One set of checks, four physics models
Applies the same three closure checks to four physics models: quantum dephasing, gas kinetics, turbulence filtering, and gravitational averaging.
This paper treats physics theories as descriptive layers, each defined by what you keep (a lens), how you fill in what you discard (a completion), and how you verify the result (audits). It tests this view on four concrete models: quantum dephasing (removing quantum coherences), gas kinetics (the BGK collision model), turbulence filtering (large-eddy simulation), and gravitational averaging (backreaction). The same three checks recur everywhere: Does the compression stabilize? Does zooming out lose information monotonically? Do "compress then evolve" and "evolve then compress" agree? When they disagree, a correction term is forced.
A physics is a theory only when its closure is coherent under the chosen lens.
- Ioannis Tsiokos
Closure coherence
Compress the data, then compress again. If the second pass changes nothing, the macro description is stable. The "idempotence defect" measures how far you are from this.
Information only flows downhill
Zooming out can only lose information, never gain it. This prevents false claims that a coarser description somehow knows more than the detailed one.
Evolution-vs-packaging mismatch
"Evolve then compress" vs. "compress then evolve" can give different answers. When they disagree, the macro theory needs a correction term to stay self-consistent.
Four instantiations
Quantum dephasing, BGK gas kinetics, turbulence filtering (LES), and gravitational averaging (backreaction) all tested with the same three checks.
Core lens
What you keep
Lens
Decides what information survives at the macro level. Everything the lens discards is gone.
How you fill
Completion
Fills in the discarded micro-detail with a default assumption (e.g., thermal equilibrium, spatial smoothness). This closes the description.
How you verify
Audits
Three checks: Does compressing twice give the same result? Does zooming out only lose information? Do "evolve then compress" and "compress then evolve" agree?
Highlighted results
Quantum dephasing is perfectly stable
Removing quantum coherences in a fixed basis is exactly idempotent: doing it twice gives the same result as doing it once. Zero defect.
Gas kinetics improves with more collisions
The more frequently particles collide, the better the macro description (local equilibrium) closes. Failure modes are explicitly identified.
Turbulence and gravity force corrections
The mismatch between "evolve then compress" and "compress then evolve" grows with filter width or spatial variation, forcing structured correction terms.
Clean baselines stay near zero
When the lens is an exact projection or when there is zero spatial variation, mismatch and stability defects are near zero as expected.
Methods and reproducibility
Sanity checks
Media-ready
Every plot in the paper is generated from deterministic scripts that produce run summaries, audit tables, and provenance logs.
- Stability defect and evolution-vs-packaging mismatch sweeps
- Quantum, kinetic, turbulence, and gravitational model runs
- Audit tables with hashed configurations
Limitations and scope
Resources
Read the paper (DOI)
Zenodo DOI record
Code and reproducibility
Python artifacts + Lean anchors
Framework paper landing page
Six Birds: Foundations of Emergence Calculus
Access
Open-access preprint with reproducible artifacts and mechanized lemmas.
Citation
Ioannis Tsiokos (2026). To Become a Stone with Six Birds: A Physics is A Theory. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18412131
BibTeX
@misc{tsiokos2026become,
title = {To Become a Stone with Six Birds: A Physics is A Theory},
author = {Tsiokos, Ioannis},
year = {2026},
publisher = {Zenodo},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.18412131},
url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18412131}
}Press and contact
For media inquiries, figures, or walkthroughs of the artifacts, reach out directly.
Ioannis Tsiokos
ioannis@automorph.io
Corresponding author - Press contact