For 40 years, we’ve been carefully adding "invisible stuff" to our equations to make the universe make sense. We have built an entire cosmology on a ghost that refuses to show itself. But what if the error isn’t in what we see, but in the very foundation of what we think Space and Time are?
The idea is simple, yet radical:
Spacetime isn’t a stage where things happen. It is a secondary structure—the "exhaust smoke" of information flow.
Most modern physics tries to "quantize" gravity, assuming space is a fundamental fabric. But we should be asking a different question:
"If information flow is fundamentally irreversible, what kind of geometry must emerge from that loss?"
In this new and full math and physic framework (EMSTI - https://zenodo.org/records/17911993):
* Space and Time are not fundamental: They are emergent statistical solutions.
* Gravity is not a force: It is a manifestation of information dissipation (entropy production).
* Dark Matter disappears: It is replaced by an "entropic acceleration" that arises naturally when systems are out of equilibrium.
How do you see the "stage" of the universe? Premise or consequence?
JPLeRouzic•2w ago
I am not a scientist, but didn't you replaced a convenient concept with another concept?
emsti•2w ago
Most modern physics tries to "quantize" gravity, assuming space is a fundamental fabric. But we should be asking a different question: "If information flow is fundamentally irreversible, what kind of geometry must emerge from that loss?" In this new and full math and physic framework (EMSTI - https://zenodo.org/records/17911993): * Space and Time are not fundamental: They are emergent statistical solutions. * Gravity is not a force: It is a manifestation of information dissipation (entropy production). * Dark Matter disappears: It is replaced by an "entropic acceleration" that arises naturally when systems are out of equilibrium.
How do you see the "stage" of the universe? Premise or consequence?
JPLeRouzic•2w ago