Tag Archives: E8

Comparing nearest edges between Split Real Even (SRE) E8

I have been intrigued with Richter’s arXiv 0704.3091 “Triacontagonal Coordinates for the E8 root system” paper.

Comparing nearest edges between Split Real Even (SRE) E8 and Richter’s Complex 4D Golden Ratio Petrie Projection Model:

Please note, the vertex numbers are reordered from Richter’s paper in order to be consistent with ArXiv quant-ph 1502.04350 “Parity Proofs of Kochen-Specker theorem based on the Lie Algebra E8” by Aravind and Waegell. This paper uses the beautiful symmetries of E8 as a basis for proof sets related to the Bell inequalities of quantum mechanics. Below is a graphic showing that vertex number ordering:

Richter’s model with 74 nearest edges per vertex (Complex 4D Norm’d length Sqrt[2], with 8880 total):

Richter’s model with only 26 nearest edges per vertex (Complex 4D Norm’d length 1, 3120 total):

The above unity length edge pattern has is more consistent with the SRE E8 below.

The SRE E8 Petrie Projection (with 56 Norm’d edge length Sqrt[2] for each vertex, 6720 total). This is equivalent to folding E8 to H4 with an 8×8 rotation matrix which creates a 4D-left H4+H4*Phi and a 4D-right H4+H4*Phi.

Please note, the vertex number is that of the E8 vertices rotated (or “folded”) to H4 in 2D Petrie projection. The vertex numbers are in canonical binary order from E8’s 1:1 correspondence with the 9th row of the Pascal Triangle (eliminating the 16 generator/anti-generator vertices of E8 found in the 2nd and 8th column of the Pascal Triangle). The graphic below shows the vertex number ordering:

Here we take the 4D-left half and project to two concentric rings of H4 and H4 Phi (Golden Ratio) with 56 nearest edges per vertex (Norm’d length of unity or Phi for each vertex):

The animation frames are sorted by the ArcTan[y/x] of the vertex position in each ring (sorted H4*Phi outer to inner, then H4 outer to inner).

The work of Frans G. Marcelis




Really cool analysis of E8 geometry. I would love to collaborate, but can’t seem to find any contact info. If anyone knows him or can contact him, let me know.

I found his ’79-’81 Masters Thesis “Collectieve beweging in atoomkernen” from tue.nl

He co-authored a paper B. J. Verhaar, J. de Kam, A. M. Schulte, F. Marcelis: Simplified description of y vibrations in permanently deformed nuclei. Phys. Rev. C18 (1978) 523.

and see he participated in the HISPARC collaboration.


Some of my work that may support his is shown in this post, which shows how there are 10 self dual 24 cells in 2 sets of 5 (one for each H4 600 cell within E8). These are broken down by dual 16 vertex 8-cells and 8 vertex 16 cells. Marcelis creates a set of 14 8-cells (224 vertices) plus a basis of 16 vertices.


I replicate some of his work below using my Mathematica demonstration code as a base. When clicking a given vertex in my tool, it generates the edges to the 56 nearest vertices to that clicked vertex (as measured in all 8 dimensions). These are indeed the same vertices as those that intersect the rings of E8 Petrie Projection after translation to the clicked point.

Ring intersections that complement the 240 E8 vertices from 3{3}3{4}2. This is like clicking every 5th vertex (6) on the inner ring of E8 Petrie Projection.

Vertices from 3{3}3{4}2

Inner 3{4}3

6 Outer 3{3}3

E8 in E6 Petrie Projection

An article (interview) with John Baez used an E8 projection which I introduced to Wikipedia in Feb of 2010 here. Technically, it is E8 projected to the E6 Coxeter plane.

E8 in E6 Petrie

The projection uses X Y basis vectors of:
X = {-Sqrt[3] + 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0};
Y = {0, Sqrt[3] – 1, -1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0};

Resulting in vertex overlaps of:
24 Yellow with 1 overlap
24 Dark Blue each with 8 overlaps (192 vertices)
1 Light Blue with 24 overlaps (24 vertices)

After doing this for a few example symmetries, Tom took my idea of projecting higher dimensional objects to the 2D (and 3D) symmetries of lower dimensional subgroups – and ran with it in 2D – producing a ton of visualizations across WP. 🙂

It was one of those that was subsequently used that article from the 4_21 E8 WP page.

Here is a representation of E6 in the E6 Coxeter plane:

Resulting in vertex overlaps of:
24 Yellow with 1 overlap
24 Orange each with 2 overlaps (48 vertices)

More Fibonacci / Pascal Triangle Patterns

Last year I posted this on Pascal Triangle Modulo 2 thru 9 and their Sierpinski Maps.

I just saw an interesting post by Lucien Khan on some Theological numerology (gematria) as it relates to the Modulo 10 patterns of Fibonacci here.

I verified the pattern and added a few more as it relates to the repeating Modulo 9 and 10 patterns, Pascal Triangle and E8 (as in my original post).

Numbers are highlighted when divisible by:
60 are in red
30 are in green
15 are in blue
12 are in magenta


This is all tied to the Pascal Triangle with its 2^n binary (Clifford Algebra) representation, E8 and the number 4!=24 and Octonions.


All of these structures, including the 3 dimensional geometry of the Platonic solids (and its big brother, the 4D non-crystallographic H4 group geometry) are related to E8 via a folding matrix I determined a few years ago here.

For some related interesting reading from John Baez regarding the number 24 and its link to String Theory (M-Theory) updated from last week! (see also related info on his other favorite numbers 5 and 8).

Incorporating Sedenions into the VisibLie_E8 visualizer

Here is a snapshot of the UI.

It is taken from an example given on this website: http://www.derivativesinvesting.net/article/307057068/a-few-hypercomplex-numbers/, which uses the harder to read IJKL style notation.

Compare the upper left quadrant of the multiplication table. It is the same as the octonion of E8 #164 (non-Flipped) used to generate the sedenion using the Cayley-Dickson doubling. It can be read off using the Fano Plane (or Fano Cube) mnemonic. My next post will show the Sedenion forms of these, namely the Fano Tetrahedron and Tesseract!

Notice the highlighting of the interesting aspect of sedenions, where some non-zero p=a+b and q=c+d give a product pq=0. These are given in a list of the {a,b,c,d} where p={a+b} and q={c+d} and pq=0 (along with the deltas between the indices), always 42 excluding trivial juxtapositions. In this case, it is the row entry with {3,12,5,10}.

Here is the computation of the same table in the format given in the Sedenion Wikipedia article.

G2 as the automorphism group of the (split) octonion algebra

For more information on this, please see this Wolfram MathSource page.

This post describes the derivation of G2 automorphisms for each of the 480 unique octonion multiplication tables, as well as each of the 7 split octonions (created from negating the 4 row/column entries which are not members of the split #, which is an index to one of the 7 triads that make up the octonion).

The Exceptional Lie Algebra/Group G2 is identified by its Dynkin diagram and/or associated Cartan Matrix (also shown here with its Hasse diagram):

The particular octonion multiplication table selected in the example referenced above is associated in my model as a “Non Flipped E8 #164”. The multiplication table in various formats (IJKL, e_n, and Numeric) is:

The selected multiplication table (fm) is the basis for the following octonion symbolic math:
[wlcode](* Octonion math from the matrix using 8D vector representations for x and y, this has the Subscript[\[ScriptE], 0]=1 first *)
octProduct[a_, b_] := Block[{c3 = Array[0 &, 8]},
Do[c3[[If[i != j, Abs@fm[[i, j]] + 1, 1]]]+=Sign@fm[[i, j]] a[[i]] b[[j]],
{i, 8}, {j, 8}];

(* Complex, quaternion and octonian multiplication Subscript[\[ScriptE], a]\[SmallCircle]Subscript[\[ScriptE], b] *)
quat2oct@in_ := Block[{a3},
a3 = FromQuaternion@in;
0, Re@a3 + Im@a3 Subscript[\[ScriptE], 1],
2, If[Length@a[[1]] > 0, a3,
If[Head@a3 === Times, a3[[1]] a3[[2]],
1\[SmallCircle](Re@a3[[1]] +
Im@a3[[1]] Subscript[\[ScriptE], 1]) + a3[[2]]]],
3, Re@a3[[1]] + Im@a3[[1]] Subscript[\[ScriptE], 1] +
a3[[2 ;;]]],
“not Quaternion”] /. Most@Thread[octIJKL -> oct]];

(* Octonion math with conversions, leave final as octonion *)
SmallCircle[a_List, b_List] := octonion@octProduct[a, b];
SmallCircle[a_, b_Quaternion] := a\[SmallCircle]quat2oct@b;
SmallCircle[a_Quaternion, b_] := quat2oct@a\[SmallCircle]b;
SmallCircle[a_, b_Complex] := a\[SmallCircle]ToQuaternion@b;
SmallCircle[a_Complex, b_] := ToQuaternion@a\[SmallCircle]b;
SmallCircle[a_, b_] := oct2List@a\[SmallCircle]oct2List@b;

associator[a_List, b_List,c_List] := (a\[SmallCircle]b)\[SmallCircle]c-a\[SmallCircle](b\[SmallCircle]c);
associator[a_, b_, c_] :=associator[oct2List@a, oct2List@b, oct2List@c];[/wlcode]

Each set of 21 upper triangle pairs of octonion elements (utOct) has 14 “derivations” which are null
(alternatively, the NullSpace of the derivation vectors of utOct has 7 which are NOT null…)

A derivation pair D_{x, y} is defined by:
[wlcode](* Commutator *)
CircleDot[x_,y_]:=commutator[x, y];

(* Commutator matrix *)
comMat[x_, y_] := x.y – y.x;
comMat[{x_, y_}] := comMat[x, y];

(* Derivation matrix and vector *)
derivation[x_,y_][a_]:=(x\[CircleDot]y)\[CircleDot]a-3 associator[x,y,a];
Square[{x_, y_, a_}] := derivation[x, y][a];
derMatrix[x_,y_]:=Table[Coefficient[\[Square]{x,y,oct[[i]]},oct[[j]]], {j, 7}, {i,7}];
derVector[x_,y_]:=derMatrix[x, y]//Flatten;[/wlcode]
The 14 null pairs define G2 for a SPECIFIC octonion multiplication matrix.

For each of 7 non-null derivations there is a triple of D_{x1, y1}=D_{x2, y2}+D_{x3, y3} related derivations.

There is a 7×21 matrix describing the non-NullSpace for the octonion given in the Wolfram MathSource reference above along with the 7 non-null triples. This is generated by g2Null:
[wlcode]g2Null:=NullSpace[derVector[Subscript[\[ScriptE], #1], Subscript[\[ScriptE],#2]]&@@@utOct//Transpose];

(* Formatting all non-Null upper triangle pairs derivation entries *)
outG2Null := MatrixForm[parallelMap[Grid[{
Subscript[D, Row@Flatten@##] & /@
Partition[Flatten@{utOct[[Flatten@Position[#, -1]]]}, 2]]},{“==”},
Subscript[D, Row@Flatten@##] & /@
Partition[Flatten@{utOct[[Flatten@Position[#, 1]]]}, 2]]}(*),
{“\[LongDash]\[LongDash]\[LongDash]\[LongDash]”}**)}] &,

getG2Null (below) retrieves two octonion multiplication matrices for the flipped and non-flipped index on one of 240 E8 particles.
[wlcode]formG2Null := MatrixForm@{
Row@{Style[Row@{“flip=”, flip}, Blue],
Style[” split # \[DownArrow],”, Red]},
g2NullTbl = Table[{
setFM[#, flip, split];
{split, 0, 7}];
MatrixForm[Column[#, Center] & /@ noNull@# & /@ Table[
(* Color the common Der in each column *)
cmnD =first@Select[g2NullTbl[[All,2,1,i,1,3,1,1,All]],
Length@# == 1 &];
cmnDclr = Style[cmnD, Magenta];
If[j == 1, {“”, Row@{
(* Highlight the missing index in the triple D_{x,y} for each row *)
g2NullTbl[[1, 2, 1, i]] /. cmnD -> cmnDclr}},
(* Display only non-null derivations from the splits if not the same as the base octonion *)
If[g2NullTbl[[1,2,1,i]] =!= g2NullTbl[[j,2,1,i]],
{Style[g2NullTbl[[j, 1]], Red],
g2NullTbl[[j,2,1,i]] /. cmnD -> cmnDclr}]],
{i,7},{j,8}]]} &;

getG2Null := ColumnForm[{
Style[Row@{“E8#=”, #}, Darker@Green],
Row@{flip = False; formG2Null@#, flip = True; formG2Null@#}},
Center] &;[/wlcode]

Here we show the output of getG2Null for the example non-Flipped E8 #164):
Emergent patterns:

  1. For each of the 7 non-null derivation triples (the first column of the 7 rows), there are precisely 3 (of the 7) split octonions that don’t share the exact same non-null triple derivation pair as the parent (non-split) octonion (these deviations are shown in column 2 thru 4, along with the associated Fano plane diagrams for the parent and 7 split octonions of E8 #164).
  2. Each non-null derivation triple contains 6 of 7 indices, and each row is missing a different index (highlighted in green before the column 1 triple). The sequence of missing element numbers in each row of the given example follows the row number.
  3. It is only the equality relationship (signs) of the non-Null triple that change in 3 of the 7 splits, not the D_{x,y} itself.
  4. There are always 2 pairs of 2 D_{x,y} which are negative (i.e. with a -1 entry in the NullSpace matrix located above the “==”) that occur across the row.
  5. There is always a common positive D_{x,y} (i.e. with a +1 entry in the NullSpace matrix located below the “==”) in each entry of the row (colored magenta). The common positive entries in the 7 rows suggest a “distinguished” non-null indicator for the 14=21-7 G2 automorphism.
  6. All octonion multiplication matrices have the first 3 rows of distinguished entries of {6,7},{5,7} and {5,6} in that order (i.e. the last 2 rows of utOct).
  7. There are several possible choices for G2 automorphism sets of 14 elements within each of 480 octonions based on the 7 non-Null entries. Interestingly, there are the 4 sets of rows in utOct which sum to 14 elements, specifically rows {{1, 2, 4}, {1, 2, 5, 6}, {1, 2, 4, 6}, {2, 3, 4, 5}}). The distinguished entries of the flipped E8 #164 example below (as in the MathSource post referenced above) suggests a G2 created by rows {1,2,4} of utOct. Although, not all G2 sets must use complete rows as in this example.

This is octonionG2-nonNull, a 480 page (15 MB) which lists each of the 7 non-Null parent octonion derivations (and for each of those, the 3 other split octonion non-null derivations) which are NOT a member of the 14 null derivations for each of 480 octonion multiplication matrices and 7 splits for each (480*8=3840). It includes the Fano plane mnemonics for the parent and 7 split octionions. This is a smaller 240 page (1MB) version of octonionG2-nonNull.pdf without the Fano plane mnemonics.

Octonion triality testing

I am working on validating some theoretical work on the triality automorphisms of the split octonions. This is a post with preliminary work on that… for those who are interested 🙂

BTW – It requires the here.

An addendum to the original post (below):

[WolframCDF source=”http://theoryofeverything.org/TOE/JGM/octonion triality checks.cdf” width=”900″ height=”8000″ altimage=”http://theoryofeverything.org/TOE/JGM/octonion triality checks.png” altimagewidth=”900″ altimageheight=”8000″]

Visualizing E6 as a subgroup of E8 for a Leptoquark SUSY GUT?

MyToE was mentioned in a Luboš Motl blog post comment, so I thought I would throw out a few ideas and offer to help Luboš visualize the models/thinking around developing an E6 Leptoquark SUSY GUT.

Here are the E6 Dynkin related constructs, including the detail Hasse visualization.

For this post, I use Split Real Even (SRE) E8 vertices created by dot product of the 120 positive (and 120 negative roots) with the following Simple Roots Matrix (SRM), which generates the Cartan as well:
simple roots matrix

This is a list of E6 vertices as a subset of SRE E8 by taking off the orthogonal right-side 2 dimensions (or Dynkin nodes in red) vertices with identical entries).

This is an interesting E6 projection with basis vectors of:
X={2, -1, 1, 1/2, -1, -(1/2), 0, 0}
Y= {0, 0, Sqrt[3], Sqrt[3]/2, Sqrt[3], Sqrt[3]/2, 0, 0}

Adding a third Z={0,0,Sqrt[3],Sqrt[3]/2,Sqrt[3],Sqrt[3]/2,0,0}, we get a 3D projection:

Luboš> “the maximum subgroup we may embed to E6 is actually SO(10)×U(1).”

Since D5 (which is the same as E5 in terms of the Dynkin diagram topology) relates to SO(10), it is interesting to look at the complement of E6 vertices and the 40 D5 vertices contained in E6 (leaving 32):

Here is the D5 Dynkin and its Cartan algebra: