● 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
Since two decades, 9 simple lines summarize modern physics, i.e., the combination of general relativity and the standard model, 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 understood. Therefore, the 9 lines are not unified.
In contrast, the strand tangle model is
unified: a single fundamental principle implies all 9 lines, thus
completely deducing modern physics and describing exactly all
observations. Inspired by Dirac, Battey-Pratt, Racey, and
Kauffman, it states:
Fluctuating strands of Planck radius define the quantum of action ħ.
Strands explain and deduce the observed elementary particles, gauge interactions, curved space, Lagrangians, least action, fundamental particle masses, coupling constants, mixing angles, while eliminating all alternatives.
A
pedagogical introduction to the strand tangle model is this text (2024).
The lack of alternatives to unification and the
estimation of particle masses with strands is proven in this text (2025).
Talk slides to the text are found
here (given in 2025).
The consequences: Particles are rational tangles (3d braids) of fluctuating strands. Classifying tangles shows: only the observed elementary bosons and spin 1/2 fermions are possible. Wave functions are crossing densities. Only crossing densities explain spinor wave functions and the Dirac equation. Strands explain operators and quantum measurements. Gauge interactions are tangle deformations. Classifying deformations with Reidemeister moves shows: only the observed gauge interactions, their Lie groups and Feynman vertices are possible; the limit speed arises; confinement arises; the strong CP problem is solved; the Higgs mechanism arises; masses, couplings, and mixings are due to tangle shapes; only the observed standard model arises, with neutrino masses; nothing beyond the standard model Lagrangian with massive neutrinos is measurable. Space is a blurred network of fluctuating strands; strands lead to maximum force; horizons are weaves of strands. Only strands explain the smallest entropy. Black hole entropy arises. Gravity and curvature are blurred inhomogeneous strand networks. Curvature follows Einstein's field equations and the Hilbert Lagrangian with no measurable deviations. The strand tangle model yields cosmology. There is no elementary dark matter. There is no inflation. Strands imply that motion minimizes the number of crossing switches and thus minimizes action. Points and singularities do not exist in nature. No unified equations are possible because none are testable. Single gravitons are not detectable; neither are pure quantum gravity effects. All the mentioned consequences agree with all experiments.
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 tangle model the tiniest theory of nature.
Complete. No gaps. Nothing in fundamental physics is unexplained.
Correct. All conclusions and predictions agree with experiment. Validates all experimental physicists.
Simple. Based on a single fundamental principle. Graphical and without equations. Tangles, geometry and algebra. For undergrad science students. Worldwide. Easy to use in teaching.
Elegant. Deduces particle physics. Fits on a stylish T-shirt.
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.
Unexpected. Based on a single principle, but not axiomatic.
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. This is wrong, as there is not a single experiment requiring to do so.
The two texts linked near the top of the page 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, many physicists were hearing nature's Homeric laughter about these efforts. Maybe she is laughing about the strand tangle model as well. After all, who really wants to believe that Dirac's trick at the Planck scale describes nature completely? So far, experiments 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 used. 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, which results from fluctuating strands and their crossing switches.
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, or 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 or not allowed by some authority, it 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 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 a lie. Worse, fact-checkers are self-declared authorities. Science is opposed to lies and authorities. All statements in physics can be doubted and checked. By everybody. Including you.
Really 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.
* * *