Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Dufourny: on 6/26/21 at 19:26pm UTC, wrote I have an idea for you to go deeper in your works, consider the quaternions...

Steve Dufourny: on 6/26/21 at 17:07pm UTC, wrote I d say that the strand conjecture is a limited not sufficient...

Steve Dufourny: on 6/26/21 at 16:40pm UTC, wrote So I repeat yes and I insist even, in telling that there is no physics...

Steve Dufourny: on 6/26/21 at 16:35pm UTC, wrote Mr Schiller, with all my respects, I have known physicists relevant and...

Christoph Schiller: on 6/26/21 at 10:30am UTC, wrote A comment above states: "You tell also there is no physics beyond the SM...

Ulla Mattfolk: on 6/20/21 at 19:39pm UTC, wrote Sorry but I cannot edit here? I have a typo - c*4/4G it should be, but it...

Ulla Mattfolk: on 6/20/21 at 19:32pm UTC, wrote You say: The Planck scale is defined as that scale at which general...

Ulla Mattfolk: on 6/20/21 at 19:27pm UTC, wrote Hey, It is a bit rude to now say you don't understand, and no point what...



FQXi FORUM
July 24, 2021

CATEGORY: High Energy Physics [back]
TOPIC: Testing a conjecture on the origin of the standard model [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Christoph Schiller wrote on Mar. 2, 2021 @ 14:56 GMT
The title of this thread is the same as the title of my recent paper.

C. Schiller, Testing a conjecture on the origin of the standard model, European Physical Journal Plus 136 (2021) 79.

doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-01046-8.

Read it online for free at rdcu.be/cdwSI - the link is provided by SpringerNature.

It is regularly claimed that the standard model is complex, incomplete or even ugly. The strand conjecture argues the exact opposite: all of particle physics is due to tangled strands fluctuating at the Planck scale. A single fundamental process appears to explain the principle of least action, the Dirac equation, the observed interaction spectrum, the observed gauge symmetry groups, the observed elementary particle spectrum, and the fundamental constants (masses, mixing angles, and coupling constants) describing them. The Lagrangian of the standard model arises, without modifications or extensions. Over 100 additional tests and predictions about particle physics beyond the standard model are given. They agree with all experiments. So far, no other approach in the research literature appears to make (almost) any of these predictions. It appears that the explanation of the standard model using tangled strands is consistent, correct, hard to vary, and complete.

For more papers and talk slides, see www.motionmountain.net/research.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 2, 2021 @ 15:02 GMT
Hi Mr Schiller, all this is very interesting but if I can, first of all we cannot affirm that the planck scale really exists and secondly I am curious what do you consider like foundamental objects, because if you consider only photons like primoridal essence and strings inside in D at this planck scale, so it is also an assumption, the standard model is correct but it is emergent and not complete, I don t consider the fields like the origin of this physicality personally where the oscillations vibrations create the topologies, geometries. I have remarked that it is fashion inside the theoretical sciences community, all they consider only this GR and the photons and strings inside and with the geometrical algebras like the E8 of lie, they try with the non commutativity to unify G c and h , the QM and the GR , it is odd because if the GR is not the only one piece and that the strings are not correct , so all is just a play of maths but not really reaching the main unknowns.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christoph Schiller wrote on Mar. 2, 2021 @ 15:57 GMT
Just one quick point.

The Planck scale is defined as that scale at which general relativity, special relativity and quantum theory have to be taken into account, all three, together.

The Planck energy, Planck momentum, Planck length and Planck time are clearly defined quantities.

The statement "we cannot affirm that the Planck scale really exists" therefore is not correct.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 2, 2021 @ 16:10 GMT
I am sorry but never the planck has been proved like existing, don t confound the proved works of Planck and this planck scale, secondly never the GR has been proved like the only one piece of puzzle, you affrim things not correct, they are assumptions, since when we can affrim that the GR is the only one piece of our universe . And also tell me waht do you consider like foundamental objects, strings or points and why ?

ps the planck scale is an extrapolation not proved , we cannot reach it and we cannot affrim it exists.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 2, 2021 @ 16:13 GMT
If you try to unify so G c and h like a general universal point, there is a problem if you consider this planck scale wich is not proved and not sure, secondly if the GR and photons are considered like the primordial essence of the universe and that it is not the case, sorry what I tell is true.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 2, 2021 @ 16:17 GMT
In fact the majority of physicists make the same error to reach the quantum gravitation or to unify this QM , the QFT and the GR , they try to see where the laws are broken due to these scales and energies correlated, you see well that there is a problem of renormalisation for this quantum gravitation, it is because the general tools are not correct simply, but they continue still and always to make the same errors

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christoph Schiller wrote on Mar. 3, 2021 @ 06:59 GMT
Summary:

The strand conjecture starts with deducing Dirac’s equation from Dirac’s trick for tangles. Then, tangle classification yields the particle spectrum. The Reidemeister moves yield the particle interactions. Working out the details gives particle physics - and the standard model Lagrangisn - with no additions, no modifications, and no omissions.

Testable predictions:

There is no E8 nor any other grand unified gauge group. There is no supersymmetry. There are no additional dimensions. There is no non-commutative space. There are no new elementary particles. There are no new energy scales. There is no effect and no physics beyond the standard model.

Status:

So far, full agreement with experiment. All results are deduced from a single fundamental principle.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 3, 2021 @ 11:43 GMT
Hi Mr Schiller, we cannot affrim assumptions , it is important. The E8 even if I don t agree about the fields and strings or points like origin is a wonderful mathematical tool utilised by many scientists, the non commutativity of Connes is an important work permitting to better understand our standard model.

Please develop a little bit your general ideas, what is for you a particle and its philosophical origin ? I will see clearer about your ideas.

If I can also, what are for you the unknowns , the quantum gravitation, the hard problem of consciousness, the dark matter, the dark energy, the gluons problem mainly ? how do you consider these things ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 3, 2021 @ 12:53 GMT
I have look at your website , and I respect your general researchs, you search these general answers and it is the most important. The general philosophy for me is essential, that is why I d like to have your points of vue about these foundamental objects and the origin of the universe. We must recognise that we have many limitations of scales and in knowledges about the truths of our topologies, geometries, fields, matters. We just analyse at this moment the emergent effects, but the main cause are unknown still unfortunally.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christoph Schiller wrote on Mar. 3, 2021 @ 16:34 GMT
On predictions: In the tangle model, all predictions on the lack of physics beyond the standard model are *deduced* from one single fundamental principle about strands fluctuating at the Planck scale. The predictions are *not* assumptions. Only the fundamental principle is an assumption. The fundamental principle is general and abstract. And of course, exploring all other ideas on the origin of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 3, 2021 @ 19:30 GMT
I repeat , all this a respectable general work, but there are many assumptions, the planck and points particles in fluctuations, an assumption, the GR like the only one piece of puzzle, an assumption.

The fluctuations me I want well, but from what and what origin philosophical ?

You tell the predications rae not assumptions, yes they are because you utilise assumptions in your predictions like basis, so the predictions are assumptions.

Me I want well, but you cannot affirm

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christoph Schiller wrote on Mar. 7, 2021 @ 22:15 GMT
The paper about the testing of the strand conjecture in the domain of particle physics mentioned above is the follow up of the paper that presented the strand conjecture in the first place:

C. Schiller, 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. dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1063779619030055. The paper can be read for free online at rdcu.be/cdCK7, a link provided by SpringerNature.

This paper deduces quantum theory, quantum field theory and gravitation from Dirac's trick - including the Hilbert Lagrangian and the standard model Lagrangian. In particular, the paper argues that both the standard model and general relativity can be derived from a single fundamental principle involving strands. It follows that there should be no new physics in both fields - except for the calculation of the fundamental constants.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 8, 2021 @ 15:53 GMT
Hi , I have asked you simple general questions, why are you sure that the 1D points like foundamental objects exist ? secondly why do you consider just the GR like the only one piece of puzzle and the fluctuations to explain all our forces ? and thirdly you see well that the quantum gravitation is nor renormalised nor quantified in this reasoning. It is because your foundamental objects are not the truth, and that the GR and the photons only cannot answer. And Dirac works are not the problem nor the constants. Furthermore the BHs are not really knowns, we just know the even horizons at their surfaces and due to hawking works, but we don t know really what they are . And the 1D at this planck scale is just an assumption. Are you conscious of this ? the general philosophy and the foundamental objects are just assumptions ? If you want a relevant conjecture , try with the poincare conjecture to create the conjecture between the strings Mtheory superstrings Branes and the 3D spheres like foundamental objects, there it will be very relevant if you can prove it, you can utilise the symplectomorphisms preserving the volumes and the ricci flow for the deformations for example and play with the geometrical algebras of Lie like the E8 exceptional group. You can also utilise the works of Perelman proving this conjecture. Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 8, 2021 @ 16:15 GMT
What I try to explain is that our standard model is probably emergant due to a deeper logic and this logic is not from the points oscillating or fluctuations of this luminiferous spacetime, the einstein fields equations of our photonic spacetime giving this general relativity and explaining at high velocities the gravitation like a curvature of the spacetime when we observe it is of course real, what I try to explain is that this GR and the photons like prinmordial essence is not probably the answer. Even with the Einstein–Cartan–Sciama–Kibble theory and tools mathenmatical trying to reach this quantum gravitation. The main problem for me is that the thinkers consider the fields like origin of our reality , and with points or strings at this planck scales and oscillations, fluctuations, vibrations they explain the geometries , topologies from this 1D and after extrapolate the extradimensions like in the strings with 10, 11, 26D , but in fact all this are assumptions, if our universe is a pure 3D ns that the foundamental objects are 3D spheres and that the philosophical origin of this universe is made of particles, so the fields are just emergent and the points and strings don t really exist like main cause.

I beleive that many thinkers have not really understood the GR and the photons, Einstein also thought what I tell, he said himself that the photons are just a part of the problem, he has just permitted to observe better the spacetime. The electromagnetism and the forces of our standard model are probably due to particles encoded , they don t come from external cosmic fields , they emerge due to photons and particles of DM probaböly encoded in a kind of space vacuum where the main codes are , the photons are just a fuel.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 8, 2021 @ 16:18 GMT
In fact the standard model that we know and the QM and QFT emerge due to photons encoded and the forces increase due to number of photons , so the densities become relevant of 3D spheres, because the number of series primoridal finite don t change and the volumes also, just the densities , that is why the nuclear forces are just due to fact that there is more photons encoded than for the electromagnetism, they are encoded in the space vacuum wich is also a finite serie of 3D spheres .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christoph Schiller wrote on Mar. 21, 2021 @ 06:25 GMT
The strand conjecture, in the papers mentioned above, deduces, step by step, a number of testable statements that are usually thought to be impossible.

(1) The standard model can be deduced from a simple principle - based on strands.

(2) General relativity can be deduced from a simple principle - based on strands.

(3) The standard model and general relativity do not contradict each other.

(4) There is no physics beyond the standard model and beyond general relativity.

(5) The lack of new effects is testable in several hundred specific experiments.

(6) There is no unknown dark matter particle.

(7) The fundamental constants can be calculated.

(8) There is no unanswered question in fundamental physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 21, 2021 @ 11:19 GMT
I am sorry but you affirm things like facts , I repeat first of all the generaql relativity is not the only one pience of puzzle, secondly the points at this planck scale connected with the GR in 1D is an assumption, thirdly the daek matter is necessary to balance probably with the cold at all scales and explain also the evolution, and finally we have many unknowns to discover still , so we have many questions to answer still,

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Christoph Schiller wrote on Jun. 19, 2021 @ 19:25 GMT
There is a way to summarize the paper below in a single statement:

The Dirac trick at the Planck scale allows to deduce all of particle physics.

From this simple foundation it is possible to deduce the full Lagrangian of the standard model, the quark model, the gauge symmetries, the particle spectrum etc. The foundation also allows to deduce many predictions that can be tested in the coming years.

All experimental predictions are listed on www.motionmountain.net/bet .

C. Schiller, Testing a conjecture on the origin of the standard model, European Physical Journal Plus 136 (2021) 79. doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-01046-8. Read for free at rdcu.be/cdwSI.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 20, 2021 @ 10:31 GMT
Like I

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 20, 2021 @ 10:40 GMT
Like I said even if you don t want to discuss, probably due to fact that we are all persuaded inside the sciences community ,it is that you affirm too much assumptions like facts. You tell many things wich are not proved and accepted by the sciences community. You tell

(1) The standard model can be deduced from a simple principle - based on strands.

(2) General relativity can be...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 20, 2021 @ 10:50 GMT
ps, you know when we share ideas on a platform of sciences, you must accept the critics and you must defend your ideas in developping. If you cannot defend your ideas , so it is probably that you are not sure of your own ideas I suppose. The problem for me like I said is the affirmation of too much assumptions . If you utilised for example the geometrical algebras of Lie, hopf, Clifford and that you try to develop and unify the QM, the QFT, the SM, the GR , there it could be interesting with new ideas and maths, but you don t do it, you just affirm .I just tell this for you me to be taken seriously. I am obliged to make the same you know, I never affirm my assumptions and I work for the publications with mathematical tools and I try to be rigourous about my theory and my assumptions. It is like this that the theoretical sciences community is you know.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christoph Schiller wrote on Jun. 26, 2021 @ 10:30 GMT
A comment above states: "You tell also there is no physics beyond the SM and the GR, wowww? you speak to god you lol"

No. Physicists use a more accessible information source: they read research papers in the library. The statement about the lack of new physics comes from tens of thousands of researchers who have checked that statement for over 50 years and have published their measurement results in physics journals.

The statement is also a prediction that follows logically from the Dirac trick at the Planck scale, as explained in the paper.

When predictions and experiments match, there is a small, but non-negligible possibility of correctness.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 26, 2021 @ 16:35 GMT
Mr Schiller, with all my respects, I have known physicists relevant and others no, for me the universtity is not sufficient, we must learn all our life the sciences, philosophies, maths to be creative , general and innovant and a few number are able to do this. I was in maths sciences strong in secondary like I told, 9h of maths and 9 h of sciences by week more 4 of labs, after I was at university...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 26, 2021 @ 16:40 GMT
So I repeat yes and I insist even, in telling that there is no physics beyond the GR , it is an assumption and for me and it is just my opinion, it is total non sense. The GR is just a photonic spacetime. You beleive in this BB and that the universe has only created photons and that oscillate vibrate inside at this planck scale to create the topologies, geometries, matters, fields but it is just an assumption. We have evolved in 100 years since the GR but even Einstein told that we have probably a deeper logic to add. I00 years of general relativity and hop hovus pocus, we know all the universe and its laws ??? the fields for me are not the origin of our reality but the particles coded in a superfluidity with 3 ethers yes, It is even more logic than these fields.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 26, 2021 @ 17:07 GMT
I d say that the strand conjecture is a limited not sufficient interpretation. And it is due to many rational causes. First of all, the GR alone cannot unify the QM correctly, you can utilise all the geometrical algebras that you want and all the maths, that does not explain the deepest unknowns.The quantum gravitation is not about the fact to unify G c and h in resume simply. It is because the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 26, 2021 @ 19:26 GMT
I have an idea for you to go deeper in your works, consider the quaternions and the dirac trick consider the 3 ethers made of finite series of 3D spheres that I explained . Now consider the Lie groups for the connections and consider the particles in a superfluidity due to the specific spherical volumes of these series.

The standard model is about the U(1) SU(2) SU(3) and utilise the SO(3)...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.