The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science

Re. the electroscopes thought experiment. It should not according Relativity be possible to conduct an experiment that would enable an 'observer' to be aware of which reference frame it is in. Leaving aside that electrons and other charged particles can't actually see or be aware of the electroscopes. Your Thoughts?

Modified statement from earlier. movement of the ions relative to the electrons has to be drift velocity as they are fixed in the wire, and moving counter to the electrons collectively. Your Thoughts' on the slow speed issue?

Without a free particle moving with the wire's electron's, just to judge whether the wire is charged:

In the frame with the flowing electrons considered at rest, the electroscopes will seem to pass by. A tiny camera, without charge, could be made to travel along the wire to observe the electroscopes. At drift velocity of the electrons. (As the electrons of the wire are not capable of observing the electroscopes.) The camera could be pulled by attaching it to a distant motor. Another camera of the same type could serve as the lab bench frame.

The electroscopes must give the same charge/no charge indication for both reference frames. Or there would have to be an explanation of how a device can be seen to perform differently according to reference frame. Repulsion of gold leaves and no repulsion are different physics occurring in the same device.

Georgina,

Have you come across any references of drift velocity in arc lighting or arc welding? There seems to be an ambiguity as to whether drift is free electrons moving along the surface of the conductor, or that electrons get displaced in atomic structure towards the electrical ground side of the circuit. And this also applies in non-arcing systems such as 'house current' which is cyclic alternating direction of EMP, the line voltage conducted typically by a black insulation identification and the neutral return identified with white; ground fault safety is by code, green. Some time ago I found some info that worked out to about 10 meters per second for electrons going to ground (literally; earth) across an arc gap with a voltage of 110/220 load, but I was never confident it was an empirically derived value. I like Einstein's statement that is still relevant, "I would just like to know what an electron IS!" :-) jrc

To get a clear view of the electroscope response, it's going to be better if it is pulled along the wire with the camera. A tiny one too. It will be in the electrons' and camera rest frame. Instead of the fixed row.

No John I haven't looked for arcing or lightning drift velocity. What's perplexing me at Present is, I can't find agreement online of whether or not there is an electric field alongside (lengthways) a current carrying wire. Lots of differing opinions and reasons. Confused by the lack of consensus

Hi john, I've watched a video explaining that the 'pinball' idea of current is obsolete. No zig zagging then. It promotes a wave idea of an electron instead. Resistance stemming from disturbance of the regular wave pattern due to displaced or missing ions or impurities. Not from collision with correctly positioned lattice ions. I'd still rather have electron particles with associated wave-like those bouncing droplets.

It also goes on to describe layers of ions and electron flows. Which makes me think of surface charge density. The surface, by that description is either a layer of ions or a layer of electron flow. So shouldn't the surface be charged one way or the other? Because of the charge separation. Though for the whole cross section there are equal no.s of and - charges?? Does the field of the non surface particles (and or waves) neutralize the, or -, field of the surface?

Georgi,

I don't know.

Is there a pattern behind prime numbers?

The ultimate UFT should be obtained from un-designed theories, which are not Standard Model or General Relativity

Regarding Ultimate Reality, it is most likely hidden in Einstein's ultimate question, "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible".

1, My interpretation is that the great master wouldn't believe the world is intellectual designed, but he couldn't explain why it looks as orderly designed and who designed it. While he didn't give an answer, it's an insightful direction and I don't think it's unanswerable.

2, In fact, Weinberg answered it half way in a prescription for the theory of everything, "... [it] has to be simple ... equations that are based on a simple physical principle ... it has to give us the feeling that it could scarcely be different from what it is..." [1]. That is, it is based on one unified principle and is non-designed (no designer), but simply cannot be otherwise, e.g. EM.)

3, Therefore, the problem is not that Einstein's question cannot be answered, but that, for non-EM forces, there DOES NOT YET EXIST non-designed theories. (Unfortunately, neither standard model nor GR is non-designed.) If non-designed theories for these forces are found, Einstein's question would be answered.

4, In order to reach non-designed theories, it's important that certain concepts must NOT be assumed, because assumptions are subjective and lead to intellectual (human-, not God-) designed theories.

5, Actually, two unnoticed assumptions exist in today's physics, namely, 1. Pre-assumed plane angle scales (i.e. pre-assumed space flatness, axes perpendicularity and existence of symmetry) without physical definition, which leads to "designed" Standard Model. When we wonder why Standard Model looks like designed. The reason is simple: because it is in fact designed, not by God, but by ourselves. 2. Preselected inertial frames in special relativity leading to "designed" GR.

6, Let's consider the first assumption, "pre-assumed plane angle scales". Take 4d spacetime (and EM) as an example. Special Relativity used light speed to define the 4 linear scales. Not mentioned explicitly is the 6 circular magnetic and electric fields running among the 4 axes which define the "equivalencies" among the 4 axes. Without this definition, light would not be measured at equal speeds in different directions, rotational symmetry would not exist and photons cannot be generated.

7, Then, what are the fields running among the 6 "planes" to define the equivalencies among the 6 "angle scales". Just like linear scales, these equivalencies cannot be assumed, but "must" be defined by real physical fields running among the 6 planes. These fields are conjectured to be the "classical" weak fields. We may say these fields are running in solid (3d-) angles among planes (2d-surfaces). When equivalencies among angle scales are thus defined, an SO(6)~SU(4) (or SO(10)~SU(5) for 5d spacetime) symmetry surfaces, which is just the observed particle spectrum (without quarks). The relation between weak fields and plane angle scales are exactly that between EM and linear scales, making weak fields as un-designed as EM.

8, Likewise, there are two more levels of sub-geometries: fields running in 4d-angles among 3d-surfaces (conjectured to be CP-violation fields) and fields running in 5d-angles among 4d-surfaces (conjectured to be strong fields). Rotations in 5d-angles are believed to be causing baryon and various lepton numbers. The relations "between CP-violation fields and 3d-angle scales" and "between strong fields and 4d-angle scales" are also the same as that "between EM and linear scales", making CP-violation and strong fields as un-designed as EM. Details are in reference [2], "Theory of Fields of Unified Origin (TFUO)". More discussions are also in FQXi forum topic Anatomy of spacetime and possible origins of internal symmetry and all particle quantum numbers under category "High Energy Physics".

9, If the 6 (or 10) angle scales are not defined to be equivalent to each other by weak fields, a full circle on xy-plane may be 360 degrees, while that on yz-plane may be 362 degrees, then the 4d-spacetime would be warped and perpendicularity of axes cannot exist and symmetry would not surface. More accurately, without TFUO (or 3 levels of sub-geometries), linear spacetime on top would be warped and perpendicularity of axes cannot exist and symmetry would not surface.

10, In TFUO, strong, weak, CP-violation and EM fields are all originated from the same principle as Weinberg prescribed (each defining a critical scale). EM would be as complicated as other forces if not for the change of geometry by Special Relativity. What sub-geometries do to other forces is exactly the same thing as what Special Relativity does to EM. At the same time, complete particle zoo is generated from all layers of geometries. This is a big achievement through removal of assumption of automatic equivalencies of plane angle scales (i.e. automatic space flatness, or axes perpendicularity, or symmetry presence). We see assumption often deprives us of otherwise present possibility to uncover real nature of physics.

11, It is important to emphasize that, whether 4d, 5d, 11d, or 26d, there cannot be automatic flatness of space, automatic perpendicularity of axes and automatic symmetry, unless sub-geometries exist to support them. (It may be possible in mathematics but not in physics, because two persons could define differently, but physics will only follow what is defined by Nature). Take 11d as an example, if the (11x10/2=) 55 plane angle scales are not defined equivalent to each other by physical fields running among them, then the space would be warped and perpendicularity of the 11 axes is lost and the 11d symmetry would not exist. Simply put, the wished-for 11d symmetry wouldn't exist if sub-geometries don't exist. But if sub-geometries exist, 11d micro dimensions are no longer needed, because the sub-geometries already offer all the symmetries needed for particle spectrum. In fact, the 11 micro dimensions are never observed. (Also, the sub-geometry of 55 planes should generate SO(55) spectrum, which is not observed either.)

12, Let's consider the second assumption, "preselected inertial frames". It's well known inertial (uniform) frames are "preselected" before spacetime scales are defined to verify uniformity in SR. Removal of this assumption leads unambiguously to the "objective" 5d spacetime [3].

13, What is done here (and in sub-geometries/TFUO) is to restore the original Nature hidden behind assumptions. Without this restoration, it's highly doubtful quantum gravity and ultimate UFT can be successful.

14, To be published is the ultimate 5d non-designed gravitation (NDG), which is "linear" and quantize-able. It meets all 3 tests of GR. Note that, the 3 tests (bending of light, perihelion motion of Mercury and gravitational red shift) did not test GR completely, as they are based on Schwarzschild solution with Einstein/stress-energy tensor set to 0. This means the exact "non-0 expression" of Einstein/stress-energy tensor has not been tested, since a different expression (e.g. this 5d linear gravitation) could work just as well, as long as it can be set to 0 in these situations. The 5d gravitation joins TFUO to form the ultimate theory, which answers Einstein's question.

15, This should "not" be just another fancy idea, but is THE long-sought-for ultimate theory, as: 1. It meets Weinberg's prescription above, as all forces originate from the same principle (i.e. each defining a critical scale). 2. It is able to answer Einstein's ultimate question, as intellectual designer is eliminated in this non-designed theory of forces and particles, just as EM and photons. 3. While more verifications are needed, the symmetry, SU(4) or SU(5), already meets particle spectrum without quarks. 4. Linear gravity can be quantized. 5. The strongest evidence is that no micro dimensions are observed for any symmetry for standard model or string theory or whatsoever. On the other hand, sub-geometries are the most (or the only) plausible explanation for particle spectrum and forces.

With TFUO, we may be in a position to answer Einstein's question and the Ultimate Reality. The triplet: spacetime (with sub-geometries), forces and particles, come together. There is no hard cored particles, they feel like hard cored only because they have half spin, otherwise they would overlap on each other just like photons. (There is no real material objects, all stem from spacetime conceptually.) There is no other creator in the universe. As long as we are in a 4d- or 5d-spacetime, the same particles and forces would surface automatically. The world is like standardized vehicles (particles) powered by standardized engines (forces) running on standardized highways (spacetime and sub-geometries).

Therefore, when I came across FQXi and found it was eager to uncover the ultimate theory, I contacted them, saying the ultimate theory already exists, all needed is just "dissemination" and verification. Thanks to Professor Schindler for setting up a forum topic under High Energy Physics on Sep 9, 2021. Since this is also the key step toward the Ultimate Reality, I take this chance to post this from the perspective of Ultimate Reality.

Since the paper attached seems not working, anyone can send an email to: qchiang2@yahoo.com , I will send a free copy from there.

References

[1] Steven Weinberg, "Will a theory of everything reign?", TIME April 10, 2000, p. 86.

[2] Kwan C. Chiang, "Anatomy of spacetime and possible origins of internal symmetry and all particle quantum numbers", Physics Essays, Vol. 33, N.3 p342-347, 2020.

[3] K. C. Chiang: "A Unified Gravitation and Quantum Mechanical Space-Time Structure through a Unified Origin of Inertial and Gravitational Masses and a discussion of the Foundation of Special Relativity", Il Nuovo Cimento Vol. 68B, N.2 p322, 1982.

here is the paper attached.

Giving up spacetime local realism. Re. the ERP argument that predicted variables are elements of reality:---

Finding the state or measurement of a variable is not like pulling a 'magic' existing rabbit from a hat. Such a rabbit must be in the hat prior to extraction. Instead it's more like determining (or predicting) how long the rabbit remains calm or how long it struggles upon removal. The two determinations are mutually exclusive. Like position and momentum. Calm is not struggling. Struggling is not calm. The descriptions of the rabbits behaviour are new observation products. They are not the same as a material existing rabbit.

Experiments could be conducted using pairs of tame rabbits put into two hats and likewise pairs of untamed rabbits likely to struggle. (Ignoring the freeze response . This is analogy, not about real rabbit behaviour.)-------------In a uni-temporal existential reality there is no after extraction state prior to extraction happening. There is not a prior to extraction post extraction observation product in the universe. ( Unlike in the space time continuum model.) -----That does not mean there is no existing rabbit in Object reality. A prediction of what the result would be if measured is not an observation product. The prediction (A would if) depends upon there being an existing rabbit of a like pair. The observation product depends on the extraction and behaviour determination. The prediction is neither existential noumenal rabbit nor observation product phenomenon. It is a maybe, imagined. Not an element of either reality.

To clarify " The ERP paper describes an 'element of reality' thusly- "IF an observable property of a system could be predicted with absolute certainty (100%) without disturbing that system, THEN it must correspond with an element of reality." Bell's Theorem with Easy Math By David R. Schneider www.DrChinese.com

This statement does not define 'reality. It tacitly assumes reality of the spacetime continuum idea. No speculation that elements of reality could exist elsewhere.

Using a spacetime continuum as model of the universe: A 100% certain prediction does correspond to an element of reality . As the future is as real as the present. Using a uni-temporal 'evolving' model there is no real future. So the prediction, However certain is only maybe. There could be unforeseen circumstances that prevent the measurement being made.

Unforeseen circumstances can apply to both models of the universe. The difference: 1. Spacetime continuum -most likely a corresponding element of reality is part of the continuum. 2. Uni-temporal 'evolving" universe -no correspondence to an element of reality until the necessary evolution has occurred. I,e. The predicted is manifest as present.

Demise of the counterfactual: Following location / momentum argument. This indicates the unreality of counterfactual measurement results. (Might have beens.) Firstly, considering phenomenal reality, the not measured/observed does not qualify as an observation product reality. Secondly, undertaking one kind of measurement prevents taking another different kind as well.. Noumenal reality can not support simultaneous existence of both conditions giving both results. There is just one configuration of all existence at any time. Like in the double slit experiment; a choice must be made. Detect individual particles at the slits, or have a screen. Choosing one noumenal reality prevents the other possibility. And with that exclusion, exclusion of the possibility of obtaining its corresponding observation product/measurement result.

A coin toss : For the observation product (H) to be generated (single sided, corresponding to just the EM radiation reflected from the coins exposed material surface, when the coin toss protocol is carried out) the configuration of the existing elements of noumenal Object reality must be such that material observer and exposed surface of the coin object (H) are in unimpeded alignment that allows Emr transfer.--An alignment with surface (T) requires a different configuration of the uni-temporal universe. i.e. it can only be at a different configuration of the universe; a different time, if at all.

The possibility of a different outcome because of a second side is not enough for the counterfactual result to be considered real. (Requiring that not realized relation with the observer, that would result in manifestation of (T) observation product )

Prior to evolution of the universe into a configuration that provides a singular sided observation product, either is a possibility. In this scenario, due to the two sided material, noumenal double-sided template.

Different 'quantum spin outcomes: Each requires a different evolution of the universe.

That is addressing-'Where are the results ( Observation products/ measurements)) not obtained, that could have/might have been?

About representation. Re. the measurement problem: when should the template potential (for alternative outcome products) due to existing, material, noumenal Object reality, be given up prior to manifestation of a singular observation/ measurement result (phenomenal product)?

Superposition of outcome states has neither noumenal nor phenomenal reality. It can be considered a place holder for unknown evolution of the configuration of the uni-temporal universe; A 'black box' happening.

Using the rabbit from a hat analogy- the superposition of states is not a material rabbit, It is struggling and being calm; mutually exclusive states. In a uni-temporal universe one state evolves as there is only one configuration of existing noumenal reality from which the observed/measured result (phenomenon) is produced. The 'picture' of a superposition of outcome states taking both branches of an apparatus, for example, should not be taken literally/exactly. It is representing a situation where there is or was potential for a system to evolve in different ways, that would produce different outcomes. Yet it is not known when exactly the system has moved such that one particular outcome becomes inevitable. It remains as an abstract place holder (for a representation of what is actually happening- that we don't have) until the observation/measurement is produced. State production (preceding observation) is enough to know the former duel potential is lost

Re. the measurement problem What/when is the physical happening that corresponds to wavefunction collapse?

Reply: Superposition of outcome states has neither noumenal nor phenomenal reality. Using the rabbit from a hat analogy- the superposition of states is not a material rabbit, It is struggling and being calm; mutually exclusive states. This means a superposition can not be interacting with the existing environment, causing collapse to a singular state. Therefore perhaps a different question should be asked. It can be considered a place holder for unknown evolution of the configuration of the universe ,A 'black box' happening. When should the template potential (existing, material, noumenal Object reality) be given up prior to manifestation of a singular observation/ measurement result (phenomenal product)?