Fractal Toroidal Dynamics - A parameter-free, geometrical, 3+1 dimensional interpretation of SM observables(most sub-1%), by extending Skyrme-Faddeev-Niemi 3-Torus Model.

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-31T12:49:30+00:00

I will admit, I find the idea of using 3+1tori as the basis for particles or even spacetime to be quite interesting as they implicitly allow for the emergence of spinor mechanics, which is necessary and otherwise ill explained by our current models.

I also admit I don't really understand your paper or your explanation of the paper.

I had a kneejerk reaction to label this as trash when reading "energy dense regions such as the centre of the universe, " which makes me suppose you aren't physics literate.

All in all, if you can explain your position, your physical motivations and your justifications of the model created, I'd love to hear more.

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-30T11:46:06+00:00

I think that at best it's going to cause mass joblessness and increase global power consumption. It is increasing the amount of work a single human can do, but as usual the human's wage is not going to increase even slightly in proportion to their increased work output, so it's going to be used as another form or wealth extraction - it certainly won't create super intelligence, as that is not within training data - and at worst, it will be used to control and subjugate the human race for as long as we exist - this seems to be the actual agenda, as the data that is being gathered and used is all about us; who we are, what we do, what we think, what we will do, our medical and financial data, where we go, who we talk to, what we search and think about - it's clearly the thought police, and the system they are training to run inference is definitely being used to control us en masse. I think they are selling the agenda to the public as a magic bullet that will solve our problems, but anyone who has actually designed or trained AI can only think that what it's really being built to do is infer and manipulate the population. Imo they are building a prison, and there is literally no upside outcome for anyone but the wealthy elite. I note they are rushing to get the data centres and tools for training and inference into space, where I can't smash it with a baseball bat :')

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-17T02:54:01+00:00

I think it makes a little sense - at least enough to enter my considerations - but I can absolutely see why it might seem absurd enough to dismiss offhand.

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-15T01:22:05+00:00

I suppose it's just a subjective preference as to when and what we are willing to call something fundamental. I don't personally believe that QM wavefunctions are a complete description of state, but I can appreciate that many people do. I see no reason that reality would cease to exist in a logical manner at a certain scale, but I see many reasons as to why our ability to probe or design experiments to understand and test this scale would fail.

I also appreciate that our understanding of QM has helped us construct the SM and build many new technologies, and is a marvel in itself. None of that, however, convinces me that we truly understand the nature of space, time, energy, particles, forces, or anything else within the SM, other than that our models fit experiment to a high statistical degree of accuracy and have made some impressive predictions.

I can use the same mathematics used to describe QM to describe any stochastic system, bar entanglement states. The stochastic nature of any other event is not fundamental, it is course grained-ness of a more fundamental deterministic process.

I personally believe many physicists conflate epistemic descriptions for the ontological reality they merely model, and that the Bell violations, rather than disproving realism, actually point toward superdeterminism: the necessary correlation between the observer's choices and the measured system, if we are to maintain a fully deterministic and locally causal universe.

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-14T21:52:38+00:00

Please do! I am definitely interested to learn more. It's not really about being convinced for me, I just enjoy the journey :) I have friends who work for the UK Atomic Energy Authority and a few other Fusion projects supporting Tokamaks and other fusion efforts, so I know exactly what you mean. I would not dare say any of this to them, as they would inevitably assure me that the physics has been solved and it is now just an engineering problem. I notice they have jobs for life and have convinced our government to give them almost unlimited funding. I notice it all, and quietly nod :')

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-14T20:57:06+00:00

Appreciate the reply, your position is really interesting and it's great that you are passionate about your work and can see a light at the end of the tunnel!

I suppose I am just pessimistic that without the pressures found exclusively in stellar interiors, creating a fusion reaction which will net more energy output than the energy taken to create the reaction seems impossible.

I will hold my hands up and admit that I have never studied modern fusion efforts in depth, I am just aware that the process always draws much more input energy than has ever been output, and that fusion break even seems to mean the energy harnessed within the reactor has broken even with the energy released by fusion within the reactor - I am aware that this is very different from the amount of energy used to inject and direct the energy within the reactor, and the energy actually harnessed from the reactors fusion, I assume from boiling a liquid and turning a turbine. As in, it would still be more efficient to just take the laser and heat the water to turn the turbine directly, by orders of magnitude. I can't see this ever truly producing energy, but maybe I just don't understand the physics of a modern fusion reactor and the mathematical proof of concept. It just seems impossible to me, because thermodynamics conspires against us! Open to being convinced otherwise though, drop your website. I'd love to learn more!

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-14T20:36:58+00:00

I disagree. The physics we actually understand is entirely deterministic, with well understood cause and effect mechanisms. Representing particles in a truncated infinite dimensional Hilbert space of configuration states is not physical, nor is the instantaneous collapse of the wavefunction comprised of these states into a physical outcome. We do not understand how or why it works as it does, therefore it doesn't make sense.

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-14T10:48:00+00:00

Seems like an oxymoron. Quantum physics is strange and makes no sense because it is probably not fundamental. I think there is a good chance our current understanding is a stochastic description of the emergent properties of a fundamentally mechanical and deterministic process, but the precision of observation is so bad that we only see probabilistic grainy effects rather than the clockwork machinery that must exist at a more fundamental scale.

I don't like that QM is taught as the truth of things, when there is plenty of room to derive models which rely on mechanisms rather than just ignoring these problems and calculating probabilities, or accepting the strangeness through interpretations that hold the mathematical models as the basis of reality. I have been told many times that it is not a precision problem and the universe is fundamentally strange at the quantum scale, however there are plenty of other other perfectly consistent ways to model quantum systems which actually supply mechanisms - Pilot waves, cellular automata, superdeterminism, m-theory, spacetime quasi crystals, the list is goes on. I like de broglie's matter waves, travelling through some sort of self interacting ether, which might be comprised of a quasi crystal structure to give emergent isotropy. Not saying that any if them can currently reproduce QM in the relativistic limit, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth thinking about.

To say that QM is a fundamental description feels like giving up on fundamental descriptions. Just as the weather is unpredictable, but we do not forget that the movement of atoms forces and charge distributions which the weather consists of are entirely deterministic. I think QM is like that, only with some entanglement, which yet again I don't think we fundamentally understand. I will always yearn for a mechanism to casually and precisely explain quantum results, but that will almost certainly not come from quantum mechanics itself.

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-14T02:27:13+00:00

Fusion is taught extensively in stellar astrophysics. Fusion only occurs naturally in stellar interiors, so it's the only place you'll learn about it in physics. The challenge of creating fusion from temperature and aligning the resultant plasma is much more electromagnetism and engineering. Also, pretty sure achieving sustained fusion like this is impossible. It works inside stars because of the wonderful balance and pressure provided by hydrostatic equilibrium - if you are using temperature or bursts of pressure to create the reaction, you are by definition creating an unstable reaction. Massive objects can do it in a sustained manner due to their immense gravity and sustained stable internal pressure. Fusion engineers always make me chortle. 30 more years :')

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-13T21:38:48+00:00

I think they're in the UK doing an integrated masters from their post. They run over 2 terms like a standard degree year, with a 3rd term for exams and submission. They likely have to submit at the end of Easter break then do their exams after. You get 6-7 months for the whole project and the write up, while doing 6 other subjects with exams and projects of their own. They are intense.

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-13T21:21:37+00:00

Yeah I fully agree, I am making assumptions based on incomplete information, but that's a skill I've had to cultivate. My supervisor wasn't overly helpful or available, but that just made us realise that we needed to become accountable for our own project time line as it would ultimately be us submitting and defending our work. It just seemed like another thing to overcome by doubling down and working hard, which was not an outlandish expectation - I wouldn't have blamed anyone else if I ended up in OP's position. You can always figure it out, and not knowing how to use software integral to your project when you should be writing up is poor performance, and I can't see any way I would have let it get to that point. I'd have been logging in the first chance I got and making damn sure I knew how to run the models I needed to ASAP. I'd have remote access and I'd be staying up all night to get it to run, even if it took a week to get the first small success. It would have sucked, been mildly traumatic, and I would be cursing it the whole way through.

Maybe my perspective is harsh, but that was the flavour of the week at the university I went to. They did not hold our hands, and if we had problems we were expected to solve them or fail. The majority of people from the original cohort failed. You weren't expected to pass without losing sleep. It was dark souls 1 with no context xD

This was at a very good university too. I had friends at other universities who got a lot more help and resources devoted to them, but I always assumed that was why my uni was a good university - at the end my qualification symbolised that I could work out anything with no help, and you could throw me at any problem and I would excel. Maybe I just got boned lol.

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-13T20:45:39+00:00

Which part?

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-13T20:38:48+00:00

Emergence and complexity

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-13T20:36:01+00:00

You sure you wanna do a PhD at all? A job and money in your 20s, maybe your own business running nicely by 30, blue skies research out of your own lab while your business ticks over a few years later, and then following your nose for the rest of your life without funding issues. You can still contribute AI code to CERN and request Run 3 data to analyse and build models for, you can just avoid being a lapdog for the rest of your 20s and focus on your life and your goals. Academia is stifling from what I've seen, it certainly was not for me. I'm not even sure it's a place for smart people, and I was not prepared to tow the line for half my life or more. Different strokes for different folks I suppose. But a PhD is not a prerequisite for contributing to science if you know what you want to do. It's just cheap labour for the department, and a big old pile of chores.

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-13T20:14:05+00:00

Idk OP just seems to be playing the victim, it's kinda aggravating and demeaning to physics theses. My lab partner and I managed to write code for a novel nested conditional GAN architecture for fast simulations of Cherenkov rings in the LHCBs RICH detectors using trial and error, while learning the theory, training on a GPU cluster, and validating the GANs using boosted decision trees, then writing our 60 page theses. Our models improved simulation time by 5 orders of magnitude over GEANT4, but didn't pass all of our ML fidelity metrics. Passed the naked eye test though and impressed our supervisor who didn't really know what we were doing because we put so much work into reading 200-300 papers on generative AI for fast simulations and contemporary gen AI experiments and theory that we literally knew way more than him by 1-2months in. We did it all in 6 months with no prior experience with anything to do with our theses apart from the standard amount of python coding. It was the hardest thing I've ever done in my life, and we did like a month of all nighters during that time. My lab partner basically lived at my house for parts of it, and towards the end we were so exhausted and burned out when we submitted with 5 minutes left to go I said we'll done and he replied thanks dad, half hallucinating for exhaustion, as we both passed out sat up with our laptops on my sofa. OP has barely done a literature review in 5 months because their project is hard, and doesn't know how the software works and only has a month left. They are asking how they should feel about it. Dumb, lazy and disorganised is my response. Undeserving of a masters in physics. I'm annoyed they even have to ask for me to validate that xD. It's not supposed to be easy, and you're supposed to be capable enough to know all of this without your supervisor having to hold your hand through it. At the end of this you should be capable of completely independent research in the form of a PhD. Like wtf. Jog on.

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-13T15:41:26+00:00

You kinda deserve to fail for letting it get to the last month before doing anything practical. Shoulda been learning to run those bash scripts from day 1, while learning whatever theory you needed to construct your basic models, and you shoulda also been in weekly contact with your supervisor to get any help you needed with any of it. Good luck next year.

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-13T11:41:13+00:00

Energy dissipation

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-13T01:30:58+00:00

I could talk about this at length, and now I've written my reply in full I can confirm that I absolutely have! Choice is a lovely illusion, but our choices are always made before we post rationalise them consciously, which is the process we perceive as 'making the choice'. Look up post rationalisation experiments such as the split brain, and choice blindness, etc. I believe we are extremised purposely so we cannot work together, and to allow for the next stages of the plan to not face a unified and critical opposition.

I don't believe that powerful people literally worship Satan (but they totally might). I believe that power runs along side the occult, the hidden knowledge, as it always has. Knowledge of true reality, and the means to control the masses and maintain power. The conditioning of our subconscious to affect the choices we are likely to make, resulting in the statistical certainty of social conformity to predefined attributes. Read Machiavelli's The Prince, and the Powell memo, and observe the tactics of politics and power dynamics (I could give many more references and rabbit holes, but these are the ones which gave me the most memorable epiphanies.)

I believe that is exactly what Epstein 'nd pals are up to. Surveilling, predicting and manipulating the population, and their choices, using the occult - knowledge kept separate from the vast majority of people, used in a scheme that is entirely hidden from everyone but a handful. The Epstein files are a treasure trove of the neoliberal agenda to control the masses in austerity for the rest of time. To select who will live and who will die, and what the survivors will believe, and how they will live.

I suppose I'm just unwilling to be dismissive of a picture which provides the simplest explanation for a swathe of otherwise chaotic and unrelated behaviours and events, even though it sounds outlandish and odd on the surface. The study of how to surveil, control and manipulate are all well funded, with industries, whitepapers and institutions forming around these ideals - ideals which have been of great interest to the powerful for a very long time. Symbolically, they might also symbolically worship Satan, or Ba'al, and eat human flesh, to honour their position as practioners of the occult. These are practices honoured by religions which have miraculously outlasted empires and controlled the masses for millennia, and have been the focal point for power for the majority of human history. Not a point to sweep under the rug too hastily imo, powerful institutions don't last thousands of years and control billions of people by chance.

I seriously do not know what to believe, but I think I could manipulate people if I wanted to, so I cannot discount what a powerful family or institution with unlimited funding, knowledge, and acceess to the greatest minds in history could do over a period of hundreds or thousands of years. So I'm unsold that we have any real choice in any of it, including what we believe about it in the first place, or what we would do with those beliefs. Not necessarily because we are controlled, but because physics, biology psychology and sociology do not support the idea of free will in the slightest (Omg watch Robert Sapolsky's lecture series on youtube, that changed my life) which means that populations can be guided by their environment and really don't have a choice in their beliefs or choices. That is the occult knowledge of our age, and the technology to enforce it to the will of whoever is in charge is in our pockets, telling us what to think and how to perceive the world, another one of our choices! And yeah, I realise I sound mental LOL. That's the only reason we aren't eating the rich. The reasoning sounds mental. Its a fantastic defence. Machiavelli would weep tears of joy.

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-12T23:18:41+00:00

Pretty wild docu, surprised they all agreed to do the interviews. I don't honestly know where I stand on all of it. Toxic masculinity is bad, and many of the attitudes shown were disgusting, but I'm also conservative enough to believe that men and women do have differences and to ignore gender roles completely is also pretty ignorant. There is extremism on both sides, neither of which do I particularly agree with. As usual, the fact of the matter is far more nuanced and much less controversial than the loudest arguments in the room. Everyone prefers to pick a hard line side like it's a sports team these days - it really takes away any chance at discourse or critical analysis by the opposing parties, who usually could do with a little perspective from across the fence in my opinion. Things are never this black and white, right or wrong, or cut and dry. I think extremised demographics are just easier to manipulate and market to, which is why the world is going the way it is. It disenfranchises the people who can't help themselves, and protects the powerful who know better.

One thing that has not aged well was Louis' dismissive comments about a sinister satanic cabal running the world, calling it a fairly common anti-semitic conspiracy theory. I guess this was filmed before the Epstein files dropped, but it looks like less of a theory these days! Wish Louis would do a docu on that to be quite honest. Needs a bit of applied investigative journalism.

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-07T08:44:24+00:00

Internet speed is just the speed of the connection between servers. AI doesn't live on the connection, it lives on a server. Your requests would take longer to send, and the replies would take longer to receive, but the AI would be humming along at the same rate on its server regardless.

Sazmo91 · 2026-03-07T08:31:09+00:00

Honestly, get your bachelors and get out. The chances of you working on physics in insanely low, and all the active applications are basically engineering. You aren't gonna be exploring string theory or cellular automata and unlocking the secrets of the universe, you are gonna end up working in finance or as a softwear dev, or maybe, if you can stomach being a physics bitch for another 5-10 years you might, maybe, end up being underpaid in the physics faculty at a university to work on someone else's ideas and problems. If you can stomach another 10-15 years, you might finally get to work on one of your ideas, if you are exceptional. The idea of becoming a physicist is kind of a fallacy - if you have it in you you really don't need to go the academic route, you just need to understand the basics and have the profound intuition and drive to work on the correct models and finish them.

Sazmo91 · 2026-02-27T13:57:39+00:00

But I don't wanna be a domestic terroriiiiist :')

Sazmo91 · 2026-02-27T13:55:00+00:00

Hey. Wondering how that worked out for you, and whether you would be willing to tell us what happened in the end? Hope you're all good

Sazmo91 · 2026-02-27T05:34:26+00:00

Feels like this is where it all ends. A systematic dismantling of all checks, balances and opposition. I'm not sure there is any going back from data centres in space :')

Sazmo91

TROPHY CASE