Strand model published

  • #1
94
1
  • Skeptical
Likes Demystifier

Answers and Replies

  • #3
94
1
Intense skepticism should be the reaction to any proposal that claims to combine the standard model and general relativity. To make the skepticism even more intense, the testable predictions of the strand conjecture are now listed in detail on motionmountain.net/bet.html .

The specific predictions include the impossibility to exceed the Planck limits c^4/4G and c, to observe effects below the Planck length and the Planck time, to exceed the maximum electric field c^4/4Ge, but also the lack of undiscovered energy scales below the Planck scale, of undiscovered particles and particle generations, of undiscovered symmetries or larger gauge symmetries, of undiscovered interactions, of any deviation from the standard model with massive neutrinos, the lack of dark matter particles, of additional dimensions, of detectable new quantum gravity effects, of singularities, of non-trivial topology of space, and of any deviation from general relativity at sub-galactic scales. Many additional predictions are listed.

So far, the predictions and the retrodictions from the Planck scale - including the Planck limits for physical observables, the emergence of space and all physical observables, all black hole properties, the observed unbroken and broken gauge symmetries U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) from the Reidemeister moves, and all particle quantum numbers - appear to agree with all experiments. Various additional experimental and theoretical tests, checks and ways to falsify the strand conjecture are proposed.

The only new aspect of the strand conjecture appears to be the possibility to calculate particle masses, couplings and mixings from the rational tangles of elementary particles.

Finally, the page also lists reasons to continue to be intensely skeptical, including the one from the previous comment, and many others. Additions to the lists on the page are welcome.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
29,789
6,130
To make the skepticism even more intense, the testable predictions of the strand conjecture are now listed in detail on motionmountain.net/bet.html .
Of course, having testable predictions is itself a very good thing. Something testable might be wrong, but at least it has gone beyond the “not even wrong” stage.
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog
  • #5
94
1
Alas, the experimental predictions of strand conjecture given on motionmountain.net/bet.html are not unusual.

The lesser known maximum force c^4/4G, maximum power c^5/4G, maximum electric field c^4/4Ge, maximum magnetic field c^3/4Ge, and similar (corrected) Planck limits are indeed not achieved in any microscopic, macroscopic, astrophysical or cosmological setting. But these limits can hardly be called unusual.

Strands mainly predict the complete lack of new physics. Most speculations of the past 40 years are predicted to be wrong. Therefore, any discovery of new physics would falsify the strand conjecture. The only unusual aspect is that strands imply that nothing unusual can occur. Before the strand conjecture, it was not possible to derive this prediction from first principles.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Dr_Nate
Science Advisor
251
138
Physics of Particles and Nuclei is a pretty low quality journal, with an impact factor of less than 0.8. I would be fairly skeptical of anything that is only published in this journal.
I share some of your skepticism. But the journal does appear to have an interesting pedigree.

From the current abstracts it appears to be what I'd call a bread-and-butter physics journal: usually nothing exciting or controversial. In it's 50 years, the journal seems to have had three heavy-weight Russian nuclear physicists as Editors-in-Chief for most of existence. All three were directors of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Physics, a large and prestigous Russian organization. Condensed-matter physicists might recognize it's founding editor N.N. Bogolyubov of Bogolyubov particles fame. I suspect that the journal might be a much like a house journal for the JINP.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #7
ftr
623
47
possibility to calculate particle masses, couplings and mixings from the rational tangles of elementary particles.
How?

What are the strand made of?
 
  • #8
MathematicalPhysicist
Gold Member
4,295
203
How?

What are the strand made of?
What are strings made of?
What points are made of?

We assume in every mathematical theory some building blocks which are aren't defined, like in set theory, category theory etc.

What is a set made of? of other sets... :cool:
 
  • #9
ftr
623
47
What are strings made of?
What points are made of?

We assume in every mathematical theory some building blocks which are aren't defined, like in set theory, category theory etc.

What is a set made of? of other sets... :cool:
Here we are not talking pure math. We are taking about physics and anything in the system that has reality we like to measure it. My question was in what way the strands represent anything real or it is just another by the way of wavefunction as an abstract object. In physics we have different types of concepts, like energy and mass we can measure and the those notorious "virtual particle ", and then the "wavefunction". So my question was in what sense are the strands.
 
  • #10
16
4
Way back when, there was a lengthy discussion with Schiller on this site. At the time, he claimed that if the higgs boson was found, it would disprove his theory. Guess what, it was found, and his theory (which he claimed could not be modified) ... was ... you guessed it ... modified to no longer make that claim.

To save everyone time, here are some other issues last time he promoted this.
- For a theory starting with strands, one might think each different knot would be a different particle. It is not. This is never clearly explained. It's one of those "it can only be interpreted by the author" crackpot theories.
- As a specific example, the photon is an unknot.
- There was no math behind the theory explaining how the strands moved. He just claimed all motions that didn't cause strands to cross each other were allowed. This causes several problems.
* First, we do not even have a theory we can really calculate from.
* Second, why doesn't this predict all particles move like brownian motion? How is momentum conserved?
* Third, he claims to derive space-time from the arrangement of the strands, therefore space-time is discrete and his theory needs to do something to suppress Lorentz violating terms.
* Fourth, given that the photon is the unknot, photons can just decay into nothing.
- How can two unknots interact to form two knots? (two photons -> pair of particles) As far as he could explain back then, the knots came in from infinity really fast to make it happen or something.

In short, back then, this was firmly in the "not even wrong" state. Considering how little he was able to even admit to himself these short comings, or have a mathematical discussion about any of them, I have trouble believing he will ever be able to make this into a real theory. If someone wants to waste their time reading the 40 pages he wrote to this journal, let me know if it got better. But I've previously read his similarly published "proof" that he can derive general relativity, and it is just straight hand waving.

Furthermore, reading his self published books, it is clear that while he is very passionate about the subjects, he does not really understand quantum mechanics and general relativity. I am not as well versed in thermodynamics, but I've heard from others that this chapter has issues as well.

In short, please do not encourage this individual. Last time showed it will just suck a bunch of people's time.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy
  • #11
94
1
A short summary and clarification of the ideas of the paper.

Definition:
0. Strands have Planck radius (negligible at usual energy scales) and fluctuate in 3d (background/tangent space); only crossing switches are observable, not the strands themselves, and they define h-bar, c, G and k.

Consequences:
1. The tangle model describes matter particles as rational (i.e. unknotted) tangles - not as knots - that fluctuate. (Knots indeed do not describe particle interactions.)
2. Fermions (i.e., rational tangles) move via the belt trick, which makes the phase rotate and the tangle core advance. Particles are observed to be "clouds".
3. Using the results of Battey-Pratt and Racey from 1980, this implies the free Dirac equation, thus the Dirac Lagrangian and the propagator. (Dirac's equation conserves momentum. And indeed, a localized wave function of a particle spreads out over time.)
4. If one classifies all tangle topologies, one gets tangles for all known elementary particles - not more, not less. (All quantum numbers arise. The lack of specific dark matter particles is thus predicted.)
5. The Higgs particle (a braid) leads to Yukawa terms for tangles of two or of three strands only (of quarks or of leptons, W, Z, Higgs).
6. Deformations of tangles yield, via the three Reidemeister moves, the three known gauge groups and the expected coupling structure - not more, not less. (So the lack of other gauge groups or GUTs is predicted.)
7. Rational tangles can split and recombine. If one explores all possibilities for such splittings, one gets the vertices of the standard model - not more, not less.
8. Thus, the exact Lagrangian of the standard model arises (with massive Dirac neutrinos) - without additions or modifications, at all measurable energies. (So the lack of unknown energy scales and of additional dimensions is predicted. The interaction vertices conserve momentum, automatically.)
9. Photons are twisted strands; they have spin 1; being untangled, they have no mass and move with the maximum speed c. (They cannot decay for the same reasons that they do not decay in the standard model.)
10. Fundamental constants are due to tangle geometry and can be calculated. Predictions are made for particle physics (e.g. normal neutrino mass ordering, mass hierarchy explanation) and tests are formulated (nothing beyond the standard model will be seen).
11. Due to strand fluctuations, empty space (a network of strands) is continuous and Lorentz invariant, despite having a smallest observable length (the diameter of the strands).
12. The microscopic model for space and particles also describes horizons (weaves of strands) and black holes, including their energy and entropy.
13. General relativity and its field equations (at sub-galactic scales) emerge from the microscopic structure of space and black hole horizons using the usual arguments.
14. Predictions and tests are formulated about gravity (inertial mass equal to gravitational mass and no deviations from general relativity at sub-galactic distances, no unknown quantum gravity effects).
 
  • #12
ftr
623
47
Can you please answer our specific questions. Thanks.
 
  • #13
29,789
6,130
At the time, he claimed that if the higgs boson was found, it would disprove his theory. Guess what, it was found, and his theory (which he claimed could not be modified) ... was ... you guessed it ... modified to no longer make that claim.
See:
The strand model also has a clear experimental signature, namely a "desert" up o Planck energy, including a lack of Higgs bosons. Let's see what the LHC and the other experiments will bring us.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #14
94
1
How [to calculate]? What are the strand made of?

--

In the tangle model, only the known particles arise. In the tangle model (like in quantum theory), mass is the quantity that connects phase rotation and translation. In the tangle model, the belt trick is responsible for this connection. Estimating the probability for the belt trick for each tangle allows to estimate the mass value. See the preprint on QED for an estimate. As a consequence, masses are predicted to be constant over time and space, positive, equal for particles and antiparticles, equal to the gravitational mass, running with energy, and much smaller than the Planck mass.

In the tangle model, only three coupling constants arise. In the tangle model, coupling constants describe the average phase jump due the emission or absorption of a gauge boson. In the tangle model, the average phase jump is given by exchange of Reidemeister moves (gauge bosons), itself due to the geometry of tangles. Depending on the geometric details of a gauge boson, the phase of a fermion is changed more or less. See the preprint on QED for an estimate. As a consequence, the values for the coupling constants are unique, constant over time and space, running with energy, equal for all particles with the same charge, and smaller than one.

In the tangle model, mixing angles are due to the probability with which one tangle changes, through strand fluctuations, into another tangle of a related fermion. This is natural for rational tangles. In the tangle model, for topological reasons, this arises only among leptons or among quarks. In the tangle model, the probability depends on the tangle geometry. See the website (long pdf) for estimates. As a consequence, mixing matrices are unitary and the values for the mixing angles are, in general, larger for neighbouring generations than for distant generations.

Generally speaking, quantum numbers are topological properties of tangles, whereas the fundamental constants are due to average geometric properties of tangles.

The "old strand model" based (partially) on open knots, not on rational tangles, led to wrong predictions. It has been falsified, as mentioned several times. The "new tangle model", based on rational tangles (only), does not appear to have this problem. Also the Higgs and the Yukawa terms are reproduced: all Feynman vertices arise. The new tangle model predicts the lack of measurable deviations from the standard model.

Strands are not observable and cannot be cut, so one cannot say that they are "made of" something. In the strand conjecture, nature is made of one single strand. If you follow (in thought) one strand segment, you would arrive to the cosmological horizon, then go along the horizon, then come back to the interior of the universe somewhere else, continue to the horizon again, etc. In a sense, a strand segment is thus a part of everything. But strands/the strand have no parts.

--

Today is the first of April.
Imagine strands as fluctuating, scaled-down, uncuttable, massless, endless, knot-free, cooked spaghetti.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
MathematicalPhysicist
Gold Member
4,295
203
Today is the first of April.
Imagine strands as fluctuating, scaled-down, uncuttable, massless, endless, knot-free, cooked spaghetti.
I imagine them as Loacker's vanilla and milk cookies!
 
  • #16
16
4
cshiller,
If all particles are unknots, can you show us an example configuration of strands that represents a chunk of 3D vacuum?
Is it something like this? (made with mathematica, 3x3 lines parallel to each axis, not intersecting)
tubes.png


Can you place your new paper on arxiv?
Now that particles are not knots, are strands allowed to move through each other?

Do they move deterministically (but we can just never know their detailed positions because they themselves are unobservable), or do they move stochastically?
Either way, what are the equations describing how the strands move, or if stochastic, what probability for each motion?
 
  • #18
94
1
In the strand conjecture, particles are not unknots. Particles are rational tangles, i.e. tangles that can be undone by moving the tethers around in space, as illustrated e.g. in https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Rational_tangles. The motion of tethers also leads to interactions and to mixing. Strands cannot move through each other.

The vacuum picture is roughly right, but the (unobservable) "distance between strands" is much larger by many (over 30) orders of magnitude and they are continuously fluctuating in shape. Strands' (unobservable) "motion" is stochastic.

Because you asked, the most recent details are here: http://www.motionmountain.net/Strands-QED.pdf and http://www.motionmountain.net/Strands-Gravitation.pdf

The virus is starting to make trouble. See you afterwards.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
16
4
The vacuum picture is roughly right
Can you walk us through your thought process for deciding there are no particles in that configuration?

More specifically, can you please define how one can _systematically_ take a strand configuration and extract what particles are represented. For example if someone made a computer simulation, we cannot just constantly turn to you and say "what is the total electric charge in this configuration?", "what is the total angular momentum in this configuration?", etc.

The assignment of particles and properties may make sense to you, but until it is clear and systematic so everyone can do it, it is not really well defined enough.

cschiller said:
Strands' (unobservable) "motion" is stochastic.
Thank you. But that was only part of the question.
What are the equations describing how the strands move?

Based on what you have described so far, the following motion is allowed.
strand_photon.png

Is that correct?

cschiller said:
particles are not unknots. Particles are rational tangles
I struggle for the correct word here, because it appears that what you point to as different particles are sometimes equivalent rational tangles. For example, the electron and W-boson assignment.

w_e.png


Or any of the W-bosons above the electro-weak symmetry breaking transition.

w123.png


So calling them rational tangles is not sufficient. Because you are distinguishing things that are topologically equivalent. This needs to be better explained.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
94
1
Tonight I can only give a few answers.

Flat vacuum, as depicted, contains no matter, because there are no localized rational tangles, i.e., no regions where strands are tangled, i.e., there are no regions where strands are "forced to stay near each other if the tails are imagined to be ropes and pulled straight toward the outside". I think that this might make the point clearer.

Electric charge: 1/3 for each topologically chiral crossing (in minimal crossing projection) in a matter/fermion tangle. Charge can be determined by computer.

Total angular momentum = orbital angular momentum + spin, as usual. Orbital angular momentum comes from the linear or circular motion of the tangle core. Spin magnitude is 1/2 for matter tangles, because they obey the belt trick: tethers are tangled up after rotation of the core by 2 pi; fermion tangles are not the same after a rotation of the core by 2 pi. Spin direction depends on rotation axis and rotation sense of tangle core.

Elementary fermions are rational tangles. Gauge bosons (unbroken) indeed are not rational tangles; unbroken gauge bosons are all trivial tangles. (I guess that is what you named "unknots".)

Flat vacuum, as depicted, also contains no radiation, because there are no radiation tangles, i.e., no regions that contain gauge bosons - thus no regions with untangled strands (trivial tangles) that are curved on average, over time.

The red motion is only allowed if the spin (the rotating crossing) of the red strand is transferred to some blue strand. If strands that are not straight on average (like the red strand on the left), they carry linear momentum and angular momentum, and thus energy. (The old image of a photon as a localised corkscrew on a strand that advances and rotates is rather good. But it can also jump to another strand.) Indeed, all this is hard to imagine and badly explained.

Spin magnitude is 1 for gauge bosons, because the tangle stays the same after a rotation by 2 pi of the curved region of the strand (in contrast to fermions). This is valid for photons, gluons, and the W_i bosons before SU(2) breaking. After symmetry breaking, the W differs from the electron: it is "flat at spatial infinity (i.e., 2d, all strands in the paper plane)", the electron is not. I will write more about the W and Z in the coming days - if the coronavirus allows.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
16
4
Electric charge: 1/3 for each topologically chiral crossing (in minimal crossing projection) in a matter/fermion tangle. Charge can be determined by computer.
Then please define it clearly enough that we could program it in a computer then.
It currently seems to have no rhyme or reason to it, and you include no equations to make your ideas precise.

Here are three "rational tangles"

3strands.png

They look very similar, yet you assign them different charges, different spins, and wildly different masses.
Please write down explicitly some equations or computer code so that it would be possible for anyone to unambiguously determine these values themselves.

cschiller said:
Spin magnitude is 1/2 for matter tangles, because they obey the belt trick: tethers are tangled up after rotation of the core by 2 pi; fermion tangles are not the same after a rotation of the core by 2 pi.
...
Spin magnitude is 1 for gauge bosons, because the tangle stays the same after a rotation by 2 pi of the curved region of the strand (in contrast to fermions).
By your definition there, all three above should be fermions. But you assigned them otherwise.

Let's look at a concrete example.
Here is another diagram made with mathematica. In some sense it is the "mirror" of one of those tangles above, because the sequence of over/under crossings are the opposite. Does this make it the anti-particle of one the above "tangles"? Which one? What spin, and charge would you assign this?
maybe_matter.png

cschiller said:
The red motion is only allowed if the spin (the rotating crossing) of the red strand is transferred to some blue strand.
What is forbidding this?
Can you at least agree that since this motion occurs without strands moving through each other, that you cannot derive all your consequences without positing some rules for how the strands move?

cschiller said:
Indeed, all this is hard to imagine and badly explained.
Then please just give us the equations describing how the strands move, so that we could try deriving consequences ourselves.
 
  • #22
29,789
6,130
Because you asked, the most recent details are here: http://www.motionmountain.net/Strands-QED.pdf and http://www.motionmountain.net/Strands-Gravitation.pdf

The virus is starting to make trouble. See you afterwards.
Please be aware that although your blog may contain your most recent work it is not on topic here. The discussion on PF must focus exclusively on your peer reviewed publications. If you cannot answer a question from that material then you should not attempt to answer it here.

This thread was temporarily closed and is at risk of permanent closure if it cannot stay within the rules.
 
  • #23
94
1
OK. The following is just about the questions from the published paper.

3 tangles: The three tangles shown are indeed different.

The left one (electron neutrino) is almost massless: it is localized, but a straight strand can be "pulled away". The tangle is chiral, but not topologically chiral. So it has zero charge. It has spin 1/2, because its core (curved region, when pulled together) rotates following the belt trick. If the strands are straight in your Mathematica drawing, it is an electron neutrino or antineutrino, depending on chirality.

The middle one (electron) has mass: it is localized, but a straight strand cannot be "pulled away" (just play with three ropes). The object is topologically chiral. So it has 3 times 1/3 elementary charge. It has spin 1/2, because its core (curved region) rotates following the belt trick.

The right one (W) (note that all strands are in a plane) has mass: it is localized, but a straight strand cannot be "pulled away" (just play with three ropes). The object is topologically chiral. So it has 3 times 1/3 elementary charge. It has spin 1, because you can put rotate its core (curved region, just one strand needs to be rotated) by pi and return to the original tangle. This is not possible with the previous 2 tangles.

Short definitions:
Electric charge: count topologically chiral crossings and divide by 3.
Spin: rotate smallest possible curved region until the original is recovered; if 2 pi is sufficient, then spin 1, if 4 pi is needed, then spin 1/2.
Mass: zero only if no localization.

Red motion:
You wrote: "Can you at least agree that since this motion occurs without strands moving through each other, that you cannot derive all your consequences without positing some rules for how the strands move?"

There are rules on how (crossings &) crossing switches move: the red photon on the left continues rotating all the time. About strands the statement is difficult, since they are not observable; one gets into troubled water. But given that all strands fluctuate, and the fluctuations are all related, there might be some general rules (e.g.: no "going through"). Equations for strands themselves would be "hidden variables". True, one could argue that they are contextual, so they are allowed in principle, but still, one gets into troubled water: their motion depends on all other strands. I cannot even imagine how to describe strand motion with an equation. This is in stark contrast to the motion of crossings or crossing switches: they behave exactly as the Dirac equation describes and are easy to imagine (mainly because their motion arises after averaging over the fluctuations).

Motion of curved strands cores that produce crossings through the flat vacuum is easiest to picture. Attach a phase arrow to it; then the core advances in a straight line and the end of the phase arrow produces a helical motion. This is like described, e.g., by arXiv:1910.11085 by Hestenes for fermions (see also his earlier papers). But all this is what the Dirac equation also says, already since almost a hundred years. So it is not new. And there is a similar imagery of a rotating advancing arrow also for photons.

Vacuum
One more remark about your previous question about the vacuum. Fluctuations can indeed tangle up and untangle the vacuum strands that you drew with Mathematica. The temporary tangle-antitangle pairs that arise through such fluctuations correspond to virtual particle-antiparticle pairs.

*
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #24
1,582
860
As soon as I saw "woven" as the 1st word of the 3rd sentence in the abstract I became highly skeptical.
 
  • #25
94
1
If you could express the skepticism a little more, it could lead to an interesting discussion. There are many reasons to be skeptical about strands.

In the abstract of https://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1063779619030055 , the statement is about woven strands forming black hole horizons. This is an old idea found scattered in the literature. In fact, many people have stated already decades ago that the surface dependence of black hole entropy is explained by extended constituents. That these entities are "woven" just derives from the idea that (crossings and) crossing switches are the physical observables.
 

Related Threads on Strand model published

Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
39
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
148
Views
18K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
20
Views
7K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Top