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.

Einstein, whatever ppl here propose or dislike in my approach here, where not "that" satisfied with some aspects of his own works in his later days. If QM, GR or the vacuum itself is the "base" in physics, may be a bit too "harsh" statement or divergent physics. I maybe did stir this issue a bit myself whit this a too unclear and fast writing, also in my reframing. The calculus of physics, by physicists and advanced "laymen" (I'm merely a most interested such), focus on empirical data. And apply all - verified - formulas, statistics, math, recombination rules, and so on, in any special branch in physics. And hence we are settled with a QM physics, which seems fully correct whatever the QM aspects are. So, fine, QM and its physics "leg" is Okay. I am convinced in this. So I understand swansont in this manner - physicists work hard with data and formulas in a professional manner. Still, the global aspects are not that Okay. There are several BB recent observed anomalies and present global vacuum math differences. -On what we measure. The GR "leg" is in a most uneven phase with the QM math. Still the QM math seems very firm and correct. This is the "underlying" issue I have in mind. Hopefully this settles any wondering of what my "quest" is for this thread. I really want to go further in this obvious physics issue.

The title is a bit awkward, I see it now. "Einstein and an issue if geometry is a fixed entity". If I reframe it like this: Einstein and an issue if geometry is a dynamic emergent function of the vacuum. -Which still is undefined, though being the "base" of physics. That's the present physics situation.

Yes, - the "currently" physics - were the words. If the Quantum leg in physic is Okay for particles and so on, we probably have to "update" the global aspect of physics. We cannot abandon the quantization aspekt when its accuracy is proven to "99%". But it just doesn't make sense in the universal aspekt. The ontology has to be, not changed, still refined. This is a hard criterion for the CCP enigma, I have understood so.

So, here we have empirical measured physics data with one, "famous" and a most unexpected I have to mention, anomaly relatively the QM/ SM/ QFT theories. The strong objective here is, of course, that the CCP as - totally seen - isn't particle or field physics, it's universal "composition. Global or local? -Or a mix of these? -I'm not that experience to notice. Still I belive that the CC is a global universal parameter. We here do get into Einstein, since he had to "throw" it in his equations, and some years before he passed abandoned it. Ironically the CC did return in the CC Problem after Einstein ceased. I kow that this issue is most "urgent" in physics and at the same time creates "flaming" debates. So, I will not "flame" this issue. I'm seriously interested. There is a work around for the CCP - if - we let QM/ SM/ QFT manage particles and fields. -And "leave" universal composition to GR aspects, where G is one mystic and maybe a central component in the CC Problem. Observe that I follow the guide lines here by using the "empirical" CCP for idea- reasoning.

I fully agree on this. Physics in essence are measurements. I especially like the line of yours: "It speculates on what we cannot measure based on what we have measured." You mentioned "nightmares" if searching for "reality". Professional physicists' view should absolutely focus on hard measured data. -Thereafter comes any thesis for what we can imagine. This is the "Speculation" part in this forum. So, some ideas must be given, and some occasionally taken, and most are just wrong. This is the way humans speculate. I'll skip the "nithammares" for now. So, hence I "throw" out a "serious" "idea", it's not a question: (It's obvious very "dangerous" to make any sort of assumptions of what Einstein had in mind, where only hard proved and confirmed written or spoken statements from him are accepted.) The "idea", which I hope ppl here can "discuss" about, is simple written but not that simple argued for or against. Are QM, SM and QFT, and such aspects the true view of physics? So I set this "idea" here and "risk my novel points" with: Okay, for particles and fields it's the right approach, still not for astrophysics and universal evolution. One measured/ QM-QFT- theory "nightmare" is the the famous CCP divergence of 120 magnitudes, for example. Still, "almost" everything else are OK here in this aspect of physics. Okay, now it's said, from me.

Still, don't forget that physics in essence are measurements, always done by math (x, y and z). ; ) Right on track, you are. This is another common myth though. Let's skip all myths and rumors with Einstein. I know that SM the base for CCP wasn't present first during the 60-70's. Einstein died in 1955. The QFT was present in an early form his latest years, though. And as I can see: "A common myth is that Einstein “didn’t understand” quantum mechanics. This is historically false. He understood it deeply - he helped create it. His objections were conceptual, not technical."

Maybe have to read about Mach's universal ideas. Heard that these are about energy/ mass in universal uneven distribution, or something like that.

This quote sounds a bit odd. Can you provide a link to where you got it from, to help us understand the context? Yes, the quote and my own writing is a mishmash of ideas. Can we continue from what we know in average stances what Einstein sensed from confirmed "quotes" and writings from him. This is although a serious quest with edge physics involved. I'm really trying to comprehend all distinctions, constants and emerged physics. The goal is relevant; the intuition is not. Yes. quite right. Thanks for the correction. Although I am relying on Einstein's sense of intuition, he did sort of a way anticipate the cosmological constant problem of today. A common myth is that Einstein “didn’t understand” quantum mechanics. This is historically false. He understood it deeply - he helped create it. His objections were conceptual, not technical:

The title on this post is: "Einstein and an issue if geometry is a fixed entity" Yes, I see, I did mix the emergent combined outcome in "geometry" (GR), with the fixed G. -The gravitational constant involved. Sorry. So, I ask for some indulgence with my math/ geometry/ GR/ G confusion from an interested layman in physics. Looking over the www is probably not all that secure for getting traces for his reasoning here. What I have understood, from the www info, where my own altered cited version becomes to: “Einstein had hard days with the modern and growing quantum mechanics, he was never fully settled with its probabilistic nature or its non‑local mysteries. Why? My own, LeoK's, answer is this: Einstein’s stance suggests that if general relativity and quantum mechanics remain divided, then something essential is still unsolved.” Can we go from here in this thread? Maybe discussing if: Einstein’s intuition, that the two frameworks must ultimately be unified, is relevant in theoretical physics today?

Thanks for discussing in a general manner. Not only hard math. ; ) I'll return in some day or days.

Fair, enough. So here we may stumble on one discrepancy Einstein sensed "problematic". Meter is ct derived. A constant, c, and a duration, t. SR argues of c as a cornerstone, and GR has a similar measured empiric value, G. Somewhere here I imagine Einstein on his later days saw only empirical data of measured values and constants. What was it Einstein saw to be the problem? This is GR math as I can notice. Was it here Einstein saw a discrepancy with some sense of his? What are the emergent combinations, and what are the fixed constants? In spacetime/ GR/ SR. I cannot dive into hard math, I respect and honour people that have this for work. I can only listen to the edge of physicists who some of them, like a late Einstein, today begin to dissect physics in a bit unorthodox manner. Einstein had hard days with the modern and growing QM, this I know. He was never fully settled with probabilistic terms and non-local mysteries. Why? -My own answer is: GR and QM should not be divided, if so, there is an unsolved part.

Essentially, we are, or at least I am, trying to: 1. Understand what Einstein himself found, thought or sensed "problematic" with his own spacetime/ GR/ SR "inventions" and ideas. 2. Go beyond and further in this issue of spacetime/ GR /SR. What lies beneath it "all"? (3. It's not always "easy to "understand" physics giants and follow their thinking. Is Einstein's own later sense, found in arguments in real time physics? Did he sense something, not wrong, but maybe something not finished here? ) Ar you with me in these distinctions? Well, time is one manner to measure 1 meter. The "length" relates to the time light in free space travel a specific amount of "time". One collective manner here for meter is c and a specific amount of time, t_c_1m.

I'm sorry if I made my issue a bit unclear. Still, we all know how GR works. Geometry bends, and rods follow. No one here doubts that. What I’m trying to point at is something else: the difference between measuring a length and the geometric "entity" that gives those lengths their relations. A meter is a meter — that’s simple. But geometry, in Einstein’s sense, is not the meter itself. It is the rule that tells every meter how to behave. So my question isn’t about rods or volumes at all. It’s about the deeper thing underneath: what geometry is, not what it does. Is it something given, or something that grows from more primitive ingredients? That’s the only distinction I’m trying to explore.

Yes, he although did. By fair reasons also. He was smart, this is my approach for this thread. He wasn't imagining this problem. Of course 1 meter exist, as 1 cubic of it. Still Einstein did struggle with his own spacetime concept. My own approach, or issue, is if "geometry is fixed or emergent". Okay, now i declared my thread in an fair question form.

Did he? Quoted from "Britannica", Einstein's own words in his later years: “Formerly we thought everything—yes, everything; nowadays we think—nothing. Already the distance‑concept is logically arbitrary; there need be no things that correspond to it, even approximately.” What Einstein was figuring on here isn't all that clear, still there are some indications for this thread's quest. This may be a late start for him admitting that geometry might be a convenient fiction. One may add this way of "interpreting" Einstein's later ideas "Physics may be built from a non‑geometric fundament".

Hi, all I’ve always wondered why Einstein struggled with the idea that geometry shouldn’t be a fixed stage, but something linked together with matter and energy. It has always felt real to me since I got more acquainted with physics - like spacetime is not a rigid container, but something that grows out of the universe’s own activity. /chron44

Have to rather much scrutinize my four just earlier physics - all too hasty reasoned - criteria points. Probably I have to leave the subject, definition of Time, though being too comprehensive for any layman in physics. Although, these are the updated four points, in my personal effort of minimizing mixing with standard physics vocabulary and stand. (Some or much is not recognized for being common physics.) 1. All sorts of - energy - is needed for to "roll" matter. Noticed as time. 2. The here specified "microcosm" substance - energy - is from the searched mathematical idea - identifying, telling, the substance. 3. The mathematical idea, a physics theory, should and must finalize in matter. And its life-span as energy-matter. 4. This gives that entropy, for instance, is - mathematically revealing - the arrow of time - in universe's evolution, resulting, that Time only going in one direction. The 4:th point is a bit over-worked. "Tried" to cope the true physics meaning of "entropy".