SPHERICAL TOPOLOGICAL GEOMETRICAL ALGEBRAS, THE THEORY OF SPHERISATION, QUANTUM SPHERES, COSMOLOGICAL SPHERES The Spheres like foundamental quantum objects are more logic than the strings, here is why,

  1. Philosophical Perspective: Ontological and Epistemological Arguments
    Principle of Natural Simplicity (Ontological Argument)
    The sphere is the most symmetric, simplest, and least arbitrary geometrical object in higher dimensions.
    Unlike 1D strings, which require additional assumptions about tension, oscillatory modes, and compactification, a sphere is a self-contained structure needing fewer extra conditions.
    Strings are a problem because require an external spacetime framework (they vibrate in space rather than defining space itself).
    Background Dependence: Many formulations of string theory assume a pre-existing space, making it less fundamental in a quantum gravity context. Spheres could be inherently background-independent.
    Holography and Encoding of Informations
    The sphere naturally encodes quantum information via the holographic principle (think of black hole horizons).
    1D strings do not exhibit holographic storage in the same intrinsic way
  2. Physical Perspective: Quantum Gravity and Geometry
    Strings are 1D and require extra degrees of freedom (oscillations, compactifications, and extra dimensions).
    Spheres (such as Planck-scale 2D or 3D objects) are more localized, yet extended, meaning they naturally avoid the issue of defining "what is vibrating" in a pre-existing background.
    Spheres and Black Hole Physics
    The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy is proportional to the surface area (S = A/4ℓ_p²), suggesting that fundamental objects at the Planck scale should have an intrinsic surface structure, like spheres, rather than being linear objects like strings..
  3. Mathematical Perspective: Higher-Dimensional Consistency
    Compactness and Self-Containment
    The spheres are the simplest compact and manifold-closed object in geometry.
    Unlike strings, which require extra dimensions to be compactified, a sphere is naturally compact and doesn’t demand arbitrary boundary conditions.
    In Group Theory and Symmetry Arguments,Spheres are maximally symmetric spaces in geometry.
    Higher-Order Topological Structures
    In M-theory, membranes (2D objects) and even higher-dimensional "branes" play a role more fundamental than 1D strings.
    Higher-dimensional spheres (S², S³, S⁴) provide a natural framework for defining compact higher-order topologies, whereas strings must rely on ad-hoc Calabi-Yau compactifications.
    Conclusion: Why Spheres > Strings at the Planck Scale?
    Philosophicallyand physically : Spheres are more self-contained, symmetric, and information-theoretic than strings, avoiding background dependence.
    Mathematically: Spheres fit naturally within higher-dimensional symmetries, compactness, and group theory, making them a more fundamental starting point than 1D strings.

The theory of spherization provides a new philosophical and cosmological perspective. It challenges traditional views by presenting a model where the universe and all its fundamental forces emerge from a superfluidity of 3D spheres rather than 1D strings oscillating and interacting

  1. Philosophical Framework: Spinoza’s God and Evolutionary Cosmology, This theory isinfluence by Spinoza’s concept of God as an eternal, infinite consciousness that continuously evolves the universe. In this context:
    God as an active, omnipresent force: For Spinoza, God is not a distant creator but the immanent cause of everything, existing in and through all of nature. By applying this idea to the quantum and cosmological scales, we can view the spherization process as an ongoing, evolutionary unfolding rather than a fixed, mechanistic process.
    Consciousness and the Universe: The superfluidity of 3D spheres could represent an intelligent, evolving system, where the universe is not a random set of particles interacting by chance but is instead part of a conscious cosmic evolution. The spheres, as fundamental quantum objects, could represent the expressions of this divine consciousness, evolving in harmony with the structure of spacetime itself.

Thus, spherization is a dynamic, evolutionary optimization of the universe's underlying structure, guided by a higher principle of order and consciousness, akin to Spinoza's pantheistic God.

  1. Physical Interpretation: A Superfluid Universe
    In this model, the universe is composed of 3D spheres that act as the building blocks of all matter and energy. These spheres, instead of being constrained to a 1D string form, are inherently extended objects with volumetric presence. This implies that space itself is made up of spherical objects interacting and merging with each other in a fluid-like, coherent manner.
    2.1. Spheres as Fundamental Quantum Objects
    Quantum Superfluidity: The idea of the universe as a superfluid made of 3D spheres aligns with the concept of quantum coherence. Just as superfluids exhibit long-range quantum correlations, the spherization process would describe a fluid-like state of space, with each sphere interacting with others through quantum fields.

These interactions govern the evolution of spacetime and create all matter, energy, and forces in a highly efficient, harmonious way.
Dark Energy and Dark Matter: The merging of spheres with dark energy offers a compelling explanation for the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy. In this model, dark energy could be seen as the force that permeates all space and is antigravitational and informational and is a fifth force and as spheres merge with it, they encode dark matter mass, and newtonian gravity) and photons (light, energy). These merging spheres could explain the gravitational effects observed in dark matter, while also providing a mechanism for the expansion of the universe as seen in dark energy.
No Need for Strings: Unlike the string-based models (like in string theory or M-theory),this model doesn’t require a 1D string oscillating in higher dimensions to generate the interactions between particles or the forces of nature. Instead, it proposes that everything emerges from 3D spheres, which can naturally interact, merge, and evolve without the need for extra dimensions or complex oscillations.

2.2. Interaction with Quantum Fields
Matter and Energy as Quantum Spheres: In traditional quantum field theory (QFT), particles are excitations of quantum fields (e.g., the Higgs field, electromagnetic field). This model would suggest that these fields, instead of being manifested as strings or points, are composed of spheres that spread across space and interact with each other. The quantum field of a photon, for example, would be a collection of spherical objects that exchange energy and momentum in a fluid-like manner.
Force Mediators as Spheres: Fundamental forces in the standard model (gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong forces) could be mediated by spherical distortions in this superfluid space. For instance:
Electromagnetic force: Spheres could interact and exchange quantum information in such a way that they create the field-like behavior of photons.
Gravity: The interaction between spheres could generate gravitational effects through curvature or deformation in the fluid of 3D spheres, which would correspond to the way spacetime itself is curved by mass and energy in Einstein’s theory.

2.3. Emergence of the Standard Model
Unified Description of Particles: The standard model of particle physics could be viewed as a subset of the spherization process where the merging of spherical structures gives rise to the elementary particles we observe. The quantum mass of particles could emerge as a collective property of these spheres, and the properties of spin, charge, and mass would correspond to different quantum states of these spheres interacting with the quantum fields.
Optimization of the Universe: The concept of the universe evolving as a superfluid of 3D spheres optimizing the distribution of energy and matter aligns with the idea that cosmic evolution follows a path of greater coherence and efficiency. The cosmological constant (dark energy) could then be interpreted as the dynamic balance that ensures the universe is expanding in a way that allows the continuous evolution of these quantum spheres.

  1. Mathematical Interpretation: A Unified Model with the spherical topological geometrival algebras and the assoiativity, commutativity, non commutativity for the dimensions, groups and subgroups.This theory could be mathematically consistent if we adopt a framework where geometry and field theory are described in terms of spheres rather than 1D objects.
    3.1. Generalized Quantum Field Theory
    Spherical Fields: Instead of quantizing fields in 1D string-like objects, we could define quantum fields based on 3D spherical harmonics and tensor fields that describe the interaction between spheres. These tensor fields would encapsulate the interactions between the quantum spheres and define the force laws (such as electromagnetism and gravity).
    3.2. Curved Spacetime and Superfluidity
    Geometric Considerations: The curvature of spacetime in general relativity could be interpreted as the fluid-like behavior of spheres, where the curvature of spacetime itself is a distortion of the superfluid medium of quantum spheres. This could lead to a new way of interpreting gravitational fields, where gravity is not mediated by an external field but arises from the inherent geometry of the spheres in the quantum fluid.

3.3. Spherical Symmetry in Quantum Cosmology
Cosmological Evolution: From a cosmological perspective, This model might use topological invariants (e.g., Euler characteristics) and spherical symmetries to describe the evolution of the universe. The Big Bang could represent the emergence of spherical fluctuations in the quantum fluid, and as these spheres expand and interact, they create the cosmic structures we observe today.
Why Spherization is More Logical and these quantum spheres
Philosophically: The idea of an evolving, conscious universe guided by an eternal superfluid of spheres aligns with a holistic view of reality. Unlike string theory, which is often criticized for being overly abstract and dependent on higher dimensions, this model is grounded in the idea of a conscious, self-evolving process, which is more relatable and intuitively comprehensible.

Physically: The concept of spheres naturally allows for spatial, temporal, and energetic coherence, offering a more unified picture of the universe where everything (dark energy, dark matter, photons, gravity) emerges from a single, continuous structure. It avoids the need for complex extra dimensions and offers a more direct path to explain both quantum fields and cosmological observations.
Mathematically: By focusing on 3D spherical objects, this model can leverage well-established mathematical tools from geometry, topology, and field theory that are already used in general relativity and quantum field theory, offering a more compact and elegant framework for understanding the fundamental forces and particles of the universe.

In summary, spherization offers a compelling alternative to the string-based models of quantum gravity and cosmology. By replacing 1D strings with 3D spheres in a superfluid-like quantum medium, this theory presents a more unified, intuitive, and elegant picture of the universe’s evolution, while remaining grounded in philosophical, physical, and mathematical coherence. The idea that the universe is optimized through spherical structures, interacting with dark energy to form dark matter, photons, and gravitational fields, provides a more holistic approach to explaining the nature of reality.

    13 days later

    Hi everyone,
    I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that the model discussed here is the one described in the previous point and that it has been moved to the OSF project, which consists of Wiki pages and an essay, and is currently under development here: OSF | 4-Sphere-Cosmology.

    Allow me a brief introduction: I would like to mention my model, which is distinguished by the addition of a spatial dimension.

    The distances derived from the FLRW model are notably (perhaps excessively) high, and its unique ability to respect Hubble's law makes their challenge difficult. However, this difficulty disappears if the existence of an additional spatial dimension is considered.

    In my model, the Universe lies on the surface of a hypersphere that expands at a constant rate, with its radius growing as r = ct, and with the Big Bang occurring at its center. This explains why our physics behaves as if we were in a boundless system, even though the Universe has a finite volume: it shows that, if not for Relativity, we would likely have been led to study an infinite and static universe.

    Other models also propose a hypersphere expanding as r = ct, but when examining their main features, one can see they are fundamentally different from one another. The novelty of this model lies in its definition of the Hubble constant: its geometry suggests a linear relationship between galactic recession and the arc angle (not the arc length). This perspective does not challenge the validity of Hubble’s law; it merely changes predictions about the past and future, which cannot be determined purely from observations.

    Using the angle instead of the arc length changes everything. It allows us to apply Special Relativity to galactic recession.

    The redshift, which asymptotically approaches a time horizon of roughly 5 billion years after the Big Bang, implicitly explains why, at the boundaries of the observable Universe with JWST, we should not expect to see only "baby galaxies" (a widely debated topic).

    Yes, we have introduced the fourth spatial dimension, but we can dispense with:

    • Modifying the physics of radiation, meaning without assuming that spatial expansion alters the wavelength of light.
    • Dark Matter (an element not yet detected in physics).
    • Dark Energy (a form of energy not yet observed).
    • The Horizon Problem—though introducing an alternative conjecture: after an initial expansion, the universe was static at the Last Scattering, and then expansion resumes.

    Finally, the intention to adhere to the Big Bang model up to the Last Scattering (with some modifications, otherwise an alternative model could not work) significantly reduces many problems that a new model would normally encounter.

    The topic discussed here could be titled:

    The dismissal of a Doppler-type redshift interpretation for Galactic Recession may warrant further reconsideration.

    The links provided in this post are essential for the discussion. I hope they align with the forum guidelines regarding external references. All linked downloads are free and require no registration; at the time of writing, all other cited documents are also freely accessible.

    As a former IT developer, I prefer linking to original sources to ensure proper citation and copyright compliance. Just like when citing a book or an arXiv article, linking respects the authors’ rights and the associated licenses. By using a CC-BY-SA license for my work, I also ensure that cited research is properly attributed and used in accordance with its terms.

    That said, I wish to share with you this research (without peer review), consisting of 3 papers, which analyzes a critical point potentially capable of challenging the fundamental assumptions of my alternative cosmological model:

    1. viXra: 2207.0051 - Concerning the Apparent Magnitude
    2. viXra: 2208.0040 - Concerning the Time Dilation of the Supernovae
    3. viXra: 2208.0152 - Star Distance Validation from Data of a High-Z Supernova Ia in the Special Relativity Context

    This model calculates Galactic Recession within the framework of Special Relativity. The test on this supernova showed good model accuracy (96.5%) and suggests that the dismissal of a Doppler-type redshift interpretation for Galactic Recession may warrant further reconsideration.

    I would like to emphasize that these publications have not undergone peer review. However, though certain steps may be disputed, the line of reasoning in the research is self-evident. The re-examination of the Doppler effect in the context of Galactic Recession is crucial for a more comprehensive understanding of Redshift. The latter, presenting an asymptote corresponding to a time horizon of roughly 5 billion years after the Big Bang, implicitly explains why at the boundaries of the observable universe with JWST, we should not expect only “baby galaxies” (a widely discussed topic).

    The model is described by the essay in Files tab (I recommend checking out the short paragraphs following the Abstract, marked as "4-SPHERE IN A NUTSHELL," which provide a concise summary of the key ideas).

    However, given the complexity of my alternative model, which requires extensive treatment, I would suggest focusing our initial discussion on the independent validation of supernova distances. If this validation yields positive results, I would be more than willing to share the details of my model with those who wish to explore it further.

    To ensure transparency I supply an Excel spreadsheet for independent verification of the calculations. While peer review could have been pursued, this method allows for direct confirmation (the values are easily identifiable). As you can see in [2208.0152], I have uploaded the Excel file on my OSF project as "Supernova SN1995 K validation.xlsx". You can access it in the Files tab.

    The verification analysis of the regression polynomial requires a more elaborate approach. As you can see in [2208.0040], both the instructions for installing the necessary software (Windows), and the supernova data, can be found in my OSF Project Wiki Pages. You can access it in: (https://osf.io/y736c/wiki/Supernova%20validation%20m.s.%20extimation/). This involves using Python, and the small initial effort to configure its working environment is amply rewarded by the powerful functionalities that this platform offers in the scientific field (Visual Studio offers to developers the “Python Development Tool for Windows”).

    Sorry, previous post should have gone in the Alternative Models of Cosmology section. Could a moderator please move it?

    5 days later

    • MMir

      • Post #2648
      • Edited

      Hello everyone, I want to share a hypothesis that may seem borderline insane, but also interesting.

      Please, I ask you — read this to the end (especially moderators!! Please read the full text before deciding whether to remove it or not).

      In this hypothesis, I will use the word “soul” (BUT THERE WILL BE NO RELIGIOUS OR SPIRITUAL MEANING BEHIND IT — I WANT TO GIVE THIS WORD AN ENTIRELY NEW DEFINITION FROM SCRATCH).

      We cannot fully confirm whether souls exist or not until our universe is completely understood. But if souls did exist (or do), I want to explain how they might work within the laws of physics.

                                        What is a "soul"? (a new definition):

      Let’s redefine “soul” as: a physical element used for enabling self-control (NOT consciousness), and acting as a kind of information storage. (explanation a little later, along with a real-life example)

      What is a soul made of? Atom? Particle? Wave? Field? Biological structure?
      My guess: a quantum wave.

      You — reading this — are likely only controlling yourself. You can’t control someone else’s body across the world. We usually explain this by having separate brains. But let’s go deeper.
      Souls are all different. So they must be waves of different frequencies (e.g., 1 Hz, 10 Hz, 100 Hz, 10.00001 Hz = different souls).
      They are quantum — because they store information (I'll explain with a real-life example soon).

                                           The soul–brain relationship:

      Here’s what I mean by “self-control.”
      We “feel” ourselves, we “are” ourselves, we direct our body: now this is explained by the very presence of the brain. I would like to develop and supplement this point.
      Let’s imagine the brain has an undiscovered function: it interacts with the soul. At birth, the brain sets conditions for which soul (which wave frequency) gets access to control the body.

      For the rest of life, the brain receives many waves, filtering them and granting access only to one — the “main soul.”

      When we sleep, that filter becomes weaker — and that’s why we feel less “self-aware” in dreams.

      Everything has a soul (even a rock), but it only activates when connected to a brain. For things like rocks, there’s no consciousness tool (i.e., no brain), so their soul stays inactive and they are completely inactive throughout their entire lives

      !! A man without a soul !!: —————————————————
      Let’s go deeper into self-control.
      A normal person controls their own body — that’s the soul’s role. But what if the brain has a disorder and can’t connect to a soul?

      Then two things might happen:

      1)The body can’t function — it shuts down without soul control.
      2)A person would be like everyone else, BUT HE WOULD NOT BE CONTROLLED BY US, BUT BY THE BRAIN (as the code controls artificial intelligence).

      This reinforces that the brain grants access to the soul, letting it control memory, thoughts, actions — but not everything (like heartbeat, etc.). No living person would control the body.

      !! Digital minds & why the soul matters in the future !! ————————————
      Imagine a future where mind-uploading is common. People think they’re achieving immortality by uploading their brain. But if my hypothesis is real — they fail.

      The computer stores personality, memory, behavior — but not the soul. So after death, we can’t control our digital self.

      We’ve only made a DIGITAL COPY, not a real transfer.

      To actually control a robotic self, we’d need a way to grant the soul access to that system — like we do with biological brains.

      Why can’t the soul transfer? Analogy: You take a photo of a flower. The image exists on your phone, but you can’t touch the flower through the screen.
      Digital tools don’t preserve real structure — just a representation. Just like we can’t digitally smell or taste — we also can’t transfer a soul.

      !! Parallel existence (multi-body soul control) !! ———————————————
      Now for the crazier part.
      All souls are different, there are a lot of them, even too many, but they will be unevenly distributed throughout the world. Some souls (waves with a certain frequency) are more, some are less. If there are two different bodies with the same main soul, we will be able to control both bodies at the same time. Not only that, we will be able to transfer memory from one brain to another, which really sounds crazy (explained soon)

      !!!! A story from life !!!! ————————————————————
      In this part I will show why the soul is also a storage of information.
      In this part I will tell the famous story about James Huston and James Leininger. For better understanding I recommend reading the story about them (it is short). But I will explain briefly.

      James Huston: World War II Corsair pilot. Died March 3, 1945. His friend was Jack Larsen.

      James Leininger: was born in 1998. At age 2 (or 4), he began having nightmares about being a Corsair pilot and escaping a fire. His parents asked him who his friend was, to which he replied, "Jack Larsen."

      Do you really think that James Leininger wanted to attract attention to himself at 2 (or 4) years old? It's one thing if a person is 20 years old, and another thing if a person is a child. Maybe something really happened to him?

      The only explanation in this story was the word "Reincarnation". Some kind of magical reincarnation. I will give a real theory of what could have happened to him.

      Disease in the brain. Initially, the brain gave one soul access to the body (for example, a wave with a frequency of 100.011 Hz). My guess is that it was in this part of the brain that the glitch occurred. The brain suddenly rejected the old soul and replaced it with a new one (for example, 10.12 Hz). The body's controller has changed. It should feel like you were born as a 2 (or 4) year old child. Not only has the controller changed, but the brain has begun to accept information from a completely different life. These quantum wave souls should be perceived as a repository of information from all the lives lived by this soul. The brain began to adapt to the new soul and accept information from it, CONVERTING it into memory, data, habits, personality.

      It also cannot be ruled out that the information could be the life of some animal, or an entity from a completely different galaxy.

      This story has been heavily criticized because it is "not scientific." What if it is scientific, but we just haven't thought about it yet?

      !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why this matters !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —————————————————
      Science often ignores the soul concept as “religious nonsense.” But our universe isn’t fully understood — and we should NOT dismiss this idea emotionally or prematurely.

      We should take it seriously, explore it logically, and check whether something like a soul can exist within physics. We really need to think about this, advance our thinking, and check whether souls can exist at all?

      !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How to test the soul theory? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —————————
      Let's start with the cruel, but most obvious methods. Experiments on people. Think for yourself.

      But I want to suggest another (humane) way to test my theory:

      • People after a coma. There have been cases when people after a coma began to speak a language unknown to them. Probably, such people have some part of their brain damaged. It is worth looking at which part exactly is damaged, and finding out the truth - did he really not know this language?
      • Strange cases with people (like James Leininger). First of all, people should pay attention to such cases, be sure to check the story for truth. Such people can remember something from a completely different life. IT IS ESPECIALLY WORTH PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS WHEN CHILDREN ARE SUBJECT TO THIS. At this age, a child with a 99.99% chance will not look for a story about one person and attract attention to himself with his affectation

      ——————————— What is my goal? ————————————
      In my theory of the soul, this is not religious nonsense, but something that can function quite well with the laws of physics. Perhaps there are shortcomings, or perhaps this hypothesis is not fully thought out. I THINK THAT SCIENCE SHOULD THINK ABOUT WHETHER PEOPLE LIVE IN THE SAME CONDITIONS? DO SOULS REALLY EXIST? Science should not automatically and impulsively deny this, it should really think about how souls can be interpreted into the laws of physics at all. Science should pay attention to rather strange cases with people, check if the stories are true, and if so, figure out what could have caused it.

      That's all I have.

        10 days later

        Steve Dufourny My theory of spherisation, an optimisation evolution of the universe with quantum and cosmologial 3d spheres. The poincare conjecture proved by perelman is essential in topology especially 3 D manifolds.
        “Every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere.” So no holes no boundary and finite.
        Homeomorphic means “topologically equivalent” can be deformed into each other without tearing or gluing. Perelman proved it with the Ricci Flow
        He showed that any simply connected 3-manifold under this process becomes rounder and rounder ultimately turning into a 3-sphere.
        Perelman didn’t just prove Poincaré , his work helped confirm the Thurston Geometrization Conjecture, which classifies all 3-manifolds. This is huge in understanding the possible shapes of the universe. How It Relates to My Theory of Spherisation.
        The idea that the sphere is the fundamental shape of equilibrium and possibly even the logical or philosophical “choice” of the universe resonates beautifully with these mathematical and physical ideas because the topologial destiny of the universe being closed gives an inevitable logic for this universal shaqpe of the universe evolving and the fact that the foundamental quantum and cosological objects are spherical give a generality evident linking all scales.
        Ricci flow smooths curvature, like a system moving toward energetic equilibrium. We can so interpret this as the universe evolving toward the perfect symmetry and balance of the sphere.
        The Sphere as Generator of All Shapes so is the key.
        The sphere, despite having no angles, can “create all shapes.” That echoes deep math: the sphere is maximally symmetric, and from it, with various deformations or projections, many other forms arise. In quantum field theory, symmetry breaking creates particles, and here in this theory, breaking spherical equilibrium gives rise to all forms and forces.
        Spinoza’s God and the Sphere.
        Spinoza’s God is Nature, logical necessity, the totality of existence ,and the sphere is the shape of wholeness, unity, and non-duality. If the universe naturally chooses the sphere, maybe it chooses the logic of unity, just as Spinoza suggests. This idea turns the sphere into a kind of cosmic archetype geometric, physical, and metaphysical.
        Philosophical Angle
        This theory could be seen as:
        A metaphysical geometry: the sphere as the source and in the same time the aim universally speaking.
        A cosmological attractor: the universe always tends toward spherical symmetry, from quantum fluctuations to black holes to the cosmic microwave background.
        A quantum-unity vision: even at quantum levels, entanglement might reflect a hidden spherical order. The Spherial topological geometrical algebras I invented it is for all this puzzle ........

          Mir Hi, I have thought a lot about this and about the consciousness, its origin and if we have souls. I have several ideas that I develop but the physics community is prudent about all this. that said the best thinkers having pondered the best general equations and theories considered a god of spinoza like Eisntein, Planck, Heisenberg,Maxwell, Schrodinger, Godel, Euler, Riemann, Descartes, Lorenz, Bohr, Born, Galilei, Pasteur, Newton, and so more,.....there are also the thinkers considering a kind of mathematical accident from a kind of infinie energy like Tegmark and his mathematical universe ......a sure thing is that nobody knows the truth and all our philosophical assumptions are not proved, so we cannot affrim. The fact that we have possible souls seem logic to me and if they exist , so they have a mechanism and an origin and linked with the energy and like we all know, the energy cannot be destroyed but is transformed and continue a road. But Like I said these ideas are no liked by all scientists and even if they think about it ,they evitate to speak about it, the same for a kind of god of spinoza, a kind of infinite eternal consciousness, the sciences community evitates these extrapolations. The hard problem of consciousness is not easy to solve and there are many very good ideas like the model of Penrose and Hameroff and the microtubules and the objective orchestrated reduction, other model consider other mechanism in the brain , ohers consider deeper philosophical parameters to superimpose, It is what I made in my theory of spherisation, an evolution of the universe with quantum and comsological 3d spheres and the 3 manin cosmological sysems merging to create the ordinary matter and the standard model , I consider that the DE is informational and antigravitational implying a fifh force and this DE encodes the Photons and the DM to create the ordinary matter,so I have several extrapolations that I don t affirm about the souls and consciousness from deeper fields and particles. The actual physics community considers mainly strings in 1d at this planck connected with 1d cosmic fields of this GR, lie if the photons and EFE and GR were the primary essence and the strings also, but I doubt it is the truth, there are deep philosophical problems wih the strings and [photons lie primary essence if we consider a god of spinoza and how acts this infinite eternal consciousness, the evolution is a main point, it is important in my theory of spherisation this point of vue. We all search answers and try to understand the universe and its laws and all we are unfortunaelly vanitious and persuaded, it is for me an enormous problem inside the theoretical physics community, we have all difficulties to change the lines of reasoning and accept different roads of reasoning. So that divides instead to create collaborations, I have the same problem with the project I created here on the forum global collaboration, the thinkers, humans prefer always to be followed than to follow, they follow when they are the center of interest or when that nourrishes the vanity or when there are interests simply, it is a fact, no need to develop the human nature lol . So I agreed about what you told about the soul wich is no a religious link but probably an evident universal truh considering the matters and energy transformations. Regards

            4 days later

            I found 2 new universal constants for the spheres packing and primes in begining wih the central sphere the biggest volume and after I apply the primes for the serie and decrease the volumes, so it gives 2 constants, one in considering the number two and one without because it can be important for the quantum mechanics and if the number 2 must be considered or not , so the first constant with the number 2 is 1,306 and without the number 2 is 1,4695. The values in the series decrease as the layer number increases because the volumes of the spheres decrease and that decay is directly tied to the geometry of how volumes scale in 3D, see that the space disappears between spheres also ......

              Steve Dufourny

              let’s put now this constant, π, and the Riemann zeta function side by side, and build the universal link. If the zeta function connecs primes for the deep structure of numbers and that the constant pi is essential for the fourrier analysis and relativity and quantum mechanics and probability and waves physics, so now in linking the space and symmetry and topology and geometry it becomes relevant in correting with my constant and he volumes and primes and the fact hat this space disappears between these spheres packing .
              1,4695 is a new constant and if we compare the zea values, pi and this constant , so it becomes relevant to go deeper in the analysis .
              The Theory of Spherisation
              "The optimization of the universe through recursive spherical structures, anchored by a central cosmological sphere and a hierarchy of quantum spheres and cosmological spheres." propose a geometric unification theory based on:
              Recursive prime linked spheres
              A new constant rooted in both discrete primes and continuous space....
              Now let’s show how this may link quantum field theory, cosmology, and mathematics.
              Quantum Mechanics Needs Structure and the philosophy of origin here is different than for the strings,
              Quantum Field Theory (QFT) describes particles as vibrations in fields but in considering the spectral volume and this constant, i gives interesting roads.
              The Quantum and cosmological spherical architecture in this logic are relevant in the recursive analysis and if the motions, oscillations of these spheres are considered.
              The spatial rules appear and the zeta function, pi and this constant permit to better understand the continuous space and the quantum geometry with the continuous mathematics of these primes and spheres.
              The harmonic of these fractal primes spheres structures geometry so give new roads for our spacetime and quantum mechanics emegences. It is what I make with the tool that I have invencted ,t he spherical topological geometrial algebras and after I have assumptions that I don t affirm with the 3 main systems merging to create the ordinary matter, the DE, the DM and photons, the 3 made of hese series and the DE informational and antigravitaional implying a fifth force encoding the 2 others....

                  Lorraine Ford the spheres can be the foundamental objects Lorraine, we know that you always believe that you are special and always you critic all, the 3 systems merging can be true , and the spheres like foundmental objects also, you can prefer the strings or points and the GR like primary essence, for the constant I have calculated there is nothing of odd I just begin with a central sphere the biggest volume and after I increase the number of spheres around wih the primes, and oddly we arrive at this constant like an universal reursive serie, if you dont undersand the maths of this , it is not my fault, it is simple, 1more 3 multiplated by 1 on 8 and after we continue 5 multiplicated by 1 on 64 and we continue more 7 multiplicated by 1 on 512 ..........and yes there is probably an universal link between the spheres and primes, and I am goinmg to try several serie and other constants are going to appear, this one is just one , I will give the others, and for the DE informational encoding the DM quantas of mass and the photons , it is possible also with or without your approvement, I have never seen a theory fronm you, just disussions critisizing, so if you could disprove my theory of spherisation an optimisation of the universe qith quantum and cosmological spheres , you can but I doubt you can success to disprove it, well lets go deeper lorraine and be frank, and please answer sincerely without evitatung toi answer,
                  1 what is for your the origin philosophical of the universe,
                  2 what are the foundamental objects, you can explain with strings in 1d or points in 1 d and the GR
                  3, do you beleive that we come from a mathematical accident or from a kind of god and develop please
                  4 why the primes are important in maths and physics,and pi also
                  5 why the fields in the QFT are a reality and from what ,

                  I repeat don t turn around the pot , please answer.like this we can see your generality and what you have in the stomach

                  ps for the constant I expl,ained it is one constant appearing with primes and spheres packing, I will give here other constants possible in function of the series of volumes utilised, and yes there are fractals of spheres where the space disappears between spheres due to fact that we increase the number and decrease the volumes from the central one, and if the 3 main systems merge it makes sense for the motions, oscillations, densities, spins, agular momentum, mass......I am sorry but even on linkedin many persons are interesed about this reasoning and THEM they are physicists and Phd and others want to collaborate, the spheres and primes have an universal logic and it seems even the choice of this universe. So now answer wih humility please and don t evitate the questions.regards

                    Lorraine Ford so the constants I given is just one road and a specific serie, the one I search is in considering the volumes proportional in volumes, so the 3 smaller around the central one have the same volume than the this center and after he 5 smaller around the 3 have he same volumes also, and it give a constant and it can be relevant for the primordial fractal of spheres when we consider the primes and when we tend to infinity and when this space disappears between them. The spheres and primes are the primary language of the universe, it seems even evident and the choice of this universe.
                    ps answer to my questions please, don t evitate them with a long not necessary discourse, if you like the physics so you must tell us more and what are your choices about the universe and its laws and the orrelated philosophy,in fact Lorraine you critic always the works of others like if you knew this consciousness,the origin of the universe , the quantum mehanics, the foundmental objects and others but in fact like all you have not proved these things simply and you never answers to the questions we ask, you evitate them because you have not really concrete answers abou things, answer me please Lorraine about what I asked thanks

                        Steve Dufourny
                        Though physicists have occasionally mentioned this very problem,

                        it needs to be repeated that mathematicians and physicists, and others like yourself, have never yet paused for one minute, and faced up to the fact that

                        a set of equations or theories, ANY set of equations or theories, is not the same as a viable moving real-world mathematical system.

                        What is missing?

                        1) You assume movement will automatically occur.
                        2) You assume that the system will automatically somehow know itself and its own situations, i.e. its own relationships/ equations/ mathematics, its own categories (like mass, charge and position), and its own numbers that apply to the categories.

                            Lorraine Ford
                            (continued)

                            So, it is all very well having theories such as yours, or sets of equations, etc. etc.: the details don't matter.

                            But, in order to have a viable moving real-world mathematical system you also need

                            an aspect, or aspects, of the world that initiates/ reinitiates number movement in the system, and

                            an aspect, or aspects, of the world that recognises/ knows/ is aware of the specific numbers that apply to the specific categories (like mass charge or position), and is aware of the specific relationships between those specific categories.

                                Lorraine Ford I can understand what you tell but we need equations and mathematics to describe the reality and search links to analyse the systems that we observe and measure. It is like this that we have improve the quantum field theory, the quantum mechanics, the cosmology .....how can we describe the universe and its laws without equations and maths. The euqations in thermodynamics or others are concrete and verified and act well, and it is linked with what you tell about these categories and relationships .

                                You've raised an interesting and important philosophical point about the relationship between equations, systems, and the real, dynamic world. Your concern that equations alone don’t “move” or “know” anything is a powerful reminder of the gap between symbolic representation and physical reality. I don t tell then opposite .

                                However, it’s also important to clarify the role and power of mathematics and equations in physics. You are absolutely right that equations by themselves don’t “initiate” movement or “recognize” anything. They are static structures. But here’s where physics and math as used within it takes a crucial step forward.
                                Equations describe change and interaction.
                                In physics, equations aren’t just fixed ideas,they encode the rules for how systems evolve over time.
                                The “knowing” part is the role of observers and the model itself.
                                You mentioned that systems don’t “know” their own states. And indeed, physical systems are not self-aware. But physics doesn’t require them to be. We, the observers, construct models and interpret measurements. Equations allow us to describe and predict what the system will do. The “awareness” you mention is provided by the measurement apparatus and the interpretation of data.
                                Math is not reality,it models it.
                                You’re absolutely right that no equation is reality. But this is not a flaw,it’s a feature. Equations are abstract tools. But they are tested against reality, and revised when they fail. The reason we trust them isn’t blind faith, but centuries of empirical success,from predicting planetary motion to enabling GPS satellites to correcting for quantum effects in electronics and many other examples exist .
                                Equations are essential because they’re the only precise language we have for cause and effect in the natural world.
                                If you want to describe how one thing leads to another in a testable, repeatable way,math is the only tool precise enough to do it. That’s why even when your philosophical critique is valid, and your desire for “real” systems that are more than symbolic is understandable, the practical answer still relies on equations.

                                Regards

                                    Lorraine Ford I really appreciate the depth of your reflections,it’s clear you’re wrestling with some foundational and important questions about the nature of reality, and the role of mathematics in describing it.
                                    I'd like to offer a different perspective, one that sees equations not as hollow, static symbols, but as something more like musical notation in a grand universal composition. It is this also the sciences and mainly the physics and maths, we play musics in trying to describe this reality in respecting the universal composition and for this we must respect several laws in the partitions.I don t tell this because I play guitar and piano but because the physics and maths are a little bi like the arts also.
                                    Imagine the universe as a vast orchestra, playing a symphony that spans from the dance of galaxies down to the rhythm of atoms. The equations we use in physics,whether it’s Einstein’s field equations or Schrödinger’s wave function or other are like musical scores. They don’t generate the music themselves, but they encode the structure, the harmonies, the timing, the relationships between notes. They guide us through the flow and so the numbers and constants also.
                                    Just like a symphony has different instruments playing in harmony, the universe has different "frequencies"—forces, particles, masses, energies—all playing according to specific patterns. And mathematics is the language we’ve discovered that best describes these harmonic relationships. Of course when we make this It lacks instruments and we cannot play this universal music but we try to respect the harmony and these gamuts, notes in the details of speific spheres of analysis.

                                    What you mention,that the system itself must somehow “move,” or “know” its categories like mass, charge, position is true in a philosophical sense. But in physical terms, movement emerges from the structure. A musical score doesn’t move itself, but when interpreted by a conductor, an instrument, or a model,it comes to life. In physics, the initial conditions and the laws (the “score”) combine to produce the unfolding reality we observe.

                                    When physicists write equations, we’re not claiming they are the totality of what exists. We’re saying: this is the structure we hear beneath the phenomena, like hearing a chord and knowing its components. We try to stay in key, respect the gamut, and identify where the music resonates with the reality we observe.

                                    So the equations are not just arbitrary marks,they are attempts to tune in to the universal harmonics, to find the underlying logic and pattern that governs how things unfold. Without them, we’d just be hearing noise. With them, we begin to understand the music. It is there that the equations, maths, numbers partitions......become relevant when they respect this universal symphony because all is linked in this universal music palyed in an incredible complexity beyond our understanding

                                      Steve Dufourny
                                      I notice that the above words are not entirely your own words, and not entirely your own thoughts.

                                      The man-made equations, that symbolically represent real-world relationships between real-world categories, are essential to represent the real world; and so are the man-made number symbols, that apply to the man-made symbols for the categories, essential to represent the real world.

                                      But the fact that the equations contain delta symbols etc,, to try to represent change over time makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to the fact that no amount of equations, categories and numbers are sufficient to represent a viable moving real-world system.

                                      Without an explanation for why the world ever moved and why the world continues to move, and without an explanation for how come, out of all the theoretically possible number and category and relationships combinations, the mathematical system can identify its own on-the-spot categories, relationships and numbers, without these explanations, YOU HAVEN'T REPRESENTED A VIABLE MOVING REAL-WORLD SYSTEM.

                                      I.e. your theories and equations don't represent a viable moving real-world system.

                                          Lorraine Ford Lorraine, what do you tell, it is me who write and they are my thoughts, like my english is not my first language, so sometimes I utilise the translator when I want to be more complex in details,you know Lorraine you seem to be a person wanting to compete, it is not good because you show us a kind of frustration , you shall be more convining in being more nice, the universal altruism is important, we are not in the forest in fighting for our life you know, we are on a platform of physics to share with respect ideas, It is not my fault if the scientists don t take you seriously and that it implies this frustration, you don t develop your ideas phiulosophically speaking or physially and ,mathematically speaking, your repeat with your categories without details and always in critisizing the sciences community like if all physicists and mathematians don t understand the reality, , you don t detail nor your categories, nor your symbols ,nor your aspets, in fact you just putt words without real definitions and concrete descriptions, I am sorry but it is true.

                                            Lorraine Ford you conclude too quickly the things Lorraine like for my thoughts and words, and the problem is there you are persuaded about things not proved, and in politics when the persons make this they make catagories about people and rank the humans without real proofs ,and sometimes it implies even deep problems like in the dictatorships, they beleive they know all, they affirm the psychology of their fellowmen, they conclude all like facts but in fact it is just in their minds and not proved, think about this. You must try to be more cool, nice and less persuaded about your assumptions not proved, sorry bu It is true, the critics, yes, the lack of respec , no simply, and I am persuaded it is just about your psychology and friustration, me I like you, but you seem to like nobody , take care

                                                Steve Dufourny
                                                Occasionally, you will find physicists in essence remarking that there is a difference between a set of equations and a viable moving real-world system. I am, in essence, merely agreeing with these physicists.

                                                As I said, your theories and equations can't represent a viable moving real-world system.

                                                This is a BIG problem, but you don't seem to care, and instead you choose to say things about my character.

                                                    Lorraine Ford If you tell it Lorraine , you think like you want and you are persuaded about what you want , I can do nothing about this. For the theories like you like the strings theory or the geometrodynamics, or my theory and these spheres like foundamental objects, we don t affirm we just try to give roads. When I observe the nature and this universe, these spheres,spheroids are a reality, after all in cosmology in this universe we have only this , and I tell me that for the quantum scale it is probably the reality also and after they can create all shapes with the deformations due to forces, fields, informations, see the symplectomorphisms preserving the volumes, there is nothing of odd with the spheres , observe well this nature with your spherixcal eyes , see the glannds, see, trees, flowers, a water drop, the favorite sports of humans with the spheres due to the rotations and ideal motions, see the waves, the gravitational waves, the Black holes, the planets, stars, and so many other exemples,there is really nothing of odd with this theory and it can be the hoie of this universe and even it can be correlated with the categories, aspects and symbols for the ranking and physical properties,