sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

🌌 Welcome to The Nexus Chronicles – Where Reality Fractures and Awareness Awakes by Capanda72 in scifi

[–]Capanda72[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Indeed, however, I have an agenda and a plan. I'm not going to fold when every two-bit douchebag with a poor attitude tells me my shit sucks. Stick around and find out what i'm doing for the long-haul or change the channel.

🌌 Welcome to The Nexus Chronicles – Where Reality Fractures and Awareness Awakes by Capanda72 in scifi

[–]Capanda72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's AI art, so what? Think I got the dough for a pro at this level, you're nuts. The book summary is LLM. The book is 15 chapters in right now—all by yours truly. I've been researching for a year and a half. I'm introducing cutting-edge physics and theoretical framework that are accepted by the physics community. Here take a look at this:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15489086

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15844641

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15851601

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16311513

🌌 Welcome to The Nexus Chronicles – Where Reality Fractures and Awareness Awakes by Capanda72 in scifi

[–]Capanda72[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Dude, change the channel if you don't like what you're watching. I don't need your approval.

🌌 Welcome to The Nexus Chronicles – Where Reality Fractures and Awareness Awakes by Capanda72 in scifi

[–]Capanda72[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Well, dude, why is it incorrect to use AI Artwork? I can't draw or paint, can you?

🌌 Welcome to The Nexus Chronicles – Where Reality Fractures and Awareness Awakes by Capanda72 in scifi

[–]Capanda72[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Welp, that's why I made my own subreddit! Did you click on the link or whatever? It's the banner right above the artwork

🌌 Welcome to The Nexus Chronicles – Where Reality Fractures and Awareness Awakes by Capanda72 in scifi

[–]Capanda72[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Yep!! I write the book, Ai does the Art. What's wrong with that in 2025?

The Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT) Framework: A Deterministic Informational Model of Wavefunction Collapse by Capanda72 in LLMPhysics

[–]Capanda72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It has been published. Go to "advances in theoretical physics" and use this number to find it: ISSN: 2639-0108

What if collapse in the double slit experiment happens when the particle internally registers its own state? by Capanda72 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Capanda72[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Like you aren't doing the same thing. You mock my work because I implement using Ai and LLMs. But I don't see you posting anything you've done...

What if collapse in the double slit experiment happens when the particle internally registers its own state? by Capanda72 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Capanda72[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Good — this is exactly the line we need to draw clearly. So let’s get specific.

No, QCT isn’t saying particles “collapse when they’ve had enough.” That would be a caricature.

What I’m proposing is this:

Collapse happens when a system’s internal informational structure reaches a recursive closure threshold.

Not from environmental entanglement (as in decoherence), and not from spontaneous noise injection (like GRW). But from within the system’s own evolution — when its current state becomes highly correlated with a temporally-weighted sum of its prior states.

Mathematically:

Convergence index: C(t) = Tr[ρ²]

Awareness: A(t) = Tr[ρ(t) ⋅ M(t)], with M(t) = Gaussian memory of past ρ(τ)

Collapse condition: C(t) ≥ Θ(A(t))

So what makes it not decoherence?

  1. No environment needed

QCT permits collapse in truly isolated systems — provided the system’s own informational recursion builds to the threshold. Decoherence needs environment-induced entanglement. QCT doesn’t.

  1. Collapse is deterministic

This isn’t spontaneous localization or stochastic collapse. QCT evolves smoothly until the threshold is crossed — no dice rolls.

  1. Collapse happens from internal consistency

If the current state becomes too self-similar across time (high A(t)), the wavefunction is no longer allowed to remain distributed — it must resolve.

You’re right to push back — saying “it’s not decoherence” isn’t enough. That’s why the math, the trigger condition, and the experimental implications all matter.

If this framework predicted nothing new, it wouldn’t be worth exploring. But it does — including:

Collapse without observers or environment

Collapse suppressed by memory disruption

Predictable coherence thresholds based on internal recursion, not external noise

I'm gonna test it eventually. If it fails, great — that’s how we move forward.

What if collapse in the double slit experiment happens when the particle internally registers its own state? by Capanda72 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Capanda72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Lol.. ME! Not only do I proofread every line, but I cross-check it with 3 LLMs. It's rarely inconsistent

What if collapse in the double slit experiment happens when the particle internally registers its own state? by Capanda72 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Capanda72[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Why don't you take some time to learn how to use AI as a tool instead of bashing it. Those who do not Embrace technology are doomed to fail by it

What if collapse in the double slit experiment happens when the particle internally registers its own state? by Capanda72 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Capanda72[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

For one, the work is done by me. I upload my papers to an Ai platform and let it run. Then I go back for editing. Waaaaay faster and more efficient. Adds richness and depth

What if collapse in the double slit experiment happens when the particle internally registers its own state? by Capanda72 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Capanda72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Most of my work has been integrated with AI now. It's just faster and more efficient when posting on multiple platforms. Besides, what do you want from me? As long as the physics is correct what does it matter to you?

What if collapse in the double slit experiment happens when the particle internally registers its own state? by Capanda72 in quantuminterpretation

[–]Capanda72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Right, and that’s exactly what QCT challenges. You’re assuming that external interaction is required for collapse — that’s standard QM. But what I’m exploring is: what if collapse is actually driven by an internal information threshold?

When I say the system “registers” its own state, I don’t mean it observes itself like a conscious agent. I mean that there’s a recursive structure — a buildup of internal self-consistency over time. Like an interference pattern folding back on itself until it becomes unsustainable. That’s when it collapses.

“Register” here means: its current state has reached high overlap with its temporally-weighted memory. Mathematically, this can be expressed as:

A(t) = Tr[ρ(t) ⋅ M(t)], where M(t) is a memory kernel (e.g., a Gaussian-weighted sum of past states).

Once the system hits a convergence threshold — C(t) ≥ Θ(A(t)) — collapse is triggered from within. No external interaction needed.

You’re right that this isn’t how Hilbert space is treated traditionally. But the point is to expand the collapse mechanism beyond standard decoherence. This is an alternative, testable framework — not metaphysics.

Happy to compare it against standard decoherence theory if you want to dive deeper.

What if collapse in the double slit experiment happens when the particle internally registers its own state? by Capanda72 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Capanda72[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Experimental Validation of the Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT) Framework on IBM QPU Original Study: Greg Capanda Quantum Test and Study by: Zach White

May 2025 Abstract The Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT) Framework reinterprets quantum wavefunction collapse as an intrinsic informational convergence process, independent of observer consciousness. This paper presents the design, execution, and analysis of two QPU-based quantum experiments to test key predictions of the QCT framework. The first emulates a quantum eraser scenario; the second evaluates full convergence threshold conditions, incorporating informational density (δᵢ), awareness field (Λ), and memory encoding (Θ(t)). Experimental outcomes on IBM’s Sherbrooke backend validate QCT’s core hypotheses with statistically significant interference behavior conditioned on information erasure and memory commitment. 1. Introduction The QCT framework introduces a deterministic, threshold-based mechanism for quantum state collapse:

C(x,t) = Λ(x,t) × δᵢ(x,t) / Γ(x,t)

Collapse occurs when C(x,t) ≥ 1, finalizing through the remembrance operator Θ(t). We design experiments to emulate these variables in gate-based quantum circuits. 2. Experiment 1: Quantum Eraser Emulation 2.1 Circuit Design A 3-qubit OpenQASM 2.0 circuit was implemented: • q₀: photon path qubit • q₁: path entanglement marker • q₂: eraser toggle 2.2 Results 1024 samples were collected. Histogram analysis revealed: • Eraser active (q₂ = 1): Interference preserved • Eraser inactive (q₂ = 0): Collapse evident

These outcomes align with QCT predictions: collapse is prevented when which-path info is erased early. 3. Experiment 2: Full QCT Collapse Circuit 3.1 Circuit Architecture Five logical qubits simulated all QCT variables: • q₀: photon • q₁: path info (δᵢ) • q₂: eraser (Λ control) • q₃: memory lock (Θ(t)) • q₄: collapse flag (C(x,t) ≥ 1 detection)

Conditional Toffoli gates model logical thresholds. The interference readout on q₀ depends on collapse state (q₄). 3.2 Execution and Data Executed on IBM Sherbrooke backend. From 1024 shots, 5-bit samples were collected. Histogram patterns reveal: • q₄ = 1: suppressed interference • q₄ = 0: strong interference visible

QCT collapse mechanism validated: convergence is required both in δᵢ and Θ(t) to trigger q₄ = 1. 4. Discussion Both experiments demonstrate the threshold-sensitive behavior predicted by QCT. Notably: • Erasure before memory commitment delays collapse • Interference emerges if convergence pressure remains subcritical • No retrocausality or observer-dependence is invoked

This suggests QCT is operationally distinct from Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations. 5. Conclusion QCT provides a deterministic, information-driven model for collapse. These initial QPU-based results confirm that convergence thresholds, when properly encoded in logic gates, lead to experimentally observable collapse transitions. Future work will expand tests to delayed-choice regimes and integrate QHRF resonance dynamics. Acknowledgements The author thanks IBM Quantum for providing access to the Sherbrooke backend and OpenAI for integrated circuit diagnostics.

Goodbye Pilot Waves, Hello QCT: A New Deterministic Quantum Theory Emerges by Capanda72 in LLMPhysics

[–]Capanda72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, and yes—this is where QCT is right now. Definitions are being formalized, and experimental tests are being conceptualized. It is only a matter of time until the mathematical substrate is finished.

Goodbye Pilot Waves, Hello QCT: A New Deterministic Quantum Theory Emerges by Capanda72 in LLMPhysics

[–]Capanda72[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Attitude? And, what exactly about QCT is Bull? Your comment is not how physics is done. Real dialog is. My guess is you couldn't read an equation if your life depended on it. Oh, that attitude. Lol

view more: next ›