U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) and three dimensions - more details
JohnMS
Schiller has posted a new text on his strand model
at http://www.motionmountain.net/research . From
what I read, he claims to deduce the three gauge
groups and even the three fermion generations
from strands, and predicts no Higgs and no other
particles. He makes a number of other unpopular
predictions... But it is fun reading.
John
FrediFizzx
news:2cfcdf50-918c-406d...@c34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Old news for this group but it is fantastic reading that anyone
interested in fundamental physics should read. Crazy how much of these
knots and tangles can model what we know about fundamental physics.
Perhaps the Universe is stringy after all. :-) One must consider that
there can't be massless point entities; they must at least be strings.
Perhaps Ilja will come along with his skepticism and we can rekindle
another discussion.
Best,
Fred Diether
Oh No
>Old news for this group but it is fantastic reading that anyone
>interested in fundamental physics should read. Crazy how much of these
>knots and tangles can model what we know about fundamental physics.
>Perhaps the Universe is stringy after all. :-) One must consider that
>there can't be massless point entities; they must at least be strings.
>Perhaps Ilja will come along with his skepticism and we can rekindle
>another discussion.
I don't see why you say there can't be massless point entities. I have
given a consistent structure containing them. Of course I have also seen
a view that in gtr there cannot be massive point entities, but I have
shown that that is not true either - it all depends on what coordinate
system you use. If you define coordinates from speed of light = const
then the event horizon of a black hole is a point entity, and the
singularity at the centre of a black hole does not exist.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)
robert bristow-johnson
> Schiller has posted a new text on his strand model
> athttp://www.motionmountain.net/research.
> ... it is fun reading.
>
i remember looking this (or an earlier edition) over before. there
were things in common we've been thinking about.
Schiller sez (on p 1467):
"
Up to a numerical factor, the limit for every physical observable
corresponds to the Planck value. (The limit values are deduced from
the commonly used Planck values simply by substituting 4G for G and
hbar/2 for hbar.) These limit values are the true natural units of
nature. In fact, the ideal would be to redefine the usual Planck
values for all observables to these extremal values, by absorbing the
numerical factors into the respective definitions. In the following,
we call the limit values the (corrected) Planck limits and assume that
the factors have been properly included. In other words, every natural
unit or (corrected) Planck unit is the limit value of the
corresponding physical observable.
"
so Planck says the most natural units are those that normalize G, c,
and hbar.
Schiller adjusts it a little and says they are the units that
normalize 4G, c, and hbar/2.
i still think the most natural units normalize (4pi)G, c, and hbar.
this is philosophical, but to me what most concisely reflects what
nature is doing are the fundamental equations of interaction. the
fact that the greatest possible force is c^4/(4G) is the solution to a
problem. in other words, i would say the most natural units are those
that lose (4pi)G, c, and hbar in fundamental equations of interaction
(**) and that using those fundamental equations of interaction,
physicists like Schiller derive the fact that the greatest possible
force in nature is pi (natural units of force).
(** begin) i still favor (4pi)G over (8pi)G so that the characteristic
impedance of propagation of gravitational waves is 1. in the Baez and
Bunn paper http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/ , they say that the
Einstein equation is simply (and equivalently) stated as:
"Given a small ball of freely falling test particles initially at rest
with respect to each other, the rate at which it begins to shrink is
proportional to its volume times: the energy density at the center of
the ball, plus the pressure in the x direction at that point, plus the
pressure in the y direction, plus the pressure in the z direction."
as i examine the paper, i believe that the word "proportional" can be
replaced by "equal" if (4pi)G/c^4 is normalized to 1, not (8pi)G/
c^4 . it seems to suggest to me that the fundamental description of
what nature is doing to essential quantities that we measure or
perceive in reality, is more closely related to the Baez-Bunn
description over the stress-energy and curvature description in the
Einstein equation. but whether it's (4pi)G or (8pi)G (or some say
16pi), indicates to me that it should not be either G or 4G. also,
like Heaviside-Lorentz units, it should be epsilon_0 that is
normalized not (4pi)epsilon_0, as is done in cgs or by physicists who
commonly say that alpha = e^2/(hbar c). (** end)
anyway, what is the philosophical basis for defining this "true
natural units of nature" informed by these limits rather than informed
by the fundamental interactions? are the most natural units of nature
the units that make the fundamental interactions most fundamental
(without extraneous scaling constants) and these maximum limits result
from solving theoretical problems?
r b-j
FrediFizzx
news:xB8ZVRAX...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
> Thus spake FrediFizzx <fredi...@hotmail.com>
>>Old news for this group but it is fantastic reading that anyone
>>interested in fundamental physics should read. Crazy how much of
>>these
>>knots and tangles can model what we know about fundamental physics.
>>Perhaps the Universe is stringy after all. :-) One must consider that
>>there can't be massless point entities; they must at least be strings.
>>Perhaps Ilja will come along with his skepticism and we can rekindle
>>another discussion.
>
> I don't see why you say there can't be massless point entities. I have
> given a consistent structure containing them. Of course I have also
> seen
> a view that in gtr there cannot be massive point entities, but I have
> shown that that is not true either - it all depends on what coordinate
> system you use. If you define coordinates from speed of light = const
> then the event horizon of a black hole is a point entity, and the
> singularity at the centre of a black hole does not exist.
Hi Charles,
Not sure what you mean by "consistent structure containing them". This
is about featureless point entities in the same vein as what Schiller is
talking about with his strands and not about photons or electrons or
"point-like" entities. Due to relativistic effects, from our
perspective, massless point entities should really be like strings and
even probably more like clouds (branes). But I am not talking here of
strings like in orthodox superstring theory. There is no tension in
these strings but could be a kind of circulation within them. It is the
building blocks of my "atomistic" concept.
Best,
Fred Diether
JohnMS
> "JohnMS" <john_m_stan...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > Schiller has posted a new text on his strand model
> > at http://www.motionmountain.net/research.
>
> interested in fundamental physics should read. �Crazy how much of these
> knots and tangles can model what we know about fundamental physics.
Crazy is still the word. Nobody believes that the Higgs doesn't exist.
And if I remember the old ideas well, the text has many new claims.
Did you
guys see the model he has for the quarks (p243) mesons (p 252)
and baryons (257) ? He actually proposes knots for each of them!
Anybody that does so is crazy! But Schiller does not find any
contradiction with measured quantum numbers - that makes him
somewhat less crazy than average.
John
FrediFizzx
> On 27 Aug., 07:42, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "JohnMS" <john_m_stan...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> > Schiller has posted a new text on his strand model
>> > at http://www.motionmountain.net/research.
>>
>> Old news for this group but it is fantastic reading that anyone
>> interested in fundamental physics should read. Crazy how much of
>> these
>> knots and tangles can model what we know about fundamental physics.
>> Perhaps the Universe is stringy after all. :-)
>
> Crazy is still the word. Nobody believes that the Higgs doesn't exist.
Well, I wouldn't say "nobody"; there are many that have doubts about the
Higgs mechanism. I also have my doubts that the Higgs exists as an
elementary boson. The LHC should eventually give us the answer to that.
However, I do believe that there is a Higgs-like field that gives mass
to the massive elementary particles.
> And if I remember the old ideas well, the text has many new claims.
> Did you
> guys see the model he has for the quarks (p243) mesons (p 252)
> and baryons (257) ? He actually proposes knots for each of them!
And those knots work to model them! The biggest thing for me is the
representation of a graviton as I have never been able to work that one
out in my model. Spin 2 is a nasty beast but he has tamed it very
simply. LOL!
> Anybody that does so is crazy! But Schiller does not find any
> contradiction with measured quantum numbers - that makes him
> somewhat less crazy than average.
Well, I have always had high respect (as many others on these physics'
groups have) for Christoph Schiller and I am glad to see him make this
profound speculation.
Best,
Fred Diether
JohnMS
> "JohnMS" <john_m_stan...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > Did you
> > guys see the model he has for the quarks (p243) mesons (p 252)
> > and baryons (257) ? He actually proposes knots for each of them!
>
> And those knots work to model them! �The biggest thing for me is the
> representation of a graviton as I have never been able to work that one
> out in my model. Spin 2 is a nasty beast but he has tamed it very
> simply. LOL!
>
> > Anybody that does so is crazy! But Schiller does not find any
> > contradiction with measured quantum numbers - that makes him
> > somewhat less crazy than average.
>
> Well, I have always had high respect (as many others on these physics'
> profound speculation.
>
> Fred Diether
The issue I have is not Schiller himself, but his model. How can these
knots for each particle be tested? So far, only cranks have proposed
models for particles. Ok, there are the Perimeter guys also.
Anyway, assumed this is all serious, how can one check these knots?
They seem figments of imagination. Schiller lists many experimental
predictions, but we will have to wait a year or more. But how can we
check NOW what he is writing?
Here comes a nobody and writes that he can unify general relativity
and the standard model. I understand that he has written a good
physics book, but so what? He even claims that he can
calculate particle masses. But no calculation is given.
There is nothing to check!
John
FrediFizzx
> On Aug 29, 4:29 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "JohnMS" <john_m_stan...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > And if I remember the old ideas well, the text has many new claims.
>> > Did you
>> > guys see the model he has for the quarks (p243) mesons (p 252)
>> > and baryons (257) ? He actually proposes knots for each of them!
>>
>> And those knots work to model them! The biggest thing for me is the
>> representation of a graviton as I have never been able to work that
>> one
>> out in my model. Spin 2 is a nasty beast but he has tamed it very
>> simply. LOL!
>>
>> > Anybody that does so is crazy! But Schiller does not find any
>> > contradiction with measured quantum numbers - that makes him
>> > somewhat less crazy than average.
>>
>> Well, I have always had high respect (as many others on these
>> physics'
>> profound speculation.
> The issue I have is not Schiller himself, but his model. How can these
> knots for each particle be tested? So far, only cranks have proposed
> models for particles.
Well, I wouldn't call Casimir a crank. He had his famous electron model
but it didn't work out. I suspect it may be just due to using a
spherical shell and it may end up having some validity some day. I
wouldn't call Gordon Kane a crank either and he worked with an artist to
come up with these models,
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000198
> Ok, there are the Perimeter guys also.
> Anyway, assumed this is all serious, how can one check these knots?
> They seem figments of imagination. Schiller lists many experimental
> predictions, but we will have to wait a year or more. But how can we
> check NOW what he is writing?
Many ideas take a long time to check. And quite a few ideas start as
"figments of the imagination".
> Here comes a nobody and writes that he can unify general relativity
> and the standard model. I understand that he has written a good
> physics book, but so what? He even claims that he can
> calculate particle masses. But no calculation is given.
> There is nothing to check!
Can you point out where exactly he claims he can give the particle
masses? I would like to look at that.
Best,
Fred Diether
JohnMS
> Can you point out where exactly he claims he can give the particle
> masses? �I would like to look at that.
>
> Best,
>
> Fred Diether
Schiller has taken out the relevant
pages (263-276) from his pdf that discuss masses.
But in the table of contents (p14) you can still see the
titles of the sections he left out.
On his website he writes (second prediction):
"Gauge couplings, particle masses, mixing angles
and their running can be calculated with help of knot,
polymer or cosmic string simulation programs.
(Website, March 2009, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.)"
In his pdf, on page 278, he says the same thing.
Quite crazy!
John
FrediFizzx
> On Sep 1, 9:32 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Can you point out where exactly he claims he can give the particle
>> masses? I would like to look at that.
> Schiller has taken out the relevant
> pages (263-276) from his pdf that discuss masses.
> But in the table of contents (p14) you can still see the
> titles of the sections he left out.
>
> On his website he writes (second prediction):
>
> "Gauge couplings, particle masses, mixing angles
> and their running can be calculated with help of knot,
> polymer or cosmic string simulation programs.
> (Website, March 2009, manuscript 4 and 6th volume.)"
>
> In his pdf, on page 278, he says the same thing.
> Quite crazy!
Yes, I remember reading that now. Not so crazy. I believe it could be
possible with the help of super computers. It is all just a matter of
figuring out the right geometrical combination for the program(s). The
super computers could maybe even help with that.
Best,
Fred Diether
Ilja
> Schiller has posted a new text on his strand model
> what I read, he claims to deduce the three gauge
> groups and even the three fermion generations
> from strands, and predicts no Higgs and no other
> particles. He makes a number of other unpopular
> predictions... But it is fun reading.
>
> John
It seems, the paper I have written some comment about is still
there, so here is my comment about his proposal:
"Deducing the three gauge interactions from featureless strands"
Christoph Schiller c...@motionmountain.net
12 March 2009, revised 28 April 2009
Schiller's approach seems confused, I have not been able to extract a
certain meaning even of it's most basic notion - crossing. Is it about
crossings in 3D or about crossings in the 2D projections?
(Playing around with such not-well-defined notions is ok in the
process of search for a theory. Developing my own model ilja-
schmelzer.de/clm I have done lot's of similar things. But at some
point I have made a choice and thrown away the alternatives
incompatible with this choice, so that all pieces have a well-defined
meaning and are compatible with each other. It seems Schiller has yet
to do this.)
Schiller Fig. 1: The simplest observation, a �point-like� event, and
its associated strand model.
This picture suggests that we have, before and after the event, non-
intersecting (in 3D) strands, which at the event itself have an
intersection. But in this case, such an intersection is objective,
observer-independent, it does not depend on the direction from where
we are looking at the event.
"An event is the switch of a crossing between two strands."
The belt trick suggests that if there are no intersections in 3D (but
lot's of crossing changes in the sense that the crossings of the five
2D pictures of fig. 4 are located at very different points and in
different order) it means equivalence. This again supports the
hypothesis what crossing changes mean real intersections in 3D.
p.3: "(The number of crossing changes is observer-dependent. We will
argue below that this is related to Lorentz and gauge
transformations.)"
This suggests that "crossings" means the intersections of the strands
in the 2D pictures. These are indeed observer-dependent. But once
the crossing-chances are real intersections in 3D, they are not
observer-dependent. If there is an intersection in 3D, there will be
an intersection in every 2D picture of it.
p.8 "The Lagrangian density is the number of crossing changes per
volume and time, averaged over many Planck scales."
Only possible if real intersections in 3D are meant. Else, there
would be no volume density of them.
"Already in 1926, Kurt Reidemeister proved an important theorem about
possible deformations of knots or tangles that involve crossing
changes. When tangles are described with two-dimensional diagrams, all
possible deformations can be reduced to exactly three moves, nowadays
called after him [Reidemeister 1926]."
This theorem is about changes of crossings in the 2D picture of a 3D
knot without any self-intersections of the knot in 3D. This is
obvious, because if we allow for self-intersections in 3D, we have no
problem to solve in knot theory - every knot may be transformed into a
trivial one. So there would be no reason for him to write a paper, and
even more no reason to give the moves in this paper a name.
Fig 6.1: The Reidemeister move: As expected from our previous
consideration, in this modification, no 3D intersection is involved in
the whole process. That's simple to see: The z-coordinate decreases
along the path from top to down, and the same dependence of the z-
coordinate may remain fixed during the whole transformation from the
left to the right picture (which shows the x,y-coordinates). With the
interpretation above, the action related with a Reidemeister move
should be trivial, because we have no 3D intersection in this
process.
The same can be easily seen from fig. 12.1 and 19.1 for the other two
Reidemeister moves.
Fig. 21: Here the second part is even more illuminating: What I think
is the only meaning of the Reidemeister move (the black line moving
down without any intersections in 3D, like in 19.1) is described here
as "(naive, unphysical)", while all the other three pictures with
rotations describe something else, with global properties like the
orientation of the strands changing. Their meaning is already
completely incomprehensible for me (except that the two indicated
arrow directions correspond to the rotations indicated - but how does
the black line rotate?)