• [deleted]

Dear Sir,

We had gone through your essay. You had based your deductions on some generally accepted principles. But if we analyze the foundations of these policies, we find many inconsistencies. Hence without undermining your attempts and arguments, we are bringing out these facts for a healthy debate can take place to establish the truth.

You have referred to the expression: δE.δt ≥ ħ/2, involving time and energy. Time is not an observable property of a system in the normal sense. It is a parameter used to mark the interval between an epoch marking the beginning of measurement process and another marking its termination. Some scientists say that there is no such limitation. They can measure the energy and look at their watch. Then they know both energy and time. However, other scientists differ from this view. According to them, the equation places a limit on the accuracy with which one can specify the amount of energy transferred together with the knowledge of the time at which the transfer took place.

We have discussed the Uncertainty relation in our essay and shown that it is not a fundamental law of Nature, but arises as a consequence of natural laws relating to observation that reveal a kind of granularity at certain levels of existence that is related to causality. We have also shown that the mathematical format of the Uncertainty relation is wrong. Heisenberg postulated this relationship which he thought as corresponding to, as he claimed, the "well-known" relation tE - Et = iħ. However, the status of time variable in his illustrations is not clear. He also formulated the inequality δw . δJ ≥ ħ, where w is the angle and J is the action based on the "well-known" relation wJ - Jw = iħ. However, these "well-known" relations are actually false if energy E and action J are to be positive operators (Jordan 1927). In that case, self-adjoint operators t and w do not exist and inequalities analogous to Δψp Δψq ≥ ħ/2 cannot be derived. Also, these inequalities do not hold for angle and angular momentum (Uffink 1990). These obstacles have led to a quite extensive literature on time-energy and angle-action uncertainty relations (Muga et al. 2002, Hilgevoord 2005).

Heisenberg summarized his findings in a general conclusion: all concepts used in classical mechanics are also well-defined in the realm of atomic processes. But, as a pure fact of experience ("rein erfahrungsgemäß"), experiments that serve to provide such a definition for one quantity are subject to particular indeterminacies, obeying the relations δp . δq ≥ ħ,

δt . δE ≥ ħ, and

δw . δJ ≥ ħ

which prohibit them from providing a simultaneous definition of two canonically conjugate quantities. It may be noted that in this formulation the emphasis has slightly shifted. He now speaks of a limit on the definition of concepts, i.e. not merely on what we can know, but what we can meaningfully say about a particle.

In his Como lecture, published in 1928, Bohr gave his own version of a derivation of the uncertainty relations between position and momentum and between time and energy. He started from the relations: E = hν and p = h/λ, which connects the notions of energy E and momentum p from the particle picture with those of frequency ν and wavelength λ from the wave picture. He noticed that a wave packet of limited extension in space and time can only be built up by the superposition of a number of elementary waves with a large range of wave numbers and frequencies. Denoting the spatial and temporal extensions of the wave packet by Δx and Δt, and the extensions in the wave number σ := 1/λ and frequency by Δσ and Δν, it follows from Fourier analysis that in the most favorable case Δx Δσ ≈ Δt Δν ≈ 1, and, using E = hν and p = h/λ, one obtains the relations:

Δt ΔE ≈ Δx Δp ≈ h.

It may be noted that Δx, Δσ, etc., are not standard deviations but unspecified measures of the size of a wave packet. These equations determine, according to Bohr: "the highest possible accuracy in the definition of the energy and momentum of the individuals associated with the wave field" (Bohr 1928, p. 571). He noted, "This circumstance may be regarded as a simple symbolic expression of the complementary nature of the space-time description and the claims of causality" (ibid).

Bohr does not refer to discontinuous changes in the relevant quantities during the measurement process. Rather, he emphasizes the possibility of defining these quantities. This view is markedly different from Heisenberg's. A draft version of the Como lecture is even more explicit on the difference between Bohr and Heisenberg: "These reciprocal uncertainty relations were given in a recent paper of Heisenberg as the expression of the statistical element which, due to the feature of discontinuity implied in the quantum postulate, characterizes any interpretation of observations by means of classical concepts. It must be remembered, however, that the uncertainty in question is not simply a consequence of a discontinuous change of energy and momentum say during an interaction between radiation and material particles employed in measuring the space-time coordinates of the individuals. According to the above considerations the question is rather that of the impossibility of defining rigorously such a change when the space-time coordination of the individuals is also considered" (Bohr, 1985 p. 93).

Indeed, Bohr not only rejected Heisenberg's argument that these relations are due to discontinuous disturbances implied by the act of measurement, but also emphasized his view that the measurement process creates a definite result: "The unaccustomed features of the situation with which we are confronted in quantum theory necessitate the greatest caution as regard all questions of terminology. Speaking, as it is often done of disturbing a phenomenon by observation, or even of creating physical attributes to objects by measuring processes is liable to be confusing, since all such sentences imply a departure from conventions of basic language which even though it can be practical for the sake of brevity, can never be unambiguous" (Bohr, 1939, p. 24).

Nor did Bohr approve of an epistemological formulation or one in terms of experimental inaccuracies: "...a sentence like 'we cannot know both the momentum and the position of an atomic object' raises at once questions as to the physical reality of two such attributes of the object, which can be answered only by referring to the mutual exclusive conditions for an unambiguous use of space-time concepts, on the one hand, and dynamical conservation laws on the other hand" (Bohr, 1948, p. 315; also Bohr 1949, p. 211). It would in particular not be out of place in this connection to warn against a misunderstanding likely to arise when one tries to express the content of Heisenberg's well-known indeterminacy relation by such a statement as "the position and momentum of a particle cannot simultaneously be measured with arbitrary accuracy". According to such a formulation it would appear as though we had to do with some arbitrary renunciation of the measurement of either the one or the other of two well-defined attributes of the object, which would not preclude the possibility of a future theory taking both attributes into account on the lines of the classical physics. (Bohr 1937, p. 292)

Instead, Bohr always stressed that the uncertainty relations are first and foremost an expression of complementarity. This may seem odd since complementarity is a dichotomic relation between two types of description whereas the uncertainty relations allow for intermediate situations between two extremes. They "express" the dichotomy in the sense that if we take the energy and momentum to be perfectly well-defined, symbolically ΔE = Δp = 0, the position and the time variables are completely undefined, Δx = Δt = ∞, and vice versa. But they also allow intermediate situations in which the mentioned uncertainties are all non-zero and finite. It must here be remembered that even in the indeterminacy relation (Δq Δp ≈ h) we are dealing with an implication of the formalism which defies unambiguous expression in words suited to describe classical pictures. Thus a sentence like "we cannot know both the momentum and the position of an atomic object" raises at once questions as to the physical reality of two such attributes of the object, which can be answered only by referring to the conditions for an unambiguous use of space-time concepts, on the one hand, and dynamical conservation laws on the other hand (Bohr, 1949, p. 211).

The above expression means, if the change in energy is zero, momentum, which involves velocity that requires energy, also becomes zero. This is an idealistic situation, which is "un-physical", as nothing in this universe is ever stationary. Some may argue that even in such a situation, the particle may move due to inertia. But that will lead to interaction with at least the field, which will lead to non-zero energy exchange. In an idealistic situation, there is no movement. Thus, the concept of space and time are not applicable and become indeterminate, as perception is possible only during transition from one state to another and time is the interval between two perceptible events.

On a more formal level, it may be noted that Bohr's derivation does not rely on the commutation relations qp - pq = iħ and tE - Et = iħ, but on Fourier analysis. As far as the relationship between position and momentum is concerned, these two approaches are equivalent. But since most physical systems do not have a time operator, this is not so for time and energy. Indeed, in his discussion with Einstein (Bohr, 1949), Bohr considered time as a simple classical variable. This even holds for his famous discussion of the "clock-in-the-box" thought-experiment where the time, as defined by the clock in the box, is treated from the point of view of classical general relativity. Thus, in an approach based on commutation relations, the position-momentum and time-energy uncertainty relations are not on equal footing, which is contrary to Bohr's approach in terms of Fourier analysis (Hilgevoord 1996 and 1998).

There is also another interpretation of the said equation δt.δE ≥ ħ. According to the quantum mechanical dogma, the above equation implies that the so-called empty space is not actually empty, but is full of virtual particles. These virtual particles with opposite charge are postulated to have been created in pairs drawing energy ΔE at a point over a very short period of time Δt, which are then immediately annihilated. The apparently empty space is thus said to be capable of producing particles. This state is described by a quantum state with the lowest possible energy: thus called the zero-point energy state. This implies that there is an underlying "veiled reality" layer present, determining the quantum states of the system even when apparently there are no particles. However, the layer is completely undetectable to our sense organs and measuring instruments (we have to accept the words of the scientists blindly) - all of which are made up of particles. This is said to "prove" the probabilistic nature of the wave-function! It has been suggested that at the Planck scale, i.e., 10^-35 m, quantum fluctuations become powerful enough to twist and turn the geometry of the Universe. Space and time break down to quantum foam. Like the non-existent Higgs boson that has misled the scientific community for close to half a century, this is also another red herring.

Regarding the time cone and event horizon, we have separately shown that these are also wrong and misleading concepts. The light cone is said to be an imaginary surface associated with a point in space-time comprising the paths of all possible light rays that pass through that point. If this description is right, then there cannot be any "cone". If light moves in straight lines through one point, then it will comprise rays from "all" directions and not select directions to prove the theory right (unless someone claims that Nature does not follow its own law, but follows his laws).

The other explanation of drawing the world lines is also wrong. The trick is first to take two spatial dimensions and one time dimension and show the evolution of the light pulse as a conic section. Then the third spatial dimension is added to show the picture of the light cone. It is surprising that till date no scientist has challenged this. Light moves in straight lines (unless it is subjected to other effects). Thus, a photon will move in time in a straight line only and a light pulse will evolve in time spherically with the starting point as the origin. In both cases there cannot be any "cone". If two space dimensions are taken, it would be a chain of concentric circles. If the third spatial dimension is added, then it will be a chain of concentric circles. If the concept of light cone and event horizon are wrong, then the entire edifice built upon such wrong foundation is also wrong. It is surprising that till now, this wrong concept has gone unchallenged.

Regards.

basudeba

    Dear Israël,

    I don't think the assumption that photons are the primordial elements of the universe is of type A. I have developed several consequences of this assumption that I did not see at first. The new version is in attached file below and also available online at the following address http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00530098

    If photons are the primordial elements then there is no Higgs boson, dilaton and graviton. Definitely, it is not a minor change in the standard model but a new way for explaining the origin of masses, inflation and the beginning of the universe. Why would we accept such an assumption? I think because it is a very simple solution and because it is a natural extension of the Relativity principle. All is relative to photons because they are primordial.

    EmmanuelAttachment #1: Photon_CEL.pdf

    Dear Basudeba,

    Thank you for your post about the foundations of quantum mechanics. However, I do not discuss about this issue in my essay. Good luck for the contest.

    Emmanuel

    • [deleted]

    Dear Sir,

    We had pointed out the discrepancies in the theories based on which you have developed your ideas in the Essay. Thus by refusing to discuss these, you are refusing to examine the foundations of your own essay. This is the escapist attitude of modern scientists, which shows that:

    1) The majority of modern scientists are superstitious. They blindly accept something and refuse to discuss its validity.

    2) They want to perpetuate the cult of incomprehensibility so that they can lead a cozy life at public expenses by fooling them with voodoo ideas couched in bombastic jargon.

    3) This reductionism is hindering the progress of science and ultimately will be detrimental to the progress of science.

    Dear Sir,

    Will you educate us about your reservations against not discussing the foundations of your own essay? After all, this is the Foundational Questions Institute Forum.

    Regards,

    basudeba.

    Dear Basudeba,

    I don't think that you have pointed out a problem concerning the foundations of Quantum mechanics. Moreover, this theory is checked with a very high degree of precision. The same is true for the General Relativity. Nevertheless, there are some problems concerning the origin of masses, the unity of Physics and more generally the beginning of the universe. I think that we need a new physical assumption rather than a modification of these theories checked with a very high degree of precision.

    Concerning the problems of the dark matter and the dark energy, I think that the solution is in the General Relativity.

    Best regards,

    Emmanuel

    5 days later
    • [deleted]

    Dear Sir,

    You have partially admitted that we are right. Now will you kindly reply to the other points raised by us in our earlier post instead of being evasive. We have raised questions about the foundations of your essay. We may be wrong, but that needs to be settled only after a healthy debate. After all its the forum of Foundational Questions Institute. By refusing to answer our points, you only confirm that your essay is not based on sound principles.

    How long scientists continue with this gimmick and fool general public to lead a cozy life at public expenses. It is high time to call the bluffs.

    Regards,

    basudeba.

    7 days later
    • [deleted]

    Dear Emmanuel,

    To interpret the speed of light as a velocity is to treat what essentially is a quantum mechanical phenomenon as something which obeys the rules of classical mechanics. We can only speak about the velocity of an object with respect to something if and when it interacts with that something as it moves. (Interacting includes the energy exchange between particles by means of which they express and preserve their energy). To be able to interact, a particle must have a position to act from. In www.quantumgravity.nl in Chapter 1.2 'Mass, a quantum mechanical definition' I have defined the rest mass of a particle as being greater as its position is less indefinite, as it remains longer within the area corresponding to that indefiniteness, as the probability to find it inside a smaller area is greater. This is why I in my essay I said that the rest energy of a particle depends on its ability to express that energy as gravity, on the definiteness of its position and vice versa. The less indefinite its position is, the greater its mass is, the stronger a source of gravity it is. So if we define the 'speed of light' as that 'velocity' at which its position is completely indefinite, then it cannot express its properties at that speed, which is why it appears to have no mass or any property at all, why it cannot be accelerated, act or be acted upon. (All interactions the photon is supposed to be involved in as travels, all Feynman diagrams of all possible interactions with virtual electrons, positrons, photons, are taken care of by the particles it is transmitted between as they themselves are the product as well as the source of all such interactions.) Only in this way photons can transmit force between particles without that force being involved in intermediary interactions with particles in the environment it is supposed to travel through. This info about the environment is already present at the emitting and absorbing particles as they continuously exchange energy and objects in between affect this exchange, information which is already is accounted for in the photon energy. So if a photon doesn't interact with, exist to the objects along its path, nor the environment to the photon, then it makes no sense to speak about its velocity: there's nothing with respect to which it moves. (This is no to say that we cannot predict where/when we can intercept, detect a photon if we know the position of the source, the direction and time of its emission).

    If particle A emits a photon which is absorbed by B, a transmission changing the state of both A and B, then A sees the state of B change at the time it emits the photon, whereas B sees the state of A change as it absorbs the photon. That is, unless B after absorbing the photon sends back a message to A to confirm the receipt of the photon, a thank-you-note saying that A can from now on start to see B in its new state. A gravitational field is an area of contracted spacetime: the stronger the field, the more space, distance is 'folded' within a smaller area as measured with a rule outside that field. Whereas to a massive particle penetrating the field, this 'condensed' distance unfolds, to a massless particle there exists no field, and hence no distance to its source. So whereas to a massive observer A and B are separated in spacetime so to him the emission doesn't coincide in time with its absorption, as to the photon there's no distance between A and B, its transmission is instantaneous. So though an observer measures a duration, that doesn't mean that the transmission isn't instantaneous, it only isn't instantaneous to him. Whereas to the observer a space distance is a time distance, the photon bridges this distance in no time at all, so to the photon its transmission doesn't take any time at all.

    If A sees B's state change at the time it emits the photon, then a finite velocity would mean that since nothing is allowed to happen which might prevent B from absorbing that photon, time would have to stand still for as long as the photon is traveling. Anyhow, we don't know whether A wants to get rid of some energy, or B incites A to produce the photon: if there's no absolute time, no clock outside the universe, then it doesn't even make sense to ask what causally precedes what, even though we see one event to happen before the other.

    ''Some physicists think that time is totally relative and does not really exist.''

    The ''does not really exist'' seems to refer to an imaginary observation from outside the universe, so I can agree with this as in my essay I argue that the universe as a whole has no physical reality either. A universe which creates itself without any outside intervention creates, keeps producing time itself, containing all time within.

    As a Self-Creating Universe can hardly stop creating itself, it keeps creating energy, so we don't need any dark energy to explain why the universe keeps expanding unhampered by gravity. It is this continuous creation which powers any change we experience as the passing of time. Since I cannot believe in a bigbang tale which implicitly states that the universe and everything inside of it has been created by some outside intervention, to me there's no (''problem of the nature of the'') Planck epoch either. It is because we believe that particles only are the source of their fields and interactions that we need a naïve and unnecessary tale like the bigbang hypothesis.

    As to the origin of the energy in the universe, I cannot think of any more important question in physics. The problem with present physics is that it implicitly assumes that the (rest) energy of particles only is the source of their interactions, as a given, and not, as I propose in my essay (topic 838), as being also the product of their interactions, which it must be if in a SCU particles have to create one another.

    Regards, Anton

    Dear Anton,

    The exchange of a photon is the principle of the electromagnetic interaction. I don't know if you know the fantastic book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" of Richard Feynman. It is one of my favorite books. The QED is explained very easily. But time and space are defined by the General Relativity. In the theory of relativity, you have two main ideas:

    - the first one is that the speed of light is a limit for the possibility of motion for the matter (the matter being all charged or massive particles): this is the idea of the special relativity,

    - the second one is that the energy models the geometry of the spacetime: this is the idea of the General Relativity.

    The main problem is that the QED is a discrete theory which is not compatible with the General Relativity which is a continuous theory. It is very difficult to imagine a particle for gravitation (called a graviton) because the General Relativity is nonrenormalizable. But maybe there is no need for them to exist. If you see photons as waves, they are the basis of space and time because sapce and time come from the possibility of motion for the matter relative to the possibility of motion for photons which is the speed of light. So, space and time are defined relative to photons (not as particles but as waves). Finally, I think that all is defined relative the photons due to the wave/particle duality: space and time relative to light (photons as waves) and elementary particles with their masses relative to photons (as particles). Why? Because photons are the primordial element of the physical evolution of the universe. This is my idea.

    Best regards,

    Emmanuel

    • [deleted]

    Dear Emmanuel,

    I truly enjoyed your paper. I think it's also fairly easy to understand that the photon is the basic entity to be associated with all energy. On the other hand to have it as the basic (exclusive) building block of matter is to somehow ignore that the fabric of space-time needs to be included. That is from the perspective of the photon neither space nor time exists and it only exists for those entities that are recognized as matter.

    That's to say that only with the omission of space-time can we have a photon and only with its inclusion do we have matter. This would have me find that matter must then be somehow the physical consequence of the two, rather than a reconfiguration of the one. It is an interesting question whether a black hole is a place where space-time are reunited at the exclusion of energy or rather a place where energy is reunited at the exclusion of space-time. Interestingly enough in reading your comments I find that something like what I've said here you account for as the dawn of inflation and subsequently matter; so perhaps I have it wrong that you don't consider space-time as an essential and fundamental entity along with the one of energy (photon).

    Regards,

    Phil

      Hello Emmanuel,

      I find your idea of photons as being the fundamental nature of the Universe rather intriguing. Have you checked Jason Wolfe's essay, "Photon Theory"? My work does not directly deals with theories of photons, but I do show how Basic Law can be formulated using a 'prime physis quantity eta' (thought of as both 'action' as well as 'accumulation of energy').

      In my essay, I show that Planck's Law for blackbody radiation is actually an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. This explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical.

      More directly relevant to your interests, however, you will find a results I posted just days ago, "If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave". I provide a simple mathematical proof of this proposition in my post. It's very short and easy to follow. If you should read it, I would be delighted to have your comments and support.

      Best wishes,

      Constantinos

        Dear Phil,

        Thank you for your interesting remark. In a new version of my essay available online here: http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00530098, I explain that photons are more primordial than fundamental. In another paper untitled "The nature of time" available online here: http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837, I have explained that time comes from the possibility of motion for matter relative to the possibility of motion for photons which is the speed of light. So, I think that the spacetime comes from the fundamental relation between matter (all charges or massive particles) and light (photons as waves). Some speculative theories explain gravitation with a particle called graviton. This particle has no mass and no charge. I think that only particle without charge and mass is the photon and I think that it is the primordial form of energy. I agree that if the Planck epoch is the primordial light epoch, the notion of time and then the notion of spacetime have no meaning. Recently, I realized that we can explain the origin of masses relative to photons if they are primordial. The same is true for inflation.

        Best regards,

        Emmanuel

        Dear Constantinos,

        I don't understand what your eta is. But I am not sure that we will find the solution to the unity of Physics in a new mathematical development. The book of the mathematician Peter Woit "Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law" is interesting to explain the current relation between Physics and Mathematics.

        I think that the solution to the problems of masses, dilation, the beginning of the universe and more generally of the unity of Physics must come from Physics itself. I think that we need a new physical assumption coming from the subtle relation between matter and light. I think that photons are the primordial element of the physical evolution of the universe.

        Emmanuel

        Dear Emmanuel,

        You write, "I don't understand what your eta is."

        You can think of eta as being the "time-integral of energy". Hayrani Oz (Prof. Of Aerospace Engineering at Ohio State University) has used similar time-integrals of energy (what he calls enerxaction) very successful in his work for many years. Together we will be coauthoring a chapter in a Thermodynamics book coming out this July)

        You write, " But I am not sure that we will find the solution to the unity of Physics in a new mathematical development"

        I agree that going deeper into the current "rabbit's hole" of theoretical physics will not bring us closer to a 'unity of Physics' or discover 'what is' the Universe. I see all such efforts as 'metaphysical' in that these seek to answer 'what is'. And like all 'metaphysics' in the past, in my humble opinion such efforts ultimately fail.

        My approach to physics is different. Though mathematics can provide us with 'logical certainty', it cannot give us the 'truth of what is'. We can only know our 'measurements' of 'what is'. I see 'measurement' as the essence of physics. The mathematical foundations of physics, therefore, should be mathematical identities pertaining to measurement. The Pythagorean Theorem that we use to measure distance is a good example of this. Not 'mathematical models' describing 'what is'.

        In my essay I derive Planck's Law for blackbody radiation without using energy quanta. I show that this Law is actually a mathematical identity that describes the interaction of measurement. It simple gives us a mathematical way of calculating 'energy intensity' if we know the 'energy absorbed' at some given temperature. This is the reason why the experimental spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical.

        You write, "... the unity of Physics must come from Physics itself"

        My thinking is that what gives physics (and anything else for that matter) 'unity' is the human mind that comprehended physical experience as an integrated whole. I believe in the ancient Greek idea that "Man is the Measure of All Things". And I apply this principle to physics as well - highlighting of course, Man and Measure.

        Do check my recent post, "If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave". It's a very simple and elegant mathematical proof of this proposition. And please support my efforts to bring these results before the panel for review!

        Best wishes,

        Constantinos

        Dear Constantinos,

        Concerning your paper "If the Speed of Light is a Constant, Then Light is a Wave", I think that there is a mistake. When you say "Dividing these by [math]\frac{\partial\eta}{\partial x}[/math]", you cannot obtain the next equation because [math]\frac{\partial^2\eta}{\partial x^2}\neq\left(\frac{\partial\eta}{\partial x}\right)^2[/math].

        Best,

        Emmanuel

        • [deleted]

        Dear Emmanuel,

        Check the equations more closely. What you are pointing to as a mistake is not what is happening. You are overlooking the factor (partial of eta w.r.t t) on the right side . What is the correct reduction is (partial of eta w.r.t. t) / (partial of eta w.r.t. x) equals dx/dt (the velocity). The same operation also occurs in the second equation. When the two equations are combined into one through simple direct substitution, you get the wave equation!

        Please let me know if there are any other questions. I be more than happy to address these.

        All the best, and hope for your support ...

        Constantinos

        Dear Constantinos,

        OK I agree. Good luck for the contest.

        Emmanuel

        4 days later

        Dear Florin,

        I have written a new version of my essay available online http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00530098. I tried to correct some mistakes and among them the one you pointed out by using the suggestion of Cristi Stoica. If we have enough energy then we can obtain weak and strong bosons by using pair productions in two photon collisions. But physicists want to know why we have Lie groups SU(2) for the weak force and SU(3) for the strong force. In order to have stable particles and interactions, I think that it implies symmetries. Several years ago, physicists thought that these symmetries were fundamental and they tried to unify all interactions in SU(5) but they failed due to the stability of protons. Today, there is a new attempt with the Lie group E8 with the "Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" of Antony Garrett Lisi. But I think that symmetries are a consequence of the need of stability and not the inverse. Today, the Grand Unified Theory seems to be difficult because the coupling constants of the tree interactions (electromagnetic weak and strong) do not converge to a single point. Concerning the masses of the elementary particles, I now think that they are defined relative to photons. The problem of the Higgs boson is that even if it explains the mass of the elementary particles (defined as a stable product of an elementary pair production in two photon collisions), there is the problem of its own mass. Moreover it does not give a definition for the elementary particles.

        Emmanuel