Dhillon1724X

So its all hinting that i should change name as my V2 goes deeper and aligns with GR but at quantum scale.What if i was working on other particle which was not graviton,but it will prove gravitons wrong. Now i need real advice as i have filled 25 pages by now and still working on it.I want to ask one more thing that in formal theory paper should i add visuals and section with simulation results. The force-carrier idea doesn’t make sense for gravity — because gravity isn’t a force.(according to my theory).

Sir I will keep your words in my mind.You and @studiot gave me direction. And I thank you and will never forget you both. Yes it’s pretty accurate sir. Both are important.You were not bad,you were right but had a different approach. Sir, I don’t plan to do this as a profession — at least not yet. I see myself more as a wanderer with goals. I’ve been into many different things. I know I have potential — not just in thinking, but physically too. I could become a powerlifter, an MMA fighter, or a boxer. I’m confident that in the future, I’ll start my own business. I already know how and when. I’ve always followed my curiosity. I’ve tried things like basic website development, game dev, writing, and more. I left them sometimes when I failed — but I’ve always returned stronger, when I was ready. I also have concepts for machines and technology — ranging from everyday tools to revolutionary inventions — which I plan to build in the future. If I were to chase degrees or a PhD, it would take away my time and freedom. If I had followed the school system strictly, I’d still be stuck on laws of motion, or just learning about refraction and the dispersion of light. That’s not how I learn. The best way I learn is by trying, failing, and learning from my mistakes. I was able to understand this much and build this theory in about a month. Sure, I knew some basics before, but most of this came from my own exploration. I might become a theoretical physicist — but not by going through the traditional system. To be one, you need knowledge, not a degree. I know my goals seem like dreams. About my theory- I’ve worked on it — improved it — and I will still publish it and show it to the world but I know it’s still a child’s scribble like my talk. Because this is how I think: I imagine, I simulate, I visualise in my head.I get these ideas from my intuition and they fit with reality sometimes without a problem. @studiot @joigus In my updated framework, the particle I described as a “graviton” isn’t treated as a virtual force carrier. It emerges from photon collapse when the energy density exceeds a Planck-scale threshold(I have clarified meaning of Planck so it doesn’t create gravity to explain gravity loops). It’s a spin-2 boson, but instead of mediating force between masses, it constructs spacetime itself — essentially triggering curvature through its presence. I’m now considering whether this should still be called a “graviton,” since it shares spin-2 behavior and relates to gravity — but has a different formation mechanism and deeper role. Would it make sense to give it a new name, or is it still conceptually fair to classify it as a more complete or extended graviton? Thank you in advance for any thoughts — I’m learning a lot from your replies.

@studiot Hlo Sir, once you asked me about what mechanism i purpose about graviton formation or something like that.I have added some maths help of that AI,but i kept your words in mind and confirmed everything. Can i know what i exactly need? Maybe my theory is bad theory as @joigus said and cant be fixed.But if i started then i atleast have to finish this.I will continue working on it until its complete failure or a good theory.

thanks for your support. I was able to learn only this much in month which i learnt while exploring the universe.I will make sure to publish v2,its name might be changed as its not about just gravity anymore and its more deeper now and about using AI,i dont use it to guide me anymore not even about words.i did it in Version 1 which resulted in bad explaining.But i still use AI to refine. To overcome my current weakness,the so called mathematics,i use AI to refine my equations and express my logic.Now some of V2 equations are completely mine. I am trying to open a door and i will enter room after overcoming my weakness. As i said i made all this and learnt this in month,however i knew some basics from a long time. I tried to be better but i am just a average student,who achieved nothing.

I will do it for sure.

Sir i dont know that much as i learn a thing when i need.Currently i need it but dont have time. I know there are different type of calculus,majorly two types and there are advanced types too. Conclusion-You can reply me like i know nothing ,as learning from a person directly is far better.

Sir i dont learn from AI.I watch lectures,videos and use google now.I will appreciate if you explain. I will keep that in mind. I do foolish things sometime. Afterall i am just average student.

Yes,you are right.I will not defend it as a good theory.But i will to turn it to one. I respect you.

You're right — I used “boundary condition” too loosely. I didn’t mean it in the strict PDE sense (like Dirichlet or Neumann conditions on a field). I was referring to a physical threshold — such as energy density or confinement scale — where classical descriptions (like continuous trajectories or fields) become invalid, and quantum behavior (discreteness, uncertainty, operator algebra) becomes necessary. Maybe “transition of regime” or “quantum activation threshold” would be a better phrase. I also appreciate your point that classical and quantum aren’t different phases like water and ice — it’s not a thermal phase transition but more of a framework switch Thanks for the correction — it helps me communicate more precisely.

Over the past days, several foundational aspects of the original GraviGenesis framework have significantly evolved. As a result, there's a possibility that the theory may soon be renamed to reflect its broader scope — which now extends well beyond gravity alone. I am still in the process of consolidating these developments, so I won’t reveal details just yet. However, I can say that most of the earlier critiques — including those related to consistency, mathematical structure, and conceptual clarity — have either been resolved or absorbed into deeper formulations. Thank you to everyone who challenged the model early on. Your critiques genuinely pushed this framework into much more advanced territory. Sir you are right as always and its my mistake in explaining.But i have fixed this in paper.I keep making mistakes in explanation as i dont have any formal training and sometime use wrong words too. I will try my best to improve. I understand your point, and I agree — it’s easy for Big Bang-related ideas to drift into speculation. Just to clarify, I’m not developing a new Big Bang theory at this stage. My current work only touches that era because of somethings involved. It’s hinting toward something deeper, which I’m not ready to reveal yet. Thanks — you’ve touched on exactly the tension I’m working through. I did bring up causal sets as a partial analogy, since my framework also builds from discrete quantum elements (gravitons), and tries to recover a smooth geometry from localized causal/curvature nodes. But you’re absolutely right: unlike strict causal set theory, my model allows overlapping energy states — multiple gravitons can share the same energy level or even coexist within overlapping regions, possibly obeying bosonic statistics. So instead of strictly disjoint sets, the model is starting to explore field-style degeneracy and quantum stacking, which makes the discrete-to-continuum transition more subtle. This is one of the next consistency questions I’m trying to formalize. I appreciate your comment — it’s a sharp reminder that not all discreteness is equal, especially when quantum behavior comes into play.

Thanks for that perspective — I really appreciate the way you explained it. You're right, I could’ve approached it with more curiosity instead of sounding dismissive myself. I’ve always tried to take critiques seriously and reflect on them, and in fact, a lot of the feedback I received earlier played a big role in shaping Version 2 of my theory — which will be published soon. So I definitely see the value in listening and re-evaluating. Sometimes when something doesn’t immediately make sense — especially in areas I’ve been deeply involved with — my response can come off sharper than intended. But your approach of asking “What am I missing?” instead of jumping to conclusions is something I’ll keep in mind moving forward. Thanks again — I’m still learning, and I genuinely value being part of discussions like this.

You're absolutely right — in standard quantum field theory, the field itself isn't necessarily quantized, and quantum effects arise from the interaction. I agree with that framework. But my reply was based on something deeper I'm currently developing. It’s not part of standard QFT, and I haven’t fully revealed that part of the model yet — partly because I’m still refining it and want to be careful before making bold claims. Still, that addition has made my theory significantly deeper, and I appreciate your critique — it helps me see where the boundary lies between what’s standard and where I’m diverging. Thank you — that’s really helpful. I agree, being able to sketch curves by hand and understand their shape intuitively is a powerful skill, especially in quantum mechanics. I’ll definitely look more into Morse curves and practice visualizing the relationships in my own equations. Your explanation reminds me that building real understanding is more than just calculating — it’s about seeing what the math is really saying. I appreciate you taking the time to share this. It gives me another tool to refine what I’m working on. I am who i am.I dont need to be someone.If u are saying this because i said that equation thing,then yes it happens when i just try to make random patterns in my mind,i write down one which seems logical,sometime this happens without even trying,its not magic.

Sir i used it as a reference so i dont have to explain whole thing again and we are simply just discussing quantum mechanics and a theory which might solve the question or doubt this post has.I will try not to do it again.

I understand your frustration — I’ll try to clarify my intent more carefully. When I refer to a “boundary condition,” I don’t mean a classical geometric boundary. I’m referring to an energetic threshold — a point at which the behavior of the system transitions from classical to quantum. In my model, the Planck scale is used not as a length derived from pre-existing geometry, but as an abstract limit where quantum gravitational behavior becomes dominant — and curvature (spacetime) emerges. “Collapse” in my framework refers to a quantum energy concentration process, not a classical gravitational collapse. It's similar to how energy can collapse into matter-antimatter pairs in QED — a quantum effect, not requiring classical gravity beforehand. I’m not claiming all of this is complete — just that I’m working toward a model where gravitons emerge from high-energy photon states, and gravity is a result, not a starting assumption. I appreciate your critique and agree that the theory still needs refinement, especially in how I define these transitions more rigorously. I am very-very sorry sir but if i have started then i will end it too.The end can be either birth of a complete theory or just a failure.

Thank you for that detailed explanation — it helped solidify some gaps I was working on. I believe my GraviGenesis V2 paper addresses several of the points you outlined. In the model, the gravitational field is described through a quantized spin-2 excitation (the graviton), whose energy density arises from photon collapse at Planck-scale thresholds. I've included a Fierz–Pauli Lagrangian to describe the graviton field and derived a collapse condition based on redshifted graviton energy matching observed gravitational behavior. It's still a work in progress, but I’m aiming for a fully quantized curvature theory that reduces to classical general relativity in the low-energy limit. Note: the word “collapse” in my model has context-dependent meaning in different sections and When I refer to “Planck-scale thresholds,” I’m using them as mathematical expressions of energy and when i say density I’m really talking about a concentration of quantum energy or something similar.(The V2 got a new addition or we can say it will complete it) If you all are giving critiques based on V1 then i have solved most of problems and moved to more advanced phase. Thanks again for explaining the logic so clearly — it helped me re-express and re-check some of my core assumptions. IF ANY MOD IS GOING TO CALL IT HIJACKING-i have just answered to question and didnt advertise.I am just clarifying and it falls under topic of this post too.

Sir, I’ve always been interested in different things — but the common thread has always been logic and usefulness. Ever since I was young, I had access to the internet, and that allowed me to explore science deeply. Whenever I had a question, I could search for answers, and every answer led me to something new. That curiosity kept growing. This theory started just a month ago, when I was thinking deeply about how the universe might have begun. What started as a simple question quickly became something bigger. I began learning advanced physics concepts in parallel — not just for the theory, but because I genuinely wanted to understand the foundations. All the work I’ve done — the research, writing, and building the logic — happened within a month, but it’s built on years of curiosity. At first, it was just a personal project. But as it developed, I started to wonder: Could this actually contribute to something larger in science? Now, I’m working to make sure it’s not just an idea, but a consistent and well-structured theory. I know it’s still evolving, and I’m open to every correction — because I’m not here to defend something blindly. I’m here to learn, improve, and maybe — just maybe — add something meaningful to the field. Sir, to be precise — sometimes symbols, equations, or patterns just pop into my mind without warning. I don’t always understand them fully at first, but I write them down and try to decode their meaning based on the physics I’m studying. It's like my brain is forming its own language before I can even explain it properly. While working on this theory, I developed a symbolic system within a week that felt surprisingly self-consistent. It was connected to the concept of infinity and something more deeper.I even created a new symbol. Unfortunately, I didn’t have enough time to develop it fully while building this theory as i have to go to school too , so I’ve kept it on hold for now. Interestingly, just a few minutes ago, a new equation came to me — something that seems to fit directly with my theory. I don’t know yet if it’s mathematically correct or physically meaningful, but I feel there’s something deep behind it, and I’m going to work on it further. Thank you for pushing me — I honestly take that as a real compliment. I've been thinking about this while developing my theory, and I’ll try to explain what I’ve understood about quantisation. Also, to be honest, I usually learn things when they're needed. That helps me focus precisely on what's important, like in this case. From what I understand, quantisation occurs when a system is restricted in certain ways — such as: Boundaries: Like a wave trapped in a box, only specific wavelengths (and therefore energy levels) are allowed. Conservation laws and symmetries: These can force certain physical quantities (like angular momentum) to come in discrete units. etc. I just learnt it better as you asked,so i cant give reply in unformal-childish language I will tell more but i cant tell here as it will be called hijacking

Thank you for the detailed response. I really respect the clarity and seriousness you bring to this discussion — and I’m taking your feedback seriously. You're absolutely right that Planck units (like Planck energy and length) involve GGG, which is a gravitational constant. I should have clarified that when I refer to the Planck scale in my theory, I'm not treating it as a derived scale from pre-existing gravity — but rather as a natural boundary condition that marks the limit at which classical physics (including geometry) breaks down, and quantum behavior dominates. In my model, gravity emerges from photon collapse at or beyond this threshold — so in a way, I'm treating the Planck scale not as "caused by gravity", but as the critical energy boundary where a new field (gravity) begins to manifest. You’ve made me realize I need to be clearer about that assumption. As for the point about density and spacetime: I acknowledge that it seems contradictory to refer to energy density before spacetime exists. My intention was to describe a quantum precursor phase, where the idea of space is not classical or continuous, but instead exists in a primitive, high-energy quantum state — possibly like a pre-geometric background, similar to what's discussed in approaches like loop quantum gravity or causal sets. In that sense, when I speak of "density," it’s a shorthand for energy-per-cell within a minimal quantum domain — not classical volume. But I agree: I need to define this better and make the transition from pre-geometry to emergent spacetime more rigorous. I’m still developing the mathematical structure to properly formalize this, and your feedback helps me identify weak spots I need to strengthen. Again, I appreciate the critique. I’m not claiming to have solved everything — just that I’m committed to building this out as clearly and carefully as I can. and i dont mind even if you mock me as you are way experienced then me,you know more

Sir, you're absolutely right, and I’d like to clarify something honestly — I’m fully aware that AI doesn’t truly know anything. It doesn’t think or make decisions like a human. Sometimes it just reflects back what you want to hear, whether right or wrong. The truth is, this idea I’m working on came from my own curiosity. I had a strange thought, and instead of ignoring it, I started researching everything on my own. I’ve spent countless hours diving deep into physics, theories, and concepts to build something original. However, I’ll admit my biggest weakness: mathematics. It’s not that I don’t understand the concepts I’m applying — I actually do and if i dont then i first understand it. The problem is, I don’t yet know how to use mathematics like a professional physicist. I struggle with school math problems sometimes, and I’m not afraid to admit that. But I’m learning every day, and trying to connect the math to the deeper ideas I’m exploring. I may not be perfect in calculations yet, but I believe real understanding starts with a strong idea — and I’m committed to improving my math so I can express those ideas fully and accurately. sorry sir i was writing other reply and then i had to go. The answer- I’m still learning, but yes, I do understand the basic idea. In quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, particles aren’t just standalone objects — they’re connected to fields. Every particle has its own field spread across space. For example, photons come have the electromagnetic field. So instead of just thinking of particles as points, QFT treats them as excitations or vibrations in these fields. I’m still working on the deeper math, but this core idea makes sense to me.

No sir,It is not my first language.But i can understand and write it pretty well as i am learning it since childhood.All my subjects are in english and i mostly write in english too,but i mostly speak my first language or mother tongue,Punjabi.

Sorry for misunderstanding

Just a small clarification on MigL’s point (hope that’s okay). Gravitons are not part of QED or QCD — those are quantum field theories for the electromagnetic and strong forces, with photons and gluons as their respective mediators. Gravitons are hypothetical spin-2 bosons that would mediate gravity in a quantum field theory of gravity, which we don’t yet fully have. But even without a complete theory, gravitons can still be described in linearized general relativity, similar to how photons arise from linearized Maxwell’s equations. So while a full QFT of gravity remains unfinished, the graviton concept itself is well-defined — just not part of QED or QCD. 👍

I now see that mainstream physics includes gravity inherently at the Planck scale. My theory tries to generate gravity from photon behavior instead. That may be non-standard — but I’m working on strengthening the math and logic to make that pathway consistent. Look, I want to make something clear — I’m completely serious about my work. If there are mistakes or missing elements, I’m willing to fix them. If someone had told me earlier — clearly and without sarcasm — that my theory lacks proper gauge structure or doesn't align with how gravity is treated at the Planck scale, I would’ve corrected it by now. I’m here to learn as much as to propose. What I’ve done isn’t a joke, nor is it AI-generated nonsense. It’s a developing framework grounded in real physics: Planck thresholds, photon collapse, energy density, spin-2 coupling, and redshift effects — all mathematically supported. It’s not perfect yet, but it’s not gibberish either. I’m continuing to refine it, and I’m taking all valid critiques seriously — as long as they’re framed as science, not mockery. In my model, spacetime did not exist before the Big Bang. Gravity did not pre-exist either — it emerged when energy density reached the Planck threshold, leading to the formation of gravitons. These gravitons generated curvature, and spacetime emerged as a result of that curvature. This idea is not unphysical — it's consistent with what standard cosmology already tells us. General Relativity does not define a ‘before’ the Big Bang because time itself begins at t=0t = 0t=0. The Friedmann equations show that space had zero volume at that instant. The Hawking–Penrose theorems predict a spacetime singularity under realistic conditions. As Stephen Hawking famously said: asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what’s north of the North Pole. Even Steven Weinberg, in The First Three Minutes, states that the universe wasn’t expanding into anything — it was space itself expanding. To be clear, this graviton model is only one part of a larger theoretical framework I’m developing. I chose to present it first, since it requires a focused paper of its own before introducing the full structure. I do full research before replying too. I will welcome any further critiques Thank you — I completely understand that. I’m not here to claim I’ve solved everything, but I’m committed to building this step by step. If I’m wrong, I’ll fix it. If I’m right, I’ll prove it. Either way, I’m here to learn and improve.

Sir you are right but as I mentioned there,it’s simple explaination. Thanks for the feedback. To clarify — I’m not assuming Newton’s law, I’m showing that in the low-energy limit, when the number of gravitons scales with mass via E=mc2E=mc2, the gravitational interaction becomes identical to Newton’s form: FGG=G(m1c2Eg,0)m2r2=Gm1m2r2FGG=r2G(Eg,0m1c2)m2=r2Gm1m2 This is meant to demonstrate consistency, not a circular derivation. If there's a clearer way you'd suggest structuring the logic to make that distinction sharper, I'm open to improving it. Understood. My intent was to show that the expression from my model reduces to Newton’s Law when framed in classical terms — not to derive Newton’s Law from scratch. But yes, in standard format, I could rephrase it like: Start with: FGG=G(m1c2Eg,0)m2r2FGG=r2G(Eg,0m1c2)m2 Then, substituting Eg,0=c2Eg,0=c2, we arrive at: F=Gm1m2r2Q.E.D.F=r2Gm1m2Q.E.D. Thanks for the suggestion — I’ll format it more traditionally going forward.

I didnt want to show it yet but my brain starts lagging when someone questions,yes i used AI to help me in maths,which i openly admit as my goal is to create something new not proving myself everywhere.I have derived values too but i will like to not show yet.It is work done by a kid around 15yr old of age so it might have flaws.But dont be soft even a bit and be honest. some examples from paper

If "quantum confinement" is unclear, I'm happy to rephrase — the core mechanism stands. As you've said you don't want to get into Planck scale discussion again, I’ll keep it simple. In this model, there's no initial gravity — just high-energy photons in extreme conditions (density, temperature, energy). Under those conditions, photons interact in a way that leads to the formation of gravitons.These conditions were first met at the very of beginning of big bang and all photons didnt become graviton. Those gravitons then give rise to gravity. That’s the simple version — no fancy terminology. No leg pulling here. I’m serious about the framework — but I do admit some of the phrasing may have come off more complex than necessary. All I meant was: at extremely high energy density (like near Planck scale), a large number of photons in a small region may transition into a new field state — the graviton — which then generates gravity. I’ll keep the terminology simple from now on. Thanks for the push to clarify.