If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide
by the Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Order posts by:*

*Display:*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 1/16/22 at 15:28pm UTC, wrote Hello John and Dr Chiang, Dr Chiang , I have tried to find you on...

**Kwan Chiang**: *on* 1/15/22 at 18:40pm UTC, wrote Hi John and Steve, When the majority talk about Maxwell equations, it is...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 1/15/22 at 11:56am UTC, wrote John, in fact I beleive that the subgeometries in the 5D of Dr Chiang is in...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 1/14/22 at 20:21pm UTC, wrote Hi John, yes indeed. I believe that we have relevant roads to explore in...

**John Cox**: *on* 1/14/22 at 18:25pm UTC, wrote Steve, I agree with Kwan that 5D is the natural dimensionality and that 4D...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 1/14/22 at 12:41pm UTC, wrote Hi John, Happy new year, the relevance in the works of Dr Chiang is the...

**John Cox**: *on* 1/14/22 at 0:57am UTC, wrote Dr. Chiang, Sorry to delay, are you at university in Thailand? My Bing...

**Kwan Chiang**: *on* 1/13/22 at 17:39pm UTC, wrote Hi Steve, Just let you know here that I just sent a message through...

FQXi FORUM

January 18, 2022

CATEGORY:
High Energy Physics
[back]

TOPIC: Anatomy of spacetime and possible origins of internal symmetry and all particle quantum numbers [refresh]

TOPIC: Anatomy of spacetime and possible origins of internal symmetry and all particle quantum numbers [refresh]

Thank you to Dr. Kwan Chiang for suggesting a discussion of their recent paper Anatomy of spacetime and possible origins of internal symmetry and all particle quantum numbers which was published in *Physics Essays* in 2020.

Abstract:

Not driven by observations, this paper digs into the “internal workings” of spacetime. Through logical deductions, micro dimensions appear to be uncovered, with possible SU(4) or SU(5): 1. It is thought that special relativity merely initiated the definition of spacetime, but more scales are yet to be defined. 2. In the definition of spacetime, EM (electromagnetism) played another critical role, i.e., the six circular magnetic and electric field lines (running on the six planes) cross and “define equivalencies” between the four linear scales. Without this definition, light would not be measured at the same speed in different directions. Being a gauge theory, EM defines two things: Linear scales and “equivalencies” between linear scales. 3. For any scale (and their equivalencies), there could be no or many arbitrarily assumed definitions, or a concrete definition based on relevant physics. Nature would conform with but the one based on relevant physics, because Nature itself is consisted of that relevant physics. Thus, the principle: No scale and their equivalencies are meaningful unless defined by relevant physics. 4. Then, what are those fields running (and defining equivalencies between the six “angle scales”) on the six planes of the 4D spacetime? It is believed to be the “classical” weak fields which run in solid angles (or “3D angles”) between the six planes. (The only suspicion is that this rotation does not preserve vector length, which is not a problem ultimately.) 5. If the six angle scales are drawn as six axes of a 6D superspace, then the “3D angle” rotations look like “plane angle” rotations and cause SO(6)∼SU(4) [or SO(10)∼SU(5) for 5D spacetime], which appears to match baryon spectrum without quarks. 6. Since this rotation is between “planes” of the “external” spacetime, no linear dimension is visible, yet causing P-violations. 7. Similarly, fields running in 4D and 5D angle rotations (between 3D and 4D surfaces) must also exist, which may be responsible for CP-violation and strong interactions. 8. The 5D angle rotations may be generating Baryon and Lepton numbers and hence explaining their conservation behaviors, e.g., no proton decay. 9. It can be inferred, if 3D, 4D (and 5D) angle rotation fields did not exist, the 4D (and 5D) spacetime would be warped and the four (or five) linear axes would not be perpendicular to each other. 10. EM was simplified and turned elegant “only” after redefinition of spacetime by special relativity. Likewise, weak, CP-violation and strong interactions are expected to simplify and turn as elegant as EM when 2D (plane), 3D, and 4D angle scales are defined by weak, CP-violation, and strong forces, respectively. 11. Verifications as accurate as EM are expected too. 12. Mathematically, higher angle rotations thought to be inexistent only because it does not conserve vector length. Actually, they did not vanish and their symmetries would surface in particle classifications when linear momentum is not concerned. Micro dimensions being invisible is because symmetries do not have to happen between linear axes, but can happen between 2-, 3- or 4-surfaces. These geometries together generate the complete particles spectrum.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

Abstract:

Not driven by observations, this paper digs into the “internal workings” of spacetime. Through logical deductions, micro dimensions appear to be uncovered, with possible SU(4) or SU(5): 1. It is thought that special relativity merely initiated the definition of spacetime, but more scales are yet to be defined. 2. In the definition of spacetime, EM (electromagnetism) played another critical role, i.e., the six circular magnetic and electric field lines (running on the six planes) cross and “define equivalencies” between the four linear scales. Without this definition, light would not be measured at the same speed in different directions. Being a gauge theory, EM defines two things: Linear scales and “equivalencies” between linear scales. 3. For any scale (and their equivalencies), there could be no or many arbitrarily assumed definitions, or a concrete definition based on relevant physics. Nature would conform with but the one based on relevant physics, because Nature itself is consisted of that relevant physics. Thus, the principle: No scale and their equivalencies are meaningful unless defined by relevant physics. 4. Then, what are those fields running (and defining equivalencies between the six “angle scales”) on the six planes of the 4D spacetime? It is believed to be the “classical” weak fields which run in solid angles (or “3D angles”) between the six planes. (The only suspicion is that this rotation does not preserve vector length, which is not a problem ultimately.) 5. If the six angle scales are drawn as six axes of a 6D superspace, then the “3D angle” rotations look like “plane angle” rotations and cause SO(6)∼SU(4) [or SO(10)∼SU(5) for 5D spacetime], which appears to match baryon spectrum without quarks. 6. Since this rotation is between “planes” of the “external” spacetime, no linear dimension is visible, yet causing P-violations. 7. Similarly, fields running in 4D and 5D angle rotations (between 3D and 4D surfaces) must also exist, which may be responsible for CP-violation and strong interactions. 8. The 5D angle rotations may be generating Baryon and Lepton numbers and hence explaining their conservation behaviors, e.g., no proton decay. 9. It can be inferred, if 3D, 4D (and 5D) angle rotation fields did not exist, the 4D (and 5D) spacetime would be warped and the four (or five) linear axes would not be perpendicular to each other. 10. EM was simplified and turned elegant “only” after redefinition of spacetime by special relativity. Likewise, weak, CP-violation and strong interactions are expected to simplify and turn as elegant as EM when 2D (plane), 3D, and 4D angle scales are defined by weak, CP-violation, and strong forces, respectively. 11. Verifications as accurate as EM are expected too. 12. Mathematically, higher angle rotations thought to be inexistent only because it does not conserve vector length. Actually, they did not vanish and their symmetries would surface in particle classifications when linear momentum is not concerned. Micro dimensions being invisible is because symmetries do not have to happen between linear axes, but can happen between 2-, 3- or 4-surfaces. These geometries together generate the complete particles spectrum.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

Hi Dr Kwan Chiang, thanks for sharing your works. I like the generality of your ideas. I have remarked that the majority of thinkers actually consider only this spacetime of the GR and they consider philosophically that we have only this spacetime and photons like primordial essence. So they try with the points or strings in begining in 1D and extradimensions and geometrical algebras to unify this GR and the QFT .

But if the standard is emergent from a deeper logic in codes in the particles and that the space vacuum of the DE possesses the main codes and encodes simply the photons and the cold dark matter, so the standard model does not come from the tensors , fields of this GR but from the vacuum. I know that it is difficult to change a line of reasoning but I doubt strongly that this universe has only created photons oscillating you know. Even with the strings, branes, Mtheory we cannot solve the deepest unknowns and mainly the quantum gravitation and the constant cosmological problem, if we cannot there are reasons, it is probably due to fact that the aim is not to unify G c and h , the QFT , the QM and the GR but we must superimpose the DM and the DE probably.

All the maths of geometrical algebras of Lie or clifford have been tried to renormalise the QG, but we cannot even with groups, subgroups, the non commutativity or non associativity, that proves that it lacks things and the main problem for me is philosophical about the origin. The lie groups of course are relevant in the sense that we have symmetries and that we can rank the goups, but I believe strongly that the main error is to consider these fields like origin of our topologices, geometries, matters, fields. I think that the particles are the secret in a superfluidity with 3 spacetimes superimposed and the 3D spheres like foundamental objects.

That said, congrats for your general work, you have well worked about the groups and fields to better understand the emergent QFT. Best regards

report post as inappropriate

But if the standard is emergent from a deeper logic in codes in the particles and that the space vacuum of the DE possesses the main codes and encodes simply the photons and the cold dark matter, so the standard model does not come from the tensors , fields of this GR but from the vacuum. I know that it is difficult to change a line of reasoning but I doubt strongly that this universe has only created photons oscillating you know. Even with the strings, branes, Mtheory we cannot solve the deepest unknowns and mainly the quantum gravitation and the constant cosmological problem, if we cannot there are reasons, it is probably due to fact that the aim is not to unify G c and h , the QFT , the QM and the GR but we must superimpose the DM and the DE probably.

All the maths of geometrical algebras of Lie or clifford have been tried to renormalise the QG, but we cannot even with groups, subgroups, the non commutativity or non associativity, that proves that it lacks things and the main problem for me is philosophical about the origin. The lie groups of course are relevant in the sense that we have symmetries and that we can rank the goups, but I believe strongly that the main error is to consider these fields like origin of our topologices, geometries, matters, fields. I think that the particles are the secret in a superfluidity with 3 spacetimes superimposed and the 3D spheres like foundamental objects.

That said, congrats for your general work, you have well worked about the groups and fields to better understand the emergent QFT. Best regards

report post as inappropriate

Dear Professor Dufourny,

Thank you for your comments. A free copy of this paper is attached for full understanding.

Best regards,

attachments: PaperToSub-OriginOfInternalSymmetry-PE-Published-13Chiang.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your comments. A free copy of this paper is attached for full understanding.

Best regards,

attachments: PaperToSub-OriginOfInternalSymmetry-PE-Published-13Chiang.pdf

report post as inappropriate

This paper cannot be opened,sorry. Are there a better link?

Ulla Mattfolk.

report post as inappropriate

Ulla Mattfolk.

report post as inappropriate

Spacetime has been postulated to account for individually differing temporal observation of the same event, according to relative distance and relative motion of the observers: It is unnecessary to assume the observers’ reference frames are different Present slices of material reality, assuming that all material reality persists as the spacetime continuum. Mathematically described as 4D spacetime by H. Minkowski.

Instead what’s needed is individual receipt of sensory input from a changing but ever uni-temporal environment; into which the potential sensory data (especially EMr stimulus for our primary sense, was and is distributed.)

**The potential sensory data transmission time from Source object /s to receipt being ‘reflected’ in the observation product; Generated by the observer (emergent) and distinct from the external environment.** Giving too emergent experienced passage of the Present time.

The changing configuration of all existent things being foundational passage of time (categorically different and not a dimension)

The environment where particles and material objects exist and interact, independent of observation is not the observation product spacetime……but the source environment, where potential stimuli persist, until absorbed or dissipated..; EMR, sound waves, chemicals, electric and magnetic fields) a more foundational space than the observation generated spacetime.

The relevance of this is the "digging into the internal workings" is an examination of the wrong 'animal'. I do not know the effect of removing the time dimension on the outcomes the paper found.

report post as inappropriate

Instead what’s needed is individual receipt of sensory input from a changing but ever uni-temporal environment; into which the potential sensory data (especially EMr stimulus for our primary sense, was and is distributed.)

The changing configuration of all existent things being foundational passage of time (categorically different and not a dimension)

The environment where particles and material objects exist and interact, independent of observation is not the observation product spacetime……but the source environment, where potential stimuli persist, until absorbed or dissipated..; EMR, sound waves, chemicals, electric and magnetic fields) a more foundational space than the observation generated spacetime.

The relevance of this is the "digging into the internal workings" is an examination of the wrong 'animal'. I do not know the effect of removing the time dimension on the outcomes the paper found.

report post as inappropriate

For completeness: Concerning The curved spacetime of GR. Alteration of the distribution of base existence causes the curvature of EM waves. Affecting travel time to an observer. As they can carry potential sensory data, the travel time is 'reflected' in the products generated. Which could be clock times. The generated *effect* not cause, is traditionally modelled as curved spacetime. Being a model of the product it isn't the foundational environment, where particles and matter exist.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

The perception generated of time difference relates to the potential sensory data processed. The clock times generated from received signals show time of signal origin. Those times, retrieved from the signal, are emergent manifestations. They are not foundational differences in time of material being/existence. The what is actually a 'sensory product' time dimension ( in SR and GR) is irrelevant to the being of particles and material objects.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

If considering existence rather than appearances, the time dimension related to sensory products can be omitted. Space is uni-temporal then. That is the same time everywhere. Each foundational time is the configuration of all that exists. Only the most recent configuration exists. Former configurations can be represented along a historical time line. Not a dimension. Detection and interactions can only happening the most recent, only existing configuration.

A lions behaviour within its territory can be monitored Giving location probabilities, which are spatially spread out. They will also vary with time of day. Eg more likely to be resting under the favorite tree at noon. More likely near the water hole in the evening. Prediction and retrodiction can be made. Even though the lion can not be existing beyond or preceding the uni-temporal configuration of existence. For this kind of scenario an imagined line also extending beyond uni-temporal-Now is required.

report post as inappropriate

A lions behaviour within its territory can be monitored Giving location probabilities, which are spatially spread out. They will also vary with time of day. Eg more likely to be resting under the favorite tree at noon. More likely near the water hole in the evening. Prediction and retrodiction can be made. Even though the lion can not be existing beyond or preceding the uni-temporal configuration of existence. For this kind of scenario an imagined line also extending beyond uni-temporal-Now is required.

report post as inappropriate

Further about the lion representation. To show how it is similar to representation of a particle's location. The probability of finding the lion at each location, at each time is represented by a number. The numbers will also be affected by having another lion in the territory, according to their relationship. If two probability map sequences are drawn up, one for each lion they will seem to affect each other. I.e. not be the same as for two lone individuals. Re. the measurement problem. Trapping, shooting or otherwise encountering the lion by material interaction with it provides a singular measurement location. That supersedes the location probability map.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Cf. Lion Location Probability Field and lion entity trapped- with QFT type representation and a particle detection.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

The superseding of the LLPF lion representation with the obtaining of trapped lion location information does not mean that 'collapse' of the LLPF created or caused the discreetly located lion-being to be formed. The material lion location is just a better description, once obtained. Making the location probability description superfluous.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Still about the anatomy of spacetime. Max Tegmark/ 10mths ago/ Closer to truth video. How can he still trust in 4th dimensional 'spaghetti' existence notion. There is no evidence that former configurations of matter persist as well as the current configuration. There is evidence that potential sensory stimuli persist in the environment. That persistence alone accounts for non simultaneity of *experience* of same (Source) events.

Having lived a nice life, the spaghetti analogy may be a pleasant thought. What if you'd suffered horribly, such as burning in an accident? The thought of persistence of that sequence of configurations of material existence is not so pleasant. The pleasantness of the personal thought of 4th dimensional existence beyond death does not make up for the lack of evidence. And that its not needed for relativity.

Why can't I get any traction?

report post as inappropriate

Having lived a nice life, the spaghetti analogy may be a pleasant thought. What if you'd suffered horribly, such as burning in an accident? The thought of persistence of that sequence of configurations of material existence is not so pleasant. The pleasantness of the personal thought of 4th dimensional existence beyond death does not make up for the lack of evidence. And that its not needed for relativity.

Why can't I get any traction?

report post as inappropriate

Observation products formed from received EMr aren't evidence of material persistence in time. Not even images formed that show likenesses of cosmological entities. Such as stars, gas clouds, even a black hole. The ability to form such images requires persistence of the EMr signals in an environment without a time dimension.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Professor Dufourny,

Sorry for delayed formal reply to your post, as it took me some time to digest your post and think about a way to communicate between drastically different schools of thinking. There are two major problems.

The first is that it appears that the majority consider matter (particles, strings, etc.) more primary than geometry. On the contrary, I consider...

view entire post

Sorry for delayed formal reply to your post, as it took me some time to digest your post and think about a way to communicate between drastically different schools of thinking. There are two major problems.

The first is that it appears that the majority consider matter (particles, strings, etc.) more primary than geometry. On the contrary, I consider...

view entire post

attachments: 1_PaperToSub-OriginOfInternalSymmetry-PE-Published-13Chiang.pdf

report post as inappropriate

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

attachments: PaperToSub-OriginOfInternalSymmetry-PE-3-pdf.pdf, PaperToSub-OriginOfInternalSymmetry-PE-3.kcc.docx

report post as inappropriate

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

attachments: PaperToSub-OriginOfInternalSymmetry-PE-3-pdf.pdf, PaperToSub-OriginOfInternalSymmetry-PE-3.kcc.docx

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

Dear Professor Dufourny,

Sorry for delayed formal reply to your post, as it took me some time to digest your post and think about a way to communicate between drastically different schools of thinking. There are two major problems.

The first is that it appears that the majority consider matter (particles, strings, etc.) more primary than geometry. On the contrary, I consider...

view entire post

Sorry for delayed formal reply to your post, as it took me some time to digest your post and think about a way to communicate between drastically different schools of thinking. There are two major problems.

The first is that it appears that the majority consider matter (particles, strings, etc.) more primary than geometry. On the contrary, I consider...

view entire post

attachments: 2_PaperToSub-OriginOfInternalSymmetry-PE-Published-13Chiang.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Hello Dr Chiang,

I am intrigued too about your ideas , the fact to consider these geometries like primordial essence .I consider like I told you a different line of thoughts indeed about the origin of our universe. If the geometry is primary, so it could be relevant indeed to correlate the deformations of spheres 3D with the symplectomorphims preserving the volumes. If we have for example a...

view entire post

I am intrigued too about your ideas , the fact to consider these geometries like primordial essence .I consider like I told you a different line of thoughts indeed about the origin of our universe. If the geometry is primary, so it could be relevant indeed to correlate the deformations of spheres 3D with the symplectomorphims preserving the volumes. If we have for example a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

I have shared Dr Chiang this page and your work on facebook, several thinkers are interested to know more.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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...

view entire post

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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.