View source

From Motion Mountain Wiki

This page has been locked to prevent editing.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

This letter was sent to me by Carlo from Florence (Italy), in 2009. It contains some interesting thoughts on unification and the strand model. I translated it from Italian to English and edited it a bit. Dear Christoph, [...] In 2009, your "strand model" is the only model that predicts three gauge interactions; it is only one of two, together with the "ribbon model" by Bilson-Thompson, that predicts three particle generations; it is the only model that predicts that the Higgs boson will not be found. [...] So let me assume that the model is correct. [...] Then my colleagues and I have some predictions. - Researchers on the foundations of quantum theory will not like the model. They do not like to describe wave functions as clouds in three dimensions. They do not like strands as microscopic basis of reality. [...] - Researchers on general relativity will not like the model. They do not like the idea of a maximum power. They do not like the idea that nothing is behind the horizon. They do not like your derivation of black hole entropy and of the field equations. - Researchers on mathematical physics will not like your model. They do not like that it cannot be generalized. They do not like that it cannot be modified. And they do not like that it is not formulated in terms of equations. [...] - Researchers in field theory do not like the absence of a Higgs boson. They do not like the absence of supersymmetry. - Researchers in Yang-Mills theory will not like it, because it does not fit their habits, does not predict a Higgs boson and does not predict axions. - Researchers on shape deformations will not like it because they have never thought of this option and because they do not know the Reidemeister moves. - Researchers in string theory do not like the absence of higher dimensions and of supersymmetry. [...] - Researchers in loop quantum gravity do not like that strands are featureless. [...] - Researchers in knot theory will not like it, despite the astonishing relation between interactions, Reidemeister moves and gauge theory, because knot theorists do not know particle physics. - Researchers on axiomatization of physics will not like it, because the model has no axioms. - Particle physicists at CERN, at the Fermilab and elsewhere will not like it, because they just have built expensive machines and want to built the next one. The final result is: Before the LHC experiments, nobody in physics or mathematics will care about your model. And even if the LHC finds no Higgs boson, as you predict, for quite some time, nobody in physics will like your model. [...] You will have to wait that many of these people die. [...] Good luck and greetings! Carlo ---- Excerpts from a (second) answer in mid 2010, translated to English. Dear Carlo, over a year after you letter, let me come back once more to what you wrote. Your analysis is still valid. But rethinking [http://www.motionmountain.net/fun.html#req the requirements that a final theory must fulfil], a surprising point appears: ''any'' final theory will necessarily be in contrast with almost all physics researchers, because it ''must'' contradict particle physics, and quantum field theory, and general relativity, and mathematical physics. In fact, any type of "appeasement research", i.e., any type of research that tries to agree or even to please some existing research group, prevents the discovery of the final theory. In your letter, you made the point that the strand model goes against most thinking and research habits. But the list of requirements for the final theory shows that the unconscious desire for appeasement is a problem for every other attempt as well. This serious difficulty also explains the lack of success in the past searches for a final theory. Researchers know that they must search where others are searching, in order to remain accepted. This difficulty to let go thinking habits even explains why there is no canonical list of requirements for the final theory. Therefore, the best thing is to wait and see how things evolve, and to refine the exploration in the meantime. You surely have heard that so far, even the newest experimental results from summer 2010 at the Tevatron and at the LHC agree with the predictions of the strand model. [...] Best regards Christoph

Return to Suggestion Page.