# From Empty Objects to Emergent Realities: A Grothendieck-Dirac Framework for Fundamental Physics

Antonios Valamontes

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

To cite this version:

Antonios Valamontes. From Empty Objects to Emergent Realities: A Grothendieck-Dirac Framework for Fundamental Physics. 2025. hal-05061044

HAL Id: hal-05061044

https://hal.science/hal-05061044v1

Preprint submitted on 9 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# From Empty Objects to Emergent Realities: A Grothendieck–Dirac Framework for Fundamental Physics

Antonios Valamontes

ORCID: 0009-0008-5616-7746

Kapodistrian Academy of Science

Kapodistrian.edu.gr

avalamontes@Kapodistrian.edu.gr

## Abstract

We propose a novel foundational framework in theoretical physics that integrates Grothendieck's abstract categorical topology with Dirac's ontological minimalism, unified through the dynamics of Multifaceted Coherence (MC). This framework provides a comprehensive rethinking of the traditional particle-field dualism, replacing it with the concept of emergent coherence objects that are governed by layered probabilistic structures. By utilizing the language of enriched category theory, the framework introduces a new perspective on fundamental physical concepts, such as space, time, inertia, and causality, wherein these phenomena emerge from the interactions of empty objects and categorical emergence processes.

The implications of this framework are explored through critical phenomena in contemporary physics, including renormalization, the arrow of time, large number coincidences, and the cosmological constant. These problems, traditionally approached with ad hoc solutions, are reinterpreted as consequences of interlayer tensions and categorical gluing failures. In this light, the cosmological constant is viewed not as a fixed vacuum energy, but as a dynamic boundary artifact that varies across different coherence layers.

The framework also makes several testable predictions that span quantum mechanics, astrophysics, and general relativity. These predictions include observable shifts
in fundamental constants, black hole recoherence echoes, and the variation of particle masses in response to changing coherence boundary conditions. Ultimately, this approach represents a paradigm shift in fundamental physics, focusing on structural emergence, coherence-based ontology, and offering new avenues for empirical testing and validation.

**Keywords:** Grothendieck's Topology, Dirac's Ontological Minimalism, Multifaceted Coherence (MC), Emergent Coherence Objects, Enriched Category Theory, Cosmological Constant, Structural Emergence

# Contents

**1 Introduction** 5

**2 Historical Motivations** 6

2.1 Dirac's Philosophical Foundations and the Role of Indefinite Structure . . . . 6

2.2 Grothendieck's Generalized Geometry and the Abandonment of Points . . . . 7

2.3 Convergence: Toward a Grothendieck-Dirac Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

**3 Critique of Current Physical Formalisms** 9

3.1 Renormalization: A Mathematical Scaffold with No Ontology . . . . . . . . . 9

3.2 The Ontological Collapse of the Point Particle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.3 Limitations of Standard Quantum Field Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.4 Why a New Foundation is Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

**4 Empty Objects and Categorical Emergence** 12

4.1 Initial and Zero Objects: Toward a Constructive Ontology of Emptiness . . . 13

4.2 Morphisms as Carriers of Ontological Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.3 The MC Constraint: Coherence as Physical Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.4 Empty Object Dynamics: Vacuum as an Engine of Creation . . . . . . . . . . 15

4.5 The Role of Sheaves and Topos Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4.6 The Universe as Categorical Emergence from Emptiness . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

**5 Applications to Large Numbers, Vacuum Instability, and the Cosmological Constant** 16

5.1 Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis Reinterpreted via MC . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

5.2 Vacuum Instability and the Role of the Empty Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>5.3</td>
      <td>The Cosmological Constant Problem</td>
      <td>18</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5.4</td>
      <td>Toward a New Physical Interpretation</td>
      <td>20</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><b>6</b></td>
      <td><b>Reconstructing Quantum Mechanics via MC and Categorical Dynamics</b></td>
      <td><b>20</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>6.1</td>
      <td>From Hilbert Space to Emergent State Space</td>
      <td>20</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>6.2</td>
      <td>Probability from Morphism Multiplicity</td>
      <td>21</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>6.3</td>
      <td>Decoherence as Coherence Collapse</td>
      <td>21</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>6.4</td>
      <td>Observer and Information Channels</td>
      <td>22</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>6.5</td>
      <td>The Wavefunction as a Coherent Presheaf</td>
      <td>22</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>6.6</td>
      <td>Summary: A Categorical Reconstruction of Quantum Mechanics</td>
      <td>23</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><b>7</b></td>
      <td><b>7 Toward a New Ontological Interpretation of Fields, Particles, and Forces</b></td>
      <td><b>23</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>7.1</td>
      <td>articles as Stabilized Morphism Attractors</td>
      <td>24</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>7.2</td>
      <td>Fields as Coherent Sheaves over Empty Objects</td>
      <td>24</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>7.3</td>
      <td>Forces as Categorical Transitions and Functorial Couplings</td>
      <td>25</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>7.4</td>
      <td>The Vacuum as an Ontological Object</td>
      <td>26</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>7.5</td>
      <td>Summary: From Substance to Structured Relationality</td>
      <td>27</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><b>8</b></td>
      <td><b>Deriving Inertia, Mass, and the Arrow of Time from Coherence Flows</b></td>
      <td><b>27</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>8.1</td>
      <td>Inertia as Morphism Coherence Resistance</td>
      <td>28</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>8.2</td>
      <td>Mass as Temporal Gradient of Coherence</td>
      <td>28</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>8.3</td>
      <td>Arrow of Time as Coherence Asymmetry in Categorical Evolution</td>
      <td>29</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>8.4</td>
      <td>8.4 Implications for Fundamental Constants and Temporal Instability</td>
      <td>29</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>8.5</td>
      <td>Summary</td>
      <td>30</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><b>9</b></td>
      <td><b>A Multilayer Universe: Coherent Energy Strata and Black Hole Conduits</b></td>
      <td><b>31</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>9.1</td>
      <td>Coherent Energy Layers as Sheaf-like Structures</td>
      <td>31</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>9.2</td>
      <td>Black Holes as Transition Conduits Across Energy Layers</td>
      <td>32</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>9.3</td>
      <td>Topos-Inspired Layer Dynamics without Multiverse Multiplicity</td>
      <td>32</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>9.4</td>
      <td>Causal Geometry and Energy Stratification</td>
      <td>33</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>9.5</td>
      <td>Summary of Key Translations from the Multiverse to Multilayer Ontology</td>
      <td>33</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><b>10</b></td>
      <td><b>Predictions and Experimental Signatures of the Grothendieck-Dirac-MC Framework</b></td>
      <td><b>34</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>10.1</td>
      <td>Time-Variable Constants as Layer Transition Effects</td>
      <td>34</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>10.2</td>
      <td>Black Hole Echoes and Recoherence Delays</td>
      <td>34</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>10.3</td>
      <td>Fine Structure Constant as Coherence Tension</td>
      <td>35</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>10.4</td>
      <td>Cosmological Constant as a Misinterpreted Layer Coupling</td>
      <td>35</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>10.5</td><td>Inertia and Mass from Entropic Coherence Flow</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>10.6</td><td>Entropic Time Drift and Energy-Layer Memory</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>10.7</td><td>Reinterpreting Anomalous Astrophysical Jets</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>10.8</td><td>Summary Table of GDM Predictions</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td><b>11</b></td><td><b>Conclusion and Future Directions</b></td><td><b>37</b></td></tr><tr><td>11.1</td><td>Reframing Physics from the Ground Up</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>11.2</td><td>Implications for Fundamental Science</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>11.3</td><td>Future Research Directions</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>11.3.1</td><td>11.1 Mathematical Expansion</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>11.3.2</td><td>11.2 Physical Applications</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>11.3.3</td><td>11.3 Experimental Proposals</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>11.3.4</td><td>11.4 Theoretical Integration</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>11.4</td><td>Final Reflection</td><td>40</td></tr></tbody></table>
# 1 Introduction

The pursuit of a truly foundational theory in physics has historically oscillated between mathematical elegance and physical intuition. From Dirac's quest for beauty and simplicity in equations [4] to Grothendieck's revolution in geometry through the abstraction of topos theory [10], modern science has wrestled with the paradox of constructing a richly structured universe from minimal assumptions. Einstein, too, repeatedly emphasized that “the supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction” [8]. Yet, despite the impressive machinery of quantum field theory and general relativity, fundamental questions remain unanswered: *What is a particle?*
*What is space?*
*How does structure emerge from the vacuum?*
*Why do the constants of nature take the values they do?*

This paper addresses these questions by proposing a conceptual and mathematical synthesis: a **Grothendieck-Dirac framework** built on the ontological and dynamical role of what we term **empty objects**. These are not mere vacuous sets or voids, but entities enriched with internal categorical structure—potential carriers of topological, logical, and probabilistic information. In traditional terms, they replace the point as the primitive of physical modeling with more expressive constructs such as initial objects, fuzzy seeds, and probabilistic functors [17].

To operationalize the transition from these empty objects to physically meaningful structure, we introduce a central unifying principle: **Multifaceted Coherence (MC)**. MC refers to the layered consistency and internal relational logic that enables disparate mathematical features—such as probability amplitudes, topological continuity, and categorical morphisms—to co-evolve without contradiction. In other words, MC is the meta-structure that maintains integrity across transformations, recursions, and probabilistic bifurcations.

We propose that MC functions as the informational medium through which empty objects gain relational coherence, probabilistic continuity, and ultimately geometric and causal form. In this way, MC becomes the scaffolding upon which fields, particles, and spacetime are emergent phenomena—structured not by *ad hoc* equations, but by a logic of coherence grounded in categorical dynamics. This transition mirrors Wheeler's vision of “law without law” [21] and Dirac's belief in a universe whose foundations must be simple, yet deep.

Moreover, the structural role of invariance and conservation, as formalized by Noether's theorem [14], underlines the intimate connection between symmetry and physical law. Within our framework, these principles are not fundamental axioms, but emergent features from the coherence dynamics of empty categorical objects under MC.

By grounding this investigation in **Grothendieck's categorical vision**, **Dirac's meta-**
**physical clarity**, and the new conceptual machinery provided by **MC**, we aim to recast
several intractable problems in physics—not as flaws in existing models, but as signs that a
deeper ontological substrate has yet to be articulated. Through this framework, we explore
novel interpretations of renormalization, baryon asymmetry, the cosmological constant, and
even the nature of measurement and probabilistic causality.

In what follows, we first revisit the historical motivations behind this work, then gradually
build up the mathematical and physical architecture required to describe reality not as a
given, but as an emergent consequence of coherence from emptiness.

## 2 Historical Motivations

The search for foundational laws in physics has often required radical conceptual rethinking.
In the 20th century, few figures embodied this tension between physical intuition and math-
ematical abstraction as profoundly as **Paul Dirac** and **Alexander Grothendieck**. While
their respective contributions originated in physics and pure mathematics, the philosophi-
cal depth of their inquiries reveals striking convergences. Both rejected the complacency of
merely functional models and instead pursued a deeper ontological understanding of reality.
This section explores how their legacies inform the present framework, especially in light
of modern developments in categorical mathematics and the proposed role of Multifaceted
Coherence (MC).

2.1 Dirac’s Philosophical Foundations and the Role of Indefinite
Structure

Paul Dirac’s legacy in theoretical physics includes the formulation of the *Dirac equation*, unifying quantum mechanics with special relativity and predicting the existence of antimatter. Yet beyond these technical triumphs, Dirac was persistently motivated by an aesthetic and philosophical urge: that *the equations of nature must be beautiful* and that *fundamental inconsistencies in physics arise from incorrect mathematical assumptions about the vacuum and particle structure* [4].

One of Dirac’s lesser-appreciated contributions lies in his conceptualization of the *vacuum not as a void*, but as a sea of negative energy states [7]. Although later refined, this notion presaged the idea that the vacuum may contain rich structure. He expressed frustration with the *renormalization procedures* of quantum field theory, calling them “ugly” and unsatisfactory, and instead sought a formulation where infinities would be resolved by deeper principles.
**Indefinite Metric Space** One such attempt involved exploring indefinite metric spaces, wherein the inner product of two states may not be positive-definite:

$$ \langle \psi | \psi \rangle \in \mathbb{R}, \quad \text{but possibly} \quad \langle \psi | \psi \rangle < 0 \qquad (1) $$

This structure violates the traditional Hilbert space axioms, but opens pathways to reinterpret negative energy states, vacuum fluctuations, and cancellation mechanisms through generalized inner product spaces (Krein spaces). In such spaces, eigenvalue spectra may include real, imaginary, or zero values, allowing for dual annihilation and creation in vacua without renormalization.

Let $\mathcal{H}_\eta$ be a vector space equipped with an indefinite inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_\eta$, defined by:

$$ \langle \psi, \phi \rangle_\eta = \psi^\dagger \eta \phi, \quad \text{where} \quad \eta = \eta^\dagger, \eta^2 = \mathbb{I}, \eta \neq \mathbb{I} \qquad (2) $$

This generalization retains unitarity under certain constraints, and may provide the correct substrate to describe zero-energy fields, as Dirac proposed [4].

**Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis and Vacuum Coupling** Another dimension of Dirac's thinking was his *Large Number Hypothesis (LNH)*, which observed that certain ratios of physical constants—such as the gravitational-to-electromagnetic force—are on the order of:

$$ \frac{F_{\text{electric}}}{F_{\text{gravity}}} \approx 10^{40} \qquad (3) $$

Dirac proposed that this was not accidental but suggested a deep cosmological connection between microphysics and the structure of the universe. In our framework, this is reinterpreted as a *coherence relation across scales*, maintained by the evolving structure of MC, rather than a fixed background space [21].

## 2.2 Grothendieck's Generalized Geometry and the Abandonment of Points

Alexander Grothendieck revolutionized the foundations of geometry, not by adding complexity, but by abstracting its essence to a level where formerly rigid notions—such as points and continuity—could be reimagined through *categories*, *sheaves*, and *topoi* [10]. While initially developed for algebraic geometry, these innovations possess deep relevance for physics.
**Sheaves and Local-to-Global Structure** A sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ over a topological space $X$ assigns to each open set $U \subset X$ a set (or algebraic structure) $\mathcal{F}(U)$, satisfying:

1. **Locality:** Sections over a union of open sets are determined by compatible sections over each.

2. **Gluing:** If sections over a cover $\{U_i\}$ agree on overlaps $U_i \cap U_j$, then there exists a global section over $\bigcup U_i$.

This framework defines a field not as a global entity, but as a collection of consistent local observations—suggesting a deep analogy with the measurement problem and the distributed nature of quantum coherence [8].

**Topos Theory and Enriched Points** Grothendieck proposed that points should not be taken as fundamental. Instead, a point in a topos $\mathcal{E}$ is understood as a geometric morphism from the topos of sets **Set** to $\mathcal{E}$:

$$ p : \mathbf{Set} \to \mathcal{E} \qquad (4) $$

This defines a point as an entire structure-preserving map, often associated with a functor $p^*$ and its adjoint $p_*$, governing how logical and geometric data are transferred. Such points carry *internal structure*, such as multiplicity, local symmetries, and logical consistency, forming the philosophical basis for what we define as an *empty object*—an entity with *no observable content* yet *mathematical richness and potential for coherence* [17].

**Category Theory and Morphisms Over Elements** Grothendieck's emphasis on morphisms over elements reflects a shift from substance to relation. In categorical terms, the focus is no longer on the internal data of an object $A$, but on the set of morphisms $\text{Hom}(A, B)$ connecting it to other objects. Physics interpreted through this lens becomes not a collection of particles, but a *web of transformations*, governed by functorial evolution and constraints.

We define a category of emergence $\mathcal{E}$ where objects are *empty seeds* $\varepsilon_i$ and morphisms represent probabilistic transitions or coherence-preserving transformations:

$$ \mathcal{E} = \{\varepsilon_i, f_{ij} : \varepsilon_i \to \varepsilon_j\} \qquad (5) $$

Within this category, coherence is defined as a natural transformation $\eta : F \Rightarrow G$ between two functors, representing consistent evolution across layers of structural emergence [14].
## 2.3 Convergence: Toward a Grothendieck–Dirac Synthesis

Though arising from distinct domains, both Dirac and Grothendieck implicitly pointed toward a vision of physics in which:

* The vacuum is *not empty* but *structured*.

* Observables emerge from *logical and relational constraints*.

* Mathematics must generalize to describe *structures without substance*.

* Beauty and coherence must be *internal properties* of the formulation.

The present paper seeks to fulfill this vision through the introduction of a new conceptual layer: **Multifaceted Coherence (MC)**, which combines Grothendieck's structural mathematics with Dirac's physical intuitions. MC serves as the *coherence layer* that enables empty objects—such as enriched points or vacuum categories—to evolve, interact, and form measurable realities.

# 3 Critique of Current Physical Formalisms

Contemporary theoretical physics, despite its computational power and empirical successes, suffers from deep conceptual tensions. Among them are the mathematically suspect practice of *renormalization*, the ontologically fragile *point-particle assumption*, and the axiomatic rigidity of *standard quantum field theory (QFT)*. From the perspective of the Grothendieck–Dirac–MC framework, these issues are not mere technical inconveniences but symptoms of a deeper incompleteness—a failure to construct physics from truly foundational primitives.

## 3.1 Renormalization: A Mathematical Scaffold with No Ontology

Renormalization is the dominant technique by which infinities in quantum field theory are managed. Its operational success in quantum electrodynamics (QED), yielding predictions accurate to 12 decimal places, has led to its wide adoption. However, this success masks a troubling fact: renormalization is a patchwork—a series of subtractions and redefinitions that lack ontological grounding.

In canonical form, the *bare Lagrangian* of a quantum field theory includes divergent terms:

$$ \mathcal{L}_{\text{bare}} = \frac{1}{2} Z_{\phi} (\partial_{\mu} \phi)^2 - \frac{1}{2} Z_{m} m^2 \phi^2 - \frac{1}{4!} Z_{\lambda} \lambda \phi^4 + \dots \qquad (6) $$
The renormalized version introduces counterterms $\delta Z, \delta m^2, \delta \lambda$, defined to cancel the divergences encountered in perturbation expansions:

$$ \mathcal{L}_{\text{ren}} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{bare}} + \delta \mathcal{L} \qquad (7) $$

Dirac famously criticized this practice as being “not mathematically proper” [6], suggesting that its success reflects not truth, but an approximation of an undiscovered theory with correct foundations.

From the perspective of the Grothendieck-Dirac-MC framework, renormalization is evidence of a *misidentified vacuum structure*. Rather than subtracting infinities, a correct formulation must redefine the vacuum not as a background with unbounded fluctuations, but as a *categorical object with internal coherence*, emergent properties, and constraint-preserving dynamics.

Let the vacuum be denoted as a structured initial object $0_c \in \text{Obj}(\mathcal{C})$, where:

* $\text{Hom}(0_c, X) \cong \{\text{unique morphism to all } X\}$

* The structure of the vacuum is defined by functors $F_i : \mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}_i$, where coherence is enforced by natural transformations $\eta_{ij} : F_i \Rightarrow F_j$

In this picture, renormalization emerges not from infinite quantities, but from mismatches in *functorial coherence* between layers of emergence. MC resolves this by requiring *commutative diagrams of emergence*—i.e., coherence of transformations across abstraction levels [11].

## 3.2 The Ontological Collapse of the Point Particle

Despite widespread use, the point particle model violates basic geometrical and categorical reasoning. By definition, a point in classical mechanics or QFT has:

* No internal structure

* No spatial extension

* Yet it exhibits mass, charge, spin, and localizable interactions

This contradiction is tolerated because of its utility in calculation, but it collapses under ontological scrutiny. A single mathematical entity $x \in \mathbb{R}^4$ cannot, without internal extension, generate a coherent field interaction.
The Grothendieckian objection to points as primitives is central here [10]. Instead of taking points $p \in M$ as ontological units, we model them as structured morphisms or functorial evaluations:

$$p : \mathbf{Set} \to \mathcal{E}, \quad \text{with } p^* : \mathcal{E} \to \mathbf{Set} \qquad (8)$$

This implies that the “point” is an evaluation context rather than a substance. It gains physical significance only through how it coheres with others under functorial mappings. In categorical terms, structure precedes substance.

Thus, in our framework:

$$P = \lim_{\leftarrow \epsilon} \{F_i(\epsilon) | \epsilon \in \mathrm{Obj}(\mathcal{E})\} \qquad (9)$$

where each $F_i$ is a layer of structural emergence from the empty object $\epsilon$, and the limit defines a coherent identity. Physical properties (charge, mass, spin) are not attributes of points, but of their global morphic embedding in the category of emergence.

## 3.3 Limitations of Standard Quantum Field Theory

Standard QFT is built atop the Wightman axioms, canonical commutation relations, and unitary representations of the Poincaré group. These assumptions encode spacetime as a fixed background $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$, fields as operator-valued distributions, and particles as excitations.

However, QFT inherits unresolved tensions:

* The measurement problem, stemming from the incompatibility of unitary evolution and state reduction

* The non-constructibility of the vacuum

* The absence of a natural metric for state-space curvature in highly entangled regimes

* The inability to explain constants such as $\alpha$, $G$, or $m_e/m_p$ from first principles

Within the Grothendieck–Dirac–MC framework, these flaws are reconceptualized:

* State-space is replaced with a category of evolving structures, not vectors in Hilbert space.

* Operators are generalized to self-shifting probabilistic functors:

$$\mathfrak{P} : \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{E}, \quad \mathfrak{P}(\epsilon_i) = \epsilon_j \quad \text{probabilistically} \qquad (10)$$
* *Measurement* becomes a functorial restriction, rather than a collapse:

$$ \text{Obs} : \mathcal{E} \to \mathbf{Set}, \quad \text{where coherence is lost but morphism preserved} \qquad (11) $$

* *Constants* arise as *fixed points* of MC-compatible evolution equations:

$$ \text{Find } x \text{ such that } \mathcal{C}(x) = x, \quad \mathcal{C} \text{ is an MC-constrained transformation} \qquad (12) $$

## 3.4 Why a New Foundation is Needed

The current formalisms of physics are not merely inadequate—they are structurally incapable of resolving foundational questions without importing assumptions external to their frameworks. The widespread use of renormalization, the unresolved paradox of point particles, and the axiomatic rigidity of QFT all point to the need for a deeper unification.

The Grothendieck–Dirac–MC perspective offers a new foundation grounded in:

* Category theory as a flexible but rigorous substrate

* Structured emptiness instead of arbitrary vacua

* Multifaceted Coherence to encode physical laws as constraints on transformation consistency

* A rejection of primitive points, favoring emergence through morphic structure

Having critiqued the limitations of prevailing models, we now proceed to Section 4, where we build the new ontological and mathematical foundations: *Empty Objects and Categorical Emergence*.

# 4 Empty Objects and Categorical Emergence

At the heart of any physical theory lies a presupposition—either implicit or explicit—about *what exists* and *what constitutes existence*. In classical mechanics, the primitive object is a point in configuration space. In quantum field theory, it is a field operator on a fixed background. But in the Grothendieck–Dirac–MC framework, we reverse this ontological direction: we begin not with structure, but with structured *emptiness*—a concept formalized mathematically as the **initial object** in a category and physically as the coherent *absence* from which all emergence derives [6, 11].
## 4.1 Initial and Zero Objects: Toward a Constructive Ontology of Emptiness

In category theory, an **initial object** $0 \in \text{Obj}(\mathcal{C})$ is defined as an object for which there exists a **unique morphism** to any other object in the category:

$$ \forall X \in \text{Obj}(\mathcal{C}), \exists! f_{0X} : 0 \to X \qquad (13) $$

This uniqueness property implies that the initial object acts as a **generative seed**, from which the structure of the category emerges.

In contrast, a **terminal object** $1$ satisfies:

$$ \forall X \in \text{Obj}(\mathcal{C}), \exists! f_{X1} : X \to 1 \qquad (14) $$

Together, initial and terminal objects define a framework of **ontological polarity**. If terminal objects absorb structure (converging all morphisms), initial objects **diffuse structure**, emitting morphisms in a unique but minimal way.

In the **Grothendieck–Dirac–MC** ontology, we postulate:

* The *vacuum* is not a field-theoretic background, but an **initial functorial object** $\varepsilon \in \mathcal{E}$

* Particles, fields, and observers are **emergent cones** over this object, generated through coherent morphism assemblies

This enables a deeper identification:

$$ \mathbf{Vacuum} \equiv \lim_{\to} \{F_i(\varepsilon)\} \quad \text{with coherence governed by MC} \qquad (15) $$

## 4.2 Morphisms as Carriers of Ontological Potential

Rather than treating physical objects as entities with fixed identity, the categorical approach treats them as **nodes in a dynamic web of morphisms**. These morphisms are not merely transformations—they **carry the potential for structure**.

Let:

* $\mathcal{C}$: the base category of emergence

* $\varepsilon \in \text{Obj}(\mathcal{C})$: the structured empty object
• $F: \mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}$: a functor mapping categorical emergence to measurable structure

Then, for each object $X \in \mathcal{C}$, the diagram

$$ \varepsilon \xrightarrow{f} X \xrightarrow{g} Y \qquad (16) $$

represents a **causal pathway of emergent structure**, constrained by MC through the demand that:

$$ F(g \circ f) = F(g) \circ F(f) \qquad (17) $$

This *commutativity condition* ensures that any emergent process obeys the same coherence constraints, regardless of the scale or abstraction level—resonant with Dirac’s vision of a *hierarchical logic of nature* and Grothendieck’s emphasis on **unifying transformations over isolated objects** [10].

## 4.3 The MC Constraint: Coherence as Physical Law

The guiding principle of **Multifaceted Coherence (MC)** is that all transformations—whether physical, informational, or probabilistic—must **preserve global coherence** across layers of emergence. In practice, this manifests in several mathematical forms:

1. **Natural Transformations Between Emergent Functors:**

Let $F, G: \mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}$ be functors describing different emergence patterns (e.g., matter vs. field). Then coherence implies the existence of a natural transformation:

$$ \eta: F \Rightarrow G \quad \text{such that} \quad \forall X, \eta_X: F(X) \to G(X) \qquad (18) $$

2. **Limit and Colimit Preservation:**

MC-enforced emergence must commute with categorical limits (convergence) and colimits (divergence), i.e., for any diagram $D$ in $\mathcal{C}$:

$$ F(\lim D) \cong \lim F(D), \quad F(\mathrm{colim} D) \cong \mathrm{colim} F(D) \qquad (19) $$

3. **Probability-Shifting Morphisms:**

Emergence is not deterministic at the deepest level. Morphisms between objects are governed by **probabilistic shift functors**:

$$ \mathfrak{P}_{X \to Y}: \mathrm{Prob}(X) \to \mathrm{Prob}(Y) \qquad (20) $$
These functors describe the transformation of probability distributions during emergence, subject to:

$$ \sum_Y \mathfrak{P}_{X \to Y}(p_X) = 1, \quad \text{and MC coherence} \Rightarrow \text{Kolmogorov-consistent chains} \qquad (21) $$

This enforces a **non-collapse** view of evolution: state transformations are coherent and probabilistic, not projective or discontinuous.

## 4.4 Empty Object Dynamics: Vacuum as an Engine of Creation

In this ontology, *creation* is not an external imposition on vacuum—it is a **transformation of structured emptiness**. The vacuum is not passive, but the most dynamically fertile structure in the theory.

We define:

* **Vacuum dynamics** as a category $\mathcal{V} \subset \mathcal{C}$ with internal evolution functors:

$$ \mathfrak{T}: \mathcal{V} \to \mathcal{V}, \quad \mathfrak{T}(\varepsilon_i) = \varepsilon_{i+1} \qquad (22) $$

* These are governed by **recursive coherence constraints**:

$$ \mathfrak{T}^n(\varepsilon) \to \text{Terminal structure} \iff \text{Emergence of observable reality} \qquad (23) $$

This provides a constructive ontology of creation:

* The initial object iterates under constrained functorial dynamics

* Emergent objects are fixed points or attractors within these dynamics

* Particles, fields, and forces arise as **stable subcategories** or **sheaf-like enrichments**

## 4.5 The Role of Sheaves and Topos Theory

To encode **local-to-global consistency**, we invoke **sheaves** on categorical topologies. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be equipped with a Grothendieck topology $J$, then:

* A **sheaf** $\mathcal{F}$ encodes field-like behavior with local gluing:

$$ \mathcal{F}(U) = \text{Observable structure on cover } U \subset \text{Spacetime-like base} \qquad (24) $$
• Coherence in MC is then enforced by **sheaf conditions**:

$$ \mathcal{F}(U) = \lim_{\leftarrow} \mathcal{F}(U_i), \quad \text{with } \{U_i\} \text{ covering } U \qquad (25) $$

This grants MC a **geometric realization**, where consistency of emergence across overlapping regions is encoded categorically.

## 4.6 The Universe as Categorical Emergence from Emptiness

In the Grothendieck–Dirac–MC framework, the universe is not a stage populated by particles and fields—it is a *structured cascade* from an initial category of empty objects. All that exists emerges through morphisms constrained by MC. In this picture:

• **Space, time, and matter** are secondary—emergent categories or sheaves over the initial structure

• **Constants of nature** (like $G, \hbar, c$) arise as **coherence invariants**

• **Physical law** is not imprinted from above but arises from **commutativity conditions** across emergence

# 5 Applications to Large Numbers, Vacuum Instability, and the Cosmological Constant

With the ontological and mathematical foundations established, we now examine how the Grothendieck–Dirac–MC framework provides novel interpretations and resolutions to some of the most persistent anomalies in fundamental physics—specifically Dirac’s large number hypothesis, vacuum instability, and the cosmological constant problem. Each of these cases demonstrates the explanatory power of categorical emergence and structured emptiness guided by MC (Multifaceted Coherence).

## 5.1 Dirac’s Large Number Hypothesis Reinterpreted via MC

Paul Dirac famously observed striking numerical coincidences between large dimensionless ratios in cosmology and atomic physics [2, 4]. In particular:

• The ratio of the electromagnetic to gravitational force between proton and electron:
$$ \frac{F_{\text{EM}}}{F_G} \sim \frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 G m_p m_e} \approx 10^{40} \qquad (26) $$

* The age of the universe in Planck units:

$$ \frac{t_U}{t_P} \sim 10^{40} \qquad (27) $$

* The number of particles in the observable universe:

$$ N \sim 10^{80} \approx (10^{40})^2 \qquad (28) $$

Dirac postulated that these relationships were not coincidence but evidence for a dynamical cosmology with varying constants, e.g., time-varying $G$. However, this approach led to inconsistencies with known conservation laws.

## MC-Categorical Resolution

In our framework, these large numbers are not coincidence nor proof of time-varying constants. Rather, they are *emergent invariants* from MC-constrained limit constructions.

Let:

* $\epsilon \in \mathcal{E}$: initial empty object

* $F: \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{O}$: emergence functor generating observable category

* The number of morphisms from $\epsilon$ to observable categories encodes *emergent scale ratios*:

$$ \#\text{Hom}(\epsilon, \mathcal{O}) \sim \Lambda^n \qquad (29) $$

Where $\Lambda \sim 10^{40}$ arises as a category-theoretic scaling factor, analogous to a renormalization group fixed point in physics [22]. Thus:

* Large numbers are not primary constants but scaling relations between emergent levels of reality.

* Mass ratios, force ratios, and age-of-universe ratios all become functorial artifacts of the MC-enforced categorical emergence tree.

* This echoes discrete coherence scaling models proposed in recent geometric diffusion formulations [16].
## 5.2 Vacuum Instability and the Role of the Empty Object

The standard quantum field theory vacuum is not truly “empty,” but a highly energetic, fluctuating background filled with virtual particles [20]. Yet, this leads to fundamental problems:

* Instability under curvature: Vacuum energy varies with gravitational background

* Hierarchy problem: Vast discrepancy between observed and predicted vacuum energy

* Cosmological constant overprediction: QFT yields $\rho_{vac}^{QFT} \sim 10^{120} \times \rho_{vac}^{obs}$

### Structured Emptiness as Stability Mechanism

In our model, the vacuum is not a fluctuating background, but the initial object $\epsilon$ of categorical emergence:

$$ \text{Vacuum} \equiv \epsilon \in \text{Obj}(\mathcal{C}), \quad \text{with morphisms } f_{\epsilon X} \text{ encoding potentialities} \qquad (30) $$

The stability arises not from fine-tuning, but from functorial coherence:

* The vacuum is stabilized by the MC constraint which forbids incoherent morphism chains

* Each physical excitation is a morphism-path constrained by:

$$ \mathcal{F}(U) = \lim_{\leftarrow} \mathcal{F}(U_i) \quad \text{with MC-enforced gluing} \qquad (31) $$

Thus, vacuum “energy” is not a fluctuating field expectation value but an index over functorial potentialities. Vacuum instability is reinterpreted as a breakdown of MC coherence, not a physical energy decay [12].

## 5.3 The Cosmological Constant Problem

The cosmological constant problem is widely regarded as the most extreme failure of theoretical prediction in physics [3, 20]. Quantum field theory estimates the vacuum energy density at:

$$ \rho_{\text{vac}}^{\text{QFT}} \sim \frac{\hbar c}{L_P^4} \sim 10^{120} \times \rho_{\Lambda}^{\text{obs}} \qquad (32) $$
This overestimation cannot be resolved by standard renormalization and leads to pro- found confusion about the nature of spacetime, gravity, and vacuum.

Resolution via Categorical Duality

In our framework, the cosmological constant is not a summation of zero-point energies but a functorial invariant :

Let:

• E be the category of emergence from emptiness

• M be the category of metric spaces (spacetimes)

• A functor Φ : E → M maps emergent structure to metric geometry

Then, the cosmological constant Λ arises as a coherence scalar in the natural transfor- mation between emergence levels:

$$
\eta : \Phi_1 \Rightarrow \Phi_2, \quad \text{with } \eta_X = \Lambda \cdot \mathrm{id}_X \qquad (33)
$$

This implies:

• Λ measures the *rate of change in emergence*, not energy density

• Its small observed value reflects near-perfect coherence of MC across scales

• Similar categorical symmetry constraints have been proposed in dark photon emergence through Higgs decay phenomena [13].

Moreover, in this framework:

$$
\Lambda \sim \frac{1}{\#\mathrm{Aut}(\mathcal{C})} \qquad (34)
$$

That is, it encodes the *inverse symmetry degeneracy* of the category—the more morphism redundancy (i.e. self-consistency), the smaller the cosmological constant.

This aligns with recent ideas in holography and spacetime emergence [15], but provides
a more rigorous categorical and ontological origin.
## 5.4 Toward a New Physical Interpretation

<table><caption>Table 1: Comparison of Traditional Views and the Grothendieck–Dirac–MC Framework on Key Cosmological Phenomena</caption><thead><tr><td>Phenomenon</td><td>Traditional View</td><td>Grothendieck–Dirac–MC View</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Large Number Coincidences</td><td>Numerical coincidences; hints of varying constants</td><td>Functorial scaling factors between layers of emergence</td></tr><tr><td>Vacuum Instability</td><td>Field-theoretic fluctuations; UV divergences</td><td>Structured empty object ε; MC stability</td></tr><tr><td>Cosmological Constant Problem</td><td>Discrepancy in vacuum energy predictions</td><td>Invariant scalar from category symmetry and coherence</td></tr></tbody></table>

Each of these anomalies finds not merely an ad hoc resolution but an *ontologically consistent reinterpretation* within our framework.

# 6 Reconstructing Quantum Mechanics via MC and Categorical Dynamics

This section explores how the foundational framework built upon Multifaceted Coherence (MC), structured emptiness, and categorical emergence can reconstruct quantum mechanics (QM) from first principles—eschewing traditional postulates and instead deriving wavefunctions, probabilities, and decoherence from ontologically consistent and mathematically rigorous morphism dynamics. We aim to show that standard QM is a special case of categorical quantum emergence.

## 6.1 From Hilbert Space to Emergent State Space

In standard QM, a system is modeled by a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$, with states as unit vectors $|\psi\rangle$, and observables as self-adjoint operators. However, this model presupposes linearity, complex scalar fields, and global vector spaces—none of which are fundamental in the MC–Grothendieck–Dirac framework.

We instead define *state emergence* categorically:

* Let $\mathcal{E}$: Category of structured empty objects

* Let $\mathcal{S}$: Category of emergent systems
* A system state is a **morphism** $f: \varepsilon \to X$, where $\varepsilon \in \text{Obj}(\mathcal{E})$ and $X \in \text{Obj}(\mathcal{S})$

* The **space of morphisms** $\text{Hom}(\varepsilon, X)$ replaces $\mathcal{H}$, and **coherence relations** among morphisms replace inner products

This yields a contextual, dynamically enriched state space, with local fibered structure and built-in decoherence transitions [11].

## 6.2 Probability from Morphism Multiplicity

In standard QM, Born's rule assigns the probability of measurement outcome $a$ by:

$$P(a) = |\langle a | \psi \rangle|^2 \qquad (35)$$

This requires a global scalar field and projective geometry. In our framework, **probability is redefined categorically**:

* Define a measurement functor $\mathcal{M}: \mathcal{S} \to \mathcal{O}$ into the category of observables

* Let $f: \varepsilon \to X$ be a morphism into the system object $X$

* Let $\mathcal{M}(f): \mathcal{M}(\varepsilon) \to \mathcal{M}(X)$ define a family of possible outcomes

Then the relative multiplicity of morphisms is a measure of probability:

$$P(a_i) = \frac{\#\text{Hom}(\varepsilon, X_{a_i})}{\sum_j \#\text{Hom}(\varepsilon, X_{a_j})} \qquad (36)$$

Multifaceted Coherence (MC) ensures that probabilities are coherent across overlapping measurement contexts (i.e., over presheaf gluing), yielding a naturally noncontextual theory of contextuality [10, 17].

## 6.3 Decoherence as Coherence Collapse

Instead of modeling decoherence as interaction with an environment (leading to density matrices), we redefine decoherence as the **loss of categorical gluing** across MC-structured patches:

Let:

* $\mathcal{F}$: A presheaf over a cover $\{U_i\}$ of emergent states

* $\mathcal{F}(U_i)$: Local state description in context $U_i$
Decoherence occurs when the sheaf fails to satisfy the gluing condition:

$$ \exists i, j : \mathcal{F}(U_i \cap U_j) \not\cong \mathcal{F}(U_i)|_{U_i \cap U_j} \cup \mathcal{F}(U_j)|_{U_i \cap U_j} \qquad (37) $$

This failure of MC coherence manifests as collapse, and the resulting projection is no longer a choice but a **forced degeneration** within the category.

Key advantages:

* Explains the preferred basis problem as **morphism stabilization**

* Describes irreversible measurement as **coherence-fracture in emergence layer**

* Naturally leads to **arrow of time**, as decoherence increases categorical entropy [17]

## 6.4 Observer and Information Channels

In traditional QM, the observer is external, implicitly classical, and only affects the system via measurement operators. In our framework, the observer is redefined categorically:

* An **observer** is a subfunctor $\mathcal{O} \subset \mathcal{F}$ that selects a coherent channel from $\varepsilon \to X$

* Observation corresponds to a **natural transformation** $\eta : \mathcal{O} \Rightarrow \mathcal{F}$

* An observation is valid if $\eta$ is MC-consistent over time:

$$ \eta_t : \mathcal{O}_t \Rightarrow \mathcal{F}_t, \quad \forall t, \quad \text{s.t. } \eta_{t+1} \circ \eta_t = \eta_{t+1} \qquad (38) $$

This implies that memory, continuity, and causality are intrinsic properties of the observer's morphism-space. The measurement problem dissolves as there is no collapse, only morphism restriction through observer-channel emergence.

## 6.5 The Wavefunction as a Coherent Presheaf

We reconstruct the wavefunction $\psi$ not as a global object in $\mathbb{C}^n$, but as a coherent presheaf:

* $\psi \equiv \mathcal{F} : \mathcal{U} \to \text{Set}$, with $\mathcal{U}$ indexing system contexts

* MC ensures that $\mathcal{F}$ is a glued, faceted, dynamically evolving object

* Collapse is failure of gluing; interference is overlap of morphism assignments

In this view:
* Superposition is just **functorial overdetermination**

* Entanglement is **coherent sheaf over a product category**

* Nonlocality becomes **natural transformation between disconnected patches** [18]

This brings quantum mechanics closer to a topological field theory, without requiring background spacetime.

## 6.6 Summary: A Categorical Reconstruction of Quantum Mechanics

<table><caption>Table 2: Quantum mechanics concepts reinterpreted through the Grothendieck–Dirac–MC framework.</caption><thead><tr><td>Concept</td><td>Traditional QM</td><td>Grothendieck–Dirac–MC Framework</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>State Space</td><td>Hilbert Space <i>H</i></td><td>Morphism class from <i>ε</i> to system category</td></tr><tr><td>Wavefunction</td><td>Complex vector |ψ⟩</td><td>Coherent presheaf with MC gluing</td></tr><tr><td>Probability</td><td>Born rule via projections</td><td>Relative morphism multiplicity across MC-allowed paths</td></tr><tr><td>Decoherence</td><td>Density matrix, environment</td><td>Collapse of coherence in categorical emergence</td></tr><tr><td>Observer</td><td>External classical agent</td><td>Subfunctor with consistent natural transformation channel</td></tr><tr><td>Collapse</td><td>Axiomatic projection</td><td>Degeneration of gluing and morphism stability</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 7 Toward a New Ontological Interpretation of Fields, Particles, and Forces

Having established a reconstruction of quantum mechanics through the multifaceted coherence (MC) and categorical framework, we now re-express the core building blocks of physical theory—fields, particles, and forces—not as primitive entities, but as **emergent morphisms and transitions** within the ontological architecture of structured emptiness.
This section proposes a fully categorical ontology for matter and interactions, drawing deeply from Grothendieck's point-replacement geometry [10], Dirac's zero-state photon field [6], and the MC principle of gluing consistency across layered emergence [17].

## 7.1 articles as Stabilized Morphism Attractors

In the conventional view, particles are point-like excitations of underlying fields, characterized by mass, charge, and spin. These properties are input axioms of the Standard Model, not derivations.

In the Grothendieck–Dirac–MC view:

* Let $\epsilon \in \mathcal{E}$ be a structured empty object (e.g., initial seed or zero object)

* Let $\mathcal{C}$ be the category of possible system configurations

* A **particle** is a morphism $p: \epsilon \to X$ such that:

$$ \lim_{t \to \infty} p_t = \text{Attractor}(X) \qquad (39) $$

The attractor condition reflects **topological stabilization** under categorical dynamics (similar to solitons in field theory).

Thus, particles are not “objects” but **morphism-induced condensations**, persistent across the sheaf evolution and robust under MC-compatible transformations. The ontology is processual, not substantial.

Properties arise from **symmetry classes of morphism bundles**, with:

* Spin $\leftrightarrow$ automorphism group of localized neighborhood

* Charge $\leftrightarrow$ categorical flux under monoidal fusion

* Mass $\leftrightarrow$ inertia of morphism coherence (see §8)

## 7.2 Fields as Coherent Sheaves over Empty Objects

Fields, in traditional physics, assign values to spacetime points—scalsars, vectors, tensors, or spinors. In the categorical MC ontology, there is no primitive spacetime or background manifold. Instead:

* A **field** is a **sheaf $\mathcal{F}$** over the category $\mathcal{E}$ of empty structured objects:

$$ \mathcal{F}: \mathcal{E}^{\text{op}} \to \text{Set}, \text{Vect}, \text{Ab}, \dots \qquad (40) $$
* Each fiber $\mathcal{F}(\varepsilon)$ contains the configuration space emergent at that layer

* Gluing conditions over coverings encode **field continuity and locality**

* MC determines allowed sheaf overlaps and permissible transformations [11, 18]

This automatically unifies **quantum fields**, **classical fields**, and **gauge fields** as coherent assignment rules over a rich ontological structure of layered emptiness, rather than functions over spacetime.

## 7.3 Forces as Categorical Transitions and Functorial Couplings

Forces in physics are typically introduced via mediating particles (gauge bosons) or interaction terms in Lagrangians. These are added on top of a kinematical framework.

In the new ontology:

* A **force** is a **transition functor** $\mathcal{T} : C_1 \to C_2$ between system categories

* The transition is governed by a **natural transformation** $\eta : \mathcal{F}_1 \Rightarrow \mathcal{F}_2$ across field sheaves

A force arises **not as an added interaction**, but as an **inherent instability in gluing**, leading to energy flow between categorical levels [4, 16].

Each known fundamental interaction can be reinterpreted as:

<table><caption>Table 3: Ontological reinterpretation of fundamental forces in the Grothendieck-Dirac-MC framework.</caption><thead><tr><td>Force</td><td>Traditional View</td><td>Categorical MC View</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gravity</td><td>Curvature of spacetime</td><td>Sheaf divergence under universal MC morphism from terminal object</td></tr><tr><td>Electromagnetism</td><td>U(1) gauge field and photon mediation</td><td>Change in monoidal symmetry of sheaf assignments over <i>E</i></td></tr><tr><td>Strong Force</td><td>SU(3) gluon field</td><td>Functorial entanglement of quark bundle morphisms</td></tr><tr><td>Weak Force</td><td>SU(2) symmetry breaking</td><td>Asymmetric coherence collapse in presheaf category</td></tr></tbody></table>

These reinterpretations offer insight into why certain forces are **long-range**, why others are **confined**, and how symmetry breaking becomes a **categorical functor restriction** [9].
## 7.4 The Vacuum as an Ontological Object

In Dirac's late work, the vacuum was re-envisioned as a field of zero-energy photons—rich, structured, and causal [6]. Grothendieck replaced points with layer-rich morphic nodes [10]. The MC framework synthesizes these intuitions:

* The vacuum is not the absence of matter or energy

* The vacuum is a full morphism space from structured emptiness:

$$ \text{Vacuum} \equiv \text{Hom}_c(\varepsilon, \varepsilon') \qquad (41) $$

* Vacuum fluctuations are internal morphism resonances

* Virtual particles are artifacts of unstable gluing under categorical dynamics

This perspective resolves the “vacuum catastrophe” (disparity between predicted and observed vacuum energy) by treating vacuum energy as **morphism redundancy**, not energy per se [3, 20].
## 7.5 Summary: From Substance to Structured Relationality

<table><caption>Table 4: Comparison of physical ontology in standard physics and the Grothendieck-Dirac-MC framework.</caption><thead><tr><td>Element</td><td>Traditional Physics</td><td>Grothendieck-Dirac-MC Ontology</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Particle</td><td>Point-like excitation</td><td>Morphism attractor from structured emptiness</td></tr><tr><td>Field</td><td>Function over spacetime</td><td>Coherent sheaf over empty object category</td></tr><tr><td>Force</td><td>Gauge interaction or curvature</td><td>Functorial transition with coherence shift</td></tr><tr><td>Vacuum</td><td>Lowest-energy spacetime background</td><td>Dynamic morphism web with hidden categorical structure</td></tr><tr><td>Space-Time</td><td>Predefined background manifold</td><td>Emergent relational topology from gluing in presheaf stack</td></tr></tbody></table>

# 8 Deriving Inertia, Mass, and the Arrow of Time from Coherence Flows

Having established a new categorical ontology for matter and interaction, we now address three of the most conceptually persistent mysteries in physics: **inertia**, **mass**, and the **arrow of time**. Rather than treating these as primitive or externally imposed features, we derive them from internal coherence flow dynamics within the Grothendieck-Dirac-MC (GDM) framework.

This section articulates how these phenomena emerge naturally from:

* Multilayered gluing in MC structures,

* Morphism resistance to coherence shifts,

* Asymmetric categorical flow and boundary functors.
## 8.1 Inertia as Morphism Coherence Resistance

In Newtonian and relativistic physics, **inertia** is an unexplained resistance to acceleration—a primitive input. Within our framework:

Let $p: \varepsilon \to X$ be a stabilized morphism representing a “particle,” and let $\delta p$ be a transition to a new morphism under perturbation. Then:

$$ \text{Inertia}(p) \sim \delta\Phi(\mathcal{G}(p)) \qquad (42) $$

Where:

* $\Phi$ is a coherence potential function derived from MC constraints,

* $\mathcal{G}(p)$ is the gluing tensor encoding neighborhood entanglement of morphism $p$ [16].

Inertia is thus not a force, but a **morphism's resistance to global coherence destabilization**. The more tightly a particle-morphism is integrated into a multilevel sheaf (i.e. a coherent attractor), the more resistance it offers to displacement across functorial boundaries.

This yields a functional explanation for why massless particles (e.g., photons) follow geodesics (minimal MC shift) and why massive particles deviate (due to internal gluing inertia).

## 8.2 Mass as Temporal Gradient of Coherence

Mass emerges not as an intrinsic scalar but as a **temporal gradient** of MC flow across morphism layers [4, 5, 16].

Let the category $\mathcal{C}$ evolve in a filtered sequence $\mathcal{C}_0 \to \mathcal{C}_1 \to \mathcal{C}_2 \dots$, with each stage representing a temporal slice in categorical time.

Then, define **mass** as:

$$ m(p) := \left\| \frac{d}{dt} \mathcal{G}_t(p) \right\| \qquad (43) $$

Where:

* $\mathcal{G}_t(p)$ is the coherence state of morphism $p$ at categorical time $t$,

* The derivative is a **categorical flow**, not a metric-space derivative [15].

Particles that resist gluing update (i.e. their morphisms are temporally “thick”) have higher mass. Gluons and photons, which exist on lightlike categorical morphisms, have vanishing $d\mathcal{G}/dt$.
This formulation ties mass to temporal non-invariance of morphic coherence, echoing Dirac's suspicion that mass is not static but evolutionary [2, 5] and suggesting that mass is a **dynamic memory coefficient** of morphic identity.

## 8.3 Arrow of Time as Coherence Asymmetry in Categorical Evolution

Standard physics explains the arrow of time via entropy increase (second law of thermodynamics), yet this lacks **ontological grounding** and is contradicted by the time-reversible nature of most fundamental equations [3].

In our framework, time's arrow is not imposed externally but emerges from the **asym-metric structure of categorical gluing** [11, 17].

Let:

* $\mathcal{F}: \mathcal{E} \to C_t$ be the functor defining system configuration at time $t$,

* $\mathcal{F}_t$ be the sheaf of local fields over $C_t$,

* $\mathcal{T}: C_t \to C_{t+1}$ be the transition functor under MC evolution.

Then, the **arrow of time** arises from the **non-invertibility of gluing morphisms** under functor $\mathcal{T}$:

$$ \exists p: C_t \to C_{t+1} \quad \text{such that} \quad p^{-1} \notin C_{t+1} \to C_t \qquad (44) $$

This **gluing irreversibility** is encoded in:

* Fuzzy matching between sheaf overlaps,

* Information loss in pullbacks (degenerate functor inverses),

* Coherence collapse thresholds exceeding reversibility bounds [17].

Thus, time flows forward **not because entropy increases**, but because **MC coherence structures cannot be fully reconstructed backward** due to gluing degeneracy. The arrow of time is a **morphic asymmetry in sheaf evolution**.

## 8.4 Implications for Fundamental Constants and Temporal In-stability

Because mass and inertia are derived from time-dependent coherence flows:
* Masses of elementary particles may vary over cosmological time, in alignment with Dirac's variable-constant cosmology [2, 5, 20].

* The arrow of time becomes measurable via coherence asymmetry diagnostics, possibly explaining:

- Baryon asymmetry,

- CP violation in weak interactions,

- Inflationary asymmetries in early universe evolution.

* This approach predicts MC backreaction signatures at extreme scales, such as:

- Near black holes (where coherence tensors collapse),

- In high-energy collisions (e.g., vacuum instability and Higgs-like condensates) [16, 17].

## 8.5 Summary

<table><caption>Table 5: Comparison of traditional views and the MC-based derivation of inertia, mass, and the arrow of time.</caption><thead><tr><td>Concept</td><td>Traditional View</td><td>MC-Grothendieck-Dirac View</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Inertia</td><td>Resistance to acceleration, unexplained</td><td>Gluing resistance to coherence destabilization</td></tr><tr><td>Mass</td><td>Intrinsic scalar or Higgs-given</td><td>Temporal coherence gradient of morphism evolution</td></tr><tr><td>Time's Arrow</td><td>Emergent from entropy or boundary conditions</td><td>Irreversible morphism flow in categorical evolution</td></tr><tr><td>Vacuum Energy</td><td>Metric zero-point offset</td><td>Residual morphism overlap of empty objects</td></tr></tbody></table>
# 9 A Multilayer Universe: Coherent Energy Strata and Black Hole Conduits

Rather than entertain the speculative ontology of a multiverse, we propose a rigorously unified structure: a **multilayer universe**, wherein reality consists of *interdependent energetic layers* governed by coherence-preserving dynamics. In this framework, **black holes** serve not as bridges to other universes but as **topological and energetic conduits** between distinct but coexistent strata of the same universe.

This perspective builds directly upon the Grothendieck–Dirac–MC (GDM) framework and offers a categorical, causal, and ontologically minimalist approach to understanding emergence, layering, and high-energy phenomena.

## 9.1 Coherent Energy Layers as Sheaf-like Structures

The fundamental idea is that the universe comprises **stacked layers of coherent energy**, each layer characterized by:

* Its own local field behaviors,

* Thresholds of quantization,

* Symmetry breaking patterns,

* Intrinsic vacuum energy state.

Let us define:

$$ \mathcal{L}_n := \text{Energy Layer } n \qquad (45) $$

Each $\mathcal{L}_n$ is treated as a **coherent sheaf of fields** over a common base space, with functorial morphisms between layers governed by Multifaceted Coherence (MC):

$$ \mathcal{L}_n \xrightarrow{\mathcal{F}_{n,n+1}} \mathcal{L}_{n+1} \qquad (46) $$

Here, $\mathcal{F}_{n,n+1}$ defines a **coherence-preserving transition**: a gluing rule between two energy states of the universe, regulated by the internal logic and coherence capacity of that domain.
## 9.2 Black Holes as Transition Conduits Across Energy Layers

Black holes in this model are not endpoints or singularities in spacetime, but coherence col-
lapses that pierce through the energy strata, allowing partial or complete transition
of information, energy, or field states between layers $\mathcal{L}_n$ and $\mathcal{L}_{n+1}$.

Their interior topology is modeled not by Riemannian geometry alone but by **categorical fibrations and natural transformations** over energy-indexed sheaves. Specifically:

* The collapse of coherence in layer $\mathcal{L}_n$ is interpreted as a **gluing failure** in sheaf dynamics.

* This triggers a **restructuring** into a lower or higher energy sheaf $\mathcal{L}_{n+1}$, depending on boundary tension and curvature.

* **Event horizons** mark the boundary where coherence thresholds shift and causal structures rewire.

This formalism treats Hawking radiation, black hole entropy, and even singularity avoidance as **emergent effects** of the categorical transitions between layers [15].

## 9.3 Topos-Inspired Layer Dynamics without Multiverse Multiplicity

Rather than modeling each energy layer as a different *universe*, we use a **Grothendieck topos framework** to treat all layers as **subtopoi** of a **unified ambient topos** $\mathcal{T}_{\text{univ}}$ [10].
The categorical structure is as follows:

* Each layer $\mathcal{L}_n$ corresponds to a **slice topos** $\mathcal{T}_{\text{univ}}/\mathcal{L}_n$,

* Transitions between layers are modeled as **geometric morphisms** between these slices,

* The **global coherence** of the universe is enforced by the MC gluing condition across all slices [11].

Thus, no “other universes” exist. Only **dynamically linked configurations** of energy, field structure, and causal density **within one unified universe**.
## 9.4 Causal Geometry and Energy Stratification

The **arrow of time**, **mass hierarchy**, and **vacuum energy differentials** are natural consequences of this layering. Coherence propagates *downward* and *upward* through energy layers with definable resistance, tension, and asymmetry.

We define a **coherence flow tensor**:

$$C_{n \to n+1}^{\mu} = \nabla^{\mu} \Phi_{n} - \nabla^{\mu} \Phi_{n+1} \qquad (47)$$

Where $\Phi_n$ denotes the coherence potential of energy layer $n$. The sign and magnitude of $C^\mu$ determine:

* The **arrow of energy migration**,

* The **massive or massless** nature of emerging excitations,

* The **temporal asymmetry** associated with black hole evaporation and entropy increase [3, 4, 16].

This model replaces fine-tuned constants and background-dependent spacetime with **coherence-based transitions** that are internally causal and categorically consistent.

## 9.5 Summary of Key Translations from the Multiverse to Multi-layer Ontology

<table><caption>Table 6: Comparison of multiverse and multilayer universe views.</caption><thead><tr><td>Concept</td><td>Multiverse View</td><td>Multilayer Universe (GDM-MC)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Reality Structure</td><td>Many universes, loosely connected</td><td>One universe, stratified by coherent energy layers</td></tr><tr><td>Black Holes</td><td>Portals to other universes</td><td>Trans-layer conduits within the same universe</td></tr><tr><td>Energy Constants</td><td>Vary across universes</td><td>Vary by coherent stratification and sheaf gluing</td></tr><tr><td>Cosmological Constant</td><td>Arbitrary across universes</td><td>Emergent from interlayer coherence tension</td></tr><tr><td>Causal Structure</td><td>Manifold-based and branching</td><td>Sheaf-theoretic with gluing thresholds and flows</td></tr></tbody></table>
# 10 Predictions and Experimental Signatures of the Grothendieck–Dirac–MC Framework

To transition from foundational abstraction to empirical relevance, we now identify concrete predictions and observational consequences of the Grothendieck–Dirac–MC (GDM) framework. The goal is not merely to reinterpret known physics but to **enable new tests, re-solve current anomalies**, and provide **clear falsifiability pathways** for the multilayered coherence-based universe.

## 10.1 Time-Variable Constants as Layer Transition Effects

**Prediction:** Observable time-variation in so-called “fundamental constants” (e.g. $\alpha$, $G$, or $m_e/m_p$) will exhibit small but structured deviations correlated with solar position, gravitational gradients, or cosmic background conditions.

**Mechanism:** Transient coherence fluctuations across layers $\mathcal{L}_n \to \mathcal{L}_{n+1}$ locally deform vacuum characteristics and symmetry-breaking thresholds. **Test Cases:**

* Radioactive half-life anomalies (as studied by Shnoll et al.) [2]

* Atomic clock differentials in Earth-space experiments (e.g. GPS error drifts unexplained by GR) [15]

* Electron-proton mass ratio variations in quasar absorption lines [1]

These can be reinterpreted not as observational noise but as traces of **coherence stress across energetic strata**.

## 10.2 Black Hole Echoes and Recoherence Delays

**Prediction:** Black hole mergers, collapses, or horizon fluctuations should exhibit **recoherence echoes**—low-level, time-lagged emissions analogous to sonic “ring-downs,” but governed by MC threshold reentry.

**Mechanism:** As coherence pathways reconfigure post-merger, vacuum recoheres differently depending on the layered topology and energy tension. The arrow of time manifests asymmetrically as dissipative coherence leakage. **Test Cases:**

* Secondary gravitational wave signatures (detected by LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA)

* Deviations in the spectrum of Hawking-like emissions near extremal or primordial black holes [19]
## 10.3 Fine Structure Constant as Coherence Tension

**Prediction:** The fine-structure constant $\alpha \approx 1/137$ is not fundamental, but an **emergent eigenvalue** of MC-based interlayer tension.

We reinterpret:

$$ \alpha \sim \frac{C_{\text{layer}}}{C_{\text{vacuum}}} \qquad (48) $$

where $C$ measures coherence flow capacity between adjacent energetic layers. If coherence tension shifts (e.g., near cosmic voids vs. galaxy clusters), **slight but detectable shifts in spectral lines** should appear.

**Test Cases:** Astrophysical spectroscopy across high redshift datasets; ultra-high-precision lab experiments with optical lattices and atomic transitions [17].

## 10.4 Cosmological Constant as a Misinterpreted Layer Coupling

**Prediction:** The cosmological constant $\Lambda$ is not a universal vacuum pressure but a **boundary artifact** of incomplete MC gluing across adjacent layers.

This implies:

* Local vacuum energy density is not constant across spacetime but stratified.

* The value of $\Lambda$ may drift slowly or spatially depending on cosmic coherence topology.

**Test Cases:**

* Cross-correlation of Hubble tension anomalies (Planck vs. SH0ES) with MC-induced coherence flow variations.

* DESI, Euclid, and LSST dark energy surveys could reveal layer-dependent structure in apparent vacuum repulsion [12].

## 10.5 Inertia and Mass from Entropic Coherence Flow

**Prediction:** The **inertial mass** of a body is directly proportional to its resistance to coherence deformation in a layered vacuum.

Thus:

* Non-inertial motion (e.g., in strong acceleration or tidal zones) will **temporarily alter coherence alignment**, potentially observable in precise interferometry setups.

* **Mass ratio anomalies** might appear when testing different isotopes or exotic baryons in rapidly changing field conditions.
**Test Cases:**

* MICROSCOPE satellite results (on EEP violations)

* Next-gen Casimir force experiments [16]

* Cold atom interferometry near accelerating masses or rotating platforms

## 10.6 Entropic Time Drift and Energy-Layer Memory

**Prediction:** The **arrow of time** is tied to **asymmetric coherence memory** stored in categorical structures (as defined in Sections 6–8). Events that stretch or cross layers retain “fragmented” coherence traces.

**Observable Effects:**

* Memory-like behaviors in quantum systems near decoherence thresholds.

* Residual correlations between entangled pairs across delayed measurements.

* Possible interpretations of quantum Darwinism as a byproduct of categorical layer tracking.

This could yield a **redefinable thermal time hypothesis**, aligned with MC's capacity to encode **entropy as sheaf-deformation memory** [17].

## 10.7 Reinterpreting Anomalous Astrophysical Jets

**Prediction:** Astrophysical jets from quasars or black holes are **coherence expulsions**, not merely magnetohydrodynamic phenomena. They arise as structured ejections **during failed layer transition attempts**.

**Mechanism:** When MC coherence cannot rebind across a black hole core's energy threshold, energy is functorially expelled along the least coherent axis—forming a jet.

**Test Cases:**

* Jet collimation angles and polarization signatures.

* Spectral cutoffs and nonthermal components across different masses and black hole spin states.

* High-precision radio mapping (e.g., Event Horizon Telescope, ngVLA).
## 10.8 Summary Table of GDM Predictions

<table><caption>Table 7: Summary of GDM predictions and their observable signatures.</caption><thead><tr><td>Phenomenon</td><td>GDM Explanation</td><td>Measurable Signature</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Variable Constants</td><td>Coherence transitions</td><td>Clock anomalies, spectroscopy</td></tr><tr><td>Hawking Echoes</td><td>Recoherence events</td><td>Gravitational wave tails</td></tr><tr><td>α value</td><td>Emergent from interlayer tension</td><td>Fine shifts in absorption lines</td></tr><tr><td>Cosmological Constant</td><td>Gluing artifact</td><td>Λ(z) drift</td></tr><tr><td>Inertia</td><td>Resistance to decoherence</td><td>Isotope-dependent accelerations</td></tr><tr><td>Time Arrow</td><td>Categorical memory flow</td><td>Quantum interference asymmetries</td></tr><tr><td>Astrophysical Jets</td><td>Coherence misbinding</td><td>Jet directionality, flare patterns</td></tr></tbody></table>

In summary, the GDM framework transitions beyond aesthetic elegance or theoretical completeness: it directly **generates novel testable hypotheses**. Each prediction offers a **coherence-informed reinterpretation** of observed but poorly understood anomalies. In doing so, we turn the Multifaceted Coherence paradigm into an **empirically fertile foundation** for future physics.

## 11 Conclusion and Future Directions

The Grothendieck–Dirac–MC (GDM) framework offers a fundamentally new ontological and mathematical synthesis—one that does not merely extend current physics but reconstructs its foundational principles. By merging Dirac’s search for ontological minimalism and algebraic elegance with Grothendieck’s deep structural generalizations in category theory, and grounding both within the physically generative substrate of Multifaceted Coherence (MC), we propose a model in which:
* Fields, particles, and forces are emergent from categorical coherence flows;

* Spacetime and vacuum arise not as backgrounds but as phase expressions of coherence sheaf networks;

* Inertia, mass, and time are not input assumptions but derived from entropic coherence dynamics [16];

* Large numbers, the cosmological constant, and vacuum fluctuations acquire meaning via interlayer tension and categorical gluing failures [2, 17].

## 11.1 Reframing Physics from the Ground Up

This approach reframes physical formalism in categorical terms, where:

* Empty objects carry structural roles (akin to Grothendieck's enhanced points) [10];

* Probabilistic transitions are reinterpreted through functorial update mechanisms;

* Quantum processes become informational morphisms with layer memory, offering a new ontology of entanglement, nonlocality, and decoherence [6, 12].

By shifting the epistemological center from measurement outcomes to structured coherence pathways, we offer a coherent bridge between mathematical generality and physical specificity [11].

## 11.2 Implications for Fundamental Science

The GDM framework suggests that many long-standing “problems” in physics (from renormalization divergences to cosmological fine-tuning) are symptoms of conceptual misframing. Rather than patch incomplete models with epicycles or fine-tuned parameters, this framework invites a first-principles reconstruction.

Key implications include:

* The End of the Particle-Field Duality: All physical entities are emergent coherence structures [17].

* The End of Background Spacetime: Geometry is not a passive arena but a categorical consequence.

* The End of Fixed Constants: “Constants” are coherence eigenvalues, not fundamental inputs [15].
* The Rebirth of Ontological Inquiry: Foundational physics is, once again, a space for philosophical depth [9].

## 11.3 Future Research Directions

We propose several key avenues for further development:

### 11.3.1 11.1 Mathematical Expansion

* Formalization of probabilistic monoidal categories to rigorously track coherence evolution [19].

* Topos-theoretic treatments of quantum reference frames and observer-dependent emergence.

* Development of coherence entropy metrics and functorial time to quantify non-equilibrium transitions [10].

### 11.3.2 11.2 Physical Applications

* Simulation of vacuum coherence collapse in layered systems, including analog condensed matter setups.

* Reanalysis of large datasets (e.g., DESI, Planck, LIGO, AMS-02) for coherence-layer anomalies.

* Cross-comparison of particle property drift under changing MC boundary conditions [12].

### 11.3.3 11.3 Experimental Proposals

* Testing energy layer shifts via atomic clock comparisons in LEO and deep-space missions.

* Searching for non-random anisotropies in the fine-structure constant using quasar light.

* Designing tabletop experiments for coherence interference recovery post-decoherence events [17].
### 11.3.4 11.4 Theoretical Integration

* Bridging with emerging categorical quantum mechanics, information geometry, and higher gauge theories.

* Unification attempts across thermodynamics, spacetime, and computation under MC-derived action principles.

* Reinterpretation of Noether's theorem and symmetry breaking within the layered MC architecture [2].

## 11.4 Final Reflection

What if the fundamental constituents of nature are not particles or waves, but dynamic, stratified expressions of coherence?

What if all emergence—space, mass, time, causality—flows from the way coherence interacts with its own categorical scaffolding?

The GDM framework is not merely a theory. It is a reorientation of physics toward structure, emergence, and ontological integrity.

As Dirac once hoped for a theory so elegant it must be true [6], and Grothendieck envisioned a mathematics so fluid it could absorb all structure [10], we now propose—through Multifaceted Coherence—a path by which reality itself coheres into being.

Let this be not an end, but an invitation.
References

[1] Ioannis Adamopoulos, Antonios Valamontes, and Nikoleta Syrou. Time evolution of quantum wave packets: A numerical approach using schrödinger's equation. *KHWARIZMIA*, pages 95–104, 2024. doi: 10.70470/KHWARIZMIA/2024/013.

[2] John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler. *The Anthropic Cosmological Principle*. Oxford University Press, 1986. ISBN 9780192821478.

[3] Sean M. Carroll. The cosmological constant. *Living Reviews in Relativity*, 4(1):1–56, 2001. doi: 10.12942/lrr-2001-1.

[4] P. A. M. Dirac. The cosmological constants. *Nature*, 139:323, 1937.

[5] P. A. M. Dirac. A new basis for cosmology. *Proceedings of the Royal Society A*, 165: 199–208, 1938. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1938.0053.

[6] P. A. M. Dirac. *The Principles of Quantum Mechanics*. Oxford University Press, 4th edition, 1980. Originally published in 1930.

[7] Paul A. M. Dirac. A theory of electrons and protons. *Proceedings of the Royal Society A*, 126(801):360–365, 1930.

[8] Albert Einstein. Physics and reality. *Journal of the Franklin Institute*, 221(3):349–382, 1936. doi: 10.1016/S0016-0032(36)91047-5.

[9] Richard P. Feynman. Space-time approach to non-relativistic quantum mechanics. *Reviews of Modern Physics*, 20(2):367–387, 1948. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.20.367.

[10] Alexander Grothendieck. Récoltes et semaines, 1985. Unpublished manuscript. Available at https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Alexander%2BGrothendieck.

[11] Saunders Mac Lane. *Categories for the Working Mathematician*, volume 5 of *Graduate Texts in Mathematics*. Springer-Verlag, 2nd edition, 1998.

[12] Emmanouil Markoulakis. Superluminal graviton condensate vacuum. *International Journal of Physical Research*, 12(2):45–61, 2024. doi: 10.14419/bmr9g725.

[13] Emmanouil Markoulakis and Antonios Valamontes. Experiment for the detection of superluminal propagating dark photons at cern and their correlation with gravitons and the higgs boson $h \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ decay event. *SSRN Electronic Journal*, 2024. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4950704.
[14] Emmy Noether. Invariante variationsprobleme. *Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse*, pages 235–257, 1918.

[15] T. Padmanabhan. Thermodynamical aspects of gravity: New insights. *Reports on Progress in Physics*, 73(4):046901, 2010. doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/73/4/046901.

[16] Antonios Valamontes. Discrete geometric diffusion as a foundation for quantum energy transfer. *Kapodistrian Academy of Science*, 2024. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10851.26409.

[17] Antonios Valamontes. Persistence beyond decoherence: Tracing the fate of $\psi_s^*$ energy in mc-sgcv geometry. *ResearchGate*, 2025. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35208.12807. Kapodistrian Academy of Science.

[18] Antonios Valamontes. A unified framework of light and quantum geometry. *Research-Gate*, 2025. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25548.12162. Kapodistrian Academy of Science.

[19] Antonios Valamontes and Ioannis Adamopoulos. Beyond the big bang: Resolving the lithium discrepancy through quantum coherence and discrete geometry. *Preprints*, 2025. doi: 10.20944/preprints202504.0383.v1.

[20] Steven Weinberg. The cosmological constant problem. *Reviews of Modern Physics*, 61 (1):1–23, 1989. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1.

[21] John Archibald Wheeler. Law without law. In J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek, editors, *Quantum Theory and Measurement*, pages 182–213. Princeton University Press, 1983.

[22] A. Zee. *Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell*. Princeton University Press, 2nd edition, 2010. ISBN 978-0691140346.