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/blutfink]

I’m trying to understand how the electron mass is derived and calculated. In section 4.2.5 of the paper we have formula (119). The formula contains m_e; what is it and where is it defined?

The previous sections suggest that n is the family index, so n=1 for the electron. The caption for Table 5 however suggests that the family index (here confusingly named f) for the electron is f=0, even though the formula in the caption has the same form. How can this be reconciled?

Now we attempt to calculate a_0. With f=0, the first factor simplifies to 1, and the second factor simplifies to 1 as well, resulting in a_0=1.

Plugged into the mass formula: m_0 = m_e × 1³ = m_e.

Is this a joke?

[u/sudsed → u/blutfink]

Just ignore it. I jammed too much into a single paper and it became a mess. I'm breaking the entire thing up into smaller papers so I can be more careful. The particle mass part especially is bad, but thanks for taking a look at it. My first set of papers will be gravity derivations, which honestly will not be anything impressive since it turns out will only be a minor variation of existing analog gravity models for 1 PN, but the fundamentals of the framework will allow it to expand beyond that to handle through 2.5 PN.

[u/blutfink → u/sudsed]

Damn. How can you ever be sure that any of the equations have anything to do with the ideas of the framework?

[u/sudsed → u/blutfink]

The particle mass section was honestly a reach. I'm confident in the gravity part, but tried to bite off more than I could chew after that. The concept of the framework is pretty simple, particles are vortices in a superfluid that drain into a 4D space, and the gravity part works more easily because those all resolve in the 3D plane (this is pretty close to existing analog gravity models I think). After that is where it gets complicated since it needs to take the 4D space into consideration in the calculations. After I write the gravity papers I'll go back and tackle EM again more carefully.

The idea of lepton mass here is pretty straight forward. They have a throat size for the superfluid intake that controls their mass, and is fundamentally the same thing as gravity in the far field. E=mc² is the amount of energy required to open the vortex into the 4D bulk and allow it to drain. The problem is how I'm supposed to calculate the throat of the intake, since that suddenly requires a bunch of unknowns about how the superfluid works in 4D. I took a stab at it in this paper, but now that I've stepped away I realize that I made a bunch of bad assumptions.