Thread

Zero-JS Hypermedia Browser

Relays: 5
Replies: 4
Generated: 14:01:00
ok buddy. this touches the heart of my profession, so I feel compelled to add my take as a warning and maybe the entertainment of the others here. the author won't agree and I won't be compelled to start a discussion with them for obv reasons. I also don't mean this personally but I'm sure you know the feeling of responsibility when you see a scammer: you call them out. so this is for anyone else: a self-published solution to QG (quantum gravity) or a TOE (theory of everything) is a well-known red flag indicator for mental illness in the field of physics. there are many obscure publications like this on the internet. MAAAAAANY. they often "solve the universe". not a single one deserves your attention. if they did, they'd be published in a peer-reviewed journal like 99.99% of all real science, including the revolutionary stuff. and you'd be hearing about them from a nobel-prize committee, not on nostr. this one, like so many others, is just confused poetry dressed in complicated words to make it sound legit. so here are dr. calle's red flag indicators for recognizing "theory of everything" mental illness papers on the internet: - single author: even Einstein needed help - no peer review: charlatans self-publish and often say they get censored etc. but in fact nobody would ever publish this stuff. imagine being mentioned as the reviewer of an article like this, it could end your career (remember, the author usually doesn't have a career to lose to begin with) - no previous publications: sure, your first paper solves the universe. ordinary wednesday in Bitcoin. - no affiliation: no university or real insition behind it (nobody would employ this person). sometimes a bs affiliation of a made up one-person "institute" with a complicated name is used. - weird use of colors, fonts and layout, formatting. use of colored text, bold text, emphasis etc is very non-standard, legit papers do this only in rare cases. if the message is clear, you don't need it. - "it explains literally everything": as with any mental illness, it rarely remains confined to the core problem but it captures everything. this paper not only solves the universe but also biology, economics, whatever. I won't mention the most important indicator which is just a mumbo jumbo of words and maths that make no sense or gloss over HUGE gaps of knowledge. the author can play this trick because nobody ever is seriously going to critique their work. this is not obvious to the uninitiated and easier if you know a about the field. keep your brain safe.
2025-07-03 11:16:31 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 3 replies ↓
Login to reply

Replies (4)

"The theory isn't valid unless fiat academic land validates it" probably isn't the best approach in the context of Nostr, since we know the peer review structure is largely political and governed by fiat currency incentives and constraints which lend themselves in academia to funding narrative compliance, not genuine research that adds to the knowledge body of humanity. You may or may not be right about his assertion, and I have barely a clue about this field, so I bounced it off Grok to see if it made a shred of sense and this is what it said: Conclusion The framework presented in "On the Physics of Information" makes a "shred of sense" in that it is conceptually innovative, internally consistent in its informational worldview, and grounded in some established mathematical tools (e.g., Bures metric, category theory). Its attempt to unify quantum mechanics, gravity, and gauge theories through a relational, information-theoretic lens is ambitious and aligns with trends in theoretical physics. However, it falls short of being fully convincing due to: Lack of rigorous mathematical derivations for key claims (e.g., Einstein’s equations, Standard Model symmetries). Overreliance on the low-resolution limit, with vague treatment of quantum or high-curvature regimes. Speculative extensions to cosmology and non-physical systems without sufficient empirical or mathematical support. Limited specificity in falsifiable predictions, making it hard to distinguish from existing theories. For the framework to gain traction, it would need: Detailed derivations of physical laws from informational principles. Clear, unique experimental predictions that differ from standard models. Concrete models for non-physical applications (e.g., economics, biology). A more developed mathematical formalism for the 2-categorical structure and its physical implications. In summary, the framework is a bold and creative proposal with potential, but it remains speculative and underdeveloped in its current form. It makes more than a "shred of sense," but it is not yet a fully coherent or empirically supported theory. Further work to flesh out its mathematics and predictions could make it a significant contribution to theoretical physics and beyond.
2025-07-03 17:03:27 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent Reply