Anyone Heard of This Surfer Guy?

[emperor_of_localgroup]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2007/11/14/scisurf114.xml<br /><br />He surfs in Hawaii half of the year and snowboards in NV another half of the year. He apparently come up with a remarkable theory of everything. <br /><br />Don't laugh yet, he has a PhD in theoretical physics from UC-San Diego. I couldn't get a better link about his theory. If anyone can dig out more links, please post.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[venator_3000]

Not laughing!<br /><br />Here is a recent article on Dr. Lisi. Also he has a blog somewhere, I assume...<br /><br />http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/surfer-physicis.html<br /><br />Tread lightly, these things always need checking and refinement.<br /><br />Still, pretty cool if this leads to anything. If I recall Einstein was "unaffiliated" when he began working on his two theories.<br /><br />V3K <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nimbus]

There's been one or two threads about this already, with some discussion on the specifics of his work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

I had a cursory look at that pdf and read the start and end of it and looked at the psychedelic pics in the middle and I still don't get where is any practical benefit of such unification, I mean when Maxwell unified the equations of Faraday and Ampere and laws of Gauss his work was driven by belief that those have something in common even if the realization of the benefit of the new Maxwell's equations wasn't obvious right away I think<br /><br />somehow I fail to see why GR and standard particle model should be molded into some unified theory and it seems that unification is here seen as some higher good worth pursuing for its own sake as exhibit of one's fantasy <br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

I've read Lisi's article. Interesting perspective (in the true sense of perspective!!!). How particles "align" differently depending on the projection direction in thehyperspace is mesmerizing. <br />(Is geometry enough to describe universe though? )<br />Even if this does not get a Nobel, this is remarkable anyway.

 

[centsworth_II]

Mystery solved! God designed the universe with Spirograph! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<font color="cyan">Even if it is shown that Lisi’s particular attempted application of physics to the E8 has fatal flaws, he has however at least shown some interesting ways to build up to E8. The constructions may be of interest from a mathematical point of view independent of their physical associations, which is what is mostly questioned. </font><br /><br />There was a time I could get into group theories and Lie group. Well, I didn't. That's why the PDF file didn't make much sense to me except the beginning and the conclusion. That's why I read others' comments from your second link. None of their comments are flattering, in fact the comments are made to embarrass Lisi. Do I sense some sort of jealousy, that a guy with no connection to a big name university have accomplish this but they (blogger) who carry around himself with a false sense of superiority have done nothing, NADA, zippo? I have an intuition the real breakthrough will come from an outsider like Lisi, Barbour (rip) or someone like them. Insiders are already misled.<br /><br />H2Ouniverse's comments are quite contradictory to the bloggers.<br /><br />Now my ranting. I still don't understand why all scientists are so relentlessly trying to combine gravity with other 3 forces? This is necessary if single-point-origin of the universe is true. Otherwise, I don't see any benefit from unification of 4 forces. <br /><br />If E8 unification is correct, the String people's morales would be way down. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Which Barbour do you mean? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

I think I made a mistake. I was talking about Julian Barbour who wrote the book End of Time. I can swear I saw a thread in SDC about his death. I may be wrong.<br /><br />Barbour is an outsider because he makes his living by translating books even though he has a PhD in physics. I wonder how many other scientists currently practice science this way from ourside i.e. not affiliated with any top research or educational institutes?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[nimbus]

I read that book of his (shame about the Deus Ex at the end, it was great otherwise), it'd have been too bad for him not to be around to contribute any longer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"the fundamental problem is not to make a unified theory, but to understand how we can live in just one universe where both these theories can makes sense at once together when they are in contact."<br />---<br /><br />as I see it GR needs more development but not in the way or refining it but total reworking on another basis before it might become candidate for any unification with any other theory - particle theories on the other hand seem to be on good basis or track meaning no such fundamental reworking seems to be needed, just more development more or less along the current general lines<br /><br />for starters I find it amazing that more or less century went by after SR&GR were invented and still we live with this split and didn't supercede the two theories with single integrated one<br /><br />and it is mind boggling that inertia of matter is still not understood although it is intimately somehow related to gravitation and should be part of one theory with it (and no I am not waiting with bated breath for some 'new particle solution' to inertia, I happen to want to live for some time yet LOL)<br /><br />things like these make me shake head and regard all attempts at unification as foolish endeavours and I can't help but see any work done in this area as witch doctors work never mind it all looks and reads so sophisticated and learned and intimidating as only field specialists can make it<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">Why should there be a unified theory?</font><br /><br />Actually not a bad question. My only answer is that symmetry applies to everything else, so why wouldn't it apply to the Universe?<br /><br />Are there credible, testable, scientifically sound theories out there that don't require symmetry to explain the workings of the Universe?<br /><br />Symmetry seems to be a ubiquitous, fundamental truth of the Universe from the microscopic to the macroscopic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>