Combining general relativity and quantum theory implies that the final theory cannot have equations and that it cannot be based on axioms.

See the first two sections on the lack of equations and the last appendix of https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361866270 on the lack of axioms.

In ancient Greece philosophers tried to separate relational reality and absolute reality. Because relational reality is “created” by absolute reality (Eleatic school of philosophy). Actually, that is what Newton tried with his 2 axioms about absolute space and absolute time (see Wikipedia).

Absolute reality isn’t visible because our senses can only detect mutual relations between the phenomena. The consequence is that we can only determine absolute reality with the help of relational reality and intuition. The latter because we humans are build up by absolute reality too (we are not independent “observers”).

Mathematics and physics are like languages that share absolute reality and relational reality. So there is no difference between mathematics and physics, there is only a difference in the way we express the conceptual framework of both “languages”.

Unfortunately during the last centuries philosophy is in decay, because the “tangible” subjects of philosophy, mathematics and physics, are flourishing. Although their success have resulted in a huge pile of scientific rubbish too. Not at least because both scientific educations are really limited (the lack of general conceptual structures).

In physics there is no final theory but in mathematics either. Because both branches of science are embedded in a shared scientific culture. At the moment the majority of scientists is convinced that relational reality envelopes everything in our universe. Although there are “cracks” (e.g. non-locality).

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

You calmly and clearly describe the scene of a dual world, absolute and relational. Such a world seems all the more mysterious and worthy of our yearning. If this is true, then the questions we desire to know are: 1) why would God hide from us the absolute world in which we find ourselves; 2) how is the relationship between the absolute and relational worlds formulated, and can it be recognized by human beings; and 3) can we achieve a full description of the relational world if we completely shield ourselves from the absolute world?

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan

Sorry, my comment was influenced by the comment of Christoph Schiller because of his statement “that the final theory cannot have equations and that it cannot be based on axioms”. In my opinion the statement is directly related to absolute reality.

It isn’t really a dual universe, because the duality originate from our inability to see/feel/hear absolute reality. We are an accumulation of local differences that are created by absolute reality. I can state that absolute reality is more or less equal to QFT but that is only an approximation. Partly because QFT isn’t a real theory, it is a mixture of parts of older theories, like Gauge fields, Special relativity and QM.

Anyway, at the moment the general concept of QFT is that the basic quantum fields “create” relational reality (the detectable phenomena). Nevertheless, our knowledge of the basic quantum fields is limited to the way these fields express themselves by the detectable phenomena (detectable distinct properties). So we can compare the basic quantum fields with the ocean: only the waves are visible for us (surface area).

The structure of the basic quantum fields tessellate the volume of the universe (there exists no “nothing”). So if we want to determine the underlying dynamical structure of the basic quantum fields we can only use reasoning/mathematics. That is why the topic of your discussion is about absolute reality and the mathematical laws we can discover with the help of the examination of relational reality. For example the conclusion that there are universal conservation laws (energy and momentum). In ancient Greece the teachings of Pythagoras were dedicated to the idea that our universe is a mathematical reality (like Max Tegmark’s paper: “The mathematical universe”). See Wikipedia.

It isn’t impossible to determine absolute reality – all the properties of the structure of the universe – but the theory will be a pure mathematical theory. Because we cannot describe absolute reality in terms of colour, resistance, temperature, or consciousness. Even our concept of God doesn’t envelope everything because it is supposed that God has consciousness, so it is a “creation” by absolute reality, like humans.

We cannot shield ourselves from absolute reality because relational reality is part of absolute reality (like the waves are part of the water of the ocean). Moreover, there exists only 1 true scalar in the universe and it is the geometrical sphere. Thus the universal scalar field (Higgs field) describes a part of the “tangible” reality of absolute reality. The Higgs field “fills” about 74% of the volume of the universe, so we have to determine the “mathematical nature” of the remaining 26% (universal electric field and its corresponding magnetic field). Gravity has no basic quantum field on its own and it isn't curved spacetime either. It is just an emerging force field.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

I have benefited from many of your comments and there is no reason for your sorry. Any of your views or comments are always welcome by me. You will never need to say sorry in my case.

Although I am not quite able to accept the basic view of QFT, your expressions of “absolute reality” and “relational reality” have made it much clearer for me to think about this issue.

Regarding the Higgs potential field view, I have a different opinion. I maintain that mass is a property of the particle itself and does not need to be given by an external field. I have found that the potential field generated by the structure of the particle can match the Higgs potential shape very well and can explain its physical meaning accurately. This is described in slightly more detail in [1], where Figure 2 (p11) shows the structure potential of elementary particles (this is currently a Chinese version). The point I want to emphasize is that the elementary particle structure is the key to our deciphering all physical phenomena, it concentrates all the properties of elementary particles. And these properties are the basis for interactions. It is almost impossible to ignore and cross it to solve the problems facing physics.

I am a problem "maker". Like many here, I want to understand what the world is really like. You are one of the helpers.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan

I agree that the energy of a reduced scalar of the Higgs field cannot be responsible for the mass of a particle. Because in vacuum space without matter the concentration of the energy is forced by the universal electric field and its corresponding magnetic field, while the scalars of the Higgs field are still flat. It is above a certain threshold of concentrated energy that the distinct scalar is forced to decrease its radius. Thereafter, the ongoing energy concentration is not from a new source (the decreased scalar) but it is still generated by the universal electric field.

The annihilation of a particle and its anti-particle results in the emission of a couple of high-energy electromagnetic waves and the sum of the energy of these EM waves shows to be equal to the energy of both particles. So during the annihilation there is no restitution of energy to the Higgs field. In other words, the local Higgs field acts like an intermediating “catalyst” to the energy concentration of the universal electric field to “create” a particle.

The linear velocity of a quantum of energy (h) is the constant speed of light (c). The measurement of the speed of light was done with the help of classic physics. So every theorist thinks about the speed of light like a signal during 1 second that passes on over a certain distance.

But the “real constant” is the velocity of the quantum within the metric (the units of the structure) of the electromagnetic field. If we concentrate energy the velocity of 1 single quantum is still the speed of light. We cannot add quanta locally and expect that the total amount of energy still moves with the speed of light. Thus if we transfer 10 quanta from 1 point in space to another point – in comparison to the transfer of 1 quantum – we add the duration of 10 x the pass on of 1 quantum over a distance of 1 unit of the structure of the electromagnetic field. Actually, the speed of light is the only velocity in the universe in relation to the transfer of energy. All the different velocities of particles, objects, planets, etc. are just resultant velocities.

This is nicely described in "The History of the Derivation of Euler’s Number" by Mohsen Aghaeiboorkheili, John Giuna Kawagle.Article The History of the Derivation of Euler’s Number

See figure 3: the moving b particle in the image is nothing else than the metric of the EM field. Moreover, the EM field is the rest frame of the universe (inclusive the Higgs field).

See: Jeremy Darling (2022): “The Universe is Brighter in the Direction of Our Motion: Galaxy Counts and Fluxes are Consistent with the CMB Dipole”. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 931, No 2. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac6f08

With kind regards, Sydney

This wording

“…In his article "More is differen t", Anderson said that new laws of physics "emerge" at each physical level and new properties appear [1]; Wheeler, when claiming that "law without law" and "order comes out of order", argued that chaotic phenomena " generate" different laws of physics [2][3]. What they mean is that the laws, parameters, and constants of the upper level of physics appear to be independent of the laws of physics of the lower level. Is this really the case? Are we ignoring the conditions that form the physical hierarchy, thus leading to this illusion?….”

- looks as some rather good example of what happens in mainstream physics, if some mainstream physicists address to some really fundamental physical problem, in this case – what are physical laws [really laws/links/constants].

I.e. in such cases nothing besides really transcendent, by no means scientifically grounded, so really senseless – including so different, while any really scientific answer by definition is unique – claims can appear.

That is fundamentally logically inevitable since in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, “Matter” – and logically inevitable so everything in Matter, are completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational.

The phenomena/notions above can be. and are, really scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

.

What quite naturally resulted, including, in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

- where more 30 really fundamental physical problems first of all what are main postulates in mainstream physics, when , why, and by what ways they are adequate to the reality, and not adequate, etc.; including what are “particles” , fundamental Nature forces and fields, etc., are solved or essentially clarified

Including the answer to the thread question is clear: Matter is a simple informational system that is based on binary reversible logics, so Matter’s ultimate base is the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP,

- and, besides the binary reversible logics that provides the energy, 4D momentum, and 4D angular momentums conservation laws, in Matter’s design a few different logical marks “fundamental Nature forces ”, and corresponding different constants that determine the Forces strengths, are established.

All that is written in rather complex FLE logical structure, and results in that Matter is as it is.

Really ultimately everything in Matter exists and happens as some disturbances in the lattice, however these disturbances, if interact, compose the diversity of Matter’s objects/systems - particles, bodies, stars, etc.;

- and the interactions, because of the logical self-inconsistence of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Change”, happen in essentially different– QM and “classical” scales. The scales are fundamentally different in that all what exists and happens on “classical” scale is extremely – by few tens orders by magnitude – averaged QM objects/events/effects/processes.

So, say, QM laws/links/constants aren’t directly applicable on classic scale, but that by no mean happens because of that some new laws of physics mystically "emerge" at each physical level”; of some quite mystic "law without law" , "order comes out of order", or some again quite mystic “chaotic phenomena " generate" different laws of physics, etc.

More see the links above.

Cheers

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

Many thanks for the many ideas and references, I will take the time to read them.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

The way the laws of physics emerge

In addition to the structure and statistics generated by the interactions that result in new laws of physics, the expression of the different orders of differentials and integrals of such generating processes is another important way of making the laws of physics emerge.

One of examples of such expressions can be seen in Ingo D. Mane 's paper : “On the Origin and Unification of Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Quantum Mechanics“：

Preprint On the Origin and Unification of Electromagnetism, Gravitati...

That

“…In addition to the structure and statistics generated by the interactions that result in new laws of physics, the expression of the different orders of differentials and integrals of such generating processes is another important way of making the laws of physics emerge.….”

- is principally incorrect. Laws of physics – which are subjective products of fundamentally non-material consciousnesses, if are really adequate to the reality, are determined only by Matter’s design – i.e. by Matter’s binary reversible logics that is quite concretely specifically actualized in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which [lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct); FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP,

- and at least 4 observable/known now additional logical conditions – “fundamental Nature forces”, which have concrete specific strengths, which also are “written” in FLE structure.

Nothing of the above follows concretely from any mathematics, besides that all that can be extremely effectively described/analyzed by using mathematics.

Mathematics is nothing else than a tool, which guaranties, if applied to some set of initial data and assumptions, that results of correct mathematical analysis is in complete accordance with the initial data and assumption. If the initial data and assumptions are adequate to the objective reality, the results are adequate to the reality. If data and/or assumptions are fantasies, the results completely for sure are also fantasies.

In mainstream physics all theories, which are rather complicated – and standard theories perfect - mathematical structures, fundamentally are based on really mostly transcendent/fantastic initial assumptions/postulates, and so at every case, when a theory really addresses to some fundamental problem, the result is fundamentally logically inevitably fantastic something; as, say, “string”, “brain” theories, “quantum gravities”, numerous theories of “holes/channels, etc., in spacetime”, “supersymmetries”, etc. Though in some cases direct application of mathematics results in some adequate to the reality predictions, say, Dirac’s prediction of antiparticles, where to explain the mathematical result it was necessary to assume existence of transcendent fantastic “sea of negative energies ”; but that is really an exclusive, if unique, case.

Etc., more see SS post above.

Cheers