Hi all. I’ve been developing a conceptual physics framework that proposes a new way of looking at quantum measurement, time, and classical emergence using what I’m calling ‘constraint field interactions’ as the underlying mechanism.
This isn’t a formal academic paper (yet); I don’t have an institutional affiliation or physics PhD. But I am very serious about developing this model coherently and rigorously. The work is still evolving, but the core idea is that reality may have stabilized through self-reinforcing patterns of constraint resolution, producing what we experience as time, classical causality, and observer-aligned outcomes.
The paper touches on:
- quantum measurement as contextual constraint resolution
- observer-dependent reference frames
- shared reality through stable constraint fields
- emergence of classical time as an output of constraint interactions
- and more speculative ideas on pre-collapse structure and substrate-level information fields
I wrote it to be as accessible as possible while still diving deep into conceptual mechanics. I welcome critique, skepticism, alternate interpretations, and questions. If anyone here enjoys unpacking new ideas or spotting holes in speculative frameworks, I’d genuinely appreciate your thoughts. More than happy to send a copy or link to the full paper upon request.
Cheers!
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
The one thing I’ve learned from Angela collier is that your really can’t get far in physics with conceptual models. Those are largely the realm of crackpots.
The “conceptual” thing is the real red flag here. Have you actually defined your ideas mathematically, or are you arguing based on a hazy conceptual/qualitative model? Another big red flag is you’re proposing something that sounds like a unified field theory. Crackpots tend not to focus on unsolved but modest problems in physics; they tend to go straight for the grandest Einstein-level revelations. You don’t see people writing, “I have no degree in physics, but here is my new groundbreaking paper on the half life of neutrinos” You instead see people writing, “I have no degree in physics, but here is my new theory of everything.”
Physics is ultimately one hair’s breadth away from pure mathematics. And the mathematics behind theories like quantum mechanics and general relativity are very complex and difficult. For this reason, most people get their knowledge of advanced physics from pop-sci books and videos. (Nothing wrong with this, I’m not a physicist myself either.) These sources are not academic; they explain not through mathematics, but through analogy and qualitative descriptions. And while this method of explanation makes physics accessible to the lay public, it has a downside. People often confuse physics analogies for actual physics. They don’t understand the mathematics, so they form theories that are largely qualitative and are extensions of the analogies they learn in the popular science works.
My main questions would be:
It’s fine if you don’t actually have a degree in physics. Maybe you’re a self-taught autodidact that’s gained a level of physics knowledge equivalent to at least a graduate student in physics, but without ever actually pursuing a degree in it. To have even the tiniest chance of your idea being valid, you need not have a degree in physics, but you do need to have physics and mathematical knowledge equivalent to those who do have these degrees. If you can’t, at a minimum, work through the equations of GM and quantum, then there’s not a snowball’s in Hell of building some new unified theory of everything.
Maybe you actually do have some mathematical model you’re trying to develop. But please, just realize, every physics professor of virtually any serious public profile gets a crackpot theory of everything emailed to them every week. Someone like Michio Kaku probably gets multiple candidate theories of everything emailed to him on a daily basis. It’s incredibly common for some reasonably intelligent people to fall down a rabbit hole and convince themselves they’ve created a new revolutionary theory redefining the very foundations of physics. But really, unless you, at a bare minimum, already understand the full mathematics behind existing theories, it’s really not worth your time to try dreaming up new theories. You simply don’t have the mathematical and physics understanding necessary to make a meaningful contribution to the field.
HumanoidTyphoon@quokk.au 10 hours ago
I appreciate that you took the time to reply, but I think some of your assumptions are misplaced.
No, I’m not proposing a fully formalized theory or unified field model. What I’m doing is what many theoretical physicists start with: building a conceptual model based on observation, logic, and known issues in existing frameworks; in this case, time and measurement. The math matters deeply, but it usually comes after the idea. Einstein didn’t begin with the tensor equations of general relativity; he started with thought experiments and paradoxes about light and simultaneity. The math was how he proved the ideas, not how he discovered them.
I never claimed to have “solved physics.” I’m not making grand declarations. I’m asking questions, sharing a framework, and trying to refine it through thoughtful discussion. That’s why I posted. If the model doesn’t hold up, so be it. But rejecting the conversation outright because it’s not credentialed or fully quantified yet short-circuits exactly the kind of idea generation that’s often needed in fields with unresolved foundations.
If we treat conceptual groundwork as inherently crackpot territory, we risk losing the very curiosity that drives science forward.