These are the slides of a talk I gave to some fellow physics teachers last weekend.

Edit:: the "Rookie mistakes" slide didn't render properly. The equation under "the Hubble radius" should read "log n = log(2πR_H) - log Λ", indicating the equation of a straight line with a slope of -1.

I'm a prime-number years of age independent thinker and follower of the White Fountain (praise be), and I would like to propose the following:

• What if this sub had an official shape/mascot/shape-mascot/theme-shape?

I am, of course, proposing a shape commonly presented to this sub with amazing properties - the torus.

The torus is the shape of the universe, the shape of electrons (and here), the natural fundamental shape of black hole / white hole connections/wormholes which, on universe-sized scales, is further evidence of the universe being an everlasting loop of matter and time, a fundamental premise of many presented models eg We exist in a finite but unbounded 3D "Torus", and so on. It never ends, like a torus! More recently the torus was invoked as the 3D space that emerged from a time substrate.

Those with the artistic ability can produce appropriate themes and decorations for the sub. Perhaps the banner or sidebar could have a nice stereographic representation of an n-torus - here is an interactive Clifford (the Big Red Dog) torus from which one could screenshot a nice example; or this one if one prefers; or perhaps better yet, this from Wikipedia (specifically, but whatever floats one's boat).

I acknowledge that an LLM would probably tell me that I am correct. Prove me wrong.

I have been thinking about dimensions and vision. This is my theory:

2D Eye: Sees the world like a flat drawing on paper. It can only see a triangle from one side, like a line. It cannot understand depth. For example, when we look at distant houses, trees, and mountains, they look flat like a picture drawn on paper. That is 2D vision.

3D Eye (Our Human Eye): We see height, width, and depth. But we can only see one side of a box at a time. We cannot see what is inside the box without opening it.

4D Eye: This is my main idea. A 4D eye would see a 3D box from all sides at once - inside and outside together. Just like we humans can see inside a 2D circle drawn on paper, a 4D being could see inside a 3D object. For a 4D being, everything would be transparent. They could filter and see through distant objects. If we see distant objects as flat 2D, a 4D being would see those distant objects in full 3D with depth.

Also I think Time is connected to 4D vision. 4D = 3D + Time.

Theory by: ranajayScience01 From Coochbehar,India

What do you think about this idea? Is this similar to Tesseract vision?

A singularity is the point at which observation occurs. When red shifted light and blue shifted light meet at a singularity the difference between the two lights is emitted as radiation. The information that is produced is identity of the light. This singularity is recursive. It is singular and continuous across the four dimensions of the universe, which are antimatter , matter, space, and imagination.

I understand the positioning of imaginary space as continuous with objective reality, and the claim of matter and antimatter coexisting seems odd. On our human experience scale the most common matter anti-matter collisions are stopped by the presence of the photon at the imaginary boundary. Also, there is only one photon, and it is also recursive, we are inside of that photon (cosmic background btw) as the path of that photon is being determined based on the data it carries.

As far as why I’m using imaginary space at all, it started as a thought experiment to solve the three body problem, but the only way to do it was to create a recursive imaginary plane that interacts with the fundamental forces. Thanks.

Quantum spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles, like electrons and quarks. In a previous post I explained that particles emerge from interactions between cells in a 3D grid. Building on that, I propose that particles consist of an asymmetric structure.

This is like how molecules consist of atoms; particles consist of specific arrangements of energy that define their function. In a wire, electrons move and align in a specific way because of the uneven affection of electric current on their structure, causing a magnetic field to transfer angular momentum. This also explains why interactions between particles can create different types of particles, like an electron emitting a photon, and the random outcomes in high-energy particle collisions.

There is no way to exactly know how interactions between cells work, but it's known that they work in a way that allows structures to form. It's possible to visualize how it approximately works using particle life simulation.

Okay, I have a theory, it’s a bit strange; it just came to me while I was doing my homework. The first dimension is inexplicable, but we are able to control the second and third dimensions however we like, though they are also relative, since we’re the ones controlling them. Take a triangular ruler, for example: if you leave it on a table, you see it in three dimensions. But if you pick it up and hold it perfectly straight in front of your eye, I’m not sure if I’m explaining this well, you can, in a sense, only see it in two dimensions, like a drawing, because you can no longer perceive its width. So, we can control two dimensions, and there’s a third one that we are aware of but cannot control. If we assume that infinity exists, we could argue that there might be a being capable of controlling the first, second, and third dimensions at will, while being aware of a fourth dimension that they cannot control. And, following that logic of infinity, this could continue: there might be another being capable of controlling the second, third, and fourth dimensions, while being aware of a fifth. The only issue is that I don’t really know what the first dimension is. If a drawing or a line counts as the second dimension, then perhaps a point is the first, but even a point has some width, so maybe the first dimension is actually "nothing." Anyway, that’s beside the point. I just realized that, based on this, we are always seeing things in multiple dimensions, but we are only capable of perceiving some of them, and of those we perceive, we can only control a few. So, one could argue that we actually see everything in infinite dimensions, but we are only able to perceive three or four. I’d love to hear what you all think, which is why I’m posting this here. I might be completely wrong, it could be total nonsense, but I’d rather know that than be left wondering, only to forget the whole idea a few hours later.

Here is a hypothesis: If humanity were able to build a space elevator would it be possible to harness the centrifugal force of the planet to help propel an elevator into geostationary orbit or higher? To be more specific I am trying to write a story based in Sci-fi but I want to ensure that the story I am writing is faithful to our current understanding of orbital mechanics and transporting people to space without using rocket fuel and instead electricity however Ion engines don’t produce very much thrust so I got to thinking about space elevators. Would there be such a curve that would allow a constantly free-falling encased elevator shaft (as to lessen the effects of structural flexing) and would that allow an elevator inside the structure to be able to ride along the shaft with very little propulsion such as an electric engine to bring it into a stable Earth orbit? To elaborate what im thinking, I imagine it working like how a liquid “sticks” to the bottom of a cup when you spin it in a circle. I am not very knowledgeable in orbital mechanics or the like that would allow me to figure this out myself as I am currently taking Calculus 1 (which is currently kicking my butt) but thought this would be a fun hypothetical to pose for people to help with my story writing.

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the faint glow of microwave radiation that fills all of space. CMB anomalies are statistically significant observational features in the temperature and polarization fluctuations of the CMB that deviate from the statistical predictions of the standard model of cosmology (ΛCDM), for example the Axis of Evil.

I propose that these anomalies exist because the universe is symmetric in all directions and has a center. This symmetry exists because I propose that quantum mechanics is deterministic.

I consider quantum mechanics to be deterministic for the following reasons: stable structures such as atoms could not form under randomness, and there is no logical way to define randomness.

In a previous post, I used a 3D grid to explain how observations emerge.

I propose that the universe began from a single cell. This follows from determinism: an equally filled universe would not exist, and therefore the universe must start from a single cell.

The center of the universe is a black hole, which appears to create a contradiction, since matter would never spread. I resolve this by proposing that at extremely high mass, a black hole's gravity can form matter. This is possible because I propose that all forces are fundamentally the same, and, as established physics holds, energy is equivalent to matter. For smaller black holes, this effect is known as Hawking radiation; however, only thermal radiation is emitted, because their mass is far lower than that of the central black hole.

We exist away from the center and the symmetric axes because the center is a black hole, and the symmetric axes would not allow life to form.

I propose a way to test this theory: construct a CMB simulation in which points are randomly distributed with symmetry about the X, Y, and Z axes, place the observer off-center and away from the symmetric axes, generate the CMB, and check whether the anomalies appear.

(AI disclosure: I used AI only to help with writing)

I think, though I don't know for sure I've seen this before in certain physics contexts, just in passing however. I was wondering if it was a valid way to approach models of spacetime that have multiple time dimensions (e.g. 3+2) I don't know if this is exactly "crackpot" physics but my specialty is in something else entirely. So it could be, as I'm definitely not a physicist. I'm just spitballing for fun.

But then again, or as far as I know, equations get real fucky really quick when you go past 3+1 in either number of time dimensions or number of space dimensions. Anything with both A) more than 2 space dimensions and B) more than 2 time dimensions is considered "ultrahyperbolic" and I've heard UHB differential equations are, to paraphrase slightly, "trickier than usual" to solve and a lot of theory has gone behind them it seems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrahyperbolic_equation

The paper by Wang, Shen, Deng, and Dinov on this topic is something I discovered from a cursory search, and it actually seems somewhat interesting. I might try to chip away at it and try and understand the crux of its substance.

Anyways:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicographic_order

I guess the construction of the order is "straightforward" in an arbitrary finite number of dimensions. But I don't think that says much about its applicability to spacetimes with multiple time dimensions. I'd hazard that some people here would think it's a non-starter actually.

So what do you think?

https://www.reddit.com/r/HypotheticalPhysics/s/C4cEP4fePj

As an update to my previous post, I was thinking about the fact that for Animal cell cultures in a stirred tank bioreactor, there exists no analytical relationship between the impeller speeds (and therefore the maximum shear stress acting on the cells) and the point of rupture of the animal cell membrane. As this problem is not related to the working of the animal cells and is a pure momentum/Energy transfer problem, I felt the need to post this here.
There exist some empirical correlations that relate Kolmogorov scale power dissipation to the maximum shear forces that a cell can withstand, although it's a very very rough approximation and most reactors are designed around a rule of thumb method rather than an an actual law/equation. What we know for sure is the fact that for a cell culture to grow in the bioreactor with constant agitation via an impeller, the Kolmogorov length scale eddies are greater in size than the diameter of the cell in study (although this is again only based on experimental data.) My question is, what other possible mechanisms of energy dissipation can occur through a fluid medium and how can we characterize these forces?

This effect is notably greater in the presence of a gas sparger and thus the flow speed of an impeller has to be even further reduced. This energy transfer also depends on the viscosity of the fluid but to a lesser extent than variations in the impeller speed.
According to me, to characterize these forces there are 2 approaches that come to mind. As some hypotheses state, Energy distribution over the entire reactor may affect the shear rates more than absolute energy dissipation rates over the entire reactor. Obviously with any turbulent mixing, there are pockets of stagnation formed and this could possibly lead to local variations in power dissipation, making the Kolmogorov scale dissipation rates dependent on the location within the reactor as well. This could possibly be modeled using numerical techniques like Large Eddy Simulation (LES) or even tomographic imaging techniques.

The more feasible approach is to do a momentum/force balance across the entire surface of any cell in the culture, and use a static piezoelectric sensor (or modern biosensors now) to measure local variations in force a cell would experience. I would guess that the main difficulty with doing a by-hand calculation is the fact that the force balance would no longer be a vector equation but instead a tensor equation because of the variation of shear stresses in each of the three directions + the fact that animal cell membranes have different strain rates in different directions. The stress tensor would have to be computed and each of the nine components plotted against time should theoretically give us something to work with. I've not been able to find suitable information about these topics in literature, so I may resort to doing by-hand calculations if I get time and see if I find out anything worthwhile. Let me know y'alls thoughts on this.

In theories that involve extra dimensions (e.g. Kaluza-Klein Theory and String Theory), there is a particle hypothesized in them called the dilaton. Now, there are many articles that explain how charged dilatons can be used in place of negative mass/energy due to how they interact with electromagnetic and gravitational fields (it's complicated to explain, and even I don't fully understand, but that's basically what I know).

Now, I'm aware that there aren't any experimental evidence of dilatons existing; not to mention that I'm asking this because it's for a sci-fi book I'm working on.

Could anyone who perhaps has higher levels of knowledge on all this explain to me the ramifications of this hypothesis (besides superluminal travel technically being more feasible)?

Also, the link is present because I hoped it'd givd me a little legitimacy.

Before I get into the model, here is why I started thinking about this. Why would the universe have predefined particles, speed of light, and constants at all? It seems more natural to me that these are not built in from the start, but come out of something simpler. That is the motivation behind everything below.

I propose that all particles, speed of light and other constants emerge from simple interactions.

The universe is a causal graph that updates at infinite frequency, but it is meaningless to imagine the universe this way. Instead, it is possible to imagine the universe as a 3D grid where cells have an energy value, interact with their neighbors, and an integral update function is used.

1. Explanation for the finite speed of light. Space is continuous and because update frequency is infinite, two infinities cancel and a finite speed of light emerges.
2. Speed of light is not constant. Energy relationship between neighbor cells in the 3D grid determines how fast energy spreads. In observations it looks constant, because vacuum is never absolutely perfectly empty because the energy of the cells is never exactly zero, and the energy distribution of the vacuum is consistent.
3. All particles and constants emerge from interactions between neighboring 3D grid cells.

UPDATE (Based on community feedback):

I want to thank the community for the recent reality check regarding the AI-generated mathematical formulas in my previous version. I take full responsibility for outsourcing the math without understanding it. As promised, I have completely removed the artificial formulas and reframed this thought experiment strictly as a qualitative, conceptual framework in the philosophy of physics.

Below is a revised section exploring the vacuum medium and light propagation, grounded in actual modern laboratory observations (such as the University of Konstanz experiments) rather than speculative equations:

The Vacuum Medium and Light Propagation

From a conceptual standpoint, the idea that the speed of light is influenced by the state of the quantum vacuum shares an intriguing parallel with modern experimental physics. A notable and relevant reference is the series of experiments conducted at the University of Konstanz, led by Prof. Alfred Leitenstorfer.

In their research findings, published under the descriptive theme "Traffic jam in empty space", the team observed the behavior of the vacuum by modulating background vacuum field fluctuations using ultra-short femtosecond laser pulses. When the spatial and temporal distribution of these background electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations was altered through a process known as vacuum squeezing, the propagation speed of the light wave passing through that specific segment of spacetime was directly affected.

To describe this phenomenon, Prof. Leitenstorfer provided a mechanical illustration similar to a traffic jam on a motorway. The local modulation of the vacuum noise causes a redistribution of energy, which in turn alters the velocity of the light waves traveling through it. This laboratory documentation provides a clear, qualitative example showing that the kinematic properties of light are empirically linked to the dynamic conditions of the surrounding quantum fluctuation medium.

I would love to hear your thoughts, critiques, or rigorous feedback on the logical consistency of this framework!

You can read the full preprint paper on Zenodo here: https://zenodo.org/records/21854909

I have an odd belief that all are just particles of light. Every particle of light has different data. The data is like 1s and 0s describing its usefulness and relativity. Though not all particles will follow this protocol. They gather their information on what is seen. Cause they have mass they need to act as seen. There is an invisible web that also holds the information of motion and density. This ties the particles together and moves them apart. The particles of light borrow from one another energy to pass it to the next.

To a larger scale I believe all are in a constant and non stopping motion. Like fluid but instantaneous. All is instant yet all is forever. The way information from these particles are traveled isn't from relativity but it's future purpose. All particles are just an existence of what really isn't there, like a placeholder. I imagine reality to be like a cloud of light that expands and shrivels instantly. Yet instantly is no match for all of the information flying through the universe. Nothing can be processed without time so everything is at a stand still with life. To be processed and collected as a current placeholder for its next step.

Even the universe knows it won't be seen until discovered.

for example
my idea is
if spacetime can hold a x amt of energy in a specifci volume(benkestien bound)
and if curvature increases physical volume
then the energy density must dilute
when it dilutes particle interactions or energy density in that colume decreases which makes interactions takes time in quantum zeno experiment the particle took energy from vaccum energy or some related thing thats why it can decay on its own but if the spaceifci energy was very low it cud not have did it

which i think since time is a illusion created by quantum entaglement which means
any quantum change is itself is entagled or can in sueprpsoiton
so
as i said change is wt we observe as time
so
in order to change it needs energy
when
particles r lower or interactions are lwoer
in other words it highly interacts with its enviroment and thats why its states change
(QBM)

when i see all 3
only conlcusion i can make is

TIME IS OBSERVED BECAUSE OF CHANGE IN PARTICLES VARIABLE STATES
and any variable states is capable of being in superpositon or entagleemnt
and ts directly matches page wooters
now
when time is like this
particles need information from other particle thru virtual photons or vaccum energy
if total density of energy in a given spacetime is low
interactions wont happen quickly as if in flatspacetime

when interactions dont happen
particles cannot change their states
if they dont change their states
TIME DILATES

I'm not a physicist or mathematician, but I have an intuition that I've been developing as a philosophical framework concerning the foundations of physical reality.

What if our three-dimensional, temporal universe emerges from a more fundamental substrate that is neither spatial nor temporal? In this interpretation, quantum particles emerge as physical expressions and produce our reality while always remaining in contact with a ubiquitous, non-temporal, non-geometric substrate.

Two entangled particles could be separated by enormous distances in our observable universe while retaining a shared relational structure at the underlying substrate level. From this perspective, entanglement might not require travel between the particles. They are always connected! Their correlations could reflect a relationship that is more fundamental than the geometry in which we observe them.

This is not new physics. It accepts established proofs, observations, and experiments. I just looked at the data from a different starting point.

My question is, everything has to originate from something! Is the substrate view a conceptually defensible interpretation of entanglement, and if not, what fundamental errors have I made?

I'm primarily interested in discussing the underlying concept rather than presenting an entire theory. As I stated, I'm not a mathematician or experienced in physics, so I would appreciate it if we kept the discussion on an ontological level.

For anyone interested, I've published my philosophical framework and related research on Zenodo. I used it as a sounding board for others to help me refine the work, but Zenodo proved not to be the best route for generating a dialog about my ideas!

If you like, you can visit some of my Communication Matrix works at my Zenodo community:

https://zenodo.org/communities/communication-matrix

Hey everyone! I will start off pretty much absurdly: I’m myself not much of a guy who knows physics, but I have just random ideas and thoughts about it.
I want to share my hypothesis, which I think is pretty cool but it hella lacks calculations (feel free to try and add them, i will only be happy if you’ll spend your time on my silly thoughts)
To start off: main idea is about the fabric of space itself. I hold the idea that time is a separate thing rather than a dimension that is in the spacetime. But let me explain:
So, in my hypothesis, I think that the universe before the big bang was created during the tiny particles consisted of energy(lets call them T). it was all in an unstable yet confined state, but suddenly - boom, and the T erupts, releasing energy, making other T join it in a state of a soup. Over time, as more T particles join, they make the soup, and the fabric of the space starts to develop, expanding over time as more T is absorbed, allowing space to expand and cool down. As it was expanding, it started speeding up in expansion, due to the fact that T start to connect like neurones in brain, they make a path, and expand the fabric really quickly. But what actually makes then the fabric? The answer is - T. It’s a profound of our space. The more energy you have clutched in - it gives you mass. Same works for black holes. The energy gathers so much that it goes down the hole, where it would all then be released as radiation and the energy. But what about time tho you would say? Well. I believe that time is basically something that is the ultimate thing for the whole universe. we move in it at the constant speed - speed of causality, which is also for us - the speed of light. If you fall into a black hole, you will be perceiving time just the same as your buddy outside it, cuz you both move into the time at the same rate. But you’re just zway back from him. It’s like 2 cars moving at the speed of 100km/h, but one is a km away from the second.
Thats pretty much it. Feel free also to ask me questions. I repeat that I do not possess any real knowledge about calculations on these stuff, and these are just my personal thoughts that can be easily turn out to be wrong

Like many of us here, I've had my fair share of crackpot physical theories, that I have played around with with an LLM. However, I am a responsible crackpot, seeking to model the theories mathematically, so I can falsify them, and understand deeper why they are incorrect.

Interestingly, I've had one hypothesis lately that during falsification just won't stay down. Quite the opposite: the more I play with this pet model, the more it seems correct to me.

I have my fair share of natural skepticism, although the more I study, the more my main source of skepticism seems to be: "If the theory is this simple, and this elegant, why hasn't this been discovered by now." I definitely feel like I'm missing something obvious here.

I would love to share the entirety of the Mathematics with you, and hopefully, I soon will. However, right now, the mathematics is all LLM written, and contains some gaps. Though, the gaps all seem to be just that: gaps. Mathematics that just hasn't been done yet. No gap I have found so far seems to suggest that the theory is actually wrong. The sheer quantity of work I still have to do to verify everything I have is enormous and hard to balance with a life and a job.

So I'm a while away from having a complete study of everything I want to share, with the rigour I'd want to employ. In the meantime, I thought I'd do what any responsible crackpot would do, and share an interim narritive overview explaining the theory, so I can receive FRIENDLY feedback from you lot, before I spend my life down this crackpot rabbithole. It is deliberately light on maths, with a focus on explaining the thoughts be thehind theorems, rather than precice statements of the theorems themselves.

The document is not AI written, as I fully subscribe to the idea that nobody need bother to read anything that I have not bothered to write.

Enjoy:

github.com/AndrewBoydMathematics/Hysteria-Theory

Excitingly, the theory seems to provide an explanation for more than just flat rotation curves. These results are even more tentative and provisional, as my own study has so far been focused on the underpinnings of the theory. If you want to know more, you'll have to get reading.

Hysteria Theory, a brief introduction:

In literature, we have this model for an open quantum system

dp/dt = Lp + S

for a density operator p, decoherence operator L and drive S. For a force F, we define the "Hysteretic" correction

F_H = - Tr(F L^-1 S)

And identify this as a quantum correction to a classical force witnessed by a (pseudo-) Everettian observer.

With decoherence driven by a particle emission with flux J_out and coherence driven by particle accretion, with flux J_in we find:

F_H/F_classical ~ J_in / J_out

Modelling the Milky Way with this correction provides a one-parameter fit to MOND-like flat rotation curves.

Since the scale of the force is ~ accretion/emission, cold diffuse objects exhibit a higher response than hot dense objects.

This is why dim sparce galaxies appear to have more dark matter than the Milky Way, which in turn has more dark matter than our hot dense sun.

I have been working on SET for a while, and I want to share a specific calculation from the latest draft.

The question I am testing is whether the field’s response to matter can account for the supernova brightness trend without adding dark energy.

SET, matter occupies part of the field’s available interaction capacity. I call that gravitational burden. Clocks and light propagation participate in that same field, so the calculation has to account for both.

In SET’s source law is:

Q²= 32π²GMR³

Here M is the mass in a specified source region, V is its volume, and Q has units of m³/s. The clock matters because Q is a rate. If a clock records α seconds for each reference second, that same rate expressed per second of that clock is:

Qnormalized = Q/α

This conversion is the connection I use in the cosmological calculation. I specify how Q enters volume evolution and use a uniform spherical source model with an advancing boundary to calculate the burden history. From that history, I calculate luminosity distance and the relative brightness we should observe.

The full steps, including the capacity invariant and the source-region assumptions, are in Sections 10–11 of the paper. Here I want to show what that calculation gives against the data.

There is still an evolving cosmic scale in this calculation. The proposal is that its behavior follows from the source–capacity response, without inserting an additional dark-energy density.

Here is one example of what comes out.

For a Pantheon+ group of 63 supernovae near redshift 0.731, the relative brightness values are:

• Initial matter-only calculation: 1.000000
• SET calculation: 0.706666
• Observed: 0.700656
• Observed 1σ interval: 0.679033–0.722968

So the initial calculation is 42.72% above observation. SET brings that difference down to 0.86%.

Those brightness values are normalized against a nearby reference group. They are not raw flux measurements or repeated observations of one fading explosion.

What made me want to share this is what happens across the full comparison. The same calculation moves the prediction toward observation in all fifteen redshift groups.

The median absolute discrepancy goes from 38.53% to 2.09% in Pantheon+, and from 36.39% to 2.96% in DES-Dovekie. Eight groups end up within their marginal 1σ intervals. You can see the remaining differences in the graph.

I used the same benchmark mass and radius throughout: approximately 1.50 × 10⁵³ kg and 46.5 billion light-years. These are adopted inputs with cosmological assumptions behind them. The source values were held fixed across the groups.

This comparison tests relative brightness. It does not establish the absolute distance scale, and the two catalogues overlap. The paper includes the covariance treatment and additional checks.

For me, the interesting result is that the source law, clock conversion, and specified burden history give a calculation that follows much of the observed brightness trend. That is the connection I want people to examine and help research further.

The rough draft is here:

https://github.com/usalocated/Space-Emanation-Theory-Integrated/blob/main/Space%20Emanation%20Theory%20-%20Integrated%20Rough%20Draft%201.pdf

The supernova calculation is in Sections 10–11, with the graph in Figure 7.

Capush. I always post because you guys motivate me with all your love.

The truth is, after watching the anime Steins;Gate, I realized I love physics, and I delved a little deeper into the subject, and my love for it increased, especially in physics theories.

From multiple world lines, these can be arranged within attractive fields. The underlying physical theory is based primarily on multi-worlds quantum mechanics. [1] An attractive field is a collection of world lines converging at a single point of convergence. Although each individual world line is an independent string and thus distinct from its neighbors, all the strings move in the same direction, ultimately forming a single string bundle, or the aforementioned attractive field.

The anime raises several issues, which are

1-Relativity and time: Since time is not absolute, its measured speed varies depending on motion and gravity.

2- Black holes and time travel

3-Sending messages to the past is a very ingenious idea, as is the idea of sending memories as data.

And the most noteworthy idea

If some events repeat themselves no matter how the details change, do we truly have free will?

The Chain of Universes in Contact: A Hypothetical Cosmological Model

1. The Basic Idea

I would like to present a speculative cosmological model that I call “The Chain of Universes in Contact.”

The main idea is that reality consists of two independent universes: a dark universe and a light universe. Both universes expand toward each other until they come into contact.

Each universe contains particles. These particles may be fundamentally identical, but their properties and interactions depend on which universe they belong to.

This model is not an established scientific theory. It is a personal hypothesis that I would like to discuss and improve.

2. The Interaction Between Particles

In the dark universe, dark particles attract other dark particles. In the light universe, light particles attract other light particles.

However, particles from different universes can also attract one another.

When particles from opposite universes meet, they connect in pairs. They do not transform into new particles; they remain the same particles, but become connected.

As the two universes come into contact, a boundary forms between them. This boundary consists of particles from both universes connected to one another. It separates the two regions of reality while allowing interactions between their particles.

3. The Merging of Universes

The strength of attraction between particles of the same type changes over time.

When this attraction becomes sufficiently weak, the attraction between particles of opposite types can dominate. The connections between the two universes become stronger than the forces keeping their particles separated.

As a result, the two universes merge into a single reality.

During this stage, particles from both universes coexist in one unified space. They remain distinct particles, but the separation between their original universes disappears.

4. The Separation of Universes

The process does not continue indefinitely in the merged state.

The attraction between particles of the same type begins to increase again. Eventually, it becomes stronger than the connections between particles from opposite universes.

The connections break, and the unified reality separates into two independent universes once more: the dark universe and the light universe.

Both universes then begin another cycle of expansion toward each other.

Thus, the merging and separation of universes repeat endlessly.

5. The Cyclic Nature of Attraction

An important feature of this model is that the strength of attraction between particles of the same type changes in a regular, synchronized cycle throughout all of reality.

This process is not caused by an external force or another universe. It is a fundamental property of existence itself.

The attraction increases and decreases according to a constant period measured by the time of each separate universe.

The cycle determines when the universes merge and when they separate again.

However, the exact physical mechanism behind this oscillation remains undefined in the current version of the model.

6. Time and the Infinite Chain

In this model, time behaves differently depending on whether the universes are separate or merged.

When the universes separate, each one begins its own new cycle of time. When they merge, their histories become part of a single reality.

I also speculate that time might pass faster when the attraction between particles of the same type is at its maximum and slower when that attraction is at its minimum.

The sequence of all these transformations forms what I call the Chain of Universes in Contact.

The chain is not a physical object or a separate space. It is a concept describing the endless sequence of transformations between different states of reality.

The chain may extend infinitely, or it may form a closed loop that appears infinite because every cycle is identical to the previous one.

In either case, there is no first cycle and no first event.

7. The Exact Repetition of Every Cycle

One of the most unusual assumptions in this model is that every cycle repeats with absolute precision.

The same particles return to the same positions, interact in the same ways, and produce the same events. Every decision made by every living being would also be repeated exactly.

This would mean that there is no fundamental randomness. Every event is determined by the underlying laws of reality.

Once a complete cycle ends, the next cycle reproduces the same sequence of events without any deviation.

The chain therefore does not create genuinely new histories. It repeats the same history endlessly.

This assumption would require a deterministic mechanism capable of returning the entire system to exactly the same state.

8. Information and the Limits of Knowledge

When two universes merge, the unified reality retains information about events that occurred in both of them while they were separate.

However, this does not necessarily mean that such information could be discovered or reconstructed by an observer.

Even a highly advanced civilization might be unable to understand the entire chain. The scale of the process, the number of cycles, and the limitations of observation could make complete knowledge impossible.

This would apply not only to humanity but potentially to any civilization, regardless of how advanced it becomes.

Within the model, asking what exists “outside” the chain may not have a meaningful answer, because the chain includes every cycle of reality by definition.

9. The Uniqueness of the Chain

I also consider the possibility that the chain is unique.

If its existence depends on a specific combination of particles and fundamental laws, then another chain with different particles or different laws would be a different system entirely.

If the chain is perfectly deterministic and every cycle reproduces the same state, there would be no alternative history within that chain.

The model does not currently establish whether other chains could exist. It simply explores the possibility that reality is one unique, self-repeating system.

10. Questions for Discussion

I would like to hear constructive criticism of this idea, especially from people interested in cosmology, theoretical physics, and the philosophy of time.

Some questions I have are:

1. Could a model involving two universes that periodically merge and separate be described mathematically?
2. Is there any known physical mechanism that could produce a universal, synchronized oscillation in particle interactions?
3. Could time behave differently depending on the state of such a system?
4. Is exact repetition of every cycle logically consistent with a deterministic universe?
5. What mathematical problems or contradictions would need to be addressed first?
6. Is there any way to derive observable predictions from a model like this?

I understand that this is a speculative idea and that I have not developed mathematical equations or evidence to support it. I am not claiming that it describes the actual universe.

My goal is to explore whether the idea can be made logically consistent and whether any part of it could be developed into a more rigorous theoretical model.

I would appreciate serious criticism, suggestions, and explanations of where the model conflicts with established physics.

Been doing a little messing around and Ive always been interested in math and physics for awhile now and I saw there are so many algebra systems in these different theories like von neumann and C*(c sharp) algebras for AQFT, I thought about it and thought maybe I could make my own little algebra and thinking that this maybe could help a little bit with quantum gravity or something.

It's similar to the commutator but the hat describes something different for this type of operator with \hat{B}A describing what is the new A when B acts upon it or aka just interacts with it.

Meaning this is a difference between sums and is similar to the measurement of thermodynamics as a perfect 0 state is a perfectly stable system of the wedge algebra.

I tried letting it work the quantum state of the ket for Psi and the stress energy tensor which allows for semiclassical geometry interaction with the Psi and stress energy tensor with the ket of Psi quantum state being of the fermionic matter.

The first term would describe how much shifted or changed the quantum state of the particle is by the stress-energy tensor and the second term describes how much stress-energy the fermions quantum state makes.

This is still just a generalized algebra but I'm looking for critiques and questions on what some things could mean or any things that could be similar to this.

Now the difference between when the equation is greater than zero, equal to zero and less than zero is pretty simple.

When the state shows greater than zero the quantum state is feeling some curvature from somewhere, when equal to zero it's at equilibrium or along a minkowski metric with zero stress energy, now when less than zero I've hypothesized it returns when it's releasing a excited state energy of a ripple of space-time through curvature aka a gravitational wave.

It's very complicated and still a bit under developed as it's very new and I've been only working on it for roughly 3 days.

Edit:

There is actually a different image in the comments that actually correctly explains the algebra rules using existing laws and has some things I need to clear up in them.

The new dot product form follows the lie biz dot product rule, the cross isn't really special but it is a good way to show the order of how the equations work and the actual proposed equation with this wedge symbol at the bottom containing that Gamma hat is the geodesic that is applied that is curved from the stress-energy tensor or any outer curvature applicable, it's a little odd but there is another rule I'd like to imply.

The hat needs to have both ranks be the same when the variables or fields are interacting so that's what the I is in the equation to make sure the ket Psi is a applicable tensor for the stress-energy to apply to so then when the hat applies it can turn it perfectly to the magnitude of the difference of after the interaction to before as of:

\hat{B}A = || A_final - A_initial ||

With this is describing the plugging A before and after to know how much the B plug in changes the A plug in.