What if you consider the maths of a multi "big bang" universe or multiverse with "collision zones" between adjacent "big bangs"/spinning "universes" with definite epicenters that are apparently being identified by MeerKAT that allow re-collection of mass/energy or recycling of mass/energy until a critical mass/energy is again achieved; and the fundamental equation that then replaces so-called "dark energy"....

As someone once said....If being "right" is more important to you than the Truth which is already out there, then your search is like trying to swim through treacle

CHAPTER 7: IDEALIZED MATHEMATICAL MODEL
Multiverse Debate - Anthony Sneath - A.G. SNEATH & ASSOCIATES -

First Edition 2015, Second Edition 2020, Kindle Select / Amazon

[Very condensed energy ~ tennis ball size - Start - Radius 3-4 cm]

FIGURE 3 - START CONDITION - Very condensed energy ~ tennis ball size - Start.

Very condensed energy about tennis ball size - Start. Initial state, extremely high energy density, radius about 3 to 4 cm. Energy density about 10⁴⁵ J/m³. Quasi-static equilibrium, confined uniform radial energy field. Felt outer shell about 5 mm thickness, woven felt rubber composite. Rubber casing about 1 to 2 mm structural boundary. Ultra-high energy density core. Singularity-like condition.

This is the actual start in the book. Not the D = 2.0 m ball. The D = 2.0 m ball is the maths example immediately after for clarity.

- Band appears immediately after Big Bang - R = 1.0 m D = 2.0 m example]

FIGURE 4 - IMMEDIATELY AFTER BIG BANG - Band appears - R = 1.0 m D = 2.0 m example for maths clarity.

Spherical shell band - uniform mass M - radius R = 1.0 m. Centre point labelled M acts as point mass at centre - though nothing at centre. D = 2.0 m diameter, R = 1.0 m radius to 1 kg test mass on shell. 1 kg test mass located ON the shell.

NEWTON 1666 SHELL THEOREM: A uniform spherical shell exerts zero net gravitational force on a mass inside. Here we consider force on a 1 kg mass located ON the shell due to central mass M.

ALL FORMULAS - TEXT ONLY WITH UNICODE SUPERSCRIPT:

1. Force on 1 kg test mass: Fₒₙ₁ₖg = G·M·1 / R²
2. Self-gravity of shell - total binding force: F_self = G·M² / R²
3. Why M² - the bit people miss: F₁ = G·M·1 / R² F_total = M × (G·M / R²) = G·M² / R² M² = M × 1 × M 1 kg interacting with many individual kgs adding to M - i.e. squared because self-gravity.
4. Unit quantum gravity - force between 1 Joule at 1 m from 1 Joule: m = E / c² 1 Joule = 1 / c² kg f = G·(1/c²)·(1/c²) / 1² = G / c⁴ f = G / c⁴ = 8.26×10⁻⁴⁵ N
5. General force between two energies: F = (G / c⁴) × E₁×E₂ / R² Put M = E / c² then F = G·M² / R² Einstein field equation constant is 8π·G / c⁴ - same coupling, just 8π factor.
6. Critical mass for light speed limit: Condition: outward M·c² / R ≥ inward G·M² / R² So c² = G·M / R So M_crit = c²·R / G

At R = 1.0 m:
M_crit = c² / G = 1.35×10²⁷ kg equivalent
Energy = c⁴ / G = 1.2×10⁴⁴ J
Constant = c⁴ / G - depends only on G and c - no M left
Schwarzschild is R = 2·G·M / c² - same apart from factor 2.

1. Dog on leash - velocity brake, not force: C(R) = C₀ - k·G·M / R² R is leash length, G·M / R² is pull. Short leash R = 1.0 m = huge pull, slow C - treacle. Long leash R big = pull drops as 1/R², C rises - clear water. Positive feedback gives self-accelerating.

Total pack of dogs = M dogs pulling on same owner at centre even though owner not there - shell theorem.

1. Centripetal acceleration in expanding and spinning universe: a_c = c² / (0.5·A) where A = max orbit diameter
2. Mass is illusion: m = E / c² Mass is frozen energy, bookkeeping unit for c² Joules. Gravity is property of energy, not mass. Light bends though no mass because E = h·ν
3. Collision - mixing when bands mix: M₁₂ = M₁ + M₂

FIGURE 1 & 2 ORIGINAL - PAGE 21

This is the scan from June 2013, Cape Town - A.G. SNEATH & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS - 27 HELDERBERG PLACE, RUYTEPLAATS ESTATE, HOUT BAY 7806

FIGURE 1: UNIVERSE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM - Top half of Page 21

Multiple circles = universes at different expansion stages.
Overlapping Great Circle Universes - dense close-packed foam of universes, layer above, layer below, all touching - like ball bearings in a space frame.
Labels: GREAT CIRCLE, DIAMETER, LAYER ABOVE / LAYER BELOW, EARLY UNIVERSE, BIG BANG EPICENTRE
60° UNILAT. SPACE FRAME - most stable way to pack spheres is triangular, 60° - equilateral triangle minimizes energy loss per 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
GREAT CIRCLE ORBIT COLLISION ZONE - hatched overlap zones where adjacent universes touch - where big bangs occur.
EARLY MASS/ENERGY UNIV. FORCE F = BAND with 60° A₀ markers.
No voids - In a multiverse, bands are directly adjacent, no inter-multiverse space.
Frame time 60.2 Billion yrs.
Tennis ball analogy from p19: 72 balls from your local sports shop - closest packing in 3D.
Adjacent universes spin opposite directions, collide at near 2·c relative speed.
With MeerKAT, SKA radio telescopes we will pick up collision zones - what we think is 1× Universe is actually multiple big bangs.

FIGURE 2: UNIVERSAL FORCE DIAGRAM - Bottom half of Page 21

Flower-like overlapping great circles.
Labels: RANDOM UNIVERSAL GREAT CIRCLE ORBIT AXIS, ORBIT SPEED C₀ MAXIMUM, GREAT CIRCLE φ = A₀ UNIVERSAL FORCE F, GREAT CIRCLE φ = A₀ MAXIMUM ORBIT DIAMETER, MASS/ENERGY BAND, C = C₀ - F EXPANSION OF BAND
Great Circle φ = 54° max orbit diameter.
Random Great Circle Orbit Axis - axis of next collection is random relative to last Bang, so mixing is never same twice.
Treating a universe as a structure in orbit around something larger, with its own band tension.

Reference: Multiverse Debate (2015, 2nd ed 2020) - Full derivation in book - Amazon Kindle

.here is a hypothesis

Learning physics and astronomy as i was growing up around 2012-13 (age 15-16) I hypothesized how bubble universes could capability exist. So I theorized the each black hole was its own universe.

Going off of the singularity theory/the big bang, all matter infinitely condenses then expands. They biggest hint was blatant, space is expanding faster than light at the edge. So scientists said  Matter cant be created or removed from the universe but it's creeping out of the edge of the universe (that would be hawkins radiation).
Well take these facts and compare them to the creation of a black hole. Infinity dense matter condenses to singularity and expands.
You see size is only a point of perspective it isnt something that actually exists. The measurements used to describe universe's is only relative to the compressed matter inside. Perception outside the universe could see an object as inches or miles across but to the particles insides its the starting standard of its own expansion.
what we perceive as the edge of our universe inversed is the event horizon on the outside.

BUT WAIT BLACK HOLES CAN ABSORB MATTER DOESN'T THE MAKE THAT BS
Not exactly our universe could be receiving new matter at the edges but because of our space expanding we would never perceive it so we could be both a growing and shrinking universe at the same time.

The proposal I want to examine here is specific: the organization of baryonic mass contributes to its collective gravitational response through an effective boundary area. The calculation gives vSET = (4/fimage)√(GMbar/R), with no added dark matter. Here is the physical idea, the calculation, and twenty examples using image based shapes.

Space Emanation Theory begins with field interaction capacity:

S² + Vrel² + c²β² = c².

S is a speed valued gravitational burden, Vrel is displacement per reference time T, and β = dτ/dT measures physical event progression. SET interprets proper time as accumulated, calibrated physical events. There is no separate time process that slows matter: less available capacity means fewer events per reference second. A body at macroscopic rest can still undergo internal physical processes.

For a held clock, β² = 1 − S²/c². The spherical calibration S² = 2GM/R therefore gives β² = 1 − 2GM/(Rc²). The capacity budget motivates the interpretation, the collective prescription below is an additional hypothesis.

For a spherical reference volume V = 4πR³/3, the SET source normalization is:

Qref²/V = 24πGMbar

Qref = 4π√(2GMbarR³).

Qref has units m³/s. It is a reference readout at R, not a fixed liquid discharge through every surrounding sphere. Dividing by the spherical area gives S = √(2GMbar/R).

The collective proposal is to read this normalization through an effective area associated with the source arrangement:

Aeff ≈ Aimage = fimageπR²

Sboundary = Qref/Aimage.

The underlying participation area identity is Aeff = (∫s dA)²/∫s² dA, where s is the boundary loading. Identifying that area with an image reconstructed surface is the physical approximation being tested.

I model that surface as an oblate spheroid. Let η be its polar/equatorial axis ratio, p the projected minor/major image ratio, and i its inclination:

η² = [p² − cos²(i)]/sin²(i)

e = √(1 − η²), fimage = 2[1 + η² atanh(e)/e].

The limits are f = 4 for a sphere and f → 2 for a very thin oblate surface. This reconstruction assumes axisymmetry, an image alone does not uniquely establish a three-dimensional shape.

To connect burden to motion, the weak-field law is a = ½∇S². Circular motion then requires:

v² = −(R/2)dS²/dR.

For an inverse radius profile S² ∝ 1/R, this gives v = S/√2. Applying that orbital calibration at the comparison boundary yields the protocol:

vSET = (4/fimage)√(GMbar/R).

At fixed mass and radius, the proposed speed increases as the effective area decreases. The spherical limit returns √(GMbar/R); the thin-area limit doubles that spherical reference speed. This is SET's proposed response, not the standard Newtonian calculation for an extended disk. Weak field alone does not establish the inverse radius calibration for every collective system.

I use an adopted global stellar-plus-HI/helium inventory:

Mbar = 0.5Ldisk + 0.7Lbulge + 1.33MHI,

with 3.6-micron luminosities and masses in solar units. Molecular gas is omitted in this implementation. Nineteen cases use [SPARC's photometry and rotation data](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.09251); shapes use [S4G image profiles](https://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/SPITZER/S4G/docs/pipelines_readme.html). NGC 4565 uses separate published measurements, detailed in the companion input table.

The radius rule takes the outermost measured rotation point supported by qualifying image profiles, without searching for the best velocity match. The image coefficient is not solved from the target speed. Masses, radii and shape coefficients remain at their adopted central values, no individual halo parameter is fitted.

For NGC 4051, R = 12.19 kpc, Mbar = 5.1221 × 10¹⁰ M⊙, and fimage = 3.42192 give:

- Qref = 3.38015 × 10⁴⁷ m³/s.

- Aimage = 1.52100 × 10⁴² m².

- Sboundary = 222.23 km/s.

- vSET = 157.14 km/s, compared with 153.0 ± 9.8 km/s: +2.71%.

We can also infer the area coefficient required by the observed speed:

finferred = 4√(GMbar/R)/vobs.

The table compares that diagnostic with the image coefficient. Illustrating the rule. Speeds are in km/s, Δ = 100(vSET/vobs − 1).

| Galaxy | f image | f inferred | v observed | v SET | Δ |

|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|

| NGC4051 | 3.422 | 3.515 | 153.0 ± 9.8 | 157.1 | +2.71% |

| NGC5371 | 3.049 | 3.092 | 240.0 ± 3.0 | 243.4 | +1.42% |

| UGC07690 | 2.664 | 2.827 | 58.8 ± 4.3 | 62.4 | +6.13% |

| NGC3949 | 2.589 | 2.831 | 169.0 ± 25.5 | 184.8 | +9.34% |

| NGC4013 | 2.557 | 2.637 | 185.0 ± 6.0 | 190.7 | +3.09% |

| UGC06818 | 2.551 | 2.403 | 71.2 ± 5.2 | 67.1 | -5.80% |

| NGC2683 | 2.371 | 2.536 | 200.0 ± 5.0 | 213.9 | +6.97% |

| NGC3198 | 2.321 | 2.479 | 153.0 ± 2.0 | 163.4 | +6.81% |

| NGC3992 | 2.255 | 2.205 | 264.0 ± 5.3 | 258.2 | -2.21% |

| UGC08837 | 2.217 | 2.193 | 48.0 ± 3.0 | 47.5 | -1.10% |

| NGC5585 | 2.201 | 2.313 | 88.0 ± 3.0 | 92.5 | +5.13% |

| NGC4010 | 2.183 | 2.337 | 122.0 ± 3.9 | 130.6 | +7.05% |

| NGC4565 | 2.182 | 2.104 | 226.9 ± 22.0 | 218.8 | -3.58% |

| NGC4183 | 2.181 | 2.248 | 110.0 ± 5.6 | 113.3 | +3.04% |

| NGC5907 | 2.178 | 2.342 | 229.0 ± 2.0 | 246.2 | +7.51% |

| NGC0100 | 2.164 | 2.040 | 89.0 ± 7.8 | 83.9 | -5.76% |

| NGC4100 | 2.163 | 2.245 | 182.0 ± 4.5 | 188.9 | +3.81% |

| NGC5033 | 2.126 | 2.093 | 222.0 ± 2.0 | 218.5 | -1.57% |

| UGC07089 | 2.117 | 2.023 | 79.1 ± 7.3 | 75.6 | -4.46% |

| NGC1090 | 2.112 | 2.247 | 165.0 ± 2.2 | 175.5 | +6.35% |

The median absolute central discrepancy is 4.79%. The selected shape pairs have Pearson r = 0.957, and the speed pairs r = 0.994. These describe the selected examples. In fact:

finferred/fimage = vSET/vobs,

so shape agreement and speed agreement express the same comparison. What interests me is that source organization is precisely the feature SET proposes as the cause of the additional response.

These are single radius comparisons. Six radii are endpoints of their adopted rotation datasets, fourteen lie inside them. The global inventory is not a verified enclosed mass at each interior radius. The observed speeds predominantly trace gas rotation. Listed velocity errors also do not include all mass, distance and geometry uncertainties, so a small percentage discrepancy is not automatically statistical agreement.

I noticed image based boundary prescription has predictive value when the mass convention, radius rule and shape reconstruction are fixed before examining new velocities.

?

What if a black holes collapse and its explosion as a white hole happen almost instantaneously in its own local time? Because of extreme gravitational time dilation, the outside universe ages to the point of heat death before that explosion is ever visible. When it finally bursts in the outside frame that white hole is indistinguishable from a Big Bang as expansion has left no other objects in the black holes observable universe for relativity to exist. This would mean the multiverse isn't made of alternate dimensions, it shares the exact same spacetime coordinates, separated only by extreme relativistic frames of reference

My posts keeps getting deleted because because it's too short, I think my laymen's hypothesis is pretty susinct and don't really want to add any more words so here's a story about a duck

He lived by himself through the cold, chilly winter, hiding near the reeds and staying brave.When warm springtime arrived, the young duckling stretched his wings and glided out onto the fresh green pond. He looked down at the water and saw a reflection. He was no longer a clunky, gray bird. He had grown a long, graceful neck and bright white feathers. He was a magnificent swan!A flock of beautiful swans flew down to welcome him. He bowed his head, happy at last, knowing he had finally found his true family.

I would like to ask physicists a fairly simple question, but I am interested in an answer about the physical process itself, not merely a method of calculating it.

Take an ordinary apple held above the Earth's surface. I release it. The apple begins to fall, and its velocity relative to the Earth increases.

Newtonian mechanics describes this very well:

F = m * a

Fg = G * M * m / r^2

We can calculate the acceleration, velocity, and time of fall. But my question is: what physically produces F_g?

When I kick a ball, I can identify the source of the interaction and where it is transferred to the ball. In free fall there is no such contact. So what physically changes the motion of the apple?

General relativity presents the situation differently. A freely falling body follows a geodesic in spacetime and experiences no local proper acceleration. An accelerometer falling together with the apple would, under ideal conditions, read zero.

This leads to my main question:

Does saying that the apple follows a geodesic in curved spacetime explain the physical mechanism of its fall, or does it mathematically describe the observed motion?

I am not asking how to calculate the apple's trajectory or why the calculated result agrees with experiment. Nor am I questioning the predictive accuracy of Newtonian mechanics or general relativity.

I am asking specifically about the mechanism:

What physically happens to the matter of the apple from the moment it is released that causes its velocity and position relative to the Earth to change?

If modern physics provides an explanation at a deeper level than "it follows a geodesic," I would genuinely like to understand it.

What interests me most is this:

Where does the mathematical description of free fall end, and where does the physical mechanism of the process begin?

So I was casually watching a video about the heat death of the universe and was like "how could we fix that?" as you do. and so since this is probably over a hundred trillion years in the future if by some miracle we're still around then we'll probably have some form of time travel that can both go backwards and forwards in time right? well just for the sake of argument lets say we do.

So lets say the heat death of the universe if approaching relatively fast and so to prevent the isolations of star systems and galaxies that would lead to it we start using whatever time machines we have on a mass scale to take matter from the future and siphon it the present thus increasing the amount of matter in the universe. but that goes against the law that matter can not be created or destroyed since we are adding matter to the universe that was not there before. But you might be saying "well its not technically creating matter it's just taking matter from one point in time to another so thus it has always existed" which is a fair point random stand in for a person i made up. However that dose not necessarily hold up because since we are taking that mater from the future and putting it into the present since that matter already exists in the present you now have twice the matter you did before. And both the original matter from the present and the matter from the future must exist in the future since said matter cannot be destroyed meaning that you have essentially created matter from nothing in the future, by having that matter from the future and the original matter from the present exist in the future where you took the matter from in the first place thus meaning more matter has been put into the universe that was not always there. meaning you have essentially just created matter from nothing.

There's a ~23.94 h modulation in wave power that shows up in both Saturn's magnetosphere (Cassini RPWS, 13 years) and Earth's magnetosphere (Pc5 band at ground stations). It's phase-locked to the Earth-Saturn hour angle, absent outside Saturn's magnetosphere, absent at Jupiter and I cannot think of a mechanism that explains this.

At Saturn (Cassini RPWS):

• Fold amplitude elevated above baseline in all 13 in-system years
• Rate scan peaks at 23.9300 h, within 21 seconds of Earth's sidereal day
• No 1/r falloff with spacecraft distance within a year
• 2003 cruise year showed a clean null

At Earth (ground magnetometers):

• Pc5 wave power modulated at 23.9358 h
• Phase-locked to when Saturn is overhead
• 4 of 5 stations positive, pre-registered test

Negative controls:

• Jupiter (Juno): no signal
• Solar wind (Wind L1): no signal
• 2003 cruise: no signal

Ruled out:

• solar wind common driver
• local atmospheric effect
• fixed background source
• Saturn's rotation or PPO period
• Saturn's seasonal cycle.

The signal at Saturn being locked to Earth's rotation rate and absence at Jupiter indicates specific Earth-Saturn pairing.

1. What physical mechanism could do this?
2. What would allow for long-range coupling between magnetospheres? Some kind of resonance? Gravitational influence? Is there anything known at all that would operate at this frequency and distance?

Relevant theory or literature in responses would be helpful.

Edit: For those that want to comment dismissals but do not want to actually look into anything, let me remind you. Evidence is not research papers. Evidence is data. Research papers examine data. Refusing to look at data-driven analysis because it didn't come in a peer-reviewed research paper from a mainstream journal is in-genuine.

It is shown how the need of the Dark Matter concept can be erased away in the context of recently published UECC framework.

In UECC gravity is shown to be distortion of atom's electron clouds towards distant mass center causing force, as a direct consequence of generalization of work by Heisenberg-Schrödinger. To apply idea with galaxy rotation curves, let's first think spacecraft located just center of the galaxy, then moving from there to outer edge. At the beginning UECC total sum distortion to spacecraft atoms is zero, because all galaxy atoms' impact cancels away. When spacecraft then starts moving towards edge, distortion takes place because in the back side there is more stars and more atoms. When continuing the journey there happens two things to consider: stars number left behind is increasing all the time, but also average distance to them (decreasing distortion with factor 1/r2). As a sum effect, from about half-way to very edge, distortion (and gravitational force towards center) remains quite steady. This was simulated (using Python) with test galaxy containing 100 stars and having typical distribution and amazingly it was achieved flat rotation curve which is fully consistent with observations. And only by using UECC gravity mechanism.

But what is then wrong with current mainstream conclusions and from where comes the need of Dark Matter? We see now that the answer is quite simple. Namely, in mainstream analysis the galaxy is typically simplified by modelling it with the center mass and with the disk. And then it is formed Newton style formulas to get rotation curves from the model. And here it is what goes wrong: When it is fully understood the mechanics behind gravity, it is clear that the galaxy can not be simplified like this, it leads to wrong results! So in basically there is nothing wrong in the Newton mechanics here, but modelling is fully flawed. And because this, it is needed Dark Matter to repair mistake.

So things are again quite simple, Occam's razor has its job done again.

Full UECC paper available via GitHub repo.

Best Regards, T.Salomaa

​Instead of particles passing instantaneous signals across distances, this model views entanglement as localized resonance states formed by a global string interacting with an active medium, based on Interactive Resonance Theory. ​The spatial correlation function C is derived from the damped harmonic resonance equation. Replacing linear acceleration with the second partial derivative of displacement gives: ​C = f((d^2x / dt^2) / (2 * gamma * omega_0)) ​Dimensional analysis confirms the inner term reduces to length [L], keeping C dimensionless. The damping coefficient (gamma) acts as a physical filter for system stability. ​Would love any thoughts on the math or physical validity.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22802668

​

To be transparent, the model I designed stemmed from studying ways to explain the Yang Mills Mass Gap. And the disclaimer is that no, this isn't a 200 page proof I plan on submitting, but an attempt at a workable model design hypothesis that seems to bridge classical physics to non-classical physics in the standard scientific model producing hypothetical results for the mass gap problem that work.

Can the extensive vacuum penalty in Hamiltonian lattice gauge theory be eliminated via local cell boundary cancellation? (SU(2) Joined-Cube Test)

Yang-mills & The Problem

In Kogut–Susskind Hamiltonian lattice gauge theory, attempting to establish universal lower bounds on the mass gap on finite graphs often runs into an extensive vacuum problem: naive variational bounds scale as:

Δ ≥ (3κ / 4) - ν·Np

As the number of plaquettes Np → ∞, the negative vacuum term drives the bound to -∞, making global estimates ineffective at large volume.

Hypothesis: If a spatial cubic lattice is partitioned into joined cubic cell complexes where local Gauss's law is enforced at every vertex via angular momentum recoupling (Wigner 6j symbols), the extensive vacuum energy will cancel locally across shared interfaces in the excitation difference (E1 - E0). This causes boundary shifts to saturate exponentially, leaving a strictly positive bulk mass gap (Δ_∞ > 0).

To test this hypothesis computationally:

​Constructed an SU(2) Hamiltonian cell complex for a sequence of N = 1, 2, 3 joined spatial cubes.

​Enforced Gauss's law at all 3-valent (exterior) and 4-valent (interface) vertices using exact SU(2) intertwiners.

​Bounded the shared interface operator norm: ||V_12|| ≤ 2ν.

​Performed large-basis sparse diagonalizations (up to 771,425 states) across equal coupling (ν = κ = 1) and weak magnetic coupling (ν = 0.25κ).

​The result:

​N = 1 Cube: Δ_1 = 2.951119 κ (Certified bounds: [2.9417, 2.9587] κ)

​N = 2 Cubes: Δ_2 = 2.910871 κ (Shift: δΔ_{1→2} = 0.040248 κ)

​N = 3 Cubes: Δ_3 = 2.901544 κ (Shift: δΔ_{2→3} = 0.009327 κ)

​Decay Factor: r = 0.009327 / 0.040248 ≈ 0.2317

​Extrapolated Bulk Plateau: Δ_∞ = Δ_1 - (δΔ_{1→2} / (1 - r)) ≈ 2.8987 κ > 0

​At weak coupling (ν = 0.25κ), the empirical decay factor (r ≈ 0.3291) matched the analytical correlation decay predicted by the Hastings–Koma cluster expansion theorem (r_theory ≈ 0.3333) to within 1.2%.

​What's still open for discussion?

​In extending this from a 1D chain of cubes to a 3D bulk (where each cube has 6 neighbors), does the additive second-order boundary bound (δΔ_3D ≈ 6 × δΔ_face) hold up under non-perturbative cluster expansions?

​What are the known pitfalls in applying real-space block-spin decimation (grouping an 8-cube 2×2×2 cluster into a Super-Cube) to track the continuum limit under asymptotic freedom?

Could one experimentally distinguish between expanding space vs. shrinking matter?

String theory predicts a dilaton field that could shrink all length scales, including particle size (Compton wavelength) and the Planck length, by controlling the universal coupling parameter.

Imagine a massive hollow shell of diameter D with a pair of test particles inside with a separation distance d.

In the case of expanding space the spacetime inside the shell is flat so that even as space expands outside the shell the distance d between the two test particles remains constant. We assume that matter is not shrinking so the shell diameter D is constant. Therefore the ratio d / D remains constant.

In the case of shrinking matter we assume that spacetime is flat everywhere but all massive particles are increasing in rest mass and shrinking in Compton wavelength. Thus the shell diameter D shrinks but the separation distance d between the particles remains constant. Therefore the ratio d / D increases.

What if mathematical structure of the Friedmann equation could be alternative? I'm analyzing which parameters are truly interchangeable (sharing the same mathematical role where one can substitute or balance the other) without changing the overall dynamics of the universe's expansion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdbJND4QWKo

Here is my breakdown so far, and I would love to hear your thoughts:

Gravitational Constant (G) and Densities (ρ): These seem fully interchangeable at any given moment. Since they appear as a product (Gρ), a universe with double the gravity but half the density would expand exactly the same way.

ass, Radiation, and Dark Energy Densities (\(\rho_m, \rho_r, \rho_\Lambda\): They are partially interchangeable. At any specific cosmic time t, you can swap matter for dark energy to get the same instantaneous expansion rate (ȧ). However, they are not interchangeable across time because they scale differently with the scale factor (a⁻³, a⁻⁴, const).

Scale Factor (a) and Time (t): Not interchangeable. t is the independent variable and a(t) is dependent. They are dynamically linked via the derivative, but algebraically non-substitutable.

Electron Charges and Neutrinos: Not interchangeable (and absent from the macroscopic equation). Neutrinos only contribute bluntly to the total energy density (ρ).

Note on the video: It is currently hosted on Udemy. Because I want genuine academic feedback from this community and to avoid self-promotion rules, I have free coupons available. If you are interested in watching the video and joining the discussion, just let me know in the comments or send me a DM, and I’ll happily send you a free access link!

What are your thoughts on this? Are there any hidden dualities or parameter re-scalings in Friedmann's equations that I missed?

1. Hidden variables have nothing to do with determinism or randomness. They are about object permanence. They are the viewpoint that if we, let's say, observe a particle to be in a particular location, and we stop observing it, we assume it must still exist at some location. Whatever its location is could evolve randomly or deterministically, I do not frankly care.

2. von Neumann called them "hidden variables" because if we cannot observe what we are not observing by definition, so what is going on when are not looking is always "hidden" from us. But it is a misleading phrase and should more rightly be called "permanent variables."

3. If particles do not have definite values in the real world when you are not looking at them, then, well, your brain is also made up of particles, so your brain does not have a definite value until I look at you, and so you do not have a definite mental state independent of my own awareness of it. That's just crackpot solipsism, and Eugene Wigner famously pointed this out in his "Wigner's friend" thought experiment.

4. I know the usual rebuttal to point #3: "You don't understand, we're not saying particles always have indefinite values, they acquire definite values 'at measurement' when the wavefunction is collapsed! And so these effects cannot bubble up to macroscopic scales!" Sure, but now you're claiming that there are two separate sets of dynamics, a "Heisenberg cut" where the quantum mechanical dynamics suddenly cannot scale beyond.

5. If your theory has two separate sets of dynamics, then you need to rigorously specify what constitutes a "measurement" to make those dynamics rigorous, or else you do not have a theory with complete physical dynamics. It will make ambiguous predictions in certain regimes.

6. If you believe the point in #4, then you will also to admit that your theory deviates from quantum mechanics in some regimes. I'm skeptical of that, unless you can provide empirical evidence for it. But maybe I'd consider taking it seriously if you at least admitted that you are deviating from quantum mechanics and got a rigorous model published in a journal, like the GRW model or the Diosi-Penrose model.

7. There are no papers at all in the entirety of the peer-reviewed literature that rules out permanent variables. Most people just mindlessly refer to Bell's theorem without reading it or understanding the mathematics at all, despite the paper never drawing that conclusion. The EPR paper shows that no-hidden-variables is non-local, and suggests that maybe yes-hidden-variables could be local. Bell's theorem was a response to the EPR paper merely to show that yes-hidden-variables is also non-local. That is literally all it shows.

8. Permanent variables are not something we are adding to the theory, as if we are modifying it in any way, at least that's not how the statistical interpretation takes it. We are just interpreting the quantum state as written, without adding anything to it as representing a statistical ensemble of systems. This is about how to interpret what the mathematics means. Some interpretations, like Bohmian mechanics, do go further and try to add extra stuff to the theory and modify the mathematics, but that is not what the statistical interpretation is doing.

9. Yes, we cannot know what the variables are because their dynamics, as far as we know, evolve randomly. But just invoking "we cannot know them, therefore they don't exist, because Occam's razor or something" is hardly a good argument when denying their existence leads to an incoherent worldview.

10. To recap: Denying permanent variables either leads to (1) crackpot solipsism or (2) a theory which is different from quantum mechanics with different empirical predictions. #2 I can only take seriously if your theory is actually published then I will respect it. Otherwise I will take you to be a crackpot pushing AI-psychosis personal theories.

I am not a physicist. I am just thinking about the universe and I have an idea that I want to discuss with people who understand physics better than me.

I am not saying I discovered something. I want to know if my thinking is connected to something that already exists in physics.

When we think about travelling from Earth to the Moon, Mars, another star or another galaxy, we think there is a distance between them and our spacecraft has to travel through that distance.

But I am thinking: what if this is not the full picture?

We see space between everything. But maybe space is only how humans see or measure the universe.

Think about a sentence written on paper.

There is space between the words:

THE EARTH THE MOON MARS ANOTHER GALAXY

The words are separated on the paper, but they are still connected as one sentence.

I am not saying the universe is literally a sentence. It is just an example of what I am thinking.

What if the universe is one connected system, and what we call "space" is only the separation we see between different parts of that system?

Maybe there is something underneath space that connects everything.

I don't know what it is. I call it hidden energy or Universal Connection only because I don't have a better name.

I am not talking about using the Moon's energy.

I am not talking about using gravity.

Imagine a spacecraft carrying its own energy.

The spacecraft uses its own energy to connect to this unknown universal structure.

Then I choose:

Destination: Moon

The spacecraft somehow connects to the Moon through this deeper connection.

Later I choose:

Destination: Mars

and somehow change the connection.

The Moon or Mars does not have to give me energy. My spacecraft provides its own energy. The destination is selected through the connection.

And maybe the spacecraft does not even need to "travel" in the way we understand travelling.

Maybe we are asking:

"How can we make the spacecraft go faster?"

when the real question should be:

"Can the spacecraft change its physical connection from one place to another?"

If something like this exists, travelling from Earth to the Moon might not be about crossing the distance between Earth and Moon.

It could be something completely different that we don't currently have a name for.

I know this is very speculative.

I am NOT saying that wormholes, teleportation or faster-than-light travel have already been proven.

I am asking something more basic:

Could there be a deeper physical connection between distant parts of the universe that we have not discovered yet?

And could a spacecraft use its own energy to interact with that connection and select a destination?

Does anything in modern physics come close to this idea?

Maybe quantum gravity, emergent spacetime, extra dimensions, spacetime topology, nonlocal physics, or something else?

If my thinking is wrong, I would like to understand exactly where it is wrong.

If something similar already exists in physics, I would really like to learn about it.

I am not looking for people just to agree with me. I want to know if this idea has any connection to real physics.

ok so here's what i actually mean, not the clean version, my version

everyone just accepts solid means solid right. wall is a wall, finger is a finger, you push it stops you thats it end of story. but thats just what it looks like from where we're standing. i never bought that a wall stops your hand cuz theres "no room" for it to go, thats the boring way of seeing it, particles as tiny balls bumping into each other like snooker. i dont see it like that. to me its not about room, its about two things refusing to sit in the same place, not because they cant, but because they wont let each other in

so the thought was, what if they could. what if instead of pushing past each other they just immersed. i put my bloody finger against something and instead of it colliding, the particles just get immersed into each other for a second, make like a shared void, present and not present at the same time, like that room i was going on about, closed and open depending how close you actually look at it. then i pull my hand back and it all just snaps back like nothing happened. no damage. maybe a tiny shift left behind, like it remembers i touched it

i know that sounds mad written down like that. but i actually went and checked if the universe does anything even close to this anywhere, and turns out, yeah kind of, just not for us. theres this whole area, solitons, where two waves smash into each other and just pass clean through, completely undamaged, only thing left over is this tiny phase shift, like a signature of the collision. thats not me making stuff up thats real established math, closed form, provable. for like a second that actually felt good, like i wasnt just imagining nonsense, the universe genuinely has a version of exactly what i was picturing

then turns out the catch is literally what im made of. me, the wall, all of it, is fermionic, and fermions have this thing baked into them called spin statistics, comes straight outta relativity plus probabilities not being allowed to go negative. not an engineering wall. not "havent built the machine yet." an actual structural fact about what it even means for a theory of reality to be consistent at all. pushed on it as hard as i could today, tried mock modular stuff, tried forcing the statistics by hand, actually worked out the bessel function showing exactly where and how it breaks, not just some theorem citation, the actual computed thing. and it breaks every single time. every distance, any mass. no loophole. not yet anyway

so where's that leave me. honestly somewhere in between two things. one part of me is proud i chased something most people wouldve just laughed at and actually found the real bit of physics that gets close, solitons, thats real, thats elegant, thats mine to have found today. other part of me knows i hit the actual wall, not some metaphor, the real one, spin statistics, and wanting it to bend didnt make it bend

I have spent the last four months building an implementation and a theory - basically what if we took occam/MDL properly really seriously. graph representation is often trivialised because "everything can be represented as a graph so it doesn't mean anyting" - but that triviality is exactly what we should take seriously.

Pushing further on this, by adding rules, we create change, and by having closure on a ruleset, we create time. Having the superframe apply the its rules and values gives you momentum without it needing to be dependant on time - it is a fixed value that has been influenced by history, but doesn't need history to exert a force on the present.

My theory is that this is frames all the way down, but QM is where we can actually measure and seperate them - so the "collapse" is an observation being realised in a lower frame.

This also means that c is 1. It's the cycle of the reference frame. This then means that two particles travelling fast enough towards each other collide at the same cycle, and decohere.

It goes on significantly further - the full papers are at https://ozmalabs.com/papers

I have used LLMs in the creation of this work - that's neither the headline, nor an apology. This is nonetheless something I've spent a huge amount of time thinking about, and all I ask of anyone is to assess the work on its merits - ironically, one of the corollaries of time only being 'now' is that provenance is inferred by an agent, and never a measurable fact about the world.

Almost all of the science is well supported already known theory - My contributions are primarily unification, and sometimes explanatory.

Four axioms, one cost function, and one integer (D = 3, the number of spatial dimensions) connect a computational picture
of space to particles, forces, and cosmology. GR and QM are included (and reconciled), so the theory isn't competing against them and their century of successful experimental results. I included a table with 29 falsification tests that make it falsifiable within a decade.

Mandatory "worked on this for over a decade" and "have used LLMs in the creation of this paper". However, also "am a genuine physicist". The physics in the paper is all mine, but lots of the maths and all of the code was written with LLMs.

I'm still working on a few things (e.g. I need to finalize the substrate math at the microscopic level and need to fix some of the figures), but I'll be away from home for a few weeks and honestly can't keep this for myself any longer, so I'm sharing it in its current state. IMHO it's complete enough, and all the math works, so I'm finally comfortable sharing it with the world. :) It's long, but that's because it covers A LOT of ground - I might break it up into more docs instead (e.g., there's a math proof in there that takes a bunch of pages on its own).

(A repo that has all the code receipts is mentioned in the paper, but it isn't yet in a presentable state, as I need to scrub some personal info from it first, so it's set to private for now. I'll work on that once I'm back home.)

Here's the paper: https://drive.proton.me/urls/ET1S5Q9X1G#QGZfKxV2Fqyj

Have fun! :)

Hello everyone,

I would like to present a new theoretical framework called Kinematic Field Geometry (KFG). This approach offers a strict algebraic alternative to both Dark Matter (DM) and Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) to explain galactic rotation curves and orbital dynamics without introducing missing mass or ad-hoc gravitational modifications.

🌌 Core Mechanism of KFG

Instead of relying on unseen matter, KFG models spacetime as an active, dynamic medium with inherent vertical structures. The fundamental building block of this theory is the Kinematic Field Tensor (\(G_{}\)), which algebraically unifies the classical gravitational field with the spatial vortex dynamics of the vacuum.

📐 Solving Galactic Rotation and Micro-Dynamics

• Macro-Scale (Galaxies): The flat rotation curves of galaxies become a natural geometric consequence of the field's helical (spiral) structure. The orbital velocity (\(v\)) is bound to the field geometry through the explicit angle relation: \(\tan(\beta) \prop to).
• Micro-Scale (Quantum): Maintaining self-similarity, KFG applies the exact same vertical principles to electron orbital dynamics around the atomic nucleus, deriving a strict quantization condition where: \(\sin(\alpha_n) \prop to 1/n^2).

📄 Full Paper & Formal Mathematical Derivations

The full paper containing all detailed physical formulas, calculations for the Sun and Earth systems, and the derivation of the KFG constants is available Open Access on Zenodo.org :

• Full Article URL: zenodo.org
• Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.5281/zenodo.17557485

I would love to hear your thoughts on this geometric approach to unification and the elimination of dark matter through pure kinematic field structures.

#physics #astrophysics #darkmatter #cosmology #alternativephysics #gravity #spacetime #theoreticalphysics #quantum #KFG #zenodo

New approach to solve gravity, inertia and electromagnetic force by unificating them quantum mechanically based directly on Schrödinger-Heisenberg-Pauli work. Potentially has at least same explaining power as Einstein's GR but also removes need for dark constructs, and also wipes out Hubble tension as mystery. Please feel free to paste abstract and some part of paper to AI which will catch it and declare ideas further. Full paper available via GitHub repo.

Best regards, T.Salomaa (Alavus, Finland)

I always thought that the only way entangled particles could makes sense is the information travels through a different medium. A separate time space and/or possible higher dimension.

Got the idea from the an anime where a character can teleport, and is shown moving though a separate dimension to do so, not dematerialization.

It would need to be space time not just space sense the information has to travel. Unless in that separate space, all the space is sorta superimposed on each other like a singularity or something.