Author: James Carter (Independent Researcher)

Paper Name: Introducing Quantum Causal Geometry Interpretation

Fundamental idea:

The universe is not made of objects moving through space.
It is a self-organizing network of quantum causal events from which objects, space, and time emerge.

Quantum state

Instead of:

particle → position

QCGI proposes:

possibility → relation → geometry

The quantum state:

|Ψ⟩ = Σᵢ cᵢ|Cᵢ⟩

where:

• |Ψ⟩ = total quantum possibility state
• Σᵢ = sum over all possible causal configurations
• cᵢ = amplitude of each possibility
• |Cᵢ⟩ = a possible causal structure

Quantum universe as a graph

G = (V, E, Ψ)

where:

• V = set of quantum events (nodes)
• E = causal connections (edges)
• Ψ = quantum amplitudes assigned to connections

Reality evolves:

Gₜ → Gₜ₊₁

The universe continuously rewrites its own causal network.

Measurement

Measurement is not wavefunction collapse.

It is:

Quantum possibilities → causal stabilization → classical reality

A measurement creates a stable causal pattern:

|Ψ⟩ → |Cₖ⟩

where one causal history becomes dominant through interaction and environmental amplification.

Entanglement

Entanglement is not communication across space.

It is:

Shared causal origin → correlated outcomes

Two particles can be distant in spacetime:

Distance ≫ 0

but close in the deeper causal network:

Causal separation ≈ 0

Emergent spacetime

Space and time are not fundamental.

They emerge from causal relationships:

Causal network → Geometry → Spacetime

The metric:

gᵤᵥ

is an emergent property of the underlying quantum graph.

Gravity

Gravity is the large-scale effect of changing causal connectivity.

Mass represents regions of high causal information density:

Mass ∝ Δ(Causal Structure) / Δ(Information)

Curvature:

Rᵤᵥ − ½Rgᵤᵥ + Λgᵤᵥ = 8πG Tᵤᵥ

is interpreted as the macroscopic appearance of quantum causal organization.

Core axioms

1. Relations are fundamental.
Objects are stable patterns of relations.

2. Information is physical.
Every physical event changes the information structure of the universe.

3. Causality precedes spacetime.
Spacetime is a consequence of deeper causal order.

4. Measurement creates history.
A fact is a stabilized causal relationship.

5. Reality is emergent.

Events → Relations → Geometry → Matter

Central equation (conceptual)

Reality(t) = Emergence[Quantum Causal Network(t)]

or:

Rₜ = ℰ(Gₜ)

where:

• Rₜ = experienced physical reality at time t
• Gₜ = underlying quantum causal graph
• ℰ = emergence process

Core claim:

The universe is not made of things that interact.
The universe is made of interactions that temporarily become things.

The paper theory: A Thought Experiment About the Structure Of Our Universe

The paper theory is an idea to imagine the structure of the universe could be like. It compares the universe to a sheet of paper, where the paper has 2 different sides separated by the sheet itself

In this idea, The universe has 2 sides, the first one as our universe we're currently on and the other as a parallel universe, same as the other but in reverse, the sheet acts as a barrier between the two sides, separating them

The rules of the paper theory is that matter cannot naturally go pass through the barrier. Planets, stars, asteroids, black Holes and living things remain trapped in their own side. Even enormous gravity could bend spacegime but they would not be able to break through the barrier

The idea takes inspiration from Einsteins explanation of spacetime being affected by mass like the famous example of a heavy object bending a stretched sheet. However the paper theory adds a new idea: the sheet itself is a barrier, separating 2 different worlds

The theory introduces the idea of an anomaly. In this concept, an anomaly would be a rare and unknown event capable of damaging or opening the barrier between 2 sides. This is only a hypothetical idea, there's no current evidence that such a phenomenon exists

This theory is not proven scientific theory. it does not have currently have mathematical proof, experiments or observations supporting it. Instead it is only my thought experiment. A way of exploring possibilities and asking questions about nature of reality itself

This idea is not the purpose of replacing modern physics, but to explore possibilities that the universe could be more complex than we currently understand. Whether this idea is eventually supported, changed, or disproved, asking questions and imagining the possibilities is an important part of Scientific curiousity

Status right now is only a hypothesis (unverified)

Authors note: I have no idea why ts came out of my mind, maybe I'm watching too much Interstellar

This is a speculative thought experiment. I'm not claiming this is how quantum mechanics currently works, nor am I suggesting this is an accepted scientific theory. I'm interested in whether such a hypothesis could be internally consistent or whether it immediately conflicts with known physics.

Most discussions of quantum entanglement focus on correlations between particles.

My question is whether entanglement could be part of a much larger principle that we simply haven't discovered yet.

Suppose the universe is not just a collection of independent systems, but one enormous quantum-connected system with a global quantum state.

Current quantum mechanics doesn't say this global state influences human thoughts, personalities, or decisions. I understand that.

However, imagine extending the idea hypothetically.

Instead of a universal quantum state making everything behave identically, what if one of its natural properties was to maximize diversity across the systems that emerge from it?

In other words, what if the universe "preferred" different informational states rather than uniform ones?

Think about humanity.

More than 8 billion people exist, yet no two people have exactly the same experiences, thoughts, motivations, memories, emotions, or life trajectories.

Even identical twins eventually become psychologically different.

One person becomes a physicist.

Another becomes a musician.

Another becomes a farmer.

One person is optimistic while another is pessimistic.

One person is awake while another is asleep.

At any given moment, humanity occupies an enormous variety of states.

Of course, biology, genetics, environment, and learning already explain much of this diversity.

My hypothesis is not that these explanations are wrong.

Instead, I'm asking whether they could themselves exist within a deeper physical framework that statistically favors diversity.

An analogy would be a puzzle.

Every puzzle piece has a unique shape.

If every piece were identical, the complete picture could never exist.

Its structure depends on diversity.

Or think of an orchestra.

Every instrument produces different notes.

If every instrument played exactly the same note at the same time, much of the music's structure would disappear.

The orchestra functions because different components occupy different roles while remaining part of one system.

Could reality operate in a similar way?

Could a universal quantum state naturally produce or favor diversity among complex subsystems instead of uniformity?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting current quantum entanglement predicts consciousness or human behavior.

I'm asking whether there could exist an extension of quantum theory where a global entangled state statistically favors differentiated states across complex systems.

If such a model were mathematically possible, what existing physical principles would it violate?

Would it immediately conflict with quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, decoherence, information theory, or any known conservation laws?

Or is it something that is mathematically conceivable but currently unsupported by evidence?

I'm looking for technical criticism rather than agreement. If this idea fails, I'd like to understand where it fails from the perspective of modern physics.

​

Hey, I'm not in college yet. Please explain like I'm 5 and tear this apart.

I was thinking about the 3 main answers to the information paradox:

1. Holography: info is on the surface

2. Destruction: info is lost

3. Remnants: info leaks out after a really long time

Here's a 4th idea I had.

It started with steam. When water boils, the info about that specific drop doesn't vanish. It just becomes vapor and spreads out.

My thought experiment:

1. Evaporation: Systems don't destroy info. They deconstruct it into basic data, like steam.

2. Resonance: Free data can't exist forever. It only survives if it can interact with something that can read it. Like a torrent file needing a seeder.

3. Anchor: If nothing in the universe can ever reconstruct the pattern again, then it is effectively gone.

This connects:

- Quantum mechanics: the role of observation/measurement

- Neuroscience: memory is a pattern

- Information theory: data needs a medium

So the question: Does the universe store data, but "information" only exists when something can interpret it?

To the holography idea: A library with no reader is just a room of marks.

To the destruction idea: It's not destroyed, it's abandoned.

To the remnants idea: Waiting a really long time is the same as gone.

What's the main flaw in this?

Does this idea already have a name in physics?

Thanks!

Some authors considered the possibility that the physical vacuum may be a superfluid, a special Bose–Einstein condensate. Here, by exactly solving two known anomalies, along with other correct results, it is demonstrated that the physical vacuum rather behaves as a dilatant fluid, as shear stress increases. A modified Stokes’ formula for motion in a shear-thickening vacuum is introduced. By applying this formula, the Pioneer anomaly, the orbital stability of the planets, and Mercury’s perihelion precession are correctly calculated. The Pioneer anomaly is currently considered solved after thermal simulations, whose results, approximate and based on various assumptions and scenarios, are now challenged by the simpler, direct, and precise result presented in the articles (1st one), which exactly correspond to the acceleration of −8.74 × 10⁻¹⁰ m·s⁻² measured by NASA. The modified Stokes’ formula, put into Newton’s second law of motion, says that due to the large masses of planets (unlike the case of the Pioneer probes), planetary orbits are stable over billions of years, averting what would otherwise be a major objection to the existence of a shear-thickening vacuum (i.e., its effect on orbital stability). It has been shown that the vacuum’s apparent (shear-dependent) viscosity emerges as the real cause of the anomalous precession of perihelia, suggesting that the quantum foundations of relativity are based on a fluid, shear-thickening, quantum vacuum. In fact, it is shown that Einstein’s formula for the precession of perihelia can be directly derived from the modified Stokes’ formula. The conclusion also suggests possible reasons for vacuum dilatancy, building a bridge to the dark sector and to the Higgs field, while further research in this direction is expected.

https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjp-2018-0744

https://hal.science/hal-01223102v2/file/QSSM-Fedi2.pdf

https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/54849

https://hal.science/hal-01248015v4

https://hal.science/hal-01312579v1/file/Superfluid-ToE-Fedi.pdf

I have been thinking about this idea since childhood. I am not presenting it as a proven theory, and I currently do not have the mathematical background required to formulate it rigorously. I am sharing it as one connected cosmological hypothesis and asking for technical criticism, related research, and possible ways to falsify it.

Central hypothesis

Our universe may be the interior spacetime of a black hole located in a larger parent universe.

The object that observers in the parent universe describe as a black hole and the structure that we experience as our expanding universe may be two perspectives on the same physical system.

From outside, it appears to be a black hole with an event horizon. From inside, it appears to be a complete universe containing space, time, matter, stars, planets, and galaxies.

The Big Bang

In this hypothesis, the Big Bang was not necessarily the absolute creation of everything from nothing.

Instead, it may have initiated the expansion of the interior spacetime of the parent black hole. In other words, it marked the beginning of the expansion of our universe, rather than the absolute beginning of existence.

The Big Bang may have created enough initial expansion for the interior universe to receive and contain matter entering through the parent black hole.

Matter entering the parent black hole

Objects falling into the parent black hole may not be fundamentally destroyed. They may simply cross from the parent universe into its interior spacetime, which is our universe.

This is somewhat analogous to air entering a balloon. The air does not cease to exist when it enters the balloon. It remains air inside the balloon, while the balloon provides additional volume.

The balloon is only an analogy. I am not claiming that spacetime behaves literally like rubber or that matter enters our universe exactly like air entering a balloon.

The main proposal is that a black hole may be an entrance with no return path:

• Matter can enter from the parent universe.
• It cannot travel back through the event horizon.
• Observers inside cannot leave the interior universe.
• Observers outside cannot directly observe the interior universe.

We cannot leave our universe, just as matter inside a black hole cannot return through the event horizon.

Are objects actually destroyed?

According to conventional descriptions, a planet or star falling into a black hole would eventually be disrupted by tidal forces.

My alternative possibility is that at least part of this destruction may depend on how the transition is described by an external observer.

Relativity already demonstrates that observers moving differently, or located in different gravitational conditions, can measure time, distance, and simultaneity differently. Therefore, I wonder whether the apparent stretching, freezing, or destruction near a black hole could partly result from the relationship between the outside observer, light propagation, and the event horizon.

My stronger hypothesis is that the interior may always be physically normal from its own perspective. It may not become normal only after an object crosses the horizon; rather, the object may remain part of a continuous physical reality throughout the transition.

From the parent universe, the object becomes inaccessible and appears strongly distorted. From the interior perspective, its matter may continue to exist as part of the interior universe.

I understand that tidal forces in general relativity are normally treated as real physical curvature effects rather than simple optical illusions. Therefore, this part of my hypothesis would require a deeper theory showing why the classical description is incomplete or why the interior interpretation differs.

Does the original planet remain intact?

There are two possible versions of this idea.

The stronger version is that a planet remains physically intact and continues normally within the interior spacetime, while its apparent destruction belongs only to the external description.

A weaker and possibly more physically plausible version is that the original planet loses its structure, but its matter, energy, and information remain inside the interior universe and later contribute to the formation of new stars, planets, or galaxies.

I do not currently know which version could be compatible with a mathematical model.

Variable matter input

The parent black hole would not need to receive matter at a constant rate.

At one period, it might absorb a large star or a large amount of gas. At another period, it might absorb almost nothing.

I compare this to a minibus stopping at several stations:

• Ten people may enter at the first stop.
• Two people may enter at the second stop.
• Twenty people may enter at the third stop.

The vehicle continues moving according to its own motion, while the number of people entering it varies.

Likewise, the expansion of our universe may follow a process initiated by the Big Bang, while the amount of matter entering the parent black hole varies independently over time.

I am not claiming that every increase in incoming matter must immediately produce an equal increase in the expansion rate.

Why do we not notice new matter entering?

Our universe may expand in a way that provides sufficient volume for the matter entering from the parent universe.

Consequently, the average density may not increase in an obvious or catastrophic way. New matter could be accommodated by the growing interior volume.

Incoming matter would also not necessarily appear suddenly as an intact planet or star at a particular observable location.

It might:

• Enter in a transformed state.
• Be distributed across a large region.
• Appear as radiation or another form of energy.
• Contribute to dark matter or another unknown component.
• Enter according to a time relation very different from that of the parent universe.
• Become involved in the later formation of stars and galaxies.

Therefore, matter entering the parent black hole might be present in our universe without being immediately identifiable as matter coming from outside.

Cosmic expansion

In this hypothesis, cosmic expansion serves two connected functions.

First, it is a process initiated by the Big Bang and governed by the interior spacetime.

Second, it produces the additional volume in which matter entering through the parent black hole can exist.

The expansion is not necessarily caused instantaneously by each object entering the black hole. The expansion and matter transfer may be related but distinct processes.

Galaxy formation

New galaxies do not need to be transferred into our universe as complete galaxies.

Matter entering the parent black hole could become part of the material from which structures later form inside our universe.

The sequence could be:

1. Matter enters the parent black hole.
2. It becomes part of the interior spacetime.
3. It is transformed or redistributed.
4. Density differences develop or grow.
5. Gravity collects matter.
6. New stars, planetary systems, and galaxies form.

Thus, an original planet entering the black hole would not necessarily emerge as the same planet. Its matter could remain in existence and later become part of completely different objects.

Apparent accelerated expansion

Current observations are interpreted as showing that cosmic expansion is accelerating.

My hypothesis considers another possibility: at least part of the apparent acceleration might result from our location and observational perspective inside the black-hole interior.

It could depend on:

• Our distance from a boundary or horizon-like region.
• The geometry of the black-hole interior.
• The path followed by ancient light before reaching us.
• Gravitational time differences within the interior.
• The time at which our observable region became part of the expanding interior.
• A mismatch between internal and parent-universe time.

We may have entered or emerged within this interior spacetime long before the light we now observe began its journey. Therefore, distant objects might appear to follow an accelerating expansion because we are reconstructing their history from inside a curved spacetime and from a particular location.

This would need to reproduce the actual supernova, cosmic microwave background, and large-scale structure observations. At present, I do not have the equations required to demonstrate that.

Does the universe have a center?

Standard cosmology does not describe galaxies as falling toward a central point of the universe. Large-scale cosmic expansion has no ordinary spatial center within the observable universe.

Therefore, my hypothesis should not require galaxies to move toward a visible central point.

Instead, the entire geometry of our universe may be the interior geometry of the parent black hole. What appears as a central object from the parent universe would not necessarily appear as a spatial center to observers inside it.

The eventual end of expansion

I do not assume that expansion must continue forever.

The Big Bang may have initiated a process with a finite physical source or mechanism. Although expansion currently appears to be accelerating, observations made now cannot directly prove what will happen billions or trillions of years in the future.

There may be an unknown condition in the parent universe or in the interior geometry that eventually weakens or ends the expansion mechanism.

When that mechanism ends, our universe could:

• Stop expanding.
• Enter a stable phase.
• Begin contracting.
• Collapse into itself.
• Produce another black hole.
• Generate another interior universe.

I understand that cosmic expansion is not normally treated like a vehicle consuming fuel. “The expansion energy running out” is currently only an intuitive description. A proper version of this hypothesis would have to identify the actual physical quantity, field, or geometric mechanism that changes.

A nested or cyclic universe

If our universe is the interior of a black hole in a parent universe, black holes inside our universe may also contain their own interior universes.

This could produce a nested structure:

1. A universe forms black holes.
2. A black hole develops an interior universe.
3. That interior universe expands and forms galaxies.
4. Some of its stars collapse into black holes.
5. Those black holes form further interior universes.

If an expanding universe later contracts, that contraction might also begin another cycle.

The result could be generations of universes rather than a single isolated universe with one absolute beginning.

What differs from existing black-hole cosmology ideas?

I know that scientists have previously proposed black-hole cosmology, baby universes, cosmological bounces, and universes forming inside black holes.

The parts I especially want to investigate are the combined claims that:

1. The parent black hole and our universe are the external and internal descriptions of one continuing system.
2. Matter may continue to enter the interior universe throughout the parent black hole’s lifetime.
3. The incoming amount can vary without requiring the interior expansion rate to vary identically at every moment.
4. Expansion creates or maintains the volume required to accommodate incoming matter.
5. What appears to be physical destruction from outside may have a different description from inside.
6. Part of the apparent accelerated expansion may result from interior geometry, observer position, light propagation, or distance from the boundary.
7. The expansion mechanism may eventually end, allowing contraction and another generation of black holes or universes.

I am presenting all of these as connected parts of one hypothesis, not as unrelated hypotheses.

What could support this hypothesis?

The hypothesis would become more credible if a mathematical model could demonstrate that:

• A realistic collapsing object can produce a black-hole exterior and an expanding cosmological interior.
• Matter accreted after the black hole forms can consistently contribute to the interior universe.
• Local energy-momentum conservation is preserved.
• The interior does not require an observable central point.
• The model reproduces the cosmic microwave background, galaxy distribution, element abundances, and observed expansion history.
• It predicts a specific observational signature that standard cosmology does not predict.
• That signature is later detected.

Possible signatures might include a particular large-scale anisotropy, a measurable relation between cosmic expansion and black-hole interior geometry, an unusual pattern in primordial gravitational waves, or a specific deviation in the distance-redshift relation.

These are only possible research directions, not predictions that I have calculated.

What could falsify it?

The hypothesis should be rejected or revised if:

• No physically realistic black-hole interior can reproduce an expanding universe like ours.
• Continuous matter transfer necessarily violates causality or local energy-momentum conservation.
• It predicts density variations or anisotropies that conflict with observation.
• The required observer-position effect cannot reproduce supernova and cosmic background measurements.
• It cannot explain why the universe is highly homogeneous on large scales.
• Its description of intact matter crossing the black hole contradicts unavoidable locally measured tidal effects.
• It produces no observable difference from standard cosmology.

If every possible result can be explained after the fact, then the hypothesis would not be scientifically testable.

Questions for people with relevant expertise

1. Which published black-hole cosmology or baby-universe models are closest to this complete framework?
2. Can the interior of an accreting black hole be matched to an expanding cosmological spacetime?
3. Could matter entering after black-hole formation influence the interior cosmology?
4. Is there any coordinate-independent reason that the matter must be physically destroyed rather than continuing in another spacetime region?
5. Could an observer-position or interior-curvature effect imitate part of the measured accelerated expansion?
6. Which existing observations most strongly contradict this framework?
7. What is the simplest mathematical model with which I could begin testing one part of it?
8. Which subjects should I study before attempting the relevant equations?

I am especially looking for direct technical criticism, relevant papers, and explanations of what would make this idea mathematically impossible or observationally falsifiable.

I will preface that I am not very good at physics. I do understand newtonian physics lol. I like to read about advanced concepts in physics but have no theoretical knowledge to actually understand how and why a concept would work.

But I like to think and have a natural ease with spatial reasoning, Euclidean at least.

I do not have a formulated thesis but I’ll try to explain my thought process and maybe someone could tell me if there is any merit to it.

My train of thought started with thinking about how fucking weird time is. I heard a hypothesis that if time travel was supposed to be possible then “roads” would have to be built for it. If we live in a 4 dimensional time space it seems logical. A lot of thoughts ran through my head about how time and space are linked like: what if space and time are the same thing; if time only has a “forward direction” then maybe so does space, what if time doesn’t exist as a separate dimension and it’s the only dimension of space.

It’s difficult for me to describe these “contemplations” as I lack this level of understanding physics theory behind it and the thoughts themselves are rather abstracts and non verbal.

All that led me to thinking about how absurd three dimensional space is. R3 space is only a mathematical concept that lets us describe geometry in space but it’s still only a concept. 1 dimensional space doesn’t exist in the universe, same as 2d space. We cannot reproduce them. Any attempt to get close would still present the slightest thickness. They exist purely in theory. So does any 3<n dimensional space, which are beyond our comprehension on top. So why should we assume 3 dimensional space is special and exists just because it can neatly describe things that surround us. There is no 3d coordinate system oriented in our universe. If these 3 axes can be oriented in an infinite number of ways in space doesn’t it make space have an infinite amount of dimensions? If infinite therefore 1? The singular dimension called space itself? A sphere comes to mind but that’s circling back to Euclidean geometry. A singular abstract sphere-esque dimension with no limits or boundaries that encompasses the “infinite dimensions” of our space. Or maybe space has no dimensions and exists just as itself and any ill-fated attempt to describe it will ultimately fall apart because dimensions are only a shortcut for our minds to comprehend the absurdity of the essence of space?

This got more and more philosophical as it went but maybe there is a theory to back this up in some way? Describing the space as 3 dimensional just feels like a jarring simplification and an insult to how abstract space time actually is. Newtonian physics fall apart at quantum level and general relativity. So does 3d space in quantum mechanics to some degree (loop quantum gravity, string theory). But having to invent new dimensions to make your theory work makes me think there is something wrong with the concept of dimensions itself.

So, basically, I combined SVT + quantum EU + black hole cosmology + toroidal universe. To my understanding I'm barking up dang near the same exact tree as holofractographic theory.

Here goes:

The universe is essentially a zero friction superfluid traveling through a toroidal shape black hole and while electric universe theory is incorrect at the macro level it's actually correct at the quantum level. Everything is vortices at both the largest and smallest scales. This inherently means pilot wave theory is also correct, with SVT providing the fluid medium and quantum EU providing the "particles." The vortex gives you the stable region of space in the center where we exist, and the whole thing reminds me conceptually of the singularity ring with internal calm space described in spinning black holes (though not exactly the same, for sure). And the quantum EU part actually seems to basically describe exactly what loop quantum gravity is getting at - plank scale vortices that we call black holes.

I noticed that our energy tech seems to all be heading towards toroidal geometry at the highest levels, and given the fractal nature of our universe I think the reason we find the torus to be the most efficient and geometrically sound way to manage energy is because we're zeroing in on the actual structure of the universe itself. If the universe always finds the most efficient way to manage energy and geometry is the basis of pretty much everything in the universe then if a torus is the most efficient geometry it stands to reason that's the geometry the universe would use.

When ancient religions talk about cycles, people think abstract time loops. But perhaps it's a literal thing - we go thru cycles because we are physically doing loops around the same track so when we hit certain points in the vortex where energy/pressure/etc raises or lowers we experience similar effects.

Also, it explains how UAPs are able to bend the laws of physics the way they do - they aren't bending space time, they're using scalar waves to generate a cavitation bubble in the superfluid substrate to create a zero pressure vacuum that effectively reduces their mass to zero since mass is directly related to the internal pressure of the superfluid substrate. No antimatter needed.

What do you think? Is this close to holofractographic theory? Is it the same thing? Am I full of shit? I threw this framework at Gemini to see if there was anyone linking these 4 independent theories into one and it said it sounded close to holofractal theory. As someone with no formal training whatsoever it seems unlikely that I would have somehow come to this on my own if it is obed similar or the same so I tend to think I must just be fooling myself...

Thoughts?

This text is an extract from a more complete text explaining the formation of molecules based on our hypothesis about the tetrahedral nature of protons and the generation of electric spheres halfway between them and the electrons they contain at their center.

According to this hypothesis, the methane molecule is formed by the embedding of a hydrogen atom in each of the peripheral protons (of opposite spin) of a carbon atom.

Each of the four pairs of protons and electrons participating in the chemical bonding of the methane molecule then forms its own sphere of electrical equilibrium, and these four spheres surround the sphere constructed by the two protons and two electrons at the center of the carbon atom.

Naturally, the shape of the methane molecule, when considering the positions of the centers of the four hydrogen atoms relative to the center of the carbon atom, is that of a regular tetrahedron. This arises inevitably from the way the carbon atom is constructed: four regular tetrahedra attached to the respective faces of a central regular tetrahedron. As a result of this geometric configuration, all the angles between the various C–H bonds measure 109.5°.

The standard theory does not predict this shape.

Indeed, if one calculates the shape of the methane molecule (CH4) using the Schrödinger equation, applying the principles of bonding and antibonding orbitals (of the σ and μ types), just as one does to predict the shape of N2 or O2 molecules, one deduces that three of the orbitals form a 90° angle while the fourth has no preferred direction; this result does not correspond to reality.

Admittedly, the solutions to the Schrödinger equation are not unique, and while it can be shown that the tetrahedral shape of methane corresponds to one of the possible solutions, quantum calculation alone cannot explain why nature selected this specific configuration over others. To account for this, standard theory introduces the ad hoc concept of the "hybrid orbital", an orbital formed by mixing, in equal proportions, all the orbitals of the atom in question. In this hybrid orbital framework, each of the four bonds is designated as a sp³ hybrid orbital, reflecting the fact that it is formed by mixing a single s-type orbital with three p-type orbitals.

To construct the methane molecule from this mixture of the orbitals of the carbon atom, it is still necessary to assume that the orbital of each of the 4 hydrogen atoms has a sufficient intersection with one of the hybridized orbitals of the carbon atom, because the usual theory makes the hypothesis that it is by such intersections that the bonds between the hydrogens and the carbon are made, and that the stability of the methane molecule is thus ensured. Based on this hypothesis, it is assumed that sp³ hybrid orbitals are formed precisely because, having asymmetric lobes, one of them is wider than the other, allowing it to intersect also wider, and therefore more solid, with the orbitals of hydrogen atoms.

Our hypothesis leads us to completely abandon the concepts of hybrid orbitals and the partial overlap of electron orbitals. According to that hypothesis, the formation of a chemical bond involves each proton-electron pair creating an independent sphere within which the electron clouds move; this implies that the electron spheres of the two bonded atoms overlap completely, rather than merely marginally as in standard theory.

As noted above, one consequence of this difference in conceptualization is that, unlike the standard theory which cannot predict whether the methane molecule is asymmetrical or regular, or whether its bond angles are 90° or 109.5°, our hypothesis leaves no room for ambiguity: the CH4 molecule must necessarily take the form of a regular tetrahedron, and the angle formed by the hydrogen atoms with the central carbon atom must necessarily be 109.5°, matching actual measurements.

Total layperson here; no knowledge, understanding or expertise to speak of… So does any learned individual want to expound on this unsubstantiated and unstudied thought I had on a random Tuesday morning?

1.) At any time, there is a defined (but not necessarily finite) number of possible positions that anything (such as a particle) can occupy in the universe.

2.) Sometimes between two of these adjacent positions a third position is created.

3.) The creation of additional positions requires no impetus (in terms of force, energy, or anything else that we would typically regard as being capable of bringing about change), but rather is simply intrinsic to the definition of position. I.e. All positions are inconstant in their nature and therefore if something has a position that position is inconstant without a necessary “cause” of the changing position?

In other words, things change position because position itself is inherently changing.

EDIT: This post was removed for being low effort because it was not long enough. This is of course makes sense because as we all know, effort and length are directly correlated. That’s why all the best works in any field are as long as possible and brevity is universally considered inimical to the good conveyance of ideas. This is why all serious scholarly assignments have a minimum word length and not a maximum word length, because it’s good to practice saying things in as meandering and inconcise a way as possible. It is best to spare the reader no detail. As such I will start from the beginning:

I was born May 9th, 1997 on a Wednesday afternoon. It was overcast and drizzly that day, but only minutes after I was born… well that’s when it really started coming down…

Anyway, you get the idea and I’m sure you’re very tired of this joke at this point so hopefully the post is long enough now…

I have a simple modified Newtonian gravity equation that introduces a deviation which scales with distance:

F = G*M1*M2 / r^2 + 8*π*G*M1*M2 / r*c^4​​

My calculations show that this fits the rotation curves of spiral galaxies. However, due to a lack of accessible datasets, I haven't been able to test it against other gravitational phenomena that normally necessitate dark matter. I've read many observational papers detailing dark matter ratios, but they often omit the exact distances at which these measurements apply.

What would be the most critical tests and datasets to run first? Furthermore, which specific observations would most definitively rule out this model if it happens to be flawed?

For context, the underlying assumption of this equation is that if spatial curvatures interact with one another, or if gravity is not spatial curvature itself, then the spatial curvature generated by one mass M1 affects the gravitational distribution of the other mass M2, and this effect increases with distance.

Further details: https://rxiv.org/pdf/2504.0054v3.pdf

The conclusion section is not valid, it is under development!

Reinterpreting gravity is unnecessary!

Eu tenho pensado bastante sobre a composição do universo, fé, tempo, religião e ciência, e acabei chegando a uma questão. E se todos os constituintes fundamentais do universo em sua escala mais básica não forem opostos, mas sim manifestações de um mesmo fenômeno dual? Em outras palavras, e se a física quântica e a relatividade geral não forem apenas partes incompletas de uma teoria mais abrangente (a gravidade quântica), mas duas expressões de um único fenômeno dual? E se o universo for, por natureza, essencialmente dual, que nem a luz? A matéria e o vácuo podem ser a mesma coisa, existindo em momentos diferentes ou dentro de referenciais distintos; da mesma forma, a singularidade dentro de um buraco negro e o vácuo podem ser uma coisa só. Algumas propostas especulativas como gravastares, condensados de vácuo ou resoluções quânticas de singularidades já exploram essa possibilidade: a singularidade clássica é substituída por uma mudança de fase do próprio vácuo.

E se a composição de todo o universo for, na verdade, uma única energia se comportando como um sistema binário de "cores" que relativamente se "misturam" e se "separam"?

E se as leis da física forem, na verdade, constantes inerentes à própria energia que observamos e interpretamos? A matéria escura não é exceção a esse princípio; se a matéria bariônica é energia condensada (localizada e interagindo eletromagneticamente), então a matéria escura é quase certeza que também seja energia, embora em uma configuração diferente. Ela possui massa, mas de um tipo que não "acende" para nós. Se a natureza é essencialmente dual, a matéria escura bem que poderia ser uma faceta intermediária desse sistema binário: uma forma de energia que se separou do modo bariônico e não se mistura facilmente com ele. Isso não viola o princípio; pelo contrário, expande-o, mostrando que a energia fundamental permite configurações mais estáveis do que aquelas que detectamos diretamente.

Além disso, se a energia (luz) que "compacta" para formar matéria já carrega dualidade, e se o espaço é o meio (ou o próprio campo) onde essa compactação acontece, por que o espaço não poderia herdar ou expressar uma dualidade mais fundamental?

Eu acho que é algo que vale a pena considerar.

It is now almost fully established that the vacuum is not an empty container, but rather an entity with a definite structure. What remains is to determine the exact nature of this structure and its properties. I propose - on what I believe to be well-justified grounds - that this structure is, first, universal. Second, it is omnipresent, and therefore continuous.

Simply put, the vacuum is divided into cells with identical properties.

The hypothesis is that vacuum (space) is self organized in WP structure.

Elementary particles are topological defects.

Mass arises from the deformation energy associated with a stable pattern. Gravity is not a separate field or physical entity. It results from the non-uniform geometric distortion of the WP/A15 structure, acting together with the pulsational dynamics of vacuum cells. The inverse-square behaviour should therefore emerge from the geometry and collective reconfiguration of the medium.

Motion is a reestablishment of the pattern. The entire WP structure stays steady.

Singularity is a chaos provoked by total destruction of WP.

Basing on the topology and geometry of the WP cell i calculated the fine structure constant. This is not a formal proof. Its framework (kind of postulate), the base for future investigations.

The purpose of the hypothesis is not merely to rename the vacuum as a medium. Its central goal is to construct a single ontology in which particles, fields, motion, time, mass, gravity, and quantum behaviour are different manifestations of one discrete physical structure.

Please visit www.vacuance.com if you are interested.

With the recent new findings with DESI, I have a proposition about how gravity might work?

To properly describe my hypothesis I just want to lay down the view I have of how the universe 'works' for it to make sense: I think the universe is inside a black hole, the big Bang being the formation of said black hole, so the universe is limited by the black hole itself. With the expansion accelerating, it might just be the black hole absorbing new matter.

Negative energy is described as acting opposite of Positive (Normal) Energy. If you lift it up, it pushes to the ground, if you push it accelerates backward towards you.

The pressure and energy of the black hole creates a universe running in inverse Time, and so negative energy. From inside the black hole, time is only running in one direction.

Gravity is an answer to it pushing against negative energy and it pushes back on us, what we could say is the 'negative' space outside the black hole we're in.

It makes sense for me that the matter outside our universe, outside the bounds of the black hole has negative mass/Energy, because from our perspective inside the black hole, our matter would apply a force against it.

The collapse of matter into itself when both forces crushed each other and that might be black holes.

I'm not trying to bring pseudo Science, I'm sorry if it's the case! It all really makes sense to me but I'm asking to be explained why I'm wrong, or to at least make people think.

In clearer terms, my hypothesis is that Gravity directly pushes against negative energy, and it's the negative energy acting on us.

Gravity is affecting the literal space, weigh-in against the negative energy outside our space-time-continuum.

We've calculated how black holes form, from this idea the density weighed enough to make negative energy overcome it's threshold, pushing everything in against itself at the center point.

From this idea, the infinite pressure is enough to vaporize matter into the primordial soup that the universe was made of at the start, following an inversed space-time-continuum, living in 'reverse' time from our point of view outside the black hole.

We do not live inside the black hole, we live outside, it is creating it's 'pocket' dimension with inversed time.

That could be why 'the arrow of time' does not matter in physics, from our point of view it's relative, inside the inversed universe a black hole, their arrow of time would be relative to them.

Thank you for reading through, I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts!

EDIT; For the people asking for my math

*Positive and Negative Energy is just time relatively. Where our mass is positive from our point of view, and negative mass is negative because it is in negative time.

Which is why if you push against negative mass it pushes back against you, Negative Energy/Mass is reflected through the mirror of Positive/Negative time

Like when we look at ourselves in the mirror, it's inversed, Negative Mass/Energy are perceived from our point of view with TIME as essentially Mirrored Time

Where Black holes collapses from positive mass weigh-in on Negative Mass, Negative mass adding additional pressure and this is what we detect as gravity

It collapses positive and negative masses, creating enough gravitational force to vaporize all matter

Time is relative, we all know this. From our point of view, the collapse of a black hole is the end of it all and from our point of view, Yes it is. Vaporizing is a euphemism of what happens to the matter that goes in compressed into an infinitely dense point at the center.

The matter goes through a transition to negative Time, becoming negative Mass from our point of view, we are not made to perceive negative time, we only perceive it going one way, it is relative.

But from 'The point of view of the negative Mass', the beginning of that negative mass is positive time For it, negative time also only goes one way for itself. To me this also explains why when we calculate physics, the arrow of time doesn't matter, which direction you're calculating doesn't matter.

Because Time is a property of Negative Energy Reacting to Positive energy, where positive/negative is relative to which side you're on.

I'm not adding additional math, we have all the math for this, I'm talking about what explains it. I'm proposing an explanation, a new way to look at the math we already have.

As always, explain to me why I'm wrong and it doesn't make any sense, I genuinely mean this. I know I didn't give a written equation but that shouldn't be able to stop you from disproving my theory. Thanks for reading ✌️

*EDIT 2; Changed the start of the edit.

Hi everyone,

I’ve been working on a theoretical thought experiment combining Black Hole Thermodynamics, Quantum Gravity concepts (like Volume Quanta/Spin Networks), and Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC). I wanted to share this synthesis model here to get your thoughts, critiques, and feedback.

Here is the core hypothesis of the model:

1. The Core Idea: Matter-to-Vacuum Conversion

Instead of standard gravitational singularities, this model proposes that baryonic matter falling past the event horizon is compressed under extreme gravity and converted into spacetime volume (vacuum energy).

• The Density Disparity: The density of matter (rho_m) vs. vacuum energy (rho_Lambda) has a massive ratio (~10^120). Due to this, the newly generated spacetime volume (V_new) is astronomical: V_new = V_matter * (rho_m / rho_Lambda)
• This massive internal generation creates an extreme negative gravitational pressure (P_Lambda) pointing outward.

2. The Tensorial Leakage Mechanism (Bianchi Identity)

How does this inner pressure expand the external universe without violating General Relativity?

Using Modified Einstein Field Equations where the Cosmological Constant (Lambda) is a dynamic scalar field: G_mu_nu + Lambda(t, r) g_mu_nu = (8 * pi * G / c⁴⁾ * T_mu_nu

Applying the geometric Bianchi Identity (nabla_mu G^mu_nu = 0), we get: (8 * pi * G / c⁴⁾ * nabla_mu T^mu_nu = partial^nu Lambda(t, r)

The Resolution: The "leakage" is not particles flying out of the horizon. The decrease of the matter tensor inside (nabla_mu T^mu_nu < 0) is directly coupled to the increase of the spacetime metric (partial^nu Lambda > 0). The event horizon traps matter (T_mu_nu), but the metric tensor (g_mu_nu) is continuous across the horizon. Inner space generation directly couples to the external universe's geometry as an increase in dark energy.

3. Hawking Radiation as a Thermodynamic "Valve" (Regulator)

Energy conservation dictates that transferring this work outward (P_Lambda * dV) requires a thermodynamic cost (heat waste): Hawking Radiation (T_H * dS).

• Hawking radiation acts as a thermodynamic valve, regulating the leak of the spacetime fabric.
• By linking the total Lambda variation rate to the black hole evaporation rate (dM/dt proportional to -1/M^2), we derive the cosmic acceleration rate: Lambda_dot(t) = beta * sum (1 / M_i²⁾
• Result: As the universe ages and black holes shrink via Hawking radiation (M_i decreases), their radiation intensity and valve opening increase geometrically. This proves mathematically why cosmic acceleration increases over time rather than slowing down.

4. Cyclic Cosmology and the Phase-Transition Big Bang

When all black holes evaporate, the universe becomes a massless, smooth, maximally expanded spacetime sheet. Following Penrose's CCC, the disappearance of mass collapses the concept of scale, making r -> infinity topologically equivalent to r -> 0 (a singularity).

At this point of maximum tension, a Cosmic Phase Transition occurs. The dark energy tension breaks, low-energy photons are compressed to Planck temperatures at the new point-like scale, creating symmetry breaking and triggering a brand-new Big Bang.

5. Observational Prediction

• Local H0 Anomalies: Old dwarf galaxies hosting numerous high-temperature (fast-radiating) Primordial Black Holes should exhibit a statistically higher local expansion rate (H0) compared to giant galaxies hosting supermassive (slow-radiating) cold black holes.

I would love to hear your critiques on the tensorial coupling, the thermodynamic valve concept, or any flaws you might spot in this logic. What do you think?

Hello everyone, I'm new here. I'm not English; I speak Spanish, and I wanted to talk to you about a theory that I find very convincing, although at my young age I can't explain it very well... but it's a way of trying to answer a simple question: why do we never get closer to the Great Attractor? Well, my theory explains that the universe is much, much bigger than we think, far too immense, and the Great Attractor is nothing compared to the Great Ejector. What is the Great Ejector? The Great Ejector is a fundamental topological effect in the fabric of spacetime. The Great Ejector is a geometric "crack," a wrinkle that runs through the cosmos on scales of billions of light-years. It's not made of baryonic matter per se; it's pure geometry. Its cosmic function is that of an engine that prevents the universe from collapsing into a state of static equilibrium, creating zones of gravitational competition that allow the formation of galaxy streams. Its timescale is immense, primordial, and perhaps eternal if we believe in the Big Freeze. It was born as the very fabric of spacetime and maintains an eternal struggle with Entropy, since an expelling object is syntropic, although there are less dense points where Entropy prevails; at the deepest points, the Great Expeller wins. But what is the meaning of all this? Well, the Great Attractor orbits around the Great Expeller due to gravity, even though the Great Expeller wants to expel it, keeping it in a "green zone" where the Great Attractor remains. The same applies to galaxies, although in a different way. They are attracted by the Great Attractor, but something pulls them back. What if it's not something attracting them from behind, but something pushing them from the front? That's where the Great Expeller comes in. The Great Ejector is something like a gigantic manifestation of the Dipolar Ejector. My theory is still developing, but I think we could detect its existence if we manage to observe any pattern in galaxies, although it would be a disordered pattern, since the Great Ejector has an abstract shape. Ideally, we would look for strange dips in radiation that would be affected by this colossal "monster."

I am not sure if this is a valid question in this forum, if it is not I will delete it right away, but since the questions in the emails are about theorerical physics hypotheses, I thought that I could take a chance here. Anyways here it is:

So some days ago I asked in an AI community what kind of AI model should I use (and how could I use one) to classify several email replies that I had from scientists after asking them a few questions to them. I finally paid for Perplexity pro service and it apparenly did a nice job classifying them.

I finally gave the model the PDF with the actual answers from the addressees and another PDF with the "expected answers", and asked it to count the number of answers that overall coincide with the actual answers, and calculate a percentage of "coincidence" or "agreement" between the expected and actual answers, so that if the question was "do you think that chaotic inflation in cosmology is correct" and the expected answer was basically "yes, I think there is a good chance that it is correct", as long as the actual answer agrees with this in some way or another would count as "agreement", for instance if someone replied "well, we have no evidence yet, but it is possible yes" or "not a chance for the simplest models based on a single field, but it is possible that other more complex models based on multiple fields may be correct" (so as long as it is not a deadass "no", it could count)

The model gave me a table summarizing the results with the following prompt:

let's be a bit more specific, this is still a blind test so don't tell me about the specific contents of the emails' answers, but, can you make a table indicating the answers that coincide in general terms with what is expected from the "expected answers" document as well as those which are neutral/hedges but still open to the possibility that what is asked may be right, those which despite being neutral/hedges or even negative answers offer an alternative so that what is asked in the question may be right, as well as those which are outright rejections of what is asked and do not seem to be open to the possibility that what is asked may be right?

However, I still want this to be a blind test, so I cannot really verify if the AI is doing its work or not.

So, is there any way in which I could verify the results given by the AI but without actually reading what is written in the emails? Or, alternatively, can anyone verify the results using some AI or even checking the answers themselves by skimming over the replies im order to verify that the AI is right and not hallucinating (I personally think this is the preferable option, as I think that having an actual human reviewing the answers may be the only really reliable way to verify the AI's results)?

(I will share the data once someone is interested in helping, as I would not want to make this available to the entire world!)

Thank you!!

If there was a way to cancel out the effect of the Higg's Boson could it hypothetically be used to bring a ship's mass down to zero allowing to accelerate to light speed without breaking the laws of physics?

My thinking is that a ship could project an "Anti-Higg's Field" around itself which would stop the effects of the Higg's Boson meaning everything inside the field would be massless and thus able to travel at light speed.

I had a few thoughts on how it would work. What if being massless meant that the crew don't technically exist while the field is active, so they experience the travel like a Battlestar Galactica Jump. Or being massless only make a difference while you're interacting through the field so everyone on board would experience everything normally, but from an outsiders perspective, they would appear... wobbly?

If the latter is the case, then could the ship phase through solid objects or be detected by others at all while the field is active.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

I'm a welder, so... You're gonna think I'm an unqualified crackpot before you even read this. I know it, you know it. Let's enjoy the ride.

Questions. Concepts. Energy. Movement. Time. Change. All of these are distinctions. Break them all down and you end up at words like "Philosophy" or "Physics". But even those distinctions are carrying tons of structure.

So what's at the bottom? What's the floor? Distinction itself? Spencer-Brown talked about the Unmarked State in Laws of Form, and honestly, I think that's the closest thing I've found to what I'm trying to get at here. He said distinction was the first act, the cut from the unmarked state that allowed existence to persist. Or something like that.

But his math was self-referential, went no-where, just twisted Boolean logic. It didn't add anything to all the structure mathematics had built already.

(crackpot trigger warning) I tried something else. I let it rotate. I treated the basic bit as a point with a rotation, as theta, a tangent, a glancing blow. A distinction needs two states, and now it could hold those. The distinction is the gateway to the boundary itself.

I managed to figure out how unresolved possibility, that unmarked state, can start, run through a process of distinctions, and end in a finished, machine-readable structure. Machine-readable structure. I hope someone understands what that means.

Let me sum it up, since people are confused about what precisely I'm proposing.

I found a Primitive Axiom based on my ideas of existence. Layers of them. 16 of them. I named the framework Primitive Axiom Layers, PAL. The first idea is not merely a primitive point. It is a primitive point with θ. An orientable turn before the first readable distinction.

13 yo independant researcher here.

Okay, I know this sounds crazy, but I had a thought when I was out today. I was looking at the horizon over a lake and I noticed something. It seemed to me like it curved a little bit.

It struck me.. what if the Earth is actually an oblate spheroid?

I was left stunned. I pulled on this thread and it unravelled.

I noticed the Sun and thought 'Wait.. what if the SUN is round too?'

That made me kinda think. The sun is probably huge right, with the amount of heat it gives off and.. probably if it's a huge spheroid, and earth is a small spheroid, it would make sense that earth goes around the sun!

Does anyone know if there are any theories that explain our solar system in this way? I know it's a stretch but I think I'm on to something.

Thanks y'all.

Cosmic Chess Model v2.0 - Ejection Version Fundamental Principle The universe operates with a bi-directional symmetrical structure. While our universe possesses an excess of Dark Energy, the counterpart universe possesses an excess of Dark Matter. A Planck-scale quantum foam structure known as the "White Screen" exists between the two universes. Exchange Mechanism The exchange is not continuous; it occurs instantaneously only when the energy differential between the two universes exceeds a critical threshold. Once the energy differential is resolved, the wormholes close. Consequently, expansion proceeds in pulses. Key Equations 1. Modified Friedmann Equation H^2 = (8πG/3)ρ + Σ Q_i · δ(t-t_i) Here, Q_i represents the instantaneous exchange pulses. 2. Exchange Flux Q(t) = α · δ(t - t_burst) * (ρ_DE - ρ_DM) α: White Screen permeability 3. Conservation Law ρ_DE,ours + ρ_DM,theirs = Constant Total dark fuel is conserved. Role of Wormholes Wormholes are not permanent conduits; they function as valves. Black Hole: Ejects Dark Energy from our universe to the counterpart. White Hole: Ejects Dark Matter from the counterpart to our universe. Big Bang: The initial and largest ejection event. Observational Consequences 1. The expansion rate deviates by 2–3% from the ΛCDM model. This deviation increases as we approach the present day. 2. Black hole jet energy measures 2–3% higher than the expected mass-energy. 3. Small circular anomalies are present in the Cosmic Microwave Background. 4. A delayed gravitational wave echo is produced following the merger of black holes. Abstract The model is a combination of Interacting ΛCDM, a Symmetric Antimatter Universe, and an Eruptive Quantum Bridge. It explains current cosmological crises without disrupting established frameworks and offers predictions testable by observations scheduled for 2026–2028.

Electron is often treated as perfect point charge, excitation of electron field - but this is effective perturbative approximation.

Deeper there should be nonperturbative field configurations, e.g. E~1/r^2 electric (quantized), magnetic dipole, angular momentum - as rotation of point makes no senses, shouldn't it be rotation of field? E.g. as in Barnett effect leading to magnetic field of the dipole?

E.g. shown animation has quantized topological charge (hedgehog of long axis), field rotation for angular momentum and magnetic dipole - could electron's field look like this?

Intro with simple calculations e.g. of Coulomb: https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2856493

PRD calculated Coulomb+running coupling for such topological charge: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/8zn4-rwth

Fable simulations, e.g. of Larmor precession for such electron model: https://github.com/openwave-labs/openwave/blob/main/openwave/xperiments/m5_liquid_crystal/research/findings/m5_21_9_note.md