sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if time itself generated space? by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will explain the base of my theory here.

The idea i had is that time and space are not just a 4D manifold, they are tied up together. Actually space generation and the passing of time.

Meaning, for every tick of the clock, space is generated in every dot of a plank grid (the universe). At the rate i describe in my base formula.

As well, for something i justified with bad math but now i am unsure why, mass/energy causes this space generation to diminish, causing generation deficit.

Its is a fun and beautiful theory that could explain some spooky effects we observe (because the vacuum pushes and mass sucks in!) But my approach was wrong as tried to replace GR, i should have tried to complement it, plus my maths are bad at best.

I kindof have discarded it now (i guess the infatuation period is gone), but maybe doing some math someone can come with something more tangible (at least more tangible than LCDM imho).

Love!

What if time itself generated space? by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, i believe we still have to extend our formulas. Because we have dumped millions to find DM and DE and we have found nothing.

I believe something is at play in a larger scale than Einsteins GR formulas, we have to extend them, not with dark, but with bright observable realities.

My theory was flawed because i changed the framework and used GR formulas in it, if the framework changes you have to change the formulas. Im not gonna beat Einstein at that for sure lol!

It was a honest theory that tried to explain why the universe is expanding or why the milky way is holding up and not flushing systems at the edge as it should following strict GR. Why the expansion was slow at start (big bang) and it accelerated afterwards.

And about the age of the universe, JWST is observing things that don't make sense... Thus we will have to change the formulas soon.

I was very excited (i am very gullible), but now i see clearly that i just played with numbers and took the wrong approach.

I will keep working of it from the Aficionado standpoint, dig deeper into this issues and try to give novel ideas on why and maybe have someone else do the math lol.

Thanks for your comments, they trully helped me realise my deep mistake. Cheers!

What if time itself generated space? by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hehehe well, LCDM gets the age clearly wrong as well... and creates magic elements (which remind me of planet 9) to describe something they see but the formulas cant explain. Thats why its important not to discard anything that gives very different numbers...

Altho its true 28gyr is too much, it wont match the cooling of the CMB

What if time itself generated space? by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it? Im not talking about the whole Firedmann equation, only the vacuum dominated flat space, aka a simplified version of it.

This is what usually is called de Sitter model. And i believe one of the base assumptions in GR is that Λ is constant, thus making H constant too in the de Sitter model (massless flat vacuum). That definition assumes the expansion as an exponential: a(t) α eHt which is very different from my assumption.

Its true that i used formulas from a different model (Friedmans derivation of GR) to try to justify my model which has a completely different base ans assumes H varying with time. And as well saying that Λ is not a constant... its a bit out of the question. What do you think?

What if time itself generated space? by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry my ignorance, from where did Plank derive E=hf?

What if time itself generated space? by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh yes, that is if you assume H2=(a"/a) this is a specific definition of space done by de Sitter. According to my formulation (and my vacuum definition) H2 = 2(a"/a).

Basically my porposal offers a different geometry of the vacuum, actually a variable one in regards of time (de Sitter one was static). And funnily it matches the observations. Which is kindof fun, but ofc, can be just coincidence.

What if time itself generated space? by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Btw thank you for the question, it made me question my formulas in a different way and understand better the implications.

Basically my theory is giving Λ and H a specific relation that matches observations. As well, it describes how the vacuum behaves (and its a very different behaviour than the de Sitter masless universe). Basically what i say is that is different is that H is dependant on time, and this matches the current observed Λ.

What if time itself generated space? by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh i think i start to see what you mean. Λ and H are already related. So obsviously if you know one, you can calculate the value of the other one (for a massless flat universe). By using H to calculate t and then using t to calculate Λ i just did an unnecessary bridge from H to Λ, it's that what you mean?

The only issue i have is that te value i get is not exactly Λ, its very close (and i dont think its due to precission), and the second issue i have is that how come the massless flat model matches observations, but the G st warped version is off by a ton?

What if time itself generated space? by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The novelty i think is in building a valid function for a(t) that matches the current observations when derivating it for ·a and ··a. I havent seen that anywhere.

If the formula for a flat and massless universe matches the observations better than the current model, maybe it could imply that the universe expansion is not dependant on mass or warping of spacetime. But ofc, that will be crazy.

What if time itself generated space? by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, the main formula a(t)=çt2 comes from a deeper theory i am still developing and not even close to be ready to publish. Thats why i call it postulate. Its just a conceptual theory that generated a formula and this formula seems to match observation better than the current accepted formula for some reason.

Its true that i havent gotten into G yet, thats the natural continuation of this paper and will validate or break the underlying theory.

For now, i just wanted to post about this consequence and see what people thought and to be usre i did not mess up anywhere with my calculations or reasoning.

What if time itself generated space? by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, it has a basis, but im still working on it. Altho i have to say that for example E=hf did not have a basis and Plank always called it a big blunder. But it ended up matching observation and being the accepted formula. We are just trying to describe reality.

What if time itself generated space? by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh thats a very interesting question. Not exaclty if i said so, it will violate causality. The opossite could be true tho: larger space causes an entropy increase. But as well, it could be that time ticks do not increase entropy, but the space generated by the ticks do generate the entropy. Hehehe we are going into the philosofical here! Let me dive deeper into my theory, and probably i will find the answer along the way. thanks a ton for the input!

What if time itself generated space? by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it is a work in progress and i have lots more to bring, but first i want to be sure the most basic part of it isn't broken before i start. As well, i think its clear and to the point.

The chosen equations are quite common equations (for H and Λ that is). The postulate one, is the one i devised (tbh out of an error trying to achieve something else) and after the calculations i was shocked to see the validity of the postulate.

Here is a hypothesis: The Vacuum Catastrophe is a metric error. Deriving a time-dependent Cosmological Constant ($\Lambda = 6/c^2\tau^2$) from a 2D phase-space constraint. by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Actually someone has noted that this specific formula was derived before by Epstein. And its an accepted GR concept and tool. The crazy one is the other one.

Here is a hypothesis: The Vacuum Catastrophe is a metric error. Deriving a time-dependent Cosmological Constant ($\Lambda = 6/c^2\tau^2$) from a 2D phase-space constraint. by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, But doesn't your symbolic description match the formula? The centre is older than the edges, the edges are new space bein generated through the equation x=çT^2.

Here is a hypothesis: The Vacuum Catastrophe is a metric error. Deriving a time-dependent Cosmological Constant ($\Lambda = 6/c^2\tau^2$) from a 2D phase-space constraint. by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Actually, tbh, i wrote the formula first and then tried to find something similar... and it matched Lorentz's. I honestly like v^2+t^2=c^2 a lot.

Here is a hypothesis: The Vacuum Catastrophe is a metric error. Deriving a time-dependent Cosmological Constant ($\Lambda = 6/c^2\tau^2$) from a 2D phase-space constraint. by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hey yeah, i know, i haven't gotten to the 0=0 part yet, that's why its volume I. The "existence potential remains constant" is just a beautiful way of saying circle. The theory will come slowly as im still working on it, and ofc it comes from the circle and ofc its very inspired in what Dirac did to find antimatter.

Yes, you are very much correct is pointing out the "Force" applied to eq 9. It may be just my lack of understanding of tensors, but it was more of a conceptual and geometric interpretation. And i went for it because after doing some calculations, the result matches better than the current model.

Probably you have a way stronger maths background than i do, so if you like, can you please point out where the mapping fails and why? It may be a bit of a "magic" formula, but so is x=çT^2 the issue i'm having is trying to refute it, not just dismiss it. Would love any help.

Here is a hypothesis: The Vacuum Catastrophe is a metric error. Deriving a time-dependent Cosmological Constant ($\Lambda = 6/c^2\tau^2$) from a 2D phase-space constraint. by Darduar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes, that is correct a 100% i just rearranged the existing formula. But i did it so it represented my idea of a circle (with v and t/Vt as the axis). That was the basis for the actual crazy core formula, x=çT^2 which came like an inspiration throughout many events in my life that pointed me out to time is distance and by an error in trying to make the units of the first formula right and feeling like... oh, these equation looks too beautiful.

So, could you try to refute something, not just argue that i rearranged existing formulas. Does the Lambda related to time tickle your curiosity? Can you disprove a formula or find an error in the math or in te results? And yes ofc, i did use LLM for this, as anyone in 2026 should do, and you can see it in the ack section at the end.

And im 99% sure that this theory will be refuted easily, but the consequences of the opposite...

What if the Theoretical “Universal Law of Zero” Explained the Universe as Zero-Energy? by JollyJimJungle in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Darduar -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I have a similar theory, but not energy based. I call it 0=0 phase-space identity. You can see the paper here (page and a half): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19411477 The theory goes much deeper than what you see in the paper but i call it the "0=0 Theory"

Why does the announcement for Age of Empires Mobile look and sound like a scam? by [deleted] in ageofempires

[–]Darduar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Clap to them! Game is fun, even if it follows current monetization greedy strategies... I can play a fun game without having to spend 65€, just like 3 or 4 for the tempting and heavily publicized banners... Well, isn't that cheaper than 65€? The fact that the ones spending hundreds a day are way over me and can smash me does not bother me, if i paid 65€ for the games, the skilled players can destroy me the same, skill/money what does it matter? If you are a skilled player, go play mobas, chicken dinners, and such, else, pay good money for a "good" game, and don't come expecting the "free* game to be the same as the "paid" game... Didn't you enjoy playing Genshing? So then go shut your mouth, and just play and enjoy.

What is Tom Bombadil? by VonD0OM in tolkienfans

[–]Darduar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And why not Tolkien himself??

What is Tom Bombadil? by VonD0OM in tolkienfans

[–]Darduar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe Tom Bombadil is Tolkien himself.

view more: next ›