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.
Anatomy of spacetime and possible origins of internal symmetry and all particle quantum numbers
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.
Max? Why?
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.
Hi Georgina, It well said what you tell about the unification of the QM and a theory of gravitation, all is there indeed. The main actual problem is always to try to unify G c and h in considering only this GR and photons. I have difficulties to understand why they focus only on this in fact the majority of thinkers, like if our baryonic matter and QM is just due to the fields , tensors ...of this GR. Maybe the strings, fields and GR have created a philosophical prison, maybe they just consider that the universe before was an infinite heat and so after photons only and strings or points inside in 1D. It is odd because this philosophy cannot solve our deepest unknowns.
I believe strongly that the photons are just a piece of puzzle and are just a tool for the universe, they just permit to observe because without light we cannot observe and see, they permit in being encoded in spomething that we need to better understand to explain the heat and electromagnetism with the bosonic fields, but they are not for me the primary essence, thay are just a tool, just photons. The spacetime of this GR is at my opinion just a part, it is the thing that we observe simply actually but if we have the two other spacetimes to superimpose, the DM and the DE, all is more simple and logic. That can permit too to better understand the informations in their primary essence fruthermore.
I iked the idead of Dr Chiang about the geometry like primary cause, it is innovative , it is different instead of always these fields.
Regards
I have shared Dr Chiang this page and your work on facebook, several thinkers are interested to know more.
This paper cannot be opened,sorry. Are there a better link?
Ulla Mattfolk.
Can you tell more about the subgeometries? Thx. Ulla Mattfolk.
Dear Professor Dufourny,
It appears that your idea (same as the majority) is based on automatic perpendicularity of all axes, whether there are 4, 5, 11, or 26 dimensions, while my point is that all axes cannot be automatically perpendicular unless plane angle scales are defined by a natural force to avoid spacetime being warped, just like linear scales are by the 6 magnetic and electric fields to avoid different light speeds in different directions. In other words, dimensionality actually cannot exist unless plane angle scales are defined by natural forces.
I always worry about the definition of everything. This is what Special Relativity is all about. If space and time were not re-defined, there would be no SR. SR worries about linear scale definitions, I worry about angle scale definitions. More accurately, I worry about the "equivalencies" of angle scale definitions on different planes.
While it is the option of any physicist to choose what to research, I personally is not optimistic about unifying Standard Model with General Relativity, as they are both human- (not God-) designed theories.
Thanks for sharing on Facebook.
Best regards,
Kwan Chiang
Hi Dr Chiang,
Yes indeed It is there that your idea about a natural force and the non perpendicular axes is relevant and innovative.I understand so these causes implying the spacetime and the standard model with the different light speeds and directions. So indeed the plane angle scales seem interesting. I have in my model like I told you considered not only the photons like primary essence, I believe they are just a fuel , they permit of course this GR and the correlated spacetime that we observe with the EFE, they imply the heat and thermo and lectromagnetic forces of our standard model but like you I consider deeper natural causes and forces.
I have thought too about these angles scales with my theory and these 3D spheres , I have considered the main codes in this space vacuum made too of series of Spheres and so the angles, perpendicularities and non perpendicularities can too be correlated considering the geonetrical and topological codes.It is the meaning of the tool that I have invencted, the spherical geometrical topological algebras.
Returning about the main forces and causes philosophical and ontological of this reality, I have considered a kind of infinite eternal consciousness in 0D beyond this physicality and paradoxally is everywhere too . This universe in 3D more a time of evolution correlated with the motions seems made of particles for me in a superfluidity due to specific series of particles, spheres 3D. I have simply considered the number of these series the same than our cosmological finite series of Spheres, oddly I have calculated it approachs the dirac large number.If we consider so specific volumes , that implies a superfluidity and all is in contact and the fields, waves, motions rotations oscillations of particles , the 3 main systems can be ranked and understood in a pure newtonian mechanics.
I am always too worried about the definition of everything. It is essential but unfortunally the limitations are a reality, in physics, maths like in philosophy. I like your angle scales researchs, it seems foundamental indeed . It is there that the deformations in my model of these 3D spherical volumes are important. So it is not flows or tensors of this GR the cause but the codes theoretic of this space vacuum. I have a fith force too and I have reached this quantum gravitation with this reasoning when the 3 series merge to create this baryonic matter.
I beleive like you that the aim is not to unify the GR and the SM , but we must go farer in considering this DE and DM, the problem is just technological and about our observations and measurements at this moment.
I have difficulties to understand why the majority of thinkers consider only the photons and this GR and strings or points now and the geometrical algebras of hpf, clifford or Lie to try to unigy G c and h, the QFT ,the GR, the SM. It lacks foundmental peices to add , that is why I find your work innovative and different about the perpendicularities, the angles scales.....and also the philosophy with this natural force. These equivalences indeed ........
Dear Professor Mattfolk,
Sorry, not sure why the attachment cannot be opened. I am attaching an earlier pdf version and a WORD version. See if any works.
I will write more about the sub-geometries soon.
Kwan Chiang
12/12/21
Dear Professor Mattfolk,
Sorry, it appears neither version works, probably because something wrong in the interface between my computer and FQXi site.
If you can send me an email at: qchiang2@yahoo.com , I can send you a copy from there. Thanks.
Best regards,
Kwan Chiang
12/12/21
Dear Professor Mattfolk,
Yes, the sub-geometries are critical. Just like linear scales, if there are not 6 magnetic and electric fields running among the 4 linear axes to define the equivalencies among the 4 linear scales, light would not be measured at equal speeds in different directions, symmetry would not happen and photon would not be generated.
In the same way, there must be fields running among the 6 planes to define equivalencies among the 6 plane angle scales. Otherwise, a full circle on xy-plane may be 360 degrees while that on yz-plane is 362 degrees and the space is warped and the 4 linear axes are not perpendicular to each other. There is SO(6)~SU(4) symmetry from this sub-geometry. It's SO(10)~SU(5) for 5d spacetime.
These fields (conjectured to be weak fields) may be called solid (3d-) angle rotation fields, which run among plane (2d-) angle scales. One level deeper is 4d-angle rotation fields (CP-violation fields), which run among solid (3d-) angle scales. Yet another level deeper is 5d-angle rotation fields (strong fields), which run among 4d-angle scales. Without these 3 levels of sub-geometries, the linear spacetime on top would be warped and no perpendicularity among axes.
For 11 dimensions, there are 55 planes and 55 plane angle scales, which require real fields running among them to define their equivalencies. Without real fields running, the 11d space is warped and 11 axes cannot be perpendicular. But, it seems string physicists simply assume the 11 dimensions are "automatically" perpendicular, which is NOT possible.
Actually, there is no need of micro dimensions at all, as the 3 levels of sub-geometries already generate complete SO(10)~SU(5) particle spectrum without quarks.
Best regards,
Kwan Chiang
12/12/21