Can the Strand Tangle Model Unify General Relativity and the Standard Model?

[physics8553]

A few publications - as they provide the basis for any discussion. The publications present an approach to derive both the standard model and general relativity from the same fundamental principle. In particular they show that the standard model of particle physics is unique and simple. Experimental predictions are found in the texts.

On the Planck limits as foundations of the strand tangle model:

• From maximum force to the field equations of general relativity – and implications, International Journal of Modern Physics D 31 (2022) 2242019.
• From maximum force to physics in 9 lines and towards relativistic quantum gravity, Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A 78 (2022) 145–159.
• Tests for maximum force and maximum power, Physical Review D 104 (2021) 124079.
• Comment on "Maximum force and cosmic censorship", Physical Review D 104 (2021) 068501.

On the standard model deduced from strand tangles:

• On the relation between the three Reidemeister moves and the three gauge groups, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics (2023).
• Testing a conjecture on quantum chromodynamics, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, 20 (2023) 2350095.
• Testing a conjecture on quantum electrodynamics, Journal of Geometry and Physics 178 (2022) 104551.
• Testing a conjecture on the origin of the standard model, European Physical Journal Plus 136 (2021) 79.
• A conjecture on deducing general relativity and the standard model with its fundamental constants from rational tangles of strands, Physics of Particles and Nuclei 50 (2019) 259–299.

On general relativity deduced from strand tangles:

• Testing a microscopic model for black holes deduced from maximum force, chapter in the book „A Guide to Black Holes“, Nova Science Publishers (2023).
• Testing a conjecture on the origin of space, gravity and mass, Indian Journal of Physics 96 (2022) 3047–3064.

 

[Dale]

With the exception of Physical Review D (82 percentile) all of those journals consistently publish borderline or low quality articles, based on Eigenfactor article impact ratings.

J Geom Phys, 60 percentile
Int J Geom Methods M, 54 percentile
Int J Mod Phys D, 49 percentile
Eur Phys J Plus, 40 percentile
Phys Part Nuclei, 21 percentile
Z Naturforsch A, 14 percentile
Indian J Phys, 12 percentile

 

[physics8553]

In science, a theory is tested by comparing its statements and its predictions with experiments.

The strand tangle model is built on a single fundamental principle, based on an idea by Dirac: Every process and every system in nature is due to fluctuating strands of Planck radius, for which each change from an overpass to an underpass yields Planck's quantum of action ℏ.

The strand tangle model states: The fundamental principle yields quantum theory and the standard model, with its wave functions, particle content, gauge interactions and unique fundamental constants (particle
masses, coupling strengths and mixing angles), yields general relativity and yields three dimensions of space.

The strand tangle model predicts: The fundamental principle allows precise calculations of the fundamental constants that will yield the observed values. The principle implies that no physics beyond the standard model and beyond general relativity will be discovered. The fundamental principle further predicts that no inequivalent model will achieve these results.

As required in science, all these statements and predictions can be tested. In fact, they are already being tested. In addition, any new good test and any new good counterargument - positive, negative, correct or wrong - is rewarded with an invitation to dinner.

 

[renormalize]

With the exception of Physical Review D (82 percentile) all of those journals consistently publish borderline or low quality articles, based on Eigenfactor article impact ratings.

J Geom Phys, 60 percentile
Int J Geom Methods M, 54 percentile
Int J Mod Phys D, 49 percentile
Eur Phys J Plus, 40 percentile
Phys Part Nuclei, 21 percentile
Z Naturforsch A, 14 percentile
Indian J Phys, 12 percentile

And PF already had a long thread about this that was ultimately closed to further replies: https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...d-physics-of-particles-nuclei-50-2019.973097/

 

[weirdoguy]

And even longer from 2009:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-strand-model-of-fundamental-interactions.318155/page-6

Why is there still discussion on this 'theory'?
It appears to be pure crackpottery, or at best something that should only go in the independent research forum.

With subsequent comments from @JustinLevy. I guess nothing has changed dramatically since then. Which is a good summary of this "theory".

 

[Dale]

In science, a theory is tested by comparing its statements and its predictions with experiments.

The strand tangle model is built on a single fundamental principle, based on an idea by Dirac: Every process and every system in nature is due to fluctuating strands of Planck radius, for which each change from an overpass to an underpass yields Planck's quantum of action ℏ.

The strand tangle model states: The fundamental principle yields quantum theory and the standard model, with its wave functions, particle content, gauge interactions and unique fundamental constants (particle
masses, coupling strengths and mixing angles), yields general relativity and yields three dimensions of space.

The strand tangle model predicts: The fundamental principle allows precise calculations of the fundamental constants that will yield the observed values. The principle implies that no physics beyond the standard model and beyond general relativity will be discovered. The fundamental principle further predicts that no inequivalent model will achieve these results.

As required in science, all these statements and predictions can be tested. In fact, they are already being tested. In addition, any new good test and any new good counterargument - positive, negative, correct or wrong - is rewarded with an invitation to dinner.

Well. You billed the papers as the basis for a “discussion” but then gave a completely non-responsive reply to a substantive criticism of the low quality of the above references. So this seems more like an advertisement of these newer low-quality publications. Advertisements do not require replies, so with that we will close the thread.

I guess nothing has changed dramatically since then. Which is a good summary of this "theory".

Indeed.