Question: You have been working on the Panvitalistic Theory (PVT) for several years now. Many people ask whether it represents a “final theory” or “world formula.” How do you see it?

Manfred U. E. Pohl:  The Panvitalistic Theory is not a finished edifice, but rather a foundational correction — an attempt to return to the roots of measurement and geometry. What we are doing is correcting a historical category mistake in the way physics has treated time and measurement. Once this correction is made, many things that previously seemed incompatible or mysterious begin to fit together more naturally.

Question: What exactly is this category mistake?

Manfred U. E. Pohl: For over a century, physics has treated π as a dimensionless number (length divided by length). This seemingly harmless convention has had far-reaching consequences. It effectively hides time inside the definition of space and turns what should be a dimensioned relationship (π ≡ T/L) into a pure number. As a result, time appears as an external parameter that flows independently of space — an assumption that creates deep tensions between quantum theory and general relativity.

The Panvitalistic Theory restores π to its proper status as a dimensioned quantity. Time is no longer external; it becomes internal angular curvature within volumes. This single shift has profound implications.

Question: You often compare the PVT with other approaches such as string theory or loop quantum gravity. What makes it different?

Manfred U. E. Pohl: Most current approaches try to unify quantum theory and general relativity by adding new structures — extra dimensions, new symmetries, or new dynamical laws. The Panvitalistic Theory takes a different route: it attempts to simplify the foundations by removing unnecessary assumptions.

Instead of adding complexity, we ask: What happens if we consistently treat measurement as the comparison of real volumes under the condition of volume invariance (δV = 0)? What happens if we accept that π is not a number, but the relationship between time and length?

The result is a framework in which many phenomena that are usually treated separately — gravity, electromagnetism, and even quantum behavior — emerge as different aspects of the same geometric structure.

Question: One of the striking claims is that you can derive the numerical value of the speed of light c from the rotation of the Earth without introducing free parameters. How does that work?

Manfred U. E. Pohl: This is one of the more concrete results. In the Panvitalistic framework, the constants c and G are not independent. Their product is fixed by geometry (cG = 1 in natural units). When we express this relation using the actual rotational parameters of the Earth (equatorial circumference and rotation period), we obtain the observed numerical value of c without having to postulate it separately. This suggests that what we call “fundamental constants” may in fact be geometric relations that have been obscured by our conventional treatment of units and dimensions.

Question: Where does the theory currently stand? Is it a complete framework yet?

Manfred U. E. Pohl: No, it is not complete. We have established the axiomatic foundation and shown how several long-standing problems can be reinterpreted. The dynamical formalism is still under development. What we have at this stage is a consistent conceptual and mathematical starting point — a new foundation rather than a finished building. Much work remains to be done, especially in deriving detailed predictions that can be tested experimentally.

Question: What would you say is the strongest argument in favor of taking the Panvitalistic Theory seriously?

Manfred U. E. Pohl: For me, it is the combination of radical simplicity and internal consistency. By starting with very few assumptions and consistently applying the principle that measurement must be rational and that time must be internal, we arrive at a framework that resolves several deep incompatibilities without introducing new mysteries. Whether this will ultimately prove to be the right path remains to be seen — but it is, in my view, a path worth exploring seriously.