This is my casual take on Millennium Problems in Physics, where I typed about them for about 90 minutes in the middle of May 2026.
I took the questions conveniently from Ethan Siegel's article, Unsolved problems in Physics
I have no expectations of giving answers that satisfy criteria of 'done', but I can offer some approaches through my own lens, which are likely wrong, because I've spent very little time studying these problems where other folk dedicate a full life of academic study on a single problem.
I hope to look at other collections soon, but for now, here's a quick but respectful take on the Millennium Problems.
1. Are all the (measurable) dimensionless parameters that characterize the physical universe calculable in principle or are some merely determined by historical or quantum mechanical accident and uncalculable?
I think none of this is arbitrary, accidental, or uncalculable.
I hope the fundamental parameters can all be reduced to '1', and the derived parameters will lose 'free parameter' status as we derive them through doing the math on structure and process. A unitless parameter is a 'smell' that we're not looking at foundational elements, but an interaction or coupling.
I plan to try some of this by deriving statistics from my deterministic processes, which is necessary almost as a translation layer from my methodology to field mechanics, so that I can communicate my work to a significant sector of the community. I explained this goal formally.[16]
2. How can quantum gravity help explain the origin of the universe?
I think this is a loaded question, which deserves to be answered more broadly. Taking it literally, we'd have a better understanding of the field that is responsible ultimately for gravitation, and not just mass (though that is a part-solved problem in the context of quantum mechanics). There might be room in that description to work out what happens in early universe conditions, and answer the deeper questions.
Taking a step back, I think any theory that covers both quantum mechanics and gravitation would give us insights into the nature of gravitation, and perhaps a bit more about the entities covered by quantum mechanics.
I think physics has a crisis about the mathematical approach for reconciling what the relationship is between quantum mechanics and general relativity. I have some views on this:
The origin of the universe has an challenging feature: it must break conservation laws or rely on field excitation (which I find unsatisfactory), and find inhomogeneity ('faults') in an otherwise uniform and nonunique state.
My own mechanism conserves the lowest-level instances (oscillators), so my mechanics needs something else that replicates or instantiates those instances that make up the bits of the universe. I can think of many mechanisms to do that, but they remain separate from my working mechanism for physics, a situation that suggests my mechanism is incomplete. To solve the 'Where did it all come from?' problem requires a mechanism that models our physics and its instantiation, say using a process with a minimal set of self-operators like 'conserve', 'copy', and 'conjugate', but they are unsatisfactory from a conservation perspective.
One possibility is if you modify my mechanism to branch oscillators when they're modulated by others, so mass and phase become commutative, committing a 'write' of phase at the fermion rather than just a 'read' of post-modulated phase to determine collapse. I haven't worked through the consequences. My guess it could merge oscilaltors, or split oscillators into successively smaller masses, but the resulting particle zoo wouldn't resemble that of the Standard Model, and we'd lose the conservation of oscillators.
It's beyond the scope of this article, and I can't yet accept it as the favorable option. I outlined it as an alternative design choice that could achieve instantiation.[16] I strongly believe in exposing hypotheses to falsification, so in my works, I expose all my design choices and free parameters.
3. What is the lifetime of the proton and how do we understand it?
I don't have a view on this, because I haven't studied it in detail.
In 2006, while I was developing my mechanism I speculated that the proton must be a self-correcting structure, with challenges from the environment, or that there's a small chance of a 'freak wave' within the confinement interactions that causes a part of the composite to decay, and therefore the reconstitution network is no longer viable for the conserved composite. I expressed it as a trivial relation.
It's a question I want to return to when my simulations[16] are mature.
4. Is Nature supersymmetric, and if so, how is supersymmetry broken?
If this question is about the basis of String Theory, then I suspect not. However, my mechanism is related, because of the way matter can be bosonic and fermionic during propagation of a 'conserved fermion'. There, bosonic shells collapse under unique conditions to create a point fermion for zero duration before it becomes bosonic again. The fermions are a configuration of the bosons, and vice versa, rather than there being fermions and their supersymmetric bosons as a field that's difficult to excite. I already have the bosons that correspond to the fermions, and the networks are just configuration.
In the context of the question, my mechansim breaks various types of symmetry.
For example, the geometric symmetry across every fermion collapse. At a fermion event, the uniqueness properties are different, and that's what localization is. You can draw many symmetries from that. I outline these uniqueness properties before, at, and after the fermion.[16]
There's also a symmetry break caused by the availability of oscillator waves across the weak interaction, which is usually the first collapse of an oscillcator from a shell.
I have an asymmetry between matter and antimatter, most noticable, relative to interaction distance, nearest the Planck scale.
5. Why does the universe appear to have one time and three space dimensions?
I only have a vague answer here. I think 3D flat space is emergent from: Phase of oscillators being the most fundamental, time being the progression of phase, and space is the emergent solution/expression/resolution of many such physical interactions.
I think 3D space is a phenomenon of geometric (Clifford) algebra, and there are good reasons in complex geometry that limit the dimensionality and the complexity algebra systems. After complexification and other combinations of existing basis units, they start to resemble units that already exist, so get no more complicated. I think 3D space resolves like that.
Are we also thinking of the (3,1) metric of spacetime? I can't offer much on that, other than how I use it myself to find solutions in my simulation, and the maths of my oscillators which is closely related to Euler's identity with its -1 metric.
In 1998 I did some work to expand three basis axes that defined 16-dimensional algebras from three abstract D2 basis axes, related to Hestenes's APS. I later used them as 3 × C2 bases as oscillators that drove values in the larger dimensional space, a 2 × biparavector space spread over 8 paramaters, one of which was space, and another time. Those C2 bases had values of physical significance, but I still can't offer much beyond that. My work since 2008 just uses one of those bases (b), and I'm deriving all my emergent physicality just from scalar oscillators.
6. Why does the cosmological constant have the value that it has, is it zero and is it really constant?
I'm not qualified to offer much here. I think it's a correction to a misunderstood universe. Lamdba-CDM is the best physics we have at the moment, but I think it's ripe for refinement or something new.
I offered some speculation in 2014 about a cause of redshift being caused by changing or inhomogeneous vacuum density.
7. What are the fundamental degrees of freedom of M-theory (the theory whose low-energy limit is eleven-dimensional supergravity and which subsumes the five consistent superstring theories) and does the theory describe Nature?
I'm not qualified to offer much here. I could offer general weak speculation about the variety of possibilities within such algebras, but I'd question the justifications for the dimensions being packaged that way, and for the coupling mechanism of branes. I think there's a lot of good maths in there, and I'm yet to be convinced it describes what nature actually is (however closely it might approximate observation when tuned for interesting scenarios).
8. What is the resolution of the black hole information paradox?
I have ideas here. I think black holes are not that special and you shouldn't need 'different physics' to describe them. The laws of physics should be universal, rather than domain-bound.
My short answer is that oscillators are conserved, but their configuration as fermions and larger structures is not conserved. I think a black hole doesn't become a special entity.
My own ideas present black holes as dense collections of matter (oscillators) that are so dense that fermions seldom reconstitute with exactly the same bosonic ingredients. The last comment requires some explanation, and you'd need to understand my mechanism. [15][16] [black hole]
I can model features of a black hole, such as a probabilistic boundary of no escape, the graviational flux at various radii, accretion layers, a process of distillation for its evaporation, and even a zone where the vacuum has less energy than the background. I find it fascinating! [16]
9. What physics explains the enormous disparity between the gravitational scale and the typical mass scale of the elementary particles?
I have an unconventional mechanism for gravitation: it's the same mechanism I use for everything else! In my work, gravitation is an attribution of vacuum flux that was radiated from significant collections of matter. It's a statistical effect. It's worth mentioning that I model the vacuum energy as instances of bosonic shells from previous fermion events.
The attribution to gravitation, of any classical action, is relatively small compared to the other actions on the recurring positions of fermions or their composites. Charge-based flux effects are due to coherent flux, which can be more consistently directional in some configurations.
I hope to calculate this in simulation, but for now, I can say it's a second-order effect: first a large body of fermions, as part of their regular reconstitution cycle, re-radiates the vacuum flux, which makes it a focused source of vacuum bosons [1]. Then it interacts with another nearby body which is another interaction that can be summarized as a probability. I think gravitation is relatively weak because the opportunities for that class or attribution of interaction work out as those numbers.
[1] Determining when environmental vacuum becomes charge-inducing flux, gravitational flux, or confining flux, is classical subjective context and attribution, rather than being fundamentally a different kind of force or flux.
10. Can we quantitatively understand quark and gluon confinement in Quantum Chromodynamics and the existence of a mass gap?
I hope to! I have two free parameters, related to the mass of oscillators that make quarks and neutrinos. What I really want is to be able to derive those from geometric principles, but until then, I think I have enough to be able to calculate quark masses from those two parameters and statistics of the configuration in the mechanism, including the CKM and PMNS matrices. [16]
Key to this is understanding the relationship between wave phase, oscillators' occupancy of the phase spectrum, and the oscillators in any given configuration of quarks as hadrons. A clue here will be the degree of confinement of 3rd generation quarks: I expect confinement until they decay.