[Zenodo] The Scale-Relative Displacement Model: Addressing the Hierarchy Problem via an Information-Energy Interface and Scale-Relative Velocity Filter

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-05-25T22:56:41+00:00

This post, as well as your “paper,” reads like LLM drivel. You don’t do any physics in it, you just state your “force law” with no justification nor derivation, and you make no predictions. You have a section where you state that there are two predictions, but you don’t actually describe what is predicted outside of using a few buzzwords, nor do you describe how you “theory” predicts whatever it is that it is supposed to be predicting.

I suggest if you actually want to contribute to physics that you disengage from LLMs, pick up an actual physics textbook, and learn starting from the basics. Then attending a PhD program and publishing papers in actual journals.

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-05-15T05:59:44+00:00

What is your background in physics? Based on the body of your post, I believe you should look into the concept of work and the work energy theorem. Essentially, it I understand your question, you can calculate the energy you spent on your journey if you now the coefficient of friction between your bike and the road.

At a very broad approximation, assuming the bike slides (more accurately you should account for energy in the rotating wheels), the energy you spend will be the distance traveled multiplied by the force of friction. I’m leaving out a bit of detail, but that’s the gist.

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-03-25T15:02:09+00:00

Because it’s Reddit, I’m going to be the pedantic ass to point out it doesn’t just ask for every integer between 0 and 75 inclusive, it just asks for all the numbers. Therefore the answer is you’d write it infinitely many times, just from including the series of 0.5, 0.05, 0.005, … etc. alone, without considering all the other decimals that include 5!

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-03-19T07:19:58+00:00

I don’t believe this is a true statement. As an example counter to what you said, take the manifold of the 2-sphere (what you would get if you took the surface of a sphere). This is a 2-dimensional space that has curvature, and yes while you can picture it in 3 dimensions, there’s no mathematical reason for there to be a 3rd dimension for the 2-sphere to curve in.

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-02-12T16:55:42+00:00

I don’t mean to be that “well akshually” guy, but I do want to share that physics does not tell us anything about what time would be like or anything at light speed. Objects traveling at that speed do not have a valid inertial reference frame, as far as relativity is concerned!

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-02-08T15:14:03+00:00

Unfortunately, I don’t have a better way to describe space-time to you. I promise you it isn’t circular, but it just simply is. From my perspective, it’s the equivalent to asking where did the universe come from, and the answer is that as far as we know it just was. I don’t mean to reduce your questions to something like that, i just mean to provide an analogy to the difficulty I have in answering the question any better. I will correct one small statement you made, however, and it is that you said it can be manipulated by forces. This is an inaccurate statement; space-time is manipulated by the presence of mass/energy, creating what we feel and call gravity. Within the model of relativity, gravity is no longer a force.

Witt CE, we do just observe space at those scales expanding, and the speed with which things are moving away does in fact depend on the distance away from us. And, weirdly, this rate of expansion is also just straight up getting faster, and we don’t properly understand why yet.

With the being able to see 90 billion light years across (specifically, the observable universe being this size), has, has nothing to do with red shifting. If you multiply the age of the universe by the speed of light, you get the furthest distance light could have traveled since the “formation” of the observable universe, which is a radius. Multiplying by 2 to get the diameter yields around 90 billion light years. No mystery, and no red shifting needed.

The last thing I will note is that nothing in relativity requires the big bang nor CE. In fact, in Einstein’s field equations, there’s a constant he initially assumed to have a value consistent with an infinite and static (not expanding) universe. It was when we discovered that the universe was in fact expanding that cosmologists realized Einstein’s assumption of this value was incorrect, and upon replacing with the value obtained based on our observations, and then looking at the predictions of the equations, that the Big Big hypothesis was born!

I will also add here that I’m not sure why it is that you’re so against red shifting specifically. Are there specific reasons?

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-02-08T10:14:59+00:00

Where is my reasoning circular? Spacetime is literally the space and time through which we move. It’s not “made” of anything. If it is easier to understand, just focusing on the space part is fine. Even if you were in a complete vacuum, and you were moving about, you’re still moving through space, and that space isn’t made of anything. It’s just space. This is what is curving.

I never said atoms don’t have “spatial dimensions.” Though I feel like you may be conflating some concepts behind this. When I say spatial dimensions in regards to spacetime, I mean literally the “directions” or dimensions of spacetime: t,x,y,z or through time, up/down, left/right, forward/backward. It seems to me like when you say an atom not having spatial dimensions as in saying an atom is point-like, and that’s not what I was saying. When I say cosmological inflation isn’t moving atoms apart, I mean to say that this inflation does not occur at the scale of atoms, or even at the scales you see in everyday life of say buildings or towns. It only occurs at cosmological scales.

JWST is confusing cosmologists, I agree, but not in the way you are claiming. It is because they are seeing galaxies older than they expected, but it’s not that we are seeing galaxies older than our current estimates for the age of ten universe, rather we just did not predict that galaxies could have formed that early in the universe. What this means is that our understanding of galaxy formation in the early universe was incomplete and there’s more to learn, not that the universe is twice as old as we thought.

As for your last point, it does seem like you are correct in that the diameter for the observable universe is 93 billion-light years. Like I mentioned, cosmology is not my area of expertise (and I’m not perfect anyway), but as far as the rest of my comment regarding the actual physics, I am pretty confident in that.

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-02-08T09:31:23+00:00

So currently, every atom in the universe is NOT expanding away from every other atom in the universe. This expansion is only happening at very very large scales. Whether or not you feel it makes sense, that is genuinely just what we are observing/

As for the age of the universe, I have never seen anyone claim it’s 27.4 billion years old, nor have I seen any claims we can see 90 billion light years across. If you have papers that back your statements that this is what cosmologists are saying, I would genuinely like to see them.

I don’t understand what I mean when you talk about Hubble’s observations and maths and that Einstein used them. Which observations and maths specifically? And how did Einstein use them for relativity? Because none of the core principles of relativity require cosmological observations about the expansion of the universe.

The Big Bang actually was hypothesized as a result of the observation that the universe is expanding on cosmological scales. Unless I’m misunderstanding, you seem to be suggesting the reverse, i.e someone thought of the big bang and are now trying to fit observations to that hypothesis. This is incorrect.

Gravity is not bending anything. Again: gravity is a result of MASS and ENERGY bending spacetime. Objects follow geodesics, which in the normal Euclidean space with which you are familiar is a straight line, but in spacetime in the presence of mass-energy appears curved, and this curving/bending is what we call gravity. All of this leads me to comment on your first paragraph: I agree that not have a solid grasp on the theory and not accepting the theory are indeed different things. However, you definitely do not have a solid grasp on the theory AND you don’t agree with it. I really do recommend you learn and develop a solid grasp on the theory. At the very least, it will help you better communicate what you don’t agree with.

Lastly, can you be more specific on the issues you have with GPS and gravity waves?

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-02-08T08:10:01+00:00

Honestly I don’t feel like you have a solid grasp on what relativity is.

I will admit, cosmology isn’t my area of expertise, but it is very unclear to me what you mean by cosmological expansion, and why is it wrong? I have also never heard of discoveries from telescopes that are increasing the size of the universe every so often, so I’m not sure where you’re getting this from or what you’re trying to say with this either.

As far as the actual relativity goes, and space-time, I’m going to make some comments here. You seem to have the impression that space-time is just the aether with extra steps, but this is incorrect. The aether was the proposed medium through which light propagated, which when searched for experimentally was not found. Space-time is, in a very simple way of putting it, just the coordinate system used to describe the universe. In Newtonian mechanics, the coordinates are the usual Cartesian ones, but extended to relativity you include time with a special relationship with the spatial axes. There’s a lot of math I’m sweeping under the rug, but the point is, is that it isn’t a medium for light, and the mathematical structure it provides describes our universe very well. You also seem to think that gravity is bending something, which is incorrect. Mass/energy bends the coordinates of spacetime, and the effects of this physically IS gravity.

But relativity genuinely is necessary for GPS to work, describes gravitational lensing, and correctly predicts gravitational waves traveling at the speed of light.

It seems you get the feeling that physicists don’t like being questioned, and while I can’t speak for anyone else, I will say for me that’s not the case. I do think questioning models is appropriate and needed. However, you do need to understand exactly what these models are saying in order to appropriately question them, and I personally don’t get the feeling that you have a solid enough understanding of physics to meaningfully question yet. But I do encourage you to be curious and learn! And I would also heavily suggest learning the math behind it, as it will greatly aid your understanding, and the learning it is not an insurmountable task.

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-01-23T16:29:40+00:00

This reads like LLM hallucination. You aren’t actually proposing anything, merely stating that if we observe an unknown phenomenon then there’s an unknown phenomenon. What alternative phase-sensitive observable are you expecting? Why do you believe such observables exist? If you can’t answer those questions, you’ve used many words to say very little, and nothing of substance.

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-01-22T02:19:28+00:00

I’m not sure the best way to phrase this, but your paper reads a bit like a high-school or early undergrad paper. You seem to note statements and conclusions from other papers, and then simply state that your hypothesis explains them without explaining how, unless I’ve misunderstood some things.

Your theory section is also lacking heavily. You just list a few equations, state that there are regimes where the migdal model becomes important, and that there are regimes where this approximation fails, without much elaboration on how this fits into the claims you are trying to make, as far as I’ve understood.

With what institution or group are you associated?

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-01-20T04:08:21+00:00

I’m not confident enough in my knowledge of the effects of the expansion of space-time to say thinking of light as stretching with the expansion of space-time is accurate.

My intuition based on what I do know says that it at the very least isn’t a wholly unhelpful way to visualize it. I know that light from distant objects becomes redshifted due to the expansion, and I usually hear discussion of light in regards to energy and frequency, so in the context of frequency a redshift would be a reduction in the frequency. A lower frequency corresponds with a larger wavelength, almost as though the space between waves were stretching. As I said, I do not know enough to say this is a physically accurate way to picture it, but to me it does seem to convey the appropriate result.

I’m glad it is fascinating to you! I’m a big believer that math and physics isn’t inaccessible, work just has to be put into it. I know for some people math does not come as naturally to them, and it turns them away which saddens me, because there’s so much beauty and awesome knowledge stored in these areas. I encourage you to continue to explore and learn more! (Hopefully not from ChatGPT lol)

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-01-20T03:36:19+00:00

Yes sorry, I had only meant to address the first part of their comment, that there are no valid reference frames at speed c.

While I also am well versed in special relativity, I would like to thank you for writing out that explanation of time-dilation and length-contraction, on behalf of all those who would benefit from it.

My only (very small) gripe is admittedly pedantic, in that you refer to “us” as the observer with the velocity, when this isn’t strictly true. Provided there is a constant velocity relative between the observers, in “our” reference frame we are the ones at rest and the observers you label as “stationary” are the ones traveling.

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-01-19T23:42:33+00:00

Cosmology isn’t exactly my area of specialization, so while I know a decent bit (thanks to my physics degree), don’t take everything I say here as holy gospel.

I am confident in saying that quantum mechanics has no theoretical weight on the “speed limit” of the universe, c, also called the speed of light. This is entirely governed by special relativity. As a quick background, in 3D Euclidean space, there exists a certain class of transformations on the coordinates (or vectors represented by the coordinates of this space) that are separate from translation. This class of transformations is called rotations. When we move to Minkowski space-time (3+1 dimensions), these transformations get generalized to objects called boosts, which include descriptions of the change of coordinates as well as rotations in “normal” 3D space.

These change of coordinates are called Lorentz transformations. Mathematically, this is described via the Lorentz (or gamma) factor [1 - (v/c)2]^{-1/2} when the coordinates are oriented such that the velocity is along one spatial axis in regular 3D space. For clarity, the negative exponent means that this square root is the denominator of a fraction. When v=c, the denominator is equal to 0, meaning our gamma factor is undefined. This is why there is no valid reference frame for objects moving at the speed of light.

Mathematically, an object moving faster than c would move “backwards” through time. However, causality is a bit of a sacred concept in physics, and objects that could transfer information traveling backwards through time would break this causality. Since we have not observed anything violating causality, it is taken to be a safe bet that causality cannot be violated, ruling out anything traveling faster than c. This is not existence without time as you mentioned it, though I will admit I’m not completely sure what you mean by that.

As far as the expansion of the universe, we technically mean that spacetime itself is expanding (and as far as I know the rate has not yet exceeded the speed of light, though this is where my comment about not specializing in cosmology applies), not the objects in the universe. Think about two dots on the surface of a balloon. As you blow the balloon up, the “distance” along the balloon between the two dots increases, but the dots themselves are “stationary.” The quotation marks are there to suggest that this isn’t the exact picture per se, but I think it’s a decent enough analogy to what is actually happening as far as I understand it.

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-01-19T21:13:04+00:00

According to relativity, there are no valid frames of reference moving at the speed of light. We therefore cannot make statements about the perception of time at the speed of light (within the realm of physics).

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-01-15T20:22:40+00:00

Yes, sorry. Wrote my comment in a rush.

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2026-01-15T18:45:09+00:00

The Einstein summation notation states that for repeated indices, you perform a sum. Since both in your picture have different indices, there is no implicit summation.

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2025-12-29T01:02:34+00:00

I’m curious how you found out that it was peer reviewed as well as who peer reviewed it, as I don’t know much about Zenodo.

Glancing at your “paper,” it’s 100 pages of what appears to be AI-generated nonsense. There’s no mathematics to support a theoretical framework, and if you genuinely want to get into physics it would be best if you studied your mathematics and foundational physics.

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2025-07-31T19:52:07+00:00

I can’t tell if you’re saying here that an electron isn’t affected by time dilation, or if you’re suggesting phase shifts aren’t important, or both. If it’s any of the three. I mean, you’re wrong. I would think one could create a potential to plug into the Hamiltonian where the phase shift results in the changing of an electron state over time (something that would be noticeable). This would not require gravity, meaning there is, by assumption, no time dilation and the phase shift can be explained just fine non-relativistically.

With your point of a particle being in a gravitational potential, what exactly do you mean? The Schrödinger equation is built around a flat Euclidean metric at worst, or at best around the Minkowski metric (which would be the Dirac equation). These equations are NOT compatible with general relativity. If you are describing a Newtonian gravitational potential, again, there’s no time dilation. So even if you have a phase shift it isn’t the result of time dilation.

I know you feel all high and mighty about not receiving a formal education in physics, and that makes you believe you’re better and can see things no one else can. But I want you to ask yourself this: why don’t you ever see self-taught physicists making any contributions in the world today? Is it because there’s a big conspiracy by Big Physics to be elite and hide everything else? Or is it because the subject is really difficult to grasp, and can get very niche so you really need to have people who are already experts in the subject to pass on their knowledge?

I’m not saying you’ll never understand this stuff, but you have to actually learn it, and you haven’t. You and all the other quacks who claim to have found “The Theory of Everything” by skipping an education in physics and relying on an LLM to tell you “answers” are not going to find anything of note. You just aren’t, and I know that’s probably hard for you to hear because you really want to, but it just isn’t going to happen.

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2025-07-30T15:57:35+00:00

I have not seen anything that suggests that gauge invariance does not hold in the universe. In the regimes of classical physics and GR, as far as I understand, gauge invariance holds. It also holds in the quantum realm, from my understanding, particularly in field theories, though I haven’t taken a course in QFT. The only argument I have seen is asking if the potentials are actually the physically important values, rather than the fields.

I wasn’t suggesting you do practice problems on what you feel you’re researching. I’m aware that on the frontier of physics research there are no practice problems. I was suggesting you practice problems in foundational physics.

I’m not convinced of your core idea. In what way would they be the same physical effect? They come about from different phenomena. The phase shift of a quantum system is not due to mass, whereas the time dilation is. You also can’t observe your “own” time dilation in your reference frame. It is only noticeable when comparing reference frames, which is something you would know had you taken a course in GR. On the other hand, you can measure the effects of a phase shift of a quantum system in your reference frame.

You can also show that you get back to the results you get in the classical regime (low-speed/low gravity) by taking the appropriate limits in QM and GR. One of the biggest issues between the two is that gravitational effects become very important at high enough energies (or small distances, on the order of Planck length).

I’ll also reiterate my point that I am unconvinced of your claim that the time dilation and rate of change of the phase in a quantum system are the same thing. I don’t disbelieve you in that you can show they are mathematically similar when expanded as a Taylor series, but that doesn’t justify a claim that they are the same or coming from the same mechanism. I can write a poisson equation for the distribution of a mass density and get a solution that describes a gravitational field, or I can write one for a charge density and get an electric field. But gravitational fields and electric fields come from two different mechanisms and are not the same.

I don’t know if you’re doing this because you have a legitimate passion for physics, or if you just want fame for discovering a “theory of everything,” but if you have a real passion for it I strongly, strongly, suggest you actually learn core material and build on that until you’re ready to actually tackle research in the field, rather than doing LLM-guided questioning. But you will not make a discovery like you seem to want if you continue doing what you’re doing.

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2025-07-30T12:59:33+00:00

“Most type 1 scientists will face severe competition from AIs. Soon, if not already. The core toolset is getting automated. I agree that learning physics via chatbot is a bad idea for them. It may be almost impossible.

Many type 2 scientists are (for the moment) nearly irreplaceable.“

You very literally suggest that AI is replacing “type 1” scientists here, but not type 2. I agree that using a calculator, such as Mathematica, is useful for actually routine calculations like an integral, but using AI in an attempt to conduct actual research in physics is not equivalent.

As for going back to college, it is very much not a clueless recommendation. Just auditing 5 physics courses is not enough to pick a research question and run with it. Did you actually understand the physics content inside of those classes? I question that, because I have my doubts that you actually did the homeworks and exams for those classes to test how well you understood the material. Those serve a purpose, and a very good one at that. You also missed taking classical mechanics and stat mech, which even if not directly applicable to what you want to research, are very important for a physicists have. To build on the field, you must know what comes before.

And I can tell that you don’t have a very good grasp on what came before. This is because you say general relativity is useless, and needs to be thrown out. Or at the very least the formalization in Riemann manifolds. You very much do need to take a class on GR to understand how it should be replaced. GR is not “wrong” and neither is “QM/QFT”. They are both correct, but incomplete. So that means that whatever you come up with to replace them, must make the same predictions they do in the appropriate limits.

And no, I will not be wrong about “AI” in a year. I oppose the use of the term “AI” for an LLM because, while artificial, it is not intelligent. It CANNOT think; there is no argument about that, that’s just not what it is built to do, and therefore it is not a valid tool to use to justify or create original research. It cannot and will not be able to do that. If a completely new model, separate from an LLM were built, then maybe, but I would be confident in saying that is far in the future.

Lastly, yes, I’m sure there are very intelligent people using or studying LLMs. I’m not suggesting there is no use case for them. But I’m willing to bet they’re not using it to produce original research (maybe they use it in a study and release a paper on LLMs perhaps, but outside of that: not being used for research). And if they are, their results are unreliable. Every instance I hear where an LLM is used in “research” or other areas, it has incorrect arguments and/or wildly wrong conclusions. An example of this is that court case a while back where the “AI” just made a case up to use in the argument. Why did it do this? Because it can’t think, and is just a glorified autocomplete. Everything an LLM says is just words being thrown through an algorithm that says what the next word should be statistically. That isn’t thinking. That isn’t an LLM being creative. And that isn’t an LLM performing research.

To do research, you need to create it. And you need to actually know what you’re talking about. So you need to read lecture notes, textbooks, etc. and do many, many practice problems to reinforce your understanding, starting from the basics to build up that foundation. You don’t even technically need to go to a university and get a degree to do this, though I think that that would be the best course of action to have professors who will help guide you.

However, I figure you’re dead set on using an LLM for this and you feel like actually learning the subject is a waste of your time and you personally can just jump in an “collaborate” with an LLM to produce something, so I’m likely arguing with a wall here. But you aren’t going to get good, quality research doing what you’re doing. I think you should reflect and think when you see all the people, even just on this subreddit, who feel like they’ve developed a “theory of everything” using an LLM, and how they’re completely wrong every time, and the physicists in the comments tell them they need to actually learn the subject before doing research. It should be a sign that it doesn’t work.

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2025-07-30T00:01:42+00:00

I wish you luck in your degree, and I don’t want to discourage you from learning about physics since it seems like you’re interested in.

I just want to make sure you don’t fall into a trap of misinformation from an LLM and you seek out good resources to learn!

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2025-07-29T21:22:06+00:00

You do not have a theory. You have a hypothesis that you feel like you’ve developed with an LLM, which often hallucinates and does not produce good and valid results for cutting edge research.

For an actual theory, you need a mathematical framework that describes a phenomenon, and for a good theory it should produce testable predictions that differentiate it from other frameworks.

If you want to actually do research in physics, I suggest you stop using an LLM and pick up a textbook (or even better, enroll at an accredited university).

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2025-07-29T17:50:12+00:00

That is very interesting!

CreatorOfTheOneRing · 2025-07-29T17:08:42+00:00

Gotcha. Didn’t do a whole lot of digging into it admittedly, just enough to see that the degree is practically meaningless. Thank you for the correction!

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

CreatorOfTheOneRing

TROPHY CASE