Mordred

In order to prove your theory you should have been able to derive the geodesic equations and show the distinction between massive and massless particles in which geodesic equation they would follow. I do not see any of this above. Nor do I see any applicable Langrangian equations

Sounds like a word salad. Can you argue that the equality sign is a relation ? Not a dimension under mathematical definition ? Mathematics doesn't require words. The proof must be based upon the math

How do you start with the math to reach calculus under differential geometry or calculus of variations. What is your current math level then I can better guide you. Incorrect under string theory gravity is the fundamental string via the graviton.

That is a goal anyone interested in science aspires to. Unfortunately in order to accomplish that goal required considerable study and research. It also requires a good understanding of the math. The dynamics of a WH could never account for the behavior and distribution of DM. Many of the reasons are already provided above.

You obviously do not know the first thing about QFT if you believe this statement. The very first chapters in any QFT textbook deals with how QFT applies the Klein Gordon equation to apply the four momentum etc for Lorentz invariance. It is a fully SR compatible theory. SR is not limited to just the EM field it affects all qauge groups. You have been told this numerous times now.

Again it doesn't count as a dimension. It is a relation not a dimension.

The equal sign itself has no value it is not an independent variable. A dimension is defined as an independent variable or other math object that can vary in value without affecting any other value.

Correct a Majorana particle must be charge neutral. I can offhand think of one particular boson that is its own antiparticle that has a mass term. I will leave it at that to see if the OP can identify it. As he has excluded Majorana mass.

Well the use of Majorana spinors etc isn't an issue. It can simplify modelling the charge neutral particles in so far as the effective degrees of freedom and creation and annihilation operators. The creation and annihilation operators for a Majorana particle is identical. Which means the two frequency modes are also identical. This property greatly simplifies numerous calculations as you can exclude antisymmetric relations. Now the only fermion that might qualify would be the neutrino, however this is still an open debate. Part of the problem is the missing right hand neutrinos.

Yes

Sigh ok let's skip to some basic physics.You mentioned crossings and energy. This is incorrect. Energyis the ability to perform work. Nothing more nothing less. I am not going to look through five of your papers the first two was difficult enough to stomach in all the claims without mathematical backing. It is readily apparent you know numerous buzz words without understanding the meaning. No matter what methodology I suggest to conform to physics you make excuses to avoid any mathematics specific to your model. Do you even understand Majoronna mass ? Or Majoronna spinors ? What particles would qualify ? You have yet to describe a strand let one a crossing. Defining isn't a verbal descriptive. Defining requires math under any physics model. Quite frankly I have lost track of the number of claims without backing from you.

I prefer this medium, the cosmology calculator link on my signature I only contributed in writing the user guide. I have been unable to contact the programmer. One of the contributors has already passed away (Marcus). The first step I see you need to properly define is the strand itself. Once you can do that then progress to the lie algebra. In particular note the Hamilton. You must incorporate how strands correlate to the energy momentum equation. Ideally under the Klein Gordon which is second order and has a confrontation to QM and the first order of the Schrodinger equation. (There is a fix for that ) in so far as the Operator assignment for the time operator. (Note I specified the steps from QM to QFT). Now do you understand what is meant by thermal equilibrium in regards to electroweak symmetry breaking? Secondly what is your familiarity to differential geometry and calculus of variations? On another note are you familiar with Bra ket notation ? I need a math basis compatible with your understanding. For example the Pauli exclusion principle. Why do bosons not qualify as matter particles while 1/2 integer spins do? This is another point your strand theory needs to incorporate. I have no qualms with Riedermaster moves in [math]\mathbb{R}^3 [/math] it is a valid methodology in graph applications. Wilson loops is a prime example in LQC applications. However this is a mathematical methodology not to be confused with physicality. A closed knot for example is an excellent means of dimension compaction. To form a closed group Here is something to consider. How does a particle physicist describe physicality? (PS highly applicable to QFT)

I have read your papers already. I found them lacking in critical details. This is something one must be prepared for when defending a model. Lets put it this way I have a Masters degree in Cosmology which my focus of big bang nucleosynthesis required me to also pick up a degree in particle physics. Now I do not state the above to boast, this site does have a few PH. D physicists. Now here is the interesting part, I do not care if your model is right or wrong provided there is viability So the question I put forward to you is do you wish to advance your conjecture in the proper physics methodology which requires the relevant mathematics? Or do you feel your random assertions are sufficient? You will note I have already provided examples where your strands can be modeled via the link I provided. The question I have is are you prepared to do the necessary steps ? PS I may sound angry but personally I do not care what you believe. I simply wish to know if I am wasting my time in providing guidance to help you develop a strong robust model. Now on a more personal note I don't visit forums to advertise or seek answers. I visit forums to help teach. I never teach personal views or thoughts. Everything I state I am prepared to defend via textbook answers or peer reviewed material. I do have a further advantage in that I have been doing physics for 35 years or so. Lol my own dissertation was long ago proven wrong. Though back then I only had COBE data to work from. WMAP and Planck data wasn't available. Life goes on.

Once again verbal claims where is your evidence ? Where is your proof. You have zero zip mathematics of your own model. You cannot even mathematically describe a strand so where is your proof it does as you claim. Have you not figured it out yet I do not accept claims without proof.... Show some flipping proof to your claims. You have been unable to substantiate s single claim you have made the entire thread. All you have provided is what you believe Show me how you can explain black holes or neutrino mass sequence etc etc beyond claiming you can. prove me wrong give me the temperature neutrinos drop out of thermal equilibrium and calculate the mean average density of the neutrino family at that blackbody temperature. Your the expert provide the answer. provide me the equation to calculate the range of the weak force.

We have a different definition of proof most likely due to my being a physicist. According to your own replies a strand isn't made of any particles or energy. It isn't made of anything according to you. Yet you have a tube of Planck radius. How and why ? Can you measure a strand = no Can you provide experimental evidence of a strand = no Can we describe the SM model without strands=yes. So where is your proof other than your say so ? Go ahead provide experimental evidence for a strand yes that's a challenge to you. You cannot even provide a mathematical proof The burden of proof is in your court it's also a requirement on this forum. How can it not ? You have zero equations of your own. The equations used in QFT etc are not evidence that strands are needed. Quite the opposite they work without strands. They can also explain family generations. Which you asserted they don't

So convince me otherwise verbal assertions isn't proof. I could as readily assert the universe is made of fairy dust.

Go through the particle data group. See the list of resonant particles they are in italics. However your still missing the important point. All your assertions has zero proof to counter other than your declaration that this or that is so.

Ok your still missing the point. So far the only proof you have been offering is nothing more than a conjecture viewpoint. You haven't anything of substance beyond what you feel and think. So far disproving your theory amounts to simply changing your mind. Your strands are unobservable, they have no mathematics to make predictions. Outside what you feel. When I asked for proof I was hoping you would have at least provided some math or other evidence beyond your words and thoughts. So what about the pion and kaon or the several hundred resonant particles in the particle data group ? They are not comprised of other particles and the only significant difference is stability. They are all all identifiably unique from one another. However they are real measurable particles. The symmetry groups you mentioned Do not prevent other particles elementary are otherwise. That is not the function of the symmetry groups. The function is to describe the vector or spinor relations and commutations etc. In much the same manner as SO(3.1) describes GR and kinematics. Ok let's try this a particle is a field excitation under QFT. What restriction applies to the possible field excitations ?

Well said +1

Practice lol after a few laptops died I learned to make do.

The mark you missed is your descriptives. The term stiffness for example describes a material property. So clarification is needed from you as this is your theory. You need to be clear on how your describing a strand. Why ? What proof can you provide to support this statement Why what proof can you provide to support this statement. Though the fundamental constants I agree on QFT doesn't have varying value's for fundamental constants however it doesn't preclude the possibility

A wave doesn't need to be observable to be mathematically defined. Ghost fields does this all the time. QFT also seperates observables from non observables. Perfect example is virtual particles Flow of charge or flow of electrons ? There is a distinctive difference. The mediator for charge flow is the photon. So while electrons move less than c the flow of charge is still c. Ok you have given some dimensionality for a strand now here is my question What is the strand composed of ? Energy does not exist on its own and the strands give rise to the SM particles so they cannot be composed of those. See the problem here ? Your above description included materialistic terms ie stiffness etc You should see by now you need to define a strand so there is no ambiguity. Particularly since you specified in your bet that there are no further particles outside those of the SM model though you later on had to change your original theory to incorporate the Higgs. (The criteria of your bet are also assertions) yet you haven't provided any mathematics to reflect those limitations under your bet. QFT doesn't even declare the SM model is complete no physics theory does. Ok let's try this tactic. Provide some good links from other authors outside your work such as Schiller if I'm not mistaken that has the missing details (ie actual applicable mathematics) let's progress this discussion to something more useful. A good peer reviewed article would at least give me a trail of references to research. For example is Wilson loops applicable on open and closed loops. I've seen Reidemeister moves applications in this regard This is a good example of what I after from you. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0410329&ved=2ahUKEwiMkozvyavoAhX5KDQIHQkZDn0QFjABegQIBxAL&usg=AOvVaw1tTQ6TZI4Aeh2R8cMyA8j9 Knot diagramatics from Arxiv. You can readily see from this example that mathematics can certainly be employed to describe your tangle theory. This link even gives correlations to the SU(N) gauge so you can use this for the Hamilton's. (Note while I assist others in theory development I expect them to do the work) also note the article does not give any physicality to the strands and tangles they are strictly math relations. That is where your theory deviates. (At least from your descriptives this thread)

You should at least be able to apply wave equations to describe how the tube would bend and twist. Stiffness would be describable as tension. If you want an applicable mathematical methodology then employ string theory it has the relevant mathematics. The nice thing the numerous physics models is that the same mathematical techniques can be employed regardless of theory. Though tension would be described differently under GR and thus QFT via the stress energy momentum tensor. Obviously QFT can also model wave dynamics. You would want to pick a methodology that saves legwork. After all one shouldn't need to rewrite all of physics to develop a different model. (In The Langrangian link in Orion's reference 4 on the last set of posts is an excellent article on the SM model. ). So at least you will have a good starting point on the effective action of observables of the SM model. Strong hint focus on the longitudinal and transverse components of a wave. Then figure out how to describe those with Reidemeister moves. There is already some papers to support in that.

Post the relevant equations then. Provide the equations showing how the Reidemeister moves correspond to any of the Feymann diagrams you posted provide at least something that proves it can do what you claim. If the only equations that are involved are those used by QFT already then there literally is no purpose to use your tangle model.

Why do you keep giving me verbal descriptives ? Is the expression mathematical description not clear to you ? I can mathematically describe particle generations, I can mathematically describe the range of each force or the decay rates and mean lifetime of a particle. Give me a blackbody temperature and I can give you the density probability function for any elementary particle. All via the QFT methodology. Without deviating from the standard model in textbooks. I have asked you specific questions on your model to mathematically defend. You have yet to do so. Can you not supply a mathematical basis for a single strand ? You want the level of my mathematics then here is a starter where I study the Langrangians of the SM model. This amounts to personal pass the time amusement. Though I do learn from it. However this is the level of mathematics involved beyond undergraduate levels. This is what you are competing against. Though on a personal note I am studying the plausibility of rewriting the equation [math]\mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}[/math] To place the relativity section to the left-hand side of the equal sign. Denoting that spacetime itself is the sum of all other particle interactions. However that is a personal note. I simply note it in this thread to show you a demonstration of the details in mathematics I am asking. I shouldn't have to explain the relationship between the range of a force to the mean lifetime of the mediator boson in accordance to the energy momentum equation. Nor second year mathematics on how to calculate decay rates and mean lifetimes of an elementary particle. Nor show how the Higgs mass was predicted within an error margin with its dependence on interaction cross sections.. You claim your model can handle these better than the standard methodology you should be the expert on the topic. Prove it.