● Fascinating aspects● Humbling aspects● Vain names for unification attempts● Physicists want to talk like Smurfs● Testing artificial intelligence using unification● Why did unification take so long? About collective mistakes
(Benjamin Gimmel)
A unified description of motion - a "theory of everything" - is possible
Why unification is possible: We are able to talk about everything that happens. With precision. Thus we know that there is a unified description of motion. We just need to deduce the concepts that allow us to do so.
Since two decades, 9 simple lines
summarize modern textbook physics, i.e., the combination of general
relativity and the standard model, with massive mixing Dirac neutrinos.
These 9 lines provide a complete description of motion, describing
precisely all experiments.
The 9 lines describe everything that happens. With precision.
However, the origin of the last 4 lines
– with all their "arbitrary" choices for elementary particles, gauge
interactions, and fundamental constants – is not understood. Therefore,
the 9 lines are not a unified description.
In contrast, the strand tangle model is a unified description. Strands are based on a single fundamental principle that implies all 9 lines describing modern physics. Strands, inspired by Dirac, Battey-Pratt, Racey and Kauffman, explain and deduce the last 4 lines with the observed elementary particles, gauge interactions, and fundamental constants, eliminating all alternatives.
The fundamental principle: Observable crossing switches of unobservable, fluctuating strands of Planck radius define the quantum of action ℏ, the Planck time, and all observable quantities and processes in nature.
The consequences and results: Particles are tangles (3d braids) of fluctuating strands. Classifying them shows: only the observed elementary fermions and bosons are possible. Wave functions are crossing densities. Only crossing densities explain spinor wave functions. Gauge interactions are tangle deformations. Classifying them shows: only the observed gauge interactions, their Lie groups and Feynman vertices are possible; only the observed standard model arises, with neutrino masses; nothing beyond it is measurable. Space is a blurred network of fluctuating strands. Horizons are blurred weaves of strands. Black hole entropy arises. Gravity and curvature are blurred inhomogeneous strand networks. Curvature follows Einstein's field equations and nothing beyond it is measurable. Motion minimizes crossing switches and thus minimizes action. No unified equations are possible, because none are testable. All the mentioned consequences agree with all experiments.
The details:
The
lack of alternatives to unification with strands is shown here.
A
pedagogical introduction to the strand tangle model is here.
* *
Fascinating aspects
Complete. No gaps. Nothing in fundamental physics is unexplained.
Correct. All conclusions and predictions agree with experiment. Validates all experimental physicists.
Unified. No free parameters. The strand tangle model reproduces general relativity and the full standard model, including the observed particle spectrum, massive neutrinos, the observed interaction spectrum, and unique fundamental constants. Read more here.
Positively predictive. No free parameters. The strand tangle model promises to reproduce the values of the fundamental constants: particle masses, mixing angles and coupling constants. This allows testing the model.
Negatively predictive. The strand tangle model predicts the lack of physics beyond the standard model with massive neutrinos and beyond general relativity. This implies hundreds of ongoing and future experimental tests.
Universal. Explains all of nature. Implies a simple cosmological model: the universe is made of one strand that crosses space from one spot of the cosmological horizon to another, then continues to the next spot, and so forth.
Simple. Based on a single fundamental principle. It is graphical and has no equations.
Peaceful. No misuse possible. No new power. No new weapons. 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.
Elegant. A few lines that fit on a T-shirt.
Unexpected. The complete standard model, with massive neutrinos, is based on one simple principle.
Accessible. Tangles, geometry and algebra. For undergrad science students. Worldwide. Easy to use in teaching.
Tiny. The fundamental principle makes the tangle model the tiniest theory of nature.
* *
Humbling aspects
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.
Simple math. Proves that fundamental equations do not exist. Only inequalities and discrete topology in three dimensions. All math is at the undergraduate level. Hurts the vanity of the researchers hoping for complex math. Makes it clear that nature was laughing at the efforts of theoretical physicists for a long time.
Unusual. Rejects almost all attempts and fashions of the past decades. Hurts the vanity of many researchers hoping for vindication.
Not fully finished. Calculations of fundamental constants of the standard model are still imprecise. Work must be continued.
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.
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.
* *
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.
* *
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!" The strand
tangle model thus leads 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)
* *
Testing artificial intelligence using unification
Given that AI systems are essentially stochastic parrots with little comprehension of concepts and an extremely reduced 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 first of all seen in the clarity of the used concepts. In the case that somebody 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.
In the case that somebody or some program defines a 'theory of everything' as a theory that describes aliens, UFOs, antigravity, spaceships, faster-than-light travel 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, and nonsense.
Distinguishing lies and nonsense from physics and science is simple: doubt and check. Doubting means to ask why and to listen to the arguments. A 'check' is a comparison with observations. If doubting or checking a statement is impossible, it is wrong, thus at least nonsense and at worst a lie. If doubting or checking a statement is not allowed, then it is 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 unverses or alien technology is a lie. Nature does not hide knowledge. Nature is accessible to everybody.
Statements can be doubted and checked, but facts cannot. The expression 'fact-checking' is the epitome of a lie. Worse, fact-checkers are self-declared authorities. Science is opposed to every authority. All statements in physics can be doubted and can be checked. By everybody. Including you.
Real intelligent systems know: physics, like every natural science,
collects precise statements about observed motion. Physics thus
collects statements that result from continuous doubts and checks.
* *
Why did unification take so long? About collective mistakes
Many 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.
Many physicists thought that unification requires new equations. This is wrong, as experiments show.
Many physicists thought that unification requires physics beyond the standard model with massive neutrinos. This is wrong, as experiments show.
Many physicists thought that unification requires finding dark matter. This is wrong, as experiments show.
Many 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.
Many physicists thought that unification requires more dimensions, twistors, torsion, quantum gravity effects, or other changes to gravitation. This is wrong, as experiments show.
Many physicists thought that nature is fine-tuned or that it has many options to exist. This is wrong, as experiments show.
Many physicists thought that nature needs continuous space, point-like particles, or an axiomatic description. This is wrong, as experiments show.
Many physicists avoided describing particles and space with common constituents, despite the evidence from black holes and from limit experiments.
The two texts linked near the top of the page explain these mistakes - and correct them. After several hundred thousand unsuccessful publications about a unified description of nature, many physicists were hearing nature's Homeric laugh about these efforts. Maybe she is laughing about the strand tangle model as well. The future will tell.
* * *