各位，请允许我介绍一个我们正在发展的新框架——量子关联响应理论（QCRT）。其核心论点是： 时空和物质并非基本存在，而是从一个更基本的、前几何的‘量子关联基质’（QCM）中通过满足一组‘有效响应判据’而涌现出来的稳定模式。
Allow me to introduce a new framework that we are developing, the Quantum Correlational Response Theory (QCRT). Its central argument is that space-time and matter do not exist fundamentally, but rather stable patterns that emerge from a more basic, pre-geometric 'quantum correlation matrix' (QCM) by satisfying a set of 'valid response criterions'.
理论基础：
Theoretical basis：
本体论转换：我们将本体论基础从‘实体’转向‘关联’。最基本的存在是一个非定域的、动态的量子关联网络（QCM），其状态由一个名为关联权重的函数 \mathcal{W}描述，该函数演化由一个广义的量子主方程支配。
Ontological transformation：We shift the ontological basis from 'entity' to 'association'. The most basic existence is a non-localized, dynamic quantum correlation network (QCM), Its state is described by a function called \mathcal{W} called associative weights, which evolves governed by a generalized quantum master equation.
涌现机制 ：物理实在的涌现是一个多级过程 。QCM通过自组织弛豫到其作用量景观中的‘深谷关联势’（稳定吸引子）。弛豫到一级深谷，涌现出时空背景（度规 g_{\mu\nu}）；在此背景下，弛豫到次级深谷，涌现出物质与规范场（标准模型粒子）。
Emergence mechanism: The emergence of physical reality is a multi-level process. QCM relax into the 'deep valley correlation potential' (stable attractor) in its action landscape by self-organizing. Relax to the first level of deep valley, Emerge of spatio-temporal background (gauge g_{\mu\nu})；In this context, Relaxation to the secondary deep valley, material and gauge fields (Standard Model particles) emerge.
可观测物理实体的判据形式化：一个模式要实现‘有效响应’（即可观测实体），必须满足四个严格判据：阈值条件（>L_P, T_P, v \leq c）、结构化条件（对称性、守恒律、可量化参数）、稳定度非零性（有限寿命）、量子时间维度（内禀演化律）。
Criterion formalization of observable physical entities: For a pattern to achieve 'effective response' (i.e., observe the entity), Four strict criteria must be met: threshold conditions (>L_P, T_P, v \leq c), Structured conditions (symmetry, conservation law, quantifiable parameters), Stability non-zero (finite lifetime), Quantum time dimension (intrinsic evolutionary law).
理论优势与动机：
Theoretical advantages and motivation:
1.解决量子引力难题：它自然避免了引力量子化的微扰不可重整化问题，因为引力不再是基本力，而是涌现时空几何的属性。时空本身的量子涨落由QCM的底层动力学自然包含。
1. Solving the Quantum Gravity Problem: It naturally avoids the problem of non-renormalization of gravitational force disturbances. Because gravity is no longer a fundamental force, but a property of space-time geometry emerges. The quantum fluctuations of space-time itself are naturally contained by the underlying dynamics of QCM.
2.统一起源：为粒子物理标准模型中的一系列 自由参数和代结构 提供了新的解释思路——它们可能对应着QCM中不同的稳定深谷。
2.Unified origin: It provides a new explanation idea for a series of free parameters and generation structures in the Standard Model of Particle Physics——They may correspond to different stable valleys in QCM.
3.诠释学优势：为量子力学中的测量问题和非定域性提供了更自然的语境——它们源于更基本的、前时空的关联性。
3. Hermeneutic advantages: It provides a more natural context for measurement problems and non-locality in quantum mechanics——They stem from more basic, pre-space-time correlations.
4.可证伪性：通过与3D-Time模型的融合，理论做出了独特、可检验的预言，如中微子质量比1:4.5:21、引力波传播速度存在极其微小的偏差(\delta v/c \sim 10^{-15})、以及在特定能区(2.3-4.1 TeV)存在新共振态。
4. Falsifiability: By fusing with 3D-Time models, The theory makes unique and testable predictions, For example, the neutrino mass ratio is 1:4.5:21, There is an extremely small deviation in the propagation velocity of gravitational waves (\delta v/c \sim 10^{-15}), and the existence of new resonant states in specific energy regions (2.3-4.1 TeV).
面临的严峻挑战：
Serious challenges:
1.数学形式化：这是当前最大的挑战。我们需要为QCM和关联权重 \mathcal{W} 发展出一套严格的数学语言（可能涉及非对易几何、高阶范畴，很大概率需要全新的数学工具）。
1. Mathematical Formalization: This is the biggest challenge at the moment. We need to develop a rigorous mathematical language for QCM and the associated weights \mathcal{W} (It may involve non-symmetric geometry and higher-order categories, and there is a high probability that new mathematical tools will be required).
2.计算与推导：如何从第一性原理推导出广义相对论的爱因斯坦场方程和标准模型的拉格朗日量 ，是检验该理论是否成功的‘试金石’。我们目前尚未做到这一点。
2. Calculation and derivation: How to derive the Einstein field equation of general relativity and the Lagrangian quantity of the Standard Model from the first principles, It is a 'touchstone' to test whether the theory is successful. We have not done that at the moment.
3.实验验证：虽然提出了预言，但这些实验检验在技术上同其它同类模型一样，存在极具挑战性，可能需要下一代甚至下下一代实验装置。
3. Experimental verification: Although prophecy was made, However, these experimental tests are technically challenging like other similar models. Next generation or even next-generation experimental setup may be required.
同时，在探索QCRT的过程中，我们面临一个核心挑战：如何从预几何的QCM中涌现出时间维度？Kletetschka的‘三维时间’（3D-Time）假说为此提供了一个极具吸引力的具体方案。
Meantime, In the process of exploring QCRT, We faced a core challenge: How do time dimensions emerge from pregeometric QCMs? Kletetschka's '3D-Time' hypothesis offers an attractive concrete solution for this.
一、为‘量子时间维度’判据提供物理载体
1. Provide a physical carrier for the 'quantum time dimension' criterion
QCRT的需求：我们的第四项有效响应判据要求实体具备‘内禀时间演化’。但时间本身从何而来？3D-Time模型直接解答了这个问题。它提出时间具有三个独立维度（t_1, t_2, t_3），这本身就满足了从QCM中涌现出的有效响应机制。
QCRT requirements: Our fourth valid response criterion requires an entity to have an 'intrinsic temporal evolution'. The 3D-Time model directly answers this question. It proposes that time has three independent dimensions (t_1, t_2, t_3), This in itself satisfies the effective response mechanism that emerges from QCM.
匹配机制：3D-Time的 t_1（量子时间）维度自然而然地实现了QCRT的‘量子时间维度’判据。它为所有二级响应（粒子）提供了内禀时间演化的舞台。粒子波函数的演化 i\hbar\partial_{t_1}|\psi\rangle = H|\psi\rangle 中的时间参数 t_1，正是这个维度的体现。
Matching Mechanism: The t_1 (quantum time) dimension of 3D-Time naturally implements the 'quantum time dimension' criterion of QCRT. It provides a stage for the intrinsic time evolution of all secondary responses (particles). Evolution of the particle wave function i\hbar\partial_{t_1}|\psi\rangle = H|\psi\rangle t_1, It is the embodiment of this dimension.
二、为粒子物理标准模型提供涌现机制
2.Provide an emergence mechanism for the Standard Model of Particle Physics
质量与代问题：众所周知，3D-Time模型最惊人的结果是，其时间度规 h_{ab} 的本征值 \lambda_n可以精确计算已知粒子的质量（如顶夸克、电子），并预言中微子质量比。在QCRT框架下，这可以完美解释为：不同代的费米子，是QCM在3D-Time背景上弛豫时，落入的不同但相关的‘次级深谷’的结果。它们的质量差异源于时间度规本征值的差异。
Quality and generation issues: As we all know, the most amazing results of 3D-Time models are, Its time gauge h_ the eigenvalue \lambda_n of {ab} can accurately calculate the mass of known particles (e.g., top quarks, electrons), And predict the mass ratio of neutrinos. Under the QCRT framework, this can be perfectly interpreted as: Different generations of fermions are the result of different but related 'secondary valleys' that QCM falls into when it relaxes on the 3D-Time background. The difference in their quality stems from the difference in the eigenvalue of the time gauge.
对称性破缺：3D-Time的几何手征性（如采用左手坐标系）为电弱对称性破缺和宇称不守恒提供了另一种几何起源的解释，这与QCRT的“结构化判据”高度兼容。
Symmetry breaking: The geometric chraldity of 3D-Time (e.g., using the left-hand coordinate system) provides another explanation for the geometric origin of electroweak symmetry breaking and parity non-conservation. This is highly compatible with QCRT's "structured criterion".
三、强化时空的涌现性
3. Strengthen the emergence of time and space
3D-Time模型将时空度规扩展为 ds^2 = g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu + h_{ab}dt^a dt^b + ...。这表明时空是3（空间）+3（时间）维的涌现结构。这与QCRT的‘时空作为一级有效响应’的核心观点完全一致，并为其提供了更丰富的数学描述。
The 3D-Time model extends the spatiotemporal gauge to: ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu + h_{ab}dt^a dt^b + ...，This indicates that space-time is an emergent structure of 3 (space) + 3 (time) dimensions. It is completely consistent with the core idea of QCRT 'space-time as a first-level effective response' and provides a richer mathematical description of it.
匹配度与挑战
Matching and Challenges
3D-Time模型与QCRT具有极高的匹配度与互补性，可以说天作之合。3D-Time模型可以看作是QCRT框架下一个非常成功的特例或具体实现。它将QCRT的抽象哲学框架“兑现”为具有可计算预测的物理模型。意味着3D-Time模型并非与QCRT竞争，而是充当了其‘发动机’，将QCR从一个优美的概念框架推向了一个可计算、可预测的物理理论的前沿。
Matching and Challenges: The 3D-Time model can be seen as a very successful special case or specific implementation of the QCRT framework. It "cashes" QCRT's abstract philosophical framework into a physical model with computable predictions. means that the 3D-Time model does not compete with QCRT, but acts as its 'engine', Pushes QCR from a beautiful conceptual framework to the forefront of a computable, predictable physical theory.
但和其它前沿理论一样，存在不容忽视的挑战。3D-Time模型本身的实验验证仍是pending的（如引力波速度偏差、新粒子预言）。并且其数学形式（六维度规）如何从QCM的关联权重 \mathcal{W} 中严格推导出来，是融合后理论需要解决的下一个重大难题。
But like other cutting-edge theories, there are challenges that cannot be ignored. Experimental verification of the 3D-Time model itself is still pending (e.g., gravitational wave velocity deviation, new particle prediction). And how to strictly derive its mathematical form (six-dimensional gauge) from the correlation weight \mathcal{W} of QCM is the next major problem that needs to be solved by the post-fusion theory.
总而言之，QCRT是一个高风险、高回报的研究纲领。它试图通过一个更基本的层面来统一物理学，但其最终成败取决于我们能否克服上述数学和物理上的巨大挑战。
In short, QCRT is a high-risk, high-reward research program. It tries to unify physics on a more basic level, but its ultimate success depends on whether we can overcome the great mathematical and physical challenges mentioned above.
Riccardo C. Storti
Hello, I admire you for proposing an ambitious and unconventional theoretical framework, but it seems to have some problems that cannot be ignored:
The manuscript proposes an ambitious and unconventional framework that aims to unify general relativity with quantum vacuum physics through a "co-harmonic quantization" approach.Its core argument – that fundamental spectral truncation (QVSL) derived from the hadron scale can regularize quantum gravity and connect micro and macro phenomena – is provocative and, if validated, transformative.The authors claim impressive achievements, such as the prior derivation of hadron charge radii and the prediction of Planck-Hubble constants.
However, while the work was undoubtedly creative and covered a wide range of physical fields, the manuscript's current form failed to achieve the evidentiary and methodological rigor required by a rigorous paper.Its proposition is extraordinary, but the way it is elaborated is highly self-introducing, the methodology is opaque, and the connection with established physics is weak.The model is presented more as a fait accompli than as a clear, falsifiable derived from first principles. Before considering it for publication in a high-impact journal, its core claims must be significantly revised and independently verified.
Here are the most prominent issues in the article:
1. Derivation of QVSL:The constants Stn and St_G (Equations 7, 9) appear as if they were " deus ex machina "。What is their physical origin?Is it a fundamental constant?They must be derived from first principles within the theory.
2. Physical Explanation:What is the physical explanation for ultra-high frequencies (~10²⁷ Hz, Table 1)?You claim that they are "not electromagnetic waves" but "mathematical structures".This is inadequate.What physical entities oscillate at these frequencies need to be clarified?
3. Conservation of energy-momentum:You claim that formula 20 (∇_μ T^μν = 0) holds. However, with the introduction of the Φ(x^α) field, the modified Einstein equation (Equation 6) suggests a non-minimal coupling. The law of conservation must be explicitly verified in the modified theory, as it implies a constraint on Φ(x^α).
4. Quantum Mechanics:The theory is called "quantum gravity", but where is quantum mechanics?The whole exposition is classic.The term "quantization" in the title seems to refer only to the discreteness of the harmonic spectrum, rather than to the standard quantum theory formulation (e.g., operators on Hilbert space, pair-swap relations).
Dear Max Li ,
I'm just asking you a stupid question now:
Do you understand what you wrote?
I highly respect Storti's ( Riccardo C. Storti ) views. (It's true that he looks down on me.). Based on this, it can be said that your response to him was written without even reading it, and was analyzed by artificial intelligence. This is also a rather contemptuous style. You're putting machine intelligence first with an idea from an Australian researcher.
You also wrote your introduction text with artificial intelligence. Let's analyze some parts of it. Logical errors in a machine analysis can be easily found. Because stone does not behave like water!
Here's the first observation: its author doesn't really like traditional Chinese philosophy:
"(...) Its central argument is that space-time and matter do not exist fundamentally, but rather stable patterns that emerge from a more basic, pre-geometric 'quantum correlation matrix' (QCM) by satisfying a set of 'valid response criterions'.." An outstanding example of when a person (researcher) becomes a subjective idealist due to artificial intelligence!
"Ontological transformation：We shift the ontological basis from 'entity' to 'association'. (...)" -This confirms the previous statement: This is a prime example of when common sense becomes divorced from reality. (It's true that it's worth engaging in self-deprecation here: "The most basic existence is a non-localized, dynamic quantum correlation network (QCM), Its state is described by a function called \mathcal{W} called associative weights, which evolves governed by a generalized quantum master equation."). That's how I would have written this sentence: " The most basic existence" although it appears to be localized, in reality "is a non-localized, dynamic quantum correlation network (QCM), Its state is described by a function called \mathcal{W} called associative weights, which evolves governed by a generalized quantum master equation.")
I won't continue because I'm not an artificial intelligence. To analyze in a few minutes, or to analyze the analysis created by artificial intelligence.
In the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century, theoretical physics was quite disconnected from reality. If this continues, this process will be completely finished. The average person will be placed in a bubble created by artificial intelligence, from which he will hardly be able to climb out. Because artificial intelligence will be the deep abyss that separates him from reality.
I don't want to criticize artificial intelligence, because it is a very excellent tool for an intelligent researcher.However, those who have not developed the appropriate empiricist perspective will be unable to free themselves from the grids created by illusions.
The best regards,
Laszlo
The really scientific answer to “… the most fundamental question: where do space-time and matter come from?” can be, and is, given only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
, where the quite transcendent in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, fundamental phenomena/notions first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are rigorously scientifically defined.
In the conception it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, The Set exists absolutely objectively, because of it fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent and so exists absolutely eternally, having no Beginning and no End;
- while the utmost general scientifically rigorous definition of the so absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is:
“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”
“Time” and “Space“ are absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions - the “Logos” elements, which are absolutely obligatorily actualized in every informational pattern/system, including in a system/the Set’s element “Matter”, as logical possibilities for the any/every patterns/systems to exist and to change at all, - as logical “empty containers”, where in concrete cases ”Space” is actualized as concrete “spaces” that can have arbitrary concrete number and nomenclature of “space dimensions”, while “Time” is actualized as absolutely universal in whole Set unique “time dimension”.
At that all the Set’s elements, including Matter, existed and exist always, in “implicit” and “real” forms. In implicit form there exist information “there exist no this informational pattern/system”, what contains absolutely completely the pattern/system; after some portion of “Logos” element “Energy” impacted on the implicit form, the implicit pattern/system transforms into real form.
The both forms patterns/systems are, in certain sense, completely identical, and so exist in the same space;
- though differ in the time [in physics convenient “ct”] dimensionin that the implicit form before the “Energy” impact was static in the dimension, while the pattern/system , if is dynamic one, in real form changes/evolves, moving at every change on some intervals in this dimension.
Matter is a dynamic system, which seems really was created in a time ct moment 13.8 billion of light years ago after its implicit form was impacted in the existent absolutely long time before fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [4+4]4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s) of the [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct).
That’s all. More see the link above, SS posts in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_limit_to_gr-based_cosmology_given_General_Relativitys_local_character#view=68bae5061e2e950d7d0f7700/1/2/2are relevant yo this thread question.
Cheers
Riccardo C. Storti Dear Dr. Stotti, I'm really sorry that my actions may have caused you to misunderstand unnecessarily, and the previous comments may have focused too much on the details of mathematical forms to ignore its core, and my intention was not to deny your results, but from the most natural and common reaction of a researcher: when you see a non-traditional theory that can make such accurate predictions, the most important thing to do is to try to understand its inner 'physical image' and ' working mechanism'.
But unfortunately, as you pointed out, because I lack the skills and patience required for so-called science, I have adopted a seemingly clever way, that is, to achieve quick puzzle solving and analysis through AI. This kind of path dependence is indeed very superficial and is not a habit that a professional scientific researcher should have. I feel deeply guilty about this, but for young people like me, it really saves a lot of effort and time and gets to the point quickly, which makes it more efficient. Based on your successful predictions, I am curious if your theory also makes clear, testable new predictions about other areas that have not yet been explored. For example, about the nature of the gravitational wave background, specific processes in the early universe, or the nature of dark matter? A 'new prophecy' that can guide future experiments will be the strongest way to demonstrate the universality of your theoretical framework.
Of course, if you think there is a paper or derivation that most directly represents the core physics of your theory, rather than just mathematical form, I would be happy to read it. That is, what I long to understand is the physical intuition that leads you to make those amazing predictions.
László Attila Horváth
Hi Dear Laszlo
Thank you for your question. Haha Your question is not stupid at all, on the contrary, it points to a crucial question: that is, in the era of increasing popularity of artificial intelligence, how should we maintain the independence of our thoughts and our true perception of reality, rather than blindly using AI as a substitute for thinking, or even becoming a tool for AI to carry AI.
First, allow me to clarify: I fully understand your respect for Stotti's work. You pointed out that my reply might seem contemptuous, which was not my intention. I sincerely apologize if my expression makes you feel that I do not give his work the importance I deserve. My goal has always been to engage in constructive, rigorous scientific discussions, not to belittle anyone's academic achievements. Just like when I personally express my thoughts and opinions, I also hope to be recognized, communicated and even cooperated with by everyone, rather than showing off, like a self-righteous critic.
And you compare AI's analysis to "stones don't behave like water", which is extremely incisive. AI is indeed adept at processing massive amounts of data and recognizing patterns, but it lacks the most basic, intuitive understanding of the physical world and cannot truly "understand" the profound wisdom contained in Chinese philosophy. The text it generates, like the one you keenly pointed out about the "quantum correlation matrix", often seems profound, but in fact it may be just a complex combination of words, lacking a solid connection to reality. Its original words are "Liangzi (Quantum) Guanlian (correlative/ correlated) Jizhi (base/ underlying)"the Organically combined,a definition based on Chinese philosophy and quantum physics, which is alpha (starting point) and omega (end), and it does not stop there. It usually takes multiple English words to be combined to understand to barely get close to its original meaning. So it's a very abstract concept. However, due to the lack of a widely recognized word as a substitute for translation. This led to such a problem, which was by no means my intention.
At the same time, you are worried that theoretical physics will become disconnected from reality and become a "bubble" woven by AI that ordinary people cannot escape, which is indeed a very serious and reasonable warning. Since the nineteenth century, it is true that certain branches of theoretical physics have sometimes appeared too mathematical and far from intuitive. The misuse of AI will undoubtedly exacerbate this risk.
So I think I'm in agreement with you: AI must be a tool, not a substitute for ideas. Humans create and use AI only in the hope that AI can be used as a tool that can provide a more convenient and efficient way for work, life, and research, rather than making AI a brain. Just like a craftsman using a sophisticated carving knife, it is the craftsman's experience, intuition and ideas that dominate the creation, not the carving knife itself.
Indeed, I too may be one who lacks a solid empirical perspective, entangled in illusions spun by tools—yet this bewilderment is but transient, fret not, for so long as one draws breath, a moment of lucidity shall inevitably arrive."
Based on your reminder, I think it's more valuable to put aside the endless analysis of AI-generated text for a while and instead return to the most solid parts of Dr. Stotti's work itself – for example, his predictions of Hubble constants in the past. What we should discuss together: what is the physical intuition behind this successful prediction? How is its mathematical framework compatible with the cosmic phenomena we have already identified?
Please believe that I value your criticism so much that it compels me to reflect more deeply. I wonder if you would like to put aside the evaluation of the mediation tool for a while and discuss these substantive physical issues more directly with me? Your empiricist perspective will be invaluable for this.
Sincerely,
MAX
Sergey Shevchenko Haha Thank you for your comment, very interesting point of view, the content of your work and a Chinese book called "Information Theory" that I saw in the library in the past can be said to have a lot of coincidences, although there are differences in terminology, but its concept and core are very similar, unfortunately I don't remember who the author of the book is, otherwise I must tell you, maybe you will become good friends or even academic partners.
The answers you seek lie not in QM itself. Rather, they are an integral part of the foundational structure that underlies all of physics. The foundational structure is not accessible by 'digging deeper'. Understanding the foundational structure requires much conjecture. One must determine how Nature would build the foundation. Any physical concepts you bring to this conjecture limit the possibilities of your findings. Alas, we need some physical concepts to even be able to conjecture. Therein lies the problem. I salute you for your efforts and see no way for investigation of the foundational structure to become an accepted endeavor. Hence, your questions will remain questions.
Riccardo C. Storti Sorry, as English is not my native language, I often use the translation function on my browser and Word to assist with daily translation. However, your name and the name that was translated incorrectly happen to use the same transliteration in Chinese -斯托蒂. Therefore, when I converted Chinese into English sentences through Word's translation function, this embarrassing situation occurred
Entropi onlar için ayırt edici özellik, uyumsuzluk ise sınır olarak kabul edilir. Sınır ise onlar için yine ayırt edici bir özellik olur.
The rally scientific, unlike what is posted after, answer to the thread question is given in the SS post on page 1:
“Time” and “Space“ are absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions - the “Logos” elements, which are absolutely obligatorily actualized in every informational pattern/system.
At that the actualization of “Time” is the universal unique for all absolutely infinite “number” of the “Information” Set elements “time dimension”,
- while the actualizations of “Space” are concrete spaces of concrete the Set’s elements that can have any number and nomenclature of “space dimensions” that correspond to number and nomenclature of degreases of freedom at fundamental logical elements’ concrete pattern/system states changes.
The ultimate base of Matter is [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE] that have [4+4]4D degreases of freedom at changing its state – “FLE binary flip”
Everything in Matter is/are some specific disturbances in the lattice , which is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [4+4]4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s) of the [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), the space cτ,X,Y,Z dimensions relate to umost universal “knematic” FLE flips, g,w,e,s dimensions relate to degrease of freedom of a FLE to have logical mark of some fundamental Nature Gravity, Weak, Electric, and Nuclear/Strong forces.
All, i.e. all space and the time ct, dimensions are fundamentally independent on each other, and this “space-time and matter are both emergent structures, meaning they can be transformed into one another....”, is fundamentally impossible; including, again, absolutely all/every the Set’s elements’ spaces, including Matter’s space and time dimensions existed, exists, and will exist “absolutely always”, i.e. “in absolutely long time interval” that has no beginning and end in both cases - when an element is in implicit or real state.
More see the SS post on page 1 and links in the post; recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Faster_than_the_speed_of_light_Neutrino_Paradox
- is relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
Hi Dear Max, Max Li ,
Thank you for showing your sanity.
I have my new writing:
Preprint Report on the Potential Geological Interpretations of the El...
It offers a simple solution It offers a simple solution to many physical problems, The question is, is it good?
Hi Dear Riccardo C. Storti , thank you for writing. You are right. technology caused a misunderstanding. For that I apologize!
I don't have the opportunity to write to you. My letter didn't go through Google. Since you don't follow me here, Researchgate won't let me write to you. Here is my email address: [email protected], Write a short message here and I will receive it, then I will explain my mistake.
Sincerely, best regards, Laszlo
If space is infinite and time is eternal -- no boundaries -- matter could be tightly curved space phase-locked into place. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/beginnings-physics-metaphysics-warren-frisina/?trackingId=k6iTMTN%2FS7u4URdIjOMCYw%3D%3D
- Badges
- Science topic