• High Energy Physics
  • Anatomy of spacetime and possible origins of internal symmetry and all particle quantum numbers

Thank you to Dr. Kwan Chiang for suggesting a discussion of their recent paper Anatomy of spacetime and possible origins of internal symmetry and all particle quantum numbers which was published in Physics Essays in 2020.

Abstract:

Not driven by observations, this paper digs into the "internal workings" of spacetime. Through logical deductions, micro dimensions appear to be uncovered, with possible SU(4) or SU(5): 1. It is thought that special relativity merely initiated the definition of spacetime, but more scales are yet to be defined. 2. In the definition of spacetime, EM (electromagnetism) played another critical role, i.e., the six circular magnetic and electric field lines (running on the six planes) cross and "define equivalencies" between the four linear scales. Without this definition, light would not be measured at the same speed in different directions. Being a gauge theory, EM defines two things: Linear scales and "equivalencies" between linear scales. 3. For any scale (and their equivalencies), there could be no or many arbitrarily assumed definitions, or a concrete definition based on relevant physics. Nature would conform with but the one based on relevant physics, because Nature itself is consisted of that relevant physics. Thus, the principle: No scale and their equivalencies are meaningful unless defined by relevant physics. 4. Then, what are those fields running (and defining equivalencies between the six "angle scales") on the six planes of the 4D spacetime? It is believed to be the "classical" weak fields which run in solid angles (or "3D angles") between the six planes. (The only suspicion is that this rotation does not preserve vector length, which is not a problem ultimately.) 5. If the six angle scales are drawn as six axes of a 6D superspace, then the "3D angle" rotations look like "plane angle" rotations and cause SO(6)в€јSU(4) [or SO(10)в€јSU(5) for 5D spacetime], which appears to match baryon spectrum without quarks. 6. Since this rotation is between "planes" of the "external" spacetime, no linear dimension is visible, yet causing P-violations. 7. Similarly, fields running in 4D and 5D angle rotations (between 3D and 4D surfaces) must also exist, which may be responsible for CP-violation and strong interactions. 8. The 5D angle rotations may be generating Baryon and Lepton numbers and hence explaining their conservation behaviors, e.g., no proton decay. 9. It can be inferred, if 3D, 4D (and 5D) angle rotation fields did not exist, the 4D (and 5D) spacetime would be warped and the four (or five) linear axes would not be perpendicular to each other. 10. EM was simplified and turned elegant "only" after redefinition of spacetime by special relativity. Likewise, weak, CP-violation and strong interactions are expected to simplify and turn as elegant as EM when 2D (plane), 3D, and 4D angle scales are defined by weak, CP-violation, and strong forces, respectively. 11. Verifications as accurate as EM are expected too. 12. Mathematically, higher angle rotations thought to be inexistent only because it does not conserve vector length. Actually, they did not vanish and their symmetries would surface in particle classifications when linear momentum is not concerned. Micro dimensions being invisible is because symmetries do not have to happen between linear axes, but can happen between 2-, 3- or 4-surfaces. These geometries together generate the complete particles spectrum.

Hi Dr Kwan Chiang, thanks for sharing your works. I like the generality of your ideas. I have remarked that the majority of thinkers actually consider only this spacetime of the GR and they consider philosophically that we have only this spacetime and photons like primordial essence. So they try with the points or strings in begining in 1D and extradimensions and geometrical algebras to unify this GR and the QFT .

But if the standard is emergent from a deeper logic in codes in the particles and that the space vacuum of the DE possesses the main codes and encodes simply the photons and the cold dark matter, so the standard model does not come from the tensors , fields of this GR but from the vacuum. I know that it is difficult to change a line of reasoning but I doubt strongly that this universe has only created photons oscillating you know. Even with the strings, branes, Mtheory we cannot solve the deepest unknowns and mainly the quantum gravitation and the constant cosmological problem, if we cannot there are reasons, it is probably due to fact that the aim is not to unify G c and h , the QFT , the QM and the GR but we must superimpose the DM and the DE probably.

All the maths of geometrical algebras of Lie or clifford have been tried to renormalise the QG, but we cannot even with groups, subgroups, the non commutativity or non associativity, that proves that it lacks things and the main problem for me is philosophical about the origin. The lie groups of course are relevant in the sense that we have symmetries and that we can rank the goups, but I believe strongly that the main error is to consider these fields like origin of our topologices, geometries, matters, fields. I think that the particles are the secret in a superfluidity with 3 spacetimes superimposed and the 3D spheres like foundamental objects.

That said, congrats for your general work, you have well worked about the groups and fields to better understand the emergent QFT. Best regards

    Dear Professor Dufourny,

    Thank you for your comments. A free copy of this paper is attached for full understanding.

    Best regards,

    4 days later

    Spacetime has been postulated to account for individually differing temporal observation of the same event, according to relative distance and relative motion of the observers: It is unnecessary to assume the observers' reference frames are different Present slices of material reality, assuming that all material reality persists as the spacetime continuum. Mathematically described as 4D spacetime by H. Minkowski.

    Instead what's needed is individual receipt of sensory input from a changing but ever uni-temporal environment; into which the potential sensory data (especially EMr stimulus for our primary sense, was and is distributed.)

    The potential sensory data transmission time from Source object /s to receipt being 'reflected' in the observation product; Generated by the observer (emergent) and distinct from the external environment. Giving too emergent experienced passage of the Present time.

    The changing configuration of all existent things being foundational passage of time (categorically different and not a dimension)

    The environment where particles and material objects exist and interact, independent of observation is not the observation product spacetime......but the source environment, where potential stimuli persist, until absorbed or dissipated..; EMR, sound waves, chemicals, electric and magnetic fields) a more foundational space than the observation generated spacetime.

    The relevance of this is the "digging into the internal workings" is an examination of the wrong 'animal'. I do not know the effect of removing the time dimension on the outcomes the paper found.

      For completeness: Concerning The curved spacetime of GR. Alteration of the distribution of base existence causes the curvature of EM waves. Affecting travel time to an observer. As they can carry potential sensory data, the travel time is 'reflected' in the products generated. Which could be clock times. The generated effect not cause, is traditionally modelled as curved spacetime. Being a model of the product it isn't the foundational environment, where particles and matter exist.

      The perception generated of time difference relates to the potential sensory data processed. The clock times generated from received signals show time of signal origin. Those times, retrieved from the signal, are emergent manifestations. They are not foundational differences in time of material being/existence. The what is actually a 'sensory product' time dimension ( in SR and GR) is irrelevant to the being of particles and material objects.

      If considering existence rather than appearances, the time dimension related to sensory products can be omitted. Space is uni-temporal then. That is the same time everywhere. Each foundational time is the configuration of all that exists. Only the most recent configuration exists. Former configurations can be represented along a historical time line. Not a dimension. Detection and interactions can only happening the most recent, only existing configuration.

      A lions behaviour within its territory can be monitored Giving location probabilities, which are spatially spread out. They will also vary with time of day. Eg more likely to be resting under the favorite tree at noon. More likely near the water hole in the evening. Prediction and retrodiction can be made. Even though the lion can not be existing beyond or preceding the uni-temporal configuration of existence. For this kind of scenario an imagined line also extending beyond uni-temporal-Now is required.

        Still about the anatomy of spacetime. Max Tegmark/ 10mths ago/ Closer to truth video. How can he still trust in 4th dimensional 'spaghetti' existence notion. There is no evidence that former configurations of matter persist as well as the current configuration. There is evidence that potential sensory stimuli persist in the environment. That persistence alone accounts for non simultaneity of experience of same (Source) events.

        Having lived a nice life, the spaghetti analogy may be a pleasant thought. What if you'd suffered horribly, such as burning in an accident? The thought of persistence of that sequence of configurations of material existence is not so pleasant. The pleasantness of the personal thought of 4th dimensional existence beyond death does not make up for the lack of evidence. And that its not needed for relativity.

        Why can't I get any traction?

          Further about the lion representation. To show how it is similar to representation of a particle's location. The probability of finding the lion at each location, at each time is represented by a number. The numbers will also be affected by having another lion in the territory, according to their relationship. If two probability map sequences are drawn up, one for each lion they will seem to affect each other. I.e. not be the same as for two lone individuals. Re. the measurement problem. Trapping, shooting or otherwise encountering the lion by material interaction with it provides a singular measurement location. That supersedes the location probability map.

          Cf. Lion Location Probability Field and lion entity trapped- with QFT type representation and a particle detection.

          Observation products formed from received EMr aren't evidence of material persistence in time. Not even images formed that show likenesses of cosmological entities. Such as stars, gas clouds, even a black hole. The ability to form such images requires persistence of the EMr signals in an environment without a time dimension.

          Alteration of the distribution of base existence, in the presence of mass, causes the curvature of EM waves. Not curvature of spacetime, This is important for enabling unification of quantum physics and a theory of gravity.

          The superseding of the LLPF lion representation with the obtaining of trapped lion location information does not mean that 'collapse' of the LLPF created or caused the discreetly located lion-being to be formed. The material lion location is just a better description, once obtained. Making the location probability description superfluous.

          "Superfluous" is not the correct word. 'Redundant' or 'no longer viable' is better.

          The mass of the lion entity is not divided between different areas of high probability on the LLPF, Nor spread out over all areas of non zero probability. Every non zero area has either 100% mass or zero mass of lion. Which means there is many times the mass of the single lion in the representation, that are only possibilities of being the location of the actualized lion mass. How mass is distributed in a field representation is an important consideration for a model of quantum gravity. Maybe for each time considered, there ought to be a series of scenarios with 100% mass(speculation) at a location/area, of gradually decreasing probability.

          3 months later

          Dear Professor Dufourny,

          Sorry for delayed formal reply to your post, as it took me some time to digest your post and think about a way to communicate between drastically different schools of thinking. There are two major problems.

          The first is that it appears that the majority consider matter (particles, strings, etc.) more primary than geometry. On the contrary, I consider geometry more primary than matter. Actually, you mentioned similar thinking, "the main problem for me is philosophical about the origin." and "I believe strongly that the main error is to consider these fields like origin of our topologices, geometries, matters, fields." The second problem is that, it appears the majority take Standard Model and GR as starting points, but I doubt if they are the most natural.

          Let's consider the first problem. I think geometry is inevitably primary, because even matter-primary approach leads to geometry-primary, as all matter (particles, strings, etc.) require geometry for them to be generated (e.g. even string theory requires 11 or 26 dimensions to exist before strings can exist.)

          If geometry comes first, there is no need to look for anything beyond the 4d (or 5d) spacetime, as there "must" exist sub-geometries right under the 4d (or 5d) spacetime to support the flatness of the 4d (or 5d) spacetime (i.e. no micro dimensions needed at all). It is because for light to travel at equal speeds in different directions and for symmetry to exist thus photon generated, the 4 linear scales (x, y, z and ct) must be equivalent to each other. But 1 cm on x-axis being equal to 1cm on y-axis (or z, or ct) is NOT defined arbitrarily by hand, but must be defined by real physical fields. These real fields are just the 6 circular magnetic and electric fields running among the 4 linear scales (x, y, z and ct). Without the 6 EM fields, the 4 linear scales cannot be equivalent and light would travel at different speeds in different directions and symmetry doesn't exist and photon not generated.

          Now, what are the fields running among the 6 "planes" to define the equivalencies among the 6 "angle scales". There "must" be fields running among the 6 planes to define them, which is believed to be the "classical" weak fields. With establishment of this equivalency, an SO(6)~SU(4) (or SO(10)~SU(5) for 5d spacetime) symmetry surfaces, which is just the observed particle spectrum without quarks. There are two more layers of "sub-geometries" related to CP-violation and strong interactions and generating baryon and lepton numbers.

          Conversely, if the 6 (or 10) angle scales are not defined to be equivalent by weak fields, a full circle on xy-plane may be 360 degrees, while that on yz-plane is 362 degrees, then the 4d spacetime would be warped. This is TFUO (Theory of Fields of Unified Origin), details in the attached paper [1]. (For 11d, there are (11 x 10 / 2=) 55 surfaces and there must be rotations among the 55 angle scales to define their equivalencies, otherwise the 11d would not flat. The 55d sub-geometry should generate SO(55) spectrum, which is not observed.)

          For the second problem, I think the ultimate theory cannot surface unless Einstein's ultimate question is answered, "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible". 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. Actually, 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..." [2] (that is, it is based on one unified principle and is non-designed, but simply cannot be otherwise, e.g. electromagnetism.) All needed is to find non-designed strong-weak-EM fields and non-designed gravitation field.

          Unfortunately, neither GR and nor Standard Model is non-designed. In order to reach non-designed theories for non-EM forces, it's important that certain critical concepts must NOT be assumed, because assumption is subjective and leads to intellectual (human-, not God-) designed theories.

          Actually, two unnoticed assumptions exist in today's physics, namely, 1. Preselected inertial frames in special relativity leading to "designed" GR, and 2. Pre-assumed plane angle scales without physical definition leading to the designed Standard Model. Removal of assumption of inertial frames leads to 5d-spacetime [3] and removal of assumption of plane angle scales leads to TFUO. 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.

          To be published is the ultimate non-designed "linear" quantize-able gravitation based on the 5d-spacetime, which meets all 3 famous tests like GR. Notice that, the 3 tests: bending of light, perihelion motion of Mercury and gravitational red shift, did not test GR completely, as they are all 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 eventually joins TFUO to form the ultimate theory, which answers Einstein's ultimate question.

          Since the first problem leads un-ambiguously to the geometry-primary approach, which deduce logically step-by-step to the sub-geometry of SO(6)~SU(4) or SO(10)~SU(5) which agrees with the observed particle spectrum without quarks, and since the second problem leads to the only non-designed TFUO (for strong, weak, EM and CP-violation fields) and 5d gravitation, this theory is not just another fancy idea, but is the only ultimate choice.

          Also, I agree with your point that "I doubt strongly that this universe has only created photons." This is very true, as once switched to geometry-primary approach, we see immediately that 4d spacetime doesn't exist alone but must be supported by sub-geometries, which generate the complete particle zoo (and forces) in addition to photons.

          On the other hand, the trending approach attempting to unify two human- (not God-) designed theories is not likely fruitful.

          I came across FQXi and found this insightful institute is eager to find the ultimate UFT. I contacted FQXi, saying the long sought for theory already exists, just not noticed. All needed is dissemination. Thanks to FQXi for setting up this topic. If you have any question, we may discuss further, and if you find it makes sense your dissemination would be appreciated.

          Best regards,

          Kwan Chiang

          12/8/21

          References

          [1] 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.

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

          [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.

            Dear Professor Dufourny,

            Sorry for delayed formal reply to your post, as it took me some time to digest your post and think about a way to communicate between drastically different schools of thinking. There are two major problems.

            The first is that it appears that the majority consider matter (particles, strings, etc.) more primary than geometry. On the contrary, I consider geometry more primary than matter. Actually, you mentioned similar thinking, "the main problem for me is philosophical about the origin." and "I believe strongly that the main error is to consider these fields like origin of our topologices, geometries, matters, fields." The second problem is that, it appears the majority take Standard Model and GR as starting points, but I doubt if they are the most natural.

            Let's consider the first problem. I think geometry is inevitably primary, because even matter-primary approach leads to geometry-primary, as all matter (particles, strings, etc.) require geometry for them to be generated (e.g. even string theory requires 11 or 26 dimensions to exist before strings can exist.)

            If geometry comes first, there is no need to look for anything beyond the 4d (or 5d) spacetime, as there "must" exist sub-geometries right under the 4d (or 5d) spacetime to support the flatness of the 4d (or 5d) spacetime (i.e. no micro dimensions needed at all). It is because for light to travel at equal speeds in different directions and for symmetry to exist thus photon generated, the 4 linear scales (x, y, z and ct) must be equivalent to each other. But 1 cm on x-axis being equal to 1cm on y-axis (or z, or ct) is NOT defined arbitrarily by hand, but must be defined by real physical fields. These real fields are just the 6 circular magnetic and electric fields running among the 4 linear scales (x, y, z and ct). Without the 6 EM fields, the 4 linear scales cannot be equivalent and light would travel at different speeds in different directions and symmetry doesn't exist and photon not generated.

            Now, what are the fields running among the 6 "planes" to define the equivalencies among the 6 "angle scales". There "must" be fields running among the 6 planes to define them, which is believed to be the "classical" weak fields. With establishment of this equivalency, an SO(6)~SU(4) (or SO(10)~SU(5) for 5d spacetime) symmetry surfaces, which is just the observed particle spectrum without quarks. There are two more layers of "sub-geometries" related to CP-violation and strong interactions and generating baryon and lepton numbers.

            Conversely, if the 6 (or 10) angle scales are not defined to be equivalent by weak fields, a full circle on xy-plane may be 360 degrees, while that on yz-plane is 362 degrees, then the 4d spacetime would be warped. This is TFUO (Theory of Fields of Unified Origin), details in the attached paper [1]. (For 11d, there are (11 x 10 / 2=) 55 surfaces and there must be rotations among the 55 angle scales to define their equivalencies, otherwise the 11d would not flat. The 55d sub-geometry should generate SO(55) spectrum, which is not observed.)

            For the second problem, I think the ultimate theory cannot surface unless Einstein's ultimate question is answered, "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible". 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. Actually, 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..." [2] (that is, it is based on one unified principle and is non-designed, but simply cannot be otherwise, e.g. electromagnetism.) All needed is to find non-designed strong-weak-EM fields and non-designed gravitation field.

            Unfortunately, neither GR and nor Standard Model is non-designed. In order to reach non-designed theories for non-EM forces, it's important that certain critical concepts must NOT be assumed, because assumption is subjective and leads to intellectual (human-, not God-) designed theories.

            Actually, two unnoticed assumptions exist in today's physics, namely, 1. Preselected inertial frames in special relativity leading to "designed" GR, and 2. Pre-assumed plane angle scales without physical definition leading to the designed Standard Model. Removal of assumption of inertial frames leads to 5d-spacetime [3] and removal of assumption of plane angle scales leads to TFUO. 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.

            To be published is the ultimate non-designed "linear" quantize-able gravitation based on the 5d-spacetime, which meets all 3 famous tests like GR. Notice that, the 3 tests: bending of light, perihelion motion of Mercury and gravitational red shift, did not test GR completely, as they are all 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 eventually joins TFUO to form the ultimate theory, which answers Einstein's ultimate question.

            Since the first problem leads un-ambiguously to the geometry-primary approach, which deduce logically step-by-step to the sub-geometry of SO(6)~SU(4) or SO(10)~SU(5) which agrees with the observed particle spectrum without quarks, and since the second problem leads to the only non-designed TFUO (for strong, weak, EM and CP-violation fields) and 5d gravitation, this theory is not just another fancy idea, but is the only ultimate choice.

            Also, I agree with your point that "I doubt strongly that this universe has only created photons." This is very true, as once switched to geometry-primary approach, we see immediately that 4d spacetime doesn't exist alone but must be supported by sub-geometries, which generate the complete particle zoo (and forces) in addition to photons.

            On the other hand, the trending approach attempting to unify two human- (not God-) designed theories is not likely fruitful.

            I came across FQXi and found this insightful institute is eager to find the ultimate UFT. I contacted FQXi, saying the long sought for theory already exists, just not noticed. All needed is dissemination. Thanks to FQXi for setting up this topic. If you have any question, we may discuss further, and if you find it makes sense your dissemination would be appreciated.

            Best regards,

            Kwan Chiang

            12/8/21

            References

            [1] 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.

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

            [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.

              Hello Dr Chiang,

              I am intrigued too about your ideas , the fact to consider these geometries like primordial essence .I consider like I told you a different line of thoughts indeed about the origin of our universe. If the geometry is primary, so it could be relevant indeed to correlate the deformations of spheres 3D with the symplectomorphims preserving the volumes. If we have for example a superfluidity for our 3 spacetimes superimposed and that the main geometrical and topological codes are in this space vacuum and that the photons and the cold dark matter made too of series finite of spheres merge with this vacuum to create these topologies and geonetries, so the primary geomtry can be taken like a sphere and after all the combinations can be applied to create all kind of geometries.

              So indeed it seesm relevamt your idea considering the 4D and 5D, I have made a littkle bit the same considering a pure 3D at all scales with these spheres like foundamental objects.

              I discussed with the team of klee irwin with Garet lisi, ray ascheim, david chester, fang fang.... about all this, they consider mainly the geometrical algebras and the strings or points in 1D to begin, they try to renormalise the quantum gravitation like this with two E8 superimposed. I respect their ideas but for me their philosophy considering the fields like origin and this GR alone cannot quantify this QG even with this non associativity, groups, subgroups and the non commutativity, they try to converge with the works of witten and the extradimensions , 10d, 11d, 26d, but that does not permit to renormalise.

              What you tell is very intriguing " With establishment of this equivalency, an SO(6)~SU(4) (or SO(10)~SU(5) for 5d spacetime) symmetry surfaces, which is just the observed particle spectrum without quarks. There are two more layers of "sub-geometries" related to CP-violation and strong interactions and generating baryon and lepton numbers." I asked me if you have already thought to correlate this with the problem of gluons and the mass.

              Personally I like your ideas going farer than the 5D kaluza klein theory the precurssor of the strings theory, you are innovative in the sense to consider the geometry like primary, that could converge maybe with my humble reasoning considering the spheres like primary and the superfluidity of 3 spacetimes if we have specific series for these spheres.

              All this implies so a kind of partition about the geomtry like you tell and specific rankings for the fields, particles , dimensions, in just superimposing the DM and the DE instead to consider only this GR.The EFE so can be considered of course for the GR and the 4D but we can take a pure 3D like primary and this 5D for the metrics. In all the cases, this 4D and 5D so become tools to better understand this 3D and this primary geometry.

              I asked me if the scalar tensor theory and the geonetrical algebras of Lie and specially this E8 could answer to a general primary puzzle if we take so the 3 main finite series of 3D spheres and after 3 E8 in considering so the main codes geometrical and topological of Spheres in this vacuum. Maybe the particles, the fields, the 3 spacetimes could be better understood in replacing the points or strings by these series. In all case, if the series merge to create this baryonic matter ands that the number is preserved and that the volumes don t change, that become relevant about the densities, motions, rotations, oscillations of these spherical volumes, and so your geometry like primary could too converge.

              Maybe the philosophy too is essential and in fact we have unfortunally many limitations, we don t know really. But your idea of 2 humans is interesting and the subgeometries, I had never see this kind of reasoning before, so thanks for sharing.