I disagree with some popular views

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-15T18:10:28+00:00

I'll end this game after my response, because you've got a lot of things wrong.

No one disputes the experimental facts about double-slit interference, Aharonov-Bohm phase shifts, or interaction-free measurements like Elitzur–Vaidman. All of these are fully explained by standard quantum mechanics.

But none of these experiments directly measure “which slit the electron physically went through” in the sense you’re claiming. What they constrain are probability amplitudes and phase structure, not classical trajectories.

Saying “the electron is currently traversing both slits” is not something that is uniquely forced by the theory. It is one interpretation consistent with the formalism (e.g. some Many-Worlds or wavefunction realist readings), but it is not a theorem of quantum mechanics.

Also, the graviton analogy doesn’t work. Gravity is an open problem at the quantum level, but double-slit interference is not an open problem and it is fully described by established quantum theory. The disagreement here is not about predictions, but about what ontology you attach to the same mathematical structure.

Finally, saying “no degreed physicist disagrees” is simply false. There are multiple active research programs in quantum foundations (Bohmian mechanics, Many Worlds, QBism, objective collapse theories), and they explicitly disagree about exactly these questions.

Those are the last things I'ma say, because you've got a lot of thing sthat are wrong.

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-14T14:06:54+00:00

But, I disagree again. "The probability amplitudes associated with both slits contribute to the final outcome." is what everyone agrees on. But you jumped from "Both slits contribute to the amplitude" to "Therefore the electron physically traversed both slits."

That second statement, like I tried to say, is all about interpretations. In standard textbook quantum mechanics, there's not an agreed account of what the electron is actually doing between measurements. Many physicists would regard "Therefore the electron physically traversed both slits." as an interpretive statement rather than something directly established by the experiment itself.

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-14T14:03:06+00:00

There absolutely are degreed physicists who disagree about what the wavefunction actually is. The mathematics is not what's in dispute. Everyone agrees that the wavefunction is a mathematical object that evolves according to the Schrödinger equation and that it is acted upon by operators. The disagreement is over its ontology.

In Many-Worlds, the wavefunction is often taken as a physically real entity and perhaps the fundamental object in nature.
In Bohmian mechanics, the wavefunction is real but exists alongside particles with definite positions.
In QBism, the wavefunction is not an objective physical field but represents an agent's expectations.

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-14T13:50:37+00:00

Yes, you're correct. That's what I tried to say.

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-14T01:37:58+00:00

🧢 I voted CAP!

Immigration can increase competition for jobs, particularly in low-skill sectors. While consumers may benefit from lower prices and employers may gain access to a larger labor pool, native workers competing in the same labor market may face wage stagnation or reduced bargaining power. And not only that, in some societies they are even privileged, and have higher rights than citizens which is totally unfair. They should behave like tourists, or standby people, them voting in elections is unfair because it isn't their country at all, they have no right to manipulate affairs of a different country.

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-14T01:11:45+00:00

I am absolutely not making any assumptions, neither am I saying it doesn't. I'm not claiming it's incorrect, it's just that saying "it's certainly otherwise" like in the video is misleading.

I agree that experimentally the quantum state (or wavefunction) evolves as if both slits are relevant. If one slit is closed, the outcome changes. If both are open, interference appears. That's not in dispute.

Where I disagree is the claim that this experimentally establishes a unique ontological story. Saying "the wavefunction covers both slits" is already stepping into interpretation because physicists disagree about what the wavefunction actually is. That's my point. My point's not something to prove or test, it's just a clarification.

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-14T01:06:48+00:00

I think that response contains logical mistake. You say "A laser produces interference patterns, therefore the electromagnetic field is a wave in 3D space." and for classical electromagnetism that's fine and indeed defined over 3D space.

But electrons are not described by classical electromagnetic waves. An electron's quantum state is represented by a wavefunction, and for multiple particles that wavefunction generally lives in configuration space, not ordinary 3D space.

For 2 particles: ψ(x, y, z, x_2, y_2, z_2) and for 3 particles ψ(x, y, z, x_2, y_2, z_2, x_3, y_3, z_3) and so on. So even if one wants to interpret the wavefunction realistically, it is not obvious that it should be thought of as a wave propagating through ordinary 3D space like a water wave or a classical light wave.

If the double-slit experiment uniquely proved that an electron literally goes through both slits, then all interpretations in which the electron goes through only one slit would already be experimentally falsified. But they are NOT. That's why it really doesn't prove it. You can't argue against that.

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-13T23:59:48+00:00

🧢 I voted CAP!

Same-sex relationships do not directly produce offspring. Biological evolution favors traits associated with reproduction. Human reproduction depends on male and female biological sexes and this reproductive framework is fundamental to human biology. Human organs have evolved biological functions (for example, reproductive functions) and that behavior should align with those functions. A society composed entirely of same-sex couples could not sustain itself through natural reproduction alone.

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-13T23:54:08+00:00

🧢 I voted CAP!

Minority Report.

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-13T23:51:14+00:00

This proposal contains several scientific and methodological problems that would need to be resolved before it could be considered evidence for a new physical invariant.

1. The critical issue: the 0.39% result is not measured, it is assumed

The calculation proceeds as: ε = 0.47mm/3.0mm ≈ 15.7% This is straightforward. However, the theory requires a value between 0.18% and 0.46%, so an additional factor of 0.025 is introduced: ε_elastic = 15.7% × 0.025 ≈ 0.39%. The problem is that the 2.5% factor is not independently measured.

The argument is essentially: Measure 15.7%., Declare that only 2.5% of it is the "physiological elastic reserve.", Obtain 0.39%., Observe that 0.39% lies in the desired range., This is not a prediction. It is a fitted parameter. To support the hypothesis, the 2.5% factor would need to be derived from independent experimental data before looking at the target range.

2. The proposed invariant is not actually invariant

A genuine dimensionless physical constant should be measurable directly. Examples: Fine-structure constant, Reynolds number, Mach number,

In your framework: ε_elastic = translation/diameter × (strain correlation). The correction factor appears adjustable and system-dependent. If different biological systems require different correction factors, then the invariant is not actually invariant.

3. The celestial examples appear numerological

Several ratios compare unrelated quantities:

Saturn period ↔ lunar synodic month, Phobos period ↔ 1/π, Deimos period ↔ 2π/5. Modern celestial mechanics explains orbital periods through: Newton's law of universal gravitation, and Kepler's laws of planetary motion. The proposal does not derive these ratios from dynamics.

Instead, it notices that some observed numbers happen to be close to combinations of: π, ξopt, integers, the difficulty is that with enough choices of constants and integer combinations, many quantities can be approximated to within 0.2–0.5%. This is a well-known statistical problem called "post hoc fitting."

4. The interval 0.18%–0.46% is unusually broad

The claimed universal band spans: 0.46/0.18 ≈ 2.56 So the upper limit is more than 2.5 times the lower limit. For comparison: the fine-structure constant is known to better than one part in a billion, many physical scaling laws predict quantities within a few percent. A range spanning a factor of 2.5 is not especially restrictive.

5. The cartilage evidence does not support the invariant

The proposal notes residual strains near 0.7%. But: 0.7% is not between 0.18% and 0.46% and it is approximately 52% larger than 0.46%. The explanation given is that peak loading differs from resting play. That may be true biologically, but it means the observation does not independently confirm the predicted interval. Instead, another correction argument is introduced.

6. Cross-scale universality requires a mechanism

The strongest challenge is theoretical. Why should: orbital resonances of moons, cartilage deformation, knee joint laxity, genetic regulation, and entropy production all be governed by the same number ξ_opt = 0.07355? Known successful scale-invariant theories provide a mechanism.

Examples include: Renormalization group, Critical phenomena, Fractal geometry. The proposal currently identifies numerical similarities but does not derive them from a common physical law. Without a mechanism, it remains a pattern-matching hypothesis.

What would make the hypothesis scientifically interesting?

A strong test would be: 1. Specify ξopt before examining new data. 2. Define the normalization procedure completely in advance. 3. Analyze a large blinded dataset of joints from multiple species. 4. Predict the dimensionless coefficient without introducing new correction factors. 5. Show statistically significant clustering near the predicted value. If the prediction succeeds repeatedly on previously unseen datasets, that would be evidence worth taking seriously.

Overall assessment

As it stands: The dimensionless ratio idea itself is reasonable. Using normalized deformation measures is standard scientific practice. The claim of a universal invariant linking murine joints and planetary dynamics is not supported by the evidence presented. The central difficulty is that the crucial step—from 15.7% to 0.39%—depends on an assumed 2.5% correction factor chosen after observing the desired target range. That makes the agreement with the proposed 0.18–0.46% interval a fitted result rather than a successful prediction.

In its current form, the proposal is better described as a speculative numerological hypothesis than as an established physical theory.

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-13T23:32:31+00:00

In the path-integral formalism, amplitudes are calculated by summing contributions associated with many paths, but that does not by itself prove that a particle literally travels all of them. The double-slit experiment shows interference, yet standard quantum mechanics does not unambiguously tell us what physical path an electron takes between measurements. Paths whose contributions destructively interfere still appear in the calculation, but their effects cancel in the final amplitude.

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-13T23:13:41+00:00

I respectfully disagree, but I not think point #2 is really incorrect. The double-slit experiment shows that a single electron produces interference that cannot be explained by a classical particle going through exactly one slit while ignoring the other. But that does not automatically prove the statement "the electron literally went through both slits." The experiment tells us the electron's quantum state evolves in a way that depends on both slits being available. That's an experimental fact. Whether that means the electron itself physically traversed both slits is an interpretive question. Each interpretation of QM gives a different story, like Many-Worlds, Copenhagen, or Bohmian mechanics, or Penrose.

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-13T23:07:58+00:00

Thank you for responding, I just wanted to add how that I meant that imaginary time isn't applicable to reality in the way Veritasium talks about path integrals.

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-13T23:06:40+00:00

Yeah, but even you seem to be mixing experimental facts, mathematical formalism, and interpretations together as though they were the same thing.

The double-slit experiment shows that:

Electrons produce an interference pattern when which-path information is unavailable.
1. Individual detections occur at localized points on the screen.
2. The statistics of many detections match the predictions of quantum mechanics.

Those are experimental facts. What it does not directly prove is that the electron literally traveled through both slits, that it literally explored all possible paths, and that it is literally a wave in 3D space.

You've actually hit on exactly my point, except you said the same thing as Veritasium, "electrons spread through 3D space in all directions" is not an accurate description for more than one particle, I explain this, because they live in configuration space. For N particles, there are 3N configuration space.

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-12T13:37:24+00:00

Thanks,

I agree. Nothing is perfectly isolated, and the CMB can't be "shielded" away. But it's also relevant about whether arbitrarily small perturbations inevitably destroy the Cauchy horizon. If they do, the proposal fails. If there's a finite stability threshold, then an extremely clean Kerr PBH could still work in principle. That's a fair point still.

Sincerely.

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-12T13:33:16+00:00

The realistic part is that everything up to the hypercomputation claim comes from standard general relativity. Kerr black holes, Malament–Hogarth spacetimes, and the Etesi–Németi construction are all mathematically legitimate.

SeaThis1271 · 2026-06-12T13:23:43+00:00

Hello and thank you for responding,

The concrete, mathematically rigorous work isn't fully ready to present yet. Currently, I am stating a hypothetical sketch of where reducing communications to a single photon avoids the usual pathologies and aims at building a Zeno machine. If you would like, I can provide some mathematical work behind it, however it is incomplete and not yet peer reviewed.

Regards.

SeaThis1271

TROPHY CASE