The Strand Model of fundamental interactions

Click For Summary
The Strand Model proposes a new way to understand fundamental interactions by defining them as transfers of string crossings, aiming to derive the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces from Planck units. This model is seen as speculative, with discussions highlighting the necessity of a background for formulating physical theories, as observers inherently introduce their own backgrounds. Critics argue that the model's reliance on a static background contradicts the evolving nature of observers and their perceptions of reality. The model simplifies particle representation by using strands as simple curves, avoiding nodes, and relates observables to Planck units. Overall, while the model is innovative, it remains outside mainstream physics and is viewed with skepticism regarding its foundational assumptions.
  • #61


Spinnor said:
I guess you were referring to the paper by Schiller,

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.

Spinnor, a good friend once told me that in the past, people blinded by prejudice did not look into telescopes; nowadays they do not look at papers ... It is a waste of time to argue with such people.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62


Spinnor said:
Can Loop Quantum Gravity be united with String Theory be united with Strand Theory? Each has something nice.

Schiller wrote me that strings live in 10 to 26 dimensions, have tension and have supersymmetry, whereas strands live in 3 dimensions and have no tension and no supersymmetry. So there is a contradiction. LQG lives in 3 dimensions, so maybe there are connections to strands.
 
  • #63


In my not-at-all-original 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 all-embracing 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 ill-defined 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.

If a unified description can be modified, it loses its explanatory power. (David Deutsch says that any good explanation must be ‘hard to vary’ [Deutsch 2009].) In particular, the requirement means that a unified description must be impossible to generalize, and that it must be impossible to reduce the unified description to special cases. Exploring the strand model [Schiller 2009] shows that it fulfils these conditions. In particular, the strand model does not work for other spatial dimensions, for other types of fundamental entities, or for other definitions of the Planck units.

Therefore, the strand model is a candidate for a unified description – but only in the case that its predictions are confirmed.​

*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.
 
Last edited:
  • #64


@ 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/2008/12/guestpost-christoph-schiller-about.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
cschiller said:
Since strands allow to deduce the Dirac equation, the field equations of general relativity, and since strands fulfil the known requirements for a unified theory
Christoph Schiller

There are some interesting ideas here for sure. But what are these "strands" ? You say they are "invisible" - by which I assume you mean they are undetectable to macro instruments composed of physical matter ?

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


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.)
* Non-local and non-perturbative 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 double-beta 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 two-quark states and knotted glueballs are ruled out. (Website, November 2008, and 6th volume.)
* The probable non-existence 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, non-commutative 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, time-like 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!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67


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


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/Motion-Mountain-NEW-vol-1-The-Adventure-of-Physics-edition-235

jal
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #69


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 space-time, 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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70


SimonA said:
(1)... But what are these "strands" ? You say they are "invisible" - by which I assume you mean they are undetectable to macro instruments composed of physical matter ?

(2) ... 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.

(3) 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.

These are three points:

(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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #71


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


cschiller said:
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"?
 
Last edited:
  • #73


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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74


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.
 
  • #75


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.
 
  • #76


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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77
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!
 
Last edited:
  • #78


Spinnor said:
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.
 
  • #79


Spinnor said:
Strand Model see:

With all the other strands in our...ds, or py passing around at spatial infinity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #80


apeiron said:
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.
 
  • #81


cschiller said:
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #82
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #83
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #84


heinz said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #85


Spinnor said:
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 .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #86


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.
 
  • #87


cschiller said:
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!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88


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.
 
  • #89


Spinnor said:
...

(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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #90


heinz said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

A Can the Strand Tangle Model Unify General Relativity and the Standard Model?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
I Models where all symmetries would be approximate?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
A Is gravity simply an interaction in the gauge theory of gravity?
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
I Are Conventional Physics Models Enough to Explain Emergent Theories in Physics?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
B The values of the fundamental constants
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
A Fundamental Arguments For The Form Of The Lagrangian, L=T-U
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
I Are Real Numbers Essential in Scientific Measurements and Models?
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
8K
I Can Core Theory Be Derived From Nine Lines?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
A Higgs inflation and quadratic gravity
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
I The standard model from loop quantum gravity via spinors octonions
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K