
Upon further review, surfer's new Theory of Everything severely deficient - nickb
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071117-upon-further-review-surfers-new-theory-of-everything-severely-deficient.html
======
calambrac
Well, now that laserboy at ArsTechnica has weighed in, I think we can consider
the matter settled. Let's all close the book on this one and head over to Fox
News for some insight on foreign policy, then to Slashdot for a nice
explanation of copyright law, and finally hit up Penthouse forum for some
solid relationship advice.

------
tlrobinson
It's pretty silly that people keep making a big deal about this guy being a
"surfer"...

He has a PhD in theoretical physics... and also happens to be a surfer. So
what?

------
rms
But he doesn't claim to have a theory of everything! He claims that the E8
polytope is significant to physics, and I have a feeling it is.

~~~
hhm
Yes, he claims. Or at least his paper is titled: "An Exceptionally Simple
Theory of Everything".

~~~
maths
The title is a pun actually, as the E8 group is technically both "exceptional"
and "simple", in the mathematical sense of those terms, if i recall correctly.

so the title is a joke of sorts.

------
henning
if i were a physicist, i'd be very skeptical of any single person claiming to
have a definitive solution to a challenging open problem.

also, i'd be keen to prevent social science people from pulling a reverse
Sokal hoax.

then again, i don't know diddly squat about physics.

------
hhm
Very interesting!! Read also:
[http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-
theor...](http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-theory-
of.html) (linked in the article)

~~~
nickb
Lubos Motl's a string theorist. String theory is not really a science
anymore... it's approaching religion: it's not falsifiable and you can "prove"
anything using string theory... literally anything you want. I wouldn't trust
his review of any opposing theory. You're better off reading what Lee Smolin
or Peter Woit have to say. At least they're objective.

~~~
hhm
I don't know Lubos Motl, but I'm sure you can be a good scientist working in
string theory; ie: trying to make it falsifiable. I'm sure if the argument is
"Motl works in string theory => Motl is not a scientist", then it's not a
valid argument.

~~~
nickb
That's not what I said at all. Your second post is more in line with what I
said.

Lee Smolin was/is a string theorist too but at least he's objective and is not
religious about ST like Motl and some others.

This is a good link:
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/stringtheory.html>

~~~
hhm
I know about the case "not even wrong" and all that, and I agree. My point is:
you can be a good string theorist, as well as you keep objective, as you say.
I agree with that. Otherwise, we risk repeating the history: Schwartz was
being believed to be nuts, until his team found some new interesting stuff. We
don't know if that can happen again...

Thanks a lot for the article, too.

------
downer
Reality makes perfect sense if you consider that we're a simulation. Then the
fact that solids really aren't is no more surprising than characters in a 3D
game finding the same thing -- they aren't solid, they are composed of
electrical signals, wtf?!?

I admit this doesn't help explain what's "up a level", other than "some sort
of computer".

