Strand Model Published: Physics of Particles & Nuclei 50 (2019)

[physics8553]

The paper states several times that mirror tangles correspond to antiparticles. These two tangles correspond to electron neutrino and antineutrino. The curved lines imply that they have mass. The difference between the two tangles imply that they are Dirac neutrinos, not Majorana neutrinos. In the present experimental situation, these statements should be seen as predictions.

The tangle model further predicts that the mass order of neutrinos is normal (because more complex tangles correspond to higher mass). The tangle model also predicts that the mass values of the neutrinos is much smaller than that of any other elementary particles (essentially because the tangles are so close to that of the vacuum). The tangle model also predicts neutrino mixing (essentially because of the possibility of tangle tether deformations) and a mixing matrix that is unitary (both for quarks and for neutrinos) because unitarity follows from the deformation model of mixing.

 

[HBrown]

It would help if you answered the pertinent questions instead of providing more predictions.

You stated:

Electric charge: 1/3 for each topologically chiral crossing (in minimal crossing projection) in a matter/fermion tangle. Charge can be determined by computer.

Despite saying that, you have yet to define a clear procedure that would allow a computer to determine this. When I tried to bring actual math in, you instead then suddenly claimed that trying to compute this given a tangle embedding is an open question.

As the neutrino and its mirror appear to be topologically distinct, and you agree that the minimal crossing projection is non-zero, then by your definition there the neutrino tangle is charged.
You disagreed, and so I asked for what your definition of "topologically chiral" was. This you did answer (thank you):

Chiral means "different from its mirror"; topologically chiral means "cannot be deformed into its mirror".

But this did not resolve anything as it still means your neutrino tangles are charged according to that definition, unless there is some way to smoothly deform the neutrino tangle into its mirror. That appears impossible, and so it still appears your definitions lead to charged neutrinos.

You still disagree, but refuse to show us how that one embedding can be deformed into the other.

Maybe there is still a terminology issue.
I'm taking the time to provide definitions here to hopefully speed this up. I would very much appreciate it if you could agree, or provide your own definitions, so that we can build up a foundation.

Question 1. Can we agree on this definition of a tangle from wikipedia?

"In John Conway's definition, an n-tangle is a proper embedding of the disjoint union of n arcs into a 3-ball; the embedding must send the endpoints of the arcs to 2n marked points on the ball's boundary."

Question 2. Can we agree on this definition of topological equivalence between two tangles?

Two tangles are topologically equivalent if and only if there is a smooth deformation from one to the other which holds the boundary fixed, but allows the strands to move in the interior of the ball subject to the constraint that strands do not pass through each other.If we agree please give a quick yes, if not then please provide alternative definitions.

 

[physics8553]

For future reference, here is a complete list of predictions, as specific as possible, made by the strand model.

1. Maximum force c^4/4G and maximum power c^5/4G will never be exceeded,
2. No physics beyond the standard model with massive neutrinos will ever be found,
3. No deviation from general relativity at sub-galactic scales will ever be found,
4. No conjecture differing from the tangle model will ever explain the masses, the mixing angles and the coupling constants of elementary particles.

The reason that point 3 mentions 'sub-galactic' scales is that the effective dark energy density might change over cosmological time scales in the strand model. This is still subject of research.

Time will show how these predictions will score against future experiments and future theory.

 

[physics8553]

Just for entertainment, here is an animation of the spinning electron in the tangle model:

https://www.motionmountain.net/research.html#et

 

[sysprog]

Shouldn't each of those 'strand model' claims be, before general acceptance, justified one by one (i.e. one claim at a time)?

 

[physics8553]

It is possible to insert animated gifs after all. Here is the animation of a spinning electron in the strand conjecture, programmed by Jason Hise.

Indeed, the strand conjecture makes many claims. There will be a paper for each claim of the prediction made 2 postings ago. The starting paper for all claims is the one cited at the beginning of this thread. More papers will follow.

This animation relates to a few sub-claims (in total over 100 sub-claims) of prediction 2, namely that the standard model is all there is in high energy physics. For example, the animation visualizes the unit charge of electrons, visualizes that only massive particles can have electric charge, and visualizes that electrons are fermions with spin 1/2. The paper and the new preprints on the motion mountain research page cited 2 postings before this one show more details, including why such a "crazy" conjecture implies that electrons obey the Dirac equation (a discovery by Battey-Pratt and Racey), that strands thus yield the Dirac propagator, and why strands yield minimal coupling to the electromagnetic field. Together with the one-stranded model for the photon, all of QED arises - including Lagrangian and perturbation expansions. In fact, the animation also visualizes why the electromagnetic coupling is the same for all particles with the same electric charge (such as positrons and protons, for example), why the g-factor is larger than 2, and why the mass of an electron is much smaller than the Planck mass. The last three consequences are non-trivial.

 

[PeterDonis]

There will be a paper for each claim of the prediction made 2 postings ago.

Then when those papers are published, they can be used as a basis for PF discussion. But not until then.

Thread closed.