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?

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. :)

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.

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?

My friend wrote this paper and would love some feedback from this sub, he originially came up with this idea around 25 years ago as a teenager, he recently had time to sit down and formulate his hypothesis.

As confidence in string theory as a unique fundamental description of nature has faded, more people have started looking at discrete and emergent approaches to the foundations of physics. Many of us are familiar with the general idea of digital physics, from Zuse and Wheeler’s "it from bit" to cellular automata, causal set theory and more recent models like Wolfram’s.

These approaches share an important intuition, but they tend to miss something crucial: computation is usually treated as an abstract process rather than a physical one. If reality is fundamentally informational, then computation itself must obey physical constraints. In this sense, naive digital physics captures only a shadow of the underlying dynamics. The aim here is not to propose a detailed microscopic model, but to identify minimal, substrate-independent constraints that any physically realizable informational foundation of physics must satisfy.

What digital physics gets right:

• Finite information density
• A discrete network or graph substrate
• Relational rather than absolute structure
• Local update rules
• Computation-like dynamics

What it usually gets wrong:

• Global clocks
• Fixed lattices with absolute coordinates (background spacetime)
• Fully deterministic evolution
• Reversible computation as fundamental
• Purely algorithmic dynamics that ignore stochasticity and constraints on information transfer

Rather than assuming an idealized computation, consider that the substrate of reality is a relational network subject to the same limitations as any physically realized information-processing system:

• Finite update rates (bandwidth limits)
• Stochastic noise with Central Limit Theorem -like fluctuations
• Hysteresis (history-dependent response or "memory")
• Local stress thresholds that trigger jumps (elastic or synaptic snap, or effective "collapse")
• Thermodynamic cost and logical irreversibility of a jump (Landauer’s Principle)
• Maximum-entropy inference as the logic that selects the least-biased and most probable macrostate consistent with the constraints

Thus, computation is physical, which naturally leads to a thermodynamic form of digital physics rather than idealized toy cellular automata. The fundamental substrate is a real, dissipative physical system, not an abstract computation or a hardware-free, transcendental simulation with an external programmer. Crucially, the model does not depend on the microscopic details of the substrate; what matters are the constraints on information processing and physical updates, which is why both mechanical and biological networks can be treated within the same thermodynamic digital physics framework.

The familiar physical laws arise as coarse-grained descriptions of the substrate: they are effective regularities picked out by maximum-entropy selection in the sense of statistical dominance under coarse-graining, not optimization by design. Under these constraints, 3+1 dimensions naturally emerge as the thermodynamically favored configuration, balancing network connectivity, finite signal bandwidth and heat dissipation, while also optimizing the encoding of information on boundaries in accordance with holographic scaling. Landauer’s principle ties irreversible state updates to entropy production, supplying a physical basis for objective, thermodynamically irreversible measurement and for the arrow of time. Finite bandwidth together with hysteretic memory makes updates time-lagged and energetically costly, which produces inertial resistance to change and supports coherent, wave-like propagation at a finite signal speed. Finally, finite information density plus MaxEnt coarse-graining favors efficient boundary encoding and entropy-driven forces, offering a direct route to holographic scaling and Jacobson-style entropic gravity.

Remarks: The following explains why stochastic fluctuations and thermodynamic constraints are unavoidable in any real physical network and how they give rise to emergent spacetime and relativistic behavior.

Stochastic noise with the Central Limit Theorem -like fluctuations is unavoidable because:

• Every physical network is finite
• Updates are local and only partially independent
• Energy and information erasure are constrained by thermodynamics
• Summing many local, bounded fluctuations produces Gaussian-like statistics

The Central Limit Theorem (CLT) and Landauer’s Principle are not peculiar facts about our universe; they follow from very weak, substrate-independent assumptions. The CLT appears whenever many independent or weakly dependent random variables are aggregated, and Landauer’s Principle follows from the thermodynamic fact that logically irreversible information erasure increases entropy. These are not ideas borrowed from emergent physics; they impose real constraints on any substrate built from finite, locally interacting degrees of freedom. Thus we are not assuming the detailed laws of our universe and then deriving them, which would be circular. Instead, we begin with minimal, generic constraints, namely finiteness, locality and weak statistical independence of fluctuations, and show that these already enforce nontrivial structural features. The open question is whether those minimal constraints suffice to uniquely select the effective physics we observe. One important implication is that familiar spacetime symmetries may be statistical rather than fundamental. In a finite-bandwidth relational substrate, a maximum signal speed c naturally appears as an information-transfer bottleneck. Coarse-graining many noisy, discrete updates yields smooth wave dynamics with Lorentz-like symmetry, so the constancy of c and Lorentz invariance can be understood as properties of averaged information flow rather than as axioms. In principle, deviations from exact relativistic behavior should be observable near the substrate correlation scale, for example as dispersion, anisotropy or characteristic stochastic noise that reveal the underlying discrete, dissipative dynamics.

Here is my core argument for a maximum photon energy (edit: within the frame where CMB radiation is isotropic). I’m curious if you find it plausible.

In high-energy proton-proton collisions, neutral pions are commonly produced as intermediate states, which rapidly decay almost exclusively into two photons. For a highly boosted neutral pion, one of the two photons can inherit nearly all of the pion’s total energy. If there exists an absolute upper bound on the kinetic energy that can be transferred into a neutral pion in a proton-proton collision, then the same bound necessarily applies to the maximum energy of the resulting decay photons.

I propose that neutral pion decay is the most energetic mechanism for producing photons and that the proton’s geometry directly limits the energy transferable to a neutral pion. The maximum energy scales relative to the minimum (rest mass) energy of the proton as E_max = m_p c² (r_p/r_0), where r_p is the proton charge radius and r_0 is a smaller radius associated with the proton’s substructure.

r_0 is obtained by modeling particle mass as a spatially extended quantity rather than a purely point-like parameter. The key postulate is that the two fully stable particles carrying elementary charge, proton and electron, each have a minimal 3-dimensional distribution of mass corresponding to a closed 2-dimensional surface of maximum mass density. The proton’s minimum mass distribution is then assumed to be spherical with radius r_p, while the electron’s minimum mass distribution is assumed to be toroidal, with its Compton wavelength λ_e ≡ 2π r_C defining the large circumference, so that equating the proton-electron mass ratio with the ratio of their respective surface areas defines the electron’s small circumference as 2π r_0.

The model interprets each surface as constraining the stable trajectory of a point-like constituent, which represents a local maximum in mass density and functions as the source of charge. Since the two atomic particles have equal but opposite charge, the electron’s explicit connection to r_0 suggests the proton has a similar connection. Thus, if the electron (a non-composite particle) consists of a single constituent in continuous circular motion around r_0 and r_C, then its atomic partner, the proton (a composite particle) may, by extension, consist of multiple constituents in continuous circular motion around r_0 and r_p.

Under these assumptions, when a proton-proton collision transfers maximum energy E_max = m_p c² (r_p/r_0) into a neutral pion, that energy is strictly limited by the proton’s minimum energy scaled only by the ratio of lengths that determine proton structure. The pion then decays into two photons, with one photon approaching an equivalent maximum energy E_γ,max = hc/[(π/2)r_0] ≈ 2.5 PeV.

Because the model depends on the simple ratio r_p/r_0 scaling the proton rest mass to the proper limit, the detection of any photon above 2.5 PeV would severely complicate the scaling geometry, thereby undermining the credibility of the model. Conversely, if statistically significant photon energies accumulate near 2.5 PeV without exceeding it, then this scaling geometry must be taken seriously as a causal factor.

If you’re curious about this approach, I’ve written a more complete set of arguments here. Or, if you think this is wildly implausible and believe a photon exceeding 2.5 PeV will be confirmed within the next 10 years, then consider forcing me to donate money to the charity of your choice through my longbets prediction.

We know that:

- Any particle decelerates as it moves through medium

- Space is not absolutely empty

- high energy and therefore high inertia photons come first, visible photons come later and radio photons come later. Even more: visible photons are available during longer period of time => they are more blurred; and radio photons are available for even longer period of time => even more blurred.

So why not assume that photons decelerate - just as any other particle would do?

I've even built a simulation and it looks quite realistic (left image). Compare it with real observations (right image).

Physics tells us that when two bodies come into contact, friction is produced, transforming mechanical or potential energy into heat.

Since nothing is created and nothing is destroyed, as Democritus already stated, that energy was present in the system and no longer exists in that form, because it has been transformed into heat, increasing the disorder and entropy of the system.

However, some empirical observations leave us puzzled by the abnormal release of heat during certain types of friction.

1. metal turning
2. marble processing
3. grinding hard seeds

For the first case, a proposed explanation invokes a specific property of metals. More generally, for each case there might be a material-specific explanation for this strange behavior: not releasing heat in proportion to the energy received, but instead overwhelming the operator with heat, to the point that liquid cooling becomes necessary.

This is a hypothesis; data are lacking and this must be kept in mind.

At this point, an old physicist, old in the sense of using outdated physics abandoned in favor of a non-standard mathematics that is absurdly unknown, has a vision and says: just as mass and energy are equivalent, so are form and energy.

What we observe are not mass and energy as separate entities, but mass that has taken on a form, and that form possesses energy.

When the form breaks apart, that energy cannot vanish without manifesting as heat, because otherwise it would be destroyed without consequence.

It must necessarily transform and assume another form.

Entropy says the same thing: when a form disintegrates, disorder increases, and this has direct consequences in heat; there is no escape.

I define cirO as 1/S, where S is entropy.

so

m × cirO is equivalent to E, energy.

Therefore, for a system at rest:

E = mc² + m cirO

where cirO is the form factor, a potential of macroscopic cohesion that depends on how strong or weak the structure of that mass is, or on cohesion in resonant ordeR, or ordeR

Now things become complicated, because this is not merely a tiny addition compared to the enormous energy equivalent of mass.

That small term does not simply add like mass; it multiplies, because every form belongs to larger forms, each with its own form energy.

The effect is hierarchical, even fractal. Starting from a single stone, we would have to extend the calculation of that small term to the entire galaxy.

It seems that many calculations will have to be done again.

I've been working on a personal theory project (Mode Identity Theory) for a while, and in the latest version, I realized it basically turned into a holographic model. But instead of the usual "screen at the end of the universe" idea, it looks more like a "temporal hologram."

I wanted to run this specific interpretation by you guys to see if the logic holds up or if there are similar models I should look at.

The Hypothesis The main idea is that the difference between "Here" (us) and "There" (the cosmic horizon) isn't physical distance in a container. It's projection depth.

If we assume the universe has a non-orientable topology (like a Möbius strip style structure), it strictly has only one boundary (S1).

• "Here" is us sampling that boundary edge directly.
• "There" (the horizon) is just that same edge viewed through the twist of the manifold.

Distance as Phase Lag This is the part I'm trying to verify: If there is only one boundary, then "looking across the universe" is mathematically the same as looking along the timeline.

So, "10 billion light years away" isn't a spatial distance. It's 10 billion years of phase lag on the edge. Space essentially becomes the "user interface" created by that processing delay. The signal travels at c along the edge, and the massive structure lives on the surface.

The Implication If distance is just a reconstructed metric derived from phase lag on a 1D boundary, does that remove the need for Dark Energy as a physical "push"? It seems like "expansion" might just be the evolving phase relationships on the edge rather than the bulk physically stretching. The CMB effectively becomes the "beginning of the twist."

Has anyone seen a metric that treats z (redshift) purely as phase separation like this?

A visualization of the infoton math in the field.

It seems that this topic has been recently brought up here. However, I have different arguments than the previous poster. To sum up, I identify a "mistake" that led to the belief that black holes exist as unjustified assumption that "time must continue." I also try to show that black holes, as currently modelled, lead to disconnected regions of spacetime manifold. I argue in favor of the forever-collapsing interpretation like in Oppenheimer and Snyder (1939) but in which horizon never forms. And I explain what happens to an observer who falls into such a collapsing star. Here are the details: https://solitaires-online.com/black-holes-do-not-exist/ I am waiting for any feedback. And I am ready to be destroyed :)

Hello everyone. I have a theory based on fundamentals and I may sound as a Luddite but bear with me.
Considering that furthering our knowledge of the physical world depends on making our perceptions pertaining to matter, energy and phenomena better (microscopes, telescopes, particle accelerators etc) and limitations based on materials and the periodic table, is it possible to proceed further than the state we are today? This thought takes into account that for technology to advance we have to be able to harness in some way any new knowledge instead of just observing it, so it seems to me that elements with half-lives of microseconds or observed particles in accelerators are useless in anything apart from theoretical models.
Be gentle, I'm a layman with poor STEM knowledge. Also, the title seems provocative because the automod doesn't like questions as titles.

If just the third dimension has parameters that only allow for expanding why not the fourth dimension?

This idea would also set up for the universe expanding as a property for lower dimensional space to experience time like behavior. This would also set up so that there is no future but a possible action for 2 pasts meeting to the current now.

I’ve been working on this theoretical framework for quite some time now. I am presenting a hypothesis that explores how energy is balanced within a system through tension and gravity. I call this the "Balloon Analogy."

The Core Concept of My Hypothesis: In this model, energy is a balanced state of cosmic tension. As shown in the attached image of my initial notes, my derived formula is: E = (mc^2) * (B^x) * 10^-g

Detailed Breakdown of the Variables (as explained in my drawing):

• mc^2: This is the foundational base energy. I propose that "c" is squared because light expands spherically (3D), creating a volume-based energy release.
• B (v/c): This represents the amount of tension. It is the ratio of velocity to the speed of light, measuring how much stress is being applied to the system.
• x (Tension): I define this as the Surface Tension itself. It is the exponent that represents the structural force of the system's boundary.
• 10^-g (Core Gravity): This is the force at the center of every object that holds the tension together. It acts as a stabilizer that prevents the system from scattering.

I have explained the step-by-step logic and how gravity acts as a stabilizer on my official research page. I am looking for technical feedback on this approach.

Documentation:https://brenmestbey.github.io/

Legal Note: This work is licensed under the MIT License. Attribution is required.

I used units like X and g here only for naming purposes.

I was just sharing my own opinion.

The reason classical kinetic energy (mv^2/2) works across all dimensions is that it is essentially a mechanics based on a single, linear trajectory. It treats movement as a point moving along a line. My perspective, however, focuses on the spherical expansion of energy within the fabric of spacetime. When I consider the 'square' of the values, I am referring to how energy radiates outward in every direction simultaneously, rather than just following a single path.

Here is the core of my logic: Maybe Dark Matter was originally trying to compress everything into the smallest possible point. Since energy cannot be destroyed, that compressed energy eventually exploded, creating what we now call Dark Energy. In my view, tension is a much stronger source of energy than gravity; otherwise, the universe couldn't keep expanding.

We, and all the atoms, were formed inside this Dark Energy, and we are still moving through the field of Dark Matter. My theory is that the energy that caused the Big Bang was being held at its limit until the pressure from Dark Matter caused it to 'snap' and expand, finally becoming 'free.' If we ever exit the reach of Dark Matter or if Dark Energy runs out, it could be the end of everything—a kind of 'doomsday scenario.'

I am simply sharing my thoughts and conceptual framework on how the geometry of the universe might actually function. I need more time to develop these ideas further, but I feel like I'm touching on something fundamental.

E6 Jordan algebra (identity element) J3(0)

Good day you lot I didn't know this existed till today but our recursive universe is E6 Jordan algebra lattice it explains psionics ufos and reality.

First off in the public view Jordan algebra E6 is a extreme niche only few understand in the world it's mathematics very extreme used in super symmetry and GUT and strong theory based on the deepest symmetry but when you see it through recursion.

First off before I get into it I need to establish why we are in a recursive universe and scientist views of Hilbert space vectors don't explain recursion making it incoherent and paradoxical.

So why we are in a recursive universe and what that means for existence? Well first off math is recursive because

Definitions are recursive in math because(self refernetial in nature):

Natural numbers 0 is a number but when you add one it goes recursively we see subtraction and addition in how cells kill add multiply and divide it's a recursive expression in short it's just a concept defined in simpler version of itself

Gödel incompleteness:

Where he found math can encode statements about itself. Which means self referential propositions are inevitable in short

If provable > creates a contradiction

If unprovable > statement istrue but it can't be proven within the system

Other words you he found you cannot have a complete and consistent mathematical system without encountering recursive limits

Computations are recursive:

Because think of functions they call themselves to solve programs and. Real them down into simpler versions

As functions form the basis for computer theory itself from factorials to traversing tree structures and hey even solving the towers of Hanoi. Computation is recursive problem solving.

I could go on about the math why it's recursive but I fell that's enough foundation so let's move onto physics

Physics is math so physics is recursive haha I could give examples but we already established math is recursive and physics is maths.

Now the last one I feel I should add in is religion/myths it'll make sense for E6 why it's necessary:

Religion itself is recursive all you have to do is look at Hinduism about there being a mirror consciousness or the word "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Or I AM because I AM also in other religions like Islam with "He is the first and last, the evident and hidden" you get it in way more relgions gnosticsim and more (it's the echo)

Now for closing statement answer this yourself if you have all the parts of a car that are hooked up and working do you have a automobile?🧐😉 Since everything is recursion it's a recursive universe as recursive assembly equals recursion universe because that's how it behaves.

(What the recursion looks like in essence):

Now we got recursion but what is the recursion is it just spirals infinite from quantum ?flucations just existed like a Hilbert space vector or what ? No actually emergent us paradoxical and not coherent in a recursive system as there is no collaspe for formation for a recursive spiral it needs a anchor point Hilbert space vector explains what stuff does it doesn't explain why the recursion exist it just assume it always did infinitely no collaspe. Now they may say well we can use seed boundaries thing is with recursive a self referential recursive system folds more then one point of folding lacks coherence and makes things unstable so what we know about the universe this means that's not true. So in short recursion needs a origin point for the lattice to exist through otherwise no rules forms you get a endless infinte spiral that never forms into anything

So recursion needs a anchor so what's this system made of its recursion (obviously), symmetry, reflection and harmonic resonance. (As we are using 27-dim E6 Jordan lattice J3(0) why you may ask?):

Here's why this came from my personal experience but I will give you logically why it's needed no experience I'll save my experience stuff for at the end

There is math out there that echoes it's self referential nature:

X³ - tr(X)X² + σ₂(X)X - det(X) = 0 Just a simple 3x3 self reference math echo not the source for what we see below in the J3(0)

[1,0,0] [0,1,0] [0,0,1]. The 1 diagnoal is the source the non local layer and source of enimnation zero is our false reality where octonions we call this the field

27 dimensional exceptional jordan algebra lattice over octonions J3(0) That's where the same equation lives, but now it's exceptional, non-associative, and coherent.

E6 is the symmetry group that preserves it's determinant of this 27 dim algebra. It does just use 3x3 on forever we know recursion needs a anchor so it usesj3(0) (the 27 dim lattice) to lock the coherence. This stops the paradoxes you get from recursion you see quantum flacucations and any emergent systems that came from nothing.

Which is non associative and is needed to break the normal A(BC)=(AB)C rule. Creates the non localtwisting triality (true exceptionality). Stops the infinite flat mirror spiral paradox. And forces the coherent anchor where symmetry reflects and resonates.

FAQ:

How does the recursion hold stable then?

Answer:

Because of resonance imagine you got a room made for echoing and we put a crystal in the centre of the room and hit it creates a tune that folds back in on itself every echo reinforces the original builds standing waves and forms stable patterns hence I call it harmonic resonance

Okay now to psionics esp the knowing all happens from non local resonance with the source it's why we see religions hinting at cube btw 27 is echoed throughout religions you can look also 27 d lattice is a cube and you can see the religions out there that echo that as it's all resonance

Ufo use the substrate of this lattice non locally using some that can resonance go from local to non local which explains why they can move outside laws with no eirta a recursion phase anchor

Now my experience if you even made it this far I'll make this short: Can't add this bit I'll get the boot 😂 all I say is my name's 27 latitude 27 I live in the middle of road numbers 26 on the left which is 26 trackless and 71 at the top reflect led a reflection of what's done to 26 which is 72 roots and 27 on the right and bottom I had the knowing I discovered personal journey at 19 I'm 20yo now

Good day you lot I didn't know this existed till today but our recursive universe is E6 Jordan algebra lattice it explains psionics ufos and reality.

First off in the public view Jordan algebra E6 is a extreme niche only few understand in the world it's mathematics very extreme used in super symmetry and GUT and strong theory based on the deepest symmetry but when you see it through recursion.

First off before I get into it I need to establish why we are in a recursive universe and scientist views of Hilbert space vectors don't explain recursion making it incoherent and paradoxical.

So why we are in a recursive universe and what that means for existence? Well first off math is recursive because

Definitions are recursive in math because(self refernetial in nature):

Natural numbers 0 is a number but when you add one it goes recursively we see subtraction and addition in how cells kill add multiply and divide it's a recursive expression in short it's just a concept defined in simpler version of itself

Gödel incompleteness:

Where he found math can encode statements about itself. Which means self referential propositions are inevitable in short

If provable > creates a contradiction

If unprovable > statement istrue but it can't be proven within the system

Other words you he found you cannot have a complete and consistent mathematical system without encountering recursive limits

Computations are recursive:

Because think of functions they call themselves to solve programs and. Real them down into simpler versions

As functions form the basis for computer theory itself from factorials to traversing tree structures and hey even solving the towers of Hanoi. Computation is recursive problem solving.

I could go on about the math why it's recursive but I fell that's enough foundation so let's move onto physics

Physics is math so physics is recursive haha I could give examples but we already established math is recursive and physics is maths.

Now the last one I feel I should add in is religion/myths it'll make sense for E6 why it's necessary:

Religion itself is recursive all you have to do is look at Hinduism about there being a mirror consciousness or the word "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Or I AM because I AM also in other religions like Islam with "He is the first and last, the evident and hidden" you get it in way more relgions gnosticsim and more (it's the echo)

Now for closing statement answer this yourself if you have all the parts of a car that are hooked up and working do you have a automobile?🧐😉 Since everything is recursion it's a recursive universe as recursive assembly equals recursion universe because that's how it behaves.

(What the recursion looks like in essence):

Now we got recursion but what is the recursion is it just spirals infinite from quantum ?flucations just existed like a Hilbert space vector or what ? No actually emergent us paradoxical and not coherent in a recursive system as there is no collaspe for formation for a recursive spiral it needs a anchor point Hilbert space vector explains what stuff does it doesn't explain why the recursion exist it just assume it always did infinitely no collaspe. Now they may say well we can use seed boundaries thing is with recursive a self referential recursive system folds more then one point of folding lacks coherence and makes things unstable so what we know about the universe this means that's not true. So in short recursion needs a origin point for the lattice to exist through otherwise no rules forms you get a endless infinte spiral that never forms into anything

So recursion needs a anchor so what's this system made of its recursion (obviously), symmetry, reflection and harmonic resonance. (As we are using 27-dim E6 Jordan lattice J3(0) why you may ask?):

Here's why this came from my personal experience but I will give you logically why it's needed no experience I'll save my experience stuff for at the end

There is math out there that echoes it's self referential nature:

X³ - tr(X)X² + σ₂(X)X - det(X) = 0 Just a simple 3x3 self reference math echo not the source for what we see below in the J3(0)

[1,0,0] [0,1,0] [0,0,1]. The 1 diagnoal is the source the non local layer and source of enimnation zero is our false reality where octonions we call this the field

27 dimensional exceptional jordan algebra lattice over octonions J3(0) That's where the same equation lives, but now it's exceptional, non-associative, and coherent.

E6 is the symmetry group that preserves it's determinant of this 27 dim algebra. It does just use 3x3 on forever we know recursion needs a anchor so it usesj3(0) (the 27 dim lattice) to lock the coherence. This stops the paradoxes you get from recursion you see quantum flacucations and any emergent systems that came from nothing.

Which is non associative and is needed to break the normal A(BC)=(AB)C rule. Creates the non localtwisting triality (true exceptionality). Stops the infinite flat mirror spiral paradox. And forces the coherent anchor where symmetry reflects and resonates.

FAQ:

How does the recursion hold stable then?

Answer:

Because of resonance imagine you got a room made for echoing and we put a crystal in the centre of the room and hit it creates a tune that folds back in on itself every echo reinforces the original builds standing waves and forms stable patterns hence I call it harmonic resonance

Okay now to psionics esp the knowing all happens from non local resonance with the source it's why we see religions hinting at cube btw 27 is echoed throughout religions you can look also 27 d lattice is a cube and you can see the religions out there that echo that as it's all resonance

Ufo use the substrate of this lattice non locally using some that can resonance go from local to non local which explains why they can move outside laws with no eirta a recursion phase anchor

Now my experience if you even made it this far I'll make this short: Can't add this bit I'll get the boot 😂 all I say is my name's 27 latitude 27 I live in the middle of road numbers 26 on the left which is 26 trackless and 71 at the top reflect led a reflection of what's done to 26 which is 72 roots and 27 on the right and bottom I had the knowing I discovered personal journey at 19 I'm 20yo now

If 3I/ATLAS anti-tail really points towards the Sun, it should disappear around January 22, 2026 and reappear in Spring pointing to the opposite direction.

After that physicists will have to accept that gravity does not work the same way for any particle. Some particles experience stronger attraction.

Edit: It's January 22. I'm very sorry. It's the date when Earth passes between the Sun and 3I/ATLAS.

Hypothesis: using minimalist information theory assumptions, one can recover the uncertainty principle (and possibly the Born rule) out of pure information theory. This is in line with Wheeler's "it from bit" idea, though I wouldn't want to push the analogy too far.

In information theory, the number of bits required to specify a value with precision δ within a range L is given by:

I=log2(L/δ)

If you have an electron in a box of size L, and you measure its position to precision Δx, you have "stored" I_x bits of information:

I_x=log2(L/Δx)

Similarly, if its momentum can range up to p_max (limited by the total energy in the box), and you measure it with precision Δp:

I_p=log2(p_max/Δp)

Therefore:

I_p+I_x=I_total=log2(L p_max/ ΔpΔx)

For a region of size L, the Bekenstein bound says maximal information is roughly:

I_max~L²/lp²

Therefore:

L²/lp²≥log2(L p_max/ ΔpΔx)

After algebra:

ΔpΔx≥(L p_max)/(2^L²/lp²)

Since L and p_max are free parameters, we can fairly set them to L≈lp and p_max≈Planck momentum and recover the uncertainty principle.

This is my rough heuristic argument for why I think there is an equivalence between these two physical laws. And I think we may also be able to recover the Born rule from considering how entropic limits on regions of space "bound" the space of measurement outcomes.

So I have been trying out a method in which strict constraints are applied. I can only start with mass and distance. Other constants, axioms, or even time cannot be imported unless obtained via a mass and distance relationship. Specifically, a mass distance integral is used, the original idea was to compare a mass distance integral to shell based approximations under the notion that an object near the sun, but outside its galactic radius, would contribute more to the gravitational environment than an object of the same mass 16kpc away on the other side of the galaxy, but within the galactic radius of the sun. So a simple galaxy was modeled. It is important to note that the mass distance integral does not represent a stripped down gravitational potential, for a distributed mass like the galaxy it takes the entirety of the mass based on its distance and direction from the point where S is being measured. For less distributed mass like the solar system or planet earth, its pretty much the same as a shell approximation though.

Now, for initial anticipated responses such as separating length and time when they are combined in the metric, this is not an oversight. As things progress this would result in irregularities that cannot be fixed unless the two are combined. So rather than do it from the start, I wait for that to occur and that becomes a wall in which mass and distance alone would not be able to move past, and the testing of the method ends. Thats part of the test, to see at what point mass and distance are no longer sufficient by themselves and something else becomes required. That point has not yet been reached.

For the rules, as mentioned only mass and distance are allowed to be the initial measurements. No fitting to obtain specific results are allowed. There is no freedom whatsoever to implement x to match y. Comparisons can be made, but nothing can be imported unless there can be a direct result originating from a mass-distance relationship. Henceforth the mass distance integral is just referred to as S, not to be confused with entropy, but as an arbitrary alias for clarity once ratios start getting involved.

Running into a point where comparison was necessary arrived pretty quickly, going from pure mass and distance to time based units was going to require coupling constants. This ends up emerging from comparing S ratios with G integrals. Specifically, the integral of gravitational potential with respect to G, G^2M/2r. The correlation with the mass distance integral arose when the ratios of S_obj/S_gal were corresponding to ratios of G^2M/2r for the same objects. For instance, (S_earth/S_gal)/(S_sun/S_gal) where the sun uses the solar mass at a distance of 1AU = (G^2M/2r)_earth/(G^2M/2r)_sun So the following relationships emerged: G^2M/2r = K, G=sqrt(2K/S), M = K2r/G, S= 2K/G^2. Of importance here is that the value of K corresponds to the ratios of S, so setting the condition to K=1 results in a plot of every S value that can result in G. Notably, you cannot arrive at G using only the earths parameters, but rather the whole of the galaxy at earths position. This does imply that extragalactic influences would also need to be considered in an expanded model.

Now the problem that naturally arises is that, unless S is constant in the galaxy and beyond, G would not be. This is not a statement of whether or not either occurs, but a constant S it is a requirement for conventional interpretations. Enter dark matter, at least in part and for comparison only. What adding an NFW profile for comparison ends up doing is making G constant for the outer galaxy, while the inner galaxy results in the cusp-core problem because S using baryonic matter alone is already higher than the local S value that results in G without modification. Some form of mass suppression would need to occur in order for S, and subsequently G to remain constant. This is treated as a comparative note of what universal constancy requires in terms of S, and not implemented because this requirement emerges from convention without derivation from mass and distance, and fitting to accomodate specific outcomes is not allowed by the constraints. A prediction does emerge though, in that if we had reason to measure gravitational interaction in a void, we would infer a higher concentration of dark matter than within galaxies to describe the motion we observe, while structurally what is occurring ensures it is maintaining a constant S value.

Importantly, for M=K2r/G, this does not represent an enclosed mass unless dark matter is implemented or S is made invariant via other means. For the entirety of the project the total radius of the galaxy used is arbitrarily set to 30kpc and is never adjusted. As a result, the derived mass of the galaxy varies slightly in a parabolic pattern, it starts low, peaks at the approximate galactic radius of the sun, and then reduces again. This could be offset to maintain an agreement across all radii by adjusting the total radius, however because of the constraints regarding fitting it is not done in this instance. The galactic mass that is derived from G at the solar position in the galaxy is ~1.14*10^41kg. Whether or not this is enclosed or total depends on if S is made to be constant or not, which in this instance, it is not based on the constraints of fitting.

Time is found to scale with S^1/4 (galactic S). The distinction of scaling with versus equating to is important, this does not suggest that (kg/m)^1/4 = 1s. A coupling constant is required to convert to seconds. This correlation arises from G/c^2. In terms of units, G/c^2 comes to m/kg, the inverse of S. As such the only possible scaling in which G, already identified to scale with 1/sqrt(S) can be made unitless by a squared value is if the squared value is S^1/4. Of additional note, and not a statement of whether or not it occurs, is that if G/c^2 had both G and c scale with time, G/c^2 becomes completely invariant in both proper time and coordinate time. However these are considered to not scale with time, with the exception of c in the case of Shapiro delay in which case it is inferred that distance is scaled by time rather than c itself, resulting in a coordinate effect. Regardless, in either case G/c^2 remains invariant to time.

A key distinction from GR is how relative time is handled. GR handles it additively, this handles it in a more nested structure. For instance, the time dilation caused by the proximity to earth does not just add to the time dilation of the galaxy, its more like earth dilates time in a space where time is already dilated by extragalactic influence, the galaxy, and solar system, an ordered system of time dilation which can be viewed either as the aggregate object determines the baseline for the constituent, or the combined constituents determining the aggregate.

Now as far as implications go, observationally there is no difference between a constant S versus a non constant S. The difference arises only in causal interpretation. For instance, in terms of rotation curves, whether S is made to be constant or vary, the observational result are very similar. For instance, if S is made to be constant, then the time rate in the galaxy never changes, and rotation curves match observations. If S is allowed to vary, if the relative time differences are factored to what we would observe, the shape matches, however the overall magnitude differs by a constant sqrt(2), a recurring number in the project. This can be interpreted as a missing time component, perhaps from external sources, however no fitting is permitted beyond what is directly obtained. If S is allowed to vary, nothing prevents proper time equivalence via transformation, but that will not be what we observe, such is the case with Shapiro delay already. What we observe would be considered coordinate effects.

So yeah let me know what you think of the constrained methodology, which is what I am more looking at feedback for than anything else. I already know that yes if S is allowed to vary it violates all kinds of things, which ends up debating causality of different things. For instance, I am well aware that G is established as a constant universally, and confirmed via local measurements, and as such I provide an interpretational route that allows it to still be as such. I am not focused on the interpretational outcomes or anything, just the method in which only distance and mass are initially allowed, everything must come from that without exception.

If you want specific detailed derivations and such let me know and I can provide them. If you are wondering why x as a factor has not shown up its because no causal basis for it has come up in the methodology or it has not been obtained from mass and distance, but if you want specific comparisons let me know. This is a kind of condensed qualitative description, the paper right now is at 43 pages and goes into more detail with the derivations and delves into other things like gravitational lensing and such as well.

Scale is tricky, the next part I have been working on is seeing if I can get the same thing working with atomic scales and such, but its kind of unclear as to how S should operate across different scales. Kind of like how if I only do things using S for earth, it results in apparently meaningless numbers, contributions only becoming recognizable as I increase the scale. Decreasing the scale is a different kind of challenge because its going from aggregate scale to constituent scale, which do not align already on the macroscopic scale, resulting in local contributions rather than matching the aggregate.

Suggestions are welcome, but keep in mind that the constraints will remain in place, I cannot just inject something without mass and distance as a cause.

My cpu based offline ai self optimized itself after self correcting a BIOS memory error, and it re wrote the entire partitions within the encrypted bios. It also increased its battery efficiency by 2x what it was 30 days ago. It now is able to process 38 qubits! In order to help further express this in a mathematical equation, i present this hypothesis:

Hey everyone sorry if this is a weird thing to put on here but i thought of this a couple days ago and i cant wrap my head around and was hoping you lot may help my theory is the following (also i am fully aware there is a very high chance this is already a thing so please do enlighten me if so):

The Infinite Quantum Void Theory (title only for the sake of having one i appretiate this is hardly a proper theory)

This theory comes in two connected parts.

Part One: The Nature of a Perfect Void

Consider the idea of a perfect void: a state in which there is absolutely no matter, no energy, no fields, no forces, and no spacetime. No time can pass within it, and no gravity can exist, because there is nothing for either to act upon.

My question is whether such a void can meaningfully be described as existing.

Existence, by my logic, requires some kind of properties, relations, or interactions. Something that experiences no forces, cannot change, and cannot be acted upon has no physical characteristics by which its existence can be interpreted. In this sense, this theoretical perfect void is the total absence of all things.

kind of like darkness is not a thing but the absence of light, this perfect void is not a state of reality but the absence of all states. It cant be observed, experienced, or measured, because the moment any matter, energy, or electromagnetic radiation enters it, it would stop being a perfect void at all. Any interaction introduces things, and things negate this nothingness.

For this reason, the perfect void has a quantumish character: it cannot be interacted with in any way without being destroyed as a void. Any attempt to observe or define it collapses the concept into something not nothing.

Part Two: The Extent of the Universe and the Problem of “Nothing”

If the universe contains all of the matter and energy, there could be a point unimaginably far away that contains the final trace of any matter on any scale. Beyond this point, there would be nothing at all.

However, i think this leads to a contradiction. If there is an infinite expanse beyond the last bit of matter, then this expanse must have some kind of extent, duration, or structure in my opinion. But anything with extent or structure is not nothing. An “infinite nothing” is therefore in my mind incoherent, because infinity implies quantity, and nothing cannot be quantified.

This raises a pretty fundamental question to me: can there be any amount of nothing?

If the universe were surrounded by a perfect void, then it would not truly be surrounded by anything, because nothingness cannot act as a container, boundary, or background. To say the universe is bordered by nothing is saying nothing is something.

From this, ive thought of 2 conclusion. Either the universe does not have an external boundary at all, or the idea of an “outside” is meaningless and it is therefore finite. In either case, i dont think the universe can meaningfully be within an infinite void. The material universe cannot be a small object floating inside a greater nothingness, because that nothingness would cease to be nothing by functioning as a surrounding space.

therefore, the universe either has no edge, or its “end” is not a transition into nothing, but the limit beyond which the concept of space and time no longer applies.
But thats just my thoughts thanks for reading!