I suspect Lubos is essentially technically (formally) correct about that particular largely irrelevant point that assumes what it wants to prove. It's like theorems that prove it's impossible to generalize quantum theory, and like theorems that say quantum superposition of charge eigenstates are impossible. It does not apply to my background-independent macro-quantum gravity theory that the fundamental geometrodynamic fields are local gauge fields from Minkowski spacetime non-compact symmetry groups keeping all field global actions invariant. It's an old result Coleman did not invent it. It does apply to string theory that is Minkowski back-ground dependent of course. It may or may not apply to Lisi's E8 model I don't know yet. No direct emergence of non-compact spacetime from compact internal symmetry groups like E8 allegedly is is used or assumed in my MACRO-QUANTUM theory. Simple minimal coupling between internal forces and gravity-torsion comes simply from bilinear products of the tetrads with the gauge potentials in the covariant derivatives as I showed yesterday explicitly. No big deal. Lubos & Company make simple physical ideas obscure with excess mathematical mystical baggage. Honestly now, can you really parse Lubos Motl's sentences when he tries to explain physics? Compare Lubos Motl's pedantic Laputan scriibbles with Lee Smolin's crystal clear plain English explanations of hard string theory, double special relativity, loop et-al ideas in "The Trouble With Physics." Motl is Pot calling Smolin's Kettle black most obviously. Now that's the real truth here. Also Lee Smolin sticks close to experiments pointing out same things I emphasize i.e. dark energy, dark matter, Pioneer anomaly - why Hubble radius R applies on the small scale of the NASA Pioneer Anomaly - very key puzzle of principle. Do you ever see Lubos write about physical phenomena? Maybe he does, but it's like looking for a needle in the haystack.
On Nov 15, 2007, at 8:23 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Do you agree with the Coleman-Mandula result? If so, what do you think this says about
the idea of unifying gravitation non-trivially with all other natural forces under the E8 model?
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Nov 15, 2007, at 5:01 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Yes it is, and as an internal gauge group it may be of value, but as Feynman said
"A beautiful theory is murdered by an ugly fact."
I do think what Lisi, Tony Smith are doing is real physics and that most of what Lubos Motl publishes is pure math, but as physics is "not even wrong" - also what does he mean "spinning coordinates" - A. Connes matrix geometry?