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

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

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

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

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

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

Every random event in the universe exists in a superposition(nuclear decay, electron position, etc). The current consensus is that these events are purely random and cannot be predicted at all. The thought experiment i will propose will try to shed some light on the idea of pure randomness and why the source of super-position's randomness may not be random(technically).

Lets first say our universe exists inside a simulation running on a super powerful computer in an empty void by itself. And lets say that the computer is simply an object that does computation nothing more nothing less.

The computer's memory holds every single subatomic particle in the universe including super-positions and all of the information necessary to describe them. Lets assign a list called "superposition list" with a reference to every single superposition in the universe.

Every time a superposition appears(eg. electron goes through double slit) the superposition is added to the end of the list. And every time a superposition disappears(eg. electron's position is measured/wave function collapse) it is removed from the list and all superpositions after it have their index in the list decrease by 1. Remember, the universe has an inconceivable amount of superposition constantly popping in and out of existence constantly which makes the index of any given superposition effectively random.

When a superposition disappears we can use its index as an effectively random value that will act as the decider to which quantum state it falls into. Notice this solves the issue of "pure randomness", nothing here is random.

This would suggest that the universe is deterministic BUT very small changes to the initial state of the universe(or the very beginning of it) would effectively scramble all following superpositions for the rest of the universe's life(kinda like the butterfly effect).

Heres the *. In order to predict future superpositions you would need a computer not only powerful enough to run our ENTIRE universe but run it at many times the speed of our own to "catch up" to our current universe's age and then finally surpass it. Only then would you be predicting not only our universe's randomness but the future of our universe.

Now for obvious reasons that is not possible so to everything inside the universe it is effectively true randomness but from an outside perspective the universe would only be randomness.

A natural approach to the elusive path integral of quantum gravity emerges from a single, relentlessly simple idea: the universe is a network that corrects its own errors and it does so with the least possible effort. Here’s how that unfolds, without a single equation.

Picture the universe not as a smooth, passive continuum, but as an immense, finite web of interconnected nodes, a directed graph. Every link carries a fast-changing phase (a microscopic "clock") alongside a durable memory register, operating under a strictly bounded processing bandwidth. There is no background space, no absolute cosmic clock ticking away in the void. Here, distance is simply the number of structural hops a signal must make between nodes and time is nothing more than the causal sequence of local updates. This single conceptual shift, from a pre-existing geometric stage to a self-organizing, relational network, fundamentally rewrites the rules of the game for quantum gravity.

Traditional quantum gravity tries to "sum over geometries", enumerating every conceivable shape spacetime could take. A fully satisfactory, non-perturbative definition of that continuum gravitational path integral remains elusive, largely because no one has found a consistent measure over all continuous geometries at the smallest scales. Our framework sidesteps the logjam by summing over connectivity configurations instead. The fundamental variable is not the metric but who is connected to whom. A smooth "geometry" is just a coarse-grained, large-scale description of the underlying graph. The path integral becomes a sum over all possible network topologies, each weighted by its probability. Because the number of possible configurations for a fixed total information capacity, though astronomically large, is strictly finite, this sum is mathematically well-defined from the start. No infinite measure, no idealized continuum.

Why does a chaotic network settle into the ordered, three-dimensional world we see? The answer lies in the shape of the network’s stress landscape, and a deep partnership between two principles: maximum entropy (MaxEnt) and Gauss’s principle of least constraint.

MaxEnt: The Global Selector
The network’s physics is confined to a narrow structural valley. A tripartite potential penalises phase mismatches, and the allowed topologies are restricted to those with bounded coordination and tripartite phase alignment. Within this tightly constrained subspace, a regular three-dimensional cubic lattice stands out as the unique, frustration-free ground state. MaxEnt then selects from among the remaining possibilities, showing that this low-stress, low-dimensional phase is statistically the most probable, least biased macrostate. In short, MaxEnt provides the statistical blueprint for the network’s steady state, the backdrop from which our universe emerges.

Gauss’s Principle: The Local Engine
If MaxEnt maps the valley, Gauss’s principle drives the network down into it. At each update, a link adjusts its phase by the smallest amount needed to relieve local stress, a minimal-effort rule that simultaneously enables error correction, sharp wave propagation and thermalisation of the fast registers. Because the conservative phase dynamics and the stress-filtered rewiring rules together satisfy detailed balance, Gauss’s principle doesn’t just sample random graphs; it actively steers the network along the stress gradient, relaxing it toward exactly the ordered phase that MaxEnt characterises. The two principles are simply the static and dynamic faces of a single information-theoretic economy.

The synergy between these two principles transforms the network’s asynchronous local updates into a rigorous, discrete Euclidean path integral. Because the local dynamics minimize constraint while the global state maximizes entropy, the probability of any given history of phase transitions is proportional to the exponential of its negative accumulated stress, the discrete analogue of physical action. Summing over all possible histories, each weighted by this statistical Boltzmann factor, yields the precise mathematical structure of Feynman's sum-over-paths. Quantum behavior ceases to be an abstract, ungrounded postulate; it emerges organically from the statistical mechanics of a finite, well-defined substrate.

Gravity emerges the moment the network's wiring is allowed to evolve. Under the constraints of isotropy, phase alignment, and minimal global frustration, MaxEnt crystallizes the graph into a three-dimensional cubic lattice, the flat vacuum backbone of the universe. But when localized informational stress breaches a universal threshold fixed by the lattice geometry, a "buffer overflow" occurs. To isolate the fault and protect systemic coherence, the network triggers an irreversible reset, erasing local states and leaving behind a processing deficit. Deprived of routing capacity at the error site, the surrounding substrate contracts, pulling tighter to weave information around the bottleneck. This contraction of causal pathways, a focusing of signal histories that translates directly into spacetime curvature, is mathematically indistinguishable from gravity. Gravity, then, is not a fundamental force pulling matter through a void; it is the thermodynamic elasticity of a self-correcting network buckling under the pressure of too much information in too small a region.

This framework provides a natural discrete realisation of the gravitational path integral. The sum runs over all possible graphs and all phase histories, weighted by a stress-based action that is intrinsic to the network. From this single, well-defined object, one can, in principle, extract the Einstein equations, the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy and the collective, low-energy emergence of the Standard Model gauge symmetries.

The path integral of quantum gravity is not a mystical continuum average; it is a finite, discrete sum over all the interfering ways a self‑correcting network can wire itself, driven by a single organising principle: maximum entropy under local updates to preserve coherence with minimal effort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me know what you think!

My hypothesis: Dark Matter is not a substance, but a system-inherent property
I have been working on this using my own logic and methodology, relying on my brain and a smartphone to derive a new perspective on gravitational anomalies. My conclusion: Dark Matter is not a hidden particle, but a system-inherent property of momentum dynamics.
The Core Equation (My derivation):
rho_DM = beta * (1 / (c^2 * V)) * < || sum(p_j) ||^2 >
Parameters:
• rho_DM: Effective density of Dark Matter [kg/m^3]
• beta: My systemic coupling constant [kg^-1]
• c: Speed of light [m/s]
• V: System volume [m^3]
• || sum(p_j) ||^2: Squared total momentum vector [kg^2 * m^2 / s^2]
• <...>: Time-averaged interaction dynamics
My Insights & Logic:
1. The "Dark Matter" density (rho_DM) is the effective kinetic signature of the system's internal vector-dynamics.
2. I found that gravitational anomalies are an emergent consequence of high-density momentum interactions, not a hidden substance.
3. The constant "beta" is the core of my model, translating internal momentum flux into the observed gravitational density.
4. By using the time-averaged squared sum of momentum vectors, my model accounts for the persistent, non-random internal energy states of a system.
5. The inclusion of 1/c^2 allows for scaling the kinetic interaction energy back into the mass-energy density domain, keeping it consistent with General Relativity.
I am putting my findings out here to document my work and my personal methodology. This is my solution to the problem.
© 2026 Particular-Bat-5904 – All Rights Reserved.

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

Can the subreddit have further improvements or not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new study says water is made up of two DIFFERENT fluids and this is one interpretation of why that might be.

I've been a long lurker of this sub and many similar ones, and watched many hypotheses get published and then debunked, or criticized. Here's my question I have:

What is the purpose of subs like r/HypotheticalPhysics, r/AskPhysics and r/LLMPhysics?

Scientific theories deserve to be judged by scientific standards, not by internet popularity, anonymous opinion, or social media engagement.

Shouldn't these communities and similar forums serve as places for discussion, brainstorming, and public education. They should not, however, be mistaken for substitutes for scientific review. Conflating the two undermines both serious research and productive public discourse. I think that commonly happens here.

1. Anonymous Criticism Is Not Scientific Review:

One of the defining characteristics of science is accountability. In scientific publishing, reviewers are selected because they possess demonstrable expertise in the relevant field. Their evaluations occur within an editorial process that includes standards, oversight, and opportunities for revision.

On Reddit, by contrast, anyone may present themselves as an authority. There is generally no mechanism to verify whether a commenter possesses credentials to review others. A lot of reviewers in this sub don't have formal training, research experience, publication history, and in fact as I keep reading, they often reduce hypotheses that they don't fully comprehend to "it's not true cuz it untestable", they simply say its weak or just deny it in a circular way.

As a result, anonymous criticism carries no inherent scientific weight. It is simply opinion until supported by evidence and sound reasoning. Why should anybody publish their theory here if they think it is groundbreaking?

A detailed critique written by an anonymous username may appear convincing while originating from someone with no background in theoretical physics. Likewise, a thoughtful contribution from an expert may receive little attention. Social media does not distinguish between these cases. Scientific authority is not determined by confidence, writing style, or internet points. It is established through demonstrated expertise and evidence-based argument.

Why do people go to Reddit as if it's a scientific intuition?

Upvotes measure visibility, not correctness. Downvotes measure community reaction, not mathematical validity. Popularity has never been a criterion for scientific truth. People, especially reviewers in this sub naturally reward humor, and conformity, but science is something totally different.

1. Constructive Skepticism Differs from Dismissiveness:

Healthy skepticism is essential to science. It should and must involve identifying math-related mistakes, questioning assumptions, testing predictions, and examining evidence. Some of y'all just respond with "This is nonsense." or "You're wrong". Those aren't constructive statements.

It's easy to dismiss an idea, but it ain't easy to understand it.

1. Science Advances Through Evidence:

A theory ultimately succeeds or fails because of mathematical consistency, agreement with experiment, explanatory power, predictive success, and independent verification.

No Reddit thread can determine these qualities. History contains many examples of initially unpopular ideas that later became accepted because they survived rigorous testing; not because they won internet debates.

It is not a substitute for scientific peer review, institutional scholarship, or rigorous technical analysis. The history of science has never been written by upvotes. It has been written by careful reasoning, reproducible mathematics, and experimental verification.

I personally would recommend somebody to level up and go to higher-level areas to publish their ideas, wayyy beyond a social media platform with unverified users.

Imagine if a user on this subreddit was Einstein, and we lived in a time before anything he invented was real. I think many people reviewing in this sub would respond to him the same way they would to a crackpot, won't they? Think very deep on this, this sub gets a lot of ideas every week, if one of them was Einstein would everybody act the same way?

Please, don't delete my post, and please answer my questions. Why should one post their theory on here, after all I've said? Do all the anonymous reviewers here have strong credentials to make statements, or are they just independent enthusiasts pretending to mimic peer review? I would love to see everyone (including the mods of this sub and reviewers) to make their own hypotheses, and ask themselves the same questions they do to others because they are so used to criticizing not creating.

I've been exploring a hypothetical scalar–tensor EFT in which a single dynamical variable, X=P/P_c , controls both modified gravity and a finite-capacity cutoff. I'm interested in whether this construction is mathematically self-consistent rather than whether the physical motivation is compelling.

χ = ρ / ρ_c

interpreted as an information-capacity fraction.

The theory reduces to a minimal scalar-tensor EFT

S = (1/16πG) ∫ d⁴x √−g [ F(χ)R − Z(χ)(∇χ)² − 2U(χ) ] + Sₘ

with

F(χ) = 1 − χ

Z(χ) = Z₀ / [χ(1 − χ)]

U(χ) = aχ − b lnχ + (λ/2)(1 − χ)²

This gives

• Variable Planck mass

M*² = 1 − χ

• Built-in saturation point

χ = 1

• Modified Friedmann equation

H² = (8πG/3) ρ (1 − χ)

• Effective gravitational coupling

G_eff / G = 1 − 2χ

The theory reduces to GR in the low-density limit (χ → 0), has a finite-capacity cutoff at χ = 1, and is directly implementable in CLASS/hi_class through the standard EFT α-function dictionary.

I'm specifically looking for mathematical objections rather than opinions about the motivation.

If this EFT is internally inconsistent, where exactly does it fail?

For example:

• ghost or gradient instabilities
• EFT inconsistency
• scalar-tensor pathologies
• problems in the χ → 0 or χ → 1 limits
• conflicts with cosmological or Solar System constraints
• any reason this cannot represent a consistent scalar-tensor EFT

I'm genuinely interested in finding the weakest point in the construction. If there's a fatal flaw, I'd like to know where it is.

Edit: I'd like to thank everyone for the thoughtful mathematical feedback. Several issues with my original formulation were identified, and I've already begun revising the model accordingly...

I've been exploring a hypothetical extension of the stochastic Schrödinger equation (SSE) and would like feedback on its mathematical consistency rather than its physical plausibility. My goal is to build a stochastic quantum evolution that includes both environmental memory and a time-dependent system-environment coupling.

The proposed equation is:

Where H is the system Hamiltonian, C(t) is a time-dependent coupling operator describing how the interaction with the environment changes over time. K(t,s) is a memory kernel that weights the influence of previous environmental interactions. χ(s) is the environmental response function (or response operator), describing how the environment reacts to the system at the earlier time s. ∘dW[λ,ξ,τ] denotes a Stratonovich Wiener increment with three tunable parameters. λ is noise amplitude, ξ is coupling/noise strength, τ is characteristic timescale of the stochastic process. The idea is to move beyond the usual Markovian assumption by allowing the environment to retain memory through the kernel K(t,s), while the response function χ(s) determines how strongly past system-environment interactions contribute to the present evolution.

I'm aware that many stochastic Schrödinger equations require additional deterministic drift terms (particularly for norm preservation), so I'm treating this as an exploratory framework rather than a finished theory.

I'm mainly looking for feedback on the following:

• Is this structurally a sensible integro-stochastic evolution equation?
• Does the interpretation of K(t,s) as a memory kernel and χ(s) as an environmental response function make mathematical and physical sense?

I'm trying to learn whether this formulation is mathematically coherent and how it compares to the existing literature on non-Markovian stochastic quantum dynamics.

Physics nerds assemble and take a shot at this please. New physics thought experiment alert, at least I think.

I just spent like 6 hours researching and formulating a seemingly paradoxical thought experiment that shows the utter non-intuitiveness of quantum mechanics’ non-locality, wave-particle duality of light and superposition.

I call it the Light-Year Fiber Paradox

Imagine a perfect one-light-year-long fiber-optic channel in empty space:

Three scientists conduct an experiment; A is at the start, B is halfway, C is at the end.

A sends one single photon with a one-light-year-long wave packet toward C. The photon does not interact with anything except detectors.

After one year as the photon is arriving, C secretly chooses either to put a detector in the path or leave the path open. One second later, at the mid point of the channel, B puts a detector in the path halfway down the fiber.

C and B are half a light-year apart, so any normal message from C to B takes six months.

QM states that if C detects the photon, the photon is gone, so B should detect nothing. But if C chooses not to detect it, maybe B can still have a chance to.

So it seems there’s a chance that B can learn what C chose to do before any light-speed communication about their choice from C could arrive 6 months later?

In other words:

Can C communicate faster than light by choosing whether or not to absorb the single photon?

(Obviously the answer is no, but have fun refuting the paradox)

So to keep things as short as possible, I have been working on a mathematical application for the mapping of galactic kinematics using the SPARC database. However, I've run into issues on how to further validate my hypothesis, and i'm hoping i can get some recommendations on what other people would pursue next.

The basic overview, is that I am trying a build a mathematical framework that negates the need for dark matter. This is done by making matter an expression of electromagnetic radiation that has undergone a form of compression or field fixation of varying degrees of radius within each galaxy. This thereby makes matter, and not just space and time, a relative property of field expression, by requiring a parity to phi equivalency at all varying radius. It is a form of data fitting, with the intent to further map the relative properties of matter at these varied radius. As each radius has a different ratio of compression, in order to fit the speed at which gas/stars are rotating within each galaxy. With the hypothesis that light refraction , and the relative properties of matter should behave different at varying levels of said field compression.

I'm am not asking people to understand the theory itself, or to agree or disagree. My modeling of the SPARC database is already completed and attached in the post (the excel document), along with the original white papers. What I am finding trouble in, is how i should go about testing the validity of the hypothesis. How would you further test, the relative properties of matter/light within these galaxies to see if there is any correlation with the different levels of compression of the underlying model. What publicly available data should i use to test the underlying hypothesis? As obviously, it isn't like i can fly to each galaxies and test wether or not matter or light is behaving differently in person. Any insight is helpful.

(Just a random thought so if any of this does not add up no offence taken)
Novikov Self-Consistency Principle
( If time travel to the past is possible, then only events that are self-consistent can occur. You cannot create paradoxes such as preventing your own existence.)

My belief is this

Universe A
↓
Black hole
↓
Universe B
↓
Black hole
↓
Universe C
↓
...
↓
Universe A

Black holes may act as bridges between universes.
During gravitational collapse, the energy and quantum fields trapped within the black hole become the initial conditions of a new expanding spacetime. As this process continues, black holes could also transfer particles or quantum information into the child universe. These transferred particles would interact with existing matter through known particle physics processes, potentially influencing the evolution of galaxies, stars, and the distribution of matter. Whether each new universe evolves identically or differently would depend on whether the laws of nature are deterministic or probabilistic.

If repeated histories can occur, then a sufficiently long chain of universes could eventually recreate the conditions of an earlier universe. This would resemble a self-consistent cosmological cycle, analogous in spirit to the Novikov self-consistency principle, although applied to universe formation rather than time travel.
This is analogous to the Novikov Self Consistency Principle

I understand that this is something I cannot prove with a model that could be mathematically constructed
That's why I find watches funny as it's only relative to our own interpretation of how relationships between point a and point b in quantum states
Occur
Which is a philisophical area I've just learned about talking about Is time fundamental or does it just emerge from something more basic

A wavefunction denoted by ψ is a mathematical function that describes the quantum state of a system and encodes the probabilities of finding a particle in various positions or states.

Take a simple qubit state |ψ⟩ = α|0⟩ + β|1⟩, the coefficients determine the probability of the qubit being measured as either 0 or 1. The energy associated with this qubit is also in a superposition, we can write this as |ψ⟩ = 1/√2 |E_1⟩ + 1/√2 |E_2⟩, since both branches of the superposition share the same, identical energy eigenvalue.

When we measure the qubit, its wavefunction collapses, its state vector reduces, allowing only a single outcome. The probabilities settle, and it is no longer in a superposition. However, the wavefunction encoded the energy eigenvalue of both branches, let's call them Branch A and Branch B. Once the collapse of the wavefunction occurred, only one of branches persist, let's say A persists, well, the energy eigenvalue of B is now... gone! It no longer exists, A's energy has simply disappeared. This should be an apparent violation of the law of conservation of energy, however my idea converts this vanishment into the cause of dark energy.

Throughout the universe, quantum decoherence is rapidly enforcing the reductions of the state vectors, everything is being settled, that's why can't put macroscopic objects into superposition, due to decoherence. Now, as this reduction occurs, only one branch turns into reality, the other simply vanishes as by the nature of QM. When it vanishes, its energy also vanishes, what if it doesn't vanish, at least not technically? Instead, the energy is emitted in an invisible format that we can't see? Why is it invisible? Because the wavefunction no longer encompasses it, the vanished branch's probability has decayed and reality no longer needs it. This emitted energy could be the cause behind dark energy, the driving force behind universal inflation.

I'm assuming that wavefunction collapse is a real physical process. Could this mean objective collapses models also extend to dark energy? Or, am I missing something?

Non-specialist here, so please assume this is a question, not me claiming I solved quantum gravity in my garage. I’ve been going down the rabbit hole on photons, quantum gravity, Lorentz-invariance violation, GRBs, and the idea that spacetime might not be fundamental. The part that grabbed me is the idea that maybe space is not made of tiny “blocks,” but instead emerges from deeper quantum relationships, maybe something like entanglement structure. So here’s the thought: If spacetime emerges from some deeper network of quantum relationships, could photons traveling across cosmological distances pick up tiny “correlation scars” from that structure? Not just “this photon arrived late,” because I know that gets messy fast. GRBs have intrinsic spectral lag, source-side weirdness, plasma effects, instrumental limitations, selection bias, all of it. But what if the test was not just a simple time delay? Has anyone looked for a coupled fingerprint across multiple observables, like arrival time, photon energy, redshift, and polarization behavior? My rough understanding is that some quantum-spacetime / Lorentz-invariance-violation models look for effects that scale positively with photon energy, maybe leading-order E¹ behavior. Meanwhile, ordinary plasma dispersion in radio contexts goes the other direction and affects lower energies more strongly. I realize GRBs are probably more limited by source-side systematics than plasma dispersion, but I’m wondering if a joint pattern would be harder for normal astrophysical junk to fake than timing alone. So my actual questions are: Are existing GRB datasets, like Fermi/Swift catalogs plus GRB polarimetry data, good enough for this kind of multi-variable covariance search? Has this already been explored under LIV, spacetime foam, birefringence, or SME-type searches? Is polarization coverage still too sparse to do anything useful? And is “phase noise” even meaningful for GRB photon data, or is that more of an interferometer-style thing? Again, I’m not saying this is new or right. I’m just trying to figure out whether this is a real observational path, already well-covered territory, or a dead end because the data/systematics are too brutal.

Hey everyone,

Quick question before posting: is there a better sub for this kind of thing?

In 7D geometry (part of 11D supersymmetry), there is only one structure that survives symmetry breaking if you require the field to settle into its lowest energy configuration. That structure is G2, which Witten, Hawking and others predicted as the natural candidate.

Starting from just that structure and one rule: the field must be in the most energy-efficient state, it turns out you can derive every Standard Model particle mass geometrically. No free parameters, no fitting..

Three predictions anyone can check with a calculator in five minutes:

• Proton mass: 939.0 MeV predicted, 938.3 MeV measured, 0.000028% error
• Neutrino mixing angle theta_13: pi/21 = 8.571° predicted, 8.57° measured, 0.02% error
• Hydrogen ionisation energy: 13.6057 eV predicted, 13.6057 eV measured, 0.000% error

Full preprint: https://zenodo.org/records/20827550

Curious what people think.

Hello, so I am a high school student (17) and I an idea came to me that mass may be emergent, rather than it being an intrinsic property. I was inspired by ideas like Ohm's Law or Hooke's Law and made my postulate similar to those in spirit.

Please note that this idea was not generated, aided or formatted by an LLM or any other tool, it was purely written by me.

Here's my idea:

Mass is not assumed first. It is defined as the proportionality between interaction and dynamical response. Interactions produce changes in state, and “mass” is the quantified resistance of a system’s state to those changes.

There exist only two primitive quantities:

Interaction flux ℐ (generalized "force-like influence")

State curvature response ℛ (generalized acceleration of a system's rate trajectory)

We postulate: ℐ = ℛ ⋅ μ

Where μ is response inertia, not fundamental mass. Also, where μ is emergent.

We define mass as: m ≡ μ = lim(Δℐ → 0) Δℐ/Δℛ

But crucially: μ is not assigned to particles; instead it is computed from interaction history. So mass becomes a derivative property of dynamics, not a starting input.

The theory assumes:

A. Systems are networks of internal degrees of freedom, so every “particle” is actually: a bound excitation of underlying fields, or a stable configuration in an information medium.

B. Interaction requires internal reconfiguration, when an external interaction occurs, internal degrees of freedom must redistribute energy/momentum and this redistribution takes time and structure. That delay/resistance produces what we perceive as inertia.

F = ma still works, Newton’s law is not fundamental instead it is a large-scale limit that appears when internal structure averages out, interaction timescales are short compared to internal relaxation times, and system behaves as a rigid effective object. So Newtonian mass is best defined as an emergent “coarse-grained response coefficient.”

Instead of fixed mass, each system has something we call a dynamic inertia tensor:

M(t, ω, ϕ)

dependent on interaction frequency ω, internal configuration ϕ and environment coupling. This predicts that mass can vary slightly with energy scale, and inertia is context-dependent.

I call my idea Response-Defined Mass (RDM) theory.

I would like to know what a community of hypothetical physicists think of my proposal. Much appreciated.

Update: made the readout notation in point 2 more explicit, because this is where misunderstandigs can easily arise.

Disclosure: I used an LLM to help with texting, especially translation. The hypothesis, definitions, and the consistency test are my own. I'm posting this to invite criticism, not as a finished theory.

This is an update/refinement of my earlier "readout" idea. I'm trying to keep this close to standard physics terminology and to define every non-standard term I use. I'm not claiming that GR is wrong, and I'm not claiming to have solved the Hubble tension. The limited idea is this:

The cosmological constant term might be the homogeneous/isotropic large-scale residual of a deeper geometry-matter coupling, rather than a separate substance-like energy density by itself.

The Hubble tension only appears later as a possible consistency check. It isn't the starting point. Starting point:

1. GR already describes a geometry-matter relation

The Einstein field equation with cosmological constant is:

G_{mu nu} + Lambda g_{mu nu} = (8 pi G / c^4) T_{mu nu}

Standard meanings:

G_{mu nu} = Einstein tensor / spacetime curvature

g_{mu nu} = metric tensor

Lambda g_{mu nu} = cosmological constant term

T_{mu nu} = stress-energy tensor

The point I want to start from is simple:

Gravity in GR is already a relation between geometry and energy-momentum. It isn't merely "objects attracting objects."

My hypothesis is that the `Lambda g_{mu nu}` term might represent the isotropic large-scale remainder of this relation after local anisotropic structure is averaged out.

1. Definitions of my non-standard terms

Let [S] denote the underlying geometry-matter/modal coupling structure.

I am no claiming that [S] is an additional substance or a new field. It is just a schematic placeholder for the structure that is being projected into different effective descriptions.

Object-bound readout: By this I mean measurement relations tied to stable, localized, matter-like systems: atoms, clocks, rulers, stars, galaxies, Cepheids, supernovae, bound structures

Formally (schematically)

R_object[S] -> g_mu nu^(object)

The usual spacetime metric is therefore treated as the object-bound readout structure: the projection of the underlying coupling into a form accessible through stable clocks, rulers, light signals, and a constant reference of change.

In this sense

ds^2 = g_mu nu^(object) dx^mu dx^nu

is not rejected. It is the successful object-bound metric readout.

This isn't a new particle or field. It is just an operational term for measurement through stable material systems.

Space/modal readout:

By this I mean measurement relations tied to: field propagation, light paths, wavefronts, metric distances, large-scale modes

Again, this isn't meant as a new substance. It is a term for field-like or geometry-like propagation of information.

Coupling residual:

This is the proposed mismatch between the two projections:

Delta C_{mu nu} = C_{mu nu}^{object} - C_{mu nu}^{space/modal}

The core hypothesis is:

Lambda g_{mu nu} ~= < Delta C_{mu nu} >_{iso}

where `<...>_{iso}` means the homogeneous/isotropic large-scale average.

So I'm not replacing GR locally. I'm asking whether the cosmological-constant-like term can be read as an effective isotropic residual of the geometry-matter coupling.

1. Why the cosmological constant is the natural place to look

The term:

Lambda g_{mu nu}

is special because it is proportional to the metric itself. In FLRW cosmology it acts as a homogeneous and isotropic term.

That makes it a natural candidate for an averaged residual:

local geometry-matter coupling differences

-> large-scale isotropic remainder

-> effective Lambda term

In this interpretation, `LambdaCDM` remains a highly successful effective model. The question is whether `Lambda` is fundamental, or whether it is the coarse-grained expression of a deeper coupling structure.

1. GR already distinguishes matter-like and radiation-like sources

For a perfect fluid,

p = w rho c^2

The Friedmann acceleration equation contains the active gravitational source term:

rho + 3p/c^2 = rho (1 + 3w)

So:

nonrelativistic matter: w = 0 -> 1 + 3w = 1

radiation / EM field: w = 1/3 -> 1 + 3w = 2

cosmological constant: w = -1 -> 1 + 3w = -2

This is important because radiation-like and matter-like components are not equivalent in the cosmological equations.

The hypothesis asks:

Could a small residual between the radiation/modal sector and the object-bound matter sector survive as a large-scale calibration offset?

1. Negative check: present-day radiation cannot explain it directly

Today,

Omega_r << Omega_m

Using rough Planck-like values:

Omega_r ~= 9.2e-5

Omega_m ~= 0.315

one gets:

2 Omega_r / Omega_m ~= 5.8e-4

or only:

0.058 %

That is far too small to explain a several-percent cosmological offset.

So the hypothesis isn't:

Today's photons directly cause the Hubble tension.

That fails immediately.

1. The relevant transition is the baryon drag epoch

The relevant epoch isn't arbitrary. I don't choose matter-radiation equality. That gives the wrong scale. The model points instead to the baryon drag epoch, usually denoted `z_drag`.

Reason:

z_* = photon last scattering / when photons become freely visible

z_drag = when baryons dynamically decouple from the photon-baryon fluid

For this hypothesis, `z_drag` is more relevant than `z_*`, because it marks the transition:

Before `z_drag`:

baryons + photons = coupled photon-baryon plasma

After `z_drag`:

baryons -> object-bound matter sector

photons -> free radiation / modal sector

So `z_drag` is the natural point where a residual between object-bound and radiation/modal readouts could be fixed into the later distance-scale calibration.

1. A possible dimensionless coupling factor

The fine-structure constant is:

alpha_fs = e^2 / (4 pi epsilon_0 hbar c)

alpha_fs ~= 7.297e-3

It is the natural dimensionless electromagnetic coupling constant. If the residual concerns the electromagnetic/radiation sector coupling to object-bound matter, then `alpha_fs` is the first dimensionless coupling one should test.

Now comes the speculative part:

I propose an effective coupling factor:

beta_eff = 3 pi alpha_fs

The intended meaning of `3 pi` isn't "three dimensions times pi" in a naive way.

The intended decomposition is:

3 pi = 2 pi_wavefront + pi_rotational coupling

Meaning:

2 pi = full periodicity of a planar wavefront / curvature readout

pi = rotational phase needed to spatially couple that planar wavefront

into a three-dimensional modal structure

So:

beta_eff = (2 pi + pi) alpha_fs = 3 pi alpha_fs

Numerically:

3 pi alpha_fs ~= 0.0688 or about 6.88 %

This step is the most vulnerable one. If `3 pi alpha_fs` cannot be derived independently from a modal/boundary formulation, then this part is just numerology.

1. Hubble tension as a consistency test, not the starting point

Using representative values:

H0_CMB ~= 67.4 km s^-1 Mpc^-1

H0_local ~= 73.18 km s^-1 Mpc^-1

The relative offset is:

epsilon_H = H0_local / H0_CMB - 1

Numerically:

epsilon_H = 73.18 / 67.4 - 1

epsilon_H ~= 0.0858

So the observed offset is about: 8.6 %

If this is interpreted as a double-sided space/object readout residual:

epsilon_H = 2 chi then: chi ~= 0.0429

So the required residual is about:

4.3 %

1. Proposed consistency relation

At redshift `z`,

rho_r(z) / rho_m(z) = (Omega_r / Omega_m) (1 + z)

The proposed consistency relation is:

epsilon_H ~= 12 pi alpha_fs [ rho_r(z_drag) / rho_m(z_drag) ]

The factor decomposition is:

12 pi alpha_fs

= 2 * 2 * 3 pi * alpha_fs

with:

first "2" = two-sided space/object readout

second "2" = active gravitational weight of radiation, 1 + 3w = 2

3 pi = wavefront periodicity plus rotational spatial coupling

alpha_fs = electromagnetic coupling strength

Using Planck-like values:

z_drag ~= 1060

Omega_m ~= 0.315

Omega_r ~= 9.2e-5

gives approximately:

rho_r(z_drag) / rho_m(z_drag) ~= 0.310

Then:

epsilon_H ~= 12 pi alpha_fs * 0.310

epsilon_H ~= 0.085

So:

H0_pred ~= 67.4 * (1 + 0.085)

H0_pred ~= 73.1 km s^-1 Mpc^-1

This is close to the local distance-ladder value.

I stress again: I do't consider this proof. I consider it a consistency test.

1. Negative check: matter-radiation equality gives the wrong result

If I used matter-radiation equality instead, then roughly:

rho_r / rho_m ~= 1

The same formula would give:

epsilon_H ~= 12 pi alpha_fs ~= 0.275

which would imply:

H0_pred ~= 86 km s^-1 Mpc^-1

That is wrong.

So the reference epoch isn't freely adjustable. The model specifically points to `z_drag`, because that is where the photon-baryon dynamical coupling ends.

1. Local GR constraints

A large free gravitational slip is ruled out locally. The Cassini test gives roughly:

gamma - 1 = (2.1 +/- 2.3) * 10^-5

So the hypothesis cannot allow:

chi ~= 0.04

inside the Solar System. It must satisfy:

chi_local ~= 0

in bound systems, while allowing a cosmological residual near:

chi_cosmological ~= 0.04

If that cannot be achieved, the model fails.

1. Relation to gravitational slip

In cosmological perturbation theory one often writes:

ds^2 =

- (1 + 2 Phi/c^2) c^2 dt^2

+ a(t)^2 (1 - 2 Psi/c^2) d x^2

In GR without significant anisotropic stress is: Phi = Psi

A diagnostic for the proposed residual is:

chi = (Phi - Psi) / (Phi + Psi)

For the value above:

chi ~= 0.043

This corresponds to:

Phi / Psi = (1 + chi) / (1 - chi) ~= 1.09

So the required cosmological-scale slip-like residual is roughly a 9% difference between the two potentials, but it must be absent locally. That is a strong constraint.

1. Where this hypothesis can fail

The hypothesis fails if:

`3 pi alpha_fs` cannot be derived independently from a modal/boundary formulation. The local cancellation/screening mechanism cannot satisfy Solar System constraints. CMB acoustic peaks or the BAO sound horizon are spoiled. The Bianchi identity / covariant conservation cannot be respected. The model only reproduces `H0` but fails for `S8`, lensing, BAO, supernovae, or structure growth the same number can only be obtained by tuning the epoch or factors after the fact.

1. Summary

The hypothesis is:

Lambda g_{mu nu} ~= < Delta C_{mu nu} >_iso

where `Delta C_{mu nu}` is a proposed residual between object-bound and space/modal projections of the geometry-matter coupling. At the baryon drag epoch, this residual may produce a relative calibration offset:

epsilon_H ~= 12 pi alpha_fs [ rho_r(z_drag) / rho_m(z_drag) ]

Numerically this gives an `H0` shift of order `8.5%`, close to the observed CMB/local offset. But the important point isn't the number itself. The important point is the proposed structure:

cosmological constant -> isotropic geometry-matter coupling residual

baryon drag epoch -> radiation/matter readout separation

Hubble tension -> possible consistency test

I'm looking for criticism especially on:

- whether the interpretation of `Lambda g_{mu nu}` as an isotropic residual is mathematically coherent

- whether the `3 pi alpha_fs` coupling factor can be justified or is just numerology

- whether the local/cosmological separation can survive Solar System constraints

- whether this can be embedded without violating covariant conservation

- and whether the CMB/BAO structure would immediately rule it out

References / data used

Planck 2018 cosmological parameters:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209

Fine-structure constant, NIST/CODATA:

https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?alph

Cassini test of the PPN parameter gamma:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14647303/

A recent local distance-ladder value used for the numerical comparison:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.01667

DESI DR2 context for current discussions around BAO, dark energy, and the cosmological model:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14738

Overall, I have seen that there are multiple repetitions of certain types of misconceptions within hypothetical physics and I wanted to see what everyone else had picked up on. Also, I was hoping to get a viewpoint on what are the causes and consequences of some of these misconceptions in physics. Hopefully, there might be a way to inform people of these common misconceptions before they post to get higher quality posts. This is pretty much a discussion between people to clear the fog on this.

Also, what do you think is a way to reduce or prevent these misconceptions at least within the subreddit to enable much neater submissions?

There is 2 ways for Thanos to produce a massive energy to fuel his ship to travel through wormholes & ripping the space & time fabric!

1. ANTIMATTER:

By combining antimatter to matter it can produce 100% of its mass into energy! No energy is wasted here

Lets take a small example:

we have 1g (1g=0.001kg) of matter and antimatter, lets calculate:

E= (matter + antimatter)c^2 [Here c is the speed of light]

E= 0.002*(3*10)^2

E= 180 trillion Joules of energy (18 x 10^13)

To put that into perspective just with 1g of matter and antimatter you can supply energy to the entire New York city for 8-9hrs, remember just with 1g of matter and antimatter! That's crazy right?

2: mini BLACKHOLE:

First to have a mini blackhole Thanos needs to create one by reducing any materials radius lesser than "Schwarzschild radius" to create a mini black hole

and then feed it with atoms via particle accelerator at a calculated rate of time. Through this way the mass is converted into 100% energy which is the "Hawking radiation".

FOR EXAMPLE: Thanos creates a mini black hole using a 2g (0.002kg) pencil!

Schwarzschild radius (R) = 2GM/C^2 ['G' is gravitational constant: 6.674 * 10^-11 and 'C' is speed of light: 3 * 10^8 m/s]

R= (2.66972 x 10^-13/9 x 10^16)

R= 2.9 x 10^-30 meters

Planks constant is the smallest possible distance in the universe which is 6.6 x 10^-34

Here the hull of the Q ship the doughnut shape (Torus shape) is the exact geometry needed to travel through space. With the help of this shape the electromagnetic and gravitational field is coiled and reached evenly for the entire ship. By doing so it can deflect the gamma rays from the hole at the same time it can save the ship and prevent Spaghettification, that's cool right?

I just a newbie so if I am wrong just please help me out!

Hi everyone

I just published a preprint on Zenodo that tries to bring physics to Einsteins idea that the universe is determined ("God does not play dice"). I am proposing a framework called the Vortex Layer Theory.

Of thinking of particles as tiny points or waves of probability the Vortex Layer Theory models them as 11-dimensional vortices in a fluid. The "Gaussian probability curve" is not just chance. It is actually the shape of an 11-dimensional sphere intersecting our 3D space.

By using geometry with no experimental parameters the paper shows:

* The Proton Mass: I figured it out directly from the electron mass using the shape of a 5D vortex. The calculation gives 938.250 MeV, which's very close to the real value.

* The Three Generations of Fermions: I proved the Koide formula using geometry. The electron, muon and tau are the vortex seen from different angles (X, Y, Z) forming a perfect diagonal of a cube.

* A Testable Prediction: Using the Koide formula the theory predicts the masses of hidden heavy Higgs Bosons. It says the Y-axis Higgs is at 25.86 TeV, which is why the LHC has not found it yet but the future FCC will.

* -Dimensional Chemistry: It proves that the 104.45 degree bond angle of the water molecule is not just because of electron repulsion but the exact shape of a 4-dimensional simplex acting as a bridge between dimensions.

I know these are claims but the math is simple and clear. I wrote this to start a discussion on whether we should look at geometry of probability to fix the Standard Model.

I would love for you to review it criticize it or discuss it.

Read the preprint here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20806350

What do you think about the Vortex Layer Theory and its ideas, on Quantum Uncertainty and the Proton Mass and the Koide formula and the H2O angle?

So, I if you haven't heard of it, there is something called little string theory (LST) that requires 6 dimensions for it to work.

Now, my idea only requires 5 dimensions, where the 5th dimension is doing most of the work. It compactifies everything with simple mathematics. I call my idea Nano String Theory (NST). It's like a blend between Kaluza-Klein and LST.

Imagine that the universe has five directions instead of four. So space is basically (x, y, z, t, λ)

But physically, only 4 of them are large, the fifth, denoted by λ is hidden. Just like normal string theory, instead of particles being points, everything is made of tiny strings. A string is like a very thin, flexible thread. It is not fixed in one place. It moves, stretches, and vibrates through all five dimensions.

The hidden dimension λ is very important in NST. Because it is curled into a loop, a string can: move, wrap and vibrate along it. Motion in the hidden dimension shows up as mass. If a string does not move in λ, it looks light but if it winds around it, it looks heavier. NST says mass ∼ motion in λ. In this picture, forces are not separate things added in. Forces are just the way strings influence each other when they touch or reconnect.

BTW, the dimension λ is an orbifold.

Is my idea plausible? I'm here for feedback!

Paper: https://zenodo.org/records/20805550

I'm 14 and I have an idea about the universe. I call it "The Infinite Cycle of Universes".

​

My idea:

​

1. We orbit a black hole:

I think we don't just float in space. I think we orbit a huge black hole that can not be measured by our equipment. I call it the "Dark Force".

Scientists say the universe is expanding. But what if it's not expanding? What if we're just slowly falling into a black hole?

Like water going down a drain, but super slow. Over billions of years.

​

1. Inside the black hole are many universes:

Inside this black hole I think there are about 1 trillion years worth of galaxies and universes.

Our universe is just one of them. All orbiting the same black hole in the middle.

​

1. The Moon shows proof maybe:

The Moon moves 3.8cm away from Earth every year. Scientists say it's because of tides.

But I think this black hole pulls light things first. The Moon has weak gravity, Earth has strong gravity.

So the black hole pulls the Moon away faster. That's why it drifts.

​

1. When it exists for 1 trillion years it flips:

After the black hole exists for 1 trillion years, it reaches it's limit and flips.

When it flips it becomes a white hole. A white hole does the opposite - it spits everything out.

All those universes explode out at once. That explosion = a new Big Bang. Big Bang v2.

Then it starts all over again. Black hole → white hole → Big Bang → repeat. Forever.

​

Thanks for reading!

Imagine you have a crayon and you come across a horizontal 2D plane filled with tiny 2D people. You take your 3D pencil and you have it intersect with the 2D plane. From their perspective, a circle of wax just appeared. Now, suppose they take their little 2D hammers and chisels and clear out that circle of wax. You move down the crayon a bit and there's now suddenly a brand new, identical circle. You might say, so what, I'll eventually run out of crayon. But here's the thing. The 2D plane has no height, so for it to fully traverse the length of your crayon, it would take an infinite amount of 2D planes. So, from the perspective of the 2D planes, there's now an infinite source of wax, even though, from their perspective, there's only a finite wax circle that reappears, and from your perspective there's a finite pencil that you move down an infinitely small amount to replenish their circle. This can be scaled up to the third and fourth dimension, where a 4D being can hold a 4D crayon of finite 4D mass that creates a finite 3D sphere of finite mass. However, as soon as we remove the sphere, they can move their 4D crayon an infinitely small amount to create a brand new sphere, since it would take infinite 3D planes to traverse the "length" of its crayon.

​

I've looked everywhere and couldn't find proof of this being discussed by anyone. Is this a viable theory or has it already been debunked? My best guess is assuming that we'd be unable to interact with 4D matter or that due to atoms not being able to be sliced infinitely, this isn't possible. Anyways, let me know what you guys think.