumbing-down book-hating scum speaking perfect High German in aristocratic tone We heard all about that the other end had tone-of-voice band-pass filtering!Of course the physical chemists and inorganic chemists knew their stuff on the facts of super-cooled fluids dont doubt that!As to Hilberts problems the reason for twenty three ????It were Hilberts belief that the ferro-magnetic force was even more interesting than the forces above it.That the ferro-magnetic force is linked to the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear decay and strong nuclear binding forces seems incontrovertible thats like saying nothing The hypotheses was that the ferro-magnetic realm possibly existed from Scandium 54 to Zinc 64 and plausibly because there was a nucleonic singularity particle in addition to the particles subject to Fermi-Dirac stats and those subject to Bose-Einstein stats it had to do with the approximate values of the atomic masses and the fission fusion potential energy well around the element Iron 56.If that be so, then Churchs Thesis proves that the force of gravity cant be unified with these other forces because of the anthropic principle Take Hilberts fourth problem. If this universe be fully embedded or not in countable Euclidian space, algebraic or real Could be reinterpreted, in the light of recent discoveries, as:-Name the last surviving Engineer with a Doctorate of Science in Computer Science backup tape technologies applications of tape sorting algorithms in the universe above the universe the last sane life forces planet on a planet in the universe that got big crunched before our universe opened up ? Jehovah? Thor? Janet? Roger?Mutatis mutandis. I think U.S. Census Hollerith punch card sorting was the latest technological gizmo in 1900 Further, the essential differences between tripole decays and the much rarer quadpole decays to do with equations where there is an input feed and several levels of waste recycling displaced waste streams Having stated my interpretations of those events, I hypothesize further that gravity will never be unified with the quantum forces because its a different kind of force than the others Schrodinger suggested there might be a cosmological constant to balance eventually the observed red shifts of distant galaxies perhaps like Sterlings formulae theres a series of cosmological constant terms of growing infinitesimality ????Andrew OliverLink to this13. Luckylife11:50 am 10/28/2014If a 15kg weight is placed on a kitchen top and a ball bearing is rolled past it, ask the question, did the mass of the weight deflect the course of the bearing? A theoretical Physicist will tell you that it did, you just couldnt see it. However, Im not convinced. Gravity is the domain of massive objects being studied by the atom-smashers. Viz. Particles and atoms weighing almost nothing levitated by hyper strong magnetic fields there is virtually no chance they will find any Gravitational carrier, by their own admission its not nearly strong enough to overcome the existent forces already in play.Massive objects on the order of kilometers across will be reducing atomic electron orbit thru pressure at the core of the object regardless of energy status. In the same way that when a free electron emits synchrotron radiation when its path is diverted by magnet field, is Gravity a relative of this phenomenon? Similarly, will a micro-gravity be created when matter is compressed during high-pressure Physics experiments (Diamond Anvil)?Link to this14. JohnDuffield1:23 pm 10/29/2014Andrew, re: p196 Methods of Mathematical Physics II C & H 1962 Since the wave equation does not contain dispersion terms, we can construct the rotationally symmetric wave Hence the 4pn/vc. The wave sweeps out a sphere, and theres two orthogonal rotations as per Diracs belt.Link to this15. AndrewFrancisOliver3:46 pm 10/29/2014John, re your comments to the effect that the laws of physics take precedence over mathematical elegance, this reminds me of a book I read long ago in 1977 I think when I was studying sixth form chemistry Martin Knudsen claimed page 37:-The result of my measurements with hydrogen are contained in the following empirical formula:dp / dtheta = p / 2 * theta * (1 + 2.46 * r * (1 + 3.15 r / lamda) / ((lamda) * (1 + 24.6) * r / lamda)) ** -2where1 / lamda = 0.08753 * p * (273 / theta ) ** 1.182 Unfortunately those who prefer scientists of good reputation and the elegance of dimensionless constants will always avoid such ways of research and, instead, return to first principles and try to generate the dimensionless observed values by using 3-D countably infinite generalized arrays of summable quantum terms that converge or diverge depending on the grouping of the terms or so I understand maybe I should confess Ive got a mathematics degree not a physics degree and generalized conceptions of Kummer Jenson Tests for these 3-D countably infinite arrays suggest we need to use spherical co-ordinates to get the sums to add up correctly which was the point I was trying to make Link to this16. IdeaShopX12:37 am 10/30/2014I question the logic utilized in quantum and relativity theories. The root problem is that modern science defines time to be considered as a vector, when in reality tine is a scalar. Can you point in the direction of five minutes? I think not. How many minutes is a kilometer? Is time really represented by the square root of a minus one? no.Why does time slow down when a massive body is accelerated? Wait, what is mass? OK, why does mass increase when a particle is accelerated? What is inertia? I claim that the mathematics of string theory has an infinite number of solutions, which eliminates it as a viable theory. What do you think?Link to this17. thray1237:07 am 11/20/2014I claim that the mathematics of string theory has an infinite number of solutions, which eliminates it as a viable theory. What do you think?I think that if a finite number of solutions is among an infinite number, the theory is viable. Infinity isnt a number; it isnt actually true that string theory has an infinite number of solutions the latest I heard is that the number of solutions in Calabi-Yau manifolds is estimated at 10^500. Thats large, not infinite a theory that has a truly infinite number of solutions is in fact not a physical theory at all.If string theory is correct in the first place, then the odds are pretty good that we live in one of those 10^500 worlds and thats the problem, because having to bet on the odds militates against the idea that a unique solution should be non-probabilistic, i.e., should be deducible from first principles. The first principle of string theory (supersymmetry) is at least as reasonable as the first principle of quantum theory (superposition of particle states).In any case, you are incorrect that science always takes time as a vector, vice scalar. Proper time in relativity is a scalar.Link to this18. SeanC46:20 pm 04/14/2015I think anyone can come up with a theory of physics. For example if you consider a photon or any particle as being composed of billions of hypotheical particles that can only strongly interact with each other, with distance invarient force then you can explain quantum slit experiments, entanglement and gravity. For entanglement you can say that two photons have exchanged some hypothetical particles and that distance invariant force means they continue to exchange state information at any distance.Is that a great physics idea or what? And yet you could think of multiple objections to that and similar hobby therories.