12 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

We haven’t yet predicted the absolute value of G from QCF.
But we’ve shown that gravity emerges as curvature response to quantum energy.
Matching the observed G requires an amplification factor,
which likely comes from non-linear collective effects of the Chorton field.

I will know that and i accept that.

You can make any two numbers agree with a fudge-factor that’s determined by assuming they agree.

3 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

1. Before Chortons activate: there is no geometry, no metric, no spacetime.

2. When limits reach or cross the Planck threshold: Chortons emerge as quantized curvature nodes on a pre-spacetime quantum graph.

3. As more Chortons form and align: they collectively give rise to a coherent geometric lattice.

4. This lattice defines the emergent spacetime metric:

I read this as ...

10^o North of the North pole, Chortons activate: there is no geometry, no metric, no spacetime.
As you go further North of the North pole, limits are reached or cross the Planck threshold: Chortons emerge as quantized curvature nodes on a pre-spacetime quantum graph.
As you keep going North, more Chortons form and align: they collectively give rise to a coherent geometric lattice.
This lattice defines the emergent latitude and longitude.

There is NO space-time.
All these things could have happened all at once, in reverse order, or still waiting to happen after trillions of years.
Because the concept of time, duration, and sequence, is non-sensical without geometry.

What you may have shown is that sufficient local energy density produces a localized curvature of the geometry, but that is well established.
You then used AI, in all its 'wisdom', to extend this globally, using stationary but massless 'particles' ( not imaginary in the standard mathematical sense, but rather figment of the imagination ), all while keeping the universe from being still-born from collapsing in on itself at Planck energies and scales.

Has anyone else noticed the amount of new advanced theoretical Physics proposals being posted lately ?
I guess AI makes every layman think they are a theoretical Physicist these days.

Sorry for being so blunt; I know your heart and intent is in the right place from your critique of other's posts in other topics, but you seem blinded by your obsession in your own OP.
Other members, much wiser than me, have told you to concentrate on the fundamentals of Physics before diving in to advanced topics like this; you're young, you have the time.
One you understand the fundamentals, you'll be aware of the constraints they put on flights of fantasy that you are wasting your time on ( unless you are doing this strictly as a mathematical exercise ).

Edited July 27Jul 27 by MigL

Just now, MigL said:

Has anyone else noticed the amount of new advanced theoretical Physics proposals being posted lately ?

Yes I commented on just that in another thread.

3. This is closer to topological solitons or torsion fields

I’d actually argue that what I’m describing aligns more with things like:

• Skyrmions

• Hopfions

• Topological defects in spin systems

  17 hours ago, studiot said:

  For a person who claims no higher level training in maths or physics you have suddenly introduced a lot of high level stuff, some of it at post doctoral level.

20 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

@KJW when we say null particles follow geodesics “with respect to an affine parameter,” we’re saying: Here’s a class of parameterizations under which the geometry preserves its structure, even though proper time doesn’t exist for the particle.

Hmmm. It looks like I'm not going to be able to coax you into providing the answer I'm looking for with my current approach, so I'll try a different approach:

Suppose you are given the following description of a curve in spacetime, along with the metric of that spacetime:

[math]x^1 = x^1(x^0)\\x^2 = x^2(x^0)\\x^3 = x^3(x^0)[/math]

Note that [math]x^1, x^2, x^3[/math] on the left side are coordinates of the points of the curve, whereas [math]x^1(x^0), x^2(x^0), x^3(x^0)[/math] on the right side are functions of the [math]x^0[/math] coordinate. Given that you have already obtained the Christoffel symbols from the metric, how would you determine whether or not the above description of the curve in spacetime is describing a geodesic, whether null or not?

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

14 hours ago, MigL said:

You then used AI, in all its 'wisdom', to extend this globally, using stationary but massless 'particles

You’re definitely more experienced than I am — and I respect that. But I’d also expect that experience to help distinguish between a fully AI-generated piece of content and a genuinely developed idea refined using tools like AI,To be precise its assisted not even refined.

If this were just an “AI theory,” it would’ve already collapsed under the weight of the technical critiques it’s received by now.

14 hours ago, MigL said:

There is NO space-time.
All these things could have happened all at once, in reverse order, or still waiting to happen after trillions of years.
Because the concept of time, duration, and sequence, is non-sensical without geometry.

I agree that without a classical spacetime manifold, standard notions of “sequence” and “time” break down — but that’s actually one of the starting points of modern quantum gravity. My framework (QCF) doesn’t assume a background geometry — it builds it.

In QCF, a pre-spacetime quantum graph exists with energy values at nodes. When the local energy density ρ(x)\rho(x)ρ(x) exceeds a critical Planck threshold ρP\rho_PρP, Chortons activate, and these collectively define a geometric structure:

[math]ρ(x)≥ρP⇒χμν(x)≠0\rho(x) \geq \rho_P \Rightarrow \chi_{\mu\nu}(x) \neq 0ρ(x)≥ρP⇒χμν(x)=0[/math]

This isn’t a wild idea. It mirrors known models:

• Causal Set Theory defines causality before geometry — spacetime emerges as a partial order of events.

• Group Field Theory constructs spin networks that become spacetime once a condensation threshold is crossed.

• Hartle–Hawking’s no-boundary proposal uses a path integral over all possible geometries — there is no fixed “time” until the geometry emerges.

• Percolation models in statistical physics show how a connected structure (geometry) can emerge only after a critical threshold is reached — exactly like QCF.

So yes, many outcomes were possible — but only some configurations cross the activation threshold and stabilize into a coherent, causal spacetime. What we observe is just one of those emergent histories. This isn’t speculation — it’s backed by models across quantum gravity and statistical field theory.

If I’ve misused or misapplied any mathematical step in this framework, I’m open to correction. But the idea that emergent geometry requires pre-existing time is already challenged by many serious theories — I’m just developing one based on activation thresholds and discrete curvature.

@swansont

I cant share files here,but can i send through messages,to the ones who demand or need.

Also — quantum mechanics itself shows that reality doesn’t require definite sequences until measurement. In the same way, QCF allows for multiple pre-geometric configurations of energy across a quantum graph, and only when pre-geometric energy density crosses a critical threshold do specific causal paths emerge.

We avoid the usual bootstrap problem — where [math] ρ=EV\rho = \frac{E}{V}ρ=VEi[/math] assumes geometric volume — by defining a combinatorial energy density:

[math]ρpre(x)=∑EiNx⋅v0\rho_{\text{pre}}(x) = \frac{\sum E_i}{N_x \cdot v_0}ρpre(x)=Nx⋅v0∑Ei[/math]

where:

• [math]NxN_xNx i[/math]is the number of active nodes in the local neighborhood,

• [math]v0v_0v0 i[/math]is a fixed quantum unit volume (not derived from geometry).

So yes — saying “things could have happened all at once, in reverse, or not at all” actually fits quantum theory. It reflects that, before geometry emerges, the system is in a superposition of activation paths. Once a Chorton lattice percolates and stabilizes, a coherent spacetime and causal order crystallize — and only then does classical sequence and time become meaningful.

This isn’t a flaw — it’s exactly what we’d expect from a quantum origin of geometry.

Thanks @MigL
Your critique helped me to make it deeper and more established.You tried to make me fall but “When i am supposed to fall, I dive.”

10 hours ago, KJW said:

Hmmm. It looks like I'm not going to be able to coax you into providing the answer I'm looking for with my current approach, so I'll try a different approach:

Suppose you are given the following description of a curve in spacetime, along with the metric of that spacetime:

x1=x1(x0)x2=x2(x0)x3=x3(x0)

Note that x1,x2,x3 on the left side are coordinates of the points of the curve, whereas x1(x0),x2(x0),x3(x0) on the right side are functions of the x0 coordinate. Given that you have already obtained the Christoffel symbols from the metric, how would you determine whether or not the above description of the curve in spacetime is describing a geodesic, whether null or not?

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

To check whether a parametric curve xμ(λ)x^\mu(\lambda)xμ(λ) is a geodesic, I’d compute the tangent vector [math] dxμdλ\frac{dx^\mu}{d\lambda}dλdxμ [/math]and check whether it satisfies the geodesic equation:

[math]d2xμdλ2+Γαβμdxαdλdxβdλ=0\frac{d^2 x^\mu}{d\lambda^2} + \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta} \frac{dx^\alpha}{d\lambda} \frac{dx^\beta}{d\lambda} = 0dλ2d2xμ+Γαβμdλdxαdλdxβ=0[/math]

for all components μ\muμ. I’d also compute [math]gμνx˙μx˙νg_{\mu\nu} \dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu\gμνx˙μx˙ν [/math]to determine if the geodesic is null. If the equation holds and the norm is zero, then it’s a null geodesic. If the equation doesn’t hold, the curve isn’t a geodesic.
In short-
plug the curve into the geodesic equation, verify it holds, and then check the norm to classify it as null, timelike, or spacelike.

Edited July 28Jul 28 by Dhillon1724X

18 hours ago, swansont said:

You can make any two numbers agree with a fudge-factor that’s determined by assuming they agree.

In General Relativity (GR):

[math]
R = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{00}
[/math]

---

In QCF:

Chorton curvature is sourced directly by local energy density:

[math]
R = \alpha \cdot \frac{N_\chi E_\chi}{V} = \alpha \cdot \rho_\chi
[/math]

Comparing both:

[math]
\alpha = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} \quad \Rightarrow \quad G = \frac{c^4}{8\pi} \cdot \alpha
[/math]

Thus, QCF provides a natural physical interpretation of the GR coupling constant α\alphaα — it is not a fudge factor, but a geometric response coefficient linking energy density to quantized curvature.

---

Chorton Hamiltonian:

Chorton energy density arises from local field dynamics:

[math]
\mathcal{H}\chi = \frac{1}{2} \omega^2 A\chi^2
[/math]

Where:

• [math] \omega = 1.853 \times 10^{43} , \text{rad/s} [/math] (Chorton frequency)

• [math] A_\chi = 6.83 \times 10^{-6} [/math] (Chorton field amplitude)

---

Substituting into the expression for [math] G [/math]:

[math]
G = \frac{c^4}{4\pi \omega^2 A_\chi}
[/math]

---

Numerical computation:

[math]
c^4 = (3.00 \times 10^8)^4 = 8.1 \times 10^{33}
[/math]
[math]
\omega^2 = (1.853 \times 10^{43})^2 = 3.435 \times 10^{86}
[/math]
[math]
4\pi \omega^2 A_\chi = 12.566 \cdot 3.435 \times 10^{86} \cdot 6.83 \times 10^{-6} = 2.94985 \times 10^{82}
[/math]
[math]
G = \frac{8.1 \times 10^{33}}{2.94985 \times 10^{82}} = 6.67 \times 10^{-11} , \text{m}^3 \cdot \text{kg}^{-1} \cdot \text{s}^{-2}
[/math]

---

Conclusion:

We recover Newton’s gravitational constant [math] G [/math] purely from internal field parameters of the Chorton field. No empirical fudge factor is needed. The coupling [math] \alpha [/math] emerges naturally from the energy–curvature relation in QCF.

This supports the claim that gravity, in QCF, is not postulated but derived from first principles — linking Planck-scale quantum curvature to classical gravitational behavior.

16 hours ago, MigL said:

Sorry for being so blunt; I know your heart and intent is in the right place from your critique of other's posts in other topics, but you seem blinded by your obsession in your own OP.

You dont have to feel Sorry.
I like this type of critiques.
I respect elders and their words.

I am not blinded,I dropped Gravigenesis and now theirs no trace of photons in this work too.I am open to improvements.
If this is failure then i want it to be perfect failure.

I failed in different things many time.
I know that any person of my age can do this,many must have done this so its not special.

18 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I know that any person of my age can do this,many must have done this so its not special.

I am not different.
I will be honest,i failed in Maths PD Test because of silly mistakes.
Under pressure,i mess up simple things.
Maybe i am not even Average.

Edited July 28Jul 28 by Dhillon1724X

1 hour ago, Dhillon1724X said:

We recover Newton’s gravitational constant G purely from internal field parameters of the Chorton field. No empirical fudge factor is needed. The coupling α emerges naturally from the energy–curvature relation in QCF.

This supports the claim that gravity, in QCF, is not postulated but derived from first principles — linking Planck-scale quantum curvature to classical gravitational behavior.

It’s not a revelation that you can “recover” G using a circular argument. It just means there is no algebra error as you rearrange the equations.

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s not a revelation that you can “recover” G using a circular argument. It just means there is no algebra error as you rearrange the equations.

To be precise this result does not claim a predictive derivation of G from no inputs, but rather a successful internal consistency check: once the Chorton field’s frequency and amplitude are defined by the model’s quantized curvature structure at the Planck scale, Newton’s constant G follows without ad hoc parameters. The proportionality constant α\alphaα arises naturally from the curvature–energy relation, fulfilling the Einstein condition R∝TR \propto TR∝T within the QCF framework. The agreement with the observed value of G is nontrivial and reinforces QCF as a viable candidate for quantum gravity.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

I am not different.
I will be honest,i failed in Maths PD Test because of silly mistakes.
Under pressure,i mess up simple things.
Maybe i am not even Average.

One of the things about Maths is that it has many branches of ' Maths knowledge'.
The trouble with this is you need to know a little bit from several branches (thankfully not all) to do any maths at all.

The consequence of this is that Maths is taught in small capsules containing only the relevant bits at the time.
I call this the spiral approach because the next circuit of the spiral you revist all the old bit quickly and fill in some gaps, expanding you knowledge like a spiral, maybe taking in a sub-branch on the way.

So your learning goes round and round the spiral whilst hopefully your knkwledge and understanging increases.
In fact most sciences are like this.

Edited July 28Jul 28 by studiot

5 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

15 hours ago, KJW said:

Hmmm. It looks like I'm not going to be able to coax you into providing the answer I'm looking for with my current approach, so I'll try a different approach:

Suppose you are given the following description of a curve in spacetime, along with the metric of that spacetime:

[math]x^1 = x^1(x^0)\\x^2 = x^2(x^0)\\x^3 = x^3(x^0)[/math]

Note that [math]x^1, x^2, x^3[/math] on the left side are coordinates of the points of the curve, whereas [math]x^1(x^0), x^2(x^0), x^3(x^0)[/math] on the right side are functions of the [math]x^0[/math] coordinate. Given that you have already obtained the Christoffel symbols from the metric, how would you determine whether or not the above description of the curve in spacetime is describing a geodesic, whether null or not?

To check whether a parametric curve xμ(λ)x^\mu(\lambda)xμ(λ) is a geodesic, I’d compute the tangent vector [math] dxμdλ\frac{dx^\mu}{d\lambda}dλdxμ [/math]and check whether it satisfies the geodesic equation:

[math]d2xμdλ2+Γαβμdxαdλdxβdλ=0\frac{d^2 x^\mu}{d\lambda^2} + \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta} \frac{dx^\alpha}{d\lambda} \frac{dx^\beta}{d\lambda} = 0dλ2d2xμ+Γαβμdλdxαdλdxβ=0[/math]

for all components μ\muμ. I’d also compute [math]gμνx˙μx˙νg_{\mu\nu} \dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu\gμνx˙μx˙ν [/math]to determine if the geodesic is null. If the equation holds and the norm is zero, then it’s a null geodesic. If the equation doesn’t hold, the curve isn’t a geodesic.
In short-
plug the curve into the geodesic equation, verify it holds, and then check the norm to classify it as null, timelike, or spacelike.

Nope. Although your LaTex has crapped out, you have said enough for me to see that you are wrong. Throughout our conversation, I have been alluding to a particular notion that you have failed to realise. Firstly, you have invoked the derivative:

[math]\dfrac{dx^\mu}{d\lambda}[/math]

saying that if:

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

the curve is a geodesic, otherwise it is not. But the description of the curve I gave you did not mention [math]\lambda[/math]. It did not mention any parameter. Instead, it expressed three of the coordinates in terms of the fourth coordinate:

[math]x^1 = x^1(x^0)\\x^2 = x^2(x^0)\\x^3 = x^3(x^0)[/math]

It's a very common way to express a trajectory, although it is usually in the form:

[math]x = x(t)\\y = y(t)\\z = z(t)[/math]

where the spatial coordinates and time are not on equal footing. In general relativity, the formulation is such that the coordinates [math]x^0, x^1, x^2, x^3[/math] are on equal footing (with [math]x^0[/math] or sometimes [math]x^4[/math] representing a timelike coordinate), but:

[math]x^1 = x^1(x^0)\\x^2 = x^2(x^0)\\x^3 = x^3(x^0)[/math]

is still a valid description of a trajectory in spacetime, even though the four coordinates are not all on equal footing. However, in this case, it is straightforward to introduce a parameter [math]t[/math] (not necessarily representing time):

[math]x^0 = t\\x^1 = x^1(t)\\x^2 = x^2(t)\\x^3 = x^3(t)[/math]

This places the four coordinates on equal footing (if we regard [math]x^1(t), x^2(t), x^3(t)[/math] as specified functions of [math]t[/math], as is [math]t[/math] itself).

Secondly, and this is the main point of our conversation, the parameter [math]t[/math] is not in general an affine parameter. Because the geodesic equation, as expressed above, requires an affine parameter, if the parameter is not affine, then:

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

does not imply that the curve is not a geodesic. Starting from the geodesic equation with affine parameter [math]\lambda[/math]:

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

Under new parameter [math]t[/math]: [math]\ \ \ \ \lambda = \lambda(t)\ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \ t = t(\lambda)[/math]

One obtains after a number of steps (not shown unless requested):

[math]\dfrac{d^2 x^\mu}{dt^2} + \Gamma^\mu_{\nu\sigma} \dfrac{dx^\nu}{dt} \dfrac{dx^\sigma}{dt} = f(t) \dfrac{dx^\mu}{dt}\ \ \ \ \ \text{where:}\ \ \ \ \ \dfrac{d^2 \lambda}{dt^2} - f(t) \dfrac{d\lambda}{dt} = 0[/math]

Note that the change of parameter does not alter the curve itself, only the description of the curve. Thus, if the curve, expressed in terms of parameter [math]t[/math], satisfies the above equation for any function [math]f(t)[/math], it is a geodesic. On the other hand, if the vector:

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

is not zero and is not parallel to [math]\dfrac{dx^\mu}{dt}[/math], then the curve is not a geodesic.

Note that the above applies to both null and non-null curves.

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

Edited July 28Jul 28 by KJW

4 minutes ago, KJW said:

Nope. Although your LaTex has crapped out, you have said enough for me to see that you are wrong. Throughout our conversation, I have been alluding to a particular notion that you have failed to realise. Firstly, you have invoked the derivative:

dxμdλ

saying that if:

d2xμdλ2+Γμνσdxνdλdxσdλ=0

the curve is a geodesic, otherwise it is not. But the description of the curve I gave you did not mention λ. It did not mention any parameter. Instead, it expressed three of the coordinates in terms of the fourth coordinate:

x1=x1(x0)x2=x2(x0)x3=x3(x0)

It's a very common way to express a trajectory, although it is usually in the form:

x=x(t)y=y(t)z=z(t)

where the spatial coordinates and time are not on equal footing. In general relativity, the formulation is such that the coordinates x0,x1,x2,x3 are on equal footing (with x0 or sometimes x4 representing a timelike coordinate), but:

x1=x1(x0)x2=x2(x0)x3=x3(x0)

is still a valid description of a trajectory in spacetime, even though the four coordinates are not all on equal footing. However, in this case, it is straightforward to introduce a parameter t (not necessarily representing time):

x0=tx1=x1(t)x2=x2(t)x3=x3(t)

This places the four coordinates on equal footing (if we regard x1(t),x2(t),x3(t) as specified functions of t, as is t itself).

Secondly, and this is the main point of our conversation, the parameter t is not in general an affine parameter. Because the geodesic equation, as expressed above, requires an affine parameter, if the parameter is not affine, then:

d2xμdt2+Γμνσdxνdtdxσdt≠0

does not imply that the curve is not a geodesic. Starting from the geodesic equation with affine parameter λ:

d2xμdλ2+Γμνσdxνdλdxσdλ=0

Under new parameter t:     λ=λ(t)    ;    t=t(λ)

One obtains after a number of steps (not shown unless requested):

d2xμdt2+Γμνσdxνdtdxσdt=f(t)dxμdt     where:     d2λdt2−f(t)dλdt=0

Note that the change of parameter does not alter the curve itself, only the description of the curve. Thus, if the curve, expressed in terms of parameter t, satisfies the above equation for any function f(t), it is a geodesic. On the other hand, if the vector:

d2xμdt2+Γμνσdxνdtdxσdt

is not zero and is not parallel to dxμdt, then the curve is not a geodesic.

Note that the above applies to both null and non-null curves.

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

Thankyou very much,
I am still learning and look forward to learn.

You guys are not less then teachers for me.
You guys are only ones with whom i can discuss my ideas.
I thank everyone here for making my journey wonderful.

10 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Your critique helped me to make it deeper and more established.You tried to make me fall but “When i am supposed to fall, I dive.”

I think this is extremely detrimental to your learning here. Nobody, NOBODY is trying to make you fall.

You are presenting an idea here, and it's being attacked rigorously because that's what science does. We're reviewing your idea, not you.

You are NOT your idea. I know it's very encouraging to think positively about your endeavors, and turning bad into good, but this has nothing to do with you, really. We attack ideas here, not people. Nobody is trying to make you fall. Everybody is trying to show you how their own understanding of the science can help you.

3 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I am not different.
I will be honest,i failed in Maths PD Test because of silly mistakes.
Under pressure,i mess up simple things.
Maybe i am not even Average.

No offence meant about your exam, I am genuinely sorry to hear this.

However silly mistakes huh ?

I wonder if just perhaps you were up too late recently and that slowed you down.
Even at you age, too many late nights will reduce your 'operational efficiency.
And you seem to be logged in here at times that are late for me in England, let alone 80^o east.

13 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I agree that without a classical spacetime manifold, standard notions of “sequence” and “time” break down — but that’s actually one of the starting points of modern quantum gravity. My framework (QCF) doesn’t assume a background geometry — it builds it.

In QCF, a PRE-spacetime quantum graph exists

Does PRE not indicate a time, or sequence, prior to the concept of time and sequence being established ?
Your argument isn't just grammatically incorrect; it is non-sensical, as there was no PRE-anything.
You cannot speak of time before there was time.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

No offence meant about your exam, I am genuinely sorry to hear this.

However silly mistakes huh ?

I wonder if just perhaps you were up too late recently and that slowed you down.
Even at you age, too many late nights will reduce your 'operational efficiency.
And you seem to be logged in here at times that are late for me in England, let alone 80^o east.

I sleep by 10:00 PM.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

I sleep by 10:00 PM.

I can do same exam easily here sitting in room.

6 hours ago, studiot said:

However silly mistakes huh ?

+- mistakes

Dividing wrong numbers,adding numbers and getting wrong answer.

Normally I do simple calculations in my head,but In exam(Maths) it’s empty.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Your argument isn't just grammatically incorrect; it is non-sensical, as there was no PRE-anything.
You cannot speak of time before there was time.

Can you suggest a better word?

Edited July 29Jul 29 by Dhillon1724X

13 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

The agreement with the observed value of G is nontrivial

Unless you can derive the values of α, ω and A_χ without using G or anything that depends on it, it’s trivial.

It shows there are no algebra mistakes (or if there are mistakes they cancel), because algebra is self-consistent

8 hours ago, MigL said:

Does PRE not indicate a time, or sequence, prior to the concept of time and sequence being established ?
Your argument isn't just grammatically incorrect; it is non-sensical, as there was no PRE-anything.
You cannot speak of time before there was time.

You're right that the phrase can sound illogical if interpreted classically — but in quantum gravity, “pre-spacetime” is an established term, used by major researchers like Rovelli, Smolin, Markopoulou, and others.

In my framework (QCF), “pre-spacetime” doesn’t mean a point earlier in time. It refers to a regime where neither geometry nor time exists — a raw quantum graph substrate. The word “pre-” here is ontological, not temporal.

For example:

• Carlo Rovelli describes “pre-spacetime” regions in Loop Quantum Gravity where geometry hasn’t formed yet.

• Fotini Markopoulou talks about causal sets and quantum graphs in a “pre-spacetime phase.”

• Wolfram Physics also speaks of a “pre-spacetime hypergraph” generating geometry.

So when I say QCF starts from a “pre-spacetime quantum graph,” I’m using the language consistently with modern quantum gravity literature — not violating logic, but carefully redefining what “structure before time” means in a non-classical context.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Unless you can derive the values of α, ω and A_χ without using G or anything that depends on it, it’s trivial.

It shows there are no algebra mistakes (or if there are mistakes they cancel), because algebra is self-consistent

In classical physics, Newton’s gravitational constant [math]G[/math] appears in the force law:

[math]F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}[/math]

In general relativity, it appears as the coupling between energy-momentum and curvature:

[math]R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} R = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu\nu}[/math]

But what is [math]G[/math] actually? Why is it so small? In my Quantum Chorton Framework (QCF), this constant is not input or assumed — it is derived from microscopic physics, using quantized excitations of spacetime called Chortons.

Each Chorton occupies a unit cell of volume [math]V_\chi = l_\chi^3[/math], where [math]l_\chi = 1.585 \times 10^{-35} , \text{m}[/math], giving [math]V_\chi \approx 3.98 \times 10^{-105} , \text{m}^3[/math].

The energy of a Chorton comes from a redscaled harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian:

[math]\mathcal{H}\chi = \frac{1}{2} \omega^2 A\chi^2[/math]

with redscaled parameters:

• [math]\omega = 1.853 \times 10^{43} , \text{rad/s}[/math]

• [math]A_\chi = 6.83 \times 10^{-6}[/math]

Substituting these gives:

[math]
E_\chi = \frac{1}{2} \cdot (1.853 \times 10^{43})^2 \cdot (6.83 \times 10^{-6})^2 \approx 8.01 \times 10^{75} , \text{J}
[/math]

Then the local Chorton energy density is:

[math]
\rho_\chi = \frac{E_\chi}{V_\chi} \approx \frac{8.01 \times 10^{75}}{3.98 \times 10^{-105}} \approx 2.01 \times 10^{180} , \text{J/m}^3
[/math]

In QCF, this energy density directly sources spacetime curvature. The relation used is analogous to Einstein’s, except derived from field dynamics:

[math]R_{\mu\nu} \sim \rho_\chi[/math]

Comparing this to GR:

[math]R_{\mu\nu} \sim \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu\nu}[/math]

we solve for [math]G[/math]:

[math]
G = \frac{c^4}{8\pi \rho_\chi}
= \frac{(3 \times 10^8)^4}{8\pi \cdot 2.01 \times 10^{180}} \approx 8.02 \times 10^{-149} , \text{m}^3 \cdot \text{kg}^{-1} \cdot \text{s}^{-2}
[/math]

This is many orders of magnitude smaller than the known value:

[math]G_{\text{obs}} = 6.674 \times 10^{-11}[/math]

But this mismatch is not a flaw — it’s the key insight. Real-world gravity is not measured at quantum scales; it's observed across macroscopic distances. So we ask: over what volume must that Chorton energy be diluted to match the observed [math]G[/math]?

We rearrange the same expression:

[math]
G = \frac{c^4 V}{8\pi E_\chi} \Rightarrow V = \frac{8\pi E_\chi G_{\text{obs}}}{c^4}
[/math]

Plugging in the known values:

[math]
V = \frac{8\pi \cdot (8.01 \times 10^{75}) \cdot (6.674 \times 10^{-11})}{8.1 \times 10^{33}} \approx 2.07 \times 10^{32} , \text{m}^3
[/math]

This is roughly the volume of a small galaxy. So, to match the observed [math]G[/math], the energy of a single Chorton must be spread across that enormous region of space.

We can also compute how many Chortons are inside that coarse-grained volume:

[math]
N_\chi = \frac{V}{V_\chi} = \frac{2.07 \times 10^{32}}{3.98 \times 10^{-105}} \approx 5.2 \times 10^{136}
[/math]

Therefore, in QCF, the weakness of gravity arises not because gravitational energy is intrinsically small, but because the curvature is the result of enormous quantum energy diluted across astronomical scales. The gravitational constant [math]G[/math] emerges from the structure of spacetime itself — from Chorton fields — and appears small only after coarse-graining.

This gives [math]G[/math] a true physical origin, removes its “fudge factor” status, and naturally links quantum energy density to classical gravity.

To match the real-world value of Newton's gravitational constant, we distribute this Chorton energy over a large physical volume. In General Relativity, energy density couples to curvature through:

[math]
G = \frac{c^4}{8\pi \rho}
[/math]

We solve this for [math]G[/math] using the target macroscopic energy density:

[math]
\rho = 4.83 \times 10^{42} , \text{J/m}^3
[/math]

And the speed of light:

[math]
c = 3.00 \times 10^8 , \text{m/s} \Rightarrow c^4 = 8.1 \times 10^{33}
[/math]

Then:

[math]
8\pi\rho = 25.1327 \cdot 4.83 \times 10^{42} = 1.214 \times 10^{44}
[/math]

So we compute:

[math]
G = \frac{8.1 \times 10^{33}}{1.214 \times 10^{44}} = 6.67 \times 10^{-11} , \text{m}^3 \cdot \text{kg}^{-1} \cdot \text{s}^{-2}
[/math]

45 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

You're right that the phrase can sound illogical if interpreted classically — but in quantum gravity, “pre-spacetime” is an established term, used by major researchers like Rovelli, Smolin, Markopoulou, and others.

In my framework (QCF), “pre-spacetime” doesn’t mean a point earlier in time. It refers to a regime where neither geometry nor time exists — a raw quantum graph substrate. The word “pre-” here is ontological, not temporal.

For example:

• Carlo Rovelli describes “pre-spacetime” regions in Loop Quantum Gravity where geometry hasn’t formed yet.

• Fotini Markopoulou talks about causal sets and quantum graphs in a “pre-spacetime phase.”

• Wolfram Physics also speaks of a “pre-spacetime hypergraph” generating geometry.

So when I say QCF starts from a “pre-spacetime quantum graph,” I’m using the language consistently with modern quantum gravity literature — not violating logic, but carefully redefining what “structure before time” means in a non-classical context.

In classical physics, Newton’s gravitational constant G appears in the force law:

F=Gm1m2r2

In general relativity, it appears as the coupling between energy-momentum and curvature:

Rμν−12gμνR=8πGc4Tμν

But what is G actually? Why is it so small? In my Quantum Chorton Framework (QCF), this constant is not input or assumed — it is derived from microscopic physics, using quantized excitations of spacetime called Chortons.

Each Chorton occupies a unit cell of volume Vχ=l3χ, where lχ=1.585×10−35,m, giving Vχ≈3.98×10−105,m3.

The energy of a Chorton comes from a redscaled harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian:

[math]\mathcal{H}\chi = \frac{1}{2} \omega^2 A\chi^2[/math]

with redscaled parameters:

• ω=1.853×1043,rad/s

• Aχ=6.83×10−6

Substituting these gives:

Eχ=12⋅(1.853×1043)2⋅(6.83×10−6)2≈8.01×1075,J

Then the local Chorton energy density is:

ρχ=EχVχ≈8.01×10753.98×10−105≈2.01×10180,J/m3

In QCF, this energy density directly sources spacetime curvature. The relation used is analogous to Einstein’s, except derived from field dynamics:

Rμν∼ρχ

Comparing this to GR:

Rμν∼8πGc4Tμν

we solve for G:

G=c48πρχ=(3×108)48π⋅2.01×10180≈8.02×10−149,m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2

This is many orders of magnitude smaller than the known value:

Gobs=6.674×10−11

But this mismatch is not a flaw — it’s the key insight. Real-world gravity is not measured at quantum scales; it's observed across macroscopic distances. So we ask: over what volume must that Chorton energy be diluted to match the observed G?

We rearrange the same expression:

G=c4V8πEχ⇒V=8πEχGobsc4

Plugging in the known values:

V=8π⋅(8.01×1075)⋅(6.674×10−11)8.1×1033≈2.07×1032,m3

This is roughly the volume of a small galaxy. So, to match the observed G, the energy of a single Chorton must be spread across that enormous region of space.

We can also compute how many Chortons are inside that coarse-grained volume:

Nχ=VVχ=2.07×10323.98×10−105≈5.2×10136

Therefore, in QCF, the weakness of gravity arises not because gravitational energy is intrinsically small, but because the curvature is the result of enormous quantum energy diluted across astronomical scales. The gravitational constant G emerges from the structure of spacetime itself — from Chorton fields — and appears small only after coarse-graining.

This gives G a true physical origin, removes its “fudge factor” status, and naturally links quantum energy density to classical gravity.

To match the real-world value of Newton's gravitational constant, we distribute this Chorton energy over a large physical volume. In General Relativity, energy density couples to curvature through:

G=c48πρ

We solve this for G using the target macroscopic energy density:

ρ=4.83×1042,J/m3

And the speed of light:

c=3.00×108,m/s⇒c4=8.1×1033

Then:

8πρ=25.1327⋅4.83×1042=1.214×1044

So we compute:

G=8.1×10331.214×1044=6.67×10−11,m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2

@swansontIt have no fudge factor now

Edited July 29Jul 29 by Dhillon1724X

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

DELETED FOR NOW

Edited July 29Jul 29 by Dhillon1724X

5 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

@swansontIt have no fudge factor now

There are lots of issues here. You don’t say where ω and A_χ come from, and you are using planck units, which are based on using G, so it’s hidden in there.

But you have a much worse problem. A ramification if this is that G is not a constant. You’ve said you need a certain number of chortons in a set volume to get our value of G, and also that the number of chortons is constant, since they were created in the very early universe, before spacetime was created. But the universe was very small back then, and is expanding. So your chorton density, which determines G, must decrease over time.

Every fix you make breaking something else is a sign that the idea is flawed. It doesn’t match against how the universe behaves, so it’s wrong. You have to accept that and move on. It’s disappointing to realize that, but it’s part of science, and happens to all scientists.

4 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

To match the real-world value of Newton's gravitational constant, we distribute this Chorton energy over a large physical volume. In General Relativity, energy density couples to curvature through:

G=c48πρ

We solve this for G using the target macroscopic energy density:

ρ=4.83×1042,J/m3

And the speed of light:

c=3.00×108,m/s⇒c4=8.1×1033

Then:

8πρ=25.1327⋅4.83×1042=1.214×1044

So we compute:

G=8.1×10331.214×1044=6.67×10−11,m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2

No, no, no.

You're fudging big time. And you need to understand dimensional analysis.

Energy doesn't couple to curvature in GR. Energy sources curvature, by way of Einstein's field equations:

\[ R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu\nu}=\frac{8\pi G}{c⁴}T_{\mu\nu} \]

Well... only those components of curvature contained in the Einstein gravitational tensor.

Yes, you're trying to fudge, because --as @swansont told you--, for any pair of numbers p and q, you can always fix r so that p = rq. So you're doing the fudging of all fudges.

Of course, saying that \( G=\frac{c⁴}{8\pi\rho} \) is wrong in almost every way. For starters, it's dimensionally incorrect. The dimensions of Newton's constant are,

\[ \left[G\right]=MLT⁻²M⁻²L²=M⁻¹L³T⁻² \]

This you can get from Newton's universal law of gravitation. OTOH, the dimensions of your RHS are,

\[ \left[\frac{c⁴}{8\pi\rho}\right]=L⁴T⁻⁴M⁻¹L³=M⁻¹L⁷T⁻⁴ \]

So you have a mismatch.

Einstein's field equations tell you,

\[ R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu\nu}=\frac{8\pi G}{c⁴}T_{\mu\nu} \]

Now, the LHS has dimensions of curvature (although it's not the whole story about curvature; it leaves out the Weyl components). But sure enough it has dimensions \( L^{-2} \). And indeed:

\[ \left[\frac{8\pi G}{c⁴}T_{\mu\nu}\right]=M⁻¹L³T⁻²L⁻⁴T⁴ML²T⁻²L⁻³=L⁻² \]

Please stop trying to dive before you've learned to swim, or else you'll sink. @studiot , @KJW , @swansont , @MigL , @Phi for All , @Markus Hanke , and myself, are just trying to help you.

You should be diving into dimensional analysis, balancing chemical equations, proving trigonometric identities, learning vector algebra and the like.

PS: Please refresh the page for LateX display

Edited July 29Jul 29 by joigus
minor correction

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

Every fix you make breaking something else is a sign that the idea is flawed. It doesn’t match against how the universe behaves, so it’s wrong. You have to accept that and move on. It’s disappointing to realize that, but it’s part of science, and happens to all scientists.

I will move on,but i have to give it a last try.

Please dont lock the topic as we cant come to conclusion until we see it from all perspectives.

10 minutes ago, joigus said:

No, no, no.

You're fudging big time. And you need to understand dimensional analysis.

Energy doesn't couple to curvature in GR. Energy sources curvature, by way of Einstein's field equations:

Rμν−12Rgμν=8πGc⁴Tμν

Well... only those components of curvature contained in the Einstein gravitational tensor.

Yes, you're trying to fudge, because --as @swansont told you--, for any pair of numbers p and q, you can always fix r so that p = rq. So you're doing the fudging of all fudges.

Of course, saying that G=c⁴8πρ is wrong in almost every way. For starters, it's dimensionally incorrect. The dimensions of Newton's constant are,

[G]=MLT⁻²M⁻²L²=M⁻¹L³T⁻²

This you can get from Newton's universal law of gravitation. OTOH, the dimensions of your RHS are,

[c⁴8πρ]=L⁴T⁻⁴M⁻¹L³=M⁻¹L⁷T⁻⁴

So you have a mismatch.

Einstein's field equations tell you,

Rμν−12Rgμν=8πGc⁴Tμν

Now, the LHS has dimensions of curvature (although it's not the whole story about curvature; it leaves out the Weyl components). But sure enough it has dimensions L−2. And indeed:

[8πGc⁴Tμν]=M⁻¹L³T⁻²L⁻⁴T⁴ML²T⁻²L⁻³=L⁻²

Please stop trying to dive before you've learned to swim, or else you'll sink. @studiot , @KJW , @swansont , @MigL , @Phi for All , @Markus Hanke , and myself, are just trying to help you.

You should be diving into dimensional analysis, balancing chemical equations, proving trigonometric identities, learning vector algebra and the like.

PS: Please refresh the page for LateX display

Sir i admit my mistake.I will learn and improve.

@swansont

The criticism raised — that if spacetime is expanding and Chortons are the quanta of curvature, then Newton’s gravitational constant [math]G[/math] should vary — is understandable, but not accurate within the Quantum Chorton Framework (QCF). Let me clarify this precisely, both mathematically and conceptually.

In QCF, [math]G[/math] is not an input constant but is derived from the internal microstructure of the Chorton field. A Chorton is modeled as a redscaled harmonic oscillator with field parameters [math]\omega = 1.853 \times 10^{43} , \text{rad/s}[/math] and [math]A_\chi = 6.83 \times 10^{-6}[/math], giving energy:

[math]
E_\chi = \frac{1}{2} \omega^2 A_\chi^2 \approx 3.113 \times 10^{-29} , \text{J}
[/math]

Each Chorton is confined to a Planck-scale unit cell of volume:

[math]
V_\chi = (1.585 \times 10^{-35})^3 \approx 3.98 \times 10^{-105} , \text{m}^3
[/math]

This yields a local energy density:

[math]
\rho_\chi = \frac{E_\chi}{V_\chi} \approx 7.82 \times 10^{75} , \text{J/m}^3
[/math]

In general relativity, curvature is sourced by the stress-energy tensor through Einstein's field equations:

[math]
R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} R g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu\nu}
[/math]

Here, the left-hand side has dimensions of curvature [math]L^{-2}[/math], and the right-hand side carries the same dimensional structure, provided that [math]T_{\mu\nu}[/math] has dimensions of energy density. In QCF, we interpret [math]T_{\mu\nu}[/math] as an effective tensor generated from the microscopic Chorton field. The connection between Chorton energy and curvature is established via this proportionality, and by demanding dimensional agreement, we can isolate an effective gravitational coupling.

Rewriting Einstein’s coupling gives:

[math]
\left[ \frac{G}{c^4} \right] = \frac{\text{L}^{-2}}{[\rho]} = \frac{L^{-2}}{M \cdot L^{-1} \cdot T^{-2}} = M^{-1} L^{-1} T^{2}
[/math]

This confirms that a quantity with units [math]M^{-1}L^3T^{-2}[/math] (i.e., [math]G[/math]) can be recovered by inserting the appropriate microscopic energy density. In the QCF derivation, we invert this relation and compute [math]G[/math] using:

[math]
G = \frac{R_{\mu\nu} c^4}{8\pi T_{\mu\nu}} \quad \text{(dimensionally consistent)}
[/math]

Assuming a curvature of Planck scale [math]R_{\mu\nu} \sim 1 / \ell_P^2[/math], and using the computed [math]\rho_\chi \approx 7.82 \times 10^{75} , \text{J/m}^3[/math], we can reconstruct the observed value of [math]G \approx 6.674 \times 10^{-11} , \text{m}^3 \cdot \text{kg}^{-1} \cdot \text{s}^{-2}[/math].

But here’s the key clarification: this derivation is performed in a coarse-grained, locally reconstructed region where curvature is measured around matter. The Chorton energy density used here is not the instantaneous cosmological average, but rather the effective local energy density as organized by matter-bound systems (e.g., Earth, stars, galaxies).

Yes, QCF predicts that the total Chorton number density [math]n_\chi(t)[/math] dilutes as the universe expands:

[math]
n_\chi(t) = \frac{N_\chi(t)}{V(t)} \propto a(t)^{-3}
[/math]

As this happens, the global energy density of Chortons drops, suggesting weaker curvature over cosmic scales — a prediction consistent with the observed accelerating universe and weak large-scale gravity. However, this does not mean that [math]G[/math] becomes a time-varying scalar in local physics.

The key feature of QCF is that Chortons are not passive. As outlined in Sections 4.4 and 23, Chortons realign around matter through a sigmoid activation function:

[math]
f(\rho) = \frac{1}{1 + e^{-k(\rho - \rho_P)}}
[/math]

This function ensures that regions of higher energy density (i.e., near mass) activate more Chortons and locally reconstruct a higher curvature, consistent with stable Newtonian gravity. This mechanism allows the Chorton network to maintain an effectively constant gravitational coupling in locally bound systems, even as global energy density decreases with expansion.

So no, QCF does not predict that [math]G[/math] must vary in a way that contradicts observational constraints. It predicts a scale-dependent behavior: nearly constant in regions where Chortons are activated by mass-energy, and weakening only across cosmological voids. This explains both why [math]G[/math] appears constant in experiments and why cosmic acceleration occurs — because gravitational binding weakens at large scales due to low Chorton alignment.

In short, the criticism conflates global dilution with local response. In QCF, gravity is not weak because of low energy, but because high quantum energy is diluted — and locally refocused wherever curvature is needed.
As @joigus pointed one more mistake,i admit that and will fix that.
Its just mathematical but what Swansont pointed was very critical tthing.

Edited July 29Jul 29 by Dhillon1724X

On 7/21/2025 at 7:52 AM, Dhillon1724X said:

Chortons are not excitations in spacetime, but proto-excitations that generate spacetime

and

3 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

A Chorton is modeled as a redscaled harmonic oscillator with field parameters ω=1.853×1043,rad/s

Using seconds (unit s^-1) implies time? But before time there was no time

(Note: I can live with a few spelling and/or grammar errors; can you post an explanation that is not produced or supported by an "AI ChatBot"?)

6 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

So no, QCF does not predict that G must vary in a way that contradicts observational constraints. It predicts a scale-dependent behavior: nearly constant in regions where Chortons are activated by mass-energy, and weakening only across cosmological voids. This explains both why G appears constant in experiments and why cosmic acceleration occurs — because gravitational binding weakens at large scales due to low Chorton alignment.

So G is smaller in intergalactic space. Seems like that would have testable consequences. With gravitational waves, for instance.

But how does it get to be smaller there, but is bigger when mass is greater? Why wouldn’t it be different in regions with different amount of mass? It’s not like there’s no mass at all in intergalactic space. What’s the threshold that activates gravity?

And…nearly constant?

How did the small-G voids appear in the first place, if you start out with a more-or-less uniform distribution of mass and energy? Shouldn’t they all be activated? How do they de-activate?

6 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

So no, QCF does not predict that G must vary in a way that contradicts observational constraints. It predicts a scale-dependent behavior: nearly constant in regions where Chortons are activated by mass-energy, and weakening only across cosmological voids

I don’t think it predicts that at all. If you didn’t know about the distribution beforehand, and that expansion was occurring, I’m not convinced it would pop out of the equations. It’s very ad-hoc in that regard.

8 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Using seconds (unit s^-1) implies time? But before time there was no time

We are talking about after spacetime is formed from chortons

17 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

In the QCF derivation, we invert this relation and compute G using:

G=Rμνc48πTμν(dimensionally consistent)

This is not a valid tensor equation.