Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#38155 04/17/11 06:33 PM
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 2
WCB Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 2
Some thoughts on this article 'E8 Theory of everything' looking rocky, published on March 29 of 2011.
The article makes the man, who came up with the theory, sound like some lounging surfer 'dude' who just randomly came up with these ideas of 'stacking the furniture (chairs)in an illogical way to fill the void'.
They say these analogies all wrong. The way I see the chaos of this universe is this; it has it's own set of rules and we only know a few of at this time.
Science really keeps touching on multiple string theory and it shows me that the laws and 'rules' of universal engagement can do some fantastic things. Who's to say that we aren't all just one dimension of every 'moment' of time we pass through.
String theory along with most other scientific theories tend to bring about mass controversy before we (as a collective consciousness) all cool down and actually start making progress.
In closing, simplest way for anyone to understand multiple universes would be to put two mirrors in front of you and slowly turn them towards yourself. Soon you begin to see a hallway of you and all other possibilities of you. They are all there at the same moment and they are all you. Just slight variations of you.
I leave you to it.


A Whimsic Teller
.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: WCB
They are all there at the same moment and they are all you. Just slight variations of you.


I like the analogy, but let's not forget that these are just images which cannot act independently. In the multiverse each version of you is capable of independent action, which rather complicates the situation and introduces a big question about free will.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 2
WCB Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 2
Yes, it does make you think. The mirror analogy.
Such as, if you were to move your focus to any one of the individual points you see in the mirror. "Become",one of the reflections you are no longer in the original space, universe, you were. Focus shifts to each point totally. So, even being one of those points makes the point somewhat moot, because the central timeline you are in can only be 'observed' from the other points, once you are there, you are now observing the 'other' reflections.
Hence, the reason we can only observe these acts, not interact; you will in effect change the whole of the event, the focus point.
I guess we are all just 'Watchers' in a sense.
I am not a scientist but am fascinated by all the information we have gathered and are gathering to this day. I'm trying to figure things out in my own way too, always good to have another mind to bounce things off of. Even if we don't see it the same I'm willing to try.


A Whimsic Teller
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: WCB
the central timeline you are in can only be 'observed' from the other points, once you are there, you are now observing the 'other' reflections.


Surely, if you were able to move to the position of one of the reflections, the original reflected object would no longer be there, so neither would the reflections.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I really dislike E8 being talked of as the theory of everything beside the numerous flaws so far with the theory such as being a few fundemental particles short and not much new showing up at LHC there is also the huge issue of it really doesn't bring Quantum Mechanics under control.

QM in the last 18 months has come so far and many of the theories are going to struggle with there findings.

I note there is alot of disharmony between Hawkings work and QM at the moment.

If you had asked me 18 months ago I would have said the LHC was almost certainly going to turn up the higgs particle .. in all honesty now I would have to say the odds are against it.

This is the thing that shook my world (http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-science-breakthrough-year-quantum-machine.html)

My beautiful wave function collapse as required by my version of QM could not possibly exist on such a big object.

In fact QM is supposed to exist only on small things but the last 2 years we have seen first atoms, then multiple atoms, then molecules and now objects entangled in QM.

Putting QM back in the box as a sort of add in effect only at small scales is therefore a myth. As such it must also fall in line with any theory of everything.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Well, I don't know about E8 being right or wrong, but I have already stated that I don't think anybody has a good theory of everything. As far as the article you pointed to about the large scale quantum machine, there is an article in the latest Scientific American about the fact that QM is not necessarily just about atoms and smaller. "Living in a Quantum World", Scientific American, June 2011. They discuss how quantum effects show up in the larger world.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Yes I am in agreement QM has thrown up some real issues now that any theory of anything is going to have to address. Before QM was sort of a tag in via one of the various interpretations but I would have to say it looks far more fundemental now and I think alot of "theory of everything" candidates are going to have to do do re-analysis with the recent QM work.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Ran across this article and as it revolves around E8 theory thought I would add it.

WARNING VERY HEAVY GOING the comments and arguments particually

http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/garrett_lisis_new_e8_paper

My personal view would be the same as Lubol Motl in the comments it's in a world or grief.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5