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

Steve Dufourny

Hello Dr Chiang, happy new year to you. I am not professor , I was obliged to stop the university due to a coma in 3 due to epilepsy, that said I cannot stop to study the maths and physics since the age of 20, I am 47 years old, so in all humility I know my foundamentals and my theory begins to be known but I must publish too and be professional. I have discussed with Professors Phd relevant and others lacking of generalities, the same for the amators, in fact I believe that the secret is the generality and to always continue to study the good works.

Your works merit the attention of memebers of FQXi , witten is not memeber but susskind yes , he is mainly focused on strings but that could converge with your relevant innovative ideas.

Like I explained my model is different philosophically because I consider the spherical topological geometrical algebras that I have invented and 3D spheres and 3 main ethers, spacetimes. It is like this that I have quantified the quantum gravitation in respecting the newtonian mechanics, I have just considered a deeper logic added to our GR and SM.

I believe strongly like you told that all the good models can converge and be pieces to add to reach our deepest unknowns, It is what I believe with your model , it is innovative and very interesting.

I d like that Susskind and Witten come indeed to develop some maths about all this with your model , their models and my humble model too, there are conjectures and if we choose a general philosophy, that can be revolutionary. The GR is true but not complete , we must in fact sort and add it seems to me.

Best Regards

Steve Dufourny

Wilczek, Penrose, Rovelli too are members and Hooft too, they are relevant thinkers, they could help too I believe . They are very occupied and focused on their own models but I believe that we are arrived at a time where the complementarity is important to go deeper in our works. We are too much isolated at my humble opinion and in competition instead of the cooperation in team. The majority considers only the photons and this GR like primary essence, I have remarked enormous ontological and philosophical problems , and after they have considered points or strings in 1D at this planck scale connected with a 1D cosmic field of this GR to explain our SM, the QFT, the QM, the topologies, the geometries like if the fields were with these photons oscillating this primary essence, but the 3D spheres and the superfluidity of 3 spacetimes can explain all this too , I believe we have 5 main systems, 3 free cosmologically speaking, the series of 3D spheres of photons, the cold dark matter and the dark energy for the main codes , and we have after the baryonic matter due to fact that the 3 others merge together and we have maybe a fith one, the 0D of this infinite eternal consciousness. So 5 main systems with 4 with series of 3D spheres and this 0D is not easy to define.

Steve Dufourny

you know the problem that I have is about the DE and the 0D of consciousness, I dont know how to consider the difference and how to consider the informations , because we are inside a physicality and that this consciousness could be emergent from the 3 systems merging too and that this infinite eternal consciousness is different and not correlated, in fact I am not sure how to consider the 5 systems or if we must consider 4 or if we have even a different road about this consciousness.

Steve Dufourny

4 E8 , E8XE8XE8XE8 why ? 3 for the 3 free cosmological systems implying 3 spacetimes , the DE for the main codes , the photons and the cold dark matter. and one for the baryonic matter like result of 3 others merging and we consider series finite of 3D spheres for the 4 systems, the works of George Chapline converges with my reasoning and the superstring gravity too of Witten. More maybe this 0D of this infinite ternal consciousness....

Steve Dufourny

The different entropies and informations too can be considered , in considering the main codes in this space vacuum of the DE, that is why I have studied the works of George Chapline of Lawrence livemore lab , in fact the works of Gibbs, einstein, bekenstein hawking, von neumann, shannon and witten can all converge and be conjectured at my humble opinion with these Spheres and the 4 E8 more your ideas and the 5D .....the hidden variables so can be found but are not in our actual spectrum photonic and relativistic of measurements and observations, that does not contredict Bell , it is just that we have a kind of bridge to rank all this.

Kwan Chiang

Dear Steve,

Your willpower is admired. You will achieve your goal.

You are certainly right. A revolution is long due. If FQXi member thinkers know no symmetries come automatically with 11d or 26d, they would certainly join the revolution, especially no micro dimensions are observed at all. As you said, we are not majority and too isolated. To question is how to let them know?

Best

Kwan

Steve Dufourny

I am thanking very much for your words. I hope to evolve still with this model and that several experts of FQXi like you too could help to go farer. The revolution I try is on global collaboration on FQXi to convice the UN, but not easy to unite. The same to convice to work in team and in complementary skillings. I believe that we could in working all together reach incredible results. Unfortunally we are us the humans mainly individual and isolated , it is probably due to our sad common past of adaptation and the psychologies. But I have hope, with thinkers like you , penrose, wilczek, Hooft, Susskind, Rovelli, Tegmark.....we can really be revolutionary I believe it strongly, I see the generality and I have my skillings but several are better than me for the maths and details,I know well the maths I have invented the spherical topological geometrical algebras, I know my foundamentals about the geometrical algebras of Lie or clifford or the non commutativity of connes , the GR but others are more skilling than me like perelman having proved this poincare conjecture or Max Tegmark or Hestenes, Alain Connes, or Witten or susskind. it is there that this complementarity is essential, in harmonising the skillings of each thinkers in focusing on the main problems and unknowns like the gap mass problem, the hard problem of consciousness, the gluons problem, the dark energy, the dark matter, the black holes......I have hope that the thinkers can forget this vanity and isolation or individualism and work in team. I believe that they read the posts. I have tried to contact the professor George Chapline, he has a little bit the same line of reasoning than me about the BHs, the essays contest is soon I believe , I don t know still what will be the topic but it is always a good moment too this contest. Best Regards

Steve Dufourny

In all case, FQXi is the perfect place to unite and discuss in live with all the best thinkers in maths and physics , we can share ideas in maths, physics, philosophy and develop incredible things. That is why we have this wonderful opportunity to do it on this platform from the MIT, Tegmark and Aguirre, the MIT is the best university and the members are the best in physics and maths So we can do it in forgetting all our vanity and in working in team. Imagine the forums with all the best thinkers discussing, in 1 year we reach an incredible level abnd we ponder incredible revolutionary works.

Kwan Chiang

Dear Steve,

Since TFUO is the foundation of answering the ultimate reality, I just posted the sub-geometry concepts with perspective of ultimate reality under FQXi category "Ultimate Reality", topic "The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science". Hope more different people will find it interesting.

Best Regards,

Kwan 1/7/2022

Steve Dufourny

Hello Dr Chiang,

Yes indeed your ideas are relevant about these subgeometries , maybe that can be extrapolated with the 4 main series of spheres that I explained in taking these 3D spheres like the subgeometries. Best Regards

Kwan Chiang

Dear Steve,

Yes, I believe there are a lot to explore. I posted a post in FQXi category "Ultimate Reality", topic "The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science" 4 days ago, but haven't seen any response yet. Hope it's still active and more people will join to discuss.

Best

Kwan

Steve Dufourny

Dear Dr Chiang,

Yes it is sure there are a lot to explore and try. It is what I try with the tool that I have invented , the spherical topological geometrical algebras . I try to consider several works made with the GR and these photons and strings and create a conjecture with the 3D spheres and these 3 spacetimes and you subgeometries. I consider the holographic principle , 4 E8 , these spheres like foundamental objects and different partitions with the numbers for the modes , sortings, superimposings, synchros and the motions rotations oscillations of these spherical volumes and the hopf fibrations on surfaces to rank the quasi particles and the synmplectomorphisms for the deformations. S3 being the central piece and the others can be seen like mathematical tools considering these dimensions. I must say it is not easy. The vectors, scalars, numnbers, partitions seem under a specific universal distribution but it is so complex.The densities seem important if the number of these finite series primoridal don t change.

Kwan Chiang

Hi Steve,

Just let you know here that I just sent a message through LinkedIn. I am not sure if it will reach you because I am not familiar with LinkedIn.

Best,

Kwan 1/13/22

John Cox

Dr. Chiang,

Sorry to delay, are you at university in Thailand? My Bing browser is as commercialized as MicroSoft can possibly make it and Windows 10 likes to seize up if I download a competing search engine. I haven't had any luck getting your paper or professional profile.

I must admit that without considerable background I can't follow your arguments, but I do get the gist. Maxwell's Equations as commonly used are really topologically compressed from 20 equations on which Maxwell originally formed his electromagnetic theory. A relatively few of his students whom understood his work distilled the compact set and disseminated the theoretics, and I've read that there is a trove of results Maxwell never explained that languish in dusty archives. I think there is plenty of room to revisit Maxwell as the progenitor of Einstein's theories of Relativity.

The linearity resides with the inverse square law which is an LOS and itself an invariance function between two (in Maxwell) spherical point electrostatic charges at measured separation of centers. x,y,z expands to spherical with x',y' and z'. I read a very good translation of some Einstein writings some 15 to 20 years ago, and was struck at how close he actually came to identifying the measurement problem of accounting for distribution as a continuous function of varying gradient within an upper and lower bound; as he laid out his reasoning for choosing a spherical geometry that is not relational to the divergence of a manifold of spherical radii. Which piques my curiosity about your contention in one of your posts that logically (mathwise) rotations (measurement) would result in an anomaly of 362 degrees. Yes, indeed. How do we assess the space between radii when our measurement scale is strictly linear ALONG any specified radius?!

Happy New Year, best jrc 1/13/22

Steve Dufourny

Hi John, Happy new year, the relevance in the works of Dr Chiang is the subgeonetries and the 5D for the gravitation, I have the same kind of reasoning in a kind of virtual 5D with the 3D spheres like foundamental objects and the 3 spacetimes. It is like if we had hidden variables beyond this actual spectrum of analysis considering the standard model and the GR. It is very interesting for me in the sense that the properties emergent of our actual standard model are under deeper parameters.

So this 5D is relevant due to fact that it gives the properties emeergent that we know actually. It can be correlated with the quaternions and the pure 3D and this 5D like a hidden parameter creating these said properties. For me a fith force even appears.And if the 3 spacetimes more the 4 E8 can be superimposed more his reasoning, it is very relevant at my humble opinion.The quantum gravitation appears too , it is like this that I have quantified it.

Regards

John Cox

Steve,

I agree with Kwan that 5D is the natural dimensionality and that 4D is a sub geometry, as would be 3d T. Also, the numerous micro dimensions while often elegant mathematical treatments, are in reality a mathematic expedient in ever evolving 'sphere packing' strategies that attempt to approximate a true distribution function definitive of a spherical volume in accord with inverse square law. Quaternions suffer from spherical aberration resulting from only multiplication of vectors wrapping onto a sphere, and the division rings provide an option of choice of division metric which can largely counter that and give an apparently natural 'look' to a visualization. In E8, a two dimensional disc perpendicular to a normal line (one that normally intersects sphere center) wraps onto the sphere, and where I find that might be useful is in the analytical modeling of spacetime being gravitationally compressed laterally to the vector of mutual tendency to expand into flat space and the necessity to condense inwardly to conserve space. So to my way of thinking, it is necessary firstly to define a naturally relativistic 5D distribution theorem within upper and lower bounds to begin to project a zero boundary of minimum connectivity as the limit to gravitational effect in a transform from spherical to flat spacetime. best to all, jrc

Steve Dufourny

Hi John, yes indeed. I believe that we have relevant roads to explore in taking my humble reasoning, the ideas of Dr Chiang, the 5D of Kaluza Klein. It is mainly the hidden variables and hidden tensors wich become relevant and that is why I believe strongly that these 4 E8 and these 3 spacetimes and these spheres can permit with the ideas of Dr Chiang to find the components of all this puzzle in a pure deterministic way. How to really harmonise and superimpose the metrics of these 3 main free spacetimes with only one that we observe actually. More like result of the merging of 3 this baryonic matter and their properties. There are the maths and numbers like the padics analysis to correlate. That become relevant for the microscopic dimension for the main informations encoding the cold dark matter and the photons to create this ordinary baryonic matter in fact . It seems not easy for the energy monemtum.

There is a partition and I believe that these 3D series of spheres , the 3 systems can be relevant if we know the correct number of this serie , for me the same than our cosmological one and after we must find the correct volumes for the superfluidity , that implies so the fields equations , the quantum gravitation, the motions,rotations, oscillations, stress energy tensors too can be ranked- It is not really that we extend only this GR to a 5D , but we superimpose to this 4D deeper parameters. At my opinion it is the motions of these spherical volumes the key and how and why in the 4 main systems made of these series of spheres, 3 free for the spacetimes, One like result of their synchros for the baryonic matter. The stress energy tensors so are interesting but not the cause of our geometries, topologies , they are just a specificity of the GR . So the ranking becomes essential like a different general philosophy. The quantum theory and the QFT so can be completed . Regards

Steve Dufourny

John, in fact I beleive that the subgeometries in the 5D of Dr Chiang is in fact hidden variables , I d name them subinformations primary correlated with the main codes of this space vaccuum of the DE.

Kwan Chiang

Hi John and Steve,

When the majority talk about Maxwell equations, it is based on (assumed) well-defined geometrical scales. What concerned Einstein was how the spacetime scales themselves are defined. (What concerns me is the equivalency among these scales.) No theory is meaningful unless scales are defined by correct physics. EM is simplified because spacetime was redefined correctly by special relativity.

But, today and in history, few people think about geometry definitions. Even Lorentz, who found his transformation, did not think about spacetime definitions. Standard Model and strings are based on geometry with no definitions. Just like EM, particle theories and UFT will be simplified and finished when all relevant scales are correctly defined.

When I say 362 degrees, I don't mean it's an anomaly. I mean when plane angle scales are not physically defined, assumption of equal full circles on different planes are but a dream. We dreamed that every circle is 360 degrees, but in fact physically, some of them are 360, some 362, some 356, even though we define all of them to be 360 "mathematically". Different people have different mathematical definitions, but nature doesn't know which to follow. Nature will only follow the one defined by relevant physics. Therefore, unless concrete physical definitions exist, no symmetry would surface as wished.

If you send an email to qchiang2@yahoo.com , I can send you a paper.

Best Regards,

Kwan Chiang

1/15/22

Steve Dufourny

Hello John and Dr Chiang,

Dr Chiang , I have tried to find you on facebook but you are not there. I could present you some relevant thinkers , Richard Gill member of FQXi is a friend, he is good in statistics, maths.I have several other friends relevant too, you could share your ideas to have some discussions. You must probably create your account.After you just ask a friendship request and after I can present you to my friends. Best regards

« Previous Page