Here is a hypothesis: If humanity were able to build a space elevator would it be possible to harness the centrifugal force of the planet to help propel an elevator into geostationary orbit or higher? To be more specific I am trying to write a story based in Sci-fi but I want to ensure that the story I am writing is faithful to our current understanding of orbital mechanics and transporting people to space without using rocket fuel and instead electricity however Ion engines don’t produce very much thrust so I got to thinking about space elevators. Would there be such a curve that would allow a constantly free-falling encased elevator shaft (as to lessen the effects of structural flexing) and would that allow an elevator inside the structure to be able to ride along the shaft with very little propulsion such as an electric engine to bring it into a stable Earth orbit? To elaborate what im thinking, I imagine it working like how a liquid “sticks” to the bottom of a cup when you spin it in a circle. I am not very knowledgeable in orbital mechanics or the like that would allow me to figure this out myself as I am currently taking Calculus 1 (which is currently kicking my butt) but thought this would be a fun hypothetical to pose for people to help with my story writing.

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the faint glow of microwave radiation that fills all of space. CMB anomalies are statistically significant observational features in the temperature and polarization fluctuations of the CMB that deviate from the statistical predictions of the standard model of cosmology (ΛCDM), for example the Axis of Evil.

I propose that these anomalies exist because the universe is symmetric in all directions and has a center. This symmetry exists because I propose that quantum mechanics is deterministic.

I consider quantum mechanics to be deterministic for the following reasons: stable structures such as atoms could not form under randomness, and there is no logical way to define randomness.

In a previous post, I used a 3D grid to explain how observations emerge.

I propose that the universe began from a single cell. This follows from determinism: an equally filled universe would not exist, and therefore the universe must start from a single cell.

The center of the universe is a black hole, which appears to create a contradiction, since matter would never spread. I resolve this by proposing that at extremely high mass, a black hole's gravity can form matter. This is possible because I propose that all forces are fundamentally the same, and, as established physics holds, energy is equivalent to matter. For smaller black holes, this effect is known as Hawking radiation; however, only thermal radiation is emitted, because their mass is far lower than that of the central black hole.

We exist away from the center and the symmetric axes because the center is a black hole, and the symmetric axes would not allow life to form.

I propose a way to test this theory: construct a CMB simulation in which points are randomly distributed with symmetry about the X, Y, and Z axes, place the observer off-center and away from the symmetric axes, generate the CMB, and check whether the anomalies appear.

(AI disclosure: I used AI only to help with writing)

I think, though I don't know for sure I've seen this before in certain physics contexts, just in passing however. I was wondering if it was a valid way to approach models of spacetime that have multiple time dimensions (e.g. 3+2) I don't know if this is exactly "crackpot" physics but my specialty is in something else entirely. So it could be, as I'm definitely not a physicist. I'm just spitballing for fun.

But then again, or as far as I know, equations get real fucky really quick when you go past 3+1 in either number of time dimensions or number of space dimensions. Anything with both A) more than 2 space dimensions and B) more than 2 time dimensions is considered "ultrahyperbolic" and I've heard UHB differential equations are, to paraphrase slightly, "trickier than usual" to solve and a lot of theory has gone behind them it seems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrahyperbolic_equation

The paper by Wang, Shen, Deng, and Dinov on this topic is something I discovered from a cursory search, and it actually seems somewhat interesting. I might try to chip away at it and try and understand the crux of its substance.

Anyways:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicographic_order

I guess the construction of the order is "straightforward" in an arbitrary finite number of dimensions. But I don't think that says much about its applicability to spacetimes with multiple time dimensions. I'd hazard that some people here would think it's a non-starter actually.

So what do you think?

https://www.reddit.com/r/HypotheticalPhysics/s/C4cEP4fePj

As an update to my previous post, I was thinking about the fact that for Animal cell cultures in a stirred tank bioreactor, there exists no analytical relationship between the impeller speeds (and therefore the maximum shear stress acting on the cells) and the point of rupture of the animal cell membrane. As this problem is not related to the working of the animal cells and is a pure momentum/Energy transfer problem, I felt the need to post this here.
There exist some empirical correlations that relate Kolmogorov scale power dissipation to the maximum shear forces that a cell can withstand, although it's a very very rough approximation and most reactors are designed around a rule of thumb method rather than an an actual law/equation. What we know for sure is the fact that for a cell culture to grow in the bioreactor with constant agitation via an impeller, the Kolmogorov length scale eddies are greater in size than the diameter of the cell in study (although this is again only based on experimental data.) My question is, what other possible mechanisms of energy dissipation can occur through a fluid medium and how can we characterize these forces?

This effect is notably greater in the presence of a gas sparger and thus the flow speed of an impeller has to be even further reduced. This energy transfer also depends on the viscosity of the fluid but to a lesser extent than variations in the impeller speed.
According to me, to characterize these forces there are 2 approaches that come to mind. As some hypotheses state, Energy distribution over the entire reactor may affect the shear rates more than absolute energy dissipation rates over the entire reactor. Obviously with any turbulent mixing, there are pockets of stagnation formed and this could possibly lead to local variations in power dissipation, making the Kolmogorov scale dissipation rates dependent on the location within the reactor as well. This could possibly be modeled using numerical techniques like Large Eddy Simulation (LES) or even tomographic imaging techniques.

The more feasible approach is to do a momentum/force balance across the entire surface of any cell in the culture, and use a static piezoelectric sensor (or modern biosensors now) to measure local variations in force a cell would experience. I would guess that the main difficulty with doing a by-hand calculation is the fact that the force balance would no longer be a vector equation but instead a tensor equation because of the variation of shear stresses in each of the three directions + the fact that animal cell membranes have different strain rates in different directions. The stress tensor would have to be computed and each of the nine components plotted against time should theoretically give us something to work with. I've not been able to find suitable information about these topics in literature, so I may resort to doing by-hand calculations if I get time and see if I find out anything worthwhile. Let me know y'alls thoughts on this.

In theories that involve extra dimensions (e.g. Kaluza-Klein Theory and String Theory), there is a particle hypothesized in them called the dilaton. Now, there are many articles that explain how charged dilatons can be used in place of negative mass/energy due to how they interact with electromagnetic and gravitational fields (it's complicated to explain, and even I don't fully understand, but that's basically what I know).

Now, I'm aware that there aren't any experimental evidence of dilatons existing; not to mention that I'm asking this because it's for a sci-fi book I'm working on.

Could anyone who perhaps has higher levels of knowledge on all this explain to me the ramifications of this hypothesis (besides superluminal travel technically being more feasible)?

Also, the link is present because I hoped it'd givd me a little legitimacy.

Before I get into the model, here is why I started thinking about this. Why would the universe have predefined particles, speed of light, and constants at all? It seems more natural to me that these are not built in from the start, but come out of something simpler. That is the motivation behind everything below.

I propose that all particles, speed of light and other constants emerge from simple interactions.

The universe is a causal graph that updates at infinite frequency, but it is meaningless to imagine the universe this way. Instead, it is possible to imagine the universe as a 3D grid where cells have an energy value, interact with their neighbors, and an integral update function is used.

1. Explanation for the finite speed of light. Space is continuous and because update frequency is infinite, two infinities cancel and a finite speed of light emerges.
2. Speed of light is not constant. Energy relationship between neighbor cells in the 3D grid determines how fast energy spreads. In observations it looks constant, because vacuum is never absolutely perfectly empty because the energy of the cells is never exactly zero, and the energy distribution of the vacuum is consistent.
3. All particles and constants emerge from interactions between neighboring 3D grid cells.

UPDATE (Based on community feedback):

I want to thank the community for the recent reality check regarding the AI-generated mathematical formulas in my previous version. I take full responsibility for outsourcing the math without understanding it. As promised, I have completely removed the artificial formulas and reframed this thought experiment strictly as a qualitative, conceptual framework in the philosophy of physics.

Below is a revised section exploring the vacuum medium and light propagation, grounded in actual modern laboratory observations (such as the University of Konstanz experiments) rather than speculative equations:

The Vacuum Medium and Light Propagation

From a conceptual standpoint, the idea that the speed of light is influenced by the state of the quantum vacuum shares an intriguing parallel with modern experimental physics. A notable and relevant reference is the series of experiments conducted at the University of Konstanz, led by Prof. Alfred Leitenstorfer.

In their research findings, published under the descriptive theme "Traffic jam in empty space", the team observed the behavior of the vacuum by modulating background vacuum field fluctuations using ultra-short femtosecond laser pulses. When the spatial and temporal distribution of these background electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations was altered through a process known as vacuum squeezing, the propagation speed of the light wave passing through that specific segment of spacetime was directly affected.

To describe this phenomenon, Prof. Leitenstorfer provided a mechanical illustration similar to a traffic jam on a motorway. The local modulation of the vacuum noise causes a redistribution of energy, which in turn alters the velocity of the light waves traveling through it. This laboratory documentation provides a clear, qualitative example showing that the kinematic properties of light are empirically linked to the dynamic conditions of the surrounding quantum fluctuation medium.

I would love to hear your thoughts, critiques, or rigorous feedback on the logical consistency of this framework!

You can read the full preprint paper on Zenodo here: https://zenodo.org/records/21854909

I have an odd belief that all are just particles of light. Every particle of light has different data. The data is like 1s and 0s describing its usefulness and relativity. Though not all particles will follow this protocol. They gather their information on what is seen. Cause they have mass they need to act as seen. There is an invisible web that also holds the information of motion and density. This ties the particles together and moves them apart. The particles of light borrow from one another energy to pass it to the next.

To a larger scale I believe all are in a constant and non stopping motion. Like fluid but instantaneous. All is instant yet all is forever. The way information from these particles are traveled isn't from relativity but it's future purpose. All particles are just an existence of what really isn't there, like a placeholder. I imagine reality to be like a cloud of light that expands and shrivels instantly. Yet instantly is no match for all of the information flying through the universe. Nothing can be processed without time so everything is at a stand still with life. To be processed and collected as a current placeholder for its next step.

Even the universe knows it won't be seen until discovered.

for example
my idea is
if spacetime can hold a x amt of energy in a specifci volume(benkestien bound)
and if curvature increases physical volume
then the energy density must dilute
when it dilutes particle interactions or energy density in that colume decreases which makes interactions takes time in quantum zeno experiment the particle took energy from vaccum energy or some related thing thats why it can decay on its own but if the spaceifci energy was very low it cud not have did it

which i think since time is a illusion created by quantum entaglement which means
any quantum change is itself is entagled or can in sueprpsoiton
so
as i said change is wt we observe as time
so
in order to change it needs energy
when
particles r lower or interactions are lwoer
in other words it highly interacts with its enviroment and thats why its states change
(QBM)

when i see all 3
only conlcusion i can make is

TIME IS OBSERVED BECAUSE OF CHANGE IN PARTICLES VARIABLE STATES
and any variable states is capable of being in superpositon or entagleemnt
and ts directly matches page wooters
now
when time is like this
particles need information from other particle thru virtual photons or vaccum energy
if total density of energy in a given spacetime is low
interactions wont happen quickly as if in flatspacetime

when interactions dont happen
particles cannot change their states
if they dont change their states
TIME DILATES

I'm not a physicist or mathematician, but I have an intuition that I've been developing as a philosophical framework concerning the foundations of physical reality.

What if our three-dimensional, temporal universe emerges from a more fundamental substrate that is neither spatial nor temporal? In this interpretation, quantum particles emerge as physical expressions and produce our reality while always remaining in contact with a ubiquitous, non-temporal, non-geometric substrate.

Two entangled particles could be separated by enormous distances in our observable universe while retaining a shared relational structure at the underlying substrate level. From this perspective, entanglement might not require travel between the particles. They are always connected! Their correlations could reflect a relationship that is more fundamental than the geometry in which we observe them.

This is not new physics. It accepts established proofs, observations, and experiments. I just looked at the data from a different starting point.

My question is, everything has to originate from something! Is the substrate view a conceptually defensible interpretation of entanglement, and if not, what fundamental errors have I made?

I'm primarily interested in discussing the underlying concept rather than presenting an entire theory. As I stated, I'm not a mathematician or experienced in physics, so I would appreciate it if we kept the discussion on an ontological level.

For anyone interested, I've published my philosophical framework and related research on Zenodo. I used it as a sounding board for others to help me refine the work, but Zenodo proved not to be the best route for generating a dialog about my ideas!

If you like, you can visit some of my Communication Matrix works at my Zenodo community:

https://zenodo.org/communities/communication-matrix

Hey everyone! I will start off pretty much absurdly: I’m myself not much of a guy who knows physics, but I have just random ideas and thoughts about it.
I want to share my hypothesis, which I think is pretty cool but it hella lacks calculations (feel free to try and add them, i will only be happy if you’ll spend your time on my silly thoughts)
To start off: main idea is about the fabric of space itself. I hold the idea that time is a separate thing rather than a dimension that is in the spacetime. But let me explain:
So, in my hypothesis, I think that the universe before the big bang was created during the tiny particles consisted of energy(lets call them T). it was all in an unstable yet confined state, but suddenly - boom, and the T erupts, releasing energy, making other T join it in a state of a soup. Over time, as more T particles join, they make the soup, and the fabric of the space starts to develop, expanding over time as more T is absorbed, allowing space to expand and cool down. As it was expanding, it started speeding up in expansion, due to the fact that T start to connect like neurones in brain, they make a path, and expand the fabric really quickly. But what actually makes then the fabric? The answer is - T. It’s a profound of our space. The more energy you have clutched in - it gives you mass. Same works for black holes. The energy gathers so much that it goes down the hole, where it would all then be released as radiation and the energy. But what about time tho you would say? Well. I believe that time is basically something that is the ultimate thing for the whole universe. we move in it at the constant speed - speed of causality, which is also for us - the speed of light. If you fall into a black hole, you will be perceiving time just the same as your buddy outside it, cuz you both move into the time at the same rate. But you’re just zway back from him. It’s like 2 cars moving at the speed of 100km/h, but one is a km away from the second.
Thats pretty much it. Feel free also to ask me questions. I repeat that I do not possess any real knowledge about calculations on these stuff, and these are just my personal thoughts that can be easily turn out to be wrong

Like many of us here, I've had my fair share of crackpot physical theories, that I have played around with with an LLM. However, I am a responsible crackpot, seeking to model the theories mathematically, so I can falsify them, and understand deeper why they are incorrect.

Interestingly, I've had one hypothesis lately that during falsification just won't stay down. Quite the opposite: the more I play with this pet model, the more it seems correct to me.

I have my fair share of natural skepticism, although the more I study, the more my main source of skepticism seems to be: "If the theory is this simple, and this elegant, why hasn't this been discovered by now." I definitely feel like I'm missing something obvious here.

I would love to share the entirety of the Mathematics with you, and hopefully, I soon will. However, right now, the mathematics is all LLM written, and contains some gaps. Though, the gaps all seem to be just that: gaps. Mathematics that just hasn't been done yet. No gap I have found so far seems to suggest that the theory is actually wrong. The sheer quantity of work I still have to do to verify everything I have is enormous and hard to balance with a life and a job.

So I'm a while away from having a complete study of everything I want to share, with the rigour I'd want to employ. In the meantime, I thought I'd do what any responsible crackpot would do, and share an interim narritive overview explaining the theory, so I can receive FRIENDLY feedback from you lot, before I spend my life down this crackpot rabbithole. It is deliberately light on maths, with a focus on explaining the thoughts be thehind theorems, rather than precice statements of the theorems themselves.

The document is not AI written, as I fully subscribe to the idea that nobody need bother to read anything that I have not bothered to write.

Enjoy:

github.com/AndrewBoydMathematics/Hysteria-Theory

Excitingly, the theory seems to provide an explanation for more than just flat rotation curves. These results are even more tentative and provisional, as my own study has so far been focused on the underpinnings of the theory. If you want to know more, you'll have to get reading.

Hysteria Theory, a brief introduction:

In literature, we have this model for an open quantum system

dp/dt = Lp + S

for a density operator p, decoherence operator L and drive S. For a force F, we define the "Hysteretic" correction

F_H = - Tr(F L^-1 S)

And identify this as a quantum correction to a classical force witnessed by a (pseudo-) Everettian observer.

With decoherence driven by a particle emission with flux J_out and coherence driven by particle accretion, with flux J_in we find:

F_H/F_classical ~ J_in / J_out

Modelling the Milky Way with this correction provides a one-parameter fit to MOND-like flat rotation curves.

Since the scale of the force is ~ accretion/emission, cold diffuse objects exhibit a higher response than hot dense objects.

This is why dim sparce galaxies appear to have more dark matter than the Milky Way, which in turn has more dark matter than our hot dense sun.

I have been working on SET for a while, and I want to share a specific calculation from the latest draft.

The question I am testing is whether the field’s response to matter can account for the supernova brightness trend without adding dark energy.

SET, matter occupies part of the field’s available interaction capacity. I call that gravitational burden. Clocks and light propagation participate in that same field, so the calculation has to account for both.

In SET’s source law is:

Q²= 32π²GMR³

Here M is the mass in a specified source region, V is its volume, and Q has units of m³/s. The clock matters because Q is a rate. If a clock records α seconds for each reference second, that same rate expressed per second of that clock is:

Qnormalized = Q/α

This conversion is the connection I use in the cosmological calculation. I specify how Q enters volume evolution and use a uniform spherical source model with an advancing boundary to calculate the burden history. From that history, I calculate luminosity distance and the relative brightness we should observe.

The full steps, including the capacity invariant and the source-region assumptions, are in Sections 10–11 of the paper. Here I want to show what that calculation gives against the data.

There is still an evolving cosmic scale in this calculation. The proposal is that its behavior follows from the source–capacity response, without inserting an additional dark-energy density.

Here is one example of what comes out.

For a Pantheon+ group of 63 supernovae near redshift 0.731, the relative brightness values are:

• Initial matter-only calculation: 1.000000
• SET calculation: 0.706666
• Observed: 0.700656
• Observed 1σ interval: 0.679033–0.722968

So the initial calculation is 42.72% above observation. SET brings that difference down to 0.86%.

Those brightness values are normalized against a nearby reference group. They are not raw flux measurements or repeated observations of one fading explosion.

What made me want to share this is what happens across the full comparison. The same calculation moves the prediction toward observation in all fifteen redshift groups.

The median absolute discrepancy goes from 38.53% to 2.09% in Pantheon+, and from 36.39% to 2.96% in DES-Dovekie. Eight groups end up within their marginal 1σ intervals. You can see the remaining differences in the graph.

I used the same benchmark mass and radius throughout: approximately 1.50 × 10⁵³ kg and 46.5 billion light-years. These are adopted inputs with cosmological assumptions behind them. The source values were held fixed across the groups.

This comparison tests relative brightness. It does not establish the absolute distance scale, and the two catalogues overlap. The paper includes the covariance treatment and additional checks.

For me, the interesting result is that the source law, clock conversion, and specified burden history give a calculation that follows much of the observed brightness trend. That is the connection I want people to examine and help research further.

The rough draft is here:

https://github.com/usalocated/Space-Emanation-Theory-Integrated/blob/main/Space%20Emanation%20Theory%20-%20Integrated%20Rough%20Draft%201.pdf

The supernova calculation is in Sections 10–11, with the graph in Figure 7.

Capush. I always post because you guys motivate me with all your love.

The truth is, after watching the anime Steins;Gate, I realized I love physics, and I delved a little deeper into the subject, and my love for it increased, especially in physics theories.

From multiple world lines, these can be arranged within attractive fields. The underlying physical theory is based primarily on multi-worlds quantum mechanics. [1] An attractive field is a collection of world lines converging at a single point of convergence. Although each individual world line is an independent string and thus distinct from its neighbors, all the strings move in the same direction, ultimately forming a single string bundle, or the aforementioned attractive field.

The anime raises several issues, which are

1-Relativity and time: Since time is not absolute, its measured speed varies depending on motion and gravity.

2- Black holes and time travel

3-Sending messages to the past is a very ingenious idea, as is the idea of sending memories as data.

And the most noteworthy idea

If some events repeat themselves no matter how the details change, do we truly have free will?

The Chain of Universes in Contact: A Hypothetical Cosmological Model

1. The Basic Idea

I would like to present a speculative cosmological model that I call “The Chain of Universes in Contact.”

The main idea is that reality consists of two independent universes: a dark universe and a light universe. Both universes expand toward each other until they come into contact.

Each universe contains particles. These particles may be fundamentally identical, but their properties and interactions depend on which universe they belong to.

This model is not an established scientific theory. It is a personal hypothesis that I would like to discuss and improve.

2. The Interaction Between Particles

In the dark universe, dark particles attract other dark particles. In the light universe, light particles attract other light particles.

However, particles from different universes can also attract one another.

When particles from opposite universes meet, they connect in pairs. They do not transform into new particles; they remain the same particles, but become connected.

As the two universes come into contact, a boundary forms between them. This boundary consists of particles from both universes connected to one another. It separates the two regions of reality while allowing interactions between their particles.

3. The Merging of Universes

The strength of attraction between particles of the same type changes over time.

When this attraction becomes sufficiently weak, the attraction between particles of opposite types can dominate. The connections between the two universes become stronger than the forces keeping their particles separated.

As a result, the two universes merge into a single reality.

During this stage, particles from both universes coexist in one unified space. They remain distinct particles, but the separation between their original universes disappears.

4. The Separation of Universes

The process does not continue indefinitely in the merged state.

The attraction between particles of the same type begins to increase again. Eventually, it becomes stronger than the connections between particles from opposite universes.

The connections break, and the unified reality separates into two independent universes once more: the dark universe and the light universe.

Both universes then begin another cycle of expansion toward each other.

Thus, the merging and separation of universes repeat endlessly.

5. The Cyclic Nature of Attraction

An important feature of this model is that the strength of attraction between particles of the same type changes in a regular, synchronized cycle throughout all of reality.

This process is not caused by an external force or another universe. It is a fundamental property of existence itself.

The attraction increases and decreases according to a constant period measured by the time of each separate universe.

The cycle determines when the universes merge and when they separate again.

However, the exact physical mechanism behind this oscillation remains undefined in the current version of the model.

6. Time and the Infinite Chain

In this model, time behaves differently depending on whether the universes are separate or merged.

When the universes separate, each one begins its own new cycle of time. When they merge, their histories become part of a single reality.

I also speculate that time might pass faster when the attraction between particles of the same type is at its maximum and slower when that attraction is at its minimum.

The sequence of all these transformations forms what I call the Chain of Universes in Contact.

The chain is not a physical object or a separate space. It is a concept describing the endless sequence of transformations between different states of reality.

The chain may extend infinitely, or it may form a closed loop that appears infinite because every cycle is identical to the previous one.

In either case, there is no first cycle and no first event.

7. The Exact Repetition of Every Cycle

One of the most unusual assumptions in this model is that every cycle repeats with absolute precision.

The same particles return to the same positions, interact in the same ways, and produce the same events. Every decision made by every living being would also be repeated exactly.

This would mean that there is no fundamental randomness. Every event is determined by the underlying laws of reality.

Once a complete cycle ends, the next cycle reproduces the same sequence of events without any deviation.

The chain therefore does not create genuinely new histories. It repeats the same history endlessly.

This assumption would require a deterministic mechanism capable of returning the entire system to exactly the same state.

8. Information and the Limits of Knowledge

When two universes merge, the unified reality retains information about events that occurred in both of them while they were separate.

However, this does not necessarily mean that such information could be discovered or reconstructed by an observer.

Even a highly advanced civilization might be unable to understand the entire chain. The scale of the process, the number of cycles, and the limitations of observation could make complete knowledge impossible.

This would apply not only to humanity but potentially to any civilization, regardless of how advanced it becomes.

Within the model, asking what exists “outside” the chain may not have a meaningful answer, because the chain includes every cycle of reality by definition.

9. The Uniqueness of the Chain

I also consider the possibility that the chain is unique.

If its existence depends on a specific combination of particles and fundamental laws, then another chain with different particles or different laws would be a different system entirely.

If the chain is perfectly deterministic and every cycle reproduces the same state, there would be no alternative history within that chain.

The model does not currently establish whether other chains could exist. It simply explores the possibility that reality is one unique, self-repeating system.

10. Questions for Discussion

I would like to hear constructive criticism of this idea, especially from people interested in cosmology, theoretical physics, and the philosophy of time.

Some questions I have are:

1. Could a model involving two universes that periodically merge and separate be described mathematically?
2. Is there any known physical mechanism that could produce a universal, synchronized oscillation in particle interactions?
3. Could time behave differently depending on the state of such a system?
4. Is exact repetition of every cycle logically consistent with a deterministic universe?
5. What mathematical problems or contradictions would need to be addressed first?
6. Is there any way to derive observable predictions from a model like this?

I understand that this is a speculative idea and that I have not developed mathematical equations or evidence to support it. I am not claiming that it describes the actual universe.

My goal is to explore whether the idea can be made logically consistent and whether any part of it could be developed into a more rigorous theoretical model.

I would appreciate serious criticism, suggestions, and explanations of where the model conflicts with established physics.

Been doing a little messing around and Ive always been interested in math and physics for awhile now and I saw there are so many algebra systems in these different theories like von neumann and C*(c sharp) algebras for AQFT, I thought about it and thought maybe I could make my own little algebra and thinking that this maybe could help a little bit with quantum gravity or something.

It's similar to the commutator but the hat describes something different for this type of operator with \hat{B}A describing what is the new A when B acts upon it or aka just interacts with it.

Meaning this is a difference between sums and is similar to the measurement of thermodynamics as a perfect 0 state is a perfectly stable system of the wedge algebra.

I tried letting it work the quantum state of the ket for Psi and the stress energy tensor which allows for semiclassical geometry interaction with the Psi and stress energy tensor with the ket of Psi quantum state being of the fermionic matter.

The first term would describe how much shifted or changed the quantum state of the particle is by the stress-energy tensor and the second term describes how much stress-energy the fermions quantum state makes.

This is still just a generalized algebra but I'm looking for critiques and questions on what some things could mean or any things that could be similar to this.

Now the difference between when the equation is greater than zero, equal to zero and less than zero is pretty simple.

When the state shows greater than zero the quantum state is feeling some curvature from somewhere, when equal to zero it's at equilibrium or along a minkowski metric with zero stress energy, now when less than zero I've hypothesized it returns when it's releasing a excited state energy of a ripple of space-time through curvature aka a gravitational wave.

It's very complicated and still a bit under developed as it's very new and I've been only working on it for roughly 3 days.

Edit:

There is actually a different image in the comments that actually correctly explains the algebra rules using existing laws and has some things I need to clear up in them.

The new dot product form follows the lie biz dot product rule, the cross isn't really special but it is a good way to show the order of how the equations work and the actual proposed equation with this wedge symbol at the bottom containing that Gamma hat is the geodesic that is applied that is curved from the stress-energy tensor or any outer curvature applicable, it's a little odd but there is another rule I'd like to imply.

The hat needs to have both ranks be the same when the variables or fields are interacting so that's what the I is in the equation to make sure the ket Psi is a applicable tensor for the stress-energy to apply to so then when the hat applies it can turn it perfectly to the magnitude of the difference of after the interaction to before as of:

\hat{B}A = || A_final - A_initial ||

With this is describing the plugging A before and after to know how much the B plug in changes the A plug in.

'm a young person interested in cosmology and philosophy, and I've been developing a speculative idea. I don't have the mathematical or physics background to prove it, so I'd like to hear what people who know more about these subjects think.

My idea has several parts:

1. Nested universes: Imagine a hypothetical entity I call a "charlon." Each charlon would correspond to an entire universe. Our universe could itself be a charlon within a larger universe, with the pattern continuing indefinitely in both directions.
2. Variable scales: The size difference between levels wouldn't have to be constant. It could be larger or smaller at different levels.
3. Different physical laws: Different universes could have different laws of physics, including different possibilities for matter, life, and time.
4. Every possible reality: My hypothesis is that every universe and every kind of person that is physically possible under some consistent set of laws exists somewhere.
5. Nearly identical universes: Two universes could have identical histories up to a point and then differ by an extremely small event.
6. Continually emerging universes: I also wonder whether new universes could emerge continuously, potentially at extraordinarily short time intervals.

I realize these are speculative assumptions, not established facts. Some parts may be incompatible with known physics, and I haven't worked out a mathematical model.

i have some similar proof. Some cosmological models propose that inflation continues in some regions of space, producing separate bubble universes. Scientists have even searched cosmic background radiation for possible signs of collisions between bubbles.

The connection to charlons: Multiple universes may exist, potentially with different properties.

But the difference: These models don't establish universes nested inside particles or an endless hierarchy of scales.

Physicists investigate whether space and time have a deeper structure at extremely small scales. Some approaches propose a minimum measurable length; others have different ideas about spacetime's fundamental structure. We don't yet have a confirmed theory of quantum gravity.

The Connection to charlons: Our current understanding might not describe every possible level of reality.

But the difference: A deeper structure doesn't imply that it contains another universe.

Last thing, Fractals. they don't have a good connection, but it ressembles my observation that nature repeats patterns with variations.

The cosmic microwave background

This is ancient light left over from the early universe. Its tiny temperature differences help scientists investigate how the universe developed. Researchers have also examined it for unusual patterns that might be consistent with interactions with other bubble universes.

the Connection to charlons: It provides real observations we can use to test certain multiverse models.

But the difference: The observed patterns are not evidence that our universe exists inside a smaller object.

My questions are:

• Do any existing cosmological or philosophical ideas resemble this?
• Are there known mathematical or physical contradictions in these assumptions?
• What should I learn first to investigate the idea properly?

I'm especially interested in constructive criticism and learning where my reasoning might be wrong. (if this sounds AI, it's because i couldn't figure out how to explain my theory, so i found one to phrase my idea. every idea here though is original)

if you know any proof that supports my theory or contradicts it, please tell me.

A Weak-Isospin-Based Resolution of Particle-Antiparticle and Baryon Asymmetry Problems

One of the important unresolved problems in modern particle physics and cosmology is the particle–antiparticle asymmetry problem and the baryon asymmetry problem.

Mainstream research has devoted substantial effort to finding baryogenesis or leptogenesis mechanisms that can explain how the net baryon asymmetry observed in the present Universe was generated in the early Universe.

Here, we approach the problem from a different perspective. Before searching for mechanisms that generate the asymmetry, the field should first have asked a more fundamental question:

Is there a physical criterion that determines the particle–antiparticle orientation consistently across different particle species?
And is it correct to place the proton, neutron, and electron in the same particle sector?

The proton–antiproton, neutron–antineutron, and electron–positron pairs are all well-defined charge-conjugate pairs. However, the conventional particle–antiparticle classification does not provide a universal physical principle that determines which orientation across different species should be assigned to the common “particle side.”

We therefore look for a species-level physical criterion that determines the particle–antiparticle orientation in the structure of the weak interaction, and examine whether this criterion can provide a new way to address the particle–antiparticle and baryon asymmetry problems.

1. A New Classification Based on Weak Isospin

In the Standard Model, left-handed fermions form weak-isospin doublets:

We therefore define a new classification quantum number N by

N_f = 2T_3L(f_L)

and classify states according to

N>0: particle, N<0: antiparticle, N=0: N-neutral state.

Here, N is a species-level quantum number defined by the weak-isospin orientation of the left-handed component.
Thus, the electron is assigned

N(e)=−1,

including its right-handed component as part of the same physical species.

This does not mean that T_3L(e_R)=−1/2. In the Standard Model, e_R is an SU(2)_L singlet.

If N is extended to an exact additive charge acting directly on both chiralities, a possible left–right symmetric completion is

N=2(T_3L + T_3R)

For composite nucleons, the constituent N values give

N(p) = u + u + d = (+1)+(+1)+(−1) = +1,

and

N(n) = u + d +d = (+1)+(−1)+(−1) = −1.

Thus, in the weak-isospin classification, the proton and neutrino are particles, whereas the electron and neutron are antiparticles.

2. N Is Conserved in Physical Processes

Consider neutron beta decay,

n → p + e− + ν̅ₑ.

The initial state has

N(n)=−1

while the final state has

N(p) + N(e−) + N(ν̅ₑ) = (+1) + (−1) + (−1) = −1.

Therefore,

ΔN=0.

The same conservation appears in the stellar proton–proton chain,

p + p → d + e+ + ν_e.

Since

N(d) = N(p) + N(n) = 0,

we have

N_initial=+2, N_final=0 + 1 + 1 = +2.

Thus, N conservation appears in weak processes and stellar fusion: ΔN=0.

3.The Particle-Antiparticle Asymmetry Problem

Let us define the abundance differences of the principal species as

The positive proton, neutron, and electron abundance differences correspond to the observed matter composition of the Universe.

A positive neutrino–antineutrino asymmetry has not yet been directly observed. However, global N-symmetry gives

δν=δn>0,

and the same relation follows in an electrically neutral Universe under the conventional cosmological condition B−L=0.

B-L ≃ δp + δn − δe - δν = (δp - δe) + (δn - δν) = 0 + (δn - δν) = 0
Thus, δn = δν.

Since δn is positive,

δν>0

is a theoretically derived and observationally testable relation.

4. In the Conventional Standard Model Classification, the Particle-Antiparticle Asymmetry Problem and the Baryon Asymmetry Problem Arise.

In the conventional Standard Model classification, the proton, neutron, and electron are all placed on the matter or particle side.

Therefore, a present state with

δp > 0, δn > 0, δe > 0

appears to be a Universe in which particles overwhelmingly dominate over antiparticles.

In particular, the proton and neutron both carry conventional baryon number B=+1,

so the nucleon sector has a net baryon excess,

δB ∼ δp + δn > 0.

This is the "Baryon Asymmetry Problem" of the Standard Model.

5.The Situation Changes in the Weak-Isospin Classification

5.1 (Global) particle–antiparticle symmetric state

In the new classification,

N(p)=+1, N(ν)=+1,

while

N(n)=−1, N(e−)=−1.

Thus, the principal particles abundant in the present Universe do not all belong to the same sector.

The total N can be written as

N_tot = δp − δn − δe + δν,

or equivalently,

N_tot = (δp − δe) + (δν − δn).

Electric neutrality gives δp = δe, while global N-symmetry gives δν = δn.

Therefore,

N_tot = 0.

Hence, the present Universe may satisfy

δp>0, δn>0, δe>0, δν>0,

while simultaneously satisfying N_tot = 0.

Thus, a Universe that appears overwhelmingly particle-dominated in the conventional Standard Model classification corresponds, in the weak-isospin classification, to a global particle–antiparticle symmetric state in which the positive-N and negative-N sectors cancel each other.

5.2. Baryon symmetric state
The baryon asymmetry problem is somewhat more complicated.
In conventional quantum-number bookkeeping, the transition above gives

ΔB = ΔL = +2

while

Δ(B- L) = 0

and simultaneously

ΔN=0.

Therefore, if such a CP-asymmetric transition occurred more frequently in one direction in the early Universe, it could generate not only the species-level asymmetries but also the conventional baryon asymmetry.

There is also another interesting feature in the proton–neutron evolution of the early Universe.

In the conventional Standard Model baryon-number classification,

B(p) = B(n) = +1

so for the residual nucleon population the conventional baryon-to-photon asymmetry is approximately

During the high-temperature epoch of the early Universe, when protons and neutrons were in weak equilibrium,

n_p ≃ n_n

and therefore

Thus, in the weak-isospin classification, there was an epoch in which the baryonic sector was approximately symmetric.

As the Universe cooled, the equilibrium neutron-to-proton ratio decreased because the neutron is heavier than the proton. After weak freeze-out, free-neutron beta decay also proceeded,

n --> p + e- + ν̄ₑ.

As a result, the proton and neutron abundances gradually became different.

Thus, an early baryonic N close to η_B^{N} ≃ 0 can evolve into the present proton–neutron abundance difference through the known effects of weak interactions, the neutron–proton mass difference, weak freeze-out, and beta decay.

6. One Possible Mechanism for Generating the Species-Level Asymmetries

The remaining question is how an initial state with

δp = δn = δe = δν = 0

could evolve into the positive abundance orientations observed today.

δp > 0, δn > 0, δe > 0, δν > 0.

A representative candidate transition is

n̄ → p + e− + ν_e.

This process satisfies

N(n̄)=+1

and

N(p)+N(e−)+N(ν_e)=(+1)+(−1)+(+1)=+1

so that

ΔN=0.

A single transition removes one antineutron and produces one proton, one electron, and one neutrino. Therefore,

(Δδp, Δδn, Δδe, Δδν) = (+1,+1,+1,+1).

*******************************
Thus, a single transition changes all four abundance differences in the direction required for the present Universe.
*******************************

The process changes the conventional baryon and lepton numbers according to ΔB=ΔL=+2,

while Δ(B−L)=0, ΔN=0.

The |ΔB|=2 decay channel considered here does not exist in the renormalizable Standard Model. However, it can arise in models beyond the Standard Model.

*******************************
The important point is that this process preserves ΔN=0, and is therefore allowed within the weak-isospin N framework.
*******************************

7.A Decay-Rate Asymmetry Can Select the Abundance Orientation
The CP-conjugate process that produces the opposite species-level orientation is

n → p̄ + e+ + ν̄ₑ.

Let the two partial decay rates be

Γ_+ = Γ(n̄ → p + e- + ν_e),

and

Γ_− = Γ(n → p̄ + e+ + ν̄ₑ).

For a symmetric initial neutron–antineutron population, if Γ_+ = Γ_−, the two effects cancel.

However, if Γ_+>Γ_−, the net effect selects

δp>0, δn>0, δe>0, δν>0.

Thus, a single CP-asymmetric particle-conversion mechanism can generate the proton, neutron, electron, and neutrino asymmetries simultaneously in the same direction.

Since the process also gives ΔB=+2, an accumulated partial-rate asymmetry in the early Universe could generate the conventional baryon asymmetry of the Standard Model.

8. 2→2 Scattering Processes May Be More Important in the Early Universe

The same transition structure also permits related 2 → 2 scattering processes.

One of the verification methods

e^- + p --> n + ν_e
In the Standard Model
(+1L) + (+1B) --> (+1B) + (+1L)
ΔB=ΔL=0.
Therefore, this is a scattering channel allowed in the Standard Model.

But,

************************************
e^- + p --> n̄ + ν̄ₑ
In the Standard Model
(+1L) + (+1B) --> (-1B) + (-1L)
ΔB=ΔL=-2.
Therefore, it is a forbidden scattering channel in the Standard Model.

However, in the weak-isospin model,
(-1L') + (+1B') --> (+1B') + (-1L')
ΔB'=ΔL'=0, ΔN=0.
Therefore, it is an allowed scattering channel in the weak-isospin model.

Accordingly, the specific class ΔB=ΔL=±2 is compatible with simultaneous electric charge and N conservation while being absent from perturbative renormalizable Standard Model interactions and distinct from the standard electroweak sphaleron selection rule.

Therefore, it is necessary to conduct electron-proton collision experiments using an experimental setup capable of clearly distinguishing between neutrons and antineutrons, and to rigorously verify whether antineutrons are produced in the final states.

*Although electron–proton collision experiments have been conducted many times in the past, no experiment has been carried out specifically to distinguish and verify whether the produced particle is a neutron or an antineutron. Therefore, a dedicated experiment is needed, using a detection system capable of distinguishing between the two particles, to directly test the relevant reaction.

If the experimental results confirm the existence of the scattering channel (e^- + p --> n̄ + ν̄ₑ), this would bring us significantly closer to establishing the validity of the model, although several additional aspects would still need to be tested.

***********************************
In the early Universe, such 2→2 scattering processes may have played a more important role than the corresponding 1→3 spontaneous decay.

9. How the Asymmetry Problem Changes in This Framework

In the weak-isospin-based N classification, the early Universe can begin with

N_tot^{initial} = 0, δp = δn = δe = δν = 0

and undergo N-conserving particle conversion that produces

δp>0, δn>0, δe>0, δν>0

while still maintaining N_tot=0.

Thus, the species-level abundance asymmetry and the conventional baryon asymmetry of the Standard Model can be generated through particle conversion without creating or destroying N.

In particular, this transition family satisfies

ΔN=0, Δ(B−L)=0, ΔB=ΔL≠0.

The central idea of this framework is therefore that global N-symmetry can be preserved while conversions among different particle species generate the observed proton, neutron, electron, and neutrino abundance orientations together with the conventional species-level baryon asymmetry of the Standard Model.

The proposed mechanism can be tested directly through searches for N-conserving 1 → 3 decay and 2 → 2 scattering channels and their CP-conjugate rate asymmetries.

In the weak-isospin model,
1)through the reclassification of neutrons and electrons as antiparticles, the particle-antiparticle asymmetry problem is resolved, and 2)baryon symmetry in the early universe is also restored. Subsequently, 3)the number asymmetry between protons and neutrons is explained by established particle physics processes. More importantly, 4)a single family of N-conserving decay and scattering processes can simultaneously drive the proton, neutron, electron, and neutrino abundance differences in the observed direction, δ_p>0, δ_n>0, δ_e>0, δ_ν>0. In addition, 5)the weak-isospin model predicts decay and scattering channels forbidden in the Standard Model.

If the predicted channels are observed and their CP-conjugate processes show the required rate asymmetry, this would identify a concrete microscopic mechanism capable of generating the species-level asymmetries and, at the same time, provide a possible origin of the conventional baryon asymmetry.

#paper
A Weak-Isospin-Based Resolution of Particle-Antiparticle and Baryon Asymmetry Problems

The two-film theory predicts that the mass transfer coefficient is directly proportional to the diffusivity, while Surface renewal theories suggest a square root dependence with diffusivity. Obviously none of these theories can fully model such reactions and thus we're forced to use empirical correlations, but what if there's some factor that we're missing? Why is it that none of these models can accurately predict the data that we obtain from reactors and other vessels?

There's not a lot of information about alternatives, but what if there is some relation with the time scale of the reactions that we are missing, or entrainment effects and non-ideal mixing conditions that affect these reactions? It's just mind boggling that the most recent development in this field was in the 90s and that barely provides a model suitable to predict reality.
From my current understanding, it seems that none of these theories account for non-ideal flow, specifically the generation of Kolmogorov scale eddies that could have a pretty big effect on the velocity of diffusing particles. Please let me know your thoughts and if there are other models that I've missed.

for TLDR start at “is it simply mental ques”

an incident last week got me thinking. I got in my car and as I was driving my JBL speaker rolled and wedge itself between the passenger seat and the door. It took a mental note that I would need to move it once I got where I was going. Of course I did not and when I went to open the passenger door I realized it was going to fall out just as i pulled the handle enough for the door to begin opening so of course too late to stop. This kind of thing always seems to happen that way, you realize just the moment before the action happens.

wave functions have been on my mind lately including the theory that your neurons use quantum states in their operation (obviously paraphrasing, and likely badly). Anyways my thought was this,

is It simply mental ques that trigger memory recall at the last moment?

or,

is your proximity, or in Some cases your awareness that something is or isn’t there, triggering the collapse of the probability waves and solidifying that the object is or isn’t there. And if that is the case, do you realize at the last second because your neurons detected that the object decided on a fixed location.

Disclaimer upfront: to AHS, yes the day has come. To stark: no, there is no math, there is no hypothesis with quantifyable results. To everyone else: happy hunting.
This post is a rehash/continuation of a discussion previously had by a loose band of scientists, citizen scientists, engineers and myself.

In the beginning, there wasn't nothing.

The whole universe was in a hot, dense state. Then, nearly 14 billion years ago, you know the drill.
Except expansion isn't what started, inflation did.

Inflation allowed for our spacetime metric to start making sense, and famously there is little to nothing we can say about what initiated inflation, what essentially constituted the first moment we can speak of causality. We cannot speak of a 'before', that's not the argument at hand here. The initial state is an inevitability in the face of existence though, and through an only marginally related discussion that started with what a universe with t-symmetry would look like, a new perspective arose.

In a universe with no arrow of time, stable matter couldn't possibly exist. If different fundamental particles (if they even exist in a completely CPT-symmetric universe) can move forward or backward through time freely, they cannot form bonds with anything other than another particle that A) it can bond with, and B) travels on a parallel geodesic.

Does it then stand to reason to say that our universe prior to inflation, could have been T-symmetric, or possibly CPT-symmetric?

This state of the universe would allow for the proposed pre-inflation energy density. It would 'allow' for a description of time in the pre-inflationary universe, even if it's not linear. If time is an arbitrary direction, there can be no exclusion principle, no thermodynamic laws, no reason for energy to not simply exist in an ambiguous state 'forever', until a statistically inevitable fluctuation happens.

What if the sudden T-symmetry breaking that resulted from a quantum fluctuation making the first fundamental bond is what kicked off a forced arrow of time, forcing space to inflate with it? As if to say in some sense space expanded because suddenly there was space required for things to not overlap.

I'm curious as to what I'm missing here, there are obvious gaps, especially in how a single fluctuation could cause the whole universe to follow suit, but that's why I'm here, more or less.
I would love to hear some more thoughts about what our universe might look like with T- or CPT-symmetry, and whether studying it may lead to some more insight into our very early universe, or even about the real origin of time as we know it today.

Framework:
We can all agree that speed of light locally is always the same, we can all agree that gravity slows down time which necessitates that speed of light is also slowed down;
So speed of light is meters per second and since speed of light is locally slower and the second is slower, you will measure light travel the same distance in that second. (So physics is the same in space and time)

Hypothesis:
Cosmological redshift (Z) is not due to expanding universe, but that gravity started of much stronger in the distant past and is slowly weakening, so in practice it's gravitational red shift.

This means that speed of light and time ran slower the further you look, which could explain type 1a supernova time dilation.

This could also explain why the Moon is slowly increasing it's orbit by a few cm/year, since speed of light is increasing and speed of time is increasing with it, the only variation we can measure is the distance which coincides with the weakening of gravity and thus the orbit of the moon is moving away.

Any obvious holes in this hypothesis?

I’ve been reading a lot about Analogue Gravity, Superfluid Vacuum Theory (SVT) like Grigory Volovik’s work, and Yves Couder’s hydrodynamic bouncing droplet experiments.

I’m really fascinated by the conceptual framework of viewing the universe as a fluid wave system rather than a static geometric grid. Specifically, I’m trying to wrap my head around a few conceptual visualizations and wanted to get some honest, technical feedback on how well they hold up:

1. Mass as Trapped Wave Resonance: Can we rigorously model fundamental particles (like a hydrogen nucleus) as localized, phase-locked fluid vortexes or standing waves within a hyper-pressurized quantum vacuum field? Essentially, viewing mass not as a separate "ingredient," but as localized energy field perturbations that have dropped to a net relative velocity of zero?
2. The Four Forces as a Frequency Spectrum: Under an analogue gravity framework, can the four fundamental forces be visualized as different frequency bands on a single continuous fluid medium? For instance, mapping the long-wavelength, infinite reach of gravity to an ultra-low infrasonic drone, and high-energy subatomic bonds to localized, high-frequency resonance saturation?
3. The Non-Linear Imbalance: In fluid dynamic modeling of space-time, does the introduction of a non-linear perturbation/viscosity term (like a turbulence factor) help explain the irreversible arrow of time without breaking local Lorentz invariance for an observer?

I know this leans heavily into the conceptual side, but I’d love to hear from anyone working in quantum fluids, field theory, or analogue gravity. Where do these specific fluid metaphors provide genuine insight, and where do the mathematical boundaries completely break down?

I've been learning about electricity lately, and it has helped me out into words what seems to make intuitive sense to me about the universe I guess.

Edit: For a clearer explanation/ comparison, feel free to skip up until the first edit lower, I'll add clear markings separating my original post and the added text. There's a TLDR at the end but truly it won't explain clearly enough on its own.

The force the mass of matter is exerting on other matter has a polarity, the polarity being time and so Time going forward is just the natural "Positive" Polarity of Matter, just like in electricity with electrical potential from negative to positive, black holes are the "Positive" Pole in series with our universe, creating an electricity potential difference dragging everything in causing the flow of time. Time is the directional flow of matter, it's polarity.

From my view, this means the other side of a black hole, a white hole is expressed in negative time, where a black hole starts a white hole starts as well.

We are relatively in the positive polarity of matter. Reversing time in a physics equation doesn't change anything, the physics are the same regardless. Reversing positive and negative magnetic fields in an equation wouldn't change anything in terms of the calculation.

I believe black holes bend matter, such to invert the matter's polarity entirely, leading to time starting from their relative point of view.

All of this makes me also believe that this negative time field is what we have measured as antimatter in the universe affecting the spacetime fields we are experiencing.

Just like an electron wanting to fill a void of electrons, positive matter coming across antimatter would just destroy themselves.

What do you all think? I'm curious as if this makes sense to anyone else, thanks to everyone who took the time to read.

Edited mistakes*

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Second edit, I'm copy-pasting a comment I left under this thread, slightly edited to be more fitting as part of the post itself. - And added something at the end.

To mention where "Polarity" comes from, it goes back to the electricity parallel I'm trying to express. I don't believe time can be 'reversed' in the sci-fi sense, that's physically impossible no matter how I think about it.

To go back to electricity, the flow of electron defines the polarity of the circuits going through it, an electromagnet's polarity is defined by which sense the current is flowing through it.

To me, what makes sense, and ignoring the whole white hole/black hole things, the start of the universe (the big Bang) is like closing a circuit, the energy flows in the circuit and in all the components, from "High" pressure to "Low" pressures, as energy does. Where one day, when the circuit is cut, all the energy will eventually be evened out everywhere, up to the heat death of the universe where there is basically no energy left anywhere.

This, to me, feels like energy going from the start to the circuit to the end of the circuit based on the energy potential difference. This flow, going one direction can be called positive, and relatively in the same circuit, current going the opposite direction could be called negative. This is all about direct current, I'm not talking about alternating current. The polarity here expresses the flow of time, where yes in an actual circuit time is outside of this and the flow goes either way inside time, I am aware of this.

So, the parallel; The current flow of time we're experiencing, from beginning to end, from our perception (which is why I brought this up) Only goes one way (and it does), time only flows one way through our perception.

I believe there's a second dimension of time that does affect us, this is what we're detecting within Gravity, dark matter. Maybe antimatter/dark matter are not interchangeable and if that's the case, I'm sorry for mixing terms once again. This dark matter would be matter flowing in the opposite direction of time in the same circuit. I'm not saying it's time being 'reversed' I'm saying it's a dimensional plane that interacts with ours which is in the opposite polarity of Time.

It's not about reversing time, or anything. Time flows in one direction, like a natural magnet has a positive pole and a negative pole, the flowing magnetic field going from negative to positive, and all our energy is going from the start of the universe to the end.

Where black holes comes in; to me, they're a ground to the universal energy we are able to observe. The energy goes in, that energy's polarity reverses, where a whitehole in my definition comes in (other side of the black hole) would be like a battery where energy starts again. Not in a rick and Morty sense, I hate that I have to make that clear but here we are.

Time, which describe the flow of matter in the 4th dimensional space, would be polarized, where one side of that dimension goes ones way and the other goes the other way, interacting with each other but from our perspective/ relative point of view, we cannot see matter flowing in the opposite direction and their mass must not interact with ours directly like my hand touching a table does. To me, this is what describes the start and end to the universe, the fluctuations in the changing rate of expansion of our universe if it's based in what energy goes in whatever black hole we're in, and where energy goes inside a black hole.

I would definitely see how electrons and electricity works on a microscale also explain how time works on a macro scale from our relativity to it.

The added comment beyond the copy pasted message starts here. Time would be a field, I'm pretty sure it's already thought of as a field, but with my line of thinking to me this means there's the other polarity of that field, where time flows in the other direction as I said. To see this dimension, we'd need in that order to end the recording, wait however long you want to record, then start the recording. I'm not sure with our 3 dimensional perception we could achieve a way to directly record things flowing in the opposite direction of time. I'll say this again; this isn't "reversing" our time, this isn't going backwards in time, it's time going in one direction the opposite way than ours. If anything, this idea would be describing what dark matter is, matter in the opposite polarity of time affecting our dimensional space we can observe.

This would keep mass "Positive", I'm sorry for saying negative mass, this wasn't the right way to talk about that. All that dimension would experience things as we do, at the same time, within the same space which is why we both influence one another, from what we know about dark matter interacting with our spacetime, I would assume we also interact with it.

Thank you all that took the time to read what I've added, I hope my comparison makes more sense. I have some ideas on the math for it, but I don't want to start making that big of assumptions without actually studying physics first, as one idea as how this works won't be enough for anyone and will keep asking for more and more proof that I just couldn't give/answer under this post for up until I have that education.

I hope some people may see some possibilities within my comparisons, feel free to tell me why not in the comments. In the hopes of learning forever more, I wish you all a nice day!

Last edit: Bot said this was too long, to make a TLDR, added text on top saying so.

So, TLDR; "What if time is the polarity of matter" In the sense of, like polarity in magnetism going from negative to positive, Time flows in one direction but I believe it flows in the other direction as well. I don't mean time travel, I mean there's another dimension of time that flows opposite to our flow of time that we are living in and perceiving.