The Strand Model of fundamental interactions

[heinz]

I saw that Christoph Schiller has expanded his ideas: on his site he now has a model for leptons, quarks and even hadrons: he models vector bosons as knots made of one strand, quarks as knots made of two strands, and leptons as knots made of three strands. He claims that he can reproduce all quantum numbers. His model is getting interesting: not only does he claim that he can explain the three forces; he also claims that he can explain the three fermion generations. The bizarre side is that he claims that GUTs, supersymmetry etc. do not exist, that the Higgs does not exist, and that dark matter is conventional matter. He writes that all this follows from his model. He is thus much more ambitious than Bilson-Thompson and his ribbon model. Schiller claims to reproduce the standard model and general relativity, but he also predicts that no new particle will ever be discovered. Audacious or crazy? We will soon find out.

 

[tom.stoer]

I did not follow this discussion in detail: is there an arxiv reference or a website which provides the latest info? I know some rather old papers and I am not sure if a still have the overview on this subject.

How does the connection between these kind of models and LQG look like? Does LQG require a positive cosmological constant in order to get framed graphs? If yes, were does this constant coem frome if not from LQG itself?

 

[MTd2]

This is his website:

http://www.motionmountain.net

But I cannot find the information Heinz told us.

EDIT.:

Just found it!:

"No additional elementary particle will be discovered: the Higgs boson does not exist. The unitarity of scattering for longitudinal W and Z bosons is maintained at all energies. (New on website and 6th volume, August 2009.)"

http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html

 

[tom.stoer]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905

Deducing the three gauge interactions from featureless strands
(Christoph Schiller)
It is proposed to deduce the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions from Planck units through the behaviour of tangles of featureless strands.
In the strand model, particles are modeled as rotating tangles of unobservable strands. Only crossing changes are observable. Each crossing change has an associated action, time, length and entropy given by the corresponding Planck unit. Crossing changes are used to deduce all physical observables. Wave functions are temporal and spatial averages of strand densities leading to crossing changes. This connection is known to imply the Dirac equation.
Using this basis, gauge interactions are modeled as deformations of particle tangle cores. By applying the general approach of Berry, Wilczek, Zee and Shapere to such deformations, the three gauge interactions -- electromagnetic, weak and strong -- appear to follow from the three Reidemeister moves. In particular, U(1), SU(2), parity violation, SU(2) breaking, SU(3) and asymptotic freedom seem to follow naturally.
The model is consistent with all known data and makes several testable predictions, including the absence of other interactions, of grand unification and of higher dimensions. A method for calculating coupling constants seems to appear naturally.

 

[heinz]

How does the connection between these kind of models and LQG look like? Does LQG require a positive cosmological constant in order to get framed graphs? If yes, were does this constant coem frome if not from LQG itself?

My impression is that there is little relation with LQG. More with the Bilson-Thompson stuff. The question seems to be: ribbons or strands? The two models have many similarities.

Maybe we can get Christoph to join this discussion again.

heinz

 

[heinz]

Christoph Schiller has updated his paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 . He changed the title and the abstract:

Deducing the three gauge interactions from the three Reidemeister moves.

We give one of the first known arguments for the origin of the three observed gauge groups. The argument is based on modelling nature at Planck scales as a collection of featureless strands that fluctuate in three dimensions. This approach models vacuum as untangled strands, particles as tangles of strands, and Planck units as crossing switches.
Modelling vacuum as untangled strands implies the field equations of general relativity, when applying an argument from 1995 to the thermodynamics of strands. Modelling fermions as tangles of two or more strands allows to define wave functions as time-averages of strand crossings; using an argument from 1980, this allows to deduce the Dirac equation.
When modelling fermions as tangled strands, gauge interactions appear naturally as deformation of tangle cores. The three possible types of observable core deformations are given by the three Reidemeister moves. They naturally lead to a U(1), a broken and parity-violating SU(2), and a SU(3) gauge group. The corresponding Lagrangians also appear naturally.
The model is unique, is unmodifiable, is consistent with all known data, and makes numerous testable predictions, including the absence of other interactions, of grand unification and of higher dimensions. A method for calculating coupling constants seems to appear naturally.

------

This appears to be one of the few approaches around that predicts a lack of GUTs, of SUSY, of usual strings, of branes, and of loops. Christoph really does it in a way that goes against the ideas of almost everybody else :-) He appears to prefer Louis Kauffman's ideas.

He now cites David Deutsch and his talk on http://www.ted.com . Deutsch said in his last talk that truth is defined by "hard to vary" explanations. Christoph claims that his model has this property - that it is hard to vary - and thus that it could be true. Boy, if so, either this is totally wrong or it is totally true ...

 

[John86]

Sounds very interesting to me. Are there crossing points with Loops ?..
My gut feeling is that Schiller's strand model plank unit switch model is somehow a phase transitional phenomonan with respect to possibly what we call the Big bang

Can anybody gi some more insight !..

 

[Spinnor]

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



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?

I guess you were referring to the paper by Schiller,

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 ?

Where is the fatal flaw, where is the fantasy? Schiller seems to explain a lot from a simple idea, from a quick read I'm not sure what is not explained. If not correct Schiller seems headed in the right direction.

Thanks for any thoughts.

 

[MTd2]

The guy was banned. No use quoting him.

 

[Spinnor]

Can three theories be united; Loop, String, Strand?

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

Strand Theory, http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905

Thanks for any thoughts.

 

[heinz]

I guess you were referring to the paper by Schiller,

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 ?

Where is the fatal flaw, where is the fantasy? Schiller seems to explain a lot from a simple idea, from a quick read I'm not sure what is not explained. If not correct Schiller seems headed in the right direction.

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

I am most captivated by the definition of the wave function as a time average of strand crossings. This definition is so simple! I just read the longer explanation of wave functions in chapter 9 of http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html and found no errors: the full Hilbert structure is reproduced. This alone is stuff to think about for a while.

 

[heinz]

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

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

 

[marcus]

In my not-at-all-original opinion, Christoph deserves a break and should be given some kind of entrée somewhere. He is an intelligent general thinker, and he is in a certain sense "scholarly".
He is gentlemanly, responsible, and sane. And moreover his ideas are quite interesting!*

"Uniting" other theories with string is not very interesting to discuss. String has become a boring Baroque mess. Parts of the mathematics can be salvaged and put to other uses, but as all-embracing fundamental theory it is no longer much of a bid.

In the paper you linked, Christoph makes the very significant point that a unified theory should be impossible to modify.
His theory might be wrong, but it is impossible to modify.
Heinz pointed this out.
Christoph cannot allow extra dimensions, or more than three generations. His theory will not work if any part is changed, say in order to try to "unite" it with some ill-defined alternative.

In a way the guy is a Romantic. He has gambled all on one throw. Hier steh' ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Heh heh. Beautiful. Very North European in style. Tough act.

I want to quote this bit, right at the end:

Any unified description of nature must first of all provide a precise description of observations. This can only be tested by experiment. But a unified description must also have an additional property: it must be unmodifiable. A unified description must leave no alternative.

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

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

*I see from glancing at that other "crazy enough" thread that Christoph says he is getting a lot of good feedback now. Maybe the establishment is going to open up somewhere and absorb the "strands" idea. I have no way of guessing about this.

 

[jal]

@ Spinnor
Thanks for bring this info to my/our attention.

I find that Christoph Schiller has an overlooked and a new way of explaining things.

I did not find it a waste of time to look at what he has to say.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/12/guestpost-christoph-schiller-about.html
BY BEE ON FRIDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2008
Guestpost: Christoph Schiller about Motion Mountain
"Please present the free Motion Mountain Physics Text and yourself!" Sabine wrote me some time ago. I answered that I first wanted to put the new version online. That is now done; it can be downloaded at www.motionmountain.net.
----
He has three papers at arxiv.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905

Deducing the three gauge interactions from the three Reidemeister moves
Christoph Schiller
(Submitted on 24 May 2009 (v1), last revised 14 Nov 2009 (this version, v2))

----
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0607090
General relativity and cosmology derived from principle of maximum power or force
Christoph Schiller
(Submitted on 11 Jul 2006)

----
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0309118
Maximum force and minimum distance: physics in limit statements
Christoph Schiller
(Submitted on 29 Sep 2003 (v1), last revised 14 Apr 2004 (this version, v5))
-----
jal

 

[SimonA]

Since strands allow to deduce the Dirac equation, the field equations of general relativity, and since strands fulfil the known requirements for a unified theory
Christoph Schiller

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

How about we play with this a bit ? These strands are seen as determining both the vacuum and particles, lacing 3d space almost as the canvas is to a painting. But what if we say that space is a strand, time is a strand, and there are other strands interwoven to form a connected picture? And each strand interacts with each other in very particular but different ways.

I suspect that when we stand back and take our eyes away from the microscope studying the canvas in such detail, we will see that there is paint on the surface and a canvass behind it. We may even see the paintbrush that drives the wave to become a point, and possibly the force that drives the brush that started the painting. The question I have, is will we see the subject of the painting as it is, rather than as it's shown? I suspect reason alone can't make that leap, no matter what the technalogical understanding of the age the researcher sits in.

 

[heinz]

I just saw that wikipedia says in the article on loop quantum gravity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity : "there is no experimental observation for which loop quantum gravity makes a prediction not made by the Standard Model or general relativity"

Is this really true? If yes, then loop quantum gravity is as dead as string theory. Quite different from the strand model. These are the experimental predictions I found on the strand model site at http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html#pred :

-------------

Some predictions of the model (with their timing), made before conclusive experiments (at the LHC, on neutrinos, on electric dipole moments, about QCD, and in astrophysics):

* No additional elementary particle will be discovered: the Higgs boson does not exist. The unitarity of scattering for longitudinal W and Z bosons is maintained at all energies. (On website and 6th volume, August 2009.)
* Non-local and non-perturbative effects in longitudinal W and Z boson scattering will be observed. (On website and 6th volume, October 2009.)
* Gauge couplings, particle masses, mixing angles and their running can be calculated with help of knot, polymer or cosmic string simulation programs. (Website, March 2009, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.)
* All neutrinos have mass and differ from their antiparticles. Neutrinoless double-beta decay will not be observed. (On website and 6th volume, August 2009.)
* Hadron form factors can be calculated ab initio. (On website and 6th volume, October 2009.)
* The light scalar mesons are mostly tetraquarks; knotted two-quark states and knotted glueballs are ruled out. (Website, November 2008, and 6th volume.)
* The probable non-existence of glueballs needs a better argument. (Website, October 2008, changed to opposite in April 2009; see manuscript 4 and the 6th volume.)
* Dark matter is compatible with the standard model. Dark matter detectors will not detect anything new. (Website, September 2008, and the 6th volume.)
* The electric dipole moment of elementary fermions is of the order of the Planck length times the elementary charge. (Website, November 2008, and manuscript 4.)
* The quark mixing and the neutrino mixing matrices are unitary. (Website, November 2008, and 6th volume.)
* The coupling constants, particle masses and mixing angles are constant in time. (Website, November 2008, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.)
* There are only three fermion generations. The proton and the positron charge are equal. (Website, November 2008, and 6th volume.)
* The highest chromoelectric (and chromomagnetic) field in nature is given by the highest force divided by the colour charge; similar limits exist for the weak interaction. The limits can be checked in neutron/quark stars or other astrophysical objects. (Website, September 2008, and manuscript 4.)
* No gauge groups other than those of the standard model exist in particle physics. No form of GUT, technicolour or supersymmetry is valid. No other interaction exists. Protons do not decay. (Website, August 2008, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.)
* No additional elementary gauge bosons, preons, superpartners, magnetic monopoles, axions, sterile neutrinos, additional fermion families or leptoquarks exist. (Website, August 2008, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.)
* No additional spatial dimensions, fermionic coordinates, non-commutative spacetime or different vacua exist in nature. No dilaton exists. (Website, August 2008, and manuscript 4.)
* No quantum gravity effect will ever be observed - not counting the cosmological constant and the masses of the elementary particles. (Website, September 2009, and volume VI.)
* No deviations from QCD and almost none from the standard model appear for any measurable energy scale. In particular, the strand model implies that SU(2) is broken and P, C and CP are violated in the weak interaction, and that SU(3), confinement and asymptotic freedom are properties of the strong interaction. Longitudinal W and Z scattering is slightly changed at LHC energies. (Website, August 2008, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.)

* No deviations from quantum theory or quantum electrodynamics appear for any measurable energy scale. The QED energy dependence of the fine structure constant is reproduced. (Manuscript 3, April 2008, and manuscript 4.)
* No deviations from thermodynamics appear for any measurable energy scale. (Manuscripts 2 and 3, April 2008.)

* The universe's integrated luminosity is c^5/4G. (Manuscript 2, April 2008.)
* If the cosmological constant is nonvanishing, it decreases with time. (Manuscript 2, April 2008.)
* If the cosmological constant is nonvanishing, minimal electric and magnetic fields, a minimum force and a minimum acceleration exist. (Manuscript 2, March 2008.)
* The universe has trivial topology at all measurable energies. (Manuscript 2, April 2008.)
* No singularities, wormholes, time-like loops, negative energy regions, cosmic strings, cosmic domain walls, information loss, torsion or MOND exist; inflation did not occur. (Manuscript 2, April 2008.)
* No deviations from special or general relativity appear for any measurable energy scale. No doubly or deformed special relativity arises in nature. (Manuscript 2, April 2008.)

* There are maximal electric and magnetic fields in nature. (Manuscript 1, March 2008.)
* No deviations from electrodynamics appear for any measurable energy scale. (Manuscript 1, March 2008.)

* The Planck values are the smallest measurable length and time intervals, the Planck momentum and energy are the highest measurable values for elementary particles. A maximum curvature exists and the generalized indeterminacy principle holds. (As predicted by many.)
* The highest force and power values measurable locally in nature are c^4/4G and c^5/4G. (Proved independently by Gary Gibbons, and suggested by several others.)
* The smallest entropy in nature is given by k ln 2. (As stated by many.)
* The quantum of action, hbar, is the smallest action value measurable in nature. (As stated by Niels Bohr.)
* The speed of light, c, is the highest energy speed measurable locally in nature. (As stated by Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Einstein and others.)

-------------

This list looks pretty testable to me!

 

[tom.stoer]

I don't think that "unite the three theories ..." is the right wording. You cannot put three theories together and let a forth simply emerge from it. But the three "theories" you are mentioning are not theories like GR, QM, QFT ..., they are research programs! All of them miss experimental support. Even for QM / QFT and GR "putting them together" was not successful so far. The big difference is that for QM and GR you have a (physically) correct starting point, which is missing for the three approaches you are mentioning.

So these programs can learn from each other; they can try to incorporate certain aspects, they can borrow mathematical methods. But I would not call this a unification.

 

[jal]

Any approach that tries to explain that which we still do not know and can capture the interest and imagination of an inquisitive mind to study how the universe could be made is worthwhile.

To preview the book without downloading it, click on Motion Mountain on scribd.com.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11652414/Motion-Mountain-NEW-vol-1-The-Adventure-of-Physics-edition-235

jal

 

[physics8553]

In loop quantum gravity, there seems no established way to explain gauge interactions. The main point of the manuscript is to present such a way, a way that uses only three spatial dimensions. On the other hand, the strand model seems so tied up with the definition of wave function and of space-time, and so hard to modify, that its concepts are quite distant from those of the various flavours of loop quantum gravity and of the various formulations of string theory.

The modelling of wave functions with the help of strands is only summarized in the manuscript. It is explained in more detail in the pdf found at http://www.motionmountain.net/research , in chapter 9 "Quantum theory of matter deduced from strands" which starts at page 157. The explanation shows that the definition of the wavefunction for fermions using strands depends on three spatial dimensions. It does not work in other numbers of dimensions.

Christoph

 

[physics8553]

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

(2) ... But what if we say that space is a strand, time is a strand, and there are other strands interwoven to form a connected picture? And each strand interacts with each other in very particular but different ways.

(3) I suspect that when we stand back and take our eyes away from the microscope studying the canvas in such detail, we will see that there is paint on the surface and a canvass behind it. We may even see the paintbrush that drives the wave to become a point, and possibly the force that drives the brush that started the painting. The question I have, is will we see the subject of the painting as it is, rather than as it's shown? I suspect reason alone can't make that leap, no matter what the technalogical understanding of the age the researcher sits in.

These are three points:

(1) Strands are unobservable by themselves, they all reach the "border of space" and they all seem to one single strand, as proposed in the chapter on cosmology. So the answer is: there is only one strand, and that strand is the universe. What we can observe are crossing switches.This is related to the fact that all observations use the electromagnetic interaction, and this interaction is described by the first Reidemeister move, which is related to crossing switches in the simplest way.

(2) In the present formulation, only particles and space are strands, time is not.

(3) Yes, that is a good explanation of the fascination of the strand model.

Generally speaking, the strand model is a proposal for discussion, and everybody can check whether it fits observations.In the manuscript http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 the strand model is only used to derive the three gauge interactions. The rest of the strand model - explaining why the Lagrangian of the standard model of particle physics appears, why three generations of particles appear, and which experimenal predictions follow - for the moment is only found at http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html#pred

At this point it seems that all the experimentally veryfied Lagrangian terms of the standard model of particle physics are reproduced. That makes the strand model interesting - so that now the detailed checking can - and must - start.

Christoph

 

[jal]

Hi Christoph!
Could you give me your thoughts on ...
The length of strands.
String theory says that 3 dimensions expanded and that the others remained small.
Did your dimensions expand?
jal

 

[tom.stoer]

In loop quantum gravity, there seems no established way to explain gauge interactions. The main point of the manuscript is to present such a way, a way that uses only three spatial dimensions. ...
... The explanation shows that the definition of the wavefunction for fermions using strands depends on three spatial dimensions. It does not work in other numbers of dimensions.

You are right, LQG allows for gauge interaction of matter fields (to be put on top of LQG), but neither explains nor demands them. There is little hope that braids (a similar idea to strands, as far as I can see) can emerge from "framed" spin-network states of quantum-deformed SU(2).

It is interesting that strands seem to work only in three dimension. There are not so many concepts for which the number of spatial dimensions is constrained mathematically (exceptional groups / octonions, twistors, knots, strings, exceptional smooth structures). So the next question is "why strands"?

 

[weburbia]

You might like this lighthearted video about the string wars: http://vixra.org/stringwars/ . You should compare some of the comments by "Anonymous Quantum Gravitist" with what Marcus says above :-). It also makes some serious points about combining LQG and string theory and how they have a lot of mathematics in common.

I'm not very familair with strands but it looks like an interesting idea which could sit between LQG and string theory. Schiller has written a great deal of good stuff about physics at all levels so it would be nice to see it taken seriously.

 

[SimonA]

How do you see "background independance" in it's importance to a theory describing the basic sub atomic forces? Theorists seem so determined to discover a TOE that they seem to me like people trying to run before they can walk.

What is the most fundamental constituent of reality? If space and time are not, and particles are, we appear to be in a strange place where we have given up understanding non-locality, and are paying the price of laziness.

I'm not suggesting that space or time are fundamental, just that we are trying to jump further than we are able.

Unless we can explain the rotation of galaxies, and youngs slit experiment, at a fundemtal level such that it could be taught to school children, we have not understood it.

 

[physics8553]

About the questions:

- Length of strands: In the strand model, strands have no ends, they reach the border of space (the cosmic horizon). Wen's model has strands with ends, but the strand model has not.

- Higher dimensions: Other dimensions than 3 do not work/exist in the strand model, mainly because spin 1/2 is so tied to 3 dimensions.

- Why strands? In my 6th volume, I argue that featureless strands are the *simplest* possible constituents of physical 3-d vacuum (in particular, simpler than points). I also argue that strands are the simplest possible *common constituents* of matter and space. (Extension is needed to reproduce the black hole entropy.) So the main answer would be: there is no simpler alternative.

Of course, the other answer is: strands simply work. They reproduce general relativity through the thermodynamics of strands, and they reproduce wave functions and quantum theory. But most of all, strands reproduce the three gauge interactions and the three generations. The latter two points are the most convincing ones to me.

 

[physics8553]

Background independence does not exist in the strand model by construction. The idea is that each observer introduces its own background. My personal opinion is that background independence is impossible to achieve. My *very sloppy* argument for this conviction goes like this: (1) Physics is (precise) talking (and thinking) about motion. (2) Talking and thinking is done by an observer. (3) Every observer has a background. (4) There is no way to talk without being an observer. (5) Talking is not possible without a background.

What is more fundamental: space or particles? In the strand model, the answer is that both are made of common constituents, thus that one is impossible without the other. They are on the same level.

Young's intereference is explained with strands in my 6th volume at http://www.motionmountain.net/research

The rotation of galaxies depends on the elucidation of dark matter. Here the strand model makes the - at present very unpopular - prediction that dark matter is ordinary matter (including maybe, black holes). We will see what the searches will yield.

 

[Spinnor]

Understanding the Strand Model, questions.

Strand Model see:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905

and the references at the end of 0905.3905.

I picture a room full of gas whose atoms are made of tangles of strands that go to infinity. As the gas molecules bounce off each other I would think the strands would get hopelessly tied up?

With all the other strands in our background how is motion possible with strands that can't pass through each other, it seems they can only slide past each other, how is motion possible with strands that can't be broken?

More tangling? All the "parts" of a Nitrogen molecule, electrons and quarks, are made of tangles of strands that go to infinity, again won't motion of all the parts get hopelessly tied up?

What am I missing?

As a tangle rotates do the strands that go to infinity get twisted or does the Feynman belt trick stop this?

Thanks for any help!

 

[apeiron]

With all the other strands in our background how is motion possible with strands that can't pass through each other, it seems they can only slide past each other, how is motion possible with strands that can't be broken?

I raised this with Schiller and did not get an answer that satisfied me. I had thought the strands would have to actually cross (imagining this as a quantum tunnelling like approach). But he insisted that we only need worry about the local appearance of crossing, even if this created tangles further away in strands tethered at infinity.

Quoting...

Originally Posted by apeiron
1) How do you view the crossings that create observable events? It sounds as though you have in mind a kind of quantum tunneling where there is a choice of either/or, under or over, and so fluctuations from one side to the other. You may not have a literal interpretation of crossings, but it would be interesting to know if you do.

2) What is the actual topology of the tangles. I presume the shape of the knots is going to be the subject of your follow-up paper, explaining the particle zoo.

3) When you talk about strands stretching to infinity, are you thinking of them as anchored to event horizons? That is, to "currently observable" infinity. Probably an unnecessary complication.

reply...

(1) No, strands can never interpenetrate or pass each other. In other words, crossings can switch only by one strand *rotating* around the other. Passing through is never allowed.

(2) Yes, the tangle structure is the topic of the next paper. Please be patient...

(3) Yes, (more or less) anchored at the horizon. `Infinity' is only true for flat space-time.

Christoph

Originally Posted by apeiron
Now I'm confused. How can a strand swap across to pass the other side by a rotation? Unless you are talking a trip through a higher dimension?

reply...

No, there are no higher dimensions; everything happens in three dimensions. A crossing switch can only occur through shape fluctuations. Take two pieces of real rope, and deform them in such a way that the crossing you are looking at changes sign.

A simple example is to imagine that the upper right of a crossing and the lower right are connected. Then the crossing is due to a twist. Rotate the twist twice by 180 degrees, and the crossing will be switched.

Does that make it clearer?

Christoph Schiller

Originally Posted by cschiller
This will indeed introduce additional crossings outside the field of view, but who cares? At the point in space we are interested
in, you have a crossing switch, and this is described by hbar. There will be other crossing switches elsewhere, which also produce hbars there.


reply...

To me this is just moving a crossing with a twist, not actually switching a crossing.

And now you are introducing some kind of observer effect. There has to be a "me" for whom the crossing looks locally switched, and also a me that does not have the peripheral vision to see it has only been twisted.

This sounds crazy so I would be looking for more convincing explanations for why this would be a good model.

As I say, I like knot-style approaches generally. And spin networks. They model worlds in which global constraints breed local constructive freedoms, which then leads to self-organising or bootstrapping theories.

So constrain local action to strands, to 1D paths, and suddenly there are unavoidable local constructive freedoms. There are new local symmetries created and thus the chance for new local symmetry-breakings.

 

[physics8553]

Strand Model see:

With all the other strands in our...ds, or py passing around at spatial infinity.

 

[physics8553]

I raised this with Schiller and did not get an answer that satisfied me. I had thought the strands would have to actually cross (imagining this as a quantum tunnelling like approach). But he insisted that we only need worry about the local appearance of crossing, even if this created tangles further away in strands tethered at infinity.

Quoting...

Indeed, strands *never interpenetrate* each other in the strand model. Please try to reformulate the issue that bothers you - I'll do my best to answer.

 

[Spinnor]

We have to distinguish two types of getting tangled up:
(1) the tangling between different particles,
(2) the tangling between a particle and the vacuum.

About (1): This is solved by the belt trick, as you can check by yourself. Take a a lego brick, and attach longs strands to it, say of a metre or so in length, as many as you like. Fix the other ends of the strands to a table the floor, etc, but leave the strands loose. Then do the same with a second lego brick.

Now you can exchange the position of the two lego bricks TWICE; then the whole mess can be untangled without moving the bricks, just by moving the (unobservable) tails. In other words, strand fluctuations and the belt trick prevent many particle systems from tangling up hopelessly.

About (2) This is solved by the specific tangles that make up fermions. As explained in chapter 12 of
http://www.motionmountain.net/research fermion tangles can move through the vacuum in various ways without tangling up: either by exchanging strands, or py passing around at spatial infinity.

Thank you for your help! After a go at chapter 12 I still can't picture say a solar neutrino moving near the speed of light through the sun in your model. Just does not seem with all those tangles and strands around the neutrino could not deform its strands fast enough? I'll keep working on it.

Another question, please point me in the right direction, how is the relative weakness of gravity explained in your model?

 

[xristy]

Some readers may find a short video from Kauffman's group helpful in visualizing some of what Schiller is saying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYBqIRM8GiY".

 

[heinz]

Is the strand model a theory of everything?

The other threads on the strand model somehow avoid this question. The manuscript http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 tries to deduce the three gauge interactions, but the other writings of Christoph from http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html show that he really is after a theory of everything, the famous TOE. He may not like the term, but that is what he is doing and proposing. Now, anybody making such an enormous claim must live with some tough questioning. Christoph, here are some questions that need to be answered:

1 * Does the theory make sense?
2 * Is it correct?
3 * Does it describe everything?
4 * Is it consistent?
5 * Does it solve all problems?
6 * Does it solve the problem of time?
7 * Does it solve the problem of dark energy and dark matter?
8 * Does it solve the problem of wave function collapse?
9 * What does it say about the multiverse?
10* Does it explain the big bang?
11* Does it explain God?
12* Does it make predictions?
13* Is the theory testable?
14* What about Goedels theorem?
15* How is emergence explained, and Laughlin's objections?
16* Is this the victory of reductionism?
17* What does the theory say about the anthropic principle?
18* Aren't you preposterous?
19* Does the theory have any use?
20* Does it help in our normal life?
21* What about string theory?
22* What happens to supersymmetry?
23* What about non-commutative space-time?
24* What about loop quantum gravity?
25* What happens to the landscape?
26* What happens to higher dimensions?
27* Why is this theory better than any other?
28* If it is correct, then why did you find it, and not another physicist?
29* How can you live making such an enormous claim?

I ask Christoph to answer these questions, and encourage everybody else to add more questions. After all, extraordinary claims need extraordinary checks.

 

[physics8553]

1 * Does the theory make sense?
2 * Is it correct?
3 * Does it describe everything?
4 * Is it consistent?
5 * Does it solve all problems?
6 * Does it solve the problem of time?
7 * Does it solve the problem of dark energy and dark matter?
8 * Does it solve the problem of wave function collapse?
9 * What does it say about the multiverse?
10* Does it explain the big bang?
11* Does it explain God?
12* Does it make predictions?
13* Is the theory testable?
14* What about Goedels theorem?
15* How is emergence explained, and Laughlin's objections?
16* Is this the victory of reductionism?
17* What does the theory say about the anthropic principle?
18* Aren't you preposterous?
19* Does the theory have any use?
20* Does it help in our normal life?
21* What about string theory?
22* What happens to supersymmetry?
23* What about non-commutative space-time?
24* What about loop quantum gravity?
25* What happens to the landscape?
26* What happens to higher dimensions?
27* Why is this theory better than any other?
28* If it is correct, then why did you find it, and not another physicist?
29* How can you live making such an enormous claim?

Heinz,

you take this much too seriously! The phrase `theory of everything' is not the name for a religion, but for the solution of a riddle. Solving a riddle is a pastime, and pastimes are for enjoyment. The strand model is a proposal for the solution of the riddle. Exploring a toe is fun! In fact, this exaggerated seriousness may be the reason why finding the toe takes so long.

By the way, these remarks also answer questions 5, 11, 14 to 20, 28 and 29. Now to your other questions:

1 to 8, 10: In the pdf on http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html I list the problems of fundamental physics (only those, physics as a whole has many more) and of fundamental cosmology (same remark) on page 18 and 19, and I repeat them on page 144 and 145. These are the riddles, and the rest of the text is the proposal of a solution. The strand model is only correct if the predictions, such as a lack of supersymmetry and a time-varying cosmological constant, are measured.

12 and 13: There are many testable predictions that are within reach in the coming years, both for experiments and for numerical calculations. I list them on http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html#pred and on pages 287 and 288 of the pdf just mentioned.

9: There is only one multiverse? What a limited fantasy! This is what I tell everybody who uses the ` term'.

21 to 26: I do not know.

27: It is not sure that the strand model is better! First the predictions need to be checked.

Enjoy!

Christoph

 

[physics8553]

Thank you for your help! After a go at chapter 12 I still can't picture say a solar neutrino moving near the speed of light through the sun in your model. Just does not seem with all those tangles and strands around the neutrino could not deform its strands fast enough? I'll keep working on it.

Another question, please point me in the right direction, how is the relative weakness of gravity explained in your model?

Strands are a Planck scale model. The distance between particles in the Sun is easily 10^25 times larger, and the timnes are longer by this or even a larger factor. So there is enough "room" and "time" to disentangle.

Gravity is weak because fermion masses are much smaller than the Planck mass. And this is due to the continuous fluctuations of the strands, which make the knotted configurations of a fermion (which provide the mass) are extremely unlikely compared to the unknotted configurations (which have no mass). This is explained in the chapter on particle properties (chapter 12) of http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html .

 

[NruJaC]

18. Maybe, but that's science! Someone has to propose the preposterous ideas until the one that's just shy of preposterous is found.
19. Science is usually 50+ years ahead of its applications.

Only two you missed I believe Christoph.

 

[Spinnor]

Strands are a Planck scale model. The distance between particles in the Sun is easily 10^25 times larger, and the timnes are longer by this or even a larger factor. So there is enough "room" and "time" to disentangle.

Gravity is weak because fermion masses are much smaller than the Planck mass. And this is due to the continuous fluctuations of the strands, which make the knotted configurations of a fermion (which provide the mass) are extremely unlikely compared to the unknotted configurations (which have no mass). This is explained in the chapter on particle properties (chapter 12) of http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html .

Thanks for your help!

A spinning neutron star in your model, all the tails of a spinning neutron star head to infinity? If the neutron star is rotating all the tails will have to preform the belt trick for every two revolutions of a neutron star? The belt trick in this situation seems "unnatural".

Using rope I have made some tangles. I have made an electron and a positron tangle, as shown in figure 8 of,

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905

I have looked at figure 11 of http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 and it is not clear how these two tangles can combine and give us two photon strands and no particle tangles?


Thanks for your help!

 

[heinz]

Christoph, those answers were much too short. And I LIKE to take things seriously. Truth is a serious issue. Please explain more about the strand model:

3 * Does it describe everything?
7 * Does it solve the problem of dark energy and dark matter?

And also:

30* What value of alpha does it predict?
31* What values of particle masses does it predict?
32* What values of mixing angles does it predict?
33* Why did you not calculate them?
34* Why is it not background-independent?
35* What symmetries does it have?
36* How exactly are general relativity and quantum theory unified?

This is what we want to understand, and what we NEED to understand. Otherwise this is not a theory of everything, but a collection of sentences without any sense.

 

[physics8553]

...

(1) A spinning neutron star in your model, all the tails of a spinning neutron star head to infinity? If the neutron star is rotating all the tails will have to preform the belt trick for every two revolutions of a neutron star? The belt trick in this situation seems "unnatural".

(2) Using rope I have made some tangles. I have made an electron and a positron tangle, as shown in figure 8 of,

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905

I have looked at figure 11 of http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905 and it is not clear how these two tangles can combine and give us two photon strands and no particle tangles?

(1) For matter, the belt trick untangles each particle separatly. Maybe the belt trick occurs for macrsocopic objects in the case of black holes - maybe; but surely not for neutron stars.

(2) As shown in chapter 12 of http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html , there are several tangles that correspond to each fermion. The simplest tangles are not knotted, and for these, the annihilation is much easier to see, when one assumes that the ends at spatial infinity come together. If the knotted states are studied, QED diagrams can only be reproduced by "looping over" at spatial infinity.

 

[physics8553]

3 * Does it describe everything
7 * Does it solve the problem of dark energy and dark matter?

And also:

30* What value of alpha does it predict?
31* What values of particle masses does it predict?
32* What values of mixing angles does it predict?
33* Why did you not calculate them?
34* Why is it not background-independent?
35* What symmetries does it have?
36* How exactly are general relativity and quantum theory unified?

3 * So far, the strand model seems to describe general relativity, cosmology, relativistic quantum theory, gauge interactions, and the three generations. It also *promises* to describe particle masses, mixing angles and coupling constants. To check these last three points, statistics of tangle deformations have to be studied. Some general statements can be made without such statistics (e.g. on mass sequences, and that coupling constants are all smaller than one); but the numerical check requires tangles statistics.

7 * Yes; dark matter is predicted to be conventional matter plus black holes. Dark energy is solved by predicting that the cosmological constant is determined by the horizon distance.

30 * A value below 1, and not too small. Calculations are not yet finished.

31 * No values yet, but some mass ratios. MW/MZ - the weak mixing angle - is predicted, and some more, as told in chapter 12 of http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html . Hadron mass sequences (in particular, Regge trajectories) seem reproduced - but again the arguments are qualitative.

32 * No definite values yet, only qualitative expressions, as told in the same chapter.

33 * At present, I am looking for computing power and also for smart ideas that make computers unnecessary.

34 * The model is background-dependent; I do not think that any other description is needed. Every observer has a background.

35 * Only the known symmetries of the standard model and of general relativity exist; thus only the usual gauge symmetries and the usual space-time symmetries. Tangle tail deformations lead to space-time symmetries, tangle core deformations lead to internal, gauge symmetries.

36 * General relativity and quantum theory are all seen as consequences of the invariance of Planck units. In the strand model, Planck units are invariant because crossing switches are processes that are the same for any observer. The invariance of Planck units then follows, and from that, the DIrac equation (for motion of matter in flat space) and Einstein's field equations (for motion of curved space). Equivalently, matter and space are made of the same extended, fluctuating constituents. This leads to unification of quantum theory and general relativity.

 

[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?