Dynamic Present Theory I

Dynamic Present Theory I: Unifying Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity Debra Gavant Independent Researcher https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5593-713X debragavan[email protected] October 2, 2025 Abstract The reconciliation of deterministic General Relativity with probabilistic Quantum Mechanics remains a central challenge in physics. This paper introduces Dynamic Present Theory (DPΦ), a framework that resolves this conflict by positing that reality is not a static block of spacetime but a process of continuous, irreversible actualization. The theory is built upon a single, postulated law, the CPA Rate, governed by local energy density and an information-theoretic Constraint Load, motivated by the principle of informational efficiency. The spatial gradient of this rate creates a dynamic temporal landscape, and the alignment of systems within this landscape is the single mechanism responsible for both inertia and gravitation. This process-based ontology provides a mechanistic account of quantum phenomena without wavefunction collapse or parallel worlds and naturally replaces black hole singularities with a lawful physical cutoff. The result is a complete foundation for physics that yields high-risk, falsifiable predictions, inviting experimental scrutiny. Keywords: quantum foundations, time irreversibility, emergence, gravitation, entropy, entanglement, measurement problem, tunneling delay, black holes, cosmic acceleration 1. Introduction For nearly a century, theoretical physics has been defined by the profound incompatibility between its two pillars: General Relativity (GR) and Quantum 1 Dynamic Present Theory I Mechanics (QM). GR presents a deterministic, geometric reality in which time is relative (Einstein 1905), whereas QM describes a probabilistic domain of potential that resolves only upon measurement (Rovelli 2004, von Neumann 1932). This foundational conflict is sharpened by the empirical arrow of time, a persistent directionality in nature absent from the time-symmetric equations of both theories (Davies 1974, Eddington 1928). This paper introduces the Dynamic Present Theory (DPΦ), a framework that resolves these conflicts through a fundamental ontological shift from a static universe of being to a dynamic one of becoming. 1 DPΦchallenges the block universe model by postulating that physical reality unfolds through a cascade of irreversible, localized actualization events termed Continuous Present Actualization (CPA). Following the axiomatic tradition, this paper does not seek to reverse-engineer existing physics. Rather, it proposes a minimal set of foundational postulates from which the familiar universe emerges. The dynamics of the theory are governed by these postulates, as described in Section 2. The central postulate is the CPA Rate Law, a phenomenological model for the local rate of actualization. The specific form of this law is not derived but is physically motivated by a principle of informational efficiency: the principle of minimal actualization cost (PMAC). Here, the CPA Rate is a function of the local energy density (ρE) and the information-theoretic Constraint Load (C). This paper demonstrates that the core features of physical reality emerge as direct implications of this minimal set of postulates. We show that spatial gradients in the CPA Rate generate a unified mechanism for both inertia and gravitation (Energy-Density Gravity). The framework’s postulates provide a mechanistic resolution for quantum paradoxes without requiring wavefunction collapse or parallel worlds, and they naturally replace GR’s singularities with a lawful, physical cutoff (CPA Freeze). As a fully falsifiable theory, DPΦmakes distinct, testable predictions from cosmology to laboratory experiments, offering a new, unified basis for physics in which time is the central, generative engine. 2. The Foundational Postulates of DPΦ This section formalizes the core mechanism of DPΦ. We first establish the foundational postulates of the theory and then define mathematical concepts and quantities to articulate them. 2.1 The Three Postulates The theory is grounded in three minimal postulates that provide a testable and experimentally falsifiable framework. From this concise foundation, DPΦ develops a mathematical model that resolves a wide array of longstanding paradoxes in QM and GR through a single, primary mechanism. 1 This work significantly expands upon and supersedes a prior preprint by the author (Gavant 2024). 2 Dynamic Present Theory I 2.1.1 (P1) The Postulate of the Dynamic Present In contrast to physical models in which time is an illusion, DPΦposits that physical reality is a dynamic process termed Continuous Present Actualization (CPA): a cascade of irreversible, localized events that is the sole locus of observable consequences. Although each event is local, the cascade itself forms a single, causally interconnected and coherent system. This can be compared to a living organism: the body is a single, holistic system, yet its various cells operate at different metabolic rates. Similarly, in DPΦ, all local events are part of one universe, governed by the same universal laws, even though their rates of actualization vary. Each event resolves a specific system’s potential into a definite, lawfully constrained configuration (Noether 1918), denoted by the symbol ϕnow,S , which is added to the indelible record of the past. This process-based ontology establishes both causal order and the arrow of time as fundamental features of reality (Davies 1974, Prigogine 1980, Zeh 2007). CPA is modeled as a continuous process; terms such as instance or event articulate the ordered nature of actualization, but no underlying Planck-scale granularity has been proposed (Planck 1901). 2.1.2 (P2) The Postulate of the CPA Rate Law The local rate of actualization, ωCPA , is governed by a specific, falsifiable model: the CPA Rate Law. 2.1.3 (P3) The Postulate of Efficient Actualization The Postulate of Efficient Actualization (PEA) states that the sequence of configurations actualized by any physical system is the one that follows the path of maximal efficiency. Formally, this is the path that extremizes the total CPA Rate over time. This principle of selecting the most coherent path available under all lawful constraints is the mechanism responsible for inertial persistence and the monotonic growth of entropy (Section 3.4). 2.2 Formal Summary of Postulates The core concepts of DPΦcan be summarized formally. The result of a localized actualization event is a definite configuration of a specific system, S , denoted by the symbol ϕnow,S . This represents the ontologically real state of the system in the present, whose causal influence propagates outward at finite speed. This state is produced by the process described in the foundational postulates, which can be represented by the following relation: S(t)←˙ MCPA(L)|C.(1) This expression states that the present state of the system, S ( t ), is actualized by ( ← ) the continuous action ( ˙ M ) of the CPA mechanism, whose rate is influenced by a set of local constraints ( L ) and operates under a set of universal laws ( C ). The quantitative elements of this framework are defined as follows: 3 Dynamic Present Theory I The CPA Rate, ωCPA , gives the rate of the mechanism, ˙ MCPA . As stated in Postulate (2), its specific functional form is given by the CPA Rate Law: ωCPA(ρE, C) = E∗ ℏρE ρ∗−1 e−γC.(2) The CPA Timescale is the characteristic duration of a resolution event, defined as τCPA ≡1 ωCPA .(3) The CPA Rate Gradient (CRG) is the spatial gradient of the rate, which acts as a coherence operator that guides system evolution: CRG ≡ ∇ωCPA.(4) Within this temporal landscape, regions of lower energy density correspond to faster cascades of actualization, whereas regions of higher energy density unfold more slowly. An instructive analogy is the flow of a crowd leaving a stadium. Where the crowd is sparse and pathways are clear, movement is rapid, but as density increases, progress for everyone slows. The dynamics are modulated by a set of local constraints, L . This set includes the local energy density ( ρE ) and the Constraint Load ( C ), a dimensionless, information-theoretic measure of lawful restrictions on a system. It is formally defined as C≡Smax −Sactual kB .(5) In a quantum context, this is the Quantum Constraint Load (CQ): CQ= ln(dmax) + Tr(ρln ρ).(6) The Postulate of Efficient Actualization (PEA), Postulate (3), is formalized by the action functional that the system seeks to extremize: A[r] = ZωCPA(r(t)) dt. (7) 2.2.1 Worked Example: Computability of the Constraint Load To demonstrate that the Constraint Load ( C ) is a computable quantity, we analyze a simple system from statistical mechanics: a single particle confined to a one-dimensional box. Case 1: Unconstrained System. First, consider a particle in a box of length L. The system’s actual entropy is the maximum possible, Sactual = Smax = kBln(Ωtotal). In this baseline case, the Constraint Load Cis zero: C1= ln(Ωtotal)−ln(Ωtotal)=0.(8) 4 Dynamic Present Theory I Case 2: Constrained System. Next, we impose an impermeable barrier at the center of the box. The number of available microstates is now halved: Ωconstrained = Ωtotal/2. The new Constraint Load, C2, is C2= ln(Ωtotal)−ln(Ωtotal/2) = ln(2).(9) This example confirms that C is not merely a qualitative label but a measurable, well-defined physical quantity. 3. First Consequences of the Postulates With the foundational ontology and dynamics of CPA established, we now explore the framework’s first major physical consequences. Here, we show that the stability of structures, persistence of motion (inertia), and arrow of time are not separate postulates but emerge as direct consequences of the actualization process. 3.1 Lawful Coherence and the Stability of Structures In DPΦ, the persistence of stable patterns, from atomic structures to planetary orbits, is a direct consequence of the Postulate of Efficient Actualization (PEA). Under the PEA, such configurations represent the most efficient solutions for a given set of constraints, allowing them to persist through repeated re-actualization with minimal disruption. The efficiency of any potential manifestation is evaluated using two complementary metrics: • Energetic cost: quantifies a configuration’s compatibility with conservation laws and the local energy density, with low-cost states being the most dynamically preferred. • Informational cost: quantifies the complexity required to maintain a system’s coherence over time; stable structures are those that incur minimal informational cost. Each CPA event is fundamentally indivisible, a property referred to as holistic actualization. All coupled degrees of freedom, subject to the prevailing constraints, actualize simultaneously as a single configuration (Bell 1964, Schlosshauer 2005). This provides an ontological basis for quantum correlations. Such correlations do not result from superluminal influences but arise directly from the shared, holistic resolution of a single system within one CPA event. 3.2 Inertia as a Consequence of the PEA Inertia is not a separate axiom in DPΦbut an emergent consequence of the Postulate of Efficient Actualization (PEA). The PEA dictates that a system will persist along the most efficient path available: the sequence of actualizations 5 Dynamic Present Theory I that requires no change in its internal Constraint Load (∆ C = 0). This path of least resistance corresponds to a sustained re-actualization along a contour of the temporal landscape, which is the definition of an inertial path. A deviation from this path requires an external influence that manifests as a force. This force compels the system onto a less efficient trajectory, causing an increase in its Constraint Load (∆ C > 0). As defined by the CPA Rate Law, this increase in C suppresses the local rate of actualization, which is observed as a resistance to the change in alignment. The formal model of this process is presented in Appendix B. 3.3 Causality as Ordered Actualization In DPΦ, causality emerges as a lawful sequence of CPA events. Each event resolves a system’s potential into an actualized configuration or instance, which then influences the conditions for the next event. Thus, the ordering of these events defines the causal order (Reichenbach 1956). Because CPA is irreversible (Postulate 1), the causal arrow of time is intrinsic, and an effect cannot precede its cause (Prigogine 1980). This ontological model of causality is not violated by quantum phenomena that appear to challenge it. The correlations in entangled systems, for example, do not rely on superluminal signaling but on the single, indivisible actualization of the system as a whole, as detailed in Section 7.3. Likewise, delayed-choice experiments do not imply retrocausality; instead, they demonstrate that a system’s configuration can remain an unresolved potential until the final, determinative CPA event occurs. 3.4 The Principle of Entropic Correspondence In DPΦ, the irreversible succession of CPA instances provides the fundamental machinery for the arrow of time. To connect this ontological process to its observable, macroscopic counterpart, we establish a necessary bridge principle. The principle of entropic correspondence posits that the macroscopic rate of entropy growth is directly proportional to the underlying rate of actualization instances. Each irreversible selection generates a statistical residue of unactualized potential, and the accumulation of this residue is observed as entropy (Lebowitz 1993). Formally, this principle is stated as dS dt=κSωCPA,(10) where κS is a constant of proportionality, and ωCPA is the local rate of actualization instances (in instances per second). Under this principle, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a statistical assumption but emerges as a direct macroscopic signature of the directional and irreversible CPA process (Landauer 1961). 6 Dynamic Present Theory I 4. Energy-Density Gravity (EDG) Having established that inertia is a consequence of the CPA framework, we now show that gravitation arises from the same, single mechanism. In DPΦ, gravity is not a fundamental force or a postulate of geometric curvature, but an emergent phenomenon termed Energy-Density Gravity (EDG) (Oriti 2009, DeWitt 1967). It arises from local variations in the CPA Rate driven by gradients in energy density. Because the dynamics are driven by the gradient of the energy density ( ∇ρE ) and not its absolute value, a constant vacuum energy background, which would have a zero gradient, does not affect the evolution of the system. This provides a natural resolution to the problem of vacuum energy in gravitation theory. 4.1 Unification of Inertia and Gravitation The Postulate of Efficient Actualization (PEA) provides a single, unifying dynamic for both inertia and gravitation. These two phenomena emerge as distinct manifestations of one process: a system’s persistent alignment with the CPA Rate Gradient (CRG). This is the path of maximal coherence, as a system preserves its integrity by following the most efficient sequence of actualizations available. • Inertia is the manifestation of this alignment in a uniform temporal landscape (CRG = 0). • Gravitation is the manifestation of this alignment in a temporal landscape that is graded by energy density (CRG =0). A profound consequence of this unified origin is that the Equivalence Principle is not an independent axiom, as it is in General Relativity (Einstein 1911), but emerges as a necessary consequence of the framework. This unification can be illustrated by an analogy of a car navigating a road. Inertial persistence is like driving on a flat, straight road where the temporal landscape is uniform; the path continues unaltered, requiring no change in the Constraint Load (∆ C = 0). Gravitation, by contrast, is like entering a banked curve where the landscape is graded by energy density. The path is continuously deflected as the system maintains its most efficient alignment with the shifting contours of the landscape. Just as driving straight and cornering are governed by the same dynamics of motion, inertia and gravity are distinct manifestations of a single, unified process.2 4.2 Consistency and Falsifiability of EDG The EDG framework resolves several longstanding issues in gravitational physics while remaining empirically falsifiable. Its primary advantages include: 2 For a simplified scalar-potential demonstration that predicts specific deviations from GR, see Energy-Density Gravity: A Scalar-Potential Toy Model Reproducing Schwarzschild Time Dilation (Gavant 2025). 7 Dynamic Present Theory I • Singularity Avoidance: As will be detailed in Section 6, increasing energy density suppresses the CPA Rate toward zero, resulting in CPA Freeze. This provides a lawful, physical cutoff that prevents the formation of an unphysical singularity. • Unification with Inertia: As previously shown, EDG unifies inertial persistence and gravitational alignment as two manifestations of the PEA. This shared origin means the equivalence principle is an emergent consequence of the theory, not a separate axiom. • Falsifiability: Although designed to reproduce GR in weak fields, the framework makes falsifiable predictions that diverge from GR in strongfield regimes. These include observational signatures such as the stalling or delayed assimilation of matter near event horizons, which are testable with current instruments (GRAVITY Collaboration 2018, 2020). 5. Calibration with General Relativity A critical requirement for any viable new theory of gravity is that it must consistently reproduce the well-tested results of GR within its domain of validity. To connect the process-based physics of DPΦwith GR’s geometric language, this alignment is achieved through a set of necessary calibration principles. These are not core postulates of the theory but rather a required interface with observation. This process involves connecting the framework to the Newtonian gravitational constant G . Within DPΦ, G is not treated as a fundamental constant but as an emergent, phenomenological coupling constant. It represents the empirically measured factor that links energy density to the gradient of the CPA Rate, thereby anchoring the model to the observed strength of gravitation in the weak-field limit. 5.1 Calibration Principles 5.1.1 The Principle of Consistent Time (The Clock Law) The fundamental pacemaker in DPΦis the CPA Rate, ωCPA . In GR, the flow of proper time is governed by the metric component g00 . For the two theories to be consistent, these measures must be proportional. We therefore establish the principle of consistent time, which leads to the Clock Law: g00 =ωCPA ω∞2 .(11) 5.1.2 The Principle of Light Propagation (The Null-Closure Law) The second interface principle ensures that the description of light propagation is consistent between frameworks. To ensure that light follows a path of maximally 8 Dynamic Present Theory I efficient propagation across the temporal landscape, which aligns with null geodesics in GR, we establish the principle of light propagation. The simplest mathematical form that preserves isotropy is gij =−e−2Φ/c2δij.(12) 5.2 Derivation of Gravitational Time Dilation With these calibration principles established, the phenomenon of gravitational time dilation emerges as a direct consequence. In regions of higher energy density, the local CPA Rate is suppressed, a phenomenon that, via the Clock Law, perfectly matches the standard time dilation factor from GR (Ashby 2003, Pound and Rebka 1960, Schwarzschild 1916): ωCPA ω∞ =√g00 =r1−2GM c2r.(13) 5.3 Consistency Check: PPN Parameters With the calibration principles in place, we perform an essential consistency check by deriving the parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) parameters. This verifies that the proposed bridge to GR is correctly formulated. As explicitly shown for βPPN in Appendix E, the framework correctly recovers the values βPPN = 1 and γPPN = 1. This confirms that our calibration is consistent with high-precision solar system tests such as gravitational lensing and the Shapiro delay (Shapiro 1964). 6. High-Density Physics: CPA Freeze A profound and direct consequence of the CPA Rate Law (Postulate 2) is the existence of a natural cutoff in the actualization process at extreme energy densities. As the local energy density ( ρE ) approaches infinity, the CPA Rate is suppressed toward zero: lim ρE→∞ ωCPA(ρE, C)=0.(14) As the rate approaches zero, the CPA Timescale ( τCPA ) diverges. This defines CPA Freeze, a state of Suspended Actualization where further evolution is halted. The freeze limit ensures that no physical system transitions into an unphysical singularity. Instead, change ceases as the informational cost of actualization becomes infinite, providing a universal, lawful cutoff that links black hole interiors and primordial cosmology under a single principle (Carr and Hawking 1974). 9 Dynamic Present Theory I 8.4 The Many-Worlds Interpretation The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) avoids the measurement problem by positing that the wavefunction never collapses (Everett 1957). Instead, every possible outcome of a quantum event is physically realized, each in a separate, branching universe. While this approach preserves the deterministic unitarity of the Schrödinger equation (Schrödinger 1935), it introduces a profound ontological inflation. DPΦoffers a more parsimonious solution, grounded in (Postulate 1), which asserts a singular, non-branching reality. From this perspective, MWI’s proliferation of worlds arises from a category error: mistaking the wavefunction, a mathematical map of constrained potential, for a direct description of physical reality. In DPΦ, the wavefunction describes a menu of potential outcomes, not a plenitude of coexisting realities. The PEA, acting via the CPA process, is the mechanism that selects and instantiates one of these potentials into our single universe. There is no need to explain what happened to the other outcomes; as unrealized potentials, they were never physically real. Furthermore, the MWI is generally considered untestable because each proposed universe is causally isolated. In contrast, DPΦis a falsifiable framework, as detailed in Section 9. 8.5 String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity Two dominant approaches to unifying General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) are string theory and loop quantum gravity (LQG). 8.5.1 Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) LQG attempts unification by quantizing spacetime into discrete spin networks and foams at the Planck scale (Rovelli and Smolin 1995). While it replaces relativity’s smooth and continuous manifold with quantized granularity, it retains the geometry of spacetime as an emergent property of LQG effects. It provides an alternative structure for space while leaving deeper questions unanswered: Why does time flow, and why does a wavefunction collapse into a single outcome? DPΦoffers a more fundamental solution. Instead of quantizing spacetime, DPΦreframes it as an emergent property arising from the more primary CPA process. From this perspective, the flow of time and resolution of quantum measurement are not problems to be solved; they are foundational features of reality. 8.5.2 String theory String theory replaces particles with one-dimensional, vibrating strings corresponding to an infinite number of particles (Green et al. 2012). It also adds multiple dimensions to the four of spacetime. Although mathematically elegant, 16 Dynamic Present Theory I it asserts an array of speculative components. Moreover, after decades of development, string theory has yet to yield a single, falsifiable prediction that could promote it from a mathematical framework to a physical theory. DPΦtakes the opposite approach. It posits that the complexity of nature arises from the continuous, lawful transformation of energy within the observable present moment and not from extra, unobservable dimensions. It provides a parsimonious framework that achieves unification without adding speculative constructs. 8.6 Entropic Models and Thermodynamic Time Many frameworks link the arrow of time to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, maintaining that the universe began in a special, low-entropy state known as the Past Hypothesis (Albert 2000). In these models, the direction of time is an emergent, statistical phenomenon (Verlinde 2011). DPΦasserts that this fundamentally mistakes the effect for the cause. In this framework, the arrow of time is not statistical but is a direct consequence of the intrinsically irreversible nature of the CPA process (Postulate 1). Therefore, the monotonic increase in entropy is not the cause of time’s directionality but its macroscopic evidence: an ever-widening wake generated by the forward motion of actualization. A boat’s passage causes a wake; the wake does not cause the boat’s forward motion. This reversal of causality also applies to models of entropic gravity. Whereas these models derive the gravitational force from gradients in entropy, DPΦ posits that in its model of Energy-Density Gravity (EDG), gravity is a direct consequence of the more fundamental CPA Rate Gradient (CRG), which is driven by energy density. In this framework, entropy and its gradients are not the cause of gravity but are secondary consequences of the irreversible CPA process. 17 Dynamic Present Theory I Table 2: Comparison of DPΦwith Alternative Frameworks Framework Core Tenets & Shortcomings Established Theories General Relativity Geometry-first (block universe); Curvature as explanatory; Predicts singularities; No mechanism of becoming (Einstein 1916, Ellis 2006). Copenhagen Interp. Observer-dependent collapse; Explains resolutions by rule, not mechanism; Time is external; No account of gravity. Decoherence Explains the appearance of classicality via environment tracing; Does not select a unique manifestation; No account of gravity (Schlosshauer 2005, Zeh 2007). Alternative Interpretations & Models Many Worlds (MWI) All branches are ontologically real (proliferation); Avoids collapse but offers no selection mechanism (Everett 1957, Wallace 2012). Collapse Models Introduce non-unitary, stochastic terms to force resolution; Require new parameters and extra assumptions (Bassi et al. 2013, Ghirardi et al. 1986, Penrose 1996). Emergent-Time Proposals are often timeless or relational; The arrow of time is often statistical or frozen (Barbour 1999, Page and Wootters 1983). Dynamic Present Theory (DPΦ) DPΦ Process-first: Reality unfolds via Continuous Present Actualization (CPA); Causality emerges from the ordered sequence of localized events. Unified dynamics: The CRG generates both inertia and gravitation from a single efficiency principle. Singular resolutions: One manifestation is selected per instance, avoiding ontological proliferation. Falsifiable & complete: The theory makes testable predictions and replaces singularities with the physical mechanism of CPA Freeze. 9. Falsifiability and Predictions A central strength of the DPΦframework is that its postulates generate concrete and empirically testable predictions. Unlike purely interpretive schemes, DPΦ makes firm commitments regarding observable phenomena and provides clear criteria for falsification. This section details the specific predictions that allow the theory to be tested in multiple, physical domains. 9.1 Laboratory-Scale Tests 9.1.1 Quantum Tunneling The DPΦframework makes two distinct, falsifiable predictions regarding quantum tunneling delay, grounded in its model of actualization. In DPΦ, tunneling is not a particle traversing a barrier but a single, holistic actualization event that resolves upon detection on the other side of the barrier. The measured delay is the duration of this entire resolution process. First, this duration is predicted to include a positive CPA latency, τCPA (Eq. 3), in addition to the standard quantum mechanical component. This implies that, unlike the Hartman effect, no strict saturation occurs; delays should increase slowly but monotonically with the barrier thickness. 18 Dynamic Present Theory I Second, and more fundamentally, the duration of this actualization event is modulated by the Constraint Load ( C ). This leads to a novel prediction: environmental or internal structural factors (e.g., crystal strain) that alter C while leaving the potential unchanged will still measurably shift the tunneling latency. This reframes what experimentalists often treat as uncontrollable noise into a predictable, physically meaningful signal that directly contradicts standard quantum mechanics. 4 Detailed experimental protocols and predicted latency bands for various platforms are provided in Appendix H. 9.1.2 Interference Resolution Timing Prediction: DPΦpredicts that the local CPA Rate ( ωCPA ) fundamentally modulates the time required for a quantum interference pattern to form. This is a distinct physical effect, separate from and in addition to the known effects of environmental decoherence. Postulate Link: This prediction directly tests the physical reality of the CPA Rate and its dependence on the local energy density, as specified in the CPA Rate Law (Postulate 2). Experimental Test: In a high-resolution interferometry experiment, the local energy density ( ρE ) can be varied, thus modulating the local ωCPA , while holding all sources of environmental decoherence constant. The theory is falsified if the pattern formation time is shown to be completely independent of the local CPA Rate. 9.1.3 Gravitational Redshift and Orbital Dynamics Prediction: Although DPΦis constructed to reproduce the predictions of GR in the weak-field limit, the framework anticipates measurable deviations in strong-field regimes. These include modified orbital precession, gravitational redshift, and time-delay effects, particularly in the vicinity of neutron stars and supermassive black holes. Postulate Link: This provides a direct, observational test of the EnergyDensity Gravity (EDG) mechanism in the strong-field regime, beyond the linear approximation used for weak-field calibration. Experimental Test: Ultra-precise pulsar timing and monitoring of S-star orbits near the galactic center provide ideal observational arenas. The theory is falsified if observations continue to match GR’s predictions perfectly in regimes where DPΦpredicts a detectable deviation from GR. 4 The goal of such a test is not to calculate the absolute value of C from first principles, but to demonstrate that empirically modulating Cproduces a corresponding, measurable change in the tunneling latency, a correlation not predicted by standard quantum mechanics. 19 Dynamic Present Theory I 9.1.4 CPA Freeze Near Horizons Prediction: In sharp contrast to GR’s prediction of smooth infall, DPΦ predicts that matter will experience a dramatic stalling as its local CPA Rate approaches zero near an event horizon. Postulate Link: This provides a direct test of the CPA Rate Law’s behavior at extreme energy densities and is a key observational signature of the CPA Freeze mechanism (Section 6). Experimental Test: High-resolution imaging of accretion flows with the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) or monitoring of tidal disruption events (such as AT 2022dbl) can be used to search for these stalling signatures (Makrygianni et al. 2025). The theory is falsified if all such observations remain perfectly consistent with GR’s smooth infall model. 9.2 Fundamental Quantum Tests 9.2.1 Intrinsic Quantum Irreversibility Prediction: DPΦpredicts that quantum dynamics are intrinsically irreversible at the fundamental level. This should lead to observable violations of microscopic time-reversal symmetry, even in highly controlled systems, where standard QM predicts perfect reversibility. Postulate Link: This provides a pivotal test of the fundamental irreversibility asserted in the Postulate of the Dynamic Present (P1). Experimental Test: Techniques such as quantum process tomography on superconducting qubits or cold atoms can be used to search for asymmetries between forward and backward quantum evolutions. The theory is falsified if no intrinsic time asymmetry is detected beyond experimental noise. 9.2.2 Cosmological Expansion Without Dark Energy Prediction: DPΦoffers an alternative to dark energy, proposing that latetime cosmic acceleration is an intrinsic consequence of CPA dynamics. As the universe’s average energy density decreases with expansion, the average cosmic CPA Rate increases, driving the acceleration. This effect is parameterized by a cosmological lapse function,N(a)∝a3β. Postulate Link: This model is a direct cosmological application of PEA. The exponent β is a new fundamental constant of the model, hypothesized to be derivable from other principles of the theory in a future work (see Appendix F for details). 20 Dynamic Present Theory I Experimental Test: Cosmological surveys that precisely measure the expansion history, H ( z ), provide a direct test of this model. The theory is falsified if observational data conclusively rule out a non-zero value for β. 9.3 Summary of Falsification Benchmarks To ensure scientific rigor, the predictions outlined in this framework will be subject to a preregistered protocol in which the falsification thresholds are fixed in advance. The key benchmarks fall into two categories. Calibration Consistency (Weak-Field Tests): The theory must reproduce the predictions of GR in the weak-field limit. This includes matching the observed values for Gravitational Redshift ( βPPN = 1) and Light Deflection/Shapiro Delay (γPPN = 1). Novel Predictions (Falsification Tests): The core tests of DPΦlie in regimes where it diverges from GR. These include the definitive pass/fail criteria established for the Near-Horizon Stall, Quantum Tunneling Latency, and the Cosmological Lapse exponent (β). These benchmarks ensure that DPΦis held to strict Popperian standards. Its predictions are empirical commitments fixed in advance, not interpretive restatements. The framework therefore stands or falls on observation. Table 3: Summary of core predictions in DPΦwith their observables and current status. Prediction Observable / Test Status βPPN = 1 Gravitational redshift Confirmed γPPN = 1 Light bending, Shapiro delay Confirmed CPA Freeze (ωCPA →0) Horizon-proximate emission stall Proposed Quantum Tunneling Latency Anomalous delays modulated by C Proposed Cosmological lapse (N(a)∝a3β) Cosmic expansion history H(z) Proposed 10. Motivation for the Postulated CPA Rate Law Having explored the physical consequences of the theory’s postulates, we now detail the physical reasoning that motivates the specific functional form of the 21 Dynamic Present Theory I CPA Rate Law (Postulate 2). The form is not arbitrary; it is a physically motivated model guided by the principle of minimal actualization cost (PMAC). This principle states that the rate of actualization, ωCPA , is inversely proportional to the informational cost required to instantiate a single, definite configuration. Recall the postulated CPA Rate Law from Eq. 2. The motivation for its two primary dependencies, guided by PMAC, is as follows: Energy Density ( ρE ): The informational cost of an instantiation is dependent on the size of the state space from which a selection is made. We model this with the simplest physical assumption: a direct proportionality between the effective energy density ρE and the size of the state space. A region of high energy density is analogous to a vast national archive with millions of volumes. Specifying one book (configuration) incurs a high informational cost, slowing the selection process. Conversely, a region of low energy density is like a small library, where choosing a configuration requires minimal information and is therefore faster. Thus, PMAC requires an inverse relationship between ωCPA and ρE. Constraint Load ( C ): A system’s lawful constraints, such as entanglement, symmetry, or boundary conditions, also contribute to the informational cost of instantiation. A high Constraint Load implies a more complex resolution process. We therefore model this dependence with an exponential suppression factor, e−γC , where γ is a constant that sets the scale of this effect. This ensures that as the constraints become overwhelmingly complex ( C→ ∞ ), the rate of actualization is driven lawfully toward zero. Thus, PMAC provides a physical justification for postulating the CPA Rate Law in this specific form, linking the dynamics of actualization to the core informational concepts of state-space size (ρE) and lawful complexity (C). 11. Discussion and Implications The DPΦframework offers a new foundation for physics by reimagining reality as a continuous process of actualization. This dynamic ontology not only addresses longstanding paradoxes but also sets the stage for a broader research agenda. The primary implication is a profound ontological shift from the static block universe of being to a dynamic reality of continuous becoming (Whitehead 1929). Unlike Whitehead’s more metaphysical actual occasions, the CPA event in DPΦ is a concrete physical mechanism governed by a specific, falsifiable rate law. Physically, this implies that phenomena as disparate as inertia, gravitation, and quantum measurement are unified as emergent consequences of a single, underlying efficiency postulate. This unification, in turn, suggests that many foundational paradoxes are not features of reality itself but artifacts of an incorrect ontological starting point. The explanatory power of this framework extends to other domains. The avian magnetic sense, for instance, is believed to rely on entangled electrons whose resolution is constrained by Earth’s magnetic field, a process that can be 22 Dynamic Present Theory I modeled as a system-specific CPA event, a topic to be explored in a future study on emergence. These implications open up a broad research agenda for future studies. The universal laws ( C ) and the CPA mechanism ( MCPA ) presented here as foundational are themselves hypothesized to be the result of a single, primordial, symmetry-breaking actualization event. The specific details of this genesis and other consequences of the theory will be developed in a series of companion papers: DPΦII: Genesis and Spin. The next paper in this series will present a comprehensive model for the origin of the universe, showing how a single symmetry-breaking transition established the arrow of time, the PEA, and quantum spin itself. This primordial genesis model also provides a potential mechanism for late-time cosmic acceleration described by the parameter β. DPΦIII: Emergence and Coherence. Building on the foundations of the first two papers, the third paper develops a unified theory of emergence. We will propose that the PEA also drives the formation of all coherent structures, from the stability of atoms to the emergence of biological and even synthetic intelligence. Thus, establishing a single, scalable principle for the emergence of complexity. 12. Conclusion Dynamic Present Theory (DPΦ) reconceives physical reality as an ongoing process in which potential is irreversibly resolved into a definite configuration, exclusively within the present. Traditionally disparate phenomena, such as gravitation, entropy, inertia, and quantum measurement, are integrated within a single, cohesive framework grounded in Continuous Present Actualization (CPA). Based on a concise set of postulates, the theory demonstrates how a parsimonious yet generative foundation gives rise to the core features of our universe. Its central dynamic, the Postulate of Efficient Actualization (PEA), implies inertial persistence as a direct feature of the model, while its guidance of the irreversible CPA process provides the mechanism for monotonic entropy growth. From the theory’s postulated CPA Rate, the framework models gravity as Energy-Density Gravity (EDG), an approach that recovers relativistic behavior in weak fields and replaces singularities with a physical cutoff, CPA Freeze. At the quantum level, this constraint-driven process provides a clear ontological basis for superposition, measurement, and entanglement, thereby resolving longstanding paradoxes. DPΦis not a philosophical overlay but rather a fully falsifiable scientific theory. Its predictions, from laboratory timing effects and strong-field astrophysical phenomena to the evolution of cosmic expansion, are directly anchored to its foundational postulates. By grounding physics in the continuous and generative dynamics of the present, DPΦoffers a testable and unified basis for physical law. 23 Dynamic Present Theory I A New Ontology: The intuitive human experience is of a world composed of persistent objects with enduring properties: a substance-based reality. The DPΦ framework proposes a different, process-based ontology. In this model, what we perceive as a solid object is not a static substance but a dynamically sustained pattern of coherence. This pattern persists through continuous re-actualization in each successive, localized CPA event. Therefore, a persistent object is more like a vortex in a river than a rock on its shore: a stable, repeating process rather than a fixed thing. While the past is an indelible record of prior configurations, reality itself is the dynamic, ever-transforming flow of the present. The framework presented here advances the view that General Relativity is an exquisitely accurate map of the cosmos. Continuous Present Actualization, in turn, offers a candidate for the territory itself: the dynamic, generative mechanism from which the geometric landscape of relativity emerges. Acknowledgments The author acknowledges the role of large language models in developing this theoretical framework. See Appendix J for a full declaration and sample prompts. Author Contribution Statement The sole author was responsible for all aspects of this study, including conceptualization, formal analysis, and manuscript preparation. The author declares no conflicts of interest. Data Availability Statement No new data were created or analyzed in this study. All results are theoretical and were derived in this study. This study did not involve human participants or animals. This study did not receive any external funding. The theoretical framework and manuscript for this paper are permanently archived and available in the Zenodo repository. A. Glossary of Core Terms and Notation Note on Terminology: DPΦadopts a controlled vocabulary to emphasize its distinct process-based ontology. Legacy terms such as trajectory,outcome, or collapse are avoided as they carry assumptions from the block universe or Copenhagen frameworks. Actualization: The general, ongoing process of reality unfolding. Coherence: The persistence of stable patterns and structures through repeated re-actualization under the PEA. 24 Dynamic Present Theory I Configuration / Manifestation: The definite, resolved state of a system after a CPA event. Constraint Load (C): A dimensionless, information-theoretic measure of the lawful restrictions on a system, defined as its normalized information deficit: C≡(Smax −Sactual)/kB. Continuous Present Actualization (CPA): The core ontological concept of DPΦ, describing reality as a process that unfolds through an ordercontinuous and irreversible, localized cascade. Continuum of Potential: In DPΦ, the state of an unmeasured quantum system. It represents the full range of lawfully constrained possibilities, described by the wavefunction, that exists as an unresolved field of potential prior to a CPA event. CPA Cascade: The large-scale, propagating sequence of interconnected, localized actualization events that constitutes the unfolding of reality. CPA Event: A localized, physical occurrence of actualization at a specific place and time. This term connects the theory to the standard language of relativity. CPA Freeze / Suspended Actualization: The high-density limit where ωCPA → 0, causing the cessation of actualization and replacing gravitational singularities. CPA Rate (ωCPA): The local pace of actualization, given by the CPA Rate Law (Postulate P2). CPA Rate Gradient (CRG): The spatial gradient of the CPA Rate ( ∇ωCPA ), that defines the temporal landscape guiding system evolution. Energy-Density Gravity (EDG): The manifestation of gravity as a system’s alignment with a CRG graded by energy density. Inertial Alignment: The persistence of a system’s state by maintaining alignment with a uniform CRG, requiring ∆C= 0. Instance: A single, unique, abstract unit of the actualization process. Whereas a CPA event describes the physical occurrence, an instance refers to the specific resolution itself. Local Constraints (L): The set of all local physical variables that influence a CPA event, primarily the local energy density ( ρE ) and the Constraint Load (C). Postulate of the CPA Rate Law (P2): The foundational postulate that the local rate of actualization is governed by the specific functional form of the CPA Rate Law. 25 Dynamic Present Theory I Performing a Taylor series expansion on our derived g00 yields g00 ≈1 + 2Φ c2+1 2! 2Φ c22 +···= 1 + 2Φ c2+2Φ2 c4+. . . (31) A term-by-term comparison confirms that the DPΦframework requires βPPN = 1, in perfect agreement with the value predicted by General Relativity. This demonstrates the soundness of the calibration procedure. F. DPΦCosmological Model This appendix provides the mathematical details for the cosmological model presented in Section 9.2.2, which produces late-time acceleration as a consequence of CPA dynamics. F.1 The Modified Acceleration Equation The DPΦframework modifies the standard Friedmann acceleration equation by introducing a cosmological lapse function, N ( a ), which represents the average cosmic CPA Rate. In a general relativistic context, this manifests as an additional term in the acceleration equation: ¨a a=−4πG 3ρ+3p c2+ 3βH2,(32) where β is a dimensionless closure exponent. The standard ΛCDM model is recovered in the limit β= 0. F.2 Justification for the Closure Exponent β The existence of a nonzero exponent β is proposed as a consequence of the origin of the universe within the DPΦframework. The theory posits that the initial, symmetry-breaking actualization was inherently rotational, imprinting primordial angular momentum onto the fabric of reality. This primordial torque creates a dynamic coupling between the expansion of cosmic space (the scale factor, a ) and the unfolding of cosmic time, represented here by the aggregate of local actualization rates N ( a ). The PEA dictates that the universe evolves along the most efficient path, which involves this coupling. Power-law relationships are common in scaling phenomena that lack a characteristic scale. Therefore, it is physically plausible that this relationship manifests as the power-law N ( a ) = N0a3β , where β quantifies the strength of this primordial roto-dynamic coupling. The full derivation of β will be presented in a forthcoming companion paper ("Dynamic Present Theory II: Genesis and Spin"). In this paper, β is treated as a phenomenological constant constrained by observation. 32 Dynamic Present Theory I F.3 Derivation of the Acceleration Term The core postulate of the DPΦcosmological model is the power-law relationship for the evolution of the average cosmic lapse function N(a) = N0a3β,(33) where N0 is the average lapse rate. Differentiating with respect to time and using the chain rule ( ˙ N= (dN/da)˙a= (dN/da)aH) yields ˙ N N=1 N0a3β(3βN0a3β−1)aH = 3βH. (34) Substituting this into the general form of the modified acceleration equation yields the final expression used in this paper (Eq. 32). The new term, 3 βH2 , provides a source for cosmic acceleration that can dominate in the late-universe. F.4 Statistical Tests and Pass/Fail Criteria The model is falsified if cosmological data conclusively rule out a non-zero β . The pass/fail criteria are based on pre-registered significance levels applied to the confidence interval for βderived from the expansion history (H(z)) data: FAIL: If the value β = 0 is not excluded at the 95% confidence level (0 ∈CI95% ). MARGINAL SUPPORT: If β = 0 is excluded at the 95% level but not at the 99% level. PASS (STRONG SUPPORT): If β = 0 is excluded at the 99% confidence level (0/∈CI99%). This provides a clear benchmark for testing the theory’s predictions against data from surveys such as SN Ia and BAO. G. Falsification Protocols and Decision Criteria To ensure rigor, all tests are subject to a pre-registered protocol with fixed significance levels: αsig = 0 . 01 (strict) and αmarg = 0 . 05 (marginal). A test receives a PASS if its criterion is met at the strict level, MARGINAL if met at the marginal but not strict level, and FAIL otherwise. Near-Horizon Stall Test: The core prediction is a suppression of the CPA Rate near an event horizon. The test criterion is observing ω/ω∞< ϵω at a radius r = (1 + εr ) rs that is equivalent to observing g00 < ϵ2 ω via the Clock Law. The test is performed by timing periodic emitters or accretion hotspots near compact objects. 33 Dynamic Present Theory I Quantum Tunneling Latency Test: The core prediction is that tunneling latency can be modulated by the Constraint Load ( C ) independently of the barrier potential. The specific protocols and quantitative predictions for this test are detailed in Appendix H. The null hypothesis ( H0 ) states that there is no difference in latency when C is altered. Using a two-sample t-test, the test receives a PASS if H0is rejected at the αsig = 0.01 significance level. Cosmological Lapse Test: The core prediction is a non-zero closure exponent β . The confidence interval for β is determined using the expansion history data (H(z)). The test receives a FAIL: If the value β = 0 is not excluded at the 95% confidence level (0 ∈CI95% ). MARGINAL SUPPORT: If β = 0 is excluded at the 95% level but not at the 99% level. PASS (STRONG SUPPORT): If β = 0 is excluded at the 99% confidence level (0/∈CI99%). H. Falsification via Quantum Tunneling Latency The DPΦframework predicts a specific, measurable deviation from standard Quantum Mechanics (QM) in the phenomenon of quantum tunneling. This deviation provides a direct, laboratory-scale test of the core postulates of the theory, particularly the physical reality of the Constraint Load (C). H.1 Theoretical Basis of the Prediction In the DPΦframework, the tunneling process is not a particle traversing a barrier but a single, holistic actualization event that resolves only upon detection. Therefore, the measured tunneling delay is the characteristic duration of the entire resolution process. The prediction stems from the finite duration of this actualization, which introduces a positive latency τCPA to any observed delay such that τobs =τQM +τCPA. This CPA latency ( τCPA = 1 /ωCPA ) is governed not only by the local energy density but, critically, by the information-theoretic Constraint Load ( C ), as given by the CPA Rate Law (Eq. 2). This directly challenges standard QM, where tunneling time depends only on the macroscopic profile of the potential barrier ( V0, L ). DPΦpredicts that the physical microstate of the barrier (e.g., its crystal structure) alters C and will therefore change the duration of the entire actualization event, even if the macroscopic potential remains identical. H.2 Proposed Null-Test Protocols Two null-test protocols are proposed: 34 Dynamic Present Theory I The Constraint-Load Test: This test aims to isolate the effect of C . The protocol involves preparing two barriers with identical potential profiles ( V0, L ) but different internal microstates (e.g., a pristine single crystal vs. a stressed polycrystalline sample). Standard QM predicts identical tunneling times (∆ τobs = 0), whereas DPΦpredicts a measurable difference (∆ τobs  = 0) due to the different Constraint Loads. The Environmental Null Test: This test probes the sensitivity of ωCPA to external constraints. The protocol involves measuring the tunneling time through a single, constant barrier while varying an external condition that does not affect the potential profile, such as an off-resonant magnetic field or the ambient electromagnetic impedance. Standard QM predicts no change, whereas DPΦpredicts a reproducible shift in the observed delay. H.3 Quantitative Predictions and Falsification The predicted CPA latency is platform-dependent, with concrete and testable bands provided in Table 5. Figure 1 schematically illustrates the predicted deviation from the Hartman effect saturation observed in standard QM. 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0.5 1 1.5 Barrier thickness L Tunneling delay τ QM (Hartman saturation) DPΦ(positive latency) Figure 1: Schematic comparison of tunneling delays versus barrier thickness L . Standard QM (dashed) predicts Hartman saturation; DPΦ(solid) predicts a continued slow increase due to τCPA >0. Figure is illustrative. The falsification criterion for these tests is unambiguous. The theory is falsified if, under controlled conditions with fixed ( V0, L, E ): (1) no positive latency offset is observed within the predicted bands for a given platform, or (2) the observed latency remains strictly invariant during the Constraint Load and environmental null tests. 35 Dynamic Present Theory I Table 5: Tunneling latency predictions across platforms. Platform Predicted Behavior Attoclock (Ne/Ar) τCPA ∼ 80–120 as; sensitive to laser envelope and retrieval dynamics. STM (Å gaps) τCPA ∼ 0 . 2–3 fs; sensitive to tip–sample geometry and EM termination. Cold atoms τCPA ∼ 0 . 1–5 ps; modulated by trap noise and lattice decoherence. Josephson junctions τCPA ∼ 0 . 1–5 ns; varies with environmental impedance Z(ω). I. Extended Experiments This appendix outlines additional experimental avenues for testing the foundational principles of DPΦ. Although the tests in Section 9 are primary, these proposals probe more nuanced aspects of the theory. Dense-Matter Inertial Response: The DPΦframework predicts that the inertial properties of a system are not constant but depend on the local CPA Rate. In systems with extremely high energy densities, ρE , such as in the core of neutron stars or during heavy-ion collisions, the suppressed ωCPA should manifest as a measurable alteration in the inertial response of the system (e.g., modified transport coefficients or relaxation times). This provides a direct test of the CPA Rate Law’s dependence on ρE in a non-gravitational, high-density regime. Probing the Constraint Load C :This experiment would directly probe the informational aspect of DPΦby testing the dependence of ωCPA on the Constraint Load, C . Using systems with highly controllable state spaces, such as molecules in tunable optical lattices, one can precisely manipulate the available configurations (Ω) and thus engineer the value of C as defined in Eq. (5) . DPΦpredicts that the coherence time and other dynamical properties of the molecules should scale predictably with C . A confirmed result would provide an experimental determination of the fundamental constant γ from the CPA Rate Law. J. Methodology Note on AI Collaboration As an independent researcher, the author utilized large language models, specifically OpenAI’s GPT-4o and Google’s Gemini 2.5, to formulate and refine this 36 Dynamic Present Theory I theoretical framework. This collaborative process demonstrates the potential of AI to democratize and accelerate scientific research. The collaboration involved a series of iterative, conversational prompts. The following are representative examples: Conceptual Clarification: “Create an analogy to illustrate the role of PMAC that explains the CPA Rate’s function via informational cost.” Mathematical Derivation: “What is the physical principle for why the CPA Rate (ωCPA) is suppressed by high energy density and constraint?” Language and Style Refinement: “Review this section for consistency with the DPΦlexicon.” Structural Revision: "Restructure the Falsifiability section to create a clear hierarchy." The author directed all lines of inquiry, provided every prompt, and retains full intellectual responsibility for the foundational ideas, analyses, and final conclusions presented in this paper. References David Z. Albert. Time and Chance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000. N. Ashby. Relativity in the global positioning system. Living Reviews in Relativity, 6(1):1–40, 2003. Alain Aspect, Philippe Grangier, and Gérard Roger. Experimental realization of einstein-podolsky-rosen-bohm gedankenexperiment: A new violation of bell’s inequalities. Physical Review Letters, 49:91–94, 1982. Julian Barbour. The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Oxford University Press, 1999. Angelo Bassi, Kinjalk Lochan, Seema Satin, Tejinder P. Singh, and Hendrik Ulbricht. Models of wave-function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests. Rev. Mod. Phys., 85:471–527, 2013. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.85.471. Jacob D. Bekenstein. Black holes and entropy. Physical Review D, 7(8):2333–2346, 1973. J. S. Bell. On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox. Physics, 1:195–200, 1964. Niels Bohr. Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1958. 37 Dynamic Present Theory I B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking. Black holes in the early universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 168(2):399–415, 1974. doi: 10.1093/ mnras/168.2.399. P. C. W. Davies. The Physics of Time Asymmetry. Cambridge University Press, 1974. B. S. DeWitt. Quantum theory of gravity. i. the canonical theory. Phys. Rev., 160(5):1113–1148, 1967. Arthur Stanley Eddington. The Nature of the Physical World. Cambridge University Press, London, 1928. A. Einstein. Über den einfluß der schwerkraft auf die ausbreitung des lichtes. Annalen der Physik, 340:898–908, 1911. doi: 10.1002/andp.19113401005. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47(10):777, 1935. Albert Einstein. Zur elektrodynamik bewegter körper. Annalen der Physik, 322 (10):891–921, 1905. doi: 10.1002/andp.19053221004. Albert Einstein. Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. Annalen der Physik, 354(7):769–822, 1916. doi: 10.1002/andp.19163540702. Albert Einstein. Letter to Max Born, 3 March 1947. In Max Born, editor, The Born-Einstein Letters 1916-1955, page 158. Macmillan, 1947. Published in 2005. G. F. R. Ellis. Physics in the real universe: Time and spacetime. Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 38:1797–1824, 2006. Hugh Everett. "relative state" formulation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29(3):454–462, 1957. D. Finkelstein. Past-future asymmetry of the gravitational field of a point particle. Physical Review, 110(4):965–967, 1958. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.110.965. Debra Gavant. The dynamic present: Unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity through continuous present actualization, 2024. URL https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.13935995. Debra Gavant. Energy-Density Gravity: A Scalar-Potential Toy Model Reproducing Schwarzschild Time Dilation, sep 2025. URL https://doi.org/10. 5281/zenodo.17153940. G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber. Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Physical Review D, 34:470–491, 1986. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.34.470. 38 Dynamic Present Theory I A. M. Gleason. Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 6(6):885–893, 1957. doi: 10.1512/iumj.1957.6. 56050. GRAVITY Collaboration. Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of s2 near the galactic centre massive black hole. Astron. Astrophys., 615:L15, 2018. GRAVITY Collaboration. Detection of the Schwarzschild precession in the orbit of the star s2 near the galactic centre massive black hole. Astron. Astrophys., 636:L5, 2020. Michael B. Green, John H. Schwarz, and Edward Witten. Superstring Theory. Cambridge University Press, 25th anniversary edition, 2012. ISBN 978-1107029118. S. W. Hawking. Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse. Phys. Rev. D, 14(10):2460–2473, 1976. W. Heisenberg. Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43:172–198, 1927. doi: 10.1007/BF01397280. R. Landauer. Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process. IBM J. Res. Dev., 5(3):183–191, 1961. J. L. Lebowitz. Boltzmann’s entropy and time’s arrow. Physics Today, 46:32–38, 1993. I. Makrygianni, K. Auchettl, S. van Velzen, Y. Cendes, G. Leloudas, A. Cikota, J. Selsing, P. D’Avanzo, D. A. Perley, A. Horesh, K. Taggart, M. Tanga, and P. Tzanavaris. The double tidal disruption event at 2022dbl implies that at least some “standard” optical tidal disruption events are partial disruptions. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 987(1):L20, 2025. Isaac Newton. Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Jussu Societatis Regiæ ac Typis Josephi Streater, Londini, 1687. Published to be sold by Samuel Smith at the Prince’s Arms in St. Paul’s Churchyard and other booksellers. E. Noether. Invariante Variationsprobleme. Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse, 1918:235–257, 1918. D. Oriti. Approaches to Quantum Gravity: Toward a New Understanding of Space, Time and Matter. EBL-Schweitzer. Cambridge University Press, 2009. ISBN 9780521860451. D. N. Page and W. K. Wootters. Evolution without evolution: Dynamics described by stationary observables. Phys. Rev. D, 27(12):2885–2892, 1983. 39 Dynamic Present Theory I Roger Penrose. Gravitational collapse: The role of general relativity. Rivista del Nuovo Cimento, 1:252–276, 1969. Roger Penrose. On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction. General Relativity and Gravitation, 28(5):581–600, 1996. doi: 10.1007/BF02105068. URL https: //doi.org/10.1007/BF02105068. Max Planck. On the law of distribution of energy in the normal spectrum. Annalen der Physik, 310(3):553–563, 1901. R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka. Apparent weight of photons. Physical Review Letters, 4:337–341, 1960. Ilya Prigogine. From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1980. Hans Reichenbach. The Direction of Time. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1956. Carlo Rovelli. Quantum Gravity. Cambridge University Press, 2004. Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin. Discreteness of area and volume in quantum gravity. Nuclear Physics B, 442(3):593–619, 1995. Maximilian Schlosshauer. Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys., 76:1267–1305, Feb 2005. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1267. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.76.1267. Erwin Schrödinger. Die gegenwärtige situation in der quantenmechanik. Die Naturwissenschaften, 23:807–812, 823–828, 844–849, 1935. K. Schwarzschild. Über das gravitationsfeld eines massenpunktes nach der einsteinschen theorie. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1916. Irwin I. Shapiro. Fourth test of general relativity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 13:789–791, Dec 1964. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.789. URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.789. Erik Verlinde. On the origin of gravity and the laws of newton. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2011(4), 2011. ISSN 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/jhep04(2011)029. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2011)029. John von Neumann. Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Springer, Berlin, 1932. D. Wallace. The Emergent Multiverse. Oxford University Press, 2012. J. A. Wheeler. Law without law. In J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, editors, Quantum Theory and Measurement, pages 182–216. Princeton University Press, 1984. 40 Dynamic Present Theory I Alfred North Whitehead. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Macmillan, New York, 1929. H. D. Zeh. The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time. Springer, 5 edition, 2007. 41