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

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

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.

Dear Professor Dufourny,

I admire your deep thinking very much. Your theory has a comprehensive coverage of many aspects of today's complicated physics.

As I mentioned earlier, today's physics is based on certain assumptions. Since different assumptions lead to different theories and universes, it's hard to tell which the truth is. However, I think Nature has its own answer, which has these assumptions removed, as assumptions deprive us of the otherwise possibility of uncovering the real Nature.

I think about the same philosophical puzzles as well. I try to answer them with the simpler sub-geometries, which has the assumption of automatic axes perpendicularity removed.

As you know, electromagnetism was simplified because of geometry change by special relativity. Without special relativity, electromagnetism would be as complicated as other forces. What sub-geometries (TFOU) does to strong, weak and CP-violation forces is exactly the same thing special relativity did to electromagnetism. In my opinion, physics being complicated is not because of its own nature, but because of "wrong" geometry is being used.

I posted a reply to Professor Mattfolk, which deduce the complete logic. As you would see there, it is only a wishful thinking to have 11d symmetry in a flat 11d space with its axes perpendicular, unless sub-geometries exist to support these wishes. But if sub-geometries exist, there is no need of 11d symmetry anymore because the sub-geometries already offer all the symmetries needed to account for the whole particle zoo.

Same with gravitation. When assumption of inertial frames is removed, it inevitably leads to a 5d spacetime (extra dimension, xm, is a macro dimension, not micro dimension). Based on the 5d spacetime is 5d gravitation, which automatically answers many puzzles. There would be no dark matter, most likely no dark energy either. It should answer particle-antiparticle disparity as well. (It's not hard to imagine if there are 4 spatial dimensions, parity should be conserved in 4d, not just in 3d, which answers parity violation and particle-antiparticle disparity automatically.)

Best regards,

Kwan Chiang

12/15/21

Dr. Kwan Chiang,

Apart from any argument supporting a physical reality of SpaceTime as the progenitive condition (my own personally preferred paradigm), I noticed that you and others commenting have not broached the subject of the conventionally accepted assumption that gravitation, and electromagnetism extend to infinity.

This has always perplexed me, in that for any primary force effect to diminish continuously to infinity would require either that some medium exists independent of the force effects and responds to an infinite distance to an infinitesimal degree, OR that the energy of a unitary field particulate mass would be infinite itself to provide for the required energy for that force effect to translate across distance to infinity. So, as one of the baffling gaps in Classicism that migrates into QM, the question beggs resolution, and quantum gravity may require it.

While SR is mathematically complete, it is far from physically complete. Paradox burgeons forth from the invariant formulated 2D geometry of SR. Yet, as a reduction to first principles, the equivalence principle in the bounded interval of light velocity provides a realistic rationale for theorizing a finite energy capacity in any unitary field particle. GIVEN: that density of energy is a function of velocity, a rest mass accelerated to light velocity would not be mass long before it reached light velocity, it would become a volume of inertially bound energy of extremely low density. By the same token, a rest mass unitary field would extend beyond the volume of material density and that continuous gradient of density would be commensurate with a continuously increasing inherent relativistic velocity. Time would be going ever faster to equalize at light velocity at the minimum density limit of the field. If Time were existent at c, no physical motion of the field would be necessary or even possible. Relativistically, a Quantum Gravitational field would be one in which the speed of Time in an inertially bound mass would increase from nil at proportional maximum density to equivalent light velocity at the zero boundary of some empirically derived theoretical density minimum necessary to translate inertia. Hi again, Steve! best jrc

Dear Dr Chiang , thanks for these words.

I share the same points of vue about these assumptions and models.That said indeed this nature has a specific unique universal mechanism. I must say that your ideas intrigue me about these subgeonetries. I ask me if it could converge with these 3D spheres like foundamental objects. It is thre that your works is relevant when we consider that without special relativity, the electromagnetism would be as complicated as other forces.So I think it is very interesting that these sub-geometries (TFOU) does to strong, weak and CP-violation forces. That is why these quantum spheres like subgeometries could converge in considering their properties, motions, oscillations, deformations, with the poincare conjecture and the deformations with the symplectomorphisms all under main informations somewhere in codes, I consider the vacuum ,but if you have an other idea for kind of hidden variables , that seems possible to converge.

This 11D so being not necessary, so this 3D and the time for the motions and changes and Spheres can be suffient for the subgeometries, maybe the most difficult is to find the cause of the main informations. I know that you don t consider this DE and DM, but maybe this space vacuum of this DE possess these codes and informations giving the properties of these subgeonetries and correlated spherical topological geometrical algebras.The difference with the geom alg of lie or clifford so is philosophical about the origin of the universe, in considering particles in a superfluidity and 3 spacetimes instead of this GR alone and the fields. The pure 3D at all scales could answer at my humble opinion and these subgeonetries in 3D so also.

I am intrigued too about the 5D and the convergences with Kaluza Klein and the origin of this balance particles antiparticles. And this quantum gravitation too, I told me that the error of many is to consider still only this GR and the fields , and so the gravitons like quanta of gravitational waves,we could simply respect this newtonian mechanic in changing the distances and in considering quantum BHs and a fith force like if the SM was encircled by this gravitation, and so the gravitons are different and we just change the distances , we take the distances between a graviton and a quantum main BH. I have reached the QG like this in fact, I will publish in 2022 correctly with the spherical geometrical topological algebras. That implies that the SM is simply emergent from a deeper cause. Your ideas so are relevant because they are different and innovative and could converge with the geometrical algebras at my opinion and hidden variables not measurable , not observable and non interacting with our actual SM.

Dear Professor Dufourny,

Yes, your questions are inspiring. I think it can be answered in 5d spacetime.

I think the problems lies in the fact that real natural spacetime is 5d. The 5th dimension, xm, is sealed up by 4d spacetime. Using mass to represent what is sealed up behind is just an expedient. As you can see there are 5 terms in the energy-momentum-mass relation, E2 - p2 - m2 = 0. When defined most naturally (i.e. assumption of inertial frames removed, as mentioned earlier), there are actually 5 dimensions. Mass is the momentum of xm dimension. Only by using 5d spacetime, the secret hidden behind can be opened up. The cause of mass, quantum numbers and electric charges in a particle will be revealed from the particle's sub-geometric structure.

Best regards,

Kwan Chiang

12/16/2021

Dear Professor Cox,

Yes, your questions are inspiring.

Just as my post replying Professor Dufourny, I think your concern about mass is because the 5th dimension, xm, is hidden. Hence, it can be answered in 5d spacetime physics.

Best regards,

Kwan Chiang

12/17/2021

KC,

5D does seem to be the natural state of things. Where 4D subsumes that natural order is in the apparent arrow of linear Time which commonly is treated as a single dimension. That may be our human experience, but we also treat Time in a number of contexts that belie a deeper existential reality of Time. And of course, when we speak of dimensions, we are really stating that it is we whom are designating something by which we make some measure.

I go back to the rascal in Einstein's character, he really did like to provoke people and gain notoriety, and that has to be taken into account in regards the famous insight he related as envisioning himself riding a beam of light and realized that "Time stopped" at light velocity. Yet in GR we find just the opposite in effect, the rate of passage of Time slows the nearer the worldline is to the center of gravity. I think it is more true to state that Time appears to stop at light velocity from the vantage point of the rider on that beam of light only because light velocity is the limit to the rate of passage of Time. If Time could go faster than light velocity, we would continuously be left in the dark. So The Fifth Dimension in Kaluza-Klein can actually be attributed a real physical characteristic; that rate of passage of Time which is non-linear because it can be anything, anywhere between nil and light velocity, but can also be treated simply as a scalar value of Speed. Rather like a vernier caliper, we have the linear vector value of velocity for anything, calibrated to the non-linear scalar value of the Speed of Time at the point of measurement. best jrc

Dear Professor Dufourny,

Although I don't quite understand your sphere theory, it'll be great if you apply it in 5d spacetime which is free from assumption of inertial frames and in the sub-geometries (TFUO) which is free from assumption of automatic axes perpendicularity and automatic symmetry presence. I'll let you know when I have some new idea.

Best regards,

Kwan Chiang 12/17/2021