I think that just comes down to nomenclature,I'd call the superset 'gravity', still, gravity is rank-2 tensor so there's definitely scope for some quite complex behaviour, and going up to rank 3 intuitively would cause more problems than it solves.
There was some guy I read about a while ago who was working on a gauge theory based on the exceptional group G2, don't know if anything ever came of that.
(There was some guy I read about a while ago who was working on a gauge theory based on the exceptional group G2, don't know if anything ever came of that.
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Mon 24 May 2010, 17:11,
archived)
beats meunless that was the surfer dude who used straight e8 to get everything out. last i heard no-one was actually convinced in the end.
i keep meaning to read through mcelrath's papers, he's currently convinced he's got out the standard model + neutrino masses + gravitons + a small cosmological constant + the correct dynamics from a cloud of interacting neutrinoes and anti-neutrinoes. but i don't even understand the setup since he preassumes the existence of neutrinoes and then finds what i can only assume are neutrino-like quasiparticles. but he's absolutely convinced and he knows a lot more particle theory than i do.
(i keep meaning to read through mcelrath's papers, he's currently convinced he's got out the standard model + neutrino masses + gravitons + a small cosmological constant + the correct dynamics from a cloud of interacting neutrinoes and anti-neutrinoes. but i don't even understand the setup since he preassumes the existence of neutrinoes and then finds what i can only assume are neutrino-like quasiparticles. but he's absolutely convinced and he knows a lot more particle theory than i do.
boris the spider,
Mon 24 May 2010, 17:15,
archived)
Yeah that guy,Garrett Lisi, I think he still has a small minority following. I don't like superstring theory much though so I hope someone comes up with something better that works.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Mon 24 May 2010, 17:32,
archived)
i'm hoping bob mcelrath's rightor at least along the right lines. but then i did do my masters in analogue gravity so i'm not quite unbiased on this... :)
i don't like string theory much either. it probably shows. but i'm not really sold on loop quantum either. i prefer their *intentions* -- they just want to quantise gravity, they're not shooting for the top right from the start -- but the theory itself is somehow unpersuasive.
(i don't like string theory much either. it probably shows. but i'm not really sold on loop quantum either. i prefer their *intentions* -- they just want to quantise gravity, they're not shooting for the top right from the start -- but the theory itself is somehow unpersuasive.
boris the spider,
Mon 24 May 2010, 17:37,
archived)