Jason Mosher

$100 to the first of tagged who can show why this fails: Δf/f = N κ / r κ = G m_p / c² ≈ 1.242×10^{-54} m Test at 3 scales: • nuclear r=10^{-15}m (N=1) • atomic r=10^{-10}m (N=1) • planetary r=10^6 m (realistic N) @skdh @seanmcarroll @carlorovelli @bgreene #Physics

@TMNguyenSFT @BlokeMan00 Why do you ask?

@JasonPaulMosher @BlokeMan00 In what regard?

The exact same problem keeps coming up in every unification attempt, whether in physics or the deep connections between number theory and quantum mechanics: it's the inverse spectral problem. You have a set of observed eigenvalues—the imaginary parts of the Riemann zeta zeros, particle masses and couplings, energy levels in chaotic quantum systems, or whatever should unify gravity with everything else—but how do you construct the actual self-adjoint operator (Hermitian matrix or Hamiltonian) that produces exactly that spectrum?This issue never goes away. In the Hilbert-Pólya conjecture it’s about finding the operator whose eigenvalues are the zeta zeros. In quantum chaos and random matrix theory, the zeros follow GUE statistics but no one has the real underlying quantum system nailed down. In GUTs, string theory landscapes, Connes’ noncommutative geometry, E8 models, or spectral triples, you’re always left tuning some operator or moduli space so its spectrum matches reality, yet no unique natural choice ever emerges. Forward computation (diagonalize and get the spectrum) is easy; the inverse is brutally hard, which is why every unification framework stalls at the same point.I believe all of this can be solved with the correctly tuned matrix. Instead of guessing another analytic Hamiltonian, we parameterize a trainable Hermitian operator—like the one in my VInfinityMAXLab script—then optimize its elements directly against the unfolded zeta-zero spacings using gradient descent. Scale that up, refine the parameterization, and the matrix will lock onto the true underlying operator. Its spectrum will give the exact zeta zeros (proving RH in the process), the particle spectrum will drop out naturally, and the unification will be explicit rather than conjectural. The numerical toy lab already shows it works at moderate N; the full solution is just better tuning of the right matrix.

@TMNguyenSFT @BlokeMan00 You gotta know this is woefully incomplete yeah?

@BlokeMan00 All here. The math from Lagrangian to operator is formalized in Lean 4. zenodo.org/records/197006…

@prattprattpratt Heard you need this. youtube.com/shorts/xRkx2Wp…

@QuestionAbyss Well, I still suck at physics and I am okay with it. So... Today.

When was the last time you were a beginner at something and felt okay with being bad at it till you got good?

@bryan_johnson We have something in common.

Just gave Kate oral sex. Goodnight everyone.

@QuantumTumbler I agree, that doesn’t make the underlying process binary, it just means you’re sampling it that way. I gave two cases, one more similar to what you just said, but not the crayons version of the pendulum, more serious than that. The other case more literal, can share if u like.

You’re still mixing description with ontology. Yes, you can approximate a continuous system with binary state changes that’s what measurement and encoding do. But that doesn’t make the underlying process binary, it just means you’re sampling it that way. A pendulum is a perfect example: you can label left/right, crossing/not-crossing, etc. That’s useful but the dynamics are governed by continuous variables (angle, velocity, energy), not two discrete states underneath. So the binary isn’t fundamental, it’s a measurement framework layered on top of a continuous system. The distinction matters, because confusing the two turns a tool into a claim about reality itself.

If you had to bet everything on one thing you believe is true about reality… what would it be? And more importantly, what would it take to prove you wrong?

@BlokeMan00 Meanwhile, this guy makes stuff up for a living or talks about stuff we already know.

@BlokeMan00 I've shared. Not one is listening.

@WKCosmo @ThomasVanRiet2 Are you saying SUSY is sus? 😉

I'm not suggesting that the absence of low-scale SUSY rules out high-scale SUSY, that would be dumb. I'm just saying that we looked for SUSY in a place where we — for very good reasons — expected it to be, and didn't find it. There's nothing stopping that from being the case twice.

So hear me out. What happens if we quit insisting that the universe is supersymmetric? Because every measurement indicates that it's ... not supersymmetric.

This is why physicists need to talk to philosophers. How can you tell if the question, or the way your asking it, even makes sense?

@QuestionAbyss Interpret Ehrenfest as Langrange points; objects precariously perched on a point, not nested in a well. Speed doesn't come in to play for that reason and radius; 4D does still falls off and I would assume at some r, c is enough. But there's a slight gap. 4D could be stable...

In a 4D world, would the "container-nature" of a black hole expand until it swallowed the entire universe, since the speed of light is too slow to fight 1/r^3 gravity?

No, don’t flip the frame now. I’m not the one making the claim. You are. You’re saying gene editing, animal DNA transfer, specific mutations causing harm, coordinated intent all of that. That’s not “we don’t know.” That’s a very specific story. If you’re making a claim like that, you need mechanism + evidence + reproducibility. Not screenshots, not podcasts, not associations. VUS literally means unknown. You’re turning “unknown” into “this must be something specific.” That’s backwards. And “everyone has mutations” isn’t me dodging that’s baseline biology. Without showing what’s different, you don’t have a signal. You don’t get to assert something detailed and then retreat to “well we both don’t know.” That’s not how this works.

@QuestionAbyss Yes. This is why I love physics, seeing the absolute genius in the simplicity of observations. The iterative nature of Tangherlini's 1963 extension spotlights physics historical handoffs. The thought I'm left with is can a 4th dimension exist at all? Should have been a physicist.

Do you agree with Paul Ehrenfest's paper that shows that stable orbits for planets are only possible in a universe with exactly 3 spatial dimensions?

@QuantumTumbler Fair and point taken; I owe precision if we're being serious. Processes with state changes are generally binary, the rest can be understood (measured and predicted) with this binary. A pendulum as an example might be fun (a continuous process described by the binary actions)

You’re just redefining “binary” to mean “we can distinguish a change.” That’s not the same claim. Of course we can label before/after or this/not-this that’s just how measurement works. It doesn’t mean the underlying system is fundamentally binary. Continuous systems still produce distinguishable transitions without being two-state underneath. You’re collapsing “detectable difference” into “binary reality,” and those aren’t the same thing.

@skdh Infinite is not big, they're out there.

In today's video I discuss a proposed new explanation for the Fermi Paradox youtube.com/watch?v=UsS6bO…

@QuantumTumbler Not notation like 0/1, not the claim. Physically meaningful state changes: before/after, changed/unchanged, this/not this. That’s binary at the level of relation, knowable through distinguishable state changes, gadients, transitions, frequency shifts.

That’s mixing description with reality. Binary is a representation we use (on/off, 0/1), not a fundamental requirement of nature. Plenty of systems are continuous fields, wavefunctions, analog signals where state isn’t just two values. Even in physics, when things look discrete, the underlying dynamics aren’t just flipping between two states. So it’s not that “everything is binary,” it’s that binary is a convenient way we encode and measure parts of it.

I have no idea but a I am certainly going to check it out @QuestionAbyss

@entropie42 @PhysInHistory ♾️ is hard for some to grasp logically but I feel like if you can grasp it, feels logical. Tied very tightly to human perception and perspective: Things must start and end according to all we know. In that sense, it is a simulation, because the reality, those are constructs.

@JasonPaulMosher @PhysInHistory Confusion arises when one forgets the limits of natural science: asking how something new can emerge from what is already given. The question of how everything could come into existence from nothing lies far beyond science’s domain — it belongs to the realm of mysticism.

If the universe began with the Big Bang, what existed before it? And if the answer is "nothing" - can nothing even exist? ✍️