r/HypotheticalPhysics

https://preview.redd.it/9ipxds36shbh1.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=c46804c2b212838357aa2400fa72769855110e06

Suppose matter is discrete and particles exchange one quantum at a time. What equilibrium follows from these simple rules?
Take M particles and Q transferable quanta.
Every particle remains nonempty, so its size is
n_i = 1 + m_i,
where m_i >= 0 and
m_1 + ... + m_M = Q.

Let particles repeatedly transfer one quantum through a reversible, symmetric process.

Given enough time, any initial allocation with the same Q and M approaches the same equilibrium distribution.

This is exactly what thermodynamic equilibrium and maximum entropy describe:

the system spends almost all its time among the overwhelmingly numerous equilibrium configurations.

Counting all possible allocations gives

Omega(Q,M) = C(Q+M-1, M-1).

Therefore entropy is

S = k log Omega.

It is calculated from the microscopic states, not introduced as an unexplained tendency.

For one particle, the exact finite-system probability is

P(m) =
C(Q-m+M-2, M-2) /
C(Q+M-1, M-1).

When Q and M become large with Q/M fixed, this becomes geometric.

Writing nu = Q/M,

P(m) -> (1-r)r^m,

where

r = nu/(1+nu).

Using 1/T = dS/dE then gives

r = exp[-epsilon/(kT)]

and

<m> = 1/(exp[epsilon/(kT)]-1).

So the familiar Bose-Einstein-shaped occupancy law, entropy, temperature, equilibrium, energy equalization, and zero net flux all arise from one reversible discrete exchange model.

The simulation independently reproduces the analytical distribution.

The red line is analytical prediction. The bars are simulation results.

EDIT.

Prediction:

The stationary law is a long-time limit, whereas a real source supplies only a finite number 𝐿 of interactions.

Fixed random-walk endpoints have a Gaussian-like tail exp[−𝑥^2], not the stationary exponential tail. Finite

formation may therefore yield a Gaussian-like high-energy cutoff; the Sun’s spectrum is one possible test of this distinction.

EDIT2.
So we simply replace electromagnetic field modes with discrete particle energies.

https://reddit.com/link/1uoggtr/video/0mcepjsmwhbh1/player

https://reddit.com/link/1uoggtr/video/4566jhlnwhbh1/player

Built a framework where particle masses come out of the geometry of G2 (the symmetry group of the octonions), and I'd like people to try to poke holes in it.

Here is one thing you can check in two minutes. The proton to tau lepton mass ratio, measured, is 0.5280506. Now compute:

sqrt(8 - 7/102) x 3/16 = 0.5280505

Agreement to about two parts in ten million. The 8 is a count of the independent field connections that lock the proton's three quark arcs together, and the 7/102 is a small correction from index theory. Nothing is fitted. What makes this one clean is that it is a pure ratio, so the usual QCD scale ambiguity cancels out. There is nothing to tune, so it either matches or it does not.

There is a larger framework behind this, but it is a big read, so I pulled out a short section with three numbers anyone can check by hand, each with its origin explained. If you can find a hole, I would genuinely appreciate it.

Link: https://zenodo.org/records/21206314

Also, is there a better sub for this kind of thing?

Hi r/Physics community,

I've been working on a theoretical framework for a while now, attempting to address the growing crises in \LambdaCDM (specifically the Hubble Tension and the nature of Dark Energy) not by adding new fields, but by reconstructing spacetime from pure Quantum Information and Thermodynamics.

I call it the De-geometrized Holographic Information Thermodynamics (DHIT) model.

I know how "Theory of Everything" posts usually go here, so I'm not claiming to have completely solved the universe. Instead, I want to present the mathematical and logical skeleton of this framework and invite you to rigorously tear it apart.

The Core Axioms (TL;DR)

Static Tensor Network: Space is not a continuous, expanding geometric manifold. It is an absolute static, infinite 2D discrete holographic tensor network. Macroscopic distance is simply the inverse of mutual information.

Time is Entropy: Time does not exist as an independent dimension. It is purely the macroscopic byproduct of the system's total entropy S increasing (algorithmic data commits).

Particles as Topological Knots: Matter consists of stable topological knots (defects) on this network. Left-handed fermions are chiral edge states on the boundaries of these knots (bypassing the Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem).

How DHIT Explains Current Observations

1. Deriving Dark Energy from the Landauer Limit \ln(2) The network has an absolute capacity limit S_{max}. As we approach it, the system enters a Negative Temperature state (T < 0), generating a massive structural tension. By applying Landauer's Principle, maintaining the background binary bit structure of the universe requires a baseline thermodynamic cost. The required proportion of network capacity to maintain this base state is exactly \ln(2) \approx 69.3\%. This mathematically mirrors the Planck 2018 Dark Energy density (~68.3%) without any free parameters. The ~1% deviation is accounted for by first-order topological thermal noise.

2. The "Expanding Universe" Illusion (Matter Shrinkage) If the grid is static, why do we observe Hubble redshift? In DHIT, as the universe's entropy S increases, the network becomes more "congested." The computational latency required to maintain a topological knot increases, which manifests macroscopically as an increase in rest mass m(S). According to the Bohr radius formula, as mass increases, all matter (including our rulers and observatories) is shrinking proportionally over time. Measuring a static universe with a shrinking ruler creates the exact geometric illusion of expanding space.

3. ER=EPR and Bell's Theorem DHIT natively implements Maldacena’s ER=EPR. Two entangled particles separated by 100 million lightyears in macro-space are, topologically, adjacent nodes on the fundamental graph. "Spooky action at a distance" obeys the Lieb-Robinson bound (v_{LR} = c); the signal simply takes a topological shortcut where the true graph distance is 1 Planck length.

Falsifiable Prediction

A good model must predict. Because our model dictates that redshift is a function of non-linear mass evolution (a Logistic curve) rather than spatial stretching, the mass ratio between electrons and protons (\mu) is not an absolute constant in the extreme early universe. DHIT predicts that at high redshifts (z \ge 10, before local gravitational collapse fully shields the background tension), we should observe a topological drift in the mass ratio:

\frac{\Delta \mu}{\mu} \approx -3.5 \times 10^{-4}

This is well within the testing capabilities of the upcoming ELT (Extremely Large Telescope) ANDES spectrograph.

I am looking for brutal, rigorous critiques.

Specifically regarding:

Have I overlooked a fatal flaw in combining the Lieb-Robinson bound with the emergence of the Fisher Information Metric?

Are there constraints from the CMB acoustic peaks that a "shrinking matter / computational friction" model fundamentally cannot mimic compared to acoustic oscillations in an expanding fluid?

Tear it to shreds. I'm here to learn.

Appendix: The Formal Mathematical Framework of DHIT

For those who want to see the underlying math rather than just the concepts, here is the core equation group of the model.

1. Axioms of Spacetime and Entropy

De-chronologization (Time as an entropy derivative): dt = \tau(S) dS

Inverse Information Distance (Spatial emergence): D(A,B) = \frac{l_p}{I(A:B)}

2. Emergence of Gravity

Quantum Fisher Information Metric (The holographic metric): g_{\mu\nu} = \text{Tr}(\rho \partial_\mu \log \rho \partial_\nu \log \rho)

Information Conservation (Replacing the Hamiltonian for GR emergence): \delta S_{EE} = 2\pi \int_{\Sigma} \delta g_{\mu\nu} \langle T^{\mu\nu} \rangle dV \equiv 0

3. Cosmological Illusions & Mass Evolution

Mass-Entropy Logistic Evolution (Computational friction limits): m(S) = \frac{m_{max}}{1 + e^{-k(S - S_0)}}

Matter Shrinkage (Bohr radius relation): a_0(S) \propto \frac{1}{m(S)}

De-chronologized Cosmological Perturbation (CMB acoustic peaks without spatial stretching, where primes denote d/dS): \delta''(S) + \left( \frac{m'(S)}{m(S)} \right) \delta'(S) + \tilde{c}_s^2 k^2 \delta(S) = 0

4. Topological Stability Bounds

Topological Decoherence / Proton Decay Rate (where \Delta \Omega is the topological barrier): \Gamma_p(S) = \nu_p \cdot e^{- \frac{\Delta \Omega}{\sigma_{noise}^2(S)}}

The Big Reset Condition (Topological avalanche when matter shrinks below grid resolution): \lim_{S \to S_{max}} a_0(S) \le l_p \implies \text{Topological Avalanche}

There is a 0D dimensionality. It is a certain proto-photon. It is in a state of absolute fullness—a state in which all variants of all variants are present. Therefore, there is no deficit of anything, and consequently, there is no reason for changes, movement, or a drive toward any other state.

What happened? External intervention? Accumulation of internal complexity? The launch of time? That is a good question.

But in any case, this event leads to the disruption of the proto-photon. The previously absolutely full particle, which was the proto-photon, now exists in the form of two halves striving to reunite. This is because the main property of fullness is the striving to become full again.

This is where the speed of light is born. Yet, it is merely a consequence of any particle's unyielding drive toward fullness. And this is the very first, foundational impulse toward which every incomplete particle strives.

The pressure of both halves of the proto-photon toward the rupture point for reunification stretches space. This stretch occurs simultaneously in two directions from this point, aligning into a straight line. Within this line, each of the two halves is stretched, becoming something else, encoding its original part through a long variant. Each of them, from its respective side, completely fills space because it is precisely this half that pulls space with its pressure. One-dimensional space is tensioned until the longitudinal tension becomes critically insurmountable, but the drive toward fullness is insurmountable to the same degree. This marks the beginning of the unfolding of 1D into 2D. The half-particle stretches the line in width, further and wider, attempting to reach the "Zero" point via a shorter path. In doing so, it ruptures within the line multiple times because 1D confinement can no longer retain it. The proto-photon, already ruptured into two parts and stretched into a line, is ripped by the 2D space itself. Now, to reassemble into a whole, the second rupture must first be overcome. This is how the second force in the Universe is born, which we detect as the electric charge (+) and (-).

Multiple ruptures, two forces: the first drive toward fullness and the second drive toward fullness. This entire churning mass of quarters begins to attract and repel. Some are locked down, unable to move; chaos reigns. However, at a certain moment, the pressure toward the "Zero" point and into that very same line begins to rise. A new critical accumulation of pressure leads to the inevitable: space begins to rupture once more. 2D unfolds into 3D. All particles rupture and stretch again because the 2D confinement has become brittle. A new force of the drive toward fullness emerges—"color" charges or the gluon bond, which is difficult to break. Yet, when the pressure becomes critical once again, space will advance further. It will unfold into 4D, and the gluon bond will grow weaker. However, a new bond will be born there—one that is unbreakable for its own dimensionality.

There will be a new chaos and new reunifications. Restored photons and certain particles will combine and dissociate. This lies in the future—distant or not. Perhaps this will happen when the Planck scale is finally surpassed. But for now, we have a different reality: the 3D world. And this space is stretching right now. After all, fullness has changed too much. Its particles are already countless.

The process of expansion into a new dimensionality alternates between slowing down, coming to a halt, and advancing faster. Perhaps the contours are changing not only for 3D, but for other degrees of dimensionality.

The end...

 

This is the thought experiment I conducted.

 

In truth, it was transformed and refined in the process of studying particles, their properties, structure, and interactions. At the very beginning, the "Sequential Discontinuity Model" looked different. Even now, I do not insist on this exact variant, but I believe that this is APPROXIMATELY how it could have happened. And all of this is because the forces in the Universe possess precisely this hierarchy. However, in this process, certain unclear areas still remain for me that warrant further investigation.

However, I continue.

At a certain stage of reasoning, I attempted to find some trace of 2D in the Universe. I searched for what the projections of the Cosmic Microwave Background might look like if compressed into a plane. I imagined what would happen if one could find such a projection of all matter in the Universe, where it would settle into a near-perfectly flat plane. I examined the patterns of dark matter accumulation... And entirely by chance, I stumbled upon the "Axis of Evil," discovered at the beginning of the 21st century. As a result, it seems to me that it may testify to the fact that 3D unfolded precisely from 2D. That is, our Universe was born sequentially. It grew more complex gradually.

 

 

References

On the "Axis of Evil":

1.     de Oliveira-Costa, A., Tegmark, M., Zaldarriaga, M. and Hamilton, A., 2004. Significance of the largest scale CMB fluctuations in WMAP. Physical Review D, 69(6), p. 063516. [arXiv:astro-ph/0307282].

2.     Efstathiou, G., 2004. "Myths and truths concerning estimation of power spectra" Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 348(3), pp. 885-896 [arXiv:astro-ph/0307515].

3.     Land, K. and Magueijo, J., 2005. The axis of evil. Physical Review Letters, 95(7), p. 071301. [arXiv:astro-ph/0502237].

4.     Planck Collaboration, 2014. Planck 2013 results. XXIII. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 571, p. A23. [arXiv:1303.5083].

 

On unbreakable connections in different dimensionalities:

1.     Schwinger, J. (1962). Gauge Invariance and Mass. II. Physical Review, 128(5), 2425–2429. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.128.2425

2.     Seiberg, N., & Witten, E. (1994). Electric-magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. Nuclear Physics B, 426(1), 19-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(94)90124-4

 

What does this mean?

It means that inside the "Axis of Evil" or some other axis, perhaps there exists a "Line of Good," which in turn may contain that very same "Zero"...

So, what do we have for now?

In 3D, these are no longer proto-photons, but our "modern" photons. Exactly 2 types. Right and left. Although, in reality, I believe there could be 4 of them.

I hypothesized that there is another parameter by which photons differ. That they can be divided in some other way. From my point of view, this can be reflected in their internal structure. That is, each of them consists of at least two parts, and their difference is something like 1-2-right and 2-1-right, 1-2-left and 2-1-left. That is, a certain recombination of two within one. I also believe that inside photons, there is a single directionality of the constituent parts. Since the photon has no mass.

Photons are particles that lack 1D fullness because they fly at the speed of light and possess an electromagnetic field. However, they already possess 3D fullness and 2D fullness, meaning their electric and color charges are full. It is also possible that, in principle, they have remained undamaged since their very birth inside a star. Therefore, it cannot be said that their charges are compensated. However, I believe this is a complex question that has yet to be answered. After all, according to the "Sequential Discontinuity Model," not all photons were born in stars. I believe that stellar systems process the diversity of particles and energies into fragments required by galaxy-systems and the Universe-system, and also mass-produce the particles needed by these structures.

They literally govern the oceans of proto-photon fragments—attracting them, ejecting them, spinning them, and changing them beyond recognition, while mass-producing dark energy and dark matter.

Besides photons, we have other particles that, to one degree or another, have overcome ruptures or are a direct consequence of them. These include quarks, electrons, neutrinos, protons, neutrons, antiparticles... atoms, and so on.

And we also have dark matter and dark energy. In my view, dark particles are full or semi-full particles. Exactly which ones remains unclear, as it is not yet clear whether the reverse collapse of the Universe into lower dimensionalities is possible if fullness is restored for every particle. Or can the unfolding process not be reversed due to accumulated complexity? One thing is certain: fullness is the primary driving force in the Universe.

As a conclusion to this introduction, the fullness-particle is the full variant. The proto-photon is the invariant of our world. And all matter within it is built literally from broken proto-photons, which means—from light.

 

 

Conclusions:

 

1) There were at least three sequential ruptures, from 0D to 3D.

2) Space continues to unfold.

3) Each new rupture generates a drive toward unification that is insurmountable for its own dimensionality. The previous force is overcome, but it does not disappear.

4) The "Axis of Evil" may serve as proof of the Universe's unfolding from 2D.

5) Almost all elementary particles known today possess a structure—a certain composition.

6) All matter in the Universe consists literally of products woven from proto-photon fragments.

Full version of the article:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20774090

1. The Crisis in Modern Gravitational Physics

Contemporary gravitational physics faces fundamental challenges, including Planck-scale divergence, black hole singularities, cosmic inflation, and the dark energy problem. The persistence of these anomalies strongly implies that a critical component is missing from our current understanding of gravity.

2. The Incompleteness of General Relativity at High Compactness

While General Relativity (GR) has been rigorously verified in weak and intermediate gravitational fields, it is fundamentally incomplete in strong field and high-compactness regimes. Classical general relativity predicts a singularity of infinite density and curvature within a black hole, which implies that the theory itself is incomplete inside the black hole.

Formally, GR encounters critical breakdowns when the compactness ratio satisfies R_S/R >1 (i.e., when the physical radius R is smaller than the Schwarzschild radius R_S).

3. High Compactness as a Common Characteristic of Major Gravity Problems

The major unresolved problems in gravitational physics universally arise within this high-compactness, strong-field regime:

• The Planck Scale: The Planck length is defined as l_P = (ℏG/c^3)^(1/2) = Gm_P/c^2 = 0.5 R_S(m_P). Since the Planck scale falls within the region where R < R_S, the trans-Planckian regime inherently represents a high-compactness state (R_S/R > 1).
• Black Hole Singularities: The interior of a black hole is explicitly defined by R < R_S. Consequently, the singularity problem is fundamentally an issue governed by high compactness (R_S/R > 1).
• Inflation and Dark Energy: Although the average density of the observable universe appears remarkably low, its global mass-energy distribution tells a different story. For an observable universe with a radius of R = 46.5 Gly and a critical density of ρ_c ≈ 8.5x10^{-27}[kg/m^3], the corresponding Schwarzschild radius is approximately R_S ≈ 477 Gly. This yields a cosmic compactness ratio of R_S/R ≈ 10.3 > 1. Thus, on a cosmological scale, the universe is a strong field, high-compactness environment. The incompleteness of classical GR at this scale manifests as repulsive gravitational phenomena, which we conventionally interpret as inflation and dark energy.

4. Incomplete Implementation of the Correspondence Principle and the Failure of Weak-Field Intuition

Since the standard description of gravity is rooted in the Einstein field equations, uncovering the source of this missing element necessitates a rigorous re-examination of the foundational assumptions Einstein adopted during their formulation. Among these various postulates, the present study focuses specifically on the correspondence principle.

1)The Incomplete Implementation of the Correspondence Principle
The correspondence principle has long stood as one of the most fundamental and successful guiding principles in theoretical physics. It asserts that any new theory must reproduce previously established and empirically validated theories in the appropriate limit. This principle has played a decisive role in shaping modern physics: Special Relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the low-velocity limit, General Relativity reproduces Newtonian gravity in the weak-field regime, and quantum mechanics recovers classical mechanics in the macroscopic limit. In this sense, the correspondence principle provides not only a consistency condition, but also a powerful bridge connecting successive layers of physical description.

Given its remarkable success, the correspondence principle appears, at first sight, to offer a complete and reliable criterion for constructing new physical theories. In particular, Einstein fixed the form of the gravitational field equations by requiring that they reproduce Newtonian gravity in the weak-field, slow-motion regime. This requirement was not merely heuristic, but was grounded in the extensive empirical validation of Newtonian gravity over centuries.

However, the present framework suggests that, despite its undeniable success, the correspondence principle does not fully determine the physical content of a theory. It constrains the observable behavior in a given limit, but it does not uniquely fix how that behavior is realized at the level of the underlying source. In other words, the correspondence principle ensures that the correct limit is reproduced, but it does not guarantee that the internal structure of the theory is complete.

This observation points to a previously overlooked aspect of the correspondence principle in gravity. The fact that General Relativity reproduces the Newtonian potential in the weak-field, slow-motion regime does not imply that the gravitational potential must be fully represented by the Newtonian term alone. The central issue is that the weak-field source was implemented in an overly restricted form. In practice, what was retained was the free-state mass contribution, leading to the standard Newtonian potential

Φ(r)=-GM/r.

However, this cannot be the most complete weak-field description.
More generally, the weak-field potential may take the form

Φ(r)=-GM/r + ΣΦ_i(r) ≈ - GM/r.

where the additional terms may be negligible in ordinary situations, but can become physically important under different physical conditions.

Among such possible corrections, the most important one is the contribution arising from gravitational self-energy (GSE). Since gravity is sourced by the energy--momentum tensor, contributions generated by the energy content of the gravitating system itself are of particular physical relevance. From this perspective, the weak-field potential should more appropriately be completed as

Φ(r)=-GM/r + Φ_GSE(r).

Had this correction been incorporated consistently at the level of the source, the Einstein field equations would naturally have taken the source-complete form

R_μν - (1/2)Rg_μν = (8πG/c^4){T_μν^{matter} + T_μν^{GSE}}

2)The Failure of the Low-Density Intuition

More importantly, the usual weak-field intuition is not universally sufficient. The key parameter is the compactness ratio R_S/R. In familiar localized systems, large compactness is typically associated with strong gravity and high density, but this connection is not general. The observable universe provides the clearest counterexample. For a representative mean matter density (Ω_m = 0.315; Baryon + Dark Matter) of order ρ_m ~ 2.68x 10^{-27}[kg/m^3], the observable universe remains an extremely low-density system, yet its matter-only compactness is

R_S/R ≈150.4Gly/46.5Gly ≈ 3.23>1.

Thus, even a low-density and locally weak-field system can possess globally large compactness with R_S/R > 1. This shows that a locally weak-field system can still carry a significant global contribution. Crucially, this dominance of the self-energy contribution is not restricted to global scales; it can also manifest within specific local environments. Cosmic voids provide a prime example: they maintain a locally weak-field state, yet the total GSE contribution is locally more significant than the conventional matter term. In this sense, the correspondence principle asserting that gravity in the low-density, weak-field regime must only reproduce the Newtonian potential is incomplete. A system may remain locally weak-field while still being dominated by previously neglected self-energy contributions.

5.The Missing Component: Gravitational Self-Energy (GSE)

To resolve these discrepancies, classical gravitation must incorporate Gravitational Self-Energy (GSE). In Newtonian mechanics, GSE is expressed as U_gs = - (3/5)GM^2/R. Generalizing this to relativistic contexts yields the form U_gs = - βGM^2/R, where β ranges approximately between 1 and 2.

While GSE is conventionally ignored in weak fields due to its negligible magnitude (e.g., on the order of 10^{-9} relative to mass-energy for the Earth), it becomes the dominant term in high-compactness regimes. In the observable universe (R_U = 46.5 Gly), assuming β = 1 and considering only baryonic and dark matter, the ratio of mass-energy to GSE is Mc^2 : U_gs = 1 : -1.62.

When the critical density is assumed, this ratio deepens to 1 : -5.12, demonstrating that GSE surpasses and dominates standard mass-energy.

6. Resolution of Anomalies through Generalized GSE

By explicitly integrating GSE into the gravitational framework, the foundational crises of quantum gravity can be naturally resolved. The proposed total GSE and its corresponding dark energy density are formulated as follows:

https://preview.redd.it/evqdcf5lvqah1.jpg?width=554&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1cdb052473ce8873ea4e13256120f36af803b2c1

This framework effectively eliminates Planck-scale divergences and singularities, while providing a physical mechanism for cosmic inflation and dark energy.

7. Results
The Gravitational Self-Energy Framework applies to all physical systems because every energy-bearing entity possesses gravitational self-energy. the total GSE takes the form

U_{gs-T}=-(βGM^2/R)(1-(5β/14)R_S/R)

ρ_{Λ_m}=(βρ_m/2)(R_S/R)((5β/14)(R_S/R)-1) : density form

The emergence of critical radius R_gs= (5β/7)R_S.

For R>R_gs, an attractive gravitational effect occurs, whereas for R<R_gs, a repulsive gravitational effect occurs. Therefore, this prevents the matter distribution from collapsing toward r→0. Since R_gs acts as a stable equilibrium radius, the mass and energy distribution cannot collapse into a point; instead, it forms a spherical mass distribution with a minimum radius. This resolves the long-standing problems that conventional gravitational theories have faced. β is the coefficient of the GSE function and is approximately of order unity.

1)Resolution of the Planck-scale cutoff problem and completion of perturbative quantum gravity

If we substitute the Planck mass M_P for mass M,

R_gs(M=M_P)≈(5/7)2GM_P/c^2=1.43l_P.
R<R_gs(~ l_P), a repulsive gravitational effect occurs

This implies the existence of a cutoff at the Planck scale. Because a minimum radius exists, the divergence problem is resolved.

2)Resolution of the black hole singularity problem
If we substitute the stellar mass M for mass M,

R_gs(M)≈(5/7)2GM/c^2=0.71R_S

For R<R_gs, a repulsive gravitational effect exists, and therefore the collapse of the mass distribution into a singularity is prevented.

3)Resolution of the black hole information paradox

R_gs(M)≈0.71R_S
Since a macroscopic non-singular core is formed inside the black hole, information is preserved.

4)Resolution of the inflation and dark energy problems
dark energy density = total GSE density
Friedmann Eq. is

https://preview.redd.it/yxtqgetvwqah1.jpg?width=628&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5f0ac4dcf32dae29f7de955a6cbd7b8ec26e59fa

https://preview.redd.it/zkb9ter2oqah1.jpg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=520bcc613e142d76e20818a49922bd88e5f02fbc

https://preview.redd.it/rtulfwk5oqah1.jpg?width=622&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5109238f0cc1e1ecfb9190d4d8da2c8e6c65724c

This agreement suggests dark energy can be interpreted as the matter system's total GSE.

Simultaneously resolves the problems of inflation and dark energy.

The dark energy density is expressed as a function of the matter density, ρ_m, and the particle horizon radius, R (or χ_p). Because the framework provides an explicit formula for the dark energy density, its prediction can be tested observationally. Testing this dark energy density relation therefore provides a direct means of assessing the validity of the gravitational self-energy framework.

If the predicted dark energy density relation is confirmed, it would also provide indirect support for the application of the same underlying principle to quantum gravity and the resolution of singularities inside black holes.

In contrast to string theory, the minimum length is derived from fundamental physical principles. Furthermore, verifying the dark energy density allows for the indirect empirical validation of the solutions to both the Planck scale and singularity problems.

Please take a look at the linked papers.
1)The Physical Origin of the Planck Scale Cutoff and Completion of Perturbative Quantum Gravity

2)Matter-Only Cosmology: A Unified Origin for Inflation and Dark Energy

I'm an engineering student, not a physicist, so that I may be mistaken. But this has been bugging me for a long time now, so I wanted to see, by posting it here, if this thought makes any sense.

So I know that perception is continuous; the brain samples the world in bits and pieces, mostly in the 8 to 13 Hz range, and slower studs like in delta 1 to 4 Hz, which shows up in deep sleep and deep meditation. And I know the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is basically about why observing something makes it collapse into a definite state.
What I'm wondering is: what if those 2 things are connected in some way, not like in a mystical sense but more mechanically. What if the collapse happens partly because the observer is sampling at their own rhythm, and that rhythm doesn't match whatever the system is doing? And what if we could observe a quantum system while applying a low-frequency field, and the collapse would look different, like something in the delta range?

The analogy which fits closely to describe this thought is like a one-way mirror. If the thing you are observing is hidden inside a frequency that matches the background, maybe it doesn't. I know that's not really how photons or electrons work, but this intuition won't leave me alone.

I know the problems such as decoherence explain most of the measurement problem without needing any of this. Low-frequency fields are everywhere, and we don't see weird quantum effects because of them. And people like Dean Radin have tried consciousness quantum experiments, and the results are messy.

So my questions are:

Is this idea already ruled out for a reason I'd know if I understood the physics better? Or is it just not something people have looked at because there is no reason to?

Or have there been any experiments where they have applied oscillating fields at different frequencies during a quantum measurement to see if anything changes?

is the whole theory completely wrong or does it map to anything real?

im not trying to prove anything; I'm just trying to understand if it’s worth reading into or if it's a dead end. all answers are welcome.

thanks

Hi Guys,

I've been pondering an idea for a while, I want to see if it's possible to come up with a simple mechanism and as little postulates as possible.

I've been trying to limit it to a single field with a fixed propagation speed without any other assumptions. My goal is to see what observables I can derive purely from field geometry and compression mechanics.

I'm quite surprised with some of the results. I found it's possible to describe the formation of both ring galaxies and ORCs using the same mechanism. When there is a dense spinning region it results in a ring of high tension at some radius, causing the field to tear and release energy. Depending on the initial chirality of that region: dominant chirality produced a ring of matter where stars can form (ring galaxy); near 50/50 particles annihilated, leaving a ring of photons expanding outward (ORC).

It ended up predicting (or retrodict) that cosmic voids aren't low-density but rather cleared due to annihilation with an undisturbed field and that the large-scale structure (filaments, walls, voids) comes from chirality fluctuation statistics, not density fluctuations.

I was even more surprised when all four forces fell out of the field geometry for free and orbital quantization from phase resonance.

It's mostly conceptual and still incomplete.

I was wondering if chirality could be responsible for matter-ring vs photon-ring formation, or does it conflict with observation?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Premise: Suppose there exists a spherical region of spacetime with a radius of 2 meters where all quantum fields are entirely absent, with one crucial exception: the Electromagnetic (EM) Field is preserved within the zone so that light can still propagate and visual observations can be made. Gravity remains normal.

The Boundary and Visibility Paradox

The Baseline Scenario (No EM Field): If the EM field were also removed, the sphere would be a zone of absolute, pitch-black darkness. It remains an open question whether sunlight hitting this absolute void would cast a physical shadow on the ground.

The Current Dilemma (Preserved EM Field): Restoring the EM field allows light to pass through perfectly, rendering the sphere entirely transparent and invisible. Because it is visually undetectable, an observer could easily wander into it by accident.

Proposed Solution to the Hazard: To prevent accidental entry while keeping the internal EM field intact, we must introduce a passive detection mechanism. A hypothetical fix would be a Refractive Index Shift at the boundary interface. By introducing a minute gravitational or spatial gradient right at the 2-meter perimeter, light passing through would bend slightly, creating a subtle, shimmering "lens effect" (similar to a heat mirage) that alerts observers to its presence without changing the internal physics.

Core Investigation and Constraints

Fundamental Question: Can physical matter even cross the boundary of this fieldless region (REGARDLESS of what happens at the point of contact with the boundary), or would objects just bounce off its perimeter as if hitting a rigid, solid structure?

If matter can go through the sphere's surface instead of bouncing off, analyze the physical outcomes of the following four experimental interactions, once they touch or cross the surface boundary of the sphere:

1. Splashing Water on the Sphere
2. Throwing a Rock at the Sphere
3. Shining a Flashlight Through the Sphere
4. Stepping Inside the Sphere

Publicly sharing a conceptual framework for feedback.
I am a 14-year-old independent researcher. My strength is pure logical synthesis. This model treats the universe as a dynamic data-processing matrix.
I remain completely neutral on human ideologies. I simply follow where the raw logic leads. I am putting this core architecture out there to be analyzed.

The Information-Variability Equilibrium (IVE) Model
Author: Andrew R. Pallis Jr.
Date: June 2026

Abstract
This paper introduces the IVE model. The universe is a dynamic information-processing system. Local structural information inversely scales with geometric variability.
We address the mathematical breakdown of General Relativity. The primordial singularity is not infinite physical density. It is a zero-information boundary condition. This triggers an infinite explosion of geometric variables. This drives the initial expansion of spacetime.

Core Axiom: Information First
Mass and energy are secondary variables.
The baseline universe is pure data.
Mass, gravity, and time are emergent phenomena.
Data-synchronization events generate physical properties.

The Mechanics: Macro vs. Micro
The friction between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is resolved. A single structural balancing mechanism governs both scales:
The Greek Thought Principle: As Information Density (I) approaches Maximum, Behavioral Variability (V) approaches Minimum. Conversely, as Information Density approaches Zero, Behavioral Variability approaches Infinity.
The Macro Scale (Low-Variable): Macroscopic bodies comprise immense particle networks. Constant localized data exchange occurs via quantum decoherence. This high-density information load restricts geometric variables. General Relativity remains highly effective here.
The Micro Scale (High-Variable): Isolated, unobserved subatomic particles lack data synchronization. Because local information (I) drops, behavioral variability spikes. This manifests as the probabilistic wave-functions seen in quantum mechanics.

Looking forward to your thoughts and logical critiques.

Hello, HypotheticalPhysics. If you don't know me from LLMPhysics, I'm AllHailSeizure, and at the request of MaoGo I've brought over my adversarial review bot, a bot that comments an LLM generated adversarial review of a physics post/paper.

I realize the irony of a bot that uses an LLM to review a physics paper on a sub where LLMs are banned, but the prompt is aimed at pointing out high level flaws. It aims for things like common misconceptions, metaphorical justifications, etc.

You summon the bot to your post with the overflow menu and clicking 'request adversarial review'. If you have a paper that is linked via URL it will try to extract that for review. I've programmed in the API extraction for sites like zenodo, arxiv, vixra, figshare; otherwise it will try and do a search extraction which is less reliable. If you have two URLs you can select one, if you have no URLs you can submit one or just leave it blank and get a review of the post itself. OF NOTE - a DOI link is NOT an API endpoint, so a DOI that leads to Zenodo WILL NOT WORK. I am trying to work around this, and am having relative success with search grounding, but not reliable enough for publication IMO.

It can take up to 5 minutes for the whole process to run usually as it works through an external queue system, not Redis.

I'm a mod here now too btw.

AHS out.

Recent data from the DESI survey has challenged standard cosmology by suggesting that dark energy isn't a static constant, but actually varies over cosmic time. In this paper, I propose an alternative, scale-invariant geometric framework: our observable 3D space is an internal holographic projection bounded by the 2D event horizon of a macroscopic parent black hole. By treating the universe as an open thermodynamic system, I demonstrate that the stable baseline of dark energy is driven by the background expansion of a grandparent universe via recursive cosmological coupling, while the temporal "wobble" is the direct, real-time result of the parent black hole's discrete mass accretion rate (local feasts and famines). Please note that while the core physics framework and multi-generational hypothesis are my own independent research, I utilized AI models to assist with the LaTeX mathematical formatting, technical phrasing, and structural editing of the final text.

I’d like to get the community's thoughts and critiques on my research!

Link to Paper: https://zenodo.org/records/21074333

Hello chat

Iam an indipendent researcher and have great love for science specially physics.

I have a hypothesis I call it point of collision it is about the measurements problem and double slit experiment, it treat wave functions as ture spatial spread out energy work like wave.

Argument: I argue that small (quantum) entity are not a fixed ball in the universe but more like spread out energy propogate as real functional wave because there internal gravity can't hold them together which we see in classical objects. So if internal gravity can't hold them together just like it do with a (ex. Tennis ball) there energy becomes as spread out wave packet because mass is also form or energy (e=mc^2) I also argue that mass is just densly packed energy within a specific cordinate but quantum particle lack that internal gravity so there energy just spread out as wave.

When this spatial wave meet with detector In double slit experiment,detector's collective gravity field posses this incomming wave to concentrate in single point

Argument: High energy density attract low energy density this process work just like back hole and this is profound.

So this wave have got only two path to pass through and then it intract with screen just like it did with detector because the (atoms collective feild of dense energy on screen) make it to fall in one cordinate (a gravity well)

But when the detector is off or not intract with the wave ,wave pass through double slit just like it have to and create interference pattran

Born rule naturally derive with this hypothesis because the point of collision (poc) only happen at the peak energy distribution in that wave (The amplitude) where energy is mostly dense so when that wave pass through double slit there peak amplitude meet and with interaction of screen we got interference pattran that explains born rule prediction.

And also the Heisenberg uncertainty because the known particle is just wave when we look at it with tools to find it's cordinate so then we lose its velocity.

But the particle remains as wave far as when it is in the contact with High energy density but when it lose that field it slowly regrows to wave.

This is also bcked by inverse wave-mass portion law.

This is my zenodo DOI - 10.5281/zenodo.20988391

(Doi)

(Here I had explained every concept i can abt this hypothesis and I also accept I use Ai writing tool to make the document structure and look like professional , and that's just acseptable)

But every consept is mine and I also have raw document of it free from LLM writing touch)

I’ve released a pre-print on Zenodo and would appreciate critical feedback on the first paper in a planned technical series.

Full preprint:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21020925

This isn’t presented as a Theory of Everything, and it doesn’t claim to derive Einstein’s equations, stress-energy coupling, cosmology, dark energy, or empirical predictions. The paper is deliberately limited to a prior kinematic reconstruction question.
The hypothesis is:

If stable operational records, directed intervention-signalling, conformal signal-front criteria, clock/scale criteria, and transport/curvature consistency tests are all satisfied, then a kinematic Lorentzian geometric candidate is supported.

The reconstruction chain is:
[ Q_epsilon -> R_epsilon -> (B_epsilon, preorder_epsilon) -> [q_epsilon] -> g_epsilon -> Levi-Civita connection and curvature tensor ]
Here Q_epsilon is not assumed to be a field on a background manifold.

The operational record interface is:
[ R_epsilon = (B_epsilon, A_epsilon, C_epsilon, rho_epsilon, S_epsilon) ]

The key separation is:
[ A_epsilon is not equal to S_epsilon ]

Adjacency, proximity, or correlation is not allowed to generate causal order. Only directed intervention-signalling may enter the signal preorder.
This post concerns only Paper 1 of the series. Its role is to define the criteria and dependency architecture. A later paper would have to provide an explicit non-geometric toy input and test whether the criteria can actually be satisfied. So this is a conditional reconstruction proposal, not an existence proof.

I’m especially looking for criticism of the following points:

Does the scheme still smuggle in spacetime geometry anywhere?

Is the distinction between adjacency A_epsilon and directed signalling S_epsilon sharp enough?

Does the local representation module V_{X, epsilon} risk becoming a tangent space under another name?

Are the clock/scale and transport/curvature gates placed correctly?

Which known reconstruction results or references should be added?

Update note: Compared with my earlier informal posts, this version is narrower and more disciplined. It removes claims about cosmology, Hubble tension, dark energy, or final dynamics, and restricts the discussion to kinematic Lorentzian reconstruction from operational records.
AI disclosure: I used AI assistance for language editing, structuring, and stress-testing presentation. The conceptual claims, definitions, responsibility for the argument, and final manuscript are mine.

Ok this is pretty nuts but I've been bugging about this for like a week now, and I think I might have something

If you attribute the expansion of 3D space onto a 6D brane space as well and say timelines are expanding outward at the same rate as space expands, then we would see particles expanding into probabilities just as we do when we look at them closely, they look like a wave of probabilities.

The rules might be like this: timelines branch outward and affect each other's gravity for a bit but move away in 6D space because new timelines which are more similar to ours are constantly being expanded into the area between. But what if there's some geometry to this which allows gravity to pull timelines closer together despite the expansion?

Then the more massive the object the more it can resist the diverging effect of timeline expansion.

We could assume at a micro scale these timelines would separate faster than the gravity between them could pull them back together. But what if you separate timelines for an object massive enough to keep up with the expansion? Like if you put a QRNG onto an asteroid and told it to move around based on the random number results, would you start to detect ghost gravity from an asteroid that wasn't in that same spot on a different timeline? Is that what dark matter is? alternate timeline matter that's heavy enough to stay near our timeline? Does this also mean that Einstein's relativity is saved, and we simply aren't accounting for all the different timelines constantly branching away from ours?

The NIST big G crisis could be caused by a number of things but what if it's this simple? We are experiencing a fraction of gravity from an alternate earth which is overlapping ours? And the reason we don't feel gravity anomalies at our relatively micro scale is because the timeless diverge too quickly.

Weekend TOE: I would really love to engage on this idea, but it would be a wall of text to present it all here so I'll link to the three foundational papers and full manuscript for reference:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20749219

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20749212

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20749161

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20327471

The idea: A fibration of cohesive infinity slice toposes generates physics from the 2-cells between the different nodes in the tower. Typically, the cohesive topos is selected by the gauge groups being studied and serves as a static taxonomy for the theory, but I am working on an algorithmic/constructive Spectral Realization process that generates physical dynamics with the construction of the spectra as witness terms to the identity type associated with that node in the tower. This proves the DCCT applies to the tower, and gives Scholze's Gestalten sequence.

In this theory the gauge groups correspond to their own slice toposes, and the theory derives the standard model by adding the Lorentz group to the standard gauge groups, as the whole theory is background independent.

The papers attempt to formalize the theory's foundations, while the manuscript (7471) outlines my complete vision for the theory *be warned, it's heavy with metaphorical terms and might extend beyond the bounds of the sub.

As just stated, I'm not sure about the limits of discussions here, but hope this can be a good one. I am most interested in getting my foundations (the 3 papers) correct, but also have physical predictions and much more detail I can share. I don't want to overwhelm this first post, so I'll just share 2 highlights:

1. I have a map of this year's arXiv papers that relate to this theory hosted on my personal website, so I'm not sure if I can link that per the sub rules; if someone let's me know I will edit this to provide the link. Here's an example:

My framework predicts these results correspond to the same phenomenon (dark matter mass generation (Chapter 6 of 7471): https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X26460139, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.23418

2. My theory indicates an extension of Smith's dictionary from the logical side to the physical side:

https://preview.redd.it/uccu0339rs9h1.png?width=783&format=png&auto=webp&s=26c2cf1b1e9772a276f7d065317932fdb49666f8

Let me know what you think!

As a syrup blooded Canadian, I refer to the distance between objects as the time it will take to travel between the given points. "The grocery store is 20 minutes away."

My theory is simply this: relativity and special relativity operate in a universe where the separation between all matter is time itself. There is no separation of dimensional space from time. Distances are just measurements of the amount of time between objects given an instantaneous travel time. Therefore empty space is still filled with time and maintains a distance value that is only relevant as a unit of time. High gravity space increases in perceived distance as time density increases. In actuality there is only time between all things. Distance is only our interpretation of the time between matter.

When you look over the horizon from your porch you are looking across time at the speed of light. You see the horizon as it was when light bounced off and traveled towards you. You see the hills between you and the horizon fractions of a moment earlier in time and the fence of your yard even closer to your time. All of this is described as one time but it isn't. You are seeing a small fraction of times relative to your own position in time.

For those whom only understand things as math:

T actual=T relative / c

and

Distance = T actual

I am not some type of physicist, astrophysicist, cosmologist or mathematician. I am just a quasi-agnostic mindlessly dabbling with ideas that my himalayan ADHD brain finds interesting. I am not here to be a showoff about how little I know, I am here to learn and attempt to find some answers.

So listen up; and this may either sound completely crazyor totally brilliant. You decide!

What if we have been looking at the fabric of universe all wrong this whole time? How about instead of treating the cosmos like an empty box filled with static atomic like bombs spread throughout the vacuum, oh no rather it's interacting with flow of currents inside one massive cosmic river?

Every time I look at the cosmic web, I don't see something frozen in place. I see a microscopic snapshot of something that's actually moving. Imagine pausing an ocean for a single frame. Not just the surface, but the entire volume of water. That's what our observations might be. We think we have watched the universe evolve, but have we really? It moves on such an agonizingly slow timescale that our entire history of looking at it could amount to a tiny fraction of one movement. If that's true, we're trying to understand the dynamics of an ocean from a single photograph.

Maybe these aren't simple ripples like those on a pond. Maybe they're complex, three dimensional ripples propagating through spacetime. Galaxies, clusters, and voids could just be the interference patterns those waves leave behind.

That's the perspective shift I keep coming back to. Instead of seeing the cosmic web as matter simply responding to gravity, what if we started treating the universe as a fluid dynamic system of cosmic ripples? Gravity wouldn't disappear. It would just be one tiny part of a much larger, weirder picture.

What if changing our perspective actually shifts how we look at the topology of the universe? I keep thinking that instead of seeing cosmic topology as some fixed geometric cage, maybe it's just an emergent property of massive, overlapping wave dynamics. Basically, the shapes we see could just be the frozen geometry of a flow that never stops, rather than the core structure underneath. That means our current cosmic maps aren't really showing us where matter is sitting; they're just catching a single frame of how spacetime is moving.

I have no clue if this idea survives the math. That's where the speculation has to become actual physics. If this framework could be modeled and predicted something accurately, it might offer a different way to look at the anomalies that physicists are losing their minds over right now. Not because it replaces what we know, but because it changes the angle from which we're asking the questions to begin with.

Maybe I'm totally wrong. I can't shake the feeling we're looking at a map like it's a finished structure, when it might just be one frozen snapshot from a river that has been flowing the whole time. What do you think of that?

Note: Adhering to community rules, I declare my use of AI, but I only share my idea vocally and ask it to transcribe them for me in a post format, so I am genuinely interested in that topic, and I am honest about the way I use AI and how I actually use it.

Considering that we had two meta posts quite recently (one of them was mine), I think it was time we actually discuss the main point of any meta posts -

Can the subreddit have further improvements or not?

If there are possible improvements, what can we do to improve the subreddit?

Edit: Also, please explain why because it will help commenters understand your opinion and lead to more direct and useful responses.

Remember this post is not about debating right now, it’s only about seeing what is actually realistic, commenting on ideas about advantages and disadvantages and finally considering how this could affect each part of the subreddit (in this case I mean the variety of commenters we have because some are more professional than others.

Hopefully, I would like you to discuss improvements on making sure that comments are actually relevant to the comment’s question and also respectful. THIS GOES BOTH WAYS - for the commenter and the poster, so consider what you say because it will affect you and the people in this subreddit right now and the people who will come into the subreddit in the future.

If there are comments which are irrelevant to what the post is actually asking please ignore them and don’t engage as we only have a 100 comment limit to actually discuss this topic and we don’t want anything controversial being said to be respectful to everyone. You can engage with other comments as long as you are pointing out possible flaws with the idea or disadvantages of the idea as I am looking for plausible and effective methods that don’t have any significant drawbacks.

Thank you for reading this post and I hope you can voice your opinions in a well-mannered way.

Oh yeah just to make sure people don’t misinterpret it, I said ignore the “What if” because otherwise I wouldn’t be able to post the comment without it but I wanted to make sure people didn’t get confused about what I meant.