Can Core Theory Be Derived From Nine Lines?

[ohwilleke]

TL;DR Summary

Is there a maximum force? Is there a minimum magnitude an action? Is there a minimum entropy? A paper claims that there is and that the SM and GR can flow from this. But is it true or plausible?

A compact summary of present fundamental physics is given and evaluated. Its 9 lines contain both general relativity and the standard model of particle physics. Their precise agreement with experiments, in combination with their extreme simplicity and their internal consistency, suggest that there are no experimental effects beyond the two theories. The combined properties of the 9 lines also imply concrete suggestions on how to search for quantum gravity. Finally, the 9 lines specify the only decisive tests that allow checking any proposal for quantum gravity.

Christoph Schiller, "From maximum force to physics in 9 lines -- and implications for quantum gravity" arXiv:2208.01038 (July 31, 2022).

This paper asserts that nine propositions can be used to derive the Standard Model and GR and can point the way to quantum gravity, although he cheats a bit with some lines legitimately consisting of multiple points.

Some of these points (1), (2), (6), (7), (8) and (9) are uncontroversial. But, points (3), (4) and (5) are comparatively novel. I would be interested in what people think of the validity of those three points, especially (3) and (5).

The discussion of point (3) starts as follows:

In 1973, Elizabeth Rauscher discovered that general relativity implies a limit to force: she assumed that is was given by the quantal force F = c⁴/G. She was followed by many other researchers. In 2002, Gary Gibbons and, independently, Schiller deduced the factor 1/4 and showed that force at a point is never larger that the maximum value c⁴/4G ≈ 3.0 · 10⁴³ N. The maximum value is realized on black hole horizon. At that time, it also became clear that the field equations of general relativity can be deduced from the invariant maximum force c⁴/4G.

The maximum force value c⁴/4G is due to the maximum energy per distance ratio appearing in general relativity. Indeed, for a Schwarzschild black hole, the ratio between its energy Mc² and its diameter D = 4GM/c² is given by the maximum force value, independently of the size and mass of the black hole. Also the force on a test mass that is lowered with a rope towards a gravitational horizon – whether charged, rotating or both – never exceeds the force limit, when the minimum size of the test mass is taken into account. All apparent counterexamples to maximum force disappear when explored in detail.

 

[PeterDonis]

The discussion of point (3)

...looks like numerology to me. The paper by Rauscher that is referenced is paywalled, but looking at its title and the journal it was published in, I strongly suspect it is proposing a speculative hypothesis for something like quantum gravity, not deducing uncontroversial consequences of standard classical GR.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Google "Christoph Schiller + crackpot" you'll find tons of stuff

I remember his "strand model" (the strandard model of particle physics hehe).

This guy is dangerous, his "Adventures of physics" books starts with basic physics with nice pictures and stories. Then in volume 5 or 6 or whatever he goes full crackpot.

When you need this statement on your homepage, you know for sure its crackpot
Pledge: No knowingly false or misleading statement is found in the text and website. Truthfulness makes the world a better place.
The paypal donate button does not hurt either

Anyway, if this matter is allowed to be discussed here, there is an article by Valerio Faraoni:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.07929
There was also some "beef" between Schiller and Faraoni published in Phys Rev D

Funny side-note: both Schiller and Faraoni have some shared passion for mountains!

 

[fresh_42]

It is always suspicious when a physicist is listed on Wikipedia [*1960 German physicist and manager (sic!)] but has no page. No final criterion but strange. For e.g. a PF member who also has no own page shows up multiple times on a Wikipedia search as a reference on serious pages. Quite a difference!

We should put Christoph Schiller on our no discussion list. He shows up on PF every now and then and it is always the same discussion.

 

[ohwilleke]

Thanks for the catch. It would have taken a lot of work to figure this out independently.

 

[malawi_glenn]

It helps having a premade "crackpot" list on your computer :)
As mentioned, I knew about this dude from his "strand model".
No idea how that paper got published in a springer affilated journal, but I do remind them from time to time regarding Evans papers (which was rejected in retrospect by the great 't Hooft) Perhaps its time for another e-mail?

Otherwise, check for affilation. If you do not instantly recognize it, google it. And sole author papers are also kinda suscpious.

@fresh_42 you think thread can be closed?

 

[fresh_42]

@fresh_42 you think thread can be closed?

Yes. The question of whether we should have a black list of authors in our 'Terms and Rules' should be somewhere else.