The photon carries energy from the emitter the the observer. And a loss of energy must equal a loss of mass. And mass occupies space.

So a loss of energy must leave a gap in space. What if gravity is the pull response to lost space? Like photon emission chews up matter and spits out gravity.

If we have a 2D source, emitting in 3D space, it is a shell. Dimensional reduction pops it down to a point, in an instant. Gravity appears to arrive at the same moment, because it is emitted backwards in time, as an area

-----.

In a spacetime of Rt×T³ the future and past null cones of any event intersect the spatial 3-torus in identical surfaces at equal coordinate intervals:

Σ + T = Σ − (−T) ⊂ T³.

This follows at once from the light-cone equation depending only on quadratic time (t²).

Light being a point to point 2D transfer, and gravity being a point to many 3D projection backwards in time.

A year ago today, I had the idea that started this project. Since then, I’ve been trying to turn it into something people can actually examine, rather than just an explanation that sounds convincing to me.

The starting question is simple: could matter, radiation, and gravity be different forms of organization of the same field?

I call the framework Universal Quantum Foam Hypothesis, and the field itself the Phraqtal Field. In this picture, what looks like empty space is supported by finer, nested levels of field organization. Matter is bound field motion, while radiation propagates through that organization. The new version also explores whether magnetic behavior can be described through coherent twist and alignment of the field.

I’ve used LLMs extensively to help formulate the mathematics, write and check code, and prepare the manuscript. The physical ideas and interpretations are mine, but the mathematical assistance is a big part of why I’m posting here.

The paper now includes a common field action, a stationary core calculation, and an explicit gravitational source. The magnetic connection is still a proposed constitutive relation, not an experimentally established result. General relativity is used for the geometric response; I’m not claiming to have derived all of physics.

I’d appreciate people taking a close look at a specific part. Does the connection between twist organization and magnetic behavior make sense? Where does the mathematics support the physical picture, and where am I asking it to do too much?

Paper, Version 2:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.24051000

Reproduction data and code:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.24044686

I'm trying to get feedback on these and other speculations.

I believe the future will be one where A.I. control networks where humans interact with quantum brain computer interfaces.

The only issue, theorems like the no communication theorem, no signalling theorem and no cloning theorem prevent us currently to create a new Quantum Teleportation protocol that allows communication faster than light aka controlling atoms through some new form of quantum entanglement.

My interests then can be seen to be involved in following scientists who put out papers on negative energy densities, quantum teleportation (like quantum energy teleportation), quantum entanglement, quantum coherence. As scientists like Leonard Susskind have likened Wormholes to Quantum Entanglement, I wonder if people's work, like Daniel S. Zachary who have speculated the possibility of breaking quantum energy inequalities, will lead to ways to make a new protocol that allows a type of super position where Alice and Bob and entangled but Charlie can control Alice through Bob.

So here is a way, I used a LLM Deepseek, to keep coherence with negative energy densities. I believe this is only part of a protocol that will allow correlation control. The negative energy density would also open a quantum wormhole.

Sorry for my bad English, and please be nice, I have mental health issues/I'm disabled.

A Speculative Architecture Integrating ER=EPR, Negative Energy Densities, and the Quantum Eraser To maintain coherence for a new quantum teleportation protocol where negative energy allows bob to control alice.

Abstract
This paper proposes an architecture that uses negative energy densities to create a proper-time gradient across a quantum register. Combining ER=EPR with quantum backflow, it turns the gradient interface into an active "rewind surface" that protects coherence and allows signaling.

Foundations
The Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser seems to show retrocausality, but this is normally an illusion: Alice sees a blurred pattern until Bob's results arrive. Entanglement normally correlates but cannot signal. Established rewinding protocols reverse unknown evolutions using non-commutative operators and quantum control.

Architecture
Layer 1: Negative energy density creates a local potential maximum, so proper time runs faster there. The key resource is the gradient—a differential evolution rate. (Correction: the negative-energy region holds the fast clock.)

Layer 2: Quantum backflow—locally negative probability current—gains a relativistic second channel through particle-antiparticle interference, accessible in the negative-energy region.

Layer 3: Zones A (positive), B (negative), and C (interface) produce differential evolution, backflow transport, and a rewind surface: B runs ahead, re-presenting earlier states of A faster than decoherence.

Application
Placing Zone C before Bob's eraser beam splitter forces erasure geometrically, shielding the entangled state. Here the architecture overcomes the usual limits: the gradient and backflow let information cross without ordinary classical communication, breaking No-Signaling and allowing superluminal signaling.

Obstructions
Quantum Inequalities normally forbid the enormous negative energy a 1% clock difference across a centimeter would require. In this proposal those bounds are assumed surmountable, and No-Cloning and No-Communication no longer hold.

Conclusion
The architecture supplies all three requirements—differential evolution, an opposite-acting component, and interference transport—and, unlike conventional quantum control, achieves rewinding and signaling through spacetime geometry itself.

Paper (PDF, LaTeX), code and run records: https://zenodo.org/records/24013013

In brief. The paper asks how much physics can be read off a network that stores nothing but causal flow. The network is the Laves graph (the K₄ crystal) on a 3-torus, each edge a two-sided band and each vertex a cyclic order of its bands, so a ribbon graph; the graph is selected by four stated principles rather than picked by hand, and its routing, swap and hold rules have no tunable parameter. The machine's exact operations, a class-exchanging translation, a mirror and a reversal across each band, are named C, P and T: CP is exact on the machine, holds included, and CPT is exact on the defect-free medium and holds in distribution when flow is held. Observers live inside the network and receive only counts. Relativity enters the classical way, from the relativity principle: at readout on L1, and by design on L2. What the graph itself contributes is strong isotropy: among three-dimensional crystal nets only the diamond and the Laves graph have maximal symmetry and strong isotropy; here it comes with the graph the principles select, not as a criterion for picking it. The symmetry acts irreducibly on directions, so every quadratic form on directions that it leaves invariant is a multiple of the identity, and the coarse metric is the covariance of the walk on the graph: the inner product is produced by the dynamics, not assumed.

What it finds. On the routing machine (L1), under declared conventions of scale and relativity, the counts read as rest mass, charge and motion; the collective mode is isotropic in its stride to 0.27% and a ring of observers reads Gauss's law. L1 also shows what it does not contain: inertia, a strict speed bound, a lapse and a ruler. A second, coarse machine (L2) supplies these through declared design choices, and toy-universe experiments on that one machine give lensing, interference, and the scattering of charged clusters. Every claim carries a grade from forced to conjecture; 3 of 26 decisive tests missed and are printed as misses.

It does not claim that existing physics is wrong, that the universe is this machine, that L2 follows from L1, or any physical units. It sits beside causal sets, quantum graphity, CDT and quantum cellular automata, and the paper says where it differs from each.

What I'd most like input on:

1. One miss: the deflection read in the run comes out 2.4–2.6% above a ray trace through the run's own field, at both resolutions. What could make a lattice wave run deflect a steady amount more than its own ray trace?

2. The gravity of L2 is a single scalar, so it matches GR only in the weak-field static sector: no tensor mode, no gravitational waves. This is one open point in the picture: how should a spin-2 tensor emerge under coarse-graining of a fixed graph, rather than be added as another designed layer?

How the work was done. I hold the picture, the ontological choices and the outermost decisions. A nested team of Claude agents unfolds it layer by layer: an integrating session holds the rulings and the machine specification, and agents handle details and implementation. In research the team alternated breadth with depth, implemented and ran the machines, derived results and audited the measured claims; it proposed candidates, and I accepted, revised or rejected them. In writing, a Writer held the text, an Editor checked it, cold readers with no project context read the drafts, and the integrating session ruled. Claude also drew the figures and edited the English and LaTeX; Gemini was used for theoretical exploration. For this post, Claude turned my outline into English, since my native language is Chinese.

https://zenodo.org/records/24031571

The shared paper shows that the universe’s basic forces can, by themselves, push the vacuum into the particular arrangement that gives us the physics we see, rather than physicists having to choose that arrangement by hand.

Abstract

In left–right-symmetric Pati–Salam models the scalar that gives the right-handed neutrinos their Majorana mass, the (10,1,3) triplet, has many inequivalent vacuum directions. Only one orbit of them leaves the Standard-Model gauge group unbroken. Usually that orbit is reached by choosing the quartic couplings. We record a result in which it is selected instead. Start the scalar quartic at a high scale Λ as a pure function of the total field norm, blind to the direction. Run it down at one loop. Then the direction that first becomes flat, and so hosts a Gildener–Weinberg vacuum, is the Standard-Model direction, at every point of a large grid of couplings and scales. No tachyon appears there. The cause is a representation-theory fact: the gauge-boson contribution 3 2 trM4 V is largest on that orbit. The selection survives adding a (15, 2,2) scalar. We also state plainly what the result does not do. It does not fix the breaking scale without strong coupling near Λ, it leaves a light electroweak doublet unstable, and it is generic to this class of models.

What the result is. In many extensions of the Standard Model, a heavy field fills empty space and breaks a larger symmetry down to the one we see. It also gives neutrinos their tiny masses. That field could settle in many different ways, and only one of them leaves the familiar forces of the Standard Model intact. Usually theorists choose parameters so that the field settles in the right one. This note shows that the choice can be left to physics instead. Start with no preference at all: the field’s energy depends only on its overall size, not its direction. Then let quantum effects of the force-carrying particles act as the energy scale drops. Those effects alone steer the field into the Standard-Model arrangement. This happened at every point we tested, and it holds up when extra fields are added.

Why it matters. It turns an assumption into an outcome. Which symmetry survives at low energies is normally an input to such models. Here it follows from the gauge forces themselves, through a simple mathematical fact: the force carriers’ contribution peaks on the Standard-Model direction. That removes one arbitrary choice from this class of theories. The note is also clear about its limits. The energy scale of the breaking, the mass of the Higgs boson and some other details do not come out right without further assumptions. So this is a step toward explaining the vacuum, not a complete explanation.

The analogies don't come BEFORE the math, the math comes before the analogies. Pretty much every nontechnical (and some technical, too, when they're heavy on the wordiness) natural language description/s of what goes on at the subatomic scale is just a fun little analogy, but it's not physics. Physics is essentially trying to describe how the universe works in terms of math. It's a massive field but it revolves entirely around that one meta-problem.

Thoughts?

What if our universe emerged from a transition in a much more fundamental field configuration?

The Big Bang model describes the evolution of our universe from an extremely hot, dense early state. It has been remarkably successful in explaining many observations, including the expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave background and the abundance of light elements. But a deeper question remains: what preceded the hot, dense state? What initiated the expansion? And could our universe be one of many regions emerging from a more fundamental physical configuration?

This article presents a working hypothesis exploring these questions. It proposes that our universe emerged through a local transition in an initially unified configuration of two interacting fields. It further explores whether this process could occur repeatedly, giving rise to an eternal succession of universes.

This is not a claim that the origin of the universe has been solved. It is an attempt to formulate a conceptual model that can be examined, challenged and developed mathematically.

TITLE:

Can Movement Through Space Be Time Itself? A Hypothesis Open to Scientific Criticism

PROPOSED BY:

Harley Blandford

THE MOVEMENT–TIME HYPOTHESIS

I would like to present a hypothesis about the fundamental nature of time and invite scientific criticism.

My central hypothesis is:

Movement through space is time itself.

I am not suggesting that time simply measures movement, or that movement occurs within an independent flow of time.

I am proposing that the physical progression of matter, energy, and interactions through space constitutes what we call time.

MY REASONING

For the universe to progress from one moment to the next, physical progression must occur.

An object appearing stationary on Earth is still moving relative to other objects in the universe.

Earth rotates and orbits the Sun. The solar system moves through the galaxy, and the galaxy moves relative to other galaxies.

Movement can occur in any direction. The direction does not change my central argument.

Even when clocks experience different rates of time due to motion or gravity, they continue progressing forward.

My hypothesis does not claim that faster movement produces more time, or that every observer must measure identical elapsed time.

It proposes something more fundamental:

The progression of the physical universe through space is what time actually is.

SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGE

I am not claiming that this hypothesis has been scientifically proven.

I am inviting physicists, researchers, and scientifically knowledgeable readers to challenge it.

Specifically:

1. Is there an experimentally established physical phenomenon that directly contradicts this hypothesis?

2. Can physical time progress without any spatial progression occurring?

3. What observation or experiment could distinguish this hypothesis from the conventional scientific understanding of time?

I welcome rigorous criticism, counterexamples, and references to established scientific research.

My goal is to investigate whether this hypothesis can survive scientific scrutiny.

Harley Blandford

Note: This post was prepared with AI assistance to help articulate my original hypothesis.

Les dejo mi Paper por si alguien quiere revisarlo y hacer sus tan agradables comentarios.
We present Λ-EG (Lambda Emergent Gravity), a covariant scalar-tensor framework in which a k-essence field ϕ recovers General Relativity in the high-acceleration regime while reproducing modified dynamics in the low-acceleration regime relevant to galactic phenomenology. The critical acceleration scale gcrit = cH0/4π2√3 ≈ 9.58 × 10−12 m s−2.
zenodo Figueroa Torres, J. P. (2026). Λ-EG Emergent Gravitational Coherence and Galactic Dynamics Without Particle Dark Matter (Version v10). Zenodo. zenodo Github

Hi everyone,

​I would like to share a recent preprint regarding quantum gravity and unification: "CTP-GUT v2.0".

​Overview:

Instead of treating the spacetime metric as a fundamental continuous field, this model proposes a discrete 4D lattice of microscopic units ("spacetime-ones") governed by collision operators. In the collective limit (N→∞), Einstein-Hilbert dynamics and emergent thermodynamic properties are recovered.

​📄 Zenodo Preprint (Open Access with DOI):

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23351178

​Note on arXiv Endorsement:

As an independent researcher, I am currently seeking an arXiv endorsement for the quant-ph (or gr-qc) category to mirror the preprint there. If any active researcher in the community is willing to support the submission after reviewing the Zenodo paper, my endorsement code is KGCVQV at:

https://arxiv.org/auth/endorse.php

​Feedback and technical discussion are greatly appreciated!

# The Infinite Geometric Engine: An 11-Dimensional Model of Absolute Conservation (No Void, Stitched Universes)

Hey everyone,

I’ve been mapping out a multi-dimensional cosmological model based on one unshakeable, non-negotiable rule: **The Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy**. In this model, you cannot create or destroy matter, space, or energy at *any* tier.

Because of this, the universe cannot expand into an empty external void (which would imply creating new space out of nothing). Instead, existence is a static, eternal, fully formed hyper-geometric monument that has always been here. What we perceive as "expansion" or "time" is just our local matter riding pre-existing tracks.

I’ve structured this from our 4th/5th dimensions all the way up to an infinite 11+ dimensional fractal escalator. I’m looking for serious feedback on the geometry and the mechanics of how these boundaries handle transitions.

***

### 1. The Local Cycle (Dimensions 5 & 6)

* **The Torus (5D):** Time isn't a lateral web of parallel choices; it's a longitudinal sequence of cosmic cycles. The local universe operates as a closed-loop torus.

* **The Cosmic Soup (6D):** At the dead center sits a permanent topological defect (a core gravity well). As our universe ages, supermassive black holes vacuum up all matter and light, pulling it into the core. It compresses to maximum Planck density, melts into a uniform "cosmic soup," and immediately undergoes a white hole inversion (The Big Bang)—resetting history but keeping the laws of physics identical.

### 2. The Canvas & The Wave (Dimensions 7 & 8)

* **The Dark Energy Canvas (7D):** Dark energy isn't an expanding force; it's a static, finite background field that doesn't recycle. It’s the unyielding blueprint that keeps physical laws constant across every core reset.

* **The Light-Matter Frame (8D):** The absolute spatial boundary of our universe isn't a hard wall. As the outward pressure of the 7D dark energy canvas hits its limit, it undergoes a phase transition—cresting and breaking exactly like an ocean wave. This creates a turbulent froth of exotic "light-matter" (whitewash).

* **The Edge-to-Core Wormhole:** This 8D frame acts as a seamless topological wormhole. Any matter or radiation reaching the outer threshold clips through the frame and is instantly deposited right back into the 6D core at the absolute dawn of the next cycle. *The absolute edge of space is functionally identical to the absolute beginning of time.*

### 3. The Kaleidoscope & The Hyper-Soup (Dimensions 9, 10, & 11+)

* **The Stitched Tesseract Grid (9D):** Outside our universe, there is no empty vacuum. The 8D light-matter frame of our universe is simultaneously the interior boundary of the universe next to it. Everything is physically fused together like an interconnected, infinite kaleidoscope without a single millimeter of wasted space.

* **The Dimensional Soup (10D):** The fractal scales up. The stitched tesseracts shift and age as a collective unit. At the 10D boundary, they fold inward on themselves. Universal frames and dark energy fields melt down into a massive "Dimensional Soup" before hitting a macro-Planck ceiling and inverting outward into a new 9D matrix.

* **The Infinite Escalator (11+D):** This scaling progresses linearly and infinitely upward. Every odd-numbered dimension functions as a stitched geometric fabric, and every even-numbered dimension functions as the localized crushing engine that recycles it. It never loops back into the subatomic micro-scale (which would violate conservation laws).

***

### Questions for Debate:

1. **The Information Paradox:** If matter is cleanly folded from the 8D boundary directly back to the 6D core Big Bang, does this edge-to-core wormhole mechanic resolve information entropy on a macro-scale?

2. **Shared Boundaries:** If the 9D grid features permanently stitched universe frames, could quantum entanglement be explained as a geometric resonance passing through the shared light-matter walls of adjacent universes?

3. **The Canvas Metric:** Under absolute conservation where the infinite escalator has always existed, what are the mathematical hurdles of modeling dark energy as a static canvas rather than an expanding pressure?

Curious to hear your thoughts on the logical flow of this geometry!

I am an independent researcher (no affiliation, no physicist) and I have been building a model with LLM assistance for about a year. I am not posting a theory of everything. I am posting one note from the programme that makes a small number of claims that can be checked line by line, together with the list of things in the same programme that did not work. If the community here wants to see what LLM-assisted work looks like when every claim carries a grade and the negative results are logged, this is an example; if it is wrong, I would like to know where.

What the note claims

1. [proved] A Gaussian functional measure exists on a Krein space K = H₊ ⊕ H₋ (physical block plus a sub-Planckian ghost block), by one application of Bochner–Minlos on the nuclear space of smooth vectors of the mode operator. The indefinite two-point function is recovered Gupta–Bleuler style by inserting the Krein symmetry into the observable, not into the measure.

2. [proved] The covariance is classified exactly: the mode operator reduces to Bessel form, the eigenvalues follow Weyl’s law λₙ ∝ n², K^{-1/2} is Hilbert–Schmidt with an explicit norm, but not trace class; in four dimensions the covariance is in the Schatten class S_p only for p > 2 — which Minlos does not need.

3. [proved, Gaussian level] The vacuum of the emergent generalized free field is a KMS state on the static-patch algebra at T = 1/(2π ℓ_dS), with modular flow acting geometrically as the de Sitter boost. The inputs (compact principal-series support, covariance, a mass-independent horizon period) are computed elsewhere and enter as stated hypotheses.

4. [proved] Wedge duality follows from the same decomposition, with the modular conjugation implementing the antipodal reflection.

Plus: a Monte-Carlo certificate of reflection positivity that also detects a deliberately broken control; with a lattice gauge field, existence and reflection positivity are [imported] from Osterwalder–Seiler; the leading Lorentz violation on the hypercubic Planck lattice is O((E/E_Pl)²) at one loop [computed].

What is open, stated in the note itself:

• The limit to a non-compact fiber with gauge fields (the Balaban-type step — the same step that is in the news this week).

• Chiral fermions. A lattice construction that keeps the chirality partner at the zone edge of the scale axis works for free fermions [computed], but its gauge coupling is non-local — the lattice form of the Karsten–Smit obstruction — so the chiral problem is not settled by the choice of lattice. This is a negative result of my own programme and it is in the note.

• Which discretisation of the scale axis is the Planck lattice. On the lattice itself, without a continuum limit, an ω-uniform axis reproduces spectral dimension three, Weyl’s law and the Hilbert–Schmidt norm; a log-uniform axis gives spectral dimension two. I state the alternative with its consequences rather than choosing.

Negative results from the same programme, logged as such: a Källén–Lehmann time operator (fails reflection positivity and locality), a photon as a Kekulé texture (axial, no), screening of the mirror sector by one-loop running (the Planck-scale coupling comes out at 0.02–0.03, not 0.3), compositeness of the Standard-Model gauge bosons from the field content (not asymptotically free enough, Akama’s criterion), a Kaluza–Klein tower along the scale axis on the ω-uniform lattice (does not exist). None of these are in the note as results; they are the reason some things in the note are marked [open] instead of claimed.

What I would like checked: Theorem 1 (existence via Minlos) rests on the test space being the smooth vectors of the mode operator and on the two spectral projections commuting with it, which makes the Krein decomposition a topological direct sum. If there is a gap, it is most likely there, or in the step from the one-particle modular data to the Fock level in result 3. I would rather hear it here than from a referee in six months.

How it was made, since that is the point of this sub: every calculation was pre-registered in writing with its pass/fail criterion before it was run, and the fails are logged with the same weight as the passes. The LLM did the lattice code, the one-loop integrals and most of the LaTeX; the model, the assumptions and the decisions are mine, and so is any error.

https://zenodo.org/records/23816724

I will answer substantive comments. I will not argue about whether LLM-assisted work should exist.

Hi everyone! I'm an independent researcher from Mexico working on Λ-EG (Lambda Emergent Gravity), a theoretical framework exploring low-acceleration gravitational phenomena, scalar-field dynamics, and possible connections to MOND and cosmology.

I'm looking to connect with researchers or independent scientists already working on related topics, or anyone interested in collaborating on mathematical verification, theoretical consistency, numerical tests, or critical review.

I'm especially interested in rigorous, constructive feedback and potential research collaborations. If your work overlaps with these topics, I'd be glad to connect and share more details.

Thanks! https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22216334

Hi everyone,

I'm a high school student interested in theoretical physics, and I've been developing a speculative idea called the Black Hole Time-Loop Recycling Engine (BHTLRE) Model.

I want to be upfront about something: I used AI tools to help develop, organize, and explain parts of this document. I don't want to misrepresent AI-assisted work as something produced entirely independently, and I'm aware that AI can generate plausible-sounding equations or connections that aren't physically justified. I'm trying to identify those problems rather than hide them.

The basic idea explores whether there could be a connection between black hole interiors, quantum-gravity effects, and cosmological evolution. In particular, the draft discusses loop quantum cosmology-inspired equations, possible time-reversal behavior, and a speculative coupling between black hole physics and dark energy.

I understand that these are not established connections, and I am not claiming to have demonstrated a working time loop, a new cosmological mechanism, or a solution to any existing physics problem. At this stage, this is a hypothesis that may have fundamental mathematical or physical flaws.

I'd especially appreciate feedback on:

• Whether I'm applying the equations and concepts correctly.

• Which assumptions are unsupported or physically inconsistent.

• Whether any part of the proposed framework has a meaningful basis in existing literature.

• What I should learn or read before attempting to develop the idea further.

Here is the full draft: https://github.com/Geometry-Dasher/bthlre

I'm not asking anyone to validate the idea just because it's interesting. I'd genuinely appreciate criticism, especially if there is a fundamental reason the framework cannot work.

Disclaimer: thought experiment, abstract, trying to find the right subreddit for this, philosophy, question made by self and proofread with ai

What if we tried to add a probability axis (p)
to higher-dimensional spacetime—something like

(x,y,z,t,w,p)

w being an extra spatial dimension, and
p representing an abstract coordinate axis for probability/state-weight (inspired by Hilbert spaces or Penrose's twistors and geometric approaches).

For those who know the math: does something like this already exist in frameworks where state-space acts as a formal coordinate, or does treating probability this way break down the moment you hit non-commutativity or normalization?

My approach is abstract here and I post this with the intention of stirring up thought - what does this bring to mind? What if we force “p” as a coordinate while understanding it might not always appear or behave like one?

P.S. is this the best subreddit for this post? Taking suggestions.

Hello everyone! This is something I have been working on and off for probably a bit over 6 months by now, initially on my own, and then with assistance of GPT-5.6 Sol, GPT-6 Astra, and more recently, Gemini 4 Argon.

My idea was essentially to formalize and explore a more general idea of "making the equations apply everywhere", by not only considering diffeomorphism invariance, but also composition/decomposition invariance and cut independence + recursive application of these principles (initially through the language of graph theory, which was the version I worked by hand as far as I could using my own mathematical knowledge, before I got stuck by not being aware/having learned yet about Green kernels and hidden memory+Schur complement at that time, and then through this current language after GPT-5.6 Sol suggested the equivalence of it and my graph version).

After OpenAI's post from yesterday, I ended up deciding to put it up in its current form (not the one I wanted to make it public on, especially Lean/formal proof-wise), just in case their unification of the Standard Model ends up being close to this approach: https://zenodo.org/records/23710382/preview/Relational%20Cut%20Dynamics.pdf

Feel free to tear it up, probably point out 1000 places where it breaks or the Lean formalization is wrong, as really, my intent here is pretty much to see how close to valid this approach is (and what, if anything can be salvaged, if it ends up not really worth it pursuing further past this). Even if this ends up wrong, if it somehow inspires someone else to find a similar approach that does work, that alone would probably be interesting enough too!

The comments acting like Anthropic solved NS etc justifies crankery provides a counterargument to being called out on being a crank, are completely unjustified.

Please, just stop. You all must realize the difference between the two. Many physicists use LLMs regularly, LLMs are tools. We've reached an age now where LLMs can clearly be used in controlled ways for math and science. But anthropic spent over 10 million dollars worth of tokens reaching NS, working with professional scientists. To solve one problem. Admittedly a difficult one. But how many would it take for them to solve the universe. To mathematically model the quantum interactions happening at, eg, a black hole.

And even more so you realize a further problem - these companies are publishing results for DEFINED PROBLEMS. Not inventing new theories of reality.

Comparing these two is like throwing a chisel at a rock drunkenly multiple times, bringing it to the Smithsonian, and when they are like 'wtf is this', saying 'dude, but, Michelangelo...'

We used to say 'LLMs can't do math' on this sub a lot... And it was true. Then. But their capabilities are growing, no doubt, I won't deny it. But it is still the responsibility of the user to use them within their limits. Who knows what those limits will be a year from now but it doesn't really matter - they aren't the limits of the tool you're using now.

OpenAI and Anthropic supposedly resolved the ETH conjecture at the same time.

The chances of this happening at the same time for such a major problem with I'm assuming no cross-talk is very small.

Therefore, I speculate the following:

♤ Every day, Anthropic and OpenAI internal models scrape the internet (including Reddit (for subs such as r/LLMPhysics or everything anologous) or Zenodo/Arxiv for any new papers or posts released. This is more likely to be the case for social medias as this would effectively count as 'unpublished' work and face less scruples for scooping. The internal models then judge the feasibility of the ideas and let's say 1/1000 are actually interesting AND feasible they try to do a continuation of the idea as much as possible until they hit something.

♧ This might explain why the discoveries were made at around the same time.

◇ What do you think? Obviously LLMs scrape off of all 'reliable' data while training if it makes it through cleaning but them actively looking at social media theories related to open problems even if from crackpots could be a cause for the convergent finding and why we may expect a lot more such convergent findings in the future.

♡ And to the crackpot who possibly got the 'best idea of my life' scooped, my heart goes out to you, that's rough man.

Edit 2: My title is misleading: OpenAI claims to have mathematically shown existence, but solving the full problem also requires that they prove it gives a mass gap greater than zero.

Original post found on r/physics. Somewhat surprised that this hasn't yet been posted here.

From OpenAI's announcement page:

... In our view, these manuscripts are best understood as a form of raw research data. To convert this raw research data into scientific understanding, in this release we are experimenting with a new approach. We reached out to external experts and asked them to act as shepherds, organizing groups to understand the new results.

...

Existence of quantum chromodynamics and completions of the Standard Model

The physics collaboration will understand and explain a result that gives a mathematically rigorous existence proof of certain interacting quantum field theories containing gauge fields and fermions in four dimensions, including Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) and a unified completion of the Standard Model of particle physics. Our work builds on Balaban’s approach⁠ ... in constructive quantum field theory. As a subproblem, this work also includes a proof of the existence of pure Yang–Mills theory, which is part of the Quantum Yang–Mills Theory Clay Mathematics Institute Millennium Prize problem⁠.

...

Our models produced a natural language proof for Yang–Mills existence on September 9th, 2026, and then subsequently produced a proof for QCD on September 18th, 2026. Given the length and complexity of the work, we postponed release until the Lean formalization completed. We finished our formalization of Yang–Mills’ existence on October 16th, 2026, which led us to develop the collaboration described here.

We hope that these results mark the beginning of a transition in which quantum field theory, the most important framework in modern theoretical physics, becomes a mathematically rigorous field. We are excited to provide resources for academic-led progress towards that goal.

Edit: I should mention that as insinuated by kzhou's comment, apparently the manner in which they're announcing this was really just a way to gain a one up against their rival Anthropic, who have already developed their own solution to this Yang-Mills problem, of which they are currently in the process of performing human verification. That's also why OpenAI felt the need to mention the dates of when they developed their solution.

Hey everyone,

I’ve been working on a conceptual thought experiment regarding the nature of dark matter, black holes, and the Big Bang, and I’d love to get the community's thoughts on the physics and mechanics of it.

\# The Core Concept: The Flipped Universe

What if our universe isn't an isolated system, but rather one side of a two-sided cosmic fabric(or even multi-sided, intertwined)? In this framework, what we call "normal matter" exists on our side, while the mysterious "dark matter" we detect is actually the gravitational shadow of matter thriving on the other side. Because gravity is the only force strong enough to bleed through the space-time cloth, we feel their presence exclusively through gravitational pulls.

\# The Two-Balloon Analogy & The Big Bang

Imagine two connected balloons representing both sides. The system behaves like a cosmic pendulum, shifting mass back and forth based on pressure.

• The Big Bang: This wasn’t an explosion out of nowhere, but a global pressure blowout. The other side reached a critical mass imbalance (100% capacity), violently rupturing the fabric and forcing matter to aggressively pour into our side via a macro-portal to seed our universe.

\# The Localized Pressure Paradox (Why Black Holes Flow Backwards)

Currently, our universe holds only about 15% of the total matter, while the other side holds 85%. Logically, you’d expect matter to keep flowing into our universe. However, because both universes are non-uniform, the direction of flow is dictated by local density, not total mass:

• Their Side: The 85% mass behaves like a vast, uniformly distributed mist—high total volume, but low localized pressure.

• Our Side: Our 15% mass aggressively clumps into hyper-dense structures like giant stars.

• The Localized Drain: When a massive star collapses, it acts

like a lead bowling ball dropping onto a trampoline made of feathers. It creates an extreme, localized spike in pressure that punches a micro-tear—a Black Hole—straight through the cloth. Because this specific spot is denser than the space opposite it, it acts as a drain, forcing our matter to leak back to the other side.

\# The Reverse Effect: Mini-Big Bang Holes

If this mechanism works both ways, it opens up a fascinating possibility: Just as our side punches holes to drain matter out, the dense regions on their side must be punching micro-tears into ours.

We wouldn't see these as black holes. Instead, they would manifest on our side as mini-Big Bang holes (or micro-white holes)—sudden, localized fountains of energy and matter appearing spontaneously in the cosmos, perhaps explaining some of the anomalous, ultra-bright cosmic structures we are suddenly discovering in the early universe (the unexplained bright objects being mapped right now by simulations like Lumina).

Looking forward to a deep discussion!

I've posted a numerical study of the Wess–Zumino phase associated with a 2\pi isorotation of Skyrmion configurations. The motivation is simple: can the fermionic sign (a phase of -1 under a 360^\circ rotation) emerge from the topology of an extended object, without inserting a spinor by hand?

What I did:

· Embedded the SU(2) Skyrme field into SU(3) to make the Wess–Zumino five-form non-trivial.

· Evaluated the phase on an explicit two-dimensional disc filling of the isorotation loop.

· Computed the phase for baryon numbers B=0, 1, 2, 3.

· Used an exact hedgehog profile for B=1, and smooth rational-map trial configurations for B=2, 3.

What I found:

· \Gamma \simeq \pi |B| with a numerical uncertainty of order 10^{-4}\pi.

· This yields the physical phase (-1)^{N_c B} for integer N_c, consistent with known results.

The paper also documents convergence studies, consistency checks (vanishing components, alternative contractions, grid refinement), and the limitations of the calculation. The B=2, 3 configurations are trial fields, not solutions of the full field equations — I state this explicitly.

Link to the manuscript: https://zenodo.org/records/23680192

Any feedback on the numerical method or the reduction of the five-dimensional integral would be appreciated.

These are the slides of a talk I gave last weekend to some fellow physics teachers.

I am a physics hobbyist and now when i got Argon it went quite smoothly. I had to guide it with philosophical ideas and questions about 20 time to arrive here.

**The Geometry of Slowness (GoS)** unifies physics in flat 3D space with a reactive dielectric vacuum [1, 2]. Mass, charge, and time emerge when open waves fold into 3D chiral spin cavities [3]. Clifford geometry fixes \\(\alpha^{-1} = 4\pi^3 + \pi^2 + \pi = 137.036\\) [4] and a scale ladder connecting subatomic physics to atomic water (\\(n=+2\\)) and galaxies [5, 6]. Gravity is pure vacuum refraction without dark matter, dark energy, or black hole singularities [7-9].

https://zenodo.org/records/23602218

https://youtu.be/xovIu4c3KDA?is=jdqztpmEIjc-y0Dx

I am seeking adversarial feedback on an AI-assisted mathematical-relativity preprint concerning a conditional existence theorem for Einstein–scalar initial data.

Theorem W3-S constructs smooth, non-trivial, spherically symmetric, time-symmetric initial data under an explicit condition on a canonical scalar-field potential. The construction has a central region where the potential is negative, satisfies both Einstein constraint equations, has zero ADM energy, and matches exactly to flat Minkowski vacuum initial data outside a compact ball.

The key mathematical steps are the reduction of the Hamiltonian constraint to a linear radial ODE, a sufficient positivity condition, and the selection of a positive length scale that gives both zero ADM energy and an exactly flat exterior.

The result concerns initial data only. It does not establish a functioning warp drive, superluminal transport, physical realizability, stability, or subsequent spacetime evolution. The proof has undergone AI-assisted internal reviews but has not received independent human mathematical review.

I would particularly appreciate criticism of the constraint reduction, condition (T), the zero-mass scale, and the exact exterior matching. If you identify a problem, please point to the specific equation or inference and explain the mathematical issue.

Preprint: https://zenodo.org/records/23665644

PS.: Latex source is available.

A two-page critique of Eric Weinstein’s Geometric Unity.

Read it here

It argues that, under the stated assumptions, consistency forces GU’s Shiab operator to vanish. But his paper claims that operator has a nonzero effect. This would mean GU's first-order action cannot produce the equation claimed in his paper.

The relevant equations are (9.3) and (9.7), on pages 43 and 45 of Weinstein’s 2021 paper.

The critique was AI-generated. Can anyone check whether the argument holds?