There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

off_brand_ ,

Pop sci

The direct article: www.sciencedirect.com/…/S0927650524001130 (Jan 2025)

Reddit chatter about it: reddit.com/…/on_the_same_origin_of_quantum_physic…

Might be LLM bunk. If you’re consuming science news, then first: I recommend PBS Spacetime and second: if a quantum gravity was actually formulated, you’d hear about it there first. It might actually be exciting enough to make CNN.

More to the point though: this sorta thing is too good to be true. Plenty of things are, and are still real. But even still they bear a second glance. This one doesn’t pass the sniff test.

off_brand_ ,

No shade to OP. Something like this isn’t likey to trip BS alarms unless youre already aware of how big this should be. and it’s the kinda thing that isn’t sexy enough to grab public attention, which lends some credence.

like, I read a headline like, “FUSION MAKES POWER NOW, FUSION POWER PLANTS EXPECTED NEXT YEAR” and I know it’s BS. But part of that is the way it promises to affect your life, and it does do in terms of Fusion, which enough people would recognize so as to make their eyeballs valuable.

This article has neither of those really. So yeah. No shade.

(Edit: guess the words “magical equation” is a pretty quick tip off too lol)

floofloof OP ,

I had my suspicions but I wanted to see what others made of it. The headline was obviously dodgy, but that might just have been the reporting rather than the paper. And I glanced at the paper but didn’t dig through. Since then I had a slightly more careful poke through it, and sentences like this ring some pretty loud alarms:

The masses of electrons, muons, and tau can be explained by the different curvatures of universe, galaxy, and solar system, respectively.

Anyway, I appreciate your comments and the comments of the person you replied to. I should have recognized this for what it was.

GrabtharsHammer ,

This (www.sciencedirect.com/…/S0927650524001130?via%3Di…) appears to be the actual paper the article is talking about.

karmiclychee ,

Running the title though Google and looking at the discussions around it in various corners of the Internet seems to indicate it’s utter bunk.

thundermoose ,

The math here is beyond me, but this statement from the paper seems contradictory:

The obtained equation is covariant in space–time and invariant with respect to any Planck scale. Therefore, the constants of the universe can be reduced to only two quantities: Planck length and Planck time.

Planck time is derived from the speed of light and the gravitational constant. So wouldn’t there be at least four universal constants?

MossyFeathers ,

If a constant is defined by another constant, without a variable between, wouldn’t it be fair to simplify that into a single constant? Additionally, based solely on the article, it almost sounds like they’re inverting that, saying that Planck time and Planck length determine the speed of light and gravitational constant(?).

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •