astro
11-22-2007, 10:28 PM
Awsome--Distler calls Lisi out on his fundamental premise, adding to the multitude of talnted physicists exposing the "FABULOUS (SMOLIN'S WORD)"Smolin/Lisi hoax.
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/001505.html#more
Garrett waves his hands some more in his disingenuous response:
Hello Jacques,
It wasn’t my intent to instigate this media frenzy. I apologize for the pressure it put on you to read and discuss the paper, but at the same time I am happy that you did. Your analysis is entirely correct, and focuses on exactly the issue that I agree needs a better understanding in this theory. What this theory does currently have is an embedding of G and one copy of R in E8. The other two copies of R are related to the first by a triality rotation. Under a strict interpretation of the embedding, as you present here, these other two copies of R do not have the same quantum numbers as the first – so by this interpretation they are not good copies. However, they do have the correct quantum numbers under the triality rotated G. This, admittedly, is unsatisfactory hand waving – and I have discussed this inadequacy clearly in the paper, going so far as to explicitly state it is currently the main problem with the theory. Addressing this inadequacy in the theory is what I will be working on over the coming months, and if I or someone else can’t figure out a good way to solve this problem, the theory won’t work. Nevertheless, I consider it nontrivial that G and one copy of R fit in E8 in such a way that the standard model and GR Lagrangian may be efficiently constructed. For this reason, and the prospect of relating the other two generations to R through E8 triality, I consider this to be a developing theory that is worth my time to work on, as a long shot.
Best,
Garrett
--http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/001505.html#more
Hey Garrett--there are easier ways not to inspire a media frenzy.
1) put the physics before your false homeless/surfer/snowboarding/Hawaii/Lake Tahoe image
2) Don't misrepresent (lie about) the content of your paper in
the title: "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"
3) Don't spend weeks cultivating friendships with all the "right" gossip columnists and bloggers, placing fanboy groupthink over rugged physics
4) Next time ask Lee Smolin to not refer to your non-theory as "Fabulous."
5) Just be honest--like Einstein/Bohr/Feynman were.
6) don't refer to yourself as "a hermit" while you're posting on every single board.
7) don't tell the media that you and your girlfriend are poor/homeless when you're getting tens of thousands of dollars for your non-theory:
8) email all the press and Lee SMolin and Woit, and ask them to retract their false statements, and replace them with the simple truth
9) no more handwaving--step up to the plate
10) no more cargo-cult science
11) change the title of your paper on arxiv.org, or retract it and post a new one with an updated title, and a more honest assessment of the content
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/001505.html#more
Garrett waves his hands some more in his disingenuous response:
Hello Jacques,
It wasn’t my intent to instigate this media frenzy. I apologize for the pressure it put on you to read and discuss the paper, but at the same time I am happy that you did. Your analysis is entirely correct, and focuses on exactly the issue that I agree needs a better understanding in this theory. What this theory does currently have is an embedding of G and one copy of R in E8. The other two copies of R are related to the first by a triality rotation. Under a strict interpretation of the embedding, as you present here, these other two copies of R do not have the same quantum numbers as the first – so by this interpretation they are not good copies. However, they do have the correct quantum numbers under the triality rotated G. This, admittedly, is unsatisfactory hand waving – and I have discussed this inadequacy clearly in the paper, going so far as to explicitly state it is currently the main problem with the theory. Addressing this inadequacy in the theory is what I will be working on over the coming months, and if I or someone else can’t figure out a good way to solve this problem, the theory won’t work. Nevertheless, I consider it nontrivial that G and one copy of R fit in E8 in such a way that the standard model and GR Lagrangian may be efficiently constructed. For this reason, and the prospect of relating the other two generations to R through E8 triality, I consider this to be a developing theory that is worth my time to work on, as a long shot.
Best,
Garrett
--http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/001505.html#more
Hey Garrett--there are easier ways not to inspire a media frenzy.
1) put the physics before your false homeless/surfer/snowboarding/Hawaii/Lake Tahoe image
2) Don't misrepresent (lie about) the content of your paper in
the title: "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"
3) Don't spend weeks cultivating friendships with all the "right" gossip columnists and bloggers, placing fanboy groupthink over rugged physics
4) Next time ask Lee Smolin to not refer to your non-theory as "Fabulous."
5) Just be honest--like Einstein/Bohr/Feynman were.
6) don't refer to yourself as "a hermit" while you're posting on every single board.
7) don't tell the media that you and your girlfriend are poor/homeless when you're getting tens of thousands of dollars for your non-theory:
8) email all the press and Lee SMolin and Woit, and ask them to retract their false statements, and replace them with the simple truth
9) no more handwaving--step up to the plate
10) no more cargo-cult science
11) change the title of your paper on arxiv.org, or retract it and post a new one with an updated title, and a more honest assessment of the content