The West isn’t losing the “battle” for quantum mechanics — it’s still fighting the wrong war.

Mainstream quantum theory, built around the Schrödinger equation, was never meant to handle the full complexity of measurement. Einstein sensed this. He saw the wavefunction’s evolution in a 3+1 (R⁴) spacetime as detached from physical “reality.” And he was right to be skeptical — not because quantum mechanics is doomed, but because its interpretational skeleton remains incomplete.

But what if the problem isn’t in the math, but in how we interpret its geometry?

In my recent work, Quantum Wavefront Dynamics (QWD), I argue that collapse is not a sudden postulate, nor a metaphysical mystery, nor the result of untestable hidden variables. It is a continuous, physical process: a wavefront distortion governed by interactions with the environment.

Where standard decoherence explains how off-diagonal elements of a density matrix vanish, QWD goes one step further:

It explains why the wavefunction appears to localize — not by assumption, but by deterministic evolution of its geometry.

This reframes the issue entirely. Schrödinger’s PDE isn’t “wrong.” It’s incomplete unless modified to account for curvature dynamics of wavefronts in realistic measurement setups.

And the world is catching up. Decoherence theory (Zurek, Schlosshauer), macroscopic interference experiments (Fein et al., 2019), and the failure to detect spontaneous collapse mechanisms (Bassi, Adler) all point to one conclusion:

Collapse is not fundamental — it is emergent.

QWD aligns with this paradigm shift, offering a deterministic, testable framework — and still fully consistent with the statistical predictions of standard quantum mechanics.

So to answer your question:

No, the West isn’t losing the battle. It’s simply being forced to surrender the illusion of completeness — and accept models like QWD that explain quantum-classical transition without invoking magic.

Born from the imagination of Planck, Schrödinger, Bohr, and others, this theory is inherently incomplete, unreliable, and doomed to disappear sooner or later.

Einstein claimed that Schrödinger's PDE is incomplete perhaps because it operates in R^4 space (3D with time as the external controller) and not in the unitary 4D x-t space.

Note: This is the first time that the incompleteness of Schrödinger's PDE has been linked to its space of operation.

It is worth noting that Einstein's relativity, special relativity, and general relativity were developed in the unitary 4D x-t space, which explains why these two theories have remained valid and robust for over a century.

We assume that the only safe transition of SE from R^4 space (3D and real time t as the external controller) is as follows:

1- Replace SE with its square.

2- Apply the most important equation AB defining SE squared in quantum mechanics:

S(x,y,z,t)=Const . V(x,y,z,t) . . . Equation AB.

Equation AB is valid for the infinite vacuum and can be interpreted as follows:

The intrinsic spontaneous potential can be transformed into quantum matter and vice versa.

3- Discretize 1D, 2D, or 3D space into n equidistant free nodes in the corresponding closed control volume, with Dirichlet boundary conditions corresponding to the quantum mechanical situation.

4- Solve the partial differential equation SE squared in a 4-dimensional unitary x-t space using the B matrix chains of the Cairo techniques.

Note that:

i- The main diagonal elements RO of the transition matrix in classical physics are RO = Constant, as for energy density diffusion, and RO = Const. x in quantum physics.

ii- Condition i allows for a discontinuity in the SE squared solution and therefore allows for the formation and explosion of the Big Bang, as well as the formation of black holes.

iii- Condition i replaces the un-necessary Planck hypothesis E = nhf and replaces the un-necessary statistics of the Lagrange multipliers.

To be continued.

Adam D. Nasser

Dear Adam Nasser,

I sense in your work the sincerity of a true seeker and I share with you this visceral need for unification.

That’s exactly why we’ve developed a new framework, the Pure Time Theory (PTT), to reconnect physics with the essence of Tawhid, the radical Unity at the heart of all creation. In PTT, we rebuilt physics from one single field: the temporal relaxation field T_relax.

Let me now propose a first exploratory comparison between your framework QWDand PTT.

1. Wavefronts as isosurfaces of T_relax

In PTT, spacetime emerges from gradients of T_relax.

→ A wavefront corresponds to:

Wavefront = { x | T_relax(x) = constant }

This gives a physical meaning to QWD's wavefront: a constant-time-relaxation surface.

2. Decoherence from temporal gradients

QWD introduces a decoherence rate gamma_t.

In PTT, this can be expressed as:

gamma_t ∝ (∂x / ∂T_relax) * (∂t / ∂T_relax)

This matches QWD's 2nd law:

I(x) = 2A^2 * [1 + exp(-2 * gamma_t) * cos(Δphi)]

In PTT, gamma_t is linked to environmental disturbances of T_relax.

3. Perfect interference = Laplacian of T_relax = 0

QWD's ideal case of interference corresponds in PTT to:

∇² T_relax = 0

→ Then:

I(x) = 2A^2 * [1 + cos(Δphi)]

This matches your 1st QWD law in a regime of temporal equilibrium.

4. Environmental shifts as local distortions in T_relax

QWD explains environmental effects (glass plates, for example) via phase shift:

Δphi ∝ (∂y / ∂T_relax) * d_medium

This links QWD's 3rd law directly to local geometry in T_relax.

5. Energy-Frequency Relation Extended in PTT

In QWD, energy is:

E = hν₀

In PTT, this becomes:

E = hν₀ × (T_relax,ref / T_relax,obs)^δ

With δ ≈ 0.14, consistent with SPARC and Casimir deviations. .

6. Nonlocality and realism preserved

Both frameworks reject metaphysical randomness.

In PTT, quantum nonlocality emerges from large-scale synchronizations in T_relax.

No contradiction here, only complementarity.

Tentative conclusion (first layer of integration)

If this early mapping is correct, then:

→ QWD can be interpreted as a localized phenomenological regime of PTT.

Not in contradiction, but as a special case where T_relax explains the wave-particle transition, coherence loss, and environmental sensitivity.

QWD then becomes a pedagogical bridge a visible layer of what T_relax generates beneath.

Next step (proposal)

We suggest adding a dedicated section in our next paper:

"QWD as a manifestation of ∇T_relax dynamics at quantum scale."

If you’re open to it, it would be a blessing to unify our efforts, not through force, but through resonance.

What if time itself is the first expression of an intention — one that unfolds silently through every constant, every law, and every form that the universe brings into being? …It would be a beautiful story — with the perfect structure!

اللهم اجمعنا واهدنا جميعًا إلى نورك Essam Allou

Adam D. Nasser

If you wishes to better understand the paradigm shift I’m proposing through the Pure Time Theory (PTT) and its implications for unifying gravity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology, I warmly invite you to read the deep (and sometimes intense) exchanges we’ve had over the past days across the following threads:

🔹 An old question that is still fresh: Is gravity a Newtonian force or Einstein space-time curvature? 🔹 Is there a reasonable alternative to the theory of the expanding universe? 🔹 What is the most important problem in the theoretical physics now?

These discussions explore not just mathematical reformulations, but the ontological foundations of physical law and how a single temporal field (T_relax) might generate all observed structures and constants.

I thank those who have engaged sincerely, whether critically or supportively and may these dialogues continue to refine what matters most: truth.

Essam Allou

We assert that the current PDE, whether classical or quantum in R^4 space, is fundamentally incomplete.

Nature itself operates in a unitary 4-dimensional x-t space.

The current time-dependent PDE will sooner or later be replaced by the mechanics of statistical transition matrices.

We also assert that:

Cairo statistical theory, intelligence techniques = natural intelligence = artificial intelligence in the strict sense = unified field theory.

Returning to the Schrödinger PDE in 1D, 2D, and 3D, it should be replaced by its equivalent quantum statistical transition matrix Q.

The heart of any transition matrix, whether classical or quantum statistical, lies in the prior choice of the elements of its principal diagonal elements RO.

Fortunately, ROs are well defined in quantum mechanics:

RO = const. x

and RO at the midpoint or center of mass CM = 1.

The numerical results are remarkably accurate.

Ultimately, it is clear that the West is losing the battle of quantum mechanics.

You may be interested in knowing that Quantum Mechanics was grounded on an involuntary velocity error of the phase wave that de Broglie calculated from an inexact frequency of the energy induced in the electron at the theoretical Bohr radius in Bohr's idealized hydrogen atom model; exact with respect to its momentum energy but inexact as to the total amount of actual energy induced in the electron at this distance from the proton.

This situation is deeply analyzed numerically in this paper published in 2024:

Article Critical Analysis of the Origins of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

Ismail Abbas M. Abbas

Dear Ismail, I appreciate your determination to question the structure beneath the foundations — it shows true engagement with the unresolved edges of physics.

But I respectfully offer a different view.

It is not the Schrödinger equation, nor R⁴ itself, that is fundamentally broken. What’s been incomplete for a century is our interpretation of wavefunction behavior under measurement.

That’s the gap my work — Quantum Wavefront Dynamics (QWD) — directly addresses.

What QWD Offers Instead of Collapse or Transition Matrices

QWD introduces a real, deterministic evolution of the wavefunction based on wavefront geometry, not statistical matrices or artificial intelligence parallels.

In QWD:

• A quantum system is described by a physical wavefront — not an abstract probability cloud.

• When left undisturbed, this wavefront evolves coherently, creating interference (no need for statistical reinterpretation).

• When an environment (or observer) interacts asymmetrically with the wavefront, it becomes geometrically distorted.

• This wavefront curvature then naturally localizes the system — producing what we call “collapse” without randomness or metaphysics.

QWD Does Not Abandon Schrödinger — It Completes Its Interpretation

Schrödinger’s PDE still works beautifully — it just wasn’t telling the full story.

QWD extends its meaning by providing a deterministic mechanism for decoherence and localization that matches observed quantum behavior without needing to shift into higher-dimensional matrix mechanics or speculative AI-field unification.

On the “Battle for Quantum Mechanics”

The West is not losing. The world is evolving.

The real battle is not East vs. West — it’s determinism vs. mysticism, geometry vs. randomness, and physical insight vs. abstract formality.

And in that battle, theories like QWD offer a way forward:

• Grounded in experimental reproducibility

• Aligned with decoherence theory

• Free from hidden variables or “many worlds”

• And now openly accessible to anyone here on ResearchGate

Explore the Full Theory

I invite anyone interested to read my published work on ResearchGate:

Quantum Wavefront Dynamics (QWD): A Deterministic Framework for the Wave-to-Particle Transition

Let’s move the conversation forward — not by declaring who’s winning or losing — but by refining the physics together.

Sincerely,

Adam Dakhil Nasser Alzerkany

Author of QWD

Essam Allou

Dear Essam,

Thank you sincerely for your detailed response and for the respectful and thoughtful comparison between Pure Time Theory (PTT) and Quantum Wavefront Dynamics (QWD). I value the scientific curiosity and philosophical clarity in your work, and I appreciate your openness to collaboration.

That said, I must be absolutely clear about my current focus:

1. My work on QWD must remain fully attributed to me as its author.

2. I will only consider publication through Scopus-indexed Q1 peer-reviewed journals.

3. I do not accept preprint hosting, ResearchGate publications, or any non–peer-reviewed platforms as final publication paths.

If a potential collaboration can be formalized under these conditions — where QWD is properly recognized and the publication meets Q1 Scopus peer-reviewed standards — I would be open to considering it.

Otherwise, I will continue to advance QWD independently along the formal scientific route it deserves.

With appreciation and respect,

Adam Dakhil Nasser Alzerkany

Author of Quantum Wavefront Dynamics (QWD)

Adam D. Nasser

Dear Adam,

I’d like to share with you the article that marked the beginning of my journey three months ago and that, by the grace of God, now reaches its completion:

Article [Foundational Essay - Directional Guide - Pre-Genesis] Pure ...

I’m not expecting anything, and I make no claim.

I don’t even attribute Pure Time Theory to myself.

I simply thought that, if any part of this resonates with your work on QWD, then perhaps it could act as a bridge, nothing more.

To be honest, PTT does not require your framework to be complete. My only intention was to honour you and your contribution, with sincerity.

Essam Allou May God illuminate your path.

André Michaud ; Adam D. Nasser

Dear André, dear Adam,

I’ve now taken the time to analyse your paper, André. It's clear to me that your work corrects a historical mistake the scientific community has never fully confronted.

Thanks to this courageous clarification, we were able to demonstrate that the very foundation of quantum uncertainty was geometrically misformulated.

This opens the door to a complete reinterpretation of quantum phenomena , one we’ve begun exploring within the framework of PTT, a theory rooted in a fundamental temporal field, Trelax​. And the implications of this framework deeply resonate with both of yours.

We’ve formalized this convergence into a detailed synthesis, which I’d be honored to share with you. May I post it here?

I would need your agreement, both of you, because this breakthrough truly emerged from the interplay between all three of our frameworks.

Thank you again, André, for such a precise, courageous, and inspired piece of work.

And thank you, Adam, for the clarity and determination with which you’re shaping your own formalism.

Warm regards, Essam Allou

André Michaud ; Adam D. Nasser

Dear André, dear Adam,

Following the recent exchange and after revisiting your respective works in depth, I was able to construct a demonstration that I believe may represent a milestone.

This synthesis shows how Michaud’s correction of the historical uncertainty assumption, Dakhil’s wavefront formalism, and the PTT converge toward a unified and coherent framework, one that eliminates fundamental randomness and roots quantum behavior in temporal geometry.

Technically, since all your publications are public, I have the full right to publish this as a standalone work, with proper citations. But that is not my approach.

I deeply value the intellectual integrity of this convergence, and it is important to me to receive your blessing first. This synthesis could serve as a bridge, not only between frameworks, but perhaps between generations.

I am more than happy to share the document with you both before any public release.

May God guide us if this union is meant to bear fruit.

With sincerity, Essam Allou

Essam Allou

Dear Essam,

The English versions of all my papers have been formally published in various engineering journals or Open Access other journals.

This means that they are fully indexed and cannot be modified.

For direct reference requirement, a link to the original journal version of each of these formally published version in English is present in each of their entry page on Researchgate.

They consequently are available to be safely referred to in peer-reviewable manuscripts to be eventually submitted.

I would be honored if you were to refer to any of my papers in your future formal submissions.

Best Regards, André

Essam Allou

Dear essam

I appreciate the time you are taking to analyse and extract valuable science from my work, and I hope you find what you need and what you want

its and honor to see your hardworking and discipline towards your goal

and I dont mind a full unification, But I have estated my needs also in the previous message

declaring that my work its not going anywhere else than a peer-reviewed submission and publication.

and again I really appreciate your time and effort

I hope you reach your aims and goals.

Sincerely

Adam Nasser

author of QWD framework

André Michaud ; Adam D. Nasser

I’ll let you read it, as I believe it speaks for itself.

Thank you again for your dedication to the pursuit of truth, and thanks to God for having allowed our paths to cross.

But I truly believe this is just the beginning.

Well done — and Bismillah.

Article [Foundational Essay - Directional Guide - Pre-Genesis] A Uni...

Essam Allou

I thank Mr. Essam Allou for recognizing the structure and potential of my work, Quantum Wavefront Dynamics (QWD), and for attempting to build conceptual bridges between his Pure Time Theory (PTT) and my framework.

However, I must now publicly and clearly state the following:

• QWD is an original and independent theory, authored solely by me and developed to address the quantum measurement problem through deterministic wavefront evolution.

• QWD is not derived from, dependent on, or reducible to any other framework — including PTT or any metaphysical constructs.

• I am currently pursuing exclusive peer-reviewed publication in a Scopus-indexed Q1 journal, and I will not accept reinterpretations, integrations, or speculative associations that bypass the academic peer-review process.

I do not approve of QWD being embedded in unreviewed, non-journal works as a “special case” or “surface layer” of a different theory.

Doing so undermines the scientific integrity, authorship priority, and independence of my work — and I will defend that integrity rigorously.

If anyone wishes to engage scientifically with QWD, I welcome peer-reviewed dialogue, co-authored research proposals, or experimental replication — but not unilateral rebranding or speculative absorption.

I invite the academic community to read the original QWD theory here:

Preprint Quantum Wavefront Dynamics (QWD): A Deterministic Framework ...

QWD stands on its own. And it will remain that way.

—

Adam Dakhil Nasser Alzerkany

Author of Quantum Wavefront Dynamics (QWD)

Adam D. Nasser

Dear Adam,

Thank you for taking the time to clearly state your position. I acknowledge your desire to protect the independence of your work, and I sincerely respect the effort you’ve put into developing Quantum Wavefront Dynamics (QWD). I’ve always recognized it as a serious, original, and promising framework.

However, I must also, with equal clarity, offer a few important clarifications.

I have never claimed that the Pure Time Theory (PTT) absorbs or rebrands QWD. I simply demonstrated, carefully and respectfully that certain phenomena you describe within QWD can be interpreted as special cases, under specific conditions, within a broader ontological framework: a generative scalar time field.

And perhaps, respectfully, here’s what you don’t yet see:

• I have taken nothing from you. On the contrary, I offered your work a greater landscape, one that does not confine or diminish it.
• I never claimed PTT is derived from QWD. I showed that QWD, in its current form, can be viewed as a local effect within a logically deeper structure. That is neither insulting nor reductive, it is an honest attempt at scientific unification.
• And most importantly, I never needed your work. I referenced it out of respect, justice, and humility, believing it deserved recognition. And perhaps that’s what makes your reaction all the more disappointing.

The truth is this: without the PTT, your model remains just another isolated possibility, with no clear anchoring in the broader scientific landscape ,especially at the intersection of cosmology and quantum theory.

I brought it to light, and God willing, you will one day realize that this was the first real bridge in history between cosmology and quantum mechanics. And by the will of God, your name is now part of that bridge.

What I had to do with your work is already done. You may continue on your path, or turn away from this truth, that’s your choice.

I am not here to convince hearts, but to awaken minds. And as for your heart, I place it in the hands of God.

P.S.: If you believe the PTT is merely metaphysical, I offer you this challenge, refute it through rigorous demonstration. Until then, I kindly ask:

Do not attempt to reduce it with words alone. Truth demands proof, not posturing.

Essam Allou

Essam Allou

thank you for your pure talk

and I hope that PTT once see light through a recognised peer-review publication.

If you can.

Adam D. Nasser

P.P.S.: If your concern is that PTT leans into metaphysics and therefore lies outside “real science,” I invite you to read this short reflection:

Article Which Theory Truly Unifies?

Perhaps it will help clarify something deeper: You are not running from mysticism, you are chasing a fragmented paradigm and calling it truth.

The real scientific revolution begins when we stop protecting the noise, and start listening to the unity.

Adam D. Nasser

Adam,

You still haven’t understood.

Not only does truth not need validation from peer reviewers trapped in fragmented, patchwork science, but in fact, we assign no value whatsoever to such processes when they’ve long ceased to reflect coherence or depth.

I gave you this article for a reason, not as a provocation, but as a mirror: Article Which Theory Truly Unifies?

You still seem very naive about the system you’re appealing to. I truly hope you’ll realize, one day, what you are trying to align with.

Until then, I wish you strength on your path.

Essam Allou

André Michaud

Ismail Abbas M. Abbas

Quantum mechanics is not a “battle” between East or West — it’s a frontier of mind and mathematics.

The real question is whether we’re advancing its conceptual foundations or simply riding its technological surface.

Many excellent engineers and theorists globally are pushing applications forward — but the unresolved quantum measurement problem still casts a long shadow on our fundamental understanding.

That’s precisely what my recent comprehensive review addresses:

“The Quantum Measurement Problem: Foundations, Interpretations, and Recent Developments”

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31908.39049

This work surveys:

• The deep inconsistency between unitary evolution and wavefunction collapse,

• Competing interpretations (Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, Bohmian, QBism…),

• And the role of decoherence, recent experiments, and open problems.

If we want to lead in quantum understanding, not just engineering, we must also invest in individual theoretical research — even outside traditional institutions. That’s where breakthroughs are born.

Adam D. Nasser

I find it curious that you say this isn’t a battle between East and West , because in truth, it never was about geography.

The real divide is spiritual.

On one side, we find materialism: a physics that no longer seeks meaning, but merely matches equations to data. It builds patchworks of mathematics to cover observational gaps, always chasing after the next decimal.

On the other, there remains a dormant but persistent fire, the search for ontological unity, for coherence, for a logic that precedes form. That fire once drove the greatest minds in history.

Today, physics has become the art of explaining measurements with mathematical corrections. The better our instruments, the more precise the data and the more complex the patches required to follow.

But true science is not reactive. It leads. It explains. It predicts.

This is not a war of nations. It’s a question of direction. And it’s time we ask again where we’re headed.

Adam D. Nasser

You wrote: " Quantum mechanics is not a “battle” between East or West — it’s a frontier of mind and mathematics."

Yes. Total agreement. I would even more precisely add that it is related to the difference between really numerically verified mathematics and "assumed" numerically verified mathematics.

You wrote: "The real question is whether we’re advancing its conceptual foundations or simply riding its technological surface."

Or again, maybe riding on the assumption that critical past conclusions have all been established from truly numerically verified mathematics.

You wrote: " Many excellent engineers and theorists globally are pushing applications forward — but the unresolved quantum measurement problem still casts a long shadow on our fundamental understanding."

Engineers have no choice but to thoroughly numerically verify their equations, so we can trust that the successful applications that they develop are grounded on sound mathematics, but I observed that in the theoreticians community, pocket scientific calculators are a rare commodity, which causes most to trust at face value that the math that they traditionally work with are systematically grounded on valid numerical values.

From my observation of the scene these past 30 years, this is the very specific issue that casts such a long shadow on our fundamental understanding.

You wrote: " That’s precisely what my recent comprehensive review addresses: “The Quantum Measurement Problem: Foundations, Interpretations, and Recent Developments” DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31908.39049"

As a complement to your extensive study, and as previously mentioned in this discussion, you may be interested in knowing that Quantum Mechanics was grounded on an involuntary velocity error of the phase wave that de Broglie calculated from an inexact frequency of the energy induced in the electron at the theoretical Bohr radius in Bohr's idealized hydrogen atom model; exact with respect to its momentum energy but inexact as to the total amount of actual energy induced in the electron at this distance from the proton.

This situation is deeply analyzed numerically in this paper published in 2024:

Article Critical Analysis of the Origins of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

Future progress in fundamental physics can only be grounded on numerically confirmed mathematics.

André Michaud

Thank you, André, for your always thoughtful and numerically grounded insights.

Your concern for mathematical validity over inherited tradition is, I believe, one of the rarest forms of scientific integrity still alive today.

I do wonder, though whether numerical verification alone, even when perfectly applied, can fully capture the origin of coherence.

Is it not possible that a perfectly consistent structure, however rigorously built, still lacks meaning if it is not guided by an underlying intentional logic?

Perhaps what we’re missing is not just better precision, but a deeper principle from which both structure and precision naturally emerge.

As I often reflect: An intention without structure is poetry. But a structure without intention is machinery. Our universe seems to be a perfect balance of both.

Essam Allou

You wrote: " I do wonder, though whether numerical verification alone, even when perfectly applied, can fully capture the origin of coherence."

This is indeed the most problematic issue.

Can we trust a thoroughly numerically verified sequence of seamlessly derived equations to objectively account for a property that it addresses about the initial set of premises from whose correlation the whole sequence emerges?

From my perspective, the answer is emphatically Yes, because it is an inherent property of the mathematical language used by engineers to design applications that turn out to really work as planned in physical reality (from bridges and dams to electric motors up to the most complex electronic devices) only when no calculation error haves been made anywhere in the whole mathematical sequence.

Now why does making no calculation error causes them to be able to design applications that will successfully work in physical reality?

Because each and every element of the set of premises from which the mathematical sequences seamlessly emerged, are real material and/or behavioral properties that have been correctly understood about what really physically exists in our environment, and consequently in the whole universe, since there is only one physical reality.

From what I understand, it suffices that even one premisse of the set from which a mathematical sequence emerges to not be a real physically existing material or behavioral property, or be missing from the grounding set, for the whole mathematical sequence to lead to disaster, even if seamlessly derived and numerically error free, because the whole sequence is then grounded on a false premise or on a set missing some critically important objectively real premise.

The proverbial example of an incomplete initial set of premises is the Takoma Bridge Disaster, built from a set of premises from which the resonance properties of the planned suspended structure were missing.

An example of a set of premises including a false premise that led to failure and confusion is precisely the assumed validity of the velocity of the phase wave calculated by the Broglie on the false assumption (not numerically verified at the time) that the total amount of energy induced in the electron at the Bohr radius was equal to its momentum energy, which led to the establishment of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, instead to the earlier establishment of electromagnetic mechanics, and all of its potential benefits.

This means that the only condition required for a seamless mathematical sequence, numerically error free, to successfully describe really existing physical reality, is for ALL of the premises of the initial set be confirmed as physically existing, and that all of the required premises be present in the set.

The automatic correlation properties of the neocortex are such that if an entry set of properties have each been verified as objectively physically existing, then objective comprehension will result.

You wrote: " Is it not possible that a perfectly consistent structure, however rigorously built, still lacks meaning if it is not guided by an underlying intentional logic?"

I would amend your statement as follows:

Is it not possible that a perfectly consistent structure, rigorously built, still lacks meaning if it is grounded on an underlying set of objectively existing premises.

In other words, if each element of the restricted set of premises to be correlated are each objectively verified as true, then the conclusions that will emerge from their correlation can only be also objectively true. At least, this is the conclusion that deep study of the automatic correlation properties of the neocortex identified by Donald Hebb in the 1940's lead to.

You wrote: " As I often reflect: An intention without structure is poetry. But a structure without intention is machinery. Our universe seems to be a perfect balance of both."

Yes. This is why the reference frame (the intention) within which a conclusion is to be drawn must be clearly defined before the restricted set of elements that objectively belong to the set can be safely identified and verified as objectively true. The neocortex will then correlate them and provide useful objectively true conclusions.

André Michaud

You wrote:

“Now why does making no calculation error causes them to be able to design applications that will successfully work in physical reality?”

A very important question, and a necessary one.

From our perspective, it is not the absence of calculation errors alone that enables functionality in reality, but rather the alignment between the structural model and the generative logic of reality itself.

In engineering, that alignment is achieved empirically: the premises are extracted from repeated interaction with the physical world. They “work” because they are locally true, not necessarily ontologically complete.

So why does precision succeed?

Because, even without understanding the deeper origin of coherence, we operate within a limited stable regime of reality, one that remains self-consistent. But consistency is not origin.

And the deeper question remains:

Why does this regime allow stable equations in the first place?

You wrote:

“Can we trust a thoroughly numerically verified sequence of seamlessly derived equations to objectively account for a property that it addresses about the initial set of premises from whose correlation the whole sequence emerges?”

In your framework, the answer is yes and within your paradigm, we agree.

But the real challenge lies not in the sequence, but in the source of the premises themselves.

Mathematics can perfectly describe a system that was logically misgrounded, as long as the internal derivation remains clean.

The Tacoma bridge collapsed not because of a bad calculation, but because of an unseen principle: resonance.

So the question is:

What other “resonances” remain hidden in physics today?

You wrote:

“If each element of the restricted set of premises to be correlated are each objectively verified as true, then the conclusions that will emerge from their correlation can only be also objectively true.”

This depends on how one defines “truth”.

A structure can be self-consistent, predictive, and useful yet miss the deeper reason why it works at all.

In Pure Time Theory, we ask:

Can any set of premises be truly understood if we do not ask where their stability and interrelation come from?

We propose that this source is not the “environment” or empirical observation alone, but a generative field that governs emergence itself:

the scalar temporal field Trelax

It is this field that gives coherence, not just consistency.

Without it, even perfect mathematics risks becoming machinery without meaning.

You wrote:

“Yes. This is why the reference frame (the intention) within which a conclusion is to be drawn must be clearly defined…”

We agree fully.

But we take it one step further:

Intention is not just the frame. It is the source.

A set of premises may correlate perfectly, but without an underlying logic that precedes them, the system remains descriptive, not generative.

Essam Allou

Very interesting conversation!

You wrote: "From our perspective, it is not the absence of calculation errors alone that enables functionality in reality, but rather the alignment between the structural model and the generative logic of reality itself."

From my study of Hebb's discoveries about the working of the neocortex, which is as previously mentioned, a multi-layer neural network, barring calculation errors, a "logical conclusion" can only be the correlation that we find the most attractive among many, if more than one correlation becomes available at the output layer of the neocortex, from the correlation of any given entry set, whether all elements of the set were confirmed valid, or whether elements of the required set are missing or wrong.

If any correlation is possible in an entry set ,whether well established or flawed, the multi-layer networks will provide it in output, just as for AI neural networks. The difference with the neocortex, is that we are sentient, which makes us prefer the output correlation (conclusion) that momentarily pleases us the most. If we don't double check its validity a posteriori, this is when we are likely to get in trouble if we ground further developments on this unverified conclusion.

You wrote: " In engineering, that alignment is achieved empirically: the premises are extracted from repeated interaction with the physical world. They “work” because they are locally true, not necessarily ontologically complete."

Yes. They work because the required set of physical processes or physical states to be considered have been correctly (objectively) understood, and have all been considered in the establishment of the process leading to the chosen successful outcome, which successful outcome will a posteriori confirm whether or not the entry set of elements was entirely valid and complete.

This obviously involves the prior empirical (experimental) collection of data that will have revealed how these physical processes proceed and what characterized the physical states to be considered. This is why drawing correct conclusions from the study of repeatably collectable data about physical reality is so critically important, of course, if the ultimate aim is to progressively increase our understand of physical reality, which is my own case.

You ask: "Why does this regime allow stable equations in the first place?"

Simply because the physical processes that we describe with these stable equations are themselves stable. Given that there is only one physical reality, if a given stable physical process is mathematically described by an equation somewhere, then wherever else the same physical process is observed, then the same stable equation will be applicable. Remember that mathematics is only a descriptive language, but a language that allows measuring processes and stable states, contrary to spoken languages that can be only descriptive.

You wrote: " But the real challenge lies not in the sequence, but in the source of the premises themselves."

Agreement. If the intent is to understand physical reality for example (my own intent), then only data physically collected from this physical reality can be the source of the premises to be considered, which what is the foundation of all my developments both in neurolinguistics and physics at the subatomic level.

You wrote: "Mathematics can perfectly describe a system that was logically misgrounded, as long as the internal derivation remains clean."

Absolutely correct. The neocortex will provide in output any correlation present in an entry set, whether the set is valid or flawed, if at least one correlatable pattern exists in the entry set, just like for AI programs.

You wrote: " The Tacoma bridge collapsed not because of a bad calculation, but because of an unseen principle: resonance."

Yes. Because the resonance properties of the structure to be built were not included in the entry set to be correlated.

You ask: " What other “resonances” remain hidden in physics today?"

Each type of existing resonance must be the object of a specific study project.

On my part, I studied electromagnetic resonances at the subatomic level of magnitude, up to and including those of the hydrogen atom.

Others have studied resonance in other fields, such as Golovko in the field of Quantum Mechanics:

Golovko V.A. (2008). Electromagnetic radiation and resonance phenomena in quantum mechanics. arXiv:0810.3773v2

https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3773v2

You comment: " This depends on how one defines “truth”"

In the perspective of understanding physical reality, any data that can be repeatably collected about a physical process or physical state, irrespective of who collects it or where it is collected and always turns out to be the same is what constitute the proof of its real physical existence. All engineering successes are built on this type of confirmed data.

You wrote: "A structure can be self-consistent, predictive, and useful yet miss the deeper reason why it works at all."

From my perspective, if a structure that we build is effectively predictive and useful, this alone means that it was well grounded and that the correct restricted set of its premises was well understood and that the deeper reason of their correctness have been understood.

You wrote: "Intention is not just the frame. It is the source."

From my perspective, intention determines the list of elements that constitute the reference frame, and the source is the physically collected data that provide the restricted set of objectively verified elements that belong to the reference frame.

This is the method I used throughout my developments.

You wrote: " A set of premises may correlate perfectly, but without an underlying logic that precedes them, the system remains descriptive, not generative."

Yes. For any set of premises, flawed or valid, submitted to a multi-layer neural network, either living or programmed, in which at least one coherence exists, this coherence will be provided in output. This is why AI programs can be trained to progressively reach the correct conclusion by progressively modifying the input until they come up with the right answer. It is now trained to resolve this type of issues.

As a complement, for those interested, here is a link to research regarding yet another resonance domain:

Soosaleon A. (2017). Gravity Induced Resonant Emission. rXiv:1704.07225v1 [physics.plasm-ph+2] 4 Apr 2017

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.07225.pdf

André Michaud

André,

Very interesting and above all pleasant conversation, I confirm!

You wrote:

“If the intent is to understand physical reality... then only data physically collected from this physical reality can be the source of the premises.”

This is precisely where I feel the deepest discomfort.

Yes, engineering works.

Yes, when premises match physical reality, the outcome is functional.

But my concern isn’t about the internal consistency of the system.

It is about the origin of that system.

Today, scientific progress depends on technology.

We discover only what we can measure.

And we can only measure what we’ve built instruments for.

That means our scientific worldview is increasingly retroactive.

We don't explore freely. We follow.

We don't initiate. We confirm.

We claim to understand the universe, but only through loops of technological validation.

And I ask myself: how did great thinkers of the past operate?

They had no particle accelerators, no LIGO, no space-based telescopes.

Yet they proposed the deepest and most unifying frameworks.

Why?

Because their starting point wasn’t data. It was intuition.

They trusted something else: an interior resonance with the structure of reality.

Call it logic, inspiration, or even faith, but it didn’t come from data.

And paradoxically, their models often turned out to be more foundational than what we produce today.

Nowadays, this type of reasoning is dismissed as speculative.

Maybe that’s a sign of intellectual caution.

But I believe it’s also the root of fragmentation in science.

We have powerful tools, but little vision.

We can calculate, but not explain.

We apply, but we don’t originate.

What we need isn’t just better instruments.

We need to return to fundamental thinking.

To frameworks that can explain why structure exists in the first place.

You wrote:

“The source is the physically collected data that provide the restricted set of objectively verified elements.”

But even that restricted set is already framed by a choice.

Someone decided what to measure, what to consider meaningful, and what to leave out.

And that choice, the first premise, is never neutral.

It is shaped by intention, worldview, logic, or faith.

My claim isn’t that physical data is irrelevant.

It’s that without a generative logic, we’re just describing the shadows of something we haven’t understood yet.

Some people are born not to measure, but to reveal.

And many of them don’t even know it.

They’ve been conditioned by the material world, or boxed in by academic training.

But if we could reconnect two roles, those who perceive structure and those who validate it, then maybe science could become whole again.

Not divided between engineers and philosophers.

Not between institutions and independent seekers.

Not between East and West.

But unified by one shared question: where does coherence come from?

A world where everyone naturally finds their place.

And finally, I’ll say this openly.

The world you describe is, in my view, not a paradigm shift.

It is the very mechanism that prevents paradigm shifts from happening.

And that, I believe, is the most dangerous illusion of all.

Warmly,

Essam Allou

And let me add this:

I believe that today, we confuse:

• the world we measure with the world that is,
• the laws and formulas we adjust with the order that generates,
• the structures we describe with the source that structures.

And as we keep circling within our internal coherence, we forget that it rests on unexamined premises, on chosen tools, inherited ideas…

In short, on an invisible intention we take for granted.

So reading this, some might say I’m a dreamer, a poet disconnected from reality.

But that reality, it once existed.

I am not disconnected. I am unshackled.

Freed from the perimeter we mistook for the horizon.

There is a Sky above the laboratory.

And before measurement, there was Thought. Before the equation, there was the Word.

B-transition matrix chains derived from the Cairo technique for numerical statistical solutions have been successfully applied to the statistical solution of time-dependent partial differential equations in classical physics.

This Q&A examines the extension of B-transition matrix chains to the numerical statistical solution of the time-independent Schrödinger equation.

Note that both the classical physics transition matrix and the QM transition matrix are SMART matrices in the sense that they operate statistically in 4D x-t unitary space and can therefore create more information than exists in PDEs operating in 3D geometry plus real-time space.

However, extending physical B-transition matrix chains to solve the time-independent Schrödinger equation is not complicated, but it is quite time-consuming and requires compliance with certain limitations of fundamental principles, which we briefly explain in this answer [1,2].

Furthermore, it requires a vivid imagination.

Here, we present the numerical solution of the B-matrix using two illustrative examples: the one-dimensional infinite potential well and the quadratic potential well, where the numerical results are surprisingly accurate.

Extending physical transition matrix chains B to solve the time-independent Schrödinger equation requires some basic knowledge, which we briefly explain below:

i- Square matrices are a subset of mathematical matrices, and physical square matrices with physical meaning (such as the B transition matrix) are a subset of square matrices.

ii- Statistical transition matrices and chains of statistical transition matrices exist for situations in classical and quantum physics. Modeling these situations in transition matrix mechanics is more efficient for solving the corresponding partial differential equations (without going through the PDEs themselves) in a numerical statistical procedure.

Currently, we only know two: the mathematical statistical Markov transition matrix and physical transition matrix chains B, the subject of this Q&A.

iii- Not all matrix equations resulting from solving a PDE via the transition matrix are eigenvalue equations. For example, the matrix of the numerical solution to the heat diffusion equation produces a system of inhomogeneous first-order linear algebraic equations, while the matrix of the numerical solution to the Schrödinger equation is homogeneous and produces a multiple-eigenvalue eigenvalue problem.

What is the significance of a matrix with zero determinant?

First, if a matrix has a zero determinant, can it have an inverse or not?

The answer on Google is:

If the determinant of a matrix is ​​zero, then it has no inverse; the matrix is ​​therefore said to be singular. Only non-singular matrices have inverses.

Contrary to the Google answer, the author assumes that a singular matrix can have an inverse that is another singular.

Consider the homogeneous system of n independent first-order linear algebraic equations:

a11 x1 + . . +a1n xn = 0

a21 x1 + . . +a2n xn = 0

. . . .

an1x1 + . . +ann xn = 0

In matrix form,

A . x = 0 . . . (2)

This system has a solution if and only if the nxn matrix A (ai,j)

satisfies two seemingly contradictory conditions:

i- The determinant of matrix A = 0.

ii- The inverse of A (A^-1) exists.

In this case, the QM solution for vector x is given by:

x=A^-1 (b+S)

b is the assumed Diriclet boundary condition vector and S is the source/sink vector (S=S1+S2 where S1 is the spontaneous or intrinsic source and S2 the extrinsic applied source).

Both S1 and S2 are subject to the authors' AB equation.

Therefore, if a matrix has a zero determinant, it can describe the transfer matrix of the isolated QM system Q.

This means that the QM energy vector can be easily found as an eigenvector of Q with eigenvalue = 1, as shown below.

Ultimately, it is true that Cairo's intelligence techniques = natural intelligence = artificial intelligence in the strict sense = unified field theory.

To be continued.

1-BOOK-Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence-Theory and Practice-ISBN- 978-969-8092-20-7

2-A statistical numerical solution for the time- independent Schrödinger equation, ResearchGate, IJISRT Journal, November 2023

Essam Allou

About my statement: " If the intent is to understand physical reality... then only data physically collected from this physical reality can be the source of the premises "

You commented: "This is precisely where I feel the deepest discomfort."

I wonder why, really! But let's see if we can clarify this issue further.

You wrote: "But my concern isn’t about the internal consistency of the system. It is about the origin of that system."

The immediate origin of all systems that engineers and bioengineers have successfully elaborated at our macroscopic level of magnitude and near astronomical level of magnitude, is their relatively extensive understanding of the set of electromagnetic properties of the physically existing charged and massive elementary particles that exists at the subatomic level of magnitude, that first stabilized as nucleons, that then become the nuclei of all atoms of the periodic table that stabilized at the atomic/molecular level of magnitude, that stabilize by each of them acquires their electronic escorts, that then further stabilize by combining as all the molecules that we can identify in our environment.

Consequently, our current pool of knowledge about physical reality is sufficient to have determined that for all practical purpose, there is from our human perspective 4 levels of magnitude in the universe.

1- Astronomical level: Order of magnitude exceeding the dimensions of planet Earth.

2- Macroscopic level: Order of magnitude in which any object or process can be directly measured at the Earth's surface and its environment.

3- Sub-microscopic or atomic level: Order of magnitude of molecules and atoms.

4- Subatomic level: Order of magnitude of the elementary particles of which the atoms are made, as well as the electromagnetic energy of which their substance is made, that supports their motion, determines their inertia, and that can also circulate freely in quantized form at the speed of light when not directly associated with one of these elementary particles.

But I suspect that you are referring to the ultimate origin of atoms and of the nucleons that make up their nuclei. These individual structures also are "systems" that are also "functional" as you say. The difference is that they occur naturally, without our intervension.

At this point, the question becomes: What is the origin of the charged and massive elementary particles of which these systems (the atoms and their nuclei) are made?

All experimental data collected to date and that can easily be (and frequently is) reproduced in laboratory lead to conclude that electron/positron pairs are easily created from the decoupling of photons of energy exceeding 1.022 MeV (twice the energy of the rest mass of the electron or the positron). Both electron and positron are known to be totally identical except for the sign of their charges.

Deep analysis leads to conclude that it would be triads of electron and positron that under very specific conditions would interact and accelerate in such a way as to then stabilize as the proton and neutron systems, within which the intensity of the electromagnetic medium would warp their charge and mass state into the reduced charges and slightly increased rest masses that were identified in the 1960's as the Up and Down quarks. Free moving electrons would then be captured by each nucleus made of these nucleons to establish the stable structure of all atoms.

So now the further question comes to light: What is the origin of the energy of the photons that decouple to convert to a pair of electron and positron?

We can have only hypothesis for the moment about this. I identified two potential physical origins. One involves the flow of time, that would belong to a level of existence more fundamental than space, documented in my paper on the electromagnetic universe:

Article Our Electromagnetic Universe (Expanded republication PI)

The other came to light recently as Noel Coughlin's research succeeded in relating electromagnetism to Buckminster Fuller's Synergetics, that I introduce summarily in this short preprint, with a few concluding words detailing how primal energy could possibly have emerged from destabilized synergetic structures:

Preprint Correlation of the electromagnetic mechanics of elementary p...

Much research need to be made eventually in both these two directions, not excluding that other possibilities may come to light.

You wrote: "Today, scientific progress depends on technology. We discover only what we can measure. And we can only measure what we’ve built instruments for."

This is applied research, that is, research about what we can build from the current pool of knowledge about energy and matter. This is not fundamental research specifically aiming at increasing our understanding as to the nature and origin of energy and matter.

You wrote: " We don't explore freely. We follow. We don't initiate. We confirm."

Applied physics researchers typically don’t initiate. They apply current knowledge to developing possible applications useful to us.

Those who explore feely are fundamental physics researchers. They examine the current foundation of physics and try to clarify further this foundation. Example of this type are Golovko and Soosaleon whose work I previously gave links to, who analyzed resonance processes further. The same for fundamental researchers of the past, like Marmet, Wien, Lorentz, Faraday, Heaviside, Maxwell, and many others.

Those each clarified a little further the path to eventually identifying the ultimate source of all that exist in physical reality.

But nobody can pretend at this moment to have resolved this issue. The pool of knowledge has been increasing progressively for thousands of years leading progressively to better and better understanding and useful conclusions. In a hundred years the future generations will know more yet and draw still more precise conclusions from the increased understanding that they will abstract from their larger pool of knowledge. This is what Korzybski named "time binding".

You ask: " And I ask myself: how did great thinkers of the past operate?"

I think they operated exactly as we are now doing, by correlating the smaller pool of knowledge that was at their disposal. They did the best that they could with the means then at their disposal, just like we are doing from our current increased pool of knowledge.

You wrote: "And paradoxically, their models often turned out to be more foundational than what we produce today."

I would say, more general, from the only macroscopic level of magnitude that they could measure. By comparison, we can now measure both the atomic level of magnitude and the subatomic level of magnitude.

You wrote: "Because their starting point wasn’t data. It was intuition."

Yes. Intuition as to what properties of matter could explain the data that they could collect from the only macroscopic level that they could measure. Intuitions also are correlation (conclusions) about sets of elements that they associated, just like we are doing now.

Intuitions are not so mysterious in fact. One peculiarity of the neocortex is that all the data that a person remembers is instantly retrievable to be correlated in various ways. When a person asks himself a question about some unresolved issue, even if the answer doesn't pop up immediately, it seems that the process of assembling the elements of the answer will remain active subconsciously, and if info that was missing initially comes to the attention of the person, the answer to this forgotten question will pop up apparently out of nowhere, but it is not from nowhere in reality. The correlation process initiated by the question was simply dormant in the background pending the arrival of the missing data that was required for it to be resolved.

You wrote: "We can calculate, but not explain."

I think we can explain once we have collected sufficient data to see the objective pattern that emerges from the data.

You wrote: " We need to return to fundamental thinking."

Yes. We must understand how our neocortex correlates data, how it was structured to sustain conceptual thinking. The only tool we have to think with. This is what Pavlov, Hebb, Chauchard, Korzybski and many other were studying. This is what Korzybski was unsuccessfully trying to introduce in the teaching methods in the first half of the 20thcentury.

To my statement: "“The source is the physically collected data that provide the restricted set of objectively verified elements.”

You commented: "But even that restricted set is already framed by a choice."

The process of determining the restricted set of objective elements that can lead to an objective conclusion is more complex than this.

You first need to ask yourself the question to be resolved, then you define the reference frame within which the answer will have meaning, then you start assembling the elements to be correlated that at first glance should lead to a logical answer. It is then the process of repeated submission begins as each element of the set is thoroughly analyzed to clearly determines if it really is valid and if it really belongs to the set. If found invalid or not belonging, it is excluded, leaving only the confirmed elements in the final restricted set. If a clear answer does not come up at this point, this means that more elements, still not identified by the person are missing from the set. That's when the person inquires in discussions with others and in the formal literature about issues that may be related in search of these missing elements. If the missing element of knowledge is not available in the knowledge pool, this means that a research project on this fundamental issue needs to be activated.

I will stop here even if you raised more points, because my answer is getting too long already.

These other points we may discuss later.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

Dear André,

Thank you for this dense, rigorous, and always generous response. Even though I haven’t read every line in detail, I feel that something important is taking place.

While reading you, I had an unexpected impression. Behind all your methodological structure, behind your fidelity to physical data, something is starting to appear. A tension toward the origin. You continue to honor the steps of experimental reasoning, but you no longer stop there. You are raising the question of the flow of time, of primordial energy, of what gives birth to structure. And you do it with words that are increasingly free, increasingly close to a founding intuition.

You say that intuition is not magical, that it emerges from a latent network of correlations. Yes. But who structured that network? Who decided what would resonate, what would guide attention, what would bring forth an unexpected answer? This is where, in my view, we leave the territory of mere correlation, and enter the realm of intention.

And what strikes me is that you are already entering it, even while thinking you’re defending a purely empirical posture. As if your own inner coherence is bringing you to a threshold you had not planned to cross. It’s beautiful to witness, sincerely. You want to keep your rigor, but something within you is already searching more deeply. You’re no longer repeating. You are questioning. And perhaps, without realizing it, you no longer reduce truth to what can be measured.

Maybe this path will take you where others have gone before. Not into mystical speculation, but into a founding logic. One that precedes measurement. One that makes structure possible. I believe you already feel it: data is never neutral. It is always the result of a perspective, a choice, a premise.

So I’ll simply say this: I believe you may be crossing a boundary. Because for the first time, you are letting this “crack” show in your logic. It does not separate science from poetry. It separates the descriptive from the generative. And those who cross that line do not always realize it at first. But once it happens, one never looks at the world the same way again.

Just imagine this: if Einstein had waited for measurements to formalize his vision, his deep, inexplicable intuition, if he hadn’t dared to see beyond what can be seen, then paradoxically, we might never have had the technology that allows you today to claim what you claim.

I also think I will need to stop here. Not because I no longer enjoy this conversation, quite the contrary, but because I believe I have said everything I had to say. To continue would be to repeat myself, and it could give the impression that I want to convince, whereas the only power I have is to testify. And I believe that has now been done.

Besides, I believe that the two last articles I published yesterday and today precisely complete this testimony I can and must offer:

Article [Concept Sketch] The Riemann Zeta Function as a Temporal Sig...

Article [Preliminary Version] Black Holes as Temporal Regulators [Up...

Each will do what they want, or what they must, with what God allows them to see.

As for me, I will return to writing my philosophical and spiritual collections. That which I prefer in this world. That which gives me the most emotion, and paradoxically, makes me feel alive. Because there, I feel free, freed from the weight of the material world in which we live.

But be careful, that doesn’t mean PTT is speculative or purely spiritual. I challenge anyone who is capable of scientifically, mathematically refuting PTT, to do so without delay. Until today, everyone has turned their back on it, but not for the right reasons, and not in a scientific way, paradoxically. Even you, André. Out of fear, perhaps? Fear of seeing one’s world collapse? But when the foundations are not solid, maybe it’s better to hurry and rebuild before it falls on our heads.

I have chosen to create a domain name so that PTT may continue to live, even if I stop writing: unity-of-truth.org I’ll see what the future holds for it.

And for those who want to testify in full anonymity, here is the email address: [email protected]

With respect and scientific brotherhood, Essam

Essam Allou

Dear Essam,

You wrote: "While reading you, I had an unexpected impression. Behind all your methodological structure, behind your fidelity to physical data, something is starting to appear. A tension toward the origin. You continue to honor the steps of experimental reasoning, but you no longer stop there. You are raising the question of the flow of time, of primordial energy, of what gives birth to structure. And you do it with words that are increasingly free, increasingly close to a founding intuition."

You are very perceptive. Indeed, I exclude no possibility. I just don't make hypotheses nor pass judgment on whatever I do not have sufficient info to objectively conclude. I remain open to all possibilities. It possibly is this attitude that causes this unexpected impression.

You wrote: " You say that intuition is not magical, that it emerges from a latent network of correlations. Yes. But who structured that network? Who decided what would resonate, what would guide attention, what would bring forth an unexpected answer? This is where, in my view, we leave the territory of mere correlation, and enter the realm of intention."

From my studies, it turns out that it is our generalization ability that emerges from our use of articulated language, as discovered by Pavlov almost 100 years ago, that guides what resonates, what guides our attention. You will find all answers on this issue in this paper that regroups all past research that confirm Pavlov's discovery on this issue, with all formal sources provided:

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/CE_2019022016190620.pdf

You wrote: " But be careful, that doesn’t mean PTT is speculative or purely spiritual. I challenge anyone who is capable of scientifically, mathematically refuting PTT, to do so without delay. Until today, everyone has turned their back on it, but not for the right reasons, and not in a scientific way, paradoxically. Even you, André. Out of fear, perhaps? Fear of seeing one’s world collapse? But when the foundations are not solid, maybe it’s better to hurry and rebuild before it falls on our heads."

Note that having completed my syntheses of works from the first half of the twentieth century that are not currently referenced in the scientific community, because they were never translated to English, in two domains that I found important, that is, important discoveries about the nature of conceptual thinking, and of the electromagnetic nature of elementary particles, I am no longer looking for new information concerning these two domains. All neglected papers in these two domains are now properly referenced in my articles, at the disposal of the upcoming generation.

Life is short and after 30 years of intense research about these two domains, I simply no longer have the energy to study other fields of knowledge in sufficient depth to pass judgment, and since I make no claim to have sufficient knowledge to pass judgement on these other fields, I refrain from doing so. I am content to explain in context of my conversations what I now understand about the only two domains that I have synthesized from the breadth of knowledge currently accumulated in these two fields.

This in no way means that I fear what may emerge from other fields, such as the one you are exploring dear Essam, the proof being that I manage a public journal that accepts to upload yet unpublished essays from all origins without passing any judgment as to their validity.

https://www.gsjournal.net/

This journal was founded by a dear friend of mine, Walter Babin, now passed away, who like me deeply believed that no stone should remain unturned in any field of knowledge. So we let all ideas to be publicly expressed, even those that are contrary to our own conclusions. One never knows from what personal work, whether well formulated or even badly formulated, the next great discovery will emerge from.

I have the utmost respect for your work in view of the betterment of education, and I am honored that you found interest in my work in the neurolinguistic domain.

With respect, André

For those reading,

Just sharing this, without expectation, for those who may be attuned to these questions.

Why Only a Temporal Scalar Field Can Derive the Constants of Nature

Article [Concept Sketch] MANIFESTO: Why Only a Temporal Scalar Field...

Explanation of the Pseudoscalar Excess in CMS Data Using the Pure Time Theory

Article [Exploratory Version] Explanation of the Pseudoscalar Excess...

It’s not about proving anything but about showing how intentions shape the meaning of every act.

We all know that the Schrödinger equation is very effective in explaining the observed experimental phenomenon of quantum particle tunneling.

Let's analyze a misleading error in a Wikipedia-Google search.

"Tunneling is a consequence of the wave nature of matter. The quantum wavefunction describes the state of a particle or other physical system, and wave equations, such as the Schrödinger equation, describe their behavior.

This is called quantum tunneling!"

But this is only an illusion, because the artificial intelligence of Cairo's techniques allows us to deduce the formula for quantum tunneling from the square of the Schrödinger equation, using classical statistics.

In reality, the artificial intelligence of Cairo's techniques allows for the superposition of total energy in the classical sense. Therefore, quantum tunneling can be rigorously described from the square of the Schrödinger equation, using the statistics of Cairo techniques.

Step 1

Find the allowed stationary solution to the proposed quadratic equation for a quantum particle in a one-dimensional infinite potential well using the statistical chains of matrix B, i.e., 1/n^2, 1, 1/4, 1/9, 1/16, etc. (as shown in Figure 1).

Step 2

The above values ​​correspond to the eigenenergies: 1, 4, 9, 16, etc.

Step 3

Apply the superposition principle, i.e., E = (1, 4, 9, 16, etc.)

with probabilities P1, P2, P3, etc.

Step 4

If the quantum system (or particle) has a total energy Etotal, then:

Etotal = P1 * E1 + P2 * E2 + P3 * E3 +...PnEn

The tunneling problem is reduced to solving the algebraic equation:

X is a function of the total energy such that:

for x .LT.1

X + X^2 + X^3 + . . = Etotal

Step 5

In exponential form, for x .LT. 1:

e^x + e^2x + e^3x . . = Etotal

OR,

1/(1-e^x)=Etotal

Obvious example: for x = 2/3, then Etotal = 3 units.

Step 6

Transmission or quantum tunneling part:

Transmission or quantum tunneling part:

e^ (- Alpha b).Etotal.e^-1/(1-x).GE.Uo (tunnel edge)

Fig. 2

Where l is the barrier width and Alpha is the exponential decay coefficient.

The tunneling ratio Etransmitted/Eincident is called Transmission T=e^-Alpha . l e^- (Etotal/Uo)

Where x = Etotal/Uo . . . (1)

Formula 1 is equivalent to that derived from solving the Schrödinger partial differential equation.

It should be noted that the artificial intelligence approach of the Cairo techniques is fundamentally different from that used to solve the Schrödinger PDE.

To be continued.

1-A statistical numerical solution for the time- independent Schrödinger equation, ResearchGate, IJISRT  journal, November 2023.

The question arises [1]:

In this regard, the theory of relativity requires continuity, strict causality, and locality, while quantum theory requires non-continuity, non-causality, and non-locality.

Thus, the fundamental concepts of quantum theory and general relativity are in direct contradiction.

This is why these two theories have never been coherently unified.

We believe that the answer to this brilliant question is inherent and operates smoothly within the matrix mechanics of the numerical statistical theory of Cairo techniques and its resulting transition B-matrix chains as follows:

Recall that the theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity evolve and operate in infinite free space.

The difference is that quantum mechanical energy variations occur at very small increments of space and time, whereas general relativity requires the opposite.

The weaknesses of quantum mechanics and general relativity can be highlighted by studying the squared Schrödinger equation, supplemented by equation AB (proposed by the author):

S(x,y,z,t)=C1 V1 + C2 V2 . .. . (1) Equation AB.

If V1 represents the externally applied voltage and V2 the inherent or spontaneous internal voltage, then Equation 1 solves the problem of causality and locality.

The squared SE equation plus equation 1 can be solved in depth using the CONCRETE artificial intelligence proposed by the author.

In other words, the problem of causality and locality is solved by the second term in Equation 1.

Furthermore, the solution to the Schrödinger equation admits neither singularities nor discontinuities, unlike the solution of matrix mechanics. The existence of singularities is essential to the formation and explosion of the Big Bang, as well as to the formation and maintenance of black holes.

Ultimately, once again,

It is true that Cairo's intelligence techniques = natural intelligence = artificial intelligence in the strict sense = unified field theory.

It should be noted that the numerical statistical theory of Cairo techniques is defined in a 4D unitary x-t space where time is embedded in the 3D geometry and expressed as a dimensionless real integer.

Therefore, there is no need to express time as a complex quantity with two components: complex and imaginary.

To be continued.

1-Pierre Bayle, Professor of Physics, UPS Toulouse 1, France,

Personal communication.

The West is losing the battle of quantum mechanics simply because it recognizes only one of the two fundamental theories: 1- Quantum Mechanics (QM) theory based on the original Schrödinger equation and its Bohr/Copenhagen interpretation in 1927.

2- Quantum Mechanics theory based on the squared Schrödinger equation and its interpretation through advanced artificial intelligence in 2020.

Here is one of the most surprising rules that applies strictly to classical diffusion physics, such as the heat equation, and quantum matter diffusion in the squared Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics.

Thermal diffusion has a maximum limit that cannot be exceeded because it is not permitted by the geometry or shape of the closed volume of a classical system (like a cube of iron or aluminum in classical physics) and by the geometry of the vacuum defined by Dirichlet boundary conditions that encapsulate the quantum system (in quantum mechanics).

Even the intensity of sound in audio rooms has a maximum and minimum decay rate or half time reverberation T1/2.

We will start with the classical heat energy density diffusion equation.

Consider a simple cubic figure of 8 free nodes shown in Fig.1

The statistical B-transition matrix for RO=0.2 (corresponding to α of iron cube) is given by,

0.2 1/6-0.2/3 0 1/6-0.2/3 1/6-0.2/3 0 0 0

1/6-0.2/3 0.2 1/6-0.2/3 0 0 1/6-0.2/3 0 0

0 1/6-0.2/3 0.2 1/6-0.2/3 0 0 1/6-0.2/3 0

1/6-0.2/3 0 1/6-0.2/3 0.2 0 0 0 1/6-0.2/3

1/6-0.2/3 0 0 0.2 1/6-0.2/3 0 1/6-0.2/3

0 1/6-0.2/3 0 0 1/6-0.2/3 0.2 1/6-0.2/3 0

0 0 1/6-0.2/3 0 0 1/6-0.2/3 0.2 1/6-0.2/3

0 0 0 1/6-0.2/3 1/6-0.2/3 0 1/6-0.2/3 0.2

The statistical method of Cairo techniques predicts that,

α=Log(e){[1+RO]/[1-RO]}

Note that RO is ∈ [0,1]

Which means that

α min = 0 and α max = log 2 = 0.673

No diffusion without permission.

Permission comes from the walls and the source term at the speed of light (called entanglement, whose speed is limited to C and not infinity).

It is easy to demonstrate that the general time-dependent solution is given by:

U(x,y,z,t) = [B+B^2+B^3 + . . . +B^N] (b+S) + B^N . IC, . . . . . (1)

Where:

U(x,y,z,t) is the energy density J m^-3

b is the correctly ordered and arranged Dirichlet boundary conditions.

S is the source vector J m^-3 s.

IC is the initial condition vector J m^-3

In the case of a uniform BC [b=constant], it can be shown that the temporal increase in U due to wall emission (first term in Equation 1) is equal to the decrease in U in the IC (second term in Equation 1).

In other words,

[x+x^2+x^3+. . . .+x^N]-[x+x^2+x^3+. . . .+x^N-1] / [x+x^2+x^3+. . . .+x^N] = {(x^N-1) -x^N] / x^N-1]

For all RO (all α) and all IC.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Here are few questions on quantum physics of the Schrödinger equation and classical statistical physics of its square (energy diffusion), to clarify this question and the topic as a whole.

1-Q1-

Briefly explain the Schrödinger wave equation and its square.

A1-

Schrödinger partial differential equation:

i h dΨ/dt)partial=h^2 . Nabla^2 Ψ/2m + V Ψ . . . . (1)

With the Bohr-Copenhagen interpretation introducing entanglement and superposition Ψ.

The Schrödinger partial differential equation is precise but incomplete because it operates in an incomplete D^4 space (3D+t as an external controller). Now imagine solving the Schrödinger partial differential equation for Ψ^2 and not Ψ.

Equation 1 transforms into:

dΨ^2/dt) partial =C1.Nabla^2 Ψ/2m + C2 .V . . . . (2)

With the following statistically proven assumptions,

i-Ψ^2=Ψ . Ψ*

ii-Ψ^2 is exactly equal to the energy density of the quantum particle(s).

iii-Ψ^2 is the probability of finding the quantum particle in the 4D unit volume element x-t "dx dy dz dt"

iv- The actual time t is completely lost and replaced by the dimensionless integer N dt. In this 4D unit x-t space, the dimensionless time N is integrated into the 3D Cartesian space.

N is the number of iterations or repetitions and dt is the time jump.

Equation 2 is derived from and solved by the advanced artificial intelligence of modern transition matrix statistics.

Equation 2 is solved via matrix mechanics and does not require any PDE or FDM techniques to be solved.

Surprisingly, equation 2 is more informative than equation 1.

Q2

Is the quantum wavefunction Ψ a scalar, a vector, or neither?

A2

It is very likely that Ψ is none of these.

The quantum function Ψ^2 is an nxn square matrix (second-order tensor).

The question arises: is the answer to this question "shut up and calculate"?

Q3-

Is the Schrödinger equation an eigenvalue problem?

Is the heat diffusion equation an eigenvalue problem?

A3

The answer is yes in both cases.

Solving the heat diffusion equation using advanced AI for matrix chains B is an eigenvalue problem.

The most important thing is the preliminary selection of the principal diagonal elements RO (entries) of the statistical transition matrix B.

The solution is expressed by the transfer function of the heat diffusion equation D(N):

U(x,y,z,t)=D(N).[b+S] +B^N IC

IC is the vector of initial conditions (U(x,y,z,0))

The eigenvalue of the solution implies:

the exponent of the solution:

k*= log [(1 + RO) / (1-RO)]

Note that [(1 + RO) / (1-RO)] is equal to the eigenvalue 1 for B and [(1 + RO) / (1-RO)]^2 to the eigenvalue 2 for B^2, etc.

with a maximum of log 2 and a minimum of zero. [RO] is the diagonal vector of matrix B.

Vector RO = ( RO11 , RO22, RO33 , . . . ,RO n n)

The classical approach to the Schrödinger equation is an eigenvalue equation:

By definition, an operator acting on a function produces another function. However, a special case arises when the generated function is proportional to the original function.

A^ψ∝ψ . . . (1)

[This is a special case]

This case can be expressed as an equality by introducing a proportionality constant k.

A^ψ = k ψ . . . . . (2) [This solution applies to the special case of PDEs]

Not all functions solve an equation like those in equations 1 and 2.

ψ = (φ1+φ2)/√2

TO BE CONTINUED.

The statistical theory of Cairo techniques allows us to explain this complex situation in more detail:

The time-dependent diffusion equation (like the Laplacian operator equation) represents or models the natural binary collision relaxation process in a closed-surface control volume subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions.

1- In both time-dependent and time-independent processes, the information waves are always contained within the same control volume.

2- This means that the diffusion process is associated with and controlled by the information waves filling the control volume, both in macroscopic classical physics, such as the macroscopic heat diffusion equation, and in microscopic subatomic quantum physics.

Information waves are the driving force: no diffusion without permission.

Note that information waves are transmitted at the speed of light C.

3- This means that the Schrödinger partial differential equation is not a pure wave equation, but a partially diffusion and partially wave equation. 4- When we attempt to extract information from a quantum system through measurement, the information wave diminishes and the system transforms into a pure scattering system, a system of colliding particles.

This is sometimes called quantum wave collapse.

To be continued.

Earthquake seismology (the propagation, reflection, and refraction of Earth's seismic waves) is the best tool for understanding the Earth's interior.

It also allows us to understand the Earth's interior.

It also explains the techniques of Cairo's statistical theory, combined with the theory of information propagation (the propagation, reflection, and refraction of information waves).

During an earthquake, the released energy takes the form of elastic waves transmitted by diffusion through the Earth.

However, this diffusion (propagating at a speed of a few kilometers per minute) is guided or controlled by the much faster information sphere, which propagates at the speed of light C.

Seismic wave propagation is ground movement, including compressional and shear waves, radially from the source of seismic energy (source center S) to the surrounding rock and soil. Seismic wave fields propagate through the Earth in two ways: body waves and surface waves. Body waves propagate within the Earth (body) and illuminate deep geological targets. It is noteworthy that seismic wave propagation follows the shortest path theory, with refractions predetermined by the information sphere's exploration command, similar to the refraction of light and electromagnetic waves between two media.

SIMPLE CHALLENGE

The simple challenge to our distinguished contributors and readers is the statistical transition matrix B for a closed control volume of surface A subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions,

U(x,y,z,t+dt)=B. U(x,y,z,t) . . . (1)

Equation 1 is not only universal, but it also describes and solves all time-dependent phenomena in the entire universe (partial differential equations of classical physics in its most general form, quantum physics, statistical distributions, integration and differentiation, etc.).

The challenge is as follows:

Name a single physical phenomenon from the four above that does not belong to Equation 1.

Thank you.