Garrett Lisi unif. of gravity w. Std. Model of matter (how far does it go?)

[Martin]

someone I know slightly via internet has just now posted some reseach

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511120

Clifford bundle formulation of BF gravity generalized to the standard model

A. Garrett Lisi

24 pages

"The structure and dynamics of the standard model and gravity are described by a Clifford valued connection and its curvature."

 

congratulations if you see this (you wont)

 

EDIT, ecoli I meant to say "congratulations" to Garrett on the paper, if he happens to see this thread, but it sounded foolish---like a general announcement :\

 

the topic is very interesting----a major goal is to combine gravity with the Std Model of particle physics so you have a single model from which all known matter and interactions can be derived AND the interaction of matter with spacetime geometry (gravity) is also included.

 

one doesnt expect any one researcher to solve this problem in one short (24 page) paper----but any small step in the right direction is interesting

 

so what has Garrett accomplished here? I will start this thread to have a kind of scratch pad to look at his paper with

[ecoli]

someone I know slightly via internet has just now posted some reseach

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511120

Clifford bundle formulation of BF gravity generalized to the standard model

A. Garrett Lisi

24 pages

"The structure and dynamics of the standard model and gravity are described by a Clifford valued connection and its curvature."

 

congratulations if you see this (you wont)

 

I see it! What do I win?

 

To bad I don't understand any of it

[Martin]

I see it! What do I win?

 

To bad I don't understand any of it

 

yeah, what I said sounded dumb.

 

I already won the prize. I don't understand most of this paper either.

 

but he's someone I've talked with and I like his approach to science.

 

He lives in hawaii where he likes to surf, and has enough money to get along, and even tho he got a good PhD and could be on the faculty in some physics department (like one of the UC campuses I guess) he just lives the way he wants outside academia, and continues his theoretical physics research on his own.

 

so I figure here is someone with a bit of originality, and when he posts a research paper I am going to take notice of it and make a thread. Maybe people should be applauded who work outside the system---especially if they do rigorous mainstream-quality work like he does.

[Royston]

I find this slightly more appealing than some of the QG theories as it attempts to unify particle interactions as well as curvature...many of the QG theories seem to ignore or set aside interactions on very small scales, well from what I've read and understood so far.

 

There's particular attention to the Higgs field in this paper which I like, just wish I could read the equations properly, many of the worded explanations are heavy going alone.

[Martin]

I find this slightly more appealing than some of the QG theories as it attempts to unify particle interactions as well as curvature...

...

There's particular attention to the Higgs field in this paper which I like' date=' just wish I could read the equations properly,...[/quote']

 

I share your attitude and predicament to some extent. I dont expect to be able to wade thru the math, it is just too dense.

 

I like the fact that he is trying to unify everything in sight and to do so in the simplest way he can-----no extra dimensions, no string machinery.

 

And he seems frank and open about pointing to details where it's incomplete and needs further work.

 

We'll see. If Garrett's approach is promising, other people will pick up on it and there will be more papers which cite this one as a reference, inside of a few months. there is a button on the abstract page that will tell you all the follow-up work, actually two buttons one called "cited by" and one called "Cites" if I remember correctly.

 

There is another new approach to unification being looked at these days that is more GRAPHIC and less dependent on equations for its formulation. There are underlying equations but the relationships can be diagrammed more pictorially and it helps with understanding. this approach also does not require the elaborate machinery of string approaches and it seems to be already generating some interest.

 

It was described by a young australian (S. Bilson-Thompson) last week in a seminar at Perimeter Institute. the slides and a recording of the talk are online---but my mac can only get the slides---I gather from what other people say that if you have a PC you can get the audio that goes with the slides. I will get some links if you are curious and want to check it out.

 

However B-T paper came out in March 2005 and there is so far only ONE paper that has cited it. I know of one other in the works. You can see it is iffy--really touch and go. Something can look good, but other people have to catch on to it and fly with it. As an observer (not a professional theorist) I have to accept the verdict of the experts. If it is really good it will catch on and at least one or two others will take it up.

 

Meanwhile we can just wish Garrett luck. he is a creative and original young mind. Interesting surfer lifestyle BTW, check his home page

[Royston]

there is a button on the abstract page that will tell you all the follow-up work' date=' actually two buttons one called "cited [u']by[/u]" and one called "Cites" if I remember correctly.

 

I'll check it out, thanks Martin.

 

There is another new approach to unification being looked at these days that is more GRAPHIC and less dependent on equations for its formulation. There are underlying equations but the relationships can be diagrammed more pictorially and it helps with understanding. this approach also does not require the elaborate machinery of string approaches and it seems to be already generating some interest.

 

My prayers have been answered, visual models are exactly what I 'get on with' hopefully in a few years time I'll be able to express some of my ideas mathematically, but until then, this direction in physics seems a lot more accessible and familiar with the way I would approach the subject...I'm sure that would go for some other people on SFN as well.