40 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

This is not a valid tensor equation.

Sir I understand,my motive was to clarify that it doesn’t break my theory.

I will fix everything pointed out by respected seniors.

Currently I am not at home,I don’t have access to my computer.

As I always say,I am still learning and I don’t claim to be a master in this.

11 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

As I always say,I am still learning and I don’t claim to be a master in this.

No, you're not learning. You're not learning anything at all this way. At least from this particular discussion.

In a manner of speaking, you're trying to learn Chinese poetry without having studied Chinese first. If you persist, you're doomed to failure.

I think most of us have kinda taken to you because you're so nice and respectful, as well as passionate about science.

If you want to write Chinese poetry, you first:

1) Learn simple sentences and instructions in Chinese, like: "Hello", "can I have a bowl of rice?",

2) Then learn Chinese nuances, idioms, double meaning, collocations of words, and so on.

3) Once you have all that mastered, the universe is the limit, and you can now aspire to create new tropes, alliteration, humour.

Does it make more sense this way? Last time I told you something like this it felt like I was shooting you with neutrinos.

Edited July 30Jul 30 by joigus
minor correction

On 7/25/2025 at 4:30 PM, Dhillon1724X said:

can you suggest what wording to use?

Missed that question. I think the issue is quite a bit bigger than finding suitable words. Assuming the goal is to come up with an acceptable model for "pre-geometry" with properties such as:

• Recovers known physics

• Mathematically rigorous

• Avoids metaphysical slippage

Then (with my background and current level of knowledge) I would probably need to do at least the following:

1. Study Philosophy

Purpose: Understand scientific realism, instrumentalism, model-theoretic realism, ...

Why: need conceptual clarity to avoid building metaphysical assumptions into a pre-geometric theory that claims to avoid them. Also need to understand the "big picture" where this kind of science fits into other areas and their solved or unsolved questions.

2. Study Mathematics

Purpose: Build mathematical fluency in both quantum and geometric formalisms.

Why: Pre-geometric models, as far as I know, often rely on non-standard mathematical structures that I think removes many standard tools.

3. Study Physics; the Established Theories

Purpose: Gain full technical command of existing frameworks.

Why: understand what needs to emerge from the model

4. Study Pre-Geometry: History, Branches, Key Issues

Purpose: Avoid reinvention and engage existing debates. Understand known pitfalls; Recovering Lorentz invariance from discrete models, Matching semiclassical limit to GR, Preserving unitarity and causality

5. Study current Status of the Field, for instance researchers* such as

Leonard Susskind
Juan Maldacena
Carlo Rovelli, Abhay Ashtekar
Rafael Sorkin, Fay Dowker
Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn
Daniele Oriti
Brian Swingle, Mark Van Raamsdonk

6. Programming and Simulation (One of the few areas where I to some degree could rely on existing knowledge)

   I believe (but I do not know) that numerical models, simulations and tests are needed

I estimate this would span several years of full time work. The result is a knowledge level that allows one to choose between competing models and where to try to contribute. Part of it may require re-location and looking for a position at a university or similar institution. As far as I know no generally accepted and tested model exists for "Pre-spacetime" or "pre-geometry" despite all the efforts by researchers so far this phase of the work could be a life-long endeavour. I also do not expect the result to contain any "chortons".

Note: this post is not meant to intimidate, it's just an honest attempt at describing the situation. Also, I do not think any current LLM or chatbot could significantly reduce the time and effort required.

*) list from a quick googling of the scientific concepts I think is relevant.

I think Mr Dhillon is getting very confused.
If Chortons are ( by his own words ) " not excitations in spacetime, but proto-excitations that generate spacetime " , then there cannot be space-time during that era ( now he's got me doing it too ).
So, as you previously pointed out, how can he assign units involving time and dimensions to these Chortons that are needed to generate space-time.

Talking about time, when there was no time yet, is non-sensical ( and I don't care if other well known Physicists do it ); it isnot just a language issue due to unsuitable words.

Dhillon's whole idwa needs to be scrapped; it is delusional to insist he can fix it.

Edited July 30Jul 30 by MigL

5 hours ago, MigL said:

I think Mr Dhillon is getting very confused.
If Chortons are ( by his own words ) " not excitations in spacetime, but proto-excitations that generate spacetime " , then there cannot be space-time during that era ( now he's got me doing it too ).
So, as you previously pointed out, how can he assign units involving time and dimensions to these Chortons that are needed to generate space-time.

Talking about time, when there was no time yet, is non-sensical ( and I don't care if other well known Physicists do it ); it isnot just a language issue due to unsuitable words.

Dhillon's whole idwa needs to be scrapped; it is delusional to insist he can fix it.

Agreed.

+1

On 7/30/2025 at 11:14 PM, joigus said:

No, you're not learning. You're not learning anything at all this way. At least from this particular discussion.

In a manner of speaking, you're trying to learn Chinese poetry without having studied Chinese first. If you persist, you're doomed to failure.

I think most of us have kinda taken to you because you're so nice and respectful, as well as passionate about science.

If you want to write Chinese poetry, you first:

1) Learn simple sentences and instructions in Chinese, like: "Hello", "can I have a bowl of rice?",

2) Then learn Chinese nuances, idioms, double meaning, collocations of words, and so on.

3) Once you have all that mastered, the universe is the limit, and you can now aspire to create new tropes, alliteration, humour.

Does it make more sense this way? Last time I told you something like this it felt like I was shooting you with neutrinos.

Thanks for explaining.

On 7/31/2025 at 2:32 AM, Ghideon said:

Missed that question. I think the issue is quite a bit bigger than finding suitable words. Assuming the goal is to come up with an acceptable model for "pre-geometry" with properties such as:

• Recovers known physics

• Mathematically rigorous

• Avoids metaphysical slippage

Then (with my background and current level of knowledge) I would probably need to do at least the following:

1. Study Philosophy

Purpose: Understand scientific realism, instrumentalism, model-theoretic realism, ...

Why: need conceptual clarity to avoid building metaphysical assumptions into a pre-geometric theory that claims to avoid them. Also need to understand the "big picture" where this kind of science fits into other areas and their solved or unsolved questions.

2. Study Mathematics

Purpose: Build mathematical fluency in both quantum and geometric formalisms.

Why: Pre-geometric models, as far as I know, often rely on non-standard mathematical structures that I think removes many standard tools.

3. Study Physics; the Established Theories

Purpose: Gain full technical command of existing frameworks.

Why: understand what needs to emerge from the model

4. Study Pre-Geometry: History, Branches, Key Issues

Purpose: Avoid reinvention and engage existing debates. Understand known pitfalls; Recovering Lorentz invariance from discrete models, Matching semiclassical limit to GR, Preserving unitarity and causality

5. Study current Status of the Field, for instance researchers* such as

Leonard Susskind
Juan Maldacena
Carlo Rovelli, Abhay Ashtekar
Rafael Sorkin, Fay Dowker
Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn
Daniele Oriti
Brian Swingle, Mark Van Raamsdonk

6. Programming and Simulation (One of the few areas where I to some degree could rely on existing knowledge)

   I believe (but I do not know) that numerical models, simulations and tests are needed

I estimate this would span several years of full time work. The result is a knowledge level that allows one to choose between competing models and where to try to contribute. Part of it may require re-location and looking for a position at a university or similar institution. As far as I know no generally accepted and tested model exists for "Pre-spacetime" or "pre-geometry" despite all the efforts by researchers so far this phase of the work could be a life-long endeavour. I also do not expect the result to contain any "chortons".

Note: this post is not meant to intimidate, it's just an honest attempt at describing the situation. Also, I do not think any current LLM or chatbot could significantly reduce the time and effort required.

*) list from a quick googling of the scientific concepts I think is relevant.

Ok sir.

On 7/30/2025 at 2:25 AM, Dhillon1724X said:

We are talking about after spacetime is formed from chortons

Thanks, but I posted two quotes from your explanations; please explain how they are not contradictory.

On 7/31/2025 at 4:15 AM, MigL said:

I think Mr Dhillon is getting very confused.
If Chortons are ( by his own words ) " not excitations in spacetime, but proto-excitations that generate spacetime " , then there cannot be space-time during that era ( now he's got me doing it too ).
So, as you previously pointed out, how can he assign units involving time and dimensions to these Chortons that are needed to generate space-time.

Talking about time, when there was no time yet, is non-sensical ( and I don't care if other well known Physicists do it ); it isnot just a language issue due to unsuitable words.

Dhillon's whole idwa needs to be scrapped; it is delusional to insist he can fix it.

Imagine you're designing a lightbulb in a dark room, and there’s no electricity flowing yet.

You describe the lightbulb as:

* Having a resistance of 100 ohms

* Designed to turn on at 60 watts

* Meant to operate at 50 Hz alternating current

Someone objects:

“That doesn’t make sense! There’s no electricity yet. How can it have 50 Hz?”

The logical response is:

“I’m not saying it’s already running. I’m describing how it behaves once power is supplied. These are activation thresholds, not live conditions.”

Now apply that to the Quantum Chorton Framework:

The *lightbulb** is the Chorton field

The *electricity** is spacetime/curvature activation

The *50 Hz** is like your $\omega$, the internal curvature scale

The *darkness** is the pre-spacetime quantum phase

Just like we define how a lightbulb behaves once it's powered, we define Chorton behavior once energy density exceeds the critical threshold.

This is not speculation — it's how quantum gravity works in models like Causal Set Theory, Group Field Theory, and the no-boundary proposal. They all define field properties before spacetime geometry becomes classical.

So yes — it is fully logical to assign structural parameters (like $\omega$) before time emerges, as long as those parameters describe activation behavior, not classical observables.

I will make a chart which shows the sequence*

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Thanks, but I posted two quotes from your explanations; please explain how they are not contradictory.

> There’s no contradiction here — this is a standard distinction in quantum gravity.
>
> The first statement defines the **internal structure** of the Chorton field. The $\omega$ here is not a classical time-based oscillation, but a **field curvature parameter** — a structural constant that defines the *potential energy scale* of the Chorton field. It exists in the **pre-spacetime phase**, just like mass terms or potentials exist in the Higgs field before electroweak symmetry breaks.
>
> The second statement — that Chortons are not excitations *in* spacetime — is also correct. They are pre-geometric field structures that **generate spacetime** when energy density exceeds the Planck threshold.
>
> Once spacetime emerges, that same $\omega$ naturally becomes the **frequency** of Chorton field oscillations **in curved spacetime**, and polarization modes can propagate. But before geometry exists, $\omega$ simply defines the **activation scale** of the field.
>
> This structure–activation–emergence logic mirrors approaches like:
>
> * Group Field Theory (GFT)
> * Causal Set Theory
> * Tensor networks in AdS/CFT
>
> So there’s no contradiction — only a misunderstanding of how pre-geometric field models work.

@MigL

it's amusing when someone dismisses an emergent spacetime model— as if physics must pause because their imagination does.
The irony is rich: accusing others of delusion while insisting that geometry must exist a priori, in a field where it’s well known that spacetime breaks down at the Planck scale. That’s not rigor — that’s dogma dressed as skepticism.

If you think it's “nonsensical” to explore structure before geometry, you might want to let Causal Set Theory, GFT, Spin Foam, and most of the quantum gravity community know they’ve all gone mad.

Edited August 1Aug 1 by Dhillon1724X

Not quite; the light bulb doesn't produce the electricity.
Imagine there is no light, and there has never been light.
You are trying to describe a light bulb to produce light.
How would you describe it if you've never seen one in the darkness ??

Edited August 1Aug 1 by MigL

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

Not quite; the light bulb doesn't produce the electricity.
Imagine there is no light, and there has never been light.
You are trying to describe a light bulb to produce light.
How would you describe it if you've never seen one in the darkness ??

"Mathematics proves what the eyes cannot see.
Observation can deceive — but a consistent equation never lies.
The unseen does not mean the unreal.
In fact, every fundamental theory began with math predicting what wasn’t yet visible.

Why do people believe in strings or loops? Not because they’ve seen them — but because the mathematics predicts effects that match what we observe.

No one saw a black hole when it was first proposed. It came purely from Einstein’s equations, long before any telescope could detect its presence.

Has anyone seen spacetime literally curve? No — but we observe its consequences: light bending, time dilation, gravitational waves.

In physics, it’s not visibility that matters — it’s consistency, predictivity, and mathematical truth.

4 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

> There’s no contradiction here — this is a standard distinction in quantum gravity.
>

What is this weird format? Copy/paste?

(looks like markdown, byt why?)

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

What is this weird format? Copy/paste?

(looks like markdown, byt why?)

Its written by me,i just corrected grammer and i used bullet points in notepad to write.
Then pasted it from there.
I liked these so i kept them
>

1 minute ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Its written by me,i just corrected grammer and i used bullet points in notepad to write.
Then pasted it from there.
I liked these so i kept them
>

Ok. But what you wrote contradicts the quotes I asked about.

4 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. But what you wrote contradicts the quotes I asked about.

What contradicts it?

Maybe i just wrote something wrong as i was hurry,Can i PM the file as its not allowed to share here.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

What contradicts it?

Maybe i just wrote something wrong as i was hurry

Ok, take your time and read through the question, the quotes and the answer. I think it is rather obvious so I leave it as an exercise.

7 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Can i PM the file as its not allowed to share here.

I prefer to discuss here on the forum where other members can correct any misunderstandings or mistakes on my part.

16 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Ok, take your time and read through the question, the quotes and the answer. I think it is rather obvious so I leave it as an exercise.

here’s no contradiction.
Chortons exist before spacetime and create it. The \omegaω value just describes their internal energy scale — not a real-time vibration. After spacetime forms, that same \omegaω becomes a true frequency. So both statements are correct, just referring to different phases.

Maybe its just a misunderstanding.

On 7/28/2025 at 11:46 PM, KJW said:

[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]

@Dhillon1724X ,

When it comes to solving the geodesic equation, one normally obtains the solution:

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

where there are four functions of the parameter instead of the three functions:

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

from my previous post. That is, [math]x^0(\lambda)[/math] is now a function to be solved instead of a predetermined function [math]t[/math] that is forced upon the solution. This extra degree of freedom allows one to choose an affine parameter by solving the standard geodesic equation:

[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]

If one was to force the parametrisation [math]x^0 = t[/math], then one would have to solve the equation:

[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]

including solving [math]f(t)[/math] to make up for the loss of a degree of freedom that resulted from forcing the parametrisation.

Note that each function of the solution:

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

has two arbitrary constants because one is solving a system of second-order ordinary differential equations. One arbitrary constant specifies the initial location of the solution curve. The other arbitrary constant specifies the direction of the solution curve [math]dx^\mu\!/d\lambda[/math] at the initial location.

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

Edited August 2Aug 2 by KJW

27 minutes ago, KJW said:

@Dhillon1724X ,

When it comes to solving the geodesic equation, one normally obtains the solution:

x0=x0(λ)x1=x1(λ)x2=x2(λ)x3=x3(λ)

where there are four functions of the parameter instead of the three functions:

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

from my previous post. That is, x0(λ) is now a function to be solved instead of a predetermined function t that is forced upon the solution. This extra degree of freedom allows one to choose an affine parameter by solving the standard geodesic equation:

d2xμdλ2+Γμνσdxνdλdxσdλ=0

If one was to force the parametrisation x0=t, then one would have to solve the equation:

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

including solving f(t) to make up for the loss of a degree of freedom that resulted from forcing the parametrisation.

Note that each function of the solution:

x0=x0(λ)x1=x1(λ)x2=x2(λ)x3=x3(λ)

has two arbitrary constants because one is solving a system of second-order ordinary differential equations. One arbitrary constant specifies the initial location of the solution curve. The other arbitrary constant specifies the direction of the solution curve dxμ/dλ at the initial location.

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

Thanks.

On 8/2/2025 at 8:50 AM, Dhillon1724X said:

Chortons exist before spacetime and create it. The \omegaω value just describes their internal energy scale — not a real-time vibration. After spacetime forms, that same \omegaω becomes a true frequency. So both statements are correct, just referring to different phases.

But that seems to contradict earlier statements and explanations.

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

But that seems to contradict earlier statements and explanations.

Sorry for that.
I will not try to defend my words.
If i stated something wrong then thats my mistake.
Currently i dont think i have anything to share about QCF as i am working on something,in sometime i will share it(I am working QCF).

I think i have answered to all critiques and question.

1 hour ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I think i have answered to all critiques and question.

I suspect there are those who disagree, but if that’s your position then we’re done here.