Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
"holy Smile, that's it!" — Parallax Forums

"holy Smile, that's it!"

Fred HawkinsFred Hawkins Posts: 997
edited 2011-11-03 23:06 in Propeller 1
Maybe eight is the key? (or something completely off the wall)

Surfer dude explains everything: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311952,00.html
Recommended: the·video of the rotating E8 lattice http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-xHw9zcCvRQ
This looks like something we could pull off on a prop...

Based upon·these people's work with the E8 algebra: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260133,00.html

Garrett Lisi's paper, An Exceptionally Simple·Theory of Everything http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770

This feels like the end of string theory (as in, dead wrong and pointless) and unfolding of a completely new understanding. I imagine these guys are as pumped as geologists in the 70's when plate tectonics took over...

We'll see. Ice 9 anyone?

Meanwhile, robot behaviorists and archaelogists in software: http://svextra.com/blogs/gmsv/2007/11/itinerant_physicists_and_robotic_cockroach_overlords.html
See the bottom two entries

Comments

  • PerryPerry Posts: 253
    edited 2007-11-17 01:41
    and I was led to believe that the answer to "the meaning of life, the universe, and everything" was 42

    "Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe"
    and also, curiously, the number on "Buzz Lightyear's" space ship

    Perry
  • Mike GreenMike Green Posts: 23,101
    edited 2007-11-17 01:49
    Wow! Thanks for pointing this out. It's going to be pretty exciting to see how this theory matches up with experimental physics as the LHC comes on-line in the next few years. String theory and the like has always seemed kind of a forced explanation of how things work. The universe sure ought to be representable more simply and elegantly. Of couse, it could always be completely wrong. That's theoretical physics for you.
  • Mike HuseltonMike Huselton Posts: 746
    edited 2007-11-17 02:00
    yeah.gifyeah.gif

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    JMH
  • parts-man73parts-man73 Posts: 830
    edited 2007-11-17 02:24
    Perry said...
    the answer to "the meaning of life, the universe, and everything" was 42

    True, but what's the question???

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Brian

    uController.com - home of SpinStudio

    PropNIC - Add ethernet ability to your Propeller!

    SD card Adapter
  • Mike GreenMike Green Posts: 23,101
    edited 2007-11-17 02:41
    The question was "What's the meaning of life, the universe, and everything?" ... the ultimate question.
  • MarkSMarkS Posts: 342
    edited 2007-11-17 18:02
    Holy Smile!
  • deSilvadeSilva Posts: 2,967
    edited 2007-11-17 18:37
    Could be the mice have switched to Propellers?
    Because what Mike said is not quite correct.. The true question has still to be computed smile.gif
  • WhelzornWhelzorn Posts: 256
    edited 2007-11-17 23:51
    LOL exceptionally simple... well it's interesting anyway. It's undergoing a lot of criticism now, but I'll be waiting to see what the outcome is.
    I can't even pretend to understand most of it, so waiting is all I can do.
  • rjo_rjo_ Posts: 1,825
    edited 2007-11-18 14:05
    If the answer is 42 then what are 2,3 and 7? AND where did 5 go?

    If there is a primary guage relation(a relationship among primary guages), which determines the existence of a primary state, then where in the Lie geometry does a discrete moment exist?

    A generalization, which produces false products as well as true products doesn't seem like much of an answer. How do we prove that a state does not exist?

    Next we will see the emergence of a "strong time" and a "weak time." Where in all of this is any sensible mechanics supposed to arise?

    If time is linked to more than one primary guages (which seems unavoidable), then time would have to exist within its own Lie group (one group, not two or more) and I don't see this here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311952,00.html



    Rich

    A field, which exists everywhere in space, isn't really a field... it is just a figment of our imagination.
  • scottascotta Posts: 168
    edited 2007-11-18 14:35
    There are only two particles in the universe, the rest
    are virtual, caused by interactions between the two.

    They have been doing low energy test shots with
    the LHC already.

    Another important one is the graviton detector, they
    have been spending money on this one since the 70's

    http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/about/factsheet.html


    Scott
  • rjo_rjo_ Posts: 1,825
    edited 2007-11-18 14:45
    Are those weak gravitons or strong gravitons?
  • MarkSMarkS Posts: 342
    edited 2007-11-18 20:33
    rjo_ said...

    Next we will see the emergence of a "strong time" and a "weak time." Where in all of this is any sensible mechanics supposed to arise?

    If time is linked to more than one primary guages (which seems unavoidable), then time would have to exist within its own Lie group (one group, not two or more) and I don't see this here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311952,00.html

    How did time get into this? The most basic definition of time that I can come up with is: "The measurement of the motion of all matter through space." Assuming that time really is the fourth dimension, all the Lie diagram does is visualize the first 3, i.e., X, Y and Z or height, width and depth (whichever you prefer), in a 248 dimensional object. Clearly, the concept of time cannot fall into this visualization. That doesn't disprove the theory.
  • rjo_rjo_ Posts: 1,825
    edited 2007-11-19 15:19
    I don't know how we got into this either... [noparse]:)[/noparse] I think we everyone is right.

    Whether it is possible to write a Prop assembler in Spin is a far more interesting question.

    But, since there are physicists around... and since they have Props... in my mind the issue reduces to a few assumptions, which might be the origins of all of our microscopic confusion. Is there really only one gauge? If there are two or more primary(non-identicle) gauges then is there some primary order in the temporal domain in relationship to spatial occupancy? If there are two or more gauges, are they grouped? Or is there an occupancy requirement for elements of each?

    We seem to take the same old assumptions and then are surprised when we are stuck trying to view the Universe in terms of strings and glue.

    Back to the fundamental question of life: Is it or is it not possible to write an assembler in Spin?

    Rich
  • Fred HawkinsFred Hawkins Posts: 997
    edited 2007-11-19 15:37
    yes
  • Mike GreenMike Green Posts: 23,101
    edited 2007-11-19 15:49
    Yes, it's just a matter of devoting the time to finishing it.
  • ratronicratronic Posts: 1,451
    edited 2007-11-19 23:23
    See what they are saying now! Here - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071117-upon-further-review-surfers-new-theory-of-everything-severely-deficient.html

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Fix it, if it ain't broke·
    D Rat


    Dave Ratcliff· N6YEE
  • rjo_rjo_ Posts: 1,825
    edited 2007-11-20 00:46
    D Rat,

    I looked at it... and it had absolutely nothing to do with Mike's assembler[noparse]:)[/noparse]

    Nice commentary though... apparently the guy got meters and yards confused... he could work for NASA!!!

    I think Scotta has a point... there are just two kinds of particles: those that exist and those that don't... and quantum physics is the study of interactions between the two.

    Just to review... the answer to the ultimate question is "Yes."



    Rich
  • SarielSariel Posts: 182
    edited 2011-11-03 06:42
    Completely off topic(is there one here anyhow?), but I was psyched when I found out Dr. Who's new season is coming out with a completion on the Question versus answer riddle proposed by the late Douglass Adams, creator of "The Guide", and, the Dr. Who radio show back in the day...

    .... and then bummed when I found out they cancelled the show entirely. How can a show win an award for Sci-fi, and get stomped out? *@#! you BBC!




    ---EDIT

    Egads this is an old, old thread. sorry guys.
  • Bobb FwedBobb Fwed Posts: 1,119
    edited 2011-11-03 09:04
    I was reading the thread from the top thinking, "Isn't this old news, people didn't know about this guy already? Isn't the LHC fully operational now? Did I miss something?" Then I looked at the date, and all became clear.

    But yes, that is quite off topic. As for "is there one here anyhow?" I don't think we've really spent a whole lot of time contemplating the question to the answer "42". But I could be wrong :-P
  • frank freedmanfrank freedman Posts: 1,983
    edited 2011-11-03 09:43
    rjo_ wrote: »
    If the answer is 42 then what are 2,3 and 7? AND where did 5 go
    Rich

    A field, which exists everywhere in space, isn't really a field... it is just a figment of our imagination.

    2, 3, and 7 are now extras on Sesame St. And 5 is in contract negotiations with Childrens Television Workshop for his next video with Elmo, 5 seems to be having issues with his role....
  • LoopyBytelooseLoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537
    edited 2011-11-03 19:15
    Puppies are chasing their tails again and thinking that the outcome will be something other than exhaustion.

    The way is infinite, the way is unknown. Lao Tsu
  • SRLMSRLM Posts: 5,045
    edited 2011-11-03 23:06
    Update on theory:

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/05/04/garrett-lisi-responds-to-criticism-of-his-proposed-unified-theory-of-physics/
Sign In or Register to comment.