I keep coming back to the most annoying question in physics: what is time, before we dress it up with coordinates and clocks.
I just posted a short preprint that takes a weirdly minimal route a model where “time” is literally an epoch counter from discrete state updates on a 1-complex-dimensional generator space, and a simple phase-budget idea naturally pushes you toward a lock like Rω=c and something that looks like time dilation as a redistribution between internal rotation and external motion.
In 1928, Dirac took the relativistic energy relation and forced it into a Schrodinger-like structure. The result was revolutionary; antimatter, spin, and a new understanding of matter itself. That move reshaped physics.
What I’m doing here is challenging a different assumption in the opposite direction—and yes, I know it immediately sounds like crackpot physics or numerology. That reaction is understandable after a century of abstract frameworks like many-worlds or extra dimensions.
But if you have a physics background, are a physics student, or seriously care about foundations, I think you owe it to yourself to at least read it. Assume it’s wrong—that’s fine. If you’re certain it’s wrong after reading, great. But if it’s right, even partially, it changes how you think about quantum mechanics, relativity, and what “fundamental” really means. Openly challenging foundations is a choice, and I’m making it deliberately.
For about a century we’ve treated “energy is proportional to frequency” as a sacred starting point in quantum theory, not something that itself needs explaining.
This blog article argues that we may have it backwards; starting from a simple geometric/entropic picture, that rule looks more like a consequence than a law. If you’re bored of yet another “interpretation of QM” and want to see someone actually poke at the foundations, this is that attempt.
For more than 100 years, physics has had beautiful equations for gravity and quantum fields, but no clear, simple story for where the forces themselves actually come from.
There’s a new theoretical framework “Relator” that treats gravity and electromagnetism as two parity faces of a single microscopic kernel living on an internal complex space, rather than two separate forces.
Particles are modeled as phase loops locked by a simple rule, and long-range forces show up as entropy deficits in that hidden space, with explicit mass and charge cancelling out in the final force laws. The same setup was previously used to predict the fine-structure constant and the electron mass without tunable parameters.
curious what people who know GR/QFT well think of this approach.
t’s openly available to everyone—from professors to students.
The main paper, which derives the key phenomena of general relativity from quantum physics without spacetime curvature (no GR formalism), is intentionally written to be easy to follow.
By contrast, the parts on the emergent fine-structure constant (1/137) and the electron mass (+ leptons mass hierarchy) do require advanced math and physics.
If I learn which sections are unclear or most interesting, I’ll publish a more detailed, step-by-step guide with simpler math.
That’s why I’m sharing the full manuscript with all details now publicly.
You can also invite me to public review communities for it.
One recent interviews, Sir Roger Penrose looked into the camera and said, in essence, two unfashionable things: the Big Bang wasn’t the beginning, and quantum mechanics as we know it is not the final word. Coming from a Nobel laureate, that’s not clickbait. It’s a gauntlet.
TL;DR: the proton is complicated; this is a high-level, phenomenological “maybe.”
I’m sharing a short result from my “Emergent Alpha” work. I treat α as the solution of one gauge-invariant equation F(α)=0, scan it over the complex-α plane, and map |F|. On the real axis, the positive branch lands on α ≈ 0.0072973525643 (~1/137.0359) with no tuning. More surprising: there’s also a clean real zero near α ≈ −4.9948. The maps look asymmetric, and while the negative branch began as a stress test, it might carry real structure.
In a 2-page note (“Alpha Branches and a Geometric Link to the Proton–Electron Mass Ratio”) I use the two branches (α⁺, α⁻) to write a single, simple relation that ties the locked frequency split (ω_C vs ω_R3) to g-factors, giving a parameter-free handle on m_p/m_e—about 4% off in this crude version. It’s deliberately compact and easy to read. If you’re curious about the electron’s pieces (ω_C for bare-mass part vs ω_R3 for self-field part), I list the numbers in “Emergent Electron Mass from Two-Space Boundary” (see pp. 59–60). Open to feedback, replication, and counter-examples.
I just posted a short preprint that takes a weirdly minimal route a model where “time” is literally an epoch counter from discrete state updates on a 1-complex-dimensional generator space, and a simple phase-budget idea naturally pushes you toward a lock like Rω=c and something that looks like time dilation as a redistribution between internal rotation and external motion.
reply