Register to reply

The Strand Model of fundamental interactions

Share this thread:
Jan14-10, 03:07 PM
PF Gold
P: 49
First of all I advise everybody to use three shoestrings to play with this theory!


I have the impression that progress in particle physics should be guided by the wissdom of 'aberations' like the CKM matrix (in the true spirit like Planck looked at blackbody radiation). We all focuss on exact symmetries but experiments show different. I allways wondered why there is not a kind of gauge boson L changing generations of particles. So that CKM is really something like a two step process <d/weak/u> = <d/W.boson/u'><u'/L/u> where <u'/L/u> represents the generation change process and thus a CKM element.

When I look at the strands you see that the difference in generations is represented by a sort of one third of the leather trick (cut figure 71, pg. 258 in three parts). Can this one third (three strands, two parallel, one crossing the first above and the second under) be the 'generation changing boson'? Is it really a boson? L^3 is the identity matrix of course.

It also looks like a nice space defect, a perfect candidate for dark energy, just kidding :)

Jan14-10, 05:54 PM
P: 894
Quote Quote by Berlin View Post
First of all I advise everybody to use three shoestrings to play with this theory
This is not a theory yet. The starting point is too vaguely defined to allow any derivations of things like gravity or the standard model as he claims.

Also, because he declares the strands themselves to be featureless, their motion can only depend on their position relative to other strands. Therefore, the fundemental movement of the strands in his theory must have parity symmetry. Since everything in his theory is supposed to be derived from this movement, without need to further investigation into the details of his theory, his theory must predict parity symmetry ... which doesn´t agree with experiment. The little detail he provides about his theory is already enough to dismiss it due to experiment.

To Berlin, or heinz, or cschiller, or anyone claiming interest in this theory:
If you disagree with my assessment, then DEFINE the theory precisely enough to allow one to see what is wrong with that line of argument.
Until the features of 'strand theory' are precisely defined mathematically, there cannot be agreement on what it IS or PREDICTS.

Please answer the questions/comments laid out in post #196.
Jan23-10, 02:18 PM
P: 894
For those interested in this, since cschiller will no longer answer questions here, you can find some responses to questions here:
(Warning: Use the history tab to see what was actually said, as he heavily redacts things and deletes questions and even answers he changes his mind on.)

In trying to make the definitions of his theory more precise, he has declared that of the two original examples of "crossing switches" only one is now a crossing switch. It is unclear how the remaining one is considered a crossing switch either, and when asked for clarification he refers to something not in the definition and says he will get back to this later. Further, this definition change makes all the "Reidemeister moves" in fig 40, chap 10, no longer switches either. He stated he needs to think about this further. When asked for details of how the strands move, beyond just that they don't interpenetrate, he admits now that it "is not clearly defined yet".

So hopefully he is starting to understand why it is so important to be precise with the fundementals of your theory. The problem is that as he makes things more precise, he will learn that as a consequence, many of his hand-wavy "derivations" will not work anymore and therefore he resists a lot.

For instance, this question (which he just deletes instead of answering)
1. the move that removes a photon does not cause strands to interpenetrate
2. all moves that do not interpenetrate strands are allowed
3. a photon disappearing is an allowed move

He has stated #1, and #2, but won't agree to #3 saying instead "No, energy and angular momentum are conserved." He claims there is no contradiction.

So he can't even agree on simple If A and B then C prepositional logic. If you can't use logic on this theory, then nothing will dissuade him of his theory. This is not science.
Jan25-10, 01:59 PM
PF Gold
P: 49
Hi Justin,

A agree that you should pursue to be precise. But also quantum mechanics started without the right interpretation of the wavefunction.... The recent article of Eric Verlinde could have a connection to the work of Schiller. I have the feeling (if you allow me so..) that switching is somehow a step out of equilibrium at the horizon, measured in mass. Pure speculation right now, I will play with it.

Feb8-10, 06:10 AM
PF Gold
arivero's Avatar
P: 2,938
Just a note, for randomly interested people. Looking in the arxiv,

also plays the Raidemaster thing, for spin networks. So there is actually a mainstream use of the moves, which can explain why the motionmountain approach is not received (if it contradicts some known theorem on group representation via the moves, then something is, ad absurdum, wrong)
Aug13-10, 11:46 AM
P: 23
Quote Quote by tom.stoer View Post
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"?
Why strands? Why knot? LOL!
Aug13-10, 01:22 PM
P: 23
Quote Quote by SimonA View Post

I have a different view. GR and QM are partial theories, just as newtons gravity was shown to be. I share in the concerns of Einstein, Shroedinger, Bohm and Bell that Bohr was a brilliant physicist but a poor interpreter of nature. Essentially he fooled three generations into accepting that having an ontalogical and epistemological basis to rational enquiry was no longer required.

If we can unify the forces, that will be an amazing achievement. But it will not be an answer to anything important. It will not solve the question of determinism being contrary to consciousness. It will not solve the political issue where power corrupts but democracy leads to short term plans based on how well they can be sold to stupid people.

Physics needs to rise above the false gods of the age. How about we ignore supposedly liberal ideologies such as feminism and islam, which contradict each other, and instead focus on the reality of our existance?

Can anyone here prove that heizenberg's uncertainty is fundamental?
I agree with you that epistemological and ontological concerns are extremely important in understanding nature. While I was reading Chirstoph's Strand Model in Motion Mountain, the idea that the strands had no properties reminded me of the conception of negative transcendence in the Kant-Friesian school of philosophy, where every property of objects is removed from the world so that all that remains is a curious void of pure existence. That the theory of negative transcendence and the idea of strands in the Strand Model should be so similar, and that negative transcendence serves as a basis for the Friesian theory of science, are observations that I think can not be just mere coincidences.

Register to reply

Related Discussions
What is emergent ; what is fundamental ? Beyond the Standard Model 2
Fundamental Problems with LQG's Background Independence General Physics 0
Fundamental Problems with LQG's Background Independence General Physics 0