Mastodawn

This is way above my pay grade, and I've only read the article, not the actual technical work underneath it (because my maths is insufficient to know what it's talking about, so there's not a lot of point). But it sounds really interesting.

https://muellerberndt.medium.com/how-observer-path-holography-improves-on-the-standard-model-and-general-relativity-c971c376027e

I've never heard of "observer patch holography" (note typo in slug text), but a theoretical framework which has just a single free variable but lets you derive general relativity and the standard model, correctly predicting a bunch of magic numbers that we input as free variables into the standard model, is interesting as hell.

Maybe someone smarter than me has already looked at this and debunked it. Sabine doesn't seem to have done a video on it (or I missed it). And "one guy with four information theory axioms solves all of physics' problems" is definitely on the Hollywood-script end of the plausibility scale, but who knows? Weirder things have happened.

@cenobyte - thought of you, of course.

#StandardModel #physics #GeneralRelativity #GR #ObserverPatchHolography #OPH #quantum

How Observer Patch Holography Improves on the Standard Model and General Relativity

The Standard Model can’t predict a single particle mass. General Relativity needs invisible matter to work. OPH solves these issues, and…

Medium

@cazabon Oh yeah, I’ve always thought of the particle generations as being a geometric concept. He says the theory is a string theory but doesn’t seem to mention the particles themselves as strings. Possible I haven’t gone far enough down the rabbit hole. I sure hope Sabine gets this one!

I'm with you on hoping to hear Sabine opine on this.

I've read some more of the stuff in the repo - text and code. It's still just about all over my interested-layman's head. But I want it to be true, or at least true-ish enough to point the way to additional threads to pull on with other researchers.

I really hope that this isn't just a big joke, and the text isn't just LLM jibberish from a model trained on physics papers.

> I personally don’t think of an observer as a person but rather then entanglement
> of systems and how it spreads.

I've never liked the term "observer" or "observe" as used in theoretical physics (the waveform collapses when the observer looks at the result, etc), because it does seem to imply an intelligence or an id, though that might just be linguistic baggage.

I tend to think of it more like Einstein's relativity. An observer there can be thought of more as just a vantage point. There doesn't need to be a person there to do the looking, but if you happened to stand there, you would see a particular "view" of the universe. From another vantage point, a theoretical observer would "see" a different view of the same events. But what do I know, I'm no physicist.

@cazabon Lol, you seem to think like a physicist. Oh I sure hope it isn’t jibberish too. I’d be pretty impressed if an AI could actually come up with a viable theory though. (Gotta start training Skye and Sitara on how to use the AIs well)

That sparked a question in my mind: which of them is dark energy, and which is dark matter?

@cazabon Hmm, he doesn’t seem to mention dark energy much in the article. That one’s up in the air right now due to the DESI results which say it might be changing over time. Still waiting on more observations

I meant Skye and Sitara 😃 Skye seems more like the "energy" type at first glance.

@cazabon Oh! Funny Sitara weaves magical energies with her paws. Skye's a gravitational engineer so more dark matter coded. Sitara would be energy

I've spent the last hour-plus going through more of the "stuff" he links from the overview, and (a) I still have no way to tell if it makes sense or if it's just LLM-generated physics drivel, and (b) I get more and more concerned that "one self-educated non-physicist overturns all of modern physics and solves all outstanding problems", while hypothetically tenable, strains credulity.

I mean, a long history of cranks "disproving" Einstein (dunno why they all hated relativity so much) and Dirac and everything else just screams "This guy is a nutter". The alarm bells are ringing. I really want people who actually understand this stuff to read it and tell me whether I can write this guy off as such a crank.

But weirder things have happened. Einstein was just a clerk in a patent office who no one had heard of when he demonstrated the then-new and completely unsupported-by-evidence quantum theory, which had only been proposed to solve the (ultra)violet catastrophe, could actually explain the completely unrelated and then-unexplained photoelectric effect. He won the Nobel in physics for that - not relativity - and cemented quantum theory in place, even if he never liked it. A nobody who single-handedly stamped the dividing line between classical physics and modern physics.

<brain-exploding>

#crank #cranks #relativity #nutter

Eric R. Smith Mar 1

@cazabon @cenobyte And Einstein wasn't "just a clerk in a patent office". He was a Ph.D. student who worked in a patent office. Formal training was important even back then, and even more so now. Not that it's impossible for an outsider to make contributions, but it is very difficult indeed. So I share your skepticism.

@cazabon Gonna take a closer look if I can today. Believe it or not there are a few things people without deep knowledge in the field can do by looking at the equations. Consistency things like are there the same number of indices on the right side of the equations vs the left. Are the indices consistent? (Gotta know summation notation but that's easily explainable!)

@cazabon Haven't done a super deep dive on it,but I hate to say it at first glance, it looks like slop :(

I was afraid of that.

@cazabon He says it's not though so there is that. Just something that seems off about it. Still keeping the paper though lol.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LLMPhysics/comments/1rfeqwq/removed_by_moderator/

There are a few comments visible about it. Sounds like the general opinion is pure AI slop.

Going keyword-searching around the net, I find very little that looks even slightly related. There's lots of papers talking about static patches, but then I come across this one:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/aab8e0

Just reading the first couple sentences of the abstract makes my brain yell GIGO! :

> Based on an observer-centric methodology, we pinpoint the basic origin of the
> spectral Planckianity of the asymptotic Hawking modes in the conventional
> treatments of the evaporating horizons. By considering an observer who analyzes
> a causal horizon in a generic spacetime, we first clarify how the asymptotic
> Planckian spectrum is imposed on the exponentially redshifted Hawking modes
> through a geometric dispersion mechanism developed by a semiclassical
> environment which is composed by all the modes that build up the curvature
> of the causal patch of the asymptotic observer.

Is that anything but jibberish? Because if not, I'm betting it was input to the model that generated the ... Paper Under Test 😉

#DeviceUnderTest #GIGO #jibberish

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

@cazabon At some point in his repo or somewhere he goes on about how OPH generates the golden rule and probably sovereign citizen ideas...that's not science and goes straight into crackpot territory lol.Unfortunate because I think spacetime as information is probably on the right track.

This one actually doesn't look bad. They're using alot of fancy words to say that the reasons horizons generate blackbody radiation is because of the perspective of the observer. The term generic spacetime needs to be cleared up. I'm sure they mean any spacetime with a horizon (kerr, Schwartzchild, cosmological, Rindler).
Gotta say fancier words to get published lol.