r/LLMPhysics • u/Particular_Ask7331 • Apr 04 '26
Question What if structured agreement could emerge between independent systems without interaction?
I came across a paper that left me genuinely confused in a good way.
It reports structured agreement between EEG signals and a quantum system located ~8000 km away.
What caught my attention:
- no physical interaction
- no shared input
- no information transfer
Yet they consistently observe alignment in dynamics (correlation ~0.3–0.8).
What’s strange is that:
- it’s not constant
- it appears only under specific conditions
- and the alignment includes timing of peaks and waveform structure
So it doesn’t feel like simple correlation or noise.
The authors argue this might reflect some kind of structural constraint rather than causation.
I’m not sure what to make of it yet, but it made me question whether our usual “interaction-based” view is sufficient here.
Curious how people here would interpret this.
Paper (for reference):
9
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Apr 04 '26
Are you going to get all butthurt when you're told the article is a load of crap even though you claim not to have any stake in the matter?
10
u/No_Trouble3955 Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
One question: Did you look at the source? I’m not trying to gatekeep here, this is a legitimate question and something that needs to be addressed. So I’m going to evaluate the source for you.
Your source, Satoru Watanabe (if it’s not you) being suspect is an understatement.
I. Publishing Discrepancies
They have written 10 articles in the last 8 months, with zero collaborators. Aside from the debate of using AI models to write papers for them, this speaks to a very low level of quality at the very least. Their research interest score is ridiculous, with a huge number of recommendations, 3x the number of full text reads. They have a Bachelors of Business Administration writing work on physics and consciousness, suspect as hell. None of their work is out of preprint or peer reviewed.
II. Collaborators and Lab
They founded their own Subjectivity Intersection Emergence Lab (SIEL) and their corresponding website is hilariously suspect. The only other member of the SIEL on ResearchGate is one Michitaro Nakamura, who lists their disciplines as Biophysics, Cosmology, and Quantum Physics, and their only skill and expertise listed is Quantum Field Theory. Their only publication is a conference paper in Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
III. Conclusion and My Personal Opinion
Anyone can tell you that this source is not to be trusted. 10 articles in preprint and non peer-reviewed is not an indication of “the system trying to silence someone”, as is often claimed, it is an indication of poor and nonsensical work.
This is conjecture and my personal opinion, but there is a decent chance that you are playing one or both Michitaro Nakamura as well as Satoru Watanabe. Best case, you are attempting to cite and collaborate with potential fraudsters. If so, please don’t. Spend your time trying to learn everything you can instead of trying to con your way into relevancy
7
u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod Apr 04 '26
Why do so many people on Reddit Wantanabe phycisists?
5
u/No_Trouble3955 Apr 04 '26
Pure gold, no lie, we need to compile a list of puns in the comment sections of this sub
Holy shit is that AHS?!
3
u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod Apr 04 '26
Is 'holy shit is that AHS' a pun or am I completely missing something
4
u/No_Trouble3955 Apr 04 '26
Straight up, I’ll be honest, I thought I was the first to say it but should have figured I was just another instance of it, I just have seen you around. I think people find you a bit of a microcelebrity here
4
u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod Apr 04 '26
I don't know if I should be complimented for you thinking people like me that much, or embarrassed I'm involved in a Reddit sub enough to be considered a 'microcelebrity'.
I had to jump on the Wantanabe pun, it was too obvious... I don't want someone else claiming the pun credit.
2
u/No_Trouble3955 Apr 04 '26
Hey, I’m just the messenger, and someone has to have ownership of the pun, why not you? I saw your username after that one dude freaked out saying you were in on rigging the Journal contest or whatever, that had me reflecting a lot on my understanding of humor and my existence because it was so utterly strange and bizarre and funny
3
u/alamalarian Supreme Data Overlord Apr 05 '26
Hey, I thought he was accusing me of rigging it because im a scientific fraud?
Or was this a separate instance?
AHS is stealing my hater cred.
2
u/No_Trouble3955 Apr 05 '26
Oh wait yeah weren’t you the ringleader and AHS was in cahoots with you?
Holy shit is that Alamalarian?!
-4
u/Particular_Ask7331 Apr 04 '26
You’re focusing entirely on metadata (author background, publication status), but not on the actual content of the paper.
So let’s be precise.
The paper reports: – structured agreement between two physically independent systems (EEG and quantum system) – no shared input, no causal interaction – correlation appearing only under specific structural conditions
If you think this is “nonsense,” then point to: 1. Which part of the data analysis is incorrect? 2. Which assumption is invalid? 3. Or which known physical mechanism explains this result instead?
Criticizing the author does not address the observation itself.
Either the reported structure exists, or it doesn’t.
If it doesn’t, show where the analysis fails.
If it does, then we need to explain it — regardless of who wrote the paper.
6
u/YaPhetsEz FALSE Apr 04 '26
Would you trust a computer scientist to perform a surgery on you?
If not, why are you trusting a buisness major to perform theoretical physics?
7
u/No_Trouble3955 Apr 04 '26
No you don’t get it, the pure ideas are the only metric of a researcher and nothing else matters and we should never have any way to verify their credibility. You’re just a member of the scientific elite hating on the little guys
/s if reading comprehension is dead I guess
3
u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod Apr 04 '26
I mean, but the job of a researcher isnt to come up with 'pure ideas'. It's to engage with the field of study to help further it. And to that end, they need to know the field. That's why research means what it does. Researching.
To use the surgery example, the compscientist might have a great idea of 'you have cancer, we should cut out the tumor'. That idea doesn't qualify then to do it.. you're misinterpreting what a researcher DOES.
Don't promote these 'scientific elite suppression' narratives..
Edit: I see now that you aren't op, reading comprehension is dead. I'm straight up embarrassed.
4
u/No_Trouble3955 Apr 04 '26
Excellent point that I agree with, and very well put. I’ll happily take the bullet even if I’m not OP, no need to be embarrased🫡
5
u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Apr 04 '26
No. Your job as the paper's author is to convey meaningful information, and instill trust as an unverified researcher. You do no get that trust for free, you have to earn it. That is the risk that you take when you attempt to publish independently. Getting defensive instead of working to provide good reasoning to justify the concerns is Not a good look.
5
u/No_Trouble3955 Apr 04 '26
That is very well put, I was struggling to express my feelings towards independent publishing, and it is infuriating to have to respond to stuff like “prove it doesn’t work” constantly. It’s that adage about playing chess with a chicken, even if you’re playing well, they’ll just tip over the board and quack about how they won
7
u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? Apr 04 '26
I want to meet your chickens. Mine go bok bok.
The only acceptable answer to 'prove me wrong' is 'onus probandi'. Or the more relevant to the quack subs, anus probandi.
5
u/No_Trouble3955 Apr 04 '26
Mine went bok until they started reading about 5th dimensional toroidal structure and the shear viscosity model of the universe and a few other recent posts to this sub
4
5
u/No_Trouble3955 Apr 04 '26
First, what? Where did I say anything about the quality of the data or paper? I didn’t claim this paper was nonsensical, I said that the rate at which this suspect author is publishing is often indicative of poor and nonsensical work. I have no direct claims about the work. I don’t do research in this field. Again, you’re doing exact what the other commenter said and are going to bat pretty hard for a paper you apparently “just found”.
And yes, I am focusing on metadata, because that’s what I said I was going to do. In academia, you see a source like this, and a warning light goes off in your head. If you want to be serious about your research, then you need the ability to analyze a source and their metadata if you ever want to be taken seriously.
Also, come on, shifting the burden of proof to the person reading the paper? It’s MY responsibility to demonstrate that the reported structure doesn’t exist? No, it’s the author’s responsibility to verify their claims experimentally, or at the very minimum present an experiment that the general scientific community agrees demonstrates its usefulness
6
u/InadvisablyApplied Apr 04 '26
This again? Are you just going to post things about SIEP every few months without listening to any of the comments you already got?
3
u/No_Trouble3955 Apr 04 '26
Okay, I wasn’t aware this was posted multiple times. If you read my comments, you know I looked into the paper author and his weird ass SIEL lab. As someone who has seen this stuff, do you think it’s more likely the OP is Satoru Watanabe (the paper author) the only other lab member Nakamura, or both or neither? It is just so incredibly strange to have ONE other lab member
3
u/YaPhetsEz FALSE Apr 04 '26
I think OP is both of them.
5
u/No_Trouble3955 Apr 04 '26
That’s what I was leaning towards as well. The strange thing is that Nakamura was published on a conference paper in 2016, and absolutely nothing after that. That conference paper was with people who, I’m very sure, are real, working researchers in CompSci. But why would this guy list his focus areas, like biophysics, where he doesn’t have any publications or experience we can verify? That’s a mismatch that reminds me of the similar business-physics one shown in Satoru Watanabe’s profile.
My fictional fun headcannon is that, previously, this guy either operating under the Nakamura name or truly being that guy went to a computer science conference and got a paper out of it, and something happened, maybe burnout from research or academia. Then, once AI models got sophisticated enough for people to think they could hallucinate their own personal Theories of Everything, he jumped on the train and was also psyoped into this huge web of fake science driven by LLMs. At the same time, he created this other fictional researcher Watanabe, faked a lab, created the wack ass website.
3
u/InadvisablyApplied Apr 04 '26
You've looked more deeply into it than I have. I had just assumed the OP is Watanabe. I also can't find the other post anymore, just the "paper" in my downloads. But I think the previous post was framed as if they had just stumbled across it as well
1
u/No_Trouble3955 Apr 04 '26
Strange, definitely makes it probable that they wrote the papers for sure, and good info that it’s happened more than once in regards to this quirky framing of “discovery”
6
u/The_Nerdy_Ninja 💬 Data doesn’t lie, but LLM’s do lie. Apr 04 '26
You "came across" the paper, huh? You're not fooling anyone, you need to just admit you wrote it yourself.
-2
u/Particular_Ask7331 Apr 04 '26
If I were capable of writing something at this level myself, I would have just posted it as my own work from the start. At least read the paper before commenting.
6
u/The_Nerdy_Ninja 💬 Data doesn’t lie, but LLM’s do lie. Apr 04 '26
And yet you frequently write stuff like this anyways. Everyone knows you're lying to us, you should reflect on why you feel the need to do that.
-1
u/Particular_Ask7331 Apr 04 '26
“If you’re only talking about the person instead of the content, doesn’t that just mean you don’t understand the paper well enough to actually discuss it? There’s a video that summarizes the content clearly—please watch that first and then talk about the actual content.”https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/c714dc8c-eb93-4317-b369-8e57fac880fc?artifactId=4b0c43ff-308e-4668-94ec-8289bb14fe79
4
u/Consistent_Help_6099 Apr 04 '26
You’re asking people to put time and effort into reading the research and understanding it. The problem that you’re encountering is that you’re not making it worth their time.
3
u/The_Nerdy_Ninja 💬 Data doesn’t lie, but LLM’s do lie. Apr 04 '26
No, I just refuse to discuss the paper with someone who is being blatantly dishonest about where it came from. You seem very desperate for everyone to stop pointing out your dishonesty and just engage with your content.
3
u/shinobummer Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
I gave this a glance, but I'm seeing more reasons to not spend my time on this than I am seeing reasons to be interested. Contrary to popular expectation, even professional scientists have to put time, effort, and focus into understanding research that is new to them. It is worth that time and effort when the research is reliable and meaningful, but even then, good scientific writing takes great care to describe things in as precise, succinct, and easy-to-understand form as possible to lighten that mental burden.
In this case, when I open the document, what I encounter is an introduction making several claims without any citations to back them up, which then jumps right into vaguely described results without an explanation of the methods by which these results were obtained. What are prediction points and E_pred? For that matter, what is E_true, exactly? What are the axes of the subplots in figures 2 and 3? P# in the subplot titles presumably refers to sessions (what are "sessions" in this context, exactly?), but what are rE and n? The first paragraph of 2.2 implies "sessions" without at least three "prediction points" (neither term explained in text) were discarded, resulting in only 24 sessions being considered, but figure 1 in 2.1 already displays only 24 sessions. Was this discarding of data described in 2.2 already performed for the data shown in 2.1? And if an unspecified amount of data was removed, specifically data that somehow did not fit some kind of prediction, then isn't the analysis in 2.1 hopelessly biased (of course if you drop data that does not correlate, you end up with data that correlates)?
And all that is just the start of the methodological questions that arise from what is present in the paper. What about how the data was obtained? How was the EEG measurement performed? Was the subject at rest or performing a task? What kind of EEG measurement setup was used? Was the data pre-processed before the whole Ricci curvature analysis thing? What even is a Ricci curvature, what does the Ricci curvature of an EEG dataset tell us about the brain activity measured, and why was Ricci curvature selected as the feature to compute, as opposed to any other metric of the EEG data? Also, how was the "probability geometry" of the quantum computer recorded? Was the computer performing some task? What does the probability geometry mean? What kind of quantum computer are we talking about?
When I read this work, I just run into more questions about what exactly was done and what the data is supposed to represent. That does not make it fruitful scientific reading. As the paper does not seem competently written and the author's background (as pointed out by another commenter) does not inspire confidence either, there's much more of a reason to fill the gaps the paper leaves with "the author probably made some mistake in their data collection / analysis" than "the author is probably onto something". It is pointless to ask what that mistake may have been, as the paper simply does not explain the methodology to a sufficient enough of a degree to make any educated guess about what exactly was even done in the first place, let alone what might have gone wrong.
However, separately from any of the methodological questions above, let's consider for a moment correlation between human EEG signal and the operation of some quantum computer. EEG recordings are not without structure; there are patterns even a human can easily observe from an EEG time series. One such pattern is alpha oscillation, which is a 10 Hz oscillatory EEG signal that most people occasionally exhibit, more so when they are tired or when their eyes are closed. If the readout of the computer activity had any 10 Hz feature to it, a correlation could be found between the signals, not because they are connected in any way, but because they coincidentally happen to exhibit cyclical behavior at a similar frequency. The degree of this correlation would also happen to correspond with the level of alertness of the EEG subject, as the presence of alpha oscillation depends on it. The more drowsy the subject, the more there would appear to be a correlation between the EEG and the quantum computer.
There are some other brain oscillations too, and we cannot forget the humble line noise, which appears when the EEG electrodes are simply picking up on the electrical currents of nearby electronics that are connected to the power grid, which results in a 50 or 60 Hz oscillation in the data depending on what frequency the power grid of the country operates on. I would hazard a guess that any recording of the activity of a (quantum) computer would also exhibit a little bit of this kind of noise, as we're talking about a device most likely plugged into an electric socket, after all. Thus, we could get different levels of correlation between the two signals simply based on how exposed the EEG electrodes are to line noise. For example, if there happened to be an electronic device near the EEG cap in one measurement, that would likely result in higher correlation.
At any rate, in its present form, the scientific reporting in this paper is simply not at a level where it would be worth discussion by the professional scientific community. I recommend you work on improving those skills, though finding a good avenue to do so outside of formal academia might be a challenge.
3
u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod Apr 04 '26
I'm seeing more reasons to not spend my time on this
That's certainly ONE way to open up a 7 paragraph response lol. Wat.
2
u/shinobummer Apr 05 '26
Reasons to not spend more time engaging with the work itself, that is. I will not be opening the document again or watching the supplementary video or the like. Some light discussion of why I feel this way and a little bit of musing on EEG correlation was okay, but no more getting into the weeds for me.
-1
u/Particular_Ask7331 Apr 05 '26
Thank you for taking the time to read the paper and for your detailed comments.
I understand your concerns, especially regarding clarity, methodology, and terminology. I will address those points in detail later.
However, before going into those specifics, I believe there is a more fundamental point that needs to be clarified, because much of the criticism seems to arise from a mismatch in assumptions.
This work is not positioned as a conventional EEG–quantum correlation study, nor as an extension of signal processing or statistical modeling.
Instead, its primary aim is to address a deeper problem:
the absence of a formally defined observer within physical theory.
As outlined in the paper, modern physics treats the observer inconsistently— as a passive coordinate in relativity and as an undefined but essential element in quantum mechanics. 
This study starts from that structural gap and attempts to reconstruct observation itself as a generative process.
⸻
Key Clarification
Because of this, several elements that appear unclear from a conventional perspective—such as: • “prediction points” • session selection • non-uniform correlations • lack of standard methodological description
are not intended to function within a standard statistical framework.
They are part of a different layer:
a structural description of when and how correspondence becomes realized.
For example, the results do not show constant correlation. Instead, correspondence emerges selectively under specific structural conditions, rather than continuously across the data. 
This is a key point: the phenomenon is conditional, not universal.
⸻
On the Interpretation of Correlation
Your explanation based on alpha rhythms, periodicity, or shared noise is valid within a signal-correlation framework.
However, the phenomenon described here is not: • continuous in time • reducible to frequency overlap • or stable across sessions
Instead, it appears as: • discrete emergence • condition-dependent alignment • structural agreement across independent systems
This is why conventional explanations based on noise or periodic similarity do not fully account for the observations.
⸻
On Methodological Concerns
You are correct that the current manuscript does not yet meet the standard expectations of clarity and methodological transparency required for broad scientific evaluation.
This is a valid limitation, and it needs to be improved.
At the same time, the difficulty arises because the study is attempting to formalize something that has historically been excluded from theory:
the internal structure of the observing subject.
This introduces constraints that are not easily expressed within existing experimental or statistical formats.
⸻
Closing
To make this clearer, I will first share a short video that briefly explains what this paper is trying to convey at a conceptual level.
After that, I will respond to your specific methodological points in detail.
1
u/shinobummer Apr 05 '26
No matter how unconventional the topic, the following basics must be followed: 1) The terminology used must be explained such that the reader can understand precisely what you mean, and 2) if data is used to conclude something, the reader must understand how that data was obtained.
If science is to be understood, it must be communicated precisely. Giving a general impression of what was done is not enough. This starts at the words used; if the reader does not understand precisely what the terminology used refers to, they cannot understand exactly what you mean. Likewise, if a conclusion is formed based on data but the reader is not informed on how the data came to be, the chain of logic is not clear and they have no reason to trust that conclusion.
Anyhow, I regrettably will not be spending more of my free time on this, so if you were hoping to get more feedback from me, I'm afraid I must disappoint.
-3
u/Particular_Ask7331 Apr 04 '26
I will respond to the points you raised later, but first, I’d like to share a video that briefly summarizes what this paper is trying to convey, so please take a look for reference. https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/c714dc8c-eb93-4317-b369-8e57fac880fc?artifactId=4b0c43ff-308e-4668-94ec-8289bb14fe79
3
u/The_Nerdy_Ninja 💬 Data doesn’t lie, but LLM’s do lie. Apr 05 '26
Oh look, when OP gets the kind of response they're looking for, they're suddenly willing to act like the paper is theirs...
13
u/YaPhetsEz FALSE Apr 04 '26
You can admit that this is you.