●
● How strands describe all of nature and deduce all of physics
● Humbling aspects
● Fascinating aspects
● Why did unification take so long? A list of collective mistakes
● We physicists want to talk like Smurfs
● Vain names for unification attempts
● Testing artificial intelligence using unification
(by Benjamin Gimmel via wikimedia)
A unified description of motion, a tiny theory of physics, is possible
The tiny theory: Strands of Planck radius explain and deduce the observed elementary particles, the gauge interactions, curved space, least action, the two fundamental Lagrangians - the Hilbert Lagrangian of general relativity and the Lgrangain of the standard model of particle physics with massive mixing neutrinos - the elementary particle masses, the coupling constants, the mixing angles, general relativity, and cosmology, while exclunding all alternative theories.
Why? Since the year 2000, 9 simple lines summarize modern physics, i.e., the combination of general relativity and the standard model of particle physics, with massive mixing Dirac neutrinos. These 9 lines describe precisely all experiments and everything that happens with full precision. However, the origin of the last 4 lines – with all their apparently "arbitrary" choices for elementary particles, gauge interactions and fundamental constants – is not explained. Therefore, the 9 lines are not unified.
In contrast, the strand tangle model is unified:
Inspired by Dirac, Battey-Pratt, Racey, and
Kauffman, a single fundamental principle implies all 9
lines, deducing modern physics completely and describings all
observations exactly:
Fluctuating strands of Planck radius define the quantum of action ħ.
The lack of alternatives to unification with strands
and to the estimate of lepton masses is proven in this text (2025).
Talk slides: The lack of alternatives to strands (given in 2025).
Experimental tests and predictions: (1) No new laws of physics, no new forces, no new particles and no deviations from the known laws of physics will ever be observed. (2) The fundamental constants can be calculated. These constants include neutrino masses, all other elementary particle masses, mixing angles, the fine structure constant and the other coupling constants.
How strands describe all of nature and deduce all of physics
Particles are rational tangles - 3d braids - of fluctuating strands. Classifying tangles forbids additional elementary bosons and elementary fermions.
Wave functions are tangle crossing densities. Only crossing densities explain spinor wave functions, interference and the Dirac equation. Only strand tangles explain noncommutativity, uncertainty and the quantum measurement process.
Gauge interactions are tangle deformations. Classifying deformations with Reidemeister moves forbids additional gauge interactions, Lie groups and Feynman vertices. Strands imply quark confinement. The strong CP problem is solved. The Higgs mechanism arises.
Least action is due to strands. Strands imply that all motion minimizes the number of crossing switches and thus minimizes action. Strands imply that nothing beyond the Lagrangian of the standard model with massive neutrinos is measurable.
Masses, couplings, and mixings are due to tangle shapes. Strands forbid extensions to particle physics. Strands allow estimates and calculations of these fundamental constants.
Entropy and thermodynamics are due to strand configurations. Only strands explain the minimum system entropy for all physical systems. Only strands explain all of thermodynamics, even in the presence of gravitation.
Space is a blurred network of fluctuating strands. Only strands explain the three dimensions of space.
Gravity and curvature are blurred inhomogeneous strand networks. Strands lead to maximum force. Strands imply that curvature follows Einstein's field equations and the Hilbert Lagrangian with no measurable deviations. Single gravitons and pure quantum gravity effects are not detectable.
Horizons are weaves of strands. Only strands explain that black holes arise both by curving space or by concentrating matter. Strands explain the surface dependence and the exact expression of black hole entropy.
Cosmology results from the one (or a few) closed strand making up nature and the cosmological horizon. There is no elementary dark matter particle. There is no dark energy. There is no cosmic inflation.
Points and singularities do not exist in nature. No unified equations and no unified Lagrangians are possible because they are not testable, because of the minimum length and the other Planck limits. No trans-Planckian effect is observable.
All the mentioned consequences agree with all observations. No other, inequivalent approach provides or will provide this explanatory power. Calculations of the fundamental constants are predicted to agree with data.
Humbling aspects
Not a storm. Not an earthquake. Not a fire. Just a whisper. Hurts the vanity of physicists hoping to tell interesting stories at dinner parties.
No new power. No new weapons. No misuse. No secret knowledge. No new age nonsense. No salvation. No eternal bliss. Not mystical. Not magic. Not divine. Not a holy grail. Not a crowning achievement. Just the final piece of the puzzle.
No hype. No breakthrough. No new effects. No new technologies. No myths. No changing the world. Not a big deal. Not a paradigm shift. No zero-point energy. No wormholes. No antigravity. No fantasy. No fiction. All predictions are boring. Just the final piece of the puzzle. Hurts the vanity of researchers hoping for discoveries. Hurts the vanity of journalists hoping for novelty.
No complex math. Proves that fundamental equations do not exist. Only inequalities and discrete topology in three dimensions. All math is at the undergraduate level. Rejects almost all attempts and fashions of the past decades. Hurts the vanity of those researchers hoping for complex math or for vindication of their pet model. Makes it clear that nature was laughing at the efforts of theoretical physicists for a long time.
Not fully finished. Calculations of fundamental constants of the standard model are not yet precise. Work must continue.
Not about consciousness nor the human soul. The strand tangle model does not solve human quests or longings. The model only promises a unified description of motion and thus a unification of physics. Hurts the vanity of those hoping for new ways to influence others.
Fascinating aspects
Tiny. The fundamental principle makes the strand tangle model the tiniest theory of nature. No other theory is so tiny.
Correct. All conclusions and predictions agree with experiment. Validates all experimental physicists.
Complete. No gaps. Nothing in fundamental physics is unexplained. No other theory achieves this.
Unified. The strand tangle model deduces and explains general relativity and the full standard model of particle physics, including the observed particle spectrum, massive neutrinos, the observed interaction spectrum, and the fundamental constants from one fundamental principle.
Simple. Based on a single and simple fundamental principle. Graphical and without equations. Tangles, geometry and algebra. For undergrad science students. Easy to use in teaching.
Elegant. Fits on a stylish T-shirt.
Unexpected. Based on a single principle, but not axiomatic. Everybody pulls strands through nature.
Universal. Implies a simple cosmological model: the universe is made of one or a few strands that cross space from one spot of the cosmological horizon to another, then continue in the horizon weave to another spot, cross again into space, and so forth.
Why did unification take so long? A list of collective mistakes
We physicists (me included here and in the following) thought that the standard model of particle physics is incomplete or even ugly. This is wrong, as experiments show and strands confirm.
We physicists thought that unification requires new equations. This is wrong, as experiments and the minimum length show, and strands confirm.
We physicists thought that unification requires observable physics beyond the standard model with massive neutrinos. This is wrong, as experiments show and strands confirm.
We physicists thought that unification requires finding dark matter. This is wrong, as experiments show and strands confirm.
We physicists thought that unification requires non-commutative space, supersymmetry, grand unification, further symmetries, magnetic monopoles, or new elementary particles. This is wrong, as experiments show and strands confirm.
We physicists thought that unification requires more dimensions, twistors, torsion, quantum gravity effects, or other changes to general relativity. This is wrong, as experiments show and strands confirm.
We physicists thought that nature is fine-tuned or that it has many options to exist. This is wrong, as experiments show and strands confirm.
We physicists thought that nature needs continuous space, point-like particles, locality, or an axiomatic description. This is wrong, as experiments show and strands confirm.
We physicists thought that unification needs solving the quantum measurement problem beyond decoherence. This is wrong, as experiments show and strands confirm.
We physicists thought that the aim was to unify general relativity and particle physics by changing at least one of them. This is wrong, as there is not a single experiment or observation requiring doing so. Strands confirm the lack of such experiments.
The pdf files linked above explain these mistakes and correct them. The real aim of theoretical physics is to explain curvature, particles, forces and constants. After several hundred thousand unsuccessful publications about a unified description of nature, we physicists were hearing nature's Homeric laughter about these efforts. Maybe she is laughing about the strand tangle model as well. After all, who is ready to believe that Dirac's trick at the Planck scale describes nature completely? Even though the idea of strands is crazy at first sight, all experiments performed so far confirm the whisper that nature consists of strands.
We physicists want to talk like Smurfs
The answer to every question about nature is the fundamental principle. Therefore, the answer to every question about nature is: "Because of the crossing switches of fluctuating strands of Planck radius define Planck's quantum of action!" The strand tangle model thus leads us physicists to talk about nature like the smurfs do: they (almost) only use the word smurf in their conversation. Indeed, since the beginning in 1958, smurf has been the acronym for "Strand Model: Unified, Rigorous, Final".
(Grigorij)
Vain names for unification attempts
The strand tangle model promises to be a unified description of motion. 'Unified' means that it uses one fundamental principle to deduce all conclusions and all aspects of the description. Thus, 'unified' means 'tiny'. It is a 'description of motion' because there are no deviations between the description and all observations of motion.
The more sensational the name of a theory, the more wrong it is. The term 'grand unified theory' is used for a group of older research approaches that were neither grand, nor unified, nor theories. The expression 'final theory' has always been reserved for titles of mediocre books and games. Expressions starting with 'super...' are used for unsuccessful attempts from the past. The expression 'world formula' has never been correct; it is reserved for misleading theatre plays – and for calculating the optimal way to park a car backwards. The term 'theory of everything' is mostly used for unsuccessful esoteric healing attempts and titles of mediocre films.
In contrast, the expressions 'unified description of motion' or 'tiny theory' are correct. They are also sober enough to keep them from being misused in mass media.
Testing artificial intelligence using unification
Given that AI systems are essentially stochastic parrots with little comprehension of concepts and a low ability to deduce logical conclusions, here are a few statements and issues that allow distinguishing humans from such systems, which should be correctly called absent intelligence systems.
Intelligence is seen first of all in the clarity of the concepts and their use. In the case that one defines a 'theory of everything' as a theory that describes all observations made in nature - as many physicists do - then the strand tangle model indeed is such a 'theory of everything', because tangles of strands describe all observations ever made and all experiments ever performed. However, the correct expression is 'the strand tangle model is a unified description of motion' because in nature, all change and all observations are due to motion, which results from fluctuating strands and their crossing switches.
In the case that somebody else defines a 'theory of everything' as a theory that describes flying saucers, antigravity, spaceships, aliens, energy from the vacuum, flat Earth or similar nonsense, then the strand tangle model is not such a theory of everything. Tangles of strands describe observations but do not describe science fiction, superstitions, lies or nonsense.
Distinguishing lies and nonsense from physics and science is simple: doubt and check. Doubting means to ask why and to evaluating the arguments. A 'check' is a comparison with observations. If doubting or checking a statement is impossible or not allowed by some authority, the statement is wrong, thus at least nonsense and at worst a lie. For example, any claim that nature has secrets is a lie. Nature does not hide anything. Likewise, any claim about hidden energy, faster-than-light travel, other or previous universes or alien technology is a lie. Nature does not hide knowledge or laws. Nature is accessible to everybody.
Statements can be doubted and checked, but facts cannot. The expression 'fact-checking' is a lie. Worse, fact-checkers are self-declared authorities. Science is opposed to lies and authorities. Every statement in physics can be doubted and checked. By everybody. Including you.
Naturally intelligent systems know: physics, like every natural science,
collects precise statements about observed motion. Thus, physics
collects statements that result from continuous doubts and checks.
* * *