Physics

1900 readers

34 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

-5

I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to explain physical phenomena based on the structure of the observer. (fedia.io)

submitted 22 hours ago by BlueberryAlice@fedia.io to c/physics@mander.xyz

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to explain physical phenomena based on the structure of the observer.

It attempts to connect relativity and quantum mechanics through the concept of the observer, which I found quite interesting.

I found a video explaining the idea, so I’m sharing it here: 👉 https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/c714dc8c-eb93-4317-b369-8e57fac880fc?artifac

Curious to hear what people think.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BlueberryAlice@fedia.io 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

@alzymologist@sopuli.xyz

I think that perspective—that it makes sense as metaphysics—is certainly understandable.

However, this research does not remain within that framework. It is constructed within the framework of physics, as it formulates hypotheses based on experimental data and further validates them through reproducible experiments.

If you’re interested, I’ve shared the original paper below. I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the actual data and structure, and share your honest thoughts.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403024962

[–] alzymologist@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 hours ago

I'm sorry, it's a bunch of nonsense; I'm always careful to disregard fringe paracademic works, but this one has undefined variables in experimental section, no clear experimental design description, and mixes random terms (AUC, for example, is not a statistics tool, but transceiver design abstraction) for no clear reason.

I could also anticipate correlation of generic metrics like random data's Ricci curvature based on abundance of similarly distributed noise in similar ADC components used both in EEG and pioneer quantum computation systems. So I'm not sure what I'm even looking at, but it sounds legit even without new effects; how could I tell one from another when I know little and less about what really was measured and how?

Thus, I'm not saying there is nothing behind the ideas, but this work is just not legitimate as it does not convey the idea nor its validation/fallibility at all.