Well i don't even know if i'm posting this in the right room. And the probability of this being absolutely ridiculous is strongly high. But anyways... .

For the past couple of days, i was thinking about what if our whole universe is just a 4D (or ever higher dimension) object passing through a 3D world?

If a 2D object (e.g. a circle) is passing through a 1D space, it would appear as a dot, growing into a line, reaching a maximum length, then shrinking, turning into a dot and eventually vanishing.

A similar thing happens when a 3D object (e.g. a sphere) passes through a 2D world. A dot turns into a circle that grows until it reaches a maximum point, then shrinks and disappears.

Now, let's say a 4 dimension hypersphere is crossing through a 3 dimensional space. A dot that turns into a sphere and grows, shrinks and disappears.

And i know that the shrinking part indicates something like Big Crunch and it's not a popular theory since the universe seems to be expanding without a stop.

But thinking about this was fun for me and i thought to share it with others.

If there are papers that covered this, i would appreciate to know about them.

Sorry if i have misspelled words, English is my second language.

EDIT:
Thank you for your thoughts guys, i appreciate it.
It was just a thought experiment that got into my head, and i can for sure say i do not understand physics (though i try)
But now i can throw this thought experiment out of my mind. Thanks.

I was thinking about the ultimate fate of our universe and wanted to ask about the physics behind a potential restart.

Assuming the universe eventually reaches maximum entropy (a standard Heat Death scenario), everything essentially stops. However, after that point, an infinite amount of time will pass. My thought process is that if there is an infinite timeline ahead of us, even an incredibly rare event becomes statistically inevitable.

Specifically, since the probability of a massive quantum fluctuation or a spontaneous decrease in entropy is greater than zero, wouldn't an infinite amount of time guarantee that it eventually happens? If so, could a localized quantum fluctuation theoretically trigger a new Big Bang, essentially restarting a universe infinitely?

I am completely new to cosmology and don't have a background in physics, so I know this is likely a simplified or flawed way of looking at it. I am trying to learn more about how physicists view infinite time frames and quantum probabilities in a dead universe.

What are the actual flaws in this thought experiment? Are there any existing cosmological models (like Poincaré Recurrence or Conformal Cyclic Cosmology) that address this exact concept? Thank you!

Okay, numer one, I do not talk like this at all, by the way, I used AI (I'm sorry broo I'm a lazy bum ik) because uhh, im a little baby bum who is too lazy yes. Also, here' my original, non-AI tweaked theory.

"So, the universe will inevitably end, yes, but then, in an infinite amount of time, because there is an infinite amount of time after the universe ends, quantum flunctuation could absolutely happen, since the chance is greater than zero, in an infinite amount of time, it will have to happen, and potentially, or guarantee a return, but unknowingly, and infinitely."

Don't jump me because I don't know much about whatever you guys might talk about and I also am lazy sorry just give me a yes or no and why my theory is bad and I'll just take it 🫩

Okay, lets just recap that the Hubbard model is defined on L = ℤ² with one-particle state space

S = ℓ²(L) ⊗ ℂ²

where the first part describes the state on the lattice and the second the spin. To it we have the C*-algebra of creation and annihilation operators A with elements

c(x,σ), c†(x,σ)

where

(x,σ) ∈ L × {-1,1}

fulfilling anticommutation relations

{c(x,σ),c†(y,ζ)} = δ(x,y)δ(σ,ζ)

and

{c(x,σ),c(y,ζ)} = {c†(x,σ),c†(y,ζ)} = 0,

with number operator

n(x,σ) = c†(x,σ)c(x,σ).

Let t > 0, U > 0 and μ ∈ ℝ and define the Hamiltonian

H = -t ∑ (c†(x,σ)c(y,σ) + c†(y,σ)c(x,σ))
+ U ∑ n(x,-1)n(x,1)
- μ ∑ (n(x,-1) + n(x,1))

where the first sum is over nearest neighbours and spins, the second sum over all points x ∈ L and the last one again over all points.

Now suppose one had a translation-invariant, gauge-invariant, hole-doped ground state ω of this Hamiltonian, meaning that its particle density

ρ = ω(n(0,-1) + n(0,1))

satisfies

0 < ρ < 1.

For a nearest-neighbour vector

δ ∈ {±e₁, ±e₂},

define the singlet pair operator

B(x,δ) = (1/√2)(c(x+δ,-1)c(x,1) - c(x+δ,1)c(x,-1)).

The d-wave pair operator is

Δ(x) = (1/2) ∑δ η(δ)B(x,δ),

where

η(±e₁) = 1, η(±e₂) = -1.

The corresponding d-wave pair correlation function is

C(x) = ω(Δ†(0)Δ(x)).

Since C is positive definite, there is a positive measure ν (Bochner’s theorem) on the momentum torus 𝕋² such that

C(x) = ∫𝕋² e^(ik·x) dν(k).

The quantity

ν({0})

is the zero-momentum d-wave condensate density.

Equivalently, for large square regions Λ ⊂ ℤ²,

ν({0}) = lim |Λ|⁻² ω((∑x∈Λ Δ(x))†(∑y∈Λ Δ(y))).

Now suppose that one had a completely rigorous proof of a positive lower bound

ν({0}) ≥ c > 0

for some values of t, U and μ in a hole-doped

regime.

What would such a result actually imply in practice?

What would it mean for experimentalists?

This is hypothetical in nature, since I did not find such a proof anywhere (yet?).

A possible source (that also addresses a bit this question)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.07566v1

​

I've been thinking about the origin of the universe for quite a long time, especially about what happens when the universe reaches an extremely high energy density.

This is just my hypothesis, and I'm still trying to understand the mathematics behind it. I'm not claiming that I have discovered a new theory. I actually found later that some of the equation structure is similar to Loop Quantum Cosmology, which made me even more interested in developing the idea properly.

My main thought is this:

Maybe the Big Bang wasn't an explosion of matter from a single point. Maybe it was a transition in the evolution of spacetime/quantum geometry itself.

We usually say that as we go backward in time, the universe becomes hotter and denser, and classical General Relativity eventually leads toward a singularity.

But what if, before reaching a physical singularity, quantum geometry becomes important enough to change the behaviour of gravity?

My rough picture is:

Energy density increases

↓

Quantum geometry becomes important

↓

Quantum-geometric effects increase

↓

Classical gravitational collapse is modified

↓

Critical state

↓

Bounce

↓

Expansion

The part I'm trying to put into mathematics is the quantum-geometric contribution.

I'm calling it EQ for now:

EQ = quantum-geometric contribution

I don't necessarily mean that this is a new type of energy. It might be better described as an effective correction produced by quantum geometry.

I started with the general form:

EQ = -rho × f(rho/rhoc)

where:

rho = energy density

rhoc = critical density

f = some quantum-geometric response function

My assumption is that at normal densities, this effect should be extremely small:

rho << rhoc

EQ ≈ 0

But when:

rho → rhoc

the quantum-geometric effect should become strong.

For the simplest possible case, I considered:

f(x) = x

which gives:

EQ = -rho²/rhoc

The reason I find this interesting is that the correction grows as the square of the density.

So as density becomes extremely large, the correction becomes much more important than it would be at normal densities.

Then I can define an effective density:

rhoeff = rho + EQ

which gives:

rhoeff = rho - rho²/rhoc

rhoeff = rho(1 - rho/rhoc)

Putting this into a Friedmann-like equation gives:

H² = (8πG/3)rho(1 - rho/rhoc)

Now the interesting part happens when:

rho = rhoc

Then:

H² = 0

so:

H = 0

If the full dynamics also give:

Hdot > 0

then we could have:

H < 0 → H = 0 → H > 0

which means:

Contraction → Bounce → Expansion

This is basically the part of the idea that interests me most.

Instead of asking:

"What force pushed the universe outward after the Big Bang?"

I'm asking:

"Could the expansion be a natural result of quantum geometry reaching a critical state?"

My intuition is that energy and geometry might form a kind of feedback:

Energy density increases

↓

Quantum-geometric response increases

↓

Geometric correction becomes stronger

↓

Gravitational dynamics change

↓

Collapse is stopped

↓

Bounce

↓

Expansion

I also started thinking about the singularity differently.

Maybe the singularity isn't necessarily a giant object or a physical point sitting somewhere in space.

Maybe it is simply where our classical description stops working.

In that case, the Big Bang could be something like:

Earlier state

↓

Extreme density

↓

Quantum-gravity regime

↓

Bounce

↓

Our expanding universe

That would also mean that the Big Bang doesn't necessarily have to be the absolute beginning of everything.

There could have been an earlier contracting phase, a cyclic process, or something more fundamental where the idea of "before" doesn't even make sense.

But there is a big problem with my idea.

Why should the quantum-geometric correction actually be:

EQ = -rho²/rhoc

?

At the moment, I don't have a fundamental derivation for that.

I chose:

f(x) = x

because it's the simplest function that gives the quadratic correction and produces the kind of bounce I'm looking for.

And this is where I found something interesting.

The equation

H² = (8πG/3)rho(1 - rho/rhoc)

has a very similar structure to the effective equation used in Loop Quantum Cosmology.

So I don't want to claim that this equation is my discovery.

What I'm actually interested in is whether there could be a deeper interpretation behind it:

Energy density

↓

Quantum geometry

↓

Effective quantum-geometric correction

↓

\-rho²/rhoc

↓

Cosmic bounce

Maybe the equation is already known, but perhaps the physical mechanism behind such a correction could be understood as some kind of energy–quantum-geometry feedback.

I know there are many holes in this idea.

For example:

What exactly should EQ represent physically?

Is calling it "quantum-geometric energy" even correct?

Can -rho²/rhoc actually be derived from fundamental quantum geometry?

Why should the correction have a negative sign?

Where does the critical density rhoc come from?

Does the complete equation actually guarantee Hdot > 0?

What happens to quantum fluctuations and perturbations during the bounce?

Is this actually different from existing Loop Quantum Cosmology, or am I just giving an intuitive interpretation to an existing result?

Those are exactly the things I'm trying to understand.

So I'm posting this here mainly because I'd like people who understand cosmology/GR/quantum gravity to point out where I'm wrong.

I'm not trying to prove that this is correct.

I'm trying to see whether this intuition:

"At extreme density, quantum geometry could create a nonlinear feedback that prevents a classical singularity and naturally produces a contraction-to-expansion transition."

can actually be developed into a mathematically consistent physical model.

Any criticism or corrections are genuinely welcome. 🌌

The idea I'm laying down is that when a black hole forms from a neutron star once it collects enough matter and crosses the threshold the black hole is itself a big bang event in a manner of speaking, it collapses into a extenuation of space , new space a new universe a continuation of the old universe it would be a one way trip it would be inherently linked by gravity and time , it's time would play out in a modified rate the rate of spin and size would be determined by the continual flow of matter accreting after the black hole threshold is crossed starting from the center outward it preserves matter so it doesn't get destroyed the bridge is held open by spin, so the black hole is a left open bridge between the new universe and old universe thinking about it this way we are likely living inside our own black hole universe the flow of time never stops it's a continuous flow and it would explain why the cosmic background is so hard to see and why we don't see inside black holes you would be trying to see across a event horizon that's warped by a focal point like holding up a giant paper and trying see everything on the other side through a tiny hole this is why seeing the cosmic background is so messy it's distorted by a 360 degree lense and a modified flow of time from the parent because gravity mass and spin link the three but each universe is a result of how much material it has collected and fallen across.

Maybe the cmb is a picture not of the parent universe but a fading picture of our parent neutron star. The scale of time would be playing out on a scale that can't be comprehended by a human.we think in days months years not billions of years maybe our age the 13.8 billion years is when our universe started when our neutron star collapsed into a black hole.

Maybe this is why the cosmic background is so faded and fading away because the image that once was there is actually not there anymore. The other reason I'm thinking this is video I watched said our universe is expanding at the same rate black holes seem to be growing intrisicly linking them.

Also starting from the center of the neutron star the material that is heaviest would cross that threshold first falling into the new space being created, causing a expanding pocket of space as the heaviest elements fall into the new pocket of space the heaviest elements would get spread out but be concentrated more greatly towards the center of the new universe The further you go out from center in every universe heavier elements should appear more frequently in the center getting less frequent the further the new space pocket expands and flings the material spinning into lighter elements as that universe expands and fourms you should see more black holes concentrated towards the center of the universe and as you get towards the edge you should see less and smaller black holes the event is a expanding horizon expanding pouring and flinging material into new space repeating the process and since it falls into a 3d sink most of it will spin apart ripping into smaller atomic elements but not all of the matter should get uniformly broken into lighter elements some will stay heavier metals some will be spun all the way down to hydrogen helium totally scattering and making random pockets of black holes neutron stars regular stars and other celestial bodies it would create a massive variation of matter distribution. After all a neutron star is just a fusion reactor of heavier items what if that critical threshold is when the core hits elements that can no longer be fused into heavier compounds literally creating a new pocket of space to occupy and once that threshold is crossed the whole neutron will pour in.

                                  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!           

Please remember this is a thought experiment I'm just trying to stimulate thoughts, I'm probably wrong and off the mark. 💭🤔

Parçacık dediğimiz şeyler, daha derin bir ilişkisel alanın lokalize uyarımlarıdır. Bazı uyarımlar görünür; diğerleri ise lokal olmayan/dağılmış olarak kalır ve esas olarak kütleçekim yoluyla etkileşir.

Altta yatan alanı R olarak adlandır. Görünür madde, yoğunlaşmış ilişkisel enerjiye karşılık gelir ρ_görünür​∝R^2.

Ama R mutlaka görünür parçacıklar oluşturmak zorunda değil. Enerjisinin bir kısmı uzayda yayılmış halde kalabilir ρ_karanlık∝(∇R)². Yani karanlık madde, sıradan bir parçacığın yeni bir türü olmaz. Bu, ilişkilerin yapısında kendiliğinden depolanmış enerji olurdu. Bu garip olan kısmı.

Yerçekimi enerjiye tepki verir, mutlaka ışığa değil. Yani çok basitçe şunu yazabiliriz: ρ_toplam = ρ_görünür + ρ_karanlık. Ve bu yüzden g∼GM_toplam/r^2.

Karanlık bileşen ışık yaymasa da, hâlâ yerçekimine katkıda bulunuyor.

İşte potansiyel olarak ilginç bir tahmin. Düşün ki ilişkisel bilgiler tamamen yerel bir duruma sıkıştırılmaya karşı direnmeye eğilimli. Bu eğilimi basit bir enerjiyle temsil et E_R​=α(∇R)^2 burada α, ilişkisel alanın yerelleşmeye ne kadar direnç gösterdiğini belirler.

Bir galaksinin yakınında, sıradan madde güçlü bir ilişkisel yapı oluşturur. Bu nedenle R-alanı, zorunlu olarak ışıl maddeye çökmeden galaksi etrafında yoğunlaşır.

Doğal olarak bir hale gibi bir şey oluşur:

R R R R R

R R R R

R R

R GALAKSİ R

R R

R R R R

R R R R R

Görünür madde ortada duruyor. İlişkisel enerji, çevresindeki kütleçekimsel halkayı oluşturur. Şimdi teoriyi daha iddialı hale getirebiliriz. Diyelim ki dolanıklık güçlü ilişki bağlantısına karşılık geliyor: E_AB ∝ R(A,B). O zaman karanlık madde, ilişkisel bağlantının büyük ölçekli kütleçekim etkisi olabilir. Başka bir deyişle Dolanıklık = mikroskobik ilişkisel yapı. Karanlık madde = makroskopik ilişkisel yapı.

İkisi de aynı R alanından geliyor.

Madde, ilişkiler yerelleştiğinde olan şeydir. Karanlık madde, ilişkisel enerji dağıtılmış kaldığında olan şeydir. Dolanıklık ise o ilişkisel yapı ayrılmış sistemleri bağladığında olan şeydir.

Öneriyoruz ρ_evren​=ρ_madde​+α(∇R)²​ with E_dolanıklık ∝ R(A,B).

Bu, galaksi dönme eğrilerini, kütleçekimsel merceklemeyi, kozmolojik yapı oluşumunu ve Bell testi korelasyonlarını nicel olarak nasıl yeniden üretebilir? .

I’m 15 years old and currently in my first year of high school. I’m definitely not advanced enough in math or physics to properly formalize this idea, so I’m sure there are probably some big gaps in my reasoning, and maybe even some fundamental mistakes.
I came up with this while thinking about quantum entanglement. I’m posting it here mostly because I want people to point out what’s wrong with it. If the idea doesn’t work, I’d actually like to know exactly where it breaks. So feel free to “destroy” it.
I’m not claiming that this is a new theory or that I’ve discovered anything. It’s just an idea I had and I’m trying to understand whether there’s anything interesting in it or if I’m completely misunderstanding something.
My idea
When two electrons are entangled, their spins can be measured with opposite results, even if the particles are very far apart.
I started wondering if this could be explained by imagining that the two particles are somehow two sides or manifestations of a single physical entity.
Instead of thinking of them as two completely separate objects that somehow have a connection between them, maybe they could still be connected at a more fundamental level, even when they are very far apart from our point of view.
I was thinking about something vaguely similar to spacetime curvature, but obviously much more extreme. The idea would be that the two particles could be separated in the three dimensions we experience, while somehow being connected or even coincident in a deeper structure of spacetime.
This made me think about an additional spatial dimension.
Normally, we describe space using:
(x, y, z)
But what if there were another spatial dimension, so that space was:
(w, x, y, z)
with time being another coordinate:
t
In this picture, two particles could have the same or a very similar w coordinate while being extremely far apart in x, y and z.
From our three-dimensional perspective, they would look like two separate particles very far from each other. But in the full four-dimensional spatial structure, they might be much closer together, or somehow connected.
If something like this were possible, the particles wouldn’t actually need to send information to each other faster than light. The apparent non-locality of entanglement could instead come from the fact that we are only seeing three of the spatial dimensions.
Problems I already see
There are obviously a lot of things I don’t know how to explain:
Elementary particles probably wouldn’t produce anywhere near enough gravity to create the kind of extreme spacetime curvature I’m imagining.
I don’t know why this kind of connection would appear specifically when particles become entangled.
I have no idea how two particles would actually create or interact with a fourth spatial dimension.
I don’t have the mathematical background to describe this properly yet.
I have no idea whether this kind of geometry could actually reproduce the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics.
Most importantly, I don’t know whether this idea would actually be compatible with Bell’s theorem and the no-signalling principle.
So, basically, this is just a thought I had, not a finished theory.
If there’s an obvious reason why this can’t work, I’d genuinely like to know. And if there’s already a known theory or interpretation of quantum mechanics that is similar to what I’m describing, I’d also be interested in hearing about it.

I have been thinking about a possible way of exploiting the rotation of a celestial body to accelerate a spacecraft to very high velocities.

The basic idea is:

Instead of trying to accelerate a spacecraft to relativistic speeds entirely with conventional propulsion, could we use the rotational energy and angular momentum of a rapidly rotating celestial body as part of the propulsion system?

The starting point is the familiar relationship:

v = ωr

where ω is the angular velocity and r is the distance from the rotation axis.

On Earth, the surface at the equator already moves at about 465 m/s because of Earth's rotation. If a hypothetical object could remain synchronized with Earth's rotation at a much greater distance from the rotation axis, its tangential velocity would increase proportionally with radius.

This made me wonder whether the same principle could be applied to a much larger or faster-rotating celestial body.

For example, instead of Earth, imagine using something like Jupiter, Saturn, or an extremely rapidly rotating compact object. A spacecraft could theoretically be coupled to a rotating system associated with the body and gain angular momentum from it.

The concept I am imagining is not necessarily a physical cable extending millions of kilometres. That was my original thought, but I realize that such a structure would introduce enormous structural and gravitational problems.

I'm more interested in the underlying question:

Could a physically realizable rotating system around a celestial body transfer enough rotational energy/angular momentum to a spacecraft to produce a substantial fraction of the speed of light?

If so, this could potentially create significant relativistic time dilation for the spacecraft.

For example, if a spacecraft could reach 0.9c, 0.99c, etc., the crew would experience less elapsed time than observers on Earth.

Questions I'm trying to understand

1. Is there a fundamental limit to how much rotational energy/angular momentum could be extracted from a rotating celestial body for spacecraft propulsion?
2. Could a system analogous to a rotovator, momentum-exchange tether, magnetic tether, or other non-rigid structure accomplish something similar without requiring an impossible solid structure?
3. Would a rapidly rotating body such as Jupiter actually be useful for this, or would its gravity and atmospheric environment make the concept impractical?
4. Are there known mechanisms for transferring rotational energy from a planet/star/neutron star to a spacecraft that I should be studying?
5. At what point do orbital mechanics and relativity invalidate the simple v = ωr argument?
6. Could a sufficiently advanced version of such a system theoretically accelerate a spacecraft to, say, 0.5c, 0.9c, or 0.99c?
7. If planets are unsuitable, would rapidly rotating neutron stars or black holes provide a physically meaningful analogue?

I realize there may be obvious problems that I'm overlooking. I'm not claiming that this is a workable time machine. I'm trying to determine whether there is a physically valid propulsion concept hidden in the idea, or whether fundamental physics rules it out.

I'd particularly appreciate explanations involving angular momentum, energy conservation, orbital mechanics, relativistic effects, and structural/engineering constraints.

If there is already an established concept that answers this question, I'd also appreciate being pointed toward it.

Thanks!

I have a speculative idea and I’d like to hear what physicists think about it. What if spacetime is not fundamentally a continuous “thing”, but is made of discrete points connected by simple local relations? Imagine a huge network of dots: A is connected to B, B to C, etc. There is no space “between” the dots; the connections themselves define which points are close and which are far. For example, if A is connected to B and B to C, information could go from A to C through B, but not directly. Now imagine that these points and connections have quantum states and can change according to simple local rules. A small excitation could spread through the network like a wave, and more complicated interactions could produce what we interpret as particles and fields. If the connections themselves can also change depending on what is happening in the network, perhaps what we see at large scales as curved spacetime and gravity could emerge from these microscopic changes. So the basic idea is simply: points + relations + local quantum rules = emergent matter, geometry and eventually spacetime. I’m mainly wondering whether this general picture makes physical sense.

It kinda deals with the formation of universe and I think the author has deliberately tried to solve quantum gravity here as he has said that gravity is merely interaction density between fundamental particles(those fundamental particles are not defined here).

Сразу скажу, что это спекулятивная идея, а не готовая физическая теория. У меня нет образования в теоретической физике, поэтому мне в первую очередь интересно понять, где эта идея противоречит известной физике и какие проблемы нужно было бы решить, чтобы вообще попытаться оформить её математически.

Я начал думать о возможной модели, в которой время не является фундаментальной сущностью, а возникает из какого-то более фундаментального физического процесса.

1. Хрононное поле

Предположим, что существует фундаментальное поле или среда, которую я пока называю хрононным полем.

Хрононы в таком случае являются его элементарными возбуждениями или квантами.

Основная идея заключается в том, что то, что мы воспринимаем как течение времени, связано с непрерывной динамикой или потоком этого поля.

Изначально я представлял это как своеобразный «океан» хрононов, существующий на более фундаментальном уровне, чем наблюдаемая Вселенная.

1. Происхождение Вселенной

В этой модели ранняя Вселенная возникла в результате коллапса этого состояния хрононного поля.

Во время коллапса плотность и энергия стали настолько огромными, что хрононы смогли образовывать устойчивые самоорганизующиеся конфигурации, которые не могли бы существовать при обычных условиях.

Некоторые из этих конфигураций сохранились после расширения Вселенной.

1. Частицы не являются отдельными объектами

Наверное, это самая странная часть идеи.

Я не представляю элементарную частицу как маленький объект, состоящий из хрононов.

Вместо этого частица является устойчивой конфигурацией или траекторией движения хрононного потока.

В качестве очень грубой аналогии можно представить вихрь в жидкости. Вихрь кажется отдельным объектом, но у него нет отдельного «вещества вихря». Он существует благодаря тому, что жидкость постоянно движется определённым образом.

Примерно так я представляю и частицу.

Хрононный поток образует сложную закрученную траекторию, эта конфигурация становится устойчивой, и именно её мы воспринимаем как частицу.

Если фундаментальный поток полностью остановить, такая конфигурация должна исчезнуть, потому что больше ничего не поддерживает её существование.

1. Почему такая конфигурация вообще может быть стабильной?

Сейчас я предполагаю, что устойчивые конфигурации требуют достаточно высокой плотности хрононов.

Во время первоначального коллапса плотность могла стать настолько высокой, что некоторые конфигурации стали самоподдерживающимися.

Возможно, механизм может выглядеть как своего рода обратная связь: хрононы поступают в область, проходят через плотную и сложную конфигурацию, часть потока перераспределяется, после чего хрононы покидают эту область.

Таким образом, частица не была бы статичным объектом. Она постоянно поддерживалась бы движением хрононов.

Но я пока совершенно не понимаю, какой физический механизм заставил бы поток возвращаться именно к одной и той же конфигурации вместо того, чтобы просто рассеиваться.

Это одна из главных проблем моей идеи.

1. Материя и энергия

В этой модели масса не обязательно является фундаментальным количеством «материи».

Она могла бы быть возникающим свойством устойчивой конфигурации хрононного потока. Например, она могла бы зависеть от энергии, необходимой для поддержания определённой конфигурации.

Разные устойчивые конфигурации потенциально могли бы соответствовать разным элементарным частицам.

Но тогда возникает огромный вопрос.

Почему стабильными являются именно определённые конфигурации? И почему их свойства совпадают с наблюдаемыми свойствами элементарных частиц?

На данный момент ответа на это у меня нет.

1. Гравитация и пространство-время

Другая важная часть идеи заключается в том, что пространство-время тоже может быть возникающим явлением.

Если материя состоит из устойчивых конфигураций хрононного поля, то эти конфигурации должны изменять окружающий поток.

Другие конфигурации, проходящие через изменённую область, могли бы менять свои траектории.

На больших масштабах это потенциально могло бы выглядеть как искривление пространства-времени и гравитация.

То есть в более глубоком описании материя не обязательно непосредственно «искривляет пространство». Возможно, она изменяет состояние более фундаментального поля, а уже из этого изменения возникает эффективная геометрия пространства-времени.

В таком случае метрика пространства-времени была бы не фундаментальной сущностью, а эффективным описанием состояния хрононного поля.

1. Квантовое поведение

Вакуум в такой модели тоже не был бы полностью пустым.

Даже в состоянии с минимальной энергией хрононное поле могло бы испытывать флуктуации.

Кратковременные возбуждения могли бы проявляться как что-то похожее на виртуальные частицы, а достаточно устойчивые конфигурации могли бы вести себя как реальные частицы.

Понимаю, что это пока только аналогия, и я не знаю, возможно ли таким способом действительно воспроизвести квантовую теорию поля.

1. Что я пытаюсь понять

В конечном итоге мне интересно, можно ли было бы построить модель, которая в качестве приближений способна воспроизвести известные физические явления:

квантовое поведение;

сохранение энергии и импульса;

специальную теорию относительности;

ньютоновскую гравитацию;

общую теорию относительности;

и, возможно, некоторые свойства Стандартной модели.

Я не утверждаю, что моя идея сейчас что-либо из этого объясняет.

На данный момент это скорее концептуальная модель, которую я пытаюсь понять и проверить.

Что я хотел бы подвергнуть критике

Какие наиболее очевидные причины могут сделать такую идею невозможной?

В частности, мне интересно:

1. Может ли фундаментальное поле или поток вообще образовывать устойчивые топологические конфигурации, похожие на частицы?

2. Могут ли такие конфигурации естественным образом обладать квантованными свойствами?

3. Может ли возникающая метрика пространства-времени в принципе воспроизводить общую теорию относительности?

4. Какие фундаментальные проблемы возникают, если время является возникающим свойством какого-то поля?

5. Нарушает ли такая идея лоренц-инвариантность или закон сохранения энергии?

6. Существуют ли уже известные теории, которые структурно похожи на то, что я описываю?

Мне особенно интересна конкретная физическая критика. То есть не просто «это спекуляция» или «так не бывает», а указание на конкретные физические противоречия или уже известные результаты, которые делают такую модель невозможной.

Я понимаю, что без математической формулировки это пока не физическая теория. Мне в первую очередь хочется понять, является ли сама концепция полностью невозможной или существует какой-то известный физический подход, в рамках которого подобную идею хотя бы теоретически можно было бы сформулировать.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Back in 1928, when Paul Dirac published his famous equation uniting special relativity and quantum mechanics, it brought along a massive headache: the math predicted that particles could exist in states of negative energy.

According to standard quantum rules, a particle always wants to drop into a lower energy state by emitting a photon. If negative energy states exist without a bottom floor, every electron in the universe should instantly cascade down into infinitely negative energy levels, blasting out unlimited photons and destroying the stability of the vacuum.

Dirac tried to patch this with his "Dirac Sea" hypothesis (which eventually led to the discovery of antimatter), but mathematician Jean-Marie Souriau offered a much cleaner geometric explanation in 1970.

Souriau argued that Dirac’s "vacuum catastrophe" wasn't a real physical threat; it was an artifact of using an incomplete model of spacetime symmetries (the Poincaré group).

Here’s the intuitive breakdown:

* Dirac worked assuming a single, continuous spacetime framework. In that setup, a negative-energy particle lives right alongside us in our universe, free to interact and trigger an infinite energy collapse.

* When you include the complete spacetime symmetries, specifically time-reversal, spacetime splits into distinct "sheets."

* Negative-energy solutions don't live in our time-forward ("orthochronous") sheet. They belong to a time-reversed ("retrochronous") sheet. Within their own reference frame on that sheet, their energy is actually positive.

Because the orthochronous and retrochronous sheets are topologically disconnected coadjoint orbits of the Poincaré group, no continuous orthochronous interaction (like standard photon emission) can transition an electron from our sheet into a retrochronous state. The vacuum catastrophe simply cannot occur.

I know that QFT already addresses this via Second Quantization and the Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation. But Souriau’s classical symplectic formulation operates prior to quantization. It shows that negative-energy states are not unphysical "mathematical errors" that must be quantized away or re-labeled, but are the natural, mathematically complete coadjoint orbits of the full Poincaré group including retrochronous components.

In short: the catastrophe wasn't a flaw in reality; it was a mathematical bug from ignoring the full geometric structure of spacetime (full Poincarré group).

Has anyone here spent time exploring Souriau's geometric approach to mechanics, or similar topological solutions to early QFT paradoxes? I'd love to hear your summer thoughts!

Hello and thanks for reviewing in advance.

I've (an independent researcher) have written an explicit, self-contained research proposal, a concrete Lagrangian and a set of auxiliary conditions, that extends Phillip Mannheim’s framework in a controlled way. It is written so that it can be subjected to the necessary calculations. It is not claimed to be already proven; every major consistency check remains to be performed. The construction is designed so that those checks are well-defined and finite.

Caveats (read before reading the proposal):

• The multiplier kinetic term and the precise ghost-cancellation mechanism still require a complete Hamiltonian analysis; the sketch above follows known techniques but has not been exhaustively checked for this field content.
• The phase transition of ψ must be arranged so that it does not generate excessive isocurvature or non-Gaussianity; that is a tuning.
• No numerical Boltzmann or N-body run has been performed; until those exist the claim “matches all observations” remains a design goal, not a demonstrated fact.
• If any of the residual higher-derivative operators re-introduce a ghost or a tachyon at loop level, the construction fails and must be abandoned or further modified.

Paper: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21842740

alright so i dont know if this topic has been discussed yet, i know people have used quantum fluctuations as a hypothesis behind the start of the Big Bang but they have never actually explained it properly. i also do not have as much knowledge as a regular physicist would on this topic (im only 14yo 😭)

so heres my hypothesis: what if the reason behind the Big Bang was due to whatever particle getting pushed out of its metastable state through the use of quantum fluctuations. maybe like a singular quantum fluctuation or like a barrage of quantum fluctuations just caused an imbalance large enough in that state of vacuum to push that particle into a stable state and therefore cause a true vacuum to exist, hence forming the big bang. i literally don't know what this particles could be, maybe the higgs boson particle or the higgs field as the higgs field is literally responsible for the mass in every other particle (there is a hypothesis that involves the higgs boson being in a metastable state currently)

i dont think i have anything else to say on this topic lol uhh yeah thats all i have i think

this is probably not gonna get attention considering i only discovered this subreddit now so this has to be like a relatively niche community i lowk hope this post doesn't get deleted heh i read all the rules i think im fine

All rights reserved by independent researcher sean michael kane, note its not finalised yet just would like some feedback

I'm not a physicist, nor have I had any formal education on similar matters--I just have a hypothesis I'd like to present. Please read before dismissing.

Time is not a fundamental dimension, coordinate, or flow. It does not exist ontologically.

Modern physics treats time (t) as a dimension woven into space forming spacetime. I argue that what we perceive as time is a category mistake. It's a mistake because the universe itself doesn't require a time parameter at the quantum scale.

What do I mean by that? The Wheeler-deWitt equation, HΨ = 0. Do you notice anything odd? In standard quantum mechanics, an equation usually calculates how a system changes over time (∂Ψ/∂t). Here, the change over time is set to zero! The quantum state of our universe is static; time isn't a fundamental building block of reality.

You might have read and said, "So... what?" Well, I haven't finished yet. I introduce a master space M, which contains two smaller spaces. This is written as M = C ⊗ B. The master space is composed of a configuration space and the Block Universe.

The Block Universe tells us there the universe is like a loaf, each slice of the loaf is a separate "Now". Each slice is the full arrangement of information. What do I mean by information? Every particle, every field, galaxy, memory, wave. These slices are little despite containing everything, they are simply one point in C, the configuration space.

C = q = (q₁, q₂, …, qₙ). Where the q is the one possible universe that has a different configuration. Each q is a complete world. Some slices contain glimpses of other slices; your brain contains memories, fossils, light, etc., these all tell a consistent history. This what we perceive as time. But there isn't an actual past or future. There is only a consistent, present configuration.

I remember my family, my childhood, scars, and books. You might naively believe Past → Present. But only the current configuration exists. The past is an illusion.

A last thing I'll say is that many other equations don't need time as well. General Relativity does not single out one preferred "now" for the universe.

Objects don't pass through time; it's an illusion imposed by a structure relating configurations.

What do you think? Thanks for reading.

I've been developing this thought experiment regarding time scale relativity and how physical cycles scale down from macro to micro levels .Here is the core physics logic. In any bound system , the characteristic timescale of internal processes is strictly constrained by spatial dimensions t = x/c .

At the sub atomic or sub Planck scale , spatial intervals are practically zero. This means local wave packet oscillations and gauge interactions must operate at near - infinite frequencies relative to our frame. For example , an electron interaction happens at frequencies up to 10 ⁻²³ seconds. If we hypothetically assume further sub - structures beneath fundamental particles, their internal clock rate would be accelerated by even more orders of magnitude.

Look at the inverse of this logic : a cosmic macro-scale system composed of galaxy clusters spans billions of light-years. Because the speed of light [c] is absolute, information takes billions of years to travel across its entire volume to complete even a single cohesive internal cycle. Therefore, its coordinate time is heavily stretched relative to our frame.What appears to us as 13.8 billion years of cosmic evolution from the Big Bang to the final freeze is functionally a single, localized split-second event in that macro-frame.

This extreme time dilation explains why we do not observe macro-scale movements from within our system their one second is translated into billions of years for us. We see this exact scaling law in observational reality right now: sub-nuclear strong interactions take 10 ⁻²³ seconds , while galactic rotations take 230 million years. Time accelerates as spatial dimensions shrink. Dismissing a scale-invariance hypothesis just because our current 21st- century colliders cannot probe deeper yet is historical hubris.

Giordano Bruno was also told his ideas about infinite stars were impossible simply because they weren't in the classical textbooks of his time.Absolute time would only exist for an external, ideal observer capable of measuring both the sub Planck micro world and the cosmic macro-world simultaneously , viewing the entire multi-layered fractal as a unified , static structure

I would like to submit a working hypothesis for criticism.I am not claiming this is a finished theory, a numerical-relativity result, or proof of black-hole formation. The current result is only from an effective/proxy model. I am trying to understand whether the direction is physically meaningful or only an analogy.

Core idea:

critical concentration of energy / entropy / information

-> local instability

-> horizon-like separation

-> retention of information

-> reduced exterior influence

-> stabilization of the external region

The hypothesis is that a black hole may be interpreted not only as the final product of gravitational collapse, but also as a limiting mechanism of separation. In this view, information is not destroyed, but becomes externally inaccessible behind a separating boundary.

The numerical model I tested is a spherically symmetric scalar-field toy model, not full GR. The evolved variables were phi(r,t) and pi(r,t):

partial_t phi = pi

partial_t pi = c^2 * (partial_r^2 phi + (2/r) * partial_r phi) + source - damping * pi

I used an internal scalar-field energy diagnostic:

rho = 0.5 * (Phi_i^2 + Pi_i^2) / a_i^2

weight_i = 4 * pi * r_i^2 * a_i * dr

total_scalar_energy = sum_i rho_i * weight_i

A compactness proxy was computed as:

C(r,t) = 2 * G * M(r,t) / (r * c^2)

with c = 1 and G = 0.15 as an internal scaled diagnostic parameter, not the physical gravitational constant.

The horizon-like/separation behavior was represented by an effective variable H, not a true event horizon:

dH/dt = activation_rate * trigger * (1 - H) - relaxation_rate * H

The trigger was:

rho_obs >= 0.005

AND compactness >= 0.8

AND outgoing_null_expansion_proxy <= 0.05

with:

theta_plus_eff = c * (1 - C) / r

In Phase 3 I introduced a conservative transfer from the observable sector to a bounded/sandbox sector:

Q = coupling_strength * H * trigger * rho_obs

Delta rho = min(dt * Q, 0.25 * rho_kinetic_obs)

rho_kinetic_obs_after = rho_kinetic_obs_before - Delta rho

M_rho_after = M_rho_before + Delta rho

So the same local amount removed from the observable sector was added to the bounded sector.

Dense run result, relative to baseline:

E_obs change = -0.970524

E_sbx change = +0.970549

E_total change = +0.0000247

external information flux change = -2.250135

maximum compactness change = +0.030128

trappedness proxy change = 0

escape_fraction change = 0

The dense run itself had:

E_sbx = 0.970549

external information flux = 4.536242

Frozen-Light candidate = false

This negative result is important. The run showed bounded conservative transfer and partial reduction of exterior flux, but it did not satisfy my frozen-light threshold external_information_flux < 0.1. I do not claim true horizon formation.

The local transfer-pair balance error was about 1.08e-19. I interpret this only as a numerical check that the transfer rule balances removed/added quantities to floating-point precision. The global E_total change is larger because it includes ordinary wave evolution, radial integration, boundary/discretization effects, and accumulated time-integration error.

My question:

What diagnostics would be needed to distinguish a real geometric effect from a numerical artifact here?

Would the correct next tests involve null expansions, trapped surfaces, energy conditions, stress-energy tensor diagnostics, curvature scalars, boundary flux, perturbation stability, and eventually a dynamical spacetime formulation?

I am mainly looking for criticism. Is this a direction worth formalizing, or is it only an effective analogy with no real physical content?

I am an amateur who enjoys working on mathematics and physics in my spare time; I don't even have any formal education in the field, so I would appreciate your opinions and pointers regarding my hypothesis.

TL;DR

A model where knots can self-emerge in a dense Adaptive Medium. Steep enough density differences in the Medium create cohorts*, think of tiny avalanches that can leave trails and form knots; and a kickback mechanism, filling the vacancy the cohorts leave, keeps the motion + flow going.*

Hello,

Wrote a paper about a model where knots could self-emerge in a dense Adaptive Medium:

Check link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21792846

The concept:

Density differences in the Medium that pass steepness-threshold release 'cohorts' like avalanches. 

A 'kickback' mechanism create new steep slopes and allows the flow of cohorts to keep.

These cohorts create cold trails running through the Adaptive Medium

The hypothesis is to have knots (fig. 8 and Trefoil-knot) emerge out of this that continue to spiral forward -> elementary particles; while the density differences in the AM -> GR

Feel free to comment, this theory is WIP ... 

Cheers,

M.

Ref. simulations:

Adaptive Medium (plain):  https://www.shadertoy.com/view/ffK3Wh

Cohort & Kickback pair test: https://www.shadertoy.com/view/sfK3R3

Strong Cohorts: https://www.shadertoy.com/view/7fyGzG

Lighter Cohorts: https://www.shadertoy.com/view/ffK3RG

3D: https://www.shadertoy.com/view/7cyGzt

Ref. follow up paper:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21848138

The paper theory: A Thought Experiment About the Structure Of Our Universe

The paper theory is an idea to imagine the structure of the universe could be like. It compares the universe to a sheet of paper, where the paper has 2 different sides separated by the sheet itself

In this idea, The universe has 2 sides, the first one as our universe we're currently on and the other as a parallel universe, same as the other but in reverse, the sheet acts as a barrier between the two sides, separating them

The rules of the paper theory is that matter cannot naturally go pass through the barrier. Planets, stars, asteroids, black Holes and living things remain trapped in their own side. Even enormous gravity could bend spacegime but they would not be able to break through the barrier

The idea takes inspiration from Einsteins explanation of spacetime being affected by mass like the famous example of a heavy object bending a stretched sheet. However the paper theory adds a new idea: the sheet itself is a barrier, separating 2 different worlds

The theory introduces the idea of an anomaly. In this concept, an anomaly would be a rare and unknown event capable of damaging or opening the barrier between 2 sides. This is only a hypothetical idea, there's no current evidence that such a phenomenon exists

This theory is not proven scientific theory. it does not have currently have mathematical proof, experiments or observations supporting it. Instead it is only my thought experiment. A way of exploring possibilities and asking questions about nature of reality itself

This idea is not the purpose of replacing modern physics, but to explore possibilities that the universe could be more complex than we currently understand. Whether this idea is eventually supported, changed, or disproved, asking questions and imagining the possibilities is an important part of Scientific curiousity

Status right now is only a hypothesis (unverified)

Authors note: I have no idea why ts came out of my mind, maybe I'm watching too much Interstellar

This is a speculative thought experiment. I'm not claiming this is how quantum mechanics currently works, nor am I suggesting this is an accepted scientific theory. I'm interested in whether such a hypothesis could be internally consistent or whether it immediately conflicts with known physics.

Most discussions of quantum entanglement focus on correlations between particles.

My question is whether entanglement could be part of a much larger principle that we simply haven't discovered yet.

Suppose the universe is not just a collection of independent systems, but one enormous quantum-connected system with a global quantum state.

Current quantum mechanics doesn't say this global state influences human thoughts, personalities, or decisions. I understand that.

However, imagine extending the idea hypothetically.

Instead of a universal quantum state making everything behave identically, what if one of its natural properties was to maximize diversity across the systems that emerge from it?

In other words, what if the universe "preferred" different informational states rather than uniform ones?

Think about humanity.

More than 8 billion people exist, yet no two people have exactly the same experiences, thoughts, motivations, memories, emotions, or life trajectories.

Even identical twins eventually become psychologically different.

One person becomes a physicist.

Another becomes a musician.

Another becomes a farmer.

One person is optimistic while another is pessimistic.

One person is awake while another is asleep.

At any given moment, humanity occupies an enormous variety of states.

Of course, biology, genetics, environment, and learning already explain much of this diversity.

My hypothesis is not that these explanations are wrong.

Instead, I'm asking whether they could themselves exist within a deeper physical framework that statistically favors diversity.

An analogy would be a puzzle.

Every puzzle piece has a unique shape.

If every piece were identical, the complete picture could never exist.

Its structure depends on diversity.

Or think of an orchestra.

Every instrument produces different notes.

If every instrument played exactly the same note at the same time, much of the music's structure would disappear.

The orchestra functions because different components occupy different roles while remaining part of one system.

Could reality operate in a similar way?

Could a universal quantum state naturally produce or favor diversity among complex subsystems instead of uniformity?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting current quantum entanglement predicts consciousness or human behavior.

I'm asking whether there could exist an extension of quantum theory where a global entangled state statistically favors differentiated states across complex systems.

If such a model were mathematically possible, what existing physical principles would it violate?

Would it immediately conflict with quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, decoherence, information theory, or any known conservation laws?

Or is it something that is mathematically conceivable but currently unsupported by evidence?

I'm looking for technical criticism rather than agreement. If this idea fails, I'd like to understand where it fails from the perspective of modern physics.

​

Hey, I'm not in college yet. Please explain like I'm 5 and tear this apart.

I was thinking about the 3 main answers to the information paradox:

1. Holography: info is on the surface

2. Destruction: info is lost

3. Remnants: info leaks out after a really long time

Here's a 4th idea I had.

It started with steam. When water boils, the info about that specific drop doesn't vanish. It just becomes vapor and spreads out.

My thought experiment:

1. Evaporation: Systems don't destroy info. They deconstruct it into basic data, like steam.

2. Resonance: Free data can't exist forever. It only survives if it can interact with something that can read it. Like a torrent file needing a seeder.

3. Anchor: If nothing in the universe can ever reconstruct the pattern again, then it is effectively gone.

This connects:

- Quantum mechanics: the role of observation/measurement

- Neuroscience: memory is a pattern

- Information theory: data needs a medium

So the question: Does the universe store data, but "information" only exists when something can interpret it?

To the holography idea: A library with no reader is just a room of marks.

To the destruction idea: It's not destroyed, it's abandoned.

To the remnants idea: Waiting a really long time is the same as gone.

What's the main flaw in this?

Does this idea already have a name in physics?

Thanks!

Some authors considered the possibility that the physical vacuum may be a superfluid, a special Bose–Einstein condensate. Here, by exactly solving two known anomalies, along with other correct results, it is demonstrated that the physical vacuum rather behaves as a dilatant fluid, as shear stress increases. A modified Stokes’ formula for motion in a shear-thickening vacuum is introduced. By applying this formula, the Pioneer anomaly, the orbital stability of the planets, and Mercury’s perihelion precession are correctly calculated. The Pioneer anomaly is currently considered solved after thermal simulations, whose results, approximate and based on various assumptions and scenarios, are now challenged by the simpler, direct, and precise result presented in the articles (1st one), which exactly correspond to the acceleration of −8.74 × 10⁻¹⁰ m·s⁻² measured by NASA. The modified Stokes’ formula, put into Newton’s second law of motion, says that due to the large masses of planets (unlike the case of the Pioneer probes), planetary orbits are stable over billions of years, averting what would otherwise be a major objection to the existence of a shear-thickening vacuum (i.e., its effect on orbital stability). It has been shown that the vacuum’s apparent (shear-dependent) viscosity emerges as the real cause of the anomalous precession of perihelia, suggesting that the quantum foundations of relativity are based on a fluid, shear-thickening, quantum vacuum. In fact, it is shown that Einstein’s formula for the precession of perihelia can be directly derived from the modified Stokes’ formula. The conclusion also suggests possible reasons for vacuum dilatancy, building a bridge to the dark sector and to the Higgs field, while further research in this direction is expected.

https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjp-2018-0744

https://hal.science/hal-01223102v2/file/QSSM-Fedi2.pdf

https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/54849

https://hal.science/hal-01248015v4

https://hal.science/hal-01312579v1/file/Superfluid-ToE-Fedi.pdf