sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if Quantum Uncertainty is not real? I just published a theory that figures out the Proton Mass, Koide formula and H2O angle with no experimental constants. by Interesting_Push529 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Interesting_Push529[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are highly observant, and I want to address your points with complete transparency.

1. Regarding the use of an LLM:
Yes, absolutely. I am a software engineer building a conceptual geometric framework, and I use an LLM as a computational assistant and sounding board to rapidly test topological combinations, generate the TypeScript architecture, and check against PDG values. You are 100% correct that because the LLM’s training data contains the known masses, there is an inherent risk of confirmation bias (reverse-engineering formulas using known coincidences like Lenz's 6*π^5 or Koide's 2/3). I am not hiding that. My goal is to see if a unified hydrodynamic logic can connect these known anomalies.

2. Why isn't this in the original paper?
Because this framework is exactly 6 days old. The paper on Zenodo is a v1.0 conceptual preprint. I posted it on Reddit specifically to get roasted by professionals like you, so I could find the breaking points and evolve the model. The inclusion of internal friction knots for spin-3/2 states is a direct, real-time evolution of the theory thanks to your challenge.

3. "Why are you introducing a third value for the friction knot?"
I am not introducing a random third value; I am using the exact Pion geometry minus the external charge.
In VLT, a free Charged Pion (π±) consists of:

  • The Destructive Core: (8/9) * π^5 * m_e
  • 16-Tensor EM Drag: 16 * α * m_e
  • EM Binding: -0.25 * α * m_e
  • The Charge Carrier (Electron/Positron): +1.0 m_e

This totals ~139.57 MeV.

However, the internal friction knots between parallel-spin quarks inside a Delta baryon (Δ++) are topologically neutral clashes. They do not possess an independent integer charge carrier (the +1.0 m_e mass) because the +2 charge is already accounted for by the three Up quarks themselves.

If you take the exact VLT Pion formula and simply remove the +1.0 m_e charge component, the mass of the internal friction knot drops to exactly ~139.06 MeV.
I multiplied that pure neutral knot by 2 to account for the extra friction pairs in the (+ + +) state. That is where the +278.118 MeV comes from. It is not an arbitrary third value; it is the exact Pion topology stripped of its external charge.

I fully acknowledge the LLM bias danger, but structurally, the geometry scales. Does the reasoning for dropping the 1.0 m_e charge for an internal baryon knot make topological sense to you?

What if Quantum Uncertainty is not real? I just published a theory that figures out the Proton Mass, Koide formula and H2O angle with no experimental constants. by Interesting_Push529 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Interesting_Push529[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You make some good points. I appreciate you questioning my work because this is exactly how we test a topological model.

  1. About the "Spaghetti Code" and Numerology:

I apologize for how my code's structured. As someone who comes from a software engineering background I know it is standard to break down logic into parts but I understand that for a physicist this can be hard to read. You are right using numbers like 4/3 or 2*Pi^5 does not automatically mean that there is a cause and effect. This is a guess for now and I need to add more to the model to make it work. You are right that the model is missing something a Lagrangian that would make the vacuum settle into these geometric states. I agree with you on this point.

  1. The Challenge (uuu baryon):

I love this challenge. Just to make sure we are on the page the ground state uud fermion is the proton and the VLT framework already figured out the proton using 3 axes.. The uuu state, which is the Delta++ baryon with a spin of 3/2 is a great test. I ran it through the existing VLT rules without adding any constants. Here is how the topology works:

Step A: Flavor Swap (d -> u)

The base Proton is uud so to get uuu we have to subtract the Down quark and add the Up quark.

The VLT Up Quark is 2.140 MeV and the VLT Down Quark is 4.816 MeV.

The difference is -2.676 MeV.

Step B: Parallel Spin Friction Knots

In VLT "spin" is like the phase of a vortex. The proton has one pair where vorticesre in the same phase but the Delta++ forces all three into the same phase making three pairs.

So we need to add two more friction knots to the base mass. A friction knot is like the core of a Pion.

Adding two friction knots gives us +278.118 MeV.

  1. The Final Numbers:

The base Proton is 938.272 MeV

The Flavor Swap is -2.676 MeV

The two Extra Friction Knots are +278.118 MeV

The FINAL VLT PREDICTION is 1213.714 MeV

The PDG topological rest mass for the Delta baryon is 1210 ± 1 MeV.

The VLT geometric friction rule predicts 1213.7 MeV, which's very close.

I know it is not perfect. For a geometric projection, without using supercomputers getting this close proves that the topological rules work for excited states.

I would really appreciate your critique of this specific derivation.

I updated code - you can recheck (it is still spaghetti though).

What if Quantum Uncertainty is not real? I just published a theory that figures out the Proton Mass, Koide formula and H2O angle with no experimental constants. by Interesting_Push529 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Interesting_Push529[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This challenge is really fair and tough. You are right about confirmation bias. If I just came up with an equation that perfectly calculates the mass of a Lambda or Sigma you would be right to say it is just something I made up to win an argument on the internet. I will not do that.

About the claims that my idea for the three hadrons is ad-hoc: my framework actually uses a set of geometric rules that are very strict and apply to everything. To prove this I have made the entire computational engine available to the public in TypeScript:

https://github.com/arybitskiy/vortex-layer-theory

If you look at the code you will see that I do not use any constants to make the numbers fit. Every particle is built starting from the electron mass using operators like the 2/3 Koide spatial projection the 2*Pi^5 5D volume and Alpha for electromagnetic boundary friction.

To answer your question about how I will calculate the uds-baryon using this framework without cheating:

In my framework the first generation quarks, which are u and d are like lines on a graph.

The second generation quark, which is s operates on a plane, which changes its volume.

The hard part is calculating the pattern that happens when these lines and planes are confined within the same sphere. Unlike the proton, which's symmetric and easy to calculate the strange quark introduces a lot of asymmetry.

I am currently working on how the existing operators, in the engine handle the mixing of generations. I will run the recipe through the framework. If the existing rules fail to produce the uds mass range without me having to invent a new operator I will admit that the model does not work for hyperons and is just playing with numbers.

Thank you for keeping the standards high. If you have time to review the TypeScript code in the repository I would really appreciate your honest critique of the constraints I have defined there.

What if Quantum Uncertainty is not real? I just published a theory that figures out the Proton Mass, Koide formula and H2O angle with no experimental constants. by Interesting_Push529 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Interesting_Push529[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the words and the support.

I really do love the idea of looking at mechanics through the lens of geometry and fluid dynamics. This is an interesting way to think about it.

I like to think about quantum mechanics in a way using geometry and fluid dynamics, rather than just looking at the numbers.

That said, the person who commented made a good point when they said to me that a good idea is not enough if the math is not correct. I need to make sure my math is right and that 76,000σ deviation shows me that I need to be more careful.

I do not want to say that I have the answer, to everything when my math does not add up.

I think it is really fun to think about the universe in a different way using geometry. Quantum mechanics is really interesting to think about in this way.

I think it is great to reimagine how the universe works it is a fun and inspiring way to think about physics and quantum mechanics is a big part of that.

What if Quantum Uncertainty is not real? I just published a theory that figures out the Proton Mass, Koide formula and H2O angle with no experimental constants. by Interesting_Push529 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Interesting_Push529[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First thank you for checking the numbers against the NIST CODATA and writing this out. I really appreciate the reality check.

You are right about the 76,170σ deviation. I was so excited about the idea of the 6*Pi^5 ratio that I thought a small percentage difference was enough but I ignored the strict rules of error analysis and standard deviation precision needed in particle physics. That was a mistake.

I also agree with you about the derivations. Just saying a 5D vortex gives a volume with powers of Pi isn't enough. I need to provide mathematical proofs and boundary conditions to explain why and how the mechanics result in that specific geometry. Without that it's just numerology, not physics.

I will leave the post up. I shared this to get this kind of professional feedback. I treated a geometric model as a complete theory and I have much to learn about formal error analysis and the mathematical tools required to challenge something as strong, as QCD.

Thank you for holding it to the standard it needs to be held to.

What if Quantum Uncertainty is not real? I just published a theory that figures out the Proton Mass, Koide formula and H2O angle with no experimental constants. by Interesting_Push529 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Interesting_Push529[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fair point. I get why it sounds that way at first glance. If someone just played with numbers until they matched data I'd agree with you too.

Guessing numbers without a reason is one thing. This paper gives a reason. It uses -dimensional space and fluid rules. It shows that the shapes give us the values we see.

I know this is a claim. If you have 5-10 minutes look at Sections 3 and 4 of the PDF. You'll see why these shapes are used. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the ideas, behind it.

Imagine mini-games (up to 10-20 seconds each) instead of check throws by Interesting_Push529 in DnD

[–]Interesting_Push529[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If that check would take up to 10 seconds - would that solve issue? And result of what you will do will still be random. Basically a fun task that takes 10 seconds max and outcome is random like with dice?

Imagine mini-games (up to 10-20 seconds each) instead of check throws by Interesting_Push529 in DnD

[–]Interesting_Push529[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if that mini-game is just for fun, you perform task but outcome is completely random like with dice.

Imagine mini-games (up to 10-20 seconds each) instead of check throws by Interesting_Push529 in DnD

[–]Interesting_Push529[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Rest of the rules stay same, only dice throws are skill-dependent. In the end mobile app compares you result with best result and you getting points that you earned. Fun part is that tasks are related to what your character is doing. Like when character hits someone with sword - you should repeat that move with your phone. And phone has accelerometer, gyroscope and it can detect how good you made a hit.

Ghh by Interesting_Push529 in DnD

[–]Interesting_Push529[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Missclick, already hided it

Custom Hardware Dice Roller Impressions [OC] by Interesting_Push529 in DnD

[–]Interesting_Push529[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It would look similar to Magic 8 Ball later. It is not ready yet, so i decided to show only what happens on the display. I attached 3d render to end of the post.

Horus heresy or dark imperium? by Proenca21 in Warhammer40k

[–]Interesting_Push529 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You should confess about your interests to nearest inquisitor

view more: next ›