Jump to content
robheus

"Strand theory" model of unified physical system

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I prefer this medium, the cosmology calculator link on my signature I only contributed in writing the user guide. I have been unable to contact the programmer. One of the contributors has already passed away (Marcus).

 The first step I see you need to properly define is the strand itself. Once you can do that then progress  to the lie algebra. In particular note the Hamilton. You must incorporate how strands correlate to the energy momentum equation. Ideally under the Klein Gordon which is second order and has a confrontation to QM  and the first order of the Schrodinger equation. (There is a fix for that ) in so far as the Operator assignment for the time operator.

(Note I specified the steps  from QM to QFT).

Now do you understand what is meant by thermal equilibrium in regards to electroweak symmetry breaking? 

Secondly what is your familiarity to differential geometry and calculus of variations? 

On another note are you familiar with Bra ket notation ?

I need a math basis compatible with your understanding.

For example the Pauli exclusion principle. Why do bosons  not qualify as matter particles while 1/2 integer spins do?  This is another point your strand theory needs to incorporate.

I have no qualms with Riedermaster moves in [math]\mathbb{R}^3 [/math] it is a valid methodology in graph applications. Wilson loops is a prime example in LQC applications.

 However this is a mathematical methodology not to be confused with physicality. A closed knot for example is an excellent means of dimension compaction. To form a closed group

Here is something to consider. How does a particle physicist  describe physicality? (PS highly applicable to QFT)

 

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here are the main definitions of the strand conjecture:

A strand is an almost one-dimensional "tube", of Planck radius, without ends and without any observable physical property, randomly fluctuating in three-dimensional background space. (Note: the Planck radius is also not observable. It is a help to imagination and makes things come out right - especially in quantum gravity and black holes. In QFT, the radius can usually be neglected and strands can be imagined as purely one-dimensional lines that fluctuate.)

The basic physical observable is a crossing switch, the exchange of an under-pass by and over.pass that takes place at a specific position in space. A crossing switch defines the Planck units h-bar and also c and G. This allows to define all physical observables; these emerge form counting or time-averaging crossing switches.

Energy is the number of crossing switches per time. (Because a crossing switch defines h-bar.)

 

A few consequences:

Only a certain groups of strands (e.g. a tangle) or a twisted strand (forming a crossing, e.g. a photon) have energy. A vacuum strand has none. Neither do many vacuum strands. Strands have no Hamiltonian, as they are not observable and have no observables. Therefore there is no evolution equation for a single strands and no variational principle for a single strand. The principle of least action that we use in QFT and GR is emergent, like energy itself is: it can be phrased as the principle that minimizes the number of crossing switches. Least action thus only applies to systems with energy, e.g., particles.

The tangle model distinguishes clearly between elementary fermions (rational tangles, with spin 1/2 behaviour under rotations and proper fermion exchange behaviour, as illustrated in the videos at vimeo.com/62228139 and at vimeo.com/62143283) and elementary bosons (untangled strand groups with spin 1 and boson exchange behaviour). In the tangle model, all elementary fermions have Dirac mass, not Majorana mass (because they have localised energy and particles differ from antiparticles). Elementary bosons can have mass or be massless.

 

About your questions on my physics background, just have a look at - and enjoy - my freely downloadable Motion Mountain physics text in 5 volumes.

 

Edited by motionmountain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2020 at 12:58 AM, motionmountain said:

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

This is a mathematical description of a strand, even if you do not like it: 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.

!

Moderator Note

That is not a mathematical description. I have not seen any mathematics here (or skimming your paper) that would justify the claims you make.

Show, in appropriate mathematical detail, the calculation of the mass of a particle in your next post or this thread will be closed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Sigh ok let's skip to some basic physics.You mentioned crossings and energy. This is incorrect. Energyis the ability to perform work. Nothing more nothing less. 

 I am not going to look through five of your papers the first two was difficult enough to stomach in all the claims without mathematical backing. 

 It is readily apparent you know numerous buzz words without understanding the meaning. No matter what methodology I suggest to conform to physics you make excuses to avoid any mathematics specific to your model.

Do you even understand Majoronna mass ? Or Majoronna  spinors ? What particles would qualify ? 

You have yet to describe a strand let one a crossing. Defining isn't a verbal descriptive.

Defining requires math under any physics model. Quite frankly I have lost track of the number of claims without backing from you.

 

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Do you even understand Majoronna mass ? Or Majoronna  spinors ? What particles would qualify ? 

Does that mean it's the same particle to explain the antiparticle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, motionmountain said:

A strand is an almost one-dimensional "tube", of Planck radius

I think that I begin to accept that this is physics-math speech and not mathematics speech. It does not mean that I understand much. I know of Hausdorff dimension, which may be non-integral. I do not know what you mean by a 'tube' exactly, but I can imagine a topological definition of an infinite tube, though not one that satisfies the dimensional requirement, so that part alone is exciting. But skipping over that, I know the term 'Planck length' and the concept of 'radius', but I have never heard of the 'Planck radius'. Did you invent this notion? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Does that mean it's the same particle to explain the antiparticle?

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Yes

At what level of importance does Majorana stand in the understanding of quantum physics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the use of Majorana spinors etc isn't an issue. It can simplify modelling the charge neutral particles in so far as the effective degrees of freedom and creation and annihilation operators. The creation and annihilation operators for a Majorana particle is identical.

Which means the two frequency modes are also identical. This property greatly simplifies numerous calculations as you can exclude antisymmetric relations.

Now the only fermion that might qualify would be the neutrino, however this is still an open debate. Part of the problem is the missing right hand neutrinos.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Well the use of Majorana spinors etc isn't an issue. It can simplify modelling the charge neutral particles in so far as the effective degrees of freedom and creation and annihilation operators. The creation and annihilation operators for a Majorana particle is identical.

Which means the two frequency modes are also identical. This property greatly simplifies numerous calculations as you can exclude antisymmetric relations.

Now the only fermion that might qualify would be the neutrino, however this is still an open debate. Part of the problem is the missing right hand neutrinos.

I don't want to interfere and be off topic with this thread. So I will limit myself to this question. Can't it work with an electron and positron because it has an electrical charge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Correct a Majorana particle must be charge neutral.

I can offhand think of one particular boson that is its own antiparticle that has a mass term. I will leave it at that to see if the OP can identify it. As he has excluded Majorana mass.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In the strand conjecture, the mass value of a fermion (in units of the Planck mass) is given by the average number of crossing switches that occur per Planck time. (Reason: mass is energy/c^2; energy, the ability to do work, is action per time; every crossing switch produces a quantum of action hbar.) A mass estimate for an elementary fermion tangle thus appears to require estimating two processes. First, one needs to estimate the probability p_bt of the spontaneous belt trick (due to strand fluctuations) and the number n_bt of crossing switches associated with it. Second, one needs to estimate the number n of crossing switches that occur on average *between* two belt tricks. When estimated for static masses, the approximation neglects the running of mass with energy. If only the simplest tangle is used, the approximation further neglects the Yukawa terms. To simplify calculations, the approximation of tight tangles is used. This triple approximation yields an estimate for elementary particle mass given by

                 m/m_Pl = p_bt * n_bt * (1 + n)

where m_Pl is the Planck mass. The probability p_bt of the belt trick for a lepton, with its 6 tethers, appears to be given by

                  p_bt =  ( e^(-l_bt/l_Pl) )^6 * O(1)

where l_bt is the length in each tether that is required to go around the (tight) core during the belt trick, and l_Pl is the Planck length. (Note: improving the the estimate for p_bt is *hard*.)

For the electron neutrino, which has the simplest tangle core among the leptons, the length ratio l_bt/l_Pl is around 12 (determined from actual ropes).  

The factor n_bt describes two main effects. First, it describes the crossing switches due to the tethers and the core segments rotating against each other during the belt trick. Second, it describes the crossing switches among the tethers that occur during the belt trick. For the electron neutrino, the factor n_bt is about 3 (also determined from actual ropes).

For the electron neutrino, in a crude calculation, the number n of crossing changes between subsequent belt tricks can be neglected and be set to zero. Taken together, and inserting the value of the Planck mass, this yields an electron neutrino mass estimate of 2 meV. Given the crude approximation, the error estimate for this mass estimate should be at least a factor 1000 in both directions, giving the strand estimate for the electron neutrino's Dirac mass

                     0.002 meV  <  m_nu,e  < 2 eV

Yes, this is a terribly crude approximation. However, ponder this:
(1) There is no way to estimate elementary particle masses at all, so far.
(2) There is no way to calculate ropelengths and tangle shapes for any non-trivial tight tangle or knot in mathematics yet. All such results are only numerical.
(3) There is no way to estimate the frequency p_bt in the complete research literature, so far: not in fluid vortex research, superconductivity, superfluidity, cosmic strings, polymer science, nor anywhere else.
(4) Strands predict that the mass value is the same over space and time, across the universe and its history; that it is equal for the antineutrino; that it is a Dirac mass; that it runs with energy; that it is much smaller than the Planck mass, and thus that it solves the hierarchy problem without see-saw mechanism.

In short, estimating the probability of the spontaneous belt trick - for a given tangle - is *the* challenge to solve.

 

 

Edited by motionmountain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, motionmountain said:

In short, estimating the probability of the spontaneous belt trick - for a given tangle - is *the* challenge to solve.

!

Moderator Note

In short, you do not have a method to calculate the masses as you claimed. Apart from choosing numbers for the variables in your equation to come up with the right answer.

This thread is closed. Do not bring this subject up again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.