Māyā theory is not a new physical theory in the formal sense. It introduces no new equations, changes no mathematical apparatus, or adds no additional constants or entities. It is an ontological reinterpretation of general relativity and quantum mechanics. The equations remain identical, and the empirical predictions remain unchanged — but their meaning changes.

The key step is surprisingly simple: we stop treating the physical constants (c, G, ℏ, k_B) as primitive and arbitrary, and start seeing them as relations between Planck units – parameters of the computational architecture of reality.

• Speed ​​of light: $c={\mathrm{\ell }}_P\mathrm{/}{t}_P$​ – maximum information propagation speed (one planxel per tick).
• Reduced Planck constant: $\mathrm{\hslash }=E_P\cdot t_P$ – elementary portion of the operation in one cycle.
• Gravitational constant: $G={\mathrm{\ell }}_P\cdot E_P\mathrm{/}{m}_P^2$​ – network response to local information overload.$$
• Boltzmann constant: $k_B=E_P\mathrm{/}{T}_P$ – the relation between processing energy and degrees of freedom.

For over a century, physical constants served as "masks"—numbers obscuring the deeper mechanisms of description of the world. Their arbitrariness, however, was only apparent. When expressed in Planck units, they cease to exist as independent parameters and instead emerge as relations between spatial resolution, elementary time cadence, and the scale of interactions. Therefore, they are not fundamental entities in themselves, but rather conversion factors between levels of description.

It's worth emphasizing that the practice of expressing equations in Planck units is nothing new in physics. For decades, it has been used as a convenient computational tool: for simplifying formulas, analyzing scales, estimating orders of magnitude, and exploring the limits of a theory. In this sense, substituting physical constants for combinations of Planck units was treated as a neutral formal convention—useful, but devoid of any deeper meaning. It was believed that "it changed nothing" except shortening the notation and improving the clarity of calculations.

A key fact, therefore, had long been present in formalism: after such a substitution, physical constants systematically disappear from the fundamental equations, leaving in their place the relations between length, time, and energy. This fact was known and accepted, but it was not interpreted ontologically. Not because it was overlooked, but because within the prevailing ontology—based on continuous space-time, substantial matter, and fundamental fields—there was no language in which it could mean anything. From this perspective, the disappearance of constants had to remain a computational curiosity.

It is here that Māyā takes a step that physics could not previously take. The theory asks not whether such a notation is computationally convenient, but what it implies if taken literally. Only a processual ontology—in which reality is not a collection of entities but a network of local information-processing cycles—gives this formal fact meaning. From this perspective, the disappearance of constants is not a convention but a signal: the equations describe not separate "forces" or "substances," but parameters of execution.

Māyā thus demonstrates that the substitution of Planck units was never ontologically neutral — it was merely devoid of interpretation. Only a shift in perspective, from geometry to execution and from entities to process, reveals that the same formulas have always encoded the relationships between resolution, clock speed, and network load. In this sense, Māyā does not discover new equations. She discovers that physics has long calculated the computational architecture of the world, without yet possessing an ontology that would allow this recognition.

When we apply Planck's relations to classical formulas from this perspective, physical constants cease to serve as foundations and begin to act as pointers. They lead from formalism to mechanism—from equations to architecture. The following examples show, step by step, how known relations reveal hidden processing in a network of planxels, without changing the mathematics, but with a radical shift in its meaning.

1. E = mc² – mass-energy equivalence (Einstein's most famous formula)

The classic form of Einstein's equation describes the fact that mass and energy are equivalent, with the speed of light acting as a conversion constant between the two quantities. However, the standard interpretation does not explain why this relationship exists or where its scale comes from.

After writing the speed of light as a relation of Planck units ($c = \ell_P / t_P$), the equation becomes:

$E = m (\ell_P / t_P)^2$

The constant c is no longer an arbitrary parameter, but becomes an expression of the maximum speed of information propagation in the planxel network.

In the Māyā ontology, mass is not a primordial property of matter, but a measure of the local density of information in a stable soliton pattern. Maintaining such a pattern requires slowing down the local processing rhythm — the greater the information load, the longer the duration of the elementary cycle.

Energy thus emerges as a quantitative measure of the network's work required to keep a congested pattern synchronized with its surroundings. The equivalence of mass and energy is not a geometric postulate, but a direct consequence of the computational architecture: local slowdowns in rhythm must be compensated by the increased energy cost of rendering.

2. The Unruh Effect – Apparent Thermality in Acceleration

The classical Unruh temperature formula describes that an accelerating observer in a vacuum perceives radiation with a thermal distribution, with the temperature depending on the acceleration:

$T = \frac{\hbar a}{2\pi c k_B}$

After substituting the constants for Planck units, the equation becomes:

$T = \frac{a t_P^2 T_P}{2\pi \ell_P}$

The constant ℏ, c and k_B disappear and the temperature becomes a function of acceleration scaled by the elementary parameters of clock speed (t_P) and resolution (ℓ_P).

In Māyā, acceleration disrupts phase synchronization between planxels—the local observer must "catch up" to the rhythm differences, which generates chaotic phase fluctuations (η noise). These fluctuations have statistics mimicking thermal distributions, but there is no physical heat or medium—there is only a local disruption of the processing rhythm caused by a change in the inertial frame of reference. The accelerated observer "sees" more disturbances than the inertial one, resolving the vacuum "thermal" paradox.

3. Hawking radiation from black holes

The classical Hawking formula describes the temperature of the radiation emitted by a black hole as being inversely proportional to its mass:

$T_H = \frac{\hbar c^3}{8\pi G M k_B}$

After substituting Planck units, the equation becomes:

$T_H = \frac{m_P^2 t_P^2 T_P}{8\pi M \ell_P}$

Temperature is inversely proportional to the ratio of the black hole's mass to the Planck mass (M/m_P).

In Māyā, at the event horizon (the boundary of maximum load ρ_max), the local clock becomes extremely long — almost suspended. Quantum noise (η) allows for random "leakage" of phase fluctuations beyond this boundary, which on a macroscale we see as thermal radiation. The mechanism: statistical information leakage from the region of maximum computational overload, where the clock is nearly halted. This resolves the information paradox — information is not lost, but gradually "leaks" through synchronization fluctuations.

4. Einstein's Field Equations – the Foundation of Gravity

Einstein's classical field equations describe how mass-energy curves space-time, generating gravity:

$R_{\mu\nu} – \frac{1}{2} R g_{\mu\nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu\nu}$

After substituting G and c for Planck units, the right-hand side of the equations becomes

$8\pi \frac{t_P^4 E_P}{m_P^2 \ell_P^3} T_{\mu\nu}$

The constant G and c^4 disappear, and the right-hand side becomes a measure of local information overload ($T_{\mu\nu}$​ as ρ_eff), scaled by clock speed and resolution parameters.

The left side (curvature) is the gradient of the synchronization rhythm in the network. The mechanism: uneven load slows the rhythm in dense regions, generating a synchronization voltage—this voltage propagates through the network as gravity. Λ is the global effect of rhythm differences between voids and dense regions (dark energy). The equations do not describe "curvature by mass," but rather the network's response to uneven computational load.

5. Kerr metric and frame contraction

Classic formula (mixed component of the Kerr metric in the weak field approximation):

$g_{t\phi} = -\frac{2 G J r \sin^2\theta}{c \Sigma}$

After substituting G and c for Planck units:

$g_{t\phi} \propto -2 \frac{E_P t_P J r \sin^2\theta}{m_P^2 \Sigma}$

This component manifests itself as an asymmetry in the synchronization phase caused by the angular momentum J (topological phase vorticity). The mechanism: rotation generates information vortices in the planxels – the phase bias slows synchronization in one direction more than the other, which, on a macroscale, manifests as a "pulling" of the inertial frame by the rotating object. This explains why rotation "influences" spacetime – it is a dynamic disturbance of the rhythm in the static grid.

6. Friedmann's Equations and the Expansion of Space

Classic pattern (with Λ):

$\left( \frac{\dot{a}}{a} \right)^2 = \frac{8\pi G}{3} \rho + \frac{\Lambda c^2}{3}$

After substituting G and c for Planck units:

$\left( \frac{\dot{a}}{a} \right)^2 = \frac{8\pi (\ell_P E_P / m_P^2)}{3} \rho + \frac{\Lambda (\ell_P / t_P)^2}{3}$

Λ manifests as a global synchronization pressure — voids (low ρ) have a faster rhythm than dense regions, generating tension that stretches the relationships between planxels. The mechanism: differences in local processing rates accumulate on a cosmic scale, forcing a reorganization of synchronization — this is seen as accelerated expansion. There is no "space stretching" by new energy — there is a reorganization of rhythm in response to uneven loading.

7. Schrödinger's Equation – Quantum Evolution

Classic pattern (time independent):

$i \hbar \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} = \hat{H} \psi$

After substituting ℏ for Planck units:

$i (E_P t_P) \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} = \hat{H} \psi$

The equation describes the evolution of a quantum state over time. The mechanism: the left side is an elementary portion of the action (E_P t_P) scaling the phase change over time, the right side is the Hamiltonian as the operator for loading and synchronizing the soliton pattern. Quantum evolution is not "flowing in time" — it is a sequence of discrete processing cycles in which the state ψ (phase amplitude) is updated clock-by-clock. This demonstrates how the probabilistic nature of QM emerges from local phase dynamics on a discrete lattice.

8. The Dirac Equation and Spinor Particles

Classic pattern:

$i \hbar \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \psi – m c \psi = 0$

After substituting ℏ and c for Planck units:

$i (E_P t_P) \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \psi – m (\ell_P / t_P) \psi = 0$

The equation describes the propagation of spinor information solitons—phase resonances with topological vorticity (spin 1/2). The mechanism: fermions are persistent phase patterns in a discrete lattice, whose mass slows the rhythm, and whose spin is determined by the direction of the synchronizing vortex. Evolution does not "occur over time"—it happens in successive processing cycles. This demonstrates how the quantum nature of elementary particles emerges from discrete phase dynamics.

Why are we only seeing this now?

The formulas had been known for decades: Einstein (1915), Schrödinger (1926), Friedmann (1922), Dirac (1928), Kerr (1963), Hawking (1974), Unruh (1976). What was missing was an information processing language and a discrete architecture to recognize that physical constants are not arbitrary numbers but parameters of a code executing reality.

Māyā adds nothing new to mathematics — it merely shifts perspective. Suddenly, familiar equations begin to tell the story of a discrete, clocked network of planxels, in which everything — from relativistic energy to quantum evolution — is an emergent consequence of local information processing. This demonstrates how physics has always been describing the code of reality without realizing it.

All patterns containing physical constants that can be expressed in Planck units exhibit the same mechanism: local information load slows the synchronization rhythm, and differences in rhythm generate emergent phenomena — from mass and energy, through gravity and quantum fluctuations, to cosmic expansion. This is a universal principle: reality is not composed of entities — it is made of processing cycles.

Originality Clause (Mechanical Interpretation)

Māyā theory does not claim primacy in the mere notion that information, discreteness, or Planckian structure can play a fundamental role in describing reality. Such ideas have appeared previously in various strands of theoretical physics and philosophy of science, but most often in the form of interpretation, analogy, or ontological postulate.

The originality of Māyā's theory lies elsewhere: in the first consistent treatment of known physics equations as descriptions of the execution mechanism, not merely formal or geometric relations. Physical constants are not reinterpreted symbolically or metaphorically, but rather as parameters of the system's operation—relations between the elementary resolution, clock speed, and allowable load of the computational architecture.

In this approach, the substitution of Planck units is not a calculation or a formal convention, but a key to revealing the hidden mechanical layer: the speed of light, Planck's constant, the gravitational constant and the Boltzmann constant cease to function as fundamental input data and begin to function as indicators of local information processing.

The Māyā theory is therefore the first proposal in which the same, long-known formulas of classical, relativistic, and quantum physics are interpreted literally as instructions for action, without changing the mathematics and without introducing new entities, but only by changing the starting point of the ontology: from entities and geometry to process and execution.