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

You know Dr Chiang, several friends Phd on facebook or linkedin told me but how is it possible that we have not thought about this before. I think that simply they were too much focus in this GR and the strings or the geometrical algebras and so they have forgotten to think beyond the box and maybe too they have forgotten to study the other sciences like the biology, the chemistry, the evolution....when you observe quietly this nature and the creations and the universe, the spheres, spheroids,ellipsoids....are everywhere , it is like if we had two main systems of spheres, the quantum spheres and the cosmological spheres and between we have the creations with the complexifications and the symplectomorphisms of these spheres preserving the volumes.

I have remarked too that the philosophy of osccilations, strings , fields , and these photons and GR alone have enormous philosophical problems. The universe seems to have chosen these particles in a superfluidity for the main informations and systems to build the matters baryonic evolving. It is more simple in this logic than with the fields of this GR and the geometrical algebras. That said the generality of these spheres is more simple but when you consider the 3 ethers and the series of spheres for the 3 main systems the complexity is incredible due to the numbers, variables and changes. It is the meaning of the tool that I have invencted the spherical geometrical topological algebras and the geom alg of lie and clifford and this GR can converge and be ranked too.

Dear Professors Dufourny and Cox,

Just note that the 5th dimension, xm, I talked about is not Kaluza-Klein kind micro dimension, but is a macro dimension. The logic goes like this:

1, The 4d spacetime scales for uniform frames are defined to measure all "lights" at the same speed. But, uniform frames are "pre-assumed" before spacetime scales are defined to justify its uniformity. At the same time, "light" cannot be sorted out from faster-than-light quantum mechanical plane waves until spacetime scales are available to measure their speeds.

2, The remedy is to define uniformity as "being measured by the spacetime scales being defined" and include light and non-light plane waves altogether. Just ask what is the spacetime which accommodates "all plane waves" most naturally? Without being pre-occupied with 4d-spacetime, the answer is a 5d-spacetime, as it accommodates all plane waves most symmetrically AT the "same light speed". It is because plane waves have just one more variable, speed. When the new dimension, xm, is added to account for that variable, all waves are leveled at the same speed, c, in the 5d-spacetime. 4d-Lorentz frame is but a subspace of the most objective 5d-spacetime.

3, This means all plane waves are "massless" and AT light speed in the objective 5d-spacetime. But they are "massive" and faster-than-light when "observed" from a subjective 4d-subspace. That is, mass and gravitation are but "observational effect". It is not necessary to rule out plane waves as they are NOT faster than light under the "most objective" 5d-spacetime.

4, The transformation between 4d and 5d spacetimes is

dx = dx, dy = dy, dz = dz

dt = dt • [(px)2 + (py)2 + (pz)2 ]½ / [(px)2 + (py)2 + (pz)2 + m2 c2]½ ≤ dt

where italics are 5d scales.

5, It is important to emphasize that the objective spacetime without pre-assumptions is 5d, not 4d. That is, 5d-spacetime is primary, which is NOT DERIVED FROM 4D-SPACETIME. On the contrary, 4d is a subspace of the 5d-spacetime. Therefore, between 5d- and 4d-spacetimes, there is not one single transformation for all waves, but a separate transformation for "each plane wave" (similar to SR, where a separate Lorentz transformation exists for each inertial frame).

6，The Philosophy Behind. In order to obtain an objective spacetime, we should let Nature define it by itself without imposing anything subjective. However, by pre-assumption of uniform frames and light waves, SR imposed preference and defined 4d-spacetime subjectively. Put differently, based on the energy-momentum-mass relation, E2 - (px) 2 - (py) 2 - (pz) 2 - m2 = 0 , space (inverse of momentum), time (inverse of energy) and mass can be defined. But there are 5, not just 4, quantities to be defined. All 5 should be defined "simultaneously", none should take precedence over the other. But 4d-spacetime (i.e. E, px , py , pz ) is defined prior to mass by EM, and hence is subjective. Incidentally, mass is made intrinsic, and the "real nature of mass and gravitation cannot be revealed". The subjectivity transforms into GR. What I do here (and in sub-geometries, or TFUO) is to restore the original form of Nature hidden behind assumptions. Without doing this, I doubt very much that quantum gravity and ultimate UFT can be successful. The question Professor Cox mentioned about mass may be unlocked by 5d spacetime as well.

7, The ultimate non-designed gravitation should be based on the 5d spacetime and can be linear and quantized. This 5d linear gravitation should meet the 3 famous tests of GR. As mentioned in my 12/15/21 post replying Professor Mattfolk, 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.

8, 5-d Cosmology and Possible Observations. Thus, excluding time dimension, our universe is a sheet of curved 3-surface in the flat 4d-space. To the 3d-sheet is confined everything, including vacuum. Thus, as Professor Dufourny mentioned, vacuum may not be really empty. Furthermore, our universe is most likely the 3-surface of a 4-sphere just like earth being the 2-surface of a 3-sphere. If this is true, there may be several possibilities:

a. Assuming we are at the south pole of the 4-sphere universe and quasars are at the north pole, then the same quasar may be observed from opposite directions (just like two persons traveling from north pole on earth in opposite directions at equal speeds would eventually meet at south pole.)

b. Numerous double quasars may serve as partial evidence, where the whole spherical universe serves as gravitational lens.

c. The scarcity of galaxies before quasar region might reveal the fact that the 3-volume near the pole region is small, as conjectured by this model.

d. Particle-antiparticle disparity can be explained naturally. The 4-sphere universe may be spinning just like earth. Since the local 3-space at any locality is heading in one direction, it is handed and hence causing parity violation and particle-antiparticle disparity,

e. Accelerated expansion (dark energy). The galaxy locations on curved 3-surface charted on a "flat" 3-surface may be distorted just like 2d-map of the 3d-earth is distorted.

9, The 5th dimension, xm, serves as a universally consistent scale which is missing in GR. In fact, I doubt how we can claim there is dark matter without even a universal scale. (Most people believe the assumptions of GR are correct based on the fact that it is tested. But as I mentioned above the tests are not complete.) Related to this is the flat universe puzzle. The fact that the universe is measured as flat already tells that our measurement is problematic. I believe, once xm (of the "non-designed" 5d-spacetime) is used as the universally consistent scale to measure everything, the universe would not be flat and there would be no dark matter, as the universe is a curved sheet according to the 5d spacetime. (It curves in a different way than GR expected.)

Best regards,

Kwan Chiang

12/16/21

Hi Dr Chiang,

Like I told you , I like a lot your innovative approach and this 5D improving the underastanding of this general relativity. It is mainly these transformations 4D to 5D the relevances and the fact that this 5D is primary instead to take this GR 4D like primary. I have a little bit the same kind of reasoning considering the two other spacetimes superimposed to this GR implying that this 4D GR is emergent and just a part of puzzle considering these photons that we observe. The difference in my model is just that I consider not only photons but I consider this DM and DE like foundamentals too . The WIMPS intrigue me , I belive that the interactions are different and that does not really contredict the bell theorem about the local hidden variables.It is just that we need to supeimpose deeper parameters and interactions for our standard model.

In all cases, we cannot still affrim what are the trths, the strings and extradimensions and 2 E8 for the GR and the planck scale , or my spheres or your innovative model or the geometrodynamics with points, it is still beyond our understanding, but I believe strongly that there is a conjecture correlating all this , maybe with the spheres , I don t know but I think strongly that they arethe foundamental objects in a superfluidity due to specific quantum spherical series.

Your work merits for me to be recognised in the sense that like I said it is innovative with a different interpretation of this GR and this 5D, that can converge with the kaluza klein model and even the strings in considering these 2 E8 exceptional groups of Lie. Maybe even that can converge too with my model in considering these spheres and so we don t consider the strings between the particles like the matter antimatter and a string betweem, there is like a conjecture between fields and particles and the primary essence.

I am intrigued too with your idea for this dark energy, I consider an antigravitational push for this DE and that this DE possesses the main informations and codes and it is the space vacuum and this DE encodes so the photons and this cold dark matter to create the topologies, geometries, matters baryonic and correlated fields, so the fields are emergent and not from this GR. But even if I am persuaded, your ideas intrigue me a lot, congrats and thanks for sharing them, friendly

Ps it could be very relevant to have the opinions of Witten and Susskind about all this , they works the strings and the GR and photons only but your ideas and my humble theory could be developed and superimposed , they are good in maths, so there are conjectures and rankings, sortings to predict a kind of relative TOE with the statistics and probablities.

Dr. Kwan Chiang,

The pdf does not seem to get through, so would you please explain and perhaps draw an illustration in words of #2 in the abstract provided in Schindler's introduction of your work. What provides a basis for "six circular magnetic and electric field lines" which you state as "running on the six planes"? What 'circular' fields? Are you proposing that we assign a separate plane to each octant of a sphere defined on the 3 axis orthogonal observed in electro-motive induction, and that those axes are the planar edges? And despite the hyperbolic function identified by Minkowski in the Lorentz Invariance Transformation, are you taking measurement in all four dimensions of Spacetime to be strictly linear? thanks - nonprofessor jrc

Dear Dr. Cox,

The 6 magnetic and electric fields are simply the 3 circular magnetic and 3 electric fields described by Maxwell equations in empty space, with center at the origin (0,0,0,0),

curl E + (1/c) (∂H/∂t) = 0 (1a)

curl H - (1/c) (∂E/∂t) = 0 (1b)

Special relativity defined the 4 space and time scales by demanding light (which is derived from Maxwell Eqs.) to be measured at light speed. What Einstein didn't mention is that the above two equations also played "implicit" roles in defining the 6 equivalencies (on the 6 planes: x-y, y-z, z-x, x-t, y-t, z-t planes) between the 4 linear axes. Without it, light wouldn't be measured at the same speed.

We always draw lines with scales equivalent to each other on paper. This may be possible in mathematics, but not possible in physics. In physics, scales and scale equivalencies must always be defined by physics activity. (This is also why people always thought 11d would automatically be perpendicular to each other and symmetry automatically exist, which is actually not possible unless supported by proper physics definitions.)

Sorry, somehow the link on FQXi website doesn't work. If you can send an email to: qchiang2@yahoo.com , I can send a pdf copy to you directly.

Best regards,

Kwan Chiang 12/21/2021

Dr. Kwan Chiang,

Thank-you for that clarification, the abstract kind of left us coming into the middle of the movie. In brief then, what you are tackling is the problem of how to account for a hypothetical closed non-linear spherical space flattening out to a linearly closed cubic space. I quite agree that there is an unsupported assumption prevailing in physics which assigns the same scale to a span of distance in space with a span of duration in time. It runs in my mind that it was Minkowski (again) who once remarked that 'we might as well' because we could not point to any observable to establish a universal scale for anything. Yes, SR initiates investigation of spacetime, and GR is not a complete Theory. There may exist something in nature we might recognize as a geometry wherein our approximation of 'pi' allows a finite solution that would agree with the finite results of linear, orthogonal measurement, but I do not think we can assume true orthogonality across all dimensionalities. Good Luck, I'll try not to be a bother, I am not a professional by any stretch and simply try to understand what other people's arguments are. I doubt my 3G ISP would handle your full pdf any better than the fqxi server. I'll try Physics Essays 2020. Thanks again, John C. will do - jrc

Dear Professor Dufourny and Dr. Cox,

Shall we take a break during this Christmas and New Year season and resume on Jan 4 in 2022. I'll reply to your posts then. (However, I will check this topic during this time anyway.)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Best,

Kwan Chiang

12/22/2021

Sounds good, Doc.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your's. And please don't confuse me with a Doctorate, I freely admit to being an amateur enthusiast. Call me anything except late for dinner. best jrc

Hi yo both of you, Dr Chiang and John, I wish you a merry christmass and a happy new year too,

Best,

Dear Professor Dufourny and Mr. Cox,

Thank you for sharing your opinions.

As you mentioned: we cannot still affirm what are the truths, it's very true, because different "assumptions" lead to different models and universes. Nature doesn't know which to follow. However, my philosophy is that truth will surface when certain assumptions are replaced by concrete definitions, which leads to non-designed theories.

It was contended earlier that linear space with micro dimensions cannot be flat with automatic symmetry presence unless sub-geometries exist and once sub-geometries exist, micro dimensions are no longer needed. In fact, no micro dimensions are observed anyway. Therefore, whether it's spheres or strings, it may be more sensible to apply them at the sub-geometries level. The basic math of the sub-geometries, which is not visible at the linear dimensions level as they are on different platforms, is copied from my paper below:

Appendix A - Grand Plan for Future Development - Outline of Classical 3-d, 4-d and 5-d Angle Rotation Field Theories

Classical 2-d angle rotation fields, i.e. EM theory (for 4-d spacetime)

Lorentz gauge condition,

∂Aµ / ∂xµ = 0 (A1)

There are 6 electromagnetic fields rotating between each pair of the 4 linear axes,

FВµП... = ∂AВµ / ∂xП... - ∂AП... / ∂xВµ (Вµ, П... = 0,1,2,3) (A2)

Classical 3-d angle rotation fields (for 5-d spacetime) (conjectured to be weak fields)

For the 3-d angle fields rotating between planes, there are 10 2-d planes in the 5-d spacetime. Let them be named: px1x2, px2x3, px3x1, px0x1, px0x2, px0x3, pxmx1, pxmx2, pxmx3 and px0xm. Imagine a 10-d superspace with each axis being one of these "plane" angle scales running from 00 , 10 , 20 , 30 , .... 3600 , 3610 , 3620 to infinity. The origin of each axis, 0, could be any chosen 2-d surface on the 3-d spacetime. (It can be transformed if a different 2-d surface is chosen as the origin, 0. As to which side of the 2-d surface is pointing to positive of the axis, it is not rigidly defined here, but must be defined rigidly when detailed math is attempted.) To imitate EM, the corresponding 3-d angle Lorentz gauge condition is:

∂Dx1x2 / ∂px1x2 + ∂Dx2x3 / ∂px2x3 + ∂Dx3x1 / ∂px3x1 + ∂Dx0x1 / ∂px0x1

+ ∂Dx0x2 / ∂px0x2 + ∂Dx0x3 / ∂px0x3 + ∂Dxmx1 / ∂pxmx1 + ∂Dxmx2 / ∂pxmx2

+ ∂Dxmx3 / ∂pxmx3 + ∂Dx0xm / ∂px0xm = 0 (A3)

There are 45 3-d angle rotation fields running among the 10 planes:

GxВµxП..., xО»xПЃ = ∂DxВµxП... / ∂pxО»xПЃ - ∂DxО»xПЃ / ∂pxВµxП... (A4)

(where xВµxП... and xО»xПЃ run among the 10 planes and xВµxП..., в‰  xО»xПЃ)

Quantum fields will be obtained upon quantization of the classical fields.

Classical 4-d angle rotation fields (for 5-d spacetime) (conjectured to be CP-violation fields) (omitted)

Classical 5-d angle rotation fields (for 5-d spacetime) (conjectured to be strong fields)

For the 5-d angle theory, there are 5 4-d surfaces in the 5-d spacetime. Let them be named: qx2x3x0xm , qx1x3x0xm , qx1x2x0xm , qx1x2x3xm and qx1x2x3x0. There are 10 5-d angle rotation fields running between the 5 4-d surfaces:

HxВµxП...xПЃxП†, xО»xОѕxПѓxП‡ = ∂ExВµxП...xПЃxП† / ∂c xО»xОѕxПѓxП‡ - ∂E xО»xОѕxПѓxП‡ / ∂cxВµxП...xПЃxП† (A7)

(where xВµxП...xПЃxП† and xО»xОѕxПѓxП‡ run among the 5 4-d surfaces and xВµxП...xПЃxП† в‰  xО»xОѕxПѓxП‡ )

As observed from any 4-d Lorentz frame, the spatial axes, x1, x2, x3, are distinct from xm and time axes, x0, thus the 10 5-d angle rotation fields are grouped into 4 distinct categories: Rotations between 4-d surface pairs qx1x3x0xm-qx2x3x0xm, qx1x2x0xm-qx2x3x0xm and qx1x2x0xm-qx1x3x0xm are equivalent to each other under spatial rotations and are conjectured to cause baryon number. Rotation between 4-d surface pair qx1x2x3x0-qx1x2x3xm is conjectured to cause electron number. Rotations between 4-d surface pairs qx1x2x3x0-qx2x3x0xm, qx1x2x3x0-qx1x3x0xm and qx1x2x3x0-qx1x2x0xm are equivalent and are conjectured to cause muon number. Rotations between 4-d surface pairs qx1x2x3xm-qx2x3x0xm, qx1x2x3xm-qx1x3x0xm and qx1x2x3xm-qx1x2x0xm are equivalent and are conjectured to cause tauonic lepton number. (The reason for these designation is on the assumption that the more xm and x0 are involved, the more massive the particle is, but need to be verified.)

There are 3 5-d angle rotation fields corresponding to the 3 baryon rotations, qx1x3x0xm-qx2x3x0xm, qx1x2x0xm-qx2x3x0xm and qx1x2x0xm-qx1x3x0xm.

Hx1x3x0xm,x2x3x0xm = ∂Kx1x3x0xm / ∂qx2x3x0xm - ∂Kx2x3x0xm / ∂qx1x3x0xm (A8a)

Hx1x2x0xm,x2x3x0xm = ∂Kx1x2x0xm / ∂qx2x3x0xm - ∂Kx2x3x0xm / ∂qx1x2x0xm (A8b)

Hx1x2x0xm,x1x3x0xm = ∂Kx1x2x0xm / ∂qx1x3x0xm - ∂Kx1x3x0xm / ∂qx1x2x0xm (A8c)

Quantum fields will be obtained upon quantization of the classical fields.

There is a lot of math to be done in the sub-geometries. It would be a good idea to discuss with Witten and Susskind. Do you have contact with them?

I also agree with John. The universe may very well be curved, bending toward the xm dimension. But it is completely ignored because only 4 dimensions are recognized today, just like no one would imagine the 2d earth is curved toward the third dimension unless proved by accurate measurement of longer distances.

If accurate measurement of long distances proves the universe is in fact round, then accurate charting may clarify whether the accelerated expansion is actually an illusion.

Happy New Year and Best regards,

Kwan Chiang

1/4/2022

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

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.

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.

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....

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.

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

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

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.