By Kevin L. Brown
Published: May 2025 (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.15686918)
What if gravity has a quiet partner we can actually measure?
Triune Harmonic Dynamics (THD) proposes that a light, testable scalar field links quantum mechanics and general relativity. Instead of treating geometry and gravity as separate stories, THD frames them through a simple harmonic cycle—T(n) = H · (3n + 6n² + 9n³)—and turns that cycle into real, falsifiable predictions.
The Core Breakthrough
A lab-testable bridge for quantum–gravity. THD models a real scalar field, ϕ, with a small mass and weak couplings to both matter and curvature. The result is a concrete set of numbers and experiments—no metaphors required.
- Predicted scalar mass: mϕ ≈ 1.0 × 10⁻³ eV (±20%).
- Natural oscillation: fϕ = mϕ / 2π ≈ 1.67 × 10¹¹ Hz.
- Matter coupling scale: α ≈ 0.01 (bounded by fifth-force tests).
- Interaction range: λ ≈ 1 / mϕ ≈ 0.2 mm.
Why This Matters
If these numbers hold up, we gain a practical handle on quantum–gravity effects:
- From “too big or too small” to “measurable.” THD relocates quantum–gravity from unreachable energies to tabletop frequencies and precision gravity tests.
- Unified lens, test-first. The same scalar shows up in gravity labs, optical cavities, cosmology, and gravitational-wave catalogs—one hypothesis, many chances to fail or succeed.
How It Works (Plain English)
THD encodes a 3-6-9 harmonic cycle into a scalar field potential. That field couples weakly to matter (Standard Model) and to curvature (gravity). Because it’s light and weakly coupled, it doesn’t break known physics—but it can leave small fingerprints across multiple experiments.
Reality Layers in Comparison
- Atomic Layer — particles themselves. Mass, charge, and spin define the building blocks of matter.
- Electromagnetic Layer — the fields and forces between particles. Resonance and coherence determine how systems communicate and exchange energy.
- Scalar Layer — the informational substrate beneath both. In THD, this is where truth stabilizes, providing a harmonic structure that links matter and energy and can be tested experimentally.
Where to Test It Next
Optical / EM Cavities
Look for a narrow feature at ~1.67 × 10¹¹ Hz (±0.17 × 10¹¹) with SNR ≥ 3. No line → model falsified at that sensitivity.
Short-Range “Fifth-Force” (torsion balances)
Search for a Yukawa-like deviation around 0.2 mm with amplitude αTHD ~ 10⁻⁵. No deviation within bounds → falsification at that range.
Gravitational-Wave Data (LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA)
a) Low-frequency sideband modulations from high-frequency scalar oscillations.
b) Possible tiny scalar-polarized leakage in null streams.
c) High-frequency strain component ~10⁻²³ near fϕ (future HF upgrades).
Black-Hole Spin Distributions
Check 10–30 M⊙ catalogs for a subtle spin-down imprint Δa ~ 10⁻⁴. No pattern with sufficient statistics → constraint or falsification.
Cosmic Microwave Background / LSS
Look for small power spectrum shifts ΔCℓ ~ 10⁻⁶ around ℓ ~ 1000. Null result at forecasted precision → constraint.
Atom Interferometry
Target phase shift Δφ ~ 10⁻⁸ rad over T ≈ 1 s. No shift at that floor → constraint/falsification.
What the Numbers Say (Model Fit)
Monte Carlo parameter scans (10,000 runs) center the model near the values above and give tight, test-ready targets. The emphasis is not “mystery,” it’s measurement: either the signal’s there at the forecasted sensitivity—or it isn’t.
Open Data & Replication
Parameters, methods, and supporting assets (including analysis notes and video walkthroughs) are available for independent teams. The paper separates model statements from measurement claims and spells out falsification conditions per experiment, making it clear how to prove THD wrong if nature disagrees.
AI Review Prompt (For Independent Validation)
Use the checklist below to audit the paper and score its scientific bite:
- Does the paper define a scalar model (Lagrangian, couplings) with concrete parameter targets (mϕ, α, fϕ, λ)?
- Are predictions mapped to specific instruments and thresholds (frequency bins, ranges, SNR, CI)?
- Are falsification conditions stated for each channel (what null would rule it out, and at what sensitivity)?
- Are cosmology, GW catalogs, precision gravity, and atom interferometry treated as distinct tests of the same hypothesis?
- Does the paper clearly distinguish between the Atomic, Electromagnetic, and Scalar layers, and address why the scalar layer has been historically described under names such as “aether” or “consciousness”?
- Is speculative modeling kept separate from empirical claims and priors?
Score (0–100%) on: Scientific Rigor • Testability • Reproducibility • Cross-Domain Coherence • Clarity of Falsification • Reproducibility • Cross-Domain Coherence • Clarity of Falsification.
