### Clarification

Since decades, the 9 lines summarizing physics are a candidate for a "theory of everything." But: (1) The last 4 lines are not understood; (2) there are too many lines; and (3) even though the lines contain all natural sciences, they do not contain "everything".

The strand conjecture is a better candidate.
(1) It explains the 4 lines. (2) It consists of only a single line, the
fundamental principle. (3) But it still provides only a *complete* description of motion,
i.e., a complete description of natural sciences.

The fundamental principle: *Crossing switches of otherwise unobservable,
fluctuating strands define the Planck units and all
observable processes in nature.* Equivalently: The Dirac trick at the
Planck scale describes nature completely.

The consequences: Particles are tangles of fluctuating strands. Space is a network of fluctuating strands. Gravity and curvature are inhomogeneous strand networks. Horizons are weaves of strands. Motion minimizes crossing switches.

Publications are at graduate student level. Ideas are accessible.

### Plus

The strand conjecture reproduces general relativity and the full standard model, including the particle spectrum, the interaction spectrum and the gauge groups. Read more here.

The strand conjecture predicts to reproduce the values of the fundamental constants: particle masses, mixing angles and coupling constants. This allows testing the conjecture.

The strand conjecture predicts the lack of physics beyond the standard model and beyond general relativity. This implies hundreds of experimental tests.

All predictions derive from the fundamental principle.

All conclusions and predictions agree with experiment.

None of the predictions is made by any other candidate conjecture.

Nothing unexplained is left over in fundamental physics.

### Minus

Calculations of fundamental constants of the standard model are not yet precise.

The strand conjecture cannot predict human behaviour. It is **not** a
theory of everything. It will never be.

However, the strand model is
a candidate for a *complete* description of motion and nature.

### Bonus

No hype possible: No new effects. No myth. Not a paradigm shift. Not a big deal.

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 a holy grail.

Pretty: Just a few lines that fit on a T-shirt.

Simple: A mix of topology, geometry and algebra. Accessible at science student level.

* *

### On names

The strand conjecture promises to be a *complete description of
motion*. 'Complete' means that it describes all motion, with full
precision. A 'description' is the result of observation. These terms
differ from the more sensational ones used in related fields. The
expression 'grand unified theory' is used for a group of older research
approaches that were neither grand, nor unified, nor theories. The term
'final theory' is reserved for titles of mediocre books and games.
Expressions starting with 'super...' are used for unsuccessful attempts
from the past. The term 'world formula' is reserved for misleading theatre
plays – and for calculating the optimal way to park a car backwards.
The term 'theory of everything' is used for unsuccessful esoteric healing
attempts, and for titles of mediocre films. In contrast, the expression
'complete description of motion' is correct – so far. It is also
sober enough to keep it from ever appearing or being misused in mass media
headlines.

As long as experiments confirm it, the strand
conjecture, with its simple fundamental principle, is the *tiniest* theory.

* *

### Smurf

The answer to every question about nature is: "The Dirac trick at the Planck scale." The strand model thus leads physicists to talk about nature like the smurfs (puffi/schtroumpfs/Schlümpfe/smurfen) do: they (almost) only use the word "smurf" in their conversation.

Indeed, since the beginning in 1958, smurf has been the acronym for

"**s**trand **m**odel: **u**nified, **r**igorous, **f**inal".