Surfer develops Grand Unified Theory

[Gil Hamilton]

I think they are playing up his "surfer dude"-ness because it would make a hell of a story if he turned out to be right. 100 years from know, people would talk about the unaffiliated scientist somewhat detached from the scientific community who unlocked a key principle to understanding the universe while bumming around Hawaii, surfing, in the same way people talk about Einstein working in a patent office. If he turned out to have something, it would be legendary.

This guy seems to be doing things right too. He's not selling his theory like it is the Big Answer, he even says that it is a long shot and is working to iron out the details of his prediction so that they can be testable (something that alot of GUT models don't have the benefits of).

[Mayabird]

I'm not very strong on theoretical physics, but I know from his reputation that Dr. Finkelstein is a very, very intelligent (and sorta weird, in his way, but as someone already said, physicists tend to be a little weird) man who knows his physics in a way that scares his students, and who's not one to fall for random bullshit. If he's going to back the paper up, then I'm guessing there might be something to it.

We'll see in a decade or two if we're still talking about it.

[Darth Wong]

I hate this counter-culture bullshit that they're obviously trying to peddle in the article. Since when it is "outside mainstream science" for a guy with a doctorate in theoretical physics to publish a theory in his field of specialization? And what the fuck does "not affiliated with any university" mean? He still has an alma mater; he just doesn't have tenure at one.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I hate this counter-culture bullshit that they're obviously trying to peddle in the article. Since when it is "outside mainstream science" for a guy with a doctorate in theoretical physics to publish a theory in his field of specialization? And what the fuck does "not affiliated with any university" mean? He still has an alma mater; he just doesn't have tenure at one.

Its doubly insulting as you know it comes from some nimrod with a "journalism" degree, who is just flattering himself WRT his inferiority complexes toward hard science specialists.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Also, they conflated the GUT with the TOE; the latter especially has falsifiability challenges and is the "holy grail" Einstein worked on. He's working a GUT, which is much easier experimentally verified and rigorous. Of course they're so eager to grind their anti-intellectual bullshit, they didn't even correctly report the actual story.

[Dooey Jo]

Einstein was working on combining electromagnetism and the general theory of relativity into a unified field theory. He did not include the strong force and might not even have known there was such a thing as the weak force. It couldn't have been a theory of everything, even if it had worked, not only because of that, but also because it didn't attempt to explain the physical constants. This new theory does however seem to explain that.

[Spin Echo]

It's good to see an article portraying scientists as people with normal interests as well. There's a stigma that if you are a scientist that you a some sort of social reject only interested in nerdy, sciencey things. However, the "dark horse" spin they use in the article is obnoxious.

And what the fuck does "not affiliated with any university" mean? He still has an alma mater; he just doesn't have tenure at one.

It means he currently has no position at a university or collaborations with them. So while technically correct, the article tries to make it seem like he's self taught.

[McC]

Okay, so which of the two -- TOE or GUT -- is this guy pursuing here? It seems like he's pursuing a way of unifying all of the fundamental forces. Is that correct, and which of the two -- TOE or GUT -- is that?

[Steel]

Despite this unusual career path, his proposal is remarkable because, by the arcane standards of particle physics, it does not require highly complex mathematics...

Even better, it does not require more than one dimension of time and three of space...

Lisi's inspiration lies in the most elegant and intricate shape known to mathematics, called E8 - a complex, eight-dimensional mathematical pattern with 248 points first found in 1887, but only fully understood by mathematicians this year after workings, that, if written out in tiny print, would cover an area the size of Manhattan...

E8 encapsulates the symmetries of a geometric object that is 57-dimensional and is itself is 248-dimensional. Lisi says "I think our universe is this beautiful shape."

Hmmm... yes...

Looks like slight anti-maths/science bias there, as well as some biased reporting. No yucky maths, and yet it relies on an object in 57-d space? Simple stuff that, believe me...

The theory doesnt use more than 3 space dimensions like those other wacky ones, but actually what we precieve as the standard dimensions are just bits of this 57-d object... which is basically what all those other theories say as well...

Although this article might be going for the "scientists can be normal too" angle, it looks more like the person writing it is catering to an anti-intellectual bias. Whether it is their own or if its for the readers i'm not sure.

[Gullible Jones]

Looks like slight anti-maths/science bias there, as well as some biased reporting. No yucky maths, and yet it relies on an object in 57-d space? Simple stuff that, believe me...

It could be simple compared to the stuff involved in string/brane theory. Chances are good, though, that it still contains enough "yucky maths" to drive our semi-retarded journalist bonkers. Anticommutative calculus anyone?

The theory doesnt use more than 3 space dimensions like those other wacky ones, but actually what we precieve as the standard dimensions are just bits of this 57-d object... which is basically what all those other theories say as well...

I'm not quite sure that's what the theory says. At any rate, string/brane theories use 10, 11, or 26 actual dimensions; LQG to the best of my knowledge uses 4 dimensions that are just 4 dimensions, though it can handle more if necessary; and CDT apparently uses 4 dimensions but has some crazy shit where space is 2-dimensional on the Planck scale. AFAIK there isn't any other theory that treats space as a property of some 57-D object (correct me if I'm wrong).

Although this article might be going for the "scientists can be normal too" angle, it looks more like the person writing it is catering to an anti-intellectual bias. Whether it is their own or if its for the readers i'm not sure.

Might be either, probably both.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

"Surfer develops Grand Unified Theory"

Does it involve the Power Cosmic?



Sorry, I had to.

Ha! No need to apologize. . .I didn't see that now-obvious joke until you poked it.

As for the theory, its predictions will tell whether it's bullshit or not. But I do appreciate that this surfer dude isn't ranting about how the Scientific Establishment has ostracized him for thinking outside the box.

[Gullible Jones]

He's not ranting because he's part of the establishment, even if he's not a big player.

(What's funny is that unusual personalities are nothing new in the physics community; Lisi is really rather bland. Methinks the journalist has never heard of Richard Feynmann.)

[DavidEC]

So how long before plebs such as myself are told by higher authorities whether this theory is The Real Thing, or a good advance, or merely useful, or just another competing theory, or outright wrong? I imagine papers like these take time to criticise.

[Gullible Jones]

No kidding. String theory has been around for how long and there's still no concensus one way or the other?

[Jaepheth]

No kidding. String theory has been around for how long and there's still no concensus one way or the other?

I imagine that having predictions that can be tested to falsify or support the theory will speed things along.

[Prozac the Robert]

So how long before plebs such as myself are told by higher authorities whether this theory is The Real Thing, or a good advance, or merely useful, or just another competing theory, or outright wrong? I imagine papers like these take time to criticise.

We might get something from CERN in the next few years. If they find any new particles with the right properties then this will look pretty good. If they find particles with the wrong properties then this will probably be thrown out and if they find nothing then we'll have to wait for yet another more powerful accelerator to be built.

It's probable that the press won't mention this again if it turns out to be wrong, so you might never hear anything until something else gets put in its place.

[Zixinus]

Ya'know, am I the only one that finds it a bit amusing that the whole article has more anti-intellectualism to it then anything regarding the actual science?

[Stark]

Yeah, an article about the 'holy grail of science' and extremely advanced scientific theories and it's still anti-science. It's good, but only because it's 'simple' and a 'surfer dude' developed it. Psst he holds a PhD don't tell sssssh.

[Ace Pace]

And it might be a bust

New Scientist must hire someone to trawl through the arXiv in the hopes of getting the science news one step ahead of everyone else. Unfortunately, its record for distinguishing good science from bad science is not all that good, so I was pretty skeptical when I was pointed to an article on a new theory of everything™.

This paper is actually a very impressive piece of work, though it is thoroughly overhyped and completely un-understandable to anyone who doesn't regularly do particle physics and group theory. The author, A. Garrett Lisi, has proposed a back-to-the-future approach to uniting quantum mechanics and gravity.

Over the course of the late 19th and 20th centuries, it was discovered that the electric force, the magnetic force, the weak force (responsible for radioactivity), and the strong force (responsible for holding the nucleus together) could all be described by a single theory. The different forces, their properties, and associated particles could all be obtained from different symmetry operations (think rotations and reflections) of an algebraic system. This very successful approach has withstood the test of time, with absolutely every experimental test falling within error bars of the calculated results. However, gravity stands apart as the force which does not get included in this set, so its inclusion (or a totally new theory) would constitute a theory of everything.

Much of the early work focused on exploring higher symmetry algebraic systems that might include gravity. Several were found, but none actually survived contact with reality. This approach has largely fallen out of favor because any object with sufficient symmetry operations can be made to unite gravity with everything else while still not agree with reality as we measure it.Lisi has revived this approach by looking at the shadows cast by an extremely complicated symmetry group (called E8). Unsurprisingly, if you choose (by hand) the right starting methodology, and ignore a large swathe of physical reality, a selection of symmetry operations will result in groups of symmetry operations that correspond to those from particle physics as we know it, something that might be the symmetry operations of gravity—and some other stuff.

The problem is that Lisi has ignored much of physics, where he adds normal numbers to vectors and other similar no-nos (imagine adding a speed to an energy and you have got exactly what Lisi has done). He has found that the chosen symmetry operations correspond to the symmetry groups of particles—not that surprising, considering the number of symmetry operations he has at his disposal—but he hasn't checked to see if the masses come out as found experimentally because he can't; once you put nonsense into a model, the only thing that comes out is nonsense.

In the Observatory thread on this topic, posters have pointed to a blog article that puts Lisi firmly in the crank category, which is exactly right. However, New Scientist has to take a good chunk of the blame here by taking something that any good particle physicist can recognize as complete rubbish (it fooled me until I started to look at what his equations actually meant) and turned it (and Lisi) into an antiestablishment star (he's a surfer, not a scientist...).

Many thanks to Geon and his post in the Observatory.

Blog post referenced.

[Metatwaddle]

You know, even if the guy turns out to be totally, utterly wrong, it would be a breath of fresh air out of particle physics. You know, actual science involving falsifiability and theories related to experimental evidence, rather than a bunch of really-difficult-but-pie-in-the-sky mathematics combined with vague mumblings of "anthropic principle."

Can't help but agree, although it's not like we don't have any provable/falsifiable theories (see LQG again).

Well, sure. I was thinking more about the predominance of string-theory (or M-theory, or whatever they're calling it now). Admittedly that's probably because I'm still working my way through Peter Woit's Not Even Wrong. It's a rather sobering read. Partially because the beginning is pretty dense material for a non-physicist. But also because it's frightening to see how... well, almost religious in character some of the physics community has become around their pet Theory of Everything. They should know better!

If you like Not Even Wrong, Lee Smolin - the guy who's giving this dude a rave review of his theory - has written a book on a similar subject called "The Trouble With Physics". It's a good read so far; I'm still in the middle.

I'm not very strong on theoretical physics, but I know from his reputation that Dr. Finkelstein is a very, very intelligent (and sorta weird, in his way, but as someone already said, physicists tend to be a little weird) man who knows his physics in a way that scares his students, and who's not one to fall for random bullshit. If he's going to back the paper up, then I'm guessing there might be something to it.

I'm a physics student and I still have no idea what the hell is going on, but I know a little bit about Smolin and although he has been known to have unconventional ideas, he's also fucking brilliant. I can't square "Smolin likes it" with the things Ace's linked blog post is saying, like "The problem is that Lisi has ignored much of physics, where he adds normal numbers to vectors and other similar no-nos (imagine adding a speed to an energy and you have got exactly what Lisi has done)." I don't think Smolin would go for that.

[Dooey Jo]

I can't square "Smolin likes it" with the things Ace's linked blog post is saying, like "The problem is that Lisi has ignored much of physics, where he adds normal numbers to vectors and other similar no-nos (imagine adding a speed to an energy and you have got exactly what Lisi has done)." I don't think Smolin would go for that.

But remember, if there's any type of source that's better than both New Scientist and Wikipedia, it's the random blogger.

[Ace Pace]

I can't square "Smolin likes it" with the things Ace's linked blog post is saying, like "The problem is that Lisi has ignored much of physics, where he adds normal numbers to vectors and other similar no-nos (imagine adding a speed to an energy and you have got exactly what Lisi has done)." I don't think Smolin would go for that.

But remember, if there's any type of source that's better than both New Scientist and Wikipedia, it's the random blogger.

Because of course, randomly believing it because it was published is better. So lets quote the post mentioned as the basis for this.

Be EXTREMELY skeptical. This is very likely to be wrong. I don't mean that the guy proposing this stuff is a crank or anything. It's simply that people have been doing just this kind of thing for a while (it's called 'grand unified model' building), and it's very hard to make it actually work.

What he seems to be doing is taking a very large symmetry group (E8), and fitting the standard model particles into 'subgroups' of it (I'm being intentionally loose here). This is all nice and beautiful... but beautiful doesn't mean that it's right!

In fact, people first started doing this kind of thing in the 70s, using groups like SU(5) and SO(10). Again, things are marvelous and beautiful... and it doesn't work. Because even though you can fit the particle content of the standard model into such frameworks, there's more to the standard model than that. And these new models predict new particles, which you'd think was a good thing (it's a way to test them!).

But these new particles generically have consequences (they predict proton decay, for instance) that can be measured in precision experiments that we can already do. And it so happens that all of these models get excluded by these tests (protons, if they decay, have MUCH larger lifetimes than these models predict). So then you can evade the tests by screwing around with your beautiful model and adding various appendages and hairy bits to it, and evade all the experimental tests to date... but the cost is that now your model is no longer very pretty, and even though it's not excluded by the current data, it's not supported either! So then what's the point?

The paper that we're talking about does mention proton decay - but only to say that the model predicts proton decay! It doesn't actually compute the proton decay rate, and doesn't compare it to experiment. Nor does it talk about other potential issues the theory having a GIM mechanism and so on... The problem is that any genius can come up with some fancy group structure to beautify the standard model - the real question is whether these models are actually consistent with the data. And I'd lay odds that this one isn't, just because models of this sort usually, well, aren't.

People do try very hard to put lipstick on this pig of a problem. And I think it's worth doing, to some extent: we don't know what lies beyond the standard model, but there's got to be something. Speculation (if informed by the data and done carefully and self-consistently) is good. But the basic issue is that the standard model is just very, very good. Too good, basically, to make speculations easy. It explains the data we have to extraordinary precision. So until we get some data that cannot be explained by the standard model, our attempts to understand physics outside of it have no experimental guidance. And that puts the speculators on some very shaky ground. In particular, it means that while people within physics have some reason to care about this stuff, it's not really all that sensible for the general public to get excited about any particular development in this area. Until someone comes up with something that actually gets confirmed, that is. Then getting excited will be very much worth it!

While we may like to think nature likes pretty math, that's a) not necessarily true and b) we don't know WHICH pretty math structure really does describe nature. There's a lot of crazy ways to extend the standard model. Almost all of them will be things that nature just didn't choose.

This paper doesn't obviously extend things very far. It simply finds a new (and especially pretty) group to fit the standard model into. That's an impressive accomplishment, but it's simply not enough: that sort of thing has been done time and time again before. The real questions about the consequences are not explored in the paper. As a result, while people working on grand unified theories may want to look into Lisi's results, it is WAY too early for the general public to care. And in my humble opinion, it is irresponsible for some of the physicists in the article to be talking this work up to reporters. If this work is right, it'll stand on its own merits, after being tested by theorists and experimentalists for a few years.

Geon

I honestly would like for this to be a breakthrough, but it's abit early to jump and claim eureka.

[Ace Pace]

I can't square "Smolin likes it" with the things Ace's linked blog post is saying, like "The problem is that Lisi has ignored much of physics, where he adds normal numbers to vectors and other similar no-nos (imagine adding a speed to an energy and you have got exactly what Lisi has done)." I don't think Smolin would go for that.

But remember, if there's any type of source that's better than both New Scientist and Wikipedia, it's the random blogger.

Ghetto edit, since i'm not even remotely qualified to comment on the math, here are less 'crackpot' critics of his work.

[Zixinus]

Isn't there like a Grand Unification Theory like every few weeks from some random scientist who's initial work looked good and made sense, but turned out to be non-working after more careful look?

[Gullible Jones]

Not really, no.

Though we have started seeing a resurgence in non-string/brane theories recently. As people have indicated above several times, it's no bloody wonder...