Early on I was quite fascinated by Garrett Lisi’s thinking that mapped the standard model to E8. I think I have now figured out why that works and why E8 was a bigger clue than realized, with a surprising twist. The question should not have been why a 248 dimensional object, but instead we should have asked why not a 256 dimensional object.
Let’s define an eight ball object as a bundle of basic properties with a dynamical geometry. A eight ball has a charge, position, and velocity. In nature, simplicty begets complexity via emergence. Each eight ball continuously emits an electric field which expands spherically.
(xm, ym, zm),
(dxm/dtm, dym/dtm, dzm/dtm)
We can imagine an arbitrary size collection of eight balls in absolute time and space.
- Physicist Garrett Lisi states that nature maps to E8.
- Can we steel man the argument? Why might Garrett be correct?
- Why might nature map to E8?
- For a specific charged eight ball at (tm), (xm, ym, zm),
- We can not distinguish the action caused by
- (chargem), (dxm/dtm, dym/dtm, dzm/dtm) from
- (-chargem), (-dxm/dtm, -dym/dtm, -dzm/dtm)
- Garrett is mapping to the standard model of physics structures.
Pause and consider that Lisi and all scientists are working within a system based upon observations of standard matter assemblies based upon instruments receiving photons assemblies*. They are all working within a system of point charge structure. They do not yet have the broadly understood ability to abstract to the point charge eight ball model of the universe.
*Photon observation technology dominates circa 2022. Emerging technology for multi-messenger observation includes neutrinos, gravitational waves, and entanglement.
Reframe attempt :
- Nature is described by dynamically interacting eight balls in absolute time and space.
- Eight balls interact and form nested and interdepenent structures.
- Orbiting oppositely charged eight balls form a reusable structure.
- Orbiting eight balls are stable at increments of h-bar from 0 to Fp.
- Let’s imagine a point charge eight ball in a assembly.
- Sub assemblies are exhibiting discretized h-bar behaviour.
- The relative characteristics of each eight ball are thus “discretized.”
- I put “discretized” in quotes because the eight ball is continuous of course, and this periodic behaviour is an artifact of the assembly itself.
So, now the E8 correspondence makes sense. Our entire standard model can be described by a discretization applied over eight dimensions. Each dimension in relation to the other. 8 x 8. Yet 8 x 8 is 256. Why is the mapping to a 248 dimension structure?
- E8 has 248 dimensions.
- 248 = 256 – 8
- 248 = 28 – 8
- 248 = 28 – 23
- 248 = 23* (25 – 1)
- 248 = 2 * 2 * 2 * 31
Aha, snap. It is in the action of the 8 x 8. We can not distinguish the action of two opposite charges moving in opposite directions.
That’s it. E8 is a good correlation of observation to a pattern and theory and there may be applications. However, as in so many other cases, it was really a clue to help us solve nature. Why 248 dimensions? Why not 256? Now we know.
J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts.
I don’t have any stake in Lisi’s theory other than to say the extent to which Lisi maps E8 to behaviours of the standard model are likely explainable by all standard matter particles and spacetime aether itself being based upon h-bar dominated structures. It is plainly evident, that h-bar dominated structures interacting with themselves and other structures exhibit really interesting patterns.
The cognitive error, and it is not unique to Lisi, is the inability of science to abstract itself away from the obscuring filter of working within the h-bar structure system itself. I highly recommend exploring the imagination zone where point charges with a simple 8 component path history (charge, time, spatial position (3), velocity(3)) are swirling around at different energies and forming various structures.
Whoa, there goes a photon, about to impact our instrument — wow, it is just a group of twelve point charges arranged in in two offset planar structures that are counter-rotating to produce E and B. How about that? Nearly all of science rests upon using these photon gizmos to help us understand other standard model gizmos. See the Law of the instrument and the Einstellung effect.
An aspect of the great difficulty I have getting through to those working within the h-bar structure system is that they do not realize that everything they know is derived from a perspective formed in a bubble akin to the cave in the allegory of the cave. They don’t know about the universe from a perspective outside their bubble, yet they are adamant that there can be no simple explanation, even though they acknowledge that their understanding of the universe involves distortions (dilation, contraction, inflation, expansion, etc.).
It has been such a strange journey trying to communicate with these people who can not step outside the bubble and who get really ornery towards those who point out that they are operating from within a bubble. “You must join us in the bubble and learn everything about the bubble before you can speak of the bubble.” Umm, no. Not really. It is much simpler outside the bubble looking in, thank you.