Lafate

Agreed it is in effect white noise, like actual white noise which is a collection of indistinguishable sounds at basically the same amplitude and energy level. However in actual white noise there are a symphony of informational expressions occurring just none distinguishable above the other. So in a quantum field would the fact there are no distinguishing contrasts mean that there is nothing guided by information happening? For instance without information how can virtual particles be inferable as a virtual particle? Are you not describing an impression of dimensional expression in saying a "virtual particle" not unlike a blue print suggesting the possibility of form before there is a literal expression guided by the blue print? You may be absolutely correct these are questions i would need concrete answers to before just summarily dismissing the idea. I am not mistaking the possibility of architecture for the building itself I'm just not dismissing the evidence of architecture already expressed in a blue print i.e. the inference of a virtual particle/information, before the building comes to be.

How would you see information being "encoded" in a vacuum? Is there really such thing as a vacuum when we speak of space time? Quantum fields that occupy the "vacuum" express themselves in ways that indicates the information is encoded in that "vacuum" i.e. virtual particles constantly appearing and disappearing in obvious response to some sort of information. And I don't pretend to explain how just that it appears to be so at least according to the descriptions of a quantum field by those who are supposed to "know" and i don't question that. Just simply pointing out something puzzling to me, how could even virtual particles display without information to allow or describe their virtual form? Something would be required to express them in meaningful form even just virtually. This may be a very weak argument but its a key element appearing and disappearing virtually in my narrative. Would i be wrong to assume that entering a black hole would cause a shortening of spacetime coordinates in all directions, as if the metric itself were compressing toward a coherent node. The inverse-square ratio of gravitational influence remains intact. The distance of influence shrinks, but the pattern of decay (1⁄r²) is preserved, like a fractal geometry that scales without losing its form. Actually from what i understand, i always reserve the right to be wrong, this is part of the reason a person nearing light speed would notice no effects because while the metrics are shortened all scale remains the same and there is nothing that contrast to give him a clue that space is being severely compressed. So as stated originally in my first post i am suggesting for fun that gravity isn’t just a force it’s a structural echo of the original distortion caused by particle formation. And that echo persists, even when the field condenses to its most minimal expression: the Planck Entity. Further this minimal expression can not be compressed into nothing no more than a shadow can destroy the source that cast it. You may laugh now though, i am serious in proposing a logic that helps me make sense of what I have read about the law of the conservation of energy, matter, and information all being violated in GR at the formation of a black hole and i am conserving all the math that proves the workability of GR and its predictions in all scales except in extreme conditions of a black hole by saying simple the (proposed) emergent gravity resulting in particle formation has exact equality in measure as to effect as the gravitational curving caused by matter proposed by GR. I am not trying to reinvent the math the math works it works well except for the end game and that is where i am trying to affect a solution conserving what we know and explaining what we don't know. Just put an I in place of we in all the foregoing sentences i really haven't found a "we" yet. I bounced these ideas off of a friend of mine and he thinks i'm nuts well probably am.

Well supersymmetry seams to be an idea that hasn't gained legs over time and admittedly I am not qualified to comment on it's relevance to universal symmetry in relation to supersymmetry or the need for every known particle to have a heavier superpartner with opposite spin. It seams to me a single quantum field with the needed information encoded within this field to produce every particle there is wouldn't need it and even particles that have never existed simply because certain conditions that might tease out their existence because the information may already permit them should new conditions arise. This seams to be so in the early universe when energy first coalesced into particles that information seamed to anticipate the conditions that arose and expressed them in an orderly way that fit a pattern capable if increasingly more complex iteration down to what we see and experience today. and i don't pretend to know how but it seams that from the way virtual particles are able to form even fleetingly in quantum fluctuations demonstrates the information is already there creating and conserving symmetry. Some seam to view quantum fluctuations as a sort of informational chaos. Maybe it is but i can't understand that concept what i can grasp is a field that is capable of and does express every thing information permits virtually in particle formation and there fore ready to direct the formation of matter in meaningful ways to conserve a pattern or its iterations. In other words what appears as random chaos is an infinite caudal of information creating quantum fluctuations ready to direct or be directed in meaningful forms.

well I do not have the language of a physicist to express things in a way that people who do understand would readily pick up on but I use the word product like real world structures macro and micro that are formed by the guidance of information. Information that always remains faithful to a symmetry that it describes and maintains in a pattern even in its iterations. For instance information giving particles their characteristics that may be encoded in space time itself can explain why dark matter don't interact with normal matter if for instance the particular iteration of the formation of dark matter gives a resonance to particles forming dark matter that are out of phase with normal matter in a way they don't interact except for gravity and that could be simply that the particles for both normal and dark matter came from the same field with different aspects of encoded information being expressed. However the coalescing of the quanta to form particles for either would form the same emergent gravity signature and would obey certain aspects of informational symmetry ensuring the overall pattern remains in tacked. For example without the interaction of dark matter galaxies and galactic clusters could not remain united and would not allow for star formation and rebirth in a confined region allowing for the formation of heavier elements capable of more complex structures even leading to our existence. So here he see different iterations to informationally governed iterations that conserve the symmetry of the total and that all I am saying I think. However when i talk to much i lay traps for myself that may not be easy to escape from.

Informational symmetry assures that any coherent product of information will reflect the symmetry of its source, across all scales and iterations, preserving pattern fidelity

That the identity or characteristics that all particles manifest once formed, spin, charge, mass etc. is already encoded in the space time field that produces them seams to be evidenced in the fact that quantum fluctuations produce virtual particles popping in and out of existence, how could particles even virtual ones be recognized as such without information already present to define them virtually. So when a stable particle forms from the quantum fluctuations of the space time field what aspects of the information already encoded there that a particle will express depends on the amount of quanta involved with that particles formation possibly analogous to the increasing or decreasing frequencies determining which structure emerge in Chladni's patterns. It takes a large amount of energy just to form a small amount of matter as evidenced by how small amount of matter is actually transformed into energy in a nuclear fusion detonation where about only 1% of the fusible mass is transformed into energy. So even on the smallest level its difficult not to assume the large amount of quantum energy coalescing to form a particle wouldn't have some effect on the field from which it coalesced from. Perhaps leading to a permanent contraction surrounding that particle commensurate or corresponding to the quanta used in its formation. Perhaps this is the effect responsible for the curvature of space responsible for gravity not as a force acted upon by a particle once formed but an emergent factor resulting from it's formation. Not perceptible at this level as the strong force the weak force, electromagnetism is so dominating but with sufficient mass it does become evident. with the inverse square law of gravity eventually gravity overcomes in macro the short reach of more powerful forces that dominate in the micro. This inverse square law of gravity may originate as a geometric pattern found even in the contraction that is commensurate to the formation of each particle effecting more locally but also effecting the field to affinity but falling off meaningless at some point do the application of the inverse square law.

--- Resonance, Coherence, and the Emergence of the Planck Entity Framework, this is not a paper to present a new theory its the ramblings of an old man who has read many physics blogs and watched more Sabine Hassenfeld videos than most would admit to and just have questions dealing with logistics arising from some unanswered questions about physics so, the purpose of this narrative is to give people who do know something a reason to smile at my ignorance and to invite commentary positive or negative just be kind. Radical question about Particle formation? This question for consideration did not begin with equations but it began with patterns. It began with the Chladni plate. Well not quite, that was secondary, it began after reading that Einstein was working on a unified field theory and I started thinking wait a minute how could so many different particles with such distinct properties arise from a single unified field and the standard model works so well in predicting their existence and properties. But wait a minute it works so well in part because the particular quantum field that is responsible for that particle expression was determined to exist to match that particles nature. How convenient! So, would it be possible to demonstrate the plausibility to produce so many different particles and properties form a single field? Here is where the idea of the Chladni Pattern came to me as sort of an example of how it might be possible. When a flat surface is vibrated, sand settles into nodal lines and the stable geometries that emerge are not from randomness, but from resonance. These patterns are not imposed; they are revealed. They arise from the interplay between energy, boundary conditions, and the constraints of the substrate. This simple phenomenon suggested something profound: that structure can emerge from a unified field, governed by resonance and informational constraint. From this first thought grew a more bold question: perhaps particles like the fundamental units of matter are not discrete insertions into the universe, but resonant expressions of a single coherent field? Could their properties of mass, spin, charge, are not arbitrarily assigned, but encoded in the geometry of their emergence, Just as each Chladni pattern reflects a distinct mode of vibration, each particle reflects a distinct mode of resonance within the spacetime substrate? Gravity an emergent principle? This led to question about gravity. In standard physics, gravity is treated as a force or curvature imposed by mass-energy. But what if gravity is not a separate phenomenon, but a geometric consequence of particle formation itself? When energy coalesces into a stable resonance, i.e. when a particle forms, it contracts the surrounding field? That contraction then would not be incidental; perhaps this creates the curvature we call gravity? In this view, gravity would not be an external force, but rather it is an emergent principle, born from the same logic that gives rise to matter. (while not making gravity a quantum field with quanta expressed as gravitons, it would tie gravity as emerging through quantum interactions) The extreme end state of matter is of course a Black Hole with a proposed singularity at its center. What is a Plank Entity if it were to actually exist? The classical notion of a singularity, an undefined point of infinite density, has long served as a least objectionable option in the absence of a better solution. because It is not a viable solution. (in my opinion which apart from logic holds no weight) It violates the very principles that govern physical law: continuity, symmetry, and informational coherence. In contrast, the Planck Entity could be viewed as a logical necessity. Because it would represents the final stable resonance permitted by the informational substrate of spacetime. It is not a breakdown, but a boundary. Not a paradox, but a pattern. For perspective, consider a second familiar analogy: phase transitions in water. Ice, liquid, and vapor are not separate substances, they are expressions of the same molecular identity under different energetic constraints. Each phase has its own geometry, its own behavior, but the underlying information remains conserved. Likewise, perhaps matter under gravitational compression does not vanish it transitions? The Planck Entity could be the final phase, the endpoint of compression where resonance is maximized and further collapse is forbidden by the logic of coherence. Like a cosmic speed limit in reverse, for matter to attain light speed infinite energy would be needed, an impossibility of course. Likewise at the endpoint where informational resonance is maximized and further collapse is forbidden by the absence of infinite gravity, which also is an impossibility. This reframing, if true, would of course demand a shift in how we treat gravity. In conventional models, gravity is a force that acts upon matter. But in this framework, gravity would be a consequence of matter formation itself. When energy condenses into a coherent particle, it contracts the surrounding field. That contraction would not be incidental would it? Wouldn't the curvature we perceive as Gravity, rather than being an external actor, become a geometric echo of resonance? Wouldn't it arises not from mass, but from the informational act of formation. If this was possible this could lead to a deeper principle: informational governance. In any coherent system, information must obey symmetry. It must be conserved, constrained, and expressed in ways that do not violate the logic of the substrate. A singularity, by definition, erases information. It offers no boundary, no geometry, no resonance. It is incoherent. The Planck Entity, by contrast, preserves all three. It is the final Chladni figure ( so to speak) the last stable mode before the substrate itself dissolves. If it exists. Axiom I for even considering the above ideas is: Informationally governed systems must preserve coherence at origin, iteration, and termination. No transformation may violate the symmetry or logic of the substrate. This is not just a philosophical preference it has the appearance of physical imperative. The universe, as observed, does not tolerate incoherence. Every stable structure, from atoms to galaxies, reflects a balance between energy, constraint, and informational symmetry. In my mind the Planck Entity is simply the extension of that logic to its gravitational extreme. In this view, black holes do not end in mystery they end in pattern. The mural is never torn it is completed. Such a view does not replace physics however if possible it could clarify its foundation, ensuring that even the unseen phenomena must obey the same logic as the seen. I do not know if the above proposals have legs, I wouldn't bet my life on it but whether they do or not what is the absolute truth about the true nature of existence, if ever discovered in full, in my mind should follow the logic that is attempted to be presented above. Einstein and Newton I suspect would support at least my last statement here and maybe Plank but I don't know about Hawking. Anyway I invite comments and critique, please keep in mind I don't pretend to be a Physicist just a lay person with an interest and a problem with conclusions drawn from proven facts that lead to what seams to be illogical conclusions especially when you attempt to look at the total all put together and not concentrating on desperate parts without putting them together so, be critical but kind, educate not berate. Lafate ---