This made me think of Jose --

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything

hey all

i know what gleams through the weak, strong,and electromagnetic forces
it is more simpler than the surfer dude's theory
more faster than a speeding jet
more ... something or other than a ... something or other..

it is

L
O
V
E


somebody give me the Nobel Prize
i have been working on this theory for a long time too
and i think i have found the Holy Grail

somebody pass me my butter lettuce
as I AM hungry from using up so much cerebral ATP

Shhh Ver. Your spoiling the excitement of the unraveling exploration

yes... let's keep this a secret ( shhhhhh.. shhhhhhh

unrav uLLL IIIiiiiinggggggggg


i like that thread color mandela thing though.. it looks like it could unravel at any time and spread

B
E
A
U
T
Y

The group E8 is a pretty incredible object. Aside from the fact that it was used in this paper to attempt a grand unification of all forces, it has long been considered one of the most intricate and beautiful mathematical structures.

Here is some more info and a video of the decompositions he claims would form the various subgroups containing the four forces as we know them. [www.newscientist.com]

Here's a video from that page [www.youtube.com]

I can't really comment on it, but it has received some criticisms from more experienced researchers.

There have been many previous attempts at these kind of grand unification group structures, but all have some problem or other. I'm not sure this attempt has managed to avoid those historical problems.

Cheers,
J

Anybody can submit a paper to archiv. That doesn't make it correct. But if it has pretty colors and pics and a surfer dude wrote it, it will get some attention.

He's also not your typical "surfer dude"

9/91-5/99 University of California, San Diego
5/99 Ph.D. in Physics
G.P.A. - 3.9

Honors Fellowships - UC Regents fellowship, ARCS Foundation fellowship.

9/86-6/91 University of California, Los Angeles
6/91 B.S. in Physics and B.S. in Mathematics
G.P.A. - 3.9 (4.0 in Physics and 4.0 in Mathematics)
Academic Honors - Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Pi Sigma, Golden Key.

Graduation Honors - College Honors, Highest Honors in Physics, Highest Honors in Mathematics, Summa Cum Laude, Kinsey Prize for The Outstanding Graduating Senior in Physics.

Here's some more info on Garrett Lisi [www.fqxi.org]

Cheers,
J

Jose, there are thousands with similar credentials. But few of them are arrogant enough to believe they have provided a significant "theory of everything."

I had a 3.7 in my grad studies in fluid mechanics. But I'd never have the nerve to think that I could prove existence and uniqueness for the Navier-Stokes equations. These are questions that will probably never have answers.

Many people have attempted to construct Grand Unified Theories, Garrett Lisi is certainly not the first one. Whether one exists or not is a matter of exploration. No one knows the answer to that question.

I don't know the guy whatsoever, but he does admit some reservations throughout his paper, and in his conclusion

The theory proposed in this paper represents a comprehensive unification program, describing
all fields of the standard model and gravity as parts of a uniquely beautiful mathematical
structure. The principal bundle connection and its curvature describe how the E8
manifold twists and turns over spacetime, reproducing all known fields and dynamics through
pure geometry. Some aspects of this theory are not yet completely understood, and until they
are it should be treated with appropriate skepticism. However, the current match to the standard
model and gravity is very good. Future work will either strengthen the correlation to
known physics and produce successful predictions for the LHC, or the theory will encounter
a fatal contradiction with nature. The lack of extraneous structures and free parameters
ensures testable predictions, so it will either succeed or fail spectacularly. If E8 theory is fully
successful as a theory of everything, our universe is an exceptionally beautiful shape.

He comes across as a fairly reasonable person in these discussion threads [www.math.columbia.edu] , [backreaction.blogspot.com] .

Cheers,
J

I don't think it's reasonable. Here is some criticism:

[motls.blogspot.com]

I said that "he(Garrett)" comes across as quite a reasonable chap, quite willing to discuss his ideas in the threads I quoted above. I have read that "critical" article you quote above, and Garrett addresses those concerns in the second thread I quoted above. The main difference is that while Motl includes plenty of personal insults against Garrett (and others), they are not reciprocated. I believe the Motl "criticism" article has a lot to do with the politics of string theory v. LQG/(the rest), and I think he gives string theorists a bad name in his writing style.

Whereas there are certainly many questions still to be cleared up in the Garrett paper, it does contain some features of interest.

Cheers,
J

Here is an account by Garrett on his story, comes across as quite a nice guy

Cosmic Variance readers like the straight, inside story; so this seems a good opportunity to tell mine. Ten years ago, I got my PhD and looked at my options. I love differential geometry, general relativity, and particle physics. But the only options available then for a postdoc in those combined areas were in string theory, and I thought string theory was overly speculative. There are many really impressive aspects of strings — anomaly cancelation in particular — but there are other things that just seem wild and physically unsubstantiated. I had gotten lucky by investing my graduate stipend in a little company many thought was going out of business (AAPL), so I decided to go to Maui, learn to windsurf, and work on physics on my own. I was pretty happy that way, spending most of my time on physics, and posting a paper on the arxiv only if I thought I’d discovered something interesting. But even though I spend money like a grad student, after several years I was broke, and things were looking grim.

Then, two years ago, the FQXi foundation started up and sent out their RFP. At the same time, the college on Maui, where I had been teaching a physics class, offered me a full-time, tenure track teaching position. This was a very nice offer, but I knew if I took it I’d have no time for my physics research. It was a very difficult choice, but I turned it down. I gambled on FQXi. I packed up the best physics I had done over the previous eight years, and sent it off as a grant proposal. And I got it. With this support, I felt the timing was right (and that I was somewhat obligated) to talk with others about my work. I flew down to the LQG conference in Morelia and presented a twenty minute talk. The LQG community is fantastic — their research is branching out in all directions to solve quantum gravity, and they’re all really nice people. Once they saw what I had been up to, Sabine and Lee invited me to visit Perimeter — which I accepted, of course, as this had been a daydream of mine since the institute was founded.

A month later, I was in Iceland at the FQXi conference, eating the best lobster I’ve ever had, across the table from Mark (Hi Mark!) and the science editor for New Scientist. During this dinner, she must have made note of me, because two months later there was an email from a reporter asking for an interview.

I was in the middle of writing up the paper when I visited PI, a fantastic nerd heaven. I talked with people there about this new E8 theory, and it went very well. I returned to Tahoe, where I’m living in a friend’s house, and finished the paper. I also exchanged twenty detailed emails with the reporter, which ended up as… well, it’s not a terrible article, and some of my conservative statements did filter in. I posted the paper to the arxiv, Sabine made an excellent and reasonable review, and the New Scientist published their article. Apparently, this was the beginning of the perfect media storm. The story spread, fast. I attempted to write accurate responses to the growing queue of inquiries from newspaper reporters. And I got a phone call from a friend who runs an ISP and hosts my web pages: “Umm, Garrett, I have the internet bandwidth of the gods, but you’re simultaneously on the front page of Digg, Reddit, and Slashdot… and you just capped it out.” It was right around then that my inbox exploded.

I am answering reporters’ questions, and trying to make it clear that I do think I’ve come up with an exciting and beautiful new theory, but that it’s grounded in a long history involving the work of many others, and that as with any new theory, it may turn out to be wrong. I’ve spent much more time answering questions on blogs, because I want other physicists to understand the content of the paper, which is mathematically sound but presents many new ideas at once. I’ve refused several requests for brief television and radio interviews, because I think they would only serve the media and amplify the spectacle, instead of increasing interest in physics and how physicists think about the world. At the same time, other aspects of the media frenzy have been very cool (Hey, I’m going to be featured in Surfer magazine!) and completely overwhelming.

The media attention will blow over. While I’m in the spotlight, I’ll try to present a message that’s good for physics. It’s not my intent to tear down academia — heck, I’d be thrilled if some academic opportunities arose from this. (Though it’s baffling to me how academics manage to juggle all the responsibilities and research at once.) It’s not even my intent to tear down string theory. I don’t happen to like it, but I think people should be able to work on what they want.

One way or another, this stuff will all work out. I believe what Sean said — science works — even if sometimes things get a little crazy.

-Garrett


From [cosmicvariance.com]

Cheers,
J

Well, I can say only this. After I took a course called turbulence, which is really an intractable problem that smart people won't touch, I felt not only humbled but also stupid. I backed out of academic pursuits.

I am in biology now. It's easier, and there are lots of really neat problems for which solutions are not entirely out of reach.

Physics will always be a glamour field. But I don't think things will ever be as neat and pretty as Lisl makes them out to be.

Lisi may not be 'arrogant' but I AM

unabashedly so

and i stand by my theory

with total surety

and if it is toppled over

i will also be happy

because it will just reform itself again

like water

it can be cut into, jabbed at

hit, punched etc

but it still will hold its structure

and it doesn't need me to defend it

it just

IS

oh but the world is so ugggly u say

its only ugly cuz people don't believe in my UTTERLY UNIFYING THEORY

hey arugula, josay, light

let's present my UUT together

and if it wins the nobel prize

i will split it with you all

i get 90% and i'll spend the 10% buying fruit and veggies for everyone

that sounds pretty fair to me

i think i'm ON to something

whaddya all say, huh?

take me seriously

i do

I have to add this little piece of fluff..

What do you call a surfer dude who stayed in the water too long?

Mildude!

Ok, on more serious note..I had foster child once who was 7 yrs. old and he made a sphere out of legos..the duplo block ones. I don't know how he did it, I doubt he could have done it a second time, it was a perfect hollow sphere and I can not recreate it no matter how many times I've tried over the years. Maybe he's the surfer dude

It's too bad Arugula that you are so compelled to downgrade yourself so that you would not even dare to submit anything that may help or solve an apparently 'impossible hypothesis' or even think you could solve much of anything, but then to also downgrade other people's confidence I find disturbing. But it's your opinion, and I respect that, it's just that your opinion I'm speaking of is based on a personal level. You know what they say about self-prophecy...

Love,
Prism

hey LET'S SURF WITH SURFER DUDE!!

COWWWA ABBBBUNNNGGGAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!


splashhhh!!


hi josayy!!



hi arugula!!!


splash...


hey! there U ARE LIGHT!!


what's up prism

Yeah, let's doooooo it!

dooo beeee dooo waaaaaaahhhhhhh

kicking some water towards jose

Wow, This is very trippy. This is my first time visiting the non-raw food part of the forum. I was reading through this thread and the name Garrett Lisi seemed so familiar to me. Then I remembered that i worked with this guy for about 6 months as a hiking guide on Maui. I can't comment on the validity of his theory, but I can say that he's a very cool guy. He never made mention that he was working on this theory, but he never failed to leave my mind spinning with all sorts of new "thought-toys". So cool... I wish I knew back then, I would have picked his brain more. He was such a master of understatement, as he only mentioned in passing that he was teaching a physics class at Maui Community College. What a wonderful world!!!

Greg

Wow
What a cool synchronicity

"thought toys"

i like that maui greg

i think thoughts are toys too

u can play with them all day

and then sometimes u put them away in the toy box

then next day you take the toys out and PLAY again

life is play

Let's PLAY ---THOUGHT!

Prism Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It's too bad Arugula that you are so compelled to
> downgrade yourself so that you would not even dare
> to submit anything that may help or solve an
> apparently 'impossible hypothesis' or even think
> you could solve much of anything,

See what Richard Feynman said about turbulence--"Nobody understands turbulence."

Einstein said something similar-- it's "too hard!" and he didn't bother with it.

> but then to also
> downgrade other people's confidence I find
> disturbing.

No, it's called being more informed. Although I admit I have not studied E8.
I can do the math, however.

>You know what they
> say about self-prophecy...
>

Actually Prism I am self-confident, sometimes to a flaw. But I am also aware of my limitations. Turbulence is humbling to everyone who studies it, but some people feel that they might have something to offer. So far, no.

I do wish I had more mathematical smarts. In the career realm, those people who prove new theorems are the ones I most admire and would most like to be. We rarely hear about such people because it usually takes a decade or more to find applications, if they exist. In this particular case, the guy being a surfer and not having an academic position (or any paid position, for that matter) got him some attention. But his paper is in the crank category.

I have enough mathematical ability for all practical purposes. I took it as far as I could go. Yes, I wish I could have done more with it, but branching out into new fields is also satisfying.

<<But his paper is in the crank category. >>

I'm not so sure about that, why do you think so?

Cheers,
J

<<See what Richard Feynman said about turbulence--"Nobody understands turbulence." >>

REALLY?