(Grigorij)

### A *unified description of motion* exists –
but not a "theory of everything".

We can talk about everything that happens. With precision. Thus we know that there must be a unified description of motion. We just have to find the concepts that allow doing so.

Since 1973 – five decades – the 9 lines
summarizing textbook physics as a combination of general relativity and the
standard model (with massive mixing Dirac neutrinos) provide a complete
description of what moves in nature. The 9 lines thus *seem* to be
a candidate for a "theory of everything". However:

– Even though the 9 lines contain all natural sciences, they don't contain
"everything".

– The 9 lines are too many.

– The last 4 lines – with their "arbitrary" choices – are not understood.

Therefore, the 9 lines are a complete description of motion, but not
a unified one.

In contrast, the strand tangle model *is* a
candidate for a unified description:

– Strands are based on a *single* statement or line, the
*fundamental principle*.

– Strands imply the 9 lines and thus provide
a *unified* description of motion and of all natural sciences - and of nothing outside
natural science.

– Strands *explain* the last 4 lines with their seemingly
arbitrary choices.

The single fundamental principle is: *Crossing
switches of otherwise unobservable, fluctuating strands of Planck radius
define the quantum of action ℏ, the Planck time and all observable
processes in nature.*

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

### Plus

**Complete.** 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.

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

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

**Correct.** All conclusions and predictions agree with
experiment.

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

**Nothing is unexplained** in fundamental physics.

**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.

### Minus

**No hype.** No new effects. No new technologies. No myths.
No change of the world. Not a big deal. Not a paradigm shift. Just the
final piece of the puzzle. Not a strom. Not an earthquake. Not a fire.
Just a whisper.

**Lack of precision.** Calculations of fundamental constants
of the standard model are still imprecise.

**Not a theory of everything.** The strand conjecture cannot predict
human behaviour. Instead, the strand tangle model is a candidate for a
*unified description of motion.*

### Bonus

**Global.** Also implies a simple cosmological model: the universe
is made of one (or several) strands that go from one spot of the
cosomolgical horizon to another.

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

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

**Tiny.** In fact, as long as experiments confirm
it, the strand tangle model, with its simple fundamental principle, is the
*tiniest* theory of nature.

* *

### On names

The strand conjecture promises to be a *unified description of
motion*. 'Unified' or 'tiny' means that it uses one fundamental
principle to deduce all conclusions and all aspects of the description. 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' was always mistaken; it is used for unsuccessful esoteric
healing attempts, and for titles of mediocre films. In contrast, the
expressions 'unified description of motion', 'tiny theory' or 'tiny
description of motion' are correct
– so far. They are also sober enough to keep them from ever
being misused in mass media headlines.

* *

### Smurf

The answer to every question about nature is the fundamental principle.
Or, equivalently, *the Dirac trick with Planck-scale strands.* The
strand tangle 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".