Your paper was interesting. There are a few points I thought I would mention. Supersymmetry requires a zero energy vacuum. If the energy of the vacuum has positive expectation then SUSY is broken, The vacuum energy during inflation was enormous and so SUSY was likely highly broken.

That your group is U(6)Ã--SU(3)Ã--SU(2)Ã--U(1) means this may connect to some aspects of string theory with E6 ⸧ SU(6) and then with exceptional group realizations. Your approach though appears to be to hide these into simpler groups. I have been considering something similar with the stretched horizon of black holes according to simple groups that under perturbations give complex groups.

Anyway if you get the time see if you can read my essay.

Thanks LC

    Dear Dr. Tan,

    Most of your paper is way over my head, so I am not in a position to appreciate it properly, though I agree with its spirit. One thing in particular you said resonates with me: "An immediate implication of quantum indeterminism is that our world has to be dynamic with phase transitions. It is hard to imagine that a static universe is not deterministic unless one assumes different laws at different locations, which, however, defeats the static assumption for spacetime." What is interesting is that this statement is a purely logical deduction. That is, the universe MUST be dynamic if it is indeterministic (or, conversely, only a static universe could be deterministic). To me, this sheds light on the meaning of determinism, which I hold to be no more than a property of mathematics (determinism = logical implication), rather than a possible inherent property of matter. Nevertheless, the APPEARANCE of determinism could emerge (as in GR) to the extent matter conforms on the large scale to that mathematical description.

    All best wishes,

    Dan Bruiger

      16 days later

      Dear LC, Thanks for your interest.

      You are right about exact SUSY requiring zero vacuum energy. As such, two of my models SMM2 and SMM4 for 2-d and 4-d spacetime, respectively, follow the exact N=1 gauge SUSY. On the other hand, during the phase transitions or spontaneous symmetry breaking processes, the corresponding SMM2b and SMM4b models will break the exact SUSY due to the emerging mass scales and vacuum energies. Therefore, these models are called pseudo-SUSY as non-zero mass terms leading to new energy scales but the matching of degrees of freedom between bosons (gauge and pseudo-Goldstone) and fermions is still observed.

      Indeed, there is some connection with string theory (not as a theory of everything). You might find some related discussion in my preprint: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/8qawc

      Best,

      Wanpeng

      Thanks for your interest, Dan.

      The past efforts on theory of everything seemed to focus too much on a static picture of attempting unifying all forces and particles. While the realistic world and the Universe keeps telling us it is dynamic.

      What I did not talk about in the essay is the degree of indeterminism. My gut feeling is that it is right on the boundary between indeterminism and determinism. As such, determinism can emerge naturally in some aspects of our world. See http://sites.nd.edu/wtan/2020/03/07/from-quantum-indeterminism-to-open-science-open-society-and-open-world/ for further discussion.

      Wanpeng

      16 days later

      Somehow my reply did not get posted. I am trying again.

      Thank you, LC for your interest.

      You are right about exact SUSY requiring zero vacuum energy. The two models of SMM2 and SMM4 for 2-d and 4-d spacetime, respectively, follow the exact N=1 gauge SUSY. On the other hand, during the phase transitions or spontaneous symmetry breaking processes, the corresponding SMM2b and SMM4b will break the exact SUSY and become pseudo-SUSY due to the emergence of new mass scales and vacuum energies. But the matching of degrees and freedom between bosons (gauge and pseudo-Goldstone) and fermions is still observed, and that is why it is called pseudo-SUSY).

      Yes, there seems to be some connection with string theory (but not as a theory of everything). Please see my other preprint for more discussion on that: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/8qawc

      Best,

      Wanpeng

      Dr. Tan:

      I agree that "...no single unification theory for describing all energy scales at the same time." can be built from the current General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) models. I also agree with the proposal that similar conclusions from the "phase transition" barriers could be extended to life and society.

      But here we part. I propose that a simpler model of one Theory of Everything could be formed by treating both GR and QM as applications which also must explain all the observations that the 2 don't explain. The STOE has had predictions confirmed, also. The STOE proposes determinism for big and small. The STOE proposes one equation for all the universe.

      I note your theory is basically proposing increased complexity rather than greater simplicity for the observed universe. This is a typical response for the accepted technicians. Mine is a radical, not accepted model. I think your model is just adding more parameters to the math rather than simplifying the principles. But take heart. Your thinking is probably going to rate very high in this contest so far. Indeed, I think your essay is the best in line with FQXi thinking and past rewards.

      However, I would be interested in your approach to the experiments that reject wave models of light interference. (photon models of interference not the wave-particle type). I have noted your other contributions (1-7 in your references).

      Hodge

        Dear Dr Wang,

        You write in your essay: "An immediate implication of quantum indeterminism is that our world has to be dynamic with phase transitions." I don't see why this has to be the case. I can perfectly well conceive of a world that contains a single hydrogen atom which just sits there and that's that. No dynamics, no phase transition, no nothing. Maybe you could clarify for me what you mean by that? With best regards,

        Sabine

          I am trying to post this reply for the third time...

          Thank you, LC for your interest.

          You are right about exact SUSY requiring zero vacuum energy. The two models of SMM2 and SMM4 for 2-d and 4-d spacetime, respectively, follow the exact N=1 gauge SUSY. On the other hand, during the phase transitions or spontaneous symmetry breaking processes, the corresponding SMM2b and SMM4b will break the exact SUSY and become pseudo-SUSY due to the emergence of new mass scales and vacuum energies. But the matching of degrees and freedom between bosons (gauge and pseudo-Goldstone) and fermions is still observed, and that is why it is called pseudo-SUSY.

          Yes, there seems to be some connection with string theory (but not as a theory of everything). Please see my other preprint for more discussion on that (e.g., page 7 and the end of Ref. [7])

          Best,

          Wanpeng

          Dear Hodge, Thanks for your interest.

          If you take a closer look, you'll find that my models don't really increase the complexity although it appears so. Instead, it uses some simple principles and provide more pleasing explanations for the complexity of physics, in particular, the Standard Model.

          Most importantly, various predictions are ready to be tested in laboratory experiments. These experimental tests will ultimately tell if my ideas hold water or not.

          Wanpeng

          Dear Sabine,

          I see your point about the jump I made in that statement which you seem to disagree. But I assume that we have a diversified yet consistent world. Determinism of a classic theory tends to give a "complete" picture and is hard to implement phase transitions to account for the complexity of our world. As a matter of fact, a lot of known phase transitions are deeply rooted in quantum theory. In this sense, I argue that quantum indeterminism may indeed be the reason behind our complex world via dynamic processes of phase transitions.

          On the other hand, if one imagines a simple or trivial world like a single hydrogen atom, I agree, the argument will not hold.

          Thanks,

          Wanpeng

          Thanks for your thorough and clear written essay. One of the best I have read so far. I fully agree with your ideas on indeterminism and the foolish search for a final unified theory.This clearly stems from a (quite arrogant) reductionistic approach typical of physicists. I have challenged this myself in the past, and I find very important your final remarks: " New phenomena and new laws can emerge under phase transitions like superconductivity and other cases. The very nature of quantum indeterminism makes it necessary for pursuing studies of all sub-fields of physics. It may be also why we have so diversified scientific fields ranging from physics, chemistry, biology, to human brains"

          I am not an expert in standard model and high energy physics (my work is on quantum foundations and quantum info), but it seems your arguments are sound. I have myself developed arguments for indeterminism (you might want to have a look at my essay and leave a feedback if you like). I wish you to get high in the rating (full score from me).

          Flavio

          Hello Dr. Tan,

          I enjoyed your essay. I have a number of inquiries-

          i) Is the universe, non-locally, (cosmologically) intrinsically deterministic? ("...Concisely, determinism of general relativity is emergent from the underlying indeterministic quantum theory... (p.3)).

          ii) "...It is hard to imagine that a static universe is not deterministic unless one assumes different laws at different locations..." (p.3). "...In other words, physics becomes completely different under different spacetime configurations..." I don't contest this. However, I am unsure that the physical laws would necessarily vary (e.g. Even if the universe was deterministic in some areas and indeterministic what would this say about the topology of the universe?) Do you posit that, over time- the nonlocal geometric topology of the universe has changed from eon to eon?

          iii) Can you please explain the relation of Gödel's other work (on his solution to Einstein's field equations which involve closed time-like curves) to your work?

          iv) Can you please expand on "...In the end, our free will might be tied to indeterminism of quantum particles as indicated in the so-called free will theorem of Conway and Kochen [20]..."?

          If you'd like to email me a response- please feel free to: hilbertspaces@protonmail.com

          Thank you,

          Dale Gillman

          Hello , I liked the generality of your essay. The evolution is important also in my theory of spherisation, it is the real meaning of my works. I beleive strongly that a TOE cannot be reached and even in 100000 years if we are still there because we have many secrets to discover simply. Our knowledges are limited , of course we evolve and add discoveries, foundamental but we must recognise this fact, we are Youngs even at this universal scale considering this evolution still. All so in not predictable and computable. Thanks for your essay, regards

          The lower dimensional spacetime is something that happens with holography. The stretched horizon of a black hole has two spatial dimensions. Since this occurs on a surface a Planck unit above the pure horizon. Consider a probe under an enormous acceleration at this stretched horizon. This acceleration is the Planck acceleration g = 10^{52}m/s^2. The time dilation for an accelerated frame is T = t_p sinh(gs/c), for s the proper time of the probe. Then for s = t_p this is T Ôëê t_p sinh(1} and for s = Nt_p we have T Ôëê t_p sinh(N) and this gives a time T Ôëê 10^{100}t_p for N = 228. This means that on the stretched horizon within some 250 Planck time units the distant observer can in principle witness the entire duration of the black hole.

          We might then think of this as approximating the situation for the scalar field ¤å with Lagrangian Ôä' = ┬¢(d¤å/dt)^2 - m¤å^2 and S = Ôê½Ôä'dt. The stretched horizon is a sort of transmission line some 250 Planck units in length and we ignore the motion on the horizon, particularly if this scalar field has a Planck mass. This is reduced FAPP to one dimension. If we let a, a^ÔÇá be the bosonic operator for this field and define a fermion field ¤ê with operators b and b^ÔÇá the supergenerator operators are Q = b^ÔÇáa and Q^ÔÇá = a^ÔÇáb. These respectively absorb a boson (fermion) and generate a fermion(boson). It is not hard to see that [Q,Q^ÔÇá] = a^ÔÇáa + b^ÔÇáb = 2E. This is an elementary supersymmetry in one dimensions.

          The two-dimension case can then occur with AdS_2├--S^2 as the near horizon condition for a Kerr-Newman black hole. Here we can with AdS_2 = CFT_1 climb the dimensions. AdS_3 and AdS_4 may also occur and I found recently AdS_4 is the condition for two black holes near to coalescence Entropy 2020, 22, 301; doi:10.3390/e22030301 .

          Supersymmetry is unbroken in a spacetime with ╬ø Ôëñ 0, which means it can exist in anti-de Sitter spacetimes. This is a basis of the N = 4 SUSY in AdS_5├--S^5. Anti-de Sitter spacetime and de Sitter spacetimes are correspondent at I^┬▒Ôê×, which is the conformal boundary of AdS. The dS sits on the outside of the cone and the dS is one of two spaces within the cones. This means the AdS and the dS share the same data. However, SUSY is broken in dS. This gets into the swampland of Vafa. The observable universe is then a fractured reality in a sense, but it has all the underlying symmetries of AdS.

          BTW, with posting to these blogs it is best to type in MSWord and copy paste. That way you can avoid these annoying loss of text. It has happened dozens of times to me.

          Cheers LC

          Hi , still a discussion about the inderterminisn of our generality, of course we cannot predict and compute all, it is evident, it is just because we know still so few about how acts this universe, we have many unknowns to discore, we are simply limited. We utilise mathematical Tools and symmetries and others to complete this puzzle, our quantum mechanics and the QFT. The problem is that we don t know the main mathematical and physical objects and in philosophy we don t know the main causes. These strings at this planck scale oscillating and the 1D main field are not proved, the same considering the photons like the only one piece of puzzle, the same with the geometrodynamics and points and geometrical algebras, we cannot affirm in fact even with wonderful mathematical Tools like the E8 exceptional group for example for the fractalisation of fields. I beleive strongly that inside the sciences Community the strings and the GR have created a kind of prison for the thinkers, they cannot now Think beyond the box in considering different roads and parameters. That is why probably we cannot explain still our main unknowns like this quantum gravitation, the DM or DE. Many have tried for this quantum weakest force but they have not renormalised and quantized it, like Connes and his non commutativity or Verlinde and his entropical gravity, or Penrose and his twistors, or the loops or Lisi and his E8 or others, we have a problem to reach it, the main cause for me is this prison considering mainly that all our reality comes from fields and Waves giving our topologies, geometries, matters and properties, I doubt personally that if a kind of infinite eternal consciousness create a physicality , this thing that we cannot define play at guitar oscillating the energy to imply this physicality.The problem is really philosophical, this thing for me needs to coded and transform the energy, that is why I consider a gravitational coded aether sends from the central cosmological sphere, it is a Little bit like if I said that an aether of consciousness without physicality, time, space, topologies , geometries, matters code there the particles to create the gravitational superfluid coded aether made of particles where the space disappears. Of course it is an assumption and we know that the sciences Community is divided about a kind of creator, but after all the best past thinkers considered and had understood that we need a thing trandsforming the energy and coding it, here is the list of persons having considered this with a kind of determinism, a Little bit like spinoza, Einstein, Planck, Tesla, Newton, Heisenberg, Galilei, Godel ,Cantor, Lie, Maxwell,Lorentz,Schrodinger and so more, they had understaood that something codes and transforms this energy. I beleive strongly that all is particles instead of Waves and that respect also the Waves particles duality because the space, the vacuum does not really exist and is made of particles coded, we need to know more about the main causes and the foundamental objects and in philosophy also. We need to go deeper and accept that probably we have not just photons, bosons and fields, we have a deeper logic at this universe. food for thoughts....Regards

          Wanpeng I enjoyed your essay. However, I have a different perspective. I "put aside" the fundamental idea that that the laws and constants of physics are in effect everywhere, all of the time and never change and replaced it with a Self Creation process that produces and uses the laws and constants of physics when it needs them in its progression to create the physical world. In this scenario the laws and constants become parts of the Successful Self Creation process/results. They are not separate entities. It was successful. I was able to develop a complete mathematically consistent model.My essay "Clarification Of Physics--" explains this process. I would appreciate your comments on my essay. Thanks John D Crowell