Earlier updated: Monday, December 1, 2025
The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) Compels Us to Rethink Our Understanding of Reality and the Universe
How the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) Challenges Our Understanding of Nature and Reality at a Fundamental Level
Prologue
If taken seriously, the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) doesn’t just tweak a corner of physics, it cuts across the deepest layers of how we think about nature. It forces us to revisit three intertwined arenas in physics, science and, of course, philosophy.
For more than a century, physics has been built on three towering pillars: relativity, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics. Each has its own language, its own constants, and its own paradoxes. Relativity gave us the geometry of spacetime and the universal speed limit. Quantum mechanics revealed the probabilistic fabric of matter and energy. Thermodynamics, older and more humble, taught us that entropy always increases, that time has a direction, and that no machine can be perfectly efficient.
Yet these pillars have never sat comfortably together. Relativity is deterministic and geometric; quantum mechanics is probabilistic and nonlocal; thermodynamics is statistical and irreversible. The seams between them are where paradoxes live: black hole information loss, the measurement problem, the arrow of time.
The Theory of Entropicity enters precisely at these seams. It suggests that entropy is not a secondary bookkeeping device, but the primary field from which geometry, causality, and even quantum behavior emerge. In this view, the speed of light is not a decree but a consequence; entanglement is not instantaneous but bounded; and the arrow of time is not an accident of statistics but the very scaffolding of reality.
This is not merely a technical adjustment. It is a conceptual upheaval. ToE asks us to reconsider what we mean by “law of nature,” what we mean by “cause and effect,” and even what we mean by “existence.” It is as much a philosophical provocation as it is a mathematical framework.
In the sections that follow, we will explore how ToE reshapes:
The conceptual foundations of physics, by reframing causality and constants as emergent from entropy.
The experimental frontier, where attosecond measurements and entanglement delays provide empirical cross‑checks.
The philosophical implications, where questions of determinism, emergence, and the nature of time are reopened with new clarity.
The Theory of Entropicity is not content to live in the margins. It insists on being tested against the hardest problems and the fastest timescales. And in doing so, it challenges us to imagine a universe where entropy is not the shadow of order, but the very light by which we see.
This paper is not meant to be read passively, like a catalogue of equations or a museum of old debates. It is an invitation to think with me, to test the boundaries of what physics can say, and to wrestle with the philosophical weight of entropy as the foundation of reality. Whether you come as a physicist, a philosopher, or simply a curious mind, you are stepping into a conversation that stretches from Boltzmann’s notebooks to Einstein’s postulates, from Landauer’s principle to the attosecond frontier. The Theory of Entropicity is not finished — it is being built in real time. And by reading on, you become part of that construction.
Conceptual
Causality re‑framed: Instead of assuming light speed as a postulate, ToE derives it from entropy flow. That shifts the “why” of relativity from geometry alone to a thermodynamic principle. This gives us greater insight about nature and reality: that our world and our reality are fundamentally shaped, regenerated and dictated by the principles of thermodynamics, far much more than we are currently willing to concede.
Seen this way, causality is not simply a geometric alignment of events in spacetime, but the unfolding of entropy itself. The null cone — the ultimate boundary of cause and effect — is nothing other than the entropic cone, the surface along which entropy can be transported without violation of the No‑Rush Theorem. This means that the causal structure of the universe is not imposed from outside, but emerges from the same principle that governs the melting of ice, the burning of stars, and the irreversible arrow of time.
This reframing also dissolves a long‑standing tension: relativity treats the speed of light as a universal constant, while thermodynamics treats entropy as a statistical tendency. ToE unifies them by showing that the constancy of cc is itself a thermodynamic necessity. The “speed of light” is not a mysterious decree of nature, but the maximum rate at which entropy — and therefore information and energy — can propagate.
Philosophically, this is profound. It suggests that the very fabric of reality is not geometry first, but thermodynamics first. Geometry becomes the shadow cast by entropy’s flow. The arrow of time, often treated as an emergent illusion, is instead the scaffolding of causality itself. And the universality of cc is no longer a brute fact, but a derived consequence of the entropic field.
Analogy. Imagine dropping a stone into a still pond. Ripples spread outward, but their speed is not arbitrary — it is fixed by the properties of the water itself: its density, its surface tension, its compressibility. You cannot will the ripples to move faster than the medium allows. In the same way, ToE tells us that the “ripples” of causality — light, matter, information — spread through the entropic field at a speed dictated by its constitutive constants. Just as the pond’s physics sets the ripple speed, the entropic field sets the universal speed limit.
In this light, ToE does more than reinterpret Einstein — it re‑roots him. It shows that relativity’s deepest truths are not exceptions to thermodynamics but expressions of it. The cosmos is not only curved by mass and energy; it is continuously sculpted by entropy, which dictates not just how fast we can move, but what it means for one event to cause another.
Entanglement with delay: The finite entanglement time of about 232 attoseconds challenges the long‑standing intuition that quantum correlations are “instantaneous.” For decades, entanglement was described as if two particles, no matter how far apart, could influence one another outside the normal flow of time. This picture was always unsettling: it seemed to brush against relativity’s prohibition on faster‑than‑light signals.
The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) provides a natural resolution. In ToE, correlations are still bound by the entropic cone — the same causal structure that governs light, matter, and information. Entanglement does not leap across space in zero time; it unfolds within the universal speed limit dictated by entropy flow. The measured 232‑attosecond delay is not an accident of experimental technique, but a glimpse of the entropic field at work, enforcing causality even in the quantum domain.
This reframing has profound consequences. It means that quantum mechanics and relativity are not in quiet conflict, patched together by interpretive compromises, but are both expressions of the same entropic law. The “spooky action at a distance” that Einstein distrusted is revealed to be less spooky and more lawful: entanglement correlations respect the same causal scaffolding as every other process in the universe.
Analogy. Imagine two dancers on opposite sides of a stage. From the audience’s perspective, their movements seem perfectly synchronized, as if one instantly knows what the other will do. But behind the scenes, there is a hidden rhythm — a beat that travels through the floorboards, imperceptible but finite in speed. Their synchronicity is not magic; it is mediated by that rhythm. In the same way, entangled particles appear to “know” each other’s states instantly, but ToE reveals the hidden rhythm: the entropic field, which transmits correlations at a finite, measurable pace.
By showing that entanglement is delayed rather than instantaneous, ToE not only preserves causality but also deepens our understanding of quantum reality. It tells us that even the most mysterious quantum phenomena are tethered to the same entropic cone that governs stars, black holes, and the arrow of time.
Arrow of time: By making entropy the fundamental field, the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) elevates the second law of thermodynamics from a statistical tendency to a structural law of the universe. In classical physics, the second law is often described as a matter of probability: left to themselves, systems tend to move from order to disorder simply because there are more disordered states available. But in ToE, this is no longer a matter of chance. The increase of entropy is not a statistical accident — it is the very architecture of reality.
This shift has profound consequences. It means that the arrow of time is not an emergent illusion arising from the collective behavior of particles, but a built‑in feature of the entropic field itself. Time “flows” because entropy flows, and the direction of causality is defined by the direction of increasing entropy. The past and the future are not symmetric mirrors; they are distinguished by the structural asymmetry of the entropic field.
This perspective also reframes some of physics’ deepest puzzles. Why do we remember the past but not the future? Why do stars burn out, why do black holes radiate, why does the universe expand irreversibly? In ToE, the answer is unified: all of these are expressions of the entropic field’s one‑way scaffolding. The second law is not a rule applied to matter within spacetime — it is the rule that gives spacetime its sense of before and after.
Analogy. Imagine a river flowing downhill. You can swim against the current for a while, you can build dams and eddies, but the river’s direction is set by the landscape itself. In ToE, entropy is that landscape. The arrow of time is not a statistical current that might, by rare chance, reverse; it is the slope of reality itself. Everything that happens — from the decay of particles to the unfolding of galaxies — is carried along by this entropic descent.
By elevating entropy to a fundamental field, ToE transforms the second law into the backbone of causality. Time is not an independent dimension through which entropy happens to increase; rather, entropy is the field that makes time directional in the first place.
Philosophical
Determinism vs. emergence: If entropy is the root field, then spacetime, matter, and even quantum laws are emergent. This reframing re‑opens one of the oldest debates in philosophy and physics: is the universe fundamentally geometric, informational, or entropic?
Classical physics leaned toward determinism: the universe as a vast machine, its future states locked in by initial conditions and the geometry of spacetime. Quantum mechanics unsettled that picture, introducing probabilities, uncertainties, and the sense that reality itself “emerges” only when observed. Thermodynamics, meanwhile, has always sat uneasily between the two — its laws are statistical, yet they feel inexorable.
The Theory of Entropicity offers a synthesis. If entropy is the primary field, then determinism and emergence are not opposites but two sides of the same coin. The entropic field sets the structural constraints — the causal cone, the universal speed limit, the arrow of time — and within those constraints, emergent phenomena like spacetime geometry, quantum probabilities, and matter itself unfold. Determinism governs the boundaries; emergence fills in the details.
This perspective also reframes the role of “laws of physics.” Instead of being eternal decrees written into the fabric of spacetime, they become emergent regularities shaped by the deeper entropic field. Geometry is not fundamental but derivative; information is not primary but a manifestation of entropy’s flow. The universe is neither a perfect machine nor a pure accident of chance — it is an entropic process, structured yet creative.
Analogy. Think of a musical score. The key signature and tempo markings set strict boundaries: they determine what counts as consonant or dissonant, fast or slow. But within those boundaries, melodies and harmonies emerge, sometimes predictable, sometimes surprising. In ToE, entropy is the key signature of the cosmos. It dictates the rules of causality and flow, but the “music” of spacetime, matter, and quantum events emerges within that framework.
By placing entropy at the root, ToE doesn’t erase the debate between determinism and emergence — it reframes it. The universe is not fundamentally geometric, nor purely informational, but entropic: a field that both constrains and generates, both limits and liberates.
Universality of limits: The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) suggests that the speed of light is not a “given” but a consequence of deeper constraints. Philosophically, that’s a profound shift — constants of nature become derived necessities, not arbitrary features.
In standard physics, constants such as c, ℏ, or G are treated as fundamental inputs: numbers we measure, accept, and then build theories around. They are the scaffolding, but their origin is left unexplained. ToE challenges this view by showing that at least one of these constants — the speed of light — is not an independent decree of the cosmos but the natural outcome of the entropic field’s constitutive parameters. The ratio of entropic conductivity χ_0(chi_0) to entropic capacity C_0 fixes the maximum propagation speed, and when this ratio saturates the No‑Rush bound, it yields the propagation speed limit c.
This reframing has two consequences. First, it demystifies the universality of cc: light does not travel at that speed because spacetime geometry “says so,” but because entropy flow cannot exceed that limit. Second, it hints that other constants may also be derivable — not arbitrary features of reality, but necessities born of deeper entropic structure. In this sense, ToE is not just a physical theory but a philosophical program: it seeks to turn “givens” into “musts.”
Analogy. Consider the boiling point of water at sea level. To a casual observer, it might seem like an arbitrary number — 100°C by convention. But in reality, it is dictated by the interplay of molecular bonds, atmospheric pressure, and thermodynamic laws. It could not be otherwise under those conditions. In the same way, ToE argues that the speed of light is not an arbitrary cosmic setting, but the inevitable “boiling point” of entropy flow in the universe’s medium.
By treating constants as derived necessities, ToE shifts our philosophical stance. The universe is not a patchwork of arbitrary numbers; it is a coherent system where limits emerge from deeper principles. The speed of light is not just a rule of geometry — it is the universal signature of entropy itself.
Testability and falsifiability: The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) is bold because it can, in principle, be falsified. If a sub‑attosecond causal signal were ever observed — if information, energy, or entanglement correlations were shown to propagate faster than the entropic cone allows — the theory would collapse. This makes ToE philosophically cleaner than many speculative frameworks, which often retreat into unfalsifiable territory when pressed.
This commitment to falsifiability is not a weakness but a strength. It means ToE is not just a metaphysical story or a mathematical curiosity; it is a scientific proposal in the strict Popperian sense. It draws a line in the sand: here is the causal boundary, here is the measurable timescale, and here is the experiment that could prove it wrong. Few theories at the frontier of physics are willing to be so explicit.
The attosecond regime provides the perfect testing ground. Current experiments already probe electron motion and entanglement delays at the scale of hundreds of attoseconds. ToE predicts that no genuine causal signal will ever be detected below the entropic bound of a few tenths of an attosecond. If future technology were to reveal such a signal, ToE would be falsified in a single stroke. Until then, every attosecond measurement that respects the bound strengthens its claim.
Analogy. Think of a suspension bridge. Its cables are designed to hold a maximum load. Engineers can calculate the precise weight at which the bridge would fail. That calculation is not a guess — it is a testable prediction. If the bridge collapses under a lighter load, the design is wrong. ToE is like that bridge: it specifies the maximum “load” of causality, the fastest possible signal. If nature ever exceeds that load, the theory fails. But if the bridge holds, the design is vindicated.
By staking its validity on measurable limits, ToE distinguishes itself from frameworks that can be endlessly re‑interpreted to fit any outcome. It is not afraid of the laboratory. Its boldness lies in its vulnerability: the willingness to be proven wrong. And that is precisely what makes it a serious contender for a foundational theory of physics.
Mathematical
Constitutive flux law: The introduction of entropic conductivity χ\chi and entropic capacity CC in the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) is not an arbitrary choice of symbols — it is a deliberate structural echo of Maxwell’s ε0\varepsilon_0 (vacuum permittivity) and μ0\mu_0 (vacuum permeability). In electromagnetism, the ratio of these constants fixes the universal speed of light:
Here, χ_0 (chi_0) measures how readily entropy flows (its “conductivity”), while C_0 measures how much entropy can be stored or resisted (its “capacity”). Their ratio defines the maximum speed at which entropic excitations — and therefore information and correlations — can propagate.
This parallel is more than formal. It suggests that electromagnetism itself is a special case of entropic dynamics, with light emerging as an “entropic wave” whose speed is fixed by the same kind of constitutive relation that governs heat, diffusion, and other transport processes. In this sense, ToE builds a mathematically elegant bridge between thermodynamics and field theory: what Maxwell discovered for the electromagnetic field, ToE generalizes for the entropic field.
Analogy. Think of a stretched string. Its wave speed is determined not by decree but by the ratio of two physical properties: the tension (which drives motion) and the mass per unit length (which resists it). In exactly the same way, the entropic field’s wave speed is set by the ratio of conductivity (drive) to capacity (resistance). The universality of cc is thus not a cosmic accident but the inevitable outcome of the entropic medium’s constitutive law.
By grounding the speed limit of the universe in a flux law, ToE reframes one of physics’ most mysterious constants as a derived necessity. The bridge between thermodynamics and field theory is not metaphorical but structural: the same mathematics that governs heat flow and diffusion also governs the causal structure of spacetime itself.
Key Insights
In Maxwell’s theory, the constants ε_0 (epsilon_0) and μ_0 (mu_0) describe how the vacuum responds to electric and magnetic fields. Their ratio fixes the speed of electromagnetic waves.
In ToE, the constants χ_0 (chi_0) and C_0 describe how the entropic field conducts and stores entropy. Their ratio fixes the maximum speed of entropic excitations — which coincides with the universal causal limit cc.
The structural parallel suggests that electromagnetism is not an isolated phenomenon but a special case of a deeper entropic dynamics.
Analogy. Just as the stiffness and inertia of a string determine the speed of waves along it, the “conductivity” and “capacity” of the entropic field determine the speed of causal signals in the universe.
Covariance preserved: The Master Entropic Equation is written in tensorial form, ensuring it respects general covariance. This is not a cosmetic choice of notation — it is a structural guarantee. General covariance means that the laws of physics must hold true in any coordinate system, whether we describe events from the perspective of a stationary observer, an accelerating rocket, or the warped geometry near a black hole. By casting the entropic field equations in tensorial language, ToE ensures that entropy flow is not tied to any privileged frame of reference.
This is crucial because it means ToE does not break relativity — it underpins it. The entropic cone, which defines the causal structure of the universe, is not an add‑on to spacetime geometry but the very reason that geometry has the form it does. Relativity tells us that the speed of light is invariant across frames; ToE explains why that invariance exists in the first place: it is the manifestation of the entropic flux law under the demand of covariance.
In this sense, ToE strengthens relativity rather than competes with it. Where Einstein postulated invariance, ToE derives it. Where relativity describes the geometry of spacetime, ToE provides the thermodynamic foundation that makes such geometry possible.
Analogy. Imagine a piece of music transposed into different keys. The melody remains the same, even though the notes shift. General covariance is like that invariance of melody: the physical law must sound the same no matter what “key” (coordinate system) you play it in. By writing the Master Entropic Equation in tensorial form, ToE ensures that the melody of entropy flow is preserved across every possible frame.
Thus, covariance is not just respected in ToE — it is the very stage on which entropy performs. Relativity’s geometry is the visible choreography, but entropy is the rhythm that makes the dance possible.
Why Tensor Form Matters in ToE
Physicists insist on writing fundamental laws in tensor form because tensors are the only mathematical objects that keep their meaning no matter how you change your perspective.
Coordinates are arbitrary. You can describe the same event in kilometers or miles, from Earth or from a spaceship, in flat space or curved space. The numbers change, but the physics should not.
Tensors guarantee consistency. A tensor equation is like a melody that sounds the same no matter what key you play it in. The notes (coordinates) may shift, but the tune (the law) is preserved.
Relativity depends on this. Einstein’s field equations are tensorial so that gravity looks the same to all observers. By writing the ToE Master Entropic Equation (MEE) in tensor form, the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) ensures entropy flow is just as universal.
In essence, tensor form is the badge of universality. It tells us that the law is not tied to any one vantage point, but is woven into the fabric of reality itself.
Scaling bounds: The entropic timescale bound, τmin\tau_{\min}, provides a clean inequality that can be checked against experiment, from atomic to cosmological scales. In the Theory of Entropicity (ToE), this bound arises naturally: for any process spanning a characteristic length ℓ\ell, the minimal causal timescale is
τ_min≳ℓ/c.
This deceptively simple inequality of ToE is powerful because it applies universally. Whether we are probing electron motion inside atoms, the propagation of entanglement correlations, or the expansion of cosmic structures, the same rule holds: no causal influence can establish itself faster than the entropic cone allows.
At the atomic scale, this bound translates into fractions of an attosecond. Experiments with ultrafast lasers have already confirmed that entanglement correlations take hundreds of attoseconds to form — comfortably above the theoretical minimum.
At the mesoscopic scale, in condensed matter systems or quantum networks, the bound manifests as latency in signal propagation. Even in superconducting circuits or photonic crystals, where information seems to move “instantaneously,” careful timing reveals delays consistent with ℓ/c.
At the cosmological scale, the same inequality governs the causal horizon of the universe. The maximum distance over which regions of space can be in causal contact is set by the entropic bound, which coincides with the light cone of relativity. Thus, the same principle that constrains electron motion also defines the observable universe.
Analogy. Imagine a universal stopwatch that starts whenever a disturbance is created. The size of the system sets the minimum tick: the larger the distance, the longer the stopwatch must run before any causal effect can be registered. From the tiniest atom to the largest galaxy cluster, the stopwatch obeys the same rule.
By providing a single inequality that scales seamlessly across domains, ToE offers a rare unifying principle. It tells us that causality is not a patchwork of separate rules for different regimes, but a single entropic law that spans the full hierarchy of nature.
Key Highlights of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)
The same inequality governs all scales: from sub‑attosecond electron motion to the causal horizon of the cosmos.
At small scales, the bound is experimentally testable with attosecond lasers and ultrafast probes.
At large scales, the bound defines the very limits of what regions of the universe can ever be in causal contact.
This universality is what makes ToE powerful: it provides a single principle that spans the entire hierarchy of nature.
How the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) Could be Falsified in Practice
The core falsification criterion for the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) is to detect a genuine causal signal or correlation establishing faster than the entropic bound τ_min≈ℓ/c. Any sub‑attosecond causal establishment at atomic scales, or effective superluminal propagation over larger ℓ\ell, would refute ToE.
Ultrafast pump–probe at atomic scales
Goal: Time‑resolve the earliest causal response of electrons to a localized perturbation at known length scale ℓ∼10^−10 m.
Setup:
Pump: Isolated attosecond pulse (XUV) to trigger a localized excitation.
Probe: Few‑cycle IR streaking or transient absorption to read out the response with <100 as resolution.
Measurement: Map response onset vs. spatial localization; extract the minimal delay τ onset.
ToE bound: τ_min≳ℓ/c∼0.3 as for atomic ℓ.
Falsification: τ onset<ℓ/c after instrument deconvolution and jitter correction.
Controls:
Timing jitter: Characterize and subtract instrument response function.
Nonlocal tails: Constrain excitation volume with nanostructured targets or localized core‑level photoexcitation.
Entanglement delay in electrons or photons
Goal: Measure the time needed for entanglement correlations to become operationally usable (e.g., violation of Bell inequality) after state‑preparation.
Setup:
Photons: Heralded SPDC source with attosecond‑stable interferometric phase control.
Electrons: Ultrafast electron pairs in solid‑state or free‑space sources with time‑tagged detection.
Measurement: Correlation build‑up curve vs. preparation time; define onset time τ_ent at first statistically significant nonlocal correlation.
ToE bound: τ_ent≥ℓ/c is the preparation‑to‑detection causal path (including mediators).
Falsification: Operational entanglement at delays below ℓ/c with spacelike separation and loophole‑free timing.
Controls:
Locality loophole: Ensure spacelike separation with synchronized clocks and GPS‑disciplined time-bases.
Memory effects: Randomize settings at attosecond timescales; preclude hidden classical channels.
Ultrafast interferometry for phase transport
Goal: Test whether phase information can be transported faster than the entropic bound.
Setup:
Mach–Zehnder or Sagnac interferometer with attosecond phase modulators on one arm; detectors with sub‑100 as timing.
Measurement: Latency between applied phase step and observable fringe shift at the output.
ToE bound: Latency ≥ℓ/c along the optical path and medium.
Falsification: Observed fringe shift latency below ℓ/c after accounting for group delay and detector response.
Cavity QED and circuit QED latency tests
Goal: Measure the fastest possible information transfer between strongly coupled modes or qubits.
Setup:
Cavity QED: Ultrafast modulation of one cavity, readout on another through a known coupling distance.
Circuit QED: Superconducting qubits linked by transmission lines with attosecond‑resolved control pulses.
Measurement: Minimal command‑to‑response time between nodes.
ToE bound: τ_min≥ℓ_link/ c including dispersion in the medium.
Falsification: End‑to‑end latency below ℓ/c with verified causality (no pre‑shared states that could bias readout).
High‑energy scattering and time‑of‑flight causality
Goal: Detect any superluminal propagation in particle creation, jets, or shock fronts.
Setup:
Colliders: Time‑tagged vertex detectors; ultrafast calorimetry mapping onset of showers.
Laser–plasma: Pump–probe in relativistic plasmas; diagnose shock formation with attosecond streaking.
Measurement: Onset times and front velocities over macroscopic ℓ.
ToE bound: Front velocity ≤ c; onset latency ≥ℓ/c.
Falsification: Fronts or signals exceeding cc beyond systematic uncertainties.
Astrophysical and quantum‑network baselines
Goal: Leverage long baselines to tighten ℓ/c bounds.
Setup:
Astrophysics: Fast transients (FRBs, GRBs) with multi‑wavelength, synchronized timing chains.
Quantum networks: Satellite‑to‑ground entanglement with picosecond→attosecond stabilized clocks.
Measurement: Cross‑channel latencies; correlation onsets vs. baseline ℓ.
ToE bound: Stronger due to large ℓ; any effective superluminal correlation is disallowed.
Falsification: Correlated changes arriving earlier than ℓ/c after dispersion and clock corrections.
Practical guardrails for a convincing test
Clock discipline: Use independent, traceable time-bases; cross‑calibrate with femtosecond combs.
Instrument function: Measure and deconvolve detector and electronics latencies.
Spacelike separation: Design geometries that preclude subluminal causal channels.
Pre‑registration: Publish protocols and analysis plans to avoid post‑hoc selection.
Replication: Aim for cross‑lab reproducibility with varied platforms and media.
In short, any robust, loophole‑free observation of causal establishment faster than ℓ/c — especially below the few‑tenths‑of‑attosecond bound at atomic scales — would falsify ToE.
Conclusion
In short, the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) is disruptive because it doesn’t just add another equation to physics — it reframes the foundations. Conceptually, it redefines causality; philosophically, it re‑grounds constants as consequences; mathematically, it builds a unifying structure that ties entropy, relativity, and quantum mechanics together.
References
[1] Google Scholar: John Onimisi Obidi — Google Scholar: Collected Works on the Theory of Entropicity (ToE).
[2] Cambridge University Open Engage (CoE): Collected Works on the Theory of Entropicity (ToE).
[3] John Onimisi Obidi. Collected Works on The Theory of Entropicity (ToE).
