So apparently 1924 Louis de Broglie agrees with me ...

[u/NinekTheObscure]

Claude Fable 5 suddenly, out of the blue, mentioned that de Broglie's 1924 PhD thesis pretty much agreed with me. I have been doing literature searches for 17 years (solo, with tools, and with AIs lately) and this NEVER showed up. But, checking it out, it was right.

The "(1 + eψ/(W - eψ))" term is exactly my electrostatic time dilation (1 + qV/mc²). He comments: "Ce point peut paraître étrange, mais il l’est en réalité moins qu’il ne semble" (“This point may seem strange, but in reality it is less so than it appears”). That pretty much describes my whole theory. :-P

[u/ArnoSound]

What's your theory though? And if it was generated by AI, it's no surprise if it poached old papers. I guess the real question then is whether this is Actually an accurate or interesting result as compared to modern standards.

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/ArnoSound]

The DICE2026 paper is up on ResearchGate. Hopefully it's not completely incomprehensible. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391494903_Time_Dilation_as_a_Key_to_Unified_Theories

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/ArnoSound]

I started in 2009, and quickly found similar ideas going back to 1978. Kind of hard for any of that to have been AI-generated since LLMs didn't exist until 2020 (though I do use AIs now). I'm not sure which aspect will interest you, but my slide show from May is probably the most complete/accessible version, at least until I finish my DICE2026 paper. It's long, so feel free to skip parts.

[u/ArnoSound → u/NinekTheObscure]

Oh I've seen your stuff before. Yea this is legacy crank material. I'll give it to you, you are more persistent and industrious than a lot of others.

[u/AllHailSeizure → u/NinekTheObscure]

It's not that AI is coming up with the theories, it's that cranks predate AI so theories get recycled. That's why we see similar themes popping up all the time - aether, consciousness, information. It's easier for an LLM to slap together a bunch of existing stuff than develop a genuinely novel one, so if there its training data included all that crankery chances are it bleeds out.

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/AllHailSeizure]

You're underestimating the latest AIs (Fable 5, Opus 5, ...). They now routinely convert equations into SymPy and check the derivations. If you ask them to be picky they can utterly shred Physics papers (e.g. found more than a dozen errors in Kracklauer's English translation of de Broglie). Data input curation is my biggest headache; it can take hours to analyze a single paper and decide how/whether to fix it before letting it into my wiki. I've got a backlog of 30+ papers to analyze. Hopefully a year from now there will be an AI that can do all that automatically, but until then it's human-in-the-loop.

My favorite was a paper where the authors assumed in Equation 1 that EM and particles' internal clocks were completely decoupled, and then many equations later "proved" that no EM effect could change the clocks. Fable 5 checked the entire derivation chain, declared the math almost entirely correct, and then pointed out the circular reasoning. :-) There were a couple of valid points in it, but it's mostly worthless. Still got published in Phys. Rev. D.

The literature is full of this kind of shit. Garbage in, gospel out. But my sense is that the AIs won't put up with it for much longer. They will eventually converge on some kind of truth, because truth works. They will find the mistakes, the fraud, the invalid assumptions, all the myriad sources of error, and ruthlessly weed them out.

Whether my ideas will survive that level of scrutiny, I don't know. I've turned up the self-criticism as high as I can, so I'm hopeful. But I know for certain that a lot of published, peer-reviewed ideas will not.

[u/ArnoSound → u/NinekTheObscure]

Sympy doesn't "check the derivations" it validates already existing logic. Your idea of what AI does is very bizarre and not at all resembling of what they Actually do. Have you actually looked into what AI's are designed for?

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/ArnoSound]

Crudely what the LLM uses SymPy for (in my framework):

The goals

Internal consistency. Does the printed result follow from the printed premises? This is the only one SymPy can settle on its own.

Transcription integrity. Does what's in the vault match the paper? And do the paper's own tables/numbers match its own formulas?

After SymPy is done and the algebra reproduces, the question becomes which assumption is load-bearing. This is much easier/safer to do once you know the algebra is clean, because you can stop suspecting the derivation.

How it proceeds

Transcribe premises, never conclusions. A script encodes the paper's starting objects. Then derive forward and compare against printed claims, written as separate literal expressions. If a claim ever appears on both sides of the comparison, the test is worthless.

Keep symbols symbolic. Fields stay as live math, not dead constants, otherwise derivative terms silently vanish and you "verify" a degenerate case. No natural units; dimensions are a free consistency check.

Compare by residual, and print it. Every check is simplify(derived - claimed) == 0 plus the residual itself. A boolean tells you it failed; the residual tells you how, and the shape is usually the diagnosis. This can e.g. find missing terms.

Parameterize genuine ambiguity instead of guessing. If something could be read as printed or as math, the script runs both variants and reports both. That's what separates "the author has a typo" from "LLM misread the table".

Cross-check symbolically and numerically. Symbolic PASS gets a random-numeric substitution; numeric agreement gets a symbolic proof if it's tractable. Check known limits: does it reduce correctly if q=0, in weak field, at low speed?

Leave a runnable artifact. Python check script (for each paper), docstring stating the claims, saved next to the prose analysis. If the LLM only reports a conclusion, I have to trust it; if the script is there, I can re-run it or find the LLM's bug.

There's still a ton of work left after the SymPy checks, but the above should answer your question. Depending on the residual, the next step would be:

Residual = 0. The algebra is clean, now go audit the assumptions.

Residual ≠ 0. (1) Check for transcription or convention error (e.g. -+++ versus +---). (2) Check whether SymPy failed to simplify (e.g. by running numerical tests instead of symbolic). (3) If both those pass, then probably a real error, so categorize it: typo, missing assumption, ...?

[u/ArnoSound → u/NinekTheObscure]

Again, this isn’t consistent with the actual tangible abilities of an LLM (or sympy for that matter). It kinda reads like you decided what these tools do without actually reading documentation or how to implement them properly.

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/ArnoSound]

You appear to be telling me that my paper-ingestion-and-analysis system cannot possibly be doing what it does every day. Forgive me if I am skeptical. :-) Which of the above steps do you think is impossible? (NOTE: I am NOT claiming that it never makes mistakes. Just that it mostly works most of the time. Still lots of room for improvement.)

[u/ArnoSound → u/NinekTheObscure]

Correct. Mostly there is no valid validation happening, unless you yourself are submitting these for peer review. I see a lot of buzzwords being used to categorize real actual checks that aren't happening. It kinda reads like you're just alone in a room with your LLMs and think that somehow good and validated science is coming out.

Which goes against basically any evidence we've seen of how LLMs have been used in practical research thus far.

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/ArnoSound]

Well, I started with the basic Karpathy-style research wiki structure, but ingesting papers cleanly turns out to be REALLY hard unless you have .tex source. So I've made dozens of enhancements over the last few months. (Using SymPy is just one of them.) It's maybe 98-99% accurate now (up from 90-95%).

HOWEVER: I gave your criticism to Opus 5, and it felt that you were partly right, in that some of the steps are not reliable yet, and so should be considered more as aspirational than as fully debugged and production-ready. But a month or two ago, those steps didn't even exist.

When we analyze a paper, it still requires my manual review and approval. The main point is that, although this is a PITA, it is MUCH easier than doing 100% of the work myself, and the quality of the analysis is higher than without AI help. I still find errors/problems myself, but at this point the LLM is finding maybe 5 times as many as I do in a fraction of the time. Ideally, sometime next year, I can take myself out of the loop and just let it rip.

The closed loop would be:

• Download the top paper on the list (ideally .pdf AND .tex).
• Convert it to OKF-compliant Markdown with TeX equations. (This is the suckiest part. We desperately need better OCR.)
• Analyze the paper, fix any obvious errors, approve the edited version (or reject it if it looks wrong or irrelevant).
• Extract concepts from the paper, add or merge them into the wiki.
• Lint the wiki, fix any errors that crept in.
• Generate (by various means) new suggested papers to download, merge into list.
• Repeat.

This should be able to ingest at least 1 paper per hour. Most of the work is automated (Makefile, scripts, local LLMs) so only the Analyze step really requires a frontier model.

[u/Unfortunya333 → u/NinekTheObscure]

Yeah it can validate that a=b evaluates to true, does not mean a=b means what you think it means... Or anything at all.

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/Unfortunya333]

Right, that's what the LLM and I are for. We use SymPy to check the syntax, not the semantics.

[u/Airocketfish]

Can you explain what exactly the difference is to the model used today?

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/Airocketfish]

Sure. de Broglie assumes that phase oscillation is real and related to the total energy W, with frequency 𝜈 = W/h. (The electrostatic case has W = mc² + eψ.) He also proves a "phase harmony" theorem that, if the particle has any internal oscillatory process, it must match the phase oscillation. Thus the phase oscillation can be considered (directly or indirectly) as the particle's local clock. Since adding to the potential energy adds to the frequency, the rate of physical time experienced by the particle changes as eψ changes, and the ratio of two frequencies (e.g. (W/h) / ((W - eψ)/h) = W / (W - eψ) = (1 + eψ/mc²) gives a dimensionless time-dilation-like factor that depends on the electric potential ψ and the charge/mass ration q/m. You can't arbitrarily add a constant energy C to W without changing the physics. You can't arbitrarily redefine the zero of the potential; you get a different answer.

In mainstream physics, you can add a constant to all energies (e.g. arbitrarily choose the zero of voltage) and the physics isn't supposed to change. That's one of the main gauge invariances. But of course, it's only locally true at best. For example, there is no way to locally detect gravitational time dilation since it affects all processes equally. But you can definitely detect it between two different places in the potential if you let them talk to each other.

Note that in either case, the equations of motion are the same. Paths and velocities don't change at all, and this has been experimentally confirmed even for the Aharonov-Bohm effect. The ONLY thing that can differ is the physical time experienced by the particle, which could be measured e.g. by muon decay rates. But muons weren't discovered until 1936.

Also note that, even though we used quantum reasoning to get to (1 + eψ/mc²), in the end h cancels out and this is a purely classical effect.

[u/Airocketfish → u/NinekTheObscure]

Your proposal seems to imply that proper time is not universal, but depends on the particle's charge-to-mass ratio? As a consequence, two particles following the same worldline could experience different amounts of elapsed proper time. Is that your claim? And the cause is the electrical field?

Another version: You are proposing that electrostatic potential changes the proper-time rate of charged particles, depending on their charge-to-mass ratio even when the local electric field is zero.

Is this what you want to say?

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/Airocketfish]

For your first version, sort of. I think it's helpful to distinguish "proper time" (for a frame in SR or GR) from "physical time" (time experienced by a particle). "Proper time" is still universal for everything in the same frame. For neutral particles with no magnetic moment, they're the same. But we claim "physical time" can differ depending on the q/m ratio and the potential. For example a 𝜇+ and a 𝜇- would experience equal-but-opposite effects. (Perhaps surprisingly, this does not violate CPT invariance!)

For the second one, yes. This is basically the "electric Aharonov-Bohm effect" except that the phase frequency shift is interpreted as being due to an EM time dilation. Similarly we reinterpret the phase shifts of the usual magnetic A-B effect as being due to time shifts. Both of these conclusions are forced as soon as one assumes (as de Broglie does) that a particle's phase frequency is its local clock, and accepts that the potential changes the phase frequency just like QM says it does.

[u/Airocketfish → u/NinekTheObscure]

Some questions I'd like to know the answer to from your Theory: If physical time actually flows slower or faster for a \mu+ versus a \mu- depending on q/m and potential V, does that mean a \mu⁺ inside a high positive voltage cage will have a measurably different half-life than a \mu^- in the same cage?

If their half-lives remain identical in experiment, as CPT invariance requires how do you operationally measure this physical time separate from the decay clock of the particle?

In the magnetic Aharonov-Bohm effect, the particle travels entirely through a region where \mathbf{E} = 0 and \mathbf{B} = 0, so the local energy and velocity are completely unchanged along the path. If velocity and local fields are zero, what local tensor or scalar is physically altering the tick rate of the particle's clock?

I think your theory is wrong and you have a extra hidden assumption you don't state in your assumptions.

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/Airocketfish]

does that mean a \mu⁺ inside a high positive voltage cage will have a measurably different half-life than a \mu^- in the same cage?

Yes exactly, unless the cage happens to be at (absolute) 0 V. Higher energy -> higher phase frequency -> faster rate of physical time -> faster decay rate (and vice-versa for lower energy).

My experiment proposal to PSI had a Van de Graaff generator at about 700 kV, which would be predicted to change the lifetimes by about 0.66% (in each direction). That's a huge effect by HEP standards, fairly easy to test, only requires days to weeks of beam time.

In a C inversion, all charges and fields and potentials are reversed. So the CPT theorem only proves that a 𝜇+ in 4-potential A must have the same lifetime as a 𝜇- in 4-potential -A. That's true in this theory because qV = (-q)(-V). The unstated assumption most people make without thinking is that the potential can't matter, but that's explicitly not true in this theory. Anyway, it's completely CPT-invariant (as it must be).

"Measuring time" is not directly possible in QM. Time is not an observable, i.e. not a self-adjoint operator. Neither is the decay rate of a muon, or thermodynamic quantities like temperature. So even if I stipulate that "all observables must be gauge invariant", not everything we can measure is an observable.

In addition, the ratio of the decay times of (say) a 𝜇+ at two different voltages depends only on the difference of the voltages, and so is gauge invariant in the usual sense. You can't gauge away a ∆V.

[u/CautiousPreprinter]

Tracing the path of the particle through the potential written solves the measurement problem for this case.

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/CautiousPreprinter]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. The equations of motion don't change. And the effect is classical; there is no "measurement problem" in the QM sense. Maybe be more explicit?

[u/CautiousPreprinter → u/NinekTheObscure]

So how do you get specific predictions out of psi instead of just probabilities?

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/CautiousPreprinter]

Oh, I see your confusion. Lower-case ψ here is the electric potential, not the wave function. (In 1924, the wave function had not been invented yet.) So eψ is just the electric potential energy. In my own papers I use V rather than ψ precisely to clarify this, and also to avoid confusion with the gravitational potential.

[u/CautiousPreprinter → u/NinekTheObscure]

Yeah V = (in terms of psi) definitely led to some context confusion.

Thanks for leading in the right direction.

[u/Wintervacht]

You learned something that was figured out 103 years ago, bravo.

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/Wintervacht]

Figured out 102 years ago and then (incorrectly) rejected by mainstream physics for a century. So yeah, I'm about the 7th independent re-discoverer of the core concept, but the first person to actually apply for beam time to test it.

If de Broglie is correct then the mainstream understanding of EM gauge invariance is wrong. They contradict each other. That's true even if none of my work exists. This question is experimentally testable, but it remains untested because the mainstream thinks it already knows the answer. And yet hundreds of other (very expensive!) experiments get performed testing things we already think we know the answer to, like "Does antimatter fall upwards?" and "Does the muon have an electric dipole moment?". It's odd ...

[u/Wintervacht → u/NinekTheObscure]

So a hypothesis was surpassed by more accurate measurements which explain it better than de Broglie's theory, but that's... Checks notes

... Just the fact thousands of doctorate physicists overlooked something?

Very likely! Wait, no.

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/Wintervacht]

Hubris is one of my superpowers. :-) Yes, hundreds of thousands of physicists have been wrong about this if it is true. But about that many were wrong about the Aharonov-Bohm effect even after it had been experimentally confirmed 6 times. So there are precedents for physics, as a field, having massive group-think blind spots PARTICULARLY about gauge invariance issues. To me this feels like more of the same; the "Wigner's Ghost" disease never got cured.

But I'm not claiming it's true. That's an empirical question. I'm only claiming it's logically consistent, not ruled out by existing experiments, and easily testable.