J. Rogers, SE Ohio
The formal paper is here.
Physics is currently stuck in a Ptolemaic age. We have built an incredibly precise, predictive model of the universe, but it is built on a fundamental error of perspective. We have placed the observer—and the observer’s arbitrary distinctions between Mass, Length, and Time—at the center of the solar system.
Because the universe does not actually respect these distinctions, our data looks messy. "Planets" appear to move backward. To fix the math, we have added epicycles—correction factors that force the data to fit our geocentric model.
We call these epicycles Physical Constants.
We treat the speed of light (
), Planck’s constant (
), and the gravitational constant (
) as fundamental properties of the universe. We measure them to deeper and deeper precision, marveling at their "fine-tuning."
But what if they aren't properties of the universe at all? What if they are just the conversion factors required to translate a unified reality into a fragmented coordinate system?
The Copernican Shift: Moving the Center to the Substrate
In my recent paper, "The Structure of Physical Law as a Grothendieck Fibration," I argue for a Copernican shift in metrology.
The Standard Framework of physics is Human-Centric. It assumes that Mass, Energy, Frequency, and Length are ontologically distinct dimensions because that is how we perceive them. When we insist on measuring a unified universe using these four separate rulers, the math requires us to insert "constants" to glue the rulers back together.
is the glue between Space and Time.
is the glue between Energy and Frequency.
is the glue between Mass and Geometry.
My framework is Substrate-Centric. It posits a single, unified substrate (
)—a "Sun" at the center of the mathematical system. When you shift your coordinate origin to the substrate’s own geometry (using Natural Ratios), the "retrograde motion" stops. The constants all become 1. They vanish.
This isn't just a trick of algebra. It is a structural proof that the constants were never there to begin with.
Naturally, the "High Priests" of the Standard Framework have objections. Here is why they are wrong.
Objection 1: "This is just Philosophy."
The claim: "Physics is about measurement. Saying 'reality is unified' is metaphysics, not science."
The Rebuttal: This is not metaphysics; it is topology.
The paper demonstrates that physical laws are Cartesian liftings within a specific category theory structure (a Grothendieck fibration). This structure makes a rigorous physical claim: that the "constants" are coupled Jacobian connection coefficients. You cannot change one without breaking the geometry of the others.
This leads to a falsifiable prediction: The Inversion Point.
If the universe were truly fragmented, the scaling relationships of mass (
) and wavelength (
) would be independent. But they aren't. They are reciprocal. My framework predicts that if you plot all fundamental physical laws on a logarithmic scale of natural ratios, they must all intersect at exactly one point:
Standard physics views the Planck scale as a limit. I view it as the geometric origin. That is a physical claim, not a philosophical one.
Objection 2: "This is just Dimensional Analysis."
The claim: "You’re just using the Buckingham
theorem to rearrange units. That’s a tool we already use."
The Rebuttal: You are confusing the shadow with the object.
Standard physics uses dimensional analysis, but it cannot explain why it works. Why should the universe care about our units? Why should physical laws be invariant under scaling?
In my framework, dimensional analysis isn't a "tool"—it is the Shadow of the Fibration.
The Object: The Substrate (
).The Light: The coherence of physical law.
The Shadow: The dimensionless ratios (
groups) we observe.
Dimensional analysis works because it is tracing the shape of the shadow cast by the substrate. The Standard Framework spends its time measuring the edges of the shadow with extreme precision. I am turning around to look at the object casting it. To dismiss this as "just dimensional analysis" is like dismissing astronomy as "just looking at dots."
Objection 3: "You are a Layman ignoring the King's Fine Clothes."
The claim: "Real physics is hard. It requires Quantum Field Theory, Renormalization, and Gauge Symmetry. You are ignoring the complexity because you don't understand it."
The Rebuttal: The complexity is the problem.
The "finery" of the King's clothes—the parameter salad of the Standard Model, the renormalization schemes—is exactly what you get when you use the wrong coordinate system.
If you try to map a sphere using a square grid, you get mathematical singularities at the poles. You need complex calculus to fix the map. The expert cartographer is proud of his complex calculus.
I am simply pointing out: "It’s a sphere."
The complexity of modern physics is the complexity of the Jacobian Matrix. It is the math required to rotate our arbitrary axes (Mass, Length, Time) to match the natural geometry of the substrate.
The Forensic Evidence: The Equivalence Chain
If you need proof, look at the "Golden Thread."
When you normalize physical quantities by their Planck scales (the Jacobians), 15 different physical laws—Newton’s Gravity, Einstein’s Mass-Energy, Planck’s Frequency—collapse into a single identity:
The probability of 15 independent laws aligning perfectly by accident is less than
This is the forensic evidence that the "laws" are not independent discoveries. They are 15 different camera angles of the same object. The "constants" are just the focal lengths of the lenses we used.
The Verdict
We have spent centuries measuring the lens instead of the light.
When we measure the Fine-Structure Constant (
), we aren't measuring a fundamental property of reality. We are measuring the distortion of our own electromagnetic coordinate slice. We are measuring the shape of the prism, not the light passing through it.
The universe has no constants. It has only a unified geometry, and the clumsy coordinates we use to describe it. It is time to stop counting epicycles and look at the Sun.
No comments:
Post a Comment