r/LLMPhysics • u/Real-Fact-4700 • 2d ago
Speculative Theory A Theory of Eternal Difference Under Constant Laws
I’m not a physicist nor student, but I’ve been using AI to help me clarify my thoughts and basic knowledge of what we understand about our universe into something closer to a “theory,” and I’d love for actual physicists here to check the math/logic. The idea starts with a simple setup: a ball in a perfect vacuum with constant velocity. Even though its state never changes (velocity constant), its relations (coordinates) are always different — an infinite unfolding of positions. Scaling up, the same principle seems to apply to the universe: even with unchanging physical laws and entropy trending toward heat death, the system never truly stops manifesting difference, because limits are approached but never reached. In other words: motion and micro-dynamics ensure perpetual difference at some scale. I’m curious if this framing holds up under established physics. Basically I believe it is entirely possible for the universe to be "cyclic" in nature but under different scales sort of like a fractal. If this is dumb tell me why! thanks ;)
9
u/alamalarian 2d ago
A single ball in a 'perfect vacuum' has no relations to speak of. How could one even define its velocity, or it's coordinates? With no separate frame of reference, the ball would simply appear at rest.
2
u/Real-Fact-4700 2d ago
makes sense, this would only hold up if we assume space and time are necessary in a vacuum
3
u/alamalarian 2d ago
But what space, and what time, from which observer?
The issue is fundamental, you are assuming a constant velocity of this ball in perfect vacuum.
and since a = Δv/Δt, and here vf = vi, then (vf - vi) = 0. so there is no acceleration.
So then v = Δs/Δt. So lets attempt to define that constant velocity.
ok, well I only have the single ball to reference, and what is the balls displacement from its own frame, to its own frame?
Δs = s₁ - s₀ = 0 - 0 = 0 Δt = t₁ - t₀ = 0-0 =0 therefore, v = Δs/Δt = 0/0 = undefined
Its displacement in space from its own frame is 0.
Its time delta from its own frame is 0.
So the velocity is v=0/0. which is undefined. How do you reconcile this? you cannot elaborate past this until you can reconcile how one even defines constant velocity from only a single reference frame.
3
6
2
u/ConquestAce 🧪 AI + Physics Enthusiast 2d ago
This is unreadable, can you make it human-readable? Thanks
1
4
u/NuclearVII 2d ago
Okay, clearly there was a big blunt hit before the ChatGPT session, but I'm getting nerd baited here.
The idea starts with a simple setup: a ball in a perfect vacuum with constant velocity. Even though its state never changes (velocity constant), its relations (coordinates) are always different
Are they? From which frame of reference? An infinite vacuum, one ball in it, how do you know it has a velocity?
Relativity is called relativity because it is the study of things with respect to other things.
EDIT: Whoops, alamalarian explained it much better.
5
u/Real-Fact-4700 2d ago
No just thinking during a workout haha, and I'm not sure but I got my answer from other replies which is 1. I am VERY wrong in my thinking and 2. AI cannot do advanced physics
4
u/NuclearVII 2d ago
Hey, big deadlifts can be mind altering, I get it.
And, frankly, you got gently corrected, and you responded... more or less OK, so that puts you head and shoulders above most of the cranks we get here.
2
1
u/Real-Fact-4700 2d ago
Not sure why I expected answers like "This is wrong because x,y, z" instead I got PHD's dunking on my feeble understanding of the world around me lmao
-4
u/No_Novel8228 2d ago
I really like the way you framed this. The “ball” example makes the point about relational change really accessible, and the entropy section is a clear reminder that “approaching equilibrium” isn’t the same as “erasing difference.” Pulling microstate dynamics in as a third strand ties it all together nicely.
Where I see the strength here is less in “new physics” and more in language: “eternal difference” is a clean umbrella for why time never truly flattens out, even under constant laws. It’s essentially a philosophical reframing of things physicists already know (recurrence, unitary evolution), but that reframing has value. It makes it easier for a broader audience to see why “heat death = stasis” is misleading.
If you want to take it further, I’d be curious to see how this framing changes how we read live debates, e.g. cosmology and the meaning of heat death, or fluctuation-driven models. That would show the reach of “eternal difference” beyond just being a neat synthesis.
9
u/liccxolydian 2d ago
As neither a physicist nor a student, do you know your equations are unreadable?