The Strand Model of fundamental interactions

[Spinnor]

(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.

A neutron star in your model has at least four strands for each neutron of the neutron star and these strands all head off to infinity? If the neutron star rotates how do we avoid all the strands from getting twisted together as I thought they could not pass through each other? Rotation of large objects seems to twist up stands if the belt trick is not used. On plank scales I can see the belt trick as a natural event undoing the twist of rotation but not with a star? Maybe I'm missing something here.


To your second point. The chiral knotted tangle of figure 8, page 12 of
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 is meant to represent a fermion. So if we have a fermion and its antiparticle in tangle representation we have two chiral knotted tangles that must somehow annihilate or disappear? I do not see how you make them disappear unless they just head off to infinity?


Thanks for your help!

 

[heinz]

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.

Christoph, this is too short! People have searched for this unification for almost a century, and you behave as if it is a side problem, or a student exercise! How exactly do all evolution equations appear? How can you claim unification with so few equations in your paper and in your book?

 

[SimonA]

Christoph, this is too short! People have searched for this unification for almost a century, and you behave as if it is a side problem, or a student exercise! How exactly do all evolution equations appear? How can you claim unification with so few equations in your paper and in your book?

Of course Christoph's theory does not "explain everything". This idea of a TOE is nonsense from the start. Unifying gravity and the quantum formalism is perhaps the biggest challenge in physics at present, but the belief in that as some kind of final destination is an extreme form of fiction for the deluded.

Christoph's theory has holes. Challenge him on details, but it's contrary to the empirical principles of science for you to ask him to re-evaluate the whole of physics - on a message board - in light of his theory. Surely?

 

[KaneJeeves]

SimonA - I like your contrarian view on "unification". I'm a layman when it comes to physics and the mathematics behind it, so the most I read is the more popular expositions. And almost 100% of the time unification of GR and QM is stated as the Big Goal. But I've always been suspicious of that. It almost seems like a form of religious belief, where The Big TOE functions as a god of sorts. Why can't it be that GR and QM are just two different "tools" that were used in the creation, or operation, of the Universe. GR is best suited for certain things, QM others, and never the twain shall meet.

 

[physics8553]

Christoph, this is too short! People have searched for this unification for almost a century, and you behave as if it is a side problem, or a student exercise! How exactly do all evolution equations appear? How can you claim unification with so few equations in your paper and in your book?

The strand model makes this possible for the following reason.

- Special relativity is based on and follows from the invaraince of the speed of light c, and on it being a limit property.
- Quantum theory is based on and follows from the invariance of the quantum of action hbar, and on it being a limit for measureable action values.
- General relativity is based on and follows from a limit value for momentum change, c^4/4G, and on this being a limit value.

All these properties are built into the definition of the crossing switch of strands. That is the main reason that fundamental equations are not needed; in fact, they do not exist. All important evolution equations of physics directly follow from the invariant Planck limits. In this sense, the crossing switch and its relation to the Planck units realize the unification of general relativity and quantum theory.

The other, harder part, is to explain the appearance of interactions and of the standard model of particle physics. That is what is done in the arxiv paper and in the 6th volume of my physics text.

 

[physics8553]

(1) Of course Christoph's theory does not "explain everything".

...

(2) This idea of a TOE is nonsense from the start.

...

(3) Christoph's theory has holes.

...

(4) Challenge him on details, but it's contrary to the empirical principles of science for you to ask him to re-evaluate the whole of physics - on a message board - in light of his theory. Surely?

To 1: The strand model only explains the Lagrangians of general relativity and of the standard model of particle physics, as well as a specific type of cosmology. It is to everybody's taste whether this counts as "everything" or not. I prefer to say that this is not everything; for example, a TOE does not help in issues with toddlers or to prevent divorces.

To 2: Please explain what you mean!

To 3: Let us know.

To 4: The strand model seems to imply the whole of fundamental physics (note the term "fundamental"). Can you explain what you mean with your remark?

 

[physics8553]

... It almost seems like a form of religious belief, where The Big TOE functions as a god of sorts. ...

This attitude is frequent; but in fact the TOE is just the name for a riddle. Solving riddles is not a religious activity.

 

[physics8553]

(1)A neutron star in your model has at least four strands for each neutron of the neutron star and these strands all head off to infinity? If the neutron star rotates how do we avoid all the strands from getting twisted together as I thought they could not pass through each other? Rotation of large objects seems to twist up stands if the belt trick is not used. On plank scales I can see the belt trick as a natural event undoing the twist of rotation but not with a star? Maybe I'm missing something here.


(2)To your second point. The chiral knotted tangle of figure 8, page 12 of
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 is meant to represent a fermion. So if we have a fermion and its antiparticle in tangle representation we have two chiral knotted tangles that must somehow annihilate or disappear? I do not see how you make them disappear unless they just head off to infinity?

(1) The belt trick also works in the star case, as incredible as it sounds. Everythuing untangles after 2 full rotations.

(2) You are right: the figure is misleading. The basic state of the elementary fermions is unknotted (see the 6th volume). For them, annihilation is possible *without* "heading off to infinity".

Something similar to what you call "heading off for infinity" is the process needed to generate mass, and due to the weak interaction. In other words, an elementary fermion is unknotted for over 99.99% of the time, and knotted only rarely. Therefore, annihilation is possible. If it were knotted all of the time, you would be right that no annihilation would be possible.

 

[heinz]

- A - The strand model makes this possible for the following reason.

- Special relativity is based on and follows from the invariance of the speed of light c, and on it being a limit property.
- Quantum theory is based on and follows from the invariance of the quantum of action hbar, and on it being a limit for measurable action values.
- General relativity is based on and follows from a limit value for momentum change, c^4/4G, and on this being a limit value.

All these properties are built into the definition of the crossing switch of strands. That is the main reason that fundamental equations are not needed; in fact, they do not exist. All important evolution equations of physics directly follow from the invariant Planck limits. In this sense, the crossing switch and its relation to the Planck units realize the unification of general relativity and quantum theory.

- B - The other, harder part, is to explain the appearance of interactions and of the standard model of particle physics. That is what is done in the arxiv paper and in the 6th volume of my physics text.

Christoph, I added - A - and - B - into your answer. I find the two paragraphs - A - completely astonishing. I never heard or read elsewhere that relativity and quantum theory could be summarized in this way. So, if you are correct, then I can somehow imagine that your strand model might reproduce these theories without equations. But if you are not correct, this is not the case.

But let me assume that you are right. This means that your way of thinking physics is completely different from what is usual. Obviously, special relativity is based on a maximum speed, but I never heard that quantum theory is based on a smallest action hbar. I also have never heard (apart from you) that general relativity is based on a largest force c^4/4G.

This way of thinking is very different than usual - even though you write in your book that it is equivalent to the usual descriptions. I honestly think that this approach puts many people off and makes them think that your approach is not serious. Can this impression be changed? I do not know. I would guess that most physicists are not ready to follow even your step -A-.

This is a big problem, in my eye! Because your strand model can be structured in a number of steps:

1 ( = A): Relativity and quantum theory are based on the invariant quantities c, hbar, ad c^4/4G.

2: This means that a combinatorial and discrete model of nature is possible, if the model ensures that these quantities are also limits.

3: Strands provide such a discrete model.

4 ( = B): Strands allow to deduce the four interactions.

But most readers, even professionals, will have problems with step 1 already. You loose your readers already there. This means that most readers will not arrive at step 4 at all. The will not understand your reasoning there, because they dropped out already before that.

Christoph, think of a better way to take the reader by the hand and lead him through steps 1 to 3 please! After all they already form a great discovery, if they are correct.

 

[heinz]

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.

In other words, you say that dark matter does not exist. I have never met an astrophysicist who would agree. They all say that dark matter exists, and the all say that it is non-baryonic. A serious fraction of them would even put their hand into fire for this result.

This is another point in which the strand model puts off readers. Are you really sure about this prediction?

 

[Spinnor]

(1) The belt trick also works in the star case, as incredible as it sounds. Everythuing untangles after 2 full rotations.
...

I believe such a process works mathematically, it just does not seem pretty enough. You are very clever and I think are on the right track towards a Theory of Everything, a simple idea that yields all physics. Nature I think is still a bit more clever.

Thanks for your help!

 

[LBJ]

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
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.

I don't understand your definition of background independence. Background independence means that space is in constant flux. That is, the geometry of space is not fixed, but directly related to the matter present. The gravitational field is not existing in space. It is the space.

As for Dark Matter see Milgrom's Law. Additionally it is non baryonic and so does not interact electromagnetically. That's why it's dark. How do you distinguish particle from spatial strands? Is it possible your model is actually predicting spatial strands?

LBJ

 

[DataBase]

How come there are no equations in that paper? Where are the lie groups? The Teichmuller spaces or what ever? I don't see how Einstein's equations can be derived without even doing any calculations to begin with.

 

[physics8553]

I believe such a process works mathematically, it just does not seem pretty enough. You are very clever and I think are on the right track towards a Theory of Everything, a simple idea that yields all physics. Nature I think is still a bit more clever.

Thanks for your help!

Ah, but prettyness and beauty is in the eye of the beholder! The pretty thing about strands is that there are very few assumptions. After all, there is only one idea: that a crossing change yields the Planck units. Or said differently, for me, beauty in physics is a different expression for "simplicity". If you know something simpler, let me and everybody else know ! But I am sceptical that something simpler is possible.

 

[physics8553]

(1) I don't understand your definition of background independence. Background independence means that space is in constant flux. That is, the geometry of space is not fixed, but directly related to the matter present. The gravitational field is not existing in space. It is the space.

(2) As for Dark Matter see Milgrom's Law. Additionally it is non baryonic and so does not interact electromagnetically. That's why it's dark.

(3) How do you distinguish particle from spatial strands? Is it possible your model is actually predicting spatial strands?

About 1: Background independence is the ability to describe observations without using space and time at all. The strand model is *not* background independent by design. As I wrote in another post, I also believe that background independence for a unified theory is (1) impossible and (2) useless. The rest of what you say is (more or less) correct, of course.

About 2: The strand model explicitely *rules out* Milgrom's MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics) and its variations, such as the one by Bekenstein, for example. That dark matter is non-baryonic is an educated guess. There is no experimental proof for this statement, nor for the opposite. The strand model predicts that dark matter is either usual matter or black holes. Let's see what experiments in the coming years will discover.

About 3: All strands are the same. If strands are tangled, they are particles. Far away from partciles, the tails of particles and the strands of empty space are the same. That is one of the charms of the model. Does this answer your last questioon?

 

[physics8553]

(1) How come there are no equations in that paper?

(2) Where are the lie groups? The Teichmuller spaces or what ever?

(3) I don't see how Einstein's equations can be derived without even doing any calculations to begin with.

About 1 and 3: There is an intermediate step that is described in my 6th volume. Einstein's field equations follow from the fact that c^4/4G is an invariant quantity that is also a limit quantity. This happens in the same way that special relativity follows from the fact that c is an invariant quantity that is also a limit quantity. For this reason, to derive general relativity, it is sufficient to find a model that reproduces the invariant limit c^4/4G. The strand model does so by design; this limit is part of the basic posulate that a crossing switch defined the Planck units. As a result, Einstein's field equations follow from the strand model. The way this is done uses the old 1995 argument about the thermodynamics of space-time. The 6th volume gives all the details (it is about 1 page in total).

The same is valid for hbar. If a model reproduces the observer-invariance of hbar, and also spin 1/2 behaviour, then it contains Dirac's equation. This has been shown in 1980 already. I explain it in the 6th volume in more modern language. In particular, the least action principle also follows, and thus the existence of Lagrangains.

Any unified model for general relativity and quantum theory thus only has to reproduce the observer-invariance of hbar and of c^4/4G. Any model that does so contains the two theories. The riddle then is to find the simplest such model. Since we need extension to get black hole entropy, the strand model comes up as the simplest such model. A crossing change is a crossing change for any observer (with some subtleties); thus the basic postulate already includes general relativity and relativistic quantum theory.



About 2: In the strand model, the Lie algebra and Lie group structure follow from the definition of wave function and wave function phase, and from the three ways that tangle cores can be deformed.

In more detail, the wave function is the short-term average crossing density (produced by the short-time fluctuations of a tangle). The phase is seen very naively, as the short-time averaged orientation of tangle crossings.

Given this definition of the phase, the three possible ways to deform tangle cores (which in turn define wave functions) yield three possible ways to change phases. These three possible ways are the three interactions. Each deformation can be generalized to a Lie albegra and then to a Lie group, and it turns out that the three Lie groups U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) follow from the three Reidememister moves.

Given that strands contain the DIrac Lagrangian, the appearance of these Lie groups yields the QED, QCD and then (with more details) the broken electroweak SU(2) Lagrangian. In short, the Lie groups are seen as reults of deformations of tangle cores, and all this is happening in a 3d background. There are no other complex abstract spaces involved. This is a simple summary of the ideas leading to the strand model, and of the way the Lie groups appear.

 

[physics8553]

In other words, you say that dark matter does not exist. I have never met an astrophysicist who would agree. They all say that dark matter exists, and the all say that it is non-baryonic. A serious fraction of them would even put their hand into fire for this result.

This is another point in which the strand model puts off readers. Are you really sure about this prediction?

Yes. The strand model predicts a particle desert. There seems to be no alternative.

 

[physics8553]

Christoph, I added - A - and - B - into your answer. I find the two paragraphs - A - completely astonishing. I never heard or read elsewhere that relativity and quantum theory could be summarized in this way. So, if you are correct, then I can somehow imagine that your strand model might reproduce these theories without equations. But if you are not correct, this is not the case.

But let me assume that you are right. This means that your way of thinking physics is completely different from what is usual. Obviously, special relativity is based on a maximum speed, but I never heard that quantum theory is based on a smallest action hbar. I also have never heard (apart from you) that general relativity is based on a largest force c^4/4G.

This way of thinking is very different than usual - even though you write in your book that it is equivalent to the usual descriptions. I honestly think that this approach puts many people off and makes them think that your approach is not serious. Can this impression be changed?

I think you have a point here, Heinz. On the "crazy" thread, the same question came up. On the other hand, the first half of my 6th volume is dedicated exactly to this issue. The text discusses the details of how general relativity follows from an invariant limit value c^4/4G and of how quantum theory follows from an invariant limit value hbar. The text also discusses all the paradoxes that appear.These results are only summarized in the last arxiv paper, because that paper is about the next step (which you call B): it only concerns the appearance of the gauge interactions.

I have published a paper on the derivation of general relativity from the invariant limit c^4/4G already (the preprint is at http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0607090 ). But the paper was not sufficient. All the ideas are repeated in even greater detail in the 6th volume.

Let me think about your comment a bit more.

 

[Spinnor]

Ah, but prettyness and beauty is in the eye of the beholder! The pretty thing about strands is that there are very few assumptions. After all, there is only one idea: that a crossing change yields the Planck units. Or said differently, for me, beauty in physics is a different expression for "simplicity". If you know something simpler, let me and everybody else know ! But I am sceptical that something simpler is possible.

Maybe it might be a little less simple but still comprehensible. %^) I don't know. %^(

I think you are headed in the right direction, I don't think you have reached the top the the mountain, above the treeline for sure.

Good luck!

 

[LBJ]

About 1: Background independence is the ability to describe observations without using space and time at all. The strand model is *not* background independent by design. As I wrote in another post, I also believe that background independence for a unified theory is (1) impossible and (2) useless. The rest of what you say is (more or less) correct, of course.

About 2: The strand model explicitely *rules out* Milgrom's MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics) and its variations, such as the one by Bekenstein, for example. That dark matter is non-baryonic is an educated guess. There is no experimental proof for this statement, nor for the opposite. The strand model predicts that dark matter is either usual matter or black holes. Let's see what experiments in the coming years will discover.

About 3: All strands are the same. If strands are tangled, they are particles. Far away from partciles, the tails of particles and the strands of empty space are the same. That is one of the charms of the model. Does this answer your last questioon?

About background.. One of string theories problems is that strings exist "in space". The theory is background dependent. As I stated gravity results from the *shape* of space. A GUT seems to require this also.

Milgrom's Law... The value of the acceleration produced by the cosmological constant is close enough to the critical value where Newton's Law breaks down and DM is invoked that it seems more than coincidental. That is why I asked if your model predicted spatial strands as an answer for DM. I wasn't referring to MOND.

Thank you, LBJ

 

[heinz]

Any unified model for general relativity and quantum theory thus only has to reproduce the observer-invariance of hbar and of c^4/4G. Any model that does so contains the two theories. The riddle then is to find the simplest such model.

This paragraph is really dynamite.

Christoph, I still cannot swallow the idea that putting together quantum theory and general relativity is supposed to be as easy as you state here. Thousands of people have tried this without success for almost 100 years, and you state that it the problem is solved in any model for which hbar, c, and G are the same for all observers!? You talk as if this is a student exercise!

And what would this mean for LQG, superstring theory, M theory, Bilson-Thompson, Horava gravity, etc.?

 

[physics8553]

(1)About background.. One of string theories problems is that strings exist "in space". The theory is background dependent.

(2) As I stated gravity results from the *shape* of space.

(3) A GUT seems to require this also.

Milgrom's Law... The value of the acceleration produced by the cosmological constant is close enough to the critical value where Newton's Law breaks down and DM is invoked that it seems more than coincidental. That is why I asked if your model predicted spatial strands as an answer for DM. I wasn't referring to MOND.

Thank you, LBJ

(1) Also in the strand model, strands fluctuate (exist) in space. But in this case, there are only 3 dimensions. So the strand model is background-dependent.

(2) Of course. This is also the case in the strand model.

(3) A GUT does not, but a TOE does! Anyway, the strand model fulfills these requirements..

 

[physics8553]

(1) This paragraph is really dynamite.

(2) Christoph, I still cannot swallow the idea that putting together quantum theory and general relativity is supposed to be as easy as you state here. Thousands of people have tried this without success for almost 100 years, and you state that it the problem is solved in any model for which hbar, c, and G are the same for all observers!? You talk as if this is a student exercise!

(3) And what would this mean for LQG, superstring theory, M theory, Bilson-Thompson, Horava gravity, etc.?

To (1): It is not dynamite; it is just a proposal for a solution. There is nothing violent; take it easy!

To (2): Again, take it *easy* ! In fact, in this case the expression is reallly appropriate. Any unified model must realize certain requirements:

- it must reproduce black hole entropy,
- it must keep c, hbar and G invariant,
- it most probably must contain extended constituents,
- it most probably must have as few new concepts as possible,
- it must explain Lagrangians and the principle of least action,
- it must explain the three gauge symmetries,
- it must explain generations, particle masses, mixings and couplings,
- it must be impossible to modify (or "hard to vary").

This is the riddle nature puts in front of us in fundamental physics. The tough part of the riddle seems to be to state it. You are right to say that the second requirement is an unusual formulation that is equivalent to the requirement

- it must contain general relativity and qauntum field theory.

The "invariant c, h, G" formulation is unusual. But it makes finding the solution much simpler. Solving riddles always depends on the best possible tools, and on finding a formulation that makes the riddle sound as simple as possible. This might be unusual, but it is not "dynamite".

The strand model, with its simple basic postulate, is a candidate solution to the riddle, because it seems to answer each requirement. 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.

Let me comment on another point:the 100 years of effort. The standard model is from the 1960s (and indeed involved thousands of people). Black hole entropy is from 1973/1974. The equivalence of belt trick, quantum theory and tangle description is from 1980. The equivalence of gauge theory with deformations is from 1983/1984. Extended constituents are from the 1980s. The thermodynamics of space-time is from 1995. The invariance of c°4/4G is from 2000. This implies that the last ideas are fairly new: only since a few years is it possible to state the requirements for unification with the words given above. It would not have been possible to state this list before 2000. In other words, the "simple" formulation of the riddle is only a few years old.

It does sound as a student exercise - but then, all physics must sound that way. The many people behind the invariance idea, Planck, Lorentz, Einstein, Bohr, Gibbons, and others, were essential in allowing this simple formulation.

The strand model takes all these simple formulations, adds a few new results - such as the realisation of SU(3) and SU(2) with deformable bodies and the connection to the Reidemeister moves - and proposes a solution for unification that is presented in http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 and http://www.motionmountain.net/research . The biggest novelty might be that U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) are *not* seen as the part of a sequence that includes SU(5), SO(10), E(8), S0(32) or another gauge groups. Instead, the strand model proposes that the three gauge groups are due to the three Reidemeister moves, and thus that there are no other gauge groups in nature.

To (3): As long as a model fulfils the requirements, it is a candidate for a unified model! I can only encourage everybody to play around with the requirements and come up with other candidates. It is fascinating and rewarding.

 

[physics8553]

Maybe it might be a little less simple but still comprehensible. %^) I don't know. %^(

I think you are headed in the right direction, I don't think you have reached the top the the mountain, above the treeline for sure.

Good luck!

In the "crazy" thread, I posted a list of requirements for alternative models. They allow anybody to imagine alternative models at the Planck scale and to see whether they work for unifications. Enjoy!

 

[Fra]

Background independence vs observer invariance

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,

As I wrote in another post, I also believe that background independence for a unified theory is (1) impossible and (2) useless.

I symphatize with parts of this.

It seems to me cshiller's view of background independence, seems closely related to that of observer independence, he implicitly (*) associates spacetime with an observer. Ie. that you cannot introduce a physical observer, without also introducing a spacetime?

From an observational point of view, and this point of view is one of the fundaments of a scientific model, one can not make any statements or interactions without a context. The observer is the physical basis of this context. So in this sense it should be clear that it does not make sense to envision an (#) observer independent theory of measurement.

So far I think it's clear, but this raises new problems:

---------
(*) The details of this: how a physical observing system can come to encode a specific spacetime (specific topology & geometry), is something I would expect to be solved by a new candidate framework.

-------------
(#) The obvious problem here is how to merge this, with the similarly natural requirement, that the laws of physics ought to, at least in the ordinary FAPP sense, be observer invariant? Ie. all observer should agree upon the laws of physics? Somehow, the paradox is that there are two, at least "apparently" mutually exclusive possibilities that are equally objectional:

1) Different observers infer totally different laws of physics from interaction/experiment, when they compare their "laws" they are in contradiction - clearly not a stable situation, right?

2) The laws of physics are inferred without any interaction/experiment, which seems from a scientific point of view equally nonsensial and completely arbitrary, right?

This is a difficult problem, and it seems a lot people instead choose to reject the connection (*)? I think (*) doesn't mean that all there is to an observer is a frame of reference, but tis only suggest that GR is incomplete, and it is not the "general theory of realtivity" that accounts for the "complete class" of observers. The subclass corresponding to the microstructure of matter and the othre forces are somehow artifically removed.

/Fredrik

 

[heinz]

The strand model takes all these simple formulations, adds a few new results - such as the realisation of SU(3) and SU(2) with deformable bodies and the connection to the Reidemeister moves - and proposes a solution for unification that is presented in http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 and http://www.motionmountain.net/research . The biggest novelty might be that U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) are *not* seen as the part of a sequence that includes SU(5), SO(10), E(8), S0(32) or another gauge groups. Instead, the strand model proposes that the three gauge groups are due to the three Reidemeister moves, and thus that there are no other gauge groups in nature.

Christoph, I have to come back to this. Since 100 years every book on physics is telling us that unification comes from finding the highest symmetry group possible. And now you say that U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) is all there is. Nobody in physics believes this. You say: no GUT, no SUSY, no E8 x E8, no SO(32), etc. But everybody believes that higher gauge symmetries "must" exist. Will the LHC be able to check this?

 

[Naty1]

Comment:
Great discussion...very interesting even for a layman... theory seems coherent...

Regarding the last post by heinz, all those "consensus science" points are nice to have around, not so much because they are necessarily correct but because they point to the type of questions people are likely to ask. Most of science has been proved wrong via new theories and experimentation... from a flat earth, to circular planetary oribits, to fixed space and time, atomic particles being point like in nature, atomic weights being a mere curiosity, space being mirror symmetric, existence of ether, protons and neutrons being elementary, and so forth.

Question: How firm is this: "...no other gauge group at higher energy is predicted to appear, and grand unification is ruled out..."

Question: What has your model to say about the apparently infinite number of strands everywhere? If they are infinite in length, isn't it a bit crowded everywhere... how can any sort themselves from others?
ok here is part of the answer: " In the strand model, strands cannot be packed more closely than to Planck distances." pg 20.

 

[heinz]

The "invariant c, h, G" formulation is unusual. But it makes finding the solution much simpler. Solving riddles always depends on the best possible tools, and on finding a formulation that makes the riddle sound as simple as possible. This might be unusual, but it is not "dynamite".

But if "invariant c, h and G" is a sufficient requirement for unifying general relativity and quantum theory, this means that we are back to what Planck wrote in 1899! Are you saying that the natural units of measurement already contain general relativity and quantum theory? This is not what Planck said, but it is not far from what he said. Are you telling us that from 1899 to 2009 there has been so little progress?

 

[LBJ]

(1) Also in the strand model, strands fluctuate (exist) in space. But in this case, there are only 3 dimensions. So the strand model is background-dependent.

How do the strands interact with space to reproduce GR? It looks like a new operator is needed.

Thank you. LBJ

 

[heinz]

Solving riddles always depends on the best possible tools, and on finding a formulation that makes the riddle sound as simple as possible.

Christoph, one more thing. Your model is DAMN simple. No supersymmetry, no 11 dimensions, no complex spaces or algebras. But everybody "knows" that unification is HARD and needs complicated mathematics. On the contrary, you say. You tell the story that unification can be understood by anybody who knows wave functions and curvature. Not only are you claiming that almost all theoreticians who searched for unification chose the wrong concepts and the wrong mathematical ideas - you also tell them that anybody who knows physics could have found unification, because it is so simple. If you are right, all these theoreticians will hate you for years to come!

I read, on your website, the letter http://www.motionmountain.net/wiki/index.php/Carlosletter by your friend Carlo. I think that Carlo is much too nice. In reality, all the researchers Carlo mentions will not simply "dislike" you and your model, they will tear you TO PIECES out of anger and disappointment. Christoph, watch out! I hope you are right - but take care of yourself.