The Strand Model of fundamental interactions

[heinz]

The "Strand Model" of fundamental interactions

[Mentor's note: This thread is a consolidation of three different threads which were started in our Beyond the Standard Model forum. They were moved to our former Independent Research forum, because in our view this represents a "new" or "personal" theory that has not yet reached mainstream physics discussion. At that time (2009) we allowed discussion of such theories only in the Independent Research forum. Since then we have closed the Independent Research forum and all discussions in it, as per this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506643

and moved all posts from that forum into the General Physics forum. Note also our current rules, which can be found by clicking the Site Info --> Rules & Guidelines link at the top of any page here, in particular the section Discussion Guidelines. Please do not re-open discussion of this theory on Physics Forums until it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.]

[Original post by heinz:]

The preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 by Schiller intrigues me. He proposes to deduce the electromagnetic, weak, and strong force from Planck units directly. So far, all microscopic models of nature I have ever read have a problem: there is no explanation of what interactions are. This case is different: interactions are defined as transfers of string crossings. From this idea, Schiller deduces an argument for why there are only three forces, and for why they have the usual gauge groups. It is the first time I ever read such an argument. That is why it intrigues me. On the other hand, the whole thing is really speculative. "There is no doubt your theory is crazy - the issue is: is it crazy enough?"

 

[Fra]

The preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 by Schiller intrigues me. He proposes to deduce the electromagnetic, weak, and strong force from Planck units directly. So far, all microscopic models of nature I have ever read have a problem: there is no explanation of what interactions are. This case is different: interactions are defined as transfers of string crossings. From this idea, Schiller deduces an argument for why there are only three forces, and for why they have the usual gauge groups. It is the first time I ever read such an argument. That is why it intrigues me. On the other hand, the whole thing is really speculative. "There is no doubt your theory is crazy - the issue is: is it crazy enough?"

*Maybe a premature comment but* I just skimmed the intro and the first paragraphs.

I like the ambition to reconstruct the interactions somehow - this is something I expect as well!

...but since these strands seems to be just about as ad hoc as strings and branes in string theory and a little bit too realist inclined, and if I understand it right he assumes a background space, I think we need something even more crazy. I think it can be BOTH more crazy AND less speculative at the same time.

I expect something long the line of interactions beeing defined and classified as various forms of interactions between information system, where the system complexity is an overall constraint limiting what interactions types that are distinguishable. Unification could be achievce the zero complexity limit. As complexity increases, forces distinguish themselves from each other, and the scaling process is an evolution, rather than some universal predictable mathematical transformation.

??

/Fredrik

 

[physics8553]

...but since these strands seems to be just about as ad hoc as strings and branes in string theory and a little bit too realist inclined, and if I understand it right he assumes a background space, I think we need something even more crazy. I think it can be BOTH more crazy AND less speculative at the same time.
/Fredrik

The model is based on a background because I do not think that a background-free theory is possible. It seems impossible to think or talk without using a background. So the model assumes a background to allow talking and thinking - even though the background is not observable. The background is a crutch for the formulation of the model.

To put it in other terms: any observer introduces a background. This cannot be avoided.

Christoph

 

[Fra]

Hello Christoph, thanks for your motivation!

The model is based on a background because I do not think that a background-free theory is possible. It seems impossible to think or talk without using a background. So the model assumes a background to allow talking and thinking - even though the background is not observable. The background is a crutch for the formulation of the model.

To put it in other terms: any observer introduces a background. This cannot be avoided.

Christoph

I have to say I fully agree with your argument here. This is subtle, and often causes confusion, but with my critic on background, I do not mean that there is never a background.

I fully agree that the observers defines the background! but the observer is not static, the obsevers is evolving, and thus the background.

So I don't object to the concept of background, I object to the introduction of observer independent and universal background.

Now maybe I misunderstood you (like I noted I didn't get around to read all your paper yet!), if so I apologize.

But IMO, the physical makeup of the observer might in general, put constraints on what background that is distinguishable, and in particular do I not see what the 3D or 4D space is distinguishable to an arbitrary observer.

So I fully agree with that general notion that "the observer defines the background" but I insist that the observer is sujbect to evolution, and that difference observers might in general see different backgrounds.

In particular does this contain also the model. In my view "the model" are constrained to physical observers. And thus it's not allowed (from my admittedly personal view) to anchor the model in an external fixed background. IE. the model is something that is alive and changing, not universal static truth.

I got the impression that your background implicitly assumes some kind of "master observer" or birds view. If so, then the entire construction is in violation to the idea of an evolving observer, and thus evolving background.

It's still possible I got you wrong. I'll try to skim the rest of hte paper later.

/Fredrik

 

[physics8553]

So I fully agree with that general notion that "the observer defines the background" but I insist that the observer is subject to evolution, and that difference observers might in general see different backgrounds.

/Fredrik

I agree completely. The observer introduces the background, and thus the background depends on the observer. Now, in flat space-time, the various backgrounds that are introduced by various (inertial) observers differ (only) by Lorentz boosts. Indeed, the model assumes that every observer has his own background. The observer-dependence of the background is in fact essential in the strand model: there is no "master observer".

Christoph

 

[Fra]

This is subtle, and often causes confusion, but with my critic on background, I do not mean that there is never a background.

I fully agree that the observers defines the background! but the observer is not static, the obsevers is evolving, and thus the background.

Notat that what I meant to say here is for example in contrast to for example Rovellis view.

Often background refers to spacetime metric etc. But I mean background as in ANY background information. Even in the narrow sense of GR, GR is also background dependent given the topology etc.

The difference is taht some people form "background independent" models in a way that still relies on a more fundamental background structure. Alot of people think of this as mathematical structures that doesn't need physical basis. I don't like such views.

Even physical law, is a kind of background. Because those who think that physical law are godlike hard constraints on the world, miss the point that we are talking about inside observers (humans) that have a view of this law, but there is no way to with certainty establish it 100% certain.

That's my motivation for the evolutionary program, where physical law are not universal, it just happens to be the most invariant (although not PERFECTLY invariant) form of fundamental information about reality we have ; analogous to the DNA as the almost universal coding block for life (on Earth at least).

The variance in this DNA, or "physical law" is on such a long time scale due to inertia that it's variation is indistinguishable to a transient observer. And due to the inertia and interaction between systems, all similarly transient systems in the universe would effectively see the same law.

But I stilll think there is a point when trying to reconstruct and unify physics, to acknowledge that (lke I think) the nature of law, is not universally static, but rather itself evolving.

/Fredirk

 

[Fra]

I'll try to read a little longer in your paper later! maybe my comments was premature.

/FRedrik

 

[MTd2]

I had a quick read on this paper when it was first uploaded, I would quote it on this thread about defining QFT on LQG,
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=316697
, that is, that strands working as topological obstructions between nodes of a spin network and generating. But Marcus convinced me that it was not necessary... but who knows? What do you think Schiler?

BTW, what caused your paper to be sent to general physics and not to hep-th? Did you submit directly to there? I don't think it was bad at all.

 

[ExactlySolved]

what caused your paper to be sent to general physics and not to hep-th?

To quote Lubos Motl, who was discussing that surfer dude nonsense from last year, we have:

the preprint was re-classified from the professional hep-th archive to gen-ph, general physics, an archive mostly dedicated to laymen's fantasies.

It is so sad that people buy into papers like this, if you are going to trade your life for a fantasy then why not play videogames, watch movies, or read literature?

 

[MTd2]

Garrett paper is on hep-th and it is not unusual for papers to be upgrade from gen-ph to hep-th.

 

[physics8553]

I had a quick read on this paper when it was first uploaded, I would quote it on this thread about defining QFT on LQG,
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=316697
, that is, that strands working as topological obstructions between nodes of a spin network and generating.

In the proposed strand model, there are no nodes at all, since all strands are simple curves that go to spatial infinity at both ends. (Strands have no branches.) Particles are tangles of strands, and these tangles are found to follow the Dirac equation.The same deduction of the Dirac equation could maybe also be used for a web with nodes, but I am not sure. The lack of nodes simplifies the model, and allows a simple relation with hbar and c; I do not know whether this is possible also with webs that have nodes.

Christoph Schiller

 

[MTd2]

So, how are the coordinates defined?

 

[physics8553]

So, how are the coordinates defined?

The strand model defines all observables in terms of Planck units. Coordinates are lengths; they are multiples of Planck lengths. The Planck length is defined through a crossing change. In short, the distance between two simultaneous events is the maximum number of crossing changes that fits in the space between the two simultaneous events.

Christoph Schiller

 

[heinz]

The strand model defines all observables in terms of Planck units.

Christoph, how can this be realized for electric fields? For gluon fields?

 

[Fra]

Christoph, am I right in thinking that you see these declared unobservable strands, as an underlying unobservable reality, that exists in a realist sense? A kind of hidden microstructure of reality, who explains observations?

Is that correct?

/Fredrik

 

[physics8553]

Christoph, how can this be realized for electric fields? For gluon fields?

The nature of a field is defined by the tangles that make it up. Electric fields are flows of photons, i.e. of specific tangles, and gluon fields are flows of gluons, i.e. of different tangles. Field intensity is then the number of these tangles.

And above all remains the idea that strands are not observable, but only their crossing switches. This reproduces the quantum Lagrangians of each field.

The appeal of the strand model is that these simple ideas allow to deduce the gauge groups of the electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces - and no other.

Christoph Schiller

 

[physics8553]

Christoph, am I right in thinking that you see these declared unobservable strands, as an underlying unobservable reality, that exists in a realist sense? A kind of hidden microstructure of reality, who explains observations?

Is that correct?

/Fredrik

Yes, strands are the common constituents of particles and vacuum and thus form their microstructure. Strands are featureless, fluctuating, impenetrable. Yes, strands are unobservable; only their crossing switches are observable, and all masurements, of any observable, are specific ways to count crossing switches. Crossing switches define all Planck units.

Christoph Schiller

 

[Fra]

Yes, strands are the common constituents of particles and vacuum and thus form their microstructure. Strands are featureless, fluctuating, impenetrable. Yes, strands are unobservable; only their crossing switches are observable, and all masurements, of any observable, are specific ways to count crossing switches. Crossing switches define all Planck units.

Christoph Schiller

Before progressing into what this idea may predict, I think the justification of the starting point is essential. I don't find that confidence.

It seems you compare to other microstructures, such as strings branes, and since your strands have less physical features, you rate it as less speculative, and can motivate it by occams razor.

Beyond that, what are the other physical motivation do you have for your abstractions?
It seems to me your motivation comes from analogies from knot theory and current physics.

Do you have another more first principle reason that would make you have preference for this strand model?

Also I'm not sure how you can call it featureless, it lacks the ordinary physical stuff like mass tension, but the whole abstraction of knots and strands in an embedded space still contains information right? To me featureless would mean "informationless", and the context of the strands may contain information.

Even if I don't personally understand your strategy, I'm still curious to see if you can come up with unique predictions of the standard model parameters!

/Fredrik

 

[physics8553]

It seems you compare to other microstructures, such as strings branes, and since your strands have less physical features, you rate it as less speculative, and can motivate it by occams razor.

Yes, because the number of assumptions is quite small.

Beyond that, what are the other physical motivation do you have for your abstractions?
It seems to me your motivation comes from analogies from knot theory and current physics.

Do you have another more first principle reason that would make you have preference for this strand model?

The fundamental constituents must be able to describe both vacuum and particles. The fundamental constituents must be extended, to reproduce the entropy of black holes and the belt trick, i.e. spin 1/2. And they must be fluctuating, to reproduce homogeneity and isotropy. Given these conditions, featureless strands are simply the simplest option.

Also I'm not sure how you can call it featureless, it lacks the ordinary physical stuff like mass tension, but the whole abstraction of knots and strands in an embedded space still contains information right? To me featureless would mean "informationless", and the context of the strands may contain information.

The strands are featureless in the sense that they have no attached fields, quantum numbers, etc.

The observable information contained in strands is the same as that contained in a wave function. So one can call strands a simple visualization of wave functions.

Even if I don't personally understand your strategy, I'm still curious to see if you can come up with unique predictions of the standard model parameters!

The strategy is straightforward: deduce the three gauge groups, then the coupling constants, the masses, and the mixing angles.

Christoph Schiller

 

[heinz]

The appeal of the strand model is that these simple ideas allow to deduce the gauge groups of the electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces - and no other.

Christoph, how definitive is your deduction of the three interactions? Do you see it as really settling the issue of the origin of the forces?

 

[physics8553]

Christoph, how definitive is your deduction of the three interactions? Do you see it as really settling the issue of the origin of the forces?

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 (extended constituents for space and particles, no axioms, no invented assumptions, etc.) the chances of the strand model to be one of the formulations of the unified description of nature are quite good.

Given this basis, I would bet that the Reidemeister move explanation of the forces is correct. In any case, it is very predictive, as it forbids all other gauge groups: it forbids all GUTs and forbids E8, E7, E6 and SO(32), for example. So it can be tested by the LHC and by several other experiments.

Christoph Schiller

 

[heinz]

I would bet that the Reidemeister move explanation of the forces is correct. In any case, it is very predictive, as it forbids all other gauge groups: it forbids all GUTs and forbids E8, E7, E6 and SO(32), for example. So it can be tested by the LHC and by several other experiments.

Christoph, if you are right, this might be the first ever explanation of the gauge interactions, of their number and of their characteristics. This is quite a claim! How can a reader check the result?

Heinz

 

[apeiron]

Christoph - has Kauffman seen your work and passed comment?

Generally, I would expect an approach of this kind to be the right one. It has a soliton logic. Once all possible symmetries have been globally suppressed, then there will remain these few final "point" symmetries, the gauge ones, as kinks in the global fabric.

 

[Sauron]

A curious theory for sure. Before considering reading in depth your article there is a question that I would like to get answered.

If I understand right this model yields a rather minimalistic particle physics system. But cosmological and astrophysical observations strongly suggest that there are things like that matter and, possibly, dark energy. Where in your model are candidates to play this role? Or, maybe there is a modification of gravity (or whatever plays the role of gravity) that doesn't need dark matter/energy to fit observations?

 

[physics8553]

Once all possible symmetries have been globally suppressed, then there will remain these few final "point" symmetries, the gauge ones, as kinks in the global fabric.

Sorry - I do not understand this - can you expand a bit?

Christoph

 

[physics8553]

Christoph, if you are right, this might be the first ever explanation of the gauge interactions, of their number and of their characteristics. This is quite a claim! How can a reader check the result?

(1) check the reasoning of the paper.; (2) wait for the results on particle phyics that will come soon.

Christoph Schiller

 

[physics8553]

If I understand right this model yields a rather minimalistic particle physics system. But cosmological and astrophysical observations strongly suggest that there are things like that matter and, possibly, dark energy. Where in your model are candidates to play this role? Or, maybe there is a modification of gravity (or whatever plays the role of gravity) that doesn't need dark matter/energy to fit observations?

Gravity is completely reproduced, together with a cosmological constant. Dark energy is thus seen as a consequence of the cosmological constant. Dark matter is predicted to be a mixture of various types of conventional matter. That is not a popular prediction at present, but that is what the model predicts.

Christoph Schiller

 

[apeiron]

Sorry - I do not understand this - can you expand a bit?

Christoph

A full explanation would be lengthy. But the relevant point here is the connection with soliton or quasi-particle type approaches. Or even the "hairy sphere" fixed point theorem.

The attempt to satisfy globally all constraints - combing flat the hair on a ball - will still inevitable leave a local particle-like singularity. One point that maps to itself.

Your model of course is based on bottom-up construction. You presume the local existence of strands and then a world is constructed from their interactions, crossing, pokes and so forth.

I am talking about the opposite, a top-down constraints based view where dimensionality undergoes a phase change from higher to lower energy states, trapping knots as quasiparticles or soliton-like inclusions. The sort of thing Laughlin and Volovik, to name two, have speculated about.

But really, we should be able to arrive at the same reality from both these directions. They are complementary approaches. And the strands model may be both less intuitively realistic yet more elegantly simple.

To me, the unseen strands are more like the lines of force defining a field.

Three issues which interested me:

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.

 

[physics8553]

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.

(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

 

[apeiron]

(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.

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?

This would actually be the kind of explanation that makes sense to me. An event is a local concentration of energy, a quantum fluctuation, which "melts" 3D space and briefly allows a rotation through higher dimensions, so swapping the orientation of the crossing.

How you are imagining it? Or do you have some different idea?

 

[physics8553]

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?

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

 

[Max™]

Wow, I've been working on a VERY similar model from the other way (top down), starting with a structure where the identifiable dimensions/directions are labeled with/made of threads, x-threads, y-threads, and z-threads, and working out their various interactions, which as you see, neatly produces particles and force interactions.

Keep at it, I'll get back to you after considering your take on things more fully.

 

[apeiron]

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?

No it doesn't really. You write: "An event is the switch of a crossing between two strands.
This definition of an event as a basic front-to-back exchange is illustrated in Figure 1."

So I can't see how even flopping the pair of strands over with a twist would reverse the topology. All you would have is the twist, not a reversal of the crossing. Unless the ends of the strands are free-floating rather than tethered at infinity, which is apparently not the case.

Perhaps you mean that at the crossing point the strands become fleetingly, quantumly, fused and emerge out the other side with the effective front to back exchange? Probably not that either from your comments.

So the words and diagrams are not making the situation clear to me yet.

 

[physics8553]

Wow, I've been working on a VERY similar model from the other way (top down), starting with a structure where the identifiable dimensions/directions are labeled with/made of threads, x-threads, y-threads, and z-threads, and working out their various interactions, which as you see, neatly produces particles and force interactions.

Keep at it, I'll get back to you after considering your take on things more fully.

I'd be pleased to hear from you. My email is on the website www.motionmountain.net

Christoph Schiller

 

[physics8553]

So I can't see how even flopping the pair of strands over with a twist would reverse the topology. All you would have is the twist, not a reversal of the crossing. Unless the ends of the strands are free-floating rather than tethered at infinity, which is apparently not the case.

Perhaps you mean that at the crossing point the strands become fleetingly, quantumly, fused and emerge out the other side with the effective front to back exchange? Probably not that either from your comments.

No, there is no quantum tunnelling of one strand through the other.

Just take two pieces of rope and bend them around until the crossing you are looking at is reversed. One way is to turn the first strand around the (local) rotation axis provided by the second. Like real ropes or shoelaces.

Christoph Schiller