Talk:An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything/Archive 7

Removed section: Visual representation
This edit from Nov 24 Qwyrxian removed many sections, with the comment "Per discussion on the talk page, this much, this detailed, and this technical information is not appropriate, given that the theory is basically unaccepted in the community; more cuts may be appropriate later".

Below is a section that was helpful for me, including an animation. That animation is the only content specifically uploaded by Lisi, as seen in the file information. I'd like this section restored, but apparently it is not acceptable. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, please try to approach this a little more slowly. This has been a problematic page. I don't remember now all that has been said about that video. In my opinion, that video doesn't help at all with an understanding of the theory. Not in any meaningful way. I can explain in detail what I mean if needed. It is a cool tool, but I think it's one of the sources of misunderstandings. Plus, it is very likely to be considered SPAM or a precedent for other people to upload their own videos. One thing is the link to the video, another thing is the video itself with a complex explanation that would need a lot of extra explanations and care.


 * I think we should all talk about the strategy on how to approach this before we start trying editing or re-including or excluding things. The risk is that a lot of supportive things and a lot of criticisms that we decided didn't belong here would all come back making us lose our minds. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure. I don't want to cause trouble, but thought I'd try a small challenge, outside my expertise! And I'm not concerned about the animation specifically (although I fit your category of precedent of "other people" for uploading scientific animations, like File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif), but that the geometric explanation of the model (like the static figures in the paper, like the 30-gonal symmetry projection and others], along with supportive key) adds something more than words can share. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, although your animation, even though could be evil and false (I'm joking), it's a sequence of photos of an object. It isn't an attempt of explaining the entire particle physics. If Lisi uploaded a picture of an atom, that wouldn't be a problem. But let's not forget that Lisi has a website and also sells his shirts. And I have mixed feelings about conflict of interests in the idea of hosting in his page an image that is on the shirts that he sells and wears in his tv show. Especially because it's not a very important movie to understand the theory. Other particle physicists don't use the graphical version of their geometry because they don't need so, but other people have used in presentations. So, if anything it would be useful to dedicate some more time to a generic page about these kind of visualizations, not just Lisi's. My problem anyways is not even just that, it's that the geometric explanation is biased. It doesn't say, for example, that most of these symmetries already appear in other models, while they seem to be a peculiarity of E8. Also, as I said above, some of those particle assignments are wrong, if taken literally, because they have the wrong quantum numbers. Ultimately, that video is really biased and looks to me like propaganda. It would be like if you had a theory about the moon libration and wanted to upload the video that you made to present (and unconsciously biased-ly support) your theory. A person that watches that video is brought to think "man, that theory must be right, look at all those patterns", and it would be very difficult to explain in words what's the problem with those patterns. And we certainly don't want to start a trend in which each person that comes up with a theory also wants to include their own propagandistic videos. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom, Lisi has given many talks using weight diagrams to describe particle physics and unification, and puts the slides on his wiki. Those slides might be a good source for images and equations, since I think his wiki is GPL.-Scientryst (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian can help me here, but advocating that Lisi was the first at using these diagrams without a third party reliable source, trying to see how they fit the current knowledge of particle physics and the structure of Lisi's E8 model as opposed to standard quantum field theory and the structure of the E8 group, has definitely a nasty smell of original research for promotion purposes. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I can't easily help directly with this article at the moment, perhaps I can help get something started with at least a stub weight diagram article. Currently it is referenced just an open link at hypercharge . I found one article Visualizing Lie Subalgebras using Root and Weight Diagrams. The closest existing article to integrate with might be Weight (representation theory). Tom Ruen (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I see weight diagram as a redirect, not a stub.-Scientryst (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That seems pretty good. Given that the field has been developed decades and decades ago, I'm sure we can find plenty of things to use from group theory books/articles. You can look at more typical example here http://www.udel.edu/mvb/PS146htm/146noqu.html or also Eightfold_way_(physics).


 * If you want a 3D example more similar to the SO(7)->G2 projection deal that is present in Lisi's theory then you can look at this page http://accessscience.com/content/Quarks/563300 that was inspired by this pdf (After C. Quigg, Lectures on charmed particles, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Fermilab-Conf-78/37-THY, April 1978) http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/1978/conf/Conf-78-037-T.pdf where even a hand-drawn rotation of the weight diagram is shown. It's a beautiful pdf. But it is true that nowadays, as far as I can tell, in general people don't use these graphical ways in unification papers very much. And it's also true that it's a good thing that Lisi used them again. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, we discussed this. Those diagrams are all for mesons. Where are the diagrams, other than Lisi's, for fundamental elementary particle charges: hypercharge, weak isospin, color, and how these embed in GUTs?-Scientryst (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

First, they aren't all for mesons but also for baryons and fundamental particles. Or didn't you see the diagrams with the triangles and the three flavors for the SU(3) global symmetry of u, c, d quarks? They are, as you perfectly know, the fundamental 3 and 3bar representation of SU(3) global. They are in many many books. Do you think people never showed the colors r, g, b in the same fashion? It happens pretty often in grad school. It is true that people don't use very often higher than 3 dimensional root diagrams for local symmetries because they become 4D and so on and it's hard to explain what's going on. Ultimately that technique doesn't change group theory, it changes your way of showing the same physics. It looks pretty though, just there is no need for it for researcher. But I like them and I think they should be used, not in papers, but in presentations. Anyways, certainly here we are not going to do original research saying that Lisi has this recognition just yet or that he would deserve it. Not even Lisi stating so would be enough (otherwise we would have Lisi stating so this evening and some people trying to bring that up as a reference). You have got to relax, recognition is not something people necessarily obtain in 10 minutes, 10 days, or 10 years. Sometimes they never get their fair recognition. Let's wait for the process to happen, and stop trying to use wikipedia as a mean of promotion. Wikipedia isn't part of this process, like you would like it to be. Wikipedia reports consensus that is strongly referenced. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Where are the diagrams, other than Lisi's, for fundamental elementary particle charges: hypercharge, weak isospin, color, and how these embed in GUTs?" So, GT, you are claiming there are diagrams shown somewhere for color. That's probably true. And the rest? I'm trying to get evidence for whether these weight diagrams have been used before in this way, or if this graphical presentation of weight diagrams by Lisi is a significant contribution to the illustration of particle physics structure, for popular purposes, as the editors of SciAm state.-Scientryst (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * While it may certainly be a contribution in making particle physics popular, I wouldn't say they hadn't been used before in a broad context, wikipedia is full of those diagrams. If you think about it, aren't those graphs that I mentioned a representation of the flavor SU(3) for quarks similar to what Lisi has shown? And isn't the SU(3) flavor shown in each grad school book the same as, assuming Lisi's identification one day will work with fermions and with 3 generations, a linear combination of the weak generators, the hypercharge generator and the triality transformation generators in a direction of the Cartan subalgebra space that is perpendicular to the g2 strong gauge/quark generators? I believe that the main reason why those aren't very advertised in the higher dimensional representation is just because people would start seeing patterns and believe they are understanding while they might not actually be. In facts, because we have this left handed doublets, it is quite obvious that all the left handed fermions will appear in some sort of pattern, but this tells us very little about the TOE, unless we actually find new particles that are exclusive of a class of models. The patterns will still look pretty (you think that SO(32) isn't pretty?) but we all know that they have very large subsets of things. Lisi's idea was good, but the triality failure (so far at least) is a good indication that, either there is a lot of work to do before actually calling it a TOE, or, simply that we have a quasi-identification, and the patterns were misleading. Physicists don't need to see the pictures to understand those patterns, because they understand them well enough using other techniques, like the Dynkin diagram or the Young_tableau methods. If we have a clear statement from SciAm that says that Lisi has given this big contribution not written by Lisi then I think we can include it. But it has to be serious, not something on the lines "patterns never seen before that physicists will have to explain", that is visible in the page now, because that's certainly not only misleading, but false. Anyhow, if such statement is clearly present we can include it, with the SciAm voice and not with wikipedia's voice (I assume you know what policy I'm talking about). If eventually other independent from Lisi and SciAm journals or magazines with competence in physics will start saying the same, we will pass from a personal SciAm editor statement to a wikipedia statement. It seems still too early to me and with way too much original research in trying to identify the innovation. ~GT~ 98.244.54.152 (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * They are similar in that they are weight diagrams, but Lisi's diagrams for the electroweak charges, and for the electroweak charges combined with color, and for how these embed in unified models, are, as far as I know, new and, I think (and as backed up by the weight given to them by many sources), very important for understanding what has been done, and what hasn't been done. Perhaps people would start seeing these patterns and believe they are understanding because they actually are? If these specific weight diagrams, for the electroweak model, the standard model, and their embedding in GUTs, have been done before, I am asking you to provide a specific example. If you can't, my position is that these diagrams are new and quite informative, and I think we should use them in this article. Since similar (but not identical) diagrams have been used for particle physics before, this makes the case for using them even stronger. For what the SciAm editors say about them: "Even if Lisi turns out to be wrong, the E8 theory he has pioneered showcases striking patterns in particle physics that any unified theory will need to explain." That they're referring to them as "striking patterns in particle physics" sounds like serious support to me.-Scientryst (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I found this 2010 interview from Lisi http://vimeo.com/23681533, talkig about his use of the weight diagrams to present his theory, and that when he started he had no idea these diagrams existed, but that he saw them as helpful visualizations to aid communication. He admits they are well known by mathematicians, but less well know by particle physists. So it seems clear that he is not only trying to promote the diagrams for his own theory, but to encourage their wider usage within physics. His TedTalk presentation uses them exclusively to convey the theory, and presents it not as unique, but merely extending what others have already proposed, and extending the pattern a step higher. Like he presents a 7-dimensional proposal of Pati–Salam model, but its not clear if this visual represenation is a synthesis of his own, presenting their model visually, OR if everything he is showing is well-known and understood (and agreed) by Abdus Salam and Jogesh Pati as they saw their model. Finally Lisi appeears to say that the diagrams are not only useful for presenting the charge-space relations between the particles, but also gives information about how the particles can interact to conserve charges, although I suppose the diagrams again just visualize those interactions while the symbolism and rules within the particles are used to define explicitly what the possible interactions are. Anyway, that's the level that I got from his public presentation and that seems to deserve some recognition in this article. AGAIN, I don't see this as about "credit", about saying Lisi is doing anything special necessarily in his visualizations, only that they are important to his presentation conveying the nature of his unification attempt. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like Lisi's distinction is that he's using these weight diagrams with a high number of orthogonal (charge) dimensions, while other uses of them I find in particle physics papers are limited to 2 or 3 "dimensions". So I imagine this in part comes from the fact that its hard to understand what you're looking at in 4 to 8 dimensions projected down to 2. Lisi's rotations between various symmetry projection directions (by orthogonal double rotation I presume), seem to be a unique effort to express the symmetries of these unification theories and I think this fact deserves recognition in the article. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source that says that others have considered this usage to be unique and worth examining/using. If not, your opinion is not sufficient to determine that the point deserves recognition. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to learn what all these particles and charges represent, but in regards to usage I agree I'll have to look more widely on sources for what others say about these weight diagrams. At least, with the help of this summary, I've got some handle on the 8 "charge directions" (W=Weak hypercharge, Y=Hypercharge, g3,g8=Strong force, &omega;S=Isospin, &omega;T=Boost?!, X=X (charge), w="new charge relating to generations"). If I can get more clarity, I'd like a section including Table 1 (G2), Table 6 (D4), Figure 2 (E8), Figure 4 (G2 towards F4), along with a clear reference of what all the symbols mean. As well, the TedTalks presentation contained a 2D diagram of particles in the weak and strong hypercharge that wasn't in the paper. Also Lisi uses a more discriminating set of symbols to differentiate fermion types (on the PDF summary chart) above and laater animations. So, if a legend was offered, it may need to contain both sets of symbols in comparison! So suffice to say it'll be a while before I can offer help to the article, but still hopeful! Tom Ruen (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * p.s. It would seem Lisi's 2D W vs Y weight diagram for Electroweak interaction (in the TedTalks presentation) is a standard representation, and perhaps deserves to be included in THAT article as a visualization of how electric charge exists as a combination of two charges. But so far I have no comparable diagrams from other sources. Anyway, that seemed a good "first step" for me, to include these weight diagrams, if we can start with using them in the simplest cases, so that will aid more than just this article. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tomruen, let me try again, by turning part of what you said on its head: whether or not you understand the details should have no bearing on making a decision to include the visuals. That's because we should only include them if someone other than Lisi has published papers or discussed them to say that they are interesting, useful, representative, helpful, etc.  In other words, when deciding what to include, we shouldn't ask, "what's helpful", we should ask, "what have others--reliable sources, and, especially, experts--considered to be helpful from this paper"?  Does that difference make sense?  That's kind of the big push that I and a few others have been on about this article in general. For a paper that ranges between "slightly discussed," to "ignored," to "openly and directly rejected", it's very questionable that we should include any significant details about the theory at all. If scientists like yourself want to learn more about the theory, well, they should read Lisi's paper (or the small number of other papers that have discussed it). And, of course, if, in the future, this becomes a widely recognized theory (or even the stepping stone to a better theory), then we can discuss in more detail. Until then, though...  Qwyrxian (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Tom, I agree with you on using one of Lisi's diagrams for the Electroweak model (and possibly Weinberg angle) as a starting point. For the diagram source and description, I recommend the SciAm article and talk slides from Lisi's wiki (linked to earlier). To address Qwyrxian's concerns, and for more information on these weight diagrams and Lisi's theory from the view of a physicist other than Lisi, I recommend the July 2008 issue of Physics World.-Scientryst (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A quick search turned up the weight diagrams of Lisi and Weatherall's article in SciAm. I don't know if those are universally visible, or how long they will be available, but there they are.-Scientryst (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Scientryst for the link! I'm asking around for other sources that express the charges of the electroweak model in a diagram like Lisi uses, mainly to cross-check terminology used. And Qwyrxian, I'm sorry we disagree about "very questionable that we should include any significant details about the theory at all", but for me, if the article exists, it should include sufficient information that can communicate what its doing, what the basis of the theory is, where it agrees with existing theory and where it speculates. My understanding is the component weight diagrams are completely agreeable, but how he chose to embed the diagrams into E8 contains the speculation, so I see no reason at all not to include this especially, if it can be cross-linked with the other particle physics articles on wikipedia. If my "plan" goes well, it would be to identify where the various weight diagrams fit within the other articles (like electroweak model), and then this article can include the same diagrams. So it may be only a couple unique diagrams are needed to convey the E8 embedding Lisi attempted (whether history someday determines was fully or partially successful or not at all). Tom Ruen (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * p.s. The biggest trouble I'm having is the named charges by Lisi don't perfectly correspond to the similar termed charges on the wikipedia articles, so I'm at a standstill unless/until I can sort out exactly what the charge directions used by Lisi mean. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the first diagram, Y appears to be weak hypercharge, which often goes by YW, and W appears to be weak isospin, which often goes by the symbol T3 or I3.-Scientryst (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I got that far, but from Lisi's particle explorer, the W+/- particles have all charges zero, except his W direction as +/-1, while W_and_Z_bosons says they have a Spin_(physics) of 1, while Lisi calls his &omega;S as "spin" which is zero in his model. So what's Spin_(physics) vs weak isospin? Maybe that's my confusion? Tom Ruen (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think what's hanging you up might be a confusion of total spin angular momentum with the spin quantum number. To describe gravity, and its interaction with fermions, one needs to use the spin connection, which acts on fermions living in the spinor representation space of spin(1,3), as can be seen in the Dirac equation in curved spacetime. The fermions then have "spin" weights (quantum numbers) of +/- 1/2 with respect to the two Cartan subalgebra generators of spin(1,3). One of these quantum numbers is the fermions' up or down "spin", and the other is what Lisi is calling "boost". The same Lie algebra, of the local Spin(1,3) gauge group of gravity (speaking loosely here), acts trivially on the gauge bosons. The spin connection only acts on itself, fermions, and the vierbein. Algebraically, the W, Z, and photons are in the trivial representation space of the gravitational Spin(1,3) gauge group. But, the W, Z, and photons, being 1-form connection fields, have solutions in spacetime corresponding to field states carrying angular momentum. Historically, these were decomposed into left and right circular polarizations, having angular momentum +/- 1, which is why they're described as "spin 1." And, if that's not confusing enough, the SU(2) of the weak interaction cares about fermion spin and boost. Only left-handed fermions (and right-handed) anti-fermions, as determined by their spin(1,3) quantum numbers, have non-zero weak isospin. And, of course, photons have zero weak isospin, and the W have +/- 1.-Scientryst (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "The fermions then have "spin" weights (quantum numbers) of +/- 1/2 with respect to the two Cartan subalgebra generators of spin(1,3). One of these quantum numbers is the fermions' up or down 'spin', and the other is what Lisi is calling 'boost'."
 * That's a very unconventional choice of basis for the Cartan generators spin(1,3). With the "conventional" choice, fermions have spin weight ±1/2 under one of Cartan generators and spin weight 0 under the other. "Left-handed" fermions have weights (±1/2,0); "right-handed" fermions have weights (0,±1/2). Your (excuse me, "Lisi's") basis of Cartan generators is the sum and the difference of the conventional ones. Since the Weak Interactions treat left-handed and right-handed fermions differently (as you noted), your basis is never used by physicists.
 * It seems to me wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia to be promoting a formalism used by precisely 1 person in the world (well, 2, if we count Scientryst and Lisi separately).
 * QuotScheme (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * QuotScheme, in counting people who have used the spin quantum number, I think you've forgotten Pauli, Dirac and a few others. What is the more conventional choice may depend on how long your memory is. But your clarification of left-handed and right-handed weights is correct and helpful. This matches what's on page 9 of Lisi's 2007 paper. It's a different choice of basis (rotated by π/4) spanning the same Cartan subalgebra.-Scientryst (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "QuotScheme, in counting people who have used the spin quantum number, I think you've forgotten Pauli, Dirac and a few others. What is the more conventional choice may depend on how long your memory is."


 * The conventional basis goes back, at least, to Wigner in the 1920s. The non-relativistic spin (see Pauli) is the diagonal generator (ie, the sum of Wigner's Cartan generators). So Dirac (and anyone else), studying the nonrelativistic limit of his equation, does use the diagonal generator.
 * Wigner's basis, however, is the natural one to use, when studying relativistic theories. Which is why that's what everyone (including Dirac, when he's not looking at the nonrelativistic limit of his equation) does. Using Lisi's basis, to label states in the Standard Model, leads to endless confusion, which is probably why Lisi failed to identify the anti-generations, present in his theory.
 * But the bottom line is that Lisi's weight diagrams are not widely accepted or used. This is both: because when projecting from 8 dimensions down to 2, you lose a lot of essential information and because Lisi's basis of Cartan generators for so(1,3) is unconventional and leads to confusion. Given that they are not widely accepted or used, we at Wikipedia should not be promoting them (because of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE).
 * QuotScheme (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would help Tom Ruen to explain "why" Wigner's basis is the right one. There's more to spin(1,3) than its Cartan subalgebra. After performing the usual Physicists' trick of complexifying, spin(1,3) is isomorphic to two commuting copies of sl(2). Wigner's basis corresponds to choosing the Cartan generators, respectively, of the two sl(2)s. Yes, you could follow Lisi/Scientryst, and choose some other basis for the Cartan, but that would obscure the existence of the two commuting sl(2)s. Which makes understanding the representation theory harder.
 * QuotScheme (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! This is all constructive discussion. And yes I agree following convention is best, but if there's reasons for different presentations, then its good we're here, on wikipedia looking to understand it sufficiently to translate/clarify explicit terminology and notational differences for busy experts and lay readers alike, not just copying verbatim a paper, but finding how to present it in a way that connects it with the rest of physics. Good things can come from looking at things from different points of view. It's not defending one over another, but showing how they are related. I still can't say what or how I can help, but at least Lisi's visualizations have inspired me to try to sort out a subject that seemed way too random and disconnected to me as an undergrad! Tom Ruen (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "...but if there's reasons for different presentations, then its good we're here, on wikipedia looking to understand it sufficiently to translate/clarify explicit terminology and notational differences for busy experts and lay readers alike..."
 * The danger, that you run, is that attempting to "translate/clarify" Lisi's notation, relating it to the standard one, would constitute original research.
 * QuotScheme (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, danger is always there. But to me the risk of being bold and facing challenged interpretations is smaller than leaving an article with the confusion of no clear context or relation to other article. Reading almost any math book I'll find specific notations/terms to that author that are somewhat different to whats on wikipedia (or even different because an author changes/refines their terminology over the years), so if I copy blindly I risk misinforming readers. So the idea for me when there's a primary author of a subject is to do both, include the author's usage for verifiability, and translation for wider understanding. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Charge directions?
Maybe first Lisi's charge directions can be better defined? Here's the 8 and my ignorance displayed. Please anyone confirm, correct or question as needed!
 * Note: The Elementary Particle Explorer Flash webpage shows 3 different basis systems that can be selected, shown as projected arrows in each given view. It appears that the 8 vectors are all mutually orthogonal, so that might explain his choices? Tom Ruen (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing the table a bit.-Scientryst (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Scientryst! I confirmed Lisi's Quark charges in his 2D diagram for (W,Y)=(T3,YW), LH and RH, but the Electron neutrino article lists (T3,YW) as '?' for both LH/RH (see below), while Lisi's diagram has them at LH:(1/2,-1), and (-1/2,+1). Are these charges a part of the standard model? Maybe someone didn't know them immediately when they added the stat table? Should they be added to the electron/muon/tau neutrino article(s)? ALSO, Lisi has electron and positrons plotted with LH/RH copies - should those properties be added to those articles as well? And W+/- (W bosons) at (+/-1,0)? Those values would complete the first diagram. Are there any clear tables for these values to reference for all this? I assume its all standard, but can't know for now. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)  |weak_isospin   = LH: ?, RH: ? |weak_hypercharge= LH: ?, RH: ? 


 * Although it may be found eventually, there is no RH neutrinos in the standard model. There is sometimes one in GUTS if they have a Pati-Salam-like model since in that case the RH electron would form a RH doublet with the RH electron neutrino. Lisi's theory also includes RH neutrinos. There are other models in which the neutrino is a Majorana particle, so maybe that's why they didn't include those charges? It might even be that experiments measuring the handness of neutrinos have been so far inconclusive and for now they are just assumed to be lefthanded (as in it's not clear if it's a Majorana particle or not). Anyhow every time you check this data you shouldn't look at wikipedia since something could be missing (or wrong). Check the Particle Data Group website (although that can be sometimes hard to read for outsiders).


 * Thanks for the link, - I'll have a look! And I agree about not depending on wikipedia, but I figure this is the process of trying to cross-reference with wikipedia content can be improved, and errors corrected with some vigilance! Tom Ruen (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyhow in the Standard Model, assuming that the left handed particles come in doublets, the LH electron neutrino obviously has the same Hypercharge as the LH electron (T_3=-1/2,Y=-1/2), but opposite Weak charge, which means LH neutrinos have (T_3=1/2,Y=-1/2), in the convention where the electric charge Q = T_3 + Y. ~GT~ 98.244.54.152 (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You say LH neutrinos would have (T3=1/2,Y=-1/2) with Q = T3 + Y, but Lisi is talking about weak isospin and weak hypercharge: (T3,YW), and Q=T3+YW/2, so as I said he shows LH neutrino at (+1/2,+1), and RH and (-1/2,-1). I'll just say I'm confused for now - Wikipedia Template:Flavour_quantum_numbers show Y = 2 (Q − I3) and YW = 2 (Q − T3)! Tom Ruen (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was gone for a few days. I think this is a good place to respond to a few issues mentioned above without responding in all the long and confusing threads up there. Wikipedia isn't a forum so we should try to decrease the amount of opinions and focus on the article and the facts. What is the purpose of the above table? I'll write a couple of sentences about this chart to help who's trying to understand the matter. In GUTS or TOE we don't necessarily have 8 charges, in most cases we have more, or also less. The one mentioned w is the issue related to the 3 generation problem, and if I understand what Scientryst meant it represents the triality tranformation (forgive me if I don't go back to the original paper and I go by memory but I think w was the one that rotate the three Lisi-generation into each other). Actually if *anyone* writes a paper just giving an explicit example of how *any* triality transformation together with *any* BRST technique can give chiral fermions out of adjoint representation, that really would be a really interesting and worth publishing paper.


 * The purpose of the table was to help clarify the 8-dimensional parameters used by Lisi. If at some point diagrams up to the E8 theory graphic are agreeable to be added to the article, with primary axes labeled in each view, I'd support something like this overview table as well. For now its just to see on this talk page what we have! Tom Ruen (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

About the figures linked above, as I said above, I think they are nice pictures and should be used more often. But they also have some bad consequences, as in people not really understanding how two GUTs differ from each other, or what's the difference between roots and weights, or what's the difference between bosons and fermions in those diagrams. Anyhow these are just opinions. Instead, calling the pictures by numbers n), the facts are: [For 9 diagrams at ]

1) This is a correct picture. I usually don't like to see antiparticles in these diagrams but that's OK (and a long discussion). The Higgs is a little strange. Where is the h+ degree of freedom that usually is used to be eaten by the W bosons to get their masses (actually were are the 3 degrees of freedom eaten)? I.e., from this diagram I don't see the Higgs as a 4 or natural bidoublet in SU(2)_LxSU(2)_RxU(1)_X. For the same reasons maybe the SU(2)_R patterns maybe don't show? But then I would have expected to see at least the other 3 higgs degrees of freedom given that there is no symmetry breaking yet. Am I misunderstanding something or did I get confused?

2) This is also a correct picture. This is actually one of the most interesting pictures of all, IMHO. There are these very very nice papers, published in 2002  Exceptional Confinement in G(2) Gauge Theory http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0209093 (Journal reference: Nucl.Phys. B668 (2003) 207-236) and  2003 Confinement without a center: the exceptional group G(2) http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0302023v1 (Published in Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 119 (2003) 652-654). They not only have the same identical picture as Lisi, but they even specifically recall the weight diagrams to compare the group SU(3) and the 3 and the 3bar and their relation to SO(7) and G2 (like I was saying above). But Lisi doesn't even cite them! (of course, he thinks he's the first one to use these diagrams...) By the way, those authors all have 1000 citations or more (and the two papers together have about 60 citations, they should have been cited by Lisi). To explain: they try to use G2 and its fundamental representation 7, breaking the symmetry at a high scale, to prove how the 7 would naturally break into the 3 and the 3bar (which in their picture is natural once the bosons that move from the 3 to the 3bar become very massive). Of course it's not a TOE and their approach is different, but they even look, in their second paper, at the possibility of having G2 usually nonchiral gauginos (gluinos) as chiral fermions. Being a supersymmetric theory of course they look at the chirality issue of the gauginos and attempt a domain-wall/string-theory-like approach. This issue, far from being easy to solve, as I've been mentioning here for months, is pretty common in supersymmetric models when dealing with gauginos and their chirality.

3) Although I like this picture, and I know what it means, I doubt that people understand it easily. Understanding 4 dimensional spaces projected onto 2 isn't intuitive. They will just *see* a charming pattern (that I can create with any orthogonal two dimensional spaces). Also, the caption/comment below the picture is misleading, if not even false. That's absolutely not the Standard Model. That is the representation of the standard model gauge bosons and some fermions, certainly not the entire standard model (since some of the fermions, which are a fundamental property of the standard model) are missing in that picture.

4) This is OK if the previous points were clear (it doesn't add more problems to the ones already mentioned). I like the idea of showing SU(5) and it's fundamental representation, but I think that the projection can be confusing.

5) I am not sure that every quantum number of E6 is accounted for, using only the known particles with the conventional quantum numbers (I don't want to check, and I shouldn't be checking anyways, but I can if needed), and the same issue regarding the 3 generation problem stands here.

The ones after 5) all share the same problems as the ones above, plus the fact that it's not obvious from the captions that the E8 one doesn't actually fit the standard model because of the 3 generation problem. It is phrased in a very cryptic way that hides the issue.

Overall I believe that the papers cited certainly prove that not only physicists know those diagrams and patterns (even with the strong force, or color), but also that when they need it they actually use it. In most cases they don't need it because physicists understand the representations well enough just from the math without making pictures, but in that specific case a picture was explicitly used because it is not easy to visualize G2 and it's *analogy* with SU(3) plus 3 and 3bar, unless you see the graph. I agree that Lisi's representations are interesting, although I think he fails to show how lots of other theories have the same patterns.

I think that the statement reported from SciAm "Even if Lisi turns out to be wrong, the E8 theory he has pioneered showcases striking patterns in particle physics that any unified theory will need to explain" is simply journalistic, but not accurate nor true. In fact, Lisi's theory certainly wasn't the first theory to identify those patterns. And the diagrams in the papers I linked certainly are the proof of him not being the first to notice this patterns. The patterns were certainly noted a long time ago, when the first GUTs were studied (that's the whole point of having a GUT!). The SU(5) example that Lisi has drawn is the proof that people knew already about the patterns when designing SU(5) and noticing how well it fit with the known particles. And all the SU(3) famous flavor diagrams, and the diagrams included in the papers I mentioned above (plus all the examples made to students in grad schools) are the proof that they aren't original.

Now, it is true, using these patterns Lisi made a clear and important impact on viewers and curious people. Actually I think that a lot of people got charmed by his theory by looking at his diagrams (and they didn't realize how common some of these patterns are). Maybe more physicists should use them. And maybe there should be more work trying to explain them and their projections. And maybe in the future we could write a sentence along these lines: "in presenting his theories to the general audience, Lisi introduced to non-physicists the weight diagrams to look at patterns not only in quark/meson/baryon structures, but also in fundamental particles and unification. The Standard Model seen as a weight diagram offers to non experts a better visualization of all the striking patterns of the Standard Model than the usual table of particles and charges" (which is what I believe, honestly). And I hope that in the future this becomes a recognized fact, but I don't think there is any consensus and reliable sources that are accurate and state so about Lisi at the moment. ~GT~ 98.244.54.152 (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * GT, thanks greatly for your input. I'd still like the diagrams added to this article, but for my effort I'm content to wait until I can understand more. I'll continue looking at wider uses of the weight diagrams, and see if more diagrams are useful in other articles as well. But this will be slow for me. Perhaps you can help answer questions or confirm specific facts on your anonymous talk page, or elsewhere? User_talk:98.244.54.152 I'd appreciate your expertise! Tom Ruen (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want I just created a user to talk about this topic. ~GT~ (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Advertisement, promotion and original research.
Qwyrxian, I understand that you don't want to edit, so I'm asking you some advice on policies.

A big chunk of the discussions above is starting to have an unfortunate halo of original research to try to overcome the idea of cutting down a little the page and to create more mess trying to include images and details of the theory. They seem to me attempts to almost promote these ideas, even though they have never been recognized or expressed anywhere else. It seems like an attempt to use wikipedia to promote Lisi's work. Is it really that difficult to wait for the general consensus OUTSIDE of wikipedia before we start talking about these new aspects in the page? If Lisi will in the future be recognized for this, I'll be happy to write that part myself giving him all the glory he deserves, but let's wait for the recognition to happen before we start drawing our own conclusions.

A lot of the material discussed above seems to me hopeless to be ever published on the page if we follow WP policies, so before we start talking for weeks about those new aspects if would be good to have some help. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There is some substance in what I mention the page length, not just poor justification. The point being, if Lisi had a page as long as Cabibbo or Gell-Mann, should Lisi be unhappy with that page? Why is it more important to have a page on Lisi, which objectively accomplished a lot less than those two physics giants? Showing twice as much details in Lisi's page as opposed to Gell-Mann's page is certainly UNDUE, because otherwise we would give the impression that Lisi deserves more or as much attention of those people. Same goes for the theory. If I am a reader, and I read more on Lisi's theory than on Loop Quantum Gravity, I would think that Lisi's theory might be as important as loop quantum gravity. Which is certainly not the case in the physics community. Where Lisi's theory and related papers count few papers and few scientists, while LQG counts thousand of papers and physicists working on it. This is why it is a good idea to compare physicists and models or approaches. Of course, the fact that one is poorly written should push to improve it instead of just cutting down material from other pages. But there is also a good limit when we are talking about Nobel Laureates and FUNDAMENTAL theories, like QCD. It shows that showing more details in Lisi's pages is certainly an attempt to promote a theory that doesn't really have lots of attention in the physics community. At the least it is UNDUE and it is a misrepresentation of the weight of the theory. All this not being offensive of Lisi or Lisi's theory. Same goes, given that I mentioned it yesterday, Little Higgs theories. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Discuss Lisi's page at Talk:Antony Garrett Lisi. In any event, your complaint isn't valid, and it's time to drop the stick. The problem with your complaint is that it presumes that the articles on Cabibbo, Gell-Man, or Loop Quantum Gravity are somehow ideal articles in a finalized form. But they're not. So comparing this one and those doesn't tell us if this is too long or if  the others are too short. Instead, simply apply policies, and, where policy is silent (that is, policy doesn't spell out for us exactly how much info should be included), get consensus.  If you can't get consensus here, we'll use dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you say that the policy doesn't apply this way then I'll believe you and I will drop this, although this is a minor point. But your line of reasoning above seems confusing to me. I didn't assume that those articles have an ideal length. But what is the metric to judge due weight if we don't compare something with other pages? Avoiding an overrepresentation of the weight of a theory must be done compared to how much it's written about theories on average. Those example above I thought would set a good comparison because it's very famous people related to the same physics that Lisi does. That's all. Still my points about not including all the graphs stay. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, Lisi and his theory have suffered from over promotion. But, people come to Wikipedia and read this article because they are interested in the theory, so we should do our best to present it honestly, accurately, and with NPOV. I think that should include a brief but comprehensive description, and probably include some of these weight diagrams.-Scientryst (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very brief, not comprehensive. Again, if someone wants to understand the theory, an encyclopedia (of any kind) is absolutely the last place they should look. We provide brief overviews, ideally with good references, so that people can get a general understanding of something, then follow the reference trail to learn more. Obviously, the exact line is a matter of editorial discretion, but real world impact has a bearing on our analysis of how much to include.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Lisi's Once-Main Proponents Lee Smolin & Peter Woit Now Abandoning Lisi/Lisipedia in 2012
Lisi Theory NOT Accepted: New Developments! Lee Smolin is now also admitting, in 2012, that Lisi(Scientryst/SherryNugil) and his "theory" are not accepted by the physics community and never were: In 2012, Lee Smolin concludes, "No one I know of “gravitated to Lisi." In 2007-2011, Lee Smolin funded/hyped Garret Lisi in numerous publications in an unprecedented media firestorm. Now, Lisi's once-chief proponent Smolin (worried about his name/legacy/reputation as a pumper'n'dumper of physics hype fueling lisipedia) is stating that not a single scientist has been attracted to Lisi's ideas, despite the massive, unprecedented Smolin media firestorm. Also, Peter Woit now agrees and states that Theoretical Physicists have taken NO stock in Lisi nor his "theory", writing at his blog in 2012, "Also, I don’t know why you think “so many people gravitated towards Garrett Lisi when he came out with his theory of everything. That’s not true if you’re counting theoretical physicists.": Peter Woit is stating that he and Lee Smolin are NOT to be counted as theoretical physicists, while also acknowledging that while he and the press and blogosphere swallowed Lee's Lisi media firestorm, it meant nothing to physicists nor the theoretical physics community. Peter Woit and Lee Smolin were only ever using Lisi to satarize String Theory, but now that they are done with him and he is no longer useful to them, but only embarrassing to their name/legacies, it is time to throw him under the bus in 2012 by speaking the truth, and distance themselves from the Lisipedia media hype they created. Woit and Smolin were once Lisi's two biggest proponents, fanning the flames of the Lismania media firestorm, around which Lisi's wikipedia pages were entirely buit, as Lisi's sockpuppets harvested the fallout from the nuclear Smolin media firestorm, and filled a couple wikipedia pages with the unadulturated hype: Discover Magazine Reports: : "With Smolin’s aid, DISCOVER has scoured the landscape and found six top candidates who show intriguing signs of that Einsteinian spark. 1. Garrett Lisi: Age 40, holds no faculty position but earned a Ph.D. at UCLA; lives off grants and software consulting." The Telegraph Reports: "The ideas were described as "fabulous" by Lee Smolin, of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario, Canada." -- Smolin also sat on the FQXI funding committee which financed the Lisi hype numerous times. "As a case study, let’s consider the Sunday Times article. From the article: “Could Lisi have cracked a problem that has defied some of the finest minds in history? While it has in no way embraced this lofty claim, the scientific community has given it a surprising amount of respect. Lee Smolin, founder of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, is full of praise: “It is one of the most compelling unification models I’ve seen in many, many years.” ” The journalist assumes that the views of someone of Smolin’s stature surely signify respect from the scientific community at large — a completely understandable and excusable mistake. (Normally the views of someone in Smolin’s position would signify that, and the journalist can’t be expected to know that there is an anomaly in this case.)" -- There exists a plentitude of other such quotes/actions from Smolin. Smolin also sat on the FQXI committee which funded Lisi's "theory" numerous times, while Smolin was simultaneously hyping it to the press. It appears that now, in 2012, Smolin doesn't want his legacy tied to Lisipedia(Scientryst/SherryNugil) anymore. It may be too late for that, but it is nice to see Lee SMolin speaking the truth in 2012 with: "No one I know of “gravitated to Lisi." 

World-renown physicist Dr. Lubos Motl (prof. @ Harvard) reports, "Smolin, Woit throwing Lisi under the bus," - "However, it's been more than four years since the "publication" of Lisi's preprint and the number of people who have understood that Lisi's "theory of everything" is a dysfunctional theory based on rudimentary misunderstandings of mathematics and physics – who have realized that it simply doesn't work and its concepts were not new in any sense, either – has become too high. Despite the kilotons of hype in the popular pseudoscientific media, Lisi's preprint is sitting at around 16 citations, most of which are either self-citations or critiques that show the inconsistency of Lisi's construction with basic properties of particle physics (e.g. the unnecessarily contrived but valid paper by Distler and Garibaldi). . . They have apparently understood that Lisi won't be able to help their "cause" anymore." - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.167.55 (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how this relates to the contents of the Wikipedia article? Also, the statement "No one I know of “gravitated to Lisi." is taken out of context. It is a blog comment response by Smolin to another commenter ("Zarrax") who claimed that people were gravitating to Lisi when he came out with his new theory just because people were in a desperate search for a new Einstein. However, I didn't see anything about Smolin and Woit taking their hand from Lisi in 2012.

Article length - try to be constructive, please
I came to my own conclusion that this page is creating a lot of problems because of the excess of details. I think that it's possible to shorten the page (mainly just the chronology section really needs to be taken care of) and make it more readable. I believe that giving Lisi his credit and mentioning clearly some limitations and criticism can be done without having to discuss about very very advanced math and physics.

This E8 stuff has had a page as long as QCD and longer than the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa_matrix page. Lisi's page was longer than Murray Gell-Mann. Those are a fundamental discovery of the last 50 years and a Nobel Laureate for QCD. Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa also are Nobel Laureate and their page is shorter. Recent work on evaluating the importance of scientific papers using Google's PageRank algorithm identifies Nicola Cabibbo's paper "Unitary symmetry and leptonic decays" as the top ranked out of 353,268 articles published by the American Physical Society since 1893 in journals such as Physical Review Letters. The same research shows that most of the authors of the top-ranked papers are also Nobel Prize winners. And Cabibbo has a page shorter than Lisi does.

Now, do we realize that it must be possible to write a page about Lisi and this E8 stuff in a acceptable size, given that so far the theory hasn't accomplished a whole lot compared to the gentlemen above?

The more we want to explain the tiny details the further away we go from the purpose of having such a page on wikipedia. This page should be honest and NPOV, but at the same time it should not require edit wars and an amount of effort that is minor than mainstream working theories. I'm confident that we can find a compromise if *everybody* stops trying to defend or change even the smallest sentence to make Lisi look better or worse.

If nobody tries to make Lisi look like the next Einstein and his theory the most amazing thing on Earth but are objective and NPOV, then I'm sure than nobody will need to include any tiny criticism and negative comments about him and his theory either. It really must be possible to just quickly explain what the theory is saying and why it's being criticized. And the present objective status of the theory as in papers, not with a million of quotations and interviews and discorsive articles and so on to be supporters or detractors. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we can agree on NPOV. For your length argument however, if you think the other pages are too short, you should make them longer and better. The comparison seems poor justification for cutting page content. But, if you must compare... would it be reasonable to compare page traffic statistics? For example, how do the access numbers for Cabibbo and the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa_matrix compare with those for Lisi and An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything, hmm? I'm not suggesting that we actually use this metric, because if we did then Wikipedia would be mostly about Justin Bieber. However, if you're going to make length arguments based on popularity or importance, which is silly, at least try to be objective about it.-Scientryst (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See the new section. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Page hits certainly doesn't matter. Importance doesn't matter directly--that is, it's not just about "Person X won a Nobel Prize, so that person's page should be longer"...but we do need to consider real world importance with reference to WP:DUE. That part of WP:NPOV says that we can't over-represent how important something is on Wikipedia.  That is why, for example, this article should not have extended details, especially all of the math, about this theory, because the math and science of the theory simply aren't that important (at least, that's what people have explained to me via the sources).  What is important about this theory is the mainstream press it got, and the limited attention it got from the physics community (including both negative and positive points, again, in due relationship to how prevalent those points are in the real world).
 * A good start, in my opinion, would be to completely re-organize the "Chronology" section--to make it not a chronology. Because I don't think the exact sequence of events (what happened first, second, third--i.e., a chronology) is what matters. What we care about is not a blow by blow account, but the end result, the final points, the big story. I'd be willing to bet we can do that with half of the citations and quotations, or less.  Since there are obviously so many concerns with this page, I strongly recommend working in a sandbox first--this will let whoever is doing it work gradually, step by step, examining references.  I have to say that I'm not going to be the one to do this--I simply don't understand the physics well enough to pick out the most salient details. And I'm sure there will need to be discussion about how to do it.  But I strongly recommend starting there, and then going back to the lead later (it's almost always easier to build the lead after the text). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Although the citation count is not high, I think it's incorrect to say it got "limited attention from the physics community." What criteria is Due Weight based on, because I thought it was based on weight in reliable sources, such as Scientific American? And, if it's based on academic citations alone, you have some editing to do over on Justin Bieber...-Scientryst (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Seriously? This is the point? After months and months of discussion we are still bringing up the idea that it's incorrect to say that it got "limited attention from the physics community"? Should we try to revive a bunch of comments and quotations about the theory from physicists? I thought it was a good idea to avoid having them all given that maybe some of those physicists didn't even read the article, but if we are even trying to go back to "having or not received a lot of attention as a theory" then I'll report all the actual comments. I'll start collecting evidence for showing how POV some editors are here and on Lisi's page. Not even in the constructive attitude it's possible to reduce Scientryst's personal overestimation of this page. I tried, and again, failed to generate a compromise. Now there is even a discussion about generating original research as in using this page as propaganda of Lisi using some graphics. Some editors really don't want to ever compromise. Let's see if it brings more goods than bads. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The due weight is certainly not based on one popular magazine that hosted articles written by the author of the theory. Due weight is based on what the scientific community, as a whole, says about a theory. So, the theory will have an important weight when lots of papers will start citing Lisi's paper and when, as a consequence of the citations, popular magazines will start covering the Lisi's E8 stuff writing articles, written by other people and other physicists other than Lisi, that will start saying how the theory has become important in the physics community. Until then the theory isn't important. Period. This is the due weight. QCD is important, Supersymmetry is important (if anything, because there are thousands and thousands of people believing it's a working theory and working on it or on experiments to test it). Lisi's E8 stuff is one of the million models, and for now it doesn't even work. Period. Easy. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Scientryst, speak honestly now: are you deliberately trying to be disruptive, or are you simply not understanding how WP works? You (should) know that Justin Beiber is a different issue--that is a topic entirely within pop culture, and thus is appropriately measured by its discussion in pop culture related sources (mainstream news, entertainment tv shows, etc.).  This is an article about a scientific paper along with its reception. The Scientific American point has already been discussed, and your raising it again is tendentious--that is a pop science journal. Should we include it? Absolutely. Does it demonstrate notability within the scientific establishment? Absolutely not. Or, more generally, was this theory considered interetsing and exciting and received lots of press in the mainstream/pop science field? Absolutely, and we should say that (and we do)--and the SA article helps demonstrate that fact. Has this theory been considered widely interesting or discussed in scientific journals? No, it has not, and when it has been discussed, outside of a few publications, it has been generally crticized, to the point where reputable scientists have said that it not only isn't interesting, it's mathematically flawed. And, of course, this article must say that. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian, it is possible that I don't understand. As far as I can tell, you and 24 (can we give him a name?) are arguing that Due Weight for an article about a scientific topic is based on citation count, and that an article's length should be limited by Due Weight. Could you direct me to where these two are stated in WP policy? Because my current understanding is that Due Weight should correspond to what is in Reliable Sources, which includes popular science articles. And as to limiting page length based on Due Weight, I don't know a standard, but one may exist and I just don't know of it yet.-Scientryst (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Call me GT (I like Group Theory). Qwyrxian and I have similar but different ideas. Anyways you know we aren't just saying that citation count is the only metric. But certainly you know what the real situation is. This page cannot be a promotional page for Lisi's E8 stuff, and given that Qwyrxian outlined pretty well what the real situation is, please stop trying to go over and over on the same thing. SciAm articles are written by Lisi, which is certainly not a good way to judge Due Weight. What do you think an author would ever say about his theory. Nowhere (by any means) it's said that those articles have been requested or written because Lisi's E8 stuff is important in physics. Otherwise please give a reference that states how this theory is important and (highly) considered in the physics community. Articles please not written by Lisi. Until such a reference doesn't exist, the Due Weight is what Qwyrxian says it is. Period. I suggest to read this page, [WP:Frienge_theory#Notability_versus_acceptance] which states: "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. [...] Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact." Scientryst, you seem not to be able to distinguish between vandalism attempts and referenced NPOV reviews. To you, each sentence, that states clear that Lisi's E8 stuff is not considered in good shape, seems like vandalism. You are never willing to accept that a smaller version of this page, indicating clearly flaws and merits, criticism and compliments, is the best thing. Instead you want to use it to promote Lisi's E8 work, giving it more apparent weight than the theory actually has. The theory is presented respectfully. Period. Trying with this ridiculous appeal to the existence of SciAm articles written by Lisi himself to play with wikipedia's policies is becoming dishonest and borderline stupid. No one will ever agree on the importance of the theory based on the SciAm articles. They ensure notability, not rightness or consensus or due weight. "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence." Those SciAm articles have no hope to indicate prominence. Period. Stop wasting our time, we don't want the theory of Lisi look bad. We want to have an objective page, respectful of the people involved and without misrepresenting, in either direction, the facts. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

GT, you keep repeating over and over again "The SciAm articles are written by Lisi," but this is misleading. The first SciAm article on Lisi's theory, which was highly critical, was not by Lisi. The second article mentioning Lisi was on the conference inspired by Lisi's work, and was not written by Lisi. And for the feature article on Lisi's work, it was by Lisi and another physicist as co-author, James Owen Weatherall. Previous editors found Scientific American to be such a strong reliable source that the "largely but not entirely ignored" description from SciAm has remained in the lede since it was published. It seems a bit of a double standard to disparage SciAm as a source now that they have published a feature article on E8 Theory.-Scientryst (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we really need to appeal to undue weight and comparisons with other articles. Instead just WP:MOS should be our guide to what to include. Much of the article was written when it was all very new and the details of where it was being discussed was timely. Now we can review the article with a better view of the history. Does it really matter that it was discussed on slashdot or mentioned in Le Monde? It did then, but now its really just the sustained criticisms of the theory which matter scientifically. There is some need to some feel for the online discussions as one of the important aspects was that it was very much a new-media event.--Salix (talk): 02:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. On an unrelated note, Salix, you removed a description of the conference "inspired" by Lisi's work, with the comment that it is "Too bold a claim, and too distant from Lisi's work." The relevant reference, though, states:

"Lisi’s ideas revived mathematicians’ interest in this historical approach to physics, which led to the Banff meeting, says Gregg J. Zuckerman, an expert on E8 at Yale University. Lisi’s attempt, he adds, “represents a more general ideal about returning to Lie groups as a way to unify gravity with the Standard Model.”"

That would appear to justify the claim that Lisi's work inspired the conference. In more detail, Lisi's work raised interesting mathematical questions and the purpose of the conference was to introduce mathematicians to these ideas from physics, and discuss other recent work with the exceptional groups. The occurrence of this conference is important enough to warrant mention, and the deleted section should be returned, unless you have a strong objection.-Scientryst (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I reattached a couple named refs, lost in the deletions. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can live with the single sentence about the Banff meeting sourced to the September 7 2010 SciAm article, saying the conference was inspired by Lisi's approach. The rest of Salix's removals seem appropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, the Banff can stay but overall the other cuts make sense, I'll change that part myself. Especially the list of blogs and magazines doesn't belong to and encyclopedic entry, if not just for saying that a lot of things covered the story and the theory. And that some discussions took place also in physics blogs and forums, but a generic statement with a few references is enough to communicate the information, without a detailed gossip-like style. ~GT~ 98.244.54.152 (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia need this article and, if so, what form should it take?
A measure of the impact that a paper makes on the scientific community is the number of citations it receives in the scientific literature. The citations that Lisi's paper has received are: Google Scholar 46 including self-cites and cites in the ArXiv and ViXra and some blogs. In the authoritative Web of Science the paper appears to have zero cites (please correct if wrong) and in the high-energy research database Spires 16 cites.

It should be noted that citation rates in physics vary between subfields and that citation rates for this subject, fundamental theory, are often very high. For two other people involved in this matter a Google Scholar search for Michael Duff (physicist) (as M J Duff) returns cites of 776, 609, 384, 336, 328...etc. and a search for Lee Smolin gives cites of 771, 712, 544, 514, 468, 434 ...etc.

In view of these numbers it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the impact of Lisi's paper on the mainstream science community has been very small. Lisi's paper is not fringe science or pseudoscience, as some have suggested, it is just worthy but rather unsuccessful mainstream science. By Wikipedia's usual standards it would not merit an article at all, even less such an extensive one.

However, due to the public relations activities of the paper's proponents, the paper has received publicity well beyond its scientific merit and has attracted a following of fans, some of whom have been writing the article in a blow by blow manner like a blog or a user group debate, inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards. The only justification that I can see for retaining the article in Wikipedia is to remove the mathematical material, which has proved to be of little interest to scientists, and concentrate on the sociological aspects of the public relations promotion and the fandom that it has generated. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC).


 * I think that the current version of the article reflects well enough the situation. I agree that it's not optimal and maybe it should be shortened again in the chronology section and made a little more understandable for the casual readers. In general, because the paper was about a physics theory, even if probably wrong, the main ideas of the theory must be stated in the article, no matter how many citations or importance it has had. The readers have the right to know briefly what the theory was proposing, what its main problems were and why it didn't go too far in the physics community. If there are sociological aspect well sourced they can be included. But let's not open again the discussion about erasing the page or cutting *all* the physics details. ~GT~ 98.244.54.152 (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this paper must must must have a WP article. This is a pointless discussion. There are dozens of reliable sources that discuss the theory. That is sufficient to meet WP:GNG.  And I agree with 98 that, even though the theory's main source of notability is the popular press, we do need at least a short summary of the theory itself. Personally, I recommend removing the "Algebraic breakdown" section (far too technicaly for a WP article), incorporating "Predictions" in a shorter form into the rest, and a shortening of the "Non-technical overview".  The Chronology is probably also too long.  but Xxanthippe is entirely, 100% wrong to say, "By Wikipedia's usual standards it would not merit an article at all."  Wikipedia's standards for creation of an article are WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:NOT, all of which this subject meet in spades.  As I said before, discussions suggesting that this article be deleted are becoming tendentious, and every time I see one I suspect off-wiki collaboration.  If somebody wants this article deleted, take it to AfD, otherwise stop talking about it here.  Qwyrxian (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has no hope of achieving notability on the basis of the impact that the paper it describes has made on the mainstream scientific community. The only prospect of notability arises from the interest it has aroused among the fanboys who have flocked to its cause and who have contributed to this talk page. But the article has to be rewritten to empathise that any notability arises not from scientific but from sociological features of the situation. Any suggestion that I am collaborating with anybody on or off Wikipedia is completely wide of the mark and rather insulting. Please assume Good Faith. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC).
 * The article covers the issue in a nearly appropriate ratio. As I said, I think the science section should be trimmed, but it cannot be eliminated--that would make it impossible to understand what the theory is at all.  And you're wrong on "fanboys": the subject is notable because it has been covered in dozens of independent, reliable sources. That is all.  If you are not familiar with it, please read WP:N and WP:GNG--they explain WP's notability policies. Note that notability is a measure taken to decide if something can have its own article.  Once we say "X is notable", we don't say "X is notable for reason Y, so we may only include things related to reason Y in the article." Otherwise, for example, no article about human being could contain info on their personal life, since that's almost never related to their notability. And I would assume good faith, if you weren't the umpteenth editor to come here recommending the article be deleted in violation of our fundamental deletion and notability policies.  My apologies for taking out my exasperation on you, but this needs to stop. Pretty soon I'm going to just start collapsing every discussion that includes commentary about deleting this article, because it's disruptive to actual trying to do what really needs to be done: figure out how to trim/edit the article so that it's in better condition than in it is now. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The threat by Qwyrxian to collapse contibutions that he does not approve of is unacceptable behavior for an editor and will be taken to Administrator's Notice Board if implemented. It will be in Qwyrxian's interest to redact this threat against other editors, which he has also made before in the Warning section. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC).


 * The problem is that this talk page has become worst than a forum. This page (including some of my contributions) aren't following very much wikipedia's policies on talk pages. Qwyrxian and I had often different ideas, and I've been one of the main opposers of Scientryst's style of editing and discussing. But the problem is that all the issues here have become cyclic. Nobody seems to fully respect standard WP:policies, there is a lot of sterile discussions, together with some productive ones. There should be no problem if we honestly state what Lisi's paper was about and why/where is considered wrong/incomplete. As long as we keep the page NPOV and don't over represent the theory I think we will be fine. If you want, you can help writing here a sort of initial statement regarding the sociological and promotional aspect. If it is well sourced and not overly long I don't see why it shouldn't be included. But let's avoid other long long discussions. ~GT~ (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes Xxanthippe, I agree. I have been collecting many such instances of Qwyrxian's abusive behavior, and will happily take them to the Administrator's Notice Board at some point. For instance, when Smolin/Woit distance themselves form Lisi, Qwyrxian says that this is not newsworthy, as it comes from blogs, even though Qwyrxian supports the plethora of blogs which laud Lisi, all of which are merely secondary sources reporting on the earlier words of Smolin/Woit et al.  This selective, inconsistant editing, combined with Qwyrxian's repeated threats to collapse and ban entire IP ranges for posting Truth on Wikipedia, stand in strong violation of the Wikipedia project.  I am making copies of all these pages/edits/notes, so that when Qwyrxian collapses them/censors IP ranges, we can share it all on the Administrator's Notice Board and let them deal with Qwyrxian in a just manner.  Thank you for your courage, Xxanthippe.      — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.167.55 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have shown above, on the basis of science citation databases, that the paper has made very little impact on the mainstream physics community. However, it has made an impact outside that community due to the public relations activities of its proponents. There may be a case for merging this article into the Antony Garrett Lisi article, which would be a more suitable place for developing the PR campaign/fanboy following/lifestyle guru aspects. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC).


 * OK, you have made your point. If you want I think you can start the process here or even at the Proposed_mergers page. But even if my point of view is very similar to yours when it comes to the scientific analysis, I think that such a merging is hopeless because it wasn't just Lisi to get the attention, but it was Lisi coming up with a theory. So the theory was in some sense objectified, and so was the noise around it and the Distler-Garibaldi paper. This is why I don't think it'll ever pass as a merge. ~GT~ (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Objectified? Can't understand that. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC).
 * I just meant that it has become an independent object. People and newspapers treat Lisi and his theory as two separate things. ~GT~ (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Qwyrxian--we feel your pain, and are sorry this most unfortunate situation has been thrust upon you. We are all suffering, alongside science, because of the reprehensible, irresponsible actions of a handful of posers, well-funded financiers/hypers, and ambitious bloggers who have wasted tens of thousands of hours in their concerted attempt to derail physics with well-financed, false media firestorms, coupled with sockpuppeting anonymity. What you are hearing from all the good people here, over and anon, is that Wikipedia is a place where the Truth must be promoted over maniacal tyranny, fiat-funded pump'n'dump hype that the hypesters do not even believe themselves, and Truth's very opposites. The Truth is, that a) the paper has had no impact whatsoever on the science community, and is, in fact, not science.  The *only* reason the paper ever achieved "fame" was that Lee Smolin hyped it to the popular press while financing the theory, and now, in 2012, Lee Smolin is admitting that no physicist he knows ever gravitated towards Lisi and Lisi's ideas, with noted science-critic Peter Woit firmly backing this up.  This has been well documented, even in professional journal articles penned by Michael Duff, as well as above and throughout the blogosphere (World-renown physicist Dr. Lubos Motl (prof. @ Harvard) reports, "Smolin, Woit throwing Lisi under the bus," -).  The problem with the article, as it stands, is that it does not promote the Truth of Reality, but rather, assimilates Lisi's non-theory with "science." As others have pointed out, Lisi's self-built-and-edited pages, deriving wholely from the fallout of the Smolin media firestorm (Whcih we now learn SMolin himslef never really believed in), are far longer than those of Nobel Laureates and Nobel Laureate physicists, which results in Wikipedia visitors being given the false, misleading impression that Lisi and his "theory," which are but a collection of the fallout from the nuclear kiloton media firestorm created by Lee Smolin, are tantamount to Nobel Laureate work. Dear Qwyrxian--please add the highly-pertinent Truth from highly-reliable sources to the article, so that Wikipedia readers can enjoy the Truth: "Lisi's Once-Main Proponents Lee Smolin & Peter Woit Now Abandoning Lisi/Lisipedia in 2012: "Lisi Theory NOT Accepted: New Developments! Lee Smolin is now also admitting, in 2012, that Lisi(Scientryst/SherryNugil) and his "theory" are not accepted by the physics community and never were: In 2012, Lee Smolin concludes, "No one I know of “gravitated to Lisi." In 2007-2011, Lee Smolin funded/hyped Garret Lisi in numerous publications in an unprecedented media firestorm. Now, Lisi's once-chief proponent Smolin (worried about his name/legacy/reputation as a pumper'n'dumper of physics hype fueling lisipedia) is stating that not a single scientist has been attracted to Lisi's ideas, despite the massive, unprecedented Smolin media firestorm. Also, Peter Woit now agrees and states that Theoretical Physicists have taken NO stock in Lisi nor his "theory", writing at his blog in 2012, "Also, I don’t know why you think “so many people gravitated towards Garrett Lisi when he came out with his theory of everything. That’s not true if you’re counting theoretical physicists.": "" Dear Qwyrxian--please add this truth to the article. Thanks in advance! Best in 2012! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.167.55 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To those above who are compiling a list of abuses by me and plan to take me to the administrator's noticeboard, I've gone ahead and done it myself. You all can find the thread at WP:ANI. Please feel free to comment there, including any calls for sanctions for my behavior. Perhaps I crossed the line and didn't notice it. But this talk page is mass of problems that have to stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I object to any merger for very clear obvious reasons that anyone should be able to see. I can only conclude that any comments about non-notability are based on personal dislike of the subject, which means you really shouldn't have anything to do with this article in the first place. Silver  seren C 21:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an argument for an article on Antony Garrett Lisi not on his paper. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC).
 * No, because those sources are discussing the theory and only incidentally Lisi. That's the same as saying all info on books should be in the author's article. Silver  seren C 11:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is bad. Where are the equations and the diagrams? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.87.145 (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Critiques
Many Wikipedia articles on a theory one has heard of bu which may not be of the highest truthiness include a "Criticisms" section. This would seem appropriate here.

Crasshopper (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)