Nassim Haramein solves Einstein's dream of a unified field theory?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
For a theoretical physicist with an idea that needs testing mathematically

then the actual proof lies in observation in the real world.

The real world observations are the test, not the math. Real world observations can prove a theory wrong, but may not prove it right without further confirmation.

Are there examples of new maths being invented by theoretical physicists?

Why do you ask?

Lisi seems to like the E-8 math and thinks it forms the basis of the theory of everything. I've studied mainstream physics, but not the E-8 An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything My first impression is that of a physics theory superimposed on a mathematical E8 Lie algebra model. But does the model make any useful real-world Predictions?

I think it's questionable at best.

String theory seems to come up with new math, but it has largely failed to make testable predictions about the real world.

www.physorg.com...

"Unlike in Einstein's time when the relevant mathematics was already in existence, the mathematics we need now hasn't been fully developed yet,& Aganagic says. "This time around, math and physics are being discovered in parallel."

I would say more math than physics.

It seems to me that mathematical models which don't make any testable predictions about the real world are better suited to the math department, than the physics department.

String Theory

String theory as a theory of everything has been criticized as unscientific because it is so difficult to test by experiments. The controversy concerns two properties:

Because the theory is so difficult to test, some theoretical physicists have asked if it can even be called a scientific theory.

There should be heavier copies of all particles corresponding to higher vibrational states of the string. But it is not clear how high these energies are. In the most likely case, they would be 10^14 times higher than those accessible in the newest particle accelerator, the LHC, making this prediction impossible to test with any particle accelerator in the foreseeable future.

My prediction is that string theory will eventually get moved from the physics department to the math department, until we can actually test it (at energies 10^14 higher than the LHC, perhaps centuries from now, if ever).

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Why do you ask?

Because I'm curious.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The real world observations are the test, not the math.

That was my point.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Lisi seems to like the E-8 math and thinks it forms the basis of the theory of everything. I've studied mainstream physics, but not the E-8 An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything My first impression is that of a physics theory superimposed on a mathematical E8 Lie algebra model. But does the model make any useful real-world Predictions?

I think it's questionable at best.

So, Lisi has used existing math. He hasn't invented anything, I guess.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

String theory seems to come up with new math, but it has largely failed to make testable predictions about the real world.

My prediction is that string theory will eventually get moved from the physics department to the math department, until we can actually test it (at energies 10^14 higher than the LHC, perhaps centuries from now, if ever).

Thanks, A, this is very helpful.

What would the math department do with it in the meantime?

reply to post by Mary Rose
The same thing they do with other math. They can continue developing it, and in the math department they won't be pressured to provide real world observations.

This fellow could explain it better than me, but I believe his type of math-oriented research is the way string theory will survive long term until there is some proof:

www.thecolbyecho.com...

The mathematics department has provided a "supportive atmosphere" he said, speaking highly of his colleagues and their welcoming attitude...

Malmendier is teaching Multivariable Calculus, Differential Equations and Topology this semester. He is also doing independent research concerning the intersection of mathematics and string theory. "You not only solve mathematical problems, you look at them with different perspectives" Malmendier said. These differing perspectives, he explained, make math such an exciting and dynamic field.

So I'd say in his case, it's already in the math department. I've noticed some other string theory professors are also in their respective math departments.

The guy who developed the math for string theory is chairman of the math department at Harvard:

discovermagazine.com...

Shing-Tung Yau is a force of nature. He is best known for conceiving the math behind string theory...

Yau has held positions at the Institute for Advanced Study, Stanford University, and Harvard (where he currently chairs the math department)

So some of these guys are ALREADY in math departments, I expect to see more of that.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
discovermagazine.com...

This is interesting:

But Yau’s genius runs much deeper and wider: He has also spawned the modern synergy between geometry and physics . . .

reply to post by Arbitrageur
Good stuff.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by fedeykin

 

I personally really like the fact that he is self-taught. I think that it is a huge plus. He is self-directed and an original thinker. It isn't that he's "making things up." I think he has studied the information that is taught in universities and has evaluated it independently.

He wouldn't be able to get through a graduate-level course in physics, that's my feeling.

Speaking of protons and such, I noted many times in these discussions that the proton does have structure in reality we observe, and does not in the Schwarzschild "model" of Haramein. Scattering of hadrons routinely results in production of other hadrons, none of that is predicted or suggested by Haramein.

What about pions?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

What about pions?

Pions are tetrahedral manifestations of the contractual vacuum. They decay into the void by branching off into the fractal singularity, leaving quaternionic residues that stooopid physicists think of as leptons but which are actually holographic Grassman-invariant Lagrange points in a non-Hausdorff multidimensional fibre bundle. Obv.

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by buddhasystem

What about pions?

...physicists think of as leptons but which are actually holographic Grassman-invariant Lagrange points in a non-Hausdorff multidimensional fibre bundle. Obv.

Sheesh man, and I thought you knew physics! Why do you have to drag Hausdorff formalism into that? It's irrelevant. It's just a perverted way of saying this is a two-dimensional complex manifold, and you must know these were proven to not exist. About Grassman invariance, here I can agree. But in that case the leptons would be massless, and we know they are not.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Sheesh man, and I thought you knew physics! Why do you have to drag Hausdorff formalism into that? It's irrelevant. It's just a perverted way of saying this is a two-dimensional complex manifold, and you must know these were proven to not exist. About Grassman invariance, here I can agree. But in that case the leptons would be massless, and we know they are not.

I was just stringing together a random bunch of words because I thought it was funny. Sorry. I tried to make the sentence as meaningless as I could.

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Sheesh man, and I thought you knew physics! Why do you have to drag Hausdorff formalism into that? It's irrelevant. It's just a perverted way of saying this is a two-dimensional complex manifold, and you must know these were proven to not exist. About Grassman invariance, here I can agree. But in that case the leptons would be massless, and we know they are not.

I was just stringing together a random bunch of words because I thought it was funny. Sorry. I tried to make the sentence as meaningless as I could.

You actually did.

Haha, got you.

If I set out to pull a hoax like Haramein, I would have done a whole lot better

reply to post by buddhasystem
Yeah, and don't forget about how cymatics interacts with the sacred geometry of the fractal nature of the waveform manifestations resulting from the observer effect which explains why the universe is what we believe it to be, and not what we actually measure. you guyz have like totally pwned those mainstream scientists who spend too much time measuring stuff, and not enough time thinking outside the box about what's possible if we just let our imaginations run free and never have to dampen our creative process by making those boring old measurements.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Haha, got you.

Ah! Bugger. You got me.

I thought I might have unwittingly said something that made some sense... how embarrassing. Instead I was thinking I was seeing you thinking you were seeing sense when in fact you were replying meaninglessly to my senselessness, as any sensible person would have realised.

I'd better stick to rolling out the text-book dogma I was force-fed at uni instead of trying to open my mind. I'm just too sheep-like for all this creative malarkey.

I withdraw my earlier comment about non-Hausdorff spaces. BUT you must realize that the Standard Model implicitly relies on the Tietze extension theorem, so if it's possible to be in two places at the same time by means of intuitive quantum vacuum synchronicity then the whole campaign to elect Lie groups as Governors of the Multi-Particle State simply falls apart. Where does that leave your pions now, huh?

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Haha, got you.

Ah! Bugger. You got me.

I thought I might have unwittingly said something that made some sense... how embarrassing. Instead I was thinking I was seeing you thinking you were seeing sense when in fact you were replying meaninglessly to my senselessness, as any sensible person would have realised.

You still don't understand the underpinnings of a great hoax/charlatan piece.

It needs to be connected to real science in demonstrable way. That's why, for all the idiocy in Haramein writings, he's able to herd a few gullible sheep here and there. I could do a lot better. I think my "manifold" pronouncement just may be correct.

BUT you must realize that the Standard Model implicitly relies on the Tietze extension theorem

It does not Good try. Scratch that -- I need to think about it

Where does that leave your pions now, huh?

There was a Christmas party here so I can't guarantee I'm coherent, but sure as hell pions are pseudo-Goldstone bosons. After all, the Goldstone mechanism explains a lot of things including the non-conformant behavior of certain eschatological entities, even in case of non-causality. So there.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

It needs to be connected to real science in demonstrable way.

You're just hung up on rules. I'm going beyond all that. I'm following the vacuum energy in my lotus chakra. You stay in your box if you like.

I think my "manifold" pronouncement just may be correct.

That Hausdorff formalism implies a 2D complex manifold, or that 2D complex manifolds have been proven not to exist?

BUT you must realize that the Standard Model implicitly relies on the Tietze extension theorem

It does not

Good try. Scratch that -- I need to think about it

Does too.

Where does that leave your pions now, huh?

There was a Christmas party here so I can't guarantee I'm coherent, but sure as hell pions are pseudo-Goldstone bosons. After all, the Goldstone mechanism explains a lot of things including the non-conformant behavior of certain eschatological entities, even in case of non-causality. So there.

Now you're talking. You got yourself a place at the next computing anticipatory systems conference! But you'll have to stop leaving your pions at Christmas parties. You won't get away with that kind of carelessness if you want to succeed in real research.

Originally posted by Bobathon
That Hausdorff formalism implies a 2D complex manifold, or that 2D complex manifolds have been proven not to exist?

If I remember correctly, after a few years of work one of my friends did find that 2D complex manifolds did not exist. I may be wrong, it was in mid 90s.

Now you're talking.

I hope you do realize that the Goldstone part was NOT Haramein style, i.e. it's for real.

You won't get away with that kind of carelessness if you want to succeed in real research.

With a few dozen publications in refereed journals, I think I already succeeded, so what the heck

Originally posted by buddhasystem

With a few dozen publications in refereed journals, I think I already succeeded, so what the heck

Ah, maybe I should be more explicit when I'm joking.

I hope you do realize that the Goldstone part was NOT Haramein style, i.e. it's for real.

Yup. They're a bit like quanta of field fluctuations for isospin, which is nearly a symmetry. QCD old school. Tell me about eschatological entities and non-causality though, that sounds fun.

If I remember correctly, after a few years of work one of my friends did find that 2D complex manifolds did not exist. I may be wrong, it was in mid 90s.

I can't say I've ever played with complex manifolds... but surely the set of ordered pairs of complex numbers is a trivial example of a 2D one?

Originally posted by Bobathon
... but surely the set of ordered pairs of complex numbers is a trivial example of a 2D one?

I'm not sure. What I do know is that by giving subspaces a topological structure it is possible to realize a continuous spectrum of eschatological entities which are not subject to causality principle; by giving them the structure of a differential manifold one can talk about smooth transition between theories of Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu (both of which I highly recommend). Though such concepts may seem strangely out of place they can coincide with things that one is interested in, and can describe ideas that could not be considered otherwise—or at least describe them more economically.