An Icon For Our Universe
I have often entertained the idea that everything can be represented visually. Ideas and emotions represented visually as art, and information as mathematics. With graphic design fitting somewhere in the middle of this very wide gulf.
When I say "everything can be represented visually" it may not sound like too big of deal, but it should be noted that by "everything" I mean everything. Every thought, emotion, chemical interaction, and experience. Everything. At the scientific end of the spectrum the search for how to explain our universe and depict it visually has been going on for years. Unified field theories such as Grand Unification Theory (GUT), and the Theory Of Everything (TOE) have been a Holy Grail for the mathematical and scientific community for the past few decades, with none proving scientifically satisfactory. These theories would explain all of the fundamental interactions of nature. From the smallest particles to the movement of the galaxy. Pretty cool stuff.
I'm not going to pretend that I fully understand the math and physics behind these theories. I don't. And I'm certainly not going to try and explain them. But I was recently intrigued by the visual nature of a breakthrough in the search for one such theory. Garrett Lisi, who completed a doctorate in theoretical physics in 1999 at the University of California, San Diego, has just published a paper titled "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" detailing a unification theory that utilizes the E8 mathematical structure (shown above). He used this structure to (I think) organize all known particles in the universe and depict them visually relative to the forces of nature, e.g. gravity, electromagnetic force, etc. Something that has never been done before.
The E8 structure was formulated in the late 1800s, and was only fully understood this year, but its beauty is undeniable. The complexity is astounding, even for mathematicians. It's not surprising that the model of the universe should be so complex.
It's only natural that the graphic designer in me thinks of this as the icon for our universe. While most icons are made to be as simple and easily recognizable as possible, it stands that an icon for the universe, which contains every particle and every natural interaction that exists, would, by necessity, be complex. The icon is beautiful in its complexity. Just like the universe. To simplify the icon would be to add human interpretation to the universe, thus removing the universal quality of the icon. It would become one person's interpretation of the universe, more indicative of the person than the universe itself.
While the E8 theory is showing more promise of an actual unified field than other theories in the past, it is still just a theory. Many people are skeptical, and it needs extensive testing and experimentation for it to be accepted as scientific law.
There are also some who believe that a true unified field theory is unknowable. That the universe is so complex that it simply cannot be articulated by humans, and that these theories are only the product of human ego, and the hunger of the human mind. As I stated before, I personally like the idea that a form of representation is possible, but even if it isn't, I still like the idea that these theories may be doing a better job explaining human nature than the complexity of the universe.







November 17th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Interesting point of view!
it stands that an icon for the universe, which contains every particle and every natural interaction that exists, would, by necessity, be complex
The actual complexity of nature that we observe would have to be provided by breaking the symmetry - a mechanism that is essential for the model to explain nature, and a mechanism that is not yet available. Best,
B.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I’m interested in this idea of symmetry. Is symmetry seen as a prerequisite for all possible TOEs? Mathematically, symmetry and balance seem to be very important, and must be present, and perfect, for a theory to hold water. But perfect symmetry rarely (if at all?) exists in the natural world. Physical manifestations of mathematical principles, such as the golden ratio, occur with a certain amount of deviation and “error”. How can a theory reconcile the perfect world of mathematics, and the imperfect world of the physical environment?