Who knows, maybe these guys are onto something. I see some warning signs, though.
See, these guys have been working on this theory for some time. They've developed some language (as in L) of their own and it sounds like they're having some trouble showing that it is internally consistent. This shouldn't really be a speedbump. It should be possible to first of all show that a space can exist in the algebra, by finding a basis. This would simply require finding a set of linearly independent vectors satisfying the expression of every pertinent "dimension" that the algebra requires. In commutative algebra, this is trivial.
Personally, I think any unified theory should be simple to demonstrate in R^3 using linear algebra. Coming up with a convoluted mathematical expression for the universe is by no means anything new; you can do this any time you want by defining a language L and giving it a set of operations that satisfy your view of a given universe of whatever size. You can describe an infinite universe with a finite number of operations, by placing some constraint on what's observable in that universe, such as by stating that everything observable in that universe exists in R^3. There you go, now your universe can just exist as a set of vectors (classical physics). If you want to add things like quantum entanglement you simply create some operations and show that the results of the operations can be reliably reproduced. There you go, your language for your universe is internally consistent.
Since these guys are kind of going out on a mathematical limb, I think they've reached egg-head stage. Which means there's a possibility that nothing they're working on now has any basis in reality. It might have a "basis" in terms of linear programming and that sort of thing, it might even be consistent to itself, but you have to take into consideration that it's a constructed language. There might not be any real-world way to take their "EUREEKA" moment and translate it back into the R^3 that we all live in, to use it for any kind of practical predictions or applications.
There are already some pretty good candidates for Grand Unified Theories that aren't seeking crowd funding and have also been published portion by portion academically. I'm rather partial to the theory posited by Willie Johnson Jr., supervisor of Rutgers Inorganic Analytical Laboratory. He basically wants to describe everything in the universe as a sort of "centrifugal force", and he's done extensive work unifying various classical and quantum formulae through the units he's come up with. And what's better, his work appears to be completely presentable in linear algebra. http://www.lehighvalleylive.co... [lehighvalleylive.com]
There are enough theories out there for everybody to find one that's their pet theory and work on following it or even adding to its development. Finding a Grand Unified Theory is a great ambition and its can serve as the constant impetus that keeps a person learning more things and proposing and testing more hypotheses.
What I see in this project is somebody who might be burned out already, who might have already rapped their knuckles against the white painted rock wall they thought was the light at the end of the tunnel, and is now asking for money to dig themselves back out. I'm not saying that's the case -- I'm just pointing out that it's a distinct possibility.
Who knows. (Score:2)
Who knows, maybe these guys are onto something. I see some warning signs, though.
See, these guys have been working on this theory for some time. They've developed some language (as in L) of their own and it sounds like they're having some trouble showing that it is internally consistent. This shouldn't really be a speedbump. It should be possible to first of all show that a space can exist in the algebra, by finding a basis. This would simply require finding a set of linearly independent vectors satisfying the expression of every pertinent "dimension" that the algebra requires. In commutative algebra, this is trivial.
Personally, I think any unified theory should be simple to demonstrate in R^3 using linear algebra. Coming up with a convoluted mathematical expression for the universe is by no means anything new; you can do this any time you want by defining a language L and giving it a set of operations that satisfy your view of a given universe of whatever size. You can describe an infinite universe with a finite number of operations, by placing some constraint on what's observable in that universe, such as by stating that everything observable in that universe exists in R^3. There you go, now your universe can just exist as a set of vectors (classical physics). If you want to add things like quantum entanglement you simply create some operations and show that the results of the operations can be reliably reproduced. There you go, your language for your universe is internally consistent.
Since these guys are kind of going out on a mathematical limb, I think they've reached egg-head stage. Which means there's a possibility that nothing they're working on now has any basis in reality. It might have a "basis" in terms of linear programming and that sort of thing, it might even be consistent to itself, but you have to take into consideration that it's a constructed language. There might not be any real-world way to take their "EUREEKA" moment and translate it back into the R^3 that we all live in, to use it for any kind of practical predictions or applications.
There are already some pretty good candidates for Grand Unified Theories that aren't seeking crowd funding and have also been published portion by portion academically. I'm rather partial to the theory posited by Willie Johnson Jr., supervisor of Rutgers Inorganic Analytical Laboratory. He basically wants to describe everything in the universe as a sort of "centrifugal force", and he's done extensive work unifying various classical and quantum formulae through the units he's come up with. And what's better, his work appears to be completely presentable in linear algebra. http://www.lehighvalleylive.co... [lehighvalleylive.com]
There are enough theories out there for everybody to find one that's their pet theory and work on following it or even adding to its development. Finding a Grand Unified Theory is a great ambition and its can serve as the constant impetus that keeps a person learning more things and proposing and testing more hypotheses.
What I see in this project is somebody who might be burned out already, who might have already rapped their knuckles against the white painted rock wall they thought was the light at the end of the tunnel, and is now asking for money to dig themselves back out. I'm not saying that's the case -- I'm just pointing out that it's a distinct possibility.