Thread: Unification theory

This is a thread about Unification theories. People are claiming GUTs exist, when they don't...that they explain modern observation when they don't. If you are involved in physics, which you clearly aren't, you would be well aware of the fact that the DOE has drastically cut funding to particle physics right at the height of our discovery potential at the LHC. So there are limited funds, and they should be directed towards understanding the unification of the standard model and SUSY and things we can tangibly see and test and model rather than funding wild hypotheses about loop quantum gravity, E8, and things that we have no data or any means of confirming any models of. What I am telling you is the opinion of Nobel Laureates that support this view. You're not reading the thread if you don't see the point. Unification is not about string theory or gravity. Right now it is about quantum information, particle theory, and sound experimentation. This is what physicists are doing about Unification theories right now. We are worried about the Standard Model, Higgs, SUSY, and Dark Matter. Nobel Laureates are saying this is what needs unification...gravity is irrelevant. But all you are talking about is gravity, without realizing that the actual forces have not yet been unified. You have to learn to walk before you run, son.

Originally Posted by Nicholas Wisniewski

We are worried about the Standard Model, Higgs, SUSY, and Dark Matter. Nobel Laureates are saying this is what needs unification...gravity is irrelevant. But all you are talking about is gravity, without realizing that the actual forces have not yet been unified. You have to learn to walk before you run, son.

bold added.

Are you really including yourself in your treatment of the scholarly physics community?

Originally Posted by Nicholas Wisniewski

So the thing about a GUT is that it has to unify something. There are 5 ununified string theories...not a GUT. LQG cannot reproduce the entropy of a black hole unless you explicitly artificially set a parameter to match the truth, and it has not been shown to be renormalizable...not a GUT. Lisi isn't even peer reviewed so I won't even waste my time pointing out the idiocy of that man...not a GUT.

They don't "unify something", by definition they describe the unification of the fundamental forces at high energies. All the theories I mentioned do this, so they are GUTs, but they are not accepted by mainstream science as complete. I don't endorse them.

And don't be so cocky as to call Lisi an idiot; there is no doubt in my mind that you have no grasp of these theories beyond general definitions, unless you have a Ph.D. I don't know about.

Originally Posted by Nicholas Wisniewski

By current scientific observations, I mean:

Why the 1% muon antimuon asymmetry at Fermilab? The cosmological calculations from 2006 said the matter antimatter asymmetry in the early universe is only around 6x10^-9. When you're 9 orders of magnitude off, you need to explain it right away. There exist no known explanations.

Why did the proton shrink at LHC? I mean, slow down man, we don't even understand QCD...let's put the spin foams on hold.

Why mass vs flavor, 3 families, and the CKM matrix?

Where's the Higgs anyway? We were supposed to find it a long time ago.

What's the deal with the Hierarchy problem?? And the Cosmological Constant problem??

Where's a model that explains nonlocal entanglement??

None of your "GUTs" address any of these problems. These are the current observations of physics. I seriously don't understand what you think the observations string theory, LQG, and E8 support.

You seem to be confusing "observation" with "problems".

If you doubt the theories I mentioned because they don't answer these questions, then you have to also throw out general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the standard model. In fact, it's quite possible that these questions themselves are due to shortcomings, misunderstandings, and misapplications of the theories we currently use to model physical phenomena.

Also, you seem to be assuming that a GUT should be able to explain all physical phenomena.

Originally Posted by Nicholas Wisniewski

Do gravitational waves exist or not? If you don't know, stop making models of gravity. Seriously, we have no data yet to model.

You're right, we should just stop trying. That is surely the quickest way to a GUT.

Originally Posted by Nicholas Wisniewski

This is a thread about Unification theories. People are claiming GUTs exist, when they don't...that they explain modern observation when they don't. If you are involved in physics, which you clearly aren't, you would be well aware of the fact that the DOE has drastically cut funding to particle physics right at the height of our discovery potential at the LHC. So there are limited funds, and they should be directed towards understanding the unification of the standard model and SUSY and things we can tangibly see and test and model rather than funding wild hypotheses about loop quantum gravity, E8, and things that we have no data or any means of confirming any models of. What I am telling you is the opinion of Nobel Laureates that support this view. You're not reading the thread if you don't see the point. Unification is not about string theory or gravity. Right now it is about quantum information, particle theory, and sound experimentation. This is what physicists are doing about Unification theories right now. We are worried about the Standard Model, Higgs, SUSY, and Dark Matter. Nobel Laureates are saying this is what needs unification...gravity is irrelevant. But all you are talking about is gravity, without realizing that the actual forces have not yet been unified. You have to learn to walk before you run, son.

So you have decided to continue to rant and rave and to throw around a bunch of unrelated facts and falsehoods. You are dead wrong about a lot of things. Among your biggest mistakes are your understanding [or lack thereof] of scientific/academic discourse. You also don't have an idea about the funding of theoretical research. Theoreticians and their research are very inexpensive to support. There are theoretical physicists who are quite pleased to receive $50,000 in grant funding per year. There are off-the-shelf instruments at the LHC that cost more. Another thing that you don't have a clue about is how grant money is awarded. Funding agencies farm-out the evaluations of research proposals to peer committees of referees. These are scientists who are intimately familiar with the subject and the current findings in the field. Each referee scores the proposal and returns their scores to the agency. The fact that one or more referees may oppose funding the proposal is to be expected. However, the majority rules. The best proposals are funded based on their merits as determined by experts in the field.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

So you have decided to continue to rant and rave and to throw around a bunch of unrelated facts and falsehoods. You are dead wrong about a lot of things. Among your biggest mistakes are your understanding [or lack thereof] of scientific/academic discourse. You also don't have an idea about the funding of theoretical research. Theoreticians and their research are very inexpensive to support. There are theoretical physicists who are quite pleased to receive $50,000 in grant funding per year. There are off-the-shelf instruments at the LHC that cost more. Another thing that you don't have a clue about is how grant money is awarded. Funding agencies farm-out the evaluations of research proposals to peer committees of referees. These are scientists who are intimately familiar with the subject and the current findings in the field. Each referee scores the proposal and returns their scores to the agency. The fact that one or more referees may oppose funding the proposal is to be expected. However, the majority rules. The best proposals are funded based on their merits as determined by experts in the field.

I got awarded my first NSF grant when I was 17, thank you. So I'm quite aware how things work, I've been funded for 15 years now. Oh, but they came to me, I didn't have to apply. Sorry you have to go through that process.

Originally Posted by ADH

bold added.

Are you really including yourself in your treatment of the scholarly physics community?



They don't "unify something", by definition they describe the unification of the fundamental forces at high energies. All the theories I mentioned do this, so they are GUTs, but they are not accepted by mainstream science as complete. I don't endorse them.

And don't be so cocky as to call Lisi an idiot; there is no doubt in my mind that you have no grasp of these theories beyond general definitions, unless you have a Ph.D. I don't know about.



You seem to be confusing "observation" with "problems".

If you doubt the theories I mentioned because they don't answer these questions, then you have to also throw out general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the standard model. In fact, it's quite possible that these questions themselves are due to shortcomings, misunderstandings, and misapplications of the theories we currently use to model physical phenomena.

Also, you seem to be assuming that a GUT should be able to explain all physical phenomena.



You're right, we should just stop trying. That is surely the quickest way to a GUT.

Ok dude, believe what you want. I may say you're a dreamer, but you're not the only one. There's more to a GUT than representation theory, but you don't seem to care. Yes, I am part of the physics community...as well as mathematics, computer science, biology, and medicine...and have been for 15 years doing quite well. I won't bother explaining to you the kind of research I do, because it's far too abstract and there are no books on the subject, but yes, I have a Ph.D. in physics. I won't bother telling you from where, or whom my advisors and friends are, or how old I was and how quick it took me to complete my dissertation. Neither does it matter the institutions I'm affiliated with and advise, and what agencies fund me in what countries.

I will tell you I no longer do "physics" as you recognize it because I found its frontiers quite boring, and the field going nowhere quite slowly because people keep looking at things the same way. Instead I wanted to make progress in science. However, I assure you I understand these theories at a very fundamental level, and see the flaws in all of them for what they are.

I wasted years trying to deal with physicists, because it is a field where everyone is so specialized that no one sees the big picture anymore. So by all means, keep your blinders on and completely ignore the other sciences, because obviously none of them are related. And whatever you do, don't try to solve problems, just keep explaining away observations.

The unification theory response, to my understanding ... Einsteins special theory of relativity opens the door for time travel with the use of white holes and black holes if the technology becomes available. The general theory of relativity..static universe ..einsteins time...give s possible shapes and size of the universe, yet according to the big bang and hubble constant expansion ratio theory (variable universe). The use of computer ..simulation models,,, maybe the mechanism to be able to figure out the unification theory. According to moores law the speed of computers doubles every 1 and half years...maybe artificial intelligence will be able to solve the problems that men like eistein and steven hawkins cannot. But that concept leads to the possibility of a. I .taking over manking and futurist posibilities of the future.
Our current scientists are going with string theory and membrane theory, but the membrane theory only creates bubbles and small universes that overlap each other. Only eisteinse universe..static model.. Given... Encompaces the total concept....billions of earth like planets in billions of galiexys. Inconprehendiable size and expansiton over 13.7 billion years... Varriable size universe...maybe ai will be able to figure...see.. The forest from the trees...and place every thing in perspective for us...all of this understanding has came about in the last 250 - 300 years of mankinds knowledge...amasing...all accomplished with the use of man - years being used and technology.

Some argue that white holes are thermodynamically impossible, however I remain neutral on that argument, with *hope* that it is possible to create one, because it implies a lot more than time-travel when viewed from the AI perspective. However the rest of what you say is exactly true...the invention of the digital computer has created an evolutionary leap in human understanding. Indeed to do any sort of particle physics, we need simulations like the base program PYTHIA, because the models cannot be calculated. Even PYTHIA fails because QCD is still so incredibly complex that it cannot be simulated. So higher models of unification and cosmology absolutely demand the talent of extremely brilliant computer scientists who understand theoretical physics. And at some point in the *very near* future, I think the fields of CS, physics, and biology will realize they're actually doing the exact same thing. We are currently proving such unification in mathematics. Hence I *strongly* agree with your interjection that AI is the future to creating any sort of unification, especially since it is the field that is currently developing most quickly when compared to the others. You are quite wise, in my ignorant human opinion. Post on, my friend fredfg45!

At this point I would like to cite a revolutionary paper from Physical Review Letters that demonstrates the crux of what a small few of us are working on. Since most people don't have access to PRL, I will give the arxiv link: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0410452

Originally Posted by Nicholas Wisniewski

Ok dude, believe what you want. I may say you're a dreamer, but you're not the only one. There's more to a GUT than representation theory, but you don't seem to care. Yes, I am part of the physics community...as well as mathematics, computer science, biology, and medicine...and have been for 15 years doing quite well. I won't bother explaining to you the kind of research I do, because it's far too abstract and there are no books on the subject, but yes, I have a Ph.D. in physics. I won't bother telling you from where, or whom my advisors and friends are, or how old I was and how quick it took me to complete my dissertation. Neither does it matter the institutions I'm affiliated with and advise, and what agencies fund me in what countries.

I will tell you I no longer do "physics" as you recognize it because I found its frontiers quite boring, and the field going nowhere quite slowly because people keep looking at things the same way. Instead I wanted to make progress in science. However, I assure you I understand these theories at a very fundamental level, and see the flaws in all of them for what they are.

I wasted years trying to deal with physicists, because it is a field where everyone is so specialized that no one sees the big picture anymore. So by all means, keep your blinders on and completely ignore the other sciences, because obviously none of them are related. And whatever you do, don't try to solve problems, just keep explaining away observations.

Whoa is me! A true professional! And one so profoundly ahead of his time that "normal" physics is "boring"!

The true great minds don't need to tout their brilliance (which somehow you've done without actually claiming much of anything), and don't assume to know the minds of others. They let their work speak for itself; instead of bragging of its greatness while keeping it safely hidden.

I never had blinders "dude", and don't plan on donning them anytime soon. My interests are a varied as the applications of my intelligence, and I, more than most, understand the importance of recognizing that there are no cross-disciplines, because there is only one discipline.

Originally Posted by ADH

Whoa is me! A true professional! And one so profoundly ahead of his time that "normal" physics is "boring"!

The true great minds don't need to tout their brilliance (which somehow you've done without actually claiming much of anything), and don't assume to know the minds of others. They let their work speak for itself; instead of bragging of its greatness while keeping it safely hidden.

I never had blinders "dude", and don't plan on donning them anytime soon. My interests are a varied as the applications of my intelligence, and I, more than most, understand the importance of recognizing that there are no cross-disciplines, because there is only one discipline.

In search of a real GUT:

Well ladies and gentlemen...it appears as though a sterile neutrino has been discovered at Fermilab. This does not currently fit into Lisi's representation theory (which some here touted as a GUT). I won't call Lisi's representation theory dead yet, because he has 22(!?) unaccounted for particles with no masses or coupling constants, and not much is understood yet about this sterile neutrino experimentally...but it now has one foot in the grave.

That is: "We have OBSERVED a sterile neutrino." Do please explain this scientific observation using whatever GUT you like. No hand-waiving is accepted...give me math, citations, etc. from first principles.

We know seesaw and SO(10) can accommodate both a kev and high-mass sterile neutrino. How do its mass and coupling constants renormalize within the supersymmetric standard model, can and how does it fit into a model of gravity-mediated SUSY breaking, and what are the implications to string theories, dark matter, and quantum gravity?

Taking this into account, we have another OBSERVATION that appears to have killed another alternative theory of gravity: Milky Way's dark matter 'turned on its side' - space - 06 January 2010 - New Scientist. Do please explain this distribution.

Word on the street for both is "dunno." Maybe someone here fancies they have answers??

Originally Posted by Nicholas Wisniewski

In search of a real GUT:

Well ladies and gentlemen...it appears as though a sterile neutrino has been discovered at Fermilab. This does not currently fit into Lisi's representation theory (which some here touted as a GUT). I won't call Lisi's representation theory dead yet, because he has 22(!?) unaccounted for particles with no masses or coupling constants, and not much is understood yet about this sterile neutrino experimentally...but it now has one foot in the grave.

That is: "We have OBSERVED a sterile neutrino." Do please explain this scientific observation using whatever GUT you like. No hand-waiving is accepted...give me math, citations, etc. from first principles.

We know seesaw and SO(10) can accommodate both a kev and high-mass sterile neutrino. How do its mass and coupling constants renormalize within the supersymmetric standard model, can and how does it fit into a model of gravity-mediated SUSY breaking, and what are the implications to string theories, dark matter, and quantum gravity?

Taking this into account, we have another OBSERVATION that appears to have killed another alternative theory of gravity: Milky Way's dark matter 'turned on its side' - space - 06 January 2010 - New Scientist. Do please explain this distribution.

Word on the street for both is "dunno." Maybe someone here fancies they have answers??

BTW, anyone with high level security clearance can see my work.