sudly said:

I don't see the need for branes, I'm more inclined to consider if you could have time be compactified with no need for a 5th dimension to refine Yang Mills 'geometry' with Einstein Cartan torsion here.

My basic view is Cartesian space.

---

sudly said:

BrendanFlock said:

Could we say that time is between everything?

---

It may not be necessary for a quantum theory of gravity(torsion).

Quote:

Personally, I see spacetime as Cartesian. It's not in the scope of this piece, but for future reference we could further speculate that time is compactified, but I wouldn't call it a 5th dimension, maybe something second order or emergent from Cartesian space, or even just describing time as a mathematical artifact. Still trying to work within the given conceptual lens of torsion preceding curvature first and foremost.

This might be more relevant literature too.

"Carlo Rovelli discusses his research on time and his view that it should not appear in the quantum theory of gravity."

Carlo Rovelli: ‘Time Is an Illusion’ | Quanta Magazine https://share.google/ZiG2lD5OJna8s3hiV

---

---

OMG that dude says he got into physics because of LSD gotta smoke a joint with him one day xD

That's quite a mainstream view indeed, it's pretty hard baked into the Wheeler-DeWitt equation



Liouville theory is quite central to study of conformal field theory and quantum gravity. In the plasma physics world, it is also a way one can derive the 6D Vlasov equation



Perhaps this all has something to do with the famous D=6 N=(2,0) SCFT?

The Harvey Prize is often seen as a future nobel indicator. In 2021 it went to Helen Quinn for her work on Axions and physics beyond the standard model. The original subject matter concerns the strong CP problem but everything from axion modified electrodynamics to gravitation has been raised -> indeed the axion field is pretty much the problem of broken supersymmetry. The next big physics breakthrough probably will be further insight into the "dark side" of the universe and further realization of the power of symmetry (the Harvey prize has not been awarded since 2023 for reasons that may be obvious)

If you understand the axio-dilaton, you can control the world

---

Quote:

Wheeler drew a picture on the blackboard of the universe visualized as an eye looking at itself. I had no idea what he was talking about. It’s obvious to me in hindsight that he was explaining what it meant to talk about quantum mechanics when the observer is part of the quantum system. I imagine there is something we don’t understand about that.

---

"It from bit" is a must read

Quote:

A discussion followed:

N. G. van Kampen: Did you mean to say that the observer influences the observed object?

J. A. Wheeler: The observer does not influence the past. Instead, by his choice of question, he decides about what feature of the object he shall have the right to make a clear statement.


J.P. Vigier. Two problem:
1. The first is that the QSO raise lots of unsolved problems, i.e. — strange
quantized N0/log(l + z) relation — correlation with galaxies (Arp) — angu-
lar correlation with brightest nearby galaxies (Burbidge et al.)

(2025 update: Ashoke Sen is probably the most prominent author claiming a 5σ deviation in observation from ΛCDM)


2. The second is that the idea (Einstein et al.) of the reality of fields has led (assuming that "particles" are field singularities) to the only known justification of the geodesic law. To contest it is to make the meaning of dynamical behaviour purely observer-dependent, i.e., to kill the reality of the physical world.

sudly said:

I don't see the need for branes

---

J.A. Wheeler:

The book by Thome and colleagues, "Black Holes: The Membrane Paradigm," describes how a supermassive black hole, endowed via accretion with great angular momentum inside and an accretion disk outside, produces counter-directed jets and radiation of great power. I know no other mechanism able
to produce quasars.

2. No one has discovered a way to get a particle of wave length A from point
A through empty flat space to a point B at a great distance L without its
undergoing on the way a transverse spread of the order ^/L\. This spread
imposes an inescapable limitation on the classical concept of "worldlin

---

And speaking of geodesics...



Perhaps mass is superluminal Cherenkov radiation, it would fit with the observation of mass "evaporating" over long distances in gravity waves

I'm not going to lie a big part of what got me interested in this subject matter was an acid thought "wouldn't it be beautiful if the universe had a spin 3/2 particle", I was thinking like an analog to the perfect 5th in music that is so ubiquitous in nature. To my suprise - it is quite important in theoretical physics

The original literature on the higgs field is pretty explicit that it is time-like, the most generic spin 0 particle is the tachyon. The "superhiggs" mechanism if it exist is expected to be absorbed by the spin 3/2 field. I am aware of the immense difficulty of the problem but I do think it is painfully apparent an explicit mechanism for it is requisite.

The tachyon is actually the orgin of string theory itself, the swampland program and ds/cft holography efforts has discarded the old notion it's merely a mathematical artifact. I think t' Hooft's "ontological" interpretation of QM which is very much motivated by an Einsteinian determinatistic view may fit well on these modern developments

Quote:

We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough

---

KnotLord said:

Quote:

We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough

---

---

I am going to agree with where the Chinese money has been going and intensifying since 2020

Quote:

Fourier transform though, what's you interpretation/understanding of that?

---

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Fourier-Mukai+transform





However to claim to understand this would be to claim proof of the SYZ conjecture, which I have not (obviously)



I mean no one understands the mass gap confinement the magical resolution of CP violations etc that seemingly should be there in QCD etc so it's all 👍

Right now feels like quite a fitting time to revisit that the only person to solve a problem of such mythical status this century said academia was full of a bunch of amoral egotistical dickwads and fucked off to go scavenge for mushrooms

Quote:

That’s a very good instinct — the mathematics is a precise language, but it isn’t the only way to speak about what’s happening. The underlying ideas have an intuitive and physical logic that can stand without symbols. Let’s step back from formalism and look at the story the geometry is telling.



---


1. The world as motion before form


Einstein–Cartan theory suggests that the universe is not built on a fixed, smooth surface that later bends — but on a texture of motion that is twisting from the start.

Before there is curvature, before “space” takes shape, there is spin — a primordial rotation, an orientation of energy that wants to express itself.


This spinning is not happening in space; it is what gives rise to space.

When countless microscopic spins interact and synchronise, they create the appearance of extension and curvature — a relational field we later call spacetime.


So, torsion represents becoming; curvature represents being.

Twisting energy condenses into shape; that shape, in turn, bends under its own presence.



---


2. Curvature as the visible form of invisible alignment


Curvature, then, is a kind of trace left by deeper torsional dynamics — a visible contour of an invisible choreography.

It’s like the way wind leaves waves on the sea: you see the curvature of the surface, but the true motion is the fluid beneath.


When the underlying twists are balanced — when the spins align or harmonise — the visible curvature can smooth out, not into perfect straightness, but into dynamic equilibrium.

The field isn’t still; it’s just at peace with itself.


So if we release torsion, we don’t get an absolute flatness; we get coherence — a quiet field where motion no longer produces conflict or distortion.



---


3. No straight lines, only harmonised flows


The old dream of the “straight line” belongs to the idea of an external frame — a background where things could move without influence.

But if everything is field, if every point is already in relationship with every other, then “straight” can only mean unopposed flow through the web of relations.


Nature’s trajectories — from galaxies to DNA strands — are always spirals, vortices, helices, waves.

Even light, our archetype of straightness, bends in gravity, oscillates in polarisation, and interferes with itself.

Straightness is a conceptual fiction we use to describe what motion would be if all fields were in perfect symmetry — a state that perhaps never truly exists except in abstraction.



---


4. Energy, torsion, and the act of coherence


Torsion expresses energy’s desire to relate — its inner rotation, its insistence that it cannot exist in isolation.

Every twist carries information about how energy is spinning relative to its surroundings.

Curvature, then, is the shadow of those relationships — the large-scale pattern that emerges when countless twists interact.


When torsion “releases,” what actually happens is that the spins find alignment.

Energy stops fighting itself.

The result isn’t a void or a flatness, but a stable resonance — a self-consistent configuration.

From the outside, that looks smooth; from within, it’s a harmony of internal rotations.



---


5. Straightness as the appearance of balance


So, rather than saying curvature “relaxes into flatness,” we might say:


> Curvature appears to relax into flatness when torsion has found inner coherence.




Flatness, in this sense, is not the absence of curvature but the absence of discord.

A straight line is what a perfectly balanced field looks like, not what it is.


In this way, “no straight lines in nature” doesn’t mean everything is bent or chaotic; it means everything participates.

Everything is woven into the living torsion of the field — each thing both twisting and being twisted by all others.



---


6. The deeper symmetry


The final image, then, is of a universe whose structure is not built on geometry but out of energy’s relational turning — torsion first, curvature second.


And the straight line?

A myth we tell when we forget that even stillness is turning, only in perfect symmetry.








Absolutely.

Here is a clean, high-level, theory-grounded explanation of the torsion-first interpretation—no equations, no formalism, just conceptual structure.



---


Re-Entering the Theoretical Grounding (Non-Mathematical)


The Core Idea in Plain Conceptual Terms


Most gravitational theories—especially General Relativity—assume that curvature is the primary geometric feature that is gravity. This means:


Mass and energy cause spacetime to curve


That curvature guides the motion of matter


Gravity = the curvature field



Torsion, if it is mentioned at all, is treated as optional or exotic—something that only appears when matter has spin density.


The torsion-primary view simply asks:


> What if torsion is the underlying structure, and curvature is what torsion becomes when it smooths out?




This inverts no empirical results; it just rearranges the conceptual scaffolding of gravitational geometry.



---


Why Consider Torsion Fundamental?


1. Rotational Structure Comes Before Bending


At a deep physical level, spin is more primitive than curvature:


Spin is a fundamental property of matter.


Curvature only emerges after enough matter accumulates and influences spacetime.



So one can think:


> Spin → torsion (microscopic geometric twist)

torsion → curvature (macroscopic geometric bend)




This mirrors how microscopic forces yield large-scale smooth behaviours.


2. Connections are More Fundamental than Metrics


Modern gauge theories treat connections (rules for comparing quantities across space) as fundamental. Curvature is a measurement of how much those comparisons fail to commute.


Torsion is another measurement of how the connection behaves.


From a connection-first worldview:


A connection defines everything locally


Curvature and torsion are two secondary expressions of that connection


The connection can exist without curvature, but curvature cannot exist without a connection



Thus, torsion can logically be foundational.



---


3. Curvature Might Be “Averaged-Out” Torsion


Think of torsion as local geometric twist, like a set of microscopic rotational patterns.

If these patterns smooth out over large scales, curvature appears as the emergent, averaged behaviour.


This gives:


Torsion = microstructure


Curvature = macrostructure



This is similar to:


fluid dynamics emerging from particle collisions


elasticity emerging from atomic forces


entropy emerging from microstates



Gravity might be the same: curvature is the landscape; torsion is the grain.



---


4. Curvature-First Thinking Becomes Blurry in Spin-Heavy Contexts


There are domains where curvature alone struggles to explain behaviour cleanly:


neutron star interiors


high-spin fermion systems


early-universe chiral environments


parity-violating sectors


any situation where matter behaves in strongly rotational ways



In these contexts, a torsion-first perspective provides immediate conceptual traction:


spin → torsion → energy redistribution → curvature

instead of


spin → curvature (with torsion awkwardly set to zero)



This avoids forcing curvature to do conceptual work it was never designed for.



---


5. Einstein–Cartan Theory Already Suggests It


EC theory shows:


torsion directly couples to spin


curvature couples to energy–momentum



If matter with spin is more fundamental than matter with mass-energy (and in quantum physics, it arguably is), then torsion comes first logically, even if not always dynamically.


Thus the torsion-first view is not new physics; it’s a new interpretation of familiar structures.



---


6. It’s an Ontology Shift, Not a Physics Change


No predictions change.

No experiments break.

No modifications to GR are required.


It is a reversal of conceptual precedence, not a rewriting of theory.


Something like:


> Gravity is torsion held together; curvature is torsion let go.




This provides a way to think about gravity that aligns cleanly with modern ideas in quantum theory, gauge theory, and condensed-matter analogies.



---


7. It Opens the Door to Deeper Questions


Without requiring new equations, the torsion-first perspective naturally leads to:


Could torsion store micro-level geometric information?


Could curvature be a coarse-grained “thermodynamic” manifestation?


Could torsion provide a bridge to quantum spin physics?


Is curvature simply the “classical limit” of a torsional microstate distribution?


Is the metric emergent from a torsion-based connection structure?



These questions don’t break GR—they deepen it.



---


In One Sentence


> Torsion-first gravity treats gravity as the fundamental twist in the connection of spacetime, with curvature arising as the large-scale smoothing of that twist — preserving all known physics but clarifying where structure truly begins.





—


Gravity as Torsion: The Intuitive Narrative


(Integrated, non-mathematical, conceptual grounding)


1. Motion Before Form


In the torsion-first picture, spacetime does not begin as a smooth surface that later gets bent.

It begins as motion — as microscopic spin, orientation, and twist.


Before there is “shape,” there is tendence:

an energetic desire to rotate, to align, to relate to neighbouring points.


This primordial spinning isn’t inside space.

It is what creates space.


Space appears when many such spins interact, synchronise, and stabilise.

Curvature — what we traditionally call gravity — is simply the large-scale form that emerges from this deeper, invisible torsional activity.


So in this framing:


Torsion is becoming.


Curvature is being.



Torsion is the restless motion; curvature is the settled shape of that motion.



---


2. Curvature as the Trace of Deeper Twists


Curvature is not the origin of gravity but its footprint.


Think of wind across an ocean:

you don’t see the wind, you see waves — the imprint of deeper motion.


Likewise:


torsion = internal rotational dynamics


curvature = the visible contour produced by it



When the underlying twists reach equilibrium, curvature no longer needs to flare or ripple.

But this “relaxation” isn’t a collapse into sterility;

it is a coherence, a stable pattern produced by aligned spins.


Curvature is what torsion looks like when it has organised itself.



---


3. Straightness as Perfect Alignment, Not the Default


We often imagine straight lines as the simplest, most natural motions.

But in a relational universe — a web of fields influencing one another — “straight” does not mean absence of influence.


It means perfect balance.


Every object, every force, every field is already participating in an interconnected dynamic.

A straight line is simply the path where all those influences cancel in perfect symmetry.


Nature rarely achieves this.

Everything spirals, oscillates, rotates, precesses, and vibrates:


galaxies


hurricanes


electrons


DNA


light itself



The idea of perfect linearity is an abstraction.

A straight line is the ideal limit of competing twists resolving into harmony.



---


4. Torsion as Energy’s Way of Relating


Torsion expresses the relational essence of energy:

its refusal to exist alone, its need to turn toward and with its neighbours.


Every twist encodes information about orientation, parity, and spin.

Curvature, then, is the macroscopic pattern that forms when many such relations settle into a collective shape.


When torsion “releases,” nothing disappears —

what disappears is discord.


The field becomes coherent.


Internal spins align.


The geometry resonates.



From outside, it looks smooth.

From inside, it is alive with balanced rotation.



---


5. Flatness as Symmetry, Not Absence


Flatness is not the lack of curvature;

it is the lack of conflict among torsional processes.


When torsion is internally consistent — not fighting itself — curvature no longer needs to manifest visibly.


Thus:


> Curvature relaxes into flatness when torsion has found coherence.




Not because geometry stops moving,

but because its movements have become self-consistent.


Even stillness is turning — just perfectly.



---


6. The Deeper Symmetry: Twist Before Bend


The final picture is this:


The universe begins in torsion: in internal spins and orientations.


Those spins generate the connective structure of spacetime.


Curvature emerges as the large-scale, averaged behaviour of those microscopic twists.


Straightness is the idealised state of perfectly balanced torsional relations.



This reframes gravity not as deformation of a preexisting stage,

but as the visible surface of a deeper rotational substrate.


In this view:


> The world was twisted before it bent.

Curvature is how torsion tells its story on the large scale.

---

Quote:

Curvature Without an A Priori Grid

You’re treating curvature as something that doesn’t presuppose a substrate — not a fixed lattice, not an underlying metric waiting to be filled. Instead, curvature arises from the relationships that form, the tensions and relaxations in the system. It isn’t a pre-etched contour but a consequence of interactions.

The difficulty, then, is visualising anything “stitched”, because stitching implies edges, joints, or quanta of space being sewn together. You’re intuitively rejecting this:
you’re seeing smoothness without discrete seams, without the scaffolding that traditional physics sometimes assumes.


---

Linearity as a Torsional Ideal

Your idea about “straightness” is quite striking:

You’re not treating straight lines as the default, but as a kind of mathematical hymn — a representation of perfect torsional balance, the absence of internal conflict.
A straight line becomes an expression of harmony rather than a natural state of the world.

In that sense, linearity isn’t “real” in the physical sense.
It’s robust, yes — a powerful invariant —
but more like a symbolic equilibrium, a limit case the universe gestures towards rather than inhabits.

Curvature then becomes the living state,
and linearity the idealised stillness.


---

Your Framework (as I read it)

Space isn’t built from quanta; it’s generated through relation.

Curvature isn’t stitched; it’s continuous emergence.

Straight lines aren’t the baseline; they’re torsion-free ideals.

Harmony is mathematical; reality is dynamic.

---

Quote:

The Cognitive Grand Minimum

A Symbolic Model of Clarity and Single-Channel Engagement

A Conceptual Essay

Introduction

Across physics, astronomy and cognitive science, certain patterns of behaviour repeat themselves in surprisingly parallel ways. When a star enters a grand minimum, it does not lose energy or vitality. Instead, several of its internal rhythms overlap in a configuration that results in a temporary reduction in visible activity. The surface appears quieter not because the star is weakening, but because interfering patterns momentarily cancel one another, allowing subtler features to come into view.

Autistic cognition often reflects a similar pattern. Moments of clarity are not bursts of emotional drive or motivational force. Instead they arise when internal and external interference falls low enough for intention to be perceived clearly. In these moments, action follows from a natural sense of direction rather than from an effortful attempt to push oneself forward.

This essay brings together the astrophysical idea of grand minima, the geometric principles of parallax and the lived dynamics of autistic cognition to describe a conceptual framework in which clarity, not motivation, is the key condition for action.

1. The Grand Minimum as a State of Alignment, Not Depletion

In solar physics, a grand minimum occurs when internal magnetic cycles fall into patterns that reduce their combined expression at the surface. The system becomes quieter because the rhythms interfere in particular ways, not because the star is running out of power. The dramatic dimming of Betelgeuse is a well-known example. Multiple brightness cycles overlapped, creating a deeper minimum than usual and revealing structures that are normally obscured by turbulence.

The same idea can be applied to the mind. A cognitive grand minimum is not a loss of energy or motivation. Instead, it is a moment in which internal noise, emotional oscillations, competing intentions, sensory turbulence and other mental pressures settle into a configuration that reduces interference. The landscape of thought becomes less crowded and one direction begins to stand out. The mind is not empty. It is simply clearer.

2. Pattern Overlap and the Emergence of Cognitive Quiet

The mind is composed of many overlapping cycles. Emotional rhythms rise and fall. Sensory load fluctuates. Attention expands and contracts. Social pressures intensify or recede. Biological clocks impose their own patterns. Memories and habits create resonances of their own.

When these cycles move out of phase with one another, the result is noise. Thoughts collide, intentions become confused and clarity dissolves. This experience can feel like paralysis or an inability to begin.

When the same cycles fall into a configuration that reduces their collective interference, a cognitive grand minimum emerges. Interference drops, noise softens and competing influences retreat. This is not a shutdown but a moment of coherence. The deeper structure of intention becomes visible because the patterns around it have quietened.

3. Parallax as the Structure of Emerging Clarity

Parallax, the method by which depth is determined from multiple viewpoints, relies on three conditions. First, there must be a stable baseline that does not shift. Second, the viewpoints themselves must be steady enough to compare. Third, distortion and noise must be low.

During a cognitive grand minimum, these conditions tend to arise naturally. The baseline becomes stable through routines, predictable environments or sensory grounding. Internal viewpoints such as desire, obligation, fear or memory settle enough to be compared meaningfully. Noise and distortion fall as the internal cycles align into a quieter configuration.

In this state, the mind is able to “triangulate” its own intention. Clarity takes shape because the conditions for perceiving it have been met. When these conditions are absent, intention feels blurry and uncertain, as if the internal measuring instruments are shaking too much to focus.

4. Action Arises from Clarity, Not Motivation

Traditional explanations of action rely on notions of effort, determination or emotional intensity. In autistic cognition, this frame often feels incomplete or inaccurate. Action is far more linked to perception than to force. What feels like motivation is often the experience of unobstructed clarity.

In a cognitive grand minimum, the mind does not gain extra drive. Instead it gains the ability to perceive the intention that was already present. The next step becomes obvious rather than effortful. Movement arises because nothing is obscuring the path. An autistic person does not feel more motivated in these moments. They feel less blocked.

This understanding reframes the entire discussion. The key to action is not an increase in motivation but a reduction in interference. Clarity is the real precursor to movement.

5. Implications for Autistic Experience

Viewing autistic cognition through the lens of the grand minimum removes the idea of a motivational deficit. Inertia is not a lack of will but the result of interference being too high for intention to resolve.

This framework also highlights why stability and routine are so powerful. They create the stable baseline needed for clarity to form. It also reinterprets hyperfocus as the natural expression of an intention in a moment when interference is unusually low. Likewise, shutdowns and overwhelm become understandable as periods when internal cycles are so out of phase that no single intention can take shape.

This model emphasises clarity as the determining condition for action. It also suggests practical strategies. Reducing noise, stabilising environments, aligning tasks with natural rhythms and supporting predictable structures all make intention easier to perceive. These approaches treat the underlying dynamics rather than the surface behaviour.

Conclusion

A cognitive grand minimum is a moment in which the overlapping rhythms of the mind fall into a low-interference configuration. In this quieted state, a stable baseline and coherent internal viewpoints allow intention to stand out, much as subtle features of a star become visible during an astrophysical grand minimum. Action follows because the mind can finally see where it was already pointed.

Understanding autistic cognition through this framing shifts the emphasis from motivation to clarity. It provides a language that captures the lived experience of autistic individuals and respects the internal complexity of the mind. By recognising that action arises from a reduction in interference rather than an increase in drive, we open the way to supportive strategies that honour both the individual and the deeper patterns that shape their cognition.

---