I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to explain physical phenomena based on the structure of the observer.
It attempts to connect relativity and quantum mechanics through the concept of the observer, which I found quite interesting.
I found a video explaining the idea, so I’m sharing it here: 👉 https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/c714dc8c-eb93-4317-b369-8e57fac880fc?artifac
Curious to hear what people think.
I’m sorry, it’s a bunch of nonsense; I’m always careful to disregard fringe paracademic works, but this one has undefined variables in experimental section, no clear experimental design description, and mixes random terms (AUC, for example, is not a statistics tool, but transceiver design abstraction) for no clear reason.
I could also anticipate correlation of generic metrics like random data’s Ricci curvature based on abundance of similarly distributed noise in similar ADC components used both in EEG and pioneer quantum computation systems. So I’m not sure what I’m even looking at, but it sounds legit even without new effects; how could I tell one from another when I know little and less about what really was measured and how?
Thus, I’m not saying there is nothing behind the ideas, but this work is just not legitimate as it does not convey the idea nor its validation/fallibility at all.
I assess it’s engagement bait. Our having read much of it, despite none of it having any discernable value at all, was apparently the point. I can’t see this drivel passing any first inspection by peers in the field…
@[email protected]
I understand that concern—I’ve received similar comments about the lack of peer review.
However, I believe peer review is meaningful only when there are experts who are capable of evaluating the work in detail. In this case, the theory is quite new, and there are currently no researchers working within the same framework who could properly review it.
It’s true that the main empirical basis is the nonlocal EEG–quantum experiment. But according to the papers, what is observed goes beyond just finding “some correlation” in data—the correlations appear under specific structural conditions, which is what led to the development of the theory.
Also, instead of relying on peer review at this stage, the experimental methods and procedures are fully disclosed in detail. The author explicitly states that anyone can attempt to replicate the experiment.
So if there is skepticism, the idea is: rather than just debating it conceptually, it can actually be tested directly.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396890295_Reproducible_EEG-Quantum_Nonlocal_Correlation_Experiments_Step-by-Step_Guide_and_Implementation_Overview
@[email protected]
Thank you for taking the time to read it so carefully — I really appreciate the detailed critique.
A few of the points you raise are important, especially regarding experimental clarity and variable definition. The framework here is admittedly unconventional, because it is not starting from a predefined causal model but from a structural alignment condition between independently measured systems.
For example, the Ricci curvature and phase-based metrics are not used as generic statistics, but as structural descriptors to detect when alignment conditions emerge. The key claim is not that “correlation exists,” but that correlation appears conditionally under specific structural states, which is why standard noise-based explanations don’t fully account for the observed selectivity.
Regarding experimental design transparency — that’s a fair concern. The intent of the paper is less to present a finalized measurement protocol and more to demonstrate a reproducible phenomenon that current frameworks cannot easily place. That said, I agree this part needs to be clearer and more rigorously formalized.
If you’re open to it, I’d be very interested in which specific parts you find most problematic (e.g., the EEG preprocessing, the quantum measurement mapping, or the coherence condition itself). That would help sharpen the next iteration.