- Thread starter UTSA210
- Start date

E8 Particle Assignment Triality Symmetries

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

View attachment 555

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

"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

Last edited:

Likes:
UTSA210

"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

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

Hey Robot, you should look into universal exceptionalism.

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/universal+exceptionalism

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/universal+exceptionalism

Likes:
Robot

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/universal+exceptionalism

"

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

Likes:
UTSA210 and Einstein

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 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

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