Octonion Math and the answer(s) to physics?

[beenherebeforeagain]

I came across this article this morning...

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-octonion-math-that-could-underpin-physics-20180720/

Fascinating. Although I don't really understand the math involved, it sounds like this might be one way the understanding of the cosmos proceeds. The work Furey is pursuing (well, and others are pursuing as well) suggests why the LHC isn't finding much evidence of particles beyond the standard model--if the mathematics are correct in describing reality. What isn't really clear is whether this Octonion math really can overcome the problems of the existing math.

Thoughts, reactions...explanations...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I came across this article this morning...

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-octonion-math-that-could-underpin-physics-20180720/

Fascinating. Although I don't really understand the math involved, it sounds like this might be one way the understanding of the cosmos proceeds. The work Furey is pursuing (well, and others are pursuing as well) suggests why the LHC isn't finding much evidence of particles beyond the standard model--if the mathematics are correct in describing reality. What isn't really clear is whether this Octonion math really can overcome the problems of the existing math.

Thoughts, reactions...explanations...

Interesting. I will have to look into this more deeply. One note, a deeper understanding of mathematics does often lead to new concepts in physics. Newtonian physics cannot be properly understood without the use of calculus. Einstein's work depends upon four dimensional space. Understanding eight dimensional space, which adds dimensions outside of what we can observe may lead to a better understanding of physics.

 

[shunyadragon]

On word of caution is this a descriptive explanation from the human perspective using math, and not necessarily a definitive explanation in and of itself.

This has been around for a while.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

On word of caution is this a descriptive explanation from the human perspective using math, and not necessarily a definitive explanation in and of itself.

This has been around for a while.

40-some years, by the article. But it seems only in the last few years has it been seriously pursued, even if only by a few. I'm sure the test in the long run is not just whether it can be used to describe what we observe about reality, but whether or not it makes any unique, testable predictions.

I wouldn't expect it to be a final or definitive answer, as @Subduction Zone notes above...physics has advanced as new mathematical methods are identified and developed to better explain observations. But it may contribute to understanding why the LHC isn't finding much evidence for supersymmetry, but then, it may get falsified with further evidence...