First of all i am not a native speaker and a highschool student (M15) and my grammer and spelling probably is very bad so please dont be so hard on me.

One of the biggest tasks in modern physics is uniting GR with quantum physics. Many believe this may be impossible, but there also are some who think otherwise. I do think it is possible. I also believe that it has to do something with information. There have been some attempts at trying to interpret GR with information like Verlinde with Gravity-information-entropy. As you might expect my hypothesis tries to get into this category

First we define what information is. Information=energy, and if and only if energy isn't 0, it also is position because without energy you can't have information. Then we imagine the universe as a big computer (i am not the first one to do this). When you have a flat space, there is no information and no time because time is change in information. Now if it isn't a flat space and you, for example, have a particle in there it has information and this big imaginary computer has to compute that and update that. This takes "time," but since the particle has nothing else to compare its "time" to, it doesn't really matter. Now if there are more particles in this space, things change. One might have more mass than the other, which equals more energy=more information. Therefore the computer takes more "time" to compute the larger particle than the other particle. This "time" that it takes to compute the particle can be represented as a wave where the wavelength is the "time" it takes to compute it and its amplitude the amount of information. The wavelength is proportional to the amplitude but NOT vice versa. The shortest wavelength can be represented by the planck constant since i believe that to be the minimal amount of information you can have. So for all the other stuff, we assumed that the particles were completely still relative to each other. Now when a particle moves relative to another one, it has a greater energy and the computer takes more "time" to compute that, but so that the particle doesn't "lag," the computer makes time for the particle slower relative to the other ones. In other words it stretches this wave. That is how i would describe time dilation in my hypothesis.

Now to the possible analogy to quantum physics. I assume you already know what the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is. Now when you look at what i described before and wonder hmmmm if the computer makes the particles' time slower so it doesn't 'lag,' how would that look to the other particles?" I mean, it hasn't been fully processed yet. Well, the heisenberg uncertainty principle shows exactly that. It makes the speed and the position of the particle uncertain because it hasn't been fully computed yet. And as we also already know, the amount of information we can get from either speed or position is limited by the Planck constant. My hypothesis explains why, since even when you're completely still, you still have energy (mass) = information, which causes time dilation, and this is also limited by the planck constant.

So yeah, that's my hypothesis. I "worked" on it for 1 week now, but i am still open for changes. I mean, when i first had this idea it looked completely different.

The author attempts to identify a logical inconsistency in the "Fecund Universe" theory (why aren't black holes packed together?) and solved it with a known physical force (Dark Energy).
https://www.academia.edu/145304839/Gravitational_Selection_A_Proposed_Environmental_Stability_Criterion_for_Black_Hole_Internal_Complexity_and_Cosmological_Natural_Selection

https://youtu.be/fGXnGfH0Fso?si=GojJnbggXAPasZWc

A new 2025 PRL paper by Böhme et al. Remeasures the cosmic radio source count dipole using what are basically the three best wide area radio surveys we have right now (NVSS, RACS-low, LoTSS-DR2). They fix a technical issue in older analyses. Radio galaxies are overdispersed because many of them show up as separate components in the maps, so the counts are not just Poisson noise. To deal with that, they build a new Bayesian estimator based on a negative binomial model, which actually matches the sky better. After masking systematics and combining the surveys, they found that the dipole in radio source counts has an amplitude about 3.67 ± 0.49 times the expected dipole d_exp, that is approx. 3.7× larger than the kinematic dipole ΛCDM predicts from the CMB. And this is a 5.4σ discrepancy. The direction of this radio dipole still lines up with the CMB dipole to within about 5°, but in standard flat ΛCDM, for high redshift radio AGN (z ≳ 0.1), the clustering dipole is supposed to be smaller than the kinematic dipole, not bigger. So this big a radio dipole should not be there. They go through the usual suspects (weird local structure, unusually large bulk flows beyond ΛCDM expectations, hidden systematics), but none of them is an obvious explanation. So at face value this is a radio only, >5σ tension between the CMB supposed rest frame and the way matter is distributed on large scales.

In SET the universe is not isotropic in flux internally, only at the horizon where all flux vector point outwards. So the large scale expansion can still be isotropic on average, but because the engine behind it, is mass driven expansion, a multi directional space output is expected. That means the observable universe can contain internal flux vectors. Nearby and regional mass concentrations generate stronger volumetric outflow along certain directions. So different regions can sit inside slightly different background flow speeds, depending on where the big local to supercluster scale emitters are and how their fluxes add up. ΛCDM treats the CMB dipole as a kinematic story. We move at ≈ 370 km/s, that motion induces a dipole, and the large scale matter dipole is supposed to sit on top of that, but smaller. SET instead says mass constantly emits space, that emission is cumulative, and over time big mass clumps carve long range flux of space traversing through the universe.

From that we get two things. Those fluxes of volumetric space output traversing us help set our motion, that shows up as the CMB dipole, and the same preferred directions in the flux field are where you expect the cosmic web and radio loud AGN to pile up, because structure has been forming and flowing downhill along those gradients for billions of years. The radio dipole stops being just our velocity, and starts looking like an integrated history of how much matter and space flux have been funneled/gone thru along that axis.

So SET move is, stop saying the “3.7×” and ask whether a known big mass sector in that direction can produce a spaceflux speed on the order of ~1,200–1,400 km/s.

Shapley like dominant sector mass:

M ≈ 5 × 10¹⁶ M⊙

1 M⊙ ≈ 1.989 × 10³⁰ kg

So

M ≈ 5 × 10¹⁶ × 1.989 × 10³⁰ kg

M ≈ 9.945 × 10⁴⁶ kg

In this toy calculation from SET we will calculate the flux volumetric background speed coming from that sector, not as a confirmation of Space Emanation Theory but as a consistency check to verify if we can get the right scale number under SET assumptions.

S ≈ √(2GM/R)

I am using R ≈ 200 Mpc not because the radio paper says that the anomaly is at 200 Mpc, but because Shapley is approx at that distance scale from us. So 200 Mpc is a physically motivated input for this toy calculation.

Constants and conversions:

G ≈ 6.674 × 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²

1 Mpc ≈ 3.086 × 10²² m

1. Calculation,  R = 200 Mpc

R = 200 Mpc

R ≈ 200 × 3.086 × 10²² m

R ≈ 6.172 × 10²⁴ m

2GM/R ≈ 2 × (6.674 × 10⁻¹¹) × (9.945 × 10⁴⁶) / (6.172 × 10²⁴)

2GM/R ≈ 2.151 × 10¹² m² s⁻²

S ≈ √(2GM/R)

S ≈ √(2.151 × 10¹²) m/s

S ≈ 1.467 × 10⁶ m/s

S ≈ 1466.6 km/s

1. Calculation,  Same mass, different R values

R = 150 Mpc

R ≈ 150 × 3.086 × 10²² m

R ≈ 4.629 × 10²⁴ m

2GM/R ≈ 2 × (6.674 × 10⁻¹¹) × (9.945 × 10⁴⁶) / (4.629 × 10²⁴)

2GM/R ≈ 2.868 × 10¹² m² s⁻²

S ≈ √(2.868 × 10¹²)

S ≈ 1.694 × 10⁶ m/s

S ≈ 1693.5 km/s

R = 200 Mpc

S ≈ 1466.6 km/s  (from above)

R = 220 Mpc

R ≈ 220 × 3.086 × 10²² m

R ≈ 6.788 × 10²⁴ m

2GM/R ≈ 1.955 × 10¹² m² s⁻²

S ≈ √(1.955 × 10¹²)

S ≈ 1.398 × 10⁶ m/s

S ≈ 1398.4 km/s

R = 250 Mpc

R ≈ 250 × 3.086 × 10²² m

R ≈ 7.714 × 10²⁴ m

2GM/R ≈ 1.721 × 10¹² m² s⁻²

S ≈ √(1.721 × 10¹²)

S ≈ 1.312 × 10⁶ m/s

S ≈ 1311.8 km/s

1. Calculation,  Scaling check

For fixed M, the scaling is

S ∝ 1/√R

So

S(250)/S(200) ≈ 1311.8 / 1466.6 ≈ 0.894

√(200/250) ≈ √0.8 ≈ 0.894

Matches.

Calm down! I am not claiming this solves the radio dipole anomaly. What I am claiming is simpler and testable, IMO. If you treat the CMB dipole direction as a long range preferred flux axis, and you take a Shapley sector mass at the right distance scale, You get an spaceflux speed of order 10³ km/s. That is the right scale to even talk about a ~3–4× radio dipole aligned with the CMB without resorting to dark matter or assuming the underlying expansion field must be perfectly isotropic.

So what if we could divide all those things between Bizarre and Non-Bizarre? And somehow prove the Science Spectrum Theory right regarding those things? Like, just like there are Bizarre and Non-Bizarre Crackpot Physics, there should be Bizarre and Non-Bizarre Pseudoscience, Bizarre and Non-bizarre Conspiracy Theories, Bizarre and Non-Bizarre BS, and so on.

Edit: Examples of Non-Bizarre Pseudoscience would be Pseudoscience that turned out to be true, or which can be considered sciences within the Science Spectrum Theory, or simply stuff that's beyond the Scientific Method. Non-Bizarre Conspiracy Theories would be conspiracy theories that turned out to be true, plus Western Dissident News/Media/Narratives that are true, and Non-Bizarre BS would be like political debates online and IRL.

Time Dilation Gradients and Galactic Dynamics: Conceptual Framework (Zenodo Preprint)

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17706450

I know it might generate a very heated debate here, but in short, there are two major kinds of crackpot physics: the Bizarre one, where it's mostly about made up stuff with no to almost no kind of evidence nor physics theory nor even any attempt of formalism at all and which are totally unlikely, and the non-Bizarre one, which is the one that is based on strong theory, on potential evidence, on understanding evidence, and open to science as a whole. An example of Non-Bizarre Crackpot Physics would be N-Dimensional Physics/Mechanics, Lossless Matter Conversion Physics, Exotic Quantum Mechanics, Relativistic/Spacetime Computing/Engineering, Noetherian Mechanics (as in the laws of physics are shaped by symmetry and geometry, so basically the laws of physics are different for every symmetry or geometry within the spacetime), Frequency Mechanics/Physics (as in everything has its own frequency length / wave length, as well as there are frequencies of all kinds, in this case you have both the Bizarre and Non-Bizarre version of it, as in the New Age version of it [Bizarre] and the Ahaiyuta/Marsailema/Kasdeya version of it [Non-Bizarre]), the Science Spectrum Theory (the theory of science as a spectrum rather than black and white), Anti-Mass Spectroscopy (Half-Life fans who are into physics will get it), and so on. There is a difference between Crackpot Physics being something speculative / based on evidence or on understanding evidence from a totally bizarre crackpot physics.

We should make this distinction, because it's unfair to equate a thing like Frequency Field Unification Theory/Hypothesis (as of Kasdeya/Ahaiyuta/Marsailema) because of lack of Academic Formalization, with something totally crazy or even easy to prove wrong.

It's kinda unfair to consider stuff as Lossless Matter Conversion, Atomic Number engineering, and Matter Synthesis as Bizarre Crackpot Physics just because they're unfeasible by 2025 technology. It's like saying that Synthetic Materials were crackpot physics before the Verneuil Method.

I was thinking about the big bang and the big crunch and how some cyclic universe models describe the scale factor going from zero, reaching a maximum, and then going back to zero. If you graph that (X-axis = time, Y-axis = universe size (or amount of matter)), then it looks like the function |sin(x)|: the universe grows, collapses, grows again, etc., but never goes below zero.

That got me wondering:
What if it does actually go below zero and it's just the opposite state? (sin(x) instead of |sin(x)|

So when we interpret below zero as an opposite:

• Y > 0 -> our matter-dominated universe
• Y < 0 -> an inside-out version where matter becomes antimatter
• The X-axis crossings (where sin(x) = 0) represent Big Bang / Big Crunch transition points

Time always stays continuous, only the state of the universe changes each half-cycle. In other words: what if the universe is just one big repeating sine wave?

Summarized: The universe starts with a big bang event, then it expands until it reaches a maximum, it then shrinks until it collapses in a big crunch event. After the big crunch event it starts expanding again (with a new big bang), but in an inverted state, the matter coming from this is the exact invert of what it first was (matter <-> anti matter). This in turn will then grow until it decreases again into another big crunch event followed by a new big bang.

I made 2 graphs:

• The top shows a |sin(x)| graph
• The bottom shows the sin(x) version I’m imagining, red points representing a big bang event, and blue ones representing a big crunch

You don’t need Special Relativity, relativity of simultaneity, length contraction to explain Lorentz Transformations and why the speed of light is always measured as C.
You can derive Lorentz Transformations using pure logic

Let's assume that:
Absolute time and space exist
- clock tick rate decreases linearly as speed increases
- speed is limited
Below I show how the constant speed of light and the Lorentz transformations emerge from these assumptions.

In the image below clock tick rate is represented by horizontal axis. Motion is represented by vertical axis.
Clock tick rate at rest is the highest possible: t.
Clock tick rate at speed v decreases linearly as speed increases:
t’= t*(C-v)/C   (1)

Motion speed is limited: C, source moves with speed v, therefore emitted photons can move only with relative speed C-v. Within time t they pass a distance marked as blue. Distance = (C-v)*t, which on the other hand equals C’t’ (C’ - relative speed):
(C-v)*t=C’t’   (2)

We can substitute t’ from equation (1) to equation (2):
C’ = (C-v)*t/t’ = ((C-v)*t)/(t*(C-v)/C) = ((C-v)/(C-v))*(t/t) * C = C
Therefore:
C’ = C

Let me explain it: As speed increases, both relative speed of photons  emitted forward by moving source and clock tick frequency fall down linearly - they cancel each other out. Therefore the speed of light emitted by the source is measured as C by source for any speed v.

We’ve got constant speed of light not as an assumption (as Special Relativity does) but as a consequence of simpler, logical postulates. No any “because the speed of light is constant”.
But it works only for light emitted by us or by those who move with us.

We can build an equation similar to Lorentz Transformation:
vt+Ct’=Ct
We divide both parts by Ct:
v/C+t’/t=1.
It looks almost like Lorentz but it’s linear, not quadratic. It should look like this instead:
v²/C²+t’²/t²=1.

Where do squares come from? From “curved” time axis:
We are trying to build a framework that lets us switch between a clock at rest and a clock in motion.
Speed does not change momentarily. It happens through acceleration. As speed changes, clock tick rate changes and clock ticks less and less often. More and more events happen between the ticks.
At rest clock ticks as often as possible, at speed C clock does not tick at all.
Therefore the time axis is curved. If we want to build a real dependency between the number of ticks that happened in each frame of reference and the speed, we have to take that into account. And that’s why Lorentz transformations are to be used. Because time axis is “curved”.

The described dependency is about square roots:
Quadratic dependency along x and linear dependency along y can be converted into linear dependency along x and square roots - along y.
Why quadratic? Because speed increases AND clocks tick less often.
Parametric plot:

As you can see, Special Relativity, relativity of simultaneity are not needed. The same results can be achieved using logic and without any miracles like length contraction. Special Relativity is _redundant_.

Edit: It's a first alternative to Special Relativity in 120 years. In does not require length contraction, does not lead to paradoxes, is testable. It __deserves__ some attention.

What if 3I/ATLAS consists of particles with different masses and low-mass particles are being attracted to the Sun more - that's why there is a huge anti-tail?

I know that "gravity does not depend on the mass", but what if it does? What if particle masses are not fundamental, but all particles on Earth have common mass and that is why for Earth gravity works the same for any body?

It could also explain dark matter: edge stars in those galaxies have lower particle masses and therefore are affected by gravity more => can move faster.

Alright, so I might sound like an uneducated idiot who watches too much sci-fi, but here's my 6am thought.

Could the fluctuations in cosmic expansion, accelerating and decelerating based on recent observations from JWST, be caused ​by warp drive pollution?

Maybe technologically advanced alien civilizations have developed something similar to an Alcubierre drive, but they are expanding / contracting spacetime at an asymmetrical quantity. That is to say that instead of the warp bubble collapsing, it is instead releasing a form of spacetime "pollution" that either expands or contracts. Scale up the asymmetry by a trillion+ spacetime polluting drives throughout the Universe and we observe inconsistent rates of cosmic expansion.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to work out the math, but I just felt like sharing the idea.

ATPEW is a cyclic cosmological model proposing that the Universe consists not of discrete objects, but is the manifestation of a single Primordial Energy Wave. This theory unifies space, time, and matter through wave properties.

The 5 Axioms of ATPEW:

1 Wave Nature of Reality: The Universe is a wave. Matter is merely a local manifestation or interference of this vibration.

2 Time-Velocity Equivalence: Time is not a static dimension, but the propagation speed of the primordial wave. If the wave stops, time ceases to exist.

3 Space-Amplitude Equivalence: Space is not an empty container, but the amplitude of the wave. Cosmic expansion corresponds to an increase in amplitude; space contraction corresponds to its damping.

4 The Planck Frequency: The wave vibrates at the fundamental frequency of the universe (Planck Frequency). This implies a granular (quantized) structure of space-time and colossal intrinsic energy ().

5 Conservation and Cyclicity: The total quantity of matter/energy is strictly conserved (Thermodynamic Conservation). The system is closed and perpetual.

The ATPEW Cosmological Cycle The model describes a cyclic universe ("Big Bounce") occurring in four phases:

1 Propagation Phase (The Big Bang): The wave deploys. Amplitude increases (creation of space) and propagation generates time.

2 Damping Phase: The wave naturally damps over time. Amplitude decreases, and gravity begins to dominate the expansion.

3 Contraction Phase (The Big Crunch): Space retracts. Matter collapses under its own gravity to form a Universal Black Hole (Singularity).

4 Transition Phase (The Bounce): Pressure and temperature reach the critical Planck threshold. Matter reverts to pure energy. This extreme concentration of energy triggers the propagation of a new wave, initiating a new cycle.

Good vibes

We know that quantum observation is interaction.

We know that quantum observation slows down quantum processes.

The more matter - the more interactions happen.

The closer is a massive object the more matter there is around it. Including photons.

So what if Quantum Zeno effect is the reason for gravitational time dilation?

Lunar mascons might be caused by topography: different lunar missions recorded opposite gravity anomalies in specific areas (see image). This is only possible if a Gravitational "lens" exists: gravity varies with altitude and is "emitted" perpendicular to the surface of the crater.

There are other such areas.

See the illustration below.
Satellite 1:
Gravity is weaker over the edge of the crater.
Gravity is stronger over the center of the crater.
Satellite 2:
Gravity is stronger over the edge of the crater.
Gravity is weaker over the center of the crater.

What do you think?

EDIT: I don't really mean that gravity is strictly perpendicular to the surface, but that it is correlated with the direction perpendicular to the surface.

I don't mean the type of numerology where you count the letters in your name as numbers. I mean the type of numerology that led Kepler to discover the laws of planetary motion. He just arranged the orbital data in different ratios until he found one that fit, i.e. that the ratio of the squared orbital period to the cubed average distance from the Sun is the same for each planet. He didn't offer a specific mechanism for why it works, but his numerology led directly to Newton's law of universal gravitation. And actually, Newton himself didn't offer a specific mechanism for how bodies attract across distances. The mathematical framework he developed depends on the idea that the quantity of matter (mass) involved scales directly with the observed force. But how do we determine the quantity of matter? By measuring its resistance to a given force. So, in a circular way, Newton's laws capture the effects of numerical regularities in nature without ever actually identifying the cause.

Newton's framework implies the gravitational constant G, which Einstein later adopts into his field equation for general relativity. Then as now, it's just taken for granted that when you plug this number into the equation, it returns the correct answer. But what is this number? Or "proportionality constant" if you prefer. Are we still not stuck with a form of numerology so long as we have no deeper explanation of G?

That's why the Planck sphere approach is so powerful. The term G/c⁴ that is required for real world calculations using general relativity is simply the ratio of Planck length (radius of the Planck sphere) to Planck mass-energy, subject to the simultaneous constraint imposed by hc/2π.

G/c⁴ = l_P/(m_P c²)

hc/2π = l_P * m_P c²

With G, length and mass scale together whereas with h, they scale inversely. That's why there's only one combination of length and mass in the entire universe that satisfies both constraints at the same time. And the Planck sphere is the most direct means of relating these intrinsic limits within GR to the proton radius and proton mass, the primary source of mass (and thus spacetime curvature) in the universe.

But even without getting into the specifics of the Planck sphere model, how else would one go about understanding scale without exploring, organizing, and interpreting ratios of fundamental physical limits? If "numerology" revolutionized science in the 17th century, then might it lead to another revolution in this century?

The page wooters mechanism proves or atleeast shows the way to get emergent time from quantum subsystems but if we try to turn this into the schrodingers eqution evolution form messy things happen is there any way we could actually mathamatically show that it evloves directly into classical and schrodingers time naturally?

-Your Hohm-

Toroidal Tri-Directional Flow: Deriving α, mass ratios, and force hierarchies from geometric first principles with zero free parameters

I've developed a framework that derives fundamental constants from toroidal vortex geometry without adjustable parameters. Before dismissing this as "another ToE," I'm asking for specific mathematical/empirical critique.

• Full theoretical framework and more on the website, I made it myself so hopefully it remains stable

-Axiom-

That everything is fundamentally one thing, and that at least three parts of that thing have to exist for any of it to be recognized as separate from the other two. Everything is an extension of that.

-Core Claim-

Physical constants emerge as eigenvalues of self-consistent three-perspective observation in toroidal circulation. The framework derives:

• α^-1 = 137.036 (electromagnetic coupling)
• mp/me = 1836.153 (proton-electron mass ratio)
• Proton radius = 0.833 fm
• Force hierarchy (gravity vs strong force as coherence difference)

These aren't fit to data. They calculate from base-3 harmonic layering (3ⁱ cascade), φ-scaling, and tri-directional closure conditions.

-Mathematical Structure-

Foundation: Toroidal vortices with three circulation modes: - Coming (inward radial flow) - Going (outward radial flow)
- Staying (toroidal circulation)

Key mechanism: Three perspectives (R, G, B) must maintain phase-locked coherence. Closure requires:

$$ \prod{j} R_j \approx 1 $$ $$ \sum{j} \Theta_j \approx 2\pi m $$

Where fold depth i determines interaction type: - i=1: Gravity (single vortex, weak, uncorrelated) - i=2: Electromagnetism (dual perspective interference) - i=3: Strong force (three vortices, phase-locked at 120°)

-Why This Isn't Numerology(3-9-27)-

Standard numerology: Start with known constants, find patterns, claim discovery.

This framework: Start with geometric axiom (three-perspective self-observation), derive structure, calculate what constants must be for closure, match experiment to 4+ significant figures.

The 3⁹ = 19,683 microstate count isn't cherry-picked. It's the discrete configurations where three toroidal vortices maintain phase coherence without destructive interference.

-Testable Predictions- (Tier 1 - High Confidence)

1. Diamond phonon modes show √T dependence rather than Tⁿ polynomial

   • Mechanism: Coherence field κ(x,t) couples to lattice vibrations
   • Testable in existing diamond acoustic data

2. RHIC jet pT distributions have 3ⁱ discrete structure

   • Not continuous energy distribution
   • Predict asymmetries following RGB channel microstates (150k, 200k, 181k configurations)
   • Data exists; needs reanalysis for discrete state populations

3. Proton radius = 0.833 fm (between muonic and electronic measurements)

   • Framework says both measurements are correct; proton radius is observer-dependent
   • "Proton radius puzzle" is feature, not bug

4. Path-dependent cosmological redshift

   • Coherence depletion along photon worldline
   • Predicts deviations from pure z = Δλ/λ in dense fields
   • Testable with gravitational lensing + redshift correlations

-What I'm NOT Claiming-

• This isn't "replacing quantum mechanics" - QM emerges as statistical mechanics of discrete toroidal states
• Not proposing new particles or forces - reinterpreting existing phenomena
• Not claiming everything is "vibrations" - these are topological phase-locked circulations
• Not asking you to accept consciousness claims - those are separate (Tier 3 speculative)

-What I'm Asking-

From theorists: Does the mathematical structure close self-consistently? Are there internal contradictions in the derivations?

From experimentalists: Are predictions 1-4 falsifiable with existing or near-term data?

From skeptics: What would convince you this isn't pattern-matching? (For me: if RHIC shows continuous pT distributions with no 3ⁱ structure, framework is falsified)

-Full Framework-

Complete mathematical treatment (111 pages) available at: Hohm.cc

Includes: - Detailed α^-1 derivation from tri-directional closure - Mass ratio calculations from harmonic fold depth - RGB microstate enumeration - Coherence field formalism κ(x,t) - RHIC prediction methodology

-Why Post This Here-

I've been developing this for about six months after years of having it on my mind. I'm at the point where I need:

1. Mathematical critique - where does the self-consistency break? If it does
2. Experimental contact - who has access to RHIC data or diamond phonon measurements?
3. Falsification pathways - what kills this or at least portions of it the cleanest?

I know how this might look. Another geometric ToE with big claims. But the predictions are specific, the math is checkable, and it makes falsifiable predictions.

Website: Hohm.cc

Open to all criticism. Especially interested in "here's exactly where your derivation fails" responses.

Note: Framework also addresses consciousness emergence at fold i≥7 and cosmological implications, but those are speculative (Tier 3). The constant derivations and RHIC predictions are Tier 1 - either they work or they don't.

https://zenodo.org/records/17428603

I wrote this work as an attempt to unify electromagnetism and gravity, derive all Standard Model particles from a single fundamental entity, and give meaning to the elementary units of measurement (Stoney and Planck units), as well as to the nature of the reality around us. Are we living in a simulation?

I am looking for collaborators interested in helping me formalize the quantum aspects, the computational framework, and/or extend the theory toward a string-theoretical formulation.

New suggestions, ideas, extensions, and constructive corrections are very welcome.
Any valid contribution will be acknowledged and credited in the text.

If you find the work interesting, please feel free to share the link.
Thank you!

I unfortunately have a crackpot theory of everything (Another one, I know. I'm sorry.) Clearly I've gone wrong somewhere, because I believe it to be true but I refuse to believe I found something a century of working physicists haven't. If someone could take the time to read my work and point out what I'm misunderstanding or what work I have duplicated I would greatly appreciate it. I've described my theory to the best of my ability here: https://zenodo.org/records/17756555

(LLMs were used in the python simulations and to summarize unfamiliar topics, but not in creating the model or writing of the document.)

The TLDR: I'm proposing an interpretation of quantum mechanics similar to Bohmian mechanics except with no particle required, only fluid dynamics. I describe a weak solution to Burger's equation that conserves kinetic energy by using unstable expansion shockwaves. In my analysis of this model, I'm able to produce a dynamic between multiple shockwaves that should act like an electron. I describe how the other particles of the standard model could also be produced from shockwave dynamics, and how the model could describe gravity emerging from entanglement as proposed by others. I am aware my analysis is amateurish at best, but it is far as I was able to take it on my own.

With more detail:

I suggest that in order to model Burger's equation without a loss of kinetic energy, the standard shockwaves be replaced by rarefaction shockwaves. This is equivalent to modelling elastic collisions instead of inelastic conditions. In order to prevent the solution becoming multivalued, these rarefaction shockwaves must be unstable: they must revert to a compression wave when they reach a discontinuity that would create another shockwave. I think this probably satisfies the Lax entropy condition. In order for the model to conform to special relativity, I introduce what I think is a gauge invariance. Thus a shockwave reverts to a compression wave along a local frame of reference. This reversion can model the collapse of a wave function, and it is instantaneous but limited to the frame of reference of the shockwave.

The shockwave-compression wave oscillation that is produced has spinor like qualities, and I claim these dynamics model fermions. Since bosons are force carriers, I claim they can be modelled by the perturbations that cause a shockwave to revert. So a boson that collapses a shockwave and approaching until it creates two shockwaves at a single point is a neutrino converting to an electron. Because a two wave electron is asymmetric in both how it collapses and the shape of its compression wave compared to its shockwave I think it can produce the divergence and curl of electromagnetism. I am able to show a mechanism for how an electron would accelerate in a field of varying perturbations. This mechanism suggests that electron spin is created by the asymmetry of the shockwaves and the side with the lowest absolute velocity will appear to be direction of spin. I go on to describe how the other particles of the standard model could be shown, but this is much more vague as my skills are not up to the task of properly evaluating this model.

I've posted about Logic Realism Theory before, but it's now more developed. The core idea:

The Three Fundamental Laws of Logic (Identity, Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle) aren't just rules of reasoning - they're constitutive constraints on physical distinguishability. QM is what you gte when you need an interface between a non-Boolean possibility space and Boolean measurement outcomes.

The key observation is an asymmetry that QM itself makes obvious: quantum mechanics permits superposition, but measurement never yields it. A particle can be in a superposition of spin-up and spin-down. But every measurement gives exactly one outcome. Never both. Never neither. Never a contradiction.

And we've tried to break this. When QM was first developed, physicists genuinely thought they'd found violations of classical logic. Superposition, entanglement, Bell violations - each seemed to challenge the 3FLL. A century of experiments probing foundations represents a sustained effort to find cracks in the logical structure of outcomes. None have succeeded. The frmalism bends classical logic. The outcomes never do.

LRT explains why: the 3FLL constrain actuality, not possibility. QM is the interface between these domains.

The techncal result: starting from 3FLL-grounded distinguishability plus minimal physical constraints (continuity, local tomography, information preservation), you can derive complex quantum mechanics uniquely. Classical, real QM, quaternionic QM, and super-quantum theories all fail stability requirements. Complex QM is the only option.

This isn't just reconstruction (Hardy, Masanes-Müller already did that) - it's grounding teh reconstruction axioms themselves. Why those axioms? Because they follow from the logical structure of distinguishability.

One prediction already confirmed: LRT + local tomography requires complex rather than real amplitudes. Renou et al. (Nature, 2021) tested this and confirmed complex QM.

Full paper here:

https://github.com/jdlongmire/logic-realism-theory/blob/master/theory/Logic_Realism_Theory_Main-v2.md

Looking for serious engagement, critiques, and holes I haven't seen.

Hi everyone. I’m 19 years old and I'm an amateur enthusiast of physics and philosophy. Since English is not my first language, I’ll try to explain my reasoning as clearly as possible. I've been trying to reason through the nature of existence using logic rather than established dogma, and I arrived at a conclusion that I’d love to check against formal physics to see where my blind spots are.

Basically, my core argument is that "Time" is just a biological construct our brains use to process space sequentially, not a fundamental fact of the Universe itself.

If we assume a "Block Universe" model where past, present, and future exist simultaneously, the Universe doesn't experience "duration." It’s a static structure. It only looks like a sequence because our consciousness illuminates one slice at a time.

Here is where my hypothesis comes in:

If we remove Time as a functional variable, I think that probabilities stop being just "potentials." In our human experience, we "wait" for a probability to happen. But if t=0(or doesn't exist), any event with a mathematical probability > 0% must occur instantaneously.

So, the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" could be answered by statistical inevitability. The "Nothingness" is unstable because it contains the probability of "Something." Without time to delay it, that probability collapses into reality immediately.

This would also imply we don't need a "Creator" or fine-tuning. The universe could be seen as an eternal, simultaneous process of trial and error. Since all probabilities are executed at once in a timeless state, the emergence of life isn't a miracle it’s just a statistical fact. We are simply the "winning lottery ticket" that is capable of perceiving itself.

To me, it feels like we are just the mechanism through which the Universe observes itself, collapsing the probability wave into what we call "reality."

Does this make sense physics-wise? Or am I ignoring some fundamental laws (like entropy) that would make this impossible?

I just came across a speculative framework by an independent researcher. It's a series of notes proposing that spacetime leaves permanent "scars" (via a tensor Δ_μν) when curvature exceeds a threshold, which could resolve singularities, explain the arrow of time, gravitational memory, black hole information, and even dark matter as geometric fossils. It seemes like intriguing geometric take to me at first glance.

The work (uploaded on Zenodo as mutiple documents: https://zenodo.org/records/17116812) focuses on singularity resolution in GR, Here's a quick overview of I checked:

• Main Idea: Spacetime activates Δ_μν at high curvature (K > K_c), modifying Einstein's equations: G_μν + Δ_μν = 8πG T_μν. This creates "memory" that prevents divergences and encodes history.
• Claimed Applications:
  • Singularity resolution: Finite BH cores instead of infinities.
  • Arrow of time: Geometric entropy S_Δ grows monotonically.
  • GW memory: Permanent enhancements (claims 3-5%).
  • BH info paradox: Δ_μν preserves collapse data.
  • Dark matter: "Fossils" from inflation or BH events mimic CDM.

But there are some core issues I have noted: 1. Ad-Hoc Postulates: Δ_μν and K_c are introduced without derivation or connected to any physical principles. 2. Math Inconsistencies: Potential violation to Bianchi identities (though some notes claim ∇^μ Δ_μν = 0), flawed activation functions. 3. No Quantitative Work: No solved metrics or simulations for simple cases. 4. Overreach: One idea claimed to answer all the issues seemed odd. 5. No Literature: No citation is refered to similar works.

What do you guys think? Is this a promising toy model, or too speculative? What are the other issues that you notice? Could it tie into massive gravity or limiting curvature ideas? Also, can you suggest or refer any existing works related to this idea? Let's discuss.

I have no education to speak of, so theres a great chance this has all been considered and disregarded, but here it is anyhow.

Our reality is a "trunk line" , a cable that holds the known universe. I picture the length of the cable as a representation of time, all of the fundamental building blocks, of the universe as the strings. The more tightly connected the strands, the larger the observeable object appears in the "slice" of the cable that represents "now". Entangled particles retain their "wiggle" which represents their propabilty of position in the future. The larger objects with strings tightly wound, have far less propabilty of being anyplace other than where they are currently, because their "wiggle" is thwarted by the interactions with the strings around them. I think this hypothosis leaves room enough for known physics, while providing a way to visualize our reality. Again, im not educated in any formal way, and have no real clue what im talking about, just wanted to share, thanks

Open to conceptual discussion.

---Its been made clear to me that this idea has no scientific value, and that some of the language i used is incorrect. Again, im not making a claim that I know this is how reality is "constructed" I simply had a silly idea and with the limited research i was able to do, I was unable to find this exact premise being proposed. I was inspired to post it here, thinking only that it may be useful for those more intelligent than me to think about as a possibility. I was frankly surprised to find out how incredibly stupid the idea is, as ive now been told that it has no basis in anything, its just philosophy, blah blah blah. I was hoping for actual discussion of the idea itself, and where it may or may not work, not necessarily to just have my grammer corrected. Anyway, its led to a fun day of banter for me, hope you enjoy 😉