# The corner for english speaking people

## What is the Theory of the (E) Question?

The Theory of the (E) Question (TEQ) is a byproduct induced by an intuitive idea exposed in my initial work (2003).

The original document can no longer be read online but a transcription of it is in [ISBN 978-2-36923-017-5].

## How I organize the quest for answers to the question

To be able to bring elements answering the (E) Question, I felt obliged to cut my quest into two parts.

A) The first one examines the mathematical aspects of the (E) Question. More precisely, stating that my first results had been obtained in a very classical context (Minkowski’s geometry with a 3 + 1 slicing), I decided to study what happens when the geometry is deformed.

The difference between my approach and the usual one (for example the one which has been followed by Riemann, Christoffel and Einstein) lies in the fact that I don’t charge the metrics with these deformations.

Instead, in my theory, the deformations are represented by cubes of scalars. And these cubes are not obliged to be the representations of some affine or geometrical connections (e.g.: Levi-Civita connection).

Hence, I made the choice to follow the cumbersome way of algebraic developments. The path is a long and difficult one (ongoing) demanding the creation of mathematical methods able to decompose deformed tensor products.

B) The second part of the problematic may be introduced as follows.

There are gravitational polarizations somewhere in the universe.

Let suppose that their generic formalism is like the one of electrical polarizations (resp. magnetic polarizations). And let suppose that these polarizations carry what would be understood as a mass. Then, mathematics exhibit symmetries which are resembling the ones of the standard model.

Therefore, the very first formulation of the (E) question was: “Are these symmetries a pure hazard? Or are they a precious indication on the nature of the nature?”

If you want to go further, please visit the page « **empty regionss and elastic strings**« .

## Why is it useful to look for answers?

This question may seem futile, but it is not! Why? Because, although the historical part of the standard model works well, we have no rationalistic foundation justifying it. Furthermore, there are numerous experiments proving at least the existence of insufficiencies in this model.

The most salient shortcoming of this model certainly is its inability:

- to predict the masses for neutrinos,
- to explain why many groups of particles appear through three generations,
- to bring an argument justifying why there is so little
**antimatter**, - to realize a correct connection between the theory of gravitation and the quantum theories (if there is any).

This ignorance motivates theoretical research, the goal of which being the discovery of a mathematical structure containing the kern U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3) and explaining why this sub-structure is so important for physics.

## Diverse explorations

### Maxwell's vacuum and cosmic filaments

### Derivations and matrices

### Looking a generic formalism for the electromagnetic field tensor

### Is this generic formalism representing a spinor?

## Semantic

I also would add an important semantic precision.

The theory of the (E) question has absolutely nothing to do with the E-Theory appearing here and there in the scientific literature.

The E-Theory is a category whose objects are C*-algebras and whose hom-sets are homotopy-classes of slightly generalized C*-homomorphisms, called asymptotic C*-homomorphisms. Nevertheless, this first precision does not exclude the eventuality that the theory of the (E) question may have to work with this category in its future development.

© Thierry PERIAT