(I am not a particle physicist or a mathematician of the right sort, but I can kind of follow this sort of thing)
Okay, the context is that you've got particles, and they're fundamentally all the same, but they're "turned" in different ways. Think of a ball with 3-color LEDs inside: you can rotate it around three axes, and move it in three directions, and you can also cycle its color and change its blinking pattern. Particles are like that, except that the topology is weird: it's not back to the same orientation until you turn it around 720 degrees, instead of 360 like normal objects. The "gauge group" is the rules for how you can change things. For example, the total color of the universe is white: if you turn something from red to blue, you have to turn something else from blue to red; but you can also create a pair of a green and a purple (anti-green). They write all these rules up in math, and it's tricky because a lot of the features vary continuously (that is, you can rotate something an arbitrarily small amount). And due to the interaction of the rules for one property with the rules for other properties, there are only certain combinations of properties that you can get. They work out all the combinations that you can have and those are what you see as "different" particles that your experiments show. Of course, we don't know what the rules are, and we're trying to figure that out from what combinations of properties we've seen and which ones we're speculating are impossible. And it's hard and takes a lot of calculation to figure out what a candidate set of rules would even mean as far as results. And people are looking at known results and trying to describe them better than "we've done a billion things, and a billion things happened".
Now, the math of rules for how things can interact turns out to be sort of limited; there are basically 4 normal cases, which are boring, and then there are a few exceptional cases, which are interesting. Of these, the hardest to prove stuff about is E8, and it's just now becoming clear what combinations it allows. It's like one of those puzzles where you press a corner and lights change, and you have to turn off all the lights, but it's got dozens of corners and dozens of lights and every time you press a corner a bunch of things change at once, and there are different kinds of corners and it also matters exactly what angle you're holding it at, so there are hundreds of things you can say about each move.
And the mathematicians working on E8 recently said, "well, you can get positions like this and not like that", where "this" and "that" are big complicated lists. And this physicist read that paper and said, "hey, those lists are familiar; I made similar lists of particle interactions". So the proposal is that particles work like E8 in what kind of rules they follow. And it's a really nice theory, because E8 is essentially the most flexible set of rules you can have without it falling apart into just anything being possible (and some rules or properties just not mattering).
I don't know about the GP, but Godesses are better looking [wikipedia.org] yet still kick ass [wikipedia.org]. Not all that many gods are armed to the teeth yet remain beautiful; never mind using a tiger as a mount...
Or perhaps you didn't even think that the GP might not be referring to the god of the Abrahamic religions. We don't all believe that Yahweh [wikipedia.org] is the only face of god you know.
Yes, I know I'm totally Off topic; feel free to mod me so; but do me a favour and mod someone else up first.
Wow. I really, really hope that you are in education.
I have Bachelor degree in Physics (over 20 years ago) and I had no idea what the hell was being talked about. Your explanation is BRILLIANT. It does not assume readers are morons, does not portray science as magic, explains the subject in a way that even a layman finishes reading it with a better understanding than they started, and even manages to infuse some feeling for what the scientific discovery process is like. Amazing.
As someone who originally got into science because of Carl Sagan's Cosmos I can honestly say that if I had lecturers like you I would still be doing science. (not surprisingly, the subjects that I did best in had lecturers cut from the same cloth).
I'm actually a programmer, although I was a TA when I was doing my master's. I suspect that I'd mostly fail as a lecturer, because if I happen not to be inspired for a particular lecture, I'd just have nothing to say. As a TA, I'd show up for my recitations and ask the class what they didn't understand from the lecture, and explain that, rather than trying to plan out what I was going to say. That worked well for that part of it (and is similar to this piece, actually), but wouldn't work at all if I were le
I credit David Kelly at Hampshire College, where I went for a summer program during high school. There's a value to the jargon, which is that it's lossless compression for explanations, but you need to decompress it if you want it to be comprehensible. If your audience knows the jargon, it's quicker and clearer, but the jargon doesn't help at all for introducing new concepts.
offtopic: That is the best sig ever. "Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea. Heinlein" must find who Heinlein is.
Oh and great description, I in my arrogance have decided that anything more complicated than relativity such as string theory and quarks, leptons with 'spin' etc. must be false because it is too hard to understand. If only folks could explain it better, it may become true.
Robert A. Henlein [wikipedia.org] science fiction writer. I am currently reading the Friday novel. It is quite nice. I am an Asimov fan (wrote the book I, Robot) but I have read all his science fiction work.
Why do I get the feeling that that's the reason you're the only person in here both trying and succeeding to make this material available to the lay ministers?
it's not back to the same orientation until you turn it around 720 degrees, instead of 360 like normal objects
I've found that a variation on the Flatland theme really helps people come to terms with this - it's easier for us to look down then map back up when we're trying to understand things outside our
I don't understand a thing :( (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand a thing :( (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, the context is that you've got particles, and they're fundamentally all the same, but they're "turned" in different ways. Think of a ball with 3-color LEDs inside: you can rotate it around three axes, and move it in three directions, and you can also cycle its color and change its blinking pattern. Particles are like that, except that the topology is weird: it's not back to the same orientation until you turn it around 720 degrees, instead of 360 like normal objects. The "gauge group" is the rules for how you can change things. For example, the total color of the universe is white: if you turn something from red to blue, you have to turn something else from blue to red; but you can also create a pair of a green and a purple (anti-green). They write all these rules up in math, and it's tricky because a lot of the features vary continuously (that is, you can rotate something an arbitrarily small amount). And due to the interaction of the rules for one property with the rules for other properties, there are only certain combinations of properties that you can get. They work out all the combinations that you can have and those are what you see as "different" particles that your experiments show. Of course, we don't know what the rules are, and we're trying to figure that out from what combinations of properties we've seen and which ones we're speculating are impossible. And it's hard and takes a lot of calculation to figure out what a candidate set of rules would even mean as far as results. And people are looking at known results and trying to describe them better than "we've done a billion things, and a billion things happened".
Now, the math of rules for how things can interact turns out to be sort of limited; there are basically 4 normal cases, which are boring, and then there are a few exceptional cases, which are interesting. Of these, the hardest to prove stuff about is E8, and it's just now becoming clear what combinations it allows. It's like one of those puzzles where you press a corner and lights change, and you have to turn off all the lights, but it's got dozens of corners and dozens of lights and every time you press a corner a bunch of things change at once, and there are different kinds of corners and it also matters exactly what angle you're holding it at, so there are hundreds of things you can say about each move.
And the mathematicians working on E8 recently said, "well, you can get positions like this and not like that", where "this" and "that" are big complicated lists. And this physicist read that paper and said, "hey, those lists are familiar; I made similar lists of particle interactions". So the proposal is that particles work like E8 in what kind of rules they follow. And it's a really nice theory, because E8 is essentially the most flexible set of rules you can have without it falling apart into just anything being possible (and some rules or properties just not mattering).
mod parent up (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I don't understand a thing :( (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't understand a thing :( (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I don't understand a thing :( (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Or perhaps you didn't even think that the GP might not be referring to the god of the Abrahamic religions. We don't all believe that Yahweh [wikipedia.org] is the only face of god you know.
Yes, I know I'm totally Off topic; feel free to mod me so; but do me a favour and mod someone else up first.
Re:I don't understand a thing :( (Score:5, Insightful)
I have Bachelor degree in Physics (over 20 years ago) and I had no idea what the hell was being talked about. Your explanation is BRILLIANT. It does not assume readers are morons, does not portray science as magic, explains the subject in a way that even a layman finishes reading it with a better understanding than they started, and even manages to infuse some feeling for what the scientific discovery process is like. Amazing.
As someone who originally got into science because of Carl Sagan's Cosmos I can honestly say that if I had lecturers like you I would still be doing science. (not surprisingly, the subjects that I did best in had lecturers cut from the same cloth).
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand a thing :( (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
surfing + E8 = theory of everything
We know that surfing isn't a theory of everything. If surfing is not, then E8 must be.
(I hope to get 5 points informative with that.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why do I get the feeling that that's the reason you're the only person in here both trying and succeeding to make this material available to the lay ministers?
I've found that a variation on the Flatland theme really helps people come to terms with this - it's easier for us to look down then map back up when we're trying to understand things outside our
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)