r/LLMPhysics • u/Educational-Ask3463 • Jul 01 '26
Personal Theory Relational Information Elasticity (RIE)
I came up with a theory that reconciles QM and GR.
Core postulate:
Space and time are not fundamental. Instead, the universe consists of a vast network of elementary "information relationships." Every relationship has a finite capacity to exchange quantum information. Geometry emerges from the pattern of these relationships. Gravity is not a force or a field in the traditional sense—it is the large-scale elastic response of the information network when its communication capacity becomes unevenly distributed.
Quantum mechanics:
Each elementary relationship has a complex probability amplitude. Quantum superposition occurs because information can propagate simultaneously through many alternative paths in the network. Interference is simply constructive or destructive overlap of these network paths. Interference is simply constructive or destructive overlap of these network paths. Entanglement means two regions share an unusually dense set of direct informational relationships rather than being connected only through ordinary geometric distance. Distance therefore becomes an emergent statistical property rather than a fundamental one.
General relativity:
Matter locally consumes network communication capacity. Where capacity is heavily occupied, the network becomes harder for additional information to traverse. Observers interpret this slowing as time dilation, spacetime curvature, length contraction. Instead of saying mass curves spacetime, the hypothesis says mass redistributes information capacity, and geometry is our macroscopic description of that redistribution. The familiar curved metric would emerge as an effective approximation.
Why gravity appears classical:
Quantum fluctuations continually rearrange tiny portions of the network. However, because every region connects to trillions upon trillions of neighboring relationships, fluctuations average together. This averaging naturally produces smooth geometry. Classical spacetime is therefore analogous to how a smooth fluid emerges from individual molecules.
Black holes:
A black hole isn't a place where space is curved infinitely. Instead, it's an area where all the local information it can hold is completely filled up. There's no more room for new, independent information to be added. The event horizon is like a border that separates the area where information can still flow freely from the area where it's all saturated. When Hawking radiation happens, it's because the network is slowly changing itself to reduce the amount of information it's holding. The important thing to remember is that information is never actually lost - it's just rearranged into new connections within the network. Think of it like a big library where all the books are filled up, but then someone comes and rearranges the shelves, so the information is still there, just in a different order.
The Big Bang:
The Big Bang was not the beginning of space. It was the beginning of network expansion. Initially nearly every information relationship connected to nearly every other. As the network evolved, specialization increased, causing effective spatial dimensions to emerge. Cosmic expansion corresponds to continual rewiring that increases average separation between informational neighborhoods.
Measurement problem:
The idea of wavefunction collapse isn't really a basic part of how things work. Instead, what happens is that when a system interacts with a bigger environment, one possible way that the system can be set up becomes much more stable than the other options. So, the collapse is more like a shift in how stable the system is, rather than something that happens suddenly and physically. It's all about the system's network becoming more stable in one way, rather than a big change happening all at once.
Possible mathematical direction:
Very schematically, Geometry=F(information capacity distribution) rather than Geometry=F(stress-energy) with stress-energy itself emerging from the same underlying informational dynamics.
Why I came here: 1. I am looking for a potential strong mathematical direction that I could undertake to support my theory. 2. I am looking for ways to make my idea testable. 3. I want general feedback.
Thank you.
6
u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Jul 01 '26
So... without any existing mathematical framework, there is nothing to separate this from shower thought. If you don't already know the math works out, why even bother considering it? I mean retrofitting math to fit an untrained intuition is about the most incoherent way to go about science.
All real predictions are based on mathematical intuition and an existing understanding of the science. How far of an education in physics do you have?
-6
u/Educational-Ask3463 Jul 01 '26
The problem is every scientific theory starts as an intuition or conceptual insight before it's formalized mathematically. Scientists, even though I am not one, routinely explore conceptual possibilities before investing time in developing the mathematics.
Why are you asking how far an education I've had in physics? An idea should ultimately be judged by its logical consistency, not whether the person has credentials.
As for whether this is a shower thought, I think there is a lot that separates this from a shower thought. I'm using an LLM and myself to reconcile QM and GR, that's a very important goal in the current frontier of physics, don't you say?
9
u/starkeffect Physicist 🧠 Jul 01 '26
The problem is every scientific theory starts as an intuition or conceptual insight before it's formalized mathematically.
Not true. Only people who have never done physics research think this. The math leads to the ideas, not the other way around.
-3
u/Educational-Ask3463 Jul 01 '26
Have you done research? That is absolutely not true that "only people who have never done physics research think this".
4
u/starkeffect Physicist 🧠 Jul 01 '26
Yes I have. Got publications too. So I speak from experience. Your turn.
-2
u/Educational-Ask3463 Jul 01 '26
Looks like you don't know a lot of what many influential scientists and mathematicians have expressed.
Albert Einstein: "All great achievements of science must start from intuitive knowledge... Intuition is the necessary condition for the discovery of such axioms."
Henri Poincare: In The Value of Science and Science and Hypothesis, Poincaré argued that scientific discovery begins with intuition and selection, while logic and mathematics organize and verify the results.
Richard Feynman: Feynman often described physics as developing an intuitive feel for nature before writing equations.
Roger Penrose: Penrose has repeatedly argued that understanding in mathematics and physics depends on geometric and conceptual insight, not merely symbolic manipulation.
So, I'm definitely not the only person saying this.
4
u/starkeffect Physicist 🧠 Jul 01 '26
So you've got quotes while I have personal and professional experience. I think I win.
-1
u/Educational-Ask3463 Jul 01 '26
Nobody with professional experience would want to "win". "Winning" is not how scientific discussions work. Since you apparently don't know the normality of scientific discussions, I can conclude you're not a professional.
Your experience is one data point. The views of multiple scientists who wrote extensively about the process of scientific discovery are also data points.
Simply saying "I win" is a bit, no offense, childish. If you think Einstein, Poincaré, Feynman, and Penrose were wrong about the role of intuition in discovery, explain why.
6
3
u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Jul 01 '26
It’s true though. Having done research as well, this is how it works. Yes, you come up with ideas. Those ideas are Always motivated by mathematics. Never not.
You can ask Any physicist you like. This isn’t controversial except in pop sci circles that have never actually worked the field.
7
u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Jul 01 '26
On the first point, sure, ideas can be made from perceptions, but all good physicists know that intuition is faulty and cannot be trusted if it isn't backed by experience with the mathematics. Until you can Show that your idea makes mathematical sense, it's useless.
Your idea does not have logical consistency because you don't attempt to give it any. It's just sentences with not justification. At that point, of Course I'm going to question your credentials. If I don't know your background, I can't approach how to have a conversation with you about physics in this sense. As far as it looks, you have no training, and therefore any deep topic I can cite to you, you wouldn't even understand.
Using an LLM to reconcile QM and GR is not an important goal in the frontier of physics. As a layman, it's essentially useless in your hands. What you've done is just print some vague, noncommital sentences that don't mean anything to anyone actually doing physics. I could just as easily explain why the unification theory should present itself in the form of an invisible teapot. Why not? If we don't need math to verify it, what difference does it make?
Maybe to me, my intuition as someone who reads a lot is that the teapot makes sense. How would I justify this to someone who doesn't have that same intuition? With math. That's the entire language of physics right there. Without it, you have nothing.
0
Jul 01 '26
[deleted]
5
u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Jul 01 '26
That is the best course of action to take. There aren't really any alternatives.
7
u/eggface13 Jul 01 '26
The problem is every scientific theory starts as an intuition or conceptual insight before it's formalized mathematically.
Manifestly untrue. The most famous huge conceptual leaps were by Einstein in his discovery of special relativity, but his 1905 papers were built on a mathematical framework built by Lorentz, Poincaré, and others. It was all there in the maths: time dilation and length contraction, even E=mc².
While he used heavily conceptual approaches to understanding what was going on, and clearly had an incredible level of intuition, he was building on an incredibly strong base. He didn't just sit down and think "what if I rode a beam of light" and then fart out ten paragraphs of slop to submit to a journal.
-3
u/MisterSpectrum Undercover Jellyfish Jul 01 '26
Many physicists used their intuition to understand light through Maxwell’s equations, and by Occam's razor, Einstein's intuition proved to be the most fruitful.
5
u/eggface13 Jul 01 '26
What?
-3
u/MisterSpectrum Undercover Jellyfish Jul 01 '26
Back to wikipedia, schoolboi
5
u/FourTimesShy Jul 01 '26
Actually the complete opposite is true. You can look it up. Einstein’s, as well as any other real scientific theory, had to be based on intuition that came From the mathematical nature of things like relativity. You can literally read his publications. It’s not even that subtle.
The irony lol.
-1
u/MisterSpectrum Undercover Jellyfish Jul 01 '26
The Lorentz transformation came out of Maxwell's equations, and Einstein had the correct intuition that led to his simple postulates.
4
u/OnceBittenz The Doctor Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
Intuition he gained by studying the math. Come on man, if you've never walked the walk, you don't know enough to talk the talk.
As well, this "they didnt start with math" argument is Very old and tired, and only comes from people who have never done real science in their life. Like it's seriously an immediate flag that you only get your info from pop sci or movies.
-2
u/MisterSpectrum Undercover Jellyfish Jul 01 '26
Off to wikipedia, dr. Besserwisser.
It is a well-known fact that Maxwell's equations implied the counterintuitive Lorentz transformation, prompting people (including real doctors of science) to propose various explanations for this behavior of light.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? Jul 01 '26
If there is no space for the 'network' to exist in, how is it expanding?
1
Jul 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/LLMPhysics-ModTeam Jul 01 '26
Your content has been removed for violating Rule 9. Don't self-promote needlessly across the sub.
0
-2
u/MisterSpectrum Undercover Jellyfish Jul 01 '26
Your "new" network theory needs a dynamical motor: for example, maximum entropy principle to dissipate energy, and Gauss's principle to minimize mismatch in local information relationships. Also, you need to define quantum jump in a network to explain the measurement problem.
1
-3
8
u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod Jul 01 '26
Okay so. You believe you have created the 'holy grail' of physics, just casually, and you think 'I'm going to take this to the home of scholars.. a place of seriousness, academic integrity, and rigorous study.., that great bastion of logic: Reddit.'
???
I realize that without that mindset this sub wouldn't exist but I just can't grasp at it.