Testing a conjecture on the origin of the standard model

Hi Mr Schiller, all this is very interesting but if I can, first of all we cannot affirm that the planck scale really exists and secondly I am curious what do you consider like foundamental objects, because if you consider only photons like primoridal essence and strings inside in D at this planck scale, so it is also an assumption, the standard model is correct but it is emergent and not complete, I don t consider the fields like the origin of this physicality personally where the oscillations vibrations create the topologies, geometries. I have remarked that it is fashion inside the theoretical sciences community, all they consider only this GR and the photons and strings inside and with the geometrical algebras like the E8 of lie, they try with the non commutativity to unify G c and h , the QM and the GR , it is odd because if the GR is not the only one piece and that the strings are not correct , so all is just a play of maths but not really reaching the main unknowns.

Regards

Just one quick point.

The Planck scale is defined as that scale at which general relativity, special relativity and quantum theory have to be taken into account, all three, together.

The Planck energy, Planck momentum, Planck length and Planck time are clearly defined quantities.

The statement "we cannot affirm that the Planck scale really exists" therefore is not correct.

I am sorry but never the planck has been proved like existing, don t confound the proved works of Planck and this planck scale, secondly never the GR has been proved like the only one piece of puzzle, you affrim things not correct, they are assumptions, since when we can affrim that the GR is the only one piece of our universe . And also tell me waht do you consider like foundamental objects, strings or points and why ?

ps the planck scale is an extrapolation not proved , we cannot reach it and we cannot affrim it exists.

If you try to unify so G c and h like a general universal point, there is a problem if you consider this planck scale wich is not proved and not sure, secondly if the GR and photons are considered like the primordial essence of the universe and that it is not the case, sorry what I tell is true.

In fact the majority of physicists make the same error to reach the quantum gravitation or to unify this QM , the QFT and the GR , they try to see where the laws are broken due to these scales and energies correlated, you see well that there is a problem of renormalisation for this quantum gravitation, it is because the general tools are not correct simply, but they continue still and always to make the same errors

the confusions and non renormalisations come from the bad utilised theories and general tools, if you consider the fields like origin, the planck scale, the GR and the photons, never you shall go deeper to complete the standard model. Be sure , I have personally quantified it this QG in thinking beyond the box and in considering a deeper logic than theser photons like ether.

It is sad that all they are in this prison of strings and general relativity in fact, you believe really that the universe was an infinite heat before the physicality and that something oscillate the photons in 1D at this planck scale connected with a 1D cosmic field and hop hocus pocus the topologies geometries, fields appear after to create our reality ??? it is more complex than this . Ypou can utilise the geometrical of lie, clifford, hopf with these fields and the GR and the non commutativity and non associativity evemn, you shall never quantify this QG.

There is an important thing that I d like to insist, the fields are emergent , they are not for me the primoridal essence creating the matters, I beleive the opposite, they emerge due to particles in a superfluidity where 3 ethers exist. One space vacuum for the main codes and two fuels, and when they merge they create the fields and matters. It is the same with the dimensions, we have a pure 3D at all scales. Not need of extradiemnsions like in the strings.

Ps , Planck was famous, he is one of my favorites with Newton, Einstein, Feynmann, Dirac, Heisenberg, Maxwell, Lorentz, Penrose in physics but we cannot take into account like proofs all their extrapolations, it is like the planck era, it is an assumption where all the forces were one, it is I repeat an assumption like the planck scale, the same for eisntein , of course his works are important for the special and general relativity, I just tell that we cannot consider only these photons like the primordial essence of our universe. In fact all the thinkers have their assumptions, it is not a reason to consider them like proofs. I have myself assumptions that I don t affirm. We just discuss.

Summary:

The strand conjecture starts with deducing Dirac's equation from Dirac's trick for tangles. Then, tangle classification yields the particle spectrum. The Reidemeister moves yield the particle interactions. Working out the details gives particle physics - and the standard model Lagrangisn - with no additions, no modifications, and no omissions.

Testable predictions:

There is no E8 nor any other grand unified gauge group. There is no supersymmetry. There are no additional dimensions. There is no non-commutative space. There are no new elementary particles. There are no new energy scales. There is no effect and no physics beyond the standard model.

Status:

So far, full agreement with experiment. All results are deduced from a single fundamental principle.

Hi Mr Schiller, we cannot affrim assumptions , it is important. The E8 even if I don t agree about the fields and strings or points like origin is a wonderful mathematical tool utilised by many scientists, the non commutativity of Connes is an important work permitting to better understand our standard model.

Please develop a little bit your general ideas, what is for you a particle and its philosophical origin ? I will see clearer about your ideas.

If I can also, what are for you the unknowns , the quantum gravitation, the hard problem of consciousness, the dark matter, the dark energy, the gluons problem mainly ? how do you consider these things ?

I have look at your website , and I respect your general researchs, you search these general answers and it is the most important. The general philosophy for me is essential, that is why I d like to have your points of vue about these foundamental objects and the origin of the universe. We must recognise that we have many limitations of scales and in knowledges about the truths of our topologies, geometries, fields, matters. We just analyse at this moment the emergent effects, but the main cause are unknown still unfortunally.

On predictions: In the tangle model, all predictions on the lack of physics beyond the standard model are *deduced* from one single fundamental principle about strands fluctuating at the Planck scale. The predictions are *not* assumptions. Only the fundamental principle is an assumption. The fundamental principle is general and abstract. And of course, exploring all other ideas on the origin of the standard model remains an important task.

On the particle model: particles are made of tangles that fluctuate. Strands are not observable, but their crossing switches are. For this reason particles are effectively point-like (more precisely, of Planck scale size). The tangle model for particles implies the full standard model. All physical observables, all particles and all fields are emergent from strands. As mentioned, the details are described in paper at the free link rdcu.be/cdwSI provided by SpringerNature. The paper should help understanding of the general ideas and of the the way that quantum theory, quantum field theory and the Lagrangian of the standard model arise. The tangle model also proposes a model for the gluons, described in the paper.

On tests: The strand conjecture proposes many ways to falsify it. There is a specific page collecting all experimental tests and predictions (formulated as bets): www.motionmountain.net/bet.

On the general ideas: A simple introduction is in the self-contained talk slides that can be read by themselves, found at the top of www.motionmountain.net/research.

On gravitation: The other questions asked (except the one on consciousness) are addressed on the research page. For example, the lack of particles beyond the standard model restricts the options on dark matter. The research page also proposes a way that gravity, general relativity and a (limited) number of quantum gravity effects results from strands. Testable predictions on these topics are also deduced and listed.

I repeat , all this a respectable general work, but there are many assumptions, the planck and points particles in fluctuations, an assumption, the GR like the only one piece of puzzle, an assumption.

The fluctuations me I want well, but from what and what origin philosophical ?

You tell the predications rae not assumptions, yes they are because you utilise assumptions in your predictions like basis, so the predictions are assumptions.

Me I want well, but you cannot affirm

The paper about the testing of the strand conjecture in the domain of particle physics mentioned above is the follow up of the paper that presented the strand conjecture in the first place:

C. Schiller, A conjecture on deducing general relativity and the standard model with its fundamental constants from rational tangles of strands, Physics of Particles and Nuclei 50 (2019) 259-299. dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1063779619030055. The paper can be read for free online at rdcu.be/cdCK7, a link provided by SpringerNature.

This paper deduces quantum theory, quantum field theory and gravitation from Dirac's trick - including the Hilbert Lagrangian and the standard model Lagrangian. In particular, the paper argues that both the standard model and general relativity can be derived from a single fundamental principle involving strands. It follows that there should be no new physics in both fields - except for the calculation of the fundamental constants.

Hi , I have asked you simple general questions, why are you sure that the 1D points like foundamental objects exist ? secondly why do you consider just the GR like the only one piece of puzzle and the fluctuations to explain all our forces ? and thirdly you see well that the quantum gravitation is nor renormalised nor quantified in this reasoning. It is because your foundamental objects are not the truth, and that the GR and the photons only cannot answer. And Dirac works are not the problem nor the constants. Furthermore the BHs are not really knowns, we just know the even horizons at their surfaces and due to hawking works, but we don t know really what they are . And the 1D at this planck scale is just an assumption. Are you conscious of this ? the general philosophy and the foundamental objects are just assumptions ? If you want a relevant conjecture , try with the poincare conjecture to create the conjecture between the strings Mtheory superstrings Branes and the 3D spheres like foundamental objects, there it will be very relevant if you can prove it, you can utilise the symplectomorphisms preserving the volumes and the ricci flow for the deformations for example and play with the geometrical algebras of Lie like the E8 exceptional group. You can also utilise the works of Perelman proving this conjecture. Regards

What I try to explain is that our standard model is probably emergant due to a deeper logic and this logic is not from the points oscillating or fluctuations of this luminiferous spacetime, the einstein fields equations of our photonic spacetime giving this general relativity and explaining at high velocities the gravitation like a curvature of the spacetime when we observe it is of course real, what I try to explain is that this GR and the photons like prinmordial essence is not probably the answer. Even with the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory and tools mathenmatical trying to reach this quantum gravitation. The main problem for me is that the thinkers consider the fields like origin of our reality , and with points or strings at this planck scales and oscillations, fluctuations, vibrations they explain the geometries , topologies from this 1D and after extrapolate the extradimensions like in the strings with 10, 11, 26D , but in fact all this are assumptions, if our universe is a pure 3D ns that the foundamental objects are 3D spheres and that the philosophical origin of this universe is made of particles, so the fields are just emergent and the points and strings don t really exist like main cause.

I beleive that many thinkers have not really understood the GR and the photons, Einstein also thought what I tell, he said himself that the photons are just a part of the problem, he has just permitted to observe better the spacetime. The electromagnetism and the forces of our standard model are probably due to particles encoded , they don t come from external cosmic fields , they emerge due to photons and particles of DM probaböly encoded in a kind of space vacuum where the main codes are , the photons are just a fuel.

In fact the standard model that we know and the QM and QFT emerge due to photons encoded and the forces increase due to number of photons , so the densities become relevant of 3D spheres, because the number of series primoridal finite don t change and the volumes also, just the densities , that is why the nuclear forces are just due to fact that there is more photons encoded than for the electromagnetism, they are encoded in the space vacuum wich is also a finite serie of 3D spheres .

The strand conjecture, in the papers mentioned above, deduces, step by step, a number of testable statements that are usually thought to be impossible.

(1) The standard model can be deduced from a simple principle - based on strands.

(2) General relativity can be deduced from a simple principle - based on strands.

(3) The standard model and general relativity do not contradict each other.

(4) There is no physics beyond the standard model and beyond general relativity.

(5) The lack of new effects is testable in several hundred specific experiments.

(6) There is no unknown dark matter particle.

(7) The fundamental constants can be calculated.

(8) There is no unanswered question in fundamental physics.