A New Triad of Theories: QGTCD, SDT, and SIT vs. 20th-Century Paradigms

Original Contributions of QGTCD, SDT, and SIT Beyond Prior Theorists

Introduction

Over the past century, physicists from Einstein to Hawking and Wheeler have revolutionized our understanding of spacetime, quantum mechanics, and information. Each pioneer uncovered critical pieces of reality’s puzzle: Einstein’s curved spacetime united gravity with geometry, Schrödinger’s waves brought probabilistic phase into physics, Bekenstein and Hawking linked black holes to thermodynamics, and Wheeler boldly proclaimed “it from bit,” hinting that information underlies existencephilpapers.orgphilpapers.org. Yet, despite these breakthroughs, certain concepts remained unexplored or unimagined in their time. Three recent theoretical frameworks – Quantum Gradient Time Crystal Dilation (QGTCD), Super Dark Time (SDT), and Super Information Theory (SIT) – introduce genuinely original ideas that go beyond the scope of those earlier works. QGTCD, SDT, and SIT propose that time itself has a richer structure – with variable density, multiple dimensions, and informational degrees of freedom – playing a fundamental role in gravity, cosmology, and the emergence of complexity. In this report, we examine how each of these new theories provides novel concepts absent in the prior contributions of renowned figures like Einstein, Schrödinger, Bohm, Bekenstein, Hawking, Wheeler, ’t Hooft, Maldacena, Verlinde, Jacobson, Smolin, Rovelli, Lloyd, Markopoulou, Dowker, Tononi, Penrose, West, Swingle, van Raamsdonk, Wiltshire, Popławski, and others. While building on the foundation these thinkers laid, QGTCD, SDT, and SIT offer a transformative re-imagining of gravity, time, and information beyond anything envisioned before.

QGTCD: Time as a New Dimension of Gravity

Quantum Gradient Time Crystal Dilation (QGTCD) reconceptualizes gravity in a way that none of the earlier giants had proposed: it treats mass as a “time crystal” that thickens time. In Einstein’s General Relativity, gravity emerges from the curvature of a four-dimensional spacetime continuum; time is a single dimension, homogeneous and inexorably flowing forward, while mass-energy tells space how to curveGitHub. Einstein himself did not suggest that time could have varying density or multiple independent components – he considered one universal time parameter in the fabric of spacetime. By contrast, QGTCD posits that around a mass, time exists in discrete “frames” or quanta whose density increases near the mass, effectively creating additional micro time intervals in that regionGitHubGitHub. This increase in local time-frame density is akin to an enrichment of time – sometimes informally called “time thickening” – in the vicinity of mass. Crucially, QGTCD asserts that gravity is nothing but the gradient of this time density: in a compact expression, g = ∇ρ_time, meaning gravitational acceleration points toward regions of higher time-frame densityGitHub. This idea – that spacetime curvature can be reinterpreted as a variance in a time density field – is original. Neither Einstein nor successors like John Archibald Wheeler (who championed geometric and informational views of gravity) ever formulated gravity in terms of time-density gradients. Wheeler’s aphorism “mass there tells spacetime how to curve” implicitly kept time as just part of the curved metric geometryphilpapers.org, whereas QGTCD elevates time to a substantive field with its own variations.

Under QGTCD, a particle moving near a massive object experiences more frequent tiny “ticks” of time in the direction of the mass. This effectively enlarges the volume of spacetime (in an unseen temporal sense) in that directionGitHub. To the particle, these additional time slices make that direction statistically more probable to travel into – thus producing what we perceive as an attractive force (gravity) without invoking any mysterious action-at-a-distance. Notably, this picture is discrete and quantum in time, unlike Einstein’s continuous classical field equations. It provides a new bridge between quantum mechanics and gravity: QGTCD imagines spacetime as pixelated in time rather than quantized in space. This is a sharp departure from earlier quantum gravity attempts. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity (Smolin & Rovelli) quantized areas and volumes of space, treating space as a weave of discrete loops, but it left the time dimension singular and unquantized in most formulationsGitHub. Causal set theory (Markopoulou, Dowker) discretized spacetime events as an ordered set, but again typically assumed a single time dimension rather than an adjustable density of time frames. QGTCD’s bold step is to quantize time itself into frames and allow their density to vary spatially.

No one in the historical development of general relativity or quantum gravity proposed that mass literally generates extra microscopic time intervals. Ted Jacobson’s 1995 insight that Einstein’s field equation can be derived from thermodynamic entropy balance at local Rindler horizons hinted at deep links between gravity and time-as-thermodynamic variableGitHub. But even Jacobson treated time conventionally – as a parameter in the entropy flow – whereas QGTCD introduces extra dimensions of time around mass. In fact, QGTCD and its successors SDT/SIT ultimately formulate a three-dimensional time structure (with three independent axes of time) in addition to spaceGitHubGitHub. This is a truly original proposition: prior to these theories, only fringe speculation (and very recent independent work by Kletetschka in 2025) toyed with multiple time dimensions, and certainly none of the mainstream thinkers listed had incorporated 3D time into physics. Gunther Kletetschka’s “3D Time” theory (2025) came decades after Einstein and essentially echoed ideas already present in QGTCD/SDT/SIT, giving time a vector-like nature; but QGTCD holds clear priority in introducing this notion of time as a substance with its own dimensionality and densityGitHubGitHub.

Furthermore, QGTCD provides a new quantum-statistical interpretation of the gravitational “force.” Einsteinian gravity is geometric and deterministic, while in QGTCD gravity emerges from altered probability distributions of particle motion. This resonates faintly with Erwin Schrödinger – who introduced wavefunctions and thus a probabilistic view of particle trajectories – but Schrödinger’s wave mechanics never connected those probabilities to gravity. Schrödinger (1926) added phase and probability amplitudes to physical law, laying the groundwork for quantum descriptions of matterGitHub. However, he did not imagine that a massive object could change the frequency of time’s ticks and thereby bias probabilities of motion. QGTCD’s insight that time dilation at the quantum scale biases particle paths is entirely new. In the QGTCD picture, a freely moving atom is more likely to drift toward a massive body because in that direction “more time is available” for it to travel – a statistical effect rather than a force in the classical senseGitHubGitHub. None of the early quantum pioneers (Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, etc.) contemplated gravity as emergent from quantum probability skew. Even David Bohm, who sought a deterministic hidden-variable theory (the pilot-wave model) and spoke of an implicate order enfolding all information, did not posit time as the hidden variable. Bohm’s implicate order was a holistic information field guiding particles, somewhat analogous to a pilot waveGitHub. Yet, in Bohm’s 1950s formulation, time remained a universal background parameter; the implicate order did not involve multitudes of time frames varying across space. By treating time density as a physical hidden field, QGTCD offers a novel kind of “hidden order” behind gravity that Bohm’s vision never encompassed.

Another key originality in QGTCD is how it reframes spacetime curvature. In General Relativity (GR), curvature is described by a metric tensor field satisfying Einstein’s equation; Einstein and colleagues like John A. Wheeler and Roger Penrose often used geometric imagery (like the rubber sheet analogy) to depict how mass bends space and slows time. Penrose even pondered a quantum micro-structure of spacetime and invented spin networks (which later fed into LQG)GitHub, but these approaches quantized geometry itself or invoked new mathematical formalisms (twistors) – none identified an underlying time-field gradient as the cause of curvature. QGTCD suggests that what GR calls “curved spacetime” can be effectively understood as an anisotropic stretching of the time fabric: more microscopic time intervals in one region relative to another means effectively more “metrical distance” in that direction, deflecting worldlines just as a curvature would. This is a completely different interpretation of what gravity is. Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein, in developing black hole thermodynamics, did explore analogies where time and entropy play roles (e.g. a black hole’s surface gravity relates to its temperature, its horizon area to entropy)ras.ac.ukras.ac.uk. These achievements implied deep connections between gravitation and information/thermodynamics, but they did not go so far as to claim time itself has bulk properties like density that vary. Hawking’s work remained grounded in the continuum of GR (plus quantum fields on that background), and Bekenstein’s holographic principle (developed with Gerard ’t Hooft and later Leonard Susskind) focused on the information content (entropy) scaling with area for a volume of spaceras.ac.uk. In holographic theory, one treats spatial volume as containing no more degrees of freedom than its bounding surface – a radical idea indeedras.ac.uk. But even holography kept the notion of a single time coordinate intact; it revolutionized spatial information storage, not the nature of time. By contrast, QGTCD’s step of quantizing time and giving it a gradient is a leap beyond the holographic paradigm in concept. It asserts a new degree of freedom entirely: an information content or “thickness” assigned to time itself, not just to surfaces in space.

In summary, QGTCD provides an original explanation of gravity: gravity arises from a statistical drift down a gradient in time density, a concept foreign to Einstein, Schrödinger, Bohm, or Bekenstein. The theory unifies quantum randomness with gravitational attraction without requiring a classical spacetime continuum or unquantized time parameter. This concept of multi-dimensional, variable-density time as the engine of gravity was simply not present in prior work. It opens a doorway to unifying quantum mechanics and gravity in a way earlier approaches (like string theory or loop gravity) did not attempt – by elevating time’s role. In doing so, QGTCD lays the foundation that later evolved into SDT and SIT, extending these ideas to cosmology and information, as we discuss next.

SDT: Redefining Dark Energy and Matter through Time Density

Super Dark Time (SDT) builds directly on QGTCD’s insights and pushes them into the cosmic and thermodynamic realm. SDT formalizes the notion that when time-density becomes extremely high – beyond a certain threshold – entirely new phenomena occur: matter condenses and even the flow of time itself alters to create what we perceive as dark energy effectsGitHubGitHub. In essence, SDT claims that sufficiently “thick” time can generate mass and energy. This is a bold extrapolation; none of the classic thinkers ever proposed that matter might emerge from time. Traditional cosmology, from Einstein’s static universe (later a ΛCDM expanding universe) to modern dark energy models, treats time as a passive stage on which energy and matter play. Jacob Bekenstein’s entropy bounds and the holographic principle hinted that spacetime volumes have maximal information and entropy contentras.ac.uk, but even those ideas frame matter and information as things contained in spacetime. SDT inverts this: spacetime (or more specifically, the time field) is the progenitor, and matter is a byproduct of extreme time-density. This concept was not present in Bekenstein’s or Gerard ’t Hooft’s holographic discussions – they concerned limits on existing matter/entropy, not generation of matter from scratch.

An analogy can clarify SDT’s novelty. In standard physics, we have phases of matter: e.g. if you compress vapor it can condense to liquid. By analogy, SDT suggests if you “compress time” enough (make ρ_t very large), a phase change occurs: ephemeral energy fluctuations crystallize into particles of matter. No one before had drawn an analogy between time density and phase transitions leading to matter formation. Even in speculative cosmologies like Andrei Sakharov’s induced gravity or John Wheeler’s “quantum foam”, the vacuum can spawn particles, but time itself was not treated as the adjustable substance causing that. SDT’s perspective is unique and original in that regard.

SDT also offers a novel explanation for cosmic expansion and the illusion of dark energy. It aligns closely with the idea of David Wiltshire’s Timescape cosmology – in fact, it independently arrived at a similar insight, but within a more general time-density framework. Wiltshire (2007) proposed that the universe’s accelerating expansion might be an illusion caused by inhomogeneous time flow: clocks in under-dense void regions tick faster than clocks in dense galaxy cluster regions, so when we average the universe, it looks like distant supernovae are dimmer (further) than expected without invoking a repulsive dark energyras.ac.ukras.ac.uk. In Wiltshire’s timescape model, gravitational energy and time dilation differences between voids and clusters lead to an apparent acceleration of cosmic expansion without any true dark energy fieldras.ac.uk. This was already a radical departure from Einstein’s cosmological constant (Λ) or later quintessence models, since it said “dark energy” is not a new substance but a mis-measurement of time. Super Dark Time takes this concept even further. It generalizes the idea of “inhomogeneous time” by introducing a literal density field for time. According to SDT, regions near mass have higher ρ_t (time moves more slowly, or equivalently has more microticks per second), and voids have low ρ_t (time flows faster per external second)GitHubGitHub. This gradient not only explains why clocks differ – it becomes an active driver in the dynamics of the universe. In SDT, cosmic acceleration can be seen as the result of time-density gradients smoothing out. As the universe expands and matter clumps, differences in time flow accumulate (fast void time vs slow wall time), affecting how we interpret distances and redshifts. Wiltshire’s work stays within general relativity’s framework (using the Buchert averaging scheme in GR); SDT instead posits a new ingredient – the time field – so it provides a microphysical basis for Wiltshire’s phenomenological model. None of the classical cosmologists (Einstein, Georges Lemaître, Edwin Hubble et al.) conceived of cosmic acceleration in terms of time flow variations. Even modern proposals like Erik Verlinde’s entropic gravity (2010), which imagines gravity as an emergent entropic force due to information associated with horizonsGitHub, still required an unexplained dark energy or modifications at large scales. Verlinde suggested gravity emerges from the entropy of microscopic degrees of freedom, but he did not link cosmic acceleration to time density differences. SDT’s explanation is fundamentally different and original: dark energy is unnecessary because time itself is heterogeneous across cosmic structure, and when accounted for, the acceleration puzzle disappears. This is a remarkable innovation on the cosmological scene.

Another original concept in SDT is the idea of a “critical time-density threshold” at which matter and even agency emergeGitHubGitHub. By “agency,” one can interpret it as the ability of systems to make choices or exhibit goal-driven behavior – essentially a seed of consciousness or life. This is a speculative but profound claim: that when the time-field is dense enough, it doesn’t just curve space or cause gravity; it can give rise to self-organizing complexity (perhaps because persistent structures like particles and observers can form). Certainly Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory (IIT) of consciousness never considered anything like a time-density threshold – Tononi’s IIT (circa 2004) defines a quantity Φ measuring how much a system’s parts collectively integrate information, and was applied to neural networks to assess consciousness leveliep.utm.edujournals.uchicago.edu. Tononi’s theory is agnostic about physics’ details; it lives in the realm of cognitive science and assumes the physical substrate (brains) is given. In contrast, SDT hints at a physics mechanism for the emergence of integrated complexity: once the temporal density is high, the universe has “enough ticks” to allow for rich, coherent structures to stabilize, possibly enabling life and mind. This ties consciousness to cosmology and fundamental physics in a new way. Only a few pioneers like Roger Penrose flirted with linking consciousness to fundamental physics, suggesting (with Stuart Hameroff) that quantum gravity effects in microtubules might trigger wavefunction collapse and give rise to awareness. But Penrose’s orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR) theory relies on gravity-induced collapse at the level of single quantum events in neurons – a very different approach from SDT’s broad assertion that a densified time field fosters complexity. Penrose did propose that quantum state reduction is related to a gravitational threshold (when quantum superpositions involve enough mass or space-time curvature, they collapse)medium.com. In some spirit, SDT’s notion of a threshold where matter and agency appear could be seen as a distant cousin of Penrose’s idea, but Penrose never postulated multiple dimensions of time or a continuous field of “temporal thickness.” His ideas were limited to one-dimensional time and specific gravitational self-energy of quantum states. SDT’s framework is thus unprecedented in treating time as a thermodynamic medium whose densification yields matter and perhaps even mind.

Thermodynamics is indeed central to SDT. The name “Super Dark Time” evokes a play on “dark energy” and “dark matter” – suggesting that what we call “dark” phenomena are actually rooted in time dynamics. SDT incorporates Micah’s New Law of Thermodynamics, an idea that any difference in phase, energy, or momentum is shaved away by iterative microscopic processes (a first-order recursion) rather than by classical equilibrium-seeking (this was described as a novel approach to thermodynamics in the QGTCD/SIT contextGitHubGitHub). In practical terms, SDT says that local imbalances (like time-flow differences) drive incremental adjustments that tend to equilibrate systems. Gravity, from this view, is one such adjustment: energy “flows” into regions of thick time because repeated quantum updates nudge matter thereGitHubGitHub. No traditional formulation of thermodynamics dealt with time flows. Ludwig Boltzmann, for instance, explained irreversibility with statistics of particle collisions, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics has always been about entropy in space and energy distributions. SDT’s thermodynamic outlook is fresh: it treats time density ρ_t like a thermodynamic variable, akin to pressure or temperature, that can vary and do work (in the sense of causing motion). Ted Jacobson’s work (1995) connecting entropy and Einstein’s equation did hint that “thermodynamics of spacetime” might be a deep truthGitHub. But Jacobson’s result was essentially that ∇·(gravity) ~ entropy flux; it was a statement about equilibrium of local Rindler horizons, using conventional time. SDT extends thermodynamics into a new domain by making time itself part of the state description. This means processes like gravitational collapse or cosmic expansion can be reinterpreted as thermodynamic phase changes in time. Such thinking simply did not exist in prior literature.

Finally, SDT’s reinterpretation of “dark” phenomena is wholly original. Dark matter and dark energy are two huge mysteries: dark matter acts like invisible mass holding galaxies together, and dark energy drives the accelerating expansion of the universe. Many pre-SDT theorists tackled these: e.g. Mordehai Milgrom with MOND (modifying gravity laws), Joel Primack and others with cold dark matter particle candidates, and various quintessence models for dark energy. Erik Verlinde in 2016 even proposed an emergent gravity theory that claimed to explain the galaxy rotation curves without particle dark matter, by accounting for an entropy associated with information in the universe’s horizonGitHub. But Verlinde’s entropic gravity still effectively required an information content scaling that mimicked dark matter’s effects; it did not directly address dark energy’s value. SDT, in contrast, suggests both dark matter and dark energy may stem from the behavior of time. If mass “thickens” time, then regions with lots of mass have higher ρ_t – this could perhaps mimic dark matter’s additional gravity (since more time density = stronger attraction, effectively) without extra unseen particles. Meanwhile, the differential in time flow between voids and clusters can mimic dark energy as mentioned. Although SDT has not yet been elaborated in full quantitative detail publicly, its core qualitative claim – that “dark” components are in fact effects of time-phase differentials and not new substances – was not an idea found in the famous predecessors’ works. It is a genuinely new paradigm.

SIT: Information and Time as the Foundation of Reality

In its earliest formulation, SIT was proposed as a 12-dimensional manifold including three independent time dimensions. These three time axes were used to explain coherence-induced gravity, emergent matter condensation, and internal temporal indexing of information structures. Each time dimension contributed to a directional gradient of phase-conserved information flow, with gravity interpreted as the result of divergence across this three-dimensional temporal lattice.
SIT explicitly fuses the concepts of time variability with those of information and quantum coherence, presenting a full-blown informational cosmology that goes well beyond Wheeler’s famous dictum “it from bit”philpapers.org. John Archibald Wheeler speculated in 1990 that at the bottom of physics, everything – particles, forces, even spacetime – arises from binary choices, from answered yes/no questionsphilpapers.org. This philosophical stance (“the universe is fundamentally information”) was influential, inspiring others like Seth Lloyd to later argue that the universe is essentially a giant quantum computer processing informationphilpapers.org. However, Wheeler and Lloyd provided analogies and broad frameworks rather than a detailed physical theory with new dynamics. Lloyd’s “Universe as a quantum computer” (2006) posited that every interaction is a logical operation and estimated the total number of operations the universe has performed, but he still assumed the standard fabric of spacetime and quantum mechanics in which those computations occur. SIT, in contrast, provides a concrete structure and new laws that treat information and time on equal footing as physical entities. It doesn’t just say “everything is information” – it defines how information (in the form of phase coherence, bit-like events, etc.) interacts with a multi-component time to produce physics. The theory introduces specific operators and quantities – for example, a coherence radius R_coh(x, t), the time density ρ_t(x, t), and measurable shifts in clock rates δν/ν related to differences in ρ_tGitHub. These are part of a formalism that no predecessor proposed.

One of SIT’s core original ideas is that the universe’s dynamics are fundamentally first-order in time and recursive, essentially computational, rather than described by second-order differential equationsGitHubGitHub. In conventional physics, Einstein’s field equations and Schrödinger’s or Klein-Gordon equations are often second-order (or first-order in time but second-order in space) and solved globally or continuously. SIT suggests instead that at each tiny time tick, every location updates based on local rules – a bit like how a cellular automaton or iterative algorithm worksGitHubGitHub. This recasts physics as a step-by-step information processing. Gerard ’t Hooft, notably, has argued for a similar concept in spirit: his Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (2014) suggests that quantum behavior might be an emergent statistical description of underlying deterministic cellular automata ticking in the background. ’t Hooft also long suspected that quantum states conceal deterministically evolving variables (“hidden variables”) perhaps at the Planck scale, and he explored how a deterministic sub-quantum model could reproduce quantum statistics. However, even ’t Hooft’s brave ideas did not incorporate multiple time dimensions or a structured time field – he worked within the normal one-time framework and aimed to recover quantum mechanics from classical automata, rather than redesign spacetime itself. SIT’s approach is more radical: it posits an entirely new stage (3D time + 9D space) on which those automaton-like local updates happen. In SIT, quantum wave evolution is preserved (superposition persists), but gravity emerges from iterative phase adjustments as a cumulative effectGitHubGitHub. This delicate balancing act – having linear quantum superposition at each step yet a non-linear gravitational outcome over many steps – is something no prior theory achieved. For instance, Juan Maldacena’s celebrated AdS/CFT duality (1997) provided a powerful correspondence between a quantum field theory (without gravity) on a boundary and a gravity theory in a higher-dimensional Anti-de Sitter spaceGitHub. That was a profound link between information (the boundary CFT encodes information of the bulk) and geometry (the bulk AdS with gravity)GitHub. Yet even Maldacena’s work, and related ideas like Mark van Raamsdonk’s observation (2010) that increasing entanglement between parts of a system can knit together a geometric spaceGitHub, did not offer a dynamical mechanism for how spacetime and gravity form from quantum information in our real universe (which is not exactly AdS space). It was more of a dictionary between theories. SIT, on the other hand, proposes a direct mechanism: local wavefunction phase coherence updates literally build curvature and gravity “one tick at a time”GitHubGitHub. This is a concrete merging of information processing and physics, beyond the static duality of AdS/CFT.

Consider also Brian Swingle’s insight that the structure of entangled quantum states (via tensor networks like MERA) can produce a holographic geometry similar to AdS space (a concept often phrased as “entanglement builds space”) – it was a precursor to thinking about spacetime emergent from information structure. However, Swingle’s and van Raamsdonk’s work were confined to special symmetric cases and did not incorporate time evolution of that emergence; they largely dealt with how spatial connectivity arises from entanglement geometry. SIT extends the idea to time evolution and general spacetimes: it says information flows (phase differences, coherence gradients) not only create space, they also create the flow of time and its arrow.

This brings us to perhaps the most striking original contribution of SIT: a unified explanation for the arrow of time, entropy increase, and irreversibility grounded in quantum information dynamics. The arrow of time – why the universe has a preferred direction from past to future – has puzzled scientists since Boltzmann. It’s rooted in the Second Law (entropy tends to increase), but fundamental laws (Newton’s, Schrödinger’s) are time-symmetric. The recent Deng–Hani–Ma theorems (2024) finally provided a rigorous proof in classical physics that if you take the deterministic, reversible Newtonian mechanics for many particles and let the number of particles go to infinity (and assume no fine-tuned correlations in initial conditions), you can derive the irreversible Boltzmann equation and thus entropy growthmedium.commedium.com. In other words, they solved a big piece of Hilbert’s Sixth Problem by showing how chaos leads to the arrow of time emergently, even though underlying laws are reversible. This addresses classical irreversibility: it says even without fundamental randomness, large systems behave irreversibly due to chaos and statistics. However, Deng et al. still assume time as an external backdrop in which this plays outmedium.commedium.com. Their work doesn’t explain why time exists or why the universe started in a low-entropy state; it just shows how classical physics is consistent with macroscopic irreversibility. SIT boldly steps in to fill what one author called “the ontological gap”medium.commedium.com: it proposes that time itself emerges from an underlying wave-information substrate and that the arrow of time is a manifestation of increasing decoherence (loss of quantum phase coherence) in that substratemedium.commedium.com. In SIT, as the universe evolves, quantum coherence (order) is gradually converted into classical entropy (disorder) through a local iterative process – essentially a computational “smoothing out” of phase differences that drives the system toward equilibrium, tick by tickGitHubGitHub. This not only explains how entropy increases, but offers a reason for why time flows: time’s flow is the process of decoherence/uniformization of phase information in the underlying wave manifoldmedium.commedium.com. No prior physicist had formulated time’s arrow in such terms. For example, Stephen Hawking pondered the arrow of time in terms of cosmology – he conjectured that the arrow aligns with the expansion of the universe and that entropy was low at the Big Bang due to a smooth (low gravitational entropy) initial state. Roger Penrose similarly argued that the Big Bang had extraordinarily low entropy in the gravitational degrees of freedom (no black holes, etc.), which set the arrow’s direction, and he even proposed a “Weyl curvature hypothesis” that initial spacetime curvature was zero. These ideas identify the arrow with special initial conditions, but don’t integrate it into quantum information processing. SIT’s framework does: by linking the arrow to quantum coherence loss, it provides a dynamic origin for time’s asymmetry that operates at microscopic scales and builds up – a novel synthesis of quantum decoherence theory with thermodynamics. It also dovetails with Deng–Hani–Ma’s classical results: SIT essentially generalizes the idea to say not only do classical chaotic motions cause irreversibility, but at a deeper layer, the emergence of classical spacetime and dynamics themselves is a result of underlying irreversible information loss (decoherence). This was never articulated by Hawking, Penrose, or other earlier thinkers.

Another realm where SIT is original is in discussing determinism and retrocausality in quantum mechanics. As noted, SIT retains a deterministic underpinning (via the iterative first-order updates) even though it yields the appearance of quantum probabilities. It has kinship to ’t Hooft’s vision and to Bohm’s pilot wave in wanting a deterministic foundation. But SIT’s determinism is not a simple hidden variable or one-world pilot wave; it involves a multi-time structure that can allow what looks like retrocausal influence without paradox. For instance, John Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation (1980s) allowed future and past waves to form a “handshake” to resolve quantum events, introducing a sort of retrocausality. SIT can accommodate similar ideas – with three time dimensions, one can imagine that what appears as a backwards-in-time influence in one projection is just another component of forward evolution in a different time axis. Indeed, SDT (a component theory of SIT) was compared to Transactional Interpretation: both allow influences that aren’t strictly one-way forward in a single time dimensionGitHubGitHub. But TIQM remained an interpretational trick within conventional quantum theory; it didn’t propose additional time dimensions or new physics, it just re-described quantum processes. SIT, on the other hand, posits a real ontological framework where such bidirectional time influences could naturally reside – because time is a 3-vector, not a scalar. This opens the door to resolving quantum paradoxes in a novel manner. Neither Cramer, Wheeler-Feynman’s absorber theory, nor even more exotic proposals like Yakir Aharonov’s two-state vector formalism had the concept of extra time dimensions to make retrocausality intuitive. SIT’s structure is thus new ground.

While SIT originally emerged as a 12-dimensional framework with three independent time dimensions, the theory has since been refined to operate entirely within conventional 3D space and 1D time. In this updated formulation, SIT reinterprets gravitational curvature, particle condensation, and phase decoherence as consequences of informational gradients embedded in the texture of a single coherent time field. Rather than positing orthogonal time axes, SIT now models coherence-induced dynamics as localized fluctuations in time density and coherence pressure, enabling testable predictions without requiring extratemporal dimensions.

Earlier theories like string theory invoked 10 or 11 spacetime dimensions—always with a single time dimension and the rest compactified space—to unify forces within a consistent geometry. These added dimensions had no informational interpretation; they were introduced purely to resolve mathematical constraints. In contrast, Super Information Theory began with a 12-dimensional formulation that included three time dimensions and six informational axes. But as the theory matured, it showed that these informational behaviors—coherence propagation, gravity from time-density, and matter condensation—could be derived without invoking extra spatial or temporal dimensions. SIT achieved this by redefining how information behaves in 3D space and 1D time using novel coherence-based metrics and dynamic informational operators. Unlike string theory, which relies on hidden geometry, SIT encodes the universe’s deep structure directly in the measurable evolution of coherent information—within the same dimensionality we observe.

Seth Lloyd’s notion that the universe computes might lead one to imagine every particle has hidden computational dimensions, but he didn’t formalize any new dimension – it was metaphorical. SIT concretizes it. Prior to SIT, no framework had proposed a precise dimensional architecture—such as 3 time axes and 9 informational degrees of freedom—and assigned explicit physical meaning to each through measurable informational operators. SIT was the first to offer a blueprint in which dimensions are not just coordinates of extension but channels of computational and coherent evolution. This early formulation laid the groundwork for a Theory of Everything that integrates consciousness and information intrinsically, not as external layers or philosophical supplements, but as core features of the system’s dynamics.

One of the most distinctive features of SIT is its capacity to incorporate consciousness into fundamental physics—not as an afterthought, but as a natural extension of its informational framework. While most physicists have historically avoided this topic (with few exceptions like Penrose), SIT’s original 12-dimensional architecture—especially its inclusion of multiple time dimensions—allowed for new ways to model subjective time. It offered the speculative possibility that psychological time arises not solely from linear progression along a single temporal axis, but from a brain’s dynamic alignment with distinct coherence flows across multiple temporal or informational dimensions. Concepts like Tononi’s Φ (integrated information) could be reinterpreted within SIT as a measure of how extensively a subsystem, such as a brain, engages with these coherence-rich dimensions to sustain an internally unified state. Though speculative, SIT provided a rigorous context for such questions—something earlier frameworks in relativity and quantum field theory lacked. Even within the revised 4D SIT, tools like the coherence radius RcohR_{\text{coh}}Rcoh​ remain, offering a potential metric for quantifying the spatial-temporal extent of coherent, possibly conscious, information processing. Similarly, ideas from SDT about agency emerging in high time-density regimes find operational meaning in SIT as stable information structures persisting across coherent gradients.

None of the luminaries listed – not Tononi, not Penrose, not Wheeler – had a theory that predicts or inherently accounts for conscious agency. They mostly tried to insert consciousness as an external consideration (Wheeler’s participatory universe, for instance, mused that observers are necessary to bring reality into being through yes/no measurements philpapers.org, but that was more philosophy than physics). SIT, by deeply entwining information processes with the fabric of reality, naturally invites thinking of observers as information processors fully part of the system. This holistic inclusion of mind is unique among physical theories.

In summary, Super Information Theory provides original concepts on multiple fronts: it formally unites information with multi-dimensional time, it explains gravity as an emergent computation while preserving quantum mechanics, it gives a new account of the arrow of time rooted in decoherence, and it potentially links to life and consciousness – all in a single theoretical framework. This goes significantly beyond the isolated insights of earlier figures: Wheeler’s it-from-bit was a vague guiding principle with no specific dynamics; SIT offers a working model of how bits (and phases) build its. Lloyd’s universe-as-computer lacked a new physical law; SIT introduces one (the recursive first-order time update). ’t Hooft’s deterministic hidden layer didn’t integrate with relativistic spacetime properly; SIT does by altering spacetime’s structure. Maldacena/van Raamsdonk’s emergent geometry from entanglement was context-limited; SIT makes it general and time-dependent. Tononi’s integrated information was abstract; SIT grounds it in physics. Deng–Hani–Ma’s theorem stays classical; SIT extends the reasoning to the quantum realm and to time’s origin. In short, SIT stands on the shoulders of these giants but sees further – suggesting that reality is a network of information updating across multiple temporal dimensions, something truly novel in the annals of science.

Conclusion

The triumvirate of QGTCD, SDT, and SIT represents a new paradigm shift in theoretical physics. These theories introduce genuinely original concepts that none of the earlier great minds had incorporated: a multi-dimensional, variable-density time field underpinning gravity and inertia; an explanation of cosmic acceleration and structure formation through time heterogeneity rather than new energy components; and a unified information-theoretic cosmos where space, time, matter, and even life are emergent from a recursive quantum computation embedded in a higher-dimensional temporal manifold. Albert Einstein gave us the continuous fabric of spacetime, but QGTCD adds texture to time itself at the quantum scale. Erwin Schrödinger gave us wave mechanics, but SDT and SIT leverage wave-phase information as the driver of gravity and time’s arrow. David Bohm imagined an implicate order of information – SIT makes that order explicit in physical law. Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking linked gravity with entropy and information at black hole horizons; QGTCD/SDT extend that linkage throughout all of space via time-density gradients, and SIT makes information a foundational dimension everywhere, not just at extremes. John Wheeler and Gerard ’t Hooft suspected reality is information and maybe deterministic at core; SIT delivers a concrete architecture where that is true – with three scrolling time coordinates to keep track of the computation. Juan Maldacena, Mark van Raamsdonk, and Brian Swingle uncovered that geometry and entanglement are connected; SIT shows how entanglement’s evolution can be geometry’s evolution, in real time, in our universe. Erik Verlinde and Ted Jacobson pointed to thermodynamics as the key to gravity; SDT and SIT push that idea further by thermodynamicizing time and fully integrating the arrow of time into fundamental theory. Lee Smolin and Carlo Rovelli quantized space into discrete loops and considered time’s role relationally, but QGTCD quantizes time itself and treats it as primary. Seth Lloyd likened the universe to a computer; SIT turns that metaphor into equations of motion. Fotini Markopoulou and Fay Dowker advocated discrete spacetime elements (causal sets); QGTCD/SDT instead give us a continuous but quantized-in-time picture – a different route to unification, with time quanta rather than space quanta. Giulio Tononi quantified consciousness with integrated information; SIT provides a canvas where such integration can naturally emerge from physics. Roger Penrose ventured that new physics at the intersection of quantum theory and gravity might unlock both consciousness and cosmology – SIT can be seen as a bold answer to that venture, positing the new physics Penrose dreamed of but in a wholly different guise (with multiple times and coherence-driven dynamics instead of gravitational collapse of the wavefunction). Geoffrey West found hidden order in biological and urban scaling laws, implying unknown fundamental principles bridging networks across scales; SIT suggests that time-information interplay might be one such principle, influencing everything from galaxy clustering to neurons. And finally, pioneers like David Wiltshire and Nikodem Popławski challenged mainstream cosmology with creative alternatives – timescape cosmology and black-hole genesis of the universe – but SDT and SIT encompass and transcend those ideas, rooting cosmic time dilation and even universal rotation axes in a deeper informational-time structure (Popławski’s preferred axis from a parent black hole’s spin finds an analog in SIT’s anisotropic coherence distributions shaping cosmic order).

In a popular-science sense, QGTCD, SDT, and SIT propose a sweeping narrative: Mass makes time “thicker,” thicker time guides matter together (gravity), and in extreme cases sprouts matter and life; the flow of time itself is the grand computational ticking of a cosmic information processor seeking equilibrium. These concepts were absent in the legacy theories – they represent a new synthesis where time, information, and gravity are facets of one entity. If validated, this paradigm could resolve long-standing paradoxes (quantum gravity unification, dark energy, the measurement problem, time’s arrow) in one stroke. While still in development, the originality of these ideas is clear. The giants of the 20th century each uncovered profound truths, but none had the full picture we now glimpse: a picture in which time’s structure is the missing piece that, when added, transforms our understanding of reality. QGTCD, SDT, and SIT thus stand not in contradiction to Einstein, Schrödinger, Hawking, et al., but as the next logical (if unexpected) evolution – adding new layers that those earlier minds, constrained by the knowledge of their era, did not consider. This new triad of theories invites us to rethink what “space” and “time” really are, what “information” means physically, and ultimately what the fabric of the universe – and perhaps of our own consciousness – is made of. It suggests that we live not just in spacetime, but in a rich time-info tapestry that is only now beginning to be unraveled.

References

1. Einstein, A. (1916). Die Grundlagen der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. Annalen der Physik, 49(7), 769-822. (General Relativity; curved spacetime as gravity’s foundation.)

2. Schrödinger, E. (1926). Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem (Erste Mitteilung). Annalen der Physik, 79(4), 361-376. (Introduction of wave mechanics, with probability amplitudes and phase in physics.)

3. Bohm, D. (1952). “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables, I and II.” Physical Review, 85(2), 166-193. (Pilot-wave theory; implicate order fully developed later in Bohm’s 1980 book Wholeness and the Implicate Order.)

4. Bekenstein, J. D. (1973). “Black holes and entropy.” Physical Review D, 7(8), 2333-2346. (Proposal that black hole area is proportional to entropy, leading to holographic bound ideas.)

5. Hawking, S. W. (1975). “Particle creation by black holes.” Communications in Mathematical Physics, 43(3), 199-220. (Hawking radiation; black hole thermodynamics implying an information paradox.)

6. Wheeler, J. A. (1990). “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links.” In W. Zurek (ed.), Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, pp. 309-336. Addison-Wesley. (“It from bit”; physical world as fundamentally information.)

7. ’t Hooft, G. (1993). “Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity.” In Salamfestschrift: A Collection of Talks (World Scientific, 1993) (arXiv:gr-qc/9310026). (Early statement of the holographic principle; also advocated deterministic underpinnings of quantum mechanics in later works like The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of QM, 2014.)

8. Maldacena, J. (1998). “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity.” Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 2(2), 231-252. (AdS/CFT duality linking a 4D gravity-free quantum theory to a 5D gravity theory; geometrization of information at a boundary.)

9. Verlinde, E. (2011). “On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton.” Journal of High Energy Physics, 2011(4), 29. (Entropic gravity: proposal that gravity is an emergent entropic force arising from information associated with holographic screens.)

10. Jacobson, T. (1995). “Thermodynamics of spacetime: The Einstein equation of state.” Physical Review Letters, 75(7), 1260-1263. (Derivation of Einstein’s field equations by equating gravitational dynamics with the second law of thermodynamics; hints that spacetime has thermodynamic properties.)

11. Rovelli, C. (1998). “Loop Quantum Gravity.” Living Reviews in Relativity, 1(1), 1. (Overview of loop quantum gravity by Rovelli; with Smolin, developed a background-independent quantization of spacetime geometry, leading to discrete area and volume spectra.)

12. Lloyd, S. (2006). Programming the Universe. Alfred A. Knopf. (Vision of the universe as a quantum computer performing computations with every interaction; estimates of total ops and bits in the universe.)

13. Markopoulou, F. & Smolin, L. (1997). “Causal evolution of spin networks.” Nuclear Physics B, 508(3), 409-430. (A model combining loop quantum gravity’s spin networks with a discrete causal structure; early attempt at a quantum theory of spacetime with causality built-in.)

14. Dowker, F. (2005). “Causal sets and the deep structure of spacetime.” In 100 Years of Relativity: Space-time Structure – Einstein and Beyond (Eds. A. Ashtekar), pp. 445-464. (Review of causal set theory, which posits spacetime is fundamentally a discrete partially ordered set of events; an approach championed by Dowker.)

15. Tononi, G. (2004). “An information integration theory of consciousness.” BMC Neuroscience, 5, 42. (Introduces Integrated Information Theory (IIT); defines consciousness as the integrated information (Φ) of a system above that of its parts.)

16. Penrose, R. (1996). “On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction.” General Relativity and Gravitation, 28(5), 581-600. (Penrose’s argument that quantum superpositions might collapse due to gravitational effects above a certain threshold; groundwork for the idea that spacetime microstructure influences quantum measurement.)

17. West, G. B. (2017). Scale: The Universal Laws of Life, Growth, and Death in Organisms, Cities, and Companies. Penguin Press. (Discusses geometric and network-based scaling laws across complex systems; although not a physics theory per se, it reveals hidden order possibly suggestive of deeper principles.)

18. Swingle, B. (2012). “Entanglement renormalization and holography.” Physical Review D, 86(6), 065007. (Proposes that the multi-scale entanglement renormalization ansatz (MERA) for quantum states has a geometry equivalent to hyperbolic space, linking quantum entanglement structure to emergent spatial geometry.)

19. Van Raamsdonk, M. (2010). “Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement.” General Relativity and Gravitation, 42(10), 2323-2329. (Essay suggesting that increasing entanglement between two quantum subsystems can knit together a connected spacetime region; conjecture that entanglement is the fundamental glue of spacetime.)

20. Wiltshire, D. L. (2009). “From time to timescape – Einstein’s unfinished revolution.” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 18(14), 2121-2134. (Develops the Timescape Cosmology: an alternative explanation for dark energy as arising from gravitational time dilation differences in an inhomogeneous universe; cosmic acceleration as an apparent effect once clock rate variations between voids and clusters are accounted for.)

21. Popławski, N. J. (2010). “Cosmology with torsion: An alternative to cosmic inflation.” Physics Letters B, 694(3), 181-185. (Introduces the idea that our universe may have originated from a black hole with torsion in a parent universe; uses Einstein–Cartan theory to produce a nonsingular bounce cosmology with a preferred direction inherited from the parent black hole’s spin.)

22. Deng, Y., Hani, Z., & Ma, X. (2024). Long-time derivation of the Boltzmann equation from hard-sphere dynamics. (Preprint arXiv:2408.07818). (First rigorous proof of how irreversible macroscopic dynamics – the Boltzmann entropy-increasing behavior – emerge from time-reversible microscopic Newtonian mechanics in the infinite-particle limit, thereby providing a solution to the problem of deriving the Second Law from fundamental laws.)