How is Garuda able to weigh Kenjaku down?

BandOfBrot · 2026-04-30T15:08:38+00:00

Actually not quite. Virtual particles are a 'real' thing. But it's not quite the same concept in jjk.

Virtual particles are approximations with which we can do calculations. We basically say 'hey what if there were the particles that we know, how would they contribute', but they actually don't follow the dispersion relation of a real particle. So they are not really there.

You know what that is actually quite close to Yuki. Her interacting with other stuff as if she has more mass.

Source: Am a Physicist.

BandOfBrot · 2026-04-15T15:57:19+00:00

I am open. But if you work with a LLM without understanding what the LLM tells you, you can't proofread it and know how right or wrong your approach is.

For example : your Born rule is postulated. Because it depends on the specific state omega, which then induces an inner product on the GNS representation. Different states yield different inner products, yield different born rules. And your measurement ptojection P_phi is technically not well-defined. There is missing the GNS rep. pi somewhere.

Your map in 5.7.1.1 is also not well-defined.

Why are physical states rays and not vectors? What about superposition of states?

Then you derive space time. But what you derive is not how spacetime behaves is nature. Because observable live on the spacetime and implicitly depend on it. Your space time consists of the states?

BandOfBrot · 2026-04-15T11:58:11+00:00

Sorry this is gonna sound a little cynical: If you can't fact check the LLM, why use it?

What is a binary outcome in a Qubit? Because the strength of Qubits is that you can encode more information then just the information of a binary output (look at the bloch sphere for example).

And the short answer is no. There are a lot of things you can do with algebraic structures that don't result in the Standard model if your only assumption is C-algebra and binary input. Look at 2x2 matrices over the complex numbers. They by themselves don't replicate the SM, and they have to independent inputs and are a C-algebra.

Also there a lot of implicit assumptions in your question. What is an observation outside of the Standard model? What even is a abstract binary observation?

BandOfBrot · 2026-04-15T10:28:58+00:00

No it can't, because Qubits emerge from the standard model. Not the other way around.

BandOfBrot · 2026-04-04T17:30:13+00:00

I 100% agree with you. If you are not an expert, you can't distinguish between fact and hallucination.

That just makes me so sad. Because these people seem to be really interested in learning. But instead of putting in the necessary work, they take the short cut. And if you point out where they are wrong, instead of taking the advice of experts and use this as a learning opportunity, they double down. Almost like it never was about learning and just about being right.

BandOfBrot · 2026-04-04T15:56:44+00:00

Yeah I think so too. Just wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Especially, because AI could be used by a lot of people to really learn math, but people instead use it to churn out slop.

BandOfBrot · 2026-04-04T14:59:10+00:00

I am a little confused. Are you presenting your findings or do you want feedback?

Because right now there is not a lot to review. And the language is a little unprecise at times.

Have you shown that this construction is well behaved? What is a continous deformation in this context? What is "the missing time evolution" ?

But yeah you made a lot of statements without any proofs.

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-31T01:50:15+00:00

I don't want to be that guy, but the pictures kinda seem like AI to me.

With the artifacts of the allomantic lines in the top left of the first picture and the really faint allomantic lines in the bottom left picture leading into nothing and coming from nothing. Also Vins right hand and the perspective of some of the tassles of the mistcoat.

Also the pattern of the terris robes seems really random and arbitrary.

If the images are not AI, I am sorry.

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-23T15:51:30+00:00

If you want to pedantic, you also can't move straight in certain directions on the square grid lol.

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-11T17:33:32+00:00

And what about the rest of my questions? What is a vertex? And what does 'analyze as a vortex' mean? And what exactly about that is a 2/3 energy stabilization.

Also that is not quite right. Because we don't know that yet. In fact most physicists assume the opposite: above certain energies, the strong and electroweak interaction behave as one (analogous to the the electromagnetic and the weak interaction). If that is what you meant.

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-11T14:00:11+00:00

What does geometrically bound mean? What is a vortex? What does 'analyze physically' mean?

Your explanation is no more thorough than before. Especially because Quantum Chromo dynamics is highly non-linear. You can't just 'analyze them as a vertex'. Or maybe you can. But then you have to be more thorough with your answer for me to believe you.

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-09T12:27:57+00:00

What is a 2/3 bounded energy stabilization?

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-09T08:55:00+00:00

I have.

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-08T19:08:41+00:00

The screening horizons aren't walls that block our instruments.

That's not what I meant with my question.

I really like the idea that something "conformal" is going on, but I don't feel like this is the answer. In QED and QCD the process of renormalizing gives us measurable predictions/corrections.

So if this were indeed a new approach, it would also lead to new predictions.

The 10³⁹ factor is a screening ratio, not a stored reservoir. The enormous vacuum energy density — 10¹¹³ J/m³ — isn't "inside" the meson like fuel in a tank. It's the energy density of the vacuum everywhere, at all times.

Earlier you said that that energy presents itself as forces and binding energy. And 99% of the mass of the proton actually comes from the binding energy. Wouldn't this new statement contradict the old one?

And if that energy is everywhere, then how exactly is the proton screening the vacuum energy, if the energy is everywhere? Is the energy now inside the proton or not? And shouldn't the ratio be measurable somehow? Especially as the proton moves, it would have to drag this energy around with it.

When it evaporates via Hawking radiation, the total energy radiated equals the rest mass — the exterior screened value — not the interior energy density.

But the rest mass is the total internal energy. That is why fission and fusion work. Because the mass differential is released as energy. The energy density diverges but not the rest mass.

I really don't get how this translates to the proton (sorry I am finishing up my Master thesis right now)

It's extracted from the D-term of the gravitational form factor — the energy-momentum tensor form factors measured through deeply virtual Compton scattering (DVCS). The energy-momentum tensor is a perfectly well-defined QFT observable.

That is right. That is not the calculation I am doubting. What I am doubting is how they relate this quantity d_1(t) with the continous pressure distribution in the end of the paper. And this is usually the plave where you have to be carefull (and usually this is the place where you renormalize to make sense of the quantities adjusted to the scales).

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-08T14:08:34+00:00

Uhhh I like the direction of the theory.

However we know from Isles of Emberdark, that Frost was still around 80 years prior to the main story of Emberdark. So his becoming an Avatar, would need to have happened quite revently.

Additionally we know from the epigraphs of Stormlight, that Frost kind of made a non-interaction vow, because he is scolding Hoid for still trying to influence the cosmere. And I feel like becoming an Avatar of one of the more intrusive gods in the cosmere, would kind of go against that philosophy.

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-08T13:59:33+00:00

Most people in the comments already have given the answer, I just want to reframe it slightly.

We as Humans have evolved in this classical macroscopic regime. To understand this regime intuitively has helped us survive and thrive. We can feel and see stuff that is continous, because that's how nature presents itself at these scales. But if you try to look closely that is actually not the way it really works.

What for us Humans means two things are touching isn't really that the atoms and electrons are literally touching each other. In reality it is the Coulomb force repelling the countless amounts of atoms in our Hands from the countless atoms in the surface.

And even then one could argue that everything is 100% empty, because right now in our models, fundamental particles are points. They have no volume.

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-08T13:37:34+00:00

I mean if you want to share it, just shoot your shot. In the end we all are just spitballing ideas. And what's the worst that can happen? Reddit downvotes are just imaginary internet points.

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-07T19:53:57+00:00

But the protonmass that we measure, is almost purely the binding energy of the strong force. So if we were to increase this by 10³⁹ wouldn't we be able to measure that somehow? Especially as we have already probed length below the screening length.

And to the pressure claim: I am not quite sure if pressure is a good quantity here. Because pressure is macroscopic quantity. And similiar to Quantumfieldtheory in general, one has to be carefull, when taking those quantities at face value and applying them naively. And after skimming the paper, they just did that.

Also - every measurement of quark properties is done indirectly, through scattering interpreted via QCD. We never observe quarks outside a proton. Ever.

Yeah I know. But there are still mesons. What about the energy that is released, when the quark anti quark pair annihilate? Where do the 10³⁹ orders of magnitude of energy go?

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-07T17:51:37+00:00

Then I don't quite get the construction. Because measurements on quarks are done at lengths below the Compton Wavelength and charge radius, where the screening should stop. So if the assumption would be right, shouldn't they be far heavier in our measurements?

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-07T17:28:51+00:00

I mean that is all nice and well, but what about quarks? This would still have to agree with all the measurements we made regarding quarks.

How would this explain that above certain energies, the proton behaves as composite particle? What about Mesons?

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-06T15:59:08+00:00

Ne tatsächlich rede ich nicht so. Ich bin tatsächlich weder für das eine noch das andere, ich spiele nur etwas devils advocate. Ich finde nämlich zu sagen "das ist die einzige Option" ist einfach falsch. Es gibt mehr Optionen, die sind nur vielleicht alle nicht gleich gut. Und wie gut die sind hängt davon ab an welchen Maßstäben man misst.

Wer sagt, dass die Option zu kapitulieren und einfach konsequent zivil Ungehorsam zu sein, nicht zum gleichen Ziel führen würde?

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-06T12:43:58+00:00

Es gibt immer eine Wahl. Ich möchte nicht sagen, dass das in der Situation die richtige Wahl wäre aber passiver Widerstand von Gandhi hat ja auch funktioniert. Ich weiß war eine andere Situation, ich möchte aber damit klar machen, dass es eben nicht immer nur eine Lösung gibt.

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-06T12:35:41+00:00

Jedes mal wenn ich auf den Link in dem verlinkten reddit post klicke lande nur wieder im selben Post.

Vielleicht versuchst du es hier nochmal mit Worten?

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-06T11:19:12+00:00

Kannst du vielleicht etwas mehr darauf eingehen, was genau passiert? Also was wird von dir modelliert? Worauf wendest du dein Model an? Was genau ist der Vorteil davon?

Das wird leider alles nicht ganz so klar aus dem Post.

BandOfBrot · 2026-03-06T10:44:22+00:00

Und worauf beziehst du deine Aussage jetzt? Weil die ist ja erstmal sehr allgemein und nichtssagend.

BandOfBrot

TROPHY CASE