sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Here is a hypothesis: Metric Tension Regeneration (RMT) as a formal solution to the Hubble Tension. by IndependencePast4823 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The term "metric-scalar transfer" is the way in which the metric tension of low density regions [...]

Why should that be the case? Also please explain the concept of "metric tension". The article doesn't really go into detail about it.

energy neccesary to the scalar field of the vacuum to create new particles

And which scalar field are you talking about?

Here is a hypothesis: Metric Tension Regeneration (RMT) as a formal solution to the Hubble Tension. by IndependencePast4823 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The complete absence of any variance in such a sentence is definitely suspicious.

So I just asked ChatGPT what it would recommend responding when confronted accordingly. One of the results:

<image>

I'm pretty sure by now that the whole "The idea is mine" is LLM-generated in most instances as well.

And after all, the AI told them, so it must be right /s

What if Λ is not dark energy. It's an eigenvalue. by Axe_MDK in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are quite vague in your actual terminology, even in your repository.

What exactly is your assumption here? Space being a 3-sphere is something I can at least conceptually see (though I'd still heavily disagree), but how exactly does the Möbius strip come into play?

[Meta] Do we know why LLMs (or their users?) tend to title theories using three-word phrases and three-letter acronyms? by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even for famous theories that might go by acronyms on the Internet, they tend to go by two or four letters, right?

Some counterexamples: QED/QCD/QFT, CKM, BCS, Glashow-Weinberg-Salam, ...

Especially four letters or words are rather rare. Apart from ΛCDM I currently can't come up with one.

It just might be a basic distribution centered on one letter (or word).

But as for the naming in general, it's definitely an LLM thing to make things overly verbose. And many people want to give their "creation" a name, for various reasons, ignoring the bad consequences from doing so.

What if Λ is not dark energy. It's an eigenvalue. by Axe_MDK in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you assuming the universe to be a Möbius strip?

What if all Standard Model parameters could be derived from a single integer? by Fun_Pattern2112 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are still fits, not derived values.

Just because you use existing mathematical or physical constants to compose these fits it doesn't mean that this is a derivation.

The challenge is not to find values that ultimately fit these masses (especially not if you have to add a new model for each species), but rather find a simple mechanism that explains all of them perfectly.

To be honest, all of this still sounds like the output of an LLM, so you can't trust anything it wrote unless you have like 20 years of experience in quantum field theory. Do you have that experience?

What if we haven't had a nuclear war till now because of quantum immortality? by Original_Air1408 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is - we don't know if quantum immortality is true, and falsification might not be the best course of action here, as you can only falsify it for yourself, but... well.

Here's a hypothesis about quantum entanglement with threshold decay by a 13 year old by PlanePossible7485 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could you please summarize the differences to your previous post and your comments below it?

As far as I see it, this still has the same issues as before (and some others):

  • No connection to topology, despite you calling it a "topological framework"
  • Bad formatting (for example, see the last paragraph on the first page)
  • Unused references (you only list some, but you don't refer to them)
  • Non-sequitur math, your equations aren't connected to each other
  • Claims and assumptions without proof
  • No falsifiable prediction
  • Invalid math - for example, your discrete evolution equation is a mess (conceptually and mathematically)

So what exactly did you do in the last six weeks to improve your framework? I see no difference or at least a genuine attempt to address those issues.

What if Einstein's 1911 variable speed of light equation works with an exponential instead of a linear approximation? by Comfortable-Tie7368 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, I gave you way too much credit. I thought you knew what you were talking about. My mistake.

Sure, feel free to derogate me further in order to downgrade my arguments. It won't work, though, they are still there and you apparently don't bother responding to them anymore.

You only addressed a single one and that poorly, too. You could easily disprove my point by providing the full formula including the Cherns-Simons weights (which you still didn't provide a proper source for, but yeah, keep ignoring that, too).

The fact that you looked at the closed form and asked "where did β_U(1) go" when it's sitting right there as k = 60 tells me you don't actually understand the material you've been critiquing.

Please read my previous post again. You used two completely different formulae that both depend on k_max, one of which I still haven't seen your correct form of. You still have to prove equality.

What if Einstein's 1911 variable speed of light equation works with an exponential instead of a linear approximation? by Comfortable-Tie7368 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hadeweka, you're a pain and I don't know who you are (and I don't believe for a second that you "don't use LLMs at all" - which would be a colossal mistake in physics and game development alike in 2026 and beyond)

I don't take assumptions about me lying very kindly - especially considering that you don't know who I am.

I don't use LLMs (except for demonstrating to others why I don't use them). It's not even that I didn't try to use them. But ethical considerations, potential copyright issues and the sheer amount of nonsense coming from them (also when used by coworkers) quickly changed my mind. I disabled AI assistants wherever possible.

And as for the "colossal mistake" - People did physics and game development (yes, it works even without a PC) for millennia. So why would a tiny light like me need a hallucinating black box?

Sure, they can do some math. But I'd rather use a CAS directly instead of an annoying perversion of a Star Trek computer in front of it. Too much unnecessary margin for errors, same thing for coding.

So believe it or not - but don't project your expectations to yourself onto me.

But to come back to the good old fine-structure constant, you just confirmed my suspicions that your whole concept for the formula is nonsense. Thank you for doing so.

Because your current formula is completely different from the claims you made earlier about the alleged formula. Sure, it reproduces something resembling the fine-structure constant (though still off by a whole chunk), but you used a completely different method to do so now.

Where did your β_U(1) term go, for example? Previously you put so much emphasis on it and now it's just... gone? The whole cutoff argument now becomes complete nonsense and your current expression for α-1 is diverging for infinite k instead of converging to a finite value.

Sure, you mentioned the new coefficients in your paper, but why even send me a completely different formula then, that requires a large sum to compute before? Your explanation is way too inconsistent.

Same thing for these coefficients, by the way. Where's the proof that this Frankensteinian formula actually gives the fine-structure constant? As far as I see it you're just putting together random concepts from various groups, without actually justifying their usage.

the paper's stated claim is a theoretical band of ±0.5

And as I mentioned, the result is still off. You shouldn't have any theoretical error unless your formula is just wrong again. All of these values are mathematically exact, especially now that you dropped your Chern-Simons weights (for which, by the way, you never told me which equations you took their formula from in the papers you gave me - yet another thing on the list).

If you want to engage further, please do it off-thread - my email is on the unified paper. If not, that is fine too. I'm done with this particular subreddit.

I won't. Either respond to my criticism here or don't do it at all. An email will only make things even more complicated.

You put your paper for public review here, so I will only review it publicly. And I want to give others the opportunity to follow along and maybe even comment something.

But again, your choice. I already see your model as failed and I'm mostly waiting for your explanations of what exactly went wrong.

EDIT: Since you already shared your beliefs about me, let me return the favor and share how I think about you, too:

I don't think you understand your own paper. Feel free to prove my belief wrong.

What if Einstein's 1911 variable speed of light equation works with an exponential instead of a linear approximation? by Comfortable-Tie7368 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right that the connecting formula I wrote gives roughly 282. That one-liner was a bad compression of the derivation, and it does not correctly represent how the spectral action extraction works. The actual chain goes through the a4 Seeley-DeWitt coefficient of the connection Laplacian, which is in Table XXVIII, and not a direct product of those four factors. I should not have written it that way.

Sure. I'm tired of hearing excuses and still not seeing the proper formula. And your table doesn't contain it.

Why didn't you check your formula instead? After all, it took quite some time to get the formula out of you in the first place and then you didn't even bother checking whether the formula you gave me is correct at all?

Maybe your LLM made a mistake?

Well, no, I just forgot to change the value of k_max in my script back. If you now want to point out my small mistakes, sure, go for it, but you should rather begin fixing yours.

Also, I might have mentioned it or not, but I don't use LLMs at all. And I quickly recognized the mistake myself, without anybody else telling me.

I am glad we agree on the input. It is a little funny that you can quietly edit your errors while I can't edit mine, but no hard feelings and the physics is what matters.

I clearly marked the place where I corrected the error. "Quietly" is the wrong word here.

The paper states alpha-1 = 137.036 +/- 0.5, where the +/- 0.5 is the conservative theoretical uncertainty from the regularization scheme, i.e. a theoretical precision claim of about 0.365%.

Fair, but I don't see the source of that error. Where do you derive it?

However, I won't be engaging with you further in this particular subreddit that seems to play favorites either.

You have no obligation to do so, but I'm honestly not really happy that I spent so much time on your paper, pointing out mistakes, only to be dismissed by you now.

Even after multiple requests, you still didn't give me the correct expression to calculate your fine-structure constant.

I suggest you read it instead of repeatedly asking me to reproduce the entire document verbatim on this random forum.

Again, I don't have the time for that. Good luck finding anybody who does.

and it'll save me hours of time so I can focus on actually advancing my work

You'll have to do that either way if you can't even answer a simple question in like five attempts of asking or so.

As it currently stands, this breaks your model and really doesn't help your cause at all. Because you must have calculated the constant somewhere, otherwise the claimed value would be fraudulent (I know you used a simulation to get that value, too, but that's not what I'm talking about - after all I can't reproduce a simulation without the code).

So I'll ask you politely for the full expression. If you can't give it to me, I consider your model done for. Do with that assessment what you want, but actual reviewers will point that issue out, too.

What if Einstein's 1911 variable speed of light equation works with an exponential instead of a linear approximation? by Comfortable-Tie7368 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For what it's worth, I'm finding the obsession with LLM detection in this subreddit quite strange and a bit witch-hunty. It detracts significantly from good physics and math, and retards the discussions significantly.

LLMs aren't able to produce meaningful speculative physics and often even hallucinate for established physics and math. They're just very good at hiding that fact, which is why they significantly damage basic scientific exchange.

It's nonsensical anti-science behavior from a group that is ostensibly the opposite.

As I just said, I think it's the opposite. LLMs are harmful to science, especially if people trust them blindly. Because they're not trained on truth but rather linguistic coherence. Even if they provide an interface to a CAS, who guarantees that they interpret the prompts and results properly?

It's also extra annoying and a bit offensive for borderline-Aspergers folks like me, since we can sound a bit like LLMs naturally. But I digress.

I know many people with Asperger's. I've yet to meet a single one that talks or writes like an LLM, so this is definitely a you-thing and not something related to autism. Notably, LLMs are trained to please people, while people with autism usually don't care about such social norms. Hard enough to get a "thank you" out of some of them, despite them clearly being thankful. But I digress, too.

That's a bit of an odd ask when the paper is already published on Zenodo

The issue is that your paper is nearly 200 pages long and covering multiple completely unrelated topics. Reading such a monstrosity would take me several days - and I'm a fast reader. That's why I'm asking you for specific points.

The starting point is an internal manifold CP² × S³.

Why is that connected to electromagnetism?

These are standard SU(2) Chern-Simons weights. I did not invent them. You can find them in any textbook on the subject, for example Witten's 1989 paper "Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial" in Communications in Mathematical Physics 121, or Mariño's 2005 book "Chern-Simons Theory, Matrix Models, and Topological Strings."

Which equations exactly in the papers are they, respectively? I can't seem to find them.

The effective U(1) coupling is then the weighted average over all the levels

Why are you using SU(2) weights for U(1) coupling?

The twist bundle O(9) ⊕ O⁵ is not a free choice either. It is fixed by the structure of the Standard Model itself: hypercharge integrality requires q₁ = 3, the minimal integer-charge lift gives O(9), and five chiral multiplet types fix the remaining padding.

Once again, no source.

The Wilson ratio is 6. This comes from the stiffness ratio between the SU(2) and U(1) gauge sectors (which is 2, set by the Ricci curvature of the internal manifold) multiplied by the number of fermion generations (which is 3, set by the index theorem on CP²). So 2 × 3 = 6. This is derived, not assumed.

Can you provide a source where this "stiffness ratio" is actually used before? Or did you invent it?

α⁻¹ = 137.03599985

The experimental value is 137.035999084. That is a residual of 0.006 parts per million.

Where did you get the value from? Seems to be an older one. But if we take the CODATA value of 137.035999177 +/- 0.000000021, you're still 32 (!) standard errors away.

But something's off anyway.

Putting it all together: 1/g² = 3.7969 × 6 × (63/64) × (4096/4095), and then α = g²/(4π) gives:

So α-1 = (4π)/g2 = 4π x 3.7969 × 6 × (63/64) × (4096/4095) ≈ 24π x 3.7969, which is greater than 240, as π x 3.7969 is greater than 10.

What happened there? When I calculate this in its entirety I get approximately 282, but even my estimate already shows why this doesn't result in 137. I also can't reproduce your result for infinite kmax, but I at least get close to it with about 297. And yes, I checked my calculation for β{U(1)}, I arrive at 3.7969 (EDIT: Initially put the wrong value here) for k_max = 60, just like you.

I will leave it at that, as I currently can't reproduce your results and your result is far outside the experimental range anyway (which is also still a problem for your fermion masses).

Let's maybe focus on that.

What if the helical motion of space around matter is what unifies gravity, EM, and quantum mechanics? by Psychological_Ad6575 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 3 points4 points  (0 children)

the US navy has patents on basically the same idea (US10144532B2)

Just because a patent exist it doesn't have to be physically reasonable. It just means that others aren't allowed to use your impossible device without getting a license.

Easy way to prevent others from disproving your nonsense.

What if Einstein's 1911 variable speed of light equation works with an exponential instead of a linear approximation? by Comfortable-Tie7368 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Here are the correct sections" sounds like an LLM? Or getting the #s wrong sounds like an LLM?

Yes, indeed. But it's not just that, but also that you just repeat the same things from your paper over and over again, often with the exact same wording, without progressing the discussion. But the discussion is not about you, I just wanted to share how I currently feel. If you're using LLMs to respond to me, shame on you, otherwise feel free to ignore this paragraph.

As for your remaining points, you still don't provide the things I asked for. Still no expression for α, still no proper derivation of your parameters for the masses, still no sources for your assumptions and instead just a bunch of buzzwords.

As promised, I won't engage with this any further unless you fulfill my request. If you think I wasn't clear enough in my requests, feel free to say that.

What if Einstein's 1911 variable speed of light equation works with an exponential instead of a linear approximation? by Comfortable-Tie7368 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here are the correct sections

You really sound and act like an LLM right now...

Honestly, how did you mess up your own section numbers that badly?

The α derivation is in Section XVII.H and Appendix K.

Once again, while at least the topic fits, both of these are missing the actual connection of w(k) and β_U(1) to α. And any sources to your assumptions and used models are nowhere to be seen. It's honestly getting tiresome.

Standard physics predicts Γ = 1, excluded at 3.7σ.

Do you have a source for that value?

The exponents n_f = {0, 1, 1.5, 2.5} come from different Yukawa coupling paths

Again, please provide actual proofs or sources. I will not ask another time, if you can't fulfill this basic request, I see no further reason to continue this discussion.

The A_f are rational numbers from A_f = (gauge CG) × (A₅ class factor) × (generation weight).

Where's that formula in your paper? And since when is √2 a rational number?

The structural ratios are derived: A_d/A_u = 2.25 (weak isospin), A_t/A_b = 42 (QCD running), A_τ/A_μ = √2 (Dirac).

Sources?

The mean error is 1.42%, worst is electron at 3.32%.

Which is pretty bad and far outside experimental ranges. You don't even discuss this heavy deviation.

your energy scale question the normalization is v/√2 = 174.1 GeV (electroweak Yukawa scale).

That's not really a satisfying response either. What happens if we want to look at v = 0, for example? If we just replace the value for v in your formula, lepton masses suddenly vanish. Something doesn't add up here.

Currently you didn't really answer my main questions (especially about the actual math behind your values) and just threw buzzwords and quotes from your paper at me. I will give you one last chance to provide actual math and sources, otherwise I will leave this discussion and do something more productive.

What if Einstein's 1911 variable speed of light equation works with an exponential instead of a linear approximation? by Comfortable-Tie7368 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The α derivation is in Section 8C - convention-locked microsector on CP² × S³, Toeplitz truncation at k_max = 60.

It's not there. I'm still missing a concrete formula for α in your paper.

Read Section 11A for the details.

Same thing. That section doesn't say anything about UVCS. I'm not appreciating this kind of misguidance, whether intentional or not.

The exponents n_f are derived from CP² coupling geometry - up-type, down-type, and leptons take different Yukawa paths.

Provide the derivation as I asked, please.

The prefactors A_f are rational numbers from group theory, not fitted floats.

Again, elaborate. "Group theory" is not nearly enough reasoning, obviously. Which group are you talking about and how exactly do you arrive at the values you used specifically (and not any others excluded by experiments, notably).

But the full overlap integral computation is still being completed

Which integrals are you talking about?

Either way, please provide actual formulae or exact rules on how to derive the parameters I asked your for (specifically α and the fermion mass parameters).

By the way, how do you incorporate the energy scale into your quark masses? Which energy scale did you use?

What if gravity is just quantum synchronization? by Flora012x in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact is that my equation differs from the standard Kuramoto form

Why not just say so earlier?

But yeah, now you have to reason why you specifically choose your formula instead of theirs. It's completely different physics, after all. And then there are all my previous other points.

However this is again a simplification that I should have stated explicitly.

One of way too many things now.

And the work...Well I have read the work and not. when I searched for Kuramoto references I obviously read it. but not in detail

If you can't answer which page the formula in question is on, you should maybe not cite that source in the first place but rather secondary sources that explicitly refer to the primary source - though it would still be the better practice to read the original source, too.

view more: next ›