cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/43714969
Logos of Aether: A Measurement-Theoretic Physics Engine in Rust/WGPU (v2.2.1)
I’ve been “winging it” for a year trying to formalize a theory that has been bouncing around my head since high school. After years of post-graduation struggle and feeling like I was failing at life, I finally funneled that obsession into 566 pages of theory and a working simulation engine. This is Logos-Core.
The goal: To prove the universe doesn’t compute with Zero or Infinity, but with Ratios in a resource-constrained substrate called the Monadic Plenum.
🛠 The Stack
- Language: Rust (strictly leveraging zero-cost abstractions for the
PlenumRealtype).- Compute: WGPU / WGSL (the universe as a
GL_RGBA32Fstate matrix).- Architecture: Ping-Pong Buffer Causality (strict temporal separation between frames).
The Core Axiom: $\pi$-Saturation
Standard physics breaks at high densities because linear addition ($1+1=2$) leads to singularities. My engine implements Plenum Addition ($\oplus$). Just as $c$ is the speed limit, $\pi$ is the saturation limit for information density.
$$x \oplus y = \frac{x + y}{1 + \frac{xy}{\pi^2}}$$
In v2.2.1, I’ve verified this on-hardware. While small increments appear linear, self-addition ($x \oplus x$) demonstrates a hard saturation at $\pi$, rendering singularities mathematically impossible at the architectural level.
The Teeter-Totter (Causal Budgeting)
We replace “Uncertainty” with Resource Constraints. The engine enforces a zero-sum trade-off between Temporal Resolution ($d_{self}$) and Spatial Resolution ($d_{world}$):
$$d_{self} \cdot d_{world} \le \pi c$$
If a Monad (pixel) requires high spatial precision, its internal update frequency (Time) must drop. In this architecture, Inertia is literally processing latency.
v2.2.1 “Soliton” Features:
- Self-Propagating Solitons: High-pressure waves that wrap and interfere without dissipation.
- The Chronoscope: A real-time GPU visualizer (
cargo run --example chronoscope) for observing Aether ripple in a ping-pong buffer.- Singularity Prevention: No renormalization required; the math is self-braking.
Strategic Commons Licensing
This project is built to be a common possession of humanity.
- Code (AGPL-3.0): Open source.
- Theory (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0): The 573-page manuscript.
- Math (Public Domain): Truth cannot be enclosed.
Repo: https://github.com/chrisnchips42-blip/logos-core
I’ve spent a long time fucking around in life, doing shit like trying to die and wasting a marriage. But this has bounced around my head 15 years and I think what I have is solid. I’m looking for feedback on the WGSL compute kernels and the
Plenum_pingpongimplementation. If the universe is a computation, it has a hardware limit—this is my attempt to map it.
May not be completely on topic… but in your manuscript there you appear to make physics claims. What are those actually? Like you appear to claim to resolve black hole singularities, but there is no substance in the article. Before solving unsolved problem, your theory must reproduce old results, in some way.
An example of common GR exercises you should be able to reproduce is like the gravitational bending of light. Good, you have a chapter on that. However, it contains several errors and appears not to contain references to the claims or derivation of them from your “theory”. Like here is the simplest, first GR lecture stuff, on that section, you write:
The factor of 4 (twice the Newtonian value) comes from the equal contribution of the temporal and spatial curvature in the metric
Can you point to the spatial curvature part of that metric you show there? The one you say contribute an equal factor to the light bending angle.
Then I’d have a lot of follow ups, but it would be helpful to spell out that in this section on light bending is derived from your priciples and what are just suppose to be GR statements.
This is basically a r/LLMPhysics post escaping containment.
You are witnessing AI psychosis manifest, unfortunately.
Oh, damn. You’re right.
When I first saw this, I read through the readme, and it sounded pretty cool. Needless to say, I know nothing about physics.
I didn’t suspect AI in the slightest, until I saw this comment thread.
Now I’m pretty taken aback. Looking at it again, it should be pretty obvious. I wonder what was it about the way it was presented that made me believe it and not suspect AI in the slightest, because that’s a mistake I don’t really want to do again.
Probably a combination of passionate presentation, topic I know nothing about combined with topic I love (game engines), and my whole interaction being “this is pretty cool” and moving on. I did try looking for some actual sources about the Tesla’s mythical “standart model”, which I found none, plus got suspicious about definiton of “standart model” feeling like it doesn’t match what the text was talking about, and I just moved on, but the conclusion I had was “i wonder what will turn up out of it”, instead of “probably llm halucination” as ot should’ve been.
Oh well, I guess it’s time to properly lock in on actual textbook knowledge in fields I’m interrested in, because recognizing stuff like this in tutorials/posts and eventually books will be only harder, and it won’t be really feasible to rely on “I’ll research it on the internet when I need it”
It’s been interesting (though mostly I feel bad for the people being exploited by these AI companies) how this manifests in some highly clustered ways. Angela Collier posted a video several months ago which covers almost exactly the same kind of AI-physics posting in detail.
The whole video is great and relevant, however if you’re strapped for time then just start at 24:20 and within a couple minutes you’ll see examples very similar to this OP.
Can you point to specifics? You’re talking to a guy who literally takes medicine for a psychotic disorder. I prefer to keep my reality nice and in front of me. So, can you point to what needs work, or do you just not like that I need to rely on supplemental tools for my lack of higher education? I’m starting school this year if you feel like policing how I engage with the world.
Btw, ableist rhetoric ain’t cool guys.
literally takes medicine for a psychotic disorder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatbot_psychosis
I would STRONGLY advise to not use LLMs and chatbots then. There are early studies that link chat bot use to making some mental disorders worse. There is no link yet to actually induce one in a healthy individual, but you are not one, and I would mark it as potential risk for you.supplemental tools for my lack of higher education
Chatbots might seem smart, inteligent and educated, as they are using fancy and complicated words, but it’s a lie. They don’t know what they are talking about, they will be sycophantic to you and agree with every falsehood that it might came across.
You can pursue higher education without paying a dime. You won’t get fancy paper, but you can build an expertise yourself. There are plenty of textbooks out there. openstax.org is great resource to get high quality textbooks. I have watched lectures on youtube to get an education that wasn’t available for me at the time. No one will be able to take that knowledge from you.
The other reply shares much of my thought, just as using psychoactive drugs can trigger episodes, so can interacting with sycophantic AI chat bots. If you are seeing a professional for help, I encourage you to share with them, what you have shared with us today.
By your own admission, and the nature of psychosis, I don’t think further engagement is going to do any good.
As someone who dealt with psychosis in the past (diagnosed bipolar), I’ll happily say that psychosis is not a valid excuse to push bullshit onto others.
If you need others to point you to specifics, you need to rethink your life choices and stop using LLMs.
After seeing the response, I would run, friend. Good on you for asking the relevant questions.
AI creating drifting attentional black holes… smh.
Can you elaborate further?
Not OP, but I’m sorry to say that your LLMs have built an extremely wordy crackpot theory. There isn’t any value to be gained from pursuing this further.
You can check out Angela Collier’s videos on crackpot theories if you’d like to know more.
I would recommend leaving it behind for now and looking into more physics textbooks if you have the capacity.
“Can you point to the spatial curvature part of that metric you show there? The one you say contribute an equal factor to the light bending angle.”
With this project having escaped my competence long ago, I hope I can clarify the architectural intent behind that statement.
1. The Metric and the “Factor of 2”
In traditional GR, the factor of 4 (twice the Newtonian $2GM/c^2R$) arises because both the $g_{00}$ (temporal) and $g_{rr}$ (spatial) components of the Schwarzschild metric contribute to the null geodesic of a photon.
In the Logos of Aether framework, we derive a Refractive Metric $g_{\mu\nu}$. Near a distinction deficit (mass), the metric is formulated as conformally flat: $$g_{\mu\nu} = \text{diag}(-c^2, c^2, c^2, c^2)$$
The “spatial curvature part” is represented by the $c^2(x)$ scaling on the spatial components. In our model, this isn’t a pre-existing geometric grid but an attention allocation issue. The “Teeter-Totter Principle” dictates that the causal budget $B$ is split equally between temporal ($d_{self}$) and spatial ($d_{world}$) resolutions when at equilibrium. Because a photon must resolve both its “when” and “where” to exist as a distinction in the plenum, it “pays” twice—once in time and once in space—resulting in the observed $4GM/c^2R$ deflection.
2. Resolving Singularities
Regarding substance for the singularity claims: we don’t resolve them through new particles, but through the $\pi$-limit.
- The Constraint: Axiom 4 states the cosmic thread can only bend to a maximum of $\pi$ radians.
- The Result: This acts as a physical regulator. At the core of a “Black Hole,” density cannot go to infinity because the thread cannot be knotted tighter than $\pi$. It creates a Planck-sized knot of extreme but finite density—a “Budgetary Horizon”.
3. Reproducing “Old Results” (The Einstein Limit)
Chapter 16 explicitly addresses the recovery of the Einstein-Hilbert Action. We argue that General Relativity is an emergent elastic phenomenon. By “integrating out” the high-frequency Rattle (the plenum’s base vibration), the large-scale effective equations converge exactly on: $$G_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu\nu}$$
Moving Forward
To address your concerns about “substance,” I am considering adding four specific expansions to the manuscript:
- A formal derivation of $G$ from the “Rattle Scale” ($\lambda_C = \ell_P / \kappa_g$) to show it’s not a tuned constant but an elastic property.
- Explicit Tensor Calculus steps showing the transition from the “Stiffness Action” to the Einstein Tensor.
- A detailed “Refractive Index” proof for the light bending angle to correct the clarity/errors you noted in Chapter 8.
- Community Contribution to Theory Development
Do you think these additions would provide the technical rigor necessary to bridge the gap between our “Thread” axioms and legacy GR results? Thank you so much for your input. Another fun place to look, I think, is Chapter 13.3: The Rattle and Fractal Nesting
I found this
This manuscript was developed in dialogue with several artificial intelligence system
I guess that is why you say
With this project having escaped my competence long ago
OK. Just to let you know, nothing here makes sense.
Tanke my question. Like on some level, “$g_{rr}$” is the correct answer. But not in the context of the text in the manuscript. Then the answer would be “there is no spatial curvature in that metric, that statement and the section is wrong”.
Your suggested improvements at the end of the comment would not help the situation either. None of them relevantly addresses the issue.
Your answer here makes no sense. For the gravitational lensing calculation you use one metric. Here you try to juggle three metrics at once to… I’m not sure what the intent is, but there are barely anything that makes sense.
Look. If you think that anything here make sense, that you believe that anything that these LLMs your are using is getting closer to some new description of reality, or are even coherent, then I advise you to talk to someone. Like a health professional. What you are doing is not healthy. I’m saying this out of genuine consern.
I will not engage you on this anymore. Just one last thing before I leave, you are not to mention my user name in any contribution nor acknowledgment. Nothing I have said is to be taken as a positive encuragement as to indicate that you are making anything useful here. Hence it would not make sense to make a reference to this conversation as any sort of contribution, as it is not an attempt at contributing but only to critique. So please, do not attribute this to some “community contribution” in any of your texts.
I’m specifically worried about the performance overhead of the PlenumReal wrapper. If anyone has experience with custom algebraic types in high-concurrency Rust, I’d love your thoughts.
Language/framework-wise: you’re clearly exploring some pretty fun stuff.
Theory-wise:
Psychosis-wise: you really should stop leaning into the AI slop. It’s actually bad for you and has been proven to exacerbate psychoses.
Just so you know, LLMs might be useful tools as search engines or getting relevant keywords about some topic/knowledge that already exists but they don’t have much reasoning skills. This does not however stop them from producing an output that is just a cleverly jumbled combination of keywords/pieces relevant to the topic. So if you are doing sth like “take this idea and produce a new physics theory from it”, LLMs will not produce anything useful for you. You might take an LLM without any guardrails and massage it enough to convince it to produce a theory that proves earth is flat or that gravity does not exist.
Update: Solitons unconfirmed. Currently trying to introduce “rattle”, as described in Chapter 15. An active medium is essential for wave propagation.
