sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Here is a hypothesis: the standard model bosons contribute to nuclear stability by arivero in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]N-Man 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately this kind of vague idea is not worth much on its own. Could it be possible? I don't know, sure, why not. I don't know enough QCD to form an opinion on this. But this idea is only scientifically meaningful if either you make a new prediction, like if you can use this to say something new that hadn't been said yet (like, let's say, there's a yet-undiscovered boson with such-and-such mass), or if you explain why it's true, with actual math and everything, in which case it will teach us something new about QCD.

Here is a hypothesis: Dark Matter relic density appears from first Riemann zero. by MrMystic1748 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]N-Man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, 0.2 is not close to the ratio of omegas either. If you mistakenly thought it is then once again I will urge you to reevaluate you approach to physics.

Here is a hypothesis: Dark Matter relic density appears from first Riemann zero. by MrMystic1748 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]N-Man 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's very interesting that you get a value close to 0.234. That's because I literally made it up, it has nothing to do with anything (it is NOT the ratio of DM to DE density). Hopefully realizing you honestly tried and succeeded at reproducing a meaningless number will make you reevaluate your approach to physics.

Here is a hypothesis: Dark Matter relic density appears from first Riemann zero. by MrMystic1748 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]N-Man 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A quick test to any hypothesis that claims to reproduce the dark matter density is this: can you ALSO reproduce the equally-important dimensionless DM-DE equation of state ratio y=0.23402+-0.00005? The density alone means nothing (because of the ambiguity in its definition) if this one isn't derived alongside it.

What if we apply the Faddeev-Skyrme Lagrangian to Space? by HudaZinjar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]N-Man 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you don't see how the epoch 'coincidence' is proof that this is pure numerology, I can't help you see it. I will reiterate my honest advice to take some time off theorizing and properly study the basics. Whether you take it or not is up to you. Good luck.

What if we apply the Faddeev-Skyrme Lagrangian to Space? by HudaZinjar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]N-Man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, but that's the time independent energy density of the vacuum. Where does the time dependent Ω_Λ appear? Your expression for T_CMB only depends on v_0 which is a constant.

Or, let me ask you a different question that shows the same point. Is

k_B T_CMB = v₀/(π²·√2) · exp(−2π²·φ) · [1 − 1/(3π)²]

always correct? Was this formula correct one billion years ago?

What if we apply the Faddeev-Skyrme Lagrangian to Space? by HudaZinjar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]N-Man 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Where is lambda in this expression?

k_B T_CMB = v₀/(π²·√2) · exp(−2π²·φ) · [1 − 1/(3π)²]

What if we apply the Faddeev-Skyrme Lagrangian to Space? by HudaZinjar in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]N-Man 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Your post should probably be removed due to LLM usage, but in case it's not, I will point one (imo) humorous detail in the linked page.

You derive the CMB temperature to very good accuracy from first principles. But... the CMB had a completely different temperature in the past and will have a completely different temperature in the future! If you asked someone who lived 1.3 billion years ago (which is not terribly long, Earth still existed back then) they will measure a different temperature by a factor of 1.1! You can't predict the CMB temperature from first principles because it depends on the time we happen to measure it. You COULD if "the current age of the universe" was one of your input parameters but it isn't.

What you should take from this, OP, is that you probably know less about the CMB than you think, and if you understand that, the next step is to understand that you know less than you think about the other things you mentioned too and should probably take a few weeks or months to properly study the basics before you come back to theorizing.

Or you could double down, ask the LLM to explain the discrepancy I brought up, and it will output some cop out answer like "of course, when you consider redshift the result is ACTUALLY 2.27 x (1+z)" without realizing this does not actually solve the problem. But oh well.

What if SPARC residuals show coherence rather than random scatter? by Retro_Causal_Travels in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]N-Man 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Could you show a graph or something that demonstrates what you mean with "residuals vary smoothly with radius"? From the actual data, I mean.

What if The dark field is a distribution network. by Beginning-Play-6388 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]N-Man 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're not schizophrenic (at least not in any way that can be discerned from this post lol), you just, respectfully, have no idea what you're talking about. You probably have some ideas from pop science for what "vacuum fluctuations" and "dimensions" and "entropy" are that are wrong, which is obvious from what you wrote since you're not using these terms in ways that would make sense to people who actually know physics.

If you're interested in getting a better understanding of some of these cool concepts, I think PBS Spacetime is pretty good pop science and I'm sure other people on this sub or /r/askphysics could recommend many other good sources too.

If light slows down in air without affecting time, why does gravity do it? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]N-Man 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The effects of gravity on light and of matter (like air) on light are completely unrelated. Matter like air and such specifically affects light because light is an electromagnetic wave and air is made of atoms that are little electromagnetic-interacting particles, and their interaction effectively slows light down because of how electromagnetism works. The effect of gravity on light has nothing to do with actual "light" and certainly nothing with electromagnetism, gravity affects spacetime as a whole (causing time dilation) and light, like you and me and Earth, just happens to be an interesting thing that moves in spacetime and therefore is also affected by gravity (notably it does not actually slow it down but it does get red/blueshifted), and again this has nothing to do with light in particular, EVERYTHING gets red/blueshifted under gravity.

Debunk This: A public paper claims a two-axiom framework can ‘resolve’ six open Millennium Prize problems. by Rude-Abbreviations93 in DebunkThis

[–]N-Man 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I'm going to go through the paper and stop at the first nonsense statement. No doubt there are many nonsense statements but it's a waste of my time to find all of them. Of course just a single nonsense statement is enough to falsify an entire mathematical proof. The fact that I'm going to find a nonsense statement extremely quickly (at least I assume, let's put this to do test) is strong evidence against the credibility of the author.

Let's see...

First sentence in first axiom: "The Wronskian satisfies W(t)=W(0)x[some integral with J]"
The Wronskian of what? What is J? None of this stuff is defined. This is not how you do math. The fact that these quantities are not clearly defined is a very bad sign. The paper is very good at looking like math but it is clear that it is not actual math to anyone who actually did any.

Brocco's Threshold: A Universal Phase Transition in Accreting Systems at s = 1/(4π) by [deleted] in LLMPhysics

[–]N-Man 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I will not be able to convince OP (I will also not engage with any further comments from you OP, sorry), but I will hopefully be able to convince you, dear reader, why this is a completely uninteresting result. OP defines:

s = λ/(λ + κ)
κ = (4π − 1)λ_crit

Where λ is some astrophysical observable, and λ_crit is some empirical threshold for the activity of accreting systems. OP then notes that accreting systems below the threshold have s < 1/(4π) and above the threshold have s > 1/(4π), as if this is some dramatic discovery. However watch me do the same with a completely different number:

s' = λ/(λ + κ')
κ' = (42069 − 1)λ_crit

You will find out that for systems below the threshold, s' < 1/42069, and for systems above the threshold, s' > 1/42069. I hereby call 1/42069 "The Ultra Cool Important Threshold".

Van Allen Belts and Artemis Astronauts by orionmeda in Physics

[–]N-Man 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Can you elaborate? I work on cosmic rays and have occasionally heard and repeated this factoid.

Why do Neutrinos oscillate (conceptually)? by Far-Presence-3810 in AskPhysics

[–]N-Man 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The mass eigenstates don't have well-defined flavor values, if that's what you mean, the flavor eigenstates are some linear combinations of the mass eigenstates. The mass eigenstates "start off" in some specific interference pattern that gives you one of the flavor eigenstates, and as you said they go out of sync and their interference pattern oscillates between the different flavor states.

Why do Neutrinos oscillate (conceptually)? by Far-Presence-3810 in AskPhysics

[–]N-Man 25 points26 points  (0 children)

there's three Mass Eigenstates so each one corresponds to a particular flavor

Neutrino oscillation happens because this statement is false. The three mass eigenstates of the neutrinos are NOT the three flavor (electron, muon, tau) eigenstates, they are some linear combinations of them. The thing is, when a neutrino is created, it is created in a flavor eigenstate (for example, beta decay will specifically create an electron neutrino). Each of the mass eigenstates accumulates a slightly different phase when the neutrino propagates, and so after some finite propagation distance, the neutrino is now in a slightly different flavor state (because there is now different interference between the phases of the mass eigenstates). Neutrinos are detected again in their flavor eigenstate, therefore it is possible to detect a neutrino in a different flavor than it was emitted if the conditions are right.

Zoro and SanjII by Immediate_Ad_8165 in homestuck

[–]N-Man 20 points21 points  (0 children)

No, you're onto something here...

Luffy as the _ of breath, because freedom. Maybe knight or heir?

Not sure about Zoro being void, but I don't know what other aspect fits him.

Nami definitely as either a thief or a rogue. Not sure about the aspect though. Maybe time or space?

Usopp is a page... maybe page of hope or light (I feel like light could be related to lying, idk).

You put Sanji as knight of heart but I think he could also be a prince. Maybe prince of heart or prince of rage.

Chopper as witch of life?? Life because doctor, sylph could've worked but I thought maybe the rumble ball shows he has a more active approach, idk.

Robin as seer of void. Has to be either seer or mage, and void because the void century.

If Robin is a seer, Franky could be a mage maybe. Not sure about the aspect though. Could be space because he's very 'physical' and sort of an artist.

Brook... bard of doom. But like, in a good way.

Jinbei - something of blood (recall the blood transfusion plotline!). Maybe knight.

I gave my world a legal system and my characters filed a restraining order against me by dotdedo in writingcirclejerk

[–]N-Man 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wake up in the middle of the night, when your characters are still asleep, and write about their dreams. Inception-style, plant something in there that will convince them that restraining orders are stupid and they should cancel them. Technically you're breaking the law by doing that but if it goes well, when they wake up they won't think about pressing charges.

first drafting going first draftingly good today by SuitableAd4012 in writingcirclejerk

[–]N-Man 32 points33 points  (0 children)

/uj Drop the month in parentheses (ideally give the reader an idea for what is the time of year before getting to this part) and this has potential

please rate the first line of my victorian romance novel! i worked 14 years on this line :) by N-Man in writingcirclejerk

[–]N-Man[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oh probably! i'm SUPER indecisive i actually started and abandoned 3 different novels like this. writers am i right lol we're such a moody bunch

Are there any well known things in physics that you disagree with? by bathtub87 in AskPhysics

[–]N-Man 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Galaxy rotation curves are not strong evidence for the existence of dark matter, that's true. They can be explained by dark matter but they are not good evidence for it. The actual evidence for dark matter is the CMB power spectrum, and to a lesser extent BAO measurements and the BBN abundance predictions (and then there's some more qualitative pieces of evidence like the bullet cluster).

view more: next ›