The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science

(cont.)

The equations that represent the laws of nature do not represent anything active, i.e. the equations do not represent the act of changing the numbers that apply to some of the variables. You need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to represent the act of jumping the numbers i.e. assigning new numbers to variables.

And the equations that represent the laws of nature do not represent who or what is acting, who or what is actively changing/ jumping the numbers. Who or what is actively assigning numbers to the variables is relevant in the question of who or what was GENUINELY responsible for flying the planes into the twin towers: was it the laws of nature jumping the numbers, or are people GENUINELY responsible for jumping the numbers? Clearly people are GENUINELY responsible for jumping their own numbers for their own variables.

Tom, don't ask a question: you need to go to the trouble of making a clear case that supports your point of view, whatever your point of view is; you need to provide an argument; for a start, you need to define what an equation is; and also, you need to say who creates, writes, discerns and manipulates equations.

John, you'll have to do much better than a jumble of words: you need to make a clearly defined argument that supports a clearly defined case, if you can.

Tom and John,

The physics' equations that represent the law of nature relationships only work as a representation of the world BECAUSE physicists discern the symbols and physicists move and change the symbols. The equations only represent a moving system because of the consciousness and agency of physicists. Physicists are part of the system of representation. To symbolically represent a STANDALONE system, you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to replace the consciousness and agency of physicists. (Clearly these extra, but necessary, symbols represent the consciousness and agency aspects required in order for a standalone world to exist.)

Prove me wrong. Make a case, make an argument.

Serious problem with the SR explanation for the Lorentz force. In the case of a charged particle in proximity to current carrying wire, Two reference frames are considered A) AND B). A is considering the electrons in the wire to be moving and the free charge keeping up with same speed and direction. B) the electrons are considered to be at rest, as the current flows. As if the electron's point of view. In frame A) the electrons and particle are moving So magnetic fields occur and their interaction gives the Lorentz force. B) no moving electrons in wire. Charged particle at rest. There aren't the magnetic fields that occurred in A). The SR solution I have found on various videos is; As the electrons in the wire aren't moving there is less length contraction of them than when moving .There is also length contraction of the positive ions of the wire. Affecting charge density. The wire neutral in frame A) is charged in B). Electric fields provide Lorentz force.

The big problem, not to do with 'alternative' physics, is the speed of the electrons in the wire. Although current is close to light speed, when a circuit is complete ,the electrons themselves move slowly due to resistance. This is very much slower than the speed of light. For a dc circuit, electrons move at a fraction of a centimeter per second. Too slow for length contraction to be a significant factor.

Physicists seem to imagine that they can look at the world as if the physicist were outside of the world looking in. The physics' equations that represent the law of nature relationships are physics way of claiming that the physicist can externalise himself from the world. But these equations do not take account of the physicist.

What does "taking account of the physicist" actually mean? Taking account of the physicist actually means that physicists' consciousness of the equations that represent the law of nature relationships, and physicists' agency in manipulating the equations that represent the law of nature relationships, are part of the system, part of the world. You can't externalise these aspects of the world.

Consciousness and agency can't be externalised, as though they are not a part of the system. This is what "taking account of the physicist" actually means. And the only way to symbolically represent the steps that are part of both consciousness and agency is via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

The big problem, not to do with 'alternative' physics, is the speed of the electrons in the wire. Although current is close to light speed, when a circuit is complete ,the electrons themselves move slowly due to resistance. This is very much slower than the speed of light. For a dc circuit, electrons move at a fraction of a centimeter per second. Too slow for length contraction to be a significant factor.

Thought experiment: A row of very many electroscopes are placed along the wire. Frame A) electrons passing by the un-deflected gold leaves, as wire is neutral. According to the SR 'explanation': the electrons at rest pass by the electroscopes with deflected/ repelled from each other, gold leaves, as the wire is charged. This is different physics happening for the two different reference frames.

Correction (in bold): According to the SR 'explanation': the electrons at rest are passed by the moving electroscopes with deflected/ repelled from each other, gold leaves, as the wire is charged. This is different physics happening for the two different reference frames.

I've read (various sources) that length contraction becomes important at 1/10 the speed of light. Approx. 30,000 km/s. Compare

"The individual electron velocity in a metal wire is typically millions of kilometers per hour. In contrast, the drift velocity is typically only a few meters per hour while the signal velocity is a hundred million to a trillion kilometers per hour." via https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2014/02/19/what-is-the-speed-of-electricity/ ,Published: February 19, 2014 'What is the speed of electricity'

In reference frame B) the electrons are considered stationary. So individual speed between collisions or drift speed collectively doesn't matter. However, movement of the ions relative to the electrons has to be drift velocity as they are fixed in the wire and can not be taking 'zig zagging' paths like the individual electrons The electrons collectively are passed by the fixed in the wire ions at drift velocity.

" B) no moving electrons in wire. Charged particle at rest. There aren't the magnetic fields that occurred in A)." GW.

That could be clearer. In B) the electrons are considered stationary and the positive ions to pass by...As the ions seem to be moving. A magnetic field is attributable to them. The free charged particle is considered at rest, so has no magnetic field....Two magnetic fields, the wire's and the free particle's, need to interact for the Lorentz force to happen due to magnetism. Yet the Lorentz force does act. The reason behind the 'electric charge explanation'.

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.