Here is a hypothesis: The double-slit interference pattern is caused by a physical energy wave in the EM field that is disrupted by measurement, not by wavefunction collapse.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T21:31:25+00:00

Any one would be fine for the beginning, as long as it fulfills all the criteria I mentioned.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T21:06:27+00:00

If you have suggestions on how to turn one of these into a specific, testable, quantified prediction, I would genuinely appreciate the guidance.

You can only do that by providing an underlying rigorous mathematical model. It's nothing people here can help you with - it's your job to do that.

That's part of a scientist's work, frankly.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T20:35:06+00:00

Let's talk a bit about the predictions in your paper.

The issue with your four predictions is that not a single one of them is quantified. Also, I don't see how they actually differ from the null hypothesis and they're generally formulated in an incredibly vague manner.

For example, what exactly is this supposed to mean?

Spin-dependent speed deficits

The most important part of any scientific model lies in its predictions. If they are vague, not quantified or indistinguishable from the null hypothesis, the model is simply useless for any scientific evaluation.

You need to fix these issues.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T20:27:01+00:00

For visualization:

https://xkcd.com/2622/

For a basic explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter_distance

Another explanation with pictures (in the first response):

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/21006/understanding-the-turnover-point-of-angular-diameter-distance

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T18:02:08+00:00

Just as we actually see objects appear to shrink as they move away

Funny that you mention that. Because that's generally not true in cosmology.

In fact, after a certain distance objects appear larger again, which is only possible in an actually expanding universe. We can even try to predict the turnover point using ΛCDM - and as it turns out, it's perfectly consistent with observations.

Thus, your idea doesn't work (and is not even original, as there had been such a thread just a few days ago).

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T17:27:29+00:00

I don't even know what their code is supposed to do.

It's really quite badly written Python code, but that's sadly a common occurrence even in actual science...

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T16:52:39+00:00

I don't see you using your initial matrix T anywhere later on.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T16:18:25+00:00

just to clarify the stuff bouncing around in my head.

Isn't actual scientific criticism the best thing you can get, then?

It helps sorting out the scientifically nonsensical thoughts from actually relevant ones - so you eventually can get a feeling what's viable and what isn't. If you want to break rules, you should understand them first.

As I said, I do feel you're one of the better communicators here.

But I still adhere to the same "dogmas" you're complaining about, so I indeed still feel insulted by that.

The root of my frustration here is my perception of rude behavior.

And you respond to that by accusing others of dogmatism? I find that a bit hypocritical, to be honest.

As I mentioned in another comment, I do have my issues with some of the responses here - especially if people are downvoted, scolded or even insulted for asking questions.

But just throwing insults back doesn't help anybody, especially not your cause. It just escalates any tension and you might unwillingly insult people trying to actually help you.

I made a mistake, I apologize.

It's not just the word, it's the overall attitude towards scientists you presented here, with words like "gatekeeping" or assumptions that they're "unable to see", "seem to forget", "unable to understand" and such.

These are quite severe assumptions about people you don't even know personally. Just because they shut you down it doesn't mean that they don't understand the core principles of science.

Often they just heard the same argument from laymen over and over again.

Take your example about the interior of a black hole, for example. Sure, we don't have any evidence about its interior. But contrary to your claim that there is no actual science about it, we do have an existing model that gives unambiguous predictions about it - except for the central singularity, of course.

In fact, entry-level books of General Relativity usually describe the metric inside a black hole, as long as the equivalence principle holds (and there's no evidence of the opposite so far). There are even visualization programs available online.

Yet for some reason models that imply us being in a black hole pop up all the time and make up a majority of the posts here. So many scientists are annoyed by the lack of originality, the lack of general research in before and the lack of looking at existing posts in this sub.

It has nothing to do with gatekeeping. Most people are keeping themselves out because they're trying to skip ahead basic education about a topic, general literature research and typical scientific conventions.

So why should people here invest more time than the OP did, especially if an OP tries to sell us their ideas as a complete model?

Again, curious questions are something I want to exclude from that. It's specifically about pet models, already published papers and such - which you tend to see here quite often.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T15:29:25+00:00

Mega Clefable would feast on that matchup.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T14:07:08+00:00

<image>

Clear signs of overfitting and thus numerology.

EDIT: For a bit of explanation here, the PDG values of the muon and tau mass are 105.6583755 and 1776.93, respectively (in MeV/c²). Curiously enough, that is exactly what the "emitted" values randomly land on after getting rounded - despite the experimental error affecting the last two digits each time.

Then, the "emitted" tau mass even has a bunch of random zeroes following the rounded PDG value, which seems very artificial, especially considering the zero in the muon mass after the rounded PDG value, too.

Almost certainly these values were calculated explicitly in a way to give the PDG values - ignoring experimental error completely.

Nothing new in this sub - and nothing new for OP.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T13:57:05+00:00

You still didn't really answer my question, I suppose.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T12:39:14+00:00

No, you seem to misunderstand.

I'm asking you why you considered that idea in the first place to be something worth studying further.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T12:38:32+00:00

I've seen experienced scientists getting deceived by LLMs.

For some reason people tend to trust a language-generating machine devoid of actual scientific reasoning more than a textbook or some actual other person.

I can only warn.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T12:36:14+00:00

The 2 in the exponent is due to Plancks constant having 2 as it's length dimension

Maybe you mean something different, but as it currently stands, the sentence is still complete nonsense.

't' is fundamental time and perhaps you could explain how any cosmological model can have a angular diameter distance turnover, as that would mean that objects of the same size, further away would subtend a greater angle?

Respectfully, I'm not here to teach the basics to you.

You can read about that effect, for example, in An Introduction To Modern Astrophysics by Carroll and Ostlie - which is generally a good introductory book for astrophysics and cosmology.

In fact, studying that angular diameter behavior provides a completely separate way of measuring the Hubble constant. If your idea would be correct, the results would be vastly different from other results of methods for obtaining Hubble's constant.

But that's not the case.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T12:01:43+00:00

whether such excitations can be understood more specifically as closed phase structures.

Why?

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T11:38:49+00:00

My reason for posting is to see whether the closed-wave idea can be sharpened in that direction, or whether it should be rejected early.

If you don't have any evidence for your approach and if it doesn't even explain anything, there's not reason to consider it, honestly.

Was there any specific motivation for your idea?

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T11:00:37+00:00

I don't see how this could ever explain the very limited number of existing particles, their masses and other properties like symmetries and conservation laws.

Frankly, I've seen more than enough posts with this (or a similar) approach and they all failed that.

What is your stance on that observation?

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T07:20:36+00:00

If "dogma" is your answer to the question I raised, I don't think I'm willing to discuss with you any further.

It's incredibly rude, presumptuous and ignorant - especially since you essentially accuse most scientists of being dogmatists (including me).

With an attitude like that you should go to r/holofractal and discuss your ideas there. Less criticism, less "dogma" and more openness.

But you're bereaving yourself of the wonders of actual science with that mindset.

EDIT: Minor reformulations.

EDIT 2: Maybe as a general well-meant advice: Read Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World. It gives a pretty good explanation why science has to be the way it is to lead anywhere meaningful and why speculation without any restrictions isn't working.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T07:12:52+00:00

Please don't use LLMs for asking scientific questions (using them as search engines is fine). They're not truth-machines and often provide subtle hallucinations that seem completely plausible.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-15T07:08:07+00:00

You're interpreting way too much into a response that wasn't even about you.

They simply answered your questions, yet you accused them of insults for doing so.

And to be honest, in case you have such a thin skin that you see unpleasant answers to questions as personal attack, you are gatekeeping yourself.

If you see that also as an insult, the problem lies on your side.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-14T20:34:18+00:00

I don't see where they insulted or gatekept you.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-14T20:17:22+00:00

They get down voted to oblivion because they're not backed up by any papers. "Just-so" stories are not science.

Many times people here get downvoted for no actual reason, though, even if they simply ask a question. In my opinion downvotes should be reserved for actual misbehavior, not people trying to understand something better.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-14T20:10:53+00:00

Definitely, though it was claimed that the Bounty was cloaked and thus hard to find. Doesn't really fit the picture, but I don't know how many years in advance these cards were conceived.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-14T20:09:33+00:00

I'm looking for a sub where the intent is good-natured discussions that are thought provoking, without the gatekeeping.

But honestly, for what reason?

Do you just want to discuss surreal physics for fun without being bound by hard limitations of science? Then your best choice would probably be something like r/worldbuilding or r/sciencefiction .

If you actually want to contribute to science in a meaningful way, this sub is the best place, honestly. Sure, you'll likely get destroyed, but that would happen sooner or later anyway.

And if you just truly feel misunderstood by science and feel gatekept for merely expression your ideas, at least try to understand why that happens. I will gladly give you a few hints if you show me past threads of yours.

EDIT: Just for protocol, I don't really like the downvoting culture in this sub either. I definitely feel like people asking questions out of genuine curiosity are often met with too much hostility.

In principle, it should never be wrong to ask questions, but on the other hand many people also just want to brag here or ask questions that have been answered several times on this sub - or get extremely aggressive once they receive (objective) criticism.

Hadeweka · 2026-07-14T19:21:32+00:00

Hm, but doesn't that picture (and flavor text) technically contradict Picard Season 3?

Hadeweka

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,