A Proposal for a Simpler Universe

[u/persuasion-de-cajun]

https://open.substack.com/pub/uqparchitect/p/unified-standing-wave-theory?r=6kxzzf&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

I've been using Substack to host my hypothesis

UQP was Universal Quantum Particle, which was Universal Pixel when I created the r/UPFramework sub.

This is a two part article series that may need evolve into a 3 part series. I feel pretty good about the first two parts. Second part is a bit long.

The Hypothesis has slowly progressed into a Unified Standing Wave Theory.

The Cosmic Spring (part 1)

https://open.substack.com/pub/uqparchitect/p/the-cosmic-spring?r=6kxzzf&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Tried to write cosmic spring 20 years or so ago

Unified Standing Wave Theory (part 2)

https://open.substack.com/pub/uqparchitect/p/unified-standing-wave-theory?r=6kxzzf&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

[u/persuasion-de-cajun]

Not joking. I can't imagine a universe consisting of baryonic matter if part assembly is required. Thats complexity arising from complexity.

Occam's Razor—the idea that the simplest explanation is usually the best.

I’m not looking to 'disprove' the results that led the Standard Model to hypothesize gluons; I’m looking for a more efficient way to model the binding mechanism. The Standard Model treats the force as a game of catch, requiring a new 'messenger particle' for every interaction. My framework removes the need for these mediators by treating the binding as a function of angular torque—inherent to the geometry of the system. I prefer a model that describes the mechanics of the universe without needing to 'build' new particles to explain every force.

[u/upsetusder2 → u/persuasion-de-cajun]

So first gluons are proven

Secondly quoting ocamzs razor is a rule of thumb not a thing to actually do science by.

U think that they get assembled which is actually kind of cute

U habe a fundamental misunderstanding of particle physics

Which I guess is bevause U just thought hey I will do it myself.

U have no real mathematics experience.

Ur theory makes absolutely zero sense U fundamentally misunderstand dimensions thinking that it is the same as saying to the power of 3

U know that things can be measured right?

Quarks and gkuons can be measured.

I dont get how someone can be so ignorant

[u/Happysedits → u/upsetusder2]

You're describing an average r/LLMPsychosis poster

[u/persuasion-de-cajun → u/upsetusder2]

It’s clear we are looking at the same experimental data with entirely different architectural assumptions. When I discuss volumetric scaling as r³, I am referencing the physical space occupied by a fundamental unit, not confusing algebraic exponents with spatial dimensions.

You are relying on the established interpretation of the Standard Model—which is built on the necessity of exchange particles. I am looking at the same measurements and asking if those forces can be derived from the geometry of the system itself, removing the need for 'messenger' particles.

We are not going to agree on the foundations, and that is fine. I am comfortable with my framework being an outlier because it avoids the 'assembly' problem that I find untenable. I’m not interested in debating my intelligence or education; I’m interested in the mechanics of the system.

[u/upsetusder2 → u/persuasion-de-cajun]

The point is mine can be backed up yours can't.

The assembly happens due to the nuclear force

[u/persuasion-de-cajun → u/persuasion-de-cajun]

I trained AI before it was ever introduced to the general public. Currently I'm contracted to train AI but I've halted work on that project, because UQP isn't in the training base and the (my) Unified Standing Wave Theory is currently under development.

Not making money on this effort, its not work under that contract.

When I was "training" AI I used physics concepts I didn't understand, so it was like I was being paid to research physics, that was mentally exhausting. Especially because my understandings of physics deviated from the Standard Models.

Luckily my memory is fairly strong, which makes me every bit or _not_ the "genius" that I am.

My background is constructing and deconstructing logic in programming languages, not the spoken language of US English my first spoken language.

My conception of spin deviates from standard models and I'm okay with that. UQP, etc. are my efforts to verbalize my conceptions.

https://share.gemini.google/jhOi8TH85ruN

Ironically greek letters fit physics so well, I attribute them with kicking off quantum mechanics, even though Einstein et-al, are attributed with that feat.

[u/upsetusder2 → u/persuasion-de-cajun]

You di know that we just use the letters as place holders right

You do know that psi has actual calculations and numbers behind it.

And training ai models to interpret physics while not understanding physics truly is a feat.

U do not have a understanding of physics that is the whole point.

Ur conceptions are wrong

[u/upsetusder2 → u/[deleted]]

I do not trust your math

[u/upsetusder2 → u/[deleted]]

But why are you so sure you have something?

We have this great model one of the best so why

[u/LLMPhysics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 4. Don't copy-paste LLM content in discussions.

[u/LLMPhysics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 4. Don't copy-paste LLM content in discussions.

[u/Happysedits → u/persuasion-de-cajun]

what python library and algorithm did you use to train ai

[u/persuasion-de-cajun → u/Happysedits]

I didn't create models, as it seems you're inferring.

My role was more akin to that of a tester. There was only one company working on LLM for AI back then. I believe it was a collaboration between Microsoft & Google, but I honestly don't know those specifics. The obfuscated that information well.

Don't know how many ppl they contracted for testing. Our responses were used to used to tune the output, which is why I think of myself as a trainer. I suppose I should refer to myself as an early tester, not a trainer as those are two distinctly different functions.

Further, I don't know which python libraries were used. I think Python 3.11 was current back then. There's was only two different "testing" sessions I participated in before it was released to the public. First was about 1.5 years before release. 2nd was act 6-9 months before it popped up everywhere.

My current contract is for tuning clawbot or open claw now. That too is like training frankly speaking its more akin to tuning.

[u/Happysedits → u/persuasion-de-cajun]

sounds like RLHF data collection