Christians often insist that only their god can make the universe understandable and can explain why the universe is the way it is. All this is, though, is an empty claim — there are no arguments or pieces of evidence which could possibly indicate that the statement might be true. Luckily for us, science works differently and scientific investigations of the universe yield statements which can be tested, thus allowing us to learn whether we are saying anything meaningful.
Using geometry to describe the world is not new. Murray Gell-Mann performed a similar trick 50 years ago in an attempt to make sense of the plethora of particles that was then emerging from experiments. He placed these on the points of a geometric structure known as SU(3), and found that, by manipulating the structure, he was able to reproduce the interactions of the real world. Dr Gell-Mann also identified points that had no known particles associated with them—and predicted the existence of particles that would fill those gaps. He was awarded the Nobel prize after they were detected. Interestingly, some 20 gaps remain in Dr Lisi's model. That suggests that 20 particles (or, at least, 20 different identities of particles) have yet to be discovered. If Dr Lisi can calculate the masses of these, he will have made predictions that can be tested experimentally.
The particles must be relatively massive, because they would otherwise have been discovered already. Detecting massive objects takes energy. (Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2, outlines how energy is equivalent to mass times the square of the speed of light.) When it is completed, the Large Hadron Collider, a machine being built at CERN, the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva, will create particles with greater masses than have yet been seen. It is due to start its scientific work in the summer of 2008, so a test of Dr Lisi's theory could come soon. ...
Certainly, there are glitches with Dr Lisi's analysis and some of the truly fundamental problems that plague more conventional work remain. Yet the theory has several appealing facets. It is elegant. It is expected to make testable predictions. Unlike some of the more complicated efforts to devise a theory of everything, this one should either succeed relatively rapidly or fail spectacularly. And that is more than can be said for three decades of work by other physicists.
Source: The Economist
Given how fundamental numbers and mathematics are to physics and our universe, it wouldn't be surprising if the "explanation for everything" were found in a branch of mathematics. There is certainly much more value to be found in mathematics than in theology — at least, there is if your goal is to better understand reality and our universe. Garrett Lisi's idea may prove to be wrong, but even so it is already and will remain far superior to anything produced by theologians and apologists who try to explain the universe. The mere fact that it is objectively testable makes it so.
I need some help here:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t massive particles be easier to detect?
The problem, if I understand my physics, is that these massive particles *don’t last*. Early in the universe they existed, but anymore they can’t – all the elements that go into making them are instead invested in lighter, easier-to-create particle. Supercolliders generate the raw materials and energy necessary for the massive particles to exist, if only for brief periods of time.
An example of a massive particle which is thought to exist, but which has yet to be created, would be the Higgs Boson.
Triphesas: The quote may be somewhat misleading. The problem is that the massive objects aren’t hanging around in the air for us – they must be manufactured – usually by banging together “normal” matter at extremely high velocities (very, very close to the speed of light). The high energies convert to particles (E=mc^2), and at extremely high energies, a very tiny fraction of those particles might just be the particles being looked for. They will then tend to decay almost instantly into other particles – there will be a characteristic “spray” of products that does not correspond to a known particle decay … and the paths and energies of the resulting particles allows the mass, (and charge, and so on for any other conserved quantity), of the decaying particle to be calculated.
That makes sense. Thanks.
Christians can’t even do Kindergarten math. Their supposed savior dies and rises up three days latter. According to my fingers, they should be hailing Mondays as church time.
Their bush league fable doesn’t even add up.
Austin Cline wrote:
Given how fundamental numbers and mathematics are to physics and our universe, it wouldn’t be surprising if the “explanation for everything” were found in a branch of mathematics.
I *would* be surprised if an explanation for *anything* was found in a branch of mathematics.
Mathematics doesn’t give us “explanations”. It’s just the tool or language that helps scientists to explain observable phenomena. It’s meaningless by itself.
“Mathematics may be defined as the subject where we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.” (Bertrand Russell)
NP, perhaps.
Albert Einstein, when interviewed by a young Henry Russo, said “As a boy of twelve years making my acquaintance with elementary mathematics, I was thrilled in seeing that it was possible to find out truth by reasoning alone, without the help of any outside experience….I became more and more convinced that even nature could be understood as a relatively simple mathematical structure.
George, good point. However as we know, Einstein found that many of his own boyhood ideas were deeply challenged later in life thanks at least partially to the work of Planck, Heisenberg, Dirac, and others.
And as long as we’re tossing around good Einstein quotes:
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” (Albert Einstein)
“A human being is a part of the whole, called by us the “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” (Albert Einstein)
And a favorite right off my shelf….
“It took an Einstein to make scientists and philosophers realize that geometry is not inherent in nature, but is imposed upon it by the mind. In the words of Henry Margenau [Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist p.250], ‘The central recognition of the theory of relativity is that geometry… is a construct of the intellect. Only when this discovery is accepted can the mind feel free to tamper with the time-honoured notions of space and time, to survey the range of possibilities available for defining them, and to select that formulation which agrees with observation.’” (The Tao of Physics, Fritjof Capra)