Dhillon1724X

Actually i avoid arguing as i respect them,thats why i asked so i dont need to argue. My classmates write whats written in Textbook,i thought teacher checked in hurry so maybe she just matched the one word answers with theirs. Thanks for guiding me. Maybe i will continue it in long run,but not in academic way. Thanks for clarifying. Now i understand In India, Marks are everything. Higher the marks,more intelligent you are. They dont see intellect of students as per understanding its about marks.However,my Science teacher favors understanding but still if marks get lower then according to them "you are not studying anymore". I dont know if its same in your country. I dont know why but during test i mess up things i know. I knew i had to balance equations,but i didnt and due to some reasons a part of test was still remaining and teacher took it today,There was no pressure so it all went right. foolishly i also gave answers like we discuss here assuming that the teacher knows everything,but teacher deducted marks saying you have to explain fully(I agree with her).

Chortons are non-propagating, localized curvature excitations, but their field values [math]\chi_{\mu\nu}(x, t)[/math] evolve due to changes in energy and matter across the universe. This includes both quantum-scale energy fluctuations and classical mass-energy — such as that from galaxies, stars, planets, and particles. In QCF, the field evolves through: Hamiltonian field dynamics: [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] with time evolution: [math] \frac{d}{dt} \chi_{\mu\nu}(x, t) = \frac{\delta H}{\delta \pi_{\mu\nu}(x, t)} [/math] Graph-based dynamics (discrete spacetime nodes): [math] f(\rho_\Omega) \cdot \Delta_G \chi_{\mu\nu}(v) = \beta \cdot T^{\text{eff}}_{\mu\nu}(\Omega) [/math] where [math]T^{\text{eff}}_{\mu\nu}(\Omega)[/math] reflects local energy fluctuations, which include contributions from bulk matter like galaxies and planets after geometry emerges. Additionally, QCF allows matter fields [math]\phi(x)[/math], [math]\psi(x)[/math] to couple to the emergent metric [math]g_{\mu\nu}(x) = \eta_{\mu\nu} + \alpha \chi_{\mu\nu}(x)[/math], such that: [math] S_\phi = \int d^4x \sqrt{-g_\chi} \left( \frac{1}{2} g^{\mu\nu}\chi , \partial\mu \phi , \partial_\nu \phi - V(\phi) \right) [/math] Thus, as matter moves or clusters (e.g., during galaxy formation or planetary dynamics), it modifies the local stress-energy, which updates the Chorton field configuration — even though Chortons themselves remain fixed in position. This is similar to spin lattices or quantum magnetism: field configurations evolve due to neighboring energy changes, not due to moving particles. In QCF, curvature is dynamic even if the underlying excitations are fixed.

I will remember it. I wrote combustion reaction as i thought i have to write specific reaction.I forgot it wasnt in chapter as i started learning some concepts of Quantum Chemistry,Chemical Equations.

But then question must have specified it. if you say then i accept that the Teacher is right as you are a chemist and well experienced. Thanks for explaining and guiding. I am not that familiar with chemistry but i look forward to learn.

As a kid i used to think that we can take a plant and supply it all essential things like CO2,H2O etc in a chamber which is sealed but have a outlet which filters oxygen out with any water vapour which will fill atmosphere with O2 slowly if it is done on large scale.In addition i thought that we can use CO2 present in atmosphere of Mars to reduce it. Hahahaha.

Yesterday was my periodic school test in science, and one of the questions asked: “What type of reaction occurs when fuel or gas burns?” I wrote "combustion reaction" as my answer, but the teacher marked it wrong and said the correct answer is "oxidation reaction." According to NCERT Class 10 Science, the main types of chemical reactions listed are: Combination Decomposition Displacement Double Displacement Oxidation Reduction (and Redox) While combustion isn't listed under the core classification, NCERT Chapter 6 (on combustion and flame) clearly defines combustion as a reaction where a substance combines with oxygen to release heat and light — i.e., exactly what happens when fuel burns. So while combustion is a type of oxidation, it’s also a more specific and contextually accurate term for the reaction described. Is it reasonable for me to request rechecking and marks for this? My answer seems chemically correct, just more specific.

I am using before to explain in normal language. But yes, You're absolutely right that in conventional GR, there's no "before" spacetime — since time itself is part of the manifold. What I'm suggesting is not a temporal "before" in the usual sense, but rather a pre-geometric phase, where energy fields existed without classical spacetime geometry. The "flight of fancy" you're referring to is actually a theoretical response to a serious gap in our understanding There is precedent — many quantum gravity approaches, including Loop Quantum Gravity, Spin Foam models, and even aspects of String Theory, suggest spacetime is not fundamental, but emergent. My proposal simply specifies how that emergence could occur: through quantized curvature nodes (Chortons) triggered by Planck-scale energy density. It’s no less motivated than any other pre-geometric framework being seriously discussed in theoretical physics today. As for evidence — the model isn’t just metaphysical. It recovers the observed total energy density of the universe (Planck 2018) within 0.0013% accuracy when evolved with redshift and standard ΛCDM parameters. That’s not fantasy — it’s predictive consistency. If there's a better explanation for where spacetime comes from that also fits observational data this tightly, I’m open to seeing it. Until then, I'd argue Chortons are at least more plausible than leprechauns with luxury vehicles. I agree that it may have flaws but its being developed by a 15 year old(almost) and solo.

yes,there are finite numbers of them,the total number formed after or during the Big Bang is large, gravity is not frozen.Chortons do not propagate, but their field values (χμν) can evolve. As structure forms (like galaxies), the Chorton field aligns and redistributes curvature across the network via the graph Laplacian dynamics. This allows gravity to adapt to new mass distributions without needing new Chortons. Sorry sir, I am unable to understand, Do you mean temperature during Big Bang? Update! I tested this using Planck 2018 cosmological parameters. Starting with standard ΛCDM energy components (dark energy, matter, and radiation) and adding the redshifted Chorton field (approximately 5.5% of the radiation sector), the total energy density becomes: \[ \rho_{\text{total}} = \rho_{\Lambda} + \rho_{\text{matter}} + \rho_{\text{radiation}} + \rho_{\text{chorton}} = 7.6429 \times 10^{-10} \, \text{J/m}^3 \] This closely matches the critical density derived from the Friedmann equation with: \[ H_0 = 67.4 \, \text{km/s/Mpc} \] \[ \rho_c = \frac{3H_0^2}{8\pi G} = 7.643 \times 10^{-10} \, \text{J/m}^3 \] The difference is only: \[ \Delta \rho = 1 \times 10^{-13} \, \text{J/m}^3 \quad \text{or} \quad 0.0013\% \] This minor offset arises due to rounding in component densities (especially dark energy and matter), and the addition of a redshifted geometric background (Chorton field). The result stays within observational tolerance and confirms that the QCF addition is consistent with ΛCDM energy structure.

It looks familiar to Monkey.D.Dragon

Then,Maybe it must work for you too.

Looks like due to some error my answer didn’t get posted. These conditions are very high and impossible to reach in presence of spacetime as Planck scales emerge with gravity or spacetime.But spacetime emerges from chortons and before them there was none,so there was no limit.The Big Bang era had huge numbers of energy,temperature etc

Thanks for explaining. I will keep it in mind. I am still learning and i look forward to learn. @Sohan Lalwani Now you deserve congratulations as your Reputation is increasing. Congratulations!

Due to shortage of time i had to use those words. I will keep in my mind to do it from next time. This version represents a major refinement and formal advancement of the Quantum Chorton Framework (QCF). The key changes and additions are as follows: 1. Removal of Photon-Based Assumptions The original version included speculative assumptions about high-energy photons as the origin of curvature quanta.In this revised version, photon dependence has been fully removed.Chortons are now modeled as fundamental excitations triggered by local energy density thresholds, making the theory fully background-independent and self-contained. 2. Reorganized and Extended Mathematical Foundation A Master Lagrangian has been constructed to unify all formulations of the Chorton field. A new section introduces Feynman rules for the Chorton interaction field, compatible with perturbative expansions. There are some more minor refinements.

By argue i meant fighting over small things which are not related to topic.

In this new version i dont use photons. The theory stands still and stronger now.

Why are you having problem,I dont like you tone. I am not here to argue.

I have uploaded the updated version, Should i send DOI or maybe you can access from first version. Thanks to @Markus Hanke for catching that very critical and very foolish mistake.

I understand that sir, I will no longer force photons to collapse into chortons.I check if my work can stand without it. I welcome any further critiques

For a massless particle (such as a photon or graviton), which experiences no proper time, the trajectory is instead governed by the null geodesic equation: \[ \frac{d^2 x^\mu}{d\lambda^2} + \Gamma^\mu_{\nu\sigma} \frac{dx^\nu}{d\lambda} \frac{dx^\sigma}{d\lambda} = 0, \] where \( \lambda \) is an affine parameter along the particle’s worldline. I added it after your question.

Important Note-My exams are starting from tomorrow.I will be very less active. I will appereciate if i get critiques while i am busy,so i can develop my theory after it. The ones pointed related to spacetime,photons,massless object etc are resolved. Yes,this is what i have to change now,as photons are supposed to exist before spacetime.

I doesn’t assume this density exists in spacetime — it says spacetime only emerges when this energy density condition is met on a pre-geometric quantum substrate. The planck limit need spacetime,but before it theres no limit.

I will fix that. I can remove photons from it but the theory can stand still and stronger. Maybe it was just a mistake or my foolishness,but it led me here. As i have in my signature,“I am supposed to fall, but I dive.”

English isnt my fist language,to tackle some problems sometime i use AI. I use it to correct any grammar mistake and refine. Thanks for instructions. I am starting work on it now. To fix this, should i consider redefining the collapse condition over a discrete quantum graph? @studiot Sir I am waiting for your reply or critique.

I thought you downvoted me,Sorry if i am wrong. You seem Indian? You know,it feels bad when someone downvotes for nothing and it ruins the reputation.

You're absolutely right to point out that standard definitions of "energy", "particles", and even "spin" typically presuppose a background spacetime. That concern is valid within conventional quantum field theory, which is built on a pre-existing Minkowski (or curved) spacetime. However, the Quantum Chorton Framework (QCF) deliberately challenges this foundational assumption by proposing a pre-geometric origin for spacetime itself. Let me clarify what is meant in this framework: "Photons" and "energy density" in QCF are not literal field excitations in spacetime, but symbolic shorthand for fundamental quantum events—such as lightlike information or high-frequency pulses—that are treated as precursors to spacetime, not occurring within it. In that sense, Chortons are not excitations in spacetime, but proto-excitations that generate spacetime by forming local curvature gradients. You can think of them more like topological transitions in a causal network or quantum graph that give rise to the geometric structure we later call "spacetime". This aligns with several active lines of research: Causal Set Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity also try to define geometry as emergent. Pre-spacetime frameworks (e.g., from Fotini Markopoulou, or even Wheeler's "pregeometry") use abstract networks where "spacetime" is a coarse-grained emergent limit. Spin-2 excitations are defined in the post-emergent limit, once the Chorton field has established a background. The term is used here to communicate the effective role Chortons play: they mediate curvature, like quantized gravitons would in a semi-classical regime. So yes, the critique is valid under traditional frameworks, but QCF explicitly positions itself beyond those assumptions, in the spirit of deeper background-independent approaches. In the Quantum Chorton Framework (QCF), the critical volume is the smallest meaningful chunk of space—called the Planck volume. It’s tiny: Vc=Vp≈4.22×10−105 m3V_c = V_p \approx 4.22 \times 10^{-105} \, \text{m}^3Vc=Vp≈4.22×10−105m3 This is the volume where quantum gravity effects become important. The critical energy density is the amount of energy that must be packed into that tiny space to trigger a transformation—when photons collide and collapse and form a Chorton. This density is based on the Planck energy (which is the maximum energy a single point can hold without collapsing into a black hole): ρc=EpVp≈5.16×10113 J/m3\rho_c = \frac{E_p}{V_p} \approx 5.16 \times 10^{113} \, \text{J/m}^3ρc=VpEp≈5.16×10113J/m3 I now realize that declaring a curvature-energy density commutator without a well-defined conjugate field structure isn't correct. I've rewritten Axiom 6 based on canonical quantization of the Chorton field χμν(x)\chi_{\mu\nu}(x)χμν(x), with proper conjugate momentum πμν(x)\pi^{\mu\nu}(x)πμν(x) You're right that I describe spacetime as emergent — not fundamental. So when I refer to photons "concentrating in a region," I don't mean a classical volume in existing space. Instead, I use a pre-geometric substrate — a discrete quantum graph or network I want honest feedback, 1)Is it worth refining and working on? 2)Is it a good theory now and worth submitting to Arxiv?