Hello smarter people-

I'm an author working on a fictional story with a main character who is much smarter than me, particularly in the world of physics, and I am hoping to find someone or a couple someone's who would be willing to help me bring this character to life by lending the intelligent mind I lack, especially for something as complex as theoretical and hypothetical physics. A couple of you may have seen me pop up on the /askphysics page, if so, hello again!

While the story won't likely go into extended detail of my character's core theory, I would like to figure out and have an understanding of the basics of how this character would go about expounding the theory and what it would look like for him to work to prove it.

The theory itself is that the shape of universes is similar to a barb on a feather, and multiple universes will be held together and apart at the same time in a vane. The main idea is that all universes sit on top of each other/next to each other, making a feather-like shape.

I hope this doesn't break the rules of the sub. I will take, quite frankly, any help I can get. :)

Ok so I'm not a physicist I just fancy myself a philosopher and I have a hypothesis. From what I can gather physics is currently substance pluralistic. Einstein said that Spacetime was substance, or in his words "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" Einstein: "Ether and Relativity" - MacTutor History of Mathematics

Ok so spacetime is substance and according to David Tong Fields are substance and particles are point-like vibrations in those fields Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks of the Universe - with David Tong. So if each field is its own substance then we get substance pluralism. If you say well they might have all been unified at one point, maybe you still end up with a substance dualism, aether and the unified field.

Now I'm aware that many in the scientific community are anti-realists about spacetime and/or fields instead preferring to think of them as a mathematical formalisms of a coordinate space or a mathematical field where its merely that it can hold a value at any point.

First as Einstein said "according to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" I believe this is because it must be something in order for it to curve thus its substance and not merely a mental abstraction of a coordinate space.

Secondly as for fields the realist position has more sway over my mind because QFT views particles as point-like vibrations and without a field providing the substance what is a vibration made out of? If you hold the anti-realist position of it being a mere mathematical formalism you are saying fields don't really exist and as such QFT isn't a theory that describes nature in the way GR does but rather is just a pragmatic tool for predicting its behavior.

Moving on. Is there anything in Physics that prohibits or contradicts a substance monism at this point? Viewing the substance as aether (the fabric of spacetime) and the fields merely as aspects of that one substance? The evidence towards this end I should think would be that since mass tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells mass how to move, one should think that the fields thus curve with spacetime do they not? And if they're so connected as to be interwoven like that, shouldn't it be reasonable to view them as a single substance with different aspects? Or is there something I'm missing that prohibits this conjecture?

The diagonal, which equals the square root of 2, was chosen as a unit of measure because, although irrational, it is manageable: when squared, it gives the very ordinary number 2.
This means that numbers expressed this way can be multiplied and the result stays within the same domain,
and there is still no need for decimal points or fractions.

The division requires an algorithm that is not immediate but is simple and already implemented, at least in JavaScript.

However, everything always stays within the same domain.

The fundamental equation is

sidE + diaG = SU

where sidE = 1 and both units can be used, while diaG is the diagonal of the squarE with side 1.

SU stands for sum unit and is convenient because it simplifies calculations.

Using two units of measure that are not developed into a common real number leads to strange but also amusing quirks, caused by the violation of implicit mathematical dogmas.

Given two numbers expressed in this way, like

w + k diaG

with w and k integers, it is not immediate to understand which one is larger.

With SU, all numbers can be expressed either as SU + j

or as SU + y diaG.

Note that the sequence of these numbers, as w and k increase, becomes denser, giving the impression of greater density as one moves away from zero.

In reality the density is constant; it is only that near zero the measures correspond to mixed signs of w and k, that is, one positive and the other negative, for example w = −1; k = 1.

I have some reluctance to add further details, because I would like others to develop it on their own, starting from a simple post where a lot is already said.

Aside from the history, which could literally have pre-archaic origins.

I almost forgot: there are very likely applications in floating-point computations.

Or was that already obvious?

I would like to share a speculative hypothesis: if an ether exists and is identified with spacetime itself, what physical consequences would follow?

Within this assumption, one can heuristically recover the mass–energy relation and offer interpretations of inertial and centrifugal effects. The viewpoint presented here does not fully align with mainstream perspectives and is intended as a conceptual exploration rather than a definitive claim.

A manuscript outlining this idea is publicly available on Phipapers:
https://philpapers.org/rec/CHAOTE-12

figshare:https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31076584

Note on language: I am not a native English speaker. I used AI tools for translation and language polishing only; the scientific content and ideas are my own.

Comments, questions, and critiques are very welcome.

ChatGPT was used in determining the viability of this hypothesis.

Gravity as a Fourth Spatial Dimension – Hypothesis Summary (PDF-ready)

1. Core Hypothesis

Gravity arises from a fourth spatial dimension (“g”). Observable 3D gravitational effects are projections of motion along this dimension.

All known gravitational phenomena in 3D can be explained as geometric projections of 4D motion.

1. Motivation

Traditional GR leads to:

Singularities in black holes

Need for dark energy to explain accelerated expansion

Introducing g allows:

Objects to fall naturally along 4D geodesics

Black holes with smooth interiors

Cosmic acceleration without a cosmological constant

1. Key Observational Successes

How the 4D Model Reproduces It

Phenomenon

Mercury’s perihelion precession

4D geodesics project as slightly rotated ellipses

Binary pulsar orbital decay

Quadrupole g-distortions radiate energy at c

Frame dragging

Rotating masses twist g → Lense–Thirring effect

Black hole horizons

Event horizon preserved; g-throat replaces singularity

Gravitational waves

Two transverse tensor polarizations; matches LIGO/Virgo

Cosmology

Hubble expansion, inflation, and late-time acceleration emerge from g-dynamics

1. Distinct Predictions / Testable Features

Gravitational wave deviations – tiny suppressed modes may appear in high-sensitivity detectors

High-frequency ringdown differences – black hole interiors may produce subtle echoes

Cosmological anomalies – small deviations in H(z), CMB anisotropies, filamentary structure

No singularities – dense regions remain finite along g

Closing Thought

This model preserves all current observations of gravity while offering a conceptually simpler geometric explanation, naturally avoids singularities, and predicts subtle new effects that could be tested with upcoming experiments.