The Strand Model of fundamental interactions

[arivero]

But forget physics and go to a simple point... do you have a proof that the 3rd raidemaster move generates the Lie Group SU(3)?

 

[physics8553]

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?

Laws are observer-invariant, of course; and there are rules on how to change viewpoints and the corresponding descriptions. That is also true for the strand model. Background-independence means that one can speak of laws without speaking of any observer. That seems impossible to me.

 

[physics8553]

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?

Yes, it will. Higher gauge groups mean additional particles. The strand model predicts that they do not exist.

 

[physics8553]

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.

The strand number is not infinite. Strands are denely packed at horizons, inlcuding the cosmological horizon. This implies the number of strand segments in the universe. But as told in the section on cosmology, the basic idea is that all strands are the same, unique strand that forms nature.

 

[physics8553]

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?

More precisely, the *Invariance* of the natural units contains general relativity and quantum theory. Planck explored the invaraince at great length. But he never, as far as I know, thought that it implied general relativity and quantum theory. Bohr, on the other hand, did say and did write quite often that the invariance of hbar implies quantum theory.

 

[physics8553]

(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

Untangled strands form space; tangled spance form wavefunctions. There are also strand configurations that represent curvature (see the chapter on general relativity) and (dense) configurations that represent horizons. These configurations then reproduce GR through the thermodynamics of strands.

 

[physics8553]

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!

This maybe so, or it maybe not.

 

[physics8553]

But forget physics and go to a simple point... do you have a proof that the 3rd raidemaster move generates the Lie Group SU(3)?

Thank you for this very concrete question. The arxiv paper or the chapter on gauge theory in www.motionmountain.net/research[/URL] gives the multiplication table of the group generators. This table was read off from playing around with the third Reidemeister moves in the 3-belt configuration shown there. So my answer is yes.

 

[arivero]

Thank you for this very concrete question. The arxiv paper or the chapter on gauge theory in www.motionmountain.net/research[/URL] gives the multiplication table of the group generators. This table was read off from playing around with the third Reidemeister moves in the 3-belt configuration shown there. So my answer is yes.[/QUOTE]

I see the paper gives the table of su(3) algebra and it says that it is the table of the su(3) algebra, I tend to agree that it is :biggrin: . What I can not see in the paper is the concrete operations for each element of the table, or for a decent sample of them, so that any other student could reproduce it. No doubt you have done the operations in your head, but please draw them in the paper.

Besides, my point is that if you have what you say, then a divide publish and conquer is in order. A paper "representation of the algebra su(3) in knot theory" deserves independent publication if you can do it.

My impresion by reading the whole paper is that you got the idea of su(2) relationship to feynmann candle dance trick and then you conjectured u(1) and su(3) (and actually, I am not sure if su(2) is proof or analogy). But as I say, divide and conquer.

 

[physics8553]

(1) I see the paper gives the table of su(3) algebra and it says that it is the table of the su(3) algebra, I tend to agree that it is .

(2) What I can not see in the paper is the concrete operations for each element of the table, or for a decent sample of them, so that any other student could reproduce it. No doubt you have done the operations in your head, but please draw them in the paper.

(3) Besides, my point is that if you have what you say, then a divide publish and conquer is in order. A paper "representation of the algebra su(3) in knot theory" deserves independent publication if you can do it.

(4) My impression by reading the whole paper is that you got the idea of su(2) relationship to feynmann candle dance trick and then you conjectured u(1) and su(3).

Alejandro, thank you for the feedback. I start with the last point.

(4) To make it clearer how the gauge groups U(1) and SU(2) appear due to the first and second Reidemeister move, I have put a new version of my 6th volume online at http://www.motionmountain.net/research It impoves the relevant section on U(1) in chapter 10 (pages 198 and 199), and the section on SU(2) (pp 204-206).

The group U(1) is just the twists that rotate around the line of sight/line of interaction. There is no conjecture; it is just so simple that there is nothing deep about it.

The group SU(2) appears as the group of pokes (2nd Reidemeister moves).I added a new figure (figure 45 on page 205) to make it clear how the three versions of the second Reidemeister moves in three mutually orthogonal planes are to be imagined. I added more text to show how the moves relate to the SU(2) algebra. The main point is that three othogonal 180° rotations acting on a part of a flexible objects always behave as SU(2). In this sense you are right that it is similar to the belt trick. In a sense, the region of the tangle core on which the pokes act behaves like a belt buckle.

Let me know if this clarifies the issue of the derivation of U(1) and SU(2). If not, I will improve the text further. In fact, I probably should add more pictures to make it even clearer. I will do so in a few days.

(2) I also improved the SU(3) section, but only a bit. The lowest part of Figure 53 on page 216 shows exactly what you are asking for: a diagram of all possible operations. The figure shows the axis of each of the 8 generators. I must think further on how to make it clearer. I will add pictures of the effect of the operators on stands. In fact, what you ask for is a very good idea.

(1) I will then try to make it as clear as possible how the SU(3) table appears.

(3) I must think about this.

 

[SimonA]

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.

Kane

I have a different view. GR and QM are partial theories, just as Newtons gravity was shown to be. I share in the concerns of Einstein, Shroedinger, Bohm and Bell that Bohr was a brilliant physicist but a poor interpreter of nature. Essentially he fooled three generations into accepting that having an ontalogical and epistemological basis to rational enquiry was no longer required.

If we can unify the forces, that will be an amazing achievement. But it will not be an answer to anything important. It will not solve the question of determinism being contrary to consciousness. It will not solve the political issue where power corrupts but democracy leads to short term plans based on how well they can be sold to stupid people.

Physics needs to rise above the false gods of the age. How about we ignore supposedly liberal ideologies such as feminism and islam, which contradict each other, and instead focus on the reality of our existence?

Can anyone here prove that heizenberg's uncertainty is fundamental?

 

[SimonA]

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.

So it's not a theory of everything - exactly my point

To 2: Please explain what you mean!

People in all ages think they nearly understand everything. They are ALWAYS proven wrong.

To 3: Let us know.

How does your theory explain the non locality in Bell's experiment? Please don't send me a link - explain it in your own words.

 

[heinz]

Christoph, the CDMS results do not count as a discovery. Your strand model predicts that dark matter is not different from ordinary matter. What do you think about their results?

 

[physics8553]

(1) People in all ages think they nearly understand everything. They are ALWAYS proven wrong.


(2) How does your theory explain the non locality in Bell's experiment? Please don't send me a link - explain it in your own words.

(1) Well, if the strand model is correct, then we have an exception :-)

(2) First of all, there is no non-locality in Bell's experiment/proposal. But the experiment/proposl is explained in the *same* way as in quantum theory: collapse of the system wavefunction due to measurement and rapid decoherence.

The strand model reproduces quantum theory cimpletely, and it also reproduces the processes in Bell's proposal. The only thing that the strand model adds is that it provides a *visualisation* to the experiment. Both for fermions and for photons (Aspect's experiment) the visualization is in my 6th volume.

 

[physics8553]

Christoph, the CDMS results do not count as a discovery. Your strand model predicts that dark matter is not different from ordinary matter. What do you think about their results?

The strand model predicts that all elementary particles are already known, and thus predicts that dark matter experiments will only see processes which can be explained with the known particles. If an unknown elementary particle is found, the strand model is wrong. But the CDMS experiment presented in the two talks yesterday, on 17.December 2009, has not found any unknown particle.

 

[SimonA]

I think there may be some element of you're theory that points to some element of reality. But there's no eureka for me.

We need to explain the dual nature issue at a fundamental level. From the perspective of creatures living in "4d" spacetime, em waves seek out the nearest matter and condense instantly at that first touch. In reality an energy field met another, and the interation only happened because the energy level of the wave was sufficient to excite electrons in the matter.

So what exactly is an electron ? How is it different from a photon? And what exactly are the orbital shells in atoms outside of the mathematical formalism and pauli's exclusion principle?

I see some kind of dimensionality at an electron orbital level, that I still don't understand. The whole idea makes the normal conception of dimensionality seem strange.

But I'm confident that there is something wrong with both the Copenhagen interpretation, something far more subtle and blatant than the rediculousness of everett's nonsense "many worlds" theory

 

[ValenceE]

Dear cschiller,

I’ve speed read your revised three gauge interactions pdf file and I must say this proposition is very appealing. A good amount of the read connects to my own (and I believe a lot of reader’s own) ideas and insights about our Universe understanding and this sought after TOE.

I have a few questions ;

Firstly, can you point me where you (by the way, as I’m greatly enjoying some, and especially in this Holiday Season, for those of you who like/love dessert wines, I must suggest Ben Ryé 2007, a Sicilian work of art…) explain how an emitted photon acquires its energy and more specifically, its trajectory…

Secondly, you talk about featureless strands… seems to me that in order for the different configurations to emerge, the strands must at least have some stretching capability, otherwise no pattern other than twisting can take form. How can strand tangle exist if the strand itself cannot be stretched? Surely I’m missing something or being naïve, but you know what I mean… can you please shed some light.

Thank you and best regards,

 

[heinz]

Christoph, I looked at the images on U(1) and SU(2) that you added in edition 23.62 of your text at http://www.motionmountain.net/research . Now we are talking! I like most the second one. Now I can really see how Reidemeister II moves generate SU(2).

I think it is great that you followed arivero's request so promptly. (And did you add the pictures also to your manuscript?) Anyway, the SU(3) picture is not as good yet. Please improve it like the SU(2) one.

Something completely different. You have inserted, on page 21, a list of arguments (too short for my taste) against the existence of a theory of everything, and you add that each of them is wrong. The list is short, so are the answers. True, there is still more material than in the Wikipedia entry. But you give no references! Please do.

 

[Fra]

I didn't see this response until now, I'm sorry.

Laws are observer-invariant, of course; and there are rules on how to change viewpoints and the corresponding descriptions. That is also true for the strand model. Background-independence means that one can speak of laws without speaking of any observer. That seems impossible to me.

Hmm I'm not sure if there was a typo or or else this doesn't add consistently to me?

Wouldn't you agre that the transformation rules ensuring a observer-invariance are part of the laws of physics? To me they are - think SR, GR.

Then I don't understand what you say.

You seem to say that laws of physics without observers makes not sense? (I agree there).

But you also seem to hold the position that the observer-observer transformations exists independent of observers?

Can these two positions hold simultaneously in your view? Do you not, consider the observer-observer transformations, as part of the "laws of physics"?

/Fredrik

 

[physics8553]

(1) We need to explain the dual nature issue at a fundamental level. From the perspective of creatures living in "4d" spacetime, em waves seek out the nearest matter and condense instantly at that first touch. In reality an energy field met another, and the interation only happened because the energy level of the wave was sufficient to excite electrons in the matter.

(2) So what exactly is an electron ? How is it different from a photon? And what exactly are the orbital shells in atoms outside of the mathematical formalism and pauli's exclusion principle?

(3) But I'm confident that there is something wrong with both the Copenhagen interpretation, something far more subtle and blatant than the rediculousness of everett's nonsense "many worlds" theory

SimonA, here are my thoughts.

(1) Quantum theory says that em waves do not "condense at the first touch". Rather, that it is a probabilistic process that determines where the photon is absorbed. The strand model reproduces this probability, as it reproduces decoherence and collapse.

(2) An electron seems a tangle made of 3 strands. A photon is a helix of one strand.

Atoimic shells are probability densities shaped by the Pauli exclusion principle. Tangles reproduce the exclusion principle; in the strand model, wave functions are blurred (i.e., time-averaged) tangles.

(3) Many worlds is wrong. The tangle model reproduces decoherence, and thus the collapse of wave functions as the approximation of "negligible-time decoherence".

 

[physics8553]

(1) Firstly, can you point me where you explain how an emitted photon acquires its energy and more specifically, its trajectory…

(2) Secondly, you talk about featureless strands… seems to me that in order for the different configurations to emerge, the strands must at least have some stretching capability, otherwise no pattern other than twisting can take form. How can strand tangle exist if the strand itself cannot be stretched? Surely I’m missing something or being naïve, but you know what I mean… can you please shed some light.

Dear ValenceE, this is the main idea:

(1) Emitted photons do not have trajectories, not even in usual quantum theory. They may have preferred directions, but the trajectory is not a quantum concept.The question can only be: how are energy and momentum conserved?

In the strand model, energy is "crossing switch per time" and momentum is "crossing switch per distance". In quantum field theory, when reactions occur (such as emission or absorption of photons) these values are automatically conserved, due to the nature of strand fluctuations. In reactions, certain fluctuation preferences are transferred from one strand to another; this doe not chang energy and momentum.

(2) Strands fluctuate in shape, but they are not elastic. They can acquire any length - but there is no tendency to come back to some previous length or shape. Does this answer your question?

 

[physics8553]

(1) Christoph, I looked at the images on U(1) and SU(2) that you added in edition 23.62 of your text at http://www.motionmountain.net/research . Now we are talking! I like most the second one. Now I can really see how Reidemeister II moves generate SU(2).

(2) I think it is great that you followed arivero's request so promptly. (And did you add the pictures also to your manuscript?) Anyway, the SU(3) picture is not as good yet. Please improve it like the SU(2) one.

(3) Something completely different. You have inserted, on page 21, a list of arguments (too short for my taste) against the existence of a theory of everything, and you add that each of them is wrong. The list is short, so are the answers. True, there is still more material than in the Wikipedia entry. But you give no references! Please do.

(1) I'll try to do better still.

(2) I'll do so :-)

(3) Ok. he main idea is to repeat that unification is a riddle, and searching for it is a pastime. If one adds emotions or ideology to the search, one loses the energy that is needed to find the solution. It is a statement against taking the whole search too seriously.

 

[physics8553]

(1) Wouldn't you agre that the transformation rules ensuring a observer-invariance are part of the laws of physics? To me they are - think SR, GR.

(2) You seem to say that laws of physics without observers makes not sense? (I agree there).

(3) But you also seem to hold the position that the observer-observer transformations exists independent of observers?

(4)Can these two positions hold simultaneously in your view? Do you not, consider the observer-observer transformations, as part of the "laws of physics"?

/Fredrik

(1) Yes, of course they are.

(2) Yes.

(3) No. Observer-observer transformations require observers.

(4) All description of observation requires observers. What I mean to say is that it not even possible to think at all, to talk, to do physics, without being an observer or without imagining to be an observer. Hence, background-independence (in the sense that quantum gravity researchers mean it) is impossible.

 

[Fra]

Thanks Christoph, I just reviewed my past questions to you and now I get it. I largely agree with you, but from my model strategic view, I have one further question/concern.

I have not studied your ideas in detail, so maybe the answers is obvious, but I see a possible parallell to string theory in your strategy, and it seems your argument was that your idea is simpler or more minimalistic, but set aside that (since simplicity is often a very relative measure) I wonder:

(*) Since you declare that we have to choose an "observer", does this "choice" lead to "landscape" type problems, like in string theory? Ie. is your "choice" of "background" needed for your theory, sufficiently unique to guarantee specific predictions, rather than whole familities of predictions?

Ie. what additional trick/constraint do you use, to "constrain" the set of possible backgrounds/observers - and thus - the set of possible predictions for interactions?

Do you know yet? or is this something you need more work to say? This is my main objection to string theory, and the question is if your ideas have better odds?

/Fredrik

 

[KaneJeeves]

Kane

I have a different view. GR and QM are partial theories, just as Newtons gravity was shown to be. I share in the concerns of Einstein, Shroedinger, Bohm and Bell that Bohr was a brilliant physicist but a poor interpreter of nature. Essentially he fooled three generations into accepting that having an ontalogical and epistemological basis to rational enquiry was no longer required.

If we can unify the forces, that will be an amazing achievement. But it will not be an answer to anything important. It will not solve the question of determinism being contrary to consciousness. It will not solve the political issue where power corrupts but democracy leads to short term plans based on how well they can be sold to stupid people.

Physics needs to rise above the false gods of the age. How about we ignore supposedly liberal ideologies such as feminism and islam, which contradict each other, and instead focus on the reality of our existence?

Can anyone here prove that heizenberg's uncertainty is fundamental?

I guess my analogy was a little off. I didn't mean to stray into a religious discussion. (And how you think Islam is a liberal ideology is beyond me. But that's for another forum.) My point was this: why do/did physicists (including my personal hero Einstein) even try for a single unified theory of everything (where everything really means everything in the direct purview of science, not EVERYTHING everything, like preventing divorce, etc.)

Here's a good analogy: I'm a programmer. Let's say someone handed me a piece of software and asked me to figure out which SINGLE programming language it was programmed in. I can't look at the code directly, but can only decide based on the observable features of the software. Unbeknownst to me, the software was actually written in MULTIPLE languages, COBOL say to handle business related functions, Java to handle some web service interactions, and so on. If I persist in looking for the SINGLE progamming language I will always be wrong. Unless I question the underlying assumption of my task, which is that all software needs to be written in a single language, then my pursuit will always be off the mark. (And yes I know in the end software boils down to machine language, but different machines have different machine languages, so that's not really relavent.)

So that's what I'm saying about this drive in physics for a TOE. How do we know "the creator" (whatever that refers to, maybe nothing) didn't use multiple "tools" to cook up and operate the universe.

 

[heinz]

Christoph, in your 6th volume you state that wave functions are "blurred" strands. Has anybody else explored this? Blurring of strands is such a simple model for wave functions that many researchers must be interested. Can you point to some papers on this?

 

[heinz]

So that's what I'm saying about this drive in physics for a TOE. How do we know "the creator" (whatever that refers to, maybe nothing) didn't use multiple "tools" to cook up and operate the universe.

But Java and Cobol are all based on 1s and 0s, so it is possible to describe both in a common language ...:-) But seriously, we do not know whether a TOE exists. But is that a reason not to search for one?

It seems to me that the search is often avoided because people shy away from the imagery and the interpretations that are attached to the task, such as "reading the mind of God" or "knowing everything" or "doing better than Einstein". If a researcher succeeds, he is the greatest of all time. If he fails, he is a crackpot. This alternative is not very appealing; it is like chosing between Scylla and Charybdis. Surely this double trap keeps many from even attempting to find the TOE. Besides, nobody can make a living from work that makes him appear to be a crackpot.

I start to like the way Christoph Schiller is doing this with his strand model. His way to avoid both Scylla and Charybdis is to take it really easy. I wouldn't be able to do this. Let's see what comes out of it. Christoph, please go on!

 

[KaneJeeves]

Interesting ideas, sort of a psychology of science :+). I guess to me it boils down to can a theory not just explain observable data, but can it be used to make something work. I read some of the ultra-complex mathematics, none of which I understand, and wonder if what's occurring is just very smart people making rationalizations using a language only they understand. And are they maybe missing the forest for the trees because of it. Seems to me any group of smart people can come up with some very consistent "explanations" that make sense of observations, but that we can always ask, "yes, but is it what's really going on, or is it just a consistent story".

The only way to tell if you've described the reality of the situation, versus merely having a good "story", is to be able to build something positive based on the theory. So for example, if you had a complex mathematical description of force, that was consistent, explained various observations, and had as it's central tenet that angels on little winged horses were the "carrier" of force, I'd say you've described nothing if you can't use your angel-horse theory to build a bridge. And that's what I'm thinking might be happening with these extravagant TOE. (Not that physicists shouldn't try to come up with TOE, just that they have to be careful not to stray into angel-horse land.)

 

[rewebster]

Interesting ideas, sort of a psychology of science :+). I guess to me it boils down to can a theory not just explain observable data, but can it be used to make something work. I read some of the ultra-complex mathematics, none of which I understand, and wonder if what's occurring is just very smart people making rationalizations using a language only they understand. And are they maybe missing the forest for the trees because of it. Seems to me any group of smart people can come up with some very consistent "explanations" that make sense of observations, but that we can always ask, "yes, but is it what's really going on, or is it just a consistent story".

yes, like 'How does magnetism work(mechanisms behind it) and create a dual field at both poles?'

 

[physics8553]

I see the paper gives the table of su(3) algebra and it says that it is the table of the su(3) algebra, I tend to agree that it is . What I can not see in the paper is the concrete operations for each element of the table, or for a decent sample of them, so that any other student could reproduce it. No doubt you have done the operations in your head, but please draw them in the paper.

Alejandro, I improved the drawing on page 219 of the 6th volume found at http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html It now has the operations for 3 of the 8 generators both as strands and as belts. Let me know what you think.