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.

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] aldhissla@piefed.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Looks like a whole bunch of nonsense by and for people with no understanding of the purpose or even the structure of academic research. The author is a "Bachelor of Business Administration" with an apparent penchant for arcane scientific-sounding babble.

Read any proper publication, and you'll see every word and thought thoroughly explained or reduced to common (if perhaps field-specific) knowledge. The abstract is short enough to give a cursory overview, and doesn't dump a page's worth of the author's favourite sciency-sounding words and symbols.

Here's an example (supposed to be without a paywall): https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3641399.3641443

Note the format, length, and wording of the abstract, the authors' credentials (both field-relevant and at least graduate-level), the conciseness of the discussion, etc.

Compare this to Watanabe's efforts to convince you (and whoever else reads his stuff) that he's smart. Very, very smart. Way smarter than you. Way smarter than the people who don't realise his smartness. The least he expects of you is unearned respect, but I'm willing to bet he's monetising this.

If this was the 00s, he'd probably have one of these websites (PSA: don't download or install anything):

Kryptochef: https://web.archive.org/web/20060613200332/http://kryptochef.net/index2e.htm

Timecube: https://web.archive.org/web/20100127184015/http://www.timecube.com/

[–] BlueberryAlice@fedia.io 1 points 7 hours ago

@aldhissla@piefed.world

Your point seems to be missing the actual subject of discussion.

What I am asking for—even if you disagree—is a rebuttal based on scientific reasoning and evidence regarding the content itself.

That is the minimum level of respect owed when an author presents a theory derived from experimental data.

As it stands, it looks like you’re unable to provide a convincing counterargument to the actual content, so instead you’re focusing on superficial points that are easy to attack just to pass the time.

[–] alzymologist@sopuli.xyz 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Is it some metaphysics? Then is sure makes sense, as much as any other metaphysics. It's not physics then though, but that's totally ok.

[–] 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.

[–] farngis_mcgiles@sh.itjust.works 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

this is garbage science and the video offers no specific information most likely on purpose

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

@farngis_mcgiles@sh.itjust.works

“The hypothesis in this video is derived from experimental data presented in the original paper. If you’d like, I can share it with you—I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts after you’ve had a chance to read it.

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