Last updated: November 8, 2025

Comparative Analysis Between John Onimisi Obidi’s Theory of Entropicity (ToE) and Waldemar Marek Feldt’s FELDT-HIGGS Universal Bridge (F-HUB) Theory

From Information Fields to Entropic Dynamics: Evaluating Competing Foundations for a Post-Einsteinian Physics in Our Understanding of Nature and Reality

Introduction

In the unfolding landscape of twenty-first-century theoretical physics, the search for unifying principles that can reconcile quantum mechanics, gravitation, and thermodynamics has become a defining intellectual frontier. Among the emerging frameworks that attempt to move beyond the limitations of Einstein’s geometric spacetime and the probabilistic formalism of quantum theory are two bold proposals: John Onimisi Obidi’s Theory of Entropicity (ToE) and Waldemar Marek Feldt’s FELDT-HIGGS Universal Bridge (F-HUB) Theory. Though they arise from different philosophical and mathematical traditions, both theories converge on a striking intuition — that the universe is not fundamentally mechanical or geometric but informational and entropic in nature. Yet, each articulates this intuition through distinct first principles, mathematical architectures, and ontological hierarchies.

Obidi’s Theory of Entropicity (ToE) reconceptualizes entropy as the primary causal field of reality — a continuous, dynamical, and universal force that governs the emergence of mass, motion, and spacetime itself. In ToE, the second law of thermodynamics is not a constraint but a generative principle: the universe evolves by maximizing entropy through a self-organizing, time-asymmetric process encoded in the Obidi Action and the Vuli Ndlela Integral. These foundational equations establish a variational framework in which gravitational attraction, relativistic kinematics, and quantum probability all arise as manifestations of entropy’s drive toward optimal reconfiguration. The speed of light is reinterpreted as the maximum rate of entropic information redistribution, making relativity an emergent property of entropy rather than an imposed geometric invariant. Through this lens, time dilation, length contraction, and mass increase are natural consequences of entropy’s finite update speed — an idea that recasts the very meaning of motion and causality.

Feldt’s FELDT-HIGGS Universal Bridge (F-HUB) theory, by contrast, situates its foundation in the interaction between quantum information and the Higgs field. It envisions a universe in which mass, gravity, and spacetime emerge from a deeper informational substrate governed by an algebraic “master equation” linking entropy, mass, Boltzmann’s constant, and the Higgs contribution. While F-HUB shares ToE’s conviction that entropy and information underlie physical reality, it treats these quantities primarily as structural descriptors of the informational network from which spacetime geometry arises. Its focus lies in revealing how the Higgs mechanism — long regarded as the source of mass in the Standard Model — may itself be a by-product of informational symmetry breaking at the quantum level.

The contrast between the two theories is profound. ToE presents a field-theoretic and variational model in which entropy behaves as a real, continuous field that evolves dynamically across spacetime, generating curvature, energy, and motion. F-HUB, on the other hand, offers a phenomenological and algebraic bridge between information and physics, using the Higgs interaction as a unifying element but without yet formulating a full-fledged field equation. Where ToE generalizes thermodynamics into a universal causal law, F-HUB embeds thermodynamic and informational relations within an existing physical ontology. The former is thus a first-principles reconstruction of physics from entropy; the latter, an informational extension of known physics.

This comparative study examines the philosophical foundations, mathematical formalisms, and physical implications of both frameworks. It traces their shared origins in information theory and thermodynamics, analyzes their divergent formulations of entropy, and evaluates how each theory addresses the perennial questions of mass generation, gravitational attraction, relativistic invariance, and the arrow of time. The discussion also explores the potential complementarity between the two approaches — whether F-HUB’s information-Higgs paradigm can be viewed as a subset or emergent limit within ToE’s entropic field dynamics, and how both contribute to the broader quest for a unified theory of nature.

By placing these two modern entropic theories side by side, this paper seeks not only to highlight their differences but to illuminate their shared ambition: to move physics beyond static geometry and probabilistic abstraction toward a living, self-organizing universe driven by the flow of entropy and information. In that sense, both ToE and F-HUB belong to the same intellectual lineage that began with Boltzmann, extended through Shannon, and now finds new life in the synthesis of entropy, information, and cosmological structure. Their comparison offers a glimpse of how future physics may finally unite the thermodynamic, quantum, and relativistic descriptions of reality under a single entropic principle.

Foundational Premises

Mathematical Architecture

F-HUB

Uses a single “master equation”:
$S = (H' \cdot M^2 \cdot k_B \cdot \alpha) / c^3$
which ties mass $M$ , the Higgs field contribution $H'$ , and entropy $S$ .
It is dimensionally consistent but phenomenological, not a field equation.
Does not yield Euler–Lagrange dynamics or spacetime tensors; rather, it gives algebraic proportionalities.
Verification is numerical (Python, symbolic solvers) — not variational.

ToE

Begins from the Obidi Action and its path-integral form (Vuli-Ndlela Integral),
combining a classical term, gravitational entropy term, and irreversibility term.
Produces full field equations, geodesics, and the Master Entropic Equation (MEE).
Predicts observable phenomena (light bending, perihelion precession, entanglement delays) directly from these equations.
Entropy is treated as a tensorial field $S(x)$ obeying a differential field equation, not merely an algebraic relation.

Summary: F-HUB provides a scalar correlation; ToE constructs a continuous field theory with explicit dynamical evolution.

Concept of Entropy

Relation to Other Theories

Mathematical and Physical Scope

Conceptual Differences

1. Origin of Mass:

F-HUB → Higgs × Information interaction.
ToE → Frozen Entropy; mass is constrained entropic flux.

2. Nature of Gravity:

F-HUB → Informational optimization effect.
ToE → Entropy flow curvature; gravitational potential is an entropy potential.

3. Role of Light:

F-HUB keeps light fundamental.
ToE redefines light as the signal speed of entropy propagation — the Pyros limit.

4. Temporal Dynamics:

F-HUB: time as structural evolution.
ToE: time as entropic irreversibility, giving dilation and causality.

5. Epistemic Status:

F-HUB remains within informational metaphysics.
ToE is a physical field theory intended to subsume relativity and quantum mechanics.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Synthesis and Comparative Assessment

Both theories share the intuition that spacetime, mass, and gravity are emergent — not fundamental — and both root their explanation in entropy and information.
However, their ontological hierarchies differ:

F-HUB: Information → Entropy → Mass → Gravity → Spacetime.
ToE: Entropy → Information → Mass → Motion → Spacetime.

In effect, ToE reverses the causal order: entropy is not produced by information—it produces it.
Thus, ToE can be viewed as a deeper physical layer beneath F-HUB’s informational emergence model.

Final Evaluation

Conclusion

F-HUB and ToE both dismantle the assumption that spacetime and gravity are fundamental.
F-HUB views them as outcomes of quantum information structuring through the Higgs field.
ToE goes further — entropy itself becomes the field from which information, Higgs structure, and all motion arise.
Hence, ToE can be interpreted as the next-generation generalization of F-HUB, where information is a manifestation of entropy, not its foundation.

References

Theory of Entropicity (ToE) by John Onimisi Obidi