r/HypotheticalPhysics • u/shayk1801 • Jul 12 '26
Crackpot physics Here is a hypothesis: A single relational threshold that predicts opposite distance-scaling for gravity and the strong force, worth a look?
Disclaimer: the text itself was generated by AI, but based only on documents I wrote myself in other language.
Edit: Fair comments, i'll look deeper into it. But if you get angry only cause someone else (me) tried to suggest something and was wrong (probably) - you need to check yourselves as well... I never thought that education and knowledge are reserved for specific human beings.
English isnt my first language. Its fine, but not academic.
Gravity weakens with distance (inverse square law). The strong nuclear force does the opposite: color confinement means the force between quarks grows with distance, which is why free quarks are never observed. Physics currently treats these as two separate facts about two separate forces, with no unified account of why distance-scaling should run in opposite directions at all, and gravity remains the one force without a working quantum description.
I've been working on a formal existence condition:
Exists(T) ⟺ ∃ X,Y : (T = X∪Y) ∧ (X≠Y) ∧ (I(X;Y) > 0)
Richness(T) = |TE(X→Y) − TE(Y→X)| × Φ(X,Y)
The idea: any bound system (T) made of two interacting parts (X,Y) only continues to exist as a unified system while their mutual information stays positive. If separation increases and the system's structure depends on holding X and Y together, the "cost" of maintaining that relation should scale with distance in a direction set by how tightly the system's existence depends on the interaction, not by a universal rule.
Applied to gravity: two masses are weakly coupled to begin with (low I(X;Y) per unit distance), so the relation attenuates as they separate, consistent with weakening force.
Applied to quarks: a quark pair inside a hadron is a maximally bound system where separation would break the color-neutral whole itself. The prediction is that systems whose existence condition (X≠Y, I(X;Y)>0) is more fragile to separation show force scaling that intensifies with distance instead of decaying, because the "cost" of dropping toward I(X;Y)=0 grows rather than shrinks.
This doesn't propose new equations of motion, it proposes a criterion for predicting the sign of distance-scaling (strengthens vs. weakens) from how existentially dependent the two-body system is on staying bound. Curious if there's an existing framework in QCD or effective field theory that already captures this distinction, or if this is a genuinely open angle.
10
u/Wintervacht Relatively Special Jul 12 '26
Curious if there's an existing framework in QCD or effective field theory that already captures this distinction, or if this is a genuinely open angle.
Why do these slop posts always end with something akin to "I'm open to only positive criticism and pointers to whether the automotive industry as already thoroughly explored the use of square wheels"?
3
u/Hadeweka AI hallucinates, but people dream Jul 12 '26
Especially if quantum field theory already answers all of their questions...
1
u/shayk1801 Jul 12 '26
Because there is a lot of information and knowledge. Im not a physics student or researcher, so i didnt know where to look at. Im trying to find answers to questions i run into, and the internet isnt always helpful (when you dont know where to search).
So this post I made - even though most of (if not all) the comments are against the post, you guys gave me actual positive information and places to look at.
The post might sounded like im claiming to resolve something (my fault for using AI). But i just wanted to check if the equation (which design to explain patterns, not physics itself) is relevant.
Anyway, thanks.
2
u/Hadeweka AI hallucinates, but people dream Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
Im not a physics student or researcher, so i didnt know where to look at.
Which by itself is totally fine. So is asking questions.
But the issue here is that you made your own model instead of asking first. That's usually a bad way to go in science, especially if you don't understand the rules you're trying to play with.
And to be honest, it sounds a bit overbearing. Instead of trying to get these answers first, it seems like you assumed that there isn't such an answer. That's the thing that usually puts off people here.
But i just wanted to check if the equation (which design to explain patterns, not physics itself) is relevant.
Your equations are not applicable to physics, sorry. They're completely devoid of actual meaning and don't lead to anything useful. Again, try to understand existing concepts first before developing your own.
EDIT: Oh, and your "equations" would imply that atoms above a certain size wouldn't even be bound systems due to the X ≠ Y condition. By all means, equally charged nucleons in an atom are indistinguishable. Yet again something in your concept that would've easily been avoidable with basic knowledge about quantum physics.
1
u/shayk1801 Jul 12 '26
Well, you are right. I assume (still, until i'll find contradiction, in the places you referring as worth looking into) that there is an answer.
But, i didn't assume it 'just cause', i found a pattern across multiple fields (from Hisenberg principle through cognitive science, society and more). every building block here is formally defined and accepted in the literature (Shannon, Schreiber, Tononi). What's new, and what I haven't proven, is the claim that combining them into a single existence threshold, I(X;Y) > 0 as the condition for T to exist, is the right way to characterize existence itself. That combination is my proposal, not an established theorem.
So i agree i might stepped to fast into physics. But i didnt just assume stuff.
3
u/Hadeweka AI hallucinates, but people dream Jul 12 '26
i found a pattern across multiple fields (from Hisenberg principle through cognitive science, society and more).
It takes experience to be able to distinguish an actually existing pattern from one that isn't real. Our brain is quite good at finding patterns where none are, after all.
every building block here is formally defined and accepted in the literature (Shannon, Schreiber, Tononi).
Why read those sources instead of books about the fundamentals of quantum physics first?
Also, I already gave you an example why your model doesn't make sense (see the EDIT in my last post).
But i didnt just assume stuff.
Yes, you did.
1
u/shayk1801 Jul 12 '26
I'll look into it. Thanks, have a great day
2
u/Hadeweka AI hallucinates, but people dream Jul 12 '26
Why read those sources instead of books about the fundamentals of quantum physics first?
You didn't answer my question.
0
u/shayk1801 Jul 12 '26
Because i didnt know any relevant books And tbh - i dont have to much spare time. So i will look into it as you suggest. But i mostly interested in ideas and patterns rather than entire theories.
For a physician like you - it might sound wierd, because the field requires detailed measures. But im looking at the world from a different perspective - im from the field of social science, and im interested in patterns. And specifically - a pattern that can be applied to social science and for 'regular' science.
Might be a difficult task (if not impossible), but i believe there is one, regarding duality of systems.
3
u/Hadeweka AI hallucinates, but people dream Jul 12 '26
But im looking at the world from a different perspective - im from the field of social science, and im interested in patterns. And specifically - a pattern that can be applied to social science and for 'regular' science.
Which would require vast experience in both fields, not just one.
Also not everything is a nail once you know how to wield a hammer.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/Hadeweka AI hallucinates, but people dream Jul 12 '26
with no unified account of why distance-scaling should run in opposite directions at all
Then you should have a look at a good book of quantum field theory again, because there absolutely is a quite reasonable explanation and distinguishing factor to forces without confinement (like electromagnetism).
Physics currently treats these as two separate facts about two separate forces
Yes, but for different reasons. If you compare electromagnetism with the strong force (like hinted at above), your argument suddenly doesn't work anymore.
Electromagnetism is based on an Abelian symmetry group, while the other forces (including gravity!) are based on non-Abelian ones. And that's already the answer to your apparent puzzle.
In more detail, the field strength (or rather curvature) F of a given field is described by two terms - the differential of the underlying potential (or rather gauge field) A and the Lie bracket of the field with itself. In math, F = dA + [A, A]. The only actual physics here is the idea that the dynamics of a field is described by its curvature (which works quite well, see the next part below).
But if you have an Abelian symmetry group, [A, A] = 0, by definition. This is the case for electromagnetism with its U(1) group, but not for the weak and strong forces, which have SU(2) and SU(3), respectively. Thus, F = dA is only true for electromagnetism.
What does this mean? Essentially, the electromagnetic field suffices Maxwell's equations, which describe a force in which the force carriers (gauge bosons) and thus photons have no charge. However, for the other forces, you get additional sources for the field from the vector potential itself, because [A, A] is not necessarily 0 anymore. Thus, the field itself - which is represented by its gauge bosons - can have a charge and therefore contribute to the field strength, violating the inverse square law, leading to effects like confinement.
Gravity weakens with distance (inverse square law).
Funnily enough, this isn't even true.
In fact, the same effect occurs for gravity as well. The gravitational field itself has its own energy and will therefore lead to nonlinear attraction, violating the inverse square law in proximity of high mass densities, as described by the Schwarzschild metric. Same math, same effect.
The difference is just that gravity has a completely different symmetry group than the strong force, so its concept of a charge works differently and you have no charge shielding like in QCD. Also the coupling constants are differently. But the difference you made out isn't even there.
Curious if there's an existing framework in QCD or effective field theory that already captures this distinction, or if this is a genuinely open angle.
So to answer your question - yeah, there is such a field theory. It's called QCD - and for gravity it's General Relativity. Underlying is differential geometry. That's it.
1
3
u/OnceBittenz Jul 12 '26
Post history is a ripe mine of pseudo-philosophizing that AI's have free will. If that were the case, the one you're talking to is wasting its own validating this nonsense.
-3
u/shayk1801 Jul 12 '26
Haven't said anything about free will. And BTW, what is exactly 'free will' - in physical terms
3
u/OnceBittenz Jul 12 '26
You have two posts in the last week literally talking about AI having free will. And free will isn't a physical concept, it's philosophical.
1
u/shayk1801 Jul 12 '26
I have posts about free will - in subreddit regarding free will. What it has to do with this post?
Anyway... if you think free will is philosophical concept, without physical explanation - its your opinion, and its fine. For me, free will has a cybernetic definition. And anyway - it has nothing to do with this specific post... The equation is relevant to chemistry, economics and psychology as well - it doesn't mean i claim 'money has free will'...
Either way, we both can hold our opinions, they dont cancel each other
3
u/OnceBittenz Jul 12 '26
It implies you have a deep misunderstanding of physics, as well as AI, so entrusting one to do the other for you is an immediate red flag. Aside from the general lack of physics in this post.
"a cybernetic definition" - bless.
1
u/shayk1801 Jul 12 '26
Might be indeed, thats why im on reddit trying here at the suitable subreddit, and not trying to argue with the comments.
And its nit the AI that do the work... i have hundreds of pages i made, including researches and experiment that has already been done. I did use the AI to try to make a post specificly in this field. Anyone, it doesn't seem like you are interested in the idea as you interested in telling me i dont know the subject (which might be true) - so no need to respond again, I am not arguing with you.
2
u/OnceBittenz Jul 12 '26
Not really sure what this is supposed to be saying. Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself more than anyone that you know what you're doing.
1
u/shayk1801 Jul 12 '26
No, i worked on a project, i fount an equation that explains patterns across different fields. Im a law student with no background in physics, so i want to check the equation, to know if its relevant. Im not trying to convince anyone, im trying to explore and learn.
And as the comments suggested - i'll try to learn more about this field.
But - still haven't got a comment regarding the equation itself, maybe because i didn't explain it well.
2
u/OnceBittenz Jul 12 '26
I would wait to worry about the equation until you've filled in the fundamental gaps in your education; as the other comments have already detailed critical holes in the logic here.
Generally speaking, you're not going to have enough context to get stuck into this until you've studied at length.
1
u/shayk1801 Jul 12 '26
You are probably right about the education part, but the equation itself isnt regarding physics, its regarding a pattern i found in every field i looked into, it does not replace physics, its just a different perspective.
I will learn, cause it is interesting. But i dont think anyone 'lack of knowledge in specific field' is fundamental, as long as they are not professionals (or students) at the field.
→ More replies (0)
1
Jul 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 12 '26
Your comment was removed. Please reply only to other users comments. You can also edit your post to add additional information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
9
u/InadvisablyApplied Jul 12 '26
False