DOI: To Be Assigned
John Swygert
May 1, 2026
Abstract
This paper proposes that the common physical question “What is the universe made of?” may be incomplete unless preceded by a deeper question: what lawful condition makes “made of” possible at all? Traditional physics often approaches reality by searching for smaller constituents, more fundamental particles, deeper fields, or more unified forces. This approach has produced extraordinary knowledge. However, the search for what reality is made of may overlook the prior condition by which matter, location, relation, measurement, and physical expression become possible.
This paper argues that “made of” is not a primitive category. To say that something is made of something else already assumes a lawful structure in which identity, composition, location, relation, boundary, persistence, and measurement are possible. If space is emergent, then “where” is not primary. If mass is an assigned or emergent property, then “what” is not primary. If objecthood arises only after stable relation, then matter cannot be the deepest explanatory layer. Beneath matter must be the condition that permits matter to become expressible.
This paper defines that condition as the substrate: a pre-physical lawful foundation that holds no expressed mass, energy, or dimension, yet encodes the attributes by which mass, energy, dimension, relation, and observable reality may emerge. The substrate is not proposed as another particle, field, hidden substance, or unseen region inside the universe. Rather, it is treated as the lawful precondition beneath physical expression. The central claim is that the substrate does not merely answer what reality is made of; it governs the conditions under which “what,” “where,” and “made of” become meaningful.
I. Introduction
One of the oldest and most powerful questions in physics is simple:
What is everything made of?
This question has driven philosophy, chemistry, particle physics, cosmology, and mathematics for centuries. It led human beings to atoms, electrons, nuclei, quarks, fields, particles, symmetries, spacetime geometry, and quantum behavior. It is one of the most productive questions ever asked.
Yet it may not be the deepest question.
To ask what something is made of assumes that “something” and “made of” are already meaningful. It assumes that there are distinguishable entities. It assumes that one level can compose another. It assumes that parts can relate to wholes. It assumes that there is a structure in which matter can occupy location, persist through time, interact with other matter, and become measurable.
The question “What is the universe made of?” therefore depends upon a prior question:
What makes “made of” possible?
This paper begins there.
The goal is not to dismiss particle physics, field theory, cosmology, or any existing scientific approach. The search for constituents remains essential. The question of whether there is a smallest particle, a deepest field, or a final unifying structure remains scientifically meaningful. But the substrate framework asks whether the building-block question, by itself, may begin too late.
A particle is already an expressed entity.
A field is already an expressed structure.
A force is already an expressed relation.
Spacetime is already an expressed condition.
Measurement is already an expressed event.
The substrate question is prior to all of these.
What lawful condition allows anything to become expressible as something, somewhere, in relation to anything else?
This is the question this paper addresses.
II. The Limits Of The Building-Block Question
The building-block question has enormous explanatory power. If a table is made of molecules, molecules are made of atoms, atoms are made of nuclei and electrons, nuclei are made of protons and neutrons, and protons and neutrons are made of quarks, then reality appears to reveal itself through deeper and deeper layers of composition.
This approach is natural. Children break rocks into smaller rocks. Chemists break compounds into elements. Physicists break atoms into subatomic particles. Particle colliders smash known particles together to reveal possible deeper structures. Science moves downward into smaller scales, higher energies, and more fundamental interactions.
But the building-block approach eventually encounters a conceptual problem.
If every thing is made of smaller things, then either the sequence continues forever, or it terminates in something not made of smaller things. If it continues forever, there may be no final foundation. If it terminates, the final layer cannot be explained in the same way as the layers above it. It cannot be “made of” in the ordinary compositional sense.
This creates a problem for the phrase “made of.”
At ordinary scales, “made of” means that one thing is composed of smaller things. But at the deepest scale, this language may fail. The deepest layer cannot simply be another object in the same chain, because then the chain has not ended. The foundation of reality may not be a smaller object at all.
This suggests that “made of” is a surface-level concept that works well inside expressed physical reality but may not apply to the condition beneath expression.
If the substrate is real, then the universe is not ultimately made of the substrate in the same way a wall is made of bricks. Rather, physical reality is expressed through substrate law. The substrate is not a material ingredient. It is the lawful precondition of material expression.
This distinction is essential.
The substrate is not the smallest stuff.
It is the condition by which stuff becomes possible.
III. The Prior Question
The prior question may be stated as follows:
What lawful condition permits anything to become expressible as something, somewhere, in relation to anything else?
This question contains three key terms: something, somewhere, and relation.
Something refers to identity or objecthood.
Somewhere refers to location or dimensional expression.
Relation refers to interaction, distinction, comparison, measurement, and law.
Each of these must be explained.
A “something” cannot exist without distinction. It must be distinguishable from what it is not. This requires boundary, identity, and persistence.
A “somewhere” cannot exist without dimensional structure. It must be locatable within a relational field. This requires extension, orientation, or some equivalent form of position.
A “relation” cannot exist without lawful structure. One thing must be able to affect, measure, constrain, or correspond to another. This requires order.
Therefore, before the universe can be described as made of anything, several deeper conditions must already be in place:
There must be the possibility of distinction.
There must be the possibility of relation.
There must be the possibility of constraint.
There must be the possibility of persistence.
There must be the possibility of measurable expression.
There must be the possibility of lawful difference.
These conditions are not themselves ordinary matter. They are prior to ordinary matter. They describe what must be true before matter can become meaningful.
The substrate is proposed as the lawful condition that holds these preconditions.
IV. Defining The Substrate
The substrate, as used in this paper, is pure nothingness with attributes. It holds no expressed energy, no expressed mass, and no expressed dimension, yet it encodes law. Within it exist the rules and attributes that govern symmetry, limit, relation, potential, and expression. When opportunity, which is energy in any form, interacts with the zero point field, the encoded equilibrium of the substrate determines what becomes possible. The substrate is not a cause in the ordinary mechanical sense, but a condition: a structured emptiness through which existence may emerge.
This definition is deliberately restrained.
The substrate is not an invisible object.
The substrate is not dark matter.
The substrate is not dark energy.
The substrate is not a hidden realm inside space.
The substrate is not a particle below all particles.
The substrate is not a mystical substitute for unexplained physics.
The substrate is the lawful precondition of physical expression.
It contains no expressed thing, but it encodes the conditions by which things may become expressible. This is why the substrate is difficult to recognize. The human mind expects foundations to be objects. It asks, “What is the deepest thing?” The substrate model answers that the deepest foundation may not be a thing at all.
It may be lawful possibility before thingness.
This is why the substrate is easily overlooked. It does not appear as another entry on the list of particles or forces. It is not something one adds to the inventory of the universe. It is the condition by which inventory itself becomes possible.
V. What And Where Are Not Primary
The ordinary question “What is the universe made of?” assumes that “what” is primary.
But what if “what” is emergent?
A physical object is a stabilized expression. It has identity, properties, persistence, and relation. It can be measured, named, and located. But these are already late-stage features. They arise only after possibility has become constrained into expression.
Likewise, the ordinary question assumes “where” is primary. It assumes that things exist somewhere, and that space is the container in which they exist. But if spacetime itself is emergent or relational, then “where” cannot be the deepest category. “Where” belongs to expressed dimensional reality.
The substrate framework therefore proposes:
The substrate governs the conditions under which “what” and “where” become possible.
This is a significant shift.
Particles answer the question of what appears.
Fields answer the question of how expression behaves.
Spacetime answers the question of where relation is organized.
Forces answer the question of how expressed entities interact.
But the substrate asks:
What permits appearance, behavior, location, and interaction to exist as lawful categories?
In this model, “what” and “where” are not denied. They are relocated. They belong to physical expression, not to the deepest precondition of expression.
The substrate does not occupy a where.
It permits where.
The substrate is not a what.
It permits what.
VI. Composition Requires Law
To say that one thing is made of another is to describe a lawful compositional relation.
A molecule is made of atoms because atoms bond under specific conditions. A body is made of cells because cells organize into tissues, organs, and systems. A star is made of plasma because matter under gravitational and thermonuclear conditions behaves in a particular way. Composition is never mere accumulation. It is lawful organization.
A pile is not the same as a system.
Composition requires rules. It requires relation. It requires structure. It requires boundaries and constraints. Without law, parts do not become wholes. They merely coexist, collide, scatter, or dissolve.
Therefore, “made of” depends on lawful relation.
This is one of the central insights of this paper. The building blocks of reality cannot explain reality unless there are rules governing how building blocks behave, relate, combine, persist, transform, and become measurable.
A universe made only of parts but no lawful relation would not become a coherent universe. It would not produce stable matter, stars, life, memory, or knowledge.
Thus, law is deeper than composition.
The substrate is proposed as the encoded source of the lawful conditions that permit composition to occur.
VII. Boundary Conditions And Made-Of Reality
A thing becomes composed only when boundary conditions allow parts to become organized.
Boundary conditions determine what belongs to a system and what does not. They determine what crosses into a system and what is excluded. They determine what remains stable and what transforms. They determine what can be measured and what remains inaccessible.
A cell is made of molecules, but it is not merely a pile of molecules. It becomes a cell because boundary conditions produce organization, metabolism, membrane integrity, and identity. A star is made of plasma, but it becomes a star because gravitational, thermal, and nuclear boundary conditions sustain stellar behavior. A particle event becomes data because detector boundaries convert invisible interaction into measurable record.
In each case, “made of” is incomplete without boundary conditions.
The same constituents can produce different expressions under different boundaries. Carbon can appear as graphite or diamond. Water can appear as ice, liquid, or vapor. Cells can become different tissues depending on developmental context. The material may be similar, but the boundary conditions alter expression.
This suggests a broader principle:
Matter does not become meaningful through composition alone. Matter becomes meaningful through boundary-governed expression.
The substrate framework extends this principle downward. If physical reality itself emerges from pre-physical law, then the most fundamental boundary is the boundary between unexpressed potential and expressed reality.
At that boundary, “made of” begins.
VIII. The Axis Of Expression
A boundary often implies an axis.
An axis is a relation of orientation, distinction, polarity, or balance. It allows difference to be structured. Without an axis, a boundary has no meaningful direction. Without a boundary, an axis may remain abstract. Together, axis and boundary provide the relational geometry of expression.
Equilibrium requires an axis because equilibrium is a condition of balance across relation. There must be something that can deviate, return, stabilize, or transform. Equilibrium does not exist in pure indistinction. It requires difference.
This has direct relevance to the substrate framework.
If the substrate encodes equilibrium, then it must also encode the possibility of axes: relational structures through which difference, balance, limit, and expression can be defined. The axis is not necessarily a physical line in space. It may be a pre-physical relation that later appears as polarity, symmetry, gradient, direction, charge, field orientation, temporal ordering, or dimensional relation.
The axis is a boundary principle.
It marks the possibility of distinction.
Once distinction exists, expression can be organized. Once expression is organized, properties can appear. Once properties appear, matter can be said to exist.
This means that “made of” may depend on axes beneath matter.
Before a thing can be made of parts, there must be a relational structure that allows parts to be distinguished, ordered, and combined. The axis provides orientation. The boundary provides threshold. Equilibrium provides lawful balance.
This triad is foundational:
Axis.
Boundary.
Equilibrium.
Together, they describe the conditions under which reality becomes expressible.
IX. Information Before Objecthood
The substrate model suggests that information precedes objecthood.
This does not mean information in the ordinary human sense of written language, computer code, or symbolic messages. It means distinguishable relational potential. Information exists wherever there is structured difference capable of lawful expression.
A physical object is not merely information, but it may be information under constraint. It may be a stabilized informational state that has become measurable through dimensional expression.
This leads to a powerful reframing:
Matter is not primary information.
Matter is expressed information.
Mass is not merely substance.
Mass is consequence-bearing informational persistence.
Objecthood is not the beginning.
Objecthood is what occurs when information becomes stable enough to persist, interact, and be measured.
This does not eliminate matter. It deepens matter. It says that matter is not dead stuff. Matter is lawfully expressed relation. Matter is the visible consequence of deeper conditions.
The phrase “made of” therefore changes meaning.
At the ordinary level, a thing is made of parts.
At the deeper level, a thing is made possible by encoded relation.
At the substrate level, the question becomes not “What are the parts?” but “What law permits parts to exist?”
X. The Problem Of The Final Ingredient
If the universe is made of particles, what are particles made of?
If particles are excitations of fields, what are fields made of?
If fields are mathematical structures or physical realities, what permits those structures to exist?
If spacetime is emergent, from what does it emerge?
If information is fundamental, what defines the space of possible information?
At each level, the question repeats. This repetition suggests that the search for a final ingredient may be misdirected. The final foundation may not be an ingredient.
It may be a permission structure.
An ingredient is something inside the recipe. A permission structure determines what recipes can exist.
The substrate is proposed as this permission structure. It determines the lawful conditions under which reality may become physically expressed.
This does not mean the substrate chooses in a conscious sense. It means the substrate encodes law. It permits some configurations and denies others. It governs what can stabilize, what can persist, what can enter dimension, and what can be measured.
The final foundation may not be made of anything.
It may be the law by which “made of” becomes possible.
XI. Why The Substrate Is Overlooked
The substrate is overlooked because human perception and scientific instrumentation are tuned to expression.
We see objects.
We measure events.
We detect signals.
We infer fields.
We model forces.
We track particles.
We observe spacetime behavior.
All of these are expressed phenomena. The substrate, by definition, is not expressed in the same way. It cannot be observed as an object because it is not an object. It cannot be located as a region because it is not a region. It cannot be weighed because it has no expressed mass. It cannot be photographed because it has no expressed light.
This creates a category problem.
If one searches for the substrate as a thing, one will not find it. If one searches for it as a particle, one will not find it. If one searches for it as a field inside spacetime, one may already be searching too late.
The substrate is inferred not by finding one more object, but by asking what must be true for objects to exist at all.
This makes the substrate elusive. It is not hidden behind a curtain. It is prior to the curtain, prior to the stage, prior to the possibility of appearing as something on the stage.
The substrate is not absent because it is unreal.
It is absent from direct observation because it is the condition beneath observation.
XII. Relationship To Existing Physics
This paper does not reject existing physics. It depends upon the success of physics as evidence that reality is lawful.
Quantum mechanics, general relativity, thermodynamics, information theory, field theory, and cosmology all reveal different aspects of expressed reality. They describe astonishingly precise patterns. Their success is not an embarrassment to substrate theory. It is part of what motivates the substrate question.
If reality were not lawful, there would be no reason to infer a lawful substrate. But because reality is lawful, intelligible, and mathematically structured, the question becomes unavoidable:
Why is lawful expression possible?
Existing physics often describes how expressed systems behave. The substrate framework asks why lawful expression exists as a possibility.
This is not a replacement question. It is a foundation question.
Physics may describe the behavior of matter.
Substrate theory asks what permits matter to become expressible.
Physics may describe spacetime curvature.
Substrate theory asks what permits dimensional relation.
Physics may describe quantum probabilities.
Substrate theory asks what permits potential to become outcome.
Physics may describe conservation laws.
Substrate theory asks what deeper equilibrium makes conservation possible.
Physics may describe information bounds and entropy.
Substrate theory asks why information and physical consequence are connected at all.
A healthy substrate theory must remain accountable to physics. It must not contradict established observations without necessity. It must not use mystery as proof. It must not claim finality without mathematics. But it may ask a prior question that existing frameworks do not fully answer.
XIII. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, And The Unseen
Dark matter and dark energy should be approached carefully.
It may be tempting to identify the substrate with whatever is unseen, undetected, or unexplained. This would be a mistake. The unseen is not automatically the substrate. The unexplained is not automatically the substrate. A hidden physical phenomenon is still physical if it has expressed consequence within the universe.
Dark matter, if understood as a physical phenomenon producing gravitational effects, belongs to expressed reality. Dark energy, if understood as a physical account of cosmic acceleration, also belongs to expressed reality. These may be difficult to detect or explain, but difficulty does not make them substrate.
A substrate model may eventually offer a deeper interpretation of dark matter, dark energy, or other anomalies, but only through mathematical continuity and observational discipline.
The proper question is not:
Is dark matter the substrate?
The proper question is:
Do dark matter and dark energy reveal boundary behavior that points toward deeper substrate law?
This distinction protects the theory from ad hoc explanation.
The substrate should not be invoked to fill gaps. It should be inferred only where the structure of physical law points beneath expression itself.
XIV. Black Holes, Recycling, And Boundary Speculation
Black holes provide a powerful arena for thinking about the boundary between “made of” and “made possible.”
A black hole consumes matter, energy, and information in ways that strain ordinary categories. Its event horizon marks a causal boundary. Its thermodynamic behavior connects gravity, entropy, quantum effects, and information. It is one of the strongest examples of a physical boundary where existing theories confront their limits.
It is natural to wonder whether black holes function as recyclers of matter, information, or fundamental expression. Such an idea is beautiful and may be useful as a speculative image. Matter falls inward. Information appears to encounter a boundary problem. Radiation may emerge. Fundamental questions remain unresolved.
However, a disciplined paper must separate image from claim.
This paper does not assert that black holes are wormhole throats, cosmic recyclers, or engines that return refreshed particles to the universe. Those ideas may be explored in future speculative work, but they require mathematical development.
The restrained statement is stronger:
Black holes are boundary machines where matter, information, gravity, thermodynamics, and observational limit converge.
They may help reveal whether “made of” is ultimately a compositional question, an informational question, a boundary question, or a substrate question.
If black holes force physics to confront what happens when expressed reality reaches a limit, then they may be among the best laboratories for asking what lies beneath expression.
XV. Made Of Versus Made Possible
The distinction between “made of” and “made possible” is the central distinction of this paper.
“Made of” belongs to composition.
“Made possible” belongs to law.
A house is made of wood, stone, glass, metal, and labor. But it is made possible by geometry, material strength, gravity, tools, design, measurement, and social organization. The ingredients do not explain the whole. The permission structure matters.
A living organism is made of molecules, cells, tissues, and organs. But it is made possible by genetic regulation, membranes, metabolism, homeostasis, ecological exchange, and developmental boundaries.
A scientific theory is made of concepts, equations, definitions, observations, and arguments. But it is made possible by logic, measurement, reproducibility, language, mathematics, and standards of evidence.
Likewise, the universe may be made of particles, fields, energy, spacetime, and information at the expressed level. But it may be made possible by substrate law.
The failure to distinguish these categories creates confusion. A person may keep asking what the deepest ingredient is when the deeper issue is the condition that permits ingredients to exist.
The substrate is not the final ingredient.
The substrate is the lawful possibility of ingredients.
XVI. The Universe As Expressed Law
If the substrate framework is correct, then the universe is not merely a collection of things. It is expressed law.
This does not mean the universe is unreal or merely abstract. It means that physical reality is the consequence of lawful conditions becoming measurable. Matter, energy, space, time, relation, and information are not arbitrary. They are structured expressions.
This view helps explain why mathematics is so effective in physics. Mathematics works because reality is not only material; it is relationally lawful. Equations describe patterns because physical expression is organized by constraints, symmetries, quantities, and relations.
The substrate framework extends this insight downward.
If expressed reality is mathematical, then perhaps beneath expressed mathematics lies encoded law. The substrate is not mathematics written somewhere. It is the lawful condition by which mathematical relation becomes physically expressible.
This also reframes the human search for knowledge.
To study the universe is not merely to catalogue things. It is to discover the laws by which possibility becomes expression. Every measurement is an encounter with expressed order. Every theory is an attempt to name the grammar by which reality speaks.
The substrate is the silence beneath that grammar.
XVII. Why This Question Matters
The question “What makes made of possible?” matters because it changes the direction of inquiry.
Instead of searching only for smaller pieces, it asks what permits pieces to be pieces. Instead of searching only for the smallest scale, it asks what permits scale. Instead of asking only what exists in space, it asks what permits space. Instead of asking only what has mass, it asks what permits mass to be assigned or expressed.
This question may help connect several major areas of thought:
The nature of matter.
The emergence of spacetime.
The role of information in physics.
The relationship between entropy and physical consequence.
The measurement problem.
The status of dark matter and dark energy.
The boundary behavior of black holes.
The relationship between law, possibility, and expression.
It may also help prevent premature speculation. By placing the substrate beneath “made of” rather than inside the list of things, the theory avoids turning the substrate into a convenient explanation for every unknown phenomenon.
The substrate does not answer every question by assertion.
It clarifies which question must be asked first.
XVIII. Objections And Limits
Several objections must be acknowledged.
First, one may object that the substrate is not directly observable. This is true. The substrate is not proposed as directly observable. It is proposed as inferable from the lawful structure of physical expression. Whether that inference becomes scientifically useful depends on future formalization.
Second, one may object that the framework is too abstract. This is a serious concern. Any substrate theory must eventually produce mathematical structure, not merely philosophical language. The present paper is foundational, not final.
Third, one may object that existing physics already explains composition without requiring a substrate. This is partly true at expressed scales. Existing physics explains many compositional relations with extraordinary precision. But the substrate question is not asked at the same level. It asks what permits lawful composition to be possible at all.
Fourth, one may object that the substrate risks becoming metaphysical rather than scientific. This risk is real. The only protection is mathematical restraint, clear definitions, non-ad hoc reasoning, and a refusal to claim more than the model can support.
Fifth, one may object that “made possible” is not a physical category. The response is that physics already depends on conditions of possibility: boundary conditions, initial conditions, symmetries, conservation laws, mathematical structures, and measurement conditions. This paper proposes that such conditions may point toward a deeper unifying substrate law.
The framework must remain open to failure. If it cannot be formalized, tested, refined, or connected to observation, it remains philosophy. That may still be meaningful, but it would not yet be physics.
XIX. A Preliminary Formal Structure
A preliminary symbolic structure may be useful.
Let S represent the substrate.
Let L represent encoded law.
Let A represent axes of distinction or relation.
Let B represent boundary conditions.
Let I represent encoded informational potential.
Let D represent dimensional expression.
Let M represent mass or measurable physical persistence.
Let E represent expressed physical reality.
The general sequence may be written conceptually as:
S(L) → A → B → I → D → E
This means:
The substrate contains encoded law. Encoded law permits axes of distinction. Axes permit boundary conditions. Boundary conditions organize informational potential. Informational potential becomes dimensionally expressed. Dimensional expression produces physical reality.
Mass may then be represented conceptually as:
M = P(I, B, D)
Where P represents persistence under informational, boundary, and dimensional constraint.
This is not a completed equation. It is a conceptual map. It identifies the variables that a future mathematical model would need to clarify.
A more direct statement is:
Mass emerges where encoded information persists across a boundary into dimensional expression.
The purpose of this structure is not to pretend that the mathematics is solved. It is to define the path that mathematics must eventually take.
XX. Conclusion
The question “What is the universe made of?” remains one of the greatest questions in science. But it may not be the first question. Before reality can be made of anything, there must be a lawful condition under which anything can become distinguishable, locatable, relational, persistent, measurable, and expressible.
This paper has proposed that the deeper question is:
What makes “made of” possible?
The answer offered here is the substrate: not a thing inside the universe, not a hidden material, not a particle beneath particles, and not a speculative label for the unknown, but the lawful precondition of physical expression.
The substrate does not merely supply what reality is made of.
It governs the conditions under which what and where become possible.
This reframes the search for foundations. If space is emergent, then where is not primary. If mass is assigned or emergent, then what is not primary. If objecthood arises from stable relation, then matter is not the first explanatory layer. Beneath objecthood lies relation. Beneath relation lies boundary. Beneath boundary lies axis. Beneath axis lies law. Beneath expressed law lies the substrate.
To ask what the universe is made of is to stand inside physical expression and look downward.
To ask what makes “made of” possible is to approach the boundary beneath expression itself.
The universe may not be made of the substrate as a wall is made of stone.
The universe may be made possible by the substrate as speech is made possible by grammar, as music is made possible by relation, and as light is made visible by the conditions through which it appears.
The deepest foundation may not be the final object.
It may be the law that allows objects to be.
References
Bekenstein, Jacob D. “Black Holes And Entropy.” Physical Review D, vol. 7, no. 8, 1973, pp. 2333–2346.
Bekenstein, Jacob D. “Universal Upper Bound On The Entropy-To-Energy Ratio For Bounded Systems.” Physical Review D, vol. 23, no. 2, 1981, pp. 287–298.
Bousso, Raphael. “The Holographic Principle.” Reviews Of Modern Physics, vol. 74, no. 3, 2002, pp. 825–874.
Einstein, Albert. “The Foundation Of The General Theory Of Relativity.” Annalen Der Physik, vol. 49, 1916, pp. 769–822.
Hawking, Stephen W. “Particle Creation By Black Holes.” Communications In Mathematical Physics, vol. 43, 1975, pp. 199–220.
Landauer, Rolf. “Irreversibility And Heat Generation In The Computing Process.” IBM Journal Of Research And Development, vol. 5, no. 3, 1961, pp. 183–191.
Lloyd, Seth. “Computational Capacity Of The Universe.” Physical Review Letters, vol. 88, no. 23, 2002.
Maldacena, Juan. “The Large-N Limit Of Superconformal Field Theories And Supergravity.” International Journal Of Theoretical Physics, vol. 38, 1999, pp. 1113–1133.
Penrose, Roger. The Road To Reality: A Complete Guide To The Laws Of The Universe. Jonathan Cape, 2004.
Shannon, Claude E. “A Mathematical Theory Of Communication.” Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 27, 1948, pp. 379–423 and 623–656.
Smolin, Lee. The Trouble With Physics: The Rise Of String Theory, The Fall Of A Science, And What Comes Next. Houghton Mifflin, 2006.
Verlinde, Erik. “On The Origin Of Gravity And The Laws Of Newton.” Journal Of High Energy Physics, 2011.
Wheeler, John Archibald. “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search For Links.” In Complexity, Entropy, And The Physics Of Information, edited by Wojciech H. Zurek, Addison-Wesley, 1990.
Wilczek, Frank. The Lightness Of Being: Mass, Ether, And The Unification Of Forces. Basic Books, 2008.
Zurek, Wojciech H. “Decoherence, Einselection, And The Quantum Origins Of The Classical.” Reviews Of Modern Physics, vol. 75, no. 3, 2003, pp. 715–775.