Unified Foundational Model of Physical Reality

[mladen nb]

Did science take a wrong turn a long time ago? It seems so.
I would like to share a summary of a new physical model that unifies our reality using only the knowledge available in the 19th century.

Any corrections or criticisms are welcome.

1. Foundational Assumption: Reality as a Perfect Smooth Continuum
The model begins with the simplest logically possible description of existence:
Reality is a perfect smooth continuum consisting of four mutually inseparable components:

• 3D space,

• ε - electric permittivity,

• μ - magnetic permeability,

• time (dt) as an infinitesimal change in the distribution and configuration of energy and matter.

This continuum has two essential properties:
Smoothness — all derivatives of physical quantities exist and are finite.
Boundedness — there exist universal finite limits on derivatives, velocities, and forces.
Together, these constitute the minimal mathematical structure capable of supporting dynamics.

Within this continuum exists a fifth phenomenon:
Energy, which exists fundamentally only in discrete, finite-volume packets (“energy droplets”), historically called energy elements (Planck) or photons (Lewis). All macroscopic forms of energy — kinetic, potential, thermal, chemical, nuclear — are emergent collective manifestations of configurations and interactions of these packets.

2. The Photon as the Elementary Packet of Unbound Energy
A photon is modeled as a self-reinforcing, finite-volume packet of energy moving through the continuum at speed:
c = 1 / √(ε μ)

From the fundamental relation:
dE/ds = dp/dt
and using E = c p for a freely propagating photon, one obtains:
d²E/ds² = (1/c²) d²E/dt²

This is the wave equation — derived directly from energy–momentum relations without Maxwell’s formalism.

Consequences:
• A photon occupies finite volume.
• A photon has smooth internal structure.
• A point-like photon is impossible.

In this framework, electromagnetic fields are not taken as primitive carriers of energy, but arise as emergent responses of the continuum to interactions and configurations of energy packets.

3. Production of Mass: Vortical Binding of Energy
High-energy photon collisions (typically involving γ-photons) can form closed, self-reinforcing vortical configurations.

Such stable knots correspond to:
• electron
• positron
• proton (nested vortices)

Mass is defined as:
mass = quantitative measure of the continuum’s resistance to changes in motion of a bound vortical configuration.

The equivalence:
E = m c²
represents the total energy required to create or completely remove the bound vortical state from the continuum.

4. Gravity as Refraction in the Propagation Medium
Bound energy density modifies local ε(r) and μ(r), producing a spatially varying propagation speed:
c(r) = 1 / √(ε(r) μ(r))
A gradient in c(r) causes a gradient in allowed velocities and bends trajectories:
a(r) = ∇(½ · c(r)²)

Gravity is therefore refraction in the ε–μ structure of space.
This reproduces Newtonian gravity in the weak-field limit and GR-like trajectories, without spacetime curvature, singularities, or horizons.

5. Explanation of Key Phenomena
Double-slit experiment:
The interference pattern changes when a detector is introduced because the detector perturbs the local ε, μ environment — no collapse, only environmental modification of energy trajectories.

Inertia:
F = ma becomes a dynamical relation where mass quantifies the degree of coupling between a bound vortex and the surrounding continuum.

Mass–energy equivalence:
E = mc² is the energetic cost of forming or destroying a stable bound vortical configuration.

No singularities:
Finite derivatives forbid divergences.

Quantum behavior:
Emerges naturally from finite-volume energy packets moving within a smooth constrained continuum.

6. Core Physical Picture
• Reality = smooth continuum (3D space, ε, μ, dt)
• Energy exists only as finite, structured packets
• Mass = vortically bound energy
• Matter = structured configurations of mass
• Gravity = refraction due to ε, μ gradients
• Inertia = continuum resistance to vortex acceleration
• E = mc² = energy required to create or remove bound states

Correct hierarchy:
Energy → Mass → Matter

This model removes unnecessary assumptions that accumulated in the standard framework and demonstrates that the core of physical reality is far simpler and more unified than currently assumed.
It does not contradict experiments — it explains them in a logically consistent and physically transparent way.
It is offered as an open-source foundation for further theoretical and experimental refinement.

[crawler]

Yes, photons are quasi-particles, with quasi-mass.
Yes, photons make all real particles, & real mass.
Yes, photons have size & shape.
The wave nature of photons is an illusion, due to the helical central body of every photon.

[mladen nb]

@crawler,
We essentially agree on the nature of photons.

Regarding aether or a propagation medium, it is not just that experiments ruled out the aether — aether becomes unnecessary once space itself is dynamical. If ε and μ are intrinsic, locally responding properties of space, then propagation does not require an external medium to move through. In other words, aether was an attempt to give space properties from the outside; a dynamical space has them built in.

These are not speculative quantities: they are directly measurable, vary between materials, and determine the local propagation of energy. Vacuum already has finite ε₀ and μ₀, vacuum impedance, zero-point energy, and well-defined electromagnetic behavior. Treating them as absolutely rigid constants everywhere is an assumption, not a proven fact.

Gravitational light bending, Shapiro delay, gravitational redshift, and time dilation all show that energy propagates differently in regions of different energy density — without forces, without photon mass, and without momentum exchange. The simplest interpretation is that space itself is locally modified.

[mladen nb]

Why do photons not have an electric charge, and electrons do?

In this model, ε and μ are not fundamentally “electric” or “magnetic” constants. Those are post-EM names. In reality, ε is the capacity of space to accommodate and stabilize energy density, while μ is space’s inertial–rotational response to energy flow and circulation. Electromagnetism emerges only when energy becomes locally bound — first as mass, and later as organized matter — so that gradients in ε and μ acquire electric and magnetic interpretations.

Light itself is not an EM field at the fundamental level; it is a discrete, propagating energy configuration whose motion is constrained by ε and μ, but does not carry electric or magnetic charge. EM phenomena are therefore emergent responses of space to organized energy—not the underlying substance of reality.

[mladen nb]

What is gravity?

It is well known that electric permittivity and magnetic permeability (also known as lengthwise capacitance and lengthwise inductance) vary in different materials, such as air, sugar solutions, or glass.

From classical electromagnetism, we know that light bends toward regions where ε and μ increase (and away from regions where they decrease). In other words, a smooth spatial variation of ε and μ produces a smooth bending of light. These parameters determine the local propagation speed of light and thus its trajectory.

In a vacuum, we usually denote these quantities as ε₀ and μ₀ and treat them as constants. However, this is an assumption rather than a directly testable fact. Any measuring device placed in such a region would be affected in the same way, making local variations impossible to detect directly. Therefore, the assumption that ε and μ may vary in vacuum is just as valid a starting point as assuming they are constant.

If we apply the scientific principle:
“To the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes,”
then the space surrounding a gravitating body should be understood as a region where ε and μ vary smoothly with distance from the source.

Such variation produces a gradient in the permitted propagation speed of energy and matter. Any extended 3D object will inevitably span regions of slightly different permitted velocities. This asymmetry leads to curvature of motion — analogous to light bending in a refractive medium, or to a tank turning because one track moves faster than the other.

Near Earth’s surface, the local values of ε and μ set the permitted velocity scale. Farther away, ε and μ allow higher propagation speeds, forming a radial gradient. Objects never reach these local velocity limits; instead, their paths curve in response to the gradient. This curvature of trajectories is what we observe as gravitational acceleration.

Gravity is therefore not a pulling force, but a consequence of space guiding motion through gradients in its own physical properties.

[crawler]

Why do photons not have an electric charge, and electrons do?

In this model, ε and μ are not fundamentally “electric” or “magnetic” constants. Those are post-EM names. In reality, ε is the capacity of space to accommodate and stabilize energy density, while μ is space’s inertial–rotational response to energy flow and circulation. Electromagnetism emerges only when energy becomes locally bound — first as mass, and later as organized matter — so that gradients in ε and μ acquire electric and magnetic interpretations.

Light itself is not an EM field at the fundamental level; it is a discrete, propagating energy configuration whose motion is constrained by ε and μ, but does not carry electric or magnetic charge. EM phenomena are therefore emergent responses of space to organized energy—not the underlying substance of reality.

I like J G Williamson's model of the electron, orbiting a nucleus, in an atom.
I say that photons are not em radiation, & that em radiation is not photons.
I say that radio & radar etc are em radiation.
How duz your theory deal with radio & radar etc.

[crawler]

@crawler,
We essentially agree on the nature of photons.

Regarding aether or a propagation medium, it is not just that experiments ruled out the aether — aether becomes unnecessary once space itself is dynamical. If ε and μ are intrinsic, locally responding properties of space, then propagation does not require an external medium to move through. In other words, aether was an attempt to give space properties from the outside; a dynamical space has them built in.

These are not speculative quantities: they are directly measurable, vary between materials, and determine the local propagation of energy. Vacuum already has finite ε₀ and μ₀, vacuum impedance, zero-point energy, and well-defined electromagnetic behavior. Treating them as absolutely rigid constants everywhere is an assumption, not a proven fact.

Gravitational light bending, Shapiro delay, gravitational redshift, and time dilation all show that energy propagates differently in regions of different energy density — without forces, without photon mass, and without momentum exchange. The simplest interpretation is that space itself is locally modified.

One of my heroes Prof Reg Cahill uses the term dynamic space instead of aether or aetherwind koz DS is accepted by standard science (ie editors).
He allso uses the term Quantum Foam instead of aether koz QF is accepted by standard science (ie editors).

[mladen nb]

I like J G Williamson's model of the electron, orbiting a nucleus, in an atom.
I say that photons are not em radiation, & that em radiation is not photons.
I say that radio & radar etc are em radiation.
How duz your theory deal with radio & radar etc.

In this model, electromagnetic radiation (radio, radar, microwaves, etc.) is not “what a photon is”, but a collective, macroscopic description of how energy is emitted, guided, and detected by matter. Photons are pre-electromagnetic in origin, representing the fundamental propagating form of energy. In this sense, elementary energy and motion are effectively synonymous.

One of my heroes Prof Reg Cahill uses the term dynamic space instead of aether or aetherwind koz DS is accepted by standard science (ie editors).
He allso uses the term Quantum Foam instead of aether koz QF is accepted by standard science (ie editors).

Introducing aether today amounts to inserting a medium into an already physical medium. In other words, aether is unnecessary — not because space lacks structure, but because space itself is the structure. It already has the properties the aether was meant to provide. Adding another layer explains nothing and contradicts the very experiments that removed the aether in the first place.

[crawler]

Introducing aether today amounts to inserting a medium into an already physical medium. In other words, aether is unnecessary — not because space lacks structure, but because space itself is the structure. It already has the properties the aether was meant to provide. Adding another layer explains nothing and contradicts the very experiments that removed the aether in the first place.

Actually, imo the fundamental essence is praether, & imo aether is an excitation of the praether, ie aether is a process.
So, imo your space is my praether.
And imo all things are a process of the aether, eg photons em-radiation particles matter gravity etc.

U said some days ago that Energy exists only as finite, structured packets.
IMO it is our measurements of energy that exists in finite structured packets, & imo energy itself does not allways come in finite or structured packets.

Anyhow, which experiments removed the aether?

[Cargo]

IMO it is our measurements of energy that exists in finite structured packets, & imo energy itself does not allways come in finite or structured packets.

Which nicely fits with my revulsion at this twist from the OT:

time (dt) as an infinitesimal change in the distribution and configuration of energy and matter.

No, 'time' is nothing more then another measurement, which in itself doesn't not change anything and can't be assigned as a force or property of matter etc... Soon you'll be bending waves and doing quantum calculus because of Time? I like your train of thinking though, there is promise.

[mladen nb]

U said some days ago that Energy exists only as finite, structured packets.
IMO it is our measurements of energy that exists in finite structured packets, & imo energy itself does not allways come in finite or structured packets.

Just to be clear, are you implying there is omnipresent, continuous energy everywhere?

Anyhow, which experiments removed the aether?

I thought the question of the ether was settled, so I didn't research it as you did. Maybe you can tell me which experiment definitely confirmed it?
P.S. If variable ε and μ attribute physical properties directly to space itself, without introducing a separate medium or a preferred rest frame, while remaining fully compatible with relativity, I don't see a need for the ether.

[mladen nb]

No, 'time' is nothing more then another measurement, which in itself doesn't not change anything and can't be assigned as a force or property of matter etc... Soon you'll be bending waves and doing quantum calculus because of Time? I like your train of thinking though, there is promise.

I agree that time is not a force, nor a substance. But calling it “just a measurement” avoids the real issue.

Can anything physically change in zero time?
Can a system be in two different states with no sequence between them?
If nothing changes, nothing moves, and time has no meaning.
Clocks don’t create time; they only track change driven by energy.

So time is not subjective and not arbitrary.
It is the sequence of change itself.
No change, no time.

[crawler]

U said some days ago that Energy exists only as finite, structured packets.
IMO it is our measurements of energy that exists in finite structured packets, & imo energy itself does not allways come in finite or structured packets.

Just to be clear, are you implying there is omnipresent, continuous energy everywhere?

Anyhow, which experiments removed the aether?

I thought the question of the ether was settled, so I didn't research it as you did. Maybe you can tell me which experiment definitely confirmed it?
P.S. If variable ε and μ attribute physical properties directly to space itself, without introducing a separate medium or a preferred rest frame, while remaining fully compatible with relativity, I don't see a need for the ether.

The best MMX that confirms/supports aetherwind is imo Demjanov's 1968-72 twin media MMX which (based on his theoretical calibration) showed that the horizontal component of the aether wind varied/changed from 140 km/s to a max of 480 km/s in 24 hours in June 1968 at Obninsk near Moscow.
So, if we have an aetherwind then imo we must have an aether.
I am merely a retired civil engineer, but i do not understand the logic that (empty) space can have physical properties, & i do not understand the logic that this then somehow removes the need for an aether.

Re relativities, imo there are many kinds of relativities, & imo all are wrong/rubbish, except imo for one relativity, & this true one is imo my own version of relativity.
U mention being fully compatible with relativity. This is imo wrong on 2 levels (at least).
Firstly, imo there is no such thing as relativity, or, putting it another way, there are many kinds/versions.
Secondly, imo being compatible with any one of these, or all of these, means being compatible with rubbish.
My own version imo being the one that makes most sense.

Re omnipresent continuous energy everywhere..... i think my answer is yes.... imo aether makes photons, & imo making photons needs the creation of energy (which is supposedly impossible they say), & imo photons are sort of eternal (which too is impossible they say). Except that photons are imo (Ranzan's opinion actually) eventually stretched & annihilated (which imo needs the extinction of energy)(which is supposedly impossible they say).
Anyhow, imo the aether & the aetherwind provide/make/create energy in 2 ways (in an omnipresent & continuous fashion).
They make new photons (ie they create energy)(at some place & time in our universe)(Ranzan).
They make gravity (ie they create energy).
Hmmmm..... thats about it actually, 2 kinds of energy.... (1) photonic & (2) gravitational.
U might say what about em radiation, ie charge & magnetism & radio..... imo these are made by photons..... but if u like u can consider em radiation & radio as a third way of creating energy (3), or at least a third kind of energy (3).

[mladen nb]

i do not understand the logic that (empty) space can have physical properties, & i do not understand the logic that this then somehow removes the need for an aether.

Ok, I strongly suggest that we focus on this part first, because everything else seems to depend on it.

If space is thought of as “mere distance”, then of course it sounds absurd that it could have physical properties.

But the moment you accept:
• a maximum signal speed (c),
• a maximum force,
• a maximum energy density,
• and stable matter instead of infinite collapse,

you have already accepted that space is not a passive, empty gap.

Those limits cannot come from “nothing”.
They require intrinsic response rules.

Permittivity and permeability are not optional assumptions;
They are what prevent:
• infinite acceleration,
• infinite field strengths,
• infinite energy concentration.

In that sense, space must have physical constraints, or physics becomes unbounded and ill-defined.

Distance alone cannot enforce limits.
Only built-in physical constraints can.

[crawler]

i do not understand the logic that (empty) space can have physical properties, & i do not understand the logic that this then somehow removes the need for an aether.

Ok, I strongly suggest that we focus on this part first, because everything else seems to depend on it.

If space is thought of as “mere distance”, then of course it sounds absurd that it could have physical properties.

But the moment you accept:
• a maximum signal speed (c),
• a maximum force,
• a maximum energy density,
• and stable matter instead of infinite collapse,

you have already accepted that space is not a passive, empty gap.

Those limits cannot come from “nothing”.
They require intrinsic response rules.

Permittivity and permeability are not optional assumptions;
They are what prevent:
• infinite acceleration,
• infinite field strengths,
• infinite energy concentration.

In that sense, space must have physical constraints, or physics becomes unbounded and ill-defined.

Distance alone cannot enforce limits.
Only built-in physical constraints can.

I like the thinking that considers the possibility that empty space is mere distance.
I have said that imo praether is the fundamental essence (& that praether makes aether).
The question then arises whether praether fills empty space & whether they both exist together, ie whether praether allways fill all of empty space all the time.
Of course if praether fills all of space all the time (& imo it duz) then u/me are forced to consider whether the notion of empty space is (can be) of any value.
[To keep things simple u/me/we should accept that our universe is eternal & infinite, which it is (probly not important today)].
If praether fills space all of the time then imo the question then arises whether aether (an excitation of praether)(ie a fundamental process)(but not a fundamental essence) too fills all of space all of the time (& imo it duz).
IMO space is full of praether & aether, all of the time.
IMO praether cannot be today created nor can it be annihilated.
But imo (Ranzan's actually) aether is being created continuously (somewhere) & is being annihilated continuously (somewhere).
IMO praether can possibly be fixed in (empty) space, & praether can possibly form a fixed matrix of some kind (made of little bits i suppose).
Or, praether can possibly be moving throo (empty) space, allbeit in the form of a non-yielding matrix.
We know that aether is moving approx south to north throo our solar system at approx 500 km/s (ie at c/600).
Praps the aether is co-moving with the praether. IMO it is not. IMO praether is fixed relative to itself (but is not necessaryly fixed relative to empty space (whatever empty space means).

IMO i am better off forgetting about empty space. But imo u need it for your theory.
Anyhow i am not getting much closer to understanding your theory of empty space having properties.
I can accept that aether might give space a permeability & a permittivity.
Or, i can accept that praether might do so.

The main problem might be that reality & our model(s) of reality are not the same thing.
No model is ever a reality. A model is merely math, & is needed to give u/me/we numbers. We allways need numbers. We allways need models, even if we have nailed the reality, we still need to model that-there reality to help us to get reasonably accurate numbers (to help us to understand the reality)(& to make predictions etc).

Permeability & permittivity are merely math models.

Hmmmm.... a few thorts.
IMO most things (ie most processes) are processes of the aether, & can move with/in the aether, & can have a maximum velocity/speed relative to aether (eg c, the speed of light/photons)(& allso c, the speed of em radiation, which seems to be identical).
And imo gravity & the speed of gravity is/are relative to the praether (not to the aether), & the speed of gravity is at least 20 billion times c.