The "Strand Model" of fundamental interactionsby heinz Tags: fundamental, interactions, strand model 

#55
Aug3009, 02:30 PM

P: 63

Maybe we can get Christoph to join this discussion again. heinz 



#56
Nov1609, 01:47 AM

P: 63

Christoph Schiller has updated his paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 . He changed the title and the abstract:
Deducing the three gauge interactions from the three Reidemeister moves. We give one of the first known arguments for the origin of the three observed gauge groups. The argument is based on modelling nature at Planck scales as a collection of featureless strands that fluctuate in three dimensions. This approach models vacuum as untangled strands, particles as tangles of strands, and Planck units as crossing switches. Modelling vacuum as untangled strands implies the field equations of general relativity, when applying an argument from 1995 to the thermodynamics of strands. Modelling fermions as tangles of two or more strands allows to define wave functions as timeaverages of strand crossings; using an argument from 1980, this allows to deduce the Dirac equation. When modelling fermions as tangled strands, gauge interactions appear naturally as deformation of tangle cores. The three possible types of observable core deformations are given by the three Reidemeister moves. They naturally lead to a U(1), a broken and parityviolating SU(2), and a SU(3) gauge group. The corresponding Lagrangians also appear naturally. The model is unique, is unmodifiable, is consistent with all known data, and makes numerous testable predictions, including the absence of other interactions, of grand unification and of higher dimensions. A method for calculating coupling constants seems to appear naturally.  This appears to be one of the few approaches around that predicts a lack of GUTs, of SUSY, of usual strings, of branes, and of loops. Christoph really does it in a way that goes against the ideas of almost everybody else :) He appears to prefer Louis Kauffman's ideas. He now cites David Deutsch and his talk on http://www.ted.com . Deutsch said in his last talk that truth is defined by "hard to vary" explanations. Christoph claims that his model has this property  that it is hard to vary  and thus that it could be true. Boy, if so, either this is totally wrong or it is totally true ... 



#57
Nov1709, 04:15 AM

P: 240

Sounds very interesting to me. Are there crossing points with Loops ?..
My gut feeling is that Schiller's strand model plank unit switch model is somehow a phase transitional phenomonan with respect to possibly what we call the Big bang Can anybody gi some more insight !.. 



#58
Nov1909, 06:11 AM

P: 1,361

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 ? Where is the fatal flaw, where is the fantasy? Schiller seems to explain a lot from a simple idea, from a quick read I'm not sure what is not explained. If not correct Schiller seems headed in the right direction. Thanks for any thoughts. 



#59
Nov1909, 06:54 AM

P: 1,923

The guy was banned. No use quoting him.




#60
Nov2009, 10:02 AM

P: 1,361

Can Loop Quantum Gravity be united with String Theory be united with Strand Theory? Each has something nice.
Strand Theory, http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 Thanks for any thoughts. 



#61
Nov2009, 11:00 AM

P: 63

I am most captivated by the definition of the wave function as a time average of strand crossings. This definition is so simple! I just read the longer explanation of wave functions in chapter 9 of http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html and found no errors: the full Hilbert structure is reproduced. This alone is stuff to think about for a while. 



#62
Nov2009, 11:24 AM

P: 63





#63
Nov2009, 12:03 PM

Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 22,800

In my notatalloriginal opinion, Christoph deserves a break and should be given some kind of entrée somewhere. He is an intelligent general thinker, and he is in a certain sense "scholarly".
He is gentlemanly, responsible, and sane. And moreover his ideas are quite interesting!* "Uniting" other theories with string is not very interesting to discuss. String has become a boring Baroque mess. Parts of the mathematics can be salvaged and put to other uses, but as allembracing fundamental theory it is no longer much of a bid. In the paper you linked, Christoph makes the very significant point that a unified theory should be impossible to modify. His theory might be wrong, but it is impossible to modify. Heinz pointed this out. Christoph cannot allow extra dimensions, or more than three generations. His theory will not work if any part is changed, say in order to try to "unite" it with some illdefined alternative. In a way the guy is a Romantic. He has gambled all on one throw. Hier steh' ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Heh heh. Beautiful. Very North European in style. Tough act. I want to quote this bit, right at the end: Any uniﬁed description of nature must ﬁrst of all provide a precise description of observations. This can only be tested by experiment. But a uniﬁed description must also have an additional property: it must be unmodiﬁable. A uniﬁed description must leave no alternative.*I see from glancing at that other "crazy enough" thread that Christoph says he is getting a lot of good feedback now. Maybe the establishment is going to open up somewhere and absorb the "strands" idea. I have no way of guessing about this. 



#64
Nov2009, 05:17 PM

P: 640

@ Spinnor
Thanks for bring this info to my/our attention. I find that Christoph Schiller has an overlooked and a new way of explaining things. I did not find it a waste of time to look at what he has to say. http://backreaction.blogspot.com/200...lerabout.html BY BEE ON FRIDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2008 Guestpost: Christoph Schiller about Motion Mountain "Please present the free Motion Mountain Physics Text and yourself!" Sabine wrote me some time ago. I answered that I first wanted to put the new version online. That is now done; it can be downloaded at www.motionmountain.net.  He has three papers at arxiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 Deducing the three gauge interactions from the three Reidemeister moves Christoph Schiller (Submitted on 24 May 2009 (v1), last revised 14 Nov 2009 (this version, v2))  http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0607090 General relativity and cosmology derived from principle of maximum power or force Christoph Schiller (Submitted on 11 Jul 2006)  http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0309118 Maximum force and minimum distance: physics in limit statements Christoph Schiller (Submitted on 29 Sep 2003 (v1), last revised 14 Apr 2004 (this version, v5))  jal 



#65
Nov2009, 09:52 PM

P: 177

How about we play with this a bit ? These strands are seen as determining both the vacuum and particles, lacing 3d space almost as the canvas is to a painting. But what if we say that space is a strand, time is a strand, and there are other strands interwoven to form a connected picture? And each strand interacts with each other in very particular but different ways. I suspect that when we stand back and take our eyes away from the microscope studying the canvas in such detail, we will see that there is paint on the surface and a canvass behind it. We may even see the paintbrush that drives the wave to become a point, and possibly the force that drives the brush that started the painting. The question I have, is will we see the subject of the painting as it is, rather than as it's shown? I suspect reason alone can't make that leap, no matter what the technalogical understanding of the age the researcher sits in. 



#66
Nov2209, 02:32 AM

P: 63

I just saw that wikipedia says in the article on loop quantum gravity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity : "there is no experimental observation for which loop quantum gravity makes a prediction not made by the Standard Model or general relativity"
Is this really true? If yes, then loop quantum gravity is as dead as string theory. Quite different from the strand model. These are the experimental predictions I found on the strand model site at http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html#pred :  Some predictions of the model (with their timing), made before conclusive experiments (at the LHC, on neutrinos, on electric dipole moments, about QCD, and in astrophysics): * No additional elementary particle will be discovered: the Higgs boson does not exist. The unitarity of scattering for longitudinal W and Z bosons is maintained at all energies. (On website and 6th volume, August 2009.) * Nonlocal and nonperturbative effects in longitudinal W and Z boson scattering will be observed. (On website and 6th volume, October 2009.) * Gauge couplings, particle masses, mixing angles and their running can be calculated with help of knot, polymer or cosmic string simulation programs. (Website, March 2009, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.) * All neutrinos have mass and differ from their antiparticles. Neutrinoless doublebeta decay will not be observed. (On website and 6th volume, August 2009.) * Hadron form factors can be calculated ab initio. (On website and 6th volume, October 2009.) * The light scalar mesons are mostly tetraquarks; knotted twoquark states and knotted glueballs are ruled out. (Website, November 2008, and 6th volume.) * The probable nonexistence of glueballs needs a better argument. (Website, October 2008, changed to opposite in April 2009; see manuscript 4 and the 6th volume.) * Dark matter is compatible with the standard model. Dark matter detectors will not detect anything new. (Website, September 2008, and the 6th volume.) * The electric dipole moment of elementary fermions is of the order of the Planck length times the elementary charge. (Website, November 2008, and manuscript 4.) * The quark mixing and the neutrino mixing matrices are unitary. (Website, November 2008, and 6th volume.) * The coupling constants, particle masses and mixing angles are constant in time. (Website, November 2008, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.) * There are only three fermion generations. The proton and the positron charge are equal. (Website, November 2008, and 6th volume.) * The highest chromoelectric (and chromomagnetic) field in nature is given by the highest force divided by the colour charge; similar limits exist for the weak interaction. The limits can be checked in neutron/quark stars or other astrophysical objects. (Website, September 2008, and manuscript 4.) * No gauge groups other than those of the standard model exist in particle physics. No form of GUT, technicolour or supersymmetry is valid. No other interaction exists. Protons do not decay. (Website, August 2008, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.) * No additional elementary gauge bosons, preons, superpartners, magnetic monopoles, axions, sterile neutrinos, additional fermion families or leptoquarks exist. (Website, August 2008, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.) * No additional spatial dimensions, fermionic coordinates, noncommutative spacetime or different vacua exist in nature. No dilaton exists. (Website, August 2008, and manuscript 4.) * No quantum gravity effect will ever be observed  not counting the cosmological constant and the masses of the elementary particles. (Website, September 2009, and volume VI.) * No deviations from QCD and almost none from the standard model appear for any measurable energy scale. In particular, the strand model implies that SU(2) is broken and P, C and CP are violated in the weak interaction, and that SU(3), confinement and asymptotic freedom are properties of the strong interaction. Longitudinal W and Z scattering is slightly changed at LHC energies. (Website, August 2008, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.) * No deviations from quantum theory or quantum electrodynamics appear for any measurable energy scale. The QED energy dependence of the fine structure constant is reproduced. (Manuscript 3, April 2008, and manuscript 4.) * No deviations from thermodynamics appear for any measurable energy scale. (Manuscripts 2 and 3, April 2008.) * The universe's integrated luminosity is c^5/4G. (Manuscript 2, April 2008.) * If the cosmological constant is nonvanishing, it decreases with time. (Manuscript 2, April 2008.) * If the cosmological constant is nonvanishing, minimal electric and magnetic fields, a minimum force and a minimum acceleration exist. (Manuscript 2, March 2008.) * The universe has trivial topology at all measurable energies. (Manuscript 2, April 2008.) * No singularities, wormholes, timelike loops, negative energy regions, cosmic strings, cosmic domain walls, information loss, torsion or MOND exist; inflation did not occur. (Manuscript 2, April 2008.) * No deviations from special or general relativity appear for any measurable energy scale. No doubly or deformed special relativity arises in nature. (Manuscript 2, April 2008.) * There are maximal electric and magnetic fields in nature. (Manuscript 1, March 2008.) * No deviations from electrodynamics appear for any measurable energy scale. (Manuscript 1, March 2008.) * The Planck values are the smallest measurable length and time intervals, the Planck momentum and energy are the highest measurable values for elementary particles. A maximum curvature exists and the generalized indeterminacy principle holds. (As predicted by many.) * The highest force and power values measurable locally in nature are c^4/4G and c^5/4G. (Proved independently by Gary Gibbons, and suggested by several others.) * The smallest entropy in nature is given by k ln 2. (As stated by many.) * The quantum of action, hbar, is the smallest action value measurable in nature. (As stated by Niels Bohr.) * The speed of light, c, is the highest energy speed measurable locally in nature. (As stated by Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Einstein and others.)  This list looks pretty testable to me! 



#67
Nov2209, 02:54 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 5,307

I don't think that "unite the three theories ..." is the right wording. You cannot put three theories together and let a forth simply emerge from it. But the three "theories" you are mentioning are not theories like GR, QM, QFT ..., they are research programs! All of them miss experimental support. Even for QM / QFT and GR "putting them together" was not successful so far. The big difference is that for QM and GR you have a (physically) correct starting point, which is missing for the three approaches you are mentioning.
So these programs can learn from each other; they can try to incorporate certain aspects, they can borrow mathematical methods. But I would not call this a unification. 



#68
Nov2209, 05:35 PM

P: 640

Any approach that tries to explain that which we still do not know and can capture the interest and imagination of an inquisitive mind to study how the universe could be made is worthwhile.
To preview the book without downloading it, click on Motion Mountain on scribd.com. http://www.scribd.com/doc/11652414/M...csedition235 jal 



#69
Nov2309, 03:21 AM

P: 80

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. On the other hand, the strand model seems so tied up with the definition of wave function and of spacetime, and so hard to modify, that its concepts are quite distant from those of the various flavours of loop quantum gravity and of the various formulations of string theory.
The modelling of wave functions with the help of strands is only summarized in the manuscript. It is explained in more detail in the pdf found at http://www.motionmountain.net/research , in chapter 9 "Quantum theory of matter deduced from strands" which starts at page 157. 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. Christoph 



#70
Nov2309, 03:48 AM

P: 80

(1) Strands are unobservable by themselves, they all reach the "border of space" and they all seem to one single strand, as proposed in the chapter on cosmology. So the answer is: there is only one strand, and that strand is the universe. What we can observe are crossing switches.This is related to the fact that all observations use the electromagnetic interaction, and this interaction is described by the first Reidemeister move, which is related to crossing switches in the simplest way. (2) In the present formulation, only particles and space are strands, time is not. (3) Yes, that is a good explanation of the fascination of the strand model. Generally speaking, the strand model is a proposal for discussion, and everybody can check whether it fits observations.In the manuscript http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 the strand model is only used to derive the three gauge interactions. The rest of the strand model  explaining why the Lagrangian of the standard model of particle physics appears, why three generations of particles appear, and which experimenal predictions follow  for the moment is only found at http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html#pred At this point it seems that all the experimentally veryfied Lagrangian terms of the standard model of particle physics are reproduced. That makes the strand model interesting  so that now the detailed checking can  and must  start. Christoph 



#71
Nov2309, 03:36 PM

P: 640

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 



#72
Nov2409, 12:28 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 5,307

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"? 


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 