chron44

I remember arguments both from theory (evaporation of black holes) and experiment (existence of high-energy particles from cosmic rays) putting the matter to rest. Hi, again Also, when preparing for the Trinity test for the fist nuclear bomb to be "released", according to the historical movie Oppenheimer, there was concern about the atmosphere to ignite, when this "energy" was freed in the desert. I think, in the move, Oppenheimer saying to the military chief asking of this "doom" something that "the risk is not zero, but enough near zero". It seems like the CERN staff answer in a similar manner, now in real life conditions. Such an answer - to me - looks recklessly. I can imagine that average ppl feels the same with the present CERN reasoning of the continuation with the LHC and the FCC colliders. Can the human specie afford one more global "stress" parameter added to the "things" that already oppress people? Such concern is a "grown-up" concern, at least for me. /chron44

In about 2003 national media in some "half-serious" short articles was reporting about average ppl's concern over ongoing or planing of the LHC "project". I myself wasn't that worried, but I noticed that the reassurances from the CERN staff wasn't 100% OK, just 99.999999... or something like that. -For the negative chance of any sort of unexpected incidence of any sort possible. The standard manner of mentioning extreme high energy particles from outer space reaching velocities and energies far over any LHC capacity, when entering earths atmosphere did settle my worry on any "unfortunate" incident. Although when handling the most powerful machine ever built for experiments - and - "only" referring to outer space particle entering earths atmosphere for common reassurances of its impossible hazardous character. -This type of reassurance although, for me at that time, did hint on both a very extreme small risk of any hazard, and it hinted on a not fully (100%) comprehended physics involved. OK, I took this as an hobby project for to "investigate" this "double" extreme small hazard risk. Nowadays I'm 100% convinced over such powerful physics projects, to be non-hazardous. /chron44

Hi, Are the LHC and the FCC projects - really - secure. I have though been "investigating" these types of projects in the "layman" view of "security" since about 2003. Does it exist any sort of physics that to a 100% risk level makes such projects secure? /chron44

Well, I'm neither a mathematician nor a schooled physicist, I'm a system oriented engineer. I legally, "the nice sort", "hack" systems including universe. In this case by the three physics main conditions for its vacuum. By the vacuum's geometry (from the GR (G) view) , its identity (by wich central aspect it's seen at) and its dynamics (by which physics entities the vacuum remain stable enough for in our case "sustain" with galaxies, SMBH's, EM "void", and so on). These two ideas, postulates, expressions or even being sort of formulas, of the QEB and the UBD, are breakthroughs in universal all over idea crafting. To close any such discussion and effort in a major meta discipline discussions forum - is in my view a most puzzling stand relative everyone who are concerned in reasonable science. Of course, I will give examples of how it does these "things" mentioned here. But if being what I claim these two "tools" to be (mainly the fully functioning and seriously physics stress tested UBD formula). -Anyone - capable to - reason - about universe in astrophysics and - calculate - with success relative universal observations, empirical facts, must be able to do the same. Still, as said I'm a fair and concerned average schooled computer engineer. My professional strength is not to calculate - it's to understand and depict systems. I therefore ask any mathematician who understand astrophysics to validate my system "hack" of such a system. Why shall a pro computer engineer become and behave like a pro mathematician. I have done my job, in a most concerned manner. And I think ppl understand my objection expressed - especially when talking about to "close" a good job. Well, just give me time to find a fair math subject in this case. And, during the mean time, I seriously invite any mathematician in physics, or vice versa, to calculate on any of these here expressed entities this tool handles. Observe that the UBD formula basically "only" is used in calculations of vacuum properties, mainly these mentioned here. I'll return. /chron44 t is time.

Hi, again Since not being a pro physicist, we maybe shall wait for the one's here schooled in astrophysics. The reasonable breakthrough with understanding how and for what these "tools" are best suited to, is rather near in time for me to fully understand. My concern mainly is to comprehend and verify universal conditions. Specially on the latest BB negative confirmations. The recent found minor "errors" at the BB "idea" spurs me. So generally these two "tools" are most suitable for correlating early universal observations with ideas of universe's dynamics and geometry. -Primary through vacuum related evolution. According to every time stances possible. -Then, now and in future times. The UBD formula initially concerned universal "matter", time" and "gravity" behavior. The UBD tool is not possible for to use with strict QM, particle or field physics, and so on. Although it is "weighted" or "calibrated" from a universal action scale, in the standardized (zeroized) h-bar form. -It's an overall "instrument" for universe's vacuum condition, in its regulation method, its identity character, and its geometry, at any time chosen for to "investigate". An astonishing hack of universe for short. /chron44

The UBD formula used for "bridging" the QM and GR aspects is best understood from the strict version. This version is the UBD formula in its full power. The angular momentum part in the non-strict UBD version hints the "legacy" of how I found the UBD at all. It was through analyzing exotic massive photons in extreme early QEB (t<0) stances, initially configuring to later "plasma" "evoking" "void". Just note over how the gravity "ratio" versus the tensional "ratio" behave dynamically. Therefore thoroughly observe, that the QEB "tool" is much more complex than thought at first glance. (One also understands its "powerful" breakthrough functions when applying statistical normal distribution to it. -When you never have to renormalize it.) -So is the UBD formula. Being a most concerned "layman" physicist I have really "struggled" with these both "tools" for over 20 years. (Professionally, I'm a fair low power electronics and computer hardware/software engineer. ) The QEB: The strict UBD version: In the strict UBD version the angular momentum is absent and "only" the vacuum's pixelizing tendency (QM), the zeroized h-bar, "hint" a link to G (AKA GR). This should answer on your question. This tool is a general vacuum regulation rule in junction with the Planck power constant, and this constant is only seen from the vacuum's global regulation characteristics where c and G both are its anchors. -When this tool has been proven in many stress tests during the last half year. And UBD fully, with the initial QEB "behavior" hinted in this post also, answers on your criteria asked in some posts earlier for any form of a BB or an alternative scenario. The primitive atom formation is moreover answered on when QEB in its later stages has, electrons and protons available with, much free photons. The QEB is more "explanatory" than it may reveal for a schooled physicist, but very "intriguing" for a system minded engineer. All these later posts are complex, even for advanced physicists. When, my "trick" here is the more than 20 years focusing on astrophysical issues. /chron44

Hi, again I can merely answer issues like this and other similar questions in this manner: And for to "prove" that I'm not joking or try to con anyone here. I can initially, and as a first "rational" common and basic physics - result - among several other physics main answers here present the "Swiss army knife" tool, "overbridge" the QM and GR physics gap. A most anticipated and hopefully a very welcomed issue. This "tool" should "cover" the "t=0" vacuum's uniform and seemingly long lasting universal regulated condition. Seen over our present 13.8 billion years span from the "t=0" "recombination" and alpha constant start. I still use my "vocabulary. Even, when I do notice and comprehend the physics community's objections. Be lenient with - new - and, yet, non-standard physics. It though is a correct physics formula, that needs its right place in fair astrophysics. The UBD, the Universal Background Driver, formula which is - "evoked" - from the QEB energy assembling "expression": The same function of the UBD with a more physics strict notation: The historical "anomaly" between General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) stems from the lack of a shared scaling mechanism. The Universal Background Driver (UBD) introduces a time-dependent geometric operator, h⁰ (t), which functions as the fundamental "bridge" between the gravitational constant (G) and the quantum action (h). The UBD does not replace the Standard Model or General Relativity; it provides the operational ledger that allows them to interact without mathematical divergence. It defines the vacuum not as "empty space," but as a Background Driver that continuously calculates the geometric requirements for the existence of discrete matter. The former QM and GR "anomaly" is hereby declared for minimized. /chron44

For to describe, in physics more commonly understood events; from using "concealed" explanations and text behind expressions like "alpha physics", to a rather condensed but better phrasing, by depicting physically familiar stances. One may say something like this: "The introduction of alpha physics vocabulary in physics, realizes the start of the atomic universe." -Where the standard astrophysical view evolves, from a complex phase of plasma physics to the start of discrete reality. It's not a common physics phrase, still a conceptual shift from "impossible" mathematics to matter focused astrophysics. And I sincerely hope and believe that Einstein would have appreciated such a shift of focus in physics. This may be done with the QEB "expression" (reasons of my "t<0" "quasi-physics") and its newly discovered "t=0" resulting, fully functioning, physics formula. Though not yet presented. The "illusive" start of universe may be swapped to a "discrete" variant. How about it? /chron44

Yes, I'm using my "own" physics vocabulary, so I try to explain what I mean with t<0 physics. -In my own parallel BB, depicted with a better proved and hence better reasoned, "ontology". The time scales between the "ordinary" BB and my parallel BB "challenger" are "shifted in their synonymous time phases". The ordinary BB idea reason with "inflation" the phase where the dense "singularity" energy "point" during a very short time frame in an extreme eruption goes through several phases. Via its energy "field" called inflaton, that among some other aspects explains the Horizon problem. Where thereafter, at large, the main particles of photons ,electrons and protons are created, maybe in different order. At the cooling temperature of 3000K hydrogen is made via "recombination", which manifests in the present first possible observable universal- birth "sign", of the CMB radiation. -In "ordinary" physics this is the time where the dimensionless charge coupling - constant - "alpha" in a still "unknown" physics manner settles as a probabilistic ratio for the photon-electron interaction. -And in my BB "challenger" ontology this moment also occur at the same cooling temperature of 3000K with the same particles at the same interaction "ratio". I call this moment in my BB "challenger for t=0. Where the ordinary BB idea sets the t=0 when the singularity energy "point" is activated with the inflation in a following start of universal geometric evolution and production of the main entities mentioned among other elementary particles and fields. Hence, the ordinary BB idea cannot go before t=0, cannot "see" behind the t<0 wall. Where the BB challenger, the parallel BB "ontology", with much written "explanation","by definition start at the 3000K/"recombination" phase, start at t=0. -And hence can "see" before t=0, see behind the t<0 wall. Because, with the BB "challenger", the inflation phase with its inflaton field, never occur. But is "explained" in a much otherwise manner. -By an "ontology" that is more "rational" and has recent, early universal empirical, "observations" that matches astonishing - better - than the ordinary BB "idea" does. Or for short, I use my own concealed "ontological" vocabulary. Unfortunately in a bit or a rather "unfair" manner towards ppl who not are "familiar" with this "explanation". Still, it's my work we are dealing with. However, physics is for the concerned group. These are the "parameters" which may be involved with the "emotions" expressed from the science discussed in this type of forums. /chron44

I' not a professional physicist, I'm a interested layman. Still, I obviously am at least not "picking" on ppl who tries to search and make thesis out of impossible physics. If you are a physicist with any knowledge of universal science on t<0 to t=0, up to about 1 second of alpha physics you should be supporting any similar postulates or thought efforts. I am an ordinary human with human spontaneous and interested projects and search for the world and its conditions. Being supporting should be a standard approach in t<0 physics. /chron44 Furthermore, I can just only copy an earlier post from me, to this above comment: /chron44

Do anyone who "name" any physics formula, expression or postulate to "gibberish" that include "infinity" being able to differ on physical versus mathematical variants of "infinity"? For to note that this difference is real and comprehended? Observe that I don't claim the QEB "expression" to be physics in the scholar sense. The QEB is a mind and an otological starting help of the impossible measurement reality of early BB and other initial BB challengers. We can never measure t<0 stances. -Only observe large scale events and make more or less "advanced" predictions via extrapolations and interpolations with different methods. Still present physics does search in similar and adjacent types of postulates. Mainly because recent "BB" high tech data over universal most early evolution tries to reconcile the small but puzzling observations. Can anyone else confirm or disprove my posting here in this sense? How can we differ on t<0 stances with postulated not-time and non-space stances including non-measurable physics quantities if not making "reasonable" postulates for such environments? It is in need of "out-of-the-box thinking. Novel physics or mind leading postulates, whether gibberish or not in essence, often meet skepticism by default first encounter. /chron44

The QEB postulate: These are frank issues, and I try to answer in a "frank" "QEB" manner: f_infinity, function of infinity, is the physical view on infinity. Which not is to be swapped or mixed with mathematical infinity. E is the classical and the relativistic energy frame also seen in SR. In the QEB "expression" E stands for the energy frame seen into (conceptually transformed to) the forthcoming the t=0 start and further on to present time. Since the QEB "expression" is active in t<0, t=0, and continually to t0 time frame. QEB is active in all existed and existing time stances as a source for energy. /chron44

Hi, again I myself find these BB alternative issues most interesting. Probably some of you are initially sound skeptic, this is how physics is "made". I therefore have to adjust the BB t<0 and t=0 related time stances to correlate with the BB parallel universal evolutionary "frames. Since these are "synchronized" and has the "same" "QM" general physics starting from the 3000K cooling procedure. The BB parallel ontology's time frame of t=0, does "naturally" start when photons are freed from the electrons and start producing hydrogen atoms with the protons.. This cannot be changed at in the BB challenger. One interesting coincidence is that in this manner the ever first universal observable event, of the CMB blackbody radiation, in fact becomes to our universal birth. Early BB "ideas", like the inflation and the inflaton, interpolating/extrapolating birth of elementary particles, plasma and even singularity points of exceptional density. -Which, all similar events in standard BB physics are not fully confirmed "ideas", stays as advanced "guesses" to the BB widely accepted theory. Unfortunately lately some disproven and, in a puzzled novel astrophysics stance, not fully acknowledged in recent more and more refined observations of long range and high tech data of universe's very early stages. When, the parallel BB ontology in a physics manner does answer on these latest observed universal anomalies, with rational precision. This is the true strength of the BB challenger. -In this manner we can look behind t<0 time, the formerly BB inflation epoch, still with advanced guesses, now at least better correlated with recent observations. I really will try to continue my QEB postulate and my vacuum regulating physics, when time is on its side. /chron44

Generally we are, or at least I am, talking about pre universal most early conditions. Where neither fields nor particles exist. In the strict BB alternative ontological scenario also time and space are nor yet established. Still, my intention is to "decrypt" (let's say quasi physically) the source of electromagnetism and gravity. Where "preliminary", u stands for tension, this exactly phrase. And g stands for gravity, as it is physically expressed at this very early pre "void" stance. This IS philosophy in a broader sense, I admit this. But, in the vicinity of the "famous" 3000K recombination cooling level (this also occur in the parallel BB ontology at the exactly same temperature and with exactly the same particles). -My QEB initial energy assembling "expression" in this first QEB universal phase, is not in action any more. The universal vacuum regulation condition, with the big charge neutrality from exactly same amounts of electrons and protons, is fine tuned by the photon/electron complementary interaction. -We cannot in a physics basic tradition make any form of measurements behind the t<0 wall. We therefore cannot specify u nor g in a the realms of what we consider to be true physics. This is the sad t<0 situation. We can only theoretically interpolate and extrapolate behind the t<0 wall. Your issue is by default impossible to answer on without quasi physics, or extrapolating on what we can measure. T<0 looks like a form of a Schrödinger cat in such specific issues. So, my answer is u stands for "tension" in the pre universal t>0 epoch, which BB never can depict. Neither can g be physically looked on behind the t<0 BB wall. Such quasi physics is the only manner to solve the latest anomalies and negative BB observations. -As the too smooth CMB, too big first galaxies. Small but significant different universal ages depending on internal parallel BB math. And as mentioned in some posts earlier from me about the BB "inflation" add, it is not even necessary for explaining the Horizon problem. In the, BB parallel ontology's, regulated universe it never is a problem. It seems to be the "natural" geometry, identity and the dynamics (the regulation characteristics) of the start of the t=0 vacuum. So, much speaks for a need of some "quasi physics" for to handle the latest BB negative observations. /chron44

If first answering on swansont's issue about physics versus philosophy .... (Having trouble of pasting his comment.) My own comment of some earlier post by me: It though gives an astonishing "ontological" reasonable answer on the BB's a bit "constructed" but widely accepted inflation add. -Mainly through an alternative on the BB idea's complex solution of the Horizon problem, as a first major congruence. The alternative, with a thoroughly presented ontology, is not suitable for hasty and brief encounters like in forums. However, if being most "pro" physicist like, which I not am, I can briefly there present a BB parallel ontological answer concerning the steps before universal recombination, and how it affects the Horizon problem, more rationally handled there than the inflation add in the BB theory. After the recombination "incident" the alternative ontology cannot in - essence - be separated from QM, QFT, SM, and so on. To me this cite reasoning of the second "phase" of the BB parallel ontology, on a hasty glance resembles of average physics for Okay physicists. /chron44

--------------------------------------------------------------- The post refining and correction time isn't on my side ... ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hopefully I here can make my arguments valid, so .... --------------------------------------------------------- Of course, it's from my own homepage in physics, with some other stuff by me in the last 25 years. And I did refine the the edges of the *.jpg which I copied and pasted here, that's why the first past of it is absent in their comments, if ppl were hasty in answering this last post from me. Ppl usually have some problems if inserting an "infinity" symbol in formulas. Still in the manner "infinity" is used here it should be Okay. -It doesn't involve renormalization as physics normally do in similar cases. This "expression" is trying to - depict - the assembling function of "infinity" of the most "natural" and possible electric/gravitational components by default. In the most early tendencies of the "void" with one single complex "dual character" component behaving accordingly to statistical normal distribution. Which is lacking in this expression, but is ontologically written in text. The u/g entity correspond to a very early, pre t=0, before-plasma and before-particle epoch of a t<0 condition. This and arguably more ontological reasonable depicting exist in the homepage writing. I understand that this is very unorthodox physics, still a general ontological possible scenario for microcosm exotic "energy" or entity realizing to reality conditions. Some proof of this can be the finding of a second physics - correct - vacuum regulation formula, which not yet is presented here. Although it passes several physics "stress" tests, and still haven't collapsed to "rubbish". Let this take time to either throw it on the scrap heap, or to reconcile such ideas for a second chance. /chron44

Of course, it's from my own homepage in physics, with some other stuff by me in the last 25 years. And I did refine the the edges of the *.jpg which I copied and pasted here, that's why the first past of it is absent in their comments, if ppl were hasty in answering this last post from me. Ppl usually have some problems if inserting an "infinity" symbol in formulas. Still in the manner "infinity" is used here it should be Okay. -It doesn't involve renormalization as physics normally do in similar cases. /chron44

With the previous post in consideration ... So, then. With the title of my initial and hasty post-idea still "teasing", also me.. "Einstein and an issue if geometry is a fixed entity". Although, it has some subtle aspects involved in my BB parallel ontology. This ontology consist of a two step energy/vacuum astrophysical evolution for the universe's coming-to-existence. In the nearness of the "recombination" the CMB and its "standard" present day observations (among the Horizon problem) are ontologically possibly fully explained with consideration on the physics criteria on such events. The first more descriptive "expression" handles the existence of energy. Its symmetry, statistical probability distribution, and its electromagnetic and gravitational intrinsic composition. -In one "easy", not a formula but a, "formula resembling" expression. I think I have to introduce it first, because it may hint why the title on this "hasty-thread" naming became to what it is: Don't anyone of you readers of this thread be too hasty throwing it to the scrap heap, because it obviously later evolved to a second fully astrophysical vacuum and universal regulation formula. It's called the Quantum Energy Balance, QEB, postulate. This "expression" isn't a standard physics "formula", because it lacks some more intrinsic conditions, mainly its statistical behavior should be incorporated. /chron44

I have respect for order in all different instances including moderating in decent forums. So I take your aspect of this thread for legitime. Yes, I’ve e got a preliminary "ontology" with adjacent math. I will not in any way try to impose ideas or ontologies which are "hilarious" or too speculative. Therefore I try to soften my preliminary and parallel BB ontology, with its "math". It though gives an astonishing "ontological" reasonable answer on the BB's a bit "constructed" but widely accepted inflation add. -Mainly through an alternative on the BB idea's complex solution of the Horizon problem, as a first major congruence. The alternative, with a thoroughly presented ontology, is not suitable for hasty and brief encounters like in forums. However, if being most "pro" physicist like, which I not am, I can briefly there present a BB parallel ontological answer concerning the steps before universal recombination, and how it affects the Horizon problem, more rationally handled there than the inflation add in the BB theory. After the recombination "incident" the alternative ontology cannot in - essence - be separated from QM, QFT, SM, and so on. This is both relieving and strengthening modern physics as a sane scientifical discipline. The main view on universal evolution can be more "reasonable" and depict unclear issues. I think these issues are interesting and have worked with a BB parallel idea for about 20 years. And it recently turned out to be, not a parallel BB "idea", though a fully coherent and reasonable ontology. Which BB in all its different and complex legitime aspects cannot fully cover. I'm not fishing at all. I have worked in mind like a most interested layman for about 20 years. I'm serious but sill novice in physics. I don't want to pour my 20 years of hard work suddenly like that on fair physicists like cold or hot water. I understand the commitment and efforts in this branch. With all the math, ideas, ontological search efforts, and all the struggle with both known and unknown factors. Hopefully this work-declaration can be understood. From other engaged physicists.

Is there some type of link or connection when alpha resembles of a regulation "characteristics" with two of the three most occurring particles in universe, the photon and the electron. In the "tensional" segment relative the gravitational. Universe's global charge balance can definitively be set from the electron and the proton. Where the "speculation", here in the "speculation" section, may be alpha "revealing" by its constant ~1/137 ratio of a "fine tuned" universal tensional condition. Observe alpha is not in any way regulating anything, it's how any x-type of regulation is manifested. Physics encounters alpha on too many stances in physics for not to suspect it to be s sign of something central. This only may point on that the QM "leg" versus the GR leg is to prefer, if rating them. So, now with this said, can we find a corresponding GR- "alpha" "constant"? Or is alpha also covering the GR aspect of universal regulation? Physics is tricky. Still not impossible. One probably cannot resolve such a tricky issue without a robust ontology. -Where BB is beginning to jam in its fundamentals.

Physics is a hard and sometimes a most complicated discipline. So, if updating my "layman's" physics: Alpha is the (after some more studying) the dimensionless probability coupling strength ratio of the interaction between the photon and the electron. The two most frequent occurring particles in universe besides the proton. Looks like I definitively left my "confused" header subject of this thread. (Maybe I find a return to my initial idea and hasty thought before the moderators "close" this thread.) So, if trying focusing my "hasty" thread idea. The big issue with mentioning Einstein and geometry in this post's title, and later coming into alpha (a most central electromagnetic related constant) - when "geometry is a GR matter - maybe looks confused ... -Also when trying to launch the "rumor" of that Einstein had own problems in his later days with some aspects of his own GR and SR physics. At least in their cross section encounters with the rising QM and QFT physics. However, Einstein was one of the central "guys" who made the photon to the forthcoming physics main "players". And this is also my view on the photon in physics. These last writings somewhat explains my mixing of GR, SR and alpha. ...

This thread's title is: "Einstein and an issue if geometry is a fixed entity", I really comes back to this, a bit awkward way of expressing some for me mystic and confused physics theory. I fairly understands what GR is and that "geometry" in physics is the concept of the global aspect of spacetime. -Geometry is the global emergent aspect of the GR formulas with "spacetime" as the "source", no correction, as a "contributor" of "impact" on itself, energy and on matter. So, with some looking back on my own issue here; this thread should hence be about: If "spacetime", as a "contributor" of "action", on its own - without any external energy, field or matter - is "fixed" as its role as a "contributor"? And now I maybe see it clearer, "spacetime" on its own has no meaning. Physics doesn't notice, act, upon "spacetime" if any external entity is absent. -Which hence gives it the "mystic" touch. So, what's the "contributor's" intrinsic secret? One can now suggest that Alpha is a very strong indicator that the deepest level of physics is actually a universal regulation. Neither GR nor QM hold that position anymore. They are two different consequences of this central regulation of the universe, separated into gravity and electromagnetism. -Like hydrogen and oxygen separated from water by electrolysis. The symbolic question now becomes: what is the ‘water’? -If Alpha is accepted as a very strong indicator supporting this proposed idea. Might I hear an aah .. or a sigh ...? ; )

This thread's title is: "Einstein and an issue if geometry is a fixed entity", I really comes back to this, a bit awkward way of expressing some for me mystic and confused physics theory. I fairly understands what GR is and that "geometry" in physics is the concept of the global aspect of spacetime. -Geometry is the global emergent aspect of the GR formulas with "spacetime" as the "source", no correction, as a "contributor" of "impact" on itself, energy and on matter. So, with some looking back on my own issue here; this thread should hence be about: If "spacetime", as a "contributor" of "action", on its own - without any external energy, field or matter - is "fixed" as its role as a "contributor"? And now I maybe see it clearer, "spacetime" on its own has no meaning. Physics doesn't notice, act, upon "spacetime" if any external entity is absent. -Which hence gives it the "mystic" touch. So, what's the "contributor's" intrinsic secret?

If one assumes that Alpha, the unquestioned ratio determining how fermions tend to interact with photons, can have a deeper structural reason - then it may be more than a parameter. It can be some workaround. It is though a most important cornerstone in physics. I've understood that many pro physicists are in this stage of ideas. Surely some of you have had this hint. It's so fundamental, that it aches.

It's no secret really, that the QM "leg" (relatively the GR "leg"), especially in the SM part, and affecting parts of the QFT division - has no full ontology. Even the GR "leg" has its doubts of a full ontology. I’m specializing my quest now. The QM ‘leg’, with all its correct math and all its confirmed empirics, is sort of in a problematic, slight or big, not completely integrated position. I try to work with my physics. And I know so do you. It's a serious quest.