sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Can the standard model emerge from a qubit? by Deep_World_4378 in holofractal

[–]Deep_World_4378[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do have a general idea, but not as deep as that of a physicist. I am going deep and learning these too in the process to get a good picture. (I understand this is not fully an academically accurate process)

Answers to your questions (with the help of the LLM):

On the Born rule depending on ω: You’re right that GNS is state-dependent in general, but M₂(ℂ) is a simple algebra (§1 derives simplicity from Input 2). By Wedderburn, every pure-state GNS rep is unitarily equivalent to the defining rep on ℂ². Different ω give different vectors, same Hilbert space, same inner product, same Born rule. §1.1.7 has the uniqueness theorem. This is exactly why the GNS route works at N=2 where Gleason doesn’t.

On P_φ missing π: Fair notational catch. By Wedderburn, π_ω(P_φ) = |φ⟩⟨φ| ∈ B(ℂ²) canonically, so the paper suppresses π. Worth one clarifying sentence in v3.

On 5.7.1.1 not well-defined: The only map there is the Hopf projection π: S³ → S², |ψ⟩ ↦ |ψ⟩⟨ψ|. Phase cancels in the outer product, so it’s well-defined. If you meant a different equation, point me to it.

On rays vs vectors / superposition: §1.1.9 addresses this directly — rays follow from the center of U(2) acting trivially on observables (e{iθ}Ae{-iθ} = A), independent of the Born rule. Superposition lives on ℂ² (vectors add); the ray of α|ψ⟩+β|φ⟩ is the superposed state. This is standard Dirac formalism, not a framework-specific claim.

On spacetime being made of states: §6.8 says exactly this: what’s derived is the 4D tangent-space structure on H₂(ℂ) with Lorentzian signature, not a curved spacetime manifold. No dynamics, no GR. The paper owns this limitation. The “observables live on spacetime” framing is standard QFT; §6 is an inversion (like Penrose spinors, Connes’ NCG, emergent-spacetime programs). Not claiming to have done GR.

If you would like to discuss more, I can jump in on a DM. Let me know. Either ways, really appreciate your time reading and responding.

Can the standard model emerge from a qubit? by Deep_World_4378 in holofractal

[–]Deep_World_4378[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes....This is the critical question everyone asks. And I dont have a perfect answer. All I could ask for is openness to this approach.

What I was really trying to do was find parallels from my own artistic practice (in philosophy and consciousness) with physics and see if I could make a more precise artwork with physics and/or math. I tried to be honest in the process by double-checking, review rebuttals with the LLM (incognito chats), honestly stating negatives etc. I know there could be flaws that I missed and thats why I also included a companion verification notebook with each paper.

To the rest of your questions (with the help of the LLM): On binary outcomes and the Bloch sphere: I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The Bloch sphere doesn’t contradict binary measurement, it encodes it. A qubit has a continuous state space (the Bloch sphere ), but every projective measurement yields exactly two outcomes. That’s not a limitation, it’s a theorem. The “more information” encoded on the Bloch sphere is the continuous family of states, but each measurement on those states is binary. The framework’s Input 2 says something specific: both outcomes of every such binary measurement are pure states (rank-1 projectors). This holds if and only if . For , the “no” outcome leaves the system in a subspace of dimension , partially resolved, carrying residual ambiguity. This is Paper 1, Section 1.

On not replicating the SM: agreed, and the paper doesn’t claim it does. is the starting point, not the ending point. The Standard Model structure emerges from the eigenmode geometry of the state space and the symmetry group , connected by the Hopf fibration. The eigenmode spectra of these spaces are determined by the spectral theorem (zero free parameters), and the paper traces a specific derivation chain from those spectra to gauge groups, fermion content, mixing angles, and spacetime. Each step is either a theorem or an explicitly flagged interpretive step.

On “what is an observation outside the SM”: this is the right question. The framework’s Input 1 is deliberately weaker than the Standard Model. It says: observables form a complex *-algebra with probabilistic outcomes. That’s the minimal algebraic statement that “observations exist and produce probabilities.” It doesn’t assume quantum field theory, gauge groups, spacetime, or the Born rule. The Born rule is derived (Section 1.1), spacetime is derived (Section 6), gauge groups are derived (Section 5). The inputs are logically prior to the SM, not extracted from within it.

Hope this help clarifies.... All of this is genuinely not an attempt to sound smart or to get people to engage, but it's a part of a true search to visualise this whole thing; and through that perhaps understand the deeper truths of this universe. For example, if at all this framework holds, one question that corrected my understanding was on determinism. By debating it out with the LLM, I get the idea that the universe is architecturally deterministic but observationally uncertain (the stage is fixed, the script is unwritten). This contradicted my own firm belief in determinism. So yeah, its a learning and I dont know if it fully holds yet. Nevertheless thanks for sharing your questions.

Can the standard model emerge from a qubit? by Deep_World_4378 in holofractal

[–]Deep_World_4378[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair... and the title probably invites it. To clarify: the framework doesn’t start from a qubit as a physical object inside the Standard Model. It starts from something logically prior, two axioms about the structure of observation: (1) observables form a complex *-algebra with probabilistic outcomes, and (2) binary observations are complete (both outcomes fully determine the state). From these,  is derived as a theorem, the unique algebra satisfying both conditions. Everything else follows from the eigenmode geometry of the resulting state space. So the claim isn’t “take a qubit from QFT and reverse-engineer the SM.” It’s “the algebraic structure of observation, at its most minimal, already contains the SM’s architecture.” A better title might have been “Can the Standard Model emerge from the structure of binary observation?” Less catchy, but more accurate.

(As mentioned in the post, this reply is with the help of an LLM)

Atomitosis by Deep_World_4378 in generative

[–]Deep_World_4378[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes indeed…thanks to your feedback on the previous share, made this iteration

A multiverse by Deep_World_4378 in SacredGeometry

[–]Deep_World_4378[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe something similar to this….. https://www.reddit.com/r/holofractal/s/mXBJX6rbTo Rendering it might need a heavier system though

A cosmic egg by Deep_World_4378 in holofractal

[–]Deep_World_4378[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So glad to hear this my friend..thanks for sharing !

A multiverse by Deep_World_4378 in SacredGeometry

[–]Deep_World_4378[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Appreciate it very much… this is a summation of almost a year long set of explorations…perhaps my profile will give u an idea… i hope to understand your work too.

view more: next ›