--- In [email protected], "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "hugheshugo" > <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > Again, did you read John's math-laden papers on the subject? > They're philosophical in > > nature, rather than scientific, but the insights he gained from his > philisophical discussions > > with MMY led to the initial modifications of FLipped SU(5) which > were the basis of his fame > > and at least partly the basis of the fame of Nanapolous and Ellis > as well. > > > > > > Lawson > > > > Now that is interesting, the usual way he is presented is that he met > MMY and his whole career fell apart because everyone thought he had > flipped (no pun).
I already posted his SLAC blibliography. John Started TM when he was 17 while recovering from a sking incident. According to people who knew him in college, he was already discussing how things like levitation might work on a QM level. Now, in grad and post-grad school, he published some well-respected papers on physics (top-cite 500+ according to SLAC) but his most important work, Flipped (SU) 5, didn't get published until AFTER he met with MMY in Switzerland. According to an interview John gave 20 years ago, he went back to his desk and started going through various GUT studies trying to see which fit most closely with MMY's exposition on Vedic Cosmology. He found that FLipped SU(5) was the closested philosophical fit. After some tweaking to make it fit even closer to MMY's theories, he realized that the modifications actually made the theory *stronger* from a Western scientific perspective, and faxed John Ellis at CERN the initial tweak with the note "Isn't this the sweetest little theory." Ellis and John Haglein had already published research with Nanapolous when John and Ellis worked for Nanopolous in grad school, so Ellis contacted him directly with john's fax and the 3 started a decade-long collaboration on FLipped SU(5) and related issues. > > It's undeniable that he went too far for most people with his on C as > UF the chief complaint being that he twisted physics to fit His layman's discussions certainly go out on a limb, but his two initial papers on the subject, while philosophical in nature, don't include anything outside the mainstream of Physics EXCEPT to note the correlations between Vedic Cosmology and Quantum field theories (which is crazy enough in most PHysicists eyes). Certainly, I've never heard anyone claim that the math and analysis presented in those two papers is wrong, only that the premise (and conclusion) is completely insane simply because *it is* --the people who can read the papers all the way through generally don't. Ellis and Nanopolous likely DID read them all the way through because John published them at the start of their collaboration, but they continued working with him for another 5-10 years after he published those two papers. One is available online. I've been trying for years to get John to make the other available but my emails are ignored. Typical TM movement crap. They ignore my suggestion to put models of the TM building projects in Second LIfe too. They ignored my calls to set up internet presence at the start of John's second Presidential campaign also. Typical TM (but also typical political attitude from that period for everyone). 33) Is Consciousness The Unified Field? (A Field Theorist's Perspective). John S. Hagelin (Maharishi U. of Management) . RX-1131 (MAHARISHI-INT'L), MIU-THP- 86-015, (Received Aug 1986). 115pp. Published in Mod.Sci. & Vedic Sci.1: 29, 1986. 60) Restructuring Physics From Its Foundation In Light Of Maharishi's Vedic Science. John S. Hagelin (Maharishi U. of Management) . MIU-THP-89-48, Sep 1989. 125pp. scanned version: http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?198912227 John's SLACk bibliography: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www? rawcmd=FIND+A+HAGELIN&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=ds Lawson , I shall > have to check that though and find a reference as this is the most > important bit about the discussion I think, and it's bound to be a > bit contentious. But til then, don't go all "Judy" on me and assume > I'm picking fights for nothing. > > PS JH sytarted a hi-fi company called Enlightened Audio Design, I've > heard some, it's rather good. >
