• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Theories Of Everything

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,631
Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Last Updated: 6:01pm GMT 14/11/2007

An impoverished surfer has drawn up a new theory of the universe, seen by some as the Holy Grail of physics, which as received rave reviews from scientists.

Garrett Lisi, 39, has a doctorate but no university affiliation and spends most of the year surfing in Hawaii, where he has also been a hiking guide and bridge builder (when he slept in a jungle yurt).

In winter, he heads to the mountains near Lake Tahoe, Nevada, where he snowboards. "Being poor sucks," Lisi says. "It's hard to figure out the secrets of the universe when you're trying to figure out where you and your girlfriend are going to sleep next month."

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, when some rival theories need ten or even more spatial dimensions and other bizarre concepts. And it may even be possible to test his theory, which predicts a host of new particles, perhaps even using the new Large Hadron Collider atom smasher that will go into action near Geneva next year.

Although the work of 39 year old Garrett Lisi still has a way to go to convince the establishment, let alone match the achievements of Albert Einstein, the two do have one thing in common: Einstein also began his great adventure in theoretical physics while outside the mainstream scientific establishment, working as a patent officer, though failed to achieve the Holy Grail, an overarching explanation to unite all the particles and forces of the cosmos.

Now Lisi, currently in Nevada, has come up with a proposal to do this. Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, describes Lisi's work as "fabulous". "It is one of the most compelling unification models I've seen in many, many years," he says.

"Although he cultivates a bit of a surfer-guy image its clear he has put enormous effort and time into working the complexities of this structure out over several years," Prof Smolin tells The Telegraph.

"Some incredibly beautiful stuff falls out of Lisi's theory," adds David Ritz Finkelstein at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. "This must be more than coincidence and he really is touching on something profound."

The new theory reported today in New Scientist has been laid out in an online paper entitled "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" by Lisi, who completed his doctorate in theoretical physics in 1999 at the University of California, San Diego.

He has high hopes that his new theory could provide what he says is a "radical new explanation" for the three decade old Standard Model, which weaves together three of the four fundamental forces of nature: the electromagnetic force; the strong force, which binds quarks together in atomic nuclei; and the weak force, which controls radioactive decay.

The reason for the excitement is that Lisi's model also takes account of gravity, a force that has only successfully been included by a rival and highly fashionable idea called string theory, one that proposes particles are made up of minute strings, which is highly complex and elegant but has lacked predictions by which to do experiments to see if it works.

But some are taking a cooler view. Prof Marcus du Sautoy told the Telegraph: "The proposal in this paper looks a long shot and there seem to be a lot things still to fill in."

And a colleague Eric Weinstein in America added: "Lisi seems like a hell of a guy. I'd love to meet him. But my friend Lee Smolin is betting on a very very long shot."

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."

What makes E8 so exciting is that Nature also seems to have embedded it at the heart of many bits of physics. One interpretation of why we have such a quirky list of fundamental particles is because they all result from different facets of the strange symmetries of E8.

Lisi's breakthrough came when he noticed that some of the equations describing E8's structure matched his own. "My brain exploded with the implications and the beauty of the thing," he tells New Scientist. "I thought: 'Holy crap, that's it!'"

What Lisi had realised was that he could find a way to place the various elementary particles and forces on E8's 248 points. What remained was 20 gaps which he filled with notional particles, for example those that some physicists predict to be associated with gravity.

Physicists have long puzzled over why elementary particles appear to belong to families, but this arises naturally from the geometry of E8, he says. So far, all the interactions predicted by the complex geometrical relationships inside E8 match with observations in the real world. "How cool is that?" he says.

The crucial test of Lisi's work will come only when he has made testable predictions. Lisi is now calculating the masses that the 20 new particles should have, in the hope that they may be spotted when the Large Hadron Collider starts up.

"The theory is very young, and still in development," he told the Telegraph. "Right now, I'd assign a low (but not tiny) likelyhood to this prediction.

"For comparison, I think the chances are higher that LHC will see some of these particles than it is that the LHC will see superparticles, extra dimensions, or micro black holes as predicted by string theory. I hope to get more (and different) predictions, with more confidence, out of this E8 Theory over the next year, before the LHC comes online."

http://tinyurl.com/2pepnx

More on E8 here:
http://tinyurl.com/3a9qre
 
Wow - this one resulted in an extended lunchbreak... :shock:

I downloaded the prepub and gave it a go. I'm a humble geneticist but even I could see he is using some relatively (by the standards if the area) straightforward mathematics to describe the fundamental particles and the 4 forces.

Definitely one to watch. I guess my only instinctive reservation in things like this is in what he says in his introduction. He states, "The mathematics of the universe should be beautiful. A succesful description of nature should be a concise, elegant, unified mathematical structure consistent with experience."

Well certainly it should be consistent with experience (i.e. empirical), but does it necessarily have to be concise and elegant. It could actually be messy and we try to impose order on it to make sense of it. I always feel this is like the weak theism of Einstein - "Raffiniert ist der Herrgott..." etc. It's a philosophical point.

Still, it will be interesting to see what the LHC has to say about the predictions. If they are borne out, look for posters of the E8 root system on pages 17 and 19 and popular science books with titles like 'The Snowflake Universe'...

Nice find!
 
ideasman1 said:
...look for posters of the E8 root system on pages 17 and 19 and popular science books with titles like 'The Snowflake Universe'...
And a packet of virtual ginger biscuits to the first person to derive E8 from the Kabbalah,
or vice-versa! ;)
 
Another aspect of E8:
"What's attractive about studying E8 is that it's as complicated as symmetry can get", observed David Vogan from the Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the US.

"Mathematics can almost always offer another example that's harder than the one you're looking at now, but for Lie groups, E8 is the hardest one."

Professor Vogan is presenting the results at MIT in a lecture entitled The Character Table for E8, or How We Wrote Down a 453,060 x 453,060 Matrix and Found Happiness.
:D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6466129.stm

No wonder E8 seems to have the God-like property of including everything...
 
Mathematics are definitely not my strong point and maybe I'm a bit thick, but first of all the article says:
...

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, when some rival theories need ten or even more spatial dimensions and other bizarre concepts....
Then it says:
...

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."

...
Am I missing something here? :confused:
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Am I missing something here? :confused:
Well, yes, but I agree it is confusing to the non-mathematician.

(TBH, it's confusing to me, but I'm nowhere near as good a mathematician as I'd like to be! :oops: )

As I understand it, the physical world can still be described by the 3 spatial dimensions (up-down, left-right, near-far) and the dimension of time.

But all the objects and interactions we observe in the universe are very complex, and need much more information to describe them fully.

So you can describe a room by its length, width and height. But a fuller description would include its temperature, and temperature is another dimension (mathematically speaking). And the temperature might be different in different parts of the room, so we have to use an even more complex description which includes the temperature at each point of the room.

Then there is the air in the room, and its composition. How humid is it (another dimension), how much CO2 and other gases does it contain, how much radioactivity, etc.

Then there are the walls. What colour are they? Are they patterned, and if so, how?

All these questions can have numerical answers, which must lie somewhere along a 'dimension' (from 'least possible' to 'most possible').

And so it goes on. (Let's not think about the carpet!) In other words, to fully describe a room, you need to specify the values for many, many features, and all these features lie along a mathematical dimension.

So (as I understand it) E8, the most complex representation of symmetry possible in maths, encapsulates the symmetries of a geometric object that is 57-dimensional and is itself is 248-dimensional. E8 therefore includes not only the 4 dimensions of space-time, but all the possible ways in which all the things in our universe can interact. So it encapsulates electromagnetic fields, gravity, and all the weird phenomena of quantum mechanics, as well as relatively simple things like the size and age of your patio extension!

I hope this helps
(and that I am not speaking out of my nether regions) :shock:
 
:lol: I hadn't thought of the Kabalah similarity...so if the scientific mainstream won't use the LHC to examine this, then maybe a few well endowed celebs with a mystical bent could fund it?? I can see the tabloid headlines now - 'Neighbours in uproar as Material Girl builds super accelerator in English Countryside'


Also, I guess if you take the 'universe is a computer simulation' route then E8 has something to do with the data structure in the code. If every possible instance of space time is described by an E8 array then obviously the creator had access to offshore software development resources that would be the envy of the sub-continent.

One thing is for sure, if there seems to be any substance in this it will run and run...
 
Are the colours representative of anything in particular? Or just there for clarification to make the diagram easier to understand? It reminds me of a cross between a mandala, a rose window in a cathedral and God's spirograph.
 
jefflovestone said:
Are the colours representative of anything in particular? Or just there for clarification to make the diagram easier to understand? It reminds me of a cross between a mandala, a rose window in a cathedral and God's spirograph.
Well, the 'mandala' is just a two-dimensional representation of a set of relationships that exist in 57 dimensions, so presumably the different colours indicate which points are linked by relationships in dimensions 1, 2, 3,.... 57 respectively.

(This may be 'simple' to some physicists, but it may not be so to the man on the Clapham omnibus! ;) )
 
Surfer Dude's Theory of Everything - The Movie
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Last Updated: 6:01pm GMT 21/11/2007

Hollywood is now chasing the "surfer dude," who last week electrified the scientific community with his theory of everything, so that his extraordinary story can be told in a movie.

Such a theory aims to unite Einstein's General Relativity, which explains how the universe works on very large scales, with that of quantum mechanics, which describes the world of tiny elementary particles.

Now, after a decade of effort, a candidate idea for such a theory has been set out by Garrett Lisi, 39, who has a doctorate but no university affiliation and spends most of the year surfing in Hawaii. In winter, he heads to the mountains near Lake Tahoe, Nevada, where he snowboards.

"Since I'm not in academia, I only publish papers when I think I've found something cool," he says. But the response to his ideas has been anything but. Yesterday, he said that the feedback triggered by an article on www.telegraph.co.uk, has been "phenomenal."

"I have also received many emails of encouragement from the general public, which have been wonderful and completely overwhelming."

Meanwhile, a representative of a Hollywood film production company has been in touch with the Telegraph saying that "I loved the article and think it has great potential for a feature film."

And at least one major agent is scrambling to sell publishers a book that will tell the story of Garrett Lisi and his struggles to comprehend the cosmos.

The reason Lisi has captured the imagination is that he does not work in the scientific establishment. Backed by a little money from a privately funded research institute called FQXi, he has introduced his new theory of everything, based on E8, the most elegant and intricate structure known to mathematics - a complex pattern in eight dimensions with 248 points that was first found in 1887.

What Lisi realised was that he could link the various elementary particles and forces on E8's 248 points. What remained was 20 gaps which he filled with new particles, some of which might be detected at the Large Hadron Collider, the new atom smasher that will go into action next year in Geneva.

Physicists have long puzzled over why elementary particles appear to belong to families, but this arises naturally from the geometry of E8, he says.

So far, the interactions predicted by the complex geometrical relationships inside E8 match with observations in the real world. And it could be possible to test predictions. "How cool is that?" he says.

"It is futile to argue with nature, if she says your theory is wrong. This E8 Theory is mathematically and aesthetically beautiful, and so far it seems to agree with the physics we know. But it is a new theory, and not completely understood yet, and, of course, it may turn out to be wrong."

Ever since an article on his work appeared last week online on telegraph.co.uk he has become something of a celebrity and he admitted yesterday that he was finding the attention overwhelming - indeed he has refused to appear on television.

"I'm currently spending the bulk of my time corresponding with physicists, which I consider to be of prime importance. "

Although he spends most of his time working on wave theory, the video of him snowboarding was shot in Colorado by videographer Lowell Hart. Lisi says he will split his time this coming season between working on E8 Theory and snowboarding at Mt. Rose in Tahoe. 8) Cool indeed!

http://tinyurl.com/2vtogv
 
As you were....

Garrett Lisi: This surfer is no Einstein...

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 22/01/2008
No Einstein...but behind Garrett Lisi's 'theory of everything' lies an amazing idea,
says Marcus du Sautoy

Two months ago, the physics world was buzzing with the news of a new Einstein. Garrett Lisi, an unemployed physicist with no university affiliation who spent his time surfing in Hawaii, had come up with the Holy Grail of science: a theory unifying quantum physics and Einstein's theory of relativity.

However, in the last few weeks several physics blogs have uncovered a problem with Lisi's idea: it doesn't work. :(

But to understand why, it is necessary to explore the fascinating concept the 39-year-old based his theory on - symmetry.

Lisi was attempting to bridge quantum physics - which works for very small things, like electrons and protons - and relativity - which works for very large things, like galaxies and stars.

At the moment, we can't fit the two into one coherent model that accurately describes the world we see.

Yet the idea of symmetry is vital to both. Quantum physicists can explain the menagerie of fundamental particles we observe - quarks, gluons, fermions, bosons and more - as different facets of a symmetrical object.

Relativity, too, works so beautifully because of the symmetries that exist between space and time: Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is essentially expressing a symmetry between mass and energy.

Symmetry is part of the language of nature: many animals and plants exploit symmetrical shapes as a way of standing out against the chaos of the landscape. Symmetry also underlies the molecular world.

Diamond gets its strength from its crystal structure, which binds the carbon atoms together. Viruses such as polio and HIV exploit the symmetry of the icosahedron, a 20-sided dice made up of triangular faces. Because of the simplicity of this shape, viruses find it easier to replicate.

It is also important in the arts. From the Moorish painters in the Alhambra, to Bach's work, symmetry is a crucial ingredient. Although we have been playing with symmetrical objects since the first dice were thrown, it is only in the last two centuries that a true understanding has evolved - thanks to French mathematician Evariste Galois.

Before his death in a duel in 1832, Galois created a language called group theory that shifted attention from the symmetries of objects to the ways they interact.

If I place a 50p piece on the table, I can count the number of symmetries by seeing how many times I can twist or flip it to end up with the same outline.

Just as the number seven is not a concrete thing, but a concept that can be applied to seven cats or seven cups, so Galois realised that the symmetries that describe the coin could describe those of another object.

This language, of talking about "groups" of symmetries, lets us prove that the vast number of designs on the walls in the Alhambra are examples of only 17 patterns.

One of Galois's most stunning breakthroughs was the realisation that there are fundamental symmetrical objects which act as building blocks for all others.

The first on his list were the rotations of coins with a prime number of sides - like the 50p piece (those with six, or eight, or nine sides were not "indivisible" - for example, the rotations of a 15-sided figure can be built out of the rotations of a triangle and a pentagon).

But there were others - the rotations of a football, for example, with its patchwork of hexagons and pentagons, are one of the atoms of symmetry.

The greatest achievement of 20th-century mathematics has been to complete Galois's project. We now have a list of all the building blocks of symmetry - but although they were christened "simple groups", they are far from it.

In particular, there are some very strange designs that don't seem to fit in, known as "sporadic" or "exceptional". The title of Lisi's paper - An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything - does not describe how easy his theory is, but refers to his use of one of these groups, called E8, as the key to his idea to unify quantum physics and relativity into a theory.

E8 can be thought of as the symmetries of a huge snowflake living in 248-dimensional space. Lisi believed that inside this he could bind the symmetries of the quantum world and relativity.

Unfortunately, the consensus, after investigation, is that it is impossible to use E8 in the way Lisi was hoping and produce a consistent model that reflects reality. Lisi has been riding a wave - but it is time to knock him off his board and recognise that we are still waiting for the next Einstein to span the gap between the symmetries of the very small and the very big.

Marcus du Sautoy is a Professor of Mathematics at Wadham College, Oxford.

http://tinyurl.com/2sjyxy

I guess that scuppers the film project, then...

Although, with a good script-writer, the rise from obscurity to fame and the fall back to obscurity could still make a good story...
(Are the script-writers still on strike?)
 
Surfer physicist gets grant to study theory of everything

Last week, the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) announced it has awarded $2.7 million in grants to 33 researchers to study basic questions in physics and cosmology.

Among the grant winners was surfer/theoretical physicist A. Garrett Lisi (pictured), who made the news last year with an unpublished paper entitled 'An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything.' Lisi will get $77,222 to work on his theory, which involves using a recently mapped 248-dimension mathematical structure called E8 to unify all the fundamental particles and forces, including gravity. In the last round of awards in 2006, FQXi gave Lisi $77,280 over two years.

A number of grants went out to theorists studying multiverse theories and quantum gravity. But two of the three biggest awards actually went to experimentalists. One recipient will look for changes in the universe's fine structure constant using the rare element dysprosium. Another laboratory test will aim to answer why we don't see quantum mechanical effects on large objects.

This second round of grants clears out the rest of the major money FQXi had to dispense in its first four years (it awarded $2.2 million at 2006).

At the moment, FQXi is financed by the Templeton Foundation. But as Columbia University mathematician Peter Woit notes, the foundation's future physics funding may be uncertain, as the organisation is under new management following the recent death of its founder, Sir John Templeton.

"We're actively looking for more funding," says FQXi scientific director Max Tegmark. This might include money from other sources, possibly with matching grants from Templeton.


....

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/ ... gspacephys
 
Lisi doesn't look like a surfer dude - he doesn't have long tousled blonde hair...
 
Professor Stephen Hawking: Einstein had futile quest
Stephen Hawking, the British physicist and best-selling author

Jonathan Leake
PROFESSOR Stephen Hawking is to publish a controversial new book suggesting Albert Einstein’s lifelong search for a “theory of everything” was probably a mistake.

Einstein is famed for his theories of relativity, published in his twenties, which described the relationship between time and space.

However, he spent much of the rest of his career in a failed attempt to reconcile such ideas with the behaviour of matter and energy at the sub-atomic level, now known as quantum theory. The same hunt preoccupies many physicists today.

In his new book The Grand Design, Hawking will suggest that the search for this “unified theory” is probably futile – a notion that will prove controversial with many colleagues.

One of his previous books, A Brief History of Time, became an international best-seller, and the new one is also expected to sell well.

Hawking said in a recent lecture, published on his website, www.hawking.org. uk: “Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I’m now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 683551.ece
 
Surfer dude's theory of everything: the magic of Garrett Lisi
The Big Idea: Roger Highfield explains why Garrett Lisi, the surfer who drew up a 'theory of everything' to explain the universe, is a great role model for science.
By Roger Highfield
Published: 7:00AM GMT 10 Nov 2009

[ video - vey pretty! ]

Of all the stories I've written in recent years, the most popular by far bore the intriguing headline: "Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything." It described how an American, Garrett Lisi, had unveiled a new way to unite the laws and particles of the universe, in a paper entitled An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything.

I first picked up on the waves this unlikely figure was making in the scientific community when I read an article in New Scientist by Zeeya Merali. My take on the story broke in The Daily Telegraph in November 2007, and has since been viewed more than a million times on telegraph.co.uk. Only a few weeks ago, it was back at the top of the website's chart.

Hollywood wants to make 'Surfer Dude - the Movie' So why all the interest? Partly, because Lisi claimed to have found the answer to probably the most important question in science: how to find a coherent model of the universe that works on scales both very large (addressed by Einstein's theory of general relativity) and the very small (dealt with by quantum physics).

His take on it rested on an extraordinary mathematical object called E8, a complex shape described by a pattern of 248 points in eight dimensions, with a structure that, if written out as an equation in tiny print, would cover an area the size of Manhattan. It filled 20 gaps in the conventional theories with new particles, which seemed to arise naturally from the geometry of E8. As soon as he spotted this, he declared: "Holy crap, that's it!"

The ideas were described as "fabulous" by Lee Smolin, of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario, Canada. David Ritz Finkelstein, of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, added that "some incredibly beautiful stuff falls out of Lisi's theory".

Much of the excitement was because Lisi's theory seemed to challenge string theory – the dominant contender for a "theory of everything", over which there has been a bitter intellectual war. Its proponents (mostly superstar theorists) argue that the theory, which relies on tiny, subatomic "strings" vibrating across multiple dimensions, is too beautiful to be ignored. But there are detractors, from Smolin, who launched a scathing attack in a book called The Trouble with Physics, to doubters, such as Steven Weinberg, a Nobel prizewinner.

However, the dude had his critics, too. Prof Marcus du Sautoy, of Oxford University, said it was time to knock Lisi off his board, pointing out the ways physics blogs dissected his work. He, and many others, remain unconvinced.

Yet even if Lisi is wrong – as is usually the case with attempts to erect such all-encompassing theories – the world needs more surfer dudes. Lisi's effort captured the public imagination because, though the then 39-year-old had a doctorate, he did not work in the establishment, but was backed by a little money from a privately funded research institute called FQXi. We need more independent spirits like him, and others outside the mainstream, such as James Lovelock, the maverick environmentalist.

Lisi is also a great role model for science, in that he shatters the stereotype of a nerd. While he worked on his theory, he spent most of the year surfing in Hawaii, where he lived in a yurt. In winter, he headed to the mountains near Lake Tahoe, Nevada, where he would snowboard. He was so attractive a figure that TV companies lined up to film him and literary agents scrambled to sell the story of his struggle to comprehend the cosmos. A Hollywood executive said there was "great potential for a feature film".

No wonder that today, Lisi says things are going "more or less fantastically well". He is now trying to use axions (theoretical particles proposed by the Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek) to describe how particles get their masses. And he is organising an E8 Theory conference with the backing of the American Institute of Mathematics. He feels like he, and others, are on "the right track", and hopes that some of the particles he predicts might be detected by the Large Hadron Collider, the vast atom-smasher that is about to go into action in Geneva.

And, as well as pursuing his theory, Lisi is working on a film about young scientists who combine cutting-edge research with adventure sports. He maintains his appetite for both physical and intellectual adrenalin, and tells me: "I've been spending every other day surfing or kitesurfing here in Maui." No wonder his peers are jealous.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6532 ... -Lisi.html
 
D’oh, we may never decode the universe
Jonathan Leake

SOME of the greatest mysteries of the universe may never be resolved because they are beyond human comprehension, according to Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society.

Rees suggests that the inherent intellectual limitations of humanity mean we may never resolve questions such as the existence of parallel universes, the cause of the big bang, or the nature of our own consciousness.

He even compares humanity to fish, which swim through the oceans without any idea of the properties of the water in which they spend their lives.

“A ‘true’ fundamental theory of the universe may exist but could be just be too hard for human brains to grasp,” said Rees, who is also the astronomer royal.

“Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains.”

Rees’s thesis could prove highly provocative to other scientists, especially those who have devoted their careers to understanding such mysteries.

He is well placed to understand the potential limitations of science. Besides heading Britain’s premier scientific organisation, he is also professor of cosmology at Cambridge University, where he is one of Britain’s most respected astrophysicists. He is currently delivering the annual BBC Reith lectures.

Rees’s warning, in a Sunday Times interview, is partly prompted by the failure of scientists working on the greatest problem of modern physics — to reconcile the forces that govern the behaviour of the cosmos, including planets and stars, with those that rule the so-called microworld of atoms and particles.

Rees points out how Albert Einstein was able to use mathematical theories developed in the early 19th century to build his 1915 theory of general relativity, describing how gravity controlled stars and planets.

Similarly, early 20th-century physicists such as Paul Dirac used “off-the-shelf” mathematical systems when devising quantum theory, which describes how nature works at a sub-atomic level.

The problem faced by their successors is that the two theories are deeply contradictory — and no one can find the mathematical tools needed to bring them together into a “unified theory”.

Rees points out that thousands of scientists have been working on this problem for several decades and are still nowhere near an answer.

“There are powerful reasons to suspect that space has a grainy structure but on a scale a trillion trillion times smaller than atoms. Solving how this might work is crucial for 21st-century science,” he said.

Rees believes the most promising idea is “string theory” which suggests that the particles that make up atoms are “woven from space itself”.

Such particles, he suggests, could exist in 10 or 11 dimensions. Humans, by contrast, can experience only the three spatial dimensions plus time.

He adds that there could even be other 3-D universes “embedded alongside ours”.

“In theory, there could be another entire universe less than a millimetre away from us, but we are oblivious to it because that millimetre is measured in a fourth spatial dimension and we are imprisoned in just three,” he said.

Such ideas sound extraordinary but Rees wonders if they can ever be proved. He suggests humanity may have reached the limits of comprehension.

“Some aspects of reality — a unified theory of physics or a full understanding of consciousness — might elude us simply because they’re beyond human brains, just as surely as Einstein’s ideas would baffle a chimpanzee,” he said.

Other scientists are more optimistic. Brian Cox, the BBC science presenter and physics professor who was awarded an OBE yesterday, said: “The idea that certain things are beyond us is quite a bleak one and history does show that we can eventually overcome the most difficult of problems.”

The mind boggles

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/s ... 149095.ece
 
rynner2 said:
D’oh, we may never decode the universe
Jonathan Leake

SOME of the greatest mysteries of the universe may never be resolved because they are beyond human comprehension, according to Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society.

Rees suggests that the inherent intellectual limitations of humanity mean we may never resolve questions such as the existence of parallel universes, the cause of the big bang, or the nature of our own consciousness.

He even compares humanity to fish, which swim through the oceans without any idea of the properties of the water in which they spend their lives.

“A ‘true’ fundamental theory of the universe may exist but could be just be too hard for human brains to grasp,” said Rees, who is also the astronomer royal.

“Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains.”

...

The mind boggles

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/s ... 149095.ece
Cough! Lord Kelvin cough!
 
Lord Kelvin (and others) notwithstanding, it does seem likely that a finite sized human brain must have some limits to its comprehension of a possibly infinite universe. Our most succesful theories, Quantum Physics and General relativity, are only comprehensible in detail to a small percentage of the human race - and we know these two theories are incompatible anyway!

As the article says, string theory (which also goes under other names, depending which aspects of nature are being emphasised) seems like a promising approach, but it's hideously complex in practice and, despite years of research, it has failed to make any testable predictions, as far as I'm aware.

We may not yet be at the limit of human understanding, but we might be getting quite close.
 
Ah yes, when the warp drive is finally invented, something will have to fly in front with a red flag. :)
 
The history of string theory is quite interesting. It seems to be able to replicate various conclusions from quantum and relativity theories, but in a more complex way.

This suggests that a TOE might in fact be incredibly complicated, and perhaps beyond our reach.

There's no rule that says the universe has to be a simple place. The idea that it might be probably derived from the great success early science had with relatively simple rules. Newton's theory of gravity can be expressed as one simple equation, but from that can be deduced the orbits of comets and planets, the tides and gravitationally locked satellite rotation, the paths of ballistic missiles, and so on.

But eventually we found that Newton's theory failed to deal with certain situations (the orbit of Mercury, and the curvature of light in a gravitational field), and it had to be replaced with General Relativity.

So the history of science seems to demonstrate that as we delve deeper into the mysteries of the universe, we find more complexity, and there may not be a simple way to describe it. We'll probably continue to make scientific progress, but a TOE may forever remain an unattainable Holy Grail.
 
rynner2 said:
This suggests that a TOE might in fact be incredibly complicated, and perhaps beyond our reach.

Nah. I can reach all my toes, and they're not complicated. :D
 
Mythopoeika said:
rynner2 said:
This suggests that a TOE might in fact be incredibly complicated, and perhaps beyond our reach.
Nah. I can reach all my toes, and they're not complicated. :D
It doesn't count if you bend your knees, you know.
 
From a long article about Brian Cox, physics prof and TV star:

Until last year, when filming began to take precedence, Cox was one of the swarms of scientists tending to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Cern, in Geneva, where, he recently admitted, rather endearingly, "the wheels are coming off our picture of the way the universe works at the moment. We don't know what 96% of the universe is made of." Really? "Well," he says now, "they're trying to bolt the wheel back on – an 11-dimensional wheel." Much laughter. One criticism of the work done at Cern is that it relies too much on string theory (hence the 11 dimensions), and that string theory, being currently eons ahead of the scientifically provable, depends too much on the pursuit of mathematical elegance.

That's not very evidence-based, is it? The pursuit of beauty? "I mean, well – reductionism is pleasing to many scientists. So this desire to unify phenomena together into a simpler description – that's when you use this term beautiful. It's true that there's no a priori reason why that's the path you should take in understanding the universe. But there's actually evidence that it's worked in the past – Einstein's often cited, but it's true: the general theory of relativity was a genuine aesthetic choice, really. There was no experimental justification for going beyond Newton's laws of gravity. It was purely aesthetic.

"But it predicts things. I find it amazing, for example, that you get binary pulsars" – a kind of small but dense star – "orbiting around each other a thousand times a second – the most violent thing you can imagine, churning up space and time. And you make measurements with radio telescopes, and you get the answer that Einstein's theory predicts – and he wrote that in 1915, when he didn't know about pulsars, and he didn't know about radio telescopes. But you're right – a good scientist, a really pure scientist, would have to accept that that constant drive to unify forces together and to find a simpler, more economical description of nature, is really a choice – it's an act of – I was going to say an act of faith, but that makes it sound mystical, and there's nothing mystical about science actually."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2 ... -brian-cox
 
Long article:

The hunt for the God particle
We have all heard of 'dark matter'. But what about dark galaxies, dark planets - even dark people? Ian Sample reports on the new holy grail of physics
Ian Sample guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 June 2010 21.00 BST

Durham, northern England, December 2009. The largest meeting of particle physicists in the country is underway and James Wells, a leading theorist at Cern, the European nuclear research organisation near Geneva, is beguiling his audience with an idea that has all the makings of the next great revolution in science.

Wells, a tall, softly-spoken 44-year-old from Tampa Bay, Florida, begins with an uncomfortable home truth. Particle physicists have a problem, he says. They are an anthropocentric bunch, too preoccupied with the particles and forces that impinge on humanity. They have spent so much time unravelling mysteries such as the structure of atoms and why the sun shines that they have neglected other avenues of inquiry. They need to broaden their horizons, Wells says. To think beyond the world we see and touch.

If that was the stick, next came the carrot. Our knowledge of the cosmos tells us that the stuff around us, from plants and people to stars and planets, is made from just a handful of elementary particles. On top of these, there is a small number of forces that make nature run smoothly, doing things like keeping planets in their orbits and ensuring everyday objects don't suddenly collapse into a pile of atoms. But how do we know, asks Wells, that there isn't much more going on than this? Our knowledge of nature and how it works is based on observations. What if we can't see everything? What might we be missing out on? There could be a "hidden world" out there, Wells says, where particles and forces are busily at work, all around us, but beyond the realm of our senses.

The phrase "hidden world" sounds like a science-fiction cliche, but it simply means that there may be more particles and forces at work in the world – and the cosmos at large – than those we see when we look around. They are so aloof, so hidden from our daily experience, that they go completely unnoticed.

"It would be strange if we were so special that we could feel and observe everything that is going on out there," says Wells, who is one of a growing number of physicists working on the hidden worlds idea. "We are lumps of clay swirling on a little blue marble in an overwhelming vastness of universe. We have to envision that there is more going on. There really should be additional particles and forces," he says.

etc...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... iggs-boson

LHC thread: http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32540
 
Are we living in a designer universe?
The creators of the world were closer to men than to gods, argues John Gribbin.
Published: 8:35AM BST 31 Aug 2010

The argument over whether the universe has a creator, and who that might be, is among the oldest in human history. But amid the raging arguments between believers and sceptics, one possibility has been almost ignored – the idea that the universe around us was created by people very much like ourselves, using devices not too dissimilar to those available to scientists today.

As with much else in modern physics, the idea involves particle acceleration, the kind of thing that goes on in the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. Before the LHC began operating, a few alarmists worried that it might create a black hole which would destroy the world. That was never on the cards: although it is just possible that the device could generate an artificial black hole, it would be too small to swallow an atom, let alone the Earth.

However, to create a new universe would require a machine only slightly more powerful than the LHC – and there is every chance that our own universe may have been manufactured in this way.

This is possible for two reasons. First, black holes may – as science fiction aficionados will be well aware – act as gateways to other regions of space and time. Second, because of the curious fact that gravity has negative energy, it takes no energy to make a universe. Despite the colossal amount of energy contained in every atom of matter, it is precisely balanced by the negativity of gravity.

Black holes, moreover, are relatively easy to make. For any object, there is a critical radius, called the Schwarzschild radius, at which its mass will form a black hole. The Schwarzschild radius for the Sun is about two miles, 1/200,000th of its current width; for the Earth to become a black hole, it would have to be squeezed into a ball with a radius of one centimetre.

The black holes that could be created in a particle accelerator would be far smaller: tiny masses squeezed into incredibly tiny volumes. But because of gravity's negative energy, it doesn't matter how small such holes are: they still have the potential to inflate and expand in their own dimensions (rather than gobbling up our own). Such expansion was precisely what our universe did in the Big Bang, when it suddenly exploded from a tiny clump of matter into a fully-fledged cosmos.

Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology first proposed the now widely accepted idea of cosmic inflation – that the starting point of the Big Bang was far smaller, and its expansion far more rapid, than had been assumed. He has investigated the technicalities of "the creation of universes in the laboratory", and concluded that the laws of physics do, in principle, make it possible.

The big question is whether that has already happened – is our universe a designer universe? By this, I do not mean a God figure, an "intelligent designer" monitoring and shaping all aspects of life. Evolution by natural selection, and all the other processes that produced our planet and the life on it, are sufficient to explain how we got to be the way we are, given the laws of physics that operate in our universe.

However, there is still scope for an intelligent designer of universes as a whole. Modern physics suggests that our universe is one of many, part of a "multiverse" where different regions of space and time may have different properties (the strength of gravity may be stronger in some and weaker in others). If our universe was made by a technologically advanced civilisation in another part of the multiverse, the designer may have been responsible for the Big Bang, but nothing more.

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/spac ... verse.html
 
Hm - funny how these things go around in circles - I remember reading something along those lines over 20 years ago in the Rolling Stone magazine. The headline was something like "God is a Hacker" - or maybe not - too long ago.
 
Popular science books take off: a big bang in physics publishing
Popular physics books have never been so popular. It's about time, says Tom Chivers.
Published: 11:52PM BST 06 Sep 2010

The universe is expanding at an ever-accelerating rate, yet we still don’t know what much of it is made of. If I had to guess, I’d say that most of it consists of books telling us that the universe is expanding at an ever-accelerating rate. 8) The soaring popularity of popular physics books is a publishing phenomenon.

Traditionally, evolutionary biology has received most attention from publishers. As the philosopher and neuroscientist Daniel Dennett says, no area of science has been so well served by its writers: Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould and John Maynard Smith are particularly fine examples.

But since Dennett wrote that in 1995, evolutionary theory has been fighting for shelf space, as quantum physics and relativity mount a comeback. The past few weeks have seen Stephen Hawking’s new book, The Grand Design, move from the books pages to the front pages with its provocative argument that physicists do not need a creator to explain the universe’s existence. But a reader could equally well pick up We Need to Talk about Kelvin by Marcus Chown; In Search of the Multiverse by John Gribbin; Quantum by Manjit Kumar; Void by Frank Close; and dozens more.

“There’s a real interest in science books at the moment,” says Stuart Clark, author of The Universe (part of the “Big Question” series). And it’s not as if they’re light reading. Clark’s own book asks what stars are made from, whether there are alternative universes, what the fate of the universe will be, and whether, à la Hawking, there is cosmological evidence for the existence of God.

Marcus Chown agrees that such science is becoming mainstream: another of his books, Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You, sold 60,000 copies. “I thought the words 'quantum theory’ would put people off, but they appear to think: 'I’ve heard of that. I ought to find out what it’s about.’ Popular science is a mature part of literature.”

It’s not just literature that has seen a flourishing of interest. This year, popular physics has been dominated by the TV series Wonders of the Solar System, presented by Professor Brian Cox. It has given physics, in the form of astronomy and cosmology, the box seat in the scientific mainstream. Clark says it’s not just down to the former D:Ream keyboard player, though: “Cox realises science is inherently interesting, that you don’t have to bust a gut with hyperbole and CGI to keep the public’s interest.”

The first episode of Wonders pulled in 2.8 million viewers and created a huge buzz online. As Chown says, “what was striking was how many non-scientists on Twitter absolutely loved it”.

But as the sales figures suggest, interest has been building for a few years. One of the biggest sellers, Simon Singh’s 2004 book Big Bang, was also one of the first – following the granddaddy of the genre, Hawking’s A Brief History of Time.

The book is now more than 20 years old – but, says Chown, it changed everything. “Ten million copies sold and 237 weeks on the bestseller list. There have been popular science writers before – Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov. But I don’t believe there were popular science sections in bookshops before Hawking.”

Whatever the reason, the explosion of interest is overdue. Physics – the stuff of the impossibly huge and the unimaginably tiny – shouldn’t need a reason to be popular beyond its own incredible subject matter.

Open these books and you’ll find out more about how the universe began and what it is made of; why planets orbit stars and why stars glow. You’ll discover the weird stuff that goes on at quantum level – particles that are in two places at the same time and that seem to know if you’re watching them. You’ll learn why the universe had to be how it is, since we’re here to talk about it. It’s a chance to dip your toe in the greatest pool of learning in human history – and a section in Waterstone’s is the very least that it deserves.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/book ... shing.html
 
Its back to the 90s. Physics and Quantum Mechanics in particular were popular topics then.

Its about time the Quantum Mechanics were unionised.
 
ramonmercado said:
Its about time the Quantum Mechanics were unionised.
Here's one of the shop stewards (one of my heroes of science):

How Richard Feynman went from stirring jelly to a Nobel Prize
By Robin Ince
Comedian

Nobel Prize-winning and eccentric physicist Richard Feynman has been called a buffoon and a magician, but is lauded as a man who could make science accessible and interesting for all.

When I was a child I desperately wanted to be a scientist, but then it all went wrong. Unfortunately, during the early years of my secondary school education, science became joyless.

It was a subject that seemed disjointed from the world even though it is the method that attempts to explain the world and the universe.

If only it were possible to place an automaton Richard Feynman in every school. Children would leave each day wide-eyed with astonishment and eager to run home to look down their microscopes or mull over the movement of a bee in a flower border.

Richard Feynman did not understand how scientific knowledge could make anything dull.

He once related an argument with an artist who declared that scientists removed the beauty of flowers and made them seem dull. Feynman vehemently disagreed.
"A knowledge of science only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts," he said.

Anyone who has watched The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, a BBC documentary about Feynman broadcast in 1981, will know how much more interesting the world is if you look at it through his eyes.

For 50 minutes, Richard Feynman sits in an armchair and talks about his relationship with science.

"I do not feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose - which is the way it really is so far as I can tell. It does not frighten me."

His fearlessness and enthusiasm are contagious. The viewer leaves the film eager to learn and ponder why things are as they are. The staid monotony of existence, that adult malaise vanishes and questions of childhood resurface.

Why is the sky blue? Why is my face reflected in a window? Why can nothing go faster than the speed of light? Feynman removes the viewer's fear of their own inquisitiveness.

Richard Feynman may have been engaged in the great questions of quantum mechanics, but that did not stop him wanting to know the answer to more trivial matters from an early age.

In his memoirs, What Do You Care What Other People Think?, Feynman explains how he felt on discovering Santa Claus was not real.
"I was not upset. I was relieved that there was a much simpler phenomenon to explain how so many children got presents the same night!" :D

Later, at university, his roommate returned home one day to find him leaning out of a window on a freezing winter's day, stirring something in a bowl. Feynman had suddenly become intrigued by a problem - could jelly set at freezing temperatures if constantly stirred?

It is incidents like this that prompted physicist Freeman Dyson to consider him "half genius, half buffoon". He would later correct this to "all genius, all buffoon".

But Feynman was no ordinary genius. An ordinary genius is someone like you or me, just many times better. As the late, great Nobel Laureate physicist Hans Bethe remarked: "Feynman was a magician. With a magician, you just do not know how he does it."

Despite the awe that his students and fellow scientists felt for him, Feynman declared: "I have limited intelligence and I use it in a particular direction."

With this "limited intelligence", he shared the Nobel Prize in Physics with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga in 1965 for their work on quantum electrodynamics, the field of science which describes how light and matter interact.

But his father, a uniform salesman, had instilled in him not only a thirst for scientific knowledge but also a distrust of epaulettes and baubles and Feynman was no lover of accolades.

He was apparently very reluctant to accept the prize and was eager to remind people that just because someone held a position of authority, this was no signifier that they must be correct.

As Richard Feynman's father taught him the scientific method, it was his mother whom he thanked for the other part of his personality that made him such an irresistible character. "She had a wonderful sense of humour. I learned from her that the highest forms of understanding we can achieve are laughter and human compassion."

etc...

Archive on 4 – The Feynman Variations, presented by physicist Brian Cox, will be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on Saturday 18 September at 2000 BST, or listen afterwards via BBC iPlayer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11299244
 
Everything and Nothing - 1.

Prof Jim Al-Khalili sets out to discover what the universe might actually look like and charts the stories of the men and women who discovered the truth about the cosmos.

Two-part documentary which deals with two of the deepest questions there are - what is everything, and what is nothing?

In two epic, surreal and mind-expanding films, Professor Jim Al-Khalili searches for an answer to these questions as he explores the true size and shape of the universe and delves into the amazing science behind apparent nothingness.

The first part, Everything, sees Professor Al-Khalili set out to discover what the universe might actually look like. The journey takes him from the distant past to the boundaries of the known universe. Along the way he charts the remarkable stories of the men and women who discovered the truth about the cosmos and investigates how our understanding of space has been shaped by both mathematics and astronomy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... verything/
 
Back
Top