The Strand Model of fundamental interactions

[jal]

Hi Christoph!
Could you give me your thoughts on ...
The length of strands.
String theory says that 3 dimensions expanded and that the others remained small.
Did your dimensions expand?
jal

 

[tom.stoer]

In loop quantum gravity, there seems no established way to explain gauge interactions. The main point of the manuscript is to present such a way, a way that uses only three spatial dimensions. ...
... The explanation shows that the definition of the wavefunction for fermions using strands depends on three spatial dimensions. It does not work in other numbers of dimensions.

You are right, LQG allows for gauge interaction of matter fields (to be put on top of LQG), but neither explains nor demands them. There is little hope that braids (a similar idea to strands, as far as I can see) can emerge from "framed" spin-network states of quantum-deformed SU(2).

It is interesting that strands seem to work only in three dimension. There are not so many concepts for which the number of spatial dimensions is constrained mathematically (exceptional groups / octonions, twistors, knots, strings, exceptional smooth structures). So the next question is "why strands"?

 

[weburbia]

You might like this lighthearted video about the string wars: http://vixra.org/stringwars/ . You should compare some of the comments by "Anonymous Quantum Gravitist" with what Marcus says above :-). It also makes some serious points about combining LQG and string theory and how they have a lot of mathematics in common.

I'm not very familair with strands but it looks like an interesting idea which could sit between LQG and string theory. Schiller has written a great deal of good stuff about physics at all levels so it would be nice to see it taken seriously.

 

[SimonA]

How do you see "background independance" in it's importance to a theory describing the basic sub atomic forces? Theorists seem so determined to discover a TOE that they seem to me like people trying to run before they can walk.

What is the most fundamental constituent of reality? If space and time are not, and particles are, we appear to be in a strange place where we have given up understanding non-locality, and are paying the price of laziness.

I'm not suggesting that space or time are fundamental, just that we are trying to jump further than we are able.

Unless we can explain the rotation of galaxies, and youngs slit experiment, at a fundemtal level such that it could be taught to school children, we have not understood it.

 

[physics8553]

About the questions:

- Length of strands: In the strand model, strands have no ends, they reach the border of space (the cosmic horizon). Wen's model has strands with ends, but the strand model has not.

- Higher dimensions: Other dimensions than 3 do not work/exist in the strand model, mainly because spin 1/2 is so tied to 3 dimensions.

- Why strands? In my 6th volume, I argue that featureless strands are the *simplest* possible constituents of physical 3-d vacuum (in particular, simpler than points). I also argue that strands are the simplest possible *common constituents* of matter and space. (Extension is needed to reproduce the black hole entropy.) So the main answer would be: there is no simpler alternative.

Of course, the other answer is: strands simply work. They reproduce general relativity through the thermodynamics of strands, and they reproduce wave functions and quantum theory. But most of all, strands reproduce the three gauge interactions and the three generations. The latter two points are the most convincing ones to me.

 

[physics8553]

Background independence does not exist in the strand model by construction. The idea is that each observer introduces its own background. My personal opinion is that background independence is impossible to achieve. My *very sloppy* argument for this conviction goes like this: (1) Physics is (precise) talking (and thinking) about motion. (2) Talking and thinking is done by an observer. (3) Every observer has a background. (4) There is no way to talk without being an observer. (5) Talking is not possible without a background.

What is more fundamental: space or particles? In the strand model, the answer is that both are made of common constituents, thus that one is impossible without the other. They are on the same level.

Young's intereference is explained with strands in my 6th volume at http://www.motionmountain.net/research

The rotation of galaxies depends on the elucidation of dark matter. Here the strand model makes the - at present very unpopular - prediction that dark matter is ordinary matter (including maybe, black holes). We will see what the searches will yield.

 

[Spinnor]

Understanding the Strand Model, questions.

Strand Model see:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905

and the references at the end of 0905.3905.

I picture a room full of gas whose atoms are made of tangles of strands that go to infinity. As the gas molecules bounce off each other I would think the strands would get hopelessly tied up?

With all the other strands in our background how is motion possible with strands that can't pass through each other, it seems they can only slide past each other, how is motion possible with strands that can't be broken?

More tangling? All the "parts" of a Nitrogen molecule, electrons and quarks, are made of tangles of strands that go to infinity, again won't motion of all the parts get hopelessly tied up?

What am I missing?

As a tangle rotates do the strands that go to infinity get twisted or does the Feynman belt trick stop this?

Thanks for any help!

 

[apeiron]

With all the other strands in our background how is motion possible with strands that can't pass through each other, it seems they can only slide past each other, how is motion possible with strands that can't be broken?

I raised this with Schiller and did not get an answer that satisfied me. I had thought the strands would have to actually cross (imagining this as a quantum tunnelling like approach). But he insisted that we only need worry about the local appearance of crossing, even if this created tangles further away in strands tethered at infinity.

Quoting...

Originally Posted by apeiron
1) How do you view the crossings that create observable events? It sounds as though you have in mind a kind of quantum tunneling where there is a choice of either/or, under or over, and so fluctuations from one side to the other. You may not have a literal interpretation of crossings, but it would be interesting to know if you do.

2) What is the actual topology of the tangles. I presume the shape of the knots is going to be the subject of your follow-up paper, explaining the particle zoo.

3) When you talk about strands stretching to infinity, are you thinking of them as anchored to event horizons? That is, to "currently observable" infinity. Probably an unnecessary complication.

reply...

(1) No, strands can never interpenetrate or pass each other. In other words, crossings can switch only by one strand *rotating* around the other. Passing through is never allowed.

(2) Yes, the tangle structure is the topic of the next paper. Please be patient...

(3) Yes, (more or less) anchored at the horizon. `Infinity' is only true for flat space-time.

Christoph

Originally Posted by apeiron
Now I'm confused. How can a strand swap across to pass the other side by a rotation? Unless you are talking a trip through a higher dimension?

reply...

No, there are no higher dimensions; everything happens in three dimensions. A crossing switch can only occur through shape fluctuations. Take two pieces of real rope, and deform them in such a way that the crossing you are looking at changes sign.

A simple example is to imagine that the upper right of a crossing and the lower right are connected. Then the crossing is due to a twist. Rotate the twist twice by 180 degrees, and the crossing will be switched.

Does that make it clearer?

Christoph Schiller

Originally Posted by cschiller
This will indeed introduce additional crossings outside the field of view, but who cares? At the point in space we are interested
in, you have a crossing switch, and this is described by hbar. There will be other crossing switches elsewhere, which also produce hbars there.


reply...

To me this is just moving a crossing with a twist, not actually switching a crossing.

And now you are introducing some kind of observer effect. There has to be a "me" for whom the crossing looks locally switched, and also a me that does not have the peripheral vision to see it has only been twisted.

This sounds crazy so I would be looking for more convincing explanations for why this would be a good model.

As I say, I like knot-style approaches generally. And spin networks. They model worlds in which global constraints breed local constructive freedoms, which then leads to self-organising or bootstrapping theories.

So constrain local action to strands, to 1D paths, and suddenly there are unavoidable local constructive freedoms. There are new local symmetries created and thus the chance for new local symmetry-breakings.

 

[physics8553]

Strand Model see:

With all the other strands in our...ds, or py passing around at spatial infinity.

 

[physics8553]

I raised this with Schiller and did not get an answer that satisfied me. I had thought the strands would have to actually cross (imagining this as a quantum tunnelling like approach). But he insisted that we only need worry about the local appearance of crossing, even if this created tangles further away in strands tethered at infinity.

Quoting...

Indeed, strands *never interpenetrate* each other in the strand model. Please try to reformulate the issue that bothers you - I'll do my best to answer.

 

[Spinnor]

We have to distinguish two types of getting tangled up:
(1) the tangling between different particles,
(2) the tangling between a particle and the vacuum.

About (1): This is solved by the belt trick, as you can check by yourself. Take a a lego brick, and attach longs strands to it, say of a metre or so in length, as many as you like. Fix the other ends of the strands to a table the floor, etc, but leave the strands loose. Then do the same with a second lego brick.

Now you can exchange the position of the two lego bricks TWICE; then the whole mess can be untangled without moving the bricks, just by moving the (unobservable) tails. In other words, strand fluctuations and the belt trick prevent many particle systems from tangling up hopelessly.

About (2) This is solved by the specific tangles that make up fermions. As explained in chapter 12 of
http://www.motionmountain.net/research fermion tangles can move through the vacuum in various ways without tangling up: either by exchanging strands, or py passing around at spatial infinity.

Thank you for your help! After a go at chapter 12 I still can't picture say a solar neutrino moving near the speed of light through the sun in your model. Just does not seem with all those tangles and strands around the neutrino could not deform its strands fast enough? I'll keep working on it.

Another question, please point me in the right direction, how is the relative weakness of gravity explained in your model?

 

[xristy]

Some readers may find a short video from Kauffman's group helpful in visualizing some of what Schiller is saying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYBqIRM8GiY".

 

[heinz]

Is the strand model a theory of everything?

The other threads on the strand model somehow avoid this question. The manuscript http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 tries to deduce the three gauge interactions, but the other writings of Christoph from http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html show that he really is after a theory of everything, the famous TOE. He may not like the term, but that is what he is doing and proposing. Now, anybody making such an enormous claim must live with some tough questioning. Christoph, here are some questions that need to be answered:

1 * Does the theory make sense?
2 * Is it correct?
3 * Does it describe everything?
4 * Is it consistent?
5 * Does it solve all problems?
6 * Does it solve the problem of time?
7 * Does it solve the problem of dark energy and dark matter?
8 * Does it solve the problem of wave function collapse?
9 * What does it say about the multiverse?
10* Does it explain the big bang?
11* Does it explain God?
12* Does it make predictions?
13* Is the theory testable?
14* What about Goedels theorem?
15* How is emergence explained, and Laughlin's objections?
16* Is this the victory of reductionism?
17* What does the theory say about the anthropic principle?
18* Aren't you preposterous?
19* Does the theory have any use?
20* Does it help in our normal life?
21* What about string theory?
22* What happens to supersymmetry?
23* What about non-commutative space-time?
24* What about loop quantum gravity?
25* What happens to the landscape?
26* What happens to higher dimensions?
27* Why is this theory better than any other?
28* If it is correct, then why did you find it, and not another physicist?
29* How can you live making such an enormous claim?

I ask Christoph to answer these questions, and encourage everybody else to add more questions. After all, extraordinary claims need extraordinary checks.

 

[physics8553]

1 * Does the theory make sense?
2 * Is it correct?
3 * Does it describe everything?
4 * Is it consistent?
5 * Does it solve all problems?
6 * Does it solve the problem of time?
7 * Does it solve the problem of dark energy and dark matter?
8 * Does it solve the problem of wave function collapse?
9 * What does it say about the multiverse?
10* Does it explain the big bang?
11* Does it explain God?
12* Does it make predictions?
13* Is the theory testable?
14* What about Goedels theorem?
15* How is emergence explained, and Laughlin's objections?
16* Is this the victory of reductionism?
17* What does the theory say about the anthropic principle?
18* Aren't you preposterous?
19* Does the theory have any use?
20* Does it help in our normal life?
21* What about string theory?
22* What happens to supersymmetry?
23* What about non-commutative space-time?
24* What about loop quantum gravity?
25* What happens to the landscape?
26* What happens to higher dimensions?
27* Why is this theory better than any other?
28* If it is correct, then why did you find it, and not another physicist?
29* How can you live making such an enormous claim?

Heinz,

you take this much too seriously! The phrase `theory of everything' is not the name for a religion, but for the solution of a riddle. Solving a riddle is a pastime, and pastimes are for enjoyment. The strand model is a proposal for the solution of the riddle. Exploring a toe is fun! In fact, this exaggerated seriousness may be the reason why finding the toe takes so long.

By the way, these remarks also answer questions 5, 11, 14 to 20, 28 and 29. Now to your other questions:

1 to 8, 10: In the pdf on http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html I list the problems of fundamental physics (only those, physics as a whole has many more) and of fundamental cosmology (same remark) on page 18 and 19, and I repeat them on page 144 and 145. These are the riddles, and the rest of the text is the proposal of a solution. The strand model is only correct if the predictions, such as a lack of supersymmetry and a time-varying cosmological constant, are measured.

12 and 13: There are many testable predictions that are within reach in the coming years, both for experiments and for numerical calculations. I list them on http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html#pred and on pages 287 and 288 of the pdf just mentioned.

9: There is only one multiverse? What a limited fantasy! This is what I tell everybody who uses the ` term'.

21 to 26: I do not know.

27: It is not sure that the strand model is better! First the predictions need to be checked.

Enjoy!

Christoph

 

[physics8553]

Thank you for your help! After a go at chapter 12 I still can't picture say a solar neutrino moving near the speed of light through the sun in your model. Just does not seem with all those tangles and strands around the neutrino could not deform its strands fast enough? I'll keep working on it.

Another question, please point me in the right direction, how is the relative weakness of gravity explained in your model?

Strands are a Planck scale model. The distance between particles in the Sun is easily 10^25 times larger, and the timnes are longer by this or even a larger factor. So there is enough "room" and "time" to disentangle.

Gravity is weak because fermion masses are much smaller than the Planck mass. And this is due to the continuous fluctuations of the strands, which make the knotted configurations of a fermion (which provide the mass) are extremely unlikely compared to the unknotted configurations (which have no mass). This is explained in the chapter on particle properties (chapter 12) of http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html .

 

[NruJaC]

18. Maybe, but that's science! Someone has to propose the preposterous ideas until the one that's just shy of preposterous is found.
19. Science is usually 50+ years ahead of its applications.

Only two you missed I believe Christoph.

 

[Spinnor]

Strands are a Planck scale model. The distance between particles in the Sun is easily 10^25 times larger, and the timnes are longer by this or even a larger factor. So there is enough "room" and "time" to disentangle.

Gravity is weak because fermion masses are much smaller than the Planck mass. And this is due to the continuous fluctuations of the strands, which make the knotted configurations of a fermion (which provide the mass) are extremely unlikely compared to the unknotted configurations (which have no mass). This is explained in the chapter on particle properties (chapter 12) of http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html .

Thanks for your help!

A spinning neutron star in your model, all the tails of a spinning neutron star head to infinity? If the neutron star is rotating all the tails will have to preform the belt trick for every two revolutions of a neutron star? The belt trick in this situation seems "unnatural".

Using rope I have made some tangles. I have made an electron and a positron tangle, as shown in figure 8 of,

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905

I have looked at figure 11 of http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 and it is not clear how these two tangles can combine and give us two photon strands and no particle tangles?


Thanks for your help!

 

[heinz]

Christoph, those answers were much too short. And I LIKE to take things seriously. Truth is a serious issue. Please explain more about the strand model:

3 * Does it describe everything?
7 * Does it solve the problem of dark energy and dark matter?

And also:

30* What value of alpha does it predict?
31* What values of particle masses does it predict?
32* What values of mixing angles does it predict?
33* Why did you not calculate them?
34* Why is it not background-independent?
35* What symmetries does it have?
36* How exactly are general relativity and quantum theory unified?

This is what we want to understand, and what we NEED to understand. Otherwise this is not a theory of everything, but a collection of sentences without any sense.

 

[physics8553]

...

(1) A spinning neutron star in your model, all the tails of a spinning neutron star head to infinity? If the neutron star is rotating all the tails will have to preform the belt trick for every two revolutions of a neutron star? The belt trick in this situation seems "unnatural".

(2) Using rope I have made some tangles. I have made an electron and a positron tangle, as shown in figure 8 of,

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905

I have looked at figure 11 of http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 and it is not clear how these two tangles can combine and give us two photon strands and no particle tangles?

(1) For matter, the belt trick untangles each particle separatly. Maybe the belt trick occurs for macrsocopic objects in the case of black holes - maybe; but surely not for neutron stars.

(2) As shown in chapter 12 of http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html , there are several tangles that correspond to each fermion. The simplest tangles are not knotted, and for these, the annihilation is much easier to see, when one assumes that the ends at spatial infinity come together. If the knotted states are studied, QED diagrams can only be reproduced by "looping over" at spatial infinity.

 

[physics8553]

3 * Does it describe everything
7 * Does it solve the problem of dark energy and dark matter?

And also:

30* What value of alpha does it predict?
31* What values of particle masses does it predict?
32* What values of mixing angles does it predict?
33* Why did you not calculate them?
34* Why is it not background-independent?
35* What symmetries does it have?
36* How exactly are general relativity and quantum theory unified?

3 * So far, the strand model seems to describe general relativity, cosmology, relativistic quantum theory, gauge interactions, and the three generations. It also *promises* to describe particle masses, mixing angles and coupling constants. To check these last three points, statistics of tangle deformations have to be studied. Some general statements can be made without such statistics (e.g. on mass sequences, and that coupling constants are all smaller than one); but the numerical check requires tangles statistics.

7 * Yes; dark matter is predicted to be conventional matter plus black holes. Dark energy is solved by predicting that the cosmological constant is determined by the horizon distance.

30 * A value below 1, and not too small. Calculations are not yet finished.

31 * No values yet, but some mass ratios. MW/MZ - the weak mixing angle - is predicted, and some more, as told in chapter 12 of http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html . Hadron mass sequences (in particular, Regge trajectories) seem reproduced - but again the arguments are qualitative.

32 * No definite values yet, only qualitative expressions, as told in the same chapter.

33 * At present, I am looking for computing power and also for smart ideas that make computers unnecessary.

34 * The model is background-dependent; I do not think that any other description is needed. Every observer has a background.

35 * Only the known symmetries of the standard model and of general relativity exist; thus only the usual gauge symmetries and the usual space-time symmetries. Tangle tail deformations lead to space-time symmetries, tangle core deformations lead to internal, gauge symmetries.

36 * General relativity and quantum theory are all seen as consequences of the invariance of Planck units. In the strand model, Planck units are invariant because crossing switches are processes that are the same for any observer. The invariance of Planck units then follows, and from that, the DIrac equation (for motion of matter in flat space) and Einstein's field equations (for motion of curved space). Equivalently, matter and space are made of the same extended, fluctuating constituents. This leads to unification of quantum theory and general relativity.

 

[Spinnor]

(1) For matter, the belt trick untangles each particle separatly. Maybe the belt trick occurs for macrsocopic objects in the case of black holes - maybe; but surely not for neutron stars.

(2) As shown in chapter 12 of http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html , there are several tangles that correspond to each fermion. The simplest tangles are not knotted, and for these, the annihilation is much easier to see, when one assumes that the ends at spatial infinity come together. If the knotted states are studied, QED diagrams can only be reproduced by "looping over" at spatial infinity.

A neutron star in your model has at least four strands for each neutron of the neutron star and these strands all head off to infinity? If the neutron star rotates how do we avoid all the strands from getting twisted together as I thought they could not pass through each other? Rotation of large objects seems to twist up stands if the belt trick is not used. On plank scales I can see the belt trick as a natural event undoing the twist of rotation but not with a star? Maybe I'm missing something here.


To your second point. The chiral knotted tangle of figure 8, page 12 of
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 is meant to represent a fermion. So if we have a fermion and its antiparticle in tangle representation we have two chiral knotted tangles that must somehow annihilate or disappear? I do not see how you make them disappear unless they just head off to infinity?


Thanks for your help!

 

[heinz]

36 * General relativity and quantum theory are all seen as consequences of the invariance of Planck units. In the strand model, Planck units are invariant because crossing switches are processes that are the same for any observer. The invariance of Planck units then follows, and from that, the DIrac equation (for motion of matter in flat space) and Einstein's field equations (for motion of curved space). Equivalently, matter and space are made of the same extended, fluctuating constituents. This leads to unification of quantum theory and general relativity.

Christoph, this is too short! People have searched for this unification for almost a century, and you behave as if it is a side problem, or a student exercise! How exactly do all evolution equations appear? How can you claim unification with so few equations in your paper and in your book?

 

[SimonA]

Christoph, this is too short! People have searched for this unification for almost a century, and you behave as if it is a side problem, or a student exercise! How exactly do all evolution equations appear? How can you claim unification with so few equations in your paper and in your book?

Of course Christoph's theory does not "explain everything". This idea of a TOE is nonsense from the start. Unifying gravity and the quantum formalism is perhaps the biggest challenge in physics at present, but the belief in that as some kind of final destination is an extreme form of fiction for the deluded.

Christoph's theory has holes. Challenge him on details, but it's contrary to the empirical principles of science for you to ask him to re-evaluate the whole of physics - on a message board - in light of his theory. Surely?

 

[KaneJeeves]

SimonA - I like your contrarian view on "unification". I'm a layman when it comes to physics and the mathematics behind it, so the most I read is the more popular expositions. And almost 100% of the time unification of GR and QM is stated as the Big Goal. But I've always been suspicious of that. It almost seems like a form of religious belief, where The Big TOE functions as a god of sorts. Why can't it be that GR and QM are just two different "tools" that were used in the creation, or operation, of the Universe. GR is best suited for certain things, QM others, and never the twain shall meet.

 

[physics8553]

Christoph, this is too short! People have searched for this unification for almost a century, and you behave as if it is a side problem, or a student exercise! How exactly do all evolution equations appear? How can you claim unification with so few equations in your paper and in your book?

The strand model makes this possible for the following reason.

- Special relativity is based on and follows from the invaraince of the speed of light c, and on it being a limit property.
- Quantum theory is based on and follows from the invariance of the quantum of action hbar, and on it being a limit for measureable action values.
- General relativity is based on and follows from a limit value for momentum change, c^4/4G, and on this being a limit value.

All these properties are built into the definition of the crossing switch of strands. That is the main reason that fundamental equations are not needed; in fact, they do not exist. All important evolution equations of physics directly follow from the invariant Planck limits. In this sense, the crossing switch and its relation to the Planck units realize the unification of general relativity and quantum theory.

The other, harder part, is to explain the appearance of interactions and of the standard model of particle physics. That is what is done in the arxiv paper and in the 6th volume of my physics text.

 

[physics8553]

(1) Of course Christoph's theory does not "explain everything".

...

(2) This idea of a TOE is nonsense from the start.

...

(3) Christoph's theory has holes.

...

(4) Challenge him on details, but it's contrary to the empirical principles of science for you to ask him to re-evaluate the whole of physics - on a message board - in light of his theory. Surely?

To 1: The strand model only explains the Lagrangians of general relativity and of the standard model of particle physics, as well as a specific type of cosmology. It is to everybody's taste whether this counts as "everything" or not. I prefer to say that this is not everything; for example, a TOE does not help in issues with toddlers or to prevent divorces.

To 2: Please explain what you mean!

To 3: Let us know.

To 4: The strand model seems to imply the whole of fundamental physics (note the term "fundamental"). Can you explain what you mean with your remark?

 

[physics8553]

... It almost seems like a form of religious belief, where The Big TOE functions as a god of sorts. ...

This attitude is frequent; but in fact the TOE is just the name for a riddle. Solving riddles is not a religious activity.

 

[physics8553]

(1)A neutron star in your model has at least four strands for each neutron of the neutron star and these strands all head off to infinity? If the neutron star rotates how do we avoid all the strands from getting twisted together as I thought they could not pass through each other? Rotation of large objects seems to twist up stands if the belt trick is not used. On plank scales I can see the belt trick as a natural event undoing the twist of rotation but not with a star? Maybe I'm missing something here.


(2)To your second point. The chiral knotted tangle of figure 8, page 12 of
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 is meant to represent a fermion. So if we have a fermion and its antiparticle in tangle representation we have two chiral knotted tangles that must somehow annihilate or disappear? I do not see how you make them disappear unless they just head off to infinity?

(1) The belt trick also works in the star case, as incredible as it sounds. Everythuing untangles after 2 full rotations.

(2) You are right: the figure is misleading. The basic state of the elementary fermions is unknotted (see the 6th volume). For them, annihilation is possible *without* "heading off to infinity".

Something similar to what you call "heading off for infinity" is the process needed to generate mass, and due to the weak interaction. In other words, an elementary fermion is unknotted for over 99.99% of the time, and knotted only rarely. Therefore, annihilation is possible. If it were knotted all of the time, you would be right that no annihilation would be possible.

 

[heinz]

- A - The strand model makes this possible for the following reason.

- Special relativity is based on and follows from the invariance of the speed of light c, and on it being a limit property.
- Quantum theory is based on and follows from the invariance of the quantum of action hbar, and on it being a limit for measurable action values.
- General relativity is based on and follows from a limit value for momentum change, c^4/4G, and on this being a limit value.

All these properties are built into the definition of the crossing switch of strands. That is the main reason that fundamental equations are not needed; in fact, they do not exist. All important evolution equations of physics directly follow from the invariant Planck limits. In this sense, the crossing switch and its relation to the Planck units realize the unification of general relativity and quantum theory.

- B - The other, harder part, is to explain the appearance of interactions and of the standard model of particle physics. That is what is done in the arxiv paper and in the 6th volume of my physics text.

Christoph, I added - A - and - B - into your answer. I find the two paragraphs - A - completely astonishing. I never heard or read elsewhere that relativity and quantum theory could be summarized in this way. So, if you are correct, then I can somehow imagine that your strand model might reproduce these theories without equations. But if you are not correct, this is not the case.

But let me assume that you are right. This means that your way of thinking physics is completely different from what is usual. Obviously, special relativity is based on a maximum speed, but I never heard that quantum theory is based on a smallest action hbar. I also have never heard (apart from you) that general relativity is based on a largest force c^4/4G.

This way of thinking is very different than usual - even though you write in your book that it is equivalent to the usual descriptions. I honestly think that this approach puts many people off and makes them think that your approach is not serious. Can this impression be changed? I do not know. I would guess that most physicists are not ready to follow even your step -A-.

This is a big problem, in my eye! Because your strand model can be structured in a number of steps:

1 ( = A): Relativity and quantum theory are based on the invariant quantities c, hbar, ad c^4/4G.

2: This means that a combinatorial and discrete model of nature is possible, if the model ensures that these quantities are also limits.

3: Strands provide such a discrete model.

4 ( = B): Strands allow to deduce the four interactions.

But most readers, even professionals, will have problems with step 1 already. You loose your readers already there. This means that most readers will not arrive at step 4 at all. The will not understand your reasoning there, because they dropped out already before that.

Christoph, think of a better way to take the reader by the hand and lead him through steps 1 to 3 please! After all they already form a great discovery, if they are correct.

 

[heinz]

The rotation of galaxies depends on the elucidation of dark matter. Here the strand model makes the - at present very unpopular - prediction that dark matter is ordinary matter (including maybe, black holes). We will see what the searches will yield.

In other words, you say that dark matter does not exist. I have never met an astrophysicist who would agree. They all say that dark matter exists, and the all say that it is non-baryonic. A serious fraction of them would even put their hand into fire for this result.

This is another point in which the strand model puts off readers. Are you really sure about this prediction?

 

[Spinnor]

(1) The belt trick also works in the star case, as incredible as it sounds. Everythuing untangles after 2 full rotations.
...

I believe such a process works mathematically, it just does not seem pretty enough. You are very clever and I think are on the right track towards a Theory of Everything, a simple idea that yields all physics. Nature I think is still a bit more clever.

Thanks for your help!

 

[LBJ]

Background independence does not exist in the strand model by construction

The idea is that each observer introduces its own background. My personal opinion is that background independence is impossible to achieve. My *very sloppy* argument for this conviction goes like this: (1) Physics is (precise) talking (and thinking) about motion. (2) Talking and thinking is done by an observer. (3) Every observer has a background. (4) There is no way to talk without being an observer. (5) Talking is not possible without a background
The rotation of galaxies depends on the elucidation of dark matter. Here the strand model makes the - at present very unpopular - prediction that dark matter is ordinary matter (including maybe, black holes). We will see what the searches
will yield.

I don't understand your definition of background independence. Background independence means that space is in constant flux. That is, the geometry of space is not fixed, but directly related to the matter present. The gravitational field is not existing in space. It is the space.

As for Dark Matter see Milgrom's Law. Additionally it is non baryonic and so does not interact electromagnetically. That's why it's dark. How do you distinguish particle from spatial strands? Is it possible your model is actually predicting spatial strands?

LBJ

 

[DataBase]

How come there are no equations in that paper? Where are the lie groups? The Teichmuller spaces or what ever? I don't see how Einstein's equations can be derived without even doing any calculations to begin with.

 

[physics8553]

I believe such a process works mathematically, it just does not seem pretty enough. You are very clever and I think are on the right track towards a Theory of Everything, a simple idea that yields all physics. Nature I think is still a bit more clever.

Thanks for your help!

Ah, but prettyness and beauty is in the eye of the beholder! The pretty thing about strands is that there are very few assumptions. After all, there is only one idea: that a crossing change yields the Planck units. Or said differently, for me, beauty in physics is a different expression for "simplicity". If you know something simpler, let me and everybody else know ! But I am sceptical that something simpler is possible.

 

[physics8553]

(1) I don't understand your definition of background independence. Background independence means that space is in constant flux. That is, the geometry of space is not fixed, but directly related to the matter present. The gravitational field is not existing in space. It is the space.

(2) As for Dark Matter see Milgrom's Law. Additionally it is non baryonic and so does not interact electromagnetically. That's why it's dark.

(3) How do you distinguish particle from spatial strands? Is it possible your model is actually predicting spatial strands?

About 1: Background independence is the ability to describe observations without using space and time at all. The strand model is *not* background independent by design. As I wrote in another post, I also believe that background independence for a unified theory is (1) impossible and (2) useless. The rest of what you say is (more or less) correct, of course.

About 2: The strand model explicitely *rules out* Milgrom's MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics) and its variations, such as the one by Bekenstein, for example. That dark matter is non-baryonic is an educated guess. There is no experimental proof for this statement, nor for the opposite. The strand model predicts that dark matter is either usual matter or black holes. Let's see what experiments in the coming years will discover.

About 3: All strands are the same. If strands are tangled, they are particles. Far away from partciles, the tails of particles and the strands of empty space are the same. That is one of the charms of the model. Does this answer your last questioon?