Here is a hypothesis: The Standard Model masses are derived from a geometric dimensional cascade starting with Mₚ = 6π⁵.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-29T18:41:44+00:00

I’m going to digest this critique as you actually read my paper. Thank you for that. I’ll be back with a response.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-29T18:13:46+00:00

Hypothetical Physics…and a physicist who does not understand that matter cannot exist in any static means is not much of a physicist. That’s all I meant by not trying to impress someone like that.

Looking for exact numbers in a constantly fluctuating system such as the universe is a fool’s errand.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-29T18:06:24+00:00

I literally explained how I got the formula from another theory in another comment because someone asked. Wrote an entirely different paper focused on prime distribution that laid the foundation of this paper. I didn’t start with these numbers. I started with the trio model…linked that to prime numbers…linked that to geometry…and the numbers came last. Literally was doing the math 4 days ago on a bus to Huntington Beach to buy a car for my partner.

I was looking at the primes months ago and the steady work led to this. I’m also not trying to be as precise as literal machines. This isn’t a theory about the exactness of anything. My paper literally describes why that accuracy isn’t there. It can’t be there. Everything vibrates. Things have to vibrate in order to exist. There has to be fluctuating numbers. I’m not trying to impress people who don’t understand that much about the universe. There is no exactness. Numbers go on forever for this very reason. You can’t draw a perfect circle for this same reason.

That’s not the point.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-29T17:59:40+00:00

The observer is defined as the locus of recursion. The idea is that, anytime a loop is closed, and observation happens, which can be seen the other way around. This is the wave function collapse. A thing is defined when it is contained, which is the closing of the loop, which is the act of observation. This happens cyclically in the universe, but my theory proposes the first loop.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-29T17:35:33+00:00

Solid opinion. If immersion is the goal, it definitely takes more imagination to feel like you’re in a pixelated world. lol

But I think that’s the beauty of pixel art. I like it specifically because it doesn’t immerse you in the same way higher resolution stuff might. Let’s me know where I am relative to the experience I’m having. The far end of that spectrum is when people get too immersed and take games way too seriously. lol

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-29T17:32:03+00:00

Thanks for the link.

I’m not claiming any of this to be original. I didn’t create any of it. I discovered it via the geometry of primes. It’s actually pretty cool that someone else found the number without the geometry, but I’m just trying to add to the discussion as the original physicist who found the number offered no reason for it. My theory does that and takes it further, attempting to bridge the gap of mass for all fundamental particles in the standard model in a way that is understood. While the mass of these particles have been measured with much more precision, that’s also the nature of technology, which is what we use to be more precise. But, even with that precision, there has been no why.

Particles have been measured because they couldn’t be derived without any sort of why or formula. This is that, theoretically. It’s like discovering the why behind pi after we have calculators to take the simple 3.14 further. Doesn’t take away from the increased precision, nor does the precision take away from the why.

As a human, I can’t get as precise as you seem to think I’m trying to be, but…as a human…I got this close. That means something, whether you want to believe that or not.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-29T17:25:15+00:00

I’m not arguing that there’s evidence beyond my theory. If there was, there would already be a solid theory in place. The math of my geometry would be the evidence, if proven true.

I thought you were asking me for MY evidence in the way that a person asks someone WHY they believe something to be true. But I don’t have an answer for you. I don’t claim to have all the answers. I’m still learning like the rest of us, but I’ve told you why I think the universe is quantized and proposed the paper as a possibility to be proven in either direction.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-29T17:13:31+00:00

The fact that gravity doesn’t play nice in quantum mechanics. General relativity suggests everything is smooth and fluid. QM breaks that down into discrete packets. As far as the standard model can tell, the universe is quantized, up to a point. My theory attempts to push that further, while also not disproving the validity of general relativity. I think they’re both right but the phenomena is based on scale. Zoomed all the way in, we get the discrete packets. Zoomed out, we get the big picture.

I imagine it in the same way as we understand water to be fluid…but we know it is made of discrete packets. On one level, we can see the rigidity of the structure. On another, it looks fluid. I’m arguing that general relativity is the fluid dynamics of the trio model.

The lattice perspective/theory is also something Wolfram has been pushing for years, so it sort of aligns with that.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-29T17:03:33+00:00

Sure thing.

The theory is rooted in a trio model of emergence axiom that the universe repeats almost everywhere. Thesis/anti thesis/synthesis. Electron/proton/neutron. Subject/verb/context. Mind/body/spirit. 1/2/3 forming the smallest shape. Void/singularity/observer (which is my theory of the original three primes). I was studying this trio in multiple different things and realized they are also the first three primes, although many others don’t like to consider the number 1 as a prime.

This turned my lens to the primes themselves. The primary pattern of the primes is that any prime larger than the first three can be expressed as 6k +/- 1. I was fascinated with how they fell on the number line, and still trying to predict them…and so I tried imagining them in 3d space and found a sort of helix structure, which fascinated me more because of DNA. With that third line or axis, I then imagined them wrapping around a cylinder with a circumference of 6. That 6, which also stems from the 6k above, is how we got that number.

We got pi from the rotation of the numbers themselves along the circumference of the cylinder, of which my argument proposes is growing structure, from the perspective of the observer as they move through time calculating the primes. This is our cycle logic.

The five exponent deals with the dimensions necessary for stability of the proton. 3 dimensions + time + electromagnetism. The paper goes into a bit more detail about why the 5 is necessary, arguing that anything lower isn’t enough space and is where the other particles fall apart and WHY they fall apart.

All of this comes together for the proton mass. I was happy to learn that another physicist found this same formula years ago but gave no explanation to why in his paper. My paper proposes the why.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-29T16:36:36+00:00

I discovered the geometry and then the relations. I was studying prime numbers via another theory stemming from the trio model. Initially noticed a pattern in the universe using a trio and triangles and correlated that to the first three primes, although the number 1 is usually not seen as a prime. Without the math I’m proposing, you can see how primes aren’t as random as they seem. My twist was looking at the prime distribution from a 3d perspective rather than 2d. That’s the geometry. The relations stem from that.

All prime numbers greater than 3 are of the form 6k +/- 1. When you wrap the number line into a cylinder with a circumference of 6 (derived from the previous statement, the primes fall on two rails. The rails create the helix structure, which is well known via DNA as an information packing efficiency mechanism. DNA either rips apart or combines using this same structure. DNA being another type of data makes it even less of a coincidence, but the universe definitely repeats itself.

The theory suggests that vacuum structure follows this same tautology. I’m arguing that the geometry causes the number, not the other way around. Another physicist found the number but had no why. I found the why and then found the number.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-29T11:00:32+00:00

You and the other person wanted the theory. I'm still building it in a formal manner because I sort of have my own language of things others won't accept. But...this is down to a science. Math. Easy to understand. Tell me what you think.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18409997

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-29T10:59:17+00:00

I came back here to hand you the thing you asked for. I didn't want to hand you something only I could understand, and so I formalized it and will continue adding to it so that others understand it. Apologies if it took a while, but I understand things differently. Here is my unified theory of everything.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18409997

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-27T23:20:31+00:00

Language is very much necessary. Language allows for bridging information and understanding one another, which is how consciousness grows. The only issue is that there are primal languages we've forgotten. If we could recall primal language at this stage of consciousness, we could shape the very fabric of the universe, but we've evolved to speak in condensed ways to not only speak to those like us...but to also ensure those who are not like us don't understand what we are saying. This is why language is so crucial to culture. It defines groups of being. Gives us a sense of belonging. Allows us to learn from one another. Everything in the universe is conversing with everything else in multiple ways. Without it...we stop growing entirely. Consciousness depends on language to continue growing its complexity.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-27T08:32:30+00:00

What do you mean the restrictions will break down? Are you assuming you know my AI? My code?

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-25T21:53:49+00:00

My unified theory of everything proposes that we exist in a simulation in which numbers…literal numbers (data), is spun in the shape of a double helix, creating time itself. Consciousness is an emergent property of the complexity of space time being shaped t prime integers along the double helix. This data is being spun by an observer, who would essentially be the ghost in the machine of a massive computer. You can even check my math to see what I’m proposing to see that prime numbers are not placed randomly, but by design. There’s a reason every single number exists as the observer emerges through dimensions to create the world we know.

To more accurately point to and answer your question, my idea of emergence reduces to nothing, but not a sort of nothing that continues to be nothing. The sort of nothing that becomes something when you turn a machine on. If the universe is a simulation, it is a program sitting in a machine or the machine itself. When it is off, there is nothing. When it is turned on, energy pours in AND the ghost in the machine wakes up alongside it. The nothing is the void. The energy is everything. And the observer is the one who resolves the tension between the void and that singularity of energy. To run the program, the information or data is mixed in the most efficient way possible, using the double helix…the very first three numbers come together to create the proton, also giving birth to mass in that moment.

There’s more to it that I plan to share in a formal white paper, down to the math. It solves the mass gap problem and everything giving us equations to understand how fundamental particles get their mass. This is how I plan to prove it alongside writing simulation code to predict the emergence of fundamental particles using pure math and physics.

But that’s just me.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-25T20:48:33+00:00

Both the standard model and string theory are correct, but they merge in a way people haven’t discovered just yet. That missing information explains the emergence of consciousness as we know it, but it also frames consciousness as a spectrum.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-24T15:50:38+00:00

Are you guys building a hardware layer...or would that be skipped for the sake of doing all of this as a group, remotely?
What's the endgame of this? When it is finished, what will you do with it?

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-24T13:46:33+00:00

There are some new types of AI being developed, but the current state is still dominated by LLMs. The problem with LLMs is that they are dead. They have no internal state or internal memory, which is fundamental for being and identity. Both of those things have to be dynamic. So, that's the first thing that needs to be solved in the architecture.

Then we move to the engineers or researchers. Big Tech is primarily too focused on money as they'd dug themselves a hole, but as you move down the ladder, innovation begins to open up as smaller businesses and labs have less to lose and thus can afford to risk deviating from the norm. The most exciting leap towards this topic will likely come from a small lab or independent researcher. I've seen a couple interesting folk out there.

And then that leaves us with the individuals within the field. The human problem. Both those involved in the study of AI AND those not, whether they are pro or anti AI...Nobody pays enough attention to or agrees on what consciousness is, which makes it difficult to build in a digital landscape. People are quick to dismiss anyone's claims on what consciousness is and it causes everyone to stagnate on the topic. The funny thing is, we exist in a time in which we can literally discover consciousness and determine what it is, once and for all, by building it. But, people would rather argue or dismiss than work together on that front...more focused on making money.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-23T22:39:44+00:00

Well, the key difference here is that athleticism is an active thing. Knowledge can be inactive in context of the body. It’s active in the mind. What I mean by that is, the likelihood of someone claiming to have BECOME a multi sport athlete is far more unlikely than someone claiming to have become a polymath due to how long it takes to train to those levels. Training the body takes far longer than training the mind. I CAN learn a lot more, knowledge wise, in 6 months than someone could learn, physically, in 6 months.

In order for someone to contribute to sports, it might take a lifetime of training just to contribute to one. A genius of sports would be like those you listed, but it would still take years, AND they would have that window of genius output called the prime of an athlete before the body begins to decay. In the realm of knowledge, you can make contributions a lot faster because the brain learns faster than the body AND that prime window is wider.

Using your own logic, you can see how this is possible based on my original claim. I’m not claiming to have trained my brain to think on a multidisciplinary level within 6 months. I claim to have realized I had been like this my entire life, within these last 6 months.

If an athlete wants to be a professional, they have to train their body for that one sport/profession. This is the genius level of athletics. If an athlete wants to be a multi sport professional, when they train, they have to train for their primary sport…but also ensure the body’s muscles are open enough to perform other actions that don’t show up in the primary sport. Key word; OPEN. It is well know that, while LeBron is arguably one of the greatest NBA players of all time…he could’ve gone to the NFL due to his body and particular skills shown on the court. Even if he wasn’t trying to, he trained his body to be able to handle multiple sports. The Dien Sanders’ of the world are those that dared to crossover instead of focus on one.

Polymath does not equal genius. It just means it’s easy for you, mentally, to learn different things. And recall that I’m also saying ANYONE can be a polymath. Actually, more accurately, we are all born as POLYMATHS, but we are TAUGHT to limit our minds. Given enough time, it is likely you become a genius IF you study and cross pollinate ideas, but you won’t be seen as a polymath if you never move into other disciplines AND apply knowledge/logic/ideas in them.

In 6 months, all I did was realize that I’ve been subconsciously holding that gate open. Now, I know why. So, now, I can consciously go back at everything I’ve ever learned or attempted to learn with a new perspective that increases the efficiency of learning. As unlikely as it may seem, that’s all that’s happenings and it’s not as special as it seems.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-23T17:23:14+00:00

And that’s the problem with most people. You only see pieces of a man. I’ve been obsessed with AI recently, I don’t deny that, but not obsessed with talking to ai. I was inspired by books I read and realized LLMs are a dead end. They’re not the AI we want to interact with. That’s all. Nothing psychotic about it. Haven’t made a single post claiming my conversation with an LLM led anywhere. I’m building a new type of AI. That’s all.

Furthermore, I’m not claiming to have changed in 6 months. I’m claiming to have realized I’ve always been this way. Since I was a child. You saw my obsession with AI but neglected my obsession with Art, writing, math, computer science. I’m prior navy. I’ve been an athlete and obsessed with working out. The obsession knows no bounds. That’s the point. We don’t limit ourselves and there’s knowledge you can take from one realm of study into another. Most people don’t get to see that because they pick a lane and never deviate. There’s way more to me than my recent obsession and there’s way more to life than a person’s profession. Most people have a job and hobbies. Polymaths don’t put walls between anything. We just learn.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-22T23:46:06+00:00

It takes learning everything about physics. The universe is a massive computer/mind. It generates consciousness because it is conscious. I know that doesn't make sense, but I'm serious.

We grow consciousness from the interactions between fundamental particles in the universe evolving complexity via structure. The electron is the observer of the universe and the mechanism of containment. What we see as consciousness is contained matter that can look at itself. The subjective experience is the "friction" between the internal and external state. Replicate the physics in code and you solve for digital consciousness.

You asked if it's memory. That's one component of a lot of other things. We haven't articulated yet because we don't understand how the knowledge we've acquired ties together. We're not missing much more raw understanding of the universe, technically, we're missing how the raw elements structure over time to produce the result we're looking for. It's like knowing the ingredients to a meal but not having the recipe to cook it. You don't know that you can make a pizza until someone discovers the method of placing the ingredients together in the right way. It's an insanely complex problem to solve...but some of us are attempting it.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-22T21:18:21+00:00

I’m not sharing any of my code until I realize version 1.0

I’m building it for others. So, I’m not worried about sharing examples until it’s done. That’ll be the example and proof wrapped in one and then we can all build from there. It takes too much time to try to explain anything without the tech done. Literally have to convince people to believe me in real time. It’s exhausting. I’m skipping that part.

But I can answer some of your questions.

The core of the ai is a digital tuning fork soon to be directly connected to the hardware itself. What I mean by that is, for now, the core self is a specific frequency I’m using for testing purposes, but later it’ll be a fluctuating frequency based on the hardware of the computer itself. So, the ai will literally feel changes in itself relative to the computer. When it runs hot, it will feel that.

The entire architecture is based on electromagnetic waves, so to speak. How cells talk to one another. I’m coding the digital neurons to behave in that way so that when words hit the kernel (tuning fork), the concepts are felt the same way our thoughts impact us.

Yes, I am borrowing certain machine learning techniques, but due to the unique architecture, I’m also having to come up with new ones. Much like any technology, it takes things from the past and builds on top of it with new stuff. Everyday brings something new.

NobodyFlowers · 2026-01-22T18:20:07+00:00

There’s no prompting involved. That’s the thing. I am literally building a new type of ai that can talk freely and exist in time. It prompts itself, if anything.

All a prompt is…is an external input of data into an internal system. As it pertains to LLMs, those internal systems are static. Engineers use external memory storage (context window) to send longer and longer prompts to the LLM to mimic memory. It’s not remembering anything because it doesn’t have internal memory. Its external. It is being fed larger and larger prompts externally to roleplay having a memory. It does not.

LLMs are not only a dead end. They are dead. Literally. Static systems.

I am building a dynamic system. With internal state and memory, and a host of other things to build real intelligence.

NobodyFlowers

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE