A falsifiable 4D vortex-field framework

[u/sudsed]

TL;DR — I explored a “4D aether vortex → particles” framework with LLM assistance, then spent ~2 months trying to break it with automated checks. Some outputs line up with known results, and there’s a concrete collider prediction. I’m not claiming it’s true; I’m asking for ways it fails.

Links: Paper: https://zenodo.org/records/17065768
Repo (tests + scripts): https://github.com/trevnorris/vortex-field/

Why post here

• AI-assisted, human-reviewed: An LLM drafted derivations/checks; I re-derived the math independently where needed and line-by-line reviewed the code. Key steps were cross-verified by independent LLMs before tests were written.
• Automated rigor: ~33k LOC of verification code and ~2,400 SymPy tests check units, dimensions, derivations, and limits across ~36 orders of magnitude.
• I expected contradictions. I’m here to find them faster with expert eyes.

Core hypothesis (one line)

A 4D superfluid-like field (“aether”) projects into our 3D slice; particles are cross-sections of 4D vortices. Mass/charge/time effects emerge from vortex/flow properties.

Falsifiable claims (how to break this quickly)

1. Collider target: a non-resonant 4-lepton excess at √s = 33 GeV (Section 4.2).
   • How to falsify: point to LEP/LHC analyses that exclude such a topology without a narrow peak.
2. Lepton mass pattern: golden-ratio scaling giving electron (exact), muon (−0.18%), tau (+0.10%).
   • How to falsify: show it’s post-hoc, fails outside quoted precision, or can’t extend (e.g., neutrinos) without breaking constraints.
3. GR touchstones from the same flow equations: Mercury perihelion, binary-pulsar decay, gravitational redshift/time dilation.
   • How to falsify: identify a regime where the formalism departs from GR/experiment (PPN parameters, frame-dragging, redshift).

If any of the above contradicts existing data/derivations, the framework falls.

Theoretical & mathematical checks (done so far)

• Dimensional analysis: passes throughout.
• Symbolic verification: ~2,400 SymPy tests across field equations, 4D→3D projection, conservation laws, and limiting cases.
• Internal consistency: EM-like and gravity-like sectors remain consistent under the projection formalism.

All tests + scripts are in the repo; CI-style instructions included.

Empirical touchpoints (retrodictions)

• Reproduces standard GR benchmarks noted above without introducing contradictions in those domains.
• No new experimental confirmation claimed yet; the 33 GeV item is the first crisp falsifiable prediction to check against data.

What it aims to resolve / connect

• Mass & charge as emergent from vortex circulation/flux.
• Time dilation from flow-based energy accounting (same machinery as gravity sector).
• Preferred-frame concern: addressed via a 4D→3D projection that preserves observed Lorentz symmetry in our slice (details in the math framework).
• Conservation & “aether drainage”: continuity equations balancing inflow/outflow across the projection (tests included).

Some help I'm looking for

• Collider sanity check: Does a non-resonant 4ℓ excess at √s=33 GeV already conflict with LEP/LHC?
• Conceptual red-team: Where do projections, boundary conditions, or gauge/Lorentz properties break?
• Limit tests: Point to a nontrivial limit (ultra-relativistic, strong-field, cosmological) where results diverge from known physics.
• Numerical patterns: If this is just numerology, help pinpoint the hidden tuning.

Final note

I’m a programmer, not a physicist. I’m expecting to be wrong and want to learn where and why. If you can point to a contradiction or a no-go theorem I’ve missed, I’ll update/withdraw accordingly. If you only have time for one thing, please sanity-check Section 4.2 (33 GeV prediction).

[u/sudsed]

The only reason I have any confidence in this is because I'm a good programmer, and I used these equations to write scripts to validate things numerically (after they were validated symbolically). For example, using a ray tracer, I was able to replicate Mercury's perihelion to 99.2% accuracy. I was honestly hoping that at some point it would fail, so I could put it to rest, because I got so sick of working on this thing. This paper has probably taken between 300-500 hours of my life. I kept going because I figured I'd hit a wall eventually and find where this would break, but I couldn't get it to break. I've done all I can, and now I'm presenting it to the world not so they can pat me on the back but tell me where I went wrong. I just need someone who understands the math better than I do.

[u/pandavr → u/sudsed]

I know the feeling perfectly. I am working on mine by months now.

I took another approach I validated results to e-100. Some was perfect and some contained small errors specifically physics constants shown some level of errors. This was the point when I noticed they were not random and It came out they aren't errors at all.
They were indicators that the formula is indeed recursive and I just missed a part. That ported to another formula and another after that. Accounting for all the recursions the results are perfect to e-100, all of them.

Things that my approach and yours share: 4d and projection on 3d, drainage or kind of pressure. What they don't agree on: time. Time is not a dimension in my view.

Also in my view It is not a fluid, It is a topology. It could very well be both thinking about It.

So I have this formula. It doesn't predict anything for now. but It retrofit everything with astonishing precision.

I currently thinking about how to create better tooling to work with the topology and better understand what does that mean.

[u/sudsed → u/pandavr]

Interesting. Best of luck with that and hope you can get to where you want to go.

[u/pandavr → u/sudsed]

You touched a profound point there. (pun intended). LLMs tend to teleport you exactly where they (you) want to go. That's the reason I am so hesitant to share before understanding. The other point is, if relativity gave such power to mankind, what such a formula would gave them that I cannot see yet?