Hello,

I’m Kulraj Singh Dhillon, an independent theoretical researcher from India. Over the past two months, I’ve been developing a new model of quantum gravity called the Quantum Chorton Framework (QCF) — built from the ground up using principles of energy thresholds, curvature quantization, and emergent geometry.

In this framework, spacetime does not pre-exist — instead, it emerges dynamically from discrete curvature quanta called Chortons, which are spin-2 excitations generated when photon energy density exceeds the Planck threshold. These Chortons are stationary and act as fundamental “building blocks” of geometry.

The theory includes:
- A full Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulation of the curvature field,
- Path integral quantization and gauge structure,
- Constraint dynamics and symmetry analysis,
- A classical limit that recovers General Relativity from a coarse-grained Chorton ensemble.

Some key predictions:
- **GHz-scale gravitational signatures, potentially detectable with future quantum sensors,
- **Black hole formation from radiation alone ,
- **Redefined Hawking radiation as a dissipation of the curvature field,
- Subtle CMB and redshift deviations from discrete geometric emergence.

I've just published the full paper (it's quite detailed and long) here:

link removed

The paper also includes a comparison with major frameworks like Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) and String Theory.

I welcome any questions, comments, or constructive critique. This is a first public release, and I’d love to hear where it stands scientifically and what could be improved.

Thanks for reading,
Kulraj Singh Dhillon

If you find this work interesting or worth exploring further, I would sincerely appreciate any help in getting endorsed for arXiv submission. I'm aiming to submit it under the [gr-qc] or [hep-th] categories, and currently need an endorsement to proceed.

Thank you again for taking the time to read and consider my work.

My previous work was forged into this,the Gravitons failed and Chortons emerged.The old work had Gravitons but:

Gravitons cant exist.
They are not supposed to exist or need to exist.

Edited July 20Jul 20 by Dhillon1724X

I wanted to show this before i turn 15.If this is worth refining then please give me advice,maybe i can go to a journal
, But first i need endorsement on Arxiv,so i can show it to others too.

Special thanks to @studiot @joigus and other seniors who encouraged me,critiqued my work and taught me.

Edited July 20Jul 20 by Dhillon1724X

Moderator Note

As has been explained before, discussion must take place here. Making a thread just to post a link elsewhere is against the rules.

Just now, swansont said:

As has been explained before, discussion must take place here. Making a thread just to post a link elsewhere is against the rules.

Sir its 70+ pages,i have explained major things here,I cant write all pages here.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Moderator Note

As has been explained before, discussion must take place here. Making a thread just to post a link elsewhere is against the rules.

and i am not making thread to post a link.Please kindly place that link back or tell me a alternative

Edited July 20Jul 20 by Dhillon1724X

@swansont So i cant post link in post topic but i can do that in replies?
I have to do it as its 80 pages in total,i cant share file directly because of some reasons.

If anyone wants to read full paper then they can see it on https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16198064

11 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

@swansont So i cant post link in post topic but i can do that in replies?
I have to do it as its 80 pages in total,i cant share file directly because of some reasons.

No, you can’t post a link.

The relevant part of rule says “members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links” and “material for discussion must be posted”

This isn’t the place for discussing an 80-page paper.

Abstract
We propose the Quantum Chorton Framework (QCF), a novel model of quantum gravity in which spacetime and curvature emerge from a threshold-triggered quantum transition of high-energy photon fields. When the local energy density exceeds the Planck scale, the photon field undergoes a non-perturbative phase transition that produces discrete, stationary, spin-2 excitations called Chortons. These excitations form a quantized curvature field that defines the underlying geometry of spacetime. In contrast to traditional graviton-based theories, QCF does not treat gravity as a force mediated by propagating particles, but as the collective geometric structure arising from the distribution of Chortons. The model is background-free, gauge-invariant, and consistent with the Weinberg–Witten theorem. It predicts curvature redshift and gravitational behavior as emergent consequences of Chorton dynamics, and provides a physically motivated mechanism for the origin of spacetime without assuming a pre-existing metric. We present the theoretical formulation of the framework, derive the conditions for Chorton formation, and show how classical gravity and cosmic expansion are recovered at macroscopic scales. These results support a reinterpretation of gravitation as a quantum geometric phenomenon seeded by energy concentration in the early universe.
Introduction
The unification of quantum mechanics and General Relativity remains one of the most profound challenges in theoretical physics. While General Relativity describes spacetime as a smooth, dynamic geometry shaped by energy and momentum, quantum field theory treats all fundamental interactions as discrete processes governed by probabilistic laws. Reconciling these perspectives requires a framework in which geometry itself emerges from quantum principles. The Quantum Chorton Framework (QCF) proposes that spacetime and gravity originate from the collapse of high-energy photon fields into discrete, spin-2 curvature quanta called Chortons. In this model, when the local energy density of photons exceeds the Planck threshold within a critical volume, a quantum phase transition occurs that produces stationary Chortons. These excitations form a nonpropagating curvature lattice, defining the geometric structure of spacetime at the smallest scales. Each Chorton carries a quantized packet of curvature, with energy, wavelength, and equivalent mass determined by fundamental constants. Their collective distribution gives rise to the gravitational field—not as a force mediated by propagating particles, but as an emergent structure built from energy-induced geometry. The framework further predicts that Chortons exhibit wave-particle duality, allowing curvature to manifest as both localized nodes and coherent gravitational waves in the classical limit. Unlike traditional graviton-based theories, QCF does not assume a preexisting spacetime background. It satisfies key consistency criteria, including gauge symmetry and the Weinberg–Witten theorem, and provides a mechanism for redshift and cosmic expansion as geometric consequences of Chorton dilution. In this picture, the graviton is not a fundamental particle but a large-scale, coarse-grained behavior of the Chorton network. This paper presents the formulation of the Quantum Chorton Framework, derives its dynamical equations, and demonstrates its compatibility with both classical General Relativity and quantum field principles. The model offers a new path toward understanding gravity as a manifestation of quantum geometry, rooted in the physical behavior of energy at the Planck scale.

Just now, swansont said:

No, you can’t post a link.

The relevant part of rule says “members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links” and “material for discussion must be posted”

This isn’t the place for discussing an 80-page paper.

I posted if anyone need source,I have posted things for discussion here

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

This isn’t the place for discussing an 80-page paper

My paper is a framework,and its maths heavy if it cant be discussed here then where?

I am here to get critiques and improve my work.
To learn from others.

@swansont If i post it part by part then its worth nothing.

So is it limitation of SFN?.If yes then i have to figure something out as this paper is going to get more longer.

Edited July 20Jul 20 by Dhillon1724X

Mr. Dillon,

It seems that you are suggesting that space itself is a field-of-force (ex.: magnetism) emitted by these "Chorton" particles .

IF this is true would you agree that space contains a significant portion of the initial energy released by the Big-Bang ?

Alright then , as an aside , do you adjudge this energy to be recoverable , and if so , at what cost ?

Edited July 20Jul 20 by Professor-M

3 minutes ago, Professor-M said:

Mr. Dillon,

It seems that you are suggesting that space itself is a field-of-force (ex.: magnetism) emitted by these "Chorton" particles .

IF this is true would you agree that space contains a significant portion of the initial energy released by the Big-Bang ?

Thank you for the thoughtful question.

Yes, within the Quantum Chorton Framework, space is not a passive stage but an active, emergent curvature field woven from the presence and dynamics of Chortons. These Chortons, born from ultra-high-energy photon collapse, act as persistent quantum curvature nodes — they don't merely transmit gravity but generate the geometry of spacetime itself.

So in that sense:
Space is a gravitational field — not in the classical Newtonian sense, but as a distributed energy-encoded structure built from quantized curvature (like the χμν\chi_{\mu\nu}χμν field).
Therefore, a significant portion of the initial energy released at the Big Bang does become embedded in the formation of space itself.

I am not waving hands in air,i have do

14 minutes ago, Professor-M said:

Alright then , as an aside , do you adjudge this energy to be recoverable , and if so , at what cost ?

Its very deep question,its my nature to think everything deeply so i will think deeply first.
i have to do some proper calculations and predictions to say anything.
Thanks for questioning,
i welcome any further questions,feedback and critiques.

If by recoverable you mean utilizing it then its very advanced topic,but i love this type of advanced topics,If i didnt then i might be still studying refraction of light in school.

What are some specific predictions thatcthis model makes, and how is it testable/falsifiable?

1 hour ago, Dhillon1724X said:

The Quantum Chorton Framework (QCF) proposes that spacetime and gravity originate from the collapse of high-energy photon fields into discrete, spin-2 curvature quanta called Chortons. In this model, when the local energy density of photons exceeds the Planck threshold within a critical volume, a quantum phase transition occurs that produces stationary Chortons. These excitations form a nonpropagating curvature lattice, defining the geometric structure of spacetime at the smallest scales. Each Chorton carries a quantized packet of curvature, with energy

What is this critical volume, and what is the value of the energy density?

If the chortons are stationary, how does gravity exist elsewhere? And how do fluctuations in gravity propagate (e.g. gravitational waves)

3 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I am here to get critiques and improve my work.
To learn from others.

I also have a problem with your "stationary" chortons. Re-phrasing what @swansont said: How does gravity propagate then? Gravity is known to propagate.

You say,

You keep saying this. What region do the photons concentrate into? You say yourself there is no space, or time, or way to measure or define distance.

You also say,

That's not what conjugate field observables do in QFT. You're missing a very important consistency part. But I'm not gonna tell you what it is, because if I do, you will feed my objection into your garbage-generating LLM, and it will make it look like you're making sense. So I'm not giving you any clues. Let's see if you can figure it out by yourself.

Thus far, your commutation rule does not make much sense according to relativity. It's too "crude".

There are many more objections, but it's impossible to be complete. Let's start with those three.

Edited July 20Jul 20 by joigus
minor correction

On page 37, you said that a test particle of mass m follows:

[math]\dfrac{d^2 x^\mu}{d\tau^2} + \Gamma^\mu_{\nu\sigma} \dfrac{dx^\nu}{d\tau} \dfrac{dx^\sigma}{d\tau} = 0[/math]

However, this equation does not work for a test particle of mass zero (eg a photon). How would you adjust this equation so that it does work for a test particle of mass zero?

[If the above LaTex doesn't render, please refresh browser.]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

If the chortons are stationary, how does gravity exist elsewhere? And how do fluctuations in gravity propagate (e.g. gravitational waves)

“stationary” here means non-propagating in the traditional particle sense, unlike gravitons in linear quantum gravity. Instead, Chortons form a network of curvature nodes. Gravity arises not by exchange particles flying between masses, but by the motion of objects through this curved Chorton field.

This is analogous to General Relativity: mass moves along geodesics defined by local curvature — not via direct force transmission.

5 hours ago, KJW said:

However, this equation does not work for a test particle of mass zero (eg a photon). How would you adjust this equation so that it does work for a test particle of mass zero?

I will work on it.

7 hours ago, joigus said:

That's not what conjugate field observables do in QFT. You're missing a very important consistency part. But I'm not gonna tell you what it is, because if I do, you will feed my objection into your garbage-generating LLM, and it will make it look like you're making sense. So I'm not giving you any clues. Let's see if you can figure it out by yourself.

I will find it out myself.

Thanks for telling

7 hours ago, joigus said:

There are many more objections, but it's impossible to be complete. Let's start with those three.

I am waiting for them.

Edited July 21Jul 21 by Dhillon1724X

7 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I am waiting for them.

You have to address all current issues. I asked about the energy density, specific predictions and falsifiability.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

You have to address all current issues. I asked about the energy density, specific predictions and falsifiability.

Sure sir,
I went to school thats why i was unable to answer.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

specific predictions and falsifiability

U havent read the paper?

23 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

In this framework, spacetime does not pre-exist — instead, it emerges dynamically from discrete curvature quanta called Chortons, which are spin-2 excitations generated when photon energy density exceeds the Planck threshold.

This doesn’t make sense to me. Concepts such as particles, spin, excitations, energy etc all already presuppose the existence of spacetime; you can’t meaningfully have any of those things without some notion of spacetime. Therefore, spacetime somehow emerging from some dynamics involving photons etc doesn’t make much physical sense.

3 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

This doesn’t make sense to me. Concepts such as particles, spin, excitations, energy etc all already presuppose the existence of spacetime; you can’t meaningfully have any of those things without some notion of spacetime. Therefore, spacetime somehow emerging from some dynamics involving photons etc doesn’t make much physical sense.

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.

13 hours ago, swansont said:

What is this critical volume, and what is the value of the energy density?

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

12 hours ago, joigus said:

That's not what conjugate field observables do in QFT. You're missing a very important consistency part. But I'm not gonna tell you what it is, because if I do, you will feed my objection into your garbage-generating LLM, and it will make it look like you're making sense. So I'm not giving you any clues. Let's see if you can figure it out by yourself.

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)

12 hours ago, joigus said:

You keep saying this. What region do the photons concentrate into? You say yourself there is no space, or time, or way to measure or define distance.

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?

Edited July 21Jul 21 by Dhillon1724X

2 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

"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.

“Lightlike”, “frequency”, and “pulse” are likewise concepts that are meaningless unless you already have a notion of spacetime. The problem is that you’re using concepts that intrinsically require space and/or time to be defined, and then claim that they give rise to an emergent spacetime, which of course doesn’t work. What you need to do is start with some system that is not itself reliant on notions of space or time, and then use its dynamics to show how classical causal structure and geometry emerge from this in the appropriate limit.

Also, your answer reads as if it’s pretty much 100% AI-generated.

51 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Also, your answer reads as if it’s pretty much 100% AI-generated.

English isnt my fist language,to tackle some problems sometime i use AI.

I use it to correct any grammar mistake and refine.

57 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

What you need to do is start with some system that is not itself reliant on notions of space or time, and then use its dynamics to show how classical causal structure and geometry emerge from this in the appropriate limit.

Thanks for instructions.
I am starting work on it now.

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

“Lightlike”, “frequency”, and “pulse” are likewise concepts that are meaningless unless you already have a notion of spacetime. The problem is that you’re using concepts that intrinsically require space and/or time to be defined, and then claim that they give rise to an emergent spacetime, which of course doesn’t work. What you need to do is start with some system that is not itself reliant on notions of space or time, and then use its dynamics to show how classical causal structure and geometry emerge from this in the appropriate limit.

Also, your answer reads as if it’s pretty much 100% AI-generated.

To fix this, should i consider redefining the collapse condition over a discrete quantum graph?

3 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I want honest feedback,

1)Is it worth refining and working on?
2)Is it a good theory now and worth submitting to Arxiv?

@studiot

Sir I am waiting for your reply or critique.

Edited July 21Jul 21 by Dhillon1724X

1 hour ago, Dhillon1724X said:

To fix this, should i consider redefining the collapse condition over a discrete quantum graph?

You can’t start with “photons” and “collapse” processes at all, since these are meaningless concepts in the absence of an already well defined spacetime. As I said, you’d need to start with something that does not itself require any notions of space or time, so particles or any kind of “process” are out of the question.

39 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

You can’t start with “photons” and “collapse” processes at all, since these are meaningless concepts in the absence of an already well defined spacetime. As I said, you’d need to start with something that does not itself require any notions of space or time, so particles or any kind of “process” are out of the question.

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.”

5 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

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

10^113 J/m^3

Where in the universe do you see energy densities this high?

5 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

U havent read the paper?

No. Material for discussion must be posted here. You haven’t read my modnotes, or the rules?

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

10^113 J/m^3

Where in the universe do you see energy densities this high?

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.

3 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

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.

You said this energy density creates chortons from photons, so you must already have photons.