An issue with spaghetti and the fine structure constant

The spaghetti model seems all ok at first sight. But that is not all the story. Look at the old question why protons and positrons have the same electric charge. In the spaghetti model, charge is a topological quantity. Ok, let's assume that the topology argument is correct. But why then is the fine structure constant the same for electrons and protons?

Look at the model. It will not take you much to see that this question is not answered anywhere. In fact, the fine structure constant is not calculated, so far. Nobody can check whether the full charges of protons and positrons are equal.

Let me be even more specific. Schiller writes that the fine structure constant is the probability for seeing a Reidemeister I move. Ok, this may be so, but why is that probability the same for protons and for positrons? The tangles for the two particles differ and the number of strands/spaghetti differ! This is a problem. In my view, there is no good answer to the question. Why should the probabilities be equal?

Enjoying Wheeler

You will enjoy this interview by John Wheeler. A great and smart man.

The quark spaghetti model

Spaghetti explain the quark model, claims Schiller. It is a strong claim; not even Bilson-Thompson makes this claim with his band model. Lets look at this in more detail.

The quark model is a way to describe all hadrons with a small number of constituents: with 6 quarks and 6 antiquarks. The spaghetti model proposes a tangle for each quark and then claims that these tangles reproduce all hadrons. Schiller indeed provides the tangles for most hadrons: he draws the tangles for the best-known mesons and baryons. He claims that the tangles explain quark confinement, asymptotic freedom, CP violation, and the mass sequence of all hadrons. Wait! Several Nobel prizes were awarded for these results. And we can understand them with a few drawings? If it is true, Gell-Mann and his entourage will turn yellow. If it is wrong, we can make fun of Schiller.

How can we check such a claim? We take the review of particle physics by the particle data group and check all of it against the strand model. I'll start tomorrow.

One more BS paper

Look at this preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5120 called "Symmetries and Strings in Field Theory and Gravity" by Banks and Seiberg. Read it sentence by sentence. It is incredible.

Not a single sentence is about physics. Not a single sentence is about nature. Not a single sentence makes sense.

Now, these two people are not stupid. They are smart by any usual standard. They are well-known. They are professors of physics in the best institutions. Nevertheless, they write complete nonsense. 

What is going on here? How can two men devote their full professional life to write nonsense? In a few years, hopefully, psychological research will answer this question.

Bousso and Susskind in Fantasialand

Bousso and Susskind have left physics. Just read their latest paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796 on the multiverse. Every sentence is nonsense. What a pity to see two smart people falling so low.

A further strand model

In a new preprint (http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3658), "Spacetime Geometry as Statistic Ensemble of Strings", Botta Cantcheff argues that space is an ensemble of "strings". He explains that the thermodynamics of strings reproduces the derivation of the field equations of general relativity by Jacobson. By strings he means some one-dimensional objects that are similar, but not exactly the same as the strings of string theory.

So here is a further researcher that understood that space is a collection of one-dimensional lines. He agrees with what Carlip says, and with what Schiller says, who argues the same connection between general relativity and the thermodynamics of strands. And he arrives at the result independently of them. A good sign!

On nonsense about crossing black hole horizons

Every other day a preprint appears on arxiv, in the gr-qc section, that discusses what happens when an observer crosses a black hole horizon, and how he arrives at the singularity. All these papers are written by people who believe that space is continuous, and that it can be extended beyond the horizon. Sadly, this nonsense is even found in many books. But it remains nonsense. Space and space-time cannot be extended beyond the horizon, because they are not continuous. Speaking about "beyond the horizon" is like counting angels. There are no angels. But angels have been classified, it might be said: after all, there are seraphim, and cherubim, and many others, and several angles are known by name, such as Gabriel and Raphael. Despite all this, angels are a delusion. Neither is it possible to cross the horizon or hit a singularity; that is a delusion.

There are people getting their PhD on angiology, and there are people getting their PhD on what happens beyond black hole horizons. The value of the work is the same.

A problem wit strands/spaghetti

When the weak and the electromagnetic interaction mix, they form the gauge group U(1)_Y for hypercharge Y. This occurs above the electroweak scale, so above around 100 GeV.

In the spaghetti model, it is unclear, when the U(1) group is described, whether U(1)_EM or U(1)_Y is meant. This looks like a major issue!

Update: this is a serious issue, but not a major one. The main results of the model remain valid.

Spaghetti or loops?

Loops, strings, spaghetti: all these ideas are similar. All explain the area dependence of black hole entropy. But


- Loops explain gravity, but not at all QED and the nuclear interactions.
- Strings explain gravity, but not uniquely QED and the nuclear interactions.
- Spaghetti explain gravity, but also QED and the nuclear interactions.

The explanation of all interactions with the spaghetti model is also the first ever found. Schiller even says that it allows to calculate the coupling constants. Guys, have a look at it!

No Higgs yet - II

Again, the prediction of the spaghetti model is vindicated: CERN clarifies that no Higgs was found, despite rumors to the contrary. This will happen again and again in the coming months.

The spaghetti model, a model that anybody who knows physics can learn in an hour, still has all its predictions in agreement with experiments.