Testing a conjecture on the origin of the standard model

Steve Dufourny

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.

Christoph Schiller

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.

Steve Dufourny

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 .

Ulla Mattfolk

Hey,

It is a bit rude to now say you don't understand, and no point what you don't understand... don't you think?

I don't know strand conjecture, but if it is just a conjecture, is it not odd to base a 'proof' on that? Obviously it does not work so well when you arrive at odd conclusions? I read https://www.motionmountain.net/research.html to get some ideas.... Diracs trick I would need a link to also.

The problem with SM is that it has no G, gravitation or GR. When you use c^4/g^4 you arrive at tachyons? Also problems with the G=C=hbar etc?

When you say Planck scale has no problems due to this dimensional analysis it is maybe not true, also to put SR etc there as a GUT scenariom, still say there are no GUT gauges.... it is confusing.

Regards, Ulla Mattfolk.

Ulla Mattfolk

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.

Ulla Mattfolk

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

Christoph Schiller

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.

Steve Dufourny

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.

Steve Dufourny

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.

Steve Dufourny

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.

Steve Dufourny

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

Christoph Schiller

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.

Steve Dufourny

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 ?

Christoph Schiller

Gravity is derived from the strand conjecture in the paper

C. Schiller, Testing a conjecture on the origin of space, gravity and mass, Indian Journal of Physics (2021), free to read online at rdcu.be/czpom.

The paper includes a model for gravitons. They indeed are quantized gravitational waves, as expected. However, they are not detectable as single quanta, as has been predicted long ago by other scholars.

Abstract: A Planck-scale model for the microscopic degrees of freedom of space and gravity, based on a fundamental principle that involves fluctuating one-dimensional strands, is tested. Classical and quantum properties of space and gravitation, from the field equations of general relativity to gravitons, are deduced. Predictions include the lack of any change to general relativity at all sub-galactic scales, the validity of black hole thermodynamics, the lack of singularities and the lack of unknown observable quantum gravity effects. So far, all predictions agree with observations, including the validity of the maximum luminosity or power value c^5/G for all processes in nature, from microscopic to astronomical. Finally, it is shown that the strand conjecture implies a model for elementary particles that allows deducing ab-initio upper and lower limits for their mass values.

Steve Dufourny

Hi Mr Schiller, thanks for developing. I have read too the paper of Wilczek, he has the same kind of reasoning that you . I have myself tried in this reasoning with the lie groups , and in trying to unify G c and h, with even the non commutativity and with the strings in considering these fields like origin of our standard model and 2 E8 and in considering so that this SM was from this GR. But I have found enormpous philosophical and ontological rpoblems like I explained , that is why it is not renormalisable even. So I have thought differently in considering the particles like primary essence and 3D spheres like foundamental objects and in considering the DM and the DE too , so 3 spacetimes, I was surprised to quantify it in encoding the photons and the cold dark matter in this space vacuum of the DE. So the gravitons are not in my model the quanta of gravitational waves, the gravitational waves so are just photons oscillating , 3D series of spheres for these photons and they have a mass. This reasoning permits to quantify this quantum gravitation because simply we respect the newtonian mechanic, and this explains too the antimatter and a fith force appears. That said your model is interesting for a better understanding of the feilds and this GR. The main problem for me in all humility is always to consider these photons and this GR like primary essence and like the cause of this SM. If we consider these 3 spacetimes and the Spheres, that does not contredict this GR , that just permit to complete the puzzle, and in being ancoded in this vacuum of the DE, that permits to explain the fields bosonic. That is why I have superimposed 4 E8 and these spheres .3 systems free cosmologically, the main codes in this DE, and the photons and the cold dark matter and the baryonic matter due to the 3 others merging. Your strand conjecture and ideas can converge like it exists a conjecture too with the strings, the fields and these Spheres in this superfluidity, best regards

Steve Dufourny

Our main error at my humble opinion is to consider these photons massless , and so that implies a kind of problem about the special relativity. The corpuscular ideas of Newton and Debroglie and many others thought the same can consider a very small mass for the photons. That implies many different philosophical roads and even for the magnetic monopoles. That permits too to explain correctly these gravitational waves. Now instead to take the non commutativity to explain the QG with the fields and only in taken this GR and so like cause of the SM, so we can take this non commutativity for the mass of these photons. And like I explained we consider these 3 spacetimes and the matter baryonic and 4 E8. The maxwell equations can be derived and extrapolated with this reasoning too. There are probably experiments to do for this proving the very weak mass of photons. See that the higgs mechanism can be seen like a system activating the mass of the cold dark matter encoded under the codes of this DE possessing the main informations for the properties of the SM and the geometries and topologies. My equation also permits to go deeper in all this , the special relativity has a problem, and I have considered this intuitive equation with the 3 main systems E=m(c^2+Xl^2)+Y , it is not that the mass and energy are the same in fact, our error is there , this special relativity and the fact to consider only these photons ölike primary essence and the GR like cause of this SM have created a kind of philosophical prison. That is why I have invented these spherical topological geometrical algebras and in considering 4 E8 and the 3D spheres like foundamental objects, the motions and rotations correlated with the time and the symplectomorphisms preserving the volumes for the deformations.

Steve Dufourny

All this imply hidden variables but they don t really contredict the bell theorem because they are beyond the actual relativistic spectrum of measurements considering the limitations technological and in knowledges, that implies so hidden variables correlated with this anti matter,the quantum gravitation and the DE and DM of our standard model. For the photons having a very small mass, there are probably experiments to do but it seems so difficult terrestrial and extra terrestrial, probably for me at very low frequences and energy but there are technological problems with the voltages and uncertainty. But we could see differences of potential probably. Maybe too the thermo and cold can be tested a kind of cryogenic system. I am not a specialist of experiments but there are probably possibilities.

Steve Dufourny

It is mainly the philosophical origin of this universe and how is transformed the energy the main essence of our reality. The actual problem at my humble opinion is really to consider only these photons like primary essence and so the special and general relativity correlated. This general philosophy is not proved, the same for the photons massless and the fields of this GR and standard model linked like if this GR was the cause of our geometries, topologies. It is an assumption, and now the thinkers have difficulties to think differently. The same problem is about this special relativity and the mass energy equivalence, the mass and energy are not really the same, the problem is to not differenciate the standard model and this GR and so they beleive that the mass and energy are the same, but if we consider that thr SM is a result due to encodings and that these photons are encoded in this vacuum of the DE, so all is different........

Steve Dufourny

To be frank, I am conscious that I am a problem with my theory and a totally different philosophy and also different foundamental objects. I know that all the actual best thinkers consider only these photons and mainly strings inside in 1D like Witten, Susskind. I know that they have worked hard and that they cannot think differently, it is an institution this GR and these strings. They probably know my theory but we are all persuaded and vanitious inside this community, I have not published also. But if I am right it can be relevant and revolutionary and that can give different roads of researchs. In all the cases, these spheres and the 3 spacetimes and the 4 E8 can solve many things and these strings can converge in being sorted and in taking a different philosophy. I think strongly that unfortunally these photons alone and the SR and GR have created this prison of thoughts. It is like a normality accepted because einstein was great but he has not had the nobel prize for this GR and SR, but for the photoelectric effect. I don t tell that this GR is not relevant for observations, I tell that the geometries, topologies of our SM is not proved to be from this GR . I know that this GR and that the SR for the speed of photons can be relevant to rank this cosmology . I just tell that we forget probably to think beyond the box.Einstein himself told it, that the universe had probably deeper parameters to superimpose.

« Previous Page Next Page »