Smurf   (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.

Strand predictions are clear and testable: first, no new physics will be observed; secondly, fundamental constants can be calculated.



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.



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.



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.

*    *


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
"strand model: unified, rigorous, final".