The Strand Model of fundamental interactions

[heinz]

I looked through the literature and did not find anything on the matter. I found some ideas on polymers and evolution equations similar to the Schrödinger equation, but nothing of the type you ask for. Of the people that tried to model wave functions, nobody seems to have though about strands and tangles - except of course, Battey-Pratt and Racey in 1980. But their ideas did not catch on. Racey wrote to me saying that they tried to ask Dirac about this, but Dirac never answered. What a pity!

Do you have something specific in mind?

Christoph, I had nothing particular in mind. I simply find it hard to believe that of the thousands of people working on quantum theory, nobody has looked at fluctuating strands. I looked through arxiv, but did not find anything. There are many papers on the "polymer representation" of quantum theory, but they have nothing to do with your approach.

 

[DrChinese]

(2+3) I still do not know what you mean in your case III: either you measure or you do not. A measurement is an interaction with a bath, thus an irreversible interaction, that is designed for some observable.

If you interact with a bath, there is no way to "undo" the measurement by recombining states after the measurement. If you do NOT interact with a bath, then it is nota measurement. I simpy do not get what you mean.

To test whether the strand model agrees or contradicts quantum mechanics, we can take a clearly defined situation in quantum mechanics, and then check whether the strand model reproduces it or nor. In this case, such a test is impossible so far, for me, because the situation you describe is unclear to me.

I don't want to pull the thread away from the main discussion, and I am not trying to introduce anything novel. Just trying to understand a bit more about the strand model and entanglement... and there is probably nothing more to understand, but I wanted to check anyway.

In any quantum eraser, a "measurement" appears to be made but then the results of the "measurement" are erased such that it is not possible, in principle, to know the results. I put measurement in quotes because some would say that this does not qualify as a true measurement. This avoids confronting the issue of what is a measurement by simply saying that if the indicated quantum effect was restored (due to erasure) then no measurement occurred.

I attached a diagram imagining an eraser acting on Alice, entangled with Bob. This is taken from page 9 of the following: http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/faculty/faries/double.PDF

In normal QM, we say that there was no measurement if the results of the splitting of the incident beam are erased properly. I was wondering if the strand model says the same thing. I would guess your answer will be YES.

But for that to be the case, I would imagine that there is something "blurred" going one way and something else "blurred" going the other. So that each path has 50% of something, which I would call a probability amplitude. So I am trying to visualize that using your model. Obviously, Bob is still entangled with Alice IF Alice is put back together again. But Bob is not entangled with Alice any more if we block either half of the PBS split beams - even if the Alice photon did not traverse that blocked path. Again, not trying to probe the pros and cons of counterfactual reasoning or anything like that, just wondering if your model provides any insight into what happens with quantum erasers and measurements.

 

[JustinLevy]

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.

In true layman form the 'theory' is never specified well enough to really even do anything. Statements are made without justification or logical deduction almost like a game of 'word association' to get from one statement to another and then label that a 'derivation'. Sometimes contact is made to other people's work in an attempt to 'subsume' their results (for example referencing Jabobson's thermo->GR paper).

This is not a theory. The hand wavy discussions aren't even self consistent. He claims to reproduce SR and GR naturally, but then claims there are limits to momentum and that horizons are observer dependent. These statements wildly disagree.

Either SR is reproduced or it isn't. Either GR is reproduced or it isn't.

Furthermore, the very STARTING point of this 'theory' is not self-consistent. The starting point is that everything is strands (both particles and space), and that only changes in crossings are observable ... yet:

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

As already pointed out by another poster, this means what he is calling "crossings" have no topological meaning. Check out these 'crossing changes' to make this even more clear (his attached figure here):
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2235208&postcount=41

Even if an embedding is given in 3-D space, it is still unclear how one would even define a crossing in the manner suggested there, as it seems to require both a series of folliations into 2-D space so that a projection can be made as well as an externally defined preferred orientation so that a 'twist' can be considered a 'change' despite the same strand segment still being above the other.

All this external requirement is lumped into an 'observer'. So the observer is outside the theory itself. The strands must be described in this space and time externally imposed (an "observer") to even make sense, and therefore the strands cannot explain space and time.It is not self-consistent.
It does not provide enough details to even be mathematically specified so that others may check 'derivations'.
It disagrees with SR (imposing a momentum limit).
It disagrees with GR (causality horizons are observer dependent).

How can this 'theory' not be dismissed immediately?

 

[physics8553]

(1) Why is there still discussion on this 'theory'?

(2) In true layman form the 'theory' is never specified well enough to really even do anything. Statements are made without justification or logical deduction almost like a game of 'word association' to get from one statement to another and then label that a 'derivation'. Sometimes contact is made to other people's work in an attempt to 'subsume' their results (for example referencing Jabobson's thermo->GR paper).

(3) This is not a theory. The hand wavy discussions aren't even self consistent. He claims to reproduce SR and GR naturally, but then claims there are limits to momentum and that horizons are observer dependent. These statements wildly disagree.

(4) As already pointed out by another poster, this means what he is calling "crossings" have no topological meaning. Check out these 'crossing changes' to make this even more clear (his attached figure here):
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2235208&postcount=41

(5)All this external requirement is lumped into an 'observer'. So the observer is outside the theory itself. The strands must be described in this space and time externally imposed (an "observer") to even make sense, and therefore the strands cannot explain space and time.

(6) It does not provide enough details to even be mathematically specified so that others may check 'derivations'.

(7) It disagrees with SR (imposing a momentum limit).

(8) It disagrees with GR (causality horizons are observer dependent).

(1) My guess: the strand model is still discussed because it is one of the few approached that explains the three gauge interactions. It maybe even is the only one so far.

(2) There is a basic postulate ("crossing switches define the Planck units"), and all the rest, including predictions on particle content, gauge groups, Planck energy behaviour, is deduced from it.

(3) That energy and momentum of elementary particles is limited by the Planck values is part of any attempt for a unified description. It does not contradict special relativity nor general relativity at any experimentally accessible energy.

(4) Crossings are defined as the locations with the smallest distance between two strand segments, That is a perfectly clear definition. The drawings you link to show examples of this definition.

(5) Strands indeed move in a background (exterior) space. But they also create physical space. This can be made consistent.

(6) The strand model provides a derivation of a maximum speed (and thus of special relativity), a maximum power (and thus general relativity) an a minimum action (and thus quantum theory). The derivations is given in detail in http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html . The derivations can be checked by anybody. The derivations of the evolution equations are given in full detail, and each step is open for checking.

(7) See point 3. Anybody is free to believe that there is no momentum or energy limit for elementary particles, but there is no evidence for this; in contrast, there is a lot of evidence for the existence of Planck limits on energy and momentum for elementary particles.

(8) In general relativity, horizons are observer dependent, as shown by any black hole: it has a horizon for observers at infinity, but not one for an infalling observer. Maybe you wanted to say something else?

 

[physics8553]

In normal QM, we say that there was no measurement if the results of the splitting of the incident beam are erased properly. I was wondering if the strand model says the same thing.

(1) I would guess your answer will be YES.

(2) But for that to be the case, I would imagine that there is something "blurred" going one way and something else "blurred" going the other. So that each path has 50% of something, which I would call a probability amplitude.

(3) So I am trying to visualize that using your model. Obviously, Bob is still entangled with Alice IF Alice is put back together again. But Bob is not entangled with Alice any more if we block either half of the PBS split beams - even if the Alice photon did not traverse that blocked path.

(4) Again, not trying to probe the pros and cons of counterfactual reasoning or anything like that, just wondering if your model provides any insight into what happens with quantum erasers and measurements.

My answer to (1) and (2) would be yes.

(3) I would say yes, because no baths are involved.

(4) I am not an an expert on quantum erasers. But visualizing tangles and visualizing wave functions is essentially the same. The two visualizations do not differ from each other much. A tangle is sort of a short-time snapshot of a wave function. Does this help a little?

 

[physics8553]

Christoph, I had nothing particular in mind. I simply find it hard to believe that of the thousands of people working on quantum theory, nobody has looked at fluctuating strands. I looked through arxiv, but did not find anything. There are many papers on the "polymer representation" of quantum theory, but they have nothing to do with your approach.

Models of wave functions tend to make the author suspect of crackpottery. Therefore there are very few such models. But strands reproduce wave functions so incredibly well that the risk of suspicion had to be taken.

 

[JustinLevy]

There is so much I disagree with that I cannot reply to it all. So I will focus on two of the biggest ones:
- I will try yet again to explain why your starting point / 'fundementals' of your theory are not even well defined.
- I will try to explain some things about special relativity and dimensional analysis 'derivations' that you don't seem to understand.

(4) Crossings are defined as the locations with the smallest distance between two strand segments, That is a perfectly clear definition. The drawings you link to show examples of this definition.

This is not a clear definition. For example, what two strand segments matter? Given any two strand segments, there is a smallest distance between them. Furthermore, this definition is not sufficient to allow a clear meaning to 'crossing switches' since the definition only gives a location, but not anything to do with an orientation.

Even your starting points are incredibly vaguely defined. Nothing can be derived from this. You merely make a series of statements that do not follow deductively from each other and yet claim it is a derivation.

(6) The strand model provides a derivation of a maximum speed (and thus of special relativity), a maximum power (and thus general relativity) an a minimum action (and thus quantum theory).

Just because you claim to derive a maximum speed does not mean you derived special relativity. Even naive aether theories have a maximum speed. The essence of special relativity is poincare symmetry. Not only can you not derive poincare symmetry from your theory, but many of your statements explicitly forbid special relativity.

All you do is jumble together constants and claim that that because a Planck like unit came out, that you somehow can derive an entire theory from it. That is patently false. Dimensional analysis is useful, but cannot give the details of a theory... especially in this case where you aren't even making useful dimensional analysis statements and are instead just creating constants by putting together other constants.

(3) That energy and momentum of elementary particles is limited by the Planck values is part of any attempt for a unified description. It does not contradict special relativity nor general relativity at any experimentally accessible energy.

No. Actually all current mainstream GUT theories being pursued do NOT claim the Planck values are limiting values of those quantities. You don't seem to understand what Planck units are.

Saying there is a limit to momentum severely contradicts special relativity.
Here is an explicit example:

Let's say we have three elementary particle's of mass m1,m2,and M. Where m1=m2=m, and M > 1000m.
Initially let's have them all at rest in an inertial frame.

Now have m1 accelerate to this 'momentum limit'. In the rest frame of m1, M now has a momentum greater than that limit.

Or instead, have m1 accelerate to this 'momentum limit' in one direction, and m2 accelerate to this 'momentum limit' in the opposite direction. In the rest frame of m1, m2 now has a momentum greater than that limit. In the rest frame of m2, m1 now has a momentum greater than that limit.

Because momentum is a coordinate system dependent quantity, there cannot be an invariant way to impose a limit on it.Your 'theory' is ill defined.
And yet even then your statements are contradictory, and disagree with SR and GR.
This is crackpottery and should not be in this forum.

 

[physics8553]

(1) For example, what two strand segments matter? Given any two strand segments, there is a smallest distance between them. Furthermore, this definition is not sufficient to allow a clear meaning to 'crossing switches' since the definition only gives a location, but not anything to do with an orientation.

(2) Just because you claim to derive a maximum speed does not mean you derived special relativity. Even naive aether theories have a maximum speed. The essence of special relativity is poincare symmetry. Not only can you not derive poincare symmetry from your theory, but many of your statements explicitly forbid special relativity.

(3) No. Actually all current mainstream GUT theories being pursued do NOT claim the Planck values are limiting values of those quantities. You don't seem to understand what Planck units are.

(4) Saying there is a limit to momentum severely contradicts special relativity.

(1) As you say, any two strands define a crossing in this way. If you draw the line of shortest distance, the line defines an orientation is space. That is the orientation you were missing.

(2) A maximum speed c plus equivalence of all inertial observers define special relativity. Both are reproduced in the strand model. (Btw, no aether theory has a maximum speed; if it has, it is equivalent to special relativity.)

(3 and 4) The Planck energy is only a limit energy for *elementary* particles. (Every truck on a highway has higher energy than the Planck energy.) If you claim that field theory makes sense at scales larger than 10^19 GeV, the Planck energy, you are in trouble; no serious physicist makes such statements, and I challenge you to find any diagram (e.g., of running coupling constants) that goes beyond 10^19 GeV. In fact, anybody who claims that field theory, GUT, string theory, etc. make sense or are even defined at energies above the Planck energy is a crackpot. On arxiv, you fill find almost no such statements. So you are in dangerous waters. In contrast, on arxiv you will find many discussions in hep-th and gr-qc that show how a Planck energy limit does *not* contradict experiment.

About your "countereample": the invariant Planck limit appears only if gravity and quantum effects are included. (As I said, energies larger than the Planck energy exist everywhere in everyday life.) Of course, in flat space there is no energy limit, and thus special relativity shows no energy limit. The Planck energy contains G and hbar. If you carefully analyse any attempt to achieve elementary particle energy above the Planck energy, you always create so much energy that a black hole (or some horizon) appears. This has been discussed by many people, and is mainstream quantum gravity.

The statement is: "Planck energy and Planck momentum is the highest energy and momentum for elementary particles." No experiment is in contradiction with this statement, even if you claim the opposite. In fact, if you find an observation that seems to contradicts the statement, publish it; any paradox in this domain is worth publishing. But you will not have success if your arguments use classical mechanics in domains where quantum gravity is required.

By the way, you are *wrong* to claim that GUTs are defined beyond 10^19 GeV. No GUT claims validity in that range, because everybody knows that gravity must be included there; just read the literature on GUTs.

 

[DrChinese]

My answer to (1) and (2) would be yes.

(3) I would say yes, because no baths are involved.

(4) I am not an an expert on quantum erasers. But visualizing tangles and visualizing wave functions is essentially the same. The two visualizations do not differ from each other much. A tangle is sort of a short-time snapshot of a wave function. Does this help a little?

Yes, thanks.

 

[JustinLevy]

(1) As you say, any two strands define a crossing in this way. If you draw the line of shortest distance, the line defines an orientation is space. That is the orientation you were missing.

No. Listen again. Any two strand segments define a crossing this way. So with any finite section of a continuous strand there are an infinite number of 'crossings'. So you still have not defined what even counts as a crossing this way.

Second, a line does NOT define an orientation in space. Look at your own diagram attached in your post here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2235208&postcount=41
In the "twirl" the line connecting the crossing is the SAME in both diagrams. Even the endpoints don't swap unlike in the "twist". So you have NOT clearly defined even the starting point of your theory.

1)A maximum speed c plus equivalence of all inertial observers define special relativity.

2)Both are reproduced in the strand model.

1)That is not quite correct.
Special relativity is the requirement that the laws of physics have poincare symmetry. In GR this symmetry is still exact, but is a local symmetry. This is the modern statement of SR.

The historical statement of SR as a maximum speed c plus equivalence of all inertial reference frames does capture the essence of the theory. However there is a reason this is not used as the modern statement of SR. It causes issues trying to define inertial reference frames. If not careful in how you define an inertial frame, it can lead to an incorrect belief that SR predicts all of the following: Lorentz invariance, rotation invariance, time translation invariance, spatial translation invariance, and inversion invariance. That encompasses a group larger than the poincare group.

Your handwavy reasons to claim you have SR would also include inversion invariance. Why would the world be different if your observer chose to call the -z axis of another observer as his +z axis? All crossings and whether or not there was an occurrence of a 'crossing switch', which you claim is all that is observable, would still be the same.

Your handwavy arguments are not derivations. They are so sloppy that they are useless, and even lead to conclusions in contradiction to experiment.2) NO! Your strand theory does NOT reproduce an equivalence of all inertial observers. You claim there is a momentum LIMIT. This breaks the equivalence of inertial observers. This breaks poincare symmetry.

Btw, no aether theory has a maximum speed; if it has, it is equivalent to special relativity.

This is objectively false. You clearly do not even understand SR. The whole point of aether theory is that there is a preferred frame. Just because there is a maximum speed in this frame does not automatically give equivalence to special relativity.

Please reread that statement you wrote and let me know if you actually believe that. I really hope it is a mistake.

If you claim that field theory makes sense at scales larger than 10^19 GeV, the Planck energy, you are in trouble;

I am not claiming the standard model works past the Planck scale. (But please note that this does NOT mean field theory, the paradigm, can not work to all energy levels. Are you claiming that NO field theory can work past the Planck scale?)

What I am saying is that your statement: "That energy and momentum of elementary particles is limited by the Planck values is part of any attempt for a unified description."
is FALSE.
NONE of the current mainstream GUT theories being pursued claim the Planck values are limiting values of those quantities. You don't seem to understand what Planck units are.

Planck units are not considered limiting values of those quantities in mainstream GUTs.

If you carefully analyse any attempt to achieve elementary particle energy above the Planck energy, you always create so much energy that a black hole (or some horizon) appears. This has been discussed by many people, and is mainstream quantum gravity.

No. That is like claiming that if you speed up a particle enough that it has enough energy to form a black hole. That is wrong. That is very very basic stuff wrong.

Give a particle all the kinetic energy you want, but the particle is not a black hole in it's rest frame, so it clearly cannot be a black hole in ANY coordinate system.You 'theory' is ill defined, it disagrees with experiment, and your 'derived' statements aren't even self-consistent. This is not a scientific theory.

 

[physics8553]

(1) No. Listen again. Any two strand segments define a crossing this way. So with any finite section of a continuous strand there are an infinite number of 'crossings'. So you still have not defined what even counts as a crossing this way.

(2) What I am saying is that your statement: "That energy and momentum of elementary particles is limited by the Planck values is part of any attempt for a unified description."
is FALSE.

(3) NONE of the current mainstream GUT theories being pursued claim the Planck values are limiting values of those quantities.

Planck units are not considered limiting values of those quantities in mainstream GUTs.

(4)That is like claiming that if you speed up a particle enough that it has enough energy to form a black hole. That is wrong. That is very very basic stuff wrong.

(1) A crossing is the location of *minimum* distance between two strands. There can be a few such minima, but there is no infinite number of them.

(2) I do not understand what you want to say about inversion symmetry and special relativity. Fact is, that in nature, vacuum is inversion symmetric/conformally symmetric, but matter is not. The strand model reproduces this as well.

We all understand that you *strongly believe* that a energy-momentum limit for elementary particle energy is false. Fact is, that there is no experiment that shows that it is false! Note again that I wrote *elementary particle* energy" (or momentum).

A maximum measurable energy/maximum momentum/minimal distance appears in string theory, in quantum gravity and in all similar approaches. There are many ways to show that nothing shorter than the Planck length can be measured in nature. The simplest are arguments that extend Heisenberg's microscope discussion for the uncertainty relation.

Planck scales are the starting point or ideas such as "space-time foam", the string scale, space-time duality, etc,

Yes, this somehow breaks Poincaré symmetry, but in a very weak way: the breaking is not noted in quantum field theory, quantum theory, or general relativity. So in practice, Poincaré symmetry is still valid. The breaking only appears in unified theories, i.e., in quantum gravity situations.

(3) I start to think that you mean "unified theories" when you say GUT. (A GUT unifies only the strong and the electroweak interaction, not gravity.) If you *really* believe that you can measure distances smaller the Planck distance, publish how to do it. If true, you will be instantly famous.

(4) I never said that! I agree that the statement you make is false.

(5) A scientific theory is one that agrees with facts. The statement you seem to propose, that lengths smaller than the Planck lengths can be measured, or that elementary particle energy larger than Planck energy can be measured, have no proof, contradict experiment, and contradict the measured properties of quantum theory and general relativity.

The opposite statement, that this is not possible, agree with experiment and with the experimental properties of quantum theory and general relativity.

Everybody is of course free to decide which of the two statements is scientific and which one is not!

(6) It would be nice if you could write the things you want to say with a more friendly tone, and avoid ad hominem statements. This would make it easier to read what you say, and easier to have a productive discussion. All readers believe that you are honestly convinced of what you write, and there is no need to get unpolite to make your points. Searching for unification is fun, and there is no reason to get angry while doing so.

 

[heinz]

Even Lubos Motl agrees that there is a minimum measurable distance in nature. And he goes on to explain that Poincare invariance is true nevertheless.

 

[JustinLevy]

It would be nice if you could write the things you want to say with a more friendly tone

I will do my best to restrain the tone. Some statements of fact may sound harsh, but are necessary. My biggest complaint, and what draws the most comparisons in my mind to crackpottery, is the way in which you present your pet theory so vaguely that no one else knows what your theory even is, let alone can calculate anything with it, and this vagueness restricts even your derivations to just a series of statements instead of related logical deductions or math. This is by definition crackpottery. Calling it such may sound harsh, but is truthful.

I will help by asking leading questions to help tease your theory out into mathematically defined statements, but to not admit upfront WHY this is necessary for your theory to even be a scientific theory would be unfair.

Similary, if you cannot understand WHY you need to present your theory on sound mathematical foundation so that others may know precisely WHAT your theory IS ... then there is also a problem. So to discuss your 'theory' we need to discuss this. It is important that you understand what the obstacles are for true discussion or consideration of your theory.

Until the features of your 'theory' are precisely defined mathematically, there cannot be agreement on what your there IS or PREDICTS.

(1) A crossing is the location of *minimum* distance between two strands. There can be a few such minima, but there is no infinite number of them.

So a crossing is a minimum but need not be a global minimum?
What if two strand segments are parallel for a finite length. Is this not an infinite number of crossings?

Also, with this definition, a strand can move such that a crossing disappears or appears, instead of just moving. Is that okay?

Furthermore, this definition of crossing still does not define an orientation such that you can clearly define a "crossing switch" which is fundamental to your theory. Please define that mathematically as well.

You have two other features in your theory:
1) the 'ends' of the strands are infinitely far away
2) the strands cannot cross

This means the topology of your strands cannot change.
Are you aware of that?

I do not understand what you want to say about inversion symmetry and special relativity. Fact is, that in nature, vacuum is inversion symmetric/conformally symmetric, but matter is not. The strand model reproduces this as well.

Parity is not a spontaneously broken symmetry in the standard model. To the best of our knowledge via experiments, the vacuum itself does not have parity symmetry.

Your theory predicts the universe should have parity symmetry.

Your reasons to claim you have SR would also include inversion invariance. Why would the world be different if your observer chose to call the -z axis of another observer as his +z axis? All crossings and whether or not there was an occurrence of a 'crossing switch', which you claim is all that is observable, would still be the same.

We all understand that you *strongly believe* that a energy-momentum limit for elementary particle energy is false. Fact is, that there is no experiment that shows that it is false! Note again that I wrote *elementary particle* energy" (or momentum).

You have this backwards. All experiments support poincare invariance. Poincare invariance puts strong constraints on a theory, and allows derivations when including causality such as the spin-statistics theory which is amazing. In string theory, poincare invariance is EXACT. Marcus led many discussions to stress that this is true in LQG as well. No mainstream GUT predicts that poincare invariance breaksdown either. In NONE of these theories is there a fundamental limit on elementary particle momentum.

You try to make it sound like I am arguing against mainstream. But by claiming your theory has a fundamental limit on elementary particle momentum, you are claiming that your theory fundementally breaks poincare invariance. This contradicts your claim that you reproduce SR, and worse, your claim that you predict GR will hold at all energy levels.

So you have this backwards. Planck units are natural units for describing a quantum gravity theory. They represent the scale at which the effects of each become comparable. However mainstream theories have poincare invariance EXACT, and so do NOT claim Planck energy is an energy LIMIT. So your theory is treating Planck units differently than mainstream. It is not me that is arguing against mainstream, and it is your onus to explain how these contradictory claims (poincare symmetry of SR/GR and fundamental energy limits) work out in your theory.

Planck scales are the starting point or ideas such as "space-time foam", the string scale, space-time duality, etc,

Yes, Planck units are a SCALE at which quantum and GR effects become comparable. They are not however LIMITS on the energy of an elementary particle.

(4) I never said that! I agree that the statement you make is false.

Alright, I said:
"That is like claiming that if you speed up a particle enough that it has enough energy to form a black hole. That is wrong. That is very very basic stuff wrong."
in response to you saying:
"If you carefully analyse any attempt to achieve elementary particle energy above the Planck energy, you always create so much energy that a black hole (or some horizon) appears."

So you truly do appear to be claiming that if you give an elementary particle enough kinetic energy, that it will become a black hole.

Let me reverse this. We can always go to the rest frame of the particle. We can always add a small amount of kinetic energy in this frame. So we can always increase the momentum of an elementary particle. Therefore there can be no momentum limit on a particle and still have poincare invariance.

To prevent adding kinetic energy in the particle's rest frame, you'd need to severely break SR (because you can't add even a smidgen of kinetic energy, this means SR is not correct even in a low energy limit). You'd need a preferred frame (aether) for this. By requiring a fundamental momentum limit in your theory, you are requiring your theory is an aether theory (where aether means a preferred coordinate system).

 

[physics8553]

Justin, as an introduction, have a look at chapters 8 to 12 of my 6th volume at http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html . It appears from your posts that you have not read it. Let us discuss the strand model only after that.

Let me jump directly at the point that makes you most angry: Is Poincaré symmetry broken? In what domain? If so, what are the experimental consequences? Are there elementary particle energies above the Planck limits? Are there distances below the Planck distance?

I start with the last one. Are there measurable distances shorter than the Planck length? In string theory, in loop quantum gravity, in semiclassical quantum gravity, the answer is a clear no. In fact, I know only one researcher that believes the opposite, but hundreds who agree. I did not understand what your opinion is here, but the mainstream is clearly defined: the Planck length is the smallest measurable length.

A minimum measurable distance means a maximum elementary particle energy and momentum, given by the Planck values. The experimental situation is clear: no higher energy or momentum has ever been measured, neither directly nor indirectly. Is there anybody who states that such energies exist? Looking through books and papers, you will find that such statements are almost nowhere to be found. Energy/momentum graphs stop at 10^19 GeV, the Planck energy. Essentially "nobody" states that higher energies do exist. For two reasons: they have not been measured (record is around 10^13 GeV), and nobody believes such energies are possible.

What does all this mean for Poincaré symmetry? Clearly, at all measurable energies, it is observed to hold. It thus holds at least up to 10^13 GeV, but let's be generous and say 10^19 GeV. To assume that it holds at all energies is surely a good approximation, even though there is no experimental backing. However, it is not consistent to claim that there is a smallest measurable distance on one hand, and perfect Poincaré symmetry at all energies on the other.

So what happens if one assumes that Poincaré symmetry is broken at (and "above") the Planck scale, but not below? The answer is simple: not much. For all practical purposes, Poincaré symmetry holds, interpretation of measurements and all its consequences remain, etc.

In other words, for all practical purposes one can argue that Poincaré symmetry holds and a smallest distance/largest energy-momentum exist at the same time, despite this being a contradiction at first sight. Spin, CPT theorem, and whatever you mention and cherish: all remain valid, even if Planck lengths are smallest lengths.

The first point was: is there a smallest distance given by the Planck distance. The consensus is: yes. The next point: is there a highest energy scale? The consensus is less explicit, but the answer is also yes. The third point is: one cannot use Poincaré symmetry, which is an idea, to argue against a maximum energy or against a minimum distance, which are facts.

If somebody really believes that elementary particle energies of say 10^40 GeV (much higher than the Planck energy) exist, then he must prove this statement by experiment. So far, there is no experiment that proves this. Such statements are beliefs, not science.

In summary, I do make the statement that it is (1) wrong and (2) not mainstream to say that distances smaller than the Planck distance or energy scales higher than the Planck energy exist. Of course, this can be surprising at first, even unsettling. But with the general idea given above, one can make this consistent.

Note that I did not say that this result implies doubly special relativity (which I believe is not correct) or any other theory. There is no way to deduce any particular unified theory from the limit property of Planck units. This only gives a framework, but does not point in any particular direction.

The situation is similar to when it was said that c is the largest energy speed. One needed to show that the statement conforms to all measurements, and that all consequences from the statement, however weird, are in accordance with the statement. (Contradiction with beliefs, such as the aether, does not count as argument.) The same must be done with a minimum distance or a maximum energy scale. It turns out that the statements are in accordance with experiments, and that all consequences that one draws from them do not contradict observations. (But they do contradict beliefs, such as "perfect" Poincaré symmetry.)

The first half of my 6th volume mentioned above exclusively discusses the limit property of Planck units in a pedagogical manner. There is nothing new or original; as I mentioned, this is essentially mainstream, though not often told so clearly. The literature is full of papers on minimum distance, minimum entropy values, minimum information change, maximum force, minum action, etc., all written by mainstream physics researchers, most of them famous. Not that authority counts in physics, but authorities sometimes are also right.

 

[JustinLevy]

Justin, as an introduction, have a look at chapters 8 to 12 of my 6th volume at http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html . It appears from your posts that you have not read it. Let us discuss the strand model only after that.

Chapter 8 introduces strands and crossings. There are no equations and it doesn't answer any of my questions.

I am asking you to actually define what your theory IS. So please define what exactly a strand crossing is and what a crossing switch is. In particular answer these:

(1) A crossing is the location of *minimum* distance between two strands. There can be a few such minima, but there is no infinite number of them.

So a crossing is a minimum but need not be a global minimum?
What if two strand segments are parallel for a finite length. Is this not an infinite number of crossings?

Also, with this definition, a strand can move such that a crossing disappears or appears, instead of just moving. Is that okay?

Furthermore, this definition of crossing still does not define an orientation such that you can clearly define a "crossing switch" which is fundamental to your theory. Please define that mathematically as well.

You have two other features in your theory:
1) the 'ends' of the strands are infinitely far away
2) the strands cannot cross

This means the topology of your strands cannot change.
Are you aware of that?

I start with the last one. Are there measurable distances shorter than the Planck length? In string theory, in loop quantum gravity, in semiclassical quantum gravity, the answer is a clear no.

Note that in string theory, loop quantum gravity, and in semiclassical quantum gravity, local poincare invariance is EXACT. None of these claim there is a momentum limit for elementary particles. Only you claim that.

If somebody really believes that elementary particle energies of say 10^40 GeV (much higher than the Planck energy) exist, then he must prove this statement by experiment. So far, there is no experiment that proves this. Such statements are beliefs, not science.

Again, you have this backwards. Momentum is a coordinate system dependent quantity. So all I need to do to see an elementary particle with an energy of 10^40 GeV is to describe an elementary particle with the appropriate coordinate system. So this is not a statement provable/disprovable by experiment.

You are asking experiment to disprove/prove a coordinate system!

Again, for there to be a momentum limit, this means in the rest frame of a particle at the momentum limit ... there is something preventing it from gaining even the smallest momentum in one direction. This means that SR is violated in your theory EVEN IN THE LOW ENERGY LIMIT, since in that inertial frame spacetime is not isotropic.


Here's another show stopper problem with your theory:
While the full details of the strands are beyond measurement, the strands are in definitive positions at time in the "background space-time". Therefore,
-- Your theory is a hidden variables theory, and is ruled out by Bell's inequality and experiment.

And again, since you keep avoiding it:
Since strands are featureless, all crossings and whether or not there was an occurrence of a 'crossing switch', which you claim is all that is observable, would still be the same if an observer chose to call the -z axis of another observer as his +z axis, keeping all else the same.
-- Your theory predicts the universe should have parity symmetry.

 

[physics8553]

(1) So a crossing is a minimum but need not be a global minimum?

(2) Also, with this definition, a strand can move such that a crossing disappears or appears, instead of just moving. Is that okay?

(3) Furthermore, this definition of crossing still does not define an orientation such that you can clearly define a "crossing switch" which is fundamental to your theory. Please define that mathematically as well.

(4) You have two other features in your theory:
1) the 'ends' of the strands are infinitely far away
2) the strands cannot cross

(5) This means the topology of your strands cannot change.

(6) Note that in string theory, loop quantum gravity, and in semiclassical quantum gravity, local poincare invariance is EXACT. None of these claim there is a momentum limit for elementary particles. Only you claim that.

(7) Again, you have this backwards. Momentum is a coordinate system dependent quantity. So all I need to do to see an elementary particle with an energy of 10^40 GeV is to describe an elementary particle with the appropriate coordinate system. So this is not a statement provable/disprovable by experiment.

(8) This means that SR is violated in your theory EVEN IN THE LOW ENERGY LIMIT, since in that inertial frame spacetime is not isotropic.

(9) Here's another show stopper problem with your theory:
While the full details of the strands are beyond measurement, the strands are in definitive positions at time in the "background space-time". Therefore,
-- Your theory is a hidden variables theory, and is ruled out by Bell's inequality and experiment.

(10) Since strands are featureless, all crossings and whether or not there was an occurrence of a 'crossing switch', which you claim is all that is observable, would still be the same if an observer chose to call the -z axis of another observer as his +z axis, keeping all else the same.
-- Your theory predicts the universe should have parity symmetry.

(1) Yes.

(2) Yes.

(3) An orientation is defined.

(4) Yes.

(5) Yes, a line is a line and remains one.

(6) As I explained, a momentum limit exists and is claimed by all theories. The fact that you state the opposite does not change this.

(7) The statement "An elementary particle with 10^40 GeV energy/momentum exists" is testable by experiment. Moreover, such a statement is also wrong. Such particles exist as much as flying pink elephants exist.

No theory (such as "translation symmetry is valid absolutely, because many say it") can be used to avoid checking observations. Physics does not wok that way.

(8) No, it is violated only at 10^19 GeV, not at low energy.

(9) No, the theory has no hidden variables. The only observables are crossing switches, not strands themselves. A little thinking confirms that there are no hidden variables. There is also a detailed section on this issue in the 6th volume (p 179), including a discussion of the Kochen-Specker theorem and the like.

(10) In the weak interaction (only), parity is violated, as observed in experiment and as is reproduced by strands, as shown in the section on that topic (page 206). Vacuum parity is not violated, as observed in experiment, and as reproduced by the strand model.

 

[heinz]

Christoph, why do you answer this guy? He is not worth your time. Instead, please answer my last open question, which might interest more people who read this:

How does the strand model explain that free quarks are not observed, whereas free leptons are?

 

[JustinLevy]

So a crossing is a minimum but need not be a global minimum?

Yes.

If that is the only requirement, then a non-straight strand segment will have a 'crossing' with ANY other non-straight strand segment in the entire background space. NOT just the ones "near" it.

Do you see that there is a problem in that the starting point you are 'envisioning' is not clearly defined mathematically?

You need to define your starting points clearly and precisely instead of just a bunch of imprecise statements. So again I ask:
Given a "background space/coordinate system" to describe the strands, what is the mathematical definition of a strand crossing?

Furthermore, this definition of crossing still does not define an orientation such that you can clearly define a "crossing switch" which is fundamental to your theory. Please define that mathematically as well.

An orientation is defined.

HOW is an orientation defined? You aren't providing information.

Look at what you call a "twirl" here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2235208&postcount=41
Your definition of a crossing only provides a line. You need something additional to define an orientation. Neither the line nor the end points of the line connecting the 'crossing points' change in a twirl. That line is not sufficient to define an orientation.

So again. How do you define a crossing switch?
Please define it precisely. You cannot derive anything from the theory if the starting point itself is not precisely defined.

Also, you keep avoiding this:
What if two strand segments are parallel for a finite length. Is this not an infinite number of crossings?

This means the topology of your strands cannot change.

Yes, a line is a line and remains one.

It means more than that. Since the topology cannot change, you cannot form knots or any braiding that were not already there.

Note that in string theory, loop quantum gravity, and in semiclassical quantum gravity, local poincare invariance is EXACT. None of these claim there is a momentum limit for elementary particles. Only you claim that.

As I explained, a momentum limit exists and is claimed by all theories. The fact that you state the opposite does not change this.

No, you did not explain. You stated. And you are wrong.

I however explained explicitly with some examples why this is not correct.
You keep ignoring these examples.

I will give two examples. Please answer explicitly.
Consider an inertial frame where one particle has slightly less than the momentum limit in the +x direction, and another particle has slightly less than the momentum limit in the -x direction.
1) Go into one particle's rest frame. Are you claiming the other particle will still have less than the momentum limit?
2) Go into one particle's rest frame. To maintain the 'momentum limit' in the original inertial frame, in one direction it will be impossible to add that small extra momentum to the particle, while in another direction that momentum can be added. In the particle's rest frame, SR is violated in the LOW ENERGY LIMIT in your theory. This is because we can do this consistency check with the particle as close to the momentum limit in the original frame as we want.

The statement "An elementary particle with 10^40 GeV energy/momentum exists" is testable by experiment. Moreover, such a statement is also wrong. Such particles exist as much as flying pink elephants exist.

No.
Are you denying that energy or momentum are a coordinate system dependent quantity?

To discuss energy and momentum a coordinate system needs to be stated.
You are claiming that experiment can TEST what arbitrary coordinate systems we choose.
This is serious crackpottery.

An experiment can only give us coordinate system independent quantities or relations between quantities. Otherwise an experiment could 'measure' the 'coordinate system' of the universe.

No, the theory has no hidden variables. The only observables are crossing switches, not strands themselves.

You are contradicting yourself right there. There exists something in your theory which is not observable (the entire position of the strand in background spacetime). The position of the entire strand in background spacetime is the hidden information.

Correct me if I am wrong, but:
1) A strand segment has a definitive position in background spacetime (That is, the position is not probabilistic; the probability of the strand segment being located in a region of background spacetime is not a distribution over the background space at a given background time).
2) Everything in your theory can be described in terms of the strands motions in background spacetime.
3) There is a causal ordering in the background spacetimes (if there wasn't you couldn't derive SR).

So your theory is a hidden variable theory that is ruled out by Bell's inequality and experiment.

(10) In the weak interaction (only), parity is violated, as observed in experiment and as is reproduced by strands, as shown in the section on that topic (page 206). Vacuum parity is not violated, as observed in experiment, and as reproduced by the strand model.

You are not listenning.
If strands are featureless, then their movement in background spacetime cannot be affected by a change in coordinate systems that merely flips the +/- orientation of the z axis.

So your 'theory' predicts parity symmetry.

Before you even go into any details of how you model matter and interactions of matter, etc. the starting point of your theory demands this. This is a fundamental part of your theory. If the strands are featureless, then this is unavoidable.

If not, then show me MATHEMATICALLY how you derive poincare invariance in your theory and how parity symmetry does not ensue from the same arguments. Again, this can be discussed before you go into the details of how you model matter and interactions of matter, so do not try to jump 'around' this problem by jumping to what you claim is the solution... that is not a derivation.


--------
heinz,
Why do you bother with deeper details of this 'theory' if the very starting points are so flawed?
The very fact that we have to ask him what his 'theory' is should be a red flag to all. His 'theory' is blatant speculation presented without math or clear definitions or derivations. This is crackpottery, plain and simple.

If you want to discuss his theory intelligently, we first need to get him to DEFINE his theory clearly enough that anyone capable of the math can derive, and calculate, and test things about his theory. If you feel you understand his theory, then go ahead an DEFINE his theory precisely here for everyone else.

 

[heinz]

This is crackpottery, plain and simple.

Christoph, please do not answer. This guy makes several mistakes. First, he did not read your theory. So you cannot talk with him anyway. Second, he thinks that you are a crackpot. This shows that he did not read your physics textbook. Third, for some reason, he thinks that crackpots should be treated with lack of politeness. Even if you were a crackpot, this alone should make you stop answering. Fourth, from the many mistakes about physics in his posts, eg about general relativity, about GUTs, about parity violation, about minimum distance etc, everybody can see, also you, that he is not an expert on physics. Christoph, please do not answer him any more.

I have started this thread and I have continued it because I want to understand this approach, not because I want you to be treated badly.

 

[physics8553]

Heinz,

the strand model explains confinement in the usual way: it is due to a potential between quarks that increases with the distance. The reason for it is the specific tangle shape of quarks, and their structure as being made of two strands.

In leptons, the free tangles have no bare colour and thus no such increasing potential and thus no confinement. One important reason is that leptons are made of three tangles, not two.

About Justin: Justin is mainly angry because (1) I told him that no elementary particle with energy larger than the Planck energy has ever be seen in all the detectors scattered around the world, because (2) he thinks, correctly, that this observation contradicts his belief in *perfect* translation symmetry, because (3) he believes, this time incorrectly, that this observation contradicts *low energy* translation symmetry. There is nothing one can do here. As a physicist, one has to choose for observation and against belief.

Justin is also angry because he believes, incorrectly, that strands provide hidden variables. Now, the concept of hidden variable is precisely defined, can be checked in any textbook, and strand shapes, even though they are hidden, are not hidden variables following this definition.

Justin is also angry because he believes, incorrectly, that the strand model contradicts observations about parity. His point here is not clear, as his anger takes hold of him.

Finally, Justin is angry because he dislikes the explanation of the model. That is a matter of taste, but he might suggest improvements. In summary, it is indeed unfortunate that his valuable points are hidden behind so much anger and behind so many incorrect ones.

 

[JustinLevy]

First, he did not read your theory. So you cannot talk with him anyway.

I did read his 'theory'. When he introduces the strands and crossings he never uses any equations, nor clear definitions, and just makes a series of logically disconnected statements. I am sorry if you feel saying that is rude. But since he, and now you, have referred to the text of his book to answer questions about his 'theory' it is important for you to understand WHY that is not adequate.

My overarching comment is, and continues to be:
Until the features of 'strand theory' are precisely defined mathematically, there cannot be agreement on what it IS or PREDICTS.

from the many mistakes about physics in his posts, eg about general relativity, about GUTs, about parity violation, about minimum distance etc, everybody can see, also you, that he is not an expert on physics.

I have said very little about GR except that local poincare symmetry is exact and that causal horizons (like black holes) are not coordinate system (observer) dependent. Do you disagree with that?
As for parity symmetry, I stated that this is not a spontaneously broken symmetry in the standard model... the lagrangian itself does not have this symmetry. Do you disagree with that?
As for the 'minimum distance' thing, I had two points: First his claim, that all quantum gravity approaches necessitated a momentum limit, is wrong. For example string theory, the asymptotic safety approach, and in semiclassical quantum gravity, local poincare invariance is EXACT. Do you disagree with that?
Second, he claims GR is exact for all measureable scales (and hence that poincare invariance is exact to all measureable scales), yet claims there is a momentum limit. This is not compatible, for the simple reason that if we can observe a momentum limit that we can observe a violation of poincare invariance. Do you disagree with that?

I don't consider what you said about me rude. I just think we disagree on somethings. Yet some may consider what you just wrote an ad hominem attack on my arguments because you are dismissing the arguments not on logic but because of your impression of me. I do not see it that way though. I hope the reason is instead that you disagree with the physics. So let's discuss some physics.

Please comment on the physics statements I just asked you about above. If people in this thread are disagreeing on the current techniques and status of physics, then there will be problems trying to compare any new theory. So don't just state without specifics that I am wrong, let us discuss this.

Additionally, since we are hopefully discussing physics outside the strand model for a bit here, let me add in another tidbit that I haven't discussed yet.

The standard model without a higgs, or any new particles or interactions, is known to break down at the TeV scale. This is because without a higgs or additional content (particles/interactions) in the theory, some processes begin to violate unitarity at this scale. So the standard model (without higgs or additional content) needs saving way before the Planck scale. Do you agree with this paragraph?

This is relevant since cschiller claims the strand model reproduces the standard model yet without a higgs or additional content.
"we get the known Lagrangian of the electroweak interaction, though without the terms due to the Higgs boson. ... We do not write down the Lagrangian of the weak interaction predicted by the strand model, but the terms are the same as those found in the standard model of elementary particles."
He is even aware of the unitarity issue. The only way out is to claim that physicists don't fully understand the standard model lagrangian yet. He proceeds to do this without any equations or derivations.

He replaces the Higgs with the statement (not derivation) that "Mass is due to strand overcrossing at the border of space". So the mass of a particle is now due to a processes extremely non-local to the particle. If we consider the border of space the cosmological horizon, the particles exchanged in a process cannot obtain mass because their existence/tangles cannot propagate out to the cosmological horizon during their lifetime. Therefore this 'escape' for ignoring the higgs sector does explain the experimental masses of 'short' lived particles (where 'short' means on the order of the lifetime of the universe).

For my own benefit, if you feel anything I have said in this post up to this point is offensive, please point it out explicitly. I do not want discussion to shut down because of perceived rudeness.

----------

About Justin: Justin is mainly angry because

I am not angry about anything.
I am trying very very hard to help you see
1) why it is vitally important for you to precisely define your theory so that anyone can make calculations with it
and
2) what are some very important issues you should keep in mind when choosing how to define the theory (otherwise it will be dead on arrival)

I have at times been repetitive since you are not really answering the questions. Maybe that comes off as harping on an issue, but these issues are important for others to understand your theory. This is not meant to be perceived as anger or having emotional content.

And also I admit I can be overly blunt in my assessment of the current state of your theory. I felt this was necessary for you to understand the extent to which the hand-wavyness of your theory is a problem. In fact it is currently the problem. It is to the extent that it is not clear what your theory even is. No one can claim anything about your theory except you in this state since you can always just claim we don't understand (and since your theory is not clearly expressed at all, this misunderstanding may indeed be the case), making this defacto a 'personal pet theory'.

I am sorry if saying these things offends you (or heinz), but it is important that you truly understand that your theory cannot be intelligently discussed until it is no longer "your" theory and instead is clearly defined so that anyone can play with it and test its consistency and consequences and derive predictions. There is no need for me to repeat myself on this issue if you could just give some indication that you understand the severity of this issue ... that you understand that in the current state this is not a scientific theory at all, but just a series of claims/statements about what you believe the theory does.

If you understand that the theory, from its very starting point, is currently poorly defined to the point that no one else can try to calculate or derive anything from it, then please say so. I'm not expecting 'poof' for you to have all the answers, but some self-acknowledgment that this problem exists is a HUGE step in the correct direction.

Once you are aware and accept there is a problem, you can finally focus on attacking this problem.I will ignore most of the other comments in your last post for now since they don't answer my questions, and instead are wildly misunderstanding somethings. Please go back and answer my questions in my last post.

Finally, Justin is angry because he dislikes the explanation of the model. That is a matter of taste, but he might suggest improvements.

Since you will not precisely define your theory, you force me to guess. My suggestions for improvements can therefore only be given as pointing out places your current statements are too vague to handle, so that you can more precisely define your theory.

So let me state what I understand about your theory so far, making things precise to the extent that I understand them:
1] The universe can be modeled as featureless strands (1 spatial dimensional objects, a sheet in spacetime) in a background spacetime.
2] A strand has endpoints at the cosmological horizon or infinity.
3] The topology of the strands in spatial slices of the background spacetime is constant. (strands cannot break or intersect each other)
4] The only observable is a 'crossing switch' of a 'strand crossing'.

... there are already things in there that need to be defined, but even so, things get much more vague after this ...

5] The strands can move in this background space ( ?? at least some details need to be given on this movement to allow any derivations. The motion cannot be purely random, since there is an obvious feature of the correlation of motion that prevents strands from crossing. Is it a random choice among any movement that is 'allowed', ie. that does not cause strands to cross? Is there any sense of locality in the movement, or can the strands move infinitely fast according to the background spacetime? )

6] a 'strand crossing' has something to do with a local minimum distance between two strand segments ( ?? not clearly defined, although you have stated that a strand crossing can form or disappear as the strands move. ?? how close do the strands have to be for it to count as a crossing, or is any local minimum a crossing ?? what if the strands are parallel for a finite length? )

7] a 'crossing switch' is ... (?? not defined at all. Two pictorial examples are given.
-- In one (a 'twist') a crossing disappears and then a crossing is formed such that, given the orientation defined by the background space, the strand segments locally appears rotated by pi/2 about the line of minimum distance for the crossing when comparing the 'start' and 'end'. ?? what if the crossing disappears but does not reform, is that observable ?? how is the crossing that disappears identified/associated with the crossing that forms later, what if multiple disappear before any form, or multiple form after?
-- In another pictorial example (a 'twirl') the strand segments, given the orientation defined by the background space, rotate by pi/2 about the line of minimum distance for the crossing when comparing the 'start' and 'end'. ?? The background space-time is not sufficient to declare what 'start' and 'end' are here, such that for a crossing forming, rotating a certain amount, then disappearing, it is unclear how many 'crossing switches' happen (the observables of the theory are not well defined even given a background space). Is it how far it rotated compared to when it first formed? ?? If the crossing line itself moves or rotates, what orientation is it that matters for declaring a rotation of pi/2? does it have to do with the axes of the background space ?? )

8] The background spacetime has 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension (it is unclear to me if this is a fundamental statement in your theory, of if you really believe it is a derived statement from the definitions above)We need to understand precisely what your theory is before there can be any real derivations. Once we understand what your theory is, then we can start discussing some real derivations of the symmetries in your theory. So please help us all understand what your theory is by filling in the missing details with precise statements.

 

[rinchendawa]

I found something more crazy than the strand model, if that is what is needed. It says that every strand crossing reflects the structure of the entire web of strands, like a hologram reflects the information of the entire object - kinda fractal universe theory. The theory is a bit old though :)

Here it goes:

Far away in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out infinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel in each "eye" of the net, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering like stars in the first magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that there is an infinite reflecting process occurring.

from the Avatamsaka-Sutra (c. 300s CE)
quoted from "The Jewel Net of Indra" by Francis H. Cook

I'd like to add: "strands" are not threads or ropes. They are just a concept of thinking. As CS rightly explains: strands are not observable. They are just a part of a thinker's mind. To describe reality, we need mind and thought. Whether we use strands, ribbons, or funnels, essentially makes no difference and is only a question of taste and convenience, but one hand clapping definitely makes no sound. Cheer up!

Reality is an illusion - albeit a very persistent one...

 

[JustinLevy]

Therefore this 'escape' for ignoring the higgs sector does explain the experimental masses of 'short' lived particles (where 'short' means on the order of the lifetime of the universe).

While there are probably plenty of other mistypes, and this one should be clear from context, I figured I'd point out that it should have said:
"Therefore this 'escape' for ignoring the higgs sector does not explain the experimental masses of 'short' lived particles (where 'short' means on the order of the lifetime of the universe)."

 

[Berlin]

First of all I advise everybody to use three shoestrings to play with this theory!

Christoph,

I have the impression that progress in particle physics should be guided by the wissdom of 'aberations' like the CKM matrix (in the true spirit like Planck looked at blackbody radiation). We all focuss on exact symmetries but experiments show different. I allways wondered why there is not a kind of gauge boson L changing generations of particles. So that CKM is really something like a two step process <d/weak/u> = <d/W.boson/u'><u'/L/u> where <u'/L/u> represents the generation change process and thus a CKM element.

When I look at the strands you see that the difference in generations is represented by a sort of one third of the leather trick (cut figure 71, pg. 258 in three parts). Can this one third (three strands, two parallel, one crossing the first above and the second under) be the 'generation changing boson'? Is it really a boson? L^3 is the identity matrix of course.

It also looks like a nice space defect, a perfect candidate for dark energy, just kidding :)

berlin

 

[JustinLevy]

First of all I advise everybody to use three shoestrings to play with this theory

This is not a theory yet. The starting point is too vaguely defined to allow any derivations of things like gravity or the standard model as he claims.

Also, because he declares the strands themselves to be featureless, their motion can only depend on their position relative to other strands. Therefore, the fundamental movement of the strands in his theory must have parity symmetry. Since everything in his theory is supposed to be derived from this movement, without need to further investigation into the details of his theory, his theory must predict parity symmetry ... which doesn´t agree with experiment. The little detail he provides about his theory is already enough to dismiss it due to experiment.


To Berlin, or heinz, or cschiller, or anyone claiming interest in this theory:
If you disagree with my assessment, then DEFINE the theory precisely enough to allow one to see what is wrong with that line of argument.
Until the features of 'strand theory' are precisely defined mathematically, there cannot be agreement on what it IS or PREDICTS.

Please answer the questions/comments laid out in post #196.

 

[JustinLevy]

For those interested in this, since cschiller will no longer answer questions here, you can find some responses to questions here:
http://www.motionmountain.net/wiki/index.php/Research_Discussion_Page
(Warning: Use the history tab to see what was actually said, as he heavily redacts things and deletes questions and even answers he changes his mind on.)

In trying to make the definitions of his theory more precise, he has declared that of the two original examples of "crossing switches" only one is now a crossing switch. It is unclear how the remaining one is considered a crossing switch either, and when asked for clarification he refers to something not in the definition and says he will get back to this later. Further, this definition change makes all the "Reidemeister moves" in fig 40, chap 10, no longer switches either. He stated he needs to think about this further. When asked for details of how the strands move, beyond just that they don't interpenetrate, he admits now that it "is not clearly defined yet".

So hopefully he is starting to understand why it is so important to be precise with the fundementals of your theory. The problem is that as he makes things more precise, he will learn that as a consequence, many of his hand-wavy "derivations" will not work anymore and therefore he resists a lot.

For instance, this question (which he just deletes instead of answering)
If:
1. the move that removes a photon does not cause strands to interpenetrate
and
2. all moves that do not interpenetrate strands are allowed
then
3. a photon disappearing is an allowed move

He has stated #1, and #2, but won't agree to #3 saying instead "No, energy and angular momentum are conserved." He claims there is no contradiction.

So he can't even agree on simple If A and B then C prepositional logic. If you can't use logic on this theory, then nothing will dissuade him of his theory. This is not science.

 

[Berlin]

Hi Justin,

A agree that you should pursue to be precise. But also quantum mechanics started without the right interpretation of the wavefunction... The recent article of Eric Verlinde could have a connection to the work of Schiller. I have the feeling (if you allow me so..) that switching is somehow a step out of equilibrium at the horizon, measured in mass. Pure speculation right now, I will play with it.

berlin

 

[arivero]

Just a note, for randomly interested people. Looking in the arxiv,

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9905020

also plays the Raidemaster thing, for spin networks. So there is actually a mainstream use of the moves, which can explain why the motionmountain approach is not received (if it contradicts some known theorem on group representation via the moves, then something is, ad absurdum, wrong)

 

[Psychosmurf]

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

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

Why strands? Why knot? LOL!

 

[Psychosmurf]

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 agree with you that epistemological and ontological concerns are extremely important in understanding nature. While I was reading Chirstoph's Strand Model in Motion Mountain, the idea that the strands had no properties reminded me of the conception of negative transcendence in the Kant-Friesian school of philosophy, where every property of objects is removed from the world so that all that remains is a curious void of pure existence. That the theory of negative transcendence and the idea of strands in the Strand Model should be so similar, and that negative transcendence serves as a basis for the Friesian theory of science, are observations that I think can not be just mere coincidences.