# An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything - The Mauitian Chronicles

## Nov. 14th, 2007

### 02:47 pm - *An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything*

I'm not sure yet whether all the attention is good, or if all the hype will have a negative impact, but this has certainly been a strange week. The interest in my work among physicists has been building steadily over the past few months. I've been presenting at conferences, getting invited to cool places, and exchanging emails with some of the best people in physics. But things started getting a little out of control last week when I posted my paper to the physics archive:

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

Yes, the title is a little much. Technically, a Grand Unified Theory in physics is a theory unifying the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces as parts of a single Lie group. And if gravity is described in a unified framework like this, it's called a Theory of Everything, because that's all the forces we know of. The paper describes a new theory of how to do this, with all these forces (and all matter) as parts of the largest simple exceptional Lie group, E8 (which is very beautiful). So the title is technically accurate, but I probably should have made it less sensational. Especially since the paper does not include the details of a complete quantum description, which is really necessary for it to qualify as a successful ToE. (I'm counting on combining my work with that of the Loop Quantum Gravity community to build a full quantum E8 theory of everything.)

The physics arxiv has gotten more restrictive on how they accept and classify papers. I originally submitted this article under the general relativity classification, but they immediately moved it to high energy particle theory. Then, a day after it came out, it got unceremoniously booted to the general physics classification -- the cesspool the arxiv uses to collect non-string and/or whacky, overreaching papers. Then, the next day, it got reclassified back to high energy theory! (This never happens, and I was quite amused.)

The paper immediately precipitated a physics blogalanche:

Backreaction This was the first, and probably the best summary of the paper.

Physics Forums

The Reference Frame Can you tell he's a string theorist? I love this guy, almost everything he says is dead wrong, and he just makes me look better.

Hidden Variables

Not Even Wrong

Arcadian Functor

Freedom of Science This one cracks me up. Apparently I'm a media whore, and only doing physics for the money; but at least I'm in good company.

Theoreman Egregium

Science Forums

And at this point I've stopped being able to keep track, which I suppose means this is my fifteen minutes of fame.

Yesterday morning, I presented a talk to the

International Loop Quantum Gravity Seminar

which is a teleconferece among physicists at a consortium of fourteen universities around the world. That went very well. Some of the key players agree that this theory and LQG make a good match. (The (very technical) talk and slides are available from that page, but the first two minutes are cut off.)

Then, a few hours ago, the story hit the popular press:

The Telegraph (Apparently, I'm to be immortalized for the words "Holy crap!")

New Scientist Top story. I haven't been able to read this article yet, because I don't have a subscription.

All the attention has been fun, but a bit overwhelming, and I think I just want to go back to playing with equations for a few months. I hope people can keep in mind that this is just a theory, it has no experimental support, and it might be wrong. I think it's got a shot, which is why I work on it, but it's still just a developing theory. So don't go crazy, people; but yes, it is pretty damn cool.

Page 1 of 2[1][2]resipisco(Link)mauitian(Link)(no subject)-resipisco(Expand)(no subject)-mauitian(Expand)(no subject)-resipisco(Expand)jhogan(Link)Cool stuff, man!

mauitian(Link)(no subject)-mauitian(Expand)browascension(Link)mauitian(Link)(no subject)-reichart(Expand)(no subject)-mauitian(Expand)(no subject)-reichart(Expand)(no subject)-velellavelella(Expand)(no subject)-gustavolacerda(Expand)(no subject)-reichart(Expand)(no subject)-gustavolacerda(Expand)reverend_kate## I just saw the telegraph one:

(Link)Now where's my list of required reading, Professor Surfer Dude?

mauitian## Re: I just saw the telegraph one:

(Link)scriptum(Link)To put it simply: you found (by chance?) that your equations fit in some way the most of E8 pattern, and you are claiming that the parts are not covered correspond to yet undiscovered particles? What is special about E8 that makes it suitable for your ToE?

Thanks.

mauitian(Link)(no subject)-cherylysiha(Expand)(no subject)-tedstewart(Expand)distractme(Link)clevermynnie(Link)mauitian(Link)mathemajician(Link):-)

mauitian(Link)scottsch(Link)It's too bad you're not coming down to SD for TG. (Or are you?) I'd like to understand more about E8 than that it is pretty.

scottsch(Link)What should I try to learn about E8 next? It looks like there are a jillion aspects and applications of this thing.

(no subject)-mauitian(Expand)(no subject)-nicolassher(Expand)kalistrya(Link)mauitian(Link)simonfunk(Link)Apparently, I'm to be immortalized for the words "Holy crap!"From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.1.35

simonfunk(Link)rws1st## Fence or Orbit?

(Link)I wish I knew enough to comment on the actual content of the paper...But I wanted to make a comment this decade.

Rob Sperry

wiredgirl2## You've been slashdoted!

(Link)reddragdiva(Link)mauitian(Link)(no subject)-reddragdiva(Expand)(no subject)-simonfunk(Expand)snarkyshark2(Link)mauitian(Link)(no subject)-snarkyshark2(Expand)(no subject)-velellavelella(Expand)shephi(Link)mr_squeaky(Link)(Anonymous)## E8 and Cl8

(Link)and it is now on my dotMac site at

http://web.mac.com/t0ny5m17h/Site/E8Cl8p

I will put it up on my regular web site over the next few days.

One thing that seems interesting to me is that

if you look at the 8-dim root vector space of E8 as Octonionic,

then there are 7 independent E8 lattices ("integral" octonion lattices)

each of which has a distinct 240-vertex polytope of nearest neighbors to the origin

so

it seems that there are in some sense 7 distinct E8s

and that they are related to each other sort of like the 7 octonion imaginaries.

Tony Smith

agnosticessence## An Exceptionally Simple Response to Everything

(Link)PENIS!

(Anonymous)## V

(Link)If arXiv posts papers the day after you send them there

does that mean that you wrote it and sent it in on 5 November 2007 ?

If so,

did you have in mind Guy Fawkes Day and V ?

Tony Smith

mauitian## Re: V

(Link)I had some trouble with the TeX that hung me up a day.

(Anonymous)## E8(8) and Distler etc

(Link)but the short version is:

It seems to me that Jacques Distler did not refute your E8 model

(only a possible use of triality)

and

that his analysis, along with your comments,

show how the E8 model can be OK.

Here are details:

Distler said in his blog: "...

E8(8) includes Spin(16) as a maximal compact subgroup ...

In E8(8), the 248 decomposes as 248 = 120 + 128

...

We would like to find an embedding of

G = SL(2,C) x SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)

in ... E8

...

SL(2,C) = Spin(3,1)o is the connected part of the Lorentz Group,

the "gauge group" in the MacDwoell-Mansouri formulation of gravity.

..."

and

you [Garrett] replied "... The G is embedded in a D4 x D4 subgroup of E8.

...

g = so(3,1) + su(2) + u(1) + su(3)

... is in a so(7,1) + so(8) of e8 via the Pati-Salam, left-right symmetric model,

g' = so(3,1) + su(2)_L + su(2)_R + su(4)

The so(3,1) + su(2)_L + su(2)_R is in so(7,1),

the su(4) is in so(8) ..."

and

Distler said "... Spin(7,1) x Spin(8) ... is a subgroup of E8(8) ...".

So, an E8(8) model should be OK with the following interpretation:

e8(8) = 120 + 128

120 = spin(16) = spin(8) + 64 + spin(7,1) = 28 + 64 + 28

128 = 64 + 64

where

gravity comes from spin(3,1) MacDowell-Mansouri

and

the Standard Model comes from Pati-Salam su(4)_c + su(2)_L + su(2)_R

spin(8) includes su(4) that reduces to su(3)_c

spin(7,1) includes so(3,1) + su(2)_L + su(2)_R

where the so(3,1) of MacDowell-Mansouri gravity is the little group,

or local isotropy group, of 4-dim spacetime M4 described

by the symmetric space G / Spin(3,1) where G can be anti-desitter or deSitter

and

where the su(2)_L + su(2)_R reduces to su(2)_L + u(1) which is the little group

of a 4-dim internal symmetry space CP2 = SU(3) / SU(2)xU(1)

NOTE that the Lie groups of the spin(7,1) Lie algebra form the little groups

of an 8-dim M4 x CP2 Kaluza-Klein space (as used by Batakis in his 1986 paper

Class. Quantum Grav. 3 (1986) L99-L105).

As to the global groups of M4 x CP2,

they are in the spin(8) that includes the su(4):

the su(3) gives the global group SU(3) in CP2 = SU(3) / SU(2)xU(1)

(as used by Batakis)

and

the 4-dimensional deSitter or anti-deSitter rotations of G / Spin(3,1)

should be a part of 6-dim twistor-related CP3 = SU(4) / SU(3)xU(1)

What about the one 64 in the 120 and the two 64 + 64 in the 128 of E8(8) ?

Each of the 64 should be of the form 8x8.

Generalizing the spacetime algebra approach of Hestenes, let, in each of

the three 64, one of the 8 represent 8 Dirac Gammas of the 8-dim K-K space.

Denote it by 8_G

Since the 64 in the 120 is in the adjoint of Spin(16),

its 8x8 should be correspond to the 8-dim vector K-K space,

so denote the 64 in 120 by 8_v x 8_G

Since the 64 + 64 in the 128 is in a spinor space of Spin(16),

its 8x8 + 8x8 should be correspond to fermions ( 8 particles and 8 antiparticles)

so denote the 128 64 + 64 in 128 by 8_f+ x 8_G and 8+f- x 8_G

There should be a Spin(8)-type triality among the three 64 things

8_v x 8_G

8_f+ x 8_G

8+f- x 8_G

The above E8(8) structure describes Gravity, the Standard Model,

4-dim physical spacetime, a 4-dim K-K space, and first-generation fermions,

as well as 8 Gammas of an 8-dim Dirac equation.

If the second and third generation fermions come from combinatorics of

fermions living partly in 4-dim physical spacetime and partly in 4-dim K-K space,

then you get all three generations.

My opinion is that:

a spin foam can be constructed by putting the 120 of E8(8) on links

and the 128 of E8(8) on vertices, and using Jordan algebra structure

related to the 27-dim exceptional Jordan algebra J3(O);

and

particle masses and force strengths come from ratios of geometric volumes

in the spirit of Armand Wyer;

neutrinos are tree-level massless, with masses coming from corrections;

Dark Energy : Dark Matter : Ordinary Matter ratio comes from the structure

of the twistor stuff in the spin(8) of the 120.

Tony Smith

PS - Sorry for the long post on mauitian.

If you want me to not put such stuff here, please just let me know.

mauitian## Re: E8(8) and Distler etc

(Link)I know Jacques didn't refute it, in fact I think it's more interesting if it's in E8(8) than in E IX, because the representations are more involved.

But I am a little confused. My understanding of E8(8) is that the Killing form is such that the 120 have positive signature and the 128 have negative signature. So so(16) is a subalgebra. But Jacques said so(7,1)+so(8) is also a subalgebra... do you know how that works?

(Anonymous)(Expand)(Anonymous)(Expand)john_of_sparta## Feynman's grandmother

(Link)to be explained to Richard Feynman's grandmother? or mine?

if so, what is it?

thanks.

mauitian## Re: Feynman's grandmother

(Link)http://fqxi.org/community/forum.php?act

http://fqxi.org/community/forum.php?act

But, suitable for Feynman's grandmother? I dunno, maybe, I imagine Feynman's grandmother was pretty sharp.

sylwia(Link):)

kkatie(Link)Might help some.

(no subject)-mauitian(Expand)(no subject)-kkatie(Expand)(no subject)-mauitian(Expand)(Deleted comment)mauitian(Link)