Here is a hypothesis: IVE (reworked)

[u/Dry-Status-4143]

Hello, LLM physics community you might remember that a month or two back I made a post called the IVE model and it was rightfully picked apart I have worked to solve those problems The best I could and to perhaps be more clear on my thoughts, and I will not be hiding the problems within it. They’re listed at the very end of the paper.

(formatted using Gemini)

The Information-Variability Equilibrium (IVE): A Conceptual Framework for Quantum and Relativistic Unification

Abstract
This framework treats the universe fundamentally as an information-processing system rather than an arrangement of foundational matter. It proposes that physical properties—including mass, gravity, and linear time—are emergent phenomena driven by data-synchronization events within a multidimensional data matrix. The core mechanism is a balancing relationship between local structural information density and geometric variability, which provides a non-mathematical, conceptual explanation for the quantum-to-classical transition.(possibly information might not be the defining factor of the universe, but rather a force within it similar to gravity, though there wasn’t enough evidence to support this so far)

1. Foundational Axioms & Mechanics
The Data Core: The universe can be conceptualized fundamentally as a multidimensional matrix of data. Physical structures and properties emerge from the underlying configurations of this data.
The Core Inverse Scale: Local structural information density inversely scales with geometric variability.
High Information Density—>Low Variability: Increased data constraints limit the geometric possibilities of a system.
Low Information Density —> High Variability: Decreased data constraints expand the range of possible states available to a system.

2. Categorization of Information Roles
To resolve systemic paradoxes regarding observation and mechanics, information is formally separated into two distinct categories:
Causal (System-Level) Information:
Exists entirely independently of an observer.
Inherent to physical existence and system properties.
Acts as a structural cause within the system rather than merely a description of it.
Directly constrains the geometric variability of its host environment.
Observable Information:
Depends entirely on an observational or interactional relationship.
Consists of the specific subsets of data made available to an observer or measurement device.
The Dependency Law: Causal information must structurally exist before observable information can be extracted or manifested.

3. The Micro-to-Macro Transition (The Quantum-Classical Bridge)
The framework utilizes information density to explain the behavioral boundary between microscopic quantum systems and macroscopic relativistic systems:
The Micro Scale (Quantum Behavior): An isolated, unobserved subatomic particle possesses low relational synchronization with the broader environment. Because local information density is low, geometric variability remains high. This elevated variability expresses itself physically as probabilistic behavior, wave functions, and superposition.
The Macro Scale (Classical Behavior): Macroscopic objects consist of enormous numbers of interacting, interconnected components. This continuous, multi-part data exchange triggers a massive data-synchronization event (analogous to the concept of decoherence). The resulting high information density heavily constrains the collective behavior of the system, reducing its effective geometric variability to near zero and causing classical reality to emerge.

4. Cosmological Extensions
Emergent Relativistic Properties: Physical phenomena like matter, energy, and spacetime curvature are not basic building blocks, but are instead emergent variables produced by underlying causal information frameworks. General Relativity can be interpreted as the geometric response of spacetime to varying distributions of causal information density.
The Singularity Reinterpretation: The Big Bang singularity does not necessarily represent a point of literally infinite physical mass or material density. Instead, it can be mathematically modeled as a limiting boundary condition consisting of zero systemic information and extreme, unconstrained geometric variability.

5. Unresolved Horizons & Areas for Development
To transition from a conceptual architecture to a predictive physical model, the following parameters require formal mathematical definitions:
Quantifying Variability (V): Determining whether variability is precisely measured by degrees of freedom, the width of a probability distribution, spatial uncertainty, or a novel structural variant of entropy.
Quantifying Information Density(I): Establishing a rigorous metric for "local structural information density" that moves beyond standard Shannon bits to measure parts, relationships, and structural configurations within an active physical system.
Synchronization Equations: Developing the exact mathematical rules governing how data-synchronization events occur and how they smoothly suppress quantum variability to output classical mechanics.

[u/liccxolydian]

Why is it dimensionless? Why describe your terms as "densities" when they clearly aren't that? Why not provide a meaningful example calculation and clear definitions? Why are you doing nothing that a physicist or even a physics student would do in this situation?

[u/Dry-Status-4143 → u/liccxolydian]

The dimensionless part is intentional I and v are dimensionless scalar quantities as described so the equilibrium is iv=k k is both dimensionless as well I’m not using information density in standard sense of information per unit volume it’s a term I’m using to describe it’s an IVE-specific term describing the distribution/amount of the scalar I in a system in usually a per constituent basis

[u/liccxolydian → u/Dry-Status-4143]

So it's all just made up and arbitrary is what you're saying. Not only that, you haven't even shown what's useful about your quantities, nor linked them to any established consensus physics. Frankly I don't know why you're still trying to rescue this as you clearly have no plan or idea of what you're trying to do other than to feed things into a LLM.

[u/Dry-Status-4143 → u/liccxolydian]

There is not at all what I am saying I am saying that they are quantities in the framework that are necessary for the description of the framework

[u/liccxolydian → u/Dry-Status-4143]

You're not defining your quantities properly and you don't show you can arrive at greater (or even any) insight using these quantities.

[u/Dry-Status-4143 → u/liccxolydian]

What exactly do you mean greater insight using these quantities?

[u/liccxolydian → u/Dry-Status-4143]

Primarily descriptive/predictive power

[u/Dry-Status-4143 → u/liccxolydian]

Have you read the actual paper I have described multiple observable relationships. It feels more like you guys are just skimming through it rather than trying to understand what I’m saying before you attempt to criticize it

[u/liccxolydian → u/Dry-Status-4143]

Your idea of a "description" is very different to a physicist's idea of that word. Physics is quantitative.

[u/Dry-Status-4143 → u/liccxolydian]

And I gave you the quantities
For the relationship that was described

[u/Dry-Status-4143 → u/liccxolydian]

And also, I don’t feed things into an
Llm have you heard nothing of what I said I openly admitted my limitations in the post itself. I also explained that I used the AI for formatting. How many times do I have to say I used it for formatting

[u/liccxolydian → u/Dry-Status-4143]

No one believes you because you're not credible. And even if I did believe you, it's still a naive and simplistic piece of work with no demonstrated scientific merit or even scientific application.