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

@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.

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?

@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? ✍️

@QualiaQuanta @DiracGhost Hey Jenny: On Flat galactic rotation curves from baryonic matter alone and MOND acceleration scale a₀ = cH₀/2π = the same result from different foundations and a convergence that warrants mutual citation. I'll be updating. zenodo.org/records/198919…

Try this: preprints.org/manuscript/202… Any GUT + Gravity single field theory retaining U(1) symmetry for EM and charge quantization must be on complex Hopf and complex Hopf forces a Beltrami flow which has eigenvalues corresponding to all particle masses. Also dark matter and dark energy are no longer a thing, just result of torsion-modified cosmology from nontrivial fibration.

Just finished this short (19 pages) article titled 'Grand Unified Theory' by Manuel Brandli (ETH Zurich), on the subject of, grand unified theory of physics, and it's a wonderful primer that I would highly recommend. Not much material on GUT out there, outside of Raby arXiv primer, if you have any recommendations on that subject, you're welcome to post it in the comments!

@AlessandroStru4 assume what gives you the desired conclusion, then call the assumptions "general principles", works every time 👌

@engineers_feed Humans are on the same cycle they've always been on.

Humans are still evolving.

@forallcurious First. Prove what time is, or, I'd settle on agreeing to what it is.

🚨: Physicists "turn back time" by returning the state of a quantum computer a fraction of a second into the past, possibly proving the second law of thermodynamics can be violated.

@pmddomingos It won't. You have to already be smart.

AI will make a genius of you.

@PhilosophyOfPhy Its not a mystery, it an impossible hypothetical. The solution is, as applied, the box would never exist, can't ever exist. Its like 3 body. You can't have any object at any position at any velocity, orbits are a balance and so 3 body allows impossible scenarios.

The measurement problem is one of the deepest unsolved mysteries in physics. It was first made precise by John von Neumann in 1932, building on the ideas of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. At its core, it asks a simple but uncomfortable question: If quantum mechanics is correct… why do we always see definite outcomes? According to the Schrödinger equation: iħ ∂|ψ⟩/∂t = H|ψ⟩ This equation governs how quantum systems evolve. And it is linear. That means if a system is in a superposition, it stays in a superposition. Always. Now take a simple quantum state: |+⟩ = (1/√2)(|u⟩ + |d⟩) When we measure it, quantum mechanics says the system and the measuring device become entangled: (1/√2)(|u, up⟩ + |d, down⟩) But here is the problem: There is nothing in the theory that selects one outcome. No rule that says “this one becomes real.” Yet in reality, we never see superpositions. We never see both outcomes. Only one. This is the measurement problem. Erwin Schrödinger illustrated it with his famous thought experiment: A cat, linked to a quantum event, becomes both alive and dead. Not metaphorically. Literally, according to the math. But when we open the box, we never find a blurred cat. We always see one reality. So what happened? Bohr simply said: the wavefunction collapses. But collapse is not part of the Schrödinger equation. It is added by hand. This creates a deep tension: One part of quantum theory is smooth and deterministic. Another part is abrupt and unexplained. Philosophers like Tim Maudlin argue this is not just confusion. It is a sign that the theory is incomplete. Because: Unitary evolution never gives a single outcome The Born rule is not derived, only assumed And collapse has no clear physical trigger So physicists proposed alternatives. Many-Worlds says nothing collapses. All outcomes happen. Reality splits. Bohmian mechanics says particles always have definite positions. Hidden variables guide them. GRW modifies the equations. Collapse becomes a real physical process. Decoherence explains why superpositions disappear in practice. But it still does not explain why only one outcome occurs. So after nearly 100 years, we are left with this: The most successful theory in physics cannot explain how reality becomes definite. And maybe the real question is not just about measurement… But about what reality actually is.

@Hitchslap1 Yeeeeahhh. The let the children lead thing has already been proven a bad idea.

Society should identify high IQ children as early as possible, then put them to work solving the world’s problems. What could be more important?

@CharlesMullins2 Space and time are human defined. Any measure of time, as long as it CAN derive was and now is, produces both length and length frequency. Atomic clocks do this well: A change in timing is a change in frequency = how fast and far. And all sympathetic to c.

🚨 What if gravity itself breaks at the start of the universe? Right now, physics is split • Einstein explains gravity (big things) • Quantum mechanics explains particles (small things) But at the Big Bang… both had to work at the same time And they don’t fit together. That’s why scientists are chasing quantum gravity a theory where space, time, and energy all come from the same underlying structure. Here’s the real twist: If quantum gravity is right, then space and time aren’t fundamental. They emerge. The beginning of the universe wasn’t an explosion in space… It may have been the formation of space itself. Follow me I break reality down to structure, not assumptions.