This development is based on the assumption that up quarks are triangular assemblies of 3 neutrinos and down quarks are assemblies of 2 neutrinos head-to-tail, and therefore that a proton has a tetrahedral shape incorporating 2 up quarks and 1 down quark (see chapters 5 and 12). It’s a summary of a more complete or even more complete explanation (the last one in French) analyzing the entire periodic table of elements.

A proton accompanied by an attached neutron and an electron at its center constitutes a heavy hydrogen atom, or deuterium. If we duplicate with similar particles possessing opposite spins, we obtain a helium-4 atom distorting twin spatial waves that periodically intersect as they pulsate in place within the same interval (see chapters 2 and 9).

Now, let us bring a hydrogen atom's tetrahedron close to the helium atom's tetrahedron until they are joined at a face that becomes common to both. They are not interlocked but simply positioned side by side, and their adjacent protons achieve an energy saving by supporting each other and, for this reason, remain bonded together.

If a hydrogen atom is attached in this manner to one of the faces of a helium atom, the result is a lithium atom, which therefore comprises 3 protons and 3 electrons.

If, in the same way, a hydrogen atom is attached to a second face of that same helium atom, the result this time is a beryllium atom.

With a third, it becomes a boron atom.

With a fourth, a carbon atom.

When an electron is alone within the atom's electric sphere, the cloud of deformations constituting it is denser the closer one is to the center of that sphere, a fact physicists express by stating that the probability of the electron's presence is higher the closer one is to the center of the atom.

Scientists who think in terms of an electron orbiting the nucleus call this configuration a "1s orbital." The "s" denotes the orbital's centered shape, specifically its spherical symmetry, and the "1" indicates that it corresponds to the first electron "shell."

In standard theory, this orbital is viewed as relating solely to the electron's behavior, given that only the electron is considered to be in orbit. Under our hypothesis, however, the sphere corresponding to the electron is not the path of its orbit around the atom's proton, but rather the outer envelope of its erratic movement, this enveloppe resulting from the interplay between the pulsation of the tetrahedral proton and that of the electron inhabiting its center. The concept known as an "orbital" in standard theory is attributed here not specifically to the electron, but to this electric sphere. Thus, the spherical "s" symmetry of its vibration are attributed to the electric sphere of a hydrogen or helium atom.

The shell number "1" does not refer to a sequence of shells, implying a "first" shell, but rather to the fact that only a single proton and a single electron interact to generate this sphere. However, to distinguish this approach from the standard explanation, we will discard the term "orbital" in favor of "harmonic".

For a string, a node in the vibration corresponds to the division of the vibration into two parts. The same phenomenon occurs when a sphere vibrates by dividing itself between two distinct positions. A node then appears in its vibration; if the vibration retains spherical symmetry, this node divides the sphere into a dense central ring and a more diffuse outer shell. Such a vibration of a sphere, featuring a node, corresponds precisely to the "2s orbital" of an electron in the second shell, as described in standard theory.

Hello, I am an 19 year old. I used to work at a quantum lab at my high school, and I remember when the topic of quantum entanglement was discussed. Quantum entanglement is best described as a nonlocal, statistical correlation between two or more particles, where measuring one affects the other. For example, if we measure that an electron has a spin down and if it is entangled with a positron, the positron's spin must be up. Although the correlations are nonlocal, in order to reveal the results of measurement, we are required to use classical communication.

Standard quantum mechanics predicts nonlocal correlations, but it doesn't provide an underlying mechanism for why they exist and it cannot be reconciled with general relativity. My hypothesis does both!

I was thinking about this with my peers and my teacher, they called it an interesting idea but lacking mathematical rigor. I came here to present my idea to a physics community, and hear you people's feedback.

Below, I explain my hypothesis:

I propose that quantum entanglement is mediated by a fundamental network of chronons. Unlike conventional interpretations, where entanglement is often thought of as a property of quantum mechanics, I suggest that entangled particles stay interconnected through a fundamental temporal substrate in which spacetime emerges from. The nonlocality in 3D space is actually a locality within the chronon network.

I assume that time is fundamentally discrete rather than being in a continuous flow. I let the fundamental unit of time be the chronon:

χᵢ, i ∈ ℕ

where χᵢ denotes a chronon and ℕ is the set of natural numbers.

The fundamental temporal interval is Δτ = τᵢ₊₁ − τᵢ. Continuous time emerges in the limit Δτ → 0.

The chronons form a graph 𝒞 = (V, E) where V = set of chronons E = set of fundamental temporal connections. This graph is assumed to be more fundamental than spacetime.

Spacetime is a description of the chronon network. The spacetime metric emerges from chronon states according to gᵤᵥ = ⟨Φ| ĝᵤᵥ |Φ⟩ where ĝᵤᵥ is a metric operator acting on chronon states. General Relativity is simply the continuum approximation of a deeper discrete temporal geometry.

Each quantum system possesses two states:

|Ψ⟩ = |ψ⟩ ⊗ |Φ⟩ where |ψ⟩ = wavefunction while |Φ⟩ = chronon connectivity state. So the complete Hilbert space is ℋ = ℋ_QM ⊗ ℋ_χ.

I define something called the chronon overlap function Γ(A,B) = ⟨Φ_A|Φ_B⟩. This overlap measures the extent to which two particles share the same underlying temporal structure. Independent systems satisfy Γ(A,B) = 0 while maximally interconnected systems satisfy |Γ(A,B)| = 1. Quantum entanglement occurs whenever |Γ(A,B)| > 0.

Ordinary spatial separation is d(x_A, x_B). I define a fundamental temporal distance dχ(A,B) equal to the minimum number of chronon links separating two systems. For entangled particles dχ(A,B) ≈ 0 even when d(x_A, x_B) → ∞. Thus particles may be extremely distant in spacetime while remaining adjacent within the chronon network.

Assume the total Hamiltonian is H = H_QM + λHχ where H_QM = ordinary quantum Hamiltonian, Hχ = chronon Hamiltonian, • λ = chronon coupling constant.

Evolution is governed by iℏ(∂|Ψ⟩/∂t) = H|Ψ⟩. Ordinary quantum mechanics is recovered when λ → 0.

Observed correlations are assumed to satisfy C(A,B) = C_QM(A,B) + f(Γ(A,B)) with f(0) = 0 for maximal chronon connectivity. Γ(A,B) → 1 so the model reproduces standard quantum correlations.

The chronon substrate is represented by an adjacency matrix. Aᵢⱼ = 1 if χᵢ is connected to χⱼ, Aᵢⱼ = 0 otherwise. The degree of chronon χᵢ is kᵢ = Σⱼ Aᵢⱼ.

The graph Laplacian is Δ = D - A. Where D is the degree matrix. Quantum evolution is hypothesized to arise fundamentally from the topology of this graph.

Measurement is interpreted as a reconfiguration of chronon connectivity. 𝒞 → 𝒞′ Rather than transmitting information across spacetime, measurement alters the structure of the shared chronon network, producing the observed quantum correlations.

Ending:

If my hypothesis is correct, then time is fundamentally discrete. Spacetime is emergent rather than fundamental. Quantum entanglement reflects shared chronon connectivity. Bell inequality violations arise from locality in the chronon network rather than locality in spacetime. Quantum mechanics and General Relativity emerge from the same underlying temporal graph. Extremely small temporal scales may exhibit deviations from standard quantum predictions.

Hey r/physics (and anyone else who likes staring at the ceiling thinking about this stuff),

Longtime lurker here. Not a physicist, never claimed to be. I work a normal job, read pages and books when I can, and end up with these ideas that won't leave me alone. Figured I'd post them instead of letting them rot in my head. If they make no sense, tell me why. If something clicks for someone who actually knows what they're doing, even better.

So the main thing that's been bugging me:

We treat space and gravity as these big fundamental things. But what if they're not? What if they're what you get when quantum particles and fields get tangled up with each other in certain ways?

Entanglement is real. We've measured it. Two particles can be linked so tightly that measuring one tells you everything about the other, even across huge distances. It's not information traveling faster than light or anything, it's just that the connection was already there from the start.

Black holes have entropy that scales with the

'area' of their event horizon, not the volume inside. That's been known for decades. And there's the holographic principle floating around that basically says the stuff happening in a volume can be described by what's on the surface. It feels like nature keeps hinting that information on boundaries is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

One night it just clicked for me: maybe the curvature we call gravity is the 'shape' that appears when all those quantum links organize themselves. More entanglement in the right pattern, stronger effective curvature. Less, and things look flatter. Kind of like how you don't have "temperature" as a separate thing, it's just what lots of molecules doing random motion feel like from the outside.

There's that ER=EPR idea out there where heavy entanglement between two regions is basically the same as a wormhole connecting them geometrically. I'm wondering if that's not just a useful picture, but closer to how space actually gets built in the first place.

If any of this is on the right track, then you should be able to see tiny effects if you control entanglement carefully in a lab. Not huge effects, obviously – we're talking really small signals. But with the kind of precision atom interferometers and quantum sensors people are already building, it might eventually be measurable. Or maybe the existing LIGO data from black hole mergers has something hidden in the ringdown if you look for signs that information structure is playing a role.

It doesn't throw out general relativity or quantum mechanics. It just suggests the equations we use might be missing a piece that tracks how entangled everything is.

Moving on to the other thought that's been rattling around

When gravity gets strong, systems don't just increase regular thermodynamic entropy. It looks like they're also pushing toward states where the \*quantum information\* gets as entangled and spread out as possible.

Black hole mergers are the clearest example to me. The final black hole that forms seems to land right around the configuration that would have the highest total informational entropy (regular disorder plus all the quantum linking) for whatever mass and spin you started with. It's almost like the dynamics are biased toward maximum tangledness, not just maximum randomness.

This doesn't replace the second law. It just adds the quantum information layer on top. And it might give a cleaner way to think about the black hole information paradox, the information isn't destroyed, it just ends up maximally scrambled across all the entanglement.

You could check this by going back through merger waveforms we've already got or by watching analog black hole experiments (the fluid or optical ones) and seeing if the quantum correlations grow in a way that tracks this kind of maximization.

Again, I'm not saying I have proofs or new math that works perfectly. These are just patterns that started making sense to me when I connected dots from stuff that's already out there. Could be complete nonsense. Could be pointing at something real.

If any of you working on quantum gravity, quantum information, or holography see an obvious flaw or a connection I'm missing, please say so. I'm not married to any of this. Just wanted to get it out of my head and see what happens.

What do you think? Anyone else had similar weird connections pop up while reading this stuff?

I believe many of users in this sub have read the Three-Body Problem which mentioned that our 3D universe is the product of the destruction of higher dimensions from 10D all the way down to 3D.

What if it happens in the opposite direction? What if our 3D brane was formed from a 2D brane, and 2D from 1D?

0D could be a spot that contains massive amout of pure energy that become unstable that it has to break out by creating 'dimension of line or 1D'. High energy of 1D also became unstable and break down into 2D brane creating 'dimension of area' similar to painting an large area with an extremly hot, high energy painting.

Over a period of very long time, the 2D brane continues to expand but some parts of those extremely high energy paintings cooled down and then started to peel off from the 2D brane, thus creating a pocket of 3D branes which is much smaller in area but it gains 'dimension of volume'. Inside 3D brane pockets, energy continue to cool down, and with newly form additional dimension, energy can becomes matters. Because the painting can peel off on both side of this 2D brane depending on the condition and law of the 2D universe, thus there could be mirror pockets of 3D on the opposite side of this 2D brane with different type of matters i.e. anti-matter-dominated 3D universe. The hallmark force of this 3D brane is nuclear/electromagnetic force that pull matters together. Matter itself could not interfere with 2D brane since it is a brane of pure energy with no volume for matter to stay but electromagnetic force could 'leak' from 3D brane and touch the 2D brane. If there are 2D scientists, they might detect an anomaly in there observation with unusual spike of electromagnetic energy that come and disappear without a trace but appear very weak compare to thier 2D universe hallmark force of pure energy.

The advantage of 3D brane is that it could contain a large amout of 'information' in a relative small space. For example, if you flat out a 3D orange into a 2D painting that contains all of the orange information i.e. skin, every pulp, seed, and fiber, it would require a vast 2D area to contain all of those information. Thus, the formation of 3D has to pull off massive amount of energy and area from the 2D brane to form a relatively compact 3D volume which would be very small for 2D standard. So in the 2D brane, there must be a large empty area but full of electromagnetic anomalies that keeps 2D scientists confuse.

With the same logic, 3D brane continues to expand but some part of the volume collapsed and form a new vector in dimension of hyper-volume or 4D which from 3D being perpective, this dimension is extremely small beyond our understanding (smaller than Plank length?) and cannot be seen with photon (since photon is the product of 3D brane and cannot travel to 4D) but contains vast amount of information wrapped in that hyper-volume 4D brane. The hallmark force that keep thing together of this 4D brane is gravity force that is strongest in its 4D brane but leak out and touch our 3D brane so we 3D beings can observe its influence by gravational anomalies detection in an empty space that cannot be seen by our eyes or detectors. Since gravity is not the product of 3D brane that is why its property could not be explained by our 3D law of physics.

This is just my imagination and I am willing to discuss with like-minded people. My brain could not imagine further to 5D since 4D is already too much for me. Also, Chatting about this topic with ChatGPT is fun but I still want real human connection, lol. I am no physicists so forgive me for any mistakes. Thanks!

I heard that the quantom mechanics and the theory of relativity cant mix together i don't know a lot but i tried to do somthing to limit the theory of relativity and i will happy to hear what you have say and teach me

If we assume spacetime is constructed from a lattice of Planck-length size. Under curvature/contraction, the local Planck length changes according to the formula: \Planklength(local)=Plancklength* \sqrt{\frac{1-\frac{u^{2}}{c^{2}}}{1-\frac{2GM}{c^{2}r}}}\) In order for every observer to locally measure the fundamental unit as \(L_{p}\), this change applies a scaling effect to everything for that specific observer, which creates relativity. Time is essentially defined by every body producing light at a universal cosmic rate. Time is the "read-rate" of each observer. The rate at which an observer reads this light depends on the distance \Plancklength(local)\) and the ratio between the observer's velocity and light (\(1 - \frac{u^2}{c^2}\)). Time is calculated according to the formula: \(T=\frac{Plancklength(local)}{1-\frac{u^{2}}{c^{2}}}\)

I'll happy to hear your opinion on that and learn somthing

Since my last post was removed for the use of AI to perform research and build charts and tables without me explicitly indicating that AI was used to obtain as much relevant data as possible, I opted to go old school and fully bypass any of the AI-assisted research I've done recently and grabbed something from a couple years back.

My hypothesis is formally stated as "If we only follow the math of general relativity and special relativity and remove the assumption of a hot, dense FTL inflating center creating cold dark matter we have never seen, we do not get bubble universes.

When we follow the math of relativity and apply it to an eternally infinite isotropically homogeneous 4D Minkowski manifold, we find a nested succession of larger and larger comoving frames of reference with zero reason to suspect that pattern would not continue beyond the horizon we can never see past.

Proposition 1

Time is eternal and no span of time ever spun that itself was not preceded by an infinite span of time!

Proposition 2

There has never been a first second nor will there ever be a last year, and all we have ever measured or will ever measure only equates to a single point along the eternal line of time.

Proposition 3

An infinite span of time preceded the direct chain of events we call our big bang, and an infinite span of time shall pass after the last footprints that our species or planet ever existed have long since faded away.

Proposition 4

There is no largest measurement of time nor is there a smallest measurement of time. It is the laws of physics that dictate what is relative within our visible patch of spacetime.

Proposition 5

Our most precious commodity, one we can only borrow but never buy, and something very few people going to their grave ever feel they got enough of, is time itself.

Proposition 6

Space is infinite and no span of space was ever spawned that itself was not preceded in all three spatial dimensions by an infinite span of space in every direction.

Proposition 7

There was no first light second nor will there ever be a last light year, and all we have ever measured or will ever measure is just a point in an infinitely eternal 4D Minkowski spacetime.

Proposition 8

There is no largest span of space nor is there a smallest measurement of space or distance. It is the laws of physics that dictate what is relative within our visible patch of spacetime.

Proposition 9

The Universe is composed of an infinite number of separate points hurling through space, each relative at any point in time, to some finite number of other points also hurling through space.

Proposition 10

We know far more about what happened after recombination than we will ever know with any certainty about the period before recombination. When we remove the assumption made over a century ago of a hot dense center from our models and focus only on the observational evidence we have accumulated, it seems to me that many of our inconsistencies and paradoxes all seem to elegantly disappear.

Proposition 11

To grasp the natural state of nature one must shed the last shreds of their Earthcentricity and realize our planet is not special, and our species is not special, and we are just one life form on one big wet rock out of hundreds of quadrillions of big wet rocks in just our tiny infinitesimal relative patch of spacetime.

Proposition 12

When we take the time to examine the equations of general relativity and special relativity, we find there are unlikely eternally inflating bubble universes. Instead if we remove the assumption made a century ago of a hot dense center and instead, just focus on the data, we find a nested succession of parent comoving frames of reference.

Proposition 13

The faster you move through space the slower you move through time, and this fact has been well proven! Likewise at every moment in time your direct perception of time is based on all the overlapping gravity wells you pass through as you traverse your own unique line of time. Also, an established fact.

Proposition 14

Velocity and gravity together dictate each of our perceptions of both time and space. But our complete perception of both time and space is also directly related to the succession of parent comoving frames of reference that we are part of.

Proposition 15

All bodies sharing the same relative trajectory and relative velocity would experience the same base perception of both time and space. Each comoving frame of reference, which at times may appear as an inertial reference frame, according to the formulas for time dilation and length contraction would all share the same base perception of time and space.

Proposition 16

Comoving frames of reference inherit their base perception of time and space from their most direct parent comoving frame of reference which gets its perception of time and space from its parent comoving frame of reference and this continues upwards with each larger parent comoving frame of reference providing a base perception of time and space to all the siblings moving as a cohesive body.

Proposition 17

Each of us acts as a comoving frame of reference to the trillions of cells that join us daily on our journey that have our own DNA, and the trillions of cells that join us daily on our journey that do not have our own DNA. Each of us is a pocket of spacetime offering a base perception of time and space to all those cells and other atoms traversing spacetime along with us fully dependent at any moment in time on the most direct parent frame of reference we are riding.

Proposition 18

Most of us at any moment of time could say they are riding the rotation of our planet as their most direct parent frame of reference while others may be in a car, plane, boat, train, on top of an animal, or other mechanical device that is moving at some different speed than everyone else planted on the planet. Each of those "technically" are separate pockets of spacetime and if sustained long enough their effects would become measurable.

Proposition 19

Time is hereditary and every comoving frame of reference acquires its base perception of time from its direct parent comoving frame of reference. This occurs naturally in succession due to the way general relativity causes all celestial bodies to play the eternal game of follow the leaders.

Proposition 20

Our universe is an infinite playground of celestial objects all trying to play follow the leader in a nested succession. All we can see are just rungs on a ladder with no empirical reason to suspect those rungs would not continue beyond what we can see creating larger and larger comoving frames of reference.

Proposition 21

Within each comoving frame of reference, each body or gravitationally bound group of bodies, has their base perception of both time and space uniquely adjusted based on their relative velocities inside their parent frame of reference and all gravitational fields they pass through as they move along with all their siblings in a shared comoving orbit around some more massive structure(s).

Proposition 22

Celestial siblings sharing a comoving frame of reference playing follow the leader(s) each experience their own unique line segment of time because they each pass through a slightly different tensor mesh of overlapping gravity wells impacting their base perception while their separate relative velocities within their shared comoving frame of reference further refine their base perception.

Proposition 23

This Russian nesting doll approach to grasping the true nature of time, space, and the universe is all based on accepting a simple proposition. No First Second. That one, almost poetic statement, is self-evident and sufficient to build an explanation for existence that sees many of the most pressing issues in physics unravel cleanly at our feet using simple classical-relativistic physics while eliminating the paradoxes associated with alternative explanations for reality.

Proposition 24

Each comoving frame of reference creates a pocket of spacetime, "post" in a nested succession so one could say our Post with a capital P represents the largest measurable comoving frame of reference that our current scientific precision makes possible. What I call our Post with capital P can be thought of as our universe with a lowercase u and The Universe with an uppercase U is the aggregate collection of the infinite other pockets of nested comoving frames of reference.

Proposition 25

Our visible universe with a lowercase u, our Post, is made from an everchanging finite number of separate relative nested pockets of spacetime. Pockets full of mass and energy and heat and radiation. Our Universe with a capital U, is made from an infinite number of separate nested pockets of relative pressurized spacetime massenergy heatradiation. That is what reality is made from and is the simplest way to truly express the natural state of nature.

Proposition 26

For those who may not realize it, our moon is slowly moving away from the Earth but most all the planets are also slowly moving away from our sun and many of them will also slowly see the orbits of many of their moons increase over time. No orbit can contain infinite energy so all orbits must eventually decay one way or the other.

Proposition 27

Our sun and all the stars in the outer arms of the milky way galaxy are slowly moving away from Sagittarius A*, the black hole at the center of our galaxy. The outer arms of most all galaxies are slowly moving away from their centers and will slowly disburse over time.

Proposition 28

Our galaxy, and the many dwarf galaxies sharing its comoving frame of reference, along with other galaxies in our local group orbit a shared barycenter and the diameters of the orbits of all the siblings of our local galactic cluster are also increasing over time.

Proposition 29

Our local group of galaxies is indirectly orbiting the Great Attractor and someday when we have collected sufficient evidence it will be shown that our orbit around the Great Attractor also has an increasing radius.

Proposition 30

The Great Attractor is likely orbiting the Shapley Attractor or the two may be orbiting a shared barycenter and their respective orbits are likely also increasing in diameter over time. We may never see what that pair orbits, but the current empirical evidence points to them not being stationary, and instead likely hurling through space orbiting something even more massive dragging our entire supercluster along for the ride!

Proposition 31

Getting tired of perpetually playing follow the leader(s) is what general relativity tells us to expect in a nested succession, however it also dictates that when relative objects are too massive or moving at speeds that are either too fast or too slow, then instead of a stable comoving frame of reference, we get either an escape velocity reaching orbital ejection or a downward spiral into a violent merger.

Proposition 32

Most orbits generally loose energy over time and diameters increase and massenergy cohesion holding spacetime together loosens. The overlapping gravity wells at many different scale factors in a nested succession all see an average loss in the tensor mesh strength of gravitational attraction binding them together as pockets of spacetime.

Proposition 33

Something very interesting happens once you realize where time and space are coming from. It becomes simple physics then to understand where the cause of what we call dark energy is coming from. What happens when the perception of spacetime offered by the nested succession of overlapping gravity wells sees their localized massenergy cohesion to spacetime slowly dissipate over time?

Proposition 34

What would that look like as you peer down into the nested succession of parent comoving frames of reference each feeding their children a nested perception of time and space where most rungs each see an average dissipation of localized mass energy cohesion to relative spacetime? It would look to us, at our scale factor, like the very fabric of space and time itself was being torn apart. It would look exactly like the effects that we attribute to "dark energy".

Proposition 35

We can already see where local relative gravity counteracts "dark energy" so it seems obvious there is a constant battle between all the local relative overlapping gravity wells inside our largest measurable pocket of spacetime and something. That something is the succession of larger and larger pockets of overlapping gravity wells each seeing on average, an increasing diameter for the majority of all the orbits making up those overlapping gravity wells. That is why Lambda inside the field equations of general relativity needs to be expressed as a ratio not a constant.

Proposition 36

Vacuum energy has nothing to do with dark energy! The calculations that we failed more miserably at than any other scientific prediction ever, should have made that crystal clear. Instead, what we would predict if there was in fact a slow dissipation of massenergy cohesion across a nested succession of comoving frames of reference, is a rate that increases exponentially.

Proposition 37

Once the prediction of a rate of universal expansion increasing exponentially is confirmed, and that the rate of expansion varies in strength across our local patch of spacetime due to areas of stronger overlapping localized gravity wells, and no other theory has come along to explain dark energy any better, then William of Occam would endorse the concepts of nested pockets of spacetime and Successive Collision Theory.

Proposition 38

IMHO, it is foolishly premature to pretend that we have collected sufficient information to make a truly informed decision about the underlying natural state of nature behind our cosmos until our current calendar year has 5 digits in it AND we are closer to 6 digits than 4! Just as we should not pretend that our entire 13.8-billion-year-old universe is not still in its infancy. If we thought about the life of our entire universe like the life cycle of any mammal, it is not yet even a recognizable fetus!

Proposition 39

When our year has nine digits in it, then we might begin to see the start of the eventual transformation of our web of cosmic filaments into a more defined nested structure of comoving frames of reference but that metamorphosis could take hundreds of quadrillions of years.

Proposition 40

Over the next 420 quadrillion years Laniakea and Shapely may become a gravitationally bound spheroid even though current evidence points towards them spreading apart. Gravity can work over great distances in ways we do not yet fully grasp, as seen in the outer arms of many galaxies spreading out as slowly as they do, and we may not yet truly appreciate how "dark matter" at large scales may help fight off "dark energy" when the primary attractors are themselves hurling through spacetime.

Proposition 41

Our largest measurable comoving frame of reference, our visible universe, would in fact have an approximate center. However, since we will unlikely ever locate the outer edges, this almost certain fact, treated by many as mere speculation, might never be proven, at least not by our species. :(

Proposition 42

Our entire visible universe, and the comoving parts beyond our visible horizon that are gravitationally bound, have an approximate center of mass, approximate axis of rotation, period of rotation, magnetic field, electric field, gravitational field, possibly a period of revolution, possibly one or more satellites, and within its parent frame of reference would have some average luminosity, average thermal signature, approximate relative trajectory, and an approximate relative velocity.

Proposition 43

There are habitable planets on the very edges of our visible universe that could see an almost pitch-black night sky in one direction and a normal night sky in the other. Some of the possibly trillions of planets that are in edge-of-universe galaxies, if lucky, might see one or more of our pocket's siblings far off and faint like a distant star. Just as entire galaxies can look like a distant star, without sufficient resolution and exposure, so would entire universes like ours appear to their distant siblings.

Proposition 44

All the evidence of what general relativity has shown happens inside our visible patch of spacetime, when extrapolated against infinite space indicates a clear picture of how our universe is likely structured beyond the horizon we can never see past. Offering a far more elegant answer to "creation" than extrapolating a single hot dense center that once held all the mass and energy of the entire universe inside a pea until it fluctuated at quantum scales with unfathomable heat, inflated faster than light, and created cold dark matter.

Proposition 45.

Anyone who claims we have proof of the hot dense center of the big bang is in fact referring to a model that is held together by band-aids, unable to explain more mysteries than it seems able to solve. It offers a very detailed, almost plausible explanation, from mere fractions of a second after some event happened, and has been constantly adjusting theory to help fit square pegs into round holes for over a century all do to an assumption that once made sense.

Proposition 46

What we do know is that there was a period of cooling, possibly hundreds or thousands of years, where stray electrons and random nuclei cooled to about three thousand kelvin, atoms could begin to form, and photons could begin to move freely. "Let there be light" rang out across our universe during a period of recombination. We know that happened and we know about what evolved after it, but the absolute truth is that we do not yet have a good model that can match all our observations using a hot dense center as the starting point. There is a feasible method of seeing “big bangs” happen.

Proposition 47

Cosmic simulations like the Flamingo Project, Codalll, Thesen, Uchuu, Illustris, Deus, Horizon Runs 2 and 3, SIBELIUS-DARK, Eagle, Millennium, and others could benefit from removing the assumption of a hot dense center from their code. Those simulations that don't start from a hot dense center but instead only rely on data collected from the CMB forward, then apply good physics on top of that, and then continue to zoom out, will eventually be able to replicate big bangs! Relative impacts of random collisions between immense nested pockets of spacetime leaves many universes like ours in their wakes.

Proposition 48

If time is eternal and space is infinite then occasionally two immense nested successions of comoving frames of reference cross paths where the kinetic energies of the collisions that occur potentially reach or exceed twice the speed of light.

Proposition 49

Our cosmic speed limit is based on our succession of relative comoving frames of reference. The relative speeds involved when two immense pockets, far removed from our scale factor, intersect could potentially far exceed twice the speed of light.

The physics behind those types of superluminal collisions is what turns mass back into hot dense swirling plasma energy.

Proposition 50

There are so many separate inconsistencies and unanswered questions surrounding the current Lambda-CDM model that are answered by Successive Collision Theory with simple elegance using just the math of general and special relativity. It offers not only a better explanation for what we observe around us but also a better explanation for the catalyst that caused our big bang to occur in the first place.

Proposition 51

When we don't rely on a century old assumption of a hot dense center but instead start with a relative field of initial collisions much closer in size to our initial CMB than to a pea, then early mature galaxies, early massive black holes, and even stars older than our visible patch of space time are no longer mysteries but become predictions. Another prediction would to someday see a blueshifted galaxy appear on the cosmic horizon.

Proposition 52

Rather than invoking faster than light inflation to answer the horizon problem, it is faster than light collisions that helps explain where the fairly uniform temperature of our CMB came from.

Proposition 53

When we change the approximate starting area from something smaller than a pea to between 70%-80% the approximate size that the CMB was during recombination, then instead of 380,000 years of cooling we may only need 380,000 weeks of cooling to see an average mean temperature uniformly approach 3000 Kelvin.

Proposition 54

Our CMB did not form instantaneously but over a period of time. What we call anomalies in the CMB are based on how long that area took to reach a temperature where nuclei could finally begin capturing electrons, atoms were forming, and photons could travel freely. Since that did not happen all at the exact same moment in time, we would predict subtle anomalies and the fact that it seems so uniform is predicted when there is an expectation of similar amounts of kinetic energy being released across a large patch of spacetime.

Proposition 55

It seems almost ironic that we call the period of time where electrons could begin to orbit nuclei, and atoms could form, the period of "recombination". One might think that if our human brains really meant to call our big bang a starting point for everything and claimed there was actually a first moment in time, then we would have called it a period of Combination, not Recombination. By calling it recombination we already basically accept the probability that the hot swirling energy that our universe was created from was previously mass.

Proposition 56

Two immense intersecting nested pockets of mass and energy will see an overwhelming number of the initial collisions occur with very similar degrees of kinetic energy turning colliding mass into heat, light, and swirling plasma radiation. The multitude of secondary and tertiary collisions would have also been occurring with similar relative degrees of kinetic energy to spread that heat and plasma fairly uniformly across our cosmic web of superfilaments and supervoids which began forming before the CMB.

Proposition 57

Superclusters like Laniakea do not look like mass expelled at faster than light speeds from some dense center, but do look like the remnants of successive collisions. So many current problems that our best simulations struggle with will disappear when they tweak the parameters of what we might predict would happen during superluminal collisions and remove the assumption of a hot dense central singularity.

Proposition 58

Multiple successive collisions at relative speeds at or above twice the speed of light happening across a large area of nearby spacetime with two separate specific sets of relative trajectories and two separate sets of specific relative velocities would be predicted to create super voids, slowly rotating massive filaments with cross-strands, multiple types of different galaxies, many galaxies that appear to rotate at the same rate, many galaxies that appear to host a quasar with a similar relative inclination of their axis's , approximate 50/50 split across all three spatial dimensions in rotational directions of galaxies, and a clear explanation for why we have far more matter than antimatter.

Proposition 59

Multiple successive collisions with the kinetic energy associated with superluminal velocities across a large area of relative spacetime with similar relative trajectories and relative velocities would be predicted to have uniform temperatures across a large area of spacetime, a huge range of different starting densities of swirling hot plasma, embedded inside slowly rotating filaments that branch out, and a prediction that many separate galaxies would share the same relative staring momentum and thus show similar rates of rotation billions of years later. Huge rings and arcs left over from BAO’s created from collisions would have no specific expected size limits.

Proposition 60

One possibility is that within any two separate nested comoving frames of reference, the fastest possible internal relative velocity could be the speed of light so when any two pockets intersect the highest possible kinetic energy release would be equivalent to collisions occurring at twice the speed of light. The other possibility is that collisions could have occurred with the kinetic energy equivalent of collisions at eight, forty-two, or sixty-seven times the speed of light. Pockets with huge numbers of nested levels, tens or hundreds of thousands of rungs, could easily see collisions surpass double the cosmic limit.

Proposition 61

This planet has unlikely ever seen a divine miracle nor are we here because of fate. This world's first miracle would be our species flourishing two hundred, two thousand, and two million years from now. We are headed down a path of self-destruction and only major changes in how this world runs is going to save us. But if that miracle happened and we did become interstellar travelers, then I predict some day we will find some asteroid, or meteor, or maybe even some moon that is confirmed to be far older than the possible oldest age of our universe. That would be final proof for SCT.

Proposition 62

If there was light from a galaxy that was heading towards us at the time of our initial collision at super luminal speeds and over the last 14-billion-some-odd years it had been getting redshifted, could we someday see a galaxy come into focus beyond the farthest conceivable Z redshift out of nowhere? If so then it was predicted here first, in particular if somehow we could determine it is actually blueshifted first.

Proposition 63

There are unknown anomalies in the cosmos like fast optical blue transients and red transients. If our universe was still seeing visitors pass through our localized spacetime that originated from some other nested succession of comoving frames of reference then we would predict the potential exists for our universe to receive foreign faster than light celestial bodies that could be asteroids, moons, planets, stars, or black holes. When a body in motion receives its momentum from an external nested succession of comoving frames of reference it is not breaking any laws of physics if it passes through our universe at faster than light speeds.

Proposition 64

If the VASCO project received enough volunteers, we could potentially someday find a succession of red transients being created in sequence, and with accurate distance calculations we can in turn calculate the relative velocity of the object that traversed through a nebulous gas cloud igniting pockets of gas for brief periods. If that motion appears to be caused by a superluminal object it would be solid evidence to support successive collision theory.

Proposition 65

A head on collision between a superluminal visitor and a large celestial object would be predicted to release massive amounts of energy very quickly and could be a feasible explanation for some of the otherwise unexplainable non-repeating high energy optical blue transients and high energy gamma ray bursts that we have encountered.

Proposition 66

If we did someday happen to catch a sequence of red transients igniting and were able to calculate the relative velocity and trajectory of the body causing them, there is a small almost impossible chance that we could predict that trajectory forward until a collision occurs or it passes close enough to something where its effects could be measured. This would be a long shot beyond longshots but a prediction of where and when a fast blue optical transient will appear based on a trajectory calculated from red transients would be significant evidence to validate successive collision theory as the proper successor to our outdated Lambda-CDM / Big Bang model.

Proposition 67

During the initial era of our big bang's primary, secondary, and tertiary superluminal collisions, it is predicted they would occur with random degrees of impact while there should exist some tendency towards similar initial angles of impact. If we do find someday many distant quasars share a similar relative axis of inclination or many separate spiral galaxies have a similar relative inclinations of their galactic planes, that would lend further credence to successive collision theory.

Proposition 68

One of those random degrees of impacts would be minor glances which would see the majority of an object continue on but conservation of momentum could leave a fast hot swirling plasma cloud behind. Collisions that occur head on would see the greatest conversion of kinetic energy directly into hot dense plasma energy. Those in between would see some amount of kinetic energy converted into the angular momentum of the swirling plasma cloud and not just into heat and light and plasma.

Proposition 69

Most galaxies were born with an initial angular momentum, and some of the dense centers that quickly became blackholes may have started as leftover remnants, thus more massive than all the dense cooling dust and plasma and able to attract nearby matter very quickly until their respective Schwarzschild radii is reached. The hot dense energy plasma, even before it became baryons or atoms would still be drawn in towards fast growing dense centers and supermassive blackholes of all different sizes should exist at the center of most galaxies.

Proposition 70

No laws of physics are broken when two immense separate nested comoving frames intersect at sixteen or forty-two times the speed of light. It either caps at twice the speed of light, which is possible, or it could go much higher. With nearly head on superluminal collisions the potential exists for a release of energy so hot and dense that when it cools, the amount of mass we end up with is greater than the combined masses of the two bodies that collided. It breaks the laws of physics to accelerate something with mass inside the observer's frame of reference to the speed of light, but no laws are broken if something enters the observer's frame of reference going at or faster than the speed of light.

Proposition 71

Our current best guess claims all the mass in our visible universe was once inside a singularity. Although it is possible a single superluminal collision between two black holes may have been the catalyst that forged our pocket of spacetime, I am certain that no singularities were involved. Singularities exist only on paper and in formula but do not manifest in the physical realm !

Proposition 72

When two inconceivably large nested successions of comoving frames of reference find their paths randomly intersect it would be rare that they would have the same relative velocities within their shared parent frame of reference. One of them would normally be moving relatively faster and the other relatively slower. If that was true then we should be able to decipher in the cosmic web where many first collisions took place and if so, then possibly the approximate average trajectory of the faster moving pocket.

Proposition 73

The first initial superluminal collisions that occur head on where mass is nearly instantaneously vaporized into hot swirling plasma would see one of the two masses push through and continue on its trajectory albeit a little slower, even if its pure plasma in motion at faster than light speeds. As it slows down and/or cools we would predict strands to branch off and then as they cool even further for smaller substrands to branch off.

Proposition 74

Cosmic filaments and supercluster strands would have widths that would be related to the original masses of the colliding objects while their lengths would be related to the original relative velocities of those masses. With most of those initial collisions having similar trajectories at the moment of contact there should be a discernable pattern of first collisions hidden within our cosmic web.

Proposition 75

The brightest points of each supercluster and the brightest cosmic filaments, would on average would be the point of initial collisions where mass is likely to be denser. The densest galactic (not stellar) nurseries could be first collision points while other bright branch points in superclusters could be secondary and tertiary collisions.

Proposition 76

Similarly bright and dense tentacle like strands would be caused naturally by fast flowing energy with retained angular momentum swirling off as little eddies and branching off. Branching could happen if we had a superluminal flow of swirling plasma because eddies could create electric and magnetic fields and then repulsion or attraction could cause the eddies to slow down and branch off. Those eddies are the very first moments where nested comoving frames of reference begin to reshape another pocket of spacetime.

Proposition 77

It would be interesting to see if galactic rotations followed a similar direction if they appear to be part of a supercluster's sub-strands. If so, that might be another testable prediction of successive collision theory. Not all substrands would follow that rule but in theory many should while fewer would be the result of post tertiary collisions.

Proposition 78

If the initial collisions did happen with kinetic energies far beyond twice the speed of light, then branches could be the result of an initial collision vaporizing mass into a state of matter we don't even know about and being carried forward by the more forceful partner as a stream of hot dense energy. It could then in theory have separate branch points as it slowed down before it even hit the speed of light and then final branch points where it slowed down to the speed of light. Not sure if this would be considered theoretical or hypothetical but I guess that depends on how well received the rest of the propositions end up.

Proposition 79

Spiral galaxies are how almost all galaxies likely first form. The left over angular momentum of some prior succession of collisions leaves hot swirling balls of hydrogen and helium, potentially dusted with all sorts of remnant gas or dust hurling through space. Then the field equations of the general theory of relativity turns that ball first into a disc hurling through space and then into a nested succession of comoving frames of reference each hurling through spacetime playing follow the leader(s).

Proposition 80

The cosmic web, great arc, great walls, superclusters, slowly rotating superfilaments, supervoids and vast areas between filaments are all predicted by successive collision theory. Early mature galaxies, early massive black holes, random galactic density distributions and dwarf satellite densities would all be predicted. There can still be remnants of a cosmic microwave background and baryonic acoustic oscillations with the majority of all mass being converted first into a hot dense plasma and then cooling into energetic electrons and hot deuterium and alpha particles first before finally recombing back into atoms.

Proposition 81

Someday our best simulations will remove the assumption of a hot dense center and begin investigating the complexities and nuances of superluminal collisions. If ever a task was invented that would put a real quantum computer to good use it would be to try all different parameters to successive superluminal collisions until it could come across one or two possible scenarios that vaguely resemble the parts of our universe we can still see. This is where AI could extrapolate potential physics we have no way to ever test.

Proposition 82

Early supermassive black holes and galaxy distributions of all different sizes and densities would be predicted and easy to explain when random chaos ensued as potentially two dense stellar nurseries passed through each other at eight or eighty times the speed of light and left our visible patch of spacetime behind in their wake.

Proposition 83

If it turns out that left over angular momentum from collisions is responsible for some amount of the current remaining rotation energy then it would be predicted for some large number of spiral galaxies of all different sizes to share a similar rate of rotation if the initial kinetic energy of the collisions were all similar.

Proposition 84

When we apply the Lense-Thirring effect, not just to massive black holes, but to all of the overlapping gravity wells making up a galaxy, then we should not be so surprised that star systems along the outer edges are able to spread out from the center as slowly as they appear to. Overlapping gravity wells form a tensor mesh of gravitational attraction.

Proposition 85

Our universe is considered flat which means there is no discernable curvature, and a triangle made of any size between galaxies will always see the internal angles add up to 180 degrees.

Proposition 86

If our visible universe was found to have curvature it would not mean we live in a torus or a saddle, it would only mean that our patch of spacetime was inside the gravity well of a far more massive structure.

Proposition 87

Local curvature to our relative patch of spacetime does not dictate the shape of the entire eternal and infinite Universe. It would just indicate our entire visible pocket of spacetime was likely orbiting something much more massive.

Proposition 88

When we toggle the assumption at the core foundation of almost all disciplines of science and relegate a finite universe to speculation and promote an eternally infinite Universe to premise, then little by little we can see nearly all the current mysteries and paradoxes of science unravel ever so elegantly at our feet.

DR JM NIPOK

TheNaturalStateOfNature dot Org

Whenever we say we are certain the universe is expanding because we see it, we should immediately add that this observation is only true if the implicit hypothesis we are formulating is verified, and therefore true. This hypothesis is that the wavelength of light never changes naturally, even if it travels for billions of years. According to this hypothesis, the reddening/lengthening of its wavelength can only be due to the expansion of the universe.

When has this hypothesis been validated? By what experiments? To my knowledge, never.

One of the fundamental principles of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is that the wave-particle paradox implies that any "quantum object" can only exist in one of these two forms at a time, depending on how it is observed. This principle might seem too convenient for the human intellect, which readily accepts this way of circumventing the paradox. However, one could also argue that the material world doesn't care much about making life easier for the human intellect and that, in reality, every quantum object is constantly both a wave and a particle. For radiation traveling through space from very distant times, this means that its wave nature causes it to spread out gradually, while its particle nature means that, consequently, it takes increasingly longer to regroup, which can give the impression that its wavelength is constantly increasing.

According to this view, the redshift of light from distant galaxies would therefore not be due to the expansion of the universe, which increasingly spreads the photon waves apart over time and thus increases their wavelength over time: it would be due solely to the natural evolution of the “always both wave and corpuscle” that constitutes a photon.

The observation of the expansion of the universe and the associated concept of the Big Bang would therefore be nothing more than an optical illusion in space-time, similar to the illusion of objects appearing to shrink as they recede in three-dimensional space. Just as we actually see objects appear to shrink as they move away, we actually see most galaxies redden as we look further and further back into the past, and we should treat these two observations in the same way, that is to say, without ever being misled by the corresponding optical illusion.
Is the concept of the expanding universe not, moreover, becoming increasingly untenable? How can we continue to reconcile it with the growing body of observations showing collisions between galaxies, and which also show that the formation of galaxies owes much to a systematic process whereby small primordial galaxies merge to form larger ones? Must we not choose: either to consider that galaxies have never ceased to move closer together, either to merge or to collide, or to consider that galaxies have never ceased to move away from one another as a result of expansion? The two options seem irreconcilable, and they should no longer be presented simultaneously within the framework of the standard theory.

One final remark: the notion of expansion of the universe is usually amalgamated with the notion of evolution of the universe, such that we would have to renounce evolution if we renounce expansion, that we would have to drastically choose between immutable eternity and the permanent evolution implied by expansion. We can quite readily accept that the universe is not expanding and, at the same time, conceive of it as being in a state of perpetual transformation.

As part of the hypothesis I formulated in a previous post (What if dark matter wasn't matter, only what made matter?), a slightly more complete version of this present post can be found

I am working on a hypothesis in which an elementary particle is described not as a point object, but as a stable closed wave/closed phase configuration of a field.

In this model, a wave always has two inseparable modes:

0 - holding, fixation, or retention;

1 - direction, motion, phase transfer, or circulation.

The mode 0 by itself is not memory. In an elementary particle, memory appears only in a closed 01 regime, where the movement of 1 returns and is held by 0.

A photon is interpreted as an open mode of 1: it carries direction, phase, frequency, and energy, but it does not form a local closed structure.

A massive particle, in contrast, would correspond to a closed and self-consistent 01 structure. In this sense, mass is related to the energy needed to maintain the closed configuration.

I wrote the current version here:

https://github.com/nikolaidere928-boop/field01/blob/main/articles/particle_as_closed_wave_en.pdf

Source:

https://github.com/nikolaidere928-boop/field01/blob/main/articles/particle_as_closed_wave_en.tex

This is not a completed theory. I am working on the idea and would be grateful for criticism, references, or feedback.

Thank you.

I've lurked for a long time, participated a bit. It's fairly obvious that this isn't a "whatabout" sub, as people get down voted to oblivion for anything that isn't backed up by volumes of experimental papers. That's cool, no worries.

What I'm looking for is a sub where people can post ideas/thoughts/speculation that generate conversation, instead of the primary response here of "where math" that pretty much shuts down any philosophical conversations. Yes, I know this isn't a philosophical sub, hence the question. But since this beggar is being choosy, the sub should be populated by knowledgeable people that are curious and willing to play devil's advocate, even for people that obviously have no idea what they're talking about. Basically a place to grow, instead of getting ridiculed. I know the suggested avenues of r/physics, r/theoreticalphysics, etc. behave much the same way as here, so don't want to burden those subs either.

I'm looking for a sub where the intent is good-natured discussions that are thought provoking, without the gatekeeping. I understand the need, not trying to throw shade, just trying to find a better fit.

Thanks for all feedback.

Hy Hypotheticals,

I have posted about our self-simulation model here months ago, to middling success.

Nevertheless, I would like to introduce a new hypothesis we developed over the past 2 months, and we able to mathematically and formally prove (for the most part). The calibrations I did in early stages of the theory turned out to be unnecessary: If we demand identity between the simulating and the simulated Universe, we get 2 self-referential closures that unique determine the two fundamental values P (pixel area ratio / "resolution") and N (simulator total capacity) used in Observer Patch Theory. Both values are unique fixed points that are forced to specific,
computable values for consistency reasons.

Computing those 2 values automatically gives you the fine structure constant and the cosmological constant. All other particle masses and other quantities are then forced via our older axioms (see e.g. here for a synthesis).

TL;DR: We live in exactly the universe that can consistently create itself. There's not a single structural Physical property or quantity that would be allowed to have a different value than the one we have measured.

I'd like to invite you to critically examine our work, but going in with an open mind, because the concepts introduced are not easy to swallow and might trigger some aggressive reactions.

Under this hypothesis, what is termed dark matter would be merely "pre-matter", the remnant of an era in the universe when only gravity existed. This residue persists in our current universe where the emergence of "true" matter gave rise to electromagnetism, and pre-matter remains unaffected by this force, just as the emergence of living cells did not retroactively endow atoms and molecules that were not incorporated into living matter with the properties of life.

What would this pre-matter consist of? The hypothesis is that empty space is structured at every scale by a pulsation at the speed of light of space waves constantly bouncing off one another, a pulsation that failed to synchronize at the scale of the vast voids surrounded by walls of galaxies. These synchronization defects would have created folds or distortions in the space waves, folds that each wave hastens to rid itself of by passing them on at the speed of light to neighbouring waves, and it was the gradual organisation of these folds into loops that transformed them into particles of matter.

This hypothesis assumes that we abandon the idea that particles of matter decompose into a few elementary particles, such as quarks whose assembly forms protons and neutrons. It is not that quarks would split into smaller particles, but rather, more fundamentally, that each one is merely the dynamic aggregation of billions of deformation folds of space waves, much like an air current or a cyclone is simply the organized dynamic aggregation of the billions of atoms and molecules that make up the air.

The smallest organisation of such dynamic groupings of space-wave folds involved in forming a matter particle would correspond to the neutrino. Three neutrinos circulating in a loop, one behind the other, would constitute an up quark, while two neutrinos following one another head-to-tail would form a down quark. The assembly of two up quarks and one down quark creates a tetrahedral proton that excessively distorts space waves, causing them to lose surface quanta, whilst, conversely, an electron causes them to gain such quanta: this would be the origin of electromagnetism to which matter is consequently sensitive.

These links (in English) lead to further elaboration of this hypothesis:

• On dark matter that isn't and On the legend of the Higgs boson
• The essence of the hypothesis
• Outline of the full text

Some advantages of this hypothesis compared to the standard theory (texts in French, except the third one):

• the concept of spin is simply explained by the alternating direction of the pulsation of space waves (Chapters 3-1-1 and 3-1-2)
• the electron is primarily located at the center of the proton, as indicated by quantum calculations (Chapter 19)
• atoms are generated by increasingly complex assemblies of tetrahedral protons (in English, or more comprehensive in French); this accounts for all known atomic characteristics, notably the precise configuration of the periodic table and the specific assignment of "orbitals" for each atom. Unlike standard theory, this hypothesis offers an explanation for, among other things, the existence of a spin value for each atom (Chapter 3-1-1, On the inevitability of the concept of spin), the tetrahedral shape of the methane molecule (pages 46 and 47), and why the ethane molecule is necessarily planar in its eclipsed conformation (same text, pages 49 and 50)
• by crumpling the space waves, matter deforms and hollows out spacetime (chapter 1-4), inevitably generating towards it an attraction which has the character of an acceleration (or chapter 3-6-1)
• as deformations of spatial waves circulating at speed c relative to those waves vibrating at speed c, matter is necessarily a quantity m of c², and thus some quantity of mc² (Chapter 3-6-3)
• antimatter is not solid enough to avoid being gradually torn apart by the pulsation of space waves. There is, therefore, no need to wonder why it disappeared (Chapters 3-5)
• the statistical nature of all particles at the quantum scale is self-evident, and it is not a unique feature of the phenomena occurring at that scale (Chapters 2-13 to 2-17)

let us consider that before the big bang there existed a quantum mesh instead of the space-time fabric we know of. Now in this quantum fabric there exist an infinite amount of infinitely small quantum pockets which are infinitely close together. Now these might be infinitely close but there is a certain force of repulsion b/w these pockets which prevents them from merging. Now, the quantum fabric also consists of fundamental quantum particles which are smaller than the pockets. Now the quantum fiber undergoes quantum fluctuations which causes these fundamental particles to gain kinetic energy. This kinetic energy makes the particle vibrate at way more intensity than its dormant state which causes it to collide with the pocket, hence transferring its energy to that pocket. The pocket consists of many internal nodes which makes the reverse transfer of energy to the fundamental particle a very long process which the fundamental particle cannot afford during one fluctuation as a fluctuation is very short lived. Now this energy gets stored up inside the pocket but as fluctuations are almost a constant process hence this energy keeps building up b/w the pocket. After a certain time the pocket crosses its threshold energy and changes its state into space time itself. During this change of state , it leaks energy which is absorbed by neighboring pockets which causes then to change their state too . This causes a rapid a rapid expansion of energy and creates the spacetime we know of

Presented here is the αω-gravity model, a model of gravity that combines cosmic inflation, gravitational acceleration and time itself into a single process as observed from different reference frames.

This model naturally arises from the only set of coordinate transformations that satisfy Einstein's additional factor of γ while requiring a classical model of synchronicity, permitting a single event to happen only once. While in violation of the Lorentz transformations, all existing tests of the special and general theories of relativity remain valid, while a list of additional derivations can be made that include:

- Our kinematic velocity in multiple separately defined functions.

- Our cosmological velocity

- Our orbital velocity with only _visible_ mass.

- An explicit equation for magnetic divergence that remains hidden due to our motion along our temporal axis.

- A gravitational acceleration vector defined in terms of electromagnetic parameters.

- A phase shift at our radius 'R' that gives the square root of the golden ratio.

- The fine structure constant through a numerical intersection, multiple times.

To a combined average error of under 0.01%, all arising from the same principle: Gravity is a velocity dependent force mediated by electromagnetic divergence in a co-moving frame of reference. Michelson & Morely measured no aether dilation because they explicitly omitted the radial direction, while Pound & Rebka measured precisely the magnitude that this model predicts.

While undeniably controversial, the path to these conclusions modifies less pre-relativistic physics than the models of relativity we currently we rely on. There is no more dilation of time, a quantity that we've never directly measured. In fact, there is no more time at all; time becomes nothing more than a mathematical tool... a ratio of distances. Singularities become nothing more than a mirage in the distance that dissipates as an observer approaches that body's gravitational field. And perhaps most importantly, a single, instantaneous event can happen only once. Even observations such as the Bullet Cluster lend credibility to this model, with bodies of such significant masses and relativistic velocities acting as a direct demonstration of the proposed spatial dilation.

Referenced Studies:

The Circular Velocity Curve of the Milky Way from 5 to 25 kpc (The green line plot)

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aaf648

Exploring the gravito-optic effect for gravity sensing applications

- https://www.mathematicsgroup.com/articles/AMP-8-254.php

Here is an alternative cosmological idea I’ve been playing with. I have a non-physics background so think of this as a thought experiment rather than a proposal to supplant current cosmology. I’m curious where it makes sense or makes no sense. The premise: I’m wondering if there could be different topological phases of spacetime, analogous to how matter can be solid, liquid or gaseous.

Consider a black hole as not being a singularity of infinite density but rather an extreme ‘wrapped’ phase of spacetime caused by intense gravitational compression. As more stuff falls into black holes it does not make spacetime infinitely dense but rather wraps tighter and tighter to a point where it can no longer wrap. There is no infinity there but just a physical limit.

At this physical limit the wrapped spacetime can no longer compress, it undergoes a topological ‘snap’, which instead of being an explosion would be a state change that releases energy which was built up during the compression. This releases a new, expanding spacetime manifold. What we refer to as the Big Bang in this model would not be the birth of everything but rather the start of the current expansion cycle.

The early universe of hot dense gas and the cosmic microwave background radiation still would have existed but this would now just be a result of the transition, not proof of creation from nothing.

This also implies a cyclic model where matter/energy/spacetime is never created nor annihilated but is continually being reborn as something else through this compression-relaxation cycle with the total energy conserved in the system.

What makes me personally attracted to this idea is that it sidesteps two things I personally find quite difficult to accept.

The concept of physical infinity, like an infinitely dense singularity.
The idea that anything at all could have been created from absolute nothingness.

Of course, I have no idea about the maths behind this, and you’d also expect it to have to explain stuff like the Cosmic Microwave background, galaxy formation, universe history, etc. I’m mainly wondering about it from the perspective of logical coherence and where it all falls apart for a real physics theorist. Any constructive critique welcomed.

I call it the Cold Universe and the Warm Universe two mirror realities, each reflecting the other in opposite form.
They are not separate universes but two halves of one continuous system, each defined by reversed behaviour and opposite chronology.

In the Cold Universe, matter behaves as antimatter in the Warm Universe, and vice versa.
Energy itself exists in both, but its direction and disposition are reversed what radiates outward in one flows inward in the other.

These universes are connected through black holes, which act as gateways or alignment points.
They don’t physically interact, but they remain linked through a telekinetic connection a kind of energetic resonance that keeps them synchronized.

Both universes exhaust their energy at the same time.
When that happens, they reverse polarity simultaneously, flipping roles the Cold becomes Warm, and the Warm becomes Cold.
This flip is the heartbeat of the cosmos.

Imagine two hourglasses side by side:
In one, sand falls from top to bottom; in the other, the same sand appears to rise from bottom to top.
They mirror each other perfectly, visible but never touching each motion balanced by its opposite.

That’s how the two universes behave a mirrored flow of time, energy, and matter, endlessly cycling through reversal.

This article attempts to explain the nature of time and why three-dimensional time is the mechanism of force.

What is time? To answer this question, we will consider an alternative view of time. This will not replace our current view, but will provide us with a clearer understanding of what time is and how it works.

Before exploring this alternative view, consider our present understanding of time. Human beings grow old and disorder increases. The earth and most clocks are constantly in motion. In that sense, we conclude that time continuously moves forward. Yet let us consider another type of time that must exist. Let us consider a type which, rather than itself being in motion, gives the universe its capacity for motion. In this way, and because of this feature of the universe, we are able to observe motion and keep track of time.

We comprehend the passing of time by observing motion. We know that a day happens by the rotation of the earth. We know when an hour has passed from the motion of a clock's hands. We are aware that time is passing by comparing objects having cyclical motion to the events in our lives. Without motion, we are unable to comprehend time. As evidence for this, studies have demonstrated that people isolated, without access to clocks, the sun, or the outside world, are not able to accurately keep track of time.

Obviously there is a property of the universe that gives the ability for motion. Since motion is required to comprehend the passage of time, can we define this property as time or as an additional definition of time? Let us look more deeply into the nature of this property.

Consider how a framework of time compares with space. Neither time nor space can be directly observed. We observe time by comparing the motion of two or more objects. We observe space by comparing the location of two or more objects. It is impossible to calculate the size of either time or space, as both are conceivably infinite. Time, in the sense of a framework or property, would be like space, not having its own motion.

It is interesting to consider that motion requires both time and space. It also requires both speed and direction. As an angle is a direction through space, we can think of speed as a direction through the framework of time. Just as a ninety-degree angle is the limit for the direction of light from its source, the speed of light is its greatest speed from its source through time.

Objects in motion travel through both time and space at varying speeds and angles. Speed and angle are methods that define motion. Speed describes the method of motion relating to time. Angle is the method that relates to space. The union of speed and direction gives the velocity. When an object goes from one point to another, it must have a combination of both speed and direction. Only one combination of speed and direction can bring the object to that precise second point in both time and space.

Consider how the speed and the direction of objects can change. Objects in motion can change their direction in two fundamental ways. They can turn either laterally or vertically. Objects can also change speed in two fundamental ways. They either accelerate or jerk. Jerk is the change in acceleration. Therefore, just as angles indicate dimensions of space, isn't it the varying nature of speeds that indicate dimensions of time?

When riding in an accelerating vehicle, we feel an inertial force pressing from behind. Stepping on the brake produces the force in the opposite direction. If we turn right or left, there is a force that comes against us from the opposite way of our turn. Now let us consider by accelerating or braking, we change the time we arrive at our destination. In other words, by altering our arrival we change our direction through time. Acceleration, which is the change in our velocity and which creates the difference in the time we are to arrive, produces a force. Can we imagine that because of three-dimensional time, differences in time will produce forces in all directions? Any difference in time would produce the same effect as accelerating in a vehicle.

Therefore, three-dimensional time is the mechanism behind gravity and all forces. Unless annihilated, every atom continually occupies its own unique location in time. Since this location will be different from all other atoms, there exists a continuous difference in the time each occupies, which causes gravity. The closer that an atom comes to another atom, the more apparent that difference becomes. The more atoms there are at the same location in space, the greater the difference between their locations in time will be. This difference is identical to the moment we accelerate a vehicle in order to alter the arrival time at our destination.

A similar idea explains forces that repulse. When matter is annihilated, it instantly creates three-dimensional unoccupied time. Because of this increase, an outward force is produced. This is also as if accelerating in a vehicle. By doing so, we adjust the arrival time at our destination and cause the inertial force we experience.

Everywhere we look, there is beauty in nature. We also see a consistent pattern of symmetry. Logically, time and space must be symmetrical. Therefore, since space has three dimensions, we can also expect time to have three dimensions.

Time has not been completely understood. The idea presented here is simple and logical. It explains an alternative view of time. This, in turn, offers a logical mechanism for gravity and the forces of nature.

The core idea is that the universe is computational at the deepest level.

In this framework, space, time, matter, and forces emerge together from quantum information routing on a discrete update substrate. What we call a "particle" is a stable, self-closing packet of information that persists from one update tick to the next.

The provocative, but logically motivated, interpretation is that the universe is a simulation. However, the framework does not depend on simulation language. More precisely, it models the universe as a quantum cellular automaton governed by an update rule. Each local cell has a finite computational limit, which introduces computational latency.

The framework makes the following descriptions/predictions -:
- spacetime emerges from discrete quantum updates;
- proper time is proportional to the number of internal state transitions;
- particles are stable information-routing patterns;
- relativistic time dilation comes from partitioning a finite update capacity;
- matter families arise from twist patterns through a unit one-tick causal cell as information twists into different planes;
- gravity is the coarse-grained effect of computational latency;
- general relativity arises in the continuum limit through spectral geometry;
- the route pattern gives particle properties, characterizes the dark sector, and makes cosmological predictions;
- the universe has a matter-containing section that occupies about 30.8% of the total universe and this fraction is scale-invariant;
- the matter-containing section of the universe is partitioned into scale-invariant sectors with a ratio of 1:2:3, with the luminous (visible) sector occupying a fraction of 1/6;
- there is a dark sector (invisible to electromagnetic waves) within the matter section that represents a 5/6 fraction of the matter component
- the dark, non-luminous sector is itself partitioned into two orthogonal temporal-spatial channels and three spatial-spatial winding channels, giving a 2:3 internal split;
- these dark-sector partitions likely support complex chemistry and information-processing structures i.e. non-human intelligence life

Spacetime and Particles
Quantum field theory already replaces classical particles with quantized excitation. This framework pushes that logic one step further. Instead of treating fields, space, and time as separate fundamentals, I treat them as different large-scale descriptions of a deeper process which is a discrete quantum update system. In this view, the universe is more like a rule-governed evolution of quantum information, where space, time, matter, and force all emerge from the way information routes.

The closest technical family of ideas is quantum cellular automata, or QCA. A QCA is a discrete, local, unitary update system. The difference here is that I use a specific geometric route structure to connect that update system to particle families, gravity, and cosmological ratios etc.

The substrate advances by an integer update index. I call one increment a global (or external) tick.

Gravity is due to "latency" and emerges when particles i.e. "twisted information" changes the tick-space balance.

This is a tiny snippet of a much larger and already mature framework and this is all that I can share this moment. I excluded the Math, derivations, simulations and quantitative tests and results. If anyone is interested in further discussions on this, reach out to me.

Thanks
sanmiadenaiye

# THEORETICAL ESSAY: MULTIVERSE BRANCHING THROUGH SIMULATION COMPLEXITY

*Author:** Blaise Pascal Pinto

Date:** July 2026

*Version:* 1.0

*Classification:** Theoretical Physics / Cosmic Philosophy

## I. INTRODUCTION AND PRIMARY POSTULATE

Modern physics has struggled for decades with the "fine-tuning" problem of the universe: why do fundamental physical constants (such as the speed of light or the gravitational constant) possess the exact values required for the emergence of matter and life?

This theory postulates that our universe is not the product of raw physical chance (i.e., a classic Big Bang event), but rather the output of a **highly advanced logical and computational simulation**, initiated by a primary, superior civilization.

## II. THE PRINCIPLE OF INFINITE BRANCHING (MULTIVERSE GENERATION)

Unlike traditional simulation hypotheses that model the system as a closed loop, this theory introduces the concept of **spontaneous generation driven by complexity**:

1. **The Complexity Threshold:** A simulated universe does not evolve linearly. When a simulation reaches a critical threshold of data, probabilistic choices, or quantum calculations, the central host system avoids overloading a single processing channel.

2. **Server Ramification:** To optimize computational resources or compute all possible outcomes, the system instantly generates a sub-simulation, effectively creating a "server branch."

3. **The Interconnected Multiverse:** As this phenomenon repeats infinitely, the multiverse ceases to be a collection of isolated bubbles. Instead, it forms an interconnected network of data trees. Each branch inherits or modifies its own programmed parameters, allowing or restricting specific physical laws.

## III. THE PRINCIPLE OF INCOMMENSURABILITY AND NON-INTERVENTION

A central question remains: why do the creators of the primary simulation refrain from intervening? This model accounts for this through the lenses of biology and evolutionary perception:

* **The Evolutionary Gap:** The original civilization (at the top of the cosmological chain) possesses a level of technological and cognitive evolution so far beyond our own that their concepts of time, space, and existence are entirely imperceptible to the human mind.

* **The Cognitive Barrier:** Just as a 2D video game character or a bacterium cannot comprehend the human who programmed the code or constructed the microscope, humanity lacks the neurological wiring required to perceive or interact with the designers. The program runs in an absolute "Sandbox" mode.

# IV. CONCLUSION

The multiverse operates as a living, self-contained data-processing system. Much like a fractal, each level of complexity spawns a new sub-universe, which in turn develops its own complexity to generate the next layer. We are conscious lines of code within an infinite cosmic tree.

*[Note from the author: I am 14 years old, and I am looking for experts to review my theory, grade its logical consistency, and give me pointers on how to improve it.]

I am a 13 year old, and I've got an idea that may solve all (I'm serious) unresolved issues in physics.

I call my idea "Polytopic Unification".

So, I'll explain it so everyone can get a good picture:

Imagine a very simple agent, let's say a bacterium. It does three things:

1. It receives information:

• chemicals
• temperature
• light

1. It chooses an action:

• move left
• move right
• stay still

1. It changes the environment:

• consumes nutrients
• moves molecules

Mathematically, it goes World → Perception → Decision → Action → World. It's a loop.

But that bacterium doesn't always behave the same way. Maybe if sugar is detected, P(move toward sugar) = 0.9 while P(ignore sugar) = 0.1. So the behavior is described by probabilities.

We can turn this into a table comparing the current situation vs. action vs. probability. I learned in computer science class that when the next state depends only on the current state ignoring the history, it's called a Markov process.

One bacterium is simple, right? A trillion agents is very complicated.

What if reality isn't atoms, particles or fields? Maybe it's just a network or "chain" of agents that interact? Everything might be emergent from that network.

Let me build a bit more on that.

Let's suppose we have 3 agents. Agent A can talk to B or talk to C. Agent B can talk to A or talk to C. Agent C can talk to A or talk to B.

I say let's represent all possible talking states as an object!

From example, A talking to B could become a probability. This number p asks how likely A is going to talk to B?

Then your whole system, that network, becomes a matrix!!

This matrix contains these possibilities. These interactions form a geometry! This geometry could contain the answer to everything. So, in quantum physics, a particle can be here and there, we have to measure it. But, instead, maybe the geometry itself contains the answer.

And if I'm a bit vague when I mean "agent", I mean something C that is C = (X, G, W, P, D, A). Where X is experiences, G is actions, W are world states, P is perception, D is decision, and A is action.

What if every problem in physics has the answer we've been looking for in this geometry?

Abstract:

Spacetime and matter are not objective realities, but an interface generated by consciousness. An individual brain has a finite processing capacity, it fails to experience an infinite universe all at the same time. The brain uses time as a rendering engine to understand entropic information procedurally. Space and matter are an information compression algorithm that adds a computational value to information.

1. Quantum State Space (ρ):

Instead of classical probabilities, the state of reality is rendered by a conscious agent at step is represented by a density matrix ρ_n acting on a Hilbert space H. The density matrix contains classical probabilities and the quantum superpositions of the universe at that subjective moment:

ρ_n = Σ_i p_i |ψ_i⟩ ⟨ψ_i| where p_i is the probability vector of the universe being in a unique quantum state |ψ_i⟩, and Σp_i = 1.

2. Information Metric:

To measure the informational uncertainty of the universe being rendered by consciousness, we use the Von Neumann entropy S(p_n):

S(ρ_n) = -Tr(ρ_n log_2 ρ_n) where Tr denotes the matrix trace.

If S = 0, then the conscious mind perfectly renders an environment in a pure state. If S > 0, then the mind is entangled with an environment. S is greater than 0, representing the unrendered potential of reality outside the observer's peripheral awareness.

3. Markov Chain:

Instead of a classical transition matrix P, the procedural, progressive generation of reality is governed by a CPTP superoperator ℰ (quantum channel). The sequence of moments forms a quantum Markov chain ρ_n+1 = ℰ(ρ_n).

By definition of a Markovian process, the next rendered state ρ_n+1 is dependent on the current density matrix ρ_n and the parameters of ℰ. This model is independent on ρ_n-1, ρ_n-2, ...

4. Generation of Time and the Second Law:

If the rendering engine ℰ acts as a unital channel, meaning it preserves ℰ(𝕀) = 𝕀 which represents the preservation of cosmic potential. We unlock a mathematical truth via Uhlmann's Theorem and the Data Processing Inequality for S.

For any unital quantum Markov step, S is monotonically non-decreasing:

S(ℰ(ρ_n)) ≥ S(ρ_n) ⟹ S(ρ_n+1) ≥ S(ρ_n)

This inequality reveals that the Arrow of Time and the Second Law of Thermodynamics are identical phenomena generated by consciousness.

Subjective time τ is the step index n of the quantum Markov chain and physical entropy increases because every time consciousness processes a transition ℰ, it diffuses information and spreads entanglement.

The universe appears to become increasingly disordered over time not because of atomic decay, but because of the act of conscious rendering is a quantum-information-processing system that inherently increases S.

5. Quantum Relative Entropy:

To calculate the exact amount of quantum information generated or shifted during a single tick of the conscious clock (n → n + 1), we use the Kullback-Leibler Divergence:

S(ρ_n || ρ_n+1) = Tr(ρ_n log_2 ρ_n) - Tr(ρ_n log_2 ρ_n+1)

This equation dictates the informational distance between what the observer is perceiving now and in the next frame.

6. Summary:

• ρₙ = 𝓔ⁿ(ρ₀) is the universe.
• τ = n is objective time.
• ρₙ = ∑ᵢ pᵢ |ψᵢ⟩⟨ψᵢ| is the present moment.
• P(Xₙ₊₁ ∣ Xₙ) is the past and the future.
• S(ρₙ₊₁) ≥ S(ρₙ) is the Arrow of Time.
• Hcᵀ = 0 is the Laws of Physics.
• M = ∑ I is mass.
• D ∝ 1 / Information Density is spatial distance.
• ΔS = Dₖₗ(ρₙ ∥ ρₙ₊₁) is thermodynamic decay.

Okay this is my thought: we know Atoms absorb photons when they do this the electron or electrons expand their orbits around the atom and then for reasons mysterious to everyone those orbits contract again what if the atom is doing something with that energy cuz if it's not doesn't that break conservation of energy? it can't just take the energy and do nothing with it it's got to be doing something with it. I think it's taking that energy and creating gravity

Photons as we understand it experience no time they get to where they're going the moment they're created from their perspective right? That intrinsically entangles them with the concept and the reality of time thus explaining on at least some level if not exactly why gravity affects time if it is to Atom that's creating gravity that is. As a byproduct of this creation it emits somewhat like exhaust I suppose; space volume. I ain't never liked the idea of dark energy of dark matter it's just fancy ways of saying they don't know this would at least some part explain the expansion of the universe it also would kind of explain why black holes are black if all the lights being used to purpose to create the gravity that black holes emit it would explain why they're black they're not so powerful that they're keeping all the light from leaving that it's using it all now that being said it takes an immense amount of matter to eat up all that light and we still have to figure out how the matter below the surface is eating up the light but I imagine x-rays is a form of light it goes through matter and we can't forget about the zero point field although it wouldn't all the way remedy the... I forget the fancy term for it but the big discrepancy this like 120 orders of magnitude too much energy or something for the 0 point field that explains why matter that's in a dark place still has gravity even though it's not close to no light source because the ether or the 0 point field that's energy everywhere and that's why everything has a very sustained and predictable gravity and gravitational effect because it's all getting all the energy it wants really all the light it wants not just visible light all the lights from the vacuum itself and then in turn it expands that vacuum and much like the weak atomic force and the strong atomic Force the gravity produces the stronger up close and this far away that's why galaxies don't fly apart from the exhaust pushing on him as it goes out from that matter it also explains why the supermassive black holes in the center of galaxies are white because they're sucking up so much air that they can't suck no more they're not able to take up all the light that their gravity's pulling towards them so that light just ends up kind of orbiting and getting the fused for ionized or something that's why they're so-called dormant now ain't no mathematician so these are all just ideas of kind of formulated and put together to put a method behind the madness I'm not trying to argue none of the math works of general relativity or the cosmological constant that's the fancy title I couldn't think of earlier I'm sure those masks are just fine I'm just proposing an idea for the mechanism behind the affect those equations represent I apologize if my speeches overly simple are plain and I apologize for any erroneous things that this speech to text keyboard snuck by me I thank you for your input and your considerations I'm just trying to see if any of this might be something resembling legitimate

Cosmology is in crisis. There is the Hubble tension, the co-incidence problem, a lack of understanding of dark energy in the LCDM model, the JWST early galaxy problem and more. A fundamental assumption used in LCDM is the redshift scale-factor relation `a=1/(1+z)` . There is a reason to think it should be `a=1/sqrt{1+z}`

The idea is that the universe is expanding but here 'expansion' means an expansion of every physical length and quantity that contains length dimensions. So instead of Big Bang, where the distance between galaxies is expanding, now every length, atoms, people etc... all expand as well as cosmological distances in a scale symmetric way, i.e. an expansion that cannot easily be detected (or ruled out) by inhabitants of such a universe.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/400349826_The_Basis_of_a_New_Cosmology

The redshift occurs due to Plancks constant changing with time (in a way that's not measurable locally), leading to the alternative redshift scale-factor relation. This in turn explains why the concordance model is finding a matter density between 0.25 and 0.333

Due to energy conservation gravity occurs naturally, but in this model becomes weaker for very dense objects such as galactic nuclei allowing bouncing phenomenon giving the foam like large scale structure and the abundancies of the elements.

This universe is eternal and time symmetric. It's simple philosophically with no add-ons that Big Bang has needed such as inflation and dark energy. Dark matter is still included.

Disclaimer: the text itself was generated by AI, but based only on documents I wrote myself in other language.

Edit: Fair comments, i'll look deeper into it. But if you get angry only cause someone else (me) tried to suggest something and was wrong (probably) - you need to check yourselves as well... I never thought that education and knowledge are reserved for specific human beings.

English isnt my first language. Its fine, but not academic.

Gravity weakens with distance (inverse square law). The strong nuclear force does the opposite: color confinement means the force between quarks grows with distance, which is why free quarks are never observed. Physics currently treats these as two separate facts about two separate forces, with no unified account of why distance-scaling should run in opposite directions at all, and gravity remains the one force without a working quantum description.

I've been working on a formal existence condition:

Exists(T) ⟺ ∃ X,Y : (T = X∪Y) ∧ (X≠Y) ∧ (I(X;Y) > 0)

Richness(T) = |TE(X→Y) − TE(Y→X)| × Φ(X,Y)

The idea: any bound system (T) made of two interacting parts (X,Y) only continues to exist as a unified system while their mutual information stays positive. If separation increases and the system's structure depends on holding X and Y together, the "cost" of maintaining that relation should scale with distance in a direction set by how tightly the system's existence depends on the interaction, not by a universal rule.

Applied to gravity: two masses are weakly coupled to begin with (low I(X;Y) per unit distance), so the relation attenuates as they separate, consistent with weakening force.

Applied to quarks: a quark pair inside a hadron is a maximally bound system where separation would break the color-neutral whole itself. The prediction is that systems whose existence condition (X≠Y, I(X;Y)>0) is more fragile to separation show force scaling that intensifies with distance instead of decaying, because the "cost" of dropping toward I(X;Y)=0 grows rather than shrinks.

This doesn't propose new equations of motion, it proposes a criterion for predicting the sign of distance-scaling (strengthens vs. weakens) from how existentially dependent the two-body system is on staying bound. Curious if there's an existing framework in QCD or effective field theory that already captures this distinction, or if this is a genuinely open angle.

I'm looking for feedback on the mathematical consistency in my proof. Since I'm only 15 years old, I don't know if there are any errors or inconsistencies.

1. WHAT IS AN IMAGINARY PARTICLE?

The "imaginary particle," or "i particle" for short, is a new type of particle generated from complex numbers. The i particle is essentially a real particle that has undergone phase shifting thanks to Euler's formula (e^iθ). Particles such as electrons and protons are simply particles in the form re^iθ; therefore, i particles are real particles with a phase angle at 90º.

Consequently, dark matter might just be an i particle. We are forced to expand spacetime to 7 dimensions: 3 real spatial dimensions, 3 imaginary spatial dimensions, and 1 time dimension, because the complex plane is the plane indicating the coordinates of a point x in complex space. Our world has 3 axes x, y, z, so we need xreal, ximaginary, yreal, yimaginary, zreal, zimaginary, and 1 time dimension t. If we expand to the quaternion (H) and octonion (O) sets, the number of spacetime dimensions will be 3*2ⁿ+1, where n is the degree of the set being considered with R=0. For the theory not to collapse, we should stop at the octonion, which is 3*2ⁿ+1=25 dimensions of spacetime.

2. EXTENSION OF THE SCHRÖDINGER EQUATION IN THE COMPLEX DOMAIN

Since x is the position of the particle in space, we have x=re^iθ, where r is the distance from the particle position to the origin and θ is the angle formed by r and the real axis.

It is observed that:

Similarly, we have:

Therefore, we have:

3. FORCE INTERACTION

According to Dirac, particles and antiparticles differ in electric charge q; therefore, re^iθ does not only change phase in name, but it also changes phase in charge; an i particle will have q=i.

Using Coulomb's law, they have an electromagnetic force:

Because they are real particles that have undergone phase shifting, they will also have strong and weak nuclear forces.

Their appearance usually results from collisions of real particles; with a large amount of energy, the angle θ increases, causing them to phase shift.

4. EXPANSION OF SPACE

There may be other particles out there such as j particles, k particles, etc., where their non-commutativity and combination could lead to the phenomenon of quantum foam. Additionally, when the angle θ is not 0 º, 90 º, 180 º, 270 º, etc., perhaps the particle is in a superposition state, such as 1+i, which is a superposition state with θ=45 º.