Alternative Models of Reality

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny persuaded that a universal constant or dimensionless invariants exist that links all of this. The universe can be described as a universal sphere, we can take quantum spherical systems, like the proton,

Regarding the proton we have the mass problem. and a radius problem and also the muonic hydrogen .

Since a muon is more massive than an electron, the Bohr orbits are closer to the nucleus in a muonic atom than in an ordinary atom, and corrections due to quantum electrodynamics are more important.

But these are unstable, quantum or higher energy items, and we use stable points in low energy systems? I think this is important. It tell us the mass is adjustable regarding energy, like it seek its place.

Most mass is from gluons, and the Jefferson Lab writes:

From two different combinations of these quantities, the experimenters determined the aforementioned gluonic mass radius dominated by graviton-like gluons, as well as a larger radius of attractive scalar gluons that extend beyond the moving quarks and confine them.

Gluons like gravitons? or vortices like we see in a BEC? This could be a link? Because the curvature is linked (as a diagonal) to mass, gravity and information as thermodynamics, and this information need a carrier (DoF)? So the interesting is curvature, and a 3D is a sphere, right? The interesting question for me is why go from a flat surface to a cuvature (like a big universal sphere, ok?). It must be when we add more information as DoF than the structure can carry? the 3D we get (a divergence) is a minimal, or max compressed sphere (the radius)? The size of this sphere can so vary, but why do they line up like they do because of a constant? All kinds of spheres, independent of lifetime, only dependent on scale as an invariant direction, like a count of scale or windings, or 'phase budget' in quantum? Like they try to make themselves as small as they can (optimization?). Even a BH? Rotation (winding) is there to smooth it out, balance it all? It is maybe just about unclosed spheres and open systems? This constant, which is just a little more than a half pi, is there to make sure the universe stay open and 'live'? I cannot say, really, this must be thought over well. It definitely looks like a fine-tuning for life...

The only other place I have found this number is in quantum computing as a compression or minimalization. So it must be informational-gravitational? Like mass and pressure together?

The nuclear physicists found that the proton’s building blocks, the quarks, are subjected to a pressure of 100 decillion Pascal (10³⁵) near the center of a proton, which is about 10 times greater than the pressure in the heart of a neutron star. The result was recently published in the journal Nature. “We found an extremely high outward-directed pressure from the center of the proton, and a much lower and more extended inward-directed pressure near the proton’s periphery,” explains Volker Burkert,

Imagine a BH at the center of a nucleus...but repulsive...

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk
The stability of protons is essential in my reasoning. That is why fine universal tuning matters, and why the constant I am searching for between all spherical volumes seems to be a key. Even the anthropic principle is correlated with this idea, as if negentropic stabilities,due to precise constants and precise information,are essential. In fact, the universal constants are essential, and the constant between the spherical volumes links everything through a common logic.

Gravity and anti-gravity also seem important, and perhaps the balance under information is responsible for these negentropic stabilities. We need a kind of universal link across all scales,quantum, cosmological, and even for the universal sphere itself. I do not know what happens at the Planck scale, but everything must operate under a specific universal mechanism, sufficiently precise to generate negentropic emergences, and even life and consciousness. Consciousness is complex, but ontologically one can explore the idea of a 0-dimensional origin, as if physical structures express a finite part of an infinite, eternal consciousness,although I do not assert this.

The spin and rotation of universal spherical volumes seem important, and if a constant appears involving the parameters I mentioned, then the universal sphere,with maximum mass and maximum radius,should have minimal spin. This is intriguing in the context of a possible multiverse of multiple universal spheres, because the rotation cannot be exactly zero for such a constant. In all cases, the ontology is fascinating and reveals much about the origin of the universe, why we exist, and from what. To consider all of this as a mere mathematical accident would be odd, given the fine-tuning and all these constants. Chance seems unlikely. We can run as many simulations as we want on the most powerful computers, but we have deep physical and ontological limitations.

This is why the constant (or constants) associated with spherical quantum and cosmological volumes seems a key to understanding the universal sphere. The density of the universe and its expansion, along with unknowns such as dark energy, dark matter, consciousness, and quantum gravitation, are all relevant and could complement QFT and GR without contradicting them. We add concrete universal parameters to complete the puzzle. This fine-tuning is real, and all these constants are necessary to produce the universe we observe. We need the balance between gravitation and a possible fifth, anti-gravitational force at all scales. This balance enables the negentropy of baryonic stability and its evolution, especially when information is considered. This is why the mass–energy–information equivalence, together with the constant of spherical volumes, may represent the future of physics in my humble opinion.

Density is important for the anthropic principle, fine-tuning, and evolution. It also influences how we interpret the Big Bang and inflation, which are deeply ontological questions. What I find especially important, I repeat, is the stability of protons, the mass of protons, and their lifetime. This reveals much about negentropic stability and its evolution.

Thus, spherical volumes, mass, radius, rotational spin,of electrons, neutrons, protons,tell us a great deal, and the constant I seek must be valid across all scales. The origin of mass is still not fully understood, even with the Higgs mechanism; it seems incomplete. Dark matter intrigues me, and it could perhaps represent quanta of mass that complete the Higgs mechanism for baryonic matter, stabilizing it in a negentropic sense. The mass difference between protons and neutrons is interesting, both physically and ontologically, and the question is what causes their mass and the information that permits it. Whether the interactions are weak or strong, the deeper question concerns information, and the universal spherical constant may provide a key to better understanding.

The same applies for heavy elements, different from hydrogen and helium; only 2–3% of elements are heavier, yet they produce organic matter and, ultimately, humans. Why this is so,informationally, physically, and ontologically,is a deep question. H, C, N, and O are fascinating in this reasoning, and the real question is why more complex nucleosynthesis occurs, and how it does so under information, gravitation, and possible anti-gravitation.

This is why all quantum and cosmological spherical volumes are important: each plays a specific role, and the fine-tuning is remarkable. A constant uniting all physical spherical volumes inside this universal sphere is essential. Mass, radius,information, rotation/spin, density,there must be a constant governing the fundamental forces, four or perhaps five. This is essential for the universe we have, the emergence of life, and evolution. The fine-tuning of spherical volumes and forces is fundamental and precise, at both cosmological and quantum scales.

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny I do not know what happens at the Planck scale

it is derived only by dimensional analysis, using Plancks constant and G, which is quantum and classical... it is a bit odd. considering the Planck mass is bigger than a proton and its time is shorter than its length, very short in fact. It would make the radius of such sphere very, very long, and how can it even rotate? No.

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny the idea of a 0-dimensional origin

here they came to <1D https://quantamagazine.org/cosmic-paradox-reveals-the-awful-consequence-of-an-observer-free-universe-20251119/ and consciousness would be a saviour...

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny the universal sphere, with maximum mass and maximum radius, should have minimal spin.

If universe is quantum, we can maybe compare to the double slit exp.? The waves are interferences, and particles are recreated, but this 'bubble' has a lifetime. The interferences will come to a border like a curvature, and vanish = finiteness. The 'particles' are left, like we get a mass? It is maybe one way to see it?

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny unknowns such as dark energy, dark matter, consciousness, and quantum gravitation, are all relevant and could complement QFT

I have thought of one thing, like this is inversed from our point of view. If we have 3D + 1 hidden dimension (time), the dark world has 3 hidden and one more clear (our matter)... just a thought.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk yes the Planck scale is “odd” because its fundamental quantities combine extremes that do not match any physical system we know. At this scale a particle’s quantum wavelength equals its gravitational radius, so quantum theory and general relativity both fail separately. This makes the Planck regime abstract and inaccessible.

By contrast, a spherical-volume approach is more concrete because it starts from the real spherical systems that exist throughout nature: protons, nuclei, stars, planets, black holes, galaxies, e Hubble sphere, universal sphere These objects have measurable mass, radius, density, spin, entropy ....and information content. Looking for a dimensionless invariant linking these actual spheres across scales is grounded in observable physics, not only in the unreachable Planck limit.

In this sense, the universal spherical architecture is physically intuitive, empirically anchored, and naturally connected to the known constants that shape the structure of the universe.That is why there is a constant between these spherical quantum and cosmological volumes and the universal sphere.

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny I try also with the spherical topological geometric algebras

Yes, topology is almost a must. There is a small mismatch. Penrose list a serie of problems where the reason for symmetry and asymmetry is one, like the mass and radius. Chirality come up again and again also.
Even in quantum computing these protected topological states are important, as is also quasistates. This is extremely interesting, maybe also for virtual states and dark matter, dark energy, computation itself maybe. This small mismatch can also come from there?

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk it is important yes, I like the works of Penrose, I read several papers. You tell an important point about the topological states and quasistates. The computations become relevant with the quantum errors corrections, the works of Bob Coecke are relevant also for all this. They could find this constant, I try but not easy, but I am persuaded it exists between all spherical volumes . The best is maybe to have the concrete paparameters of the universal sphere and the proton.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk
Hi Ulla, I make calculations with physical quantities , I took the M mass, T temperature,J angular momentum,R radius,the charge can be considered but less important , the constants like G, c ,k or others can be inserted and my results are interesting and give a kind of universal dimensionless invariant across spherical systems from quantum to cosmological Scales, It is almost stable, not perfectly constant but that remains nearly constant across a wide range of self-bound spherical systems, from protons and atoms to planets, stars, galaxies, clusters, and the observable Universe. This invariant is expressed as a monomial combination of fundamental constants . Errors corrections must be considered to arrive at a kind of constant or universal spherical invariant. There are corrections about relativistic analaysis, or degenerations or others but it is interesting.
This invariant is not a fundamental constant of nature still, but an empirical universal structural relation linking spherical systems across scales wich needs to be universally formalised. What is relevant if that we approach a kind of novel empirical link across spherical systems, from quantum to cosmological scales. Its near-constancy demonstrates that, despite vast differences in mass, size, temperature,motions and physical regime, spherical quantum and cosmological objects share a common structural relation grounded in fundamental physics. It shows a kind of universal spherical simplicity but that must be correctly universalised and generalised with mathematical parameters, the mathematicians and professionals can compute and work about this universal spherical logic.
This cross scale spherical robustness is interesting at my humble opinion. If confirmed it is a good tool for the professionals .This work opens new directions for exploring equilibrium, scaling relations, and anomalous spheres from nuclei to cosmology. They can predict and utilise mathematical tools to generalise and improve. They can analyse larger datasets, work with statistical uncertainty analysis, explore non equilibrium systems even.....In all the cases, here appears to be a cross‑scale invariant. It is surprisingly stable. It deserves deeper investigation simply.The calculations habe been made with more than 50 spherical objects and the resulst are between 0,88 and 0,96 for G c k M J R T , It is interesting in analysing deeper because the scales taken are universal.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk I don t assert about the DE informational and antigravitational implying a fifth force of course, nor about the DM being the real quantas of mass completing the Higgs mechanism but if true and that this DE encodes the photons and DM, so the errors corrections of the dimensionless invariant for the baryonic matters and so here these spherical quantum and cosmologivcal objects can consider the parameters to reach this universal spherical constant. If the DE and DM are not in the reasoning I tell, it is not a problem because there is a probable constant even in considering the GR and photons like primary essence.

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny You must use the fundamental constants as a unifying link, I think, because mass and all is defined from them. It is not only G,c,h,k as natural numbers set to 1 so you can ignore them, because this shows they are not exactly 1 but const. < 1,so we keep the asymmetry and an open system.

AwarmRay

There is no fundamental "time" in the universe. The Block Universe seems most likely.
The "Time" we perceive is an illusion created by the mechanics of our memory system.

Somebody said that entropy is the only one way arrow in physics. That is wrong. The essential one-way arrow in classical physics is inertial motion. Isaac Newton, a genius, worked with what he had available, which was a clock. He defined the magnitude of motion, speed, as distance traveled over time. This definition was adequate for the scale in which Newton was experimenting. At a later date, the concept of energy was added. Energy and time have the same problem, they are not physical quantities. They are only relative quantities. The fundamental motion, with its variable magnitude speed, is what both time and energy relate to. Set aside both time and energy as they are somewhat useful, but do not physically exist. Now (in perceived time) I ask you to also set aside the association of motion with change. From the point of view of matter moving inertially, nothing changes. Location translations change nothing. Within the block universe, the total quantity of motion is conserved. (This replaces the "conservation of energy".) Quantities of motion transfer readily from one piece of matter to another piece. Direction is not conserved due to radial motion. I don't have a clue how breadth and pull enable spinning. As Newton saw, time is the travel between one location and another---as an external observer sees it. Much later, Einstein pointed out that that view was relative, not absolute. Motion, which by itself changes nothing, is unidirectional, until the matter with a quantity of motion bumps something. I could say a piece of matter has some speed, but that seems even more confusing to me.

It takes two or more material objects (this includes fields) interacting to transfer quantities of motion and alter directions. The vectors of the objects as they approach and exit this bump (acceleration event) point to an absolute location in space. The size of this location varies because matter is squishy and bumps end up spread out over some space. Now we have an unchanging space with absolute locations and internal matter which moves and changes at event locations. The block universe.

Memory devices, such as Thomas Edison's phonograph, have a sensor/motivator, a marker, some substrate to mark, and an added motion to spread the marks apart. All memory devices have these functional components. Time as we perceive it is the space between marks on a substrate, or the distance traveled between marks. We perceive flowing time due to the added unidirectional motion component. The added motion component replaying the memory device you are looking at, printed letters and words on a page, is the movement of your eyes scanning as you read. The replaying of the marked events gives the impression of a "past" persisting beyond the original events. The future is imagined events experienced only in a mind. The present would be where the marker is on the substrate. The sequence and simultaneity of events is established by the added motion. We experience direct input and replays together and record that experience to be replayed and processed further as a conscious experience.

Our sensors, our brains, our minds, respond to and process only bumps, non-destructive acceleration interactions. We have no way to directly sense motion between interactions. We must infer motion from the arrangement and sequence of recorded bumps.

Time is observed travel between locations and Time is an illusion created by memory recordings. A real relationship and an emergent relationship. Maybe we should change our definitions to recognize that we're dealing with two different kinds of "time" ? Neither time is a fundamental feature of the universe.

This all seems obvious to me, once it has been pointed out. If it seems less obvious to you, I can provide evidence and arguments for all parts of this brief, declarative presentation upon request.

AwarmRay

John Merryman Check out the reply I just made on this thread. It has several similarities to what you said here.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk It is what I consider , the link with G, c ,h, k and M J T R ......there is also the informations and maybe the hidden dark possible parameters to superimpose , it is a kind of universal spherical unification across all scales. What you told about the assymetry is relevant if we consider the dark parameters and this gravitation and antigravitation and informations and entropy and negentropy. Informations is maybe purely antigravitational . I don t assert with the DE encoding the DM and photons but that could explain things. If it is not the case it is not serious because the informations exist somewhere and this mass energy information equivalence seems logic universally speaking.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk
What you say is exactly what I am trying to do, to unify the whole. Mass, radius, spin, temperature, density… are emergent properties, and they are probably derived from the true building blocks of physics ,the spherical quantum volumes and the correlated ontology ,and therefore from the fundamental constants: the gravitational couplingG, the speed of light c, the quantum action ℏ,the thermodynamic energy scale k, and maybe even the chargee. All of them could be unified in a universal logic involving these constants.

That is why this dimensionless invariant appearing is very relevant, and it can be correlated with a kind of universal combination in a pure spherical universal logic. The asymmetry you mention also seems important, because natural units hide deeper physical relations. The information aspect intrigues me a lot, and what Lorraine said about logical relationships and knowledge is fundamental too. If the three systems merge, it makes sense. Even if not, the information and the logical relationships , entropy, negentropy, symmetry, asymmetry ,are important.

Time also intrigues me, as a result of motion, and if gravitation and antigravitation are essential, that makes sense too. We must unify gravity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, cosmology, relativity, and ontology in a kind of universal logic. The fact that we have non-trivial results with concrete data is important. The universe cannot be totally symmetric in general, and information is probably important for this asymmetry, and for motion, time, evolution, and change.

This invariant naturally involves the fundamental constants and could be a general unification. The constants combine in similar ways across scales. The fine-structure constant is interesting as well to analyse and correlate.

All this fits with my humble theory of spherisation , the evolution of the universe through spherical quantum and cosmological objects. G,c,ℏ,k are important for the constraints across all scales. Equilibrium, geometry, entropy, action, dimensional analysis, renormalization… all are part of a kind of universal spherical logic involving these constants, spherical volumes, and cross-scale relationships with physical parameters like mass, radius, temperature, and angular momentum. This is why information somehow allows these physical structures to have knowledge and logical relationship

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk Hi Ulla,
All this makes sense generally because this parameter of the DE balancing to reach the constant is inserted in physically calculated parameters across all scales. That also gives logical relationships for the physical structures having this knowledge. As told to Lorraine, we need these number jumps and changes to explain the evolution, the diversity of atoms, matter, molecules, biology, and so on. So MRJT multiplied by the informational antigravitational parameter of the DE for spherical quantum and cosmological objects reaching the constant seems relevant. It is logical that this parameter increases toward the quantum scale and decreases toward the cosmological scale. It is the signature of an information-based physical quantity, simply.

At the quantum scales, the density of information is very high due to the quantum states, the entropy, and the small volumes. Toward the cosmological scale, it is the opposite, and it is logical that this parameter becomes very small by the same reasoning. The volumes and densities have a kind of logic. The information density and this antigravitational parameter become relevant, and I hope we shall know more about their measurements soon.

All this can be correlated with what dominates and at what scales: information dominates at the quantum scale; for molecules and biology, it seems to be gravitational, and we can even rank the slow velocities, so it is Newtonian; and the high velocities are relativistic. For the planets and stars, it seems it is gravity also, for bigger cosmological scales, it can be this DE. All this can be ranked as a function of scales, gravity, antigravity, information, curvatures, fluctuations…

The holographic area and holographic entropy can also be analyzed, and they seem important. The negentropy, also regarding stabilities and changes, and this evolution, and analyzing the diversity of baryonic matter and their evolution and encodings can also be analyzed.

This constant I propose is a universal spherical scaling law across all scales connecting mass, radius, temperature, angular momentum, time, information density, and mainly DE. We need to have information and logical relationships between the physical structures and their physical properties, and we need to understand this gravitation at all scales. This antigravitational fifth force seems key, and the information is correlated.

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny When you try to quantize gravity as only G it cannot be done due to the fact the system is too small. It must contain also information and DE-effects as non-computable, but this is a way to approximate that uncomputable part? It is what they call a category error to just try with GR, because it is not complete. Also the correction factors in renormalization is in this uncomputable state.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk
It is important to know that there are normalisations needed to obtain this invariant across scales for more than 100 quantum, molecular, and cosmological spherical objects, including the observable universe. The main parameters analysed are the radius R, mass M, angular momentum or rotation J, and the constants G, c, and ħ.
What is surprising and promising is that I calculated numbers from M, R, and J using a specific equation with concrete data. I have results for more than 100 spherical objects: protons, neutrons, electrons, hydrogen and helium atoms, molecules such as H₂O and LiH, and then planets, stars, black holes, galaxies, clusters, and even the observable universe.

There is no constant or invariant appearing in these first raw calculations, which is logical. But after normalising with the constants and the appropriate scales, something relevant appears. For quantum objects, atoms, and molecules, I use a specific multiplication involving ħ and R. For planets and stars, I consider rotational velocities and c. For black holes, I use G, mass, and results from Kerr geometry. For galaxies, clusters, and the observable universe, I apply similar normalisations using rotation and c.

This produces a kind of dimensionless invariant that emerges across all scales, with values consistently between 0.90 and 0.93 for many spherical objects. It is essentially how we combine the results for our spherical objects and how the normalisation introduces the invariant. G, c, and ħ are used to renormalise the quantities.
This suggests that mass, radius, angular momentum, and rotation of universal quantum and cosmological spherical objects,including perhaps the universe, a sohere , as a whole,follow a spherical logic governed by the fundamental constants G, c, and ħ and properties of physical spherical volumes.

Such an invariant may provide insights for quantum gravity and deeper physics. There appears to be a logic across all scales. The spherical quantum and cosmological volumes, once normalised by these constants, become interesting. We need to unify QM, GR, dark energy, dark matter, thermodynamics, QFT, cosmology, and information theory.

This is why the result is potentially relevant to quantum gravity, though I do not assert anything about the existence of gravitons or the elimination of ultraviolet divergences. But the presence of a cross-scale dimensionless invariant is relevant. Quantum gravity may require a framework built from a quantum system with radius and spin. I do not yet know how to reconcile Compton scales, Schwarzschild scales, Kerr geometry, entropy, thermodynamics, or dark energy as a possible fifth force, but everything seems to follow a certain underlying logic.

I am convinced that the constants G, c, and ħ, together with physical parameters like mass, radius, spin, and angular momentum, follow a kind of universal spherical logic. Ontologically it is not easy to determine the deeper hidden parameters, or how dark energy and dark matter should be incorporated. The universe has dimensionless invariants and constants, which suggests deeper structures,and spherical volumes may be the key.It is like we turn the researchs on this logic to see details that we don t know.

Quantum gravity, geometric principles, and information theory appear interconnected.
This also relates to spherisation and spherical quantum–cosmological volumes. We need to unify quantum particles, atoms, molecules, evolution, biology, cosmology,Universal possible sphere and ontology. If hierarchical spherical volumes with emergent properties from deeper informational and geometric constraints are real, then analysing the ratios of the constants and physical parameters,such as the invariant I described,becomes highly relevant. Action principles also seem important in this puzzle.

This framework could help us better understand holography, entropy, negentropy, information, stability of rotating gravitational systems, quantum spin, evolution, and more.

I am intrigued by whether dark energy and dark matter truly exist at the cosmological scale, and how to incorporate mass, information, and radius if they do. Even at the quantum scale, it would be interesting if dark energy were hidden and produced an informational, anti-gravitational field, like a purely geometric spherical substrate of the proton.
There may even be ontological paths connecting this structure to consciousness, with our physical structures expressing a finite aspect of it. I do not assert this, but it is a possibility. This infinite eternal conscioisness in 0D omnipotent could be a reality, but I don t assert I repeat. We don t know the truth. Deepak Chopra and Hameroff work together I saw on linkedin about the souls. it is intriguing even if they are assumptions.

If spherical volumes are fundamental at all scales and rotations are also fundamental, then the situation becomes complex when including rotational couplings, dark-energy expansion, mass distributions, and relativistic effects. It is also intriguing how baryonic matter is stabilised and evolves under negentropic organisation with extraordinary diversity. Symmetry breaking plays a role as well.
A universal angular-momentum–mass–radius invariant emerging through normalisation with the constants may indicate the need for a force that ensures stability,perhaps connected to dark energy. Black holes should be studied more deeply, including the role of information in their relativistic structure. This leads to possible ontological extrapolations. Holography, Bekenstein bounds, AdS/CFT, black holes, quantum information,all follow a certain universal logic, and spherical volumes may be the key.
In any case, QFT needs an explanation for gravity, and a deeper understanding of quantum information. That is why my assumption of mass energy equivalence can maybe be correlated but of course we need to have concrete resulsts.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk
Must try and test other combinations and possibilities, it is not still ok for this invariant or constant between all quantum and cosmological spherical baryonic objects. It is not easy but I have several good results already with normalisations and the foundamental constants but it is too much mathematical adaptations to reach the hoped values. Must be more concrete and simple.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk I found the way to generalize all this , I don t assert but it makes sense, I calculated with concrete datas so across all scales the M mass , R radius, T temperature, J angular momentum for spherical objects , protons, atoms, moleculs,planets, stars, BHs , galaxies,clusters...and the observable universe. I have so concrete results with these physical parameters. I have considered my assumption of mass energy information equivalence in considering this DE antigravitational and informational a fifth force encoding the photons and DM. So I have considered parameters for this DE multiplicated with the resulsts to reach an universal constant between all sphercial quantum and cosmological volumes. I have so generalised the equations with the fifth force , the lagrangians,the cosmological constant, the mass energy informations equivalence...... if it is the answer, so it is revolutionary but I don t assert , we need to measure and find this fifth force and test my hypothesis of spherical volumes like foudnamental across all scales. The relevance is that this parameter of DE not measurable actually give the constant and explain the informations, the evolution , the emergent life ......it is a physical parameter to measure but our actual technologies and sciences cannot measure it but it seems logic.

onetomany

Steve Dufourny

I am not a physicist, but I am a good methodical researcher, someone has already deciphered the answers you seek. I don't think it's particularly useful to have those answers, the true nature of the universe offers no direct and apparent way to get useful technologies out of it. For example, we know to a high degree how everything about the game of Chess works - but imagine a game similar to Chess that is trillions of times more complex than Chess, then try to imagine making a tool that can play that game perfectly. It does not really matter if you fundamentally understand the totality of the physics and mechanics involved at a fundamental level, which would be the same for Chess as this game, you are much better trying to solve a problem, such as how best to play a complex game, in reverse using approximations and patterns you observe, which is exactly how humans have discovered useful technologies in the past without understanding how the technologies fundamentally work. What people think they understand are really just superficial layers of how something works, for example, how "Gravity" works to build a rocket, despite not really knowing the fundamental nature of gravity.

Gravity is, for example, not infinite in reach, and in fact is not a pulling-force, but an attractive one by the less massive object and only when it exists within a gravitational field of a more massive object. In addition, gravitational fields are vastly suppressed in volume when they themselves exist within a larger context of a larger gravitational field. For example, if the Earth was not within the Sun's gravitational field, its gravitational field would be many times larger than it currently is. The moon is within the Earth's gravitational field, and is therefore adding to a collective gravitational field generated by the Earth and Moon together. This is essentially the solution to the three-body problem since objects are not independently generating effects of gravity, but rather are additive systems when their gravitational fields interface and separate and non-interactive when they do not.

The main utility of the theory of everything becoming well-known would, in my opinion, be the avoidance of a massive amount of wasted attention on wrong ideas, which we are currently entertaining with black holes and quantum hysteria. That is not something to be underestimated, but still, it would not be super exciting. I also see no fast way to convince anyone of something which has essentially zero utility today.

Abhinav_G

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17632610

For cosmologist.

Steve Dufourny

onetomany
Hi , I don’t assert my assumptions; I search for answers with my theory of spherisation, the optimisation of the universe, a possible universal sphere and quantum and cosmological spherical volumes. I try combinations to reach invariants or constants across all scales, quantum and cosmological, because it seems that the spherical logic is fundamental. The universe is not a game of chess; the aim is not to put the king in check. The ontology of the universe is a big secret. Some consider it a mathematical accident; others, like me, consider an infinite eternal consciousness in 0D, omnipotent, a kind of god of Spinoza, a god of nature, but we cannot assert. Einstein said that God does not play dice; I agree with him. All the best thinkers in maths and physics considered this god of Spinoza.

General and special relativity are wonderful theories, and they work for observations and measurements at all scales,for our cosmology with mass curving spacetime, and for our QFT. The EFE also act. That said, it seems we need deeper parameters to go beyond this relativistic bridge and at all scales. We don’t break general relativity or QFT, we complete them.

I ask myself if these hidden dark parameters are not the key. If they exist at the cosmological scale, then probably also at quantum scales. Baryonic matter is a result of something, and the information is probably important. There is a logic to all this. I consider series of spherical volumes for the photons, DE, DM, and I consider a mass–energy–information equivalence, and that this DE is informational and antigravitational and encodes the photons’ quanta of heat, electromagnetism… and the DM quanta of mass completing the Higgs mechanism. We have an interesting universal logic between equilibrium and changes. Why we exist, and from what and how. Entropy and negentropy are fascinating when we analyse atomic, molecular, biological, and cosmological results. That is why the information is important. But where is it? Is it in this DE, like in my model, or in relativity with fields, or in geometrodynamics and points in 1D, or in strings in 1D? I don’t know.

I search invariants and constants with these spherical cosmological objects, and I correlate them with the possible quantum spherical objects. I believe that these spheres are important and the choice of the universe; the spherical volumes are not a shape like the others. The Poincaré conjecture is relevant. They can create all shapes with morphisms and concrete mathematical tools, and that can be correlated with physical properties. That is why I try partitions and possibilities for the invariances and constants possible when considering the constants like G, c, h, k… and physical measurements like mass, temperature, spin, angular momentum, radius, volumes, charges… I have some relevant results in considering different exponents. I try also partitions with the spherical topological geometric algebras, the tool I invented for the tensors, vectors, scalars…

I ask myself how to consider gravitation universally speaking, and the equilibrium, and this bridge beyond relativity. The universe acts with balances; the antigravitation could be a key, but I don’t assert. The entropy, negentropy, matter, antimatter, opposite charges, male–female, protons, electrons, neutrons… and so many more: these are intriguing evidences generally. The rotations, motions of these spherical volumes become intriguing for the complexity. If the 3 systems I explained merge, that makes sense, even for emergent life, the topic of the essay contest.

How to consider also this consciousness? I believe that this 0D is omnipotent, and that we are inside a finite evolving universe. So in a sense all lives and is conscious, and we express a finite part of consciousness with our physical structures. It is different from the orchestrated objective reduction of Penrose and Hameroff and the collapse of the wave function and microtubules. The ontology is important, and I doubt that the universal wave function is the primary essence; the same for the fields,they are emergent for me due to the motions and oscillations of these spherical volumes, which are the primary essence.

You spoke about gravitation; it is a fascinating universal parameter, and we must differentiate the scales. We try to unify GR and QM, and we cannot eliminate the infinite quantities and UV divergences. It is like unifying G, c, and h, it lacks something. Newtonian gravitation is a force between masses, but it is mainly at slow velocities; in GR the mass curves spacetime, and it is high velocities for the universe we observe. And it is there that we must probably add deeper parameters at all scales. And that is why I search these invariants and constants of these spherical quantum and cosmological volumes and their physical properties, because it is probably a key to better understand DE, DM, QM, QFT, BHs, evolution, information… What I try so is to better understand baryonic matter and its properties across scales. This baryonic matter is the result of something we don’t really know, and it is ontologically fascinating, and we can explore many possibilities, but we cannot assert our assumptions.

I found relevant links with these spherical quantum and cosmological volumes and the observable universal sphere, but I need to test and try possibilities. The fact of changing the exponent for the invariant intrigues me and gives a stability like a universal invariance when we consider the fundamental constants and the physical parameters of spherical volumes. But something is lacking. Still, I am persuaded there is a logic in this puzzle, and it is not a game of chess but a logic of evolution and physics with spherical correlations.

Maybe this fifth force, antigravitational and informational, is a key and can even explain the negentropic stabilities and the changes, the evolution, the free will also if consciousness is what I explained. I don’t assert a universal constant with the spheres yet, but I work on it, and I have relevant results. The mass, the radius, the motions, the energy, and the other properties of these spherical quantum and cosmological volumes have something to tell us, I am persuaded. If invariants appear, then a constant probably unifies all, all scales, all constants, even QM and GR and our deepest unknowns. There is a logic in all this puzzle and it is not a hazard, not a chess game.

I like the works of von Neumann in game theory, but the most relevant point in his theory is the points of equilibrium, paradoxically, like for deterrence,let’s take the production of arms and weapons, which for me are a human error philosophically. But when arriving at a force of production like the USA for example has reached, they dissuade the others, so that stops the necessity to produce more. The spherical logic does a little bit the same for the points of equilibrium. It is the perfect equilibrium of forces. That permits the best optimised motions; it is a gravitational equilibrium. It is interesting geometrically speaking: all points at the surface are equidistant, it also has perfect rotational symmetry; the surface is continuous, the volume and surface are relevant for properties. That gives mechanically interesting properties: the distribution of tension or pressure or others distributes uniformly; that is interesting when we compress or make other mechanical additions. Even for conductivity or isotropism it is relevant.

In fact it is the best shape for our physics and our unknowns. It is perfect for rotation, and it tells a lot about the moment of inertia or the mass distributions. For fluids, hydrodynamics, aerodynamics, or others, this symmetric shape is ideal. In fact the universe has created this shape for many reasons and for its universal and mechanical strengths. The sphere and the rotation are purely universally linked and correlated and so fundamental. That is why I search a logic with a constant for the spherical volume and the rotations. The rotations are incredibly complex when we consider the universe and all these rotations; we must add so many rotations to our actual angular momentum and spin across all scales, and even imagine if the multiverse exists. All turns, and all quantum and cosmological objects are under an incredible complexity of rotations.

Returning to these spherical volumes: even for thermodynamics it is important for efficiencies, distributions, stabilities… That is why this shape appears at all scales and has a lot to give us. It is like a universal science; if the physicists and mathematicians focus on the science of spherical volumes, that will give revolutionary discoveries. But for this we must choose this ontology and focus and compute, test, develop. Relativity is a wonderful mathematical tool, but maybe now it is time to go farther without breaking GR and QFT, but going beyond this relativistic bridge to complete the puzzle with concrete physical parameters.

The mathematical elegance of these spherical volumes fascinates me, and the numbers are probably correlated with the physical properties of their motions and oscillations.

Ps I don t assert to have found this constant still nor this invariant, it seems that in combining, there are several relevant calculations giving an invariance, so I continue to test with datas concrete. There is an universal constant for these spherical volumes, this I am persuaded but not easy to find it.

ps 2 a theory of everything seems not possible due to our deep ontological, physical limitations, but we need to explore possibilities , and only the vanitious believing they understand all don t understand this , we are all equals in front of this universe and this infinite eternal consciousness, all in the same boat and if the humans were more humble and worked more in complementarity instead to be in competition nourrishing their egos, the world d be already better, we are not in a game of chess to prove the intelligence,the real intelligence is not only about maths and logic but about the real undersanding of a kind of same essence for all , a kind of universalism understood in the minds. I play guitar and piano, I don t give lessons of violin, drums, harmonica and I don t consider me like the best in rock blues at guitar or classic at piano.

Regards

Steve Dufourny

onetomany

You told correct things about gravitation, but not everything is correct. Gravity is not infinite in reach, and not a pulling force; it is an attractive one by the less massive object only when it exists within the gravitational field of a more massive object. Yes, it is correct.
Modern physics also does not treat gravity as a pulling force, but as a curvature of spacetime (General Relativity). The experience of gravity depends on being inside a gravitational field produced by mass-energy. Multiple gravitational fields can overlap; this is true: gravitational potentials are additive.

However, several claims in the text contradict well-established physics. Gravity, for Newton or for General Relativity, is a gravitational field extending indefinitely,look at the 1/r² dependence. There is no distance beyond which gravity becomes zero; it only approaches zero asymptotically. Also, you say that a less massive object is attracted only when inside a more massive object's field, but all masses create gravitational fields, even extremely small ones. Mass does not need permission.

You also say that Earth’s gravitational field would be larger if the Sun did not exist. This is false, because gravitational fields do not suppress one another. They superimpose linearly in the Newtonian approximation.

What you say about the three-body problem is not true, in my humble opinion. The Moon and Earth indeed form a combined gravitational potential, but this does not solve the three-body problem at all. The three-body problem is the challenge of predicting orbits when three massive bodies interact gravitationally. The equations are deterministic; it is mainly about nonlinearity, I think, and chaos. The superpositions are correct, yes, but gravity is always additive. It is not because we add gravitational potentials that we simplify the dynamics or solve the three-body problem. It is mainly about nonlinear differential equations, you know. Even when adding, it is still chaotic; we cannot confound philosophy and physics. Yes, the universe is too complex to understand its first principles, but there is a logic.

P.S. For the gravitational superposition, the spherical symmetry and spherical volumes logic is relevant about the gravitational symmetric spherical potentials, both for Newton at slow velocities and for GR at high velocities. It is there that the invariants and constants I search are relevant.

« Previous Page Next Page »