Alternative Models of Reality

yusrob

Steve Dufourny
Steve!
Your theory is very complex. You admit it yourself and ask mathematicians for help.
It's unlikely that anyone will be able to truly help you with your spherization theory.
You must proceed from the principle "Nature is simple and parsimonious."
This is exactly what I do in my “Theory of Nature”.
Within the framework of my “Theory of Nature”, I have found both the algorithm for the evolution of nature and the algorithm for the evolution of the Universe.
This is presented in my article
“Nature as an Objective Reality” https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSNAA.
It's not a difficult article.
I would also recommend you read another article of mine (but it's only in Russian). It's this article:
“Talk About the Evolution of the Universe”
https://vixra.org/pdf/2212.0220v1.pdf.
But perhaps it's better to look at this article:
“The Universe as a Function of One Variable”,
https://proza.ru/2023/12/25/1093.
It's also in Russian.
In this article, all the main fundamental characteristics of the Universe's evolution (there are three of them!) are presented as functions of a single variable—the current amount of matter in the Universe (or the current absolute age of the Universe).
This is a triumph of human understanding of nature and the Universe!
Look at the articles, read them, and think about them.
If you have any questions, please ask.
Sincerely,
Robert Yusupov from Vladivostok, author of “Theory of Nature”, independent researcher, dialectical materialist, Marxist, communist

Steve Dufourny

yusrob
In fact, I give the generality of the idea, the theory in general, and I don’t really need help. I am going to do it myself, but there are skilled mathematicians who can work on it. I know that my theory is a possible general theory unifying all, it may unify all but I don t assert my assumptions. It is logical for all general thinkers when they forget their vanity, and on LinkedIn it is what I see, they are aware that I am onto something.

It is relevant because it gives a new paradigm where particles, spheres, and physical structures are the primary essence instead of fields and waves. The members of FQXi are relevant but they are occupied with their own theories and work, but if thinkers focus on this, it will give revolutionary results in the mathematical extrapolations and simulations, this I am persuaded.
Collaboration is always better than competition, just like humility is always better than vanity. I am going to continue working on the spherical geometric topological algebras, and I have relevant friends on LinkedIn. I will probably publish on arXiv with some other thinkers next year.
You know, physics and mathematics are like music: we create partitions and we try to create a symphony. I play piano and guitar, and my strength, in all humility, is generality and creativity. I can create a symphony, but I need musicians to play it. If I am alone, I will do it alone, but it takes time and I must focus. Regards

yusrob

Steve Dufourny One question, the fundamental question of philosophy, as presented by F. Engels, and the answers to it, draws a demarcation line (boundary) between the philosophy of materialism (truth and scientificity) and the philosophy of idealism (falsehood and anti-scientificity):

Engels, F. Ludwig Feuerbach, and the End of Classical German Philosophy
https://michaelharrison.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Ludwig-Feuerback-and-the-end-of-Classical-German-Philosophy.pdf
The correct and true answer to this fundamental question was given by F. Engels himself.

Similarly, one question, the fundamental question of physics, the question of the concrete representation of matter in nature, and the answers to it, draws a demarcation line (boundary) between true and scientific physics (this is the “Theory of Nature”) and false and anti-scientific physics (this is the Theory of Modern Physics (TMP), together with the General Theory of Relativity (GTR), together with the Standard Model of Elementary Particles (SMEP), together with the Big Bang Theory (BBT), the formation of the Universe).
The correct and true answer to this fundamental question is: “The content of elementary particles is the 'pure' concrete matter of nature”.
This is the absolute truth.
Do you agree with this, Steve?

Steve Dufourny

yusrob Hi , I don t really agree because you assert an assumption without accepting the deep limitations that we have in ontology, philosophy and physics. We know still so few you know , so how can we conclude a general truth , that has no sense, I don t assert my assumptions, you could make the same , regards

Steve Dufourny

yusrob
In going further, I have read these thinkers, and Marx was strongly influenced by Feuerbach, Engels too was strongly influenced. They considered this materialism against a kind of idealism, and so they asserted that material is not spiritual. But we don’t know this, we cannot assert that consciousness emerges from matter. I consider a totally different logic, with matter expressing a finite part of this infinite eternal consciousness.

And that is why Lorraine still says important things, because we need deeper parameters regarding information, knowledge, categories, and numbers, because they must know what to do, and so the matter also must know, and this we don’t understand at this quantum scale.

We must also differentiate religions, which are human inventions, from a God of Spinoza, like Einstein said,a God of nature. It is about the ideal, yes, but accepting our limitations. So in my reasoning this infinite eternal consciousness in 0D does create the universe. So yes, we need to know more about this metaphysics and this evolutive universe. Matter, life, and mind are more than we can imagine.
So this dialectical materialism from Feuerbach, Marx, Hegel, Engels…is in a sense a reductive point of view, asserting a truth that cannot be proved and cannot be asserted due to these limitations that I explained. I do the same with my theory of spherisation,I do not assert it. Doubt is important for a general thinker when something is not proved. We can have our extrapolations and explorations, but only the proved laws, axioms, and equations are accepted. Matter seems primary, yes, but this 0D of this God of Spinoza also seems primary.

By rejecting the metaphysical consciousness or deeper informational foundations, we reduce matter, motion, evolution, humans, consciousness, and life to a mathematical accident, and it seems nonsensical in modern philosophical physics. Quantum information seems fundamental, and that is why I believe that this mass–energy–information equivalence is important, and the expression of consciousness also. In all cases, that gives ontological layers deeper than relativity and QFT alone; we need to go further than this. That is why, in a sense, information is primary, and consciousness also.

This consciousness seems really intrinsic to reality and not produced by our brain, I do not assert it, of course, but it seems more logical to consider consciousness as fundamental. Penrose, Wheeler, Chalmers, and others try to give a deeper ontological logic than the 19th-century materialists. We need to unify ontologically and explore possibilities. Cosmology, quantum mechanics, consciousness, and information need to be explored more deeply, and Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, Hegel…focused only on social philosophy, anthropology, and materialism without physics and the knowledge we have today.

My approach seems more logical considering our modern physics and modern ontology: information as physical, and the need to go beyond relativity and actual QFT. In a sense, the ontology of Feuerbach, Engels, and Marx is outdated relative to our current scientific ontological landscape.

Ulla Mattfolk

yusrob
From uncertainty to entanglement, the theory breaks the classical idea of the world as made of individual objects with identities and properties.

In the quantum realm, philosopher of science Olimpia Lombardi argues, there are no separate things—only an undivided whole.

On the most fundamental level, there is no individual.
https://iai.tv/articles/quantum-physics-reveals-there-is-no-such-thing-as-things-auid-3267

Conclusion: An ontology based on only matter is very incomplete, and cannot be accepted.

Steve Dufourny

I try to understand this too, maybe the gravitons and photons have a tiny mass but I don t assert but it seems that there is something there to analyse deeper without breaking the QFT and GR. if the gravitons and photons have a tiny mass, all is better understood and more logic
We need to complete this GR , not to break it .The curvature so can be explained in a pure newtonian reasoning, we reconsider so the geometric curvature and for this we need a massive gravity . This vaccuum structure also becomes interesting if this DE is added and this DM.
The curvature in a Newtonian sense is more logic than a mass telling to spacetime to curve if they have a mass these gravitons and photons because these gravitons are photons.
I don assert my assumptions but INPUT AND OUTPUT seem universal. In my theory of spherisation, an evolution of the universe with quantum and cosmological spheres, I have assumptions and I invented the spherical topological geometric topological algebras for tensors, vectors, scalars... I also invented a mass–energy–information equivalence and the OSI (Objective Spherisation Interpretations). I consider and I do not assert, that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are important to complete the Standard Model, QFT, and GR without breaking them; we simply add parameters. If they exist at this cosmological scale, probably they exist at the quantum scale also.
So if Dark Energy is antigravitational and informational, implying a fifth force and encoding the photon quanta of electromagnetism and heat, and the Dark Matter quanta of mass completing the Higgs mechanism, then everything becomes clearer. The final-state output is important with the quantum spheres, and the properties and even deformations due to the codes.
The primary essence here is not the universal wavefunction or the fields of GR as the main information, but series of spheres of this Dark Energy, so the particles are the primary essence. The laws of transformations are relevant.
The model is not about binary information like Wheeler’s model, but we can correlate my model and the 3D spheres with the Bloch sphere. So we try to correlate the physical spherical model and this binary computation with the Bloch sphere. Entropy and negentropy are important, as well as the time-life of information. The volumes, densities, motions, oscillations ... of these series of spherical volumes,primary for the 3 main systems,become the key.
For consciousness, since we have an infinite eternal consciousness omnipotent in 0D, all physical structures like baryonic results express a finite consciousness. It is ontologically relevant because consciousness is not really emergent from the brain but is a universal fundamental, and maybe life is also.
The relevance now is to consider the input of this Dark Energy and the fact that it merges the 3 systems like a box, similar to the works of Bob Coecke with the wires, spiders, and input–output structures in his book Quantum in Pictures. So the relevance is to have the series of spheres merging, and even their deformations can be correlated to explain the evolution and diversity of physical structures.
It is complex , we are not even sure they exist these gravitons quantas of gravitational waves, Difficult to renormalise the uv divergences. Both relate to how mass and gravity arise in fundamental physics. If a massless spin 2 boson exists , they don t get their properties from the higgs field, this graviton must be massless to reproduce this GR. The paradox is that the higgs give mass and this mass curves the spacetime and so the gravity responds. It is the only conceptual link we can do .
Now in considering this DE encoding the photons and DM, that becomes relevant for the cosmological problem and if there is a fifth force antigravitations and informational.
The graviton and the higgs can be modes of oscillations of these series of spherical volumes, so we can unify all this at a deeper level but it is complex. We can probably consider the origin of mass differently in completing the higgs with the DM and we can consider the antigravitation of the DE, so we go deeper in the understanding of the gravity in fact. So in fact there is maybe a link in superposing these 2 deeper parameters to this GR, the DE and DM but how exactly at this quantum scale if they 3 systems merge, It is the questions for the QFT , we don t break the GR and QFT so we just complete them with deeper parameters.
The photons are important about the observations and mesurements , but we can complete in adding the deeper parameters that I explained with the reasoning I developped, so in fact what we observe and measure are just emergent from the photons encoded for the QFT and for the GR that we observe due to the relativistic observation of the spacetime due to photons, the light
These ideas are speculative but they are intellectually coherent for DE does behave repulsively (accelerating expansion).
DM does not interact with the Higgs field the same way as visible matter.
The fact that QFT and GR are both built around the measurement of energy via light is a valid philosophical and operational point, it follows a structured logic:
Photons define observations , QFT and GR are photon-based descriptions and we have deeper levels (DM, DE) may encode unseen structure and so Higgs and graviton may be emergent modes of those deeper structures in adding parameters. I don t claim or assert, but that makes sense . I don t break this QFT and GR, they are successes in their frameworks, I just extend new parameters and a deeper frameworks to unify mass, gravity and cosmology. We need to unify Higgs, mass, curvature, gravity and even consciousness and this DE and DM are there to help more this 0D if it exists also, we need deeper layers

Steve Dufourny

I am working to identify a universal constant connecting all spherical volumes in the universe.
My hypothesis is that the universe may be fundamentally composed of 3D spherical volumes across all scales. These spheres might follow a universal scaling law,a single constant linking mass, radius, energy, information, motion, and other physical quantities. This could include hierarchical series expanding from a “central sphere” outward with decreasing volumes.
Such a constant would imply a deep relationship between geometry, information, and mass–energy, possibly supporting a mass–energy–information equivalence and even hinting at a fifth force. The goal is to find one dimensionless constant unifying quantum spheres, astrophysical spheres, cosmological spheres, and the universal sphere itself.
I plan to test several invariants, including a holographic information constant based on entropy. Negentropy stability in baryonic matter may also provide clues. One challenge is accounting for variations across many orders of magnitude, but scaling relations could help bridge those differences.
To explore this, I need to analyse reference systems across scales,the proton radius, the electron Compton sphere, Planck-scale spheres, the hydrogen atom, black holes, stars, neutron stars, galaxy halos, clusters, and the Hubble sphere. Early calculations already reveal an interesting pattern,a consistent mass–radius scaling exponent of approximately β ≈ 1.58 across many systems.
Next steps include investigating how this exponent could relate to fractal structures, packing principles, spherical entropy growth, information geometry, and the distributions of dark energy and dark matter. This work may also intersect with entropic gravity models.
I also want to examine harmonic spherical packings, geometric partitions, and their connection to fractal cosmology and quantum fractal series. Ultimately, all results should be compared with geometric progressions and integrated into the broader idea of three merging systems, potentially linking mass, radius, entropy, and a possible DE/DM/photon unification framework.
This is still preliminary, and I welcome help to refine the analysis,but the β ≈ 1.58 approximation is an intriguing start and may open a productive path forward.
It is surprising that a single exponent fits so many scales , planck sphere, proton, electron compton spheres, atoms,stars, neutrons stars, BHs, galaxies, Clusters, Hubble sphere. Yes the geometric scalling appears at all scales, This is not standard and it can be revolutionary, now we must investigate the radius because we have compton radius, proton charge radius,bohr radius, Schwarzschild radius, stellar radius, Halo radius, and so we must choose the physical correct universal link to unify the correct constant for quantum spherical series, atoms, stars, galaxies, cosmology, Universe.And so that must converge for the quantum field theory, the nulcear physics, the gravity, the cosmology,the equilibriums. The information geometry also is important I think and the entropy scaling like the negentropic stabilities. The consciousness also can be analysed but it is an ontological assumption. The road is there and the constant must be validated , tested, improved maybe but it is a good starting point for an universal spherical geometric scaling. That can permit to analyse deeper parameters with the fractal hierarchy , the volumes, the hidden dimensions , the infromation connections, the spherical network.

Steve Dufourny

Steve Dufourny probably I made errors for this constant , it cannot be .There is a constant somewhere , this I am persuaded but it cannot be so simple . Must try roads and analsyse datasets , quant and cosmological.

Steve Dufourny

Steve Dufourny
I must develop the idea and explain how I found this number 1.583 with the logarithms and the mass and radius of real physical quantum and cosmological objects. The number β ≈ 1.583 is a dimensionless constant that emerges from the relationship between mass and radius of all spherical objects, from quantum scales to cosmological scales. It appears as the product of logarithms of radius and mass ratios of spherical objects, depending on how we define the logarithmic combination.

It is a Mass–Radius Power Law, so we consider, for quantum, gravitational, and cosmological objects, several parameters for the slope exponent, and it depends on physical forces across the scales. That is why it must be calculated as a function of the scale of analysis for the spherical objects, using their radii and mass. It is there that the logarithmic compression is important, with some adaptations, but here is the formula:
log R = k log M + C.
Maybe I must improve it, I don’t know, but we have many orders of magnitude. The ratio of logs gives a dimensionless slope, and the references can be chosen. Real data confirmation appears in the correct calculations and references when the ratios are computed.

β for all these spherical objects seems to be a number consistently appearing around 1.583. I believe that it supports my theory of spherisation about the necessity of having stable spherical objects; they are obliged to obey constraints of stability. That is why even the forces must be balanced. So it must act at all scales, for all spherical objects.

Logarithms compress multiplicative differences in mass and radius into a scale-independent number. This creates an emergent universal slope β, independent of scale in fact.

It is dimensionless, and this is important, and it reflects the hierarchical spherical structure of matter from nucleons to the universe. I don’t know how to consider the ranking of all spherical systems when we consider these radii and masses and their evolution in log space, and with the densities and the evolution, and even if we add the information aspects.

It is not a constant like G, c, or ħ, so it is not yet a physical constant, but it is interesting to correlate with my theory of spherisation and with possible derivations from first principles.

For any spherical object:
β = log(R_object / R_ref) / log(M_object / M_ref) ≈ 1.583
or equivalently, for predictive purposes:
R_object = R_ref (M_object / M_ref)^β

It seems it can work for protons, electrons, nuclei, planets, stars, black holes, galaxies, clusters, halos, and the Hubble sphere.

The spherical stability and this universal scaling law with this number seem relevant and empirically robust across scales, linking quantum to cosmology. It reflects a hidden hierarchy of the universe, compressible via logarithms.

I must work on spherical topological geometric algebras and try to make derivations from these first principles and correlate them with the theory of spherisation and with the evolution of the universe. Quantum gravitation and the primary information are also relevant to analyze because information seems essential, but where is this primary information? I have a mass–energy–information equivalence, but do we have, as I explained, DE as informational,a fifth antigravitational force encoding photons and DM to create ordinary matter? How should we consider the negentropic stabilities in this case and the evolution? Or do we have information in GR, or in strings in 1D at the Planck scale connected with a 1D cosmic field of GR, or the same logic with geometrodynamics? I don’t know, and I don’t assert. But there is a logic.

But returning to the dimensionless ratio and the mass and radii across all scales in a spherical logic, this can reveal hidden structures in my humble opinion. It is the orders of magnitude here that are interesting, and the spherical logic. This invariant slope is intriguing; it is like a dimensionless constant in fact. There is also a relevant link with the evolution and observations and measurements and changes in densities across scales. The spherical stability conditions are relevant. We have paths to analyze a deeper kind of universal, not yet explained pattern.

My theory tells that nature prefers spherical stable systems, so they are geometrically natural and permit the physics and properties, and others like quantum confinement, gravitational equilibrium, and scaling relations. So even mathematically they are important; that is why the Poincaré conjecture proved by Perelman is also important, I think. In all cases, the empirical observations, the measured values of mass and radii, the fact that the ratio is dimensionless, that it is reproducible, revealing a new pattern,all this has the potential for deeper theoretical implications and even unification of spherical objects, supporting my theory of spherisation.

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny Symmetry is good but a little bit of asymmetry must also be there.... This does not work in a perfect symmetric universe, we need the topology too. I knew it had to be simple, but so simple... I am amazed. This explains it all... Congrats.

I have looked at renormalization (normalization, quantization), electromagnetism, the electron jump, Einsteins equations, gauges, foldings, consciousness, you name it...

Now the quantum jump...

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk thanks, yes I am surprised also it fits for all and it is amazing this dimensionless invariant number . I believe it must also fit for this unknown like the quantum gravitation, DE , DM, quantum computing.
For the quantum gravitation it is relevant because the Loop Quantum Gravity considers area and volume operators and they have discrete logarithmic spectra.
The Holographic principle it is also in the same logic with the entropy/mass/radius of horizons follow. The string theory utilises a kind of same logic also for the compactification ,radii and mass spectra producing fractal logarithmic towers. Here what is relevant is the fact that the spherical volumes are under a kind of universal logic, like if it is the choice of the nature simply. Quantum gravity tries to unify gravitational confinement (R ∼ M),quantum confinement (R ∼ 1/M) virialized structure (R ∼ M¹ᐟ²)constant-density matter (R ∼ M¹ᐟ³), maybe I make errors but in logic it is interesting because when we combine these four regimes over 80 orders of magnitude, the log‑log slope must converge to a fixed value and this fixed value is 1,583 , so it seems interesting for the quantum and gravitational scaling .β ≈ 1.583 appears to be an emergent, dimensionless exponent connecting quantum‑scale confinement to gravitational‑scale structure formation. Any viable quantum‑gravity theory should be capable of reproducing this universal mass–radius slope in logic .

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk
Hi Ulla, I would like to have your points of view to go further into what I call the universal spherical logic. There is a clear logic and there are constants involved. We must consider the primary properties of spherical volumes. Penrose, in his cosmological work, considers radius and mass, Dirac, through his large-number hypothesis, does the same, Hawking’s work also relies on mass and radius,and Einstein in general relativity treats mass and radius as fundamental. The same applies to Newton, Friedmann, Lemaître, Bohr, Rutherford, Fermi, Eddington, and Hubble. Radius and mass are everywhere important.

This suggests that we can extrapolate a universal logic across the scales, both quantum and cosmological. Mass–energy and thermodynamics form one fundamental parameter. Then we have the radius or volume. But we can also consider motions,spins and rotations,which may be linked to time. We also need an informational logic, and probably densities as well. I am 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, as references. Then we can extend the reasoning to cosmological and quantum objects. Additional corrective parameters may be needed, but the logic remains.
The universal spherical logic of my theory of spherisation, involving quantum and cosmological spherical volumes, must therefore consider fundamental parameters if we want constants to emerge. Let me summarize the main parameters,

Mass–energy content, possibly extended to a mass–energy–information equivalence (according to my earlier assumptions, which I do not assert as fact, but which guide the reasoning). Mass–energy defines gravity, thermodynamics, and wavelengths.

Radius or volume, defining density and connecting to spacetime curvature, horizon area and entropy, and quantum boundary conditions.

Spin/rotation, which appears at all scales. This is an essential point in my reasoning. All these quantum and cosmological spherical volumes rotate,electron spin, proton spin, atomic angular momentum, stellar spin, galactic spin, black-hole Kerr angular momentum, and possible cosmic rotation discussed by Penrose or Barbour. Spin is intriguing for the concept of time, because these motions,especially quantum and cosmological rotations.are periodic and suggest a link to time.

Information, which is essential even though the universal ontology of its origin is unknown.
Density, important for gravity, pressure, evolution, nuclear analysis, and localization.
Entropy and negentropy, related to information and to the mass–energy–information equivalence. The motions of these spherical volumes and their ontology matter here.

Information and spherical volumes seem to be key, and entropy appears geometrical and spherical. Dimensionless invariants should appear at all scales in a purely spherical universal logic. Quantum physics and cosmological physics may both fall under a mass–energy–information equivalence, with information acting as a kind of conductor. Time, resulting from motions of spherical volumes, becomes relevant through frequency and periodicity. In fact, rotations, periodicity, and time can be correlated to mass–energy, general relativity, and the gravitational radius,but a crucial point is that time cannot be separated from motion.

If constants or dimensionless invariants exist within a spherical logic, then it becomes interesting to compute or analyze them more deeply. If a scale‑invariant spherical quantity relates mass, radius, spin, density, and information across all scales, it would be extremely relevant. Even Dirac’s large numbers, the fine‑structure constant, the gravitational coupling, and holographic entropy all seem to belong to the same spherical logic.

Should we consider a universal constant built from a product of the main parameters:
M (mass–energy), R (radius/volume/curvature), J (spin/rotation/angular momentum), ρ (density), S (entropy), T (time/frequency/periodicity), and I (information)?
I do not yet know how to combine them, but there appears to be a universal logic, and constants or dimensionless invariants should emerge. Something is missing that unifies all spherical systems across all scales. Universal sphere, cosmological spheres, quantum spheres. It is the ontology.

There does seem to be a universal spherical architecture connecting quantum spheres, nuclear spheres, planetary spheres, stellar spheres, galactic spheres, cosmic spheres, black‑hole spheres, the Hubble sphere, and the evolving universal sphere itself. This is the meaning of my theory of spherisation: the evolution of a universal sphere, possibly (though I do not assert it) with a central core, a central universal sphere or “super‑matter–energy” diffusing three main systems that later merge under information. I search roads and try calculations, not easy . I try also with the spherical topological geometric algebras for the tensors, vectors, scalars to have quantum and cosmological links. correlations, not easy. Regards

yusrob

An alternative model of cosmology is offered to the attention of kind readers.
This is a dialectical-materialistic model of the structure, structure, and evolution of nature (and the Universe).
This model presents a definition of nature.
This model presents an algorithm for the evolution of nature.
This model presents an algorithm for the evolution of the Universe.
This model views the evolution of nature as a sequential series of universes.
After the evolution of one universe is complete, the evolution of the next begins.
No legacy, no information is transmitted from one universe that has completed its evolution to another universe beginning its evolution.
The Universe does not keep its own history.
Nature does not keep its own history.
Neither nature nor the Universe has any archives.
No information about the evolution of universes is stored anywhere in nature.
The evolution of each universe begins with a clean slate.
What nature is is explained in my article:
Nature as an Objective Reality https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSNAA.
Sincerely
Robert Yusupov from Vladivostok, author of the “Theory of Nature”, independent researcher, dialectical materialist, Marxist, communist

yusrob

The most important fact about nature is that
“Nature is fundamentally material and dialectical”.

The materiality of nature means that all natural bodies, subject, things, and objects are essentially composed of matter, that is, they are material bodies, subject, things, and objects.
There is not a single natural body (subject, thing, object) in nature that would not be a material body (subject, thing, object).

The dialectic nature of nature means that everything in nature is in motion, displacement, change, development, evolution.

It is unlikely that anyone today will deny this position, this judgment, this proposition, this fact.
But in any case, this judgment expresses an objective fact.

Let us consider a number of similar judgments and facts:

All material bodies (objects, things, objects) consist of chemical compounds and chemical elements.
All chemical compounds consist of chemical elements.
All chemical elements consist of molecules and atoms.
All molecules are made up of atoms.
All atoms consist of elementary particles (protons, neutrons, electrons).

It is unlikely that anyone today will deny these propositions, these judgments, these facts.
But in any case, each of these judgments expresses (reflects) the corresponding objective fact.

But then the logically correct conclusion would be:
“All material bodies (subjects, things, objects) consist of elementary particles (protons, neutrons, electrons)”.

It is unlikely that anyone today will deny this conclusion, this position, this judgment, this fact.
But even in this case, this judgment is an objective fact.

The above reasoning means that the materiality of all material bodies (subjects, things, objects) is ultimately reduced to the materiality of elementary particles.
A legitimate question arises: “What does the materiality of elementary particles mean?”

Science and physics have long concluded that elementary particles are truly existing, minimal material bodies. Currently, more than 350 elementary particles are known. Their existence has been proven experimentally. The most well-known elementary particles are the electron, proton, and neutron. They form the atoms of all chemical elements.
It is common knowledge that every material body has its own form and content. This is a fact, a well-known fact.

This means that elementary particles also have their own form and content.
All of the above leads us with inexorable logic to the following conclusion: “The content of elementary particles is the ‘pure’ concrete matter of nature”.

Essentially, this conclusion is a statement of a simple natural fact. This fact has long been obvious, ever since the experimental discovery of the first elementary particle (the electron). It lies before the eyes and noses of all physicists.
But this fact remains unrecognized to this day (and today, the calendar of history is already 2025) by the entire modern physics community, the entire party of modern physicists (PMP). Not a single modern physicist has yet acknowledged this fact.

But facts are stubborn things. They are objective reality.

Facts exist, they take place independently of our consciousness and regardless of the recognition or non-recognition of these facts by particular groups of people.
Most likely, another fact is puzzling (to say the least and more precisely): the fact that this natural fact is not recognized by the entire modern physical community, by the entire modern party of physicists.

There can be only one rational explanation for this phenomenon (the failure to recognize a natural fact): the consciousness of modern physicists is under the influence and pressure of a false and anti-scientific worldview. And this worldview is exclusively bourgeois-idealistic (BIW). This is a purely (and pre-set) anti-materialist worldview. This worldview was developed by false and anti-scientific bourgeois-idealist philosophy (BIP).

The fundamental lie of the BIP and BIW lies in the false and unscientific postulate that is the starting point of this philosophy and this worldview. This lie lies in the assertion of the primacy of the ideal (idea) over the material (matter) in nature.

This is a big, basic, fundamental lie from the party of modern bourgeois-idealistic philosophers.
This big, basic, fundamental lie is the core of bourgeois-idealistic philosophy (BIP).

And this lie has been accepted by the consciousness of the overwhelming majority of modern physicists, theoretical physicists.
And this lie became entrenched in the minds of physicists as a dogma.
This lie actively hinders and resists the true scientific dialectical-materialistic understanding of the material world and nature around us.
This lie has penetrated so deeply into the consciousness of the entire party of modern physicists and has become fixed there that the recognition of a simple, elementary, real fact of nature becomes impossible.

Although, it seems to me, nothing prevents both idealist philosophers and modern physicists from recognizing this fact.
One can acknowledge this fact while still maintaining the primacy of the idea (the ideal) over matter (the material). But something still prevents this recognition, both from idealist philosophers and from modern physicists. I don't know what it is.

But I know something else. This fact is recognized in my “Theory of Nature” (TN). In fact, this fact is one of the most important starting points in my TN. And within the framework of the “Theory of Nature”, more than 40 fundamental problems of the foundations of physics and cosmogony (cosmology) have been solved. These same solved problems are fundamental problems of the foundations of nature and the universe.

The very fact of solving 40 fundamental problems directly testifies to the correctness and validity of the assumption, judgment and fact that “the content of elementary particles is ‘pure’ concrete matter of nature”.

Within the framework of the theory of modern physics (TMP), not a single one of these 40 problems has been solved, nor can it be solved in principle. TMP is oppressed, enslaved, by the false (= anti-materialist) and anti-scientific bourgeois-idealist philosophy (BIP).

Such is the philosophy, such is the worldview and such is the physics.
This is one of the most important conclusions and facts.

Within the framework of “The Theory of Nature”, the problem of the crisis in modern physics and natural science has also been resolved. Leading contemporary physicists acknowledge that this is a global, profound, long-term, fundamental, and systemic crisis of physics and natural science in general. However, the “Theory of Nature” reveals the key characteristic of this crisis, which is not identified by the physicists themselves. All the characteristics of this crisis listed by physicists are present.

Yet the main characteristic of this crisis is that it is a crisis of worldview. It is precisely the false (= anti-materialist) and anti-scientific bourgeois-idealist worldview (BIW) that is the main cause of this crisis. This worldview is the product of false (= anti-materialist) and anti-scientific bourgeois-idealist philosophy (BIP). And the latter (BIP) is the philosophical (ideological) core of the theory of modern physics (TMP).

The crisis in modern physics is a great misfortune for modern physics. But this same crisis is objectively the great fault of the entire party of modern physics (PMP) and physicists.

The “Theory of Nature” itself is based on the true and scientific dialectical materialist worldview (DMW). This worldview is the product of the only true and scientific philosophy of dialectical materialism (PDM).

Dear readers, all the arguments have been presented to you and carefully considered. The conclusion is yours. Read the “Theory of Nature” and the author's articles. They are listed in the bibliography.

Understanding nature and its fundamental laws is a powerful countermeasure to the modern forces of reaction and obscurantism waging a new crusade against the forces of progress, peace, socialism, justice, freedom, and equality, and against every individual. TN is a powerful weapon in your hands, dear readers.

Sincerely
Robert Yusupov from Vladivostok, author of the “Theory of Nature”, independent researcher, dialectical materialist, Marxist, communist
References

Nature as an Objective Reality https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSNAA,
Philosophy and Physics https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSPAP,
Theory of Nature (in Russian) https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSTON,
Announcement of the Scientific Revolution https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSAOT,
The Third Side of the Main Question of Philosophy (MQP) https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSTTS,
About the Quantum of Matter for Philosophers https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSPAT-2,
My View on K. Popper's Criterion https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSOLA,
Articles on TN on the website proza.ru (in Russian) [Electronic resource] URL: // http://proza.ru/avtor/yusrob,
Articles on TN on the website vixra.org (in Russian) [Electronic resource] URL: // https://vixra.org/author/yusrob,
Articles on TN on the website philpapers.org [Electronic resource] URL: // https://philpeople.org/profiles/robert-yusupov,
The Universe as a Function of One Variable (in Russian) https://proza.ru/2023/12/25/1093,
Once Again about Nature and its Material Principles https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSOAA,
What is time? https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSWIT,
Modern Physics is Not a Science https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSMPI,
Treatise on Belief (Faith) https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSTOB,
The Fundamental Question of Physics and All Natural Sciences (FQFANS) https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSTFQ,
Solving the Fundamental Problem of Time https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSSTF,
Attention Physicists and Philosophers https://philpapers.org/rec/YUSAPA.

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny Penrose, in his cosmological work, considers radius and mass,

I look at his CCC and cyclic universe. I read

The conformal cyclic cosmology hypothesis requires that all massive particles eventually vanish from existence, including those which become too widely separated from all other particles to annihilate with them. As Penrose points out, proton decay is a possibility contemplated in various speculative extensions of the Standard Model, but it has never been observed. Moreover, all electrons must also decay, or lose their charge and/or mass, and no conventional speculations allow for this.[2]

Yes, he link his model to proton decay. His time must then be the radius?

each individual FLRW metric g_ab is multiplied by the square of a conformal factor Ω that approaches zero at timelike infinity, effectively "squashing down" the future conformal boundary to a conformally regular hypersurface (which is spacelike if there is a positive cosmological constant, as is currently believed).

This must mean his metric change? In his twistor theory it is massless from the beginning, it creates Weyl as asymmetry/rotation? I see a term 'quasi-local mass' also, which is interesting.

Regarding Dirac Large N I read

suggests a relationship between large dimensionless numbers in nature and the scales of the universe. It posits that the ratios of size scales (like the size of the universe) to force scales (like gravitational forces) are connected, with some ratios differing by about 40 orders of magnitude in the current cosmological epoch. This hypothesis implies that these large numbers are not coincidental but may reveal deeper connections between cosmic and atomic phenomena.

and

The "coincidences" began with Hermann Weyl (1919),[2][3] who speculated that the observed radius of the universe, RU, might also be the hypothetical radius of a particle whose rest energy is equal to the gravitational self-energy of the electron:

Penrose also have gravitational self-energy, I think. Hawking has This.

The Hawking energy or Hawking mass is one of the possible definitions of mass in general relativity. It is a measure of the bending of ingoing and outgoing rays of light that are orthogonal to a 2-sphere surrounding the region of space whose mass is to be defined.

The space is a 3-manifold. His mass comes from the mean curvature... Which is interesting.

Steve Dufourny Einstein in general relativity treats mass and radius as fundamental. The same applies to Newton, Friedmann, Lemaître, Bohr, Rutherford, Fermi, Eddington, and Hubble. Radius

Regarding these I cannot say much about radius or mass. It would be too long. Newton clearly has it. I think it was Wheeler that coined the term 'mass creates the curvature', which cannot be quite right, Hawking is more near maybe? Einstein had his null-line as massless also, like Galileo. Mass is covariant, not invariant. And still today we don't know about the massivation, other than the Higgs mechanism. There must be more to it? The equivalence principle maybe contains more, like information, but is info also massless from beginning? What really gives the mass? Is it a fundamental or an effect (of information as a 'source code'?)? Can mass as it is tell us something about 'the source code'? This is the interesting question, I think. Why is mass what it is?
We have 'rest mass' and relativistic (effective) mass etc... Like we have a massless photon in vacuum (unboud) but the effect of all mass vanish there (Galileo). Bound photons have an effective mass though...

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...

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
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.

« Previous Page Next Page »