this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2024
42 points (100.0% liked)

Science

13000 readers
3 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
Gaywallet@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org
42
Magical equation unites quantum physics, general relativity in a first (interestingengineering.com)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/science@beehaw.org
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Edit: The paper is total nonsense. Sorry for wasting people's time.

https://youtu.be/Yk_NjIPaZk4?si=dasxM2Py-s654djW

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 35 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

So, this has yet to be peer reviewed, and I am far from a theoretical physicist ... I certainly can't say its correct or incorrect.

It does seem ... too convenient. As in, how could it possibly have taken so many physicists so long to not just try this decades ago?

Basically, they throw the Planck Length and Planck energy (from Quantum Physics) into the Einstein Field Equation (from General Relativity) ...

... and are then able to mathematically derive basically the rest of the laws of physics, which seem to be quite close to or totally in line with the Standard Model (of Quantum Physics).

Unfortunately I do not see any direct comparisons if their predicted values for MeV's of fundamental particles with experimental data...

Anyway, the paper notes 2 interesting, direct implications:

  1. Dark Matter is not real, there's no need for it in this model. Galaxy rotation speeds work out to what we see without need for additional, unseen, mass.

  2. Either A, our universe is mirrored by and entangled with an antiuniverse of antiparticles which all travel backward through time (antitime?), or B, our universe is part of an evolution of ... prior(?) universe(s?) which generate black holes, which do not form singularities but instead create entangled white holes as other universes, expanding spacetimes.

Bonus conclusion:

The Fine Structure Constant may not actually be constant.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I'm not a physicist either, but I'm close enough to tell you that this:

We further modeled the universe using the equation with Einstein's lambda formalism and found that the universe dynamics could be considered as harmonic oscillators entangled with lambda curvature. This equation can be used to describe the energy transfer between two entangled spacetimes between the same universe and between any two universes (ER=EPR).

Sounds like gibberish. At the very least, these are all things they personally developed/made up. I'd read past the abstract, but it won't load for me. Has it already been removed?

The fact that the authors are from the most misconduct-y region of the academic world and are engineers also doesn't inspire confidence.

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hmm. Just me then. The rest of what I said stands.

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I have no inclination or standing to doubt you.

Hrm, Im on mobile, shittiest phone in the world, but maybe you can read these images. I can't copy paste the latex formulas so... lemme see if i can throw this all in a spoiler so it doesnt take up half this thread:

First few pages of the article

Another conjecture in physics is whether the Einstein-Rosen bridge (ER) and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR or entanglement) are physically equivalent. The ER=EPR conjecture awaits rigorous proof [3]. This work also provides further proof of this claim. This work is different from other attempts at unification: (i) string theory, which still lacks experimental observation of extra dimensions [[4], [5], [6]], (ii) loop quantum gravity, which still faces challenges in its compatibility with the Standard Model [7]. In our study, we assume that the new equation should be written in a unitless manner on the Planck scale. Current physical models require at least ten physical constants. Meanwhile, there remain only two constants used in this framework: Planck length and Planck time. In addition, the proposed equation can explain the Gravitational Wave Background (GWB) observed over 15 years by NANOGrav [8].

Applying the Onsager principle on reciprocal relation to the Einstein field equation (EFE), we infer that if a mass can create a curvature (EFE), the curvature can also create a mass. We recap the Ricci tensor before proving each claim in this work. An important concept inferred from the proposed equation is that relaxation of the curvature can create a mass. Because this is a theoretical work, it is organized by topic rather than by an ordinary experimental article structure.

After this its images as I cant copy pasta latex

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Onsager principle on reciprocal relation

That's thermodynamics. Another weird connection they have to explain somehow.

The rest you sent is basic explanations they could have lifted from Wikipedia, plus two equations where they shoehorn the Plank units into an expression of G using ≈. I'd give them credit for balancing the units like good engineers, at least, but this looks a lot like the equation for Hawking radiation temperature, so that may or may not be original work.

[–] drspod@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 month ago

If it was plausible this would be bigger news. There's a claim like this every couple of months and none have held up to scrutiny so far.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 18 points 1 month ago

I'll remain sceptic on the claim until the paper is peer reviewed by people who actually know the stuff in it, unlike me.

[–] OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927650524001130?via%3Dihub

Seems to be free access, for now

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I looked a little more closely at the paper and I'm no theoretical physicist but some of this looks pretty dubious on the surface. I don't know but it might just be nonsense.

For example:

The masses of electrons, muons, and tau can be explained by the different curvatures of universe, galaxy, and solar system, respectively.

Also, a search for some of the authors reveals that they publish on what seems like an odd range of topics, from materials science, through medicine and machine learning, to theoretical physics:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Pobporn-Danvirutai/5893053

https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Chavis-Srichan/48952334

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The masses of electrons, muons, and tau can be explained by the different curvatures of universe, galaxy, and solar system, respectively.

Yeah, that sounds like numerology. All three of those things are the same vague piles of dust, as far as fundamental physics is concerned.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Sabine Hossenfelder just released a video confirming that the paper is total nonsense:

https://youtu.be/Yk_NjIPaZk4?si=dasxM2Py-s654djW

[–] Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

We talking about Grand Unified Theory here?

[–] rimu@piefed.social 4 points 1 month ago

Sure sounds like it!

[–] manucode@infosec.pub 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's my gut feeling as well

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago

Yes, that is a synonym for the headline. Pretty doubtful this is real, though.

[–] obbeel@lemmy.eco.br 5 points 1 month ago

Planck units are the smallest packets of something, which is called quanta. Planck discovered he could get more accurate measurements if he separated the energy from radiation in small packages, which proved useful for other theories later.

[–] astro_ray@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago

It looks like some undergraduate's attempt at Grand Unified Theory. Also, what is Gellman matrix?