The reason why there are three gauge forces?
JohnMS
an interesting avenue for sure. He now has updated his arxiv
manuscript. The new abstract is much bolder than before:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905
Deducing the three gauge interactions from the three Reidemeister
moves
Authors: Christoph Schiller
We give one of the first known arguments for the origin of the three
observed gauge groups. The argument is based on modelling nature at
Planck scales as a collection of featureless strands that fluctuate in
three dimensions. This approach models vacuum as untangled strands,
particles as tangles of strands, and Planck units as crossing
switches.
Modelling vacuum as untangled strands implies the field equations of
general relativity, when applying an argument from 1995 to the
thermodynamics of strands. Modelling fermions as tangles of two or
more strands allows to define wave functions as time-averages of
strand crossings; using an argument from 1980, this allows to deduce
the Dirac equation.
When modelling fermions as tangled strands, gauge interactions appear
naturally as deformation of tangle cores. The three possible types of
observable core deformations are given by the three Reidemeister
moves. They naturally lead to a U(1), a broken and parity-violating SU
(2), and a SU(3) gauge group. The corresponding Lagrangians also
appear naturally.
The model is unique, is unmodifiable, is consistent with all known
data, and makes numerous testable predictions, including the absence
of other interactions, of grand unification and of higher dimensions.
A method for calculating coupling constants seems to appear
naturally.
****************
Wow! This is quite a mouthful. I hope we can get him to tell a bit
more. He also has a longer explanation in his pdf at
http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html
When I read this text and the arxiv paper, I start to get an idea of
what he is doing. I find that it is worth thinking about.
John
FrediFizzx
news:5fe3ca4e-7b2a-4d4f...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I believe it is worth talking about also. I just finished reading his
Vol. 6 of Motion Mountain. A bit wordy but he presents a very good case
for his strand model. I can see that my idea of the quantum "vacuum" as
a relativistic ether medium can be incorporated into his model fairly
easily. Quantum vacuum charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) is still viable since
his model should be producing that. Hbar is a "vacuum" process just
like c is. I am still a bit skeptical about the high energy desert
though which his model rules out that there is any more particles above
the top quark. Only a few more years and the LHC should give some
answers to all of this. I believe he is right that there is no Higgs
boson. For me, the quantum "vacuum" is all about "less than virtual"
fermionic pairs.
Best,
Fred Diether
Ilja
> "JohnMS" <john_m_stan...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:5fe3ca4e-7b2a-4d4f...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I still have problems with Schiller's approach - but he seems to be on
> > an interesting avenue for sure. He now has updated his arxiv
> > manuscript. The new abstract is much bolder than before:
>
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905
> > We give one of the first known arguments for the origin of the three
> > observed gauge groups.
Another one (my) is published in Foundations of Physics.
See ilja-schmelzer.de/clm.
> > Wow! This is quite a mouthful. �I hope we can get him to tell a bit
> > more. He also has a longer explanation in his pdf at
> >http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html
> > When I read this text and the arxiv paper, I start to get an idea of
> > what he is doing. I find that it is worth thinking about.
>
> I believe it is worth talking about also. I just finished reading his
> Vol. 6 of Motion Mountain. �A bit wordy but he presents a very good case
> for his strand model.
I have been unable to make some sense of his approach. Certainly
not because I'm unable to make sense of Reidemeister and related
topological problems. No well-defined notions, only unclear pictures.
(This is only a nice formulation for "this is complete nonsense".)
I will look if something has changed. (at a first look nothing).
Frank
> On 18 Nov., 13:21, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "JohnMS" <john_m_stan...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
>
> ilja-schmelzer.de/clm.
We have two attempts to unification here: one by Schiller
and one by Schmelzer. The first incorporates gravity and SU(2)
symmetry
breaking, and the second does not. The first describes reality,
the second does not. The first website makes experimental predictions
and the second does not. We can only say: the experiments will decide.
Ilja
> On 22 Nov., 19:57, Ilja <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 18 Nov., 13:21, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > "JohnMS" <john_m_stan...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > >http://www.motionmountain.net/research/index.html
>
> > ilja-schmelzer.de/clm.
>
> We have two attempts to unification here: one by Schiller
> and one by Schmelzer. The first incorporates gravity and SU(2)
> symmetry breaking, and the second does not.
For gravity see ilja-schmelzer.de/glet.
> The first describes reality, the second does not.
Arguments please. (Different from Schiller's wishful
thinking.)
> The first website makes experimental predictions
> and the second does not.
My page predicts the particle content of the standard model:
all fermions and all gauge fields. If this is not an experimental
prediction, nothing is.
> We can only say: the experiments will decide.
No. We can read Schiller's paper and find out that
it is simply nonsense. It does not make sense, gives
no precise definitions.
My approach makes precise assumptions and postulates
which allow to derive the SM gauge group and its action
on the fermions. Schiller draws nice but meaningless
pictures of various knots.
FrediFizzx
news:2ae5e4bc-b21c-4d1e...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> No. We can read Schiller's paper and find out that
> it is simply nonsense. It does not make sense, gives
> no precise definitions.
If you say that, I can only assume that you have not yet read his Vol. 6
of Motion Mountain. He gives plenty of precise definitions in that
book. Not from a complicated group theoretic standpoint like you do but
he also postulates there is no unified group. You really should read
the book. I know it is very wordy but it is also very fast reading. I
think you will find that most of your model could work in his strand
idea with some minor modifications. Your cells might just need to have
some tails on them. ;-)
Best,
Fred Diether
Ilja
> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > No. We can read Schiller's paper and find out that
> > it is simply nonsense. It does not make sense, gives
> > no precise definitions.
>
> If you say that, I can only assume that you have not yet read his Vol. 6
> of Motion Mountain. �He gives plenty of precise definitions in that
> book. �Not from a complicated group theoretic standpoint like you do but
> he also postulates there is no unified group. �You really should read
> the book.
Ok, there are at least some formulas in this text, different from his
arxiv paper. But the quantum theory part is the usual crank stuff
which does not even know that the wave function is a function on
configuration space, not on usual space. His consideration why his
strands are not in conflict with Kochen-Specker are laughable:
"Strands are not observable. Thus their shapes are not hidden
variables." p.176
LOL. As if hidden variables should be observable.
> I think you will find that most of your model could work in his strand
> idea with some minor modifications.
>�Your cells might just need to have some tails on them. ;-)
The difference is that my theory is a peer-reviewed scientific theory,
while his approach is pseudo-scientific speculation. Of a better sort
than usual sci.physics.relativity nonsense, he has at least some
knowledge about the standard model and obviously read some scientific
literature. But far away from a scientific theory. .
FrediFizzx
> On 25 Nov., 07:17, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> > No. We can read Schiller's paper and find out that
>> > it is simply nonsense. It does not make sense, gives
>> > no precise definitions.
>>
>> If you say that, I can only assume that you have not yet read his
>> Vol. 6
>> of Motion Mountain. He gives plenty of precise definitions in that
>> book. Not from a complicated group theoretic standpoint like you do
>> but
>> he also postulates there is no unified group. You really should read
>> the book.
>
> Ok, there are at least some formulas in this text, different from his
> arxiv paper. But the quantum theory part is the usual crank stuff
> which does not even know that the wave function is a function on
> configuration space, not on usual space. His consideration why his
> strands are not in conflict with Kochen-Specker are laughable:
>
> "Strands are not observable. Thus their shapes are not hidden
> variables." p.176
>
> LOL. As if hidden variables should be observable.
??? You logic doesn't quite follow here. He said that the strands and
their particular shapes have no hidden variables. Doesn't matter what
you said after the "LOL". If they have no hidden variables, then they
are NOT subject to Kochen-Specker.
>> I think you will find that most of your model could work in his
>> strand
>> idea with some minor modifications.
>> Your cells might just need to have some tails on them. ;-)
>
> The difference is that my theory is a peer-reviewed scientific theory,
> while his approach is pseudo-scientific speculation. Of a better sort
> than usual sci.physics.relativity nonsense, he has at least some
> knowledge about the standard model and obviously read some scientific
> literature. But far away from a scientific theory. .
Well, he also definitely claims it is a speculation. But for me it is
very far from being "pseudo". His model can be falsified so it has that
scientific quality. I really think you are missing integrating your
cellular concept with this model. He says that the strand model is not
modifiable but I think it can be modified somewhat to incorporate the
cells. The cells can simply be tangles of strands that if you pulled
the tails, they would straighten out. In fact, this makes more sense to
me that the strands would be all tangled up into cells. Then you could
generate mass in a different way than by how he is trying to do it with
the knots. For me, mass of a particle is an interaction with the
quantum "vacuum". So the quantum "vacuum" has to control which
particles have a certain mass value.
Best,
Fred Diether
Ilja
> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote
> > variables." p.176
>
> > LOL. As if hidden variables should be observable.
>
> ??? �You logic doesn't quite follow here. �He said that the strands and
> their particular shapes have no hidden variables. �Doesn't matter what
> you said after the "LOL". �If they have no hidden variables, then they
> are NOT subject to Kochen-Specker.
That's funny. Show me the point in Kochen-Specker where it is
a necessary prerequisite that the variables are somehow "hidden".
There is no such point. The theorem holds as well if the variables
would not be hidden.
Moreover, the funny thing you seem to have missed. Hidden
variables are by definition not observable. So how does it follow
from "strands are not observable" that their shapes are _not_ hidden?
> > The difference is that my theory is a peer-reviewed scientific theory,
> > while his approach is pseudo-scientific speculation. Of a better sort
> > than usual sci.physics.relativity nonsense, he has at least some
> > knowledge about the standard model and obviously read some scientific
> > literature. But far away from a scientific theory. .
>
> Well, he also definitely claims it is a speculation. �But for me it is
> very far from being "pseudo".
Initially I have thought there may be some point, but after looking
a little bit more I'm already quite sure that there is nothing
scientific
there.
>�His model can be falsified so it has that
> scientific quality.
No. Simply making some clear, testable statements out of the
head, supported by some sloppy pictures, is not science.
If he would claim that his theory proves there have to be
four generations, or quark charges would have to be different
from what is found in the SM, would you be able to tell the
difference? To point out the place where he goes wrong?
>�I really think you are missing integrating your
> cellular concept with this model. �He says that the strand model is not
> modifiable but I think it can be modified somewhat to incorporate the
> cells.
His strand model is far too nonsensical. The switches are
changes in some two-dimensional projection. Looking at the
same knots from other directions, we would see other
intersections, therefore other switches, thus, a different world.
But, sorry, we see the same world with the same particles in it
if we look at the same piece of matter from different angles.
>�The cells can simply be tangles of strands that if you pulled
> the tails, they would straighten out.
But my equations for the cells do not depend on the 2D projection
of somebody looking at it. They are objective 3D equations.
FrediFizzx
> On 27 Nov., 13:43, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote
>> > "Strands are not observable. Thus their shapes are not hidden
>> > variables." p.176
>>
>> > LOL. As if hidden variables should be observable.
>>
>> ??? You logic doesn't quite follow here. He said that the strands
>> and
>> their particular shapes have no hidden variables. Doesn't matter
>> what
>> you said after the "LOL". If they have no hidden variables, then
>> they
>> are NOT subject to Kochen-Specker.
>
> That's funny. Show me the point in Kochen-Specker where it is
> a necessary prerequisite that the variables are somehow "hidden".
> There is no such point. The theorem holds as well if the variables
> would not be hidden.
That is even more funny logic from you. :-) Kochen-Specker is a
theorem about "providing a powerful argument against the possibility of
interpreting QM in terms of hidden variables." The strand model is not
subject to Kochen-Specker because it does not try to interpret QM in
terms of hidden variables.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
> Moreover, the funny thing you seem to have missed. Hidden
> variables are by definition not observable. So how does it follow
> from "strands are not observable" that their shapes are _not_ hidden?
Besides "stands are not observable" they also are "featureless". Guess
you missed that part. Hidden variables cannot be ascribed to them.
>> > The difference is that my theory is a peer-reviewed scientific
>> > theory,
>> > while his approach is pseudo-scientific speculation. Of a better
>> > sort
>> > than usual sci.physics.relativity nonsense, he has at least some
>> > knowledge about the standard model and obviously read some
>> > scientific
>> > literature. But far away from a scientific theory. .
>>
>> Well, he also definitely claims it is a speculation. But for me it
>> is
>> very far from being "pseudo".
>
> Initially I have thought there may be some point, but after looking
> a little bit more I'm already quite sure that there is nothing
> scientific
> there.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. Too bad it is wrong.
>> His model can be falsified so it has that
>> scientific quality.
>
> No. Simply making some clear, testable statements out of the
> head, supported by some sloppy pictures, is not science.
>
> If he would claim that his theory proves there have to be
> four generations, or quark charges would have to be different
> from what is found in the SM, would you be able to tell the
> difference? To point out the place where he goes wrong?
Do you do that in your model? If so, where and how?
>> I really think you are missing integrating your
>> cellular concept with this model. He says that the strand model is
>> not
>> modifiable but I think it can be modified somewhat to incorporate the
>> cells.
>
> His strand model is far too nonsensical. The switches are
> changes in some two-dimensional projection. Looking at the
> same knots from other directions, we would see other
> intersections, therefore other switches, thus, a different world.
> But, sorry, we see the same world with the same particles in it
> if we look at the same piece of matter from different angles.
Sorry, the switches are a point event. Not sure where you are getting
this 2D projection from. And fermions won't look the same from all
angles anyways.
>> The cells can simply be tangles of strands that if you pulled
>> the tails, they would straighten out.
>
> But my equations for the cells do not depend on the 2D projection
> of somebody looking at it. They are objective 3D equations.
OK, let's talk about your model some. Take each item in Schiller's
millennium list of Table 9 starting on page 144 and let us know how your
model can explain each one. Or can't explain each one (which issues are
still open for your model).
Best,
Fred Diether
Ilja
> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > On 27 Nov., 13:43, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote
> >> > "Strands are not observable. Thus their shapes are not hidden
> >> > variables." p.176
>
> >> > LOL. As if hidden variables should be observable.
>
> >> ??? �You logic doesn't quite follow here. �He said that the strands
> >> and
> >> their particular shapes have no hidden variables. �Doesn't matter
> >> what
> >> you said after the "LOL". �If they have no hidden variables, then
> >> they
> >> are NOT subject to Kochen-Specker.
>
> > That's funny. Show me the point in Kochen-Specker where it is
> > a necessary prerequisite that the variables are somehow "hidden".
> > There is no such point. The theorem holds as well if the variables
> > would not be hidden.
>
> That is even more funny logic from you. �:-) �Kochen-Specker is a
> theorem about "providing a powerful argument against the possibility of
> interpreting QM in terms of hidden variables." � The strand model is not
> subject to Kochen-Specker because it does not try to interpret QM in
> terms of hidden variables.
Strange logic. X is a powerful argument against Y. Z is not Y. Thus,
X is not a powerful argument against X.
> > Moreover, the funny thing you seem to have missed. Hidden
> > variables are by definition not observable. So how does it follow
> > from "strands are not observable" that their shapes are _not_ hidden?
>
> Besides "stands are not observable" they also are "featureless". �Guess
> you missed that part. �Hidden variables cannot be ascribed to them.
Oh, they have obviously some location in space (else, what is it what
we see in his many pictures?), which is AFAIU hidden.
> > Initially I have thought there may be some point, but after looking
> > a little bit more I'm already quite sure that there is nothing
> > scientific there.
>
> Well, you are entitled to your opinion. �Too bad it is wrong.
If you think so, then you may probably explain here this scientific
content?
Let's start with the precise definition of a switch.
> > Simply making some clear, testable statements out of the
> > head, supported by some sloppy pictures, is not science.
>
> > If he would claim that his theory proves there have to be
> > four generations, or quark charges would have to be different
> > from what is found in the SM, would you be able to tell the
> > difference? To point out the place where he goes wrong?
>
> Do you do that in your model? �If so, where and how?
The three generations, and the three colors together with the
special "forth" color of the leptons are identified in my model
with the three-dimensional affine group Aff(3), which is a
3 x (3+1) matrix. An element of the affine group describes
the state (of translation, rotation and linear deformation)
of an elementary cell.
This breaks down for four generations or four colors.
There are many other places where a modification of the
standard model would make an explanation in terms of
my ether model impossible.
> > His strand model is far too nonsensical. The switches are
> > changes in some two-dimensional projection. Looking at the
> > same knots from other directions, we would see other
> > intersections, therefore other switches, thus, a different world.
> > But, sorry, we see the same world with the same particles in it
> > if we look at the same piece of matter from different angles.
>
> Sorry, the switches are a point event. �Not sure where you are getting
> this 2D projection from.
Looking at his pictures and following his explanations. The 2D
projection is what he shows in his pictures. And the thing which is
sure (because it is not Schiller's invention) is that the Reidemeister
moves are not point events in 3D, but appear as point events only in
2D projections.
>�And fermions won't look the same from all
> angles anyways.
Their number has to be the same.
> > But my equations for the cells do not depend on the 2D projection
> > of somebody looking at it. They are objective 3D equations.
>
> OK, let's talk about your model some. �Take each item in Schiller's
> millennium list of Table 9 starting on page 144 and let us know how your
> model can explain each one.
Your point being? I deny that Schiller's theory gets even a single
item right, because his whole "theory" is not even a theory yet.
My theory explains the number of SM fermions, the SM gauge group, its
action on the fermions, and metric gravity. Thus, all observed up to
now particles. It has bosonic partners of fermions as candidates for
black holes. What is missed is a theory about masses. But even for
this I have plausibility arguments which are much more mathematical
than Schiller's pictures.
FrediFizzx
???
>> > Moreover, the funny thing you seem to have missed. Hidden
>> > variables are by definition not observable. So how does it follow
>> > from "strands are not observable" that their shapes are _not_
>> > hidden?
>>
>> Besides "stands are not observable" they also are "featureless".
>> Guess
>> you missed that part. Hidden variables cannot be ascribed to them.
>
> Oh, they have obviously some location in space (else, what is it what
> we see in his many pictures?), which is AFAIU hidden.
I can tell from that statement that you haven't read the book fully or
you have read the book but don't understand the model. The strands are
space so how can they have a location in space? You need to remember
that this is a Planck scale model.
>> > Initially I have thought there may be some point, but after looking
>> > a little bit more I'm already quite sure that there is nothing
>> > scientific there.
>>
>> Well, you are entitled to your opinion. Too bad it is wrong.
>
> If you think so, then you may probably explain here this scientific
> content?
>
> Let's start with the precise definition of a switch.
See page 141. "Planck units are defined through crossing switches of
strands. Alternatively, An event is the switch of a crossing between two
strand segments."
>> > Simply making some clear, testable statements out of the
>> > head, supported by some sloppy pictures, is not science.
>>
>> > If he would claim that his theory proves there have to be
>> > four generations, or quark charges would have to be different
>> > from what is found in the SM, would you be able to tell the
>> > difference? To point out the place where he goes wrong?
>>
>> Do you do that in your model? If so, where and how?
>
> The three generations, and the three colors together with the
> special "forth" color of the leptons are identified in my model
> with the three-dimensional affine group Aff(3), which is a
> 3 x (3+1) matrix. An element of the affine group describes
> the state (of translation, rotation and linear deformation)
> of an elementary cell.
>
> This breaks down for four generations or four colors.
Now that is hard to understand what you even mean. What is the (3+1)
part?
> There are many other places where a modification of the
> standard model would make an explanation in terms of
> my ether model impossible.
What is another one?
>> > His strand model is far too nonsensical. The switches are
>> > changes in some two-dimensional projection. Looking at the
>> > same knots from other directions, we would see other
>> > intersections, therefore other switches, thus, a different world.
>> > But, sorry, we see the same world with the same particles in it
>> > if we look at the same piece of matter from different angles.
>>
>> Sorry, the switches are a point event. Not sure where you are
>> getting
>> this 2D projection from.
>
> Looking at his pictures and following his explanations. The 2D
> projection is what he shows in his pictures. And the thing which is
> sure (because it is not Schiller's invention) is that the Reidemeister
> moves are not point events in 3D, but appear as point events only in
> 2D projections.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. How does that
exactly relate to a crossing switch as a point event?
>> And fermions won't look the same from all
>> angles anyways.
>
> Their number has to be the same.
Don't know what you mean here either.
>> > But my equations for the cells do not depend on the 2D projection
>> > of somebody looking at it. They are objective 3D equations.
>>
>> OK, let's talk about your model some. Take each item in Schiller's
>> millennium list of Table 9 starting on page 144 and let us know how
>> your
>> model can explain each one.
>
> Your point being?
My point being that he addresses every item in the list with his model
as an understandable explanation (at least for me).
> I deny that Schiller's theory gets even a single
> item right, because his whole "theory" is not even a theory yet.
I think you, for some unknown reasons, are having problems understanding
his model. Maybe because it gets more attention? :-) I still think
you are missing a great opportunity here to make your model more
understandable by utilizing ideas from the strand model. What are your
cells? My cells are "less than virtual" fermionic pairs. This is a
very natural assumption since it seems likely that real and virtual
pairs can be produced from the "vacuum" spontaneously. They have a
natural geometrical configuration that would explain the masses of the
different fermions. Something similar to a 3D Apollian Gasket.
However, fermions (less than virtual especially) are most likely not
spherical so the geometry is probably very difficult to guess what it
exactly is. What I need is something like a 3D Apollian Gasket concept
only packed with something more cylindrical in shape. Maybe even
egg-like.
> My theory explains the number of SM fermions, the SM gauge group, its
> action on the fermions, and metric gravity. Thus, all observed up to
> now particles. It has bosonic partners of fermions as candidates for
> black holes. What is missed is a theory about masses. But even for
> this I have plausibility arguments which are much more mathematical
> than Schiller's pictures.
What about k, the Boltzmann constant? Does or can your model explain
that?
Best,
Fred Diether
Ilja
> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > On 4 Dez., 13:45, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >> > On 27 Nov., 13:43, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Ilja" <ilja.schmel...@googlemail.com> wrote
> >> >> > "Strands are not observable. Thus their shapes are not hidden
> >> >> > variables." p.176
>
> >> >> > LOL. As if hidden variables should be observable.
> >> That is even more funny logic from you. �:-) �Kochen-Specker is a
> >> theorem about "providing a powerful argument against the possibility
> >> of
> >> interpreting QM in terms of hidden variables." � The strand model is
> >> not
> >> subject to Kochen-Specker because it does not try to interpret QM in
> >> terms of hidden variables.
>
> > Strange logic. X is a powerful argument against Y. �Z is not Y. Thus,
> > X is not a powerful argument against X.
>
> ???
It is quite simple to find counterexamples to show that this type of
reasoning
is wrong.
Libertarian argumentation gives powerful arguments against Hitler.
Stalin is not Hitler. Thus, libertarian argumentation does not give
arguments
against Stalin.
Theorems like Bell's and Kochen-Specker provide arguments against
some sorts of realistic theories (Einstein-local resp. noncontextual).
That's why it provides arguments against some sorts of hidden variable
theories. But the question if these variables are somehow hidden is
as irrelevant for the argument as the differences between red and
brown totalitarianism.
> >> Besides "stands are not observable" they also are "featureless".
> >> Guess
> >> you missed that part. �Hidden variables cannot be ascribed to them.
>
> > Oh, they have obviously some location in space (else, what is it what
> > we see in his many pictures?), which is AFAIU hidden.
>
> I can tell from that statement that you haven't read the book fully or
> you have read the book but don't understand the model. The strands are
> space so how can they have a location in space? You need to remember
> that this is a Planck scale model.
I have no problem to acknowledge that I don't understand the model.
In case they live not in some 3D space the definition of the switches
becomes even more suspect. The Reidemeister moves define
switches in 2D projections of knots in 3D.
> >> > Initially I have thought there may be some point, but after looking
> >> > a little bit more I'm already quite sure that there is nothing
> >> > scientific there.
>
> >> Well, you are entitled to your opinion. �Too bad it is wrong.
>
> > If you think so, then you may probably explain here this scientific
> > content?
>
> > Let's start with the precise definition of a switch.
>
> See page 141. �"Planck units are defined through crossing switches of
> strands. Alternatively, An event is the switch of a crossing between two
> strand segments."
So what are the crossing switches? What is a crossing, to start with?
In particular if we have no 2D projections of knots in 3D, but simply
some
abstract "strands" not located in some space?
Start, at best, with a definition of a strand. The most reasonable
interpretation is that a strand is an embedding f: R -> R^3 modulo
reparametrization, a crossing is defined for a given
2D projection p: R^3->R^2 by a point c in R^2 so that
p(f(t_0))=p(f(t_1))=c for different t_i.
With these definitions, it makes at least sense to paint such pictures
and introduce Reidemeister moves into the discussion as crossing
switches. Once these definitions are false, provide the correct ones.
> > The three generations, and the three colors together with the
> > special "forth" color of the leptons are identified in my model
> > with the three-dimensional affine group Aff(3), which is a
> > 3 x (3+1) matrix. �An element of the affine group describes
> > the state (of translation, rotation and linear deformation)
> > of an elementary cell.
>
> > This breaks down for four generations or four colors.
>
> Now that is hard to understand what you even mean. �What is the (3+1)
> part?
An affine matrix is a 3 x 4 matric a^i_a, with i in {1,2,3} and a in
{0,1,2,3}.
It defines the following transformation of 3D coordinates:
x^i' = a^i'_i x^i + a^i'_0.
So, the translational part of the matrix with lower index 0 is
something
different from the linear part with index > 0. Therefore I prefer to
write
about a 3 x (3+1) matrix instead of a 3 x 4 matrix.
> > There are many other places where a modification of the
> > standard model would make an explanation in terms of
> > my ether model impossible.
>
> What is another one?
An other number than two for the number of fermions in the electroweak
doublets. Non-unitary gauge groups. Various extensions of the
standard model, like Pati-Salam, SU(5), SO(10) and many others.
Different charges for the EM field.
> >> Sorry, the switches are a point event. �Not sure where you are
> >> getting
> >> this 2D projection from.
>
> > Looking at his pictures and following his explanations. The 2D
> > projection is what he shows in his pictures. And the thing which is
> > sure (because it is not Schiller's invention) is that the Reidemeister
> > moves are not point events in 3D, but appear as point events only in
> > 2D projections.
>
> I don't understand what you are trying to say here. �How does that
> exactly relate to a crossing switch as a point event?
A crossing (as far as I understand it yet) is not an objective event,
but an observer-dependent property of some 2D projection. Crossing
switches have the same problem.
>
> >> And fermions won't look the same from all
> >> angles anyways.
>
> > Their number has to be the same.
>
> Don't know what you mean here either.
I see a piece of matter containing 10^30 atoms.
You look at it from the other side. It will have the same
number of 10^30 atoms.
But from my point of view, there may be much more
visible intersections of strands than from your point of view.
> >> > But my equations for the cells do not depend on the 2D projection
> >> > of somebody looking at it. They are objective 3D equations.
>
> >> OK, let's talk about your model some. �Take each item in Schiller's
> >> millennium list of Table 9 starting on page 144 and let us know how
> >> your model can explain each one.
>
> > Your point being?
>
> My point being that he addresses every item in the list with his model
> as an understandable explanation (at least for me).
For me, it sounds more like a vague hope unsupported by any
formulas.
> > I deny that Schiller's theory gets even a single
> > item right, because his whole "theory" is not even a theory yet.
>
> I think you, for some unknown reasons, are having problems understanding
> his model. �Maybe because it gets more attention? �:-)
Hardly. Why should more attention to it make it harder for me to
understand it? GR and SM certainly get much more attention than
Schiller's model, and I understand them well enough.
>�I still think
> you are missing a great opportunity here to make your model more
> understandable by utilizing ideas from the strand model.
I have tried to understand and found that the whole thing is
nonsense.
> What are your cells?
The fundamental objects of my theory. Every theory has some
fundamental objects which have no explanation in more fundamental
objects.
> �My cells are "less than virtual" fermionic pairs.
So in your model the cells are not the fundamental objects,
but some other objects (fermions) are more fundamental?
> > My theory explains the number of SM fermions, the SM gauge group, its
> > action on the fermions, and metric gravity. Thus, all observed up to
> > now particles. It has bosonic partners of fermions as candidates for
> > black holes. What is missed is a theory about masses. But even for
> > this I have plausibility arguments which are much more mathematical
> > than Schiller's pictures.
>
> What about k, the Boltzmann constant? �Does or can your model explain
> that?
There is nothing to explain. There was some operational definition of
temperature, another one for energy, and a consequence of good old
kinetic gas theory was that temperature is proportional to some sort
of energy. The Boltzmann constant is the factor of proportionality.
glird
> I still have problems with Schiller's approach - but he seems to be
> on an interesting avenue for sure. He now has updated his arxiv
> manuscript. The new abstract is much bolder than before:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3905
> Deducing the three gauge interactions from the three Reidemeister
> moves Authors: Christoph Schiller:
"We give one of the first known arguments for the origin of the three
at Planck scales as a collection of featureless strands that fluctuate
in
three dimensions. This approach models vacuum as untangled strands,
particles as tangles of strands, and Planck units as crossing
switches.
general relativity, when applying an argument from 1995 to the
more strands allows to define wave functions as time-averages of
strand crossings; using an argument from 1980, this allows to deduce
the Dirac equation."
> ****************
>
> Wow! This is quite a mouthful.
Too much to digest, though,
glird