The Strand Model of fundamental interactions

[Spinnor]

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

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

Thanks for your help!

 

[LBJ]

Background independence does not exist in the strand model by construction

The idea is that each observer introduces its own background. My personal opinion is that background independence is impossible to achieve. My *very sloppy* argument for this conviction goes like this: (1) Physics is (precise) talking (and thinking) about motion. (2) Talking and thinking is done by an observer. (3) Every observer has a background. (4) There is no way to talk without being an observer. (5) Talking is not possible without a background
The rotation of galaxies depends on the elucidation of dark matter. Here the strand model makes the - at present very unpopular - prediction that dark matter is ordinary matter (including maybe, black holes). We will see what the searches
will yield.

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

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

LBJ

 

[DataBase]

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

 

[physics8553]

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

Thanks for your help!

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

 

[physics8553]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[physics8553]

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

 

[physics8553]

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

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

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

 

[physics8553]

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

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

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

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

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

Let me think about your comment a bit more.

 

[Spinnor]

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

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

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

Good luck!

 

[LBJ]

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, LBJ

 

[heinz]

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

This paragraph is really dynamite.

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

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

 

[physics8553]

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

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

(3) A GUT seems to require this also.

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

Thank you, LBJ

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

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

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

 

[physics8553]

(1) This paragraph is really dynamite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

- it must contain general relativity and qauntum field theory.

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

The strand model, with its simple basic postulate, is a candidate solution to the riddle, because it seems to answer each requirement. The strand model also has a clear experimental signature, namely a "desert" up o Planck energy, including a lack of Higgs bosons. Let's see what the LHC and the other experiments will bring us.

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

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

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

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

 

[physics8553]

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

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

Good luck!

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

 

[Fra]

Background independence vs observer invariance

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

What is more fundamental: space or particles? In the strand model, the answer is that both are made of common constituents,

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

I symphatize with parts of this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/Fredrik

 

[heinz]

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

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

 

[Naty1]

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

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

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

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

 

[heinz]

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

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

 

[LBJ]

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

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

Thank you. LBJ

 

[heinz]

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

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

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

 

[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.