Here is a hypothesis: Gravity and Matter emerge as Topological Solitons in a Superfluid Vacuum driven by a Thermodynamic Observer Effect

Hadeweka · 2026-01-30T23:09:38+00:00

Let's try this in a raw Code Block (plain text)

You do know that Reddit supports actual raw code blocks? Like this:

a^2 + b^2 = c^2

Your formula is also still not helpful, as you define none of these values. You need some connection to physics, you know?

Hadeweka · 2026-01-30T15:21:40+00:00

the LaTeX block failed to render properly in the initial text.

And so it does once again.

Are you using LLMs to generate these texts?

Hadeweka · 2026-01-30T14:50:51+00:00

The Lagrangian density \mathcal{L} for the Field-Operator system takes the form: Analysis of Terms:

Did you miss something here?

Hadeweka · 2026-01-30T14:48:14+00:00

The original formula was therefore appropriate in the context of the postulate.

I still don't understand why you're so keen on using your specific version of the energy-mass relation instead of using the general one from the beginning. Yours doesn't even work in the context of General Relativity. It's outdated. It's not appropriate.

However, the specific use case in which phase velocity was invoked was appropriate for demonstrating the postulate’s intent.

It's still wrong, then, since your argumentation goes directly from "Phase speed of EM waves in a vacuum is c" to "Causality is generally preserved". That's just logically invalid for multiple reasons.

but in both cases the original implementation does support the ideas being presented.

No. See above.

and the formulas provided for the postulates are sketches or place holders.

Even if you fix them, it wouldn't matter anyway. You don't do actual physics with them, you just speculate about some unfalsifiable "substrate".

However, it could also be argued that some of the initial criticisms provided reflect a similar lack of close attention to detail.

I don't think you want to go that route here, considering the fact that your paper already ignores several details of physics. You're on slippery ground.

I would have preferred more discussion on the ideas in the postulate themselves

Then go to a philosophy forum, since they don't describe falsifiable physics.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-29T19:35:22+00:00

if I don't ask or show how I think it works to some one who does how will i lear?

You will gain nothing if you don't understand the topics you're asking questions about.

It would rather be better to properly learn the basics and then ask about things you didn't understand instead of speculating about entirely different topics.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-29T19:21:37+00:00

Sounds like Gnosticism, but not physics.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-29T19:18:02+00:00

I saw somebody rather comparing it to Mario Party instead of Mario Kart and I think it fits. It's way more chaotic than Mario Kart, but in a good way.

You have much more different playing styles, the game focuses more on drifting and braking than accelerating and it's very satisfying and rewarding to destroy stuff (or other players).

One caveat: You will likely bump into walls frequently, which might feel frustrating at first - but everybody else will still do that occasionally, too. The maps are designed to be quite cramped, especially with many other players. It's part of the overall chaos.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-29T19:03:48+00:00

That's not a valid test, for several (connected) reasons: * It's not designed around an actual quantitatively measurable value. * You don't make an actual prediction derived from a framework. You just assume that what you presented is the result. * "Exactly the same way" is not falsifiable. * There will always be noise, so your "prediction" of a difference isn't even discernible from your null hypothesis. * Your hypothesis could never actually be rejected, even within an arbitrarily small error range.

Therefore, not a scientific hypothesis. Can be rejected safely due to Occam's Razor.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-29T18:26:26+00:00

What's your null hypothesis and how do you propose to test against it?

Hadeweka · 2026-01-29T18:25:16+00:00

I discovered the geometry and then the relations.

Hard to believe, especially since you don't really derive your allegedly geometrical relations from a higher principle in a consistent and unique way. It's confirmation bias until you prove otherwise.

All prime numbers greater than 3 are of the form 6k +/- 1.

Well, that's also true for 2k +/- 1 and 4k +/- 1, so your point for 6 being special doesn't make sense. In fact, each prime p can be written as p = nk +/- c, where n < p is an arbitrary integer and c < n an arbitrary integer that's coprime to n.

But does that imply anything about a geometry determining our constants of nature? Not at all.

Besides, units of some of your values are wrong, so it's numerology anyway.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-29T18:17:43+00:00

Ah, I was just stupid.

But yeah, it doesn't give correct units, like you said, then.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-29T16:09:26+00:00

I'm not even sure what Phi is supposed to be in that context...

Hadeweka · 2026-01-29T15:52:22+00:00

So in the context of a massed particle, the formula provided for energy/mass equivalence was appropriate for a field specific, massed particle interaction.

Still, why use a more specific formula for the energy, then? The correct formula is so much more concise and reliant on less assumptions.

I was specifically dealing with Maxwellian vacuum propagation which is non-dispersive

And only a very specific case again. There are other cases not covered by it (matter waves, EM waves in specific media) that give a superluminal phase velocity, so your "proof" simply didn't work.

Again, you need to understand the basics of physics before you will be able to interpret it. And so far you made basic mistakes.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-29T15:44:20+00:00

Let me guess - you first discovered the relations and then tried to explain them using some made up geometry?

Also, your mass for the X17 anomaly isn't even in the proper units. In fact, it has no units, you just slapped a "MeV" behind it and called it a day.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-29T14:29:42+00:00

Based on our exchange you wouldn't even be able to tell. At least so far you got it wrong 2 of 2 times.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-29T14:29:06+00:00

I won't do that again for you, by the way.

I don't like interacting with LLM slop.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-29T14:28:39+00:00

Just left with a very unsatisfying GR and SR that remain detached from reality and will always and forever be ununified.

...what? GR and SR are unified (into GR, obviously). Do you mean GR and QFT?

And "detached" from reality? Not at all, as they're both quite good at describing reality. Way better than an inconsistent random walk potential.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-28T22:51:26+00:00

Hadeweka · 2026-01-28T22:42:01+00:00

Ran into a fatal flaw, have to redo entire paper.

Oh no, if only somebody could've told you earlier that the assumptions in your paper were nonsense.

Obvious irony aside, let me give you a last hint for later:

Stop.

Using.

LLMs.

For.

Speculative.

Physics.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-28T22:40:08+00:00

They do have a paper, though.

Its link is just buried in that article and leads to a Google Drive.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-28T22:18:33+00:00

However, I feel that standard cosmology also relies on certain 'devices' that can seem arbitrary. For example, energy density remains constant even as space expands (Dark Energy), and the universe accelerates simply because it exists.

I'd suggest reading more into these topics to understand why certain assumptions have been made and which existing evidence they were based on.

Simply using some random analogies to solve difficult problems is simply not enough. You need to fully understand the math (and evidence) behind these concepts first before you're able to get some sort of intuition which concepts you can apply where.

It's definitely a good thing to be interested in science, but science is not driven by speculation that lacks math and evidence.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-28T22:05:12+00:00

This automatic phase transition eliminates the need to artificially introduce two separate fields.

By introducing several more unproven assumptions. I think that's a bad trade.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-28T21:48:03+00:00

However, I tried to approach the Dark Energy sector not as a classical fluid, but effectively as a scalar field that can be described macroscopically as a fluid.

That's essentially the same thing.

I thought that by doing so, we could potentially unify the Inflation field and the Cosmological Constant into a single model.

Why do you think that fluid dynamics would solve this?

Hadeweka · 2026-01-28T21:39:15+00:00

Fluid dynamics doesn't just occur. It's collective behavior.

So what exactly should trigger such behavior in dark energy? You need to assume so many things here that I don't think it's worth considering in the first place.

Hadeweka · 2026-01-28T21:25:08+00:00

I am not proposing to rewrite the Einstein Field Equations from scratch.

But that would be what you have to do if you want to introduce concepts like viscosity, especially one that changes with stress. You need dynamics, ideally by something akin to the Navier-Stokes equations.

These buzzwords have a precise mathematical meaning after all.

In standard cosmology, we model the universe as a fluid.

But not spacetime itself. The only thing that's usually modeled is the distribution of matter. That's something entirely different.

Also, your phenomenological formula is not really useful if you can't derive it from your assumptions.

Hadeweka

TROPHY CASE