A Geometrical Approach Towards A Theory of Everything by Ray B Munroe

Edwin Klingman

Ray,

Having just read your book, "New Approaches Towards A Grand Unified Theory", I found much of interest. First, it represents an incredible amount of work. I found your table 16, relating the various SU(N) symmetries particularly interesting. Since I am not competent to critique your math, I will remark on non-mathematical aspects of your book.

I also found some of your remarks enlightening. For example: "...a complicated GUT may introduce more complexity than the data it is trying to explain..." is reminiscent of Fermi's remark that:

"With five free parameters, an equation may be made to represent data points resembling an elephant."

(It is part of my theory that QCD has ten more free parameters than is generally recognized, with all that implies.)

And your remark that the universe may be a statistical fluctuation about nothingness was well phrased and perfectly captures the idea that the net energy of the universe may be zero.

Finally, I thought that your discussion of the Anthropic principle was very well done. You wrapped the book up very nicely.

If I could contribute any advice to a next edition, I'd say you could begin the book with an overview of your motivations for the particular approach. I'm sure Lawrence Crowell would understand why you make some of the choices you do, but I had to ask you in an email because you jump right into the details almost immediately. A first 'overview' chapter would be good for people like me.

Overall, an enjoyable experience. I hope to read the books of some others in this contest.

As a side note, I notice that a number of essayists have been writing on Tegmark's 'Mathematical Universe' thread. I believe that to be an important thread and will be putting my analysis up in a few days.

Having fun and hoping you are too,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Cristinel Stoica

Hi Ray,

I first tried to read your essay three months ago, and it seemed to me a very interesting piece of work, but I realized that, to fully understand your ideas, there is more to read, specially your other article and book. Now I started to take a second look, and I would be grateful if you could provide me some guidance, when you have the time. My first question is about the relation between the tetrahedral conjugacy classes and the SU(5) GUT, could you please provide me some additional details, or references presenting this relation and its significance? Also, I would like to know why did you considered the extensions to octahedral and icosahedral conjugacy classes, considering that SU(5) already contains the standard model?

Thank you,

Cristi

[deleted]

Dear Ed,

My motivation is to look for a GUT/ TOE. There may be different ways to approach that goal, and we can only hope that the different approaches are complementary. The first half of my book tried to find a theoretical model and/or cause for the 'coincidental' results of Table 1. This led to Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory (QSGUT) and efforts to reconcile it with Thermodynamics, the Renormalization Group Equations (Variable Coupling Theory), the non-linear/ color-confinement behavior of the Strong Nuclear Force, and effective mass (Higgs Theory) via semiclassical solid state approaches. The 'flow' of ideas in the book is actually a collection of decades worth of ideas (I originally developed Table 1 in Jan 1979 as a 20-year-old Physics senior at Florida State U. - my friends thought I should show it to Paul Dirac, but I held onto it for years instead). The order seems natural to me because this is the order in which I developed the ideas, but I should have explained my motivation better - Sorry about that!

The second half of the book is dedicated to finding a Lie Algebra that is both: 1) consistent with QSGUT, and 2) capable of containing the Standard Model and Gravity. Coincidentally, structures like SU(5) Georgi-Glashow, SU(11), and five-fold symmetries popped out pretty quickly. I built Hyperflavor out of the tetrahedral-based FCC lattice, and quickly realized the important anaogies between the tetrahedral conjugacy classes vs. Georgi-Glashow SU(5) component symmetries, octahedral conjugacy classes vs. potential SU(7) component symmetries, and icosahedral conjugacy classes vs. potential SU(11) component symetries. Some of my FQXi friends think it is a wild extrapolation (and Table 16 is that wild extrapolation taken to its logical conclusion). Steve Dufourny doesn't believe in extra dimensions, but Jonathan Dickau commented on how I made the complex look simplicial. I know that my Lie Algebra models become very complex (I purposely omitted some of this detail from my essay - it simply would have been too long and too dense), but the underlying geometrical nature helps show the fundamental simplicity of these ideas.

Perhaps some day I'll release a 3rd edition of my book. I'm not satisfied with it in its current state. I guess it will always be a work in progress. I appreciate your kind and candid comments.

I started reading your book, but have a way to go. I am curious about your extra 10 parameters - I wonder if extra dimensions are implied. I need to catch up on the Tegmark thread.

Dear Cristi,

I am dissatisfied with the Standard Model as it stands. It is a very sucessful bottom-up type of theory, but it doesn't explain GUT/ TOE because isn't a simple Lie group, it doesn't explain why we only observe 3 generations of matter, and it doesn't include gravity/ GR (I understand that your procedure fixes this deficiancy, but not the others). It is an economical and accurate model, but I am looking for more insight into our symmetries and patterns.

At some point, our ideas should be compatible. Your questions are valid ones. You might start by picking apart Equation 1 in my essay vs. a reference on tetrahedral symmetries and more. In graduate school, I specialized in High-Energy/ Particle Physics, but I also studied quite a bit of Solid State Physics. Both fields use 'symmetries', but they often teach them differently and with different apparant purposes.

The tetrahedron seems pretty important. It is a four-simplex (and thus my appeal to the properties of general simplicies). It is the basis of a Face-Centered-Cubic (FCC) close-packing lattice (very important in Solid State Physics). And its symmetries coincidentally echo the symmetries of a Georgi-Glashow SU(5) GUT: 1 photon, 3 W's & Z, 8 gluons, 6 X, and 6Y vs. the tetrahedral conjugacy clsses: 1 I, 3 C_2, 8 C_3, 6 S_4, and 6 sigma_d.

From there, it seemed 'natural' to extrapolate to Octahedral and Icosahedral conjugacy classes, although I must confess that recent correspondances with Lawrence Crowell leads me to believe that I should have focussed more on Simplices, and I may have gone off track with these interesting symmetries.

Have Fun!

Your Friend,

Ray

Cristinel Stoica

Dear Ray,

I like the relation you pointed out between SU(5) and the conjugacy classes of the tetrahedral group. I am familiar with the two, but I've seen the relation for the first time in your paper (btw, is this your observation?). I am interested if this relation is just a coincidence, or it is something deeper beyond. Can it be used to obtain the SU(5) group in the Georgi-Glashow form from a 4-simplex, and if yes, how?

I think too that there should be something better than the Standard Model. It can be extended in various directions, and probably when you chosen to extend it by the tetrahedron-octahedron-icosahedron scheme you followed some objectives which compensate the large number of new particles predicted, and the new symmetry breakings required. Anyway, I expect to understand better the advantages of your approach after I finish studying your papers.

Best wishes,

Cristi

[deleted]

Dear Cristi,

I'm not aware of having seen this similarity between tetrahedral conjugacy classes and Georgi-Glashow SU(5) anywhere else. It is a very interesting 'coincidence'. But taking it one step further, I was amazed at the similarity between the rank of a Lie Algebra subgroup vs. the degree of a tetrahedral conjugacy class subgroup (for instance - note the similarities between an SU(3)_c of rank-2 vs. a C_3 of degree 3, or an SU(2)_L of rank-1 vs. a C_2 of degree 2). Consistently, degree = rank 1.

Currently, I am trying to relate the SU(5) Lie algebra to the translational (only - not including rotational) degrees of symmetry of a 4-dimensional 5-simplex. There are significant similarities between the 5-simplex, Spin(5), and SU(5). I am looking very closely at Spin(4,1)~Spin(5).

Have Fun!

Ray

Edwin Klingman

Dear Ray,

Thanks for the additional material on the genesis of your book, "New Approaches Towards A Grand Unified Theory". I hope you do release a third edition with the additional explanatory introduction and overview. That would significantly expand the audience.

I note that in your comment to Cristi you say that you are dissatisfied with the Standard Model as it stands. I too am unhappy with QCD as it stands. Chapter 13 in my book, "The Chromodynamics War" is titled "QCD can't explain..." and details the fact that:

QCD can't explain why the 'sea of particles' is not as expected.

QCD can't explain why there is so little vacuum energy.

QCD can't explain why the forces don't seem to converge.

QCD can't explain the most basic particles of the theory (3 generations)

QCD can't explain the internal structure of the most basic constituents.

QCD can't explain why Yukawa's model doesn't work.

QCD can't explain why 'bound quark systems' models don't match reality.

QCD can't explain the nucleon spin structure.

QCD can't explain why 'quark matter' is a 'perfect fluid' not a 'weak gas'.

QCD can't explain why it is a billion times less accurate than QED.

QCD can't explain halo neutrons.

QCD can't explain hadron molecules.

QCD can't explain why the Higgs is hiding.

QCD can't explain, with pictures, physical reality.

While various papers deal with each of these problems, I believe that chapter 13 is the only treatment of all of these problems looked at in one place. Those who have not realized just how many serious problems QCD has may be in for a shock!

This is the background for my comment that "It is part of my theory that QCD has ten more free parameters than is generally recognized...". I phrased that poorly. My theory does not have ten more parameters, it has ten less parameters than QCD. QCD has ten more than needed by my theory. So QCD should be able, according to Fermi, to match an elephant squared!

Of course QCD'ers will resist this all the way. That is why my book is titled "The Chromodynamics War" and not "The Mild Chromodynamics Disagreement".

My theory explains all of the things that "QCD can't explain..." listed above and does so with ten less free parameters than QCD. My contention is that Yukawa's "electric-analog" strong force was a mistake. QCD should have been based on Rutherford's "magnetic analog" strong force. Of course lattice-QCD has, of necessity, come to a rough approximation of this with "flux tube" formulations, but, not surprisingly, these approximations are poor, based as they are on the 'dual' of a mistaken formulation.

Today QCD'ers form a proud and happy fraternity, in spite of all the problems outlined in chapter 13. They claim that "things are just too complicated" to get good computational results (they're correct!). As I've said elsewhere, my theory predicts that no new particles will be found at the LHC -- no Higgs, no nothing. (The theory also predicts that the recent "dark matter" indications are spurious.) Without the Higgs, QCD is nonsense, although it will take a while for the community to admit this. When they do, there's a better theory available.

Still having fun,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

Dear Ed,

In my opinion, QCD is a subset of the Standard Model (SM), SU(3)_c x SU(2)_L x U(1)_Y. I see some of your listed deficiencies as problems in QCD, but most as problems in the SM in general. We can model the non-linear behavior of QCD, but it is still far less accurate than QED as you point out. I expect the study of superfluidity to increase our understanding of color confinement.

I think we are asking the right questions. Perhaps someone will eventually stuble upon the correct answers.

Have Fun!

Ray

Edwin Klingman

Ray,

I don't just list these problems, I solve them in the book I gave you. I hope you finish reading it.

[deleted]

Dear Ed,

I had a busy weekend. I went to the Gator Bowl on Friday (it was wet & cold for Florida), took down Christmas decorations on Saturday (it was cold), and helped move a friend on Sunday (it was still too cold for 'sunny' Florida). Now I'm back to a regular 50 hour work week and fighting a cold (everyone else had it last month - I guess my number was finally up). I started reading your book, and now I have an incentive to finish it - to find out how these problems are resolved in your model.

Have Fun!

Ray

Edwin Klingman

Ray,

That's a helluva way to start the New Year, but I hope the rest of it finds you well and happy and having fun.

Frank DiMeglio

Ray:

No outside reviewers of my essay are required or necessary. Indeed, this is why I CLEARLY deserve to win this essay contest:

The most elemental/fundamental/deepest way (or manner) in which human thought is [comprehensively and consistently] enmeshed and interactive with physical (and this includes sensory, of course!)experience is the source of our deepest genius and of the deepest and broadest conclusions/unifications that are revealed (and possible) in physics.

This above is in keeping with the FACT that the ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

Electromagnetric space (e.g., photons and the Sun) is both larger and smaller than ordinary or typical space (such as the Earth). When space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy, scale is then balanced, space is particle/wave, invisible/visible, and larger/smaller. Accordingly, space is both repulsive and attractive as well.

Nothing to say Ray? Let's see, maybe we can say that the fourth dimension involves space and energy (spatio-energetic???). Wow, that means alot.

Sort of obvious isn't it, that it involves space and energy?!?!?!?

Space (Einstein/spatial) and energy (electromagnetism/light)....Romper Room.....it bores me Ray....."I see Sally".....back up what you say, and say all that can be said/needs to be said Ray. I am the heavy artillery Ray. You throw rocks at a man armed with a machine gun. LOL -- but true. The message: It is much easier to be critical than correct.

Do not seek to discredit/belittle the messenger when you do not like (or cannot get) the message. Maturity, ability, seriousness, caring, love -- get some Ray. The worse that you say my essay is, it is to that extent that you have exposed yourself as a GENERALLY inferior thinker.

If the judging of this essay contest is anywhere near fair and competent, then I already won it Ray. It is clear that my essay (and the truth) may not always be what you and FQXi would otherwise want.

[deleted]

Dear Frank,

It is OK to break away from the pack and try to do something original. But the Physical Sciences have certain expectations for laws/theories/hypothesis/lemmas/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.

As I said before. This is my forum, not yours. I prefer not to have sand kicked in my face on my own beach. Please put the machine gun down (the cover of Ed Klingman's paperback book reminds me of your machine gun analogy), I am not your enemy (but "the Physics Community" might be and I consider myself a maverick part of that), nor are you my General.

If we are talking about the validity of radical new ideas, then I would like to discuss my own ideas on my blog site. My theories are based on crystalline structures that occur in Nature: tetrahedral, octahedral, icosahedral, and lately I've been playing with the Carbon-60 Buckyball. Nature used these ideas once, and she might use them again. It is not imaginary math as Steve Dufourny calls it.

Suppose we study a particular electron. That electron has properties such as mass, electric charge, intrinsic spin, magnetic moment, and momentum. Physics usually ascribes these properties to an electron without asking "Where is that information stored?" We have introduced extra degrees-of-freedom in a very subtle manner - by calling them 'properties'. But have we confused cause and effect? I suggested that these extra degrees-of-freedom or 'properties' are projected from the hidden dimensions of Hyperspace, and then I built a consistent multi-dimensional lattice to explain many of these 'properties'.

You talk about experiences. Many people believe in supernatural/religious phenomena that Science seems unable to explain. They have had experiences that do not fit into the confines of Classical Physics. Perhaps they are *ALREADY EXPERIENCING* extra dimensions. The brain has wrinkles and folds in its surface. This gives it a fractal-like dimensionality that is different from 3-dimensions. Perhaps this fractal nature is the brain's 'antenna' for sensing extra dimensions. Perhaps the soul is likewise an invisible, extra-dimensional extension of our physical bodies. The brain/mind/soul/consciousness/dream is far more complex than I know how to describe with mathematics.

The next time that someone says that an electron has a mass of 511 KeV/c^2, an electric charge of -1e, and an intrinsic spin of 1/2 h-bar, you should give serious consideration to the question "What is cause, and what is effect?"

Have Fun. Ask Steve to share his blue spheres with you!

Ray

[deleted]

Dear FQXi Friends,

I would like to comment on a recent research paper: Quantum Criticality in an Ising Chain.

The researchers subtitle this paper as "Experimental Evidence for Emergent E8 Symmetry", and thus imply support for Garrett Lisi's E8 TOE.

This experiment does imply the importance of the golden ratio, 1.618, but does not directly confirm or deny Lisi's TOE, or extra dimensions.

The golden ratio arises in the geometry of the pentagon (attached pdf file shows properties), and thus implies the importance of 5-fold "pentality" symmetries. My "What is Ultimately Possible in Physics" essay referred to these 5-fold pentality symmetries in Table 3 (and more detail is supplied in Table 8 and Figure 4 of the "A Case Study..." paper). Although the 240 roots of E8 should contain a pentality symmetry based on its Dynkin diagram 240=8x(2x3x5), Garrett Lisi never defined this symmetry. This pentality symmetry also exists in smaller structures such as the icosahedron (Equation 3 of my essay), the H4 120-cell (referred to at the bottom of page 4 of my essay), and the Carbon-60 buckyball (research in progress). The K12' lattice proposed in my essay also includes a pentality symmetry.

This pentality symmetry arises from the fifth vertex of a pentachoron 4-Simplex. The fifth vertex implies a "scalar fermion". What role do these scalar fermions play? Do they become tachyons? Do they become Higgs-like? Research in progress aims at understanding this pentality symmetry better.

Relevant discussions are welcome!

Sincerely,

Ray MunroeAttachment #1: goldenratio.pdf

Edwin Klingman

Dear Ray,

Since you invited relevant discussion:

As I understand Lisi's E9 paper, he has 20 'holes' that seem to imply new particles. I claim that new particles are relevant to any search for a correct theory of physics. Since our essays were written in October 09, there have been about 12 issues of Physical Review Letters published which report on the continuing search for 'new physics'. The result is: Nothing New, but tighter constraints have been established. Of course the LHC has not yet come online, but I do wish to point out that prediction is far better than post-diction, and also to point out that my theory predicts that No New Particles will be found, Nada, Nil, Nothing. The reason for this is that my theory explains ALL of the currently known particles and appears to have no mechanism for producing new fundamental particles.

This means no Higgs, no axions, no right handed neutrinos, no SUSY, no extra dimensions...

I would hope that the purveyors of other theories would clearly and distinctly state just what predictions they make. After all, it really won't be long before the LHC tells us who is correct. I believe that everyone pushing a theory should predict now, not wait until the results are known, and then attempt to 'match' these. The fact that mathematics is, for all practical purposes, infinite, says that we can always match what we know to be true. This is what Fermi meant by his 'elephant' analogy.

I hope it's not considered to be in poor taste to point out that predictions are still important in physics, and to ask physicists to state their predictions while they are still "pre"-dictions.

It's fun to state predictions, try it.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

Dear Ed,

I do intend to finish your book. I've been sick, busy and haven't finished it yet.

I predicted a pentality symmetry before this evidence came out. I sent Garrett Lisi an e-mail on July 16, 2009 where I stated that E8 should have a pentality symmetry, and it was not apparent in his theory. Lisi hasn't answered me since. At one point, I was so convinced that I was right and he was wrong, that I was pretty obnoxious. Having since been on the other side of that type of a blog with our friend, Frank, I now regret that I behaved so immature. I really want to get along with everyone on this blog site, but my sometimes sarcastic and smartalic sense of humor gets in the way.

By the way, Lisi's E9? Did I miss something? Is there a nine dimensional theory? I was the crazy person talking about E12 a year-and-a-half ago.

My TOE models all include new particles and/or interactions. I haven't yet developed a potential TOE that doesn't contain something new. The fifth vertex of my pentagonal 5-Simplex has scalar fermions. These scalar fermions exist in every color and every generation. Are they tachyons? That was my first thought, and Jason Wolfe has played with those ideas as they relate to FTL travel. But I suspect that they are related to a complex Higgs multiplet - I haven't worked out all of the math yet.

Have Fun!

Ray

Edwin Klingman

Ray,

I know you've been ill and wasn't meaning to push you.

And you haven't missed anything on E9. These old eyes saw E8, until after I submitted the post. I saw the problem and fixed it in a similar post I put on Tegmark's 'Mathematical Universe' thread.

I'm trying not to be obnoxious, but I am trying to stake my claim to 'no new particles' as often as possible. And I'm trying to get others to stake their claims BEFORE the results are in. EVERYONE will be saying they have an explanation AFTER the results are known.

As for being answered by others, such as Lisi, that's one of the reasons that I so much appreciate the FQXi forum, and you (and others) specifically. I've found that the 'big dogs' are not at all interested in theories that modify or extend their own work. And certainly not theories that contradict their work! It's not quite as bad as Climate-gate, but the principle is the same. This is true in particle physics, cosmology, and consciousness. One could almost conclude that 'the truth' is not what they are interested in. It's more of a "when you reach the top, throw rocks down on climbers." Of course their perspective is "I've paid my dues, and who are you?" As you know, once you leave academia, you can't conceivably have any new, good, or correct ideas.

So that's why I'm pasting my predictions up all over the place. As I've expressed, I believe the Standard Model is hopelessly flawed, and the best time to shout that to the heavens is BEFORE the LHC results are in. Only then will the establishment look outside the box, IF then.

The wonderful thing about it is that we'll only have to wait a year or so to find the answers!

Keep having fun, Ray, and get well soon.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

Dear Ed,

I'm sure your book explains your minimalist approach. I agree that the SM looks flawed. If you can make sense out of the SM in a minimalist framework, then that is awesome. Personally, I had to build something bigger to fit all of the known and implied puzzle pieces.

A lot of models already exist. If we can predict phenomena prior to their discovery or exclusion at the LHC, then it will help to separate the relevant ideas from the not-so-relevant ideas. After all, there may be 'truth' in math, but math is just math - if we apply it incorrectly, we will get incorrect results - Garbage In = Garbage Out.

Have Fun!

Ray

Edwin Klingman

Dear Ray,

Yes, a lot of models already exist, but none to my knowledge explain ALL of the current particles while predicting no new particles and also address ALL of the QCD problems outlined above. If this comment is based on Florin's post, you should revisit my response to him. Don't give up. It's not as 'minimalist' as you may think. Because people, for forty years or more, have grasped in dozens or more directions for a self-consistent theory of particles (and cosmology) does not make that 'maximal'; only scattered, confused, messy, and unconnected.

Show me the garbage.

As for 'implied puzzle pieces', what implies them? Mistaken mathematical analysis or am I missing something?

I've had one other author on this forum claim that he buys my theory, (based on the book, not the essay) but as he is currently at a major university, his communications are private. There is little to be gained in academia from going with unorthodoxy, or against the QCD crowd. Because you are out of academia, I'd hoped for a more public response. If you believe it would be awesome to make sense out of SM, then finish the book. Then judge.

I would also like to point out that, from "within a failed theory", things can look very confusing. From the perspective of a successful theory, the problems of the failed theory are much more easily understood. I devote quite a bit of time to analyzing the problems of SM in this context in the back of the book.

Sincerely,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

Dear Ed,

I was referring to any theory/model/mathematics in general, not yours or mine specifically when I said garbage in = garbage out (an old computer programmer's slang). I don't yet understand your ideas well enough to know whether I like them or not (and my opinion doesn't really matter anyway). I did not use the term 'minimalist' theory as an insult. My interpretation of Occam's razor is that we need the minimal theory that explains all phenomena - minimalism is a good quality, not a garbage quality, and your theory has a smaller content than mine (and is apparently more minimal).

I may have gone 'crazzy' with 'implied' puzzle pieces. Some of my implied puzzle pieces are Higgs and Supersymmetry. Other implied puzzle pieces might explain all of the observed particles, the CKM matrix, the PMNS matrix, explain why the Weak force is left-handed, explain why gravity has an 'infinite' range, and explain other theoretical components such as Georgi-Glashow theory.

I would hope that a TOE answers more questions than it introduces.

I've been out of town on business for the past two days, and I'm just catching up.

Have Fun!

Ray

Edwin Klingman

Ray,

We all go "crazzy" with one thing or another. It's a "crazzy-making" time we live in.

Have fun anyway,

« Previous Page Next Page »