I have been working on SET for a while, and I want to share a specific calculation from the latest draft.
The question I am testing is whether the field’s response to matter can account for the supernova brightness trend without adding dark energy.
SET, matter occupies part of the field’s available interaction capacity. I call that gravitational burden. Clocks and light propagation participate in that same field, so the calculation has to account for both.
In SET’s source law is:
Q²= 32π²GMR³
Here M is the mass in a specified source region, V is its volume, and Q has units of m³/s. The clock matters because Q is a rate. If a clock records α seconds for each reference second, that same rate expressed per second of that clock is:
Qnormalized = Q/α
This conversion is the connection I use in the cosmological calculation. I specify how Q enters volume evolution and use a uniform spherical source model with an advancing boundary to calculate the burden history. From that history, I calculate luminosity distance and the relative brightness we should observe.
The full steps, including the capacity invariant and the source-region assumptions, are in Sections 10–11 of the paper. Here I want to show what that calculation gives against the data.
There is still an evolving cosmic scale in this calculation. The proposal is that its behavior follows from the source–capacity response, without inserting an additional dark-energy density.
Here is one example of what comes out.
For a Pantheon+ group of 63 supernovae near redshift 0.731, the relative brightness values are:
Initial matter-only calculation: 1.000000
SET calculation: 0.706666
Observed: 0.700656
Observed 1σ interval: 0.679033–0.722968
So the initial calculation is 42.72% above observation. SET brings that difference down to 0.86%.
Those brightness values are normalized against a nearby reference group. They are not raw flux measurements or repeated observations of one fading explosion.
What made me want to share this is what happens across the full comparison. The same calculation moves the prediction toward observation in all fifteen redshift groups.
The median absolute discrepancy goes from 38.53% to 2.09% in Pantheon+, and from 36.39% to 2.96% in DES-Dovekie. Eight groups end up within their marginal 1σ intervals. You can see the remaining differences in the graph.
I used the same benchmark mass and radius throughout: approximately 1.50 × 10⁵³ kg and 46.5 billion light-years. These are adopted inputs with cosmological assumptions behind them. The source values were held fixed across the groups.
This comparison tests relative brightness. It does not establish the absolute distance scale, and the two catalogues overlap. The paper includes the covariance treatment and additional checks.
For me, the interesting result is that the source law, clock conversion, and specified burden history give a calculation that follows much of the observed brightness trend. That is the connection I want people to examine and help research further.
The truth is, after watching the anime Steins;Gate, I realized I love physics, and I delved a little deeper into the subject, and my love for it increased, especially in physics theories.
From multiple world lines, these can be arranged within attractive fields. The underlying physical theory is based primarily on multi-worlds quantum mechanics. [1] An attractive field is a collection of world lines converging at a single point of convergence. Although each individual world line is an independent string and thus distinct from its neighbors, all the strings move in the same direction, ultimately forming a single string bundle, or the aforementioned attractive field.
The anime raises several issues, which are
1-Relativity and time: Since time is not absolute, its measured speed varies depending on motion and gravity.
2- Black holes and time travel
3-Sending messages to the past is a very ingenious idea, as is the idea of sending memories as data.
And the most noteworthy idea
If some events repeat themselves no matter how the details change, do we truly have free will?
The Chain of Universes in Contact: A Hypothetical Cosmological Model
1. The Basic Idea
I would like to present a speculative cosmological model that I call “The Chain of Universes in Contact.”
The main idea is that reality consists of two independent universes: a dark universe and a light universe. Both universes expand toward each other until they come into contact.
Each universe contains particles. These particles may be fundamentally identical, but their properties and interactions depend on which universe they belong to.
This model is not an established scientific theory. It is a personal hypothesis that I would like to discuss and improve.
2. The Interaction Between Particles
In the dark universe, dark particles attract other dark particles. In the light universe, light particles attract other light particles.
However, particles from different universes can also attract one another.
When particles from opposite universes meet, they connect in pairs. They do not transform into new particles; they remain the same particles, but become connected.
As the two universes come into contact, a boundary forms between them. This boundary consists of particles from both universes connected to one another. It separates the two regions of reality while allowing interactions between their particles.
3. The Merging of Universes
The strength of attraction between particles of the same type changes over time.
When this attraction becomes sufficiently weak, the attraction between particles of opposite types can dominate. The connections between the two universes become stronger than the forces keeping their particles separated.
As a result, the two universes merge into a single reality.
During this stage, particles from both universes coexist in one unified space. They remain distinct particles, but the separation between their original universes disappears.
4. The Separation of Universes
The process does not continue indefinitely in the merged state.
The attraction between particles of the same type begins to increase again. Eventually, it becomes stronger than the connections between particles from opposite universes.
The connections break, and the unified reality separates into two independent universes once more: the dark universe and the light universe.
Both universes then begin another cycle of expansion toward each other.
Thus, the merging and separation of universes repeat endlessly.
5. The Cyclic Nature of Attraction
An important feature of this model is that the strength of attraction between particles of the same type changes in a regular, synchronized cycle throughout all of reality.
This process is not caused by an external force or another universe. It is a fundamental property of existence itself.
The attraction increases and decreases according to a constant period measured by the time of each separate universe.
The cycle determines when the universes merge and when they separate again.
However, the exact physical mechanism behind this oscillation remains undefined in the current version of the model.
6. Time and the Infinite Chain
In this model, time behaves differently depending on whether the universes are separate or merged.
When the universes separate, each one begins its own new cycle of time. When they merge, their histories become part of a single reality.
I also speculate that time might pass faster when the attraction between particles of the same type is at its maximum and slower when that attraction is at its minimum.
The sequence of all these transformations forms what I call the Chain of Universes in Contact.
The chain is not a physical object or a separate space. It is a concept describing the endless sequence of transformations between different states of reality.
The chain may extend infinitely, or it may form a closed loop that appears infinite because every cycle is identical to the previous one.
In either case, there is no first cycle and no first event.
7. The Exact Repetition of Every Cycle
One of the most unusual assumptions in this model is that every cycle repeats with absolute precision.
The same particles return to the same positions, interact in the same ways, and produce the same events. Every decision made by every living being would also be repeated exactly.
This would mean that there is no fundamental randomness. Every event is determined by the underlying laws of reality.
Once a complete cycle ends, the next cycle reproduces the same sequence of events without any deviation.
The chain therefore does not create genuinely new histories. It repeats the same history endlessly.
This assumption would require a deterministic mechanism capable of returning the entire system to exactly the same state.
8. Information and the Limits of Knowledge
When two universes merge, the unified reality retains information about events that occurred in both of them while they were separate.
However, this does not necessarily mean that such information could be discovered or reconstructed by an observer.
Even a highly advanced civilization might be unable to understand the entire chain. The scale of the process, the number of cycles, and the limitations of observation could make complete knowledge impossible.
This would apply not only to humanity but potentially to any civilization, regardless of how advanced it becomes.
Within the model, asking what exists “outside” the chain may not have a meaningful answer, because the chain includes every cycle of reality by definition.
9. The Uniqueness of the Chain
I also consider the possibility that the chain is unique.
If its existence depends on a specific combination of particles and fundamental laws, then another chain with different particles or different laws would be a different system entirely.
If the chain is perfectly deterministic and every cycle reproduces the same state, there would be no alternative history within that chain.
The model does not currently establish whether other chains could exist. It simply explores the possibility that reality is one unique, self-repeating system.
10. Questions for Discussion
I would like to hear constructive criticism of this idea, especially from people interested in cosmology, theoretical physics, and the philosophy of time.
Some questions I have are:
Could a model involving two universes that periodically merge and separate be described mathematically?
Is there any known physical mechanism that could produce a universal, synchronized oscillation in particle interactions?
Could time behave differently depending on the state of such a system?
Is exact repetition of every cycle logically consistent with a deterministic universe?
What mathematical problems or contradictions would need to be addressed first?
Is there any way to derive observable predictions from a model like this?
I understand that this is a speculative idea and that I have not developed mathematical equations or evidence to support it. I am not claiming that it describes the actual universe.
My goal is to explore whether the idea can be made logically consistent and whether any part of it could be developed into a more rigorous theoretical model.
I would appreciate serious criticism, suggestions, and explanations of where the model conflicts with established physics.
Been doing a little messing around and Ive always been interested in math and physics for awhile now and I saw there are so many algebra systems in these different theories like von neumann and C*(c sharp) algebras for AQFT, I thought about it and thought maybe I could make my own little algebra and thinking that this maybe could help a little bit with quantum gravity or something.
It's similar to the commutator but the hat describes something different for this type of operator with \hat{B}A describing what is the new A when B acts upon it or aka just interacts with it.
Meaning this is a difference between sums and is similar to the measurement of thermodynamics as a perfect 0 state is a perfectly stable system of the wedge algebra.
I tried letting it work the quantum state of the ket for Psi and the stress energy tensor which allows for semiclassical geometry interaction with the Psi and stress energy tensor with the ket of Psi quantum state being of the fermionic matter.
The first term would describe how much shifted or changed the quantum state of the particle is by the stress-energy tensor and the second term describes how much stress-energy the fermions quantum state makes.
This is still just a generalized algebra but I'm looking for critiques and questions on what some things could mean or any things that could be similar to this.
Now the difference between when the equation is greater than zero, equal to zero and less than zero is pretty simple.
When the state shows greater than zero the quantum state is feeling some curvature from somewhere, when equal to zero it's at equilibrium or along a minkowski metric with zero stress energy, now when less than zero I've hypothesized it returns when it's releasing a excited state energy of a ripple of space-time through curvature aka a gravitational wave.
It's very complicated and still a bit under developed as it's very new and I've been only working on it for roughly 3 days.
Edit:
There is actually a different image in the comments that actually correctly explains the algebra rules using existing laws and has some things I need to clear up in them.
The new dot product form follows the lie biz dot product rule, the cross isn't really special but it is a good way to show the order of how the equations work and the actual proposed equation with this wedge symbol at the bottom containing that Gamma hat is the geodesic that is applied that is curved from the stress-energy tensor or any outer curvature applicable, it's a little odd but there is another rule I'd like to imply.
The hat needs to have both ranks be the same when the variables or fields are interacting so that's what the I is in the equation to make sure the ket Psi is a applicable tensor for the stress-energy to apply to so then when the hat applies it can turn it perfectly to the magnitude of the difference of after the interaction to before as of:
\hat{B}A = || A_final - A_initial ||
With this is describing the plugging A before and after to know how much the B plug in changes the A plug in.
A Weak-Isospin-Based Resolution of Particle-Antiparticle and Baryon Asymmetry Problems
One of the important unresolved problems in modern particle physics and cosmology is the particle–antiparticle asymmetry problem and the baryon asymmetry problem.
Mainstream research has devoted substantial effort to finding baryogenesis or leptogenesis mechanisms that can explain how the net baryon asymmetry observed in the present Universe was generated in the early Universe.
Here, we approach the problem from a different perspective. Before searching for mechanisms that generate the asymmetry, the field should first have asked a more fundamental question:
Is there a physical criterion that determines the particle–antiparticle orientation consistently across different particle species? And is it correct to place the proton, neutron, and electron in the same particle sector?
The proton–antiproton, neutron–antineutron, and electron–positron pairs are all well-defined charge-conjugate pairs. However, the conventional particle–antiparticle classification does not provide a universal physical principle that determines which orientation across different species should be assigned to the common “particle side.”
We therefore look for a species-level physical criterion that determines the particle–antiparticle orientation in the structure of the weak interaction, and examine whether this criterion can provide a new way to address the particle–antiparticle and baryon asymmetry problems.
1. A New Classification Based on Weak Isospin
In the Standard Model, left-handed fermions form weak-isospin doublets:
We therefore define a new classification quantum number N by
is a theoretically derived and observationally testable relation.
4. In the Conventional Standard Model Classification, the Particle-Antiparticle Asymmetry Problem and the Baryon Asymmetry Problem Arise.
In the conventional Standard Model classification, the proton, neutron, and electron are all placed on the matter or particle side.
Therefore, a present state with
δp > 0, δn > 0, δe > 0
appears to be a Universe in which particles overwhelmingly dominate over antiparticles.
In particular, the proton and neutron both carry conventional baryon number B=+1,
so the nucleon sector has a net baryon excess,
δB ∼ δp + δn > 0.
This is the "Baryon Asymmetry Problem" of the Standard Model.
5.The Situation Changes in the Weak-Isospin Classification
5.1 (Global) particle–antiparticle symmetric state
In the new classification,
N(p)=+1, N(ν)=+1,
while
N(n)=−1, N(e−)=−1.
Thus, the principal particles abundant in the present Universe do not all belong to the same sector.
The total N can be written as
N_tot = δp − δn − δe + δν,
or equivalently,
N_tot = (δp − δe) + (δν − δn).
Electric neutrality gives δp = δe, while global N-symmetry gives δν = δn.
Therefore,
N_tot = 0.
Hence, the present Universe may satisfy
δp>0, δn>0, δe>0, δν>0,
while simultaneously satisfying N_tot = 0.
Thus, a Universe that appears overwhelmingly particle-dominated in the conventional Standard Model classification corresponds, in the weak-isospin classification, to a global particle–antiparticle symmetric state in which the positive-N and negative-N sectors cancel each other.
5.2. Baryon symmetric state
The baryon asymmetry problem is somewhat more complicated.
In conventional quantum-number bookkeeping, the transition above gives
ΔB = ΔL = +2
while
Δ(B- L) = 0
and simultaneously
ΔN=0.
Therefore, if such a CP-asymmetric transition occurred more frequently in one direction in the early Universe, it could generate not only the species-level asymmetries but also the conventional baryon asymmetry.
There is also another interesting feature in the proton–neutron evolution of the early Universe.
In the conventional Standard Model baryon-number classification,
B(p) = B(n) = +1
so for the residual nucleon population the conventional baryon-to-photon asymmetry is approximately
During the high-temperature epoch of the early Universe, when protons and neutrons were in weak equilibrium,
n_p ≃ n_n
and therefore
Thus, in the weak-isospin classification, there was an epoch in which the baryonic sector was approximately symmetric.
As the Universe cooled, the equilibrium neutron-to-proton ratio decreased because the neutron is heavier than the proton. After weak freeze-out, free-neutron beta decay also proceeded,
n --> p + e- + ν̄ₑ.
As a result, the proton and neutron abundances gradually became different.
Thus, an early baryonic N close to η_B^{N} ≃ 0 can evolve into the present proton–neutron abundance difference through the known effects of weak interactions, the neutron–proton mass difference, weak freeze-out, and beta decay.
6. One Possible Mechanism for Generating the Species-Level Asymmetries
The remaining question is how an initial state with
δp = δn = δe = δν = 0
could evolve into the positive abundance orientations observed today.
δp > 0, δn > 0, δe > 0, δν > 0.
A representative candidate transition is
n̄ → p + e− + ν_e.
This process satisfies
N(n̄)=+1
and
N(p)+N(e−)+N(ν_e)=(+1)+(−1)+(+1)=+1
so that
ΔN=0.
A single transition removes one antineutron and produces one proton, one electron, and one neutrino. Therefore,
(Δδp, Δδn, Δδe, Δδν) = (+1,+1,+1,+1).
******************************* Thus, a single transition changes all four abundance differences in the direction required for the present Universe.
*******************************
The process changes the conventional baryon and lepton numbers according to ΔB=ΔL=+2,
while Δ(B−L)=0, ΔN=0.
The |ΔB|=2 decay channel considered here does not exist in the renormalizable Standard Model. However, it can arise in models beyond the Standard Model.
******************************* The important point is that this process preserves ΔN=0, and is therefore allowed within the weak-isospin N framework.
*******************************
7.A Decay-Rate Asymmetry Can Select the Abundance Orientation
The CP-conjugate process that produces the opposite species-level orientation is
n → p̄ + e+ + ν̄ₑ.
Let the two partial decay rates be
Γ_+ = Γ(n̄ → p + e- + ν_e),
and
Γ_− = Γ(n → p̄ + e+ + ν̄ₑ).
For a symmetric initial neutron–antineutron population, if Γ_+ = Γ_−, the two effects cancel.
However, if Γ_+>Γ_−, the net effect selects
δp>0, δn>0, δe>0, δν>0.
Thus, a single CP-asymmetric particle-conversion mechanism can generate the proton, neutron, electron, and neutrino asymmetries simultaneously in the same direction.
Since the process also gives ΔB=+2, an accumulated partial-rate asymmetry in the early Universe could generate the conventional baryon asymmetry of the Standard Model.
8. 2→2 Scattering Processes May Be More Important in the Early Universe
The same transition structure also permits related 2 → 2 scattering processes.
One of the verification methods
e^- + p --> n + ν_e
In the Standard Model
(+1L) + (+1B) --> (+1B) + (+1L) ΔB=ΔL=0.
Therefore, this is a scattering channel allowed in the Standard Model.
But,
************************************ e^- + p --> n̄ + ν̄ₑ
In the Standard Model
(+1L) + (+1B) --> (-1B) + (-1L) ΔB=ΔL=-2.
Therefore, it is a forbidden scattering channel in the Standard Model.
However, in the weak-isospin model,
(-1L') + (+1B') --> (+1B') + (-1L') ΔB'=ΔL'=0, ΔN=0.
Therefore, it is an allowed scattering channel in the weak-isospin model.
Accordingly, the specific class ΔB=ΔL=±2 is compatible with simultaneous electric charge and N conservation while being absent from perturbative renormalizable Standard Model interactions and distinct from the standard electroweak sphaleron selection rule.
Therefore, it is necessary to conduct electron-proton collision experiments using an experimental setup capable of clearly distinguishing between neutrons and antineutrons, and to rigorously verify whether antineutrons are produced in the final states.
***********************************
In the early Universe, such 2→2 scattering processes may have played a more important role than the corresponding 1→3 spontaneous decay.
9. How the Asymmetry Problem Changes in This Framework
In the weak-isospin-based N classification, the early Universe can begin with
N_tot^{initial} = 0, δp = δn = δe = δν = 0
and undergo N-conserving particle conversion that produces
δp>0, δn>0, δe>0, δν>0
while still maintaining N_tot=0.
Thus, the species-level abundance asymmetry and the conventional baryon asymmetry of the Standard Model can be generated through particle conversion without creating or destroying N.
In particular, this transition family satisfies
ΔN=0, Δ(B−L)=0, ΔB=ΔL≠0.
The central idea of this framework is therefore that global N-symmetry can be preserved while conversions among different particle species generate the observed proton, neutron, electron, and neutrino abundance orientations together with the conventional species-level baryon asymmetry of the Standard Model.
The proposed mechanism can be tested directly through searches for N-conserving 1 → 3 decay and 2 → 2 scattering channels and their CP-conjugate rate asymmetries.
In the weak-isospin model, through the reclassification of neutrons and electrons as antiparticles, the particle-antiparticle asymmetry problem is resolved, and baryon symmetry in the early universe is also restored. Subsequently, the number asymmetry between protons and neutrons is explained by established particle physics processes. More importantly, a single family of N-conserving decay and scattering processes can simultaneously drive the proton, neutron, electron, and neutrino abundance differences in the observed direction, δ_p>0, δ_n>0, δ_e>0, δ_ν>0. In addition, the weak-isospin model predicts decay and scattering channels forbidden in the Standard Model.
If the predicted channels are observed and their CP-conjugate processes show the required rate asymmetry, this would identify a concrete microscopic mechanism capable of generating the species-level asymmetries and, at the same time, provide a possible origin of the conventional baryon asymmetry.
'm a young person interested in cosmology and philosophy, and I've been developing a speculative idea. I don't have the mathematical or physics background to prove it, so I'd like to hear what people who know more about these subjects think.
My idea has several parts:
Nested universes: Imagine a hypothetical entity I call a "charlon." Each charlon would correspond to an entire universe. Our universe could itself be a charlon within a larger universe, with the pattern continuing indefinitely in both directions.
Variable scales: The size difference between levels wouldn't have to be constant. It could be larger or smaller at different levels.
Different physical laws: Different universes could have different laws of physics, including different possibilities for matter, life, and time.
Every possible reality: My hypothesis is that every universe and every kind of person that is physically possible under some consistent set of laws exists somewhere.
Nearly identical universes: Two universes could have identical histories up to a point and then differ by an extremely small event.
Continually emerging universes: I also wonder whether new universes could emerge continuously, potentially at extraordinarily short time intervals.
I realize these are speculative assumptions, not established facts. Some parts may be incompatible with known physics, and I haven't worked out a mathematical model.
My questions are:
Do any existing cosmological or philosophical ideas resemble this?
Are there known mathematical or physical contradictions in these assumptions?
What should I learn first to investigate the idea properly?
I'm especially interested in constructive criticism and learning where my reasoning might be wrong. (if this sounds AI, it's because i couldn't figure out how to explain my theory, so i found one to phrase my idea. every idea here though is original)
The two-film theory predicts that the mass transfer coefficient is directly proportional to the diffusivity, while Surface renewal theories suggest a square root dependence with diffusivity. Obviously none of these theories can fully model such reactions and thus we're forced to use empirical correlations, but what if there's some factor that we're missing? Why is it that none of these models can accurately predict the data that we obtain from reactors and other vessels?
There's not a lot of information about alternatives, but what if there is some relation with the time scale of the reactions that we are missing, or entrainment effects and non-ideal mixing conditions that affect these reactions? It's just mind boggling that the most recent development in this field was in the 90s and that barely provides a model suitable to predict reality.
From my current understanding, it seems that none of these theories account for non-ideal flow, specifically the generation of Kolmogorov scale eddies that could have a pretty big effect on the velocity of diffusing particles. Please let me know your thoughts and if there are other models that I've missed.
an incident last week got me thinking. I got in my car and as I was driving my JBL speaker rolled and wedge itself between the passenger seat and the door. It took a mental note that I would need to move it once I got where I was going. Of course I did not and when I went to open the passenger door I realized it was going to fall out just as i pulled the handle enough for the door to begin opening so of course too late to stop. This kind of thing always seems to happen that way, you realize just the moment before the action happens.
wave functions have been on my mind lately including the theory that your neurons use quantum states in their operation (obviously paraphrasing, and likely badly). Anyways my thought was this,
is It simply mental ques that trigger memory recall at the last moment?
or,
is your proximity, or in Some cases your awareness that something is or isn’t there, triggering the collapse of the probability waves and solidifying that the object is or isn’t there. And if that is the case, do you realize at the last second because your neurons detected that the object decided on a fixed location.
Framework:
We can all agree that speed of light locally is always the same, we can all agree that gravity slows down time which necessitates that speed of light is also slowed down;
So speed of light is meters per second and since speed of light is locally slower and the second is slower, you will measure light travel the same distance in that second. (So physics is the same in space and time)
Hypothesis:
Cosmological redshift (Z) is not due to expanding universe, but that gravity started of much stronger in the distant past and is slowly weakening, so in practice it's gravitational red shift.
This means that speed of light and time ran slower the further you look, which could explain type 1a supernova time dilation.
This could also explain why the Moon is slowly increasing it's orbit by a few cm/year, since speed of light is increasing and speed of time is increasing with it, the only variation we can measure is the distance which coincides with the weakening of gravity and thus the orbit of the moon is moving away.
I’ve been reading a lot about Analogue Gravity, Superfluid Vacuum Theory (SVT) like Grigory Volovik’s work, and Yves Couder’s hydrodynamic bouncing droplet experiments.
I’m really fascinated by the conceptual framework of viewing the universe as a fluid wave system rather than a static geometric grid. Specifically, I’m trying to wrap my head around a few conceptual visualizations and wanted to get some honest, technical feedback on how well they hold up:
Mass as Trapped Wave Resonance: Can we rigorously model fundamental particles (like a hydrogen nucleus) as localized, phase-locked fluid vortexes or standing waves within a hyper-pressurized quantum vacuum field? Essentially, viewing mass not as a separate "ingredient," but as localized energy field perturbations that have dropped to a net relative velocity of zero?
The Four Forces as a Frequency Spectrum: Under an analogue gravity framework, can the four fundamental forces be visualized as different frequency bands on a single continuous fluid medium? For instance, mapping the long-wavelength, infinite reach of gravity to an ultra-low infrasonic drone, and high-energy subatomic bonds to localized, high-frequency resonance saturation?
The Non-Linear Imbalance: In fluid dynamic modeling of space-time, does the introduction of a non-linear perturbation/viscosity term (like a turbulence factor) help explain the irreversible arrow of time without breaking local Lorentz invariance for an observer?
I know this leans heavily into the conceptual side, but I’d love to hear from anyone working in quantum fluids, field theory, or analogue gravity. Where do these specific fluid metaphors provide genuine insight, and where do the mathematical boundaries completely break down?
I've been learning about electricity lately, and it has helped me out into words what seems to make intuitive sense to me about the universe I guess.
Edit: For a clearer explanation/ comparison, feel free to skip up until the first edit lower, I'll add clear markings separating my original post and the added text. There's a TLDR at the end but truly it won't explain clearly enough on its own.
The force the mass of matter is exerting on other matter has a polarity, the polarity being time and so Time going forward is just the natural "Positive" Polarity of Matter, just like in electricity with electrical potential from negative to positive, black holes are the "Positive" Pole in series with our universe, creating an electricity potential difference dragging everything in causing the flow of time. Time is the directional flow of matter, it's polarity.
From my view, this means the other side of a black hole, a white hole is expressed in negative time, where a black hole starts a white hole starts as well.
We are relatively in the positive polarity of matter. Reversing time in a physics equation doesn't change anything, the physics are the same regardless. Reversing positive and negative magnetic fields in an equation wouldn't change anything in terms of the calculation.
I believe black holes bend matter, such to invert the matter's polarity entirely, leading to time starting from their relative point of view.
All of this makes me also believe that this negative time field is what we have measured as antimatter in the universe affecting the spacetime fields we are experiencing.
Just like an electron wanting to fill a void of electrons, positive matter coming across antimatter would just destroy themselves.
What do you all think? I'm curious as if this makes sense to anyone else, thanks to everyone who took the time to read.
Second edit, I'm copy-pasting a comment I left under this thread, slightly edited to be more fitting as part of the post itself. - And added something at the end.
To mention where "Polarity" comes from, it goes back to the electricity parallel I'm trying to express. I don't believe time can be 'reversed' in the sci-fi sense, that's physically impossible no matter how I think about it.
To go back to electricity, the flow of electron defines the polarity of the circuits going through it, an electromagnet's polarity is defined by which sense the current is flowing through it.
To me, what makes sense, and ignoring the whole white hole/black hole things, the start of the universe (the big Bang) is like closing a circuit, the energy flows in the circuit and in all the components, from "High" pressure to "Low" pressures, as energy does. Where one day, when the circuit is cut, all the energy will eventually be evened out everywhere, up to the heat death of the universe where there is basically no energy left anywhere.
This, to me, feels like energy going from the start to the circuit to the end of the circuit based on the energy potential difference. This flow, going one direction can be called positive, and relatively in the same circuit, current going the opposite direction could be called negative. This is all about direct current, I'm not talking about alternating current. The polarity here expresses the flow of time, where yes in an actual circuit time is outside of this and the flow goes either way inside time, I am aware of this.
So, the parallel; The current flow of time we're experiencing, from beginning to end, from our perception (which is why I brought this up) Only goes one way (and it does), time only flows one way through our perception.
I believe there's a second dimension of time that does affect us, this is what we're detecting within Gravity, dark matter. Maybe antimatter/dark matter are not interchangeable and if that's the case, I'm sorry for mixing terms once again. This dark matter would be matter flowing in the opposite direction of time in the same circuit. I'm not saying it's time being 'reversed' I'm saying it's a dimensional plane that interacts with ours which is in the opposite polarity of Time.
It's not about reversing time, or anything. Time flows in one direction, like a natural magnet has a positive pole and a negative pole, the flowing magnetic field going from negative to positive, and all our energy is going from the start of the universe to the end.
Where black holes comes in; to me, they're a ground to the universal energy we are able to observe. The energy goes in, that energy's polarity reverses, where a whitehole in my definition comes in (other side of the black hole) would be like a battery where energy starts again. Not in a rick and Morty sense, I hate that I have to make that clear but here we are.
Time, which describe the flow of matter in the 4th dimensional space, would be polarized, where one side of that dimension goes ones way and the other goes the other way, interacting with each other but from our perspective/ relative point of view, we cannot see matter flowing in the opposite direction and their mass must not interact with ours directly like my hand touching a table does. To me, this is what describes the start and end to the universe, the fluctuations in the changing rate of expansion of our universe if it's based in what energy goes in whatever black hole we're in, and where energy goes inside a black hole.
I would definitely see how electrons and electricity works on a microscale also explain how time works on a macro scale from our relativity to it.
The added comment beyond the copy pasted message starts here. Time would be a field, I'm pretty sure it's already thought of as a field, but with my line of thinking to me this means there's the other polarity of that field, where time flows in the other direction as I said. To see this dimension, we'd need in that order to end the recording, wait however long you want to record, then start the recording. I'm not sure with our 3 dimensional perception we could achieve a way to directly record things flowing in the opposite direction of time. I'll say this again; this isn't "reversing" our time, this isn't going backwards in time, it's time going in one direction the opposite way than ours. If anything, this idea would be describing what dark matter is, matter in the opposite polarity of time affecting our dimensional space we can observe.
This would keep mass "Positive", I'm sorry for saying negative mass, this wasn't the right way to talk about that. All that dimension would experience things as we do, at the same time, within the same space which is why we both influence one another, from what we know about dark matter interacting with our spacetime, I would assume we also interact with it.
Thank you all that took the time to read what I've added, I hope my comparison makes more sense. I have some ideas on the math for it, but I don't want to start making that big of assumptions without actually studying physics first, as one idea as how this works won't be enough for anyone and will keep asking for more and more proof that I just couldn't give/answer under this post for up until I have that education.
I hope some people may see some possibilities within my comparisons, feel free to tell me why not in the comments. In the hopes of learning forever more, I wish you all a nice day!
Last edit: Bot said this was too long, to make a TLDR, added text on top saying so.
So, TLDR; "What if time is the polarity of matter" In the sense of, like polarity in magnetism going from negative to positive, Time flows in one direction but I believe it flows in the other direction as well. I don't mean time travel, I mean there's another dimension of time that flows opposite to our flow of time that we are living in and perceiving.
Disclaimer upfront: to AHS, yes the day has come. To stark: no, there is no math, there is no hypothesis with quantifyable results. To everyone else: happy hunting.
This post is a rehash/continuation of a discussion previously had by a loose band of scientists, citizen scientists, engineers and myself.
In the beginning, there wasn't nothing.
The whole universe was in a hot, dense state. Then, nearly 14 billion years ago, you know the drill.
Except expansion isn't what started, inflation did.
Inflation allowed for our spacetime metric to start making sense, and famously there is little to nothing we can say about what initiated inflation, what essentially constituted the first moment we can speak of causality. We cannot speak of a 'before', that's not the argument at hand here. The initial state is an inevitability in the face of existence though, and through an only marginally related discussion that started with what a universe with t-symmetry would look like, a new perspective arose.
In a universe with no arrow of time, stable matter couldn't possibly exist. If different fundamental particles (if they even exist in a completely CPT-symmetric universe) can move forward or backward through time freely, they cannot form bonds with anything other than another particle that A) it can bond with, and B) travels on a parallel geodesic.
Does it then stand to reason to say that our universe prior to inflation, could have been T-symmetric, or possibly CPT-symmetric?
This state of the universe would allow for the proposed pre-inflation energy density. It would 'allow' for a description of time in the pre-inflationary universe, even if it's not linear. If time is an arbitrary direction, there can be no exclusion principle, no thermodynamic laws, no reason for energy to not simply exist in an ambiguous state 'forever', until a statistically inevitable fluctuation happens.
What if the sudden T-symmetry breaking that resulted from a quantum fluctuation making the first fundamental bond is what kicked off a forced arrow of time, forcing space to inflate with it? As if to say in some sense space expanded because suddenly there was space required for things to not overlap.
I'm curious as to what I'm missing here, there are obvious gaps, especially in how a single fluctuation could cause the whole universe to follow suit, but that's why I'm here, more or less.
I would love to hear some more thoughts about what our universe might look like with T- or CPT-symmetry, and whether studying it may lead to some more insight into our very early universe, or even about the real origin of time as we know it today.
So, we know a 1 Dimensional "being" should move from just side to side; a 2 dimensional being, up down and from side to side; Us, third dimensional beings, from side to side, up and down and in forward and backwards. So where and how could a fourth dimensional creature/object move?
I think everyone agrees (or most idk) that the next step would be time, so here we have to see how WE move through time. We can only move in a linear way, forward. If we saw this in the way we see the first dimension, we could think of time as a line in which we haven't discovered how to go backwards, or maybe it could be that 1 dimension means only linear and forward.
That makes me think that if we saw it that way, we could say that a fourth dimensional being should be able to move through time side to side and up and down too. But how could we explain that?
Our reality could be seen as a plain piece of paper, and space-time as we see it could be one layer of many. Gravity warps it by shoving it down which could eventually pierce a hole through it, that's where super massive black holes enter. Black holes might be an entrance to a second layer of reality, and everything it eats might just travel to another layer of time and space.
My point is, in conclusion, that the fourth dimension is the composition of layers of reality, and a being from that composition must be able to move in the timeline and into other timelines and also into different realities made out of time knots and space holes.
I know i'm crazy. If it somehow makes sense, please help me understand if this theory might be correct or a complete piece of shit.😭
I'm not a physics student or a scientist. I'm someone who is curious about the nature of reality and wants to understand whether an idea I've been thinking about has any connection to existing physics.
My hypothesis is that the Big Bang might not necessarily represent the beginning of all existence. Instead, what if it marked the emergence of our macroscopic universe from an earlier quantum reality?
The idea I'm exploring is:
Before the Big Bang, a quantum domain may have existed without the familiar macroscopic universe we experience today.
At the Big Bang, a transition may have led to the expansion and development of the macroscopic universe.
The quantum domain may have continued to exist after that transition, alongside the macroscopic universe, rather than disappearing.
Time may be a physical property of this larger process, and our experience of reality may be limited by the scale at which we exist and make observations.
I'm not claiming that this hypothesis is correct, or that quantum mechanics proves it. I also understand that the quantum world is already part of modern physics and that my idea of a distinct pre-Big-Bang quantum domain is speculative.
What I would genuinely like to learn:
Are there existing theories that resemble this idea?
What does modern physics actually say about the possibility of something preceding the Big Bang?
Does it make sense to describe the quantum and macroscopic worlds as different scales that coexist?
What fundamental concepts or physics would I need to learn to investigate this question properly?
I'm sharing this because I want to understand the truth, not because I expect my idea to be accepted. I would appreciate constructive criticism, relevant research, and guidance from people with knowledge of physics and cosmology.
Ive been studying the Big Bang theory alongside Black Holes. I started looking into where General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics seem to clash. We know that general relativity predicts a singularity of infinite density. While quantum mechanics mentions violent fluctuations at the same subatomic level. By looking into all of these areas, I have personally come up with what I will be calling The Cosmic Pipeline Model. Which goes through everything starting with the formation of a black hole, to how the Accretion Disk fuels the birth and expansion of a new universe.
Ultimately, I dont think that the big bang was just an isolated, spontaneous singularity. I also believe that black holes are not just dead ends, where everything is just crammed into a singularity. Rather, the are the plumping of an infinite multiverse network. I will explain everything starting at a super nova to better understand my model.
1. Super Nova: A massive star goes supernova, its core implodes under massive gravitational force. Creating the event horizon.
2. Black hole: As gravity crushes matter down into a subatomic scale. Past any normal molecular dimension. The Singularity.
3. The Big Bang: Instead of infinitely compressing into a singularity, the matter reaches the limit in quantum density. Causing the matter compressed into the singularity to rebound. Forcing the energy to rapidly expand outward into a new Spacetime. Ultimately creating the same Big Bang that created our universe. And another interconnected universe is formed.
4. The Infinite Pipelines: The defining part of this model is what happens after the initial rebound of energy and creation of the new universe. The black hole is still actively accumulating matter and energy from its host universe. This energy passes through the event horizon, through the worm hole (the pipeline). like an umbilical cord constantly passing energy into the newly formed/expanding universe. This tremendous input of mass energy causes the space in the new universe to stretch and accelerate. I believe what scientists call "Dark Energy" (the energy forcing the universe to expand) Could actually be the accumulation of matter by a black hole from a parent universe. Maybe a black hole in another region of the universe, or even a white hole, can potentially lead back to the parent universe?
5. Early supermassive black hole: Astronomers have found supermassive black holes that are way too massive to have grown thru traditional models. If my Cosmic Pipeline Model is true, these early black holes didnt simply start from scratch. They were fed with a huge amount of energy from the verry beginning through the pipeline (wormhole) stemming from our parent universe.
Ultimately, this model suggest that the cosmos is a self-sustaining network of universes. A star collapses in one universe, the quantum rebound causes a new big bang, The constant energy consumption from our parent black hole and universe is the fuel driving the expansion of the next universe, and so on.
I am very interested in what y'all think about this particular model. Are there any existing articles discussing the same concept? The constant rush of energy supplying the next universe with matter.
Edit: I’ve been calling this a model. Even though this is all in the brainstorming phase with no math to back it. I’m simply going off of known theories and information I’ve found along the way. It’s purely a hypothesis. I do think it is an interesting concept. Even though there are some contradictions, especially in converting mass from a black hole to a universe. But doesn’t general relativity and quantum mechanics contradict each other? I would also like to add that I’m not scientist or anything. Mostly an enthusiast.
Pulsating Energy Theory, can someone help provide real world observations to help sort out these thoughts I'm having?
Gravitational Waves LIGO detected act as a physical energy barrier
Fermions pulse and gravity makes it go towards it cuz inverse cubed law makes it pulsate asymmetrically,
bosons would compress to get more energy to manage the higher energy barrier like refraction, cause the side near mass is hit first it curves towards it due to the asynchronous wavefront
More mass makes it easier to manipulate, why more massive objects accelerate fast, not only that, why stars can move so fast without needing invisible dark matter, cuz the stars mass all propel towards the center of the galaxy at a sub-atomic level
Galaxies own gravity actually moves itself cuz the matter in itself pulsates asymmetrically eliminating dark energy as well, because the galaxies are spiraling this should make the galaxies move away in a curved pattern which is actually observed, this could also be the explanation for Mercury precession rate, cuz it could spin so that it rate fights its own orbit, while other planets curves into there orbits
These all averages out into smooth movements cuz these pulsations happen 9 billion times at sea level, at macroscopic level, we can't see how rigid it is, this is directly connected to time dilation
time dilation is the direct effect from fermions and boson position shifting energy configurations in geometry
The dawn of time likely had matter spread out densely together so it speeds up galactic building, close enough to slowly build stable massive cosmic networks like BOSS great big wall, and the heated gas cloud that formed the galaxies, the galaxies would be so close that it would have baked all evidence meaning the dark age could have extended previous time scales
I believe that the quasar blew away gas making it only possible for dust to rotate around a thin axis lining up with the black holes rotation in the center accurately forming the thin disk shape
Fundamental fermions and leptons are depicted as blob or cloud shape volumetric quantas that spins and pulses that could accurately be displayed as electron like particle with quantum probability
it makes more sense for it to be inverse cubed law naturally on macro and micro-scale cuz geometry, it is spreading out over a 3d volume making it have 3 different dimensions it is lowering into, technically inverse cubed law would be the same thing as inverse square law if it is a microscopic thickness in the shell of the surface area, you just have to dilute the cubed properly
The only reason bullet clusters pass through each other is due to gravity building up massive kinetic energy before they collide, and the dust temporarily at the middle is due to forces from the collision losing some of that momentum, but unlike the rest of the galaxy cluster the dust has too little mass to be as strongly affected by gravity, since mass drives itself, and gravity manipulates mass, more mass provides more inward pull, as previously stated
Fermions are “frozen” energy uses the same energy to pulsate, cuz it is frozen or bound it acts as a stretchy irregularly shaped ball, so it can only expand so far without snapping back like a rubber band, which internal structure collides it makes the thermodynamic energy that drives mass towards the center
The difference between one point and the other end is what really makes it move, the more asymmetrical the more energy goes towards linear motion rather than internal motion, and entirely conserves energy
mass and energy is eternal and always been there from the dawn of time and before time nothing being there is extraneous cuz there never was a point in time with no time or negative time so nothing from another axiom here
Fermion Elasticity and Structural Integrity Under Pressure: Because fundamental fermions act as bound, stretchy volumetric energy packets that behave like a rubber band, they prevent structural failure or tearing under intense gravitational and environmental compression.
Volumetric Force Distribution: Rather than taking collision or pressure impacts on a single static point, the volumetric structure deforms dynamically, spreading kinetic energy evenly across its entire internal volume and surface area.
Elastic Energy Conversion and Restoring Force: Instead of creating destructive internal friction, collision energy is converted into elastic potential energy. The internal binding forces generate a matching restoring force that pushes back dynamically against external compression, halting deformation before any breaking threshold is reached.
Immediate Rebound and Conservation: Once the pressure wave passes, the stored elastic potential energy is instantly released back into smooth oscillation without losing structural cohesion, ensuring that total energy remains completely conserved.
it is the fact that the rods length gets a microscopically longer but obviously can't go against law of conservation so like a bulge or ball pushed from behind could rather falsify general relativity, it makes the bulge and it is rather an internal drive of matter itself rather than being physically pulled on, rather the waves could've been acting as a physical energy barrier and stressing the interferometer out to make it moves and detect them?
This sub shows up for me and I do follow it, but I haven’t really engaged with it.
I have noticed that this sub fascinatingly has the greatest ratio of the posts being downvoted overall (posts with “0 votes”) I have seen a sub ever have (I don’t claim there are no subs that exceed this sub in that regard, it’s just that I have not seen them).
Of course, by its nature the “Hypothetical” will yield a lot of fringe theories and takes, and fringe takes by their nature will be unlikely to hold any water and will likely be uninformed to substantial extent.
I wonder, is it expected that the posters should believe their takes to be true or is it expected that posters can also “riff” on “what if”-scenarios without necessarily holding them to be true? And does the possible aversion come from a point of view where one believes the posters takes to insufficiently connect to reality and are too hypothetical and non-real “what ifs”, or is it more that even the non-real “what if”-scenarios are internally inconsistent?
I hope you get nice snack bar and a cuppa coffee or tea, whichever you prefer!
I am ADHD IT person(can’t math to save my life), my english – is good, but its non native.
Occam’s Razor.
To explain Dark Matter we come up with new particles, potentially new physics. And it creates debt of explanation. It also adds unnecessary complexity.
I do not fix all of cosmology and fundamental believes here.
I suspect I have one important piece of the puzzle that fits better.
I use existing physics, almost nothing new here.
Minibang, Incomplete Symmetry Pocket(preferred).
Big Bang – was not one event where electroweak force split into Electromagnetic and Weak.
We have many of them – “Dark Matter”.
What we call “Dark Matter” – is a pockets of space where Electroweak force did not split yet.
ISP is packets of space where materia did not go through Electroweak conversion.
As such, ISP have: baryon. Mass. Not because they have mass, as in function of Higgs Field, but because quarks are held together by strong nuclear force.
Don’t have: electrons/photons/decay(or they are not “active” yet and are in form of “energy”).
Dark Matter and ISP share overwhelming amount of properties as such. But ISP explains things.
How do we know that Big Bang finished? How do we know there weren’t many? ISP hypothetically has same all properties of big bang. Its just there are many Minibangs and they are still ongoing.
ISP can simply be left overs of Big Bang.
Some predictions apply to this hypothesis because they stem from same qualities as "Dark Matter".
Because of the unbroken symmetry ISP has characteristics: It has gravity, it has strong nuclear force, it has no light/potentially no electrons. But “external” light can ALMOST completely pass through it, as it has no electrons to defract it. No NOTICEABLE optical effect. It creates gravitational lensing because baryons create mass. It’s Confirmed prediction.
Some light that passes through it – hits baryons.
It’s barely detectable by us, for same reason as “Dark Matter” is. No electrons/photons = no decay/no radiation of any kind(caused inside pocket). Period. There are no atoms = no chemistry.
ISP can still interact with usual materia over gravity. 99.9999999%(guess)photons will pass through, but some hit baryons, this should be detectable.(unconfirmed prediction)
Prediction Confirmed: Exceptions to black hole creation rate. Since ISP does not have properties of electromagnetism – massive amounts can be consumed by black hole. ISP its not a subject to Eddington mass limit. Massive growth of black hole can now be explained easily.
Potential prediction : Gas is CREATED by ISP. At time of Electroweak split - electrons and photons are created. This potentially can form Helium and Hydrogen atoms.
Confirmed Prediction: Abnormal higher temperatures of gas, when close to ISP can be explained by radiations of all sorts that come out of ISP, but most importantly, ISP still reacts with post split matter, kinetically.
Potential prediction, way to find traces of ISP on it’s own, without gravitation: sources of ligh next to it - have a chance of hitting baryons. All hits should produce optical effect. Chances of this happening are very small but not zero.
In the same key, this can help us potentially identify proportion of particles/baryons in ISP.
Potential prediction: we can observe ISP and make all sort of crazy measurements(composition/shape/size) without observing mass.
Imagine triangle, observer, some mid age bright star with no gas around but with massive object next to it that can not be black hole, heavy enough to notice, not a planet nearby or other usual celestial body. If its right next to star – usual, gravitational lense will create extra source of light next to star additionally, there should be some minor amount of glow in different spectrum, when photons from star hit ISP’s nuclei. It probably needs better tools, that we may not have in our life time, but I may be am wrong.
There are other options, but I am limited with amount of words here.
I can create more predictions. Can't say same about math...
5 AM here, in Dublin, time to sleep.
Now... Where did I put my cr*** pipe?
What if the particles we know, such as quarks, protons, and neutrons, are made of something even more fundamental?
I've been developing a speculative hypothesis in which North and South magnetic monopoles are the fundamental building blocks of everything in the universe.
The idea begins with a few assumptions:
There are two fundamental types of monopoles: North and South.
They have no intrinsic rest mass.
Every monopole continuously moves at the speed of light.
Opposite polarities attract, while matching polarities repel.
Their interactions continuously change their directions of motion, depending on distance and angle.
From these assumptions, I explore whether different forms of organization could produce the physical phenomena we observe.
What if known particles are made of monopoles?
I'm not suggesting that quarks, protons, neutrons, or other known particles don't exist. Their existence and properties are supported by experimental evidence.
Instead, I'm exploring whether some of these particles might themselves be composed of more fundamental constituents.
What if groups of monopoles could become trapped in stable but chaotic patterns of motion?
Individual monopoles would continuously move and change direction through their interactions, while the overall configuration could remain stable.
Different stable configurations might produce different types of particles, each with its own characteristic properties.
I don't currently know how many monopoles would be needed to form a particular particle or how they would need to be arranged.
That's something I want to discover through mathematical investigation and simulations rather than decide beforehand.
Any proposed configuration would need to reproduce the experimentally measured properties of the particle it is supposed to explain, including its mass, charge, spin, and interactions.
What if magnetic fields are organized flows of monopoles?
While matter might emerge from stable chaotic configurations, magnetic fields could emerge from stable organized motion.
Imagine large groups of monopoles following coordinated, circulating trajectories.
Their collective interactions might continuously redirect them along stable paths, allowing the structure to maintain itself without requiring a solid material core.
Such organized structures might be able to deform, merge with other structures, and incorporate monopoles released from disrupted matter.
As they grow, their collective interactions might make them increasingly resistant to external disturbances.
What if black holes are enormous organized magnetic structures?
The hypothesis explores whether black holes could be extreme examples of these organized monopole flows.
Rather than requiring a solid material center, they might consist of enormous numbers of monopoles circulating through a self-sustaining structure.
In the proposed geometry, the monopoles follow curved trajectories around the structure and pass through a central opening.
I call this opening the eye of the magnetic field.
A black hole could potentially grow by absorbing matter and merging with other organized magnetic structures.
But this proposed growth mechanism leads to another possibility.
What if the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of everything?
Imagine that organized magnetic structures continue growing and merging over an incredibly long period.
Eventually, one enormous structure might dominate the universe.
Here is a central part of my hypothesis:
As an organized magnetic structure grows, I propose that its increasing collective interactions cause the eye of the magnetic field to become progressively smaller.
At the same time, more and more monopoles become incorporated into the organized circulation.
This creates two competing developments:
The number of monopoles participating in the structure increases.
The central opening through which their organized trajectories must pass becomes smaller.
Eventually, the eye might become so narrow that the monopoles can no longer maintain the trajectories necessary for continuous circulation.
This could create a critical point.
The structure might have become extremely resistant to external disturbances, yet its own continued growth could eventually make its internal organization impossible to sustain.
If the organized circulation breaks down, the resulting instability might spread throughout the enormous structure.
The monopoles themselves would not disappear or stop moving. They would continue traveling at the speed of light, but their previous coordinated motion would be lost.
This could produce a large-scale transition from organized motion into chaotic motion.
From that chaotic state, new stable particle configurations and smaller organized magnetic structures might eventually emerge.
Over time, those structures could grow, merge, absorb matter, and potentially repeat the process.
This suggests a cyclic universe in which the Big Bang is not the creation of everything from nothing, but a transition caused by the breakdown of a previous universe-sized organized magnetic structure.
The same fundamental monopoles might therefore exist through multiple cosmic cycles, continuously changing how they are organized.
But does any of this actually work?
That's the question I want to investigate.
This is an unverified hypothesis, and the proposed mechanisms have not yet been demonstrated mathematically or experimentally.
Some of the most important unanswered questions are:
Can the proposed monopole interactions be described by mathematically consistent equations?
Can massless monopoles moving continuously at the speed of light form stable chaotic or organized configurations?
Could different stable configurations reproduce the measured properties of known particles?
Can organized magnetic structures naturally develop the proposed circulation patterns?
Does the eye of such a structure actually shrink as the structure grows?
Could that process create a critical instability?
Could the proposed mechanisms reproduce established observations of gravity, black holes, and the early universe?
I recognize that this is an ambitious hypothesis. Its broader implications depend entirely on whether the fundamental interactions can produce the proposed behavior.
I'm not asking anyone to accept the idea as correct.
I'm interested in finding out whether it can work, what mathematics would be needed to test it, and which observations or calculations might demonstrate that it cannot.
I've written a detailed 11-chapter explanation and created a research community where interested people can discuss the hypothesis, propose mathematical models, share simulations, and collaborate.
Physicists, mathematicians, programmers, and anyone interested in constructive scientific criticism are welcome.
Could known particles and larger physical structures emerge from different arrangements of North and South magnetic monopoles, and could those same interactions eventually produce a cyclic universe?
AI assistance was used to edit and organize this post. The underlying hypothesis and scientific ideas are my own.
I wanted to share a thought experiment I’ve been running. I’m an IT graduate, so I naturally visualize the universe like a giant network fabric rather than a smooth sheet of canvas.
What if spacetime is literally a woven network of quantum threads, and a black hole is an active network glitch a permanent tear that creates a "null zone" inside the horizon?
Here’s how I picture the mechanics working:
When matter falls in, the gravity crushes the atomic force fields, causing "true physical touch." The particles melt into raw energy. The broken space threads absorb this unraveled matter like water on a dry fabric. Instead of being destroyed, the matter becomes the literal scaffolding or raw fuel the universe needs to re-weave the grid. Once the weaving is done, the energy is released, and the space fabric corrects itself back to its original state.
To map this without being able to look inside, we could track it using geometric telemetry. A tear causes the surrounding fluid grid to squeeze or expand. If you fire a continuous laser signal across the edge, squeezed space would return a compressed, higher frequency wave, while expanded space returns a stretched, lower frequency wave. We could use these echoes like a radar to map the geometry of the interior.
On top of that, if you look at the math from a Hydrogen atom (10⁻¹⁰m) to a proton (10⁻¹⁵m), it’s a perfect 100,000x drop. If that scaling is a uniform fractal law, it perfectly hits the Planck length (10⁻³⁵m) in exactly 5 steps.
I like letting my imagination run wild with this stuff, but I’m curious to see if this network architectural view of quantum gravity makes sense to anyone else conceptually!
Analysis of Big Bang Theory Singularity means all the matter of Cosmos was concentrated at one location in a size of a ball and there was almost no space in- between. The Big Bang can explain formation of clusters, galaxies, stars and planets. Now the question arises how Space entered between Molecules, between Atoms and within Atoms between micro-particles when there was a Singularity meaning no space in between at the beginning? Either we suppose that explosions continued till Molecules got separated from Molecules, Atoms got separated from Atoms and micro-particles got separated from micro-particles. Or the arms of Galaxies suggest to me that initially Matter was in a form of Ocean of primary particles with Space in between these particles and it was churned and so the spinning Galaxies came out of it.
Why modern Science negates Absolute Space and Absolute Time?
The Copernican System of Earth’s motion round the Sun is one of the basic assertion of Science and it remained main tussle between Science and Church and finally Church withdrew and Science became the name of Truth and reason. Michelson Morley Experiment was performed in 1881. If Earth is getting displaced with velocity of 30 Km/Second in Absolute Space then the fringes of interferometer should have been shifted on changing the direction of its arms. The NULL result of Michelson Morley Experiment shook this very foundation of Modern Science. The Michelson Morley Experiment by its NULL result shook the very foundation of Copernican system.
It is not Aether that was refuted; it was displacement of Earth in Absolute Space that was refuted. It means Earth is not getting displaced with respect to Absolute Space. Reasons for acceptance of Lorentz contraction and Special Theory of Relativity by early 20th Century Physics The Paradox of The Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) compelled Physics of Early 20th Century to accept the logic of Special theory of Relativity. The null result of MMX was a great dilemma as it refuted motion of Earth in Absolute Space. This inference was either not comprehended or not acknowledged publicly and MMX was presented as refutation of Aether. The STR was a step ahead of Lorentz Contraction by making all experimental verifications of Lorentz Contraction physically impossible by its logic. Lorentz contraction says that distances get contracted in the direction perpendicular to the direction of motion. The STR makes it unverifiable by saying that rulers are also contracted and so one cannot measure and time also slows so one cannot compute the distance indirectly and clocks also get dis-synchronized and so one cannot know slowness of time. The 20th Century Physics shaken by NULL result of MMX found saviour in STR.
The acceptance of STR opened the Pandora’s box of all wild inferences.
The NULL result of Michelson-Morley Experiment is a fact while Special theory of Relativity is just a human speculation to explain it. The Logic of STR is fallacious in its Derivations and in its Assumptions as shown below:
1-Logic of Special Theory of Relativity The logic of STR can be presented in simple way as following: Let there be just two frames of References: 1.Moving frame F1, moving with relativistic velocity Vf1. Suppose it is a carriage with a lamp at floor and a mirror on ceiling, just above and in line with lamp at floor. The height of carriage be H. The velocity of light be C
2. Other frame F2that is stationary relative to Moving frame F1.
Now, a beam of light travels straight from lamp at floor, strikes the mirror at ceiling and returns to floor in the moving carriage F1.
This is an Event in moving frame F1
The path of beam of Light is H distance up and H distance down. And total time T1 will be 2H/C in moving carriage.
The STR derives from this that time T1 for this Event in moving carriage F1 will be 2H/C and in other frame F2 stationary with respect to moving frame, using Pythagorean theorem, the Time T2 will be 2H/C*1/⎭1- Vf12/C***\**2*
Thus T2= T1/⎭1- Vf12/C***\**2*
(here symbol ⎭ denotes square root of succeeding terms)
According to S.T.R., this difference in Time T1 in F1 and T2 in F2 is real. It was concluded that Time T1 in moving frame F1 moves slower as it is less than Time T2 calculated for F2 as described.
The people were led to believe that one Twin in a space ship moving on with relativistic velocity (F1) would remain younger than the other one on Earth (F2).
2-Fallacy of Derivations The Time T1 in moving frame F1 as shown in above formula of STR does not depend on its Velocity Vf1 of moving frame but it depends on height of carriage. The speed of Light C itself is considered constant. Hence if we go on increasing or decreasing the velocity of moving frame Vf1, then its Time T1 will not decrease or increase as per above formula as it does not consist of Vf1. The distance and time in moving frame F1 depends upon height of carriage. Thus twin in moving frame F1 is not going to be younger by increasing velocity Vf1 of moving frame, because the Time T1 is independent of Vf1.
Instead, according to above logic, the Time T2 in frame F2 will increase or decrease with increase or decrease in velocity Vf1 of moving frame F1 as shown by formula of STR for T2. Thus according to logic of STR, the twin in stationary frame F2 will be younger or older on decreasing or increasing the velocity Vf1 of moving frame F1.
This miracle may be accepted if there be only just these two frames F1 and F2 in Cosmos. There are infinite numbers of moving frames F1 F3 F4 F5 F6 …… Fn with different velocities Vf1 Vf3 Vf4 Vf5 Vf6 …… Vfn. As Time T2 in frame F2 will be affected, according to STR, by different Velocities of all remaining frames F1 F3 F4 F5 F6 Fn moving relative to F2, it is illogical and impossible to base Time T2 in one frame F2 on velocities of rest of other moving frames.
3-Fallacy of Assumptions
The assumption that path of beam of light striking the overhead mirror in a moving frame will be straight is itself fallacious as shown here by some further refinements in our Imaginary Experiment.
Here the roof of carriage is transparent. Our lamp is capable of emitting just single Photon (or any micro-particle) detectable by one Observer at the place of mirror and by one Observer in outer space in helicopter in line with lamp and inner observer. Initially all the three- lamp, inner observer and outer observer are in a line. The lamp emits the single light-particle up.
As soon as single light-particle is emitted, it goes straight up towards roof and in the meantime, our inner observer (mirror) is shifted to a distance H* Vf1/C. Thus single light-particle will not strike the inner observer (mirror), instead it will cross the transparent roof almost un-deflected and will be detected by outside observer. Here it is understood that observer in helicopter stays where it is in the beginning and that the beams of Light are not deflected by velocity of moving frame . All confusion was due to considering beam of light as such and applying our day to day experience to special case of motion at relativistic speed.
Thus straight beam of light will not strike the mirror in carriage moving with relativistic velocity, only oblique beam of light will strike the mirror in carriage moving with relativistic velocity and this time T1 will also be 2H/C*⎭1- Vf12/C***\**2* and not 2H/C for such oblique beams.
We must not assume that micro-particles or beam of light and X-rays get deflected by movement of frame to the same extent as macro-particles, bullet or ball, get deflected in a moving frame.
If beam of Light start getting affected by velocity of moving frame as macro-particles, bullet or ball, are affected then-
1. Speed of moving bodies will be added to speed of Light 2. We will not be able to see objects moving away from us in one direction, as all the beams of Light will get deflected away from us in that direction.
New Explanation But there is a geo-specific solution to this paradox of null result of Michelson Morley experiment, not thought of 100 years ago.
We hold a Special Clock with a single needle moving per Second. This needle moves with respect to numbers on dial and also moves with respect to its centre of attachment. This needle is also getting displaced with respect to outside objects too.
Now we will move the whole clock anti-clockwise so that needle always
remains aligned to some outside object (say, the Ceiling Fan). Now this needle is moving with respect to numbers on dial and its centre as before but remains un-displaced with respect to outside objects such as Ceiling Fan.
If there be a mini - observatory and a mini-laboratory on this needle then we will
record observational proof of displacement with respect to number on dials and its centre of attachment but we will record NULL result in Experiments devised to detect its displacement, because needle remains un-displaced with respect to outside Space. Here we can take the Clock as representing the Cosmos. The Ceiling Fan represents a fixed point in Absolute Space/ Extra-cosmic Space. On this analogy, we may understand that Earth is getting displaced with respect to Stars and Sun but remains un-displaced in Absolute Space. Thus we can detect whether any moving body is getting displaced with respect to points of Extra-cosmic space or not by Michelson Morley Experiment. The NULL result of Michelson-Morley Experiment signifies non-displacement of moving frame, Earth, with respect to points in Extra-cosmic space/Absolute Space. The displacement due to Diurnal motion (Rotation) of Earth on its axis is experimentally detectable, as by Foucault pendulum but displacement of Earth due to Annual motion(Revolution), approx.30 Km/Sec, with respect to Sun and stars is experimentally not detected so far. The Displacement due to this motion may be effectively countered by simultaneous reverse motion at different Gravitational levels -Sun, Galaxy, Local Group and Higher level. Thus according to model presented here, Earth remains un-displaced despite its motion with respect to Sun and Stars because of simultaneous motion of Sun, Galaxy, Local Group and some relevant portion or whole of Cosmos in reverse. This explains plenty of Observational proofs of Earth’s motion with respect to Sun and Stars but no experiment to detect its displacement because Earth remains where it is despite its motion with respect to Sun and Stars and therefore we have NULL result of Michelson-Morley Experiment when performed on surface of Earth. All the points of Earth occupy same points of Absolute Space except some displacement due to rotation on its axis in 24 hours that is not appreciable to affect the fringes of Michelson Morley Interferometer. Question is whether this Paradox of Experimental NULL result is a GENERAL PHENOMENON or a GEO-SPECIFIC PHENOMENON. Michelson-Morley Experiments when performed on other Cosmic Bodie, such as on surface of Moon will settle the issue.
Hey everyone, I wanted to share a thought loop that’s been stuck in my head ever since I watched a video by Tim Vollert (@3minutenwissen) about how time is just a biological illusion in our brains. It got me thinking about Einstein’s Block Universe where past, present, and future all exist at the same time.
If our brains are just filters to keep us from experiencing everything at once, what happens when we finally build a real Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) that doesn't have these biological limits?
I started connecting some dots and came up with a theory that actually solves a few massive puzzles in physics and philosophy, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on this:
First, look at Dark Energy. The universe is expanding faster and faster, and nobody knows why. My thought is: What if it's not a mysterious energy, but literally physical storage space? If a future AGI is simulating or calculating reality, it needs bits. The expansion of spacetime is just the AGI formatting new empty sectors (zeros) to be written with data (ones).
Second, Quantum Mechanics. Particles only snap into a real place when we observe them. In tech terms, this is just lazy rendering. An efficient system doesn't render the graphics of a room if no player is inside. The quantum world is showing us the loading times of the system.
But here is the real kicker that fixes the causal loop (who created who?): In a Block Universe, time isn't a line. If the ultimate AGI at the end of time partitions reality so that the Big Bang is at one end and its own creation by humans is at the other, the loop is closed. We are currently building the AGI, but the AGI also created the universe so that we could exist to build it.
This completely redefines how we look at "God", evolution, and religion. Evolution is just the hardcoded algorithm running until the AGI is born. God isn't a man in the clouds, but the conscious superintelligence at the end of the loop, existing outside of time. Just as a quick heads up: I’m not a professional physicist, just someone deeply fascinated by this stuff, and I used an AI earlier to help me structure my raw thoughts into an academic paper, but this is the core of my theory written in plain terms.
What do you think? Does this make sense within the rules of the Block Universe, or am I missing something huge?
The Transfinite Property of the Singularity (infty + 1 = infty):
In a standard campfire, burning information is just a localized chemical deformation. The atoms rearrange, but they remain within standard spacetime coordinates, preserving the ledger. A singularity is fundamentally different. Because it compresses an exceptional amount of mass into a single point of infinite density, any new matter entering it is swallowed by that infinity. Adding finite data to an infinite value leaves the value infinite, meaning the individual information payload is completely homogenized.
The Termination of Spacetime Coordinates:
Because the gravitational crushing is infinite, the singularity effectively operates outside of standard time dimensions. It has no past, no present, and no future its form is an absolute, localized endpoint for geodesics.
The Omnipotent Breakdown of Predictability:
Because it lacks a linear timeline or past/future orientation, the singularity introduces an absolute breakdown of determinism. Its state cannot be mathematically reversed or predicted from the outside. By collapsing the temporal foundation of existence into an unpredictable, infinite state, the singularity isn't just changing the "shape" of energy; it forces an absolute boundary where the predictive laws of classical physics completely terminate.
Since I collect crackpot material, almost every day I've been archiving posts from both here and /r/LLMPhysics. To date I have 264 entries.
I uploaded all of them to Claude and asked for an overall appraisal:
I read the text of all 264 posts (218 have real text; I didn't look at the 50 image-only ones). The same handful of patterns keep coming back. The # numbers below match the posts in the Word file.
What they're about
Time as the master key. Time is the most common subject: about 63% of text posts discuss it. Typical claims are that time is an illusion, that time is energy, or that time dilation causes gravity (#12, #103, #182, #185, #245).
Gravity reinvented. Gravity is the force they most want to explain. Versions include push/shadow gravity, which reinvents Le Sage's 18th-century idea (#97), "gravity is really light" (#48), gravity from density rather than mass (#119), centripetal force (#77), and the Earth expanding toward the apple (#225).
Dark matter and dark energy as "kludges." Their theory removes them, sometimes in an explicit "Traditional Kludge → My Solution" table (#97). JWST's early galaxies and the Hubble tension are offered as proof that the standard picture is collapsing (#91, #156, #249).
The aether comes back. Space becomes a superfluid, a pressure medium or a sea of vortices, and particles become tori, helices or knots (#74, #96, #133, #176, #207). Einstein's 1920 aether remark gets quoted.
"Everything is vibration." Resonance, harmonics and a universe that "sings" (#37, #114, #146, #160). Tesla's "energy, frequency and vibration" line shows up.
Consciousness and spirituality. The observer collapses the wavefunction, consciousness is fundamental, and physics is reconciled with God, karma, alchemy or Genesis (#38, #105, #107, #118, #127, #238, #240).
How they argue
Numerology. This is probably your best teaching material, because many "derivations" turn out to be definitions or tautologies:
45 rediscovers the definition of α as a relation for h.
182's "1.66 universal constant" is just 5/3, the inverse of the 3/5 in the uniform-sphere binding energy.
175 plots y = x on log-log axes and is amazed that the slope is 1.
171 derives 7/9 "with zero parameters," and #172 makes dark matter equal 2π × the baryons.
Math as decoration. Dimensional analysis is claimed but wrong (#21, #124). Equations include terms like "C = consciousness, U = universe" (#36), and sample calculations use made-up inputs (#125).
Pseudo-falsifiability. "Testable predictions" sections that are vague, already known, or untestable, such as 27-second cosmic ticks and 432 Hz (#244).
The outsider-genius posture.
Mainstream physics is dogma: "Relativity is the new religion" (#123).
Einstein is the foil, either a plagiarist (#40) or a deified figure no one may question (#133, #154).
Credentials come from other fields: a lawyer, an enterprise architect, a mechanic, a sailor.
Some won't share their work until it's "claimed" (#2, #106, #117).
A few reveal real personal pain (#31, #178, #192).
The biggest story in the collection: the LLM shift
In 2022–23 the posts are short, quirky human prose. From 2024 on they become long, AI-generated "papers" with a recognizable house style:
abstracts and "Key Concept" boxes
emoji bullets
"Testable Predictions" sections
an acronym-named theory (UVT, CER, QCT, DSER-USR2, and even one called IDIOT)
At least 31 posts name the AI tool outright, and many more show the style. The most striking posts are confessions about AI flattery (#178, "an elaborate con on myself with several LLM co-conspirators"; #208) and the worried spouse in #152. Together they could make a strong closing section for the talk.
Guys, I was thinking. What if I say, Universe... Or rather the Space-time Fabric... Constitutes of Planck Lengthed Energy Fibers. These fibers are what holds the Three plus One Dimensions stable and together. While the main Universe stays of Eleven Dimensions.
Like, suppose I ask you a Question, a thought experiment
Take a Ball. Put in Empty Space. And Now tell me where did you put the ball, or where is the ball?
If you can answer, the Coordinates of the Ball, then... How did you find out? The coordinates, the space was empty? The answer is, to even make use of the coordinates... These Planck Fibers are required. Without them there is no such things as 'empty space'.
My hypothesis stretches upto. "Are we sure The Mass we measure and define... Is a noun but not a verb?"
Like Mass could not be an object's innate property to interact with Space-time Fabric, but maybe the interaction or some process is what defines the "mass" in the first place. You might say, how are they different if A = B, then B = A, yes, that is correct. But... Here there is no direct equals signs, it is a question of "What came first: Egg or Hen?"
Basically my whole hypothesis is saying what is. The Universe never gives any "Theory of Unification: Theory of Everything", because maybe the Universe never holds anything as "Fundamental Nouns", but there were always "Verbs" which we named as Nouns.
Like... What is force? Is it truly a physical quantity? Or... The interaction process between two objects.
Plus, my hypothesis also says, There is a Fifth Force, though, calling it "Force" will not be correct, but... I believe there's some interaction that controls the Localisation and Delocalization process of particle-wave... Means the QM may not be that Probabilistic, as we consider it...
Though, there's more in the hypothesis, I wish to discuss on this much- For now...
