Preprint articulates the finite-rate closure conjecture, connecting computation-rate bounds and physical theory.
This preprint articulates a finite-rate closure conjecture for physical law. It reads an established lineage of computation-rate and quantum-speed-limit bounds (Bremermann, Mandelstam-Tamm, Margolus-Levitin, Bekenstein, Jacobson, Lloyd) through Goedel's 1949 demonstration that Einstein's field equations do not guarantee a global time function, together with the Connes-Rovelli thermal time hypothesis. Stated canonically, the apex conjecture holds that at least one sector of physical law carries a fundamental local closure term with characteristic proper-time scale tau > 0, and that every fundamental closure rate, defined per local degree of freedom, is bounded above by a value of order the inverse Planck time. The established results are assembled into a premise-explicit lattice carried by three named auxiliary premises; a minimal covariant relaxation model gives the conjecture technical content; and the empirical situation is decomposed against current high-energy dispersion, birefringence, and photon-decay constraints (including LHAASO observations of GRB 221009A), which already close the generic linear photon-sector corner. No theorem deriving the conjecture is claimed. Version 1.7 is a major revision: it fixes the intensive (per-degree-of-freedom) normalization of the closure-rate ceiling, rebuilds the empirical section on current data, defends the Goedel step against the philosophy-of-physics reception literature, concedes the computation-rate lineage and narrows the novelty claim, and adds a premise-explicit lattice table. An ancillary Lean 4 file (FiniteClosure.lean, Mathlib v4.27.0) pins the operational definitions, verifies the toy-model ODE solution, and states the apex conjecture as an explicitly unproved proposition. Licensed CC BY 4.0.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kenneth A. Mendoza (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: