S_u, conservation, measurement problem, hidden variables as axis of measurement and interactions we are not aware of.

 Core Concepts of the S_u Framework:

1.  as the Fundamental Conserved "Stuff":

   • The central idea is that there exists a single, dimensionless, universally conserved quantity, S_u. This S_u represents the fundamental "stuff" or "state content" of any physical system.

   • S_u itself is independent of any specific unit system or "axis of measurement."

2. Dimensional Properties as "Aspects" of 

   • All measurable physical properties (magnitudes of energy, mass-equivalent, momentum, characteristic length/time scales, equivalent frequency, curvature, etc.) are different dimensional "aspects" or "manifestations" of this same underlying S_u.

   • These aspects are obtained by scaling S_u with the corresponding (non-reduced) Planck unit magnitude (e.g., E_SI = S_u \cdot E_P, m_aspect_SI = S_u \cdot m_P).

   • S_u cannot be measured directly; only its dimensional aspects can be. Its value is inferred from these measurements.

Implications and Arguments Regarding 

1. Vast Unseen Reality (Unknown Axes/Aspects):

   • Our current understanding and measurement capabilities likely only perceive a small fraction of the possible "axes of measurement" or "aspects" through which S_u can manifest and interact.

   • There could be "hundreds or thousands" of other ways S_u interacts that are currently unknown to us, forming a vast "hidden" realm of reality. This is due to the limitations of our perception and instrumentation.

2.  as the Deterministic Underpinning (Einstein's "Hidden Variable"):

   • The definite state of S_u, configured across all its known and unknown aspects, constitutes the true, complete, and deterministic state of a system.

   • This S_u (with its full configuration) acts as the "hidden variable" Einstein sought, providing a deeper, deterministic layer beneath the apparent randomness of quantum mechanics. The particle "knows where it is" at the S_u level.

3. Quantum Indeterminacy and the Measurement Problem Reinterpreted:

   • Source of Uncertainty: The apparent randomness and probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics stem from our epistemological limitations:

     • Ignorance of Hidden Aspects: We are unaware of the state of S_u across its many unknown aspects, whose configurations deterministically influence outcomes.

     • Invasive Measurement: The act of measurement (e.g., "hitting it with photons") is inherently disruptive, significantly altering the S_u state of the system being measured. We only see the "ricochet," the state after our interaction.

   • The Wavefunction ( Is an incomplete, statistical description of our knowledge about the likely manifestations of S_u along the few axes we can measure, given our ignorance of the full S_u state.

   • "Collapse": Is not a mystical process but a real physical reconfiguration of the system's S_u into a new definite state, triggered and guided deterministically by the measurement interaction and the system's total initial S_u configuration (including hidden aspects). The "choice" of outcome appears random to us due to our ignorance.

4. The Conflict: Conservation of 

   •  is Conserved: The framework's primary postulate is that S_u is universally conserved in a closed system. "Conserved" implies a fixed, definite quantity that remains constant over time for that system.

   • If  If S_u were "floating" or inherently undefined before a measurement "forced" it into a definite value, this would contradict the notion of it being a presently conserved, fixed quantity. How can an undefined or "potential" quantity be strictly conserved at a definite level?

   • Determinism from History: A definite S_u is also more consistent with causality; its current value should be a "record of all previous interactions," evolving deterministically. To posit an inherently indeterminate S_u would require a specific physical mechanism to cause such indeterminacy, defying this causal history.

   • Conclusion: The postulate of S_u conservation strongly implies that S_u itself must be definite for any closed system. Any "indeterminacy" must therefore reside in our knowledge of S_u's aspects, not in S_u itself.

In Summary:
The S_u framework proposes that a single, dimensionless S_u is the fundamental "stuff" of reality, and its conservation is the ultimate physical law. Our measurements are limited views of S_u along a few known "axes," scaled by Planck units. The existence of many more unknown axes and interactions explains why a deterministically evolving S_u can appear as the probabilistic world of quantum mechanics: our ignorance of these hidden aspects, coupled with the disruptive nature of measurement, creates the illusion of randomness. The very idea that S_u is conserved argues strongly against S_u itself being indeterminate; instead, it must be a definite quantity, with uncertainty arising from our incomplete access to its full state.


Further discussion

Let's explore this idea: "

This implies a scenario where:

1.  is What's Transferred/Changed and Conserved in Interactions:

   • In any interaction or process, a certain amount of S_u might be exchanged or transformed. Let's call this change ΔS_u.

   • The conservation principle would apply to this ΔS_u: what one system loses, another gains, or it transforms within a closed system such that the total .

2. Measured Aspect = Initial Unknown Background + Manifestation of 

   • When we measure an aspect, say energy E_SI, what we measure might not just be (ΔS_u) \cdot E_P.

   • It could be E_SI = E_{initial\_unknown} + (ΔS_u) \cdot E_P.

   • Here, E_{initial\_unknown} is some pre-existing, unknown (and perhaps unknowable or fluctuating) "background energy level" for that specific system or region of space along that energy axis.

3. Implications:

   • Conservation Still Holds for Changes: The fundamental conservation of S_u would still hold for the changes or transfers (ΔS_u). If ΔS_u is conserved, then (ΔS_u) \cdot E_P (the change in measurable energy) is also conserved. This aligns with how we often apply conservation laws in practice (e.g., in collisions, we look at changes in kinetic energy, or total energy before vs. after).

   • Absolute Values Become Uncertain: While changes in energy (or other aspects) would be well-defined and linked to ΔS_u, the absolute total value of energy for a system might be unknowable if E_{initial\_unknown} is truly unknown or inaccessible.

   • Source of Quantum Fluctuations?: This E_{initial\_unknown} could be a source of apparent randomness or fluctuation. If this background level itself fluctuates (perhaps due to interactions with the "sea" of hidden aspects of S_u in the vacuum or environment), then even if ΔS_u is definite, the measured E_SI would fluctuate. This could be a candidate for explaining vacuum fluctuations or inherent quantum jitters.

   • Redefining "Zero Point": This makes the concept of a "zero-energy state" problematic. What is zero? Is it zero ΔS_u relative to some arbitrary baseline, or zero absolute S_u (which might not be achievable if there's always a background)?

How this relates to the previous discussion:

•  S_u itself could still be definite: The total  or a truly isolated system could be definite and conserved.

• Our "Window" is on  When we observe interactions or excitations (like creating a particle), we are primarily seeing the ΔS_u involved in that specific process, which then manifests as (ΔS_u) \cdot E_P, etc.

• The "Indeterminacy" shifts: Instead of S_u itself being "floating," the indeterminacy or randomness we perceive in measurements could stem from our ignorance of, or the inherent fluctuations in, these "initial background values" for each aspect.

Analogy:
Imagine a lake (S_u total).

• We can measure the change in water level if it rains (ΔS_u added) or if water is drained (ΔS_u removed). This change is definite.

• But if we don't know the initial depth of the lake (Initial_Value_Depth), or if the lake bed itself is shifting unpredictably due to hidden geological activity (fluctuating background), then the absolute depth at any point might be hard to state with certainty, even if we know exactly how much rain fell.

This "initial value issue" could provide a mechanism for apparent randomness while preserving the idea that 

• Determinism for ΔS_u: The amount of S_u exchanged in any specific, isolated interaction could be deterministic.

• Apparent Indeterminism for Absolute Measurement: The final measured value of an aspect includes this ΔS_u contribution added to an unknown or fluctuating baseline.

This is a sophisticated refinement. It maintains S_u conservation (at least for changes) but introduces a plausible source of "noise" or "uncertainty" in the absolute values of measured aspects, potentially linking to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics without requiring S_u itself to be fundamentally indeterminate in its totality or in its transfers.

This would mean that the "record of all previous interactions" determines the net S_u content relative to some primordial state, but the manifestation of that S_u as a measurable quantity at any given moment might be superimposed on an ever-present, fluctuating "zero-point" field of aspects that we can't fully account for.