Dhillon1724X

Classical Limit and Recovery of General RelativityA foundational requirement for any quantum gravity model is that it must reproduce General Relativity (GR) in the classical limit. QCF achieves this by showing that dense, statistically homogeneous Chorton fields yield the Einstein field equations as an emergent phenomenon. From Discrete Curvature to Smooth GeometryEach Chorton [math]\chi_{\mu\nu}[/math] is a localized spin-2 curvature excitation. The aggregate curvature over a region [math]V[/math] around a point [math]x[/math] is given by: [math]R(x) = \alpha \cdot \frac{N_\chi(x) \cdot E_\chi}{V}[/math] where [math]N_\chi(x)[/math] is the number of Chortons in the region [math]V[/math], [math]E_\chi[/math] is the energy per Chorton, and [math]\alpha[/math] is a proportionality constant. In the dense limit [math]N_\chi \to \infty[/math], we define the emergent metric as: [math]g_{\mu\nu}(x) = \lim_{V \to 0} \left\langle \chi_{\mu\nu}(x) \right\rangle_V[/math] This expectation value forms a smooth, differentiable manifold from the underlying quantum structure. Derivation of Einstein Field EquationsIn the low-energy, decoherent limit, the QCF action reduces to: [math]S_\chi = \int d^4x , \sqrt{-g} \left[ \frac{1}{2\kappa} \chi^{\mu\nu} \mathcal{G}{\mu\nu} - V(\chi) + \mathcal{L}\text{matter} \right][/math] Letting [math]\langle \chi_{\mu\nu} \rangle \sim g_{\mu\nu}[/math], the variation of the action with respect to [math]g^{\mu\nu}[/math] gives: [math]\delta S = \delta \int d^4x \sqrt{-g} \left[ \frac{1}{2\kappa} R + \mathcal{L}\text{matter} \right] = \int d^4x \sqrt{-g} \left[ \frac{1}{2\kappa} \left( R{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} R \right) - \frac{1}{2} T_{\mu\nu} \right] \delta g^{\mu\nu}[/math] Setting [math]\delta S = 0[/math] for arbitrary variations [math]\delta g^{\mu\nu}[/math] yields the Einstein field equations: [math]R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} R = \kappa T_{\mu\nu}[/math] This demonstrates that Einstein’s gravity emerges as a coarse-grained limit of densely populated Chorton curvature excitations. Conditions for Classical EmergenceHigh Chorton density: [math]N_\chi \gg 1[/math] per Planck volume Smooth gradients: The energy and spin distribution of Chortons must be statistically uniform Decoherence: Quantum correlations are suppressed on macroscopic scales Predictions from the Classical LimitGeodesic motion follows from the emergent curved metric [math]g_{\mu\nu}[/math] Time dilation and gravitational redshift arise from local Chorton energy gradients Newtonian gravity is recovered via linearization: [math]g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu}[/math] Gravitational waves correspond to coherent Chorton excitations ConclusionJust as thermodynamics arises from statistical mechanics, General Relativity emerges from the collective dynamics of the quantum Chorton field in the macroscopic limit. The QCF framework is therefore consistent with GR in all classical tests.

Ok sir. i've reported it first.

I will help wherever i can without even collaborating. Thanks for giving me opportunity.I will look forward to it. Can you clarify, What your aim is? What your work aims to do?

I am just trying to highlight a issue. I dont think its worth debating on.

I have worked on derivation now as i noticed i just stated somethings but didnt derive. I will soon share them.

The account is posting a contact number,which can be fraud or scam. I am not saying they should cover 24/7,we need more staff or a system which detects the spam.

It has some flaws and you are working on the most critical one but,I personally find it very interesting. I was also thinking about Pi before i found your post. Can you tell whether are you aiming for quantum theory or classical? Best Of Luck. The idea of π as a deeper physical signal of resonance is intriguing, but treating it like a dimension or a field constant misrepresents what π actually is — a dimensionless geometric ratio, not a physical axis. I’ve been thinking more about your idea that π plays a deeper role in the structure of space — and I agree that it's very interesting. The fact that π keeps showing up in physics — from spherical geometry to black hole entropy and quantum resonances — suggests it's not just a mathematical artifact. But I think there’s a more physically accurate way to express your insight, without treating π as a dimension-: Instead of viewing π as a physical dimension, you could describe it as a resonant scaling factor that naturally appears due to the geometry of space. For example: In circular and spherical systems, standing waves form only when the wave fits the boundary: [math]λn=2πrn\lambda_n = \frac{2\pi r}{n}λn=n2πr[/math] π shows up in the quantization conditions, not because it’s a dimension, but because of the geometry. This same logic applies in: Spherical harmonics, Vacuum field oscillations (if the vacuum resonates), Black hole entropy [math]S∝A∝4πr2S \propto A \propto 4\pi r^2S∝A∝4πr2[/math], And the energy levels of confined systems (atoms, quantum wells). So rather than saying “π is a dimension”, you might say something like: “We propose that π emerges as a resonance quantizer in spherical vacuum curvature modes. These π-locked shells represent standing geometric waveforms of curvature, not a new spacetime axis.” I respect the unique path you’re exploring — and I hope this helps refine it further. I was thinking to start exploring Pi and make a theory but you have started first,so now its your task. You should fulfill the task,as you started it. Because ideas belong to the universe, not to individuals. And if you’re the one who can finish the journey — with clarity, honesty, and rigor — then that’s your gift and your responsibility.

The Science News section got flooded with Advertisements on 25 July. No action was taken. Probably no staff member was active at time. Different accounts with random names posted. This spamming is still ongoing when i am posting this. A serious measure must be taken to ensure this never happen again. We need staff which is active near 09:30 AM UTC (International Time).

You spent 2 years on this? Thats alot of hardwork I think the idea that π emerges not just mathematically but as a resonant feature of space is intriguing. It reminds me of how natural frequencies in string theory or cavity QED systems define discrete allowed states — your analogy to “π-locked curvature shells” kind of follows that logic. But I was wondering: have you tried expressing this through a formal action or Lagrangian? It might help clarify whether π is a true physical scaling factor or just a geometric coincidence

@Sohan Lalwani You are at -37 now Congratulations! Keep it up and dont use that bad wording. Be respectful Be wise Behave well

Does it have any Mathematics so far?

Sorry sir. Its very hard to manage and balance everything while being a student. I will reply now. An affine parameter is a parameter along a geodesic that preserves the geodesic equation's form. For null geodesics, proper time τ\tauτ is zero, so we can't use it. Instead, we use an affine parameter λ\lambdaλ, which labels points along the path in a way that keeps the motion equation: [math]d2xμdλ2+Γνσμdxνdλdxσdλ=0\frac{d^2 x^\mu}{d\lambda^2} + \Gamma^\mu_{\nu \sigma} \frac{dx^\nu}{d\lambda} \frac{dx^\sigma}{d\lambda} = 0dλ2d2xμ+Γνσμdλdxνdλdxσ=0[/math] This ensures the particle’s path remains a true geodesic, even without proper time.

"Circular language is a rhetorical issue — where definitions or explanations loop back on themselves without adding clarity." "Ontologically circular language is deeper: it refers to using concepts that depend on an entity (like spacetime), to explain the origin of that very entity. For example, saying 'spacetime was created when curvature occurred' — but curvature requires spacetime to be defined — is ontologically circular."

Thats the right answer. So how we can say photons existed before Spacetime? They didn’t exist.It is my point. I just traced back photon energy to Planck scales by reversing redshift.They reached Planck scale even before reaching Planck epoch,that means theirs no chance.

Maybe it can be problem,as i told earlier,to refine my answer and correct the grammer i use LLM sometimes. But in paper i have precisely checked it. In QCF, what I call 'energy density' isn't defined spatially or temporally — it's defined over a pre-geometric structure that behaves more like a graph or adjacency matrix of potential interactions. The Chorton field activates when a certain excitation threshold is reached in this network. So it's not a matter of using energy in spacetime to generate spacetime — it's using localized excitation patterns in a discrete configuration space to cause spacetime to emerge as a relational structure." "I agree that if I or the LLM ever fall back into describing things in spacetime terms (like 'at a point' or 'collapse in a region'), then that would be a problem — and I appreciate you calling that out. Moving forward, I’ll clarify that those are approximations or emergent descriptions, not fundamental ones. I want QCF to remain firmly pre-geometric at its core." If you see any specific spot in my paper or posts where I’ve unintentionally slipped into ontologically circular language, I’d really appreciate you pointing it out. That kind of critique helps me improve the model at its foundations.

You're mistaking the point. I'm not talking about recombination or the thermal origin of CMB photons. I'm tracing any massless field excitation's energy back through geometric redshift. This is a kinematic argument — not thermodynamic." "The equation [math]λ=λ0/(1+z)\lambda = \lambda_0 / (1+z)λ=λ0/(1+z)[/math] applies universally to massless particles, regardless of their origin. If you accept general relativity and redshift scaling, then scaling a photon’s energy back in time shows that it asymptotically approaches the Planck energy at [math] t∼tPt \sim t_Pt∼tP[/math]. That matches the QCF threshold for spacetime activation. No, there is no direct experimental evidence for what happened before Planck time (t ≈ 10⁻⁴³ s) or near it, because no experiment can probe that regime yet. This is not a failure of theory — it’s a known limit of current physics." "However, we do have strong indirect support for the redshift scaling of photons all the way back to near-Planck times: Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) shows photons cooled with universe expansion. Redshift scaling — confirmed by observations of distant galaxies, quasars, and background radiation — follows the equation: [math]λ∝a(t)\lambda \propto a(t)λ∝a(t)[/math], and [math]E=hcλ⇒E∝1a(t)E = \frac{hc}{\lambda} \Rightarrow E \propto \frac{1}{a(t)}E=λhc⇒E∝a(t)1.[/math] This is confirmed up to redshifts [math]z∼1100z \sim 1100z∼1100[/math] (CMB), and even higher via primordial nucleosynthesis and inflation models. Extrapolating this trend mathematically (as all theories do), photon energies reach [math] EPE_PEP around z∼1031z \sim 10^{31}z∼1031[/math] — corresponding to [math]t∼tPt \sim t_Pt∼tP[/math]. That's the domain of quantum gravity, where our current physics breaks down." "So while we don't have experiments from t < 10⁻⁴³ s, we do have theoretical predictions built from experimentally verified equations — redshift, thermodynamics, and quantum field theory. QCF follows this structure and places photon emergence after geometry formation, in perfect agreement with what physics currently allows. You're assuming I said energy 'exists' in the way we describe energy within spacetime. I didn’t. I said energy density — meaning a localized quantum potential — is the triggering condition for spacetime to form. That's a pre-geometric condition, not energy in space or time. It's a concept used in many quantum gravity models — including causal set theory, loop quantum gravity, and even some interpretations of string theory." "You say 'you can't have density without space.' That's true in classical physics. But pre-spacetime physics is not classical. In QCF, density refers to a configuration on a quantum graph — a structure without metric or coordinates. It's like describing potential in a lattice model. So your objection applies to classical models, not mine." "Also, calling it 'word games' isn’t a counterargument — it’s a dismissal. If you're asking how something can 'happen' without time, then yes, it's hard. But that's exactly why quantum gravity needs new formalisms like mine — where time and space are emergent, not assumed." "And yes, I do understand extrapolation vs interpolation. Interpolation fits within known data; extrapolation extends beyond it. My model is explicitly a proposal for what's beyond current data, but it’s anchored in formal QFT, GR limits, and redshift equations — so it’s not blind guessing." "We may not yet have experiments for this domain — no theory does. But that doesn't mean logic and math can't extend our reach. Dismissing all early-universe models as 'failures' because they're ambitious is not critique — it's resignation. Sure, my model isn't experimentally proven — but neither are String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, or Causal Set Theory. None of them have direct experimental evidence. Yet they’re still taken seriously because they are mathematically consistent, logically sound, and grounded in established physics. That’s exactly what I’m aiming for. So if there’s a flaw in my math, logic, or consistency with known physics — point it out. I welcome real critique. But if you're dismissing it solely because we can't yet test Planck-scale physics in a lab, then you're applying a double standard that would also rule out every other quantum gravity approach. String Theory postulates 10 or 11 dimensions and supersymmetry, yet none of those have been observed. Why is it considered viable if it's still unfalsifiable after decades?" If testability is your standard, how do you justify ST's continued dominance despite zero experimental confirmation?

OK sir. I will never do it again. You asked for evidence that photons didn’t exist before spacetime. The evidence comes directly from standard physics — both classical electrodynamics and quantum field theory: 1. Maxwell’s equations require a spacetime metric In curved spacetime, they’re written as: [math]\nabla_\mu F^{\mu\nu} = \mu_0 J^\nu[/math] The covariant derivative [math]\nabla_\mu[/math] depends on the metric tensor [math]g_{\mu\nu}[/math]. Without spacetime geometry, the field equations themselves aren’t defined. So photons — which are solutions of Maxwell’s equations — can’t exist without a spacetime background. 2. Photon motion follows null geodesics [math]ds^2 = g_{\mu\nu} dx^\mu dx^\nu = 0[/math] Photon worldlines follow [math]ds^2 = 0[/math] — this only makes sense if [math]g_{\mu\nu}[/math] exists. No metric → no null geodesics → no photon propagation. 3. In QFT, photons are excitations of the EM field The vector potential is written as: [math]A_\mu(x) = \sum_{\vec{k},\lambda} \left[ \epsilon_\mu^\lambda(\vec{k}) a_{\vec{k},\lambda} e^{-ikx} + \epsilon_\mu^{\lambda *}(\vec{k}) a_{\vec{k},\lambda}^\dagger e^{ikx} \right][/math] This formalism assumes a spacetime structure with coordinates [math]x^\mu[/math] and a Lorentz-invariant background. You can’t define the field or its quanta (photons) without that. 4. My redshift argument adds consistency I backtraced a present-day CMB photon to Planck energy using: [math]E = h\nu = \frac{hc}{\lambda} \quad \text{with} \quad \lambda = \lambda_0 / (1+z)[/math] And found it reaches Planck scale at [math]t \approx 2.18 \times 10^{-43} , \text{s}[/math], just after Planck time — the era where spacetime geometry (via Chortons in QCF) forms. So the appearance of photons after spacetime is not just assumed — it follows directly from the structure of the physics we already use. If you believe photons can exist without spacetime, I’d genuinely like to see what framework allows that. Otherwise, this order — spacetime first, photons after — is supported by both classical and quantum theory." its all i can state for now Yes, I mentioned energy density before spacetime — but I never said energy existed inside time before spacetime. I said that extreme energy density triggered spacetime formation. That’s not a loop — it’s a cause-effect relation where energy density acts as the condition for geometry to emerge. It’s similar to how, in quantum gravity approaches, spacetime itself is emergent from deeper pre-geometric conditions. There’s no loop unless you assume time existed before spacetime — which I don’t. The energy density I referred to is a pre-spacetime initial condition, not something happening ‘in time.

Sorry sir, i will never do it again. Can i share file instead?

Yes, it may seem like a contradiction at first, but let me explain it more precisely: When I say "photons are created after spacetime", I mean this in a physical—not purely logical—sense. The creation of spacetime refers to the emergence of the arena in which cause-effect events like the creation of photons can occur. Time, as a dimension, begins with spacetime—but time as a measurable process only becomes meaningful once physical events start happening inside it, such as the appearance of energy or light. There is no contradiction unless one assumes that “time” must already be ticking before spacetime exists. There’s no contradiction in what I said. Spacetime means 3D space plus time — it's the full 4D structure. So obviously, when spacetime got created, time as a dimension came with it. I said photons came after that. And when I said ‘time really started’, I meant that’s when physical things started happening — like energy, light, motion. So yeah, time existed as part of spacetime, but it started ticking only when events began. No contradiction, just misunderstanding what I meant by ‘really started’. I will rather welcome critiques on my theory rather then a mockery.

I've been sharing my framework and answering questions, but so far no one has pointed out any major flaws. They're mainly asking how specific things work or requesting evidence — which I welcome — but I'm specifically looking for clear critiques. If there’s something logically inconsistent, mathematically incorrect, or physically unjustified, please point it out directly. If you have no critiques, feel free to say that too — silence makes it hard to tell whether the theory holds up or just isn’t being understood deeply enough.

In the QCF model, Chortons are not massive particles — they are quantized excitations of curvature, not matter. They don’t exert force or gravity directly like particles do. Instead, they collectively build the structure of spacetime curvature. ach Chorton is a quantum of curvature, forming only when local energy exceeds the Planck threshold in a Planck volume: [math]∑Eγ≥EPinVP⇒Chorton forms\sum E_\gamma \geq E_P \quad \text{in} \quad V_P \Rightarrow \text{Chorton forms}∑Eγ≥EPinVP⇒Chorton forms[/math] These Chortons generate χμν(x)≠0\chi_{\mu\nu}(x) \neq 0χμν(x)=0, i.e. spacetime geometry becomes active. When Chorton fields become dense, their curvature fields superpose, and this curvature manifests as gravity — as described by: Newtonian gravity in low curvature limits Full GR behavior in strong field zones I gave you example of photon with proofs that they are created after spacetime.However when spacetime got created then time really started. I will tell more. @swansont here you can see paper if you want to https://zenodo.org/records/16313645 In the Quantum Chorton Framework (QCF), photons cannot exist before spacetime because they require a defined geometric background to propagate — this is true even in classical physics, where Maxwell’s equations and null geodesics rely on the metric. I reverse-redshifted a present-day CMB photon back to Planck energy and found that it corresponds to [math] t≈2.18×10−43 st \approx 2.18 \times 10^{-43} \, \text{s}t≈2.18×10−43s[/math], just after Planck time. This suggests photons can only emerge after spacetime forms via Chorton activation. Chortons themselves do not attract — they are not massive particles, but quantized curvature units that build spacetime geometry. Gravity, in QCF, arises from the curvature structure they create, and the model recovers both Newtonian and relativistic gravity in the correct limits.

In QCF, the universe begins without spacetime, light speed, or causality — only a non-local energy field. Geometry emerges when the local energy density exceeds a critical threshold, forming Chortons: quantized units of curvature. Only after this transition can physical particles like photons exist. To test this, I redshifted a present-day CMB photon (at 2.725 K) back in time. The current energy of a CMB photon is: [math] E_{\text{now}} \approx 1.17 \times 10^{-12} , \text{GeV} [/math] The Planck energy is: [math] E_{\text{Planck}} \approx 1.22 \times 10^{19} , \text{GeV} [/math] Using the standard redshift relation: [math] 1 + z = \frac{E_{\text{Planck}}}{E_{\text{now}}} \Rightarrow z \approx 1.043 \times 10^{31} [/math] To convert redshift into time during the radiation-dominated era, I used: [math] t(z) \approx \frac{1}{2 H_0 \sqrt{\Omega_r}} \cdot \frac{1}{(1 + z)^2} [/math] With these constants: [math] H_0 \approx 67.66 , \text{km/s/Mpc} \approx 2.19 \times 10^{-18} , \text{s}^{-1} [/math] [math] \Omega_r \approx 9.236 \times 10^{-5} [/math] This gives: [math] t \approx 2.18 \times 10^{-43} , \text{s} [/math] This is just after the Planck time: [math] t_p \approx 5.39 \times 10^{-44} , \text{s} [/math] So photons were not present at the very beginning — they formed just after spacetime emerged. This supports QCF’s core idea: [math] \rho(x) \geq \rho_{\text{Planck}} \Rightarrow \chi_{\mu\nu}(x) \neq 0 [/math] (Geometry turns on after Planck density is crossed) Then: [math] \chi_{\mu\nu}(x) \neq 0 \Rightarrow \gamma(x) \text{ can emerge} [/math] (Photons are permitted only after geometry exists) Thus, photons are not fundamental to spacetime — they are emergent, structured excitations born after Chortons form the geometric fabric.

In the QCF, causal connectivity and large-scale smoothness emerge before spacetime exists, through quantum graph dynamics — not classical field propagation. Here's how: 1. Pre-Spacetime Graph Activation Chortons activate at nodes where local energy density exceeds Planck scale: [math]\rho(x) \geq \rho_{\text{Planck}} \Rightarrow \chi_{\mu\nu}(x) \neq 0[/math] Since the early universe’s energy density was nearly uniform, this threshold was crossed near-simultaneously across the graph. 2. No Lightcone Limitation Before geometry forms, there's no light speed, no spacetime, no causal horizon. So the field can activate globally — not via signal exchange, but quantum threshold conditions. 3. Graph Laplacian Smoothing Chorton field values align via discrete Laplacian dynamics: [math]f(\rho_\Omega) \cdot \Delta_G \chi_{\mu\nu}(v) = \beta \cdot T^{\text{eff}}_{\mu\nu}(\Omega)[/math] This acts like curvature diffusion, smoothing the field and producing homogeneous and isotropic geometry over the entire graph. 4. Emergent Geometry The metric forms as: [math]g_{\mu\nu}(x) = \eta_{\mu\nu} + \alpha \chi_{\mu\nu}(x)[/math] Lightcones and causal structure emerge only after the field has already aligned. Conclusion: QCF doesn’t need inflation or field propagation to solve the horizon or isotropy problems. It provides an entirely pre-geometric mechanism that ensures the early universe is smooth and causally connected, consistent with CMB observations. I welcome any further critiques or questions on my model. If there are no major issues left from your perspective, I’d appreciate knowing that — so I can consider the current version of the framework stable and ready to move forward. Your insights have already helped me improve it significantly As i have written in my signature “I am supposed to fall, but I dive.” I was supposed to fall when the photon birth idea collapsed,but i dived and let it collapse. As a result i got this new version. Maybe that light was just to guide me to here.

Thanks for helping. You're right — each Chorton carries energy, so its formation does reduce the available energy in the quantum vacuum. In the Quantum Chorton Framework, this process is fully accounted for. Chortons form when the local energy density on the quantum graph exceeds a Planck-scale threshold: [math]\rho(x) \geq \rho_{\text{crit}} \sim \rho_{\text{Planck}} \Rightarrow \chi_{\mu\nu}(x) \neq 0[/math] At that point, the curvature field χμν\chi_{\mu\nu}χμν is activated, and its evolution is governed by the Hamiltonian: [math] H_\chi = \frac{1}{2} \left( \pi_{\mu\nu}^2 + \nabla^\lambda \chi_{\mu\nu} \nabla_\lambda \chi_{\mu\nu} + V(\chi) \right) [/math] So yes — energy is transferred from unstructured vacuum energy into structured curvature excitations. But QCF does not begin with classical thermal equilibrium. The universe at that stage is a graph of quantum energy nodes — not a photon gas or thermal bath. The temperature drop occurs, but it’s not a sudden collapse. As Chortons form across the graph, they gradually convert quantum energy into curvature, and the redshifting process begins. In fact, this is how QCF explains the smooth emergence of the CMB. The model predicts that the residual background energy density after Chorton activation matches observed CMB values — showing thermodynamic consistency. So the temperature does decrease, but as a structured, geometric evolution, not as simple heat loss.

Sir can you guide me to fix this.I tried many times but i dont know where i am messing up.