Testing a conjecture on the origin of the standard model

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.

I am sorry but you affirm things like facts , I repeat first of all the generaql relativity is not the only one pience of puzzle, secondly the points at this planck scale connected with the GR in 1D is an assumption, thirdly the daek matter is necessary to balance probably with the cold at all scales and explain also the evolution, and finally we have many unknowns to discover still , so we have many questions to answer still,

There is a way to summarize the paper below in a single statement:

The Dirac trick at the Planck scale allows to deduce all of particle physics.

From this simple foundation it is possible to deduce the full Lagrangian of the standard model, the quark model, the gauge symmetries, the particle spectrum etc. The foundation also allows to deduce many predictions that can be tested in the coming years.

All experimental predictions are listed on www.motionmountain.net/bet .

C. Schiller, Testing a conjecture on the origin of the standard model, European Physical Journal Plus 136 (2021) 79. doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-01046-8. Read for free at rdcu.be/cdwSI.

Like I

Like I said even if you don t want to discuss, probably due to fact that we are all persuaded inside the sciences community ,it is that you affirm too much assumptions like facts. You tell many things wich are not proved and accepted by the sciences community. You tell

(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.

Are you conscious that all what you tell is just affirmations in your head. The standard model and the General relativity have many problems when we consider them together. That proves probably that the GR is not the cause of the AMsimply, that is why even we cannot renormalise this quantum gravitation, because simply like I said the photons and the GR like primridial essence and the points of geometrodynamics or strings in this photonic spacetime and the fields are not probably the cause of bosonic fields.

In telling there is no unanswered question in foundamental physics, it is total non sense in fact. Are you conscious that we know so few geberally speaking and that it is not you who shall change this reality.

You tell also the GR and the SM can be deduced from a simple principle , lol yes but you don t know it and it lacks many things to superimpose. In fact you consider like many a big bang, after photons , after athe GR and after points and hop you conclude all is explained from this and give our reality, what is the cause of these oscillating vibrating points in the GR giving the SM? develop philosophically speaking also.

You tell also there is no physics beyond the SM and the GR , wowww ? you speak to god you lol Develop philosophically, ontologically, physically, mathematically and prove the assumptions.

ps, you know when we share ideas on a platform of sciences, you must accept the critics and you must defend your ideas in developping. If you cannot defend your ideas , so it is probably that you are not sure of your own ideas I suppose. The problem for me like I said is the affirmation of too much assumptions . If you utilised for example the geometrical algebras of Lie, hopf, Clifford and that you try to develop and unify the QM, the QFT, the SM, the GR , there it could be interesting with new ideas and maths, but you don t do it, you just affirm .I just tell this for you me to be taken seriously. I am obliged to make the same you know, I never affirm my assumptions and I work for the publications with mathematical tools and I try to be rigourous about my theory and my assumptions. It is like this that the theoretical sciences community is you know.

Steve,

unfortunately, I have difficulties understanding your English. Feel free to write me in French, if you prefer. I can answer in French. I do not understand much of what you write in English. You can find my email at www.motionmountain.net .

The statement "The Dirac trick at the Planck scale allows to deduce all of particle physics" is explained and shown in the cited paper, in detail. In fact, the statement is the summary of that paper. I can only encourage you to read the paper. This summary statement also contains *all* assumptions: "Dirac trick at the Planck scale". This is short, complete and clear. Surely it not "too much assumptions", as you write.

The questions about fundamental particle physics for which the answers are not known have been listed by many authors. The full list takes one single page. The questions on that single page ask, among others, about the origin of the gauge groups, of the particle spectrum, of the masses and coupling constants, the nature of dark matter, or of the three spatial dimensions. It just happens that the strand conjecture seems to answer all those questions.

The paper makes many experimental predictions, over a hundred, that follow from the Dirac trick at the Planck scale. Testable predictions are required from any proposed conjecture, in order to check it. Future will show whether the proposed conjecture is right. So far, all predictions agree with experiment. If the predictions are falsified, the conjecture is wrong. Feel free to tell everybody which statement in that paper is in contrast with experiments. That is the reason it was published: in this way people can check the predictions and falsify the conjecture. But in your rants, there is not a single falsification. You just list your personal beliefs.

Feel free to falsify the conjecture: just find an effect beyond the standard model, or find an error in the paper. Many more ways to show that the predictions or ideas are wrong are listed in the paper itself, and on www.motionmountain.net/bet .

The results about general relativity are found in an earlier paper: 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.

And I agree with you that many predictions seem incredible and even absurd, given the tiny assumptions.

Hello Mr Schiller, yes indeed I am french speaking, and my english is not perfect I know, I make several errors of grammar. Sorry for this but it is understandable I believe, I will write you in french on your mail. Here on FQXi, it is an english platform, so it is always in english bt respect for the readers and FQXi, so I cannot write in french here . I confound the languages like I speak french, dutch,I am from belgium, I have learnt also spanish, latin,and here I am in finland and learn swedish lol, so the confusions exist .

You say: 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.

But it is an assumption still, an odd such... QM, SR and Newton can be seen as the similar constructs, but GR is clearly otherwise. What are your op.about QM = GR of Susskind and others?

Ulla,cont.

Sorry but I cannot edit here? I have a typo - c*4/4G it should be, but it makes it even worse?

A comment above states: "You tell also there is no physics beyond the SM and the GR, wowww? you speak to god you lol"

No. Physicists use a more accessible information source: they read research papers in the library. The statement about the lack of new physics comes from tens of thousands of researchers who have checked that statement for over 50 years and have published their measurement results in physics journals.

The statement is also a prediction that follows logically from the Dirac trick at the Planck scale, as explained in the paper.

When predictions and experiments match, there is a small, but non-negligible possibility of correctness.

Mr Schiller, with all my respects, I have known physicists relevant and others no, for me the universtity is not sufficient, we must learn all our life the sciences, philosophies, maths to be creative , general and innovant and a few number are able to do this. I was in maths sciences strong in secondary like I told, 9h of maths and 9 h of sciences by week more 4 of labs, after I was at university in geology, I have stopped due to a coma due a big epileptic crisis and I cannot stop to study the details of maths, sciences, physicis since the age of 18, I have even ranked the maths, sciences, physics, chenistry, biology, animals, vegetals, minerals and you don t imagine the books read in all centers of interest to have answers. In fact I am sorry but a few number are able to understand the generality of philosophy and sciences and I repeat to be creative and innovant. Your works are not bad, I don t tell it is bad, it is just the affrirmations that I critic and the lack of generalities. You affirm things not proved. You must understand that we know nothing still and that the Satandard model is just emergent and that this GR is not probably the only one piece of puzzle. I have remarked also that inside the sciences community in theoretical physics, the vanity is enormous and many want to be new einstein or others but that does not fall from the sky, the generality I repeat is essential. I have asked you several simple general questions, what is the origin of the universe, and why and what are thye foundamental objects. You don t answer and you evitate the discussions, don t tell that my english is not understandable , it is. So now please answer to my questions, I will see clearer , we know also that our community is the most vanitious community probably on earth, we are all persuaded but a sure thing is that never we can affirm assumptions, and unfortunally you affirm assumptions like they were facts. Furthermore I love Dirac, he is one of my favorites with Von Neuman, Planck, einstein, ... but the planck scale also is an assumptions, in fact you simply consider the GR like the only one truth and after photons and points at this planck scale to explain our SM, but it is an assumption.

So I repeat yes and I insist even, in telling that there is no physics beyond the GR , it is an assumption and for me and it is just my opinion, it is total non sense. The GR is just a photonic spacetime. You beleive in this BB and that the universe has only created photons and that oscillate vibrate inside at this planck scale to create the topologies, geometries, matters, fields but it is just an assumption. We have evolved in 100 years since the GR but even Einstein told that we have probably a deeper logic to add. I00 years of general relativity and hop hovus pocus, we know all the universe and its laws ??? the fields for me are not the origin of our reality but the particles coded in a superfluidity with 3 ethers yes, It is even more logic than these fields.

I d say that the strand conjecture is a limited not sufficient interpretation. And it is due to many rational causes. First of all, the GR alone cannot unify the QM correctly, you can utilise all the geometrical algebras that you want and all the maths, that does not explain the deepest unknowns.The quantum gravitation is not about the fact to unify G c and h in resume simply. It is because the quantum gravitation simply is not an electromagnetic emergent force and it is not about the unifiation of the QM and the GR. The gravitons so are not the quanta of gravitational waves simply. Secondly the origin of our SM, the topologies, geometries, don t conme probably the GR and the fields in 1D oscillating in this GR onnected with 1D strings or points at this planck scale. I have remarked eneromous ontological and philosophical problems in this line of reasoning.

If the quantum gravitation, the gap mass problem, the gluons problem, the vomsological constant problem, the DE, the DM ...cannot be solved in this line of reasoning about the QM and the GR, there are reasons. It is because it lacks things to superimpose and the 2 other ethers that I explained seem the keys. I will publish soon, and I have quantified the quantum gravitation withn these 3 ethers and the 3D spheres like foundamebtal objects. I have invented the spherical topological geometrical algebras for this.

The problem actual inside the sciences community is to consider the strings or points and only this GR like primordial essence, that is why they turn in round for the majority of thinkers inside this prison in forgetting to think beyond the box. Like if this universe had only created photons lol ?? who has proved this? nobody. Who has proved the strings or points of this GR like main cause of our ordinary matter baryonic ? nobody . It is maybe time to reconsider the generality of this universe with other parameters added . The old school seems the key about the motions rortations of these Spheres for me and the fat to consider the particles like main cause instead of fields or waves. The waves and fields are emergent, not the particles.

I have an idea for you to go deeper in your works, consider the quaternions and the dirac trick consider the 3 ethers made of finite series of 3D spheres that I explained . Now consider the Lie groups for the connections and consider the particles in a superfluidity due to the specific spherical volumes of these series.

The standard model is about the U(1) SU(2) SU(3) and utilise the SO(3) for the rotations but in considering also the oscillations in surfaces of these spheres for example, that can permit to rank the quasiparticles. Now instead to consider only this GR alone and the fields like origin of the reality , so consider these 3 main finite series , the space vacuum of the DE for the main codes and the Photons massless and cold dark matter having a mass like fuels and when they merge they create the topologies, geometries, matters, fields. Consider that the bosonic fields of our electromagnetism and the 3 known forces are due to photons encoded. And consider the higgs mechanism activated due to photons encoded and see the link for the mass of the dark matter encoded. See the relevance of the cold permiotting to balance and also that this dark matter encoded permit the quantum gravitation and also the antiparticles.

Well now , consider instead of a ricci flow for the deformations of spheres, the symplectomorphisms in the codes of this space vacuum of the DE. Amd also consider that these 3 main series in merging conserve the volumes and the number , so the densities , motions, rotations, oscillations...become relevant for these series of 3D spheres.

For this general idea, you can consider 3 E8 exceptional group of Lie for example and you replace the points or strings bu these series. The padics analysis can be relevant I beleive and the non associativity and non commutativity. I have reached this QG like this and the gap mass problem that I try to solve in on a good road in all humility. The Fact to consioder the GR alone cannot solve our deepest problems, but the two other ethers superimposed permit it. So the standard model is not complete and has many things to show us. Philosophically and ontologically it becomes relevant all this due to fact that all is made of particles in a superfluidity and that the waves and fields are emergent. Regards

The strand conjecture started when the concept of maximum force c^4/4G in general relativity became clear.

A new paper in Phys Rev D 104 (2021) 124079 on the topic just appeared: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.124079

The concept of maximum force implies that there is no trans-Planckian physics. This drastically reduces the options for a unified theory.

Hello Mr Schiller,

How are you , hope you are well. Like I see you consider still the unification of this QFT, the GR, the SM in trying to unify so G c and h . I am curious , do you consider the gravitons like the quanta of gravitational waves ? And if yes how do you see the quantification of these gravitons in our standard model like the weakest force ?