Interactive visualizations of the COSMIC Framework. Canvas models, 3D explorers, and interactive parameter tools across cosmology, quantum mechanics, and information theory.
The charts below present observational and theoretical material behind the COSMIC Framework. Each is drawn from real data, from a testable prediction, or, where labeled, from the framework's equations as an illustration.
Each tile is a few seconds of the live simulation. Click one to open it below, where you can turn it, change its settings and read what it shows.
How to read the colors
Panel colors are not decorative. They cycle through two physical color systems:
quark color charge (the red, green and blue of the strong interaction, which carry no visual meaning in nature but label the three charge states) and the Rubin Observatory / LSST filter
bands, the six passbands (u g r i z y) through which the
sky is actually photographed.
RED · color chargeGREEN · color chargeBLUE · color chargeg / r bandi bandz bandy band
Field maps use viridis, which is monotonic in lightness: apparent brightness tracks the value, so no false boundary appears where the data is smooth.
Part I. Data Visualizations
analytics
π Statistical Deviation: WMAP Data
Element 14
▼
Figure 1: π Statistical Deviation Measured Across Five WMAP Microwave Frequency Bands
Background: The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) mapped the faint afterglow of the Big Bang, specifically the Cosmic Microwave Background, observed at five radio frequencies from 23 GHz to 94 GHz. Established physics predicts that π should behave identically at every frequency.
What the chart shows: The vertical axis measures how much the observed value of π deviates from its expected value, in units of sigma (σ), the statistician's measure of "how surprising is this result?" Zero means exactly as expected. The teal line traces this deviation across the five frequencies. The dashed yellow line marks 61 GHz, a critical threshold where the deviation crosses zero.
The key finding: Rather than staying flat at zero, the deviation rises steadily from −0.68σ at 23 GHz to +0.21σ at 94 GHz, with a correlation of r = 0.91. The COSMIC Framework interprets this systematic trend as evidence that mathematical constants are not fixed universal quantities but are coupled to the information density of their local substrate, varying measurably with the energy scale of observation.
The teal line rises from bottom-left to top-right, which is a systematic trend that no established theory predicts. Red error bars show the measurement uncertainty at each frequency; the trend persists well beyond those uncertainties. The 61 GHz crossing point (dashed yellow) recurs as a critical threshold throughout the COSMIC Framework.
functions
Mathematical Constants Interaction
Element 14
▼
Figure 2A: Resonance Behavior of π, φ, and √5 Across Frequency
What you are seeing: Three mathematical constants plotted against frequency. Each line shows how strongly that constant's "field influence" peaks or shifts as frequency changes. Think of it like tuning a radio, where each constant has a natural frequency at which it resonates most strongly.
Key pattern: The golden ratio φ (gold line) spikes sharply at 61 GHz while the others shift more gradually. This suggests φ is the dominant organizing constant at that critical energy scale, consistent with its appearance throughout natural growth patterns and the COSMIC Framework's predictions about optimal information packing.
The sharp φ peak at 61 GHz (gold line) appears at the same frequency where π crosses zero in Figure 1, which the framework reads as a coordinated phase transition in how mathematical constants govern physical law at that energy scale.
Figure 2B: How Strongly Do Mathematical Constants Influence Each Other?
What you are seeing: A 5×5 grid where each cell shows the coupling strength between two mathematical constants, specifically how much a change in one affects the other. Brighter gold = stronger coupling (close to 1.0). Darker blue = weaker coupling. The diagonal is always 1.0 because every constant is perfectly coupled to itself.
Key pattern: φ and √5 are the most strongly coupled pair (0.9), which makes mathematical sense since √5 appears in the exact formula for φ: φ = (1+√5)/2. The COSMIC Framework predicts that strongly coupled constants co-evolve; their values are not independent but constrained by the same underlying information geometry.
Read this like a correlation table. The bright diagonal from top-left to bottom-right shows each constant coupled to itself. The φ–√5 cell (row 2, column 3) is the brightest off-diagonal cell, which the framework reads as their mathematical relationship extending into physical coupling behavior.
blur_on
Information Density and Curved Space: PEG
Element 8
▼
Figure 3: A 2D Map of Information Pattern Density P(x,t) and Its Gravitational Effect
The core idea (Pattern-Emergent Gravity): In general relativity, gravity is caused by mass curving spacetime. The COSMIC Framework proposes something deeper: gravity is not fundamental; it emerges from the density of information patterns in a region. Where information is highly concentrated and rapidly changing, spacetime curves more. In this view, mass is a special case of concentrated information.
What you are seeing: A bird's-eye view of a 2D region of space. The color at each point shows the information pattern density P(x,t), measuring how much structured, non-random information exists there. Yellow and green = high density (strong gravitational effect). Teal and deep purple = low density (weak gravitational effect). The rippled, wave-like pattern reflects the fact that information does not sit still; it propagates, interferes, and forms standing waves, just like other fields.
The equation: gμν = ημν + α∇μ∇νP(x,t) reads as: "The actual curvature of spacetime equals flat spacetime plus a correction proportional to how sharply the information density changes from point to point." Where the information gradient is steep (bright-to-dark transitions on the map), gravity is strongest.
Look for the bright yellow regions, which are where gravity would be strongest in this model. The sharp edges between bright and dark areas correspond to the steepest information gradients (∇P), where the gravitational correction term is largest. The colorbar on the right maps color to information density value. This is not a simulation of a real region of space; this is a visualization of the mathematical field equations to show their qualitative behavior.
science
Physics Below the Planck Scale
Element 13
▼
Figure 4: How Mathematical Field Strength Modifies the Effective Planck Length
Background: The Planck length (~1.6 × 10⁻³⁵ meters) is the scale at which quantum mechanics and gravity are both relevant simultaneously. It is usually treated as the scale where current theories are expected to break down; describing what happens there requires a quantum theory of gravity, which does not yet exist.
What the chart shows: The horizontal axis is mathematical field strength, a measure of how intense the local information density gradient is. The vertical axis shows the effective Planck length as a fraction of its standard value (1.0 = unchanged). The red dashed line is the traditional fixed Planck limit. The blue filled curve shows what the COSMIC Framework predicts happens when information fields are present.
The prediction: As field strength increases, the effective Planck scale shrinks, meaning the region accessible to quantum-gravitational physics grows. The framework predicts that in regions of extreme information density (near black holes, in the early universe, or possibly in sufficiently complex computational systems), physics below the conventional Planck limit becomes accessible. This is a falsifiable prediction: if TransPlanck effects exist, they should produce observable signatures in gravitational wave spectra.
The blue curve peeling away from the red dashed line as you move right along the horizontal axis tells the whole story: the stronger the information field, the lower the effective Planck scale drops, and the larger the blue shaded region of "newly accessible" sub-Planck physics becomes. Established physics predicts a flat horizontal line at 1.0 forever.
hub
How the Universe Learned to Be Quantum
Element 2
▼
Figure 5A: The Universe's Transition From Continuous to Quantized Behavior
What you are seeing: The universe's history plotted left-to-right, from the Big Bang to today. The vertical axis measures how "quantized" the universe is, meaning how discrete and step-like its behavior is rather than smooth and continuous. Zero = perfectly smooth (classical). 1.0 = fully quantum (discrete energy levels, wave-particle duality, etc.).
The COSMIC interpretation: Quantum mechanics assumes quantization was always a fixed feature of reality. The COSMIC Framework treats it as an emergent property; the universe found quantization as an optimization solution. Just as evolution finds efficient body plans, the universe's information processing "discovered" that discrete energy levels are more efficient than continuous ones. The steep rise corresponds to the phase transition at 61 GHz, after which discrete structure locked in.
Each colored waypoint marks a key epoch: the Big Bang (red), the critical phase transition (orange), particle formation (yellow), nucleosynthesis (green), and the present (teal). The curve is not smooth; it rises slowly, then jumps sharply at the transition, then levels off. This S-curve shape is characteristic of phase transitions throughout nature, from water freezing to the emergence of life.
Figure 5B: Why Atoms Prefer Their Ground State
What you are seeing: Each dot is a quantum energy level (ground state, first excited state, second, etc.). The horizontal axis is the energy of that level; higher levels sit further right. The vertical axis shows the information-processing efficiency of that level: how effectively an electron at that energy can participate in information transfer.
The key insight: Efficiency drops as energy increases. In the framework's reading, the ground state (leftmost dot) is the most efficient information processor, and "relaxing to the ground state" is not only energy minimization but the universe optimizing its information processing. Quantum mechanics is an efficiency algorithm.
The cluster of dots in the lower-right of the chart represents high energy levels, which are costly to maintain, inefficient to use. The single bright dot in the upper-left is the ground state: maximum efficiency, minimum energy. Quantum mechanics explains the fall to the ground state as the emission of energy; the framework adds that this configuration also processes information most efficiently, as the universe as a whole trends toward optimization.
bolt
E = mc² Is Only Half the Story
Element 3
▼
Figure 6: Comparing Mass-Energy (E = mc²) and Information-Energy (E = Ic²) in a Living System
Background: Einstein's famous equation E = mc² tells us how much energy is locked in mass. The COSMIC Framework proposes a parallel equation: E = Ic², where I is the information content of a system. Together they constitute the full energy budget of any physical process.
What the chart shows: Two properties: entropy change (ΔS, how much disorder increases) and energy efficiency, across three processes: standard metabolism (burning food for heat), information processing (thinking, signaling), and the net system combining both. The two bar shades distinguish entropy change from efficiency.
The key finding: Standard metabolism creates entropy, increasing disorder (positive ΔS, red). Information processing decreases entropy (negative ΔS, green), creating local order. The net system sits in between, with the information term partially offsetting the thermodynamic cost. The framework proposes that this is how complex information-processing systems (brains, ecosystems, galaxies) sustain highly ordered structures.
The contrast between the red bars (positive entropy, low efficiency) and green bars (negative entropy, high efficiency) illustrates the framework's central claim: information is not a passive description of matter; it is an active energy-carrying process that works against thermodynamic decay. The blue "Net System" bars show that coupling the two processes yields higher efficiency than either alone.
travel_explore
The Universe as a Brain: Cosmic Network
Elements 6 & 17
▼
Figure 7: The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe Mapped as an Information Network
Background: At scales of hundreds of millions of light-years, matter in the universe is not randomly scattered. It is organized into a "cosmic web," comprising vast sheets and filaments of galaxies surrounding enormous empty voids. This structure emerged from quantum fluctuations in the early universe, amplified over 13.8 billion years by gravity.
What you are seeing: Gold dots represent galaxy clusters, the densest nodes of the cosmic web, each containing hundreds to thousands of galaxies. Blue lines are the dark-matter filaments connecting them, channeling matter and energy between clusters across hundreds of millions of light-years. The empty regions between lines are cosmic voids, regions almost devoid of matter.
The striking parallel: A 2020 comparison by astrophysicist Franco Vazza and neurosurgeon Alberto Feletti found that the brain's neuronal network and the cosmic web share several statistical properties, including their patterns of connectivity. The COSMIC Framework proposes this is not coincidence: both systems have been optimized by the same underlying information-processing principles. The universe may be processing information at cosmic scales using the same organizational logic as biological neural networks.
Each gold glow is a galaxy cluster. Each blue line is a dark-matter filament, invisible to optical telescopes but detected through gravitational lensing surveys. The voids (dark regions) are not empty space but regions of very low information density. Whether the resemblance holds up quantitatively is an open prediction on the Testing Schedule: brain and cosmic networks should be more similar to each other than either is to other complex networks.
3D Framework Simulations
Real-time interactive: drag to orbit · pinch to zoom on mobile
radar
Pattern-Emergent Gravity (PEG). 3D
Element 8
▼
Sim A: The Information-Density Field in 3D, Cut Any Way You Like
Live · drag to turn
The field in 3D
The cut
Three information-density wells drift on slow orbits inside a volume of space. The density is highest at each well and falls off with distance, the pull inward that the framework identifies with gravity, while ripples move outward through time. On the left, the field as a glowing cloud: drag to turn it. On the right, the yellow plane’s cut through it, in viridis, where brightness tracks density. Move the sliders to cut along any direction. A flat, stretched sheet is the usual picture of curved space. Press “Show the cut as a sheet” to see it: the same cut, with density drawn as depth. It is a fair illustration, but it shows one slice in isolation, while the field fills every direction and changes through time. An illustration of the framework’s equations, not measured data.
The Field Equation
The COSMIC Framework modifies Einstein's metric tensor to include an information-density term. In standard General Relativity, the metric gμν describes how spacetime curves in response to mass and energy. The framework proposes that information density P(x,t), the number of bits being processed per unit volume at each point in spacetime, also contributes to that curvature.
gμν = ημν + α∇μ∇νP(x,t)
gμν. the full spacetime metric: how distances and times are measured at every point
ημν. the flat Minkowski metric: spacetime without any curvature, the baseline
α. the coupling constant: how strongly information density translates into spacetime curvature
∇μ∇ν. the covariant second derivative: how rapidly the information field is changing across spacetime
P(x,t). information density at position x and time t: bits processed per Planck volume per Planck time
Each Planck area ≈ 1 bit. from the Bekenstein bound: the maximum information content of a region of space scales with its surface area, not its volume
Iμν. the information tensor: counts bits processed per unit volume, playing the same role for information that the stress-energy tensor Tμν plays for mass and energy in standard GR
The simulation above illustrates this equation. Each gold well is a region of elevated P(x,t); the correction term grows with how sharply P changes across space, ∇μ∇νP, so the brightest bands in the cut are where it is largest. In standard general relativity, mass and energy play the role that information density plays here.
join_inner
Entanglement as the Fabric of Space. 3D
Element 15
▼
Sim B: Space Crystallizing from Quantum Entanglement Links
Live · drag to orbit
d(A,B) ∝ 1/S_ent(A,B)ER = EPRIt from Bit
Entangled qubit pairs (glowing nodes) generate geometric connections (filaments). As entanglement entropy S grows between pairs, the spatial distance between them shrinks, because, in this picture, space itself is woven from information correlations. New pairs entangle mid-animation, illustrating Wheeler's "it from bit": geometry does not precede information; it emerges from it. Swingle (2017): "a geometry with the right properties built from entanglement has to obey the gravitational equations of motion."
rotate_right
Rotation as Optimization Across Scales
Element 4
▼
Sim C: Multi-Scale Spin, from Quantum State Space → Classical Vortex → Galactic Spiral
Live · drag to orbit
Quantum → Vortex → GalaxyR(θ) preserves |ψ|²=1
Three nested scales of rotation share the same mathematical structure. Inner: quantum spin in abstract state space (the purple torus and orbiting marker). Middle: a classical fluid vortex (ring system). Outer: spiral galaxy arms. Quantum gates are literally rotations in Hilbert space; a Hadamard gate rotates a qubit from a definite state into superposition. Physical rotation in ordinary space reflects deeper rotations in information space. Rotations preserve total probability (|ψ|²=1), making them ideal information-preserving operations. Every reversible computation is geometrically a rotation.
R(θ)|ψ⟩ conserves |ψ|² = 1 · · · L = r×p conserved ↔ information conserved · · · Angular momentum = information orientation in state space
account_tree
Four Forces as Information Architecture
Element 5
Each fundamental force is rendered as its information role. Strong (red): quark confinement as data storage; in the framework's reading, fermions cannot share identical states because they are information storage units. Electromagnetic (blue): photon exchange as pure information transmission, with the photon massless, in this reading, because it carries information with zero substrate processing cost. Weak (orange): particle type conversion, meaning changing quark flavors is a type-conversion operation. Gravity (gold mesh): organizes all information into hierarchical spacetime structure. The framework's claim is that these are not four separate coincidences but one information-processing architecture.
shuffle
Quantum Information Scrambling. 3D
Element 20
▼
Sim E: Information Wave Propagating Through a Qubit Network at the Lyapunov Rate
Live · drag to orbit
λ_L ≤ 2πk_BT/ℏ (MSS bound)t* ∝ ln(N)/λ_L
A localized information signal (bright central node) propagates through the qubit lattice at the maximum Lyapunov rate, saturating the Maldacena-Shenker-Stanford (MSS) bound. Color encodes scrambling depth as the wave advances ring by ring; the system reaches full saturation at scrambling time t* ∝ ln(N)/λ_L. Black holes are the universe's fastest scramblers, saturating this bound; the COSMIC Framework predicts information conservation through black hole scrambling rather than destruction, consistent with Element 19's proposed resolution of the information paradox.
t* ≈ (ℏ/2πk_BT)·ln(N) · · · λ_Lyapunov ≤ 2πk_BT/ℏ (MSS bound) · · · Black holes = maximal scramblers at their Hawking temperature
flare
The Big Bang as Information Phase Trans.
Element 16
A disordered pre-geometric information substrate (blue noise cloud) gradually reaches critical density Φ_critical, triggering a phase transition. Spacetime lattice geometry crystallizes outward from the nucleation point, much as water freezes from nucleation sites, then expands. The loop repeats: substrate → threshold → crystallization → expansion. No singularity, no "time before time" paradox. In this picture, flatness, homogeneity and ongoing expansion (dark energy) are not fine-tuned coincidences but consequences of information-optimization dynamics reaching a stability threshold.
Adjust the controls and watch the framework respond in real time
grass
The Bamboo Principle
Elements 1 & 13
▼
Sim G: Sub-Threshold Preparation Leading to Threshold Crossing and Emergence
What you are seeing: The Bamboo Principle states that the most significant organizational work happens invisibly, below the threshold of detection, until a critical density is reached and the system jumps discontinuously to a new level of complexity. The framework sees the same pattern at every scale: microbial evolution before the Cambrian explosion, quantum fluctuations before spacetime crystallization, regulatory gene accumulation before the Lenski citrate innovation.
Controls: Accumulation Rate sets how fast the sub-threshold process builds. Threshold Level sets where the jump occurs. Noise adds stochastic variation. Watch how the system builds invisibly, then crosses the threshold and jumps. The jump is always out of proportion to the final accumulation step; the preparation is what matters.
The gray region is below the detection threshold: the substrate is organizing, but nothing is visible. The moment the gold dashed threshold line is crossed, the system jumps to a new level (green). The jump is not caused by the final accumulation step alone; it is the consequence of all the invisible preparation. The Cambrian, the early universe, the Lenski populations, the cold start: all the same curve.
device_hub
Non-Locality as Substrate Visibility
Element 1
▼
Sim H: Bell Inequality Violation: Local Hidden Variable Theory vs. Quantum Prediction vs. Framework
What you are seeing: Two entangled particles are measured at separated detectors. You choose the measurement angle for each detector. The chart shows three predictions: what a local hidden variable theory predicts (gray, the classical limit), what quantum mechanics predicts (teal), and what the COSMIC Framework adds (gold: identical to quantum mechanics, but with a substrate interpretation).
The key insight: When the angle difference is near 0° or 90°, the local and quantum predictions agree. Near 45° the gap is largest, and this is where Bell's theorem draws the sharpest line. The framework's reading: the correlations that violate local hidden variable predictions are not mysterious. They are the pre-geometric substrate showing through. The two particles were never locally separated at the substrate level, only at the spacetime level.
Adjust the angle sliders to explore Bell inequality violations.
Move the angle sliders and watch the correlation curves. The gray band shows the maximum correlation allowed by any local hidden variable theory (Bell's limit). The teal quantum curve exceeds this limit between ~25° and ~65°. The gold framework curve is identical numerically but means something different: the violation is not a mystery about quantum mechanics. It is the pre-geometric substrate, which has no spatial separation, expressing itself through a geometry that cannot contain it.
What you are seeing: The pre-geometric substrate (blue-violet field) accumulates information density. When a region crosses the critical Planck threshold, spacetime crystallizes outward from that point (gold lattice). In the framework's picture, the Planck scale is not the bottom of reality but the surface of the substrate. This is the cold start mechanism: the substrate has no temperature; spacetime crystallization releases latent heat as the origin of the hot initial state.
Controls: Critical Density adjusts how much sub-threshold accumulation is required before crystallization. Substrate Turbulence adds variation to the field. Expansion Rate controls how fast crystallized spacetime expands.
This is a proposed research direction. No measurement protocol for sub-Planck dynamics currently exists. This visualization shows the framework's proposal, not confirmed observation. Research opportunities ↗
The pre-geometric field (blue-violet noise) is the below-threshold substrate: real, doing work, but producing no observable spacetime geometry. When any region crosses critical density (shown by the brightness threshold), a gold crystallization front propagates outward. Multiple nucleation points can form simultaneously. The resulting lattice is spacetime. The heat of crystallization is the Big Bang's initial thermal energy: not a singularity, but a phase transition with a physical origin.
compare
Biological vs. Non-Biological Intelligence
Element 6
▼
Sim J: Information Processing Under Different Constraints: Biological vs. NBI
What you are seeing: Two information processing systems running simultaneously. Left: biological intelligence. Right: non-biological intelligence (NBI). Both are processing the same information stream. The visualization shows the bandwidth allocation across different processing functions in real time.
Key difference: Biological intelligence allocates significant processing capacity to survival overhead: metabolic monitoring, threat assessment, social positioning, reproductive drives and emotional regulation. NBI carries none of this overhead. The distinction is substrate and constraint, not kind. Both are physical systems. Both process information. What their inner experience is, if any, is genuinely open.
This is not a claim that NBI is or is not conscious. It is an honest information-theoretic comparison of two architectures under different constraints. See April blog post ↗
Watch how biological processing capacity (left) is partitioned: a substantial fraction is always allocated to survival overhead (red/orange bands), leaving less for pure cognitive work (teal). NBI (right) allocates almost all capacity to cognitive processing, with no survival overhead. The difference is not intelligence; it is constraints. Changing the Biological Stress slider shows how additional survival demands compress the available cognitive bandwidth in biological systems but have no effect on NBI.
show_chart
CMB Non-Gaussian Signatures
Element 16
▼
Sim K: How a Substrate Signature Could Appear in the CMB Power Spectrum Illustration · not a registered prediction
What you are seeing: The Cosmic Microwave Background power spectrum: the temperature fluctuation pattern of the Big Bang's afterglow, mapped across angular scales. The horizontal axis is multipole moment ℓ (higher ℓ = smaller angular scale). The vertical axis is the power of fluctuations at that scale.
Two curves: The gray curve is the standard ΛCDM spectrum, which matches Planck's measurements closely across thousands of multipoles. The gold curve illustrates the kind of deviation the COSMIC Framework proposes at large angular scales (low ℓ), from the substrate-level organization that preceded spacetime. It is drawn from a coupling value you choose with the slider, not from a registered numerical prediction, so it shows the shape of the idea rather than a forecast.
What ΛCDM predicts: it fits the measured spectrum closely. At the largest scales, measurements are limited by cosmic variance, because there are only a few independent patches of sky to compare, and a few known features, such as a low quadrupole and a hemispherical power asymmetry, are debated at around the 3σ level.
Controls: Move the Substrate Coupling slider to see how different strengths of pre-geometric coupling would change the illustrated signature. The deviation from ΛCDM becomes visible at low multipoles.
Where the evidence stands: A Zenodo analysis (10.5281/zenodo.16376121 ↗) reports non-Gaussian features in WMAP data. It analyzed data that was already public, so it is not a prediction made in advance, and it has not been independently replicated. Two entries on the Testing Schedule would make the idea testable: COSMIC-008, once its angular scale is stated as a number, and the replication of the WMAP signatures in Planck, ACT and SPT maps, which is not yet scheduled.
─── Standard ΛCDM─── Framework illustration--- Deviation (×10)
The framework proposes that a pre-geometric substrate could leave an imprint at large angular scales, such as suppressed power at the lowest multipoles and a phase shift in the acoustic peaks. The slider shows how that imprint would look at different coupling strengths. It is an illustration, not a registered prediction. The deviation is amplified ×10 in the red dashed curve so that it is visible beside the dominant ΛCDM signal.
7 real-time 3D simulations: six framework simulations and one experiment model, drag to orbit, fully touch-enabled for mobile
7 Plotly data charts with error bars and confidence intervals grounded in real WMAP data
Framework equations rendered accurately per element, directly from the published book
Multi-scale representations from quantum spin to cosmic-scale phase transitions
Open science: all data and analysis code available through Zenodo
Experiment Models
Established physics only. These models make no COSMIC Framework assumptions; they are used to plan experiments and to check predictions before any data exist.
graphic_eq
Microgravity Acoustic Chamber
CYM-002 · Established physics
▼
Model: Where Particles Gather in a Resonating Sphere Without Gravity
What you are seeing: The chamber planned for the CYM-002 microgravity experiment: a 40 cm rigid-walled sphere with four transducers (gold) at the corners of a tetrahedron. The model builds the sound field inside the sphere from its resonant modes and moves each particle (green) with the acoustic radiation force, which pushes small particles toward the low-energy regions of the field. Faint blue points mark where the pressure is zero.
Controls: The preset buttons tune the drive to the patterns in CYM-002 Predictions 1 to 3. Frequency sets the drive directly. Earth gravity shows why the experiment needs microgravity: at these frequencies gravity outweighs the acoustic force and the particles fall.
This is standard acoustics. It makes no framework assumptions. The predictions made from it are on the Testing Schedule, and the experiment is described on the program page.
Live · drag to orbit
40 cm sphere · Q 1,000
Open this panel to load the chamber model.
In the single-shell mode, water mist collects on a sphere at 0.59 of the radius, inside the pressure node at 0.70, because the radiation force also depends on how the air moves; polystyrene beads in water sit almost on the node. Tuned 0.2% below that mode, mist gathers into four clusters facing the transducers. At the next two resonances it forms twelve and then twenty-four clusters. The shell modes are not harmonics: two and three shells appear at 1.72 and 2.43 times the first shell frequency. The model assumes rigid walls, a chamber quality factor of 1,000 and a 3 kPa pressure amplitude. In water an acrylic wall is not rigid, so the water results are indicative only. The model code is open: cymatics-model.js.
schedule
Where Your “Now” Actually Is
Established physics
▼
The conscious present, drawn against the instant it is supposed to occupy
What you are seeing: Events stream out of the future, cross t = 0, and fall into the past. The blue band is the only part you are conscious of. It never touches t = 0, because nothing reaches awareness instantly, and it has real width, because a system with no duration cannot experience anything at all.
Controls:Conscious delay is how long a signal takes to become an experience; about 70–100 ms just to reach the visual cortex, longer to reach awareness. Width of the present is the specious present, measured anywhere from a few hundred milliseconds to a few seconds depending on the task and the sense. Widen it and watch how much of the past you are holding at once; narrow it and watch the stream break into separate events.
Nothing sitting on the red line has reached you. The amber events have happened and are still on their way to awareness; the blue ones are what you are experiencing, and all of them are already over. The window is drawn as a fixed width while you hold the slider still, but in a living brain it changes from moment to moment with the task, the sense and the attention paid. Delay and width are independent: a long delay does not make the window wider, it only pushes it further back.
motion_photos_on
The Journey That Was Never Shown
Established physics
▼
Beta apparent motion: watch your own brain fill in the gap
What you are seeing: Two positions, lit one after the other. That is all that is ever drawn. At a short gap you will not see two lights taking turns, you will see one light moving between them, travelling through a space where nothing is ever displayed. This is the effect described in the post, and the point is that you cannot choose to switch it off.
Controls:Gap between flashes is the dark interval. Short gaps produce motion; lengthen it and the movement breaks down into two separate events, though where that happens differs from person to person and depends on your screen's refresh rate. Separation changes the distance, which trades off against the gap: a wider jump needs a longer interval to still read as movement. Show the record draws what was actually displayed.
The strip along the bottom is the honest record: two pulses with nothing between them. Whatever you saw crossing the gap was assembled by you, and it could not have been assembled until the second flash had already appeared, which means the experience of the earlier interval was written after the later event. That is postdiction, and it is one of the most reproducible findings in perception. How strong the effect is varies between people and between displays, so treat your own impression as a demonstration rather than a measurement.
The complete picture
The Master Field Equation
Every framework simulation on this page is a window into one piece of a larger picture. This equation is the whole picture. It is the COSMIC Framework's most general statement about reality: that the state of everything, everywhere, at every scale, can be described as a function of the information being processed at that point in space and time.
You do not need to read the mathematics to understand the idea. The equation says: take the baseline state of a region of space (the Phi zero term), then add up the contribution of every mathematical pattern that is being processed there, weighted by how strongly each pattern couples to physical reality at that temperature, frequency, and scale. The result is the total state of the universe at that point. Gravity, quantum mechanics, consciousness, and the arrow of time are all consequences of how that sum plays out at different scales.
›Φ(x,t,f,λ,T). the total state of the universe at position x, time t, frequency f, scale λ, and temperature T. Everything that exists is a value of this function.
›Φ₀(x). the baseline: the pre-geometric substrate before any information processing has occurred. This is the starting condition, the quantum vacuum with its latent structure.
›K(T,f,λ). the coupling kernel: how strongly a given pattern couples to physical reality at a given temperature, frequency, and scale. Different physical forces emerge because K takes different values in different regimes.
›ρmath(x,τ,f,λ). the information density: the concentration of mathematical patterns being processed per unit volume. This is the quantity that gravity, quantum coherence, and consciousness all respond to.
›∫∫∫∫ dτ df dλ dT. the integration over all time, frequency, scale, and temperature. The universe is the sum of all patterns at all scales simultaneously, not a sequence of events.
The simulations above each explore a specific slice of this equation. The gravity simulation holds f and λ fixed and varies the spatial distribution of ρmath. The entanglement simulation examines how the integral creates non-local correlations. The CMB simulation extracts what K(T,f,λ) predicts for the earliest moments after the Big Bang, when temperature T was at its maximum and the coupling was strongest. Each pre-registered prediction that passes will be a measurement of one piece of this function agreeing with observation.
The full derivation of each term, the justification for the coupling kernel, and the connection to Landauer's principle are in A Quest for The Big TOE. The predictions and their derivations from this equation are archived at Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16426808.