Anatomy of spacetime and possible origins of internal symmetry and all particle quantum numbers

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?

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.

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

Dear Professor Dufourny,

Thank you sharing your ideas, although I don't quite understand. It seems interesting as it is related to the large numbers of Dirac, which I thought about sometime as well. I believe there should be a relation between these numbers. If there are other universes, these numbers could be different, but the relation should hold.

By the way, I am not quite sure about the meanings of these abbreviations: EFE, DE, DM. Thanks for explanation.

Best regards,

Kwan Chiang

12/13/21

Hi Dr Chiang,

I have searched answers since the age of 18 , I am 46 years old,I have so read the religious books but of course it was not sufficient and I find these religions not the truths. I have after read the philosophes , I like kant and spinoza but they are too limited about the origin of this universe, so I have ranked the sciences, maths, animalsm vegetals, minerals, chemistry , biology, evolution...and it is like this that I found my theory of spherisation, an evolution optimisation of the universal sphere or future sphere with quantum and cosmological 3D spheres. I consider an infinite eternal consciousness before this physicality, I don t know why this thing has decided to create this universe but I have remarked enormous philosophical problems in considering only the photons, the strings and the general relativity and the einstein fields equations.

That is why I consider a central cosmological sphere in 3D , a kind of super matter energy able to send all informations in the series of 3D spheres. If I have considered these series having the dirac large number, it is simply because I have calculated this number of cosmological spheres and it approachs this dirac large number, and so I have consider liek an universal choice the same number for these series. I have considered 3 main finite series , the serie of this Dark energy for the main codes of the vacuum and the 2 others are like fuels , the photons and the cold dark matter . I have considered simply that the photons had more energy than mass and the DM the opposite and when they are encoded in this vacuum possessing the main codes, so they create the baryonic matter. I have considered when they merge that the number does not change, nor the volumes, so it becomes relevant for the motions oscillations, densities, senses of rotations, angles......like I told you the deformations are made with the codes of this vacuum and they preserve the volumes with the synplectomorphisms.

I have remarked in considering a kind of infinite eternal cosnciousness that we have problems with the fields and oscillations of photons only, it seems not possible considering a kind of god , of course it is just my opinion, I don t affirm to possess the truth, but if a thing having been able to create a so complex universe with oscillations and fields , so this thing was able to create a more perfect universe more quickly and it is not the case, this thing that we cannot define has not made this and fruthermore it does not stop for exmple a murderer or other sad things with oscillations, so it is not possible for me that we have the fields , strings and oscillations to explain these topologies, geometries and this emergent consciousness.

For the multiverse I have thought about this, indeed the maths of Tegmark or others seems to imply this, but we don t know and already this universe we don t know well, so there are for me speculations not proved , and even with multiverse, we return at a kind of uniqueness if all is connected with this unique infinity. In fact all this is beyond our understanding still.

You know Dr Chiang, I believe that our main error is really to consider the philosophy alone of this GR, and photons. The universe seems more complex than this and if the universe has 3 spacetimes due to the dark matter and the dark energy superimposed in a superfluidity due to specific volumes for the 3 main series, that permits to return at this old school for the motions of particles instead of fields like primary essence, your idea so interest me in the sense that the primoary geometry can be the shere and so your subgeometries could converge.

Best Regards

You know Dr Chiang, I don t affirm of course about this infinite eternal consciousness, I respect the persons having chosen an other line of reasoning like a mathematical accident from a kind of infinite heat. But The hard problem of consciousness like other problems seem to need this parameter.

Why we exist, why we are , from what ? what is this universe really and why ? it seems that we are simply in a kind of project in evolution and that we are tools due to this consciousness like the particles and the comsological spheres too are tools . The energy is transformed and the informations and this evolution permit a specific universal mechanism. We don t know a lot still , we just analyse soem emergent properties with the electromagnetis, the general relativity, the thermodynamcis,....we have many things to add , the problem unfortunally is limitations in knowledges and in philosophy but the generality of the QM and the cosmology and philosophy give us roads .we try after all to add concrete pieces to this puzle in hoping to converge with the truths rationally speaking.

Dear Professor Mattfolk,

I am deducing the logic leading to the sub-geometries step by step here.

1, I think the ultimate theory is hidden behind Einstein's question, "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible", since this is a question about the ultimate nature of physics. 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. Even though Einstein didn't give an answer, it still offered a direction and I don't think this is an unanswerable question.

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, but simply cannot be otherwise, e.g. electromagnetism.)

3, Therefore, the problem is not that Einstein's question cannot be answered, but that, for strong, weak and gravitation forces, there exists no theory as un-designed as EM. (Unfortunately, neither standard model nor general relativity looks as un-designed.)

4, In order to reach un-designed theories, it's important to note that certain critical concepts must NOT be assumed, because assumption is subjective and leads 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. automatic 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. What does it mean by "pre-assumed plane angle scales"? Take 4d spacetime (and EM) as an example. Special Relativity used light speed to define the 4 linear scales. What was not mentioned 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 "plane 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 plane angle scales are defined by 3d-angle rotation fields, 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 the same as 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, which is conjectured to be CP-violation fields, and fields running in 5d-angles among 4d-surfaces, which is conjectured to be strong fields. Rotations in 5d-angles are believed to be causing baryon and various lepton numbers. The "relation between CP-violation fields and 3d-angle scales" and "the relation 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)".

9, 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 may be 362 degrees, then the 4d-spacetime would be warped and perpendicularity of axes cannot exist and symmetry would not surface. To be more precise, 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). Electromagnetism 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 electromagnetism. 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 (or space flatness, or axes perpendicularity, or symmetry presence). We see assumption often deprives us of otherwise possibility to uncover real nature of physics.

11, It is important to emphasize that, whether it's 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 made equivalent to each other by fields running among them, then the space would be warped and perpendicularity of 55 axes is lost and the 11d symmetry would not surface. 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, For reason of completeness, the gravitation part of TFUO is included here. Let's consider the second assumption, "preselected inertial frames". It is well known that inertial frames (uniform frames) are "preselected" before spacetime scales are defined by light waves to verify uniformity. Removal of this assumption leads to 5d spacetime [3].

To be published is the ultimate non-designed 5d gravitation, which is "linear" and quantize-able based on the 5d-spacetime. It meets all 3 famous tests just like 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 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.

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

If you have other questions, we may discuss further. If you find it makes sense, your dissemination would be appreciated.

Since the paper attached through FQXi seems not working, you or anyone can just send an email to: qchiang2@yahoo.com , I will send a 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.