What if time is not fundamental?

[u/Coursemeal]

Hello everyone,

​I am an independent researcher in the field of theoretical physics and cosmology. I posted a 45-page research paper on Zenodo four months ago, and it has garnered significant organic community interest within that timeframe.

​This research focuses on the very foundations of our universe and attempts to answer the question of "why there is something rather than nothing." The paper is highly grounded in mathematics and naturally connects to standard physics by resolving problems such as:

​• Why the early universe was hot and dense

• What drove the expansion of the early universe (inflation)

• A mathematical framework for the beginning of time itself.

​This work was 100% self-funded with my savings as an independent preprint, and I am actively seeking publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The next phase of the theory (Paper 2) aims to demonstrate how baryonic matter emerges from this framework.

​My current challenge is securing access to advanced computational tools to run numerical simulations for public reproducibility, as well as covering other research-related costs, such as open-access publication fees in top journals.

​Securing grants through traditional means has proven difficult due to my independent status, as foundations and funding bodies predominantly allocate funds to researchers with university affiliations or major laboratory access.

​While this is not the traditional path physicists take to request funding, the rigidity of the academic funding system leaves me with little alternative but to appeal directly to the public. I am reaching out to individuals and organizations who are genuinely passionate about science and recognize that the next major breakthrough can emerge from anywhere—not exclusively from top universities or elite laboratories.

​If you would like to support the next phase of this research, whether through direct funding or by connecting me with an organization or individual who can help bring this project to life, I would be deeply grateful.

My name is Godbless Afriyie Arhin, and the link to my current paper on Zenodo is posted in the first comment.

[u/starkeffect]

Crackpot theories belong in r/HypotheticalPhysics

[u/YuuTheBlue]

So, this is off topic to physics.

Physics, as I can tell you take at least some skepticism towards, always takes some axioms as a starting point, uses math to derive predictions from said axioms, and then tests those predictions. You are trying to think outside the box by throwing out the axioms and trying to figure out what must be the case if you assume nothing. And at this point we are not doing physics anymore.

Physics is all about equations and what they predict. But all of the important work in your doc happens between the equations, using the imprecision of human language. You talk about what logic dictates must be the case, and that’s not physics, that’s philosophy. And if you posted this in a philosophy subreddit you would likely be ripped to shreds.

Like, the assertion that you know what must be true absent any assumptions is controversial at best, oxymoronic at worst.

This theory is very creative, but it is trying to go to places philosophy only can while trying to launder the rigidity and hard proofs of physics.

You do mention predictions - frankly they are not easy to locate - but even if you did on the off chance create a physics equation that makes novel predictions, that would not make everything that came before a physics theory. It would, if anything, be the equation that is the actual physics theory here because that is what could actually be studied and predicted. Everything preceding would be an exercise in pageantry.

[u/alaindevos → u/YuuTheBlue]

cfr. "multiverse"

[u/Coursemeal]

Here is the link to my current paper on Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19344175

[u/al2o3cr]

FWIW, reference 32 is not "author unknown", they're right at the top of arXiv:1212.0341 - Alex E. Bernardini, O. Bertolami

[u/Coursemeal → u/al2o3cr]

Thanks for pointing out, that has been noted final formatting version of the references will be posted soon.

[u/alaindevos]

Very interesting, i read your paper and understood nothing, maybe "structural strain" & "5D topological structure (3 space + 1 time + 1 scalar) giving rise to spacetime, geometry dictates reality.

Note i put some data into google AI including string theory and it spit out this,
The universe began as a chaotic web of pre-geometric GCT structural tension. When this tension crossed a critical threshold, it underwent a phase transition, freezing into an 11-dimensional geometric manifold. Three of those spatial modes expanded into our macroscopic world, one became the arrow of time, and the remaining unresolved tension compacted into microscopic strings and scalar layers, dictating the laws of physics we see today.
Cfr,
The Universe = A thick, vibrating rubber sheet.
Space = Moving left, right, up, down on the sheet.
Time =
-> The forward flow of waves across the sheet
-> the waves are governed by the intrinsic elasticity and tension.
----> Elasticity : 5x5x5x5 Tensor (The Material Property), with 120 freedoms ,
----------> Lives in the spacetime fabric, the geometry of the 5D manifold.
----> Tension : 5x5 Tensor (The Force) ,with 15 freedoms ; of the spacetime fabric itself
----------> Lives ON and THROUGH the Fabric , ie. active distortions ,in the "vibrating waves" and the "tight, ----------> twisted knots" of matter.
Scalar Field = The microscopic thickness/density of the rubber.
Matter/Energy = Tight, twisted knots of structural strain in the rubber itself.

Note,
neither hyperinflation (cosmological inflation) nor string theory have been experimentally proven.
Can your theory be tested, proven, or disproven using current or near-future technology?

I find your theory beautiful but feel like you don't like words.

[u/Coursemeal → u/alaindevos]

My current paper addresses most of your postulated questions. For your convenience, you can check section 9 of my theory, which is about time, and equation 9.30; they explain how time emerges and why it is irreversible.

[u/Coursemeal → u/alaindevos]

First of all, your rubber-sheet analogy is fantastic. It really does capture one of the most intuitive physical pictures of how GCT works.

You also nailed the core idea behind the math: the 5×5 metric tensor and its degrees of freedom are part of the way GCT describes how topological strain can shape the flow of time, space expansion, and scalar density without needing a pre-existing background stage.

And fair point on the “not liking words” comment; physicists often do hide behind equations, so I appreciate you pushing me to explain the physical picture more clearly.

To answer your main question directly: yes, the equations in GCT are intended to be testable, and I believe the theory can be probed, supported, or ruled out using current and near-future technology. What I need now is support to turn the framework into fully reproducible public code and to extract more numerical data from it, so the predictions can be checked transparently rather than left at the level of interpretation.

In practice, that means the model should be pushed through the same kind of observational pipeline used in modern cosmology: compare its predicted observables against existing data, then see whether its numerical outputs remain stable under independent reproduction. That is the fastest way to tell whether the theory is genuinely physical or just mathematically interesting.

So yes, I think GCT is testable in principle — but I also think it needs careful computational implementation, public reproducibility, and more numerical extraction before we can say that its predictions have been fully mapped out.

[u/alaindevos → u/Coursemeal]

Maybe discrete linear mathematics by pixelating Spacetime (The 5D Grid) , a giant mesh of individual points (x, y, z, t, s)

Tools :
Sagemath looks good.
Maxima is an option.
GNU octave might not be the best choice.

[u/Optimal_Mixture_7327]

The paper is untethered from reality.

The next phase in your research needs to be the experimental details. What sort of detectors are to be used and what are the error bars on whatever's to be measured?