"Strand theory" model of unified physical system

[robheus 11]

Here is some idea I came accross recently. All fundamental properties of physical systems are described in terms of:

- A background of empty 3d space which is filled in every part and every direction with fluctuating strands. Strands are featureless, but do not interpenetrate, and continue to the horizon of physical space.

- All properties of matter and observables we can detect are based on strand crossings. The strands themselves are unobservable.

 

From this miniscule description of physics he is able to show that all physical properties can be deduced, including general relativity, quantum field theory, the standard model, etc.

He makes some bold predictions, for instance that at CERN no new forms of matter (fundamental particles) or the Higgs boson will be detected, neither extra dimensions.

Untill now, his predictions still stand. The theory can be classified as a kind of TOE (theory of everything).

 

Strand Model

 

An appetizer

The text presents an approach to the final, unified theory of physics with a simple basis but intriguing implications. The model is based on featureless strands and sums up textbook physics in a single fundamental principle: events and Planck units are crossing switches of strands. Surprisingly, this fundamental principle, which works in three dimensions only, allows to deduce Dirac's equation (from the belt trick), the principles of thermodynamics, and Einstein's field equations (from the thermodynamics of strand crossing switches). Quantum theory and general relativity are thus found to be low-energy approximations of processes at the Planck scale. In particular, strands explain the entropy of black holes (including the numerical factor).

 

As a further surprise, in the same approximation, the fundamental principle yields the three gauge groups and the Lagrangians of quantum electrodynamics, of the strong and of the weak interaction, including maximal parity violation and SU(2) breaking. The Lagrangians appear as a natural consequence of the three Reidemeister moves of knot theory. The strand model does not permit any further interaction, gauge group or symmetry group. The strand model might even be the first unified model predicting the three gauge interactions – and the lack of other ones.

 

As a final surprise, the fundamental principle predicts three fermion generations and the lack of any unknown elementary particles. The strand model thus predicts that the standard model, with slight corrections for longitudinal W and Z boson scattering, is the final description of particle physics. The quark model and the construction of all mesons and baryons are shown to follow from strands. In other words, crossing switches explain all known elementary particles, all their quantum numbers, and the lack of any other elementary particles. The strand model might be the first unified model predicting the elementary particle spectrum.

 

A natural method for the calculation of coupling constants, particle masses and mixing angles appears. So far, mass sequences, some mass ratios, the weak mixing angle, the sequence and the order of magnitude of coupling constants are predicted correctly. Again, the strand model might be the first unified model allowing such calculations. The volume is regularly updated.

 

The strand model also fulfils a famous wish about the final theory: it fits on a T-shirt. This wish is less frivolous than it looks: it asks for a clear and simple fundamental principle.

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2012 by robheus

[qsa 4]

In my not so humble opinion I think the strand model is very close to being correct. If you generalize my own "theory" you are very much lead to a strand like model, even though I derive my theory from a more basic principle. Dr. schiller seems to have a very keen mind decucing his theory from just the requirment of simplicity, I am not so smart, I deduced mine from an imperative stand.

 

I will elaborote if anybody is interested since I did not see any interest in this topic yet.

 

 

 

http://www.qsa.netne.net

[robheus 11]

In my not so humble opinion I think the strand model is very close to being correct. If you generalize my own "theory" you are very much lead to a strand like model, even though I derive my theory from a more basic principle. Dr. schiller seems to have a very keen mind decucing his theory from just the requirment of simplicity, I am not so smart, I deduced mine from an imperative stand.

 

I will elaborote if anybody is interested since I did not see any interest in this topic yet.

 

 

 

http://www.qsa.netne.net

 

I have not yet formed an opinion on that yet, but I do like the work of Dr. Schiller (he pubishes good physics book and gives them away for free).

 

From a philosopical point of view I would however think that the idea of a kind of substratum of physical reality is kind of weird and self-refuting in a sense. How could it be that physical reality is some sort of projection of some underlying (unobservable) physical substratum?

 

But I think the reason he presents us this simple model of an "ultimate" theory of physics is to mock the existing science community, who develop far more elaborated models (string theory/M theory) without any real results, and with no real testable predictions.

[qsa 4]

 

I have not yet formed an opinion on that yet, but I do like the work of Dr. Schiller (he pubishes good physics book and gives them away for free).

 

From a philosopical point of view I would however think that the idea of a kind of substratum of physical reality is kind of weird and self-refuting in a sense. How could it be that physical reality is some sort of projection of some underlying (unobservable) physical substratum?

 

But I think the reason he presents us this simple model of an "ultimate" theory of physics is to mock the existing science community, who develop far more elaborated models (string theory/M theory) without any real results, and with no real testable predictions.

 

 

I think if you go through his website you will find him very serious about his idea but not in a fanatical way.

 

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=318155

 

 

This thread discusses his theory at length and he gets criticized(I think rightly) on many points. This is where my theory comes in which usesthe similar idea but I derive it from a different concept but with a clear mathematical support. My idea is very clear cut and has the support of many reputable physicists and philosophers like DR. Tegmark and others. It remainsto be seen whether my theory can be shown to account fully for reality. But reality being a mathematical structure is a kin to a circle, we know how todescribe it but we don't actually see a circle. But the Irony is that we do seeour reality since we are part of the structure.

 

I will say more about his theory and its relation to mine later.

 

Edited June 21, 2012 by qsa

[robheus 11]

Recently came across a scientific news bulletin claiming that the evidence of having found the Higgs particle is accumulating. Which would mean the strand model can not be right, acc. to Schiller.

[qsa 4]

Recently came across a scientific news bulletin claiming that the evidence of having found the Higgs particle is accumulating. Which would mean the strand model can not be right, acc. to Schiller.

 

 

If Higgs was found it would have been big news by now. But anyhow, I thing Dr. Schiller's theory is obviously phenomenological and has no math to back it up, and so it has many unanswered questions and many premature conclusions. Yet, on its own, it seems to account for the overall physical phenomena. What I am saying is that my theory has the same sort of idea (simplicity and the crossing paradigm) but it is backed up with solid results and that is why his theory looks like viable starting point. But also, I claim that my theory diverges on many other issues and sort of "corrects" his model.

 

 

Moreover, the final theory is infinitely more than just the Higgs problem, it's about the prediction of exact particle's mass, the couplings and all the other issues listed in his website.

 

 

I would also like to remind you on the issue of reality based on unseen entities is that even in present day physics we model using virtual photon, quarks … etc which are not detectable in principle and there is a great debate even on their realities, not to mention the notorious wavefunction.

[Everett 0]

Qsa:

 

In strand model, Schiller derive the 3 equations for interaction between a quantum particle and a gauge field, and they said that quantum field theory can be deduced, but in his book it doesn´t appear, neither thermodynamics explication from his strand model. Can your theory make it all these deductions. I would be interested. Could you tell about it?? Thanks

[motionmountain 10]

The tangle model has been improved in the past years. A research preprint is now available at

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

It makes the derivation of the standard model of particle physics evident. The known

particle spectrum, the known gauge interactions and the Feynman diagrams of the

standard model are deduced. Enjoy.

[motionmountain 10]

The strand conjecture, unifying and deriving the Lagrangians of both particle physics and general
relativity, has been published in http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1063779619030055.
Like in any unification attempt, predictions must be made and tests proposed.
They are listed on http://www.motionmountain.net/bet . The page also offers a bet:
the bet is lost if anything new is ever discovered in physics: new particles, new forces,
new symmetries, new dimensions, new energy scales, new parameters, or anything else
that invalidates the high energy desert. The bet is also lost if any other unified theory is
ever found. Furthermore, the bet is lost if the strand conjecture is found to be inconsistent.
Many other ways to invalidate the prediction are given.

The bet is written so as to make it as easy as possible to win for anybody who disagrees.

Edited March 18 by motionmountain
consistency

[Mordred 1370]

I will stick to QFT at least it has the flexibility of the Feymann path integrals as to particle interactions. I'm not about to waste my time on this.

If you want the generations then apply the CKMS and PMNS mixing angles.

It's too bad your not applying the mathematics behind string theory not from what I saw in your links above. 

Edited March 19 by Mordred

[motionmountain 10]

The strand conjecture deduces all the known Feynman diagrams, so doing QFT remains correct.

The number of generations also arises; so does a geometric picture for the CKM and PMNS mixing angles. See http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1063779619030055

One difference to string theory is that everything takes place in 3 spatial dimensions.

 

[Mordred 1370]

Then you should have no problem demonstrating how to derive a vertex for a fermion here without having to go through your links.

 Secondly you should have only three degrees of freedom specifically three independent variables. As that is the definition of a dimension in physics. Including string theory.

Under proper mathematical definition of a dimension which all valid physics models employ claiming you can derive all the individual properties of any particle and be restricted to three degrees of freedom would be false.

There is four effective degrees of freedom just in spacetime. The four independent variables being x,y,z,t. Spin of a particle including its antiparticle will have various degrees of freedom depending upon its spin value.

I looked through your papers that have far more claims than mathematical support. 

Edited March 19 by Mordred

[swansont 7231]

On 9/2/2018 at 11:40 AM, motionmountain said:

The tangle model has been improved in the past years. A research preprint is now available at

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

It makes the derivation of the standard model of particle physics evident. The known

particle spectrum, the known gauge interactions and the Feynman diagrams of the

standard model are deduced. Enjoy.

!

Moderator Note

Discussion needs to take place here. If you are linking to a published paper or preprint, link to the paper itself. General links to your own site are in violation of the rules.

 

[motionmountain 10]

Half a year later, I cannot edit the post any more.

Please free to take the web page out and put the link http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1063779619030055 to the paper in instead.

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Then you should have no problem demonstrating how to derive a vertex for a fermion here without having to go through your links.

 Secondly you should have only three degrees of freedom specifically three independent variables. As that is the definition of a dimension in physics. Including string theory.

Under proper mathematical definition of a dimension which all valid physics models employ claiming you can derive all the individual properties of any particle and be restricted to three degrees of freedom would be false.

There is four effective degrees of freedom just in spacetime. The four independent variables being x,y,z,t. Spin of a particle including its antiparticle will have various degrees of freedom depending upon its spin value.

I looked through your papers that have far more claims than mathematical support. 

There is a rational tangle assigned to each fermion and each boson. When playing with them, one notes that only certain vertices are possible. They turn out to be exactly the observed ones. I attach two pdfs showing the pictures of the vertices that follow from the tangles. All this happens in just three spatial dimensions, like for any tangle.

Quantum numbers such as electric charge, parity, baryon number, lepton number, etc. are topological properties of the tangles. The possible families of rational tangles limit the particles to three generations and to the observed fermions and leptons.

i-lagr1.pdf i-lagr2.pdf

Edited March 19 by motionmountain
Correction

[Mordred 1370]

Your still not understanding the meaning behind degree of freedom. Pretty pictures in your link is not mathematics. There is a formula behind every vertex can you reproduce those formulas using your tangles?

Can you determine the range of a force ? Can you determine which decays are allowed and which are not ?

You can draw as many pretty pictures as you want it's not pictured that makes predictions. You require the mathematics beyond your basic Newtonian first order formulas.

 

Edited March 19 by Mordred

[motionmountain 10]

Just now, Mordred said:

Pretty pictures in your link is not mathematics. There is a formula behind every vertex can you reproduce those formulas using your tangles?

Yes. There are several steps. 1: Reproducing the Dirac equation. 2. This implies reproducing the Dirac propagator. 3. Reproducing the free field Lagrangian for gauge fields. 4. Showing that the observed gauge symmetry groups (unbroken or broken) are valid. 5. Showing that the coupling with gauge fields obeys the usual relations and gauge freedom. 6. Showing that only the observed particles exist. 7. Showing that only the observed vertices of the standard model are possible.

[Mordred 1370]

Showing that you can mathematically plot each strand on graph with all the curves and boundary conditions. Also provide a reason for each strand to exist according to conservation laws.

 For example why does the 1/2 fermion require x strands and what is the mathematical reason behind that determination including application to the right hand rule.

Did you make up those Feymann diagrams yourself ? 

 

Edited March 20 by Mordred

[motionmountain 10]

Mordred, sorry, but I do not understand neither your English nor your physics.

Just to answer the last point: no, I did not make up the Feynman diagrams myself. The Feynman diagrams in the papers (and in the two attached pdf in a previous post) are the complete list of Feynman diagrams of the standard model of elementary particle physics. Just look up any book or review article on the standard model, and you will find them there - not more, not less.

Edited March 20 by motionmountain

[Mordred 1370]

HiReally so where is your time ordering for particle antiparticles ?

Do you not know those Feymann golden rules ?

How do you get

[math]ZZ\rightarrow HH[/math]

[math]ZZ\rightarrow H[/math] yes but you have both why ? What is the probability amplitude for the first reaction compared to the second ? Is the the first valid with the conservation laws ?

I should be able to perform calculations from your Feymann diagrams but they are missing essential details. Perhaps it's you that needs to learn how Feymann diagrams work.

The steps are as follows

1) write down a delta function at each vertex to conserve energy momentum. Multiply those terms together.

2) write down one coupling constant for each vertex

3) write down a propogator for each internal line

4) multiply all the factors together

5) integrate over internal moments.

For example for EM each vertex will have a copy of -ig

A spin zero propogator is [math]\frac{I}{q^2-m^2}[/math] usually denoted by a dashed line. Now I could go through numerous examples however let's skip that for a second and recognize that the amplitudes for the above will also correspond to the decay rates as the decay rate is the square of the amplitude. I should be able to look at your diagrams and calculate the amplitude.

In other words determine

[math]M_{total}=\sum^n_{i=0} g^{k_i}M_i[/math] where [math]g^{k_i}[/math] are the coupling constants for each [math]M_i[/math] k describes the order of interaction. Ie k=1 is the first order k=2 the second order. Higher order terms will have more factors of g. When g is sufficiently small as I gets larger we can cut the sum off to get a reasonable estimate of the amplitude in the above.

 

Now Feymann diagrams aside the strings in string theory also has specific formulas the boundary conditions bring Dirichlet and (Neumann) not positive on latter. String theory isn't particularly something I focus on.

Each string is mathematically defined and can be plotted. 

That is what I am asking you to do.

Not just randomly draw twirls and swirls with random number of strands.

1 hour ago, motionmountain said:

Are the complete list of Feynman diagrams of the standard model of elementary particle physics. 

There is no such thing as a complete list of Feymann diagrams I can promise you and demonstrate numerous examples of Feymann diagrams not included in your two links. For example you have no Penquin diagram

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_diagram

Here is a good list but this isn't even a complete list.

https://www.physik.uzh.ch/~che/FeynDiag/Listing.php

It's common examples so don't tell me yours is a complete list.

Edited March 20 by Mordred

[motionmountain 10]

You are right, my list is not the complete list of Feynman diagrams - because that list is infinite.
The list is the complete list of Feynman vertices. And you can look it up in any book on the standard model. The list is complete and not "made up".
With the vertices you can construct all Feynman diagrams, including the Penguin diagrams.
And then you can do the calculations that you mention.
Indeed, as you write, the gauge and Yukawa couplings are needed, as well as the mixing angles.
These constants, and the conservation laws at each vertex, are discussed in the preprints.

Edited March 20 by motionmountain

[Mordred 1370]

Great then if you understand that then you should have no problem putting in the arrows following the Feymanm rules for time ordering.

Secondly you should recognize that under QFT  you involve probability amplitudes with the Feymann diagrams and that they represent equations.

So getting back to my earlier point you should be able to reproduce those equations with your Tangle model...

I would like you to choose any Feymann diagram you have and show me how you can use your tangle model to reproduce the chosen diagram... The mathematical equivalent if you cannot do so then I see no point in ever using your tangle model.

 

In other words what mathematical basis defines how each strand contributes to reproduce a vertex. Why does it twist etc . Is that English clear enough ? My physics requires equations not verbal descriptives and claims. If you make a claim I want the mathematical proof to support that claim.

Edited March 20 by Mordred

[motionmountain 10]

Here is a collections of answers to your remarks.

M: Then you should have no problem demonstrating how to derive a vertex for a fermion here without having to go through your links.

The two pdf linked above show how to deduce a vertex involving fermions or bosons. More precisely, a fermion is a tight tangle (tethers/ends are not observable, just the core is, the region where all the crossings are). The path "traced" by the tangle core corresponds to the propagator. The vertex itself corresponds to a deformation of the involved tangle core or cores; the deformation leads to one or more additional tangles leaving. Due to topological restrictions (only deformations are allowed, no cutting or regluing of strands), only the observed vertices are possible.

 

M: There is a formula behind every vertex can you reproduce those formulas using your tangles?

Yes, the formulae are exactly the same. As you mentioned, the formulae are uniquely fixed by the coupling constants, the coupling structure,  and by the propagators. And these properties are reproduced.

To be even clearer, there is no reason at all to use the tangle model, as it is completely equivalent to QFT: there are no deviations from the standard model with Dirac neutrinos.

The only reason to explore the tangle model is that is appears to explain the particle spectrum and the three gauge groups of the interactions. So far, no other model can do that.

 

M: Can you determine the range of a force?

Yes, with the usual arguments that involve the vertices. The Abelian U(1) force (the group is *derived* from strands) obeys minimal coupling and thus reproduces Coulomb's law, Maxwell's equations, and infinite range.
The bosons of the non-Abelian SU(3) (also this group is *derived* from strands) is short-range because of the lack of commutativity.

 

M: Can you determine which decays are allowed and which are not ?

Yes. Given that the correct vertices -- and the known conservation laws for quantum numbers -- are reproduced by the tangle model, you get all the allowed decays, and none else.

M: Why does a strand twist?

Strands fluctuate all the time; for example, they are being pushed by other vacuums strands.

Edited March 20 by motionmountain

[Mordred 1370]

I'm still waiting for a mathematical description for a strand. I thought I was very clear on that.

What determines how many strands are required etc. You have no idea how many ppl state this or that alternative model is just like the standard model. To attempt to avoid the required mathematics.

I want a clear and concise mathematical demonstration of the advantages you claim your model produces that the standard methodology cannot produce mathematically.

Is that not clear enough, you can use whatever method you prefer canonical as per QFT, conformal etc but mathematically prove your model.

I know what QFT is capable of and how the SM Langrangians apply I want a demonstration of your model to compare to.

I'm going to have to assume a strand is nothing more than something completely non existent out of sheer imagination land with zero zip physicality unless you can mathematically show me otherwise.

Edited March 20 by Mordred

[motionmountain 10]

M: I'm still waiting for a mathematical description for a strand.

A strand is a one-dimensional line of Planck radius, without ends, without stiffness, *without any observable physical property*, randomly fluctuating in three-dimensional background space. The only observable arises when at a skew strand crossing, an underpass changes to an overpass.

M: What determines how many strands are required etc.

A quark is made of 2 strands -- because this allows to deduce the quark model and yields spin 1/2.
A lepton is made of 3 strands -- because this allows no composites but spin 1/2.
A gauge boson is made of 1, 2, or 3 untangle strands, because this yields spin 1, and the gauge groups.

M: Is that not clear enough, you can use whatever method you prefer canonical as per QFT, conformal etc but mathematically prove your model.
M: I know what QFT is capable of and how the SM Lagrangians apply I want a demonstration of your model to compare to.

Seeing how the Lagrangian of electromagnetism arises is quite straightforward and explained in the preprint on QED.
Electric fields are twist densities; magnetic fields are twist flow densities; charge is 1/3 of crossing number of a tangle. Coulomb's law arises. Maxwell's equations arise. The free Dirac Lagrangian also arises.
And step by step, all the other components of the standard model Lagrangian also follow.
In total, strands reproduce the Feynman vertices and the standard model Lagrangian.

M: I want a clear and concise mathematical demonstration of the advantages you claim your model produces that the standard methodology cannot produce mathematically.

1. It explains why the charge of the proton is the same as the charge of the electron.
2. It explains the particle spectrum and properties (3 generations, quantum numbers), as well as the interaction spectrum and their properties (U(1), broken SU(2), and SU(3)).
3. It explains the fundamental constants: mass of the particles, the three coupling constants and the mixing angles.

All three points are explained are in the mentioned preprints. The math and the logic is not hard and not so long. If you take the words away, the logic is very short and concise.

 

M: You have no idea how many ppl state this or that alternative model is just like the standard model. To attempt to avoid the required mathematics.

I have to guess the meaning of these two sentences. I am not trying to avoid mathematics; I am just trying to avoid *superfluous* mathematics.

As far as I know, there is no other model in the research literature or even on the internet that deduces the standard model. More precisely, there is *no* model that deduces the points 1, 2 and 3 just mentioned. If there is such a model, let me know. And if there would be such a model, then the tangle model would not be needed any more. In fact, in that case, the tangle model would probably be *false*. On my betting page, I mention this option explicitly as a way to win a bet *against* the tangle model.

 

Edited March 20 by motionmountain

[Mordred 1370]

Why do you keep giving me verbal descriptives ?

Is the expression mathematical description not clear to you ?

I can mathematically describe particle generations, I can mathematically describe the range of each force or the decay rates and mean lifetime of a particle.

Give me a blackbody temperature and I can give you the density probability function for any elementary particle. All via the QFT methodology. Without deviating from the standard model in textbooks.

I have asked you specific questions on your model to mathematically defend. You have yet to do so.

 Can you not supply a mathematical basis for a single strand ?

You want the level of my mathematics then here is a starter where I study the Langrangians of the SM model.

 

This amounts to personal pass the time amusement. Though I do learn from it. However this is the level of mathematics involved beyond undergraduate levels. This is what you are competing against.

Though on a personal note I am studying the plausibility of rewriting the equation

[math]\mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}[/math]

To place the relativity section to the left-hand side of the equal sign. Denoting that spacetime itself is the sum of all other particle interactions. However that is a personal note. I simply note it in this thread to show you a demonstration of the details in mathematics I am asking.

I shouldn't have to explain the relationship between the range of a force to the mean lifetime of the mediator boson in accordance to the energy momentum equation.

Nor second year mathematics on how to calculate decay rates and mean lifetimes of an elementary particle. Nor show how the Higgs mass was predicted within an error margin with its dependence on interaction cross sections..

You claim your model can handle these better than the standard methodology you should be the expert on the topic.

Prove it.

 

 

Edited March 20 by Mordred