Talk:An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Version by IP 66.93.186.140

In my humble opinion, the version presented by IP 66.93.186.140 a few hours ago was high-quality. I don't support its recent revert by IP 76.252.229.239. Maybe that was handled a bit too hastily, due to our past experiences with this article? I do understand if some of us are a bit more nervous (or sensitive) than we should be. I ask to consider to restore the version by IP 66.93.186.140. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like vandalism to me. In this edit, 66.93.186.140:

1) Removes mention of BRST.

2) Removes description of the curvature.

3) Injects more verbiage around the statement that "it is not a quantum theory."

4) Injects the statement that the theory does not possess an E8 symmetry.

5) Completely removes the non-technical overview.

I think doing any of these things would be bad for the article. Are there any that would be good to do, and why? 76.252.229.239 (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I overlooked how much was actually removed. Please have a look, though, at some of the verbiage changes that were suggested. Sure, there is POV whether something is "claimed" vs "shown". When I read something open-ended, or suggested, I would represent it here as a "claim". I agree that the BRST mention must stay, though, because from reading over the blogs, this is one of the forward points of investigation. If there is any other reference to how to quantize a theory built on E8 (or on any exceptional Lie algebra by this matter), then we need to reference it here. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the use of "claims" is justified when good sources other than Lisi can't be found that agree with the statement, or possibly if it's in dispute. 76.252.229.239 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me too.Scientryst (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not vandalism; that term is reserved for those who deliberately reduce the quality of the article, and there's no evidence of that. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Vandalism. Whether it actually improved the article is of course another question. -- SCZenz (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Two-dimensional sphere?

In the Non-technical section, I'm thrown by " two-dimensional sphere". Isn't that an oxymoron? — J M Rice (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The expression has been edited away, but it may have referred to a "2-sphere". Mporter (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

N=8 Supergravity

Googling N=8 Supergravity with Garrett Lisi comes up with lots of hits referring to the "finiteness of N=8 Supergravity". Could one make the inference that Lisi's E8 ToE is an outgrowth of N=8 Supergravity? — J M Rice (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no real relationship. Supergravity has supersymmetry, which Lisi's theory does not. N=8 supergravity is actually a limit of string theory, though it was discovered first. Lisi's theory largely derives from the rival "loop quantum gravity" research program. Mporter (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Various changes:

1) Lisi claims to use the Pati-Salam model, but this is false. Pati-Salam is chiral; Lisi's model is not. Wording changed to reflect that.

2) Mathematically, it is not a principal bundle with connections. It is a principal bundle with some strange variant of a superconnection. They are not the same thing. More generally, the bundle is usually not specified because they would be summed over in a quantum theory. That sentence deleted.

3) Lisi says that the he uses the BRST technique to introduce the fermions. This is false. He uses a sort of superconnection. Superconnections are sometimes used in the context of the BRST technique, and that's probably where the confusion arose. BRST refers to a specific technique for gauge fixing which Lisi never does.

4) Lisi does not come close to reproducing the parameters of the standard model -- this is why there are no predictions, not because of the lack of inclusion of the latter two generations, although that's hardly unimportant.

5) Why on earth are you copying Lisi's godawful notation? Nobody writes things like that.

6) Somewhere in the article, it should say that quantization is the whole point of having a TOE. Without quantization, you have a rewriting of the standard model plus gravity with new variables and extra stuff. That can be very interesting, but it's not a TOE.

7) The mathematical section in the middle needs attention from an expert with more time on his or her hands than I have. I think it'd be better off not saying anything than cribbing things from the paper and Urs's blog verbatim.

8) Lisi did not pay attention to the real form of the Lie algebra in his work. In addition, the chirality of the resulting spectrum is an important criticism of Lisi's work. These should be mentioned.

9) I don't think the nontechnical description adds anything given that it's mostly about the mathematical notions of fiber bundles and connections, and not about Lisi's theory, but if people are attached to it, whatever.169.231.42.148 (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Version by IP 169.231.42.148

These are all interesting points, deserving discussion here. There were also some other edits made to the article by IP 169.231.42.148 that should be considered. As to the points raised:

1) This is incorrect. There is no dispute that Lisi has embedded the left-right symmetric, Pati-Salam model in e8. The problem with "chirality" that was raised has to do with the existence of anti-generations in E8. It is a different usage of the word "chirality," and a different problem, which perhaps should be discussed.

Pati-Salam is parity symmetric and chiral. Lisi is not. If you want, you can wade through the long cosmic variance thread at

http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/11/16/garrett-lisis-theory-of-everything/

Is that enough "dispute" for you?

2) Lisi says that he starts with a principal bundle, and uses the BRST technique to obtain fermions. The sentence shouldn't be deleted. If a reference can be found that says Lisi's construction does not start with a principal bundle, then perhaps the qualification should be added that "Lisi claims to begin his construction with a principal bundle," although that seems awkward.

Again, if one wants to do a quantum theory, one does not start with a principal bundle. You sum over them. The bundle is not part of the data to specify the model; it is a specific class of field configurations of the model. Of course only Lisi has a classical theory, so perhaps that's all irrelevant.

3) This is incorrect. Not only does Lisi say in this paper that he uses the BRST technique to introduce fermions, he references his earlier papers in which he provides the explicit details. Perhaps we should include some of those details here in this article, for clarification of Lisi's construction.

Lisi says it, but it's not correct. The BRST technique is for gauge fixing. That's what it means. There is no gauge fixing in this paper. If you want to stick to standard physics usage in this article, it's not the BRST technique.

4) This is correct, and probably worth noting. Lisi claims to reproduce the gauge structure of the standard model and gravity, and the dynamics, but not the parameters.

5) Lisi's notation is important for understanding the content of the article, so a few descriptive sentences seem justified.

It is a notation used by, as best I can tell, nobody else in the world.

6) This is an interesting point. I think the main point of a TOE is the unification of gravity with the other forces. But the inclusion of quantum mechanics is certainly important, and Lisi only mentions it without addressing it.

If somone could quantize the standard model plus gravity (which is a perfectly fine classical theory), then that would be a TOE by the Wikipedia definition. I quote from that page: "The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity are hard to combine."

7) I am an expert. But I'd rather maintain my anonymity for professional reasons. So if others could be brought in, I'd also consider it helpful.

8) Incorrect. Lisi says he's using a non-compact form of E8. As to chirality, this is issue (1).

There are two noncompact forms of E8. Lisi mentions one at the very end, but his decomposition does not work for that one. He has acknowledged this. (See the thread on Distler's blog, for example.) In addition, the triality symmetry he mentions does not exist for the real form he wants.

9) Lisi has described the geometry of his construction by starting with a principal bundle. And this has been used several times in the popular press in nontechnical descriptions.

See above.

And seriously, "in the conceptual stage"? That doesn't even mean anything.

Also, recent changes made by 169.231.42.148 appear to be original research, and were not accompanied by references.Scientryst (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression that any criticism of Lisi is by definition "original research".169.231.42.148 (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV. Edits need to be supported by reliable sources.Scientryst (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? Please be specific. The statement about chirality is supported by references, and the statement about theories of everything is practically the same as the following quote from the Wikipedia page on theory of everything: "The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity are hard to combine." I'd be happy to link to that quotation as a citation. Everything is wording changes that I feel are more neutral than the current edit, or are things discussed above. I'm not sure I understand why factually incorrect statements don't need references, but removing them does. Take the example of the "BRST technique". Lisi's use of this is factually incorrect, but I did not state that in my edit; I simply removed the statement so as to avoid the issue. Does removing a statement need a citation? It is preferable to have incorrect statements in the article? Can I cite the wikipedia article on BRST? Any textbook on quantum field theory? What would you prefer?169.231.42.148 (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The mention of BRST is important, and should not be removed. If you have a source that states Lisi's use of BRST is incorrect, please cite it. For example, mathematical physicist Peter Woit reports on Not Even Wrong that: "The other idea [Lisi] likes is that of trying to interpret the fermionic degrees of freedom of the BRST method for handling gauge invariance as providing the fermions of the Standard Model. I suspect there is something to this, but to get anywhere with it, a much deeper understanding of BRST will be required. I’ve been spending a lot of time trying to understand some of the mathematics related to BRST in recent years, and am in the middle of writing some of this up." If you would like to create a summary of Lisi's use of BRST, drawing from his work and pointing out its unconventional nature, that would be helpful.Scientryst (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how else to say this. Lisi. Doesn't. Use. BRST. He uses something he calls a "BRST extended connection". If you look at the paper he refers to, it's just a superconnection, and Lisi doesn't even have a standard one of those. Still, given that actually reading papers and references is apparently Original Research, here is Urs Schreiber:

"What I would like to discourage you frm, though, is to use the motivation via BRST. Even if technically correct (I am not sure yet I see exactly what you have in mind) it is at best misleading: in BRST formalism the ghosts are, by the very construction, not physical. So it is sub-optimal to claim that that your supposedly physical fermions are BRST ghosts"

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/05/e8_quillen_superconnection.html#c016628

"If so, I’d suggest to stop mentioning BRST and start saying: Quillen superconnection on a rank r∣0 supervectorbundle over a supermanifold X of dimension n∣1 :-)"

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/05/e8_quillen_superconnection.html#c016758

and Jacques Distler: "Lisi says that he isn’t using a Schreiber superconnection. Instead he’s doing ‘standard’ BRST. I can’t make head or tails of his usage of the term “BRST.”

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/05/e8_quillen_superconnection.html#c016877

Nonetheless, in the interest of comity, I've tried a new approach for an edit. Acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.42.148 (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And while I'm here, I should point out that this problem is endemic to having Wikipedia articles on unpublished work. Nobody is going to publish anything pointing out the problems is Lisi's theory because he hasn't bothered publishing it himself. There aren't going to be easy references for this sort of things because most scientists understandably want to stay out of the sideshow. What you end up here is reporting on what someone says in a preprint without any countervailing views because they would be "original research".

On another note, this entire page is pretty damn close Original Research. Take the decomposition in the middle section. It is not the decomposition described in Lisi's paper. As best I can tell, this particular decomposition has only been mentioned in the comment section of the n-Category cafe. So, not only is this page about unpublished research, it is a page that is about research that has not even appeared on the arXiv. If we're reduced to blog comments, what's to stop someone (say, me) from going out, commenting on Lisi's paper on some blog and then coming back here with new, exciting citations? It's a slippery slope this page is on.169.231.42.148 (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This comment from Schreiber is interesting. He seems to be saying that Lisi's use of BRST may be "technically correct" but is unconventional. And Lisi does refer to his previous papers for this BRST construction, which looks like BRST to me, albeit with some unusual choices. I'll insert "unconventional use of BRST" in a new edit. I hope this is acceptable.Scientryst (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the parenthetical comment right after Schreiber's remark. Regardless, what exactly is wrong with describing it in the manner which I have. Is it not fair in any way? Would anyone else reading care to comment? I would also appreciate it if you discussed the other revisions before reverting wholesale. The only one you have mentioned any problem with is the BRST comment, and I changed that. If you have problems with the others, you should say so here and not just revert everything. I have only done my reverts after writing here and going for a few days with out a response. That's the whole point of a talk page, no?169.231.42.148 (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis of the problems with this page. I think frankly that what we really want is a much shorter article that relies much less on blog comments. (It also seems pretty clear from your quotes that Urs Schreiber and Jasques Distler are of the opinion that Lisi isn't using BRST -- for whatever that's worth.) -- SCZenz (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Schreiber said Lisi's use of BRST may be technically correct, but is unconventional, Distler said he couldn't make heads or tails of it, and Woit said Lisi's unconventional use of BRST to obtain fermions is an idea he's fond of. I've looked at Lisi's earlier work, and his use of BRST appears unusual but straightforward. If he had made a technical mistake, wouldn't the reviewers of his work point that out, instead of just saying it was unconventional?Scientryst (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Saying you can't make heads of tails of it means that it doesn't make sense to you. These are experienced physicists. BRST quantization is standard material in almost any modern textbook on quantum field theory. See, for example Peskin and Schroeder or Weinberg (vol II, IIRC). If they can't understand it, would you concede that maybe it's at least possible that Lisi is misusing the term? Would it not be better to attribute the terminology to Lisi rather than state factually that this is what he is doing?

Lisi appears to be using the BRST technique in a nonstandard but technically correct way.

No, he's not. BRST is a method for gauge fixing, or more generally constraint imposition. What gauge is being imposed in Lisi's paper? What constraints? There aren't any. BRST is, at best, an analogy for him.

Since it is nonstandard, it is understandable that even experienced physicists wouldn't recognize it as BRST without a deeper look.

How would you know that? Sounds like original research.

But Lisi has provided several references and explicit calculations, and two physicists have publicly stated that it might be technically correct use of BRST. It is unconventional, and that's the best way to describe it. It is incorrect to imply with "what Lisi describes as" that Lisi made it up.

If it "might be" a technically correct use, is it not proper to state that it is "what Lisi describes"? It seems to me that that is a factual assertion.169.231.42.148 (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

169.231.42.148 is making many edits. Some of them I thought were good, but the following I think are bad, for the reasons below:

1) Removal of "However" in the introduction. The "However" is needed because how much interest Lisi's work has attracted among professional physicists is apparently in dispute. Scientific American said it was being "largely but not entirely ignored," but that is in conflict with other sources. This requires the "However" that follows.

However is not NPOV. It implies that the following statement is in contradiction with the previous one. It is not. I think a neutral presentation of the facts lets the reader draw their own conclusions.

Having nine citations appear quickly does contradict the claim that the theory was being largely but not entirely ignored by the mainstream physics community.

That's not NPOV. If you read those citations, you'll see that all but one refers to Lisi only in an ancillary manner. Perhaps two others can be said working on things related to extending Lisi's research. One of those citations cite Lisi as follows:

"while the group E8(−24) (first entry in Sequence III) is the exceptional group used in [62] in a (hopeless) attempt to unify gravity with the Standard Model."

But I don't want to put any of that into the article. All I want to do is to remove the editorializing that "however" entails and just present the facts to the readers.

It seems rather imbalanced to have a statement in the introduction that implies the theory is being largely ignored. The "However" is there as a way of balancing out that strong statement. I think the introduction would be better without the "largely ignored" quote and without the "However." Instead, the second paragraph should describe that this is a fairly speculative theory, in the early stages of development.

The difference is that the "largely ignored" quote is cited, while your use of "however" is just your opinion.

No, the number of citations and the statement about downloads are not opinions.

The theory's prominent display on the cover of Physics World appears to contradict this as well. I still think this second paragraph should be rewritten to reflect the fact that it is a developing area of investigation, being taken up by more than a few physicists. But that the theory is still fairly speculative, and is nowhere near the state of a complete theory of everything.

Other than Lee Smolin, I don't know of anyone taking up Lisi's theory. As I stated, if you read the citations, most of them have nothing to do with Lisi's theory. Certainly articles in the popular media have absolutely no correlation with what physicists are doing.

Maybe not every physicist talks to you. Regardless of what we do or don't know, we need to conform to what's reported by the majority of reliable sources.

2) Change from "extension of" GUT to "variant of" GUT. Lisi's theory is not a GUT variant, as GUT's only describe non-gravitational forces. It is an extension of a GUT to describe gravity.

Lisi's theory has some properties of GUTs, but not others. I feel that "variant" is more accurate than extension which would imply that Lisi's theory has all properties of GUTs subsumed in it.

Lisi's theory subsumes the Pati-Salam GUT.

Asserting something is not an argument.

The assertion is directly relevant to the argument.

3) Insertion of "claimed to be" left-right symmetric Pati-Salam. It is not in dispute that Lisi is using the Pati-Salam model, so this phrase is unnecessary.

It is in dispute. I included a reference above. Do you want me to quote it again?

I think the reference you're referring to argues that one can't get from e8 down to Pati-Salam dynamically. But this is independent of the undisputed fact that Lisi builds his model by using the complete Pati-Salam GUT, which is what's being stated.

I am referring to the fact that the particle content in Lisi's theory is not chiral. That's also one of the reasons I want to call it a variant of a GUT. If you wanted to say that Lisi subsumes the Pati-Salam gauge group, that would be legitimate. If you wanted to say that Lisi includes at least one copy of a Pati-Salam representation, I haven't checked the details myself, but that'd probably be ok, too, as long as it was mentioned that there was also an anti-generation. I could also point out that Lisi doesn't include all three generations, so that doesn't subsume the Pati-Salam theory either.

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/001532.html

I don't think Pati-Salam says anything about generations. Lisi builds his theory by combining Pati-Salam with general relativity. The problem with anti-fermions only comes in later, if one considers how this might be obtained dynamically.

I can't figure out what you mean by that. Pati-Salam is a GUT theory with chiral fermions. Lisi's theory does not have chiral fermions. I gave you two alternate formulations of a statement that would be correct, and all you do is reassert what you've always been saying.

The statement in question is "Lisi uses the Pati-Salam model." It seems clear that the Pati-Salam model, including fermions, fits algebraically in E8. You yourself say below that "Lisi's theory includes a copy of the Pati-Salam representation." Yet here you are protesting this fact.

4) Insertion of "classical" gauge theory. Lisi has formulated his theory using the same foundation as quantum field theory, including beginning with the requisite gauge fields and action as a starting point, and discussing Feynman vertices. It is incorrect to say he is proposing a classical theory just because he starts with the conventional classical configuration space.

It is a factual statement that his theory is a classical theory. The theory has not been quantized, so it is classical. He's proposing a theory that he hopes may eventually be quantized, but it hasn't been. The distinction between classical theories of gravity and quantum theories of gravity is the most important thing in the entire subject and should not be elided.

It is not elided, it is plainly stated that "no attempt is made to provide a quantum description of the theory—this being left for future work." It is incorrect to imply that Lisi's model is only classical, as if he was ignoring quantization.

Lisi's model is only classical, and he is ignoring quantization. He makes no attempt to do so in his paper. Do you seriously claim that either of these statements are false? Hope is, as they say, not a plan.

Yes, the first statement is false. Lisi does not ignore quantization. Lisi says: "Quantum mechanically, the action of a connection over the base manifold determines the probability of experiencing that connection. Since quantum mechanics is fundamental to our universe, it may be more direct to describe a set of quantum connections as a spin foam, with states described as a spin network. Under more conventional circumstances, the extensive methods of quantum field theory for a non-abelian gauge field may be employed, with propagators and interactions determined by the action."

That's ignoring quantization. There's no content there, just some random speculation.

As well as the above quote, addressing quantization, Lisi describes allowed Feynman vertices in detail. That is not ignoring quantization.

5) Removal of "Mathematically, this is an E₈ principal bundle, with connection, over a four dimensional base manifold." This is the geometric starting point of Lisi's theory (stated in many references), and should not be deleted.

Again, a classical gauge theory starts with a principal bundle. A quantum theory does not. Since Lisi is hoping to eventually have a quantized theory, I would assume, he should not start with a principal bundle. A reference for the fact that you have to sum over principal bundles in a quantum theory is Sidney Coleman's book Aspects of Symmetry.

A description of a quantized non-abelian gauge theory begins with a principal bundle with connection.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK. Let me try again. A component of the configuration space of fields in a quantum field theory is described by a principal bundle with connection. In a quantum theory, you sum over the space of all fields. Thus, you sum over possible principal bundles. See, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instanton#Instantons_in_quantum_field_theory.

See the quote from Lisi, above. This seems consistent with what he says.

Huh?

6) Insertion of "what Lisi describes as" BRST. I think "unconventional use of BRST" would be better. (see other discussion)

He doesn't use BRST. Point me to the line in the paper where he does.

Lisi states "the fermions may also be recast as Lie algebra elements and included naturally as parts of a BRST extended connection," and cites a previous paper which includes a succinct description of this unconventional use of BRST.

see above.

I've lost track of the indentations here, but what Lisi calls a "BRST extended connection" is not the BRST technique. A BRST extended connection is a superconnection. The BRST technique is a way to impose constraints that can be recast (I haven't checked this myself) in terms of a superconnection which, in that context, is called a BRST extended connection. Again, please read the Wikipedia page on the BRST technique and point to where Lisi is using it in the paper.

Lisi describes what he is doing, and cites a more detailed description in his previous paper. In that paper, he says he starts with a principal bundle connection, A = H + K, in which K can be gauged away by gauge transformations that leave the action invariant. He then follows the usual BRST formalism, arranging that K be constrained to vanish. The resulting BRST extended connection is A = H + c, in which c (which lisi calls Psi) is a Grassmann field valued in the same part of the algebra as K was. Lisi summarizes this by saying "these Grassmann fields may be considered ghosts of former gauge fields."

7) Insertion of "versions of" the Riemann curvature. This phrase is unnecessary. There aren't "versions" of the Riemann curvature. It's a well defined object, and the one Lisi produces.

He's doing something called Macdowell-Mansouri gravity. The curvature that arises there is combined with a cosmological constant, so it's slightly different. But this isn't a big deal, so I'm fine with leaving it.

Actually, now I'm not sure that's what he's actually doing. I think that would have the group so(4,1), not so(3,1). So I can't say I realyl understand how he's getting the curvature at all. I have to look into that some more.

The point is that the Riemann curvature Lisi describes is the Riemann curvature, not a "version of" the Riemann curvature.

8) Removal of "The most important" deficiency. This is referred to many times, by Lisi and in references, as the most important deficiency.

Huh?

You've removed the part where it states the problem with the second and third generations is the most important deficiency.

I changed it to "an important deficiency". Calling something or something else the most important is not NPOV. Again, the readers can draw their own conclusions without editorializing.

I didn't insert my POV by making this judgment. Lisi says in the paper: "This relationship between fermion generations and triality is the least understood aspect of this theory." And in other references he has described this as the most important deficiency.

Then you can say that "Lisi states". Otherwise it is not NPOV.

It's not necessary to include "so-and-so states" unless there is a reliable source contradicting the statement.

9) Removal of "This deficiency, and the incomplete nature of the model, prevents the prediction of masses for new or existing particles." This is the reason given, by Lisi and in references.

Huh again? All I did was reorganize those sentences a bit -- they certainly weren't removed.

Your reorganization changes the meaning.

My version includes the fact that the parameters of the standard model don't appear. That certainly is a reason why he can't make any predictions, no?

That twists things around. The reason the parameters of the standard model don't appear is because this theory is incomplete. Or because it's wrong about nature.

The theory is supposed to be a theory of everything. Now you say that it is incomplete? Regardless, the fact is that the parameters of the standard model don't appear. That is a reason why he can't match his theory to the real world. Why they don't appear doesn't seem particularly relevant to that statement.

Saying "the masses aren't predicted because the standard model parameters aren't predicted" is as silly as saying "A isn't predicted because A isn't predicted," since the masses are standard model parameters. Saying the masses aren't predicted because the model is incomplete has meaning and shouldn't be removed.

10) Insertion of "It is worth pointing out that quantization is the fundamental barrier to describing a theory of everything; the standard model plus gravity is a perfectly well-defined classical theory." Lisi is not proposing a classical theory, he is proposing the foundation of a quantum theory,

What does that mean?

using the appropriate starting point of classical configuration variables and action. It is more accurate to say "no attempt is made to provide a quantum description of the theory—this being left for future work."

There is no difference between a classical theory and "the foundation of a quantum theory". Again, you have not pointed out anything in the addition that is either factually correct or Original Research. In fact, your "more accurate" statement, tendentious though it is, does not at all contradict what I said.

That's not true. You can have a classical theory without an action, but you need an action for a conventional QFT.

This is false. You can and do have QFTs without actions. QFTs are about measures on field spaces. Some, but certainly not all of these arise from the exponential of a local functional of the fields.

Doing QFT without an action is unconventional.

I can provide a classical action for a theory of everything, too. It's easy. Quantizing a classical theory is the hard part. I cited the Wikipedia page to that effect above. Nothing you say in this comment at all contradicts this. Nothing in your "accurate" quote contradicts what I said.

It means he is proposing a unified set of configuration variables and action in a manner consistent with their use in QFT.

Also known as a classical theory.

But not necessarily only a classical theory. The point is, that should not be implied.

Does the word only appear anywhere? It is easy to write down classical foundations for a quantum theory that include the standard model of gravity. Quantization is the hard part. I have cited this fact. It is not original research. That Lisi has a classical theory is, as you often say, not in dispute, but you seem persistent in removing this factual, well-cited statement.

The point is that it should not be implied that Lisi is proposing a classical theory as a TOE.

11) Replacement with "has not been done, most importantly." Lisi discusses quantization, so this is incorrect.

Discussing is not doing. The statement that the theory is classical is a factual statement. It has not been quantized. The work has not been done. What exactly is your problem with stating this fact?

It is incorrect to imply that Lisi is proposing a classical theory.

See incoherent screaming in frustration above.

12) Removal of reference to Distler's blog. This decomposition of e8 was an important contribution, and references to it shouldn't be removed.

That was a typo on my part.

You've attempted to impose this "typo" and others on this article five times now.

The same typo being reverted back to itself. Since you seemed more fond of reversions than editing, I kept going back to my original version and adding in the changes that had occurred subsequently.

13) Insertion of "Lisi only writes down his decomposition for the complexified form of the Lie algebra, but for his action to make sense, he has to use a real form of E₈ of which there are two. It has been claimed that neither gives the spectrum that Lisi claims. In particular, in those references, it is stated that Lisi does not obtain a chiral spectrum, a significant difference with the standard model." Lisi states he begins with a non-compact real form of E8, so the above is incorrect. And all parties currently appear to be in agreement that Lisi has fit the spectrum of the standard model, at least with one generation, in e8. The issue with chirality is about the other parts of e8, anti-generations, that appear to make it difficult to dynamically obtain the standard model spectrum.

That is a bit of a misstatement on my part, but in the opposite direction as what you think. There are three real forms of E₈ of which two are non-compact. See 6.29, 6.30 and 6.31 here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_simple_Lie_groups

Lisi states that he is using EIX in the paper, but Lisi also acknowledges that he got it wrong there. As I said, the decomposition given on this blog is at least purportedly for the split real form which does not appear at all in the paper.

For your second point, chirality specifically refers to the entire spectrum. Lisi's theory isn't chiral. All the parties, as you say, agree to that. So, again I wonder you object to stating this agreed upon fact in the article. More importantly, I do not say that Lisi doesn't get a chiral spectrum; I say that it has been claimed. I gave a reference to that claim. Apparently, you even object to even stating that someone claims this because you believe that it is incorrect. That is original research.

I think we need to be careful in stating what Lisi has and has not done. He has not proposed a method for getting the standard model from E8 via a dynamical method. He has only proposed a way to fit the standard model into E8, and said this match is interesting. This problem with chirality is a barrier to the former, not the latter. So, if we discuss this problem with chirality, we need to be careful not to attribute the problem to Lisi's theory, but rather to a problem with a closely related theory that was built by others. I think it would be confusing to include this in the article.

I think your statement here is confusing. Regardless, we should not be editorializing at all here. We should be reporting on what credentialed scientists have said about Lisi's theory. There are citations given for my comment, and your desire not to include it sounds like Original Research. If you have citations for your belief, you should include both the original comments and citations that say what you have said.

Good. On Schreiber's blog, Lisi, Baez, Schreiber, and Distler appear to agree on this: "There is a ℤ_2 grading of the split real form of e8 such that the gravitational so(3,1) and standard model gauge bosons (along with other stuff) sit in the even part, and a generation of fermions (along with other stuff) sits in the odd part."

Which is exactly the statement I made above that Lisi's theory includes a copy of the Pati-Salam representation. But, you cannot include that statement without also mentioning the fact agreed by all that Lisi's theory also includes an anti-generation. This is a well-cited legitimate criticism of the theory, and if this page is to accurately reflect the scientific discussion of the theory it needs to be included.

At least you're willing to admit that "Lisi's theory includes a copy of the Pati-Salam representation." But Lisi's theory does not include an anti-generation. Lisi only claimed to fit gravity and Pati-Salam (with one generation) in E8, wrote down an action for that part, then said he didn't know what to do with the rest, but it sort of looked like the other two generations, but mostly not. Lisi then asked, but didn't answer, where to go from there. Then, as far as I can tell, Jacques Distler extended what Lisi said and attempted to build a model with a superconnection valued in E8, and found that these anti-generations were there, preventing Lisi's subset from being obtained dynamically from Distler's model. So if we're going to add anti-generations and the problem with chirality, we're going to need to add that it's Jacques Distler's model that has this problem, even if he attributed it to Lisi's model, and even if he says it implies Lisi's model can't work. Because Lisi declared this part of his model was "still unknown" before Distler got there and claimed to know it, but in a way that didn't work.Scientryst (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Some other edits by 169.231.42.148 looked OK, but the above edits are bad, for the reasons given.Scientryst (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As usual, lack of a response within a few days will be interpreted as okaying a revert. I really would appreciate if others would comment on this. I'm trying to be reasonable here, but if one can't even remove factually incorrect statements, this page isn't exactly a shining advertisement for Wikipedia.169.231.42.148 (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is the result of a lot of hard work and debate by many editors. Given the evolution of its subject, and the related contention, I think it is fairly well balanced and factually correct in its current state. However, as editors we're fairly limited to the degree we can do original research, and need to rely on good sources, of which there are fortunately many.Scientryst (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the current (ridiculously tendentious) form of the article is mainly due to you. If others wish to chime in having an investment in the article in its current state, I would very much appreciate it. If there is a consensus beyond you that my changes are unacceptable, I'll leave. 169.231.42.148 (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

We need to follow the NPOV policy: "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." Scientryst (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

See above about reliable sources for unpublished papers. In general, they don't exist which is why this article should probably be significantly more sketchy. And not to mention that this is an entire article whose central content is culled from blog comments.

On the other hand, it seems like lots of people have put time into editing this page in the past. This should not just be a conversation between the two of us. Does no one else really want to comment? A new point of view (perhaps even a neutral one...) couldn't hurt.169.231.42.148 (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a very large amount of reliable source material for this article, not just blogs. The blog posts by experts have been useful. But I agree we need to be careful.

Edit of reference by SCZenz

It appears Simeon Warner's talk has been truncated, cutting off the last half of the talk mentioning Lisi's paper. It was there when the citation was created. What is Wikipedia's policy on referencing primary sources that have changed? Maybe we should reference Woit's blog only, since it's a secondary source.Scientryst (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My opinion has always been that, if it said what was claimed at the access date, then the source is still valid — but such changes do make maintenance hard. So I'm not sure. -- SCZenz (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. When I looked at it on the access date the document was around 20 slides, including mention of the paper. Now it's only 9 slides, cutting out mention of the paper. Presumably it was the full version that Woit read as well. If you think this is sufficient evidence to persuade you that the source said what was claimed at the access date, please consider reverting your edit, perhaps adding a note in the Chronology that the source has changed since its access date.Scientryst (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Scientryst

The indentations are getting a little crazy, so I'm starting this anew:

The difference is that the "largely ignored" quote is cited, while your use of "however" is just your opinion.

No, the number of citations and the statement about downloads are not opinions.

Good thing I didn't say they were.

--

Other than Lee Smolin, I don't know of anyone taking up Lisi's theory. As I stated, if you read the citations, most of them have nothing to do with Lisi's theory. Certainly articles in the popular media have absolutely no correlation with what physicists are doing.

Maybe not every physicist talks to you. Regardless of what we do or don't know, we need to conform to what's reported by the majority of reliable sources.

Good. The reliable sources we have are one paper that follows up on Lisi's work.

--

I can't figure out what you mean by that. Pati-Salam is a GUT theory with chiral fermions. Lisi's theory does not have chiral fermions. I gave you two alternate formulations of a statement that would be correct, and all you do is reassert what you've always been saying.

The statement in question is "Lisi uses the Pati-Salam model." It seems clear that the Pati-Salam model, including fermions, fits algebraically in E8. You yourself say below that "Lisi's theory includes a copy of the Pati-Salam representation." Yet here you are protesting this fact.

Then you should be happy with the statement that Lisi uses the Pati-Salam gauge group and a copy of the Pati-Salam representation and and its conjugate. The net number of generations is important in GUT model building. It is not proper to say that it include the Pati-Salam GUT when the net number of representations is zero.

--

That's ignoring quantization. There's no content there, just some random speculation.

As well as the above quote, addressing quantization, Lisi describes allowed Feynman vertices in detail. That is not ignoring quantization.

Feynman vertices arise in classical perturbation theory. Describing the vertices does not constitute quantizing the theory. It is only when loops are present that you are doing the quantized theory. There are barriers to being able to do this. Certain theories that make perfect sense classically and have a full set of Feynman vertices do not make sense when you try to add in loops. Even if you can write down a theory with loops, there are other questions involving renormalizability. Quantization is not easy, and Lisi has not done it.

Lisi describes what he is doing, and cites a more detailed description in his previous paper. In that paper, he says he starts with a principal bundle connection, A = H + K, in which K can be gauged away by gauge transformations that leave the action invariant. He then follows the usual BRST formalism, arranging that K be constrained to vanish. The resulting BRST extended connection is A = H + c, in which c (which lisi calls Psi) is a Grassmann field valued in the same part of the algebra as K was. Lisi summarizes this by saying "these Grassmann fields may be considered ghosts of former gauge fields."

I can't make heads or tails of the previous paper. I'll try again tomorrow, maybe, but as best I can tell, it's not what he's doing in this paper.

--

Then you can say that "Lisi states". Otherwise it is not NPOV.

It's not necessary to include "so-and-so states" unless there is a reliable source contradicting the statement.

It's a matter of opinion. It is Lisi's opinion and should be stated as such.

--

The theory is supposed to be a theory of everything. Now you say that it is incomplete? Regardless, the fact is that the parameters of the standard model don't appear. That is a reason why he can't match his theory to the real world. Why they don't appear doesn't seem particularly relevant to that statement.

Saying "the masses aren't predicted because the standard model parameters aren't predicted" is as silly as saying "A isn't predicted because A isn't predicted," since the masses are standard model parameters. Saying the masses aren't predicted because the model is incomplete has meaning and shouldn't be removed.

Actually, the Yukawas are standard model parameters, but whatever. The masses are referring to the masses of the new particles he's predicting. Presumably the standard model parameters would have some effect on them. Regardless, if the theory is incomplete, can you say what parts are complete?

--

This is false. You can and do have QFTs without actions. QFTs are about measures on field spaces. Some, but certainly not all of these arise from the exponential of a local functional of the fields.

Doing QFT without an action is unconventional.

No, it's not. Look at CFTs for example.

--

Does the word only appear anywhere? It is easy to write down classical foundations for a quantum theory that include the standard model of gravity. Quantization is the hard part. I have cited this fact. It is not original research. That Lisi has a classical theory is, as you often say, not in dispute, but you seem persistent in removing this factual, well-cited statement.

The point is that it should not be implied that Lisi is proposing a classical theory as a TOE.

Lisi is proposing a classical theory as a basis for a theory of everything.

--

Which is exactly the statement I made above that Lisi's theory includes a copy of the Pati-Salam representation. But, you cannot include that statement without also mentioning the fact agreed by all that Lisi's theory also includes an anti-generation. This is a well-cited legitimate criticism of the theory, and if this page is to accurately reflect the scientific discussion of the theory it needs to be included.

At least you're willing to admit that "Lisi's theory includes a copy of the Pati-Salam representation." But Lisi's theory does not include an anti-generation. Lisi only claimed to fit gravity and Pati-Salam (with one generation) in E8, wrote down an action for that part, then said he didn't know what to do with the rest, but it sort of looked like the other two generations, but mostly not.

For that part? The action includes the entire theory. And he hasn't written down an action for this new composition as best I can tell; the one in the paper refers to his old incorrect decomposition. But perhaps it is the same action.

Lisi then asked, but didn't answer, where to go from there. Then, as far as I can tell, Jacques Distler extended what Lisi said and attempted to build a model with a superconnection valued in E8,

As far as you can tell? That's not what Wikipedia is supposed to do. It is supposed to present well-cited criticisms of the theory by credentialed scientists whether you agree with them or not.

and found that these anti-generations were there, preventing Lisi's subset from being obtained dynamically from Distler's model.

I really can't tell what you're talking about. However, what Distler did was take the adjoint representation of E₈ and decompose it exactly following Lisi (but correctly). He found that the fermions so obtained were non chiral. Dynamics has nothing to do with it. This is about the basic particle content of the theory.

So if we're going to add anti-generations and the problem with chirality, we're going to need to add that it's Jacques Distler's model that has this problem, even if he attributed it to Lisi's model, and even if he says it implies Lisi's model can't work. Because Lisi declared this part of his model was "still unknown" before Distler got there and claimed to know it, but in a way that didn't work.Scientryst (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that statement? Otherwise it sounds like Original Research.169.231.42.148 (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have a reference for that statement. It's a summary of a rather strange discussion by Jacques Distler and Lisi on Schreiber's blog. It looks like Distler fooled some people into thinking he was saying the Pati-Salam model (with one generation) doesn't algebraically fit in E8, and refused to clarify this misconception when many people cited his blog post and repeated it (sometimes in print), even though Distler knew this was false and Lisi called him on it. We should be careful not to transfer that misconception here to the wikipedia article. Although I see it's already there as the summary of Distler's post. It might be good to describe this unusual exchange in the article, but I think it speaks more to the characters involved than to the theory, so we probably shouldn't. Scientryst (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fooled?!?!? So, as I understand it, you are saying that you believe that Distler was lying and that's why his comments (and those of other who have made the same point) should not be on this page?169.231.42.148 (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Distler wasn't technically lying, but he was deceptive. He led people to think that you can't even embed one generation in E8. And once this misconception spread (even into the media), he refused to correct it, even when challenged about it directly. Distler thinks Lisi and others are easily deceived.

Well, I think we can safely say that NPOV has gone waaaaaay out the window now.

Just to reiterate, the point of Wikipedia is not to make such judgments. Distler has made a criticism of the theory echoed by both "amused" and "summarizer" on that blog. It is well cited and should appear in the article. In addition, unlike your many additions to the article, it was introduced as a "claimed" and not as a statement of fact. 169.231.42.148 (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The criticism made of Distler in this case are backed up by references. And there is some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, towards the purpose of improving an article. I am not suggesting we clutter the article with this drama, but we should be aware of it in order to make good editing decisions.

Well, we seem to have a disagreement here. Distler wasn't lying, and he wasn't being deceitful. Read the post

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/001532.html

See, near the bottom where it has a few R_ps. That's the Pati-Salam representation. As was noted by Summarizer here:

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/05/e8_quillen_superconnection.html#c017825

when you count generations in GUT models, you count the net number of generations. That is zero in Lisi's model. That is the criticism that Lisi's model does not have chiral fermions. It is, again, factual, undisputed and cited.

Your opinion seems to be that Lisi doesn't actually have a model. All that matters is that he has at least one copy of the Pati-Salam representation embedded in the adjoint representation of E₈. If that is the content of Lisi's model, then we would need to do some rather drastic revisions to the article as it stands now to reflect various facts such as the irrelevancy of the action that Lisi writes down.

Of course, that might be a problem because this new model of Lisi with the split real form of E₈ HAS NEVER BEEN WRITTEN DOWN IN A PAPER! So I don't have the slightest idea what the latest version of the theory is, and, unless you happen to be Garrett Lisi posting under a pseudonym, neither do you. In the meantime, this article should reflect the statements made by credentialed scientists in criticism of Lisi's theory. That you seem to not understand these criticisms is your own problem. 169.231.42.148 (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This edit is highly deceptive. It relies on Distler's second post, which fooled many people, including Sean Carroll, into thinking "in a new post he shows that you can’t even embed one generation." This misconception propagated, with Distler actively avoiding correction. If this criticism is included at all it should go in the Chronology under the topic of Distler's second post, not in the Description. Some of your other edits, maintaining NPOV, were kept.

You do not get to decide what is deceptive and what is not. The statement about a chiral spectrum is prefaced by "it has been claimed" and contains citations to where that is so. The statements earlier are again factual statement about the particle content of Lisi's model and clearly state that there is a copy of one generation of the Pati-Salam representation and, as Lisi likes to put it, other stuff, but with an actual specification of the "other stuff". Nowhere in the Wikipedia article does it say that you cannot embed one generation. If you persist in deleting these sourced, factual statements, I will keep reverting them. 169.231.42.148 (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisi said it's deceptive. Here is what Lisi had to say to Distler about this part of his criticism: "I am not suggesting that this Z2 grading of E8 be used for a physical model – that is a straw man of your creation." This criticism about chirality shouldn't be in the Description of Lisi's theory, since Lisi says Distler's version isn't his theory. And you are still attempting to push this and many other edits, following your personal point of view, despite the extensive arguments provided against them. To your credit, you have made some good edits, which have been included in the article without issue. These many other edits are not acceptable.

I don't think you understand how NPOV works. If you want, you can add to the article what Lisi has said, but you don't get to remove cited criticism because it is a negative view or because you believe it is deceptive. At any rate, at this point, I really have no idea what Lisi's model being described in this article is since it's apparently not a "physical model". Apparently this article is no longer about the preprint on the arXiv and is about something much more ephemeral. 128.111.9.157 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

New grant awarded to Lisi

Garrett Lisi has just been awarded additional funding from the FQXi. From the technical section of the grant: "One promising description employing the E8 Lie group will be developed further, and others considered." I'm very glad for this, as it enables the replacement of guesswork with facts, over the next two years. We should make reference to this somehow here. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This also means this theory has now been formally peer-reviewed. This should be added to the introduction. Scientryst (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No. It doesn't. Peer-review happens when someone publishes the thing in the journal. The FQXi grants are for speculative things and do not constitute peer review. In fact, I believe this is the second grant Lisi has received from FQXi.169.231.42.148 (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Formal peer-review also often happens as part of the grant award process, as was the case here, when this theory was reviewed. Scientryst (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Formal peer review is for the grant. Grants are about future work. It is a statement that the panel of scientists (or whoever) at FQXi thought that Lisi's research was worth pursuing. It is not a statement that they believe that the theory as currently stated is substantially or even partially correct, just that the line of research is promising enough to fund. 169.231.42.148 (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this theory, named E8 Theory, which constitutes a line of research, passed formal peer-review. Scientryst (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is much, much more specific. If it were to be significantly shortened and refer to the basic idea of embedding the particles of the standard model along with the forces in some noncompact Lie algebra, then that line of research has now been funded by FQXi. This article, however, is instead about some bizarre amalgamation of the paper put online and a few comments to various blog posts. That has most certainly not passed any peer review. There is a big difference between a specific theory and a line of research. 169.231.42.148 (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the actual sentence you keep deleting: "After formal peer-review by an expert panel, FQXi awards Lisi a grant for further development of 'E8 Theory.'" This is an accurate summary of a post by a reliable source. It should not be deleted. Scientryst (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Lee Smolin, who originally hyped Lisi's none-theory to Fox News and the world, sits on the FQXI board. Smolin is no expert. What has he ever accomplished? For that matter, FQXI has no "experts." If you think they do, just name them and their expertise, for a good laugh. Lisi's theory has yet to pass any form of official peer review. Just because Smolin doesn't undertsand enough group theory to assess Lisi's theory does not mean that Lisi's theory is a good one. In fact, prominent physicists and the Fields Medal winner have shown that Lisi's theory is hyped balderdash. But the well-funded lisimania fanboys have deleted those references. It is not enough that they should make a mockery of physics, but they must make a mockery of wikipedia too. hating on Alan Connes, the Field Medlist, and deleting Scientific American and the NY Times. why do they do this? Because Lisi's theory is Smolin's pet hoax/crackpot hobby.

Although I am not qualified to evaluate the mathematical merits of Lisi's theory, or any rigorous objections one might advance against it, I must point out that to say "FQXI has no 'experts'" or that the expertise of their Advisory Council is valuable only "for a good laugh" is the height of unrestrained douchebaggery. I am not defending Smolin in particular, but he is one of 16 people on that committee, others of whom are tenured professors at Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford, and MIT, and at least one (each) MacArthur Fellow and Physics Nobel Laureate. Whatever your objections to Lisi's ideas, to rail against the credentials of this group undermines only your own credibility, not his or theirs. - Owen Cunningham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.35.237 (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits by IP 169.231.42.148

There has been a protracted discussion between IP 169.231.42.148 and Scientryst regarding the following edits by IP 169.231.42.148 (and now from IP 128.111.9.157, also editing from UC Santa Barbara):

Same person, just elsewhere on campus. I requested a Wikipedia third opinion yesterday (?), and still no result. 128.111.9.157 (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Deletion of "However"

2) a variant of a GUT

3) claimed to be the left-right symmetric

4) classical gauge theory

5) Deletion of: Mathematically, this is an E₈ principal bundle, with connection, over a four dimensional base manifold.

6) However, the E₈ symmetry is explicitly broken by the Lagrangian of the model.

7) a copy of one generation of the Pati-Salam particle spectrum and one generation with exactly the opposite quantum numbers. In addition, he predicts

8) at an undetermined mass scale.

9) what Lisi describes as the BRST technique

10) sort of superconnection

11) In the paper, the

12) versions of the Riemann curvature

13) The most important deficiency -> An important deficiency

14) It is worth pointing out that quantization is the fundamental barrier to describing a theory of everything; the standard model plus gravity is a perfectly well-defined classical theory. Finally, the model does not include the origin of the free parameters of the standard model, even for the first generation.

15) has not been done, most importantly

16) Lisi only writes down his decomposition for the complexified form of the Lie algebra, but for his action to make sense, he has to use a real form of E₈ of which there are two. It has been claimed that neither gives the spectrum that Lisi claims. In particular, in those references, it is stated that Lisi does not obtain a chiral spectrum, a significant difference with the standard model.

This is not a quote from my most recent edit. 128.111.9.157 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

17) Deletion of: although remarkably succinct

18) Deletion of: "a useful and"

19) is tentative and problematic in the model -> has not been done

20) provides a detailed description of the loophole in the Coleman-Mandula theorem allowing Lisi's unification of gravity and standard model forces. -> discusses possible loopholes

21) Deletion of The New Yorker and FQXi references.

The FQXi reference was not deleted; the wording was merely changed. The New Yorker reference got deleted in a revert when I forgot to re-add it. I have no objection to it.128.111.9.157 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

All of these edits by IP 169.231.42.148 are pushing a distinctly negative point of view, namely the point of view of Jacques Distler. But some of them are good edits. Edits (17) and (18) corrected an overly positive point of view, and remain in the current version. In the spirit of compromise, and towards reaching consensus, I've left (2) and (10) in the current version, and edit (11) seems innocuous but unnecessary. The other edits are still being pushed by IP 169.231.42.148. Extensive arguments have been provided by both editors, and it appears consensus cannot be reached. Given the tendentious nature of many of these edits, and the lack of progress in discussion, we may require arbitration on these points. Scientryst (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for arbitrartion. 128.111.9.157 (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration does not handle content disputes. AzureFury (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't go for arbitration!

I came here from the 3o page to see if I could lend a helping hand.

I'm sorry I can't. I'd think to understand the article, much less the fine points being discussed, that the reader would have to be at least a doctoral student in math or physics. No econ PhD's need apply.

That said - why don't you just concentrate on what you can agree on and leave the rest out. I mean who is actually going to read Wikipedia on this topic? Those folks - whoever they are - should be able to get the basics here - and the fine points elsewhere. WP:OR and WP:Crystal might apply here. The arbitrators wouldn't have a clue, with one possible exception.

Smallbones (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a very basic question of whether criticism should be included or not. Beyond that, the details aren't important. I'd be fine with a much shorter article, but did not want to make such drastic edits. 128.111.9.157 (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Among the 21 edits listed above, only items (7) and (16) contain substantive criticism, both based on Jacques Distler's second blog post on the subject. If it is included, I think it would be good to include this criticism in the Chronology section, under Distler's item there, along with the other commentary in that section. Scientryst (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - your RfC and my very unofficial "3rd opinion" have knocked you off the 3O list. I think the RfC is the best way to go. Mostly however, I want to emphasize that in a very specialized topic, you 2 are not going to get much help about content from outsiders - certainly not through arbitration (they don't do content and they are not qualified). It is up to you 2 to come up with a mutually acceptable compromise. From the 2 comments immediately above - it doesn't look like you are against a compromise.

Still in over my head here - but cutting it down is quite often a path to compromise. Upon re-reading the article, I was suprised by the amount of material in the popular and "popular scientific" press, e.g. the Telegraph and New Scientist. Maybe any criticism should go in a seperate section called something like "Press reaction" or "In the popular press"

Hope this helps. I'll step away at this point. Smallbones (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, but there are zero articles on this subject published in scientific journals. Thus it's either the "popular press" or blog entries by experts; the former is closer to what Wikipedia recognizes as reliable sources. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I have to say that I'm mostly just tired of all of this. It's clear that scientryst has little desire to compromise on anything, and I'm not up for a revert war for the next few weeks. Not only that, but nobody else who edits this page seems to care enough to get involved or get it right. I guess I always sort of knew that Wikipedia wasn't to be trusted, but it's depressing to see it up close. You can't say I didn't try. Sorry for the snideness. Best, 128.111.9.157 (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Now The NY Times Is Not Considered a Valid Source

This was just deleted, "*July 28, 2008 - In The New York Times, Barry Gewen writes, "The New Yorker plays this trope for all it’s worth, from the title on. . . Would Lisi have gotten The New Yorker’s attention if he had been one of the stuffed shirts? . . . Is it any wonder that so many people have turned away from the promises of science for the assurances of religion? ""

This is getting ridiculous.

Lisi and Smolin's hundred million dollar PI think that they have so much money that 1) it is no longer necessary to publish in peer-reviewed journals, and 2) The NY Times is not a valid source.

Just who is editing this page? Are they on the PI/FQXI payroll? What do they have against peer-review, science, physics, and the NY Times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.96.131.166 (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure something from that NYT mention can be used, but first, that edit came along with a bunch of other slanted POV stuff, and second, the NYT entry was selectively quoted to show Lisi in the worst light. - Merzbow (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This source is not The New York Times. This proposed reference is a blog, called "Paper Cuts," about books and other printed matter. Since it is a blog by a non-expert, it shouldn't be included in the article, since it does not qualify as a reliable source. If we start bringing in comments on this theory from non-expert bloggers, there would be hundreds. 69.107.48.215 (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Is not Lisi's entire article "slanted POV stuff?" Distler has shown that neither Lisi nor Smolin grasp the math nor group theory underlying their faulty theory. Since Lisi's "theory" has never been published in an official peer-review publication, is it not merely a bunch of POV wikispam. Take away Smolin/FQXI's funding, and would there even be enough fanboys to edit this wikipage with their little, snooty "POV!" ejaculations? Lisi's entire theory is a POV theory. It has never been peer-reviewed by expert physicists, nor published in a peer-reviewed journal. It makes no predictions. It cannot be tested. Distler et al have shown that it is full of holes. What is it doing with a wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.96.131.166 (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If various remarks I see above are correct, then this comes under the heading of fringe theories. Perhaps you should contact WP:FTN. Peter jackson (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one should distinguish between: (1) hypotheses which are highly speculative but not implausible to a scientist, and (2) those which are incoherent or contradict known facts. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

On a sidenote, thanks for pointing out the missing Distler reference. It must have dropped in an earlier clean-up effort; it's back now. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Are Winners of the Fields Medal's Comments Not Allowed?

This was deleted: The famous mathematician and theoretical physicist Alain Connes stated, "The ridiculous recent episode of the “exceptionally simple theory of everything” has shown that there is no credibility in the opponents of string theory in the US." why was it deleted? Alain is an expert in the field. He has won several awards, incuding a fields medal. Alain has published countless papers in peer-reviewed journals. First, arxiv.org counts as publication, and now the opinions of experts are not allowed on wikipedia. 'Tis a brave new day for physics.

Does PI & FQXI & Lisi & Smolin really think they have enough money to replace physics, logic, and reason with mysticism, groupthink, and tyranny?

The Gods are laughing at them and their impotence in the realm of physics, which they try to make up for via PR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.194.198 (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This quote by Connes is confusing. He seems to be talking about the physics politics in the US, not calling this theory ridiculous. If his quote doesn't apply directly to the theory, why is it included in this article? Is it just IP 71.106.194.198 who feels this should be here? 99.14.218.46 (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Connes quote was earlier disputed here. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Connes quotes mentions Lisi's theory by name. How is mentioning Lisi's theory by name not mentioning it? I realize that Smolin's PI has $100,000,000+ and that FQXI (where Smolin sits on the board) gave Lisi a grant, but is that enough to destroy the meaning of words, along with physics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.194.198 (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop deleting Alain Connes' statements regarding "the ridiculous recent episode" Lisi's theory. Connes is a respected physicist and winner of the Fields Medal. His comments belong far ahead of the vast majority of the random bloggers that are included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.194.198 (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I;m reverting back to the shorter version. The fact that a Fields Medalist has commented is an Appeal to authority. Correns does not seem to have done any significant mathematical work on the subject so it becomes just one persons opinion. Indeed the whole section has become a great pro-anti debate based on the authority of of various commentators and their soundbites. This is no way to decide on the merits of a scientific thesis and is the reason I decided to shorten the section. The critique of Motl relating to the Coleman-Mandula theorem and Distler on second and third generations of fermions are carry much more mathematical weight. --Salix alba (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Connes is a mathematical physicist who won the Fields Medal. Why are his comments being deleted/supressed/hidden/thwarted/denied/censored? Sabine Hossenfender has never done work in Lisi's area, and yet her blog link is supported by Smolin's media machine, as I think she works form Smolin's PI. Is this the new criterion? The following publications and authors of have never done work in Lisi's field eitehr, nor do they represent mathematical physicists, nor have any of the authors won Fields Medals, and thus all their contributions and links ought be deleted far before Alain Connes comments on Lisi's non-Theory--please delete: "Mainstream and scientific press coverage included: The Daily Telegraph, November 14, 2007;[9] New Scientist, November 15, 2007;[24] Wired News, November 16, 2007;[25] Le Monde, November 19, 2007;[26] The Economist, November 22, 2007;[27] [The Daily Telegraph]], January 22, 2008;[28] Discover Magazine, February 26, 2008;[29] Wired Magazine, February 27, 2008;[30] Scientific American, March 1, 2008;[4] Physics World, July 1, 2008;[31] and The New Yorker, July 21, 2008.[32]" --- (this section was added by 71.106.194.198).

Dear 71.106.194.198 and 137.159.148.112 from Pepperdine University. Based on your edits, I'm assuming that you are the same person, so I'll address the following as such. In the past, you have added a quote by Alain Connes numerous times, with little or no change in wording each time. You did not address problems with the edit, as the way the quote is picked is misrepresenting what was said. Not addressing issues with an edit is a sure recipe of having it reverted again. Anyway, I will be reverting it (again), and ask you to correctly represent what was said. Connes' own approach to a theory of everything (outside String Theory) is truly fascinating, but not subject to this article. In the quote you've provided, Connes is criticizing disproportionate funding support for String Theory, and advertises to create independent, European research initiatives outside String Theory, because in his view "The ridiculous recent episode of the “exceptionally simple theory of everything” has shown that there is no credibility in the opponents of string theory in the US." In his essay, Connes is walking a balance act, since he needs to tell the reader (1) to not trust opponents of string theory in the U.S., while (2) not reducing credibility into his own opposition to string theory. Connes' own model is incompatible with Lisi's, I believe, therefore he cannot endorse Lisi, either.

So, what could be done in order to properly reference what Connes said? Whatever is stated in the Wikipedia article has to make clear that Connes has an own, competing physics model that is incompatible with Lisi's model, and that he is criticizing disproportionate funding in String Theory topics. With these items in mind, the term "ridiculous episode" will be put into context of the article of the original quote. My personal view is that Connes has not been specific enough regarding Lisi's model, so at this time this quote appears to be just name-dropping in an essay. While this enriches the essay itself and makes it more readable, it would not be interesting to me for a Wikipedia article in Lisi's model. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Alain Connes said what he said, and he is a veritable expert. Look at his impressive wikipedia page! I see no reason to alter what Connes said. It is short, sweet, and to the point. He is an intelligent man and we should assume that he said what he meant and that he said what he meant. It is curious why so much effort is being expended in deleting comments from experts, while so much effort is alos put into including comments from non-experts. I vote that we retain Alain Connes' comments, along with several others. Is there some way to conduct an offical vote?

Also, look at his home page: http://www.alainconnes.org/en/. He is an epert of the highest order! Alain Connes is currently a Professor at the Collège de France, IHES and Vanderbilt University. Awards include the Fields Medal (1982) and the Crafoord Prize (2001). More information. This is quite pretigious!

Aimé Berthé Prize of the French Academy of Sciences (1975). Peccot-Vimont Prize of the Collège de France (1976). CNRS Silver Medal (1977). Ampère Prize of the French Academy of Sciences (1980). Fields Medal (1982). Clay Research Award (2000). Crafoord Prize (2001). Announcement CNRS Gold Medal (2004).

Surely he should be afforded a sentence containing his opinions on Lisi's research! While Lisi has never published in a peer-reviewed journal, which in itself would suggest that this entire article is a violation of Wikipeda's policy, Connes is the editor of several prestigious journals dealing iwth mathematical physics--Lisi's supposed field! Connes edits: Journal of Functional Analysis Inventiones Mathematicae (1978-1998) Communications in Mathematical Physics Journal of Operator Theory Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems (1981-1993) Comptes rendus de l'Académie des sciences Letters in Mathematical Physics K-theory Selecta Mathematica Publications Mathématiques de l'I.H.E.S. Advances in Mathematics Journal of Noncommutative Geometry

Surely Connes' opinions have merit--far more merit than the vast majority of the sources lisi & co. cite in the article. I have faith this will settle this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.97.102.198 (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Alain Connes' accomplishments warrant that we must make our best effort in representing correctly what he said, if we so chose. The problem I have with the edit is the way it is written. From what was said, all I know is that Connes believes that the "recent episode" concerning this model is "ridiculous" (by the way, the back-and-forth here in Wikipedia in my view qualifies as ongoing part of this very "episode", and I agree that it is ridiculous). He concludes that people "opposed" to String Theory in the U.S. don't enjoy much "credibility". That is said in a context of an essay that advertises support for independent, European non-String Theory research. For all I observe, there appears indeed some kind of friend-foe scheme regarding String Theory, primarily in the U.S., and the most visible critics indeed attack each other's credibility. In the context of his essay, Connes' opinion is therefore well substantiated and agreeable; in the way it was added (back) to this Wikipedia article, it is not. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is actually very simple. Connes is an expert in mathematical physics of the highest order. In fact, he is the highest ranking persona and physicist to ever comment publicly on Lisi's theory. I vote that the comment stays.

Indeed, the entire article is totally suspect, as supposedly wikipedia doesn't aloow non peer-reviewed research. To allow non-peer reviewed research and then delete the opinion of the highest-ranking phycisist to comment on Lisi's theory would be adding insult to injury.

Connes comment must stay. If it is taken down, then perhaps Wikipedia rules ought be invoked, and the non peer-reviewed OR (original research) that is Lisi's article should also be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.135.70 (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Koeplinger--you write, "Alain Connes' accomplishments warrant that we must make our best effort in representing correctly what he said, if we so chose."

What do you mean "if we so choose?"  ???? Does that mean that if we choose not to represent his insights, we don't have to? Or that we don't have to make our best effort to do so? Is that how you think wikipedia works--we can just do whatever we feel like? And why must we "*represent* what he said?" It's quite insulting to the esteemed Dr. Alain Connes, winner of the Fields Medal, to imply that he means something other than what he stated. What is your problem? For that matter, what is your degree? What gives you the right to say that Fields Medalists are too idiotic to choose their won words, and that wikimasters like you must somehow "represent" them? Connes' quote is short and to the point. Please just let it stay, as this is getting ridiculous. What can possibly be your motivations for removing the quote and re-representing and transforming what Alain Connes stated? Can we not give the man some respect? He certainly has accomplished a lot more than anyone else who has ever talked about Lisi's theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.135.70 (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You feel strong about your response, anonymous IP 67.102.135.70, sorry if I hit a nerve. I believe everything has been said. Koeplinger (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all--you did not hit a nerve Koeplinger. I am just marvelling at your strange, biased methodology of reasoning, which leads you to somehow conclude that you are intellectually superior to a Fields Medalist on multiple levels, in that a)Connes does not know how to properly express himself and b) you will be the one that can determine what he really means and c) that Connes is somehow not an expert in mathematical physics, even though he is one of the world's top, top, top physicists. Please do share your deeper motivations for repeatedly deleting his comments. It appears that the truth of your ill-motivated actions has hit a nerve, now that you might be recognizing the silliness and immaturity of your ways. Please do not insult me by categorizing my intellectual rebuttal as an emotional response. All it does is show that you are out of ammunition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.135.70 (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the most recent re-addition of the quote. Connes' comment is not about the contents of the theory itself, but rather about the way it was publicized in the media. This Wikipedia article is about the E8 theory, and not about the sociology and politics of conducting science.Jerry D. Hedden (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, and (from the discussion above) many other named and anonymous editors agree as well. Similarily, if you use an internet search, you'll find notable physicists agreeing as well, as diverse as Lubos Motl (believes that the "sociology" is criticised) and Peter Woit (states he doesn't know what Alain Connes thinks, from this sentence, about the actual model). Nevertheless, as you also notice, there is anonymous resistance against removing the quote here, and I think that leaving the wording with the context provided is the best we can do. I've rolled it back to a version that merged a few improvement attempts into one. The wording highlights that Alain Connes criticises the "episode" directly (not the model), it reads "... when he says ..." to highlight that this sentence is indeed the only reference to Garrett Lisi's model in the wider essay, and then lists the entire sentence. Hope this is agreeable. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's not agreeable (per most recent revert). Let me unwatch this page for a while and conclude that generally people either don't know exactly know what Alain Connes meant with that statement, or they understood it as ridicule on all the hoopla (the "sociology" of it, as some call it). Yet, there is notable disagreement, namely by anonymous, anonymous, and anonymous, who believe that Connes "directly" refered to Lisi's model. - I seriously begin to think some people have had too much coffee. Cheers, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Connes' comments give no indication that the man even read Lisi's paper, so there is no support for the claim that he referred directly to Lisi's paper. He merely comments on the situation, calling it a "ridiculous recent episode" without even justifying why he holds that opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

Comment. In context, the quotation of Connes was entirely rhetorical, and had nothing at all to do with Lisi's theory. Out of context, it appears to cast Lisi's theory in a negative light, which was clearly not the intention of the author. If the anon IP who wishes to have this quote included in the article would like to paraphrase Connes in a way that meaningfully relates to the contents of this article, then he or she is invited to do so. However, quote mining is not acceptable. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. It was recently just claimed in an edit summary that there is broad agreement here that the Connes quote should stay. Please convince me of this before restoring. Is there a thread other than this one that I am not aware of? Because if not, then the only consensus to emerge from the above is that the quote does *not* belong. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone thought of writing him and asking for clarification on what he meant? [1] --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations

What is the last sentence in the lead supposed to imply? "However, as of July 2008, the paper had nine citations from other arXiv preprints,[5] and was the most downloaded preprint on the arXiv.[6]" The statement that the article was highly downloaded is important (although I suspect there is more than meets the eye here). But that it has nine citations doesn't indicate very much. Highly cited papers generally have hundreds of citations. My own papers (which are far from highly cited) almost all have more than nine, and even a paper of only moderate impact can garner 10 citations in the first week after it appears. I don't want to start a row by unilaterally editing what seems to be a somewhat contentious article so I'll just point this out to the regular editors here. Joshua Davis (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's true it has nine citations. Providing context as you propose sounds like a good idea--do you have any ideas for a source on how many citations a typical "highly cited" paper has? -- SCZenz (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

After a quick cross-check in the arXiv, it appears that the number of downloads is the most unusual parameter for this paper (though the smallprint there urges caution with quantitative conclusions). The "most downloaded" quote therefore carries weight, as it underwrites general attention received. Number of citations, on the other hand, is a problematic measure in itself, I would be careful. That goes into the "Impact factor" debate, and would open a can of worms that was previously not opened in the debate of this article. If there is a paper (or other work) that directly deals with Lisi's model, then it should be pointed out. Otherwise, I don't think it's notable. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In some sense, I think the ratio of number of downloads vs number of cites really highlights the actual impact of this work. Everyone was sufficiently interested enough to take a look at it but very few think it is worthwhile pursuing. That's just my opinion, of course. In any case, the way to look for citations in this subfield of physics is the Spires website. In particular, list of the top-cited papers can be found at http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/. Joshua Davis (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Legitimate edits have twice been undone, by Scientryst at 04:38, 20 October 2008 and at 04:50, 19 October 2008 . Scientryst claims on its user page to be a physicist but this is unlikely. The nature of the edits are (a) Update the citations retrieved from Jul to Oct [why would this be controversial, are Wikipedia articles no longer supposed to be updated?] (b) Make the point that citations can be positive or negative. I have looked up each of the current ten citations at slac-spires and determined that seven are negative. Has Scientryst undertaken a similar exercise? If so, explain. (c) There is a claim about overall downloads but it cannot be verified. I can find no such data at the arXiv.org site, and the one claim that was made by a third party cannot be substantiated. Why should such hearsay appear in the article? I thought the Wikipedia citation guidelines were intended to eliminate excessive POV, so why is clear conformance to those guidelines reverted without explanation by someone without subject matter expertise? Thank you for your explanation. 71.232.15.137 (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)71.232.15.137

Scientryst should be explaining his reverts, but I assume that part of the problem is that you made the three edits all at once. Let me give some comments.

(a) Obviously updates are good.

(b) Unless a reliable, third-party source describes the citations as positive or negative, giving your own analysis (i.e. saying seven citations are negative) is original research. However I agree that the lead, as written, places undue weight on the arXiv citations. I would personally favor removing the statement entirely.

(c) I remain unsure on this issue. See #Edit_of_reference_by_SCZenz above for earlier discussion. I have little doubt that the talk did say what the article states, at one time. Nevertheless, it's hard to maintain the article when the source that was used for a statement no longer exists.

Also, please be kind enough to avoid ad hominem attacks; Scientryst's edits should stand on their own without discussion of his expertise, so please limit your comments. But you deserved more information that simple wholesale reversion of your edits, and I urge Scientryst to be more communicative in the future. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You have my support in removing references to citation-counting (in the lead-in or elsewhere). In a few years, yes: I'd want to look back and see how it went. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the theory should be listed in one place

At the moment they are scattered throughout the article and it would be easy for the casual reader not to realize just how much is missing from this theory. Mporter (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's too detailed altogether. Very subjectively, I've seen this situation handled successfully by separating technical details into a later section, "further down". From the original source, it's rather clear (now?) what was indeed said, and what is further deduction. I support an arrangement where the lead-in would be left as-is, then there would be a neutral "as-is" description of the model, then reception (including technical criticism, and what the model does not address), and then all the technical details in the article today. The tricky thing, however, is that we don't want to lose references and details that were given to us and the public in this Wikipedia article. Understood as a gift, knowledge is valuable; as is opinion. It's tricky. To some degree, it depends on how much this article still is under fire. It took me five days to rewrite this article, almost a year ago - primarily because of reading up on all the references. Anyone interested to do that deed again, sometime? Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Input From The General Public (interested in Science, but not schooled in Science)

Although reading this article has confused me, as usual whenever I attempt to follow mathematics beyond the trigonometry I actually get to work with, there are certain ideas presented with respect to this theory which have stuck.

Firstly, this theory is presented as a graphically sensible one, and although that is not demonstrably confirmable without knowing how to do a peer review, if it is true then there is something about the graphic representations of this theory as a particle theory which are in some interesting ways comprehensible... visually rather than mathematically, but it is a very poor idea to trust mere graphics (cartoons) without knowing how they are generated. But I speak as a member of the general public who is easily impressed by graphics.

Secondly, this theory is spoken of as in direct contradiction to string theory proposals. That idea pleases me, since I have always had the impression that string theory was taking us down the same path as Ptolemy's circles.

Looking at the entries for gravity particles, I can't help but wonder if they actually might represent particles of space itself, and if that alone would result in gravitational effect? I only wonder that because if there were such a thing as space particles, then when they were reformed as mass particles or energy, then the physical loss of space would create a sort of implosion. If energy were radiated from space consumption then we would have a gravitational effect. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.220.85 (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)