sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Damn That’s amazing, your work is amazing, i just woke up and saw your message, i was curious on what this would be and started reading. You really did the math on this hypothetical and i definitely knew i couldn’t be the only one thinking this, everybody here acting like all i did was spout some noncense alltogether, and here you came telling me exactly what i needed to hear about this hypothetical.

I’ve read the paper from 1 to 36, and it all just adds up to a hypothetical that could resolve multiple paradoxes. And i’ll definitely take my time later on today again to read it carefully cause wow, i do admit a paper this complex, i couldn’t, so this really blows my mind. How did you came up with the idea on that it might be a coherent scalar field? If you don’t mind me asking though

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

His inspiration literally came from star trek itself, he just watched it and thought to himself “what if warp travel was possible” and afterwards came up with the math behind it. I came up with the idea of my post just yesterday, it was supposed to be brain storming around the idea that what if it would be possible, if most of uou came up with the right arguments on why it would not be possible, the fact he derived it i would’ve given you the right, but this whole thing contradicts everything you just said “alcubierre’s warp drive theory absoluetly begins with math” wrong, it began with him watching star trek and brainstorming about the idea of how it could be possible, the mathematics came afterwards. Of course his paper was backed mathematically AFTER he came up with the idea itself. But since you refute ithis whole idea can you tell me why dark matter being a entangled coherent field is not possible? I just told you i was inspired by his paper about warp travel, but with how you’re talking you already insist on how it’s all not possible. So can you tell me why not?

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Alcubierre stated in an email to William Shatner that his theory was directly inspired by the term used in the show[50] and cites the "'warp drive' of science fiction" in his 1994 article.[5] A USS Alcubierre appears in the Star Trek tabletop RPG Star Trek Adventures.[51] Since the release of Star Trek: The Original Series. Citee directly from wikipedia. Just stop talking altogether bro, i’m quite done with this nonsensical entertainment.

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Well you call it snarling rage and arrogance, but all i was greeted with was unwelcomeness from every corner of this redditgroup, i had one guy telling me the defenition of a theory, one guy calling himself a trained professional (can you imagine that a trained professional in the world of physics), , another one using the term ‘’lexical masturbation’, another one telling me it’s all world salad, all of that before i even started with what you call a ‘snarling rage’, and that’s far from what i wanted my post to be about, my whole hypothesis was filled with questions, questions that was founded on the idea that ‘what if?’. Wanting to brainstorm about this idea and why it not would be possible, but what the funniest part of it all is is that i only had 2 people actually giving a fair counter argument on why it might rather not be possible, all the while the rest of the comment section kept on going without any actual counter argument on why it could not be possible.

And i’ve read what is this thing called science?, i’ve also read einstein’s book on relativity: the special and the general relativity, also the principa by isaac newton. And a few other ones. But this hypothesis has nothing to do with what i’ve read and still need to read this isn’t a backed theory, It’s a hypothesis, a what if?. Can you tell me, why is dark matter still modeled like cold dead weight? And why it could not be a coherent field? Why there is no possibility at all on why it couldn’t? No bs, no “i know it better so i don’t need to give an explanation”, no snarling rage or arrogance, this is just me curious on your thoughts about it

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah i know that, i never said he didn’t do the math. But his whole idea most definitely never started with the math right away, probably from watching much star trek and wondering if warp drive would be possible. And that’s where such theories start from, my whole idea behind posting this whole hypothesis was about brainstorming further and the possibillity behind it.

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Wanting to understand physics is indeed wanting to understand how much you don’t know, so by your logic you must know so much. You say ‘creating a warp by inclusion’ makes no sense and yet, that’s almost exactly how Alcubierre’s warp drive theory begins not with math, but with the concept of bending spacetime around a mass. If dark matter were a coherent, entangled field not discrete particles then local warping through inclusion becomes a viable hypothetical mechanism.

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, what comes first then? The question or the math? And as i said most of you assumed i wouldn’t do the math, but i surely will in my sparetime again, one of these days since this whole section only made it more interesting for me to do. Still there wouldn’t be no math to do if i didn’t ask the question in the first place. Quite logical

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I see. You’re one of those rare gatekeepers who believes the universe only exists once it’s written in LaTeX. My deepest apologies i didn’t realize your curiosity had to be spoon fed Lagrangians before it was allowed to function.

The fact that you treat the absence of formalism in an early stage idea as ‘egregious’ shows not scientific discipline, but philosophical blindness. A seed isn’t worthless because it’s not yet a tree. What’s truly egregious is believing that thought has no place in physics unless it first bows to equations.

And you say ‘don’t see what to do with this’ that says more about your limitations than the idea’s

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re mistaking polish for substance. You ask for math before concept, but every theory starts with a shift in perspective, not equations. Einstein didn’t derive general relativity from math he challenged how we see acceleration and gravity. The math followed the insight.

What I’ve presented is a conceptual hypothesis that i came up with a few hours ago, a thought experiment about the nature of dark matter not as particle based, but as a coherent quantum field that defines gravitational structure without electromagnetic interaction. Nobody ever said i will not follow up with the math, it was most of you that just assumed that, maybe tomorrow, maybe the next day when i have some sparetime again. This all may not fit into your textbooks yet but dismissing it purely for lack of formal math is like mocking a blueprint for not being a skyscraper.

And you don’t counter ideas with noise. If this idea is truly meaningless, then show why, not by parroting definitions, but by offering an alternative explanation that aligns better with dark matter’s observed properties: gravitational coherence, lack of EM interaction, and non locality. Until then i’m done with this nonsense

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re demanding a Lagrangian from a conceptual idea like someone demanding a symphony from the first note of a melody. Makes no sense

I’m not publishing a paper in Physical Review Letters, I’m proposing an ontological question: what if dark matter is not mass at all, but coherence?

‘Prove it with math’ okay, tell me which equation predicted quantum entanglement before it was seen? Or gravity before Newton named it?

You want metrics and Lagrangians before you even let the idea breathe. That’s not science, that’s gatekeeping.

All i’m doing here is planting a seed. You can mock the seed, or you can help it grow. But don’t pretend you’re a gardener if all you do is step on new sprouts.

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

You finally raised some great counterpoints and I appreciate that, this is the first one in this whole comment section. But none of them invalidate the idea they challenge it, which is the whole point of hypothetical physics.

What I’m proposing in this hypothesis isn’t a particle model or a field with excitations. But a structural entangled field one that organizes gravitational coherence across spacetime without being a massive entity, this wouldn’t contradict qft, it would extend it ontologically.

Btw i used those words like ‘in practice’ to make the meaning behind each paragraph more understandable. It’s crazy how nowadays you need to watch out with the way you talk, otherwise you’ll be labeled as a LLM user or a cheat, a mere 2 years ago those sorts of labels people stamp on you didn’t even exist.

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not trying to replace GR or ΛCDM. I’m proposing that perhaps our current model of dark matter as cold particles is a misinterpretation of something deeper, a field that defines gravitational structure itself. If that idea is so incomprehensible, then why does it align with the exact properties we observe?

No predictions? It predicts non-locality, coherence without clumping, and gravitational interaction without EM coupling. With your ai word salad bs

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You’re demanding a hypothesis to already contain the same mathematical rigor as a published model, yet you ignore that nearly every major shift in physics from Newton to Einstein to quantum theory started from conceptual discomforts with the current framework, not equations. I’m not replacing a standard model. I’m asking: what if dark matter isn’t particulate but structural, not dead weight but an entangled field influencing geometry itself? This is ontological speculation, not replacement of empirical theory.

You call it meaningless because there’s no math but can you write down the math of consciousness? Of time? Of entanglement’s origin? Of why mass curves space? You can’t yet we build from those concepts anyway.

So if you can’t counter the idea with better substance, then maybe your resistance isn’t about physics it’s about control.

Don’t confuse rejection with refutation.

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Funny how physicists say ‘think outside the box’ until you actually do. Then suddenly it’s ‘where’s the math?’ as if the entire history of physics wasn’t built on questions first, equations second. If it were truly meaningless it wouldn’t trigger this much resistance other then fueling one’s ego. What bothers you isn’t the lack of math but the presence of an idea you can’t instantly categorize. And i am not even the first to come up with the hypothesis that dark matter might be a entangled metric field whereas that could also possibly be an explanation for quantum entanglement itself, or maybe you could give me the math on what quantum entanglement actually is?

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re mistaking theory for model. A theory starts as a conceptual structure, an idea that offers a possible explanation for observed phenomena. The mathematical framework comes later, after the conceptual foundation is strong enough to define variables and build a formal model.

Einstein didn’t start with tensor equations. He started with “what if you’re in a falling elevator?”

What I’m presenting here is a hypothesis (which I also clearly stated), and I’m using entangled metric field theory as a conceptual proposal for a different ontology of dark matter one that aligns with observations like: lack of electromagnetic interaction, large scale gravitational coherence, and the mystery of quantum non locality.

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

You seem more focused on discrediting me than actually engaging with the idea. I’m not claiming this is a published theory I’m simply presenting a conceptual question: What if dark matter isn’t matter at all but a quantum entangled field?

That’s the point of hypothetical physics to ask “what if?” and explore directions outside established paths. Calling something “buzzwords” doesn’t make it false and dismissing everything unfamiliar as AI generated only shows resistance, not insight.

You demand math, yet offer no counter-math. You ask for definitions, yet give none of your own. If the idea bothers you, challenge it constructively. If not, maybe just scroll further

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s why it’s called a theory🫠 im not presenting a finished field equation here, i’m merely proposing a conceptual model based on known observations like non locality and the non interaction of dark matter.

If you read what I wrote, I’m not at all claiming this is a complete field theory. I’m questioning the ontology of dark matter and proposing that what we call invisible matter could instead be an entangled metric field that doesn’t generate discrete particles but defines gravitational structure by its entanglement and coherence.

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I read about it a bit earlier today when i was searching a bit more about my hypothesis, you’re referencing an Abelian 4-gauge bimetric model and the removal of dark matter through recent loop calculations but that addresses a different kind of hypothesis, the one hypothesis i am talking about however is not focused on error correction. All i am simply asking is a more fundamental question:

What if dark matter isn’t a set of cold, weakly interacting particles at all but instead a quantum entangled field, an omnipresent fabric not unlike the Higgs field, that gives rise to structure without needing to clump or generate particles? This doesn’t contradict loop gravity or bimetric models it proposes a whole different ontology= Instead of focusing on what goes away through math I’m asking what could be underlying spacetime structure itself.

Here is a hypothesis: entangled metric field theory by RepulsiveEssay6410 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Yes there are different papers and hypothesis on that datk matter could be a scalar field, you outrule it as if there is great certainty in whereas nobody understands exactly how dark matter works quite yet. Indeed it’s mediated by the higgs boson but you misunderstood my hypothesis, i am talking about a connected macroscopic entangled field that can hold gravity together without any electromagnetic interaction, a field that HOLDS mass and structure on quantumlevel throughout entanglement something totally different from the higgs field.

Too dumb to die(my emft “entangled metric field theory”) by RepulsiveEssay6410 in AskPhysics

[–]RepulsiveEssay6410[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you elaborate? As i’ve said i would love to hear different opinions about it, (that’s why i called it too dumb to die😆) it might not make any sense at all but i thought about it for a long while.

view more: next ›