E8

David

New member
Jul 29, 2015
38
1
0
51
#3
The supposition is on based a compact Weyl Group under a toroidal group for that making an automorphisn and the 2 conjugate form of the twisted Galois cohomology , this is a non-Higgsian state of an un-broken gauge field as illustrated in the diagram. he assumed a translation of frame to the “Higgs direction” without actually the symmetry breaking of the gauge bosons and no explanation of the caloron shift among the quark states. He is given to fancy in that there is not a clear result of un-broken gauge symmetry that would need to be explained first for the E8 field and by they way, he did not include the 3 dimension that he is in in order to make 8th dimensional making this arguement in 11 dimensions not 8
 

UTSA210

Active member
Jun 28, 2016
136
30
28
#4
In 1869 Russian chemist Dimitri Mendeleev started the development of the periodic table, arranging chemical elements by atomic mass. He predicted the discovery of other elements, and left spaces open in his periodic table for them. Dr. Lisi has discovered a correlation with the E8 geometry and predicts this geometry is a particle table. He also states in video, the mathematics to prove his theory is “dark” not inconclusive.

E8 Particle Assignment Triality Symmetries

From: http://theoryofeverything.org/MyToE/2015/03/

View attachment 555
 

David

New member
Jul 29, 2015
38
1
0
51
#6
Veerry Pretty, but unfortunately does not support the dimensional conjecture to only 8 dimensions
 

Robot

New member
Jun 30, 2014
158
24
0
East Coast
#10
Last edited:
Likes: UTSA210

UTSA210

Active member
Jun 28, 2016
136
30
28
#11
Except..........................

"The theory is incomplete and not widely accepted by the physics community."

Antony Garrett Lisi - Wikipedia


"Duff states that Lisi's paper was incorrect, citing Distler and Garibaldi's proof, and criticizes the press for giving too much positive attention to an "outsider" scientist and theory."

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything - Wikipedia
Thank you for the post.

I enjoy that Dr. Lisi lives a simple life, but I believe the Physic's community may see him as a "slacker".

Article highlights:

The E8 Lie algebra is the largest "simple", "exceptional" Lie group,

"E8 Theory" was not submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal,

“It is impossible to embed all three generations of fermions in E8, or to obtain even the one-generation Standard Model without the presence of an antigeneration.”

“The theory was still incomplete and made only tenuous predictions”
 
Likes: Robot

Robot

New member
Jun 30, 2014
158
24
0
East Coast
#13
Hey Robot, you should look into universal exceptionalism.

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/universal+exceptionalism
It seems interesting, however my personal philosophy differs a bit. Here is a quote from the link:

" it is plausible that it is the exceptional among all mathematical structures"(Nature)

I personally don't see nature as a mathematical structure.

I believe Math to be a man made logical relationship tool that we try to apply to nature. I don't think nature knows anything about math, it simply often understands the best way to serve it's means. Many flowers are parabolic in shape, by nature. But, I think nature is simply following the correct path which is what man happens to call a parabola,(Parabolas have a mathematical formula/definition).

We need to make sure we don't have the tail wagging the dog by saying the flower shape follows the formula for a parabola.

When you try to apply math to nature or physics, most of the time it doesn't fit very precisely, we need fudge factors. I think math is a great tool for man, it is the best tool for many applications, but often it falls short in nature or physics. Math is useful for describing nature, but I'm not sure nature understands anything we would call math.

Just my .02
 

UTSA210

Active member
Jun 28, 2016
136
30
28
#14
It seems interesting, however my personal philosophy differs a bit. Here is a quote from the link:

" it is plausible that it is the exceptional among all mathematical structures"(Nature)

I personally don't see nature as a mathematical structure.

I believe Math to be a man made logical relationship tool that we try to apply to nature. I don't think nature knows anything about math, it simply often understands the best way to serve it's means. Many flowers are parabolic in shape, by nature. But, I think nature is simply following the correct path which is what man happens to call a parabola,(Parabolas have a mathematical formula/definition).

We need to make sure we don't have the tail wagging the dog by saying the flower shape follows the formula for a parabola.

When you try to apply math to nature or physics, most of the time it doesn't fit very precisely, we need fudge factors. I think math is a great tool for man, it is the best tool for many applications, but often it falls short in nature or physics. Math is useful for describing nature, but I'm not sure nature understands anything we would call math.

Just my .02
I hear you.

The human ego often does this, happens more in religion than any other subject.