Unified Temporal–Energetic Geometry

Abstract

We propose a speculative theoretical framework in which time (T), distance (D), and energy (E) are fundamentally equivalent quantities, linked by universal constants and expressed through a single invariant. This ChronoEnergetic Field (CEF) extends the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics by treating spacetime and energy not as distinct domains, but as manifestations of one substrate.

1. Introduction

Modern physics rests on two pillars: general relativity, which unifies space and time as spacetime geometry, and quantum mechanics, which treats energy and probability as foundational. Despite their success, these frameworks remain conceptually distinct. We extend relativity’s unification by incorporating energy directly, positing that time, distance, and energy are equivalent aspects of a single continuum.

2. Fundamental Postulates

1. Equivalence Principle: T ≡ D ≡ E
2. ChronoEnergetic Field: Geometry and energy are excitations of the same substrate.

3. Core Equations

Time–Energy Relation

Mass–Time Relation

Unified Invariant

4. Lagrangian Formulation

5. Quantum Temporal Mechanics

6. Predictions

1. Temporal Redshift:
   E_γ = E₀ (1 + Φ_T / c⁶)
2. Chronon Quantum:
   E_chronon = ℏ c³ / t_Planck
3. Temporal Pressure: A candidate for dark energy.

7. Implications

• Cosmology: Expansion as temporal-pressure release.
• Black Holes: Singularities as time–energy compression.
• Unification: Bridge between GR and QFT.

8. Conclusion

Unifying geometry, energy, and duration into one substrate invites fresh approaches to unification, dark energy, and the quantum nature of time.

9. Tests & Validation

Editorial note (v1.3): This section consolidates falsifiable predictions, explicit discovery thresholds, and DIY protocols. Expanded following a recommendation by Michael Shara (Curator, American Museum of Natural History) to state quantified, species-dependent tests that cannot be reduced to unit redefinitions.

9.1 Minimal τ-parameterization (beyond GR/QM)

Let the identity hold, τ ≡ E/c³ = m/c. Introduce a dimensionless, composition/transition-dependent coupling that violates Local Position Invariance (LPI):

In GR, ζ_τ = 0 for nongravitational physics; any ζ_τ^(i) ≠ 0 produces species-dependent observables that cannot be gauged away.

9.2 Five falsifiable, quantified predictions

P1. Differential gravitational redshift between clock species

GR: zero residual after standard redshift removal. With h = 1 m, g h / c² ≈ 1.1×10⁻¹⁶. Optical clocks at 10⁻¹⁸ resolve |ζ_τ^(i) − ζ_τ^(j)| ≳ 10⁻²; target claim: ≥ 10⁻³.

P2. Penning-trap cyclotron frequency shift vs potential

GR: 0. State-of-the-art ω_c precision 10⁻¹¹–10⁻¹²; for ΔΦ/c² ∼ 3×10⁻¹⁰, sensitivity to |κ_τ^(s)| at 0.03–0.3. Target: ≥ 10⁻².

P3. Atom-interferometer rest-mass phase anomaly

GR: η_τ^(i) = 0. Differential comparisons can reach |η_τ^(i) − η_τ^(j)| ≥ 10⁻⁴.

P4. Cyclotron–clock cross-comparison (single ion)

GR: 0. Target: |ζ_τ^(clock) − κ_τ^(ion)| ≥ 10⁻².

P5. Quadratic redshift nonlinearity (spaceborne)

GR: β_τ^(i) = 0. Ground↔MEO/GEO gives ΔΦ/c² ∼ 10⁻¹⁰–10⁻⁹; with 10⁻¹⁶ absolute accuracy, test |β_τ^(i)| ≳ 10⁻⁶.

9.3 Concrete experiments (near-term)

• E1: Two-height, two-species optical clocks (Sr vs Yb or Al⁺). Residual after GR removal → P1.
• E2: Penning-trap ω_c at two gravitational potentials (surface vs deep mine / high altitude) → P2.
• E3: Atom-interferometer differential (Rb vs Cs or Sr vs Yb) with path asymmetry → P3.
• E4: Co-trapped ion: compare ν_clock and ω_c while modulating Φ (elevator/aircraft) → P4.
• E5: Space mission with two distinct optical transitions on an elliptical orbit → P5.

9.4 Discovery thresholds to state explicitly

• P1: ∃ (i,j) with |ζ_τ^(i) − ζ_τ^(j)| ≥ 10⁻³.
• P2: ∃ species s with |κ_τ^(s)| ≥ 10⁻².
• P3: ∃ pair with |η_τ^(i) − η_τ^(j)| ≥ 10⁻⁴.
• P5: ∃ transition with |β_τ^(i)| ≥ 10⁻⁶.

9.5 Why not a unit change?

Unit redefinitions cannot create species-dependent gravitational couplings. The observables above are cross-ratios between distinct clocks/particles, leaving only genuine physics.

9.6 Link back to the τ dictionary

Using ω = (c³/ℏ)·τ and ω_c = qB/(c τ), any τ(Φ) coupling yields operational frequency shifts:

9.7 DIY Protocol (at-home / tabletop)

Goal: Demonstrate τ-budgeting with two different clock species; produce a public dataset (educational sensitivity 10⁻¹²–10⁻¹³).

Instruments: Rb standard + Cs (or GPSDO), dual-channel frequency counter, GNSS 1-PPS, temperature/pressure sensors, barometric/laser height h.

Geometry: Clock A at ground level, Clock B at height h (3–10 m). Maintain ±0.5 °C thermal stability.

Acquisition: Log fractional difference at 1–10 s cadence for ≥ 7 days; regress residual vs environment.

9.8 Collaboration-level falsification

To reach thresholds in 9.4, partner with optical clock, Penning-trap, or cold-atom interferometer labs; or a space clock team.

9.9 Mechanism Hypothesis (minimal τ–scalar)

To move beyond dimensional relabeling, posit a light scalar σ that weakly modulates the operational “temporal charge” τ with species-dependent couplings:

In a weak gravitational potential, take a linear response

This generates the species-dependent signatures below; nulls at the stated levels falsify this benchmark τ–scalar model.

9.10 Quantified, currently testable predictions (beyond GR)

We commit to fixed numerical coefficients so the model is decisively testable:

QP1 — Differential clock redshift (ground, Sr vs Yb)

After subtracting the standard GR term. Using g = 9.80665 m/s²:

• h = 10 m → +3.27 × 10⁻¹⁹
• h = 25 m → +8.18 × 10⁻¹⁹
• h = 30 m → +9.82 × 10⁻¹⁹

Sign convention: (Yb − Sr). A null at ≲ 3 × 10⁻¹⁹ for h ≈ 25–30 m falsifies this benchmark.

QP2 — Penning-trap cyclotron drift (annual solar potential)

Earth’s orbital eccentricity modulates the solar potential by ΔΦ_⊙/c² ≈ 3.30 × 10⁻¹⁰ (peak-to-peak).

Prediction: annual cosine with amplitude 1.65 × 10⁻¹¹, peaking near perihelion (early January). Sensitivity ∼ 10⁻¹¹ resolves or falsifies this.

QP3 — Single-ion cross-ratio (same Al⁺ ion, annual)

Prediction: annual amplitude in the log-ratio S × ΔΦ_⊙/c² ≈ 1.0 × 10⁻¹¹. A null at ≲ 5 × 10⁻¹² falsifies this cross-comparison.

Commitment: The coefficients 3.0 × 10⁻⁴, 0.050, and 0.030 are fixed a priori (not fit). Any null at or below the quoted levels rules out this benchmark τ–scalar realization.

References

1. Einstein, A. (1916). The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity.
2. Rovelli, C. (2018). The Order of Time.
3. Penrose, R. (2004). The Road to Reality.
4. Smolin, L. (2019). Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution.
5. Damour, T. & Polyakov, A.M. (1994). The string dilaton and a least coupling principle, Nucl. Phys. B423, 532–558.
6. Uzan, J-P. (2003). The fundamental constants and their variation: observational and theoretical status, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 403–455.
7. Olive, K.A. & Pospelov, M. (2002). Evolution of the fine structure constant driven by dark matter and the cosmological constant, Phys. Rev. D65, 085044.
8. Will, C.M. (2014). The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment, Living Rev. Relativity 17, 4.
9. Acknowledgment: Section 9 expanded following a recommendation by Michael Shara (Curator, American Museum of Natural History).

Appendix A — τ-First Formulation

Idea: Treat τ ≡ E/c³ ≡ m/c as the primitive “temporal charge.” Replace m → cτ, E → c³τ everywhere.

A.1 Units & Dictionary

A.2 Mechanics & Gravity

A.3 Quantum & Atomic

A.4 Thermodynamics & Cosmology

A.5 Planck Relations

A.6 Operational

Appendix B — Test Protocols (Checklist)

B.1 Minimal Parameterization

B.2 Lockstep Signature (core falsifier)

Any detected fractional drift across Compton-like, clock, and cyclotron observables must satisfy this correlation.

B.3 Laboratory Protocols

B.4 Fifth-Force / Gravity

B.5 Cosmology (if pursued)

B.6 Reporting Format (one page)

• Quote κ, δτ/τ (per day/year), δα/α if applicable.
• Include a single “lockstep” residual plot overlaying the tracked observables.
• State whether correlation passes or fails within 1σ.