A few months ago there were several math talks about how the Lie group E8 had been detected in some physics experiment. I recently looked up the original paper where this was announced,


"Quantum Criticality in an Ising Chain: Experimental Evidence for Emergent E8 Symmetry", Science 327 (5962): 177–180, doi:10.1126/science.1180085


and was less than convinced by it. The evidence for the detection of E8 appears to be that they found a couple of peaks in some experiment, at points whose ratio is close to the golden ratio, which is apparently a prediction of some paper that I have not yet tracked down. The peaks are quite fuzzy and all one can really say is that their ratio is somewhere around 1.6. This seems to me to be a rather weak reason for claiming detection of a 248 dimensional Lie group; I would guess that a significant percentage of all experimental physics papers have a pair of peaks looking somewhat like this.


Does anyone know enough about the physics to comment on whether the claim is plausible? Or has anyone heard anything more about this from a reliable source? (Most of what I found with google consisted of uninformed blogs and journalists quoting each other.)


Update added later: I had a look at the paper mentioned by Willie Wong below, where Zamoldchikov predicts the expected masses. In fact he predicts there should be 8 peaks, and while the experimental results are consistent with the first 2 peaks, there are no signs of any of the other peaks. My feeling is that the interpretation of the experimental results as confirmation of an E8 symmetry is somewhat overenthusiastic. 



Has the Lie group E8 really been detected experimentally?
This is a great question, but I don't think a reasonable answer can be given in this short space. So I wrote [an expository note](http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5407) jointly with [a colleague](http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~davidb/) who was trained as a physicist. You can read it by following the link above -- comments are welcome.


But here are a couple of highlights:


1. It's not true that they measured this one number, and so claimed to have detected E8.\* There is a bit more data than that. And there is a lot more history! Back around 1990, there was a series of theoretical "deductions" (in the weak sense of physics) investigating what the appropriate theoretical model should be for the situation in the magnet experiment. This led to a unique candidate for a model, one built out of E8. I would say that the experiment corroborated the series of deductions, with the sensational bonus that the deductions led to E8.

- Which E8 appears in the theoretical model? The obvious answer is that it is the compact real E8 and not just the root system or root lattice. For example, even though the masses of the 8 particles are given as entries in an eigenvector for the Cartan matrix (which makes it sound like it's just the root system), the proof of this statement is a calculation within the compact Lie algebra.


One can argue about both of these points, of course. But these seem to be what the physicists claim and what they use in their papers.




---


To address Wadim's concerns about fringe science: Whether or not you find the E8 angle interesting or plausible, it seems that the experiment is interesting for entirely different reasons. The experimenters themselves claim that their main achievement is realizing this 1-dimensional quantum Ising model in the laboratory in a situation where the external field can be tuned to be above, below, or at the critical point. The [Physics Today article](http://link.aip.org/link/PHTOAD/v63/i3/p13/s1/pdf) on the subject paraphrases Subir Sachdev: 



> 
> only recently could researchers reach
>  the high fields and low temperatures
>  needed to access the critical point
>  and have high enough instrumental
>  resolution to resolve the masses of at
>  least some of the quasiparticles
>  they excited. (Temperatures have to be
>  low enough to suppress any impact of
>  thermal fluctuations.)
> 
> 
> 




---


* Footnote: To be precise: Also, Coldea, the author of this particular article in *Science*, uses the more-cautious "detected evidence of E8 symmetry" as opposed to the stronger "detected E8".


