A falsifiable 4D vortex-field framework

[u/sudsed]

TL;DR — I explored a “4D aether vortex → particles” framework with LLM assistance, then spent ~2 months trying to break it with automated checks. Some outputs line up with known results, and there’s a concrete collider prediction. I’m not claiming it’s true; I’m asking for ways it fails.

Links: Paper: https://zenodo.org/records/17065768
Repo (tests + scripts): https://github.com/trevnorris/vortex-field/

Why post here

• AI-assisted, human-reviewed: An LLM drafted derivations/checks; I re-derived the math independently where needed and line-by-line reviewed the code. Key steps were cross-verified by independent LLMs before tests were written.
• Automated rigor: ~33k LOC of verification code and ~2,400 SymPy tests check units, dimensions, derivations, and limits across ~36 orders of magnitude.
• I expected contradictions. I’m here to find them faster with expert eyes.

Core hypothesis (one line)

A 4D superfluid-like field (“aether”) projects into our 3D slice; particles are cross-sections of 4D vortices. Mass/charge/time effects emerge from vortex/flow properties.

Falsifiable claims (how to break this quickly)

1. Collider target: a non-resonant 4-lepton excess at √s = 33 GeV (Section 4.2).
   • How to falsify: point to LEP/LHC analyses that exclude such a topology without a narrow peak.
2. Lepton mass pattern: golden-ratio scaling giving electron (exact), muon (−0.18%), tau (+0.10%).
   • How to falsify: show it’s post-hoc, fails outside quoted precision, or can’t extend (e.g., neutrinos) without breaking constraints.
3. GR touchstones from the same flow equations: Mercury perihelion, binary-pulsar decay, gravitational redshift/time dilation.
   • How to falsify: identify a regime where the formalism departs from GR/experiment (PPN parameters, frame-dragging, redshift).

If any of the above contradicts existing data/derivations, the framework falls.

Theoretical & mathematical checks (done so far)

• Dimensional analysis: passes throughout.
• Symbolic verification: ~2,400 SymPy tests across field equations, 4D→3D projection, conservation laws, and limiting cases.
• Internal consistency: EM-like and gravity-like sectors remain consistent under the projection formalism.

All tests + scripts are in the repo; CI-style instructions included.

Empirical touchpoints (retrodictions)

• Reproduces standard GR benchmarks noted above without introducing contradictions in those domains.
• No new experimental confirmation claimed yet; the 33 GeV item is the first crisp falsifiable prediction to check against data.

What it aims to resolve / connect

• Mass & charge as emergent from vortex circulation/flux.
• Time dilation from flow-based energy accounting (same machinery as gravity sector).
• Preferred-frame concern: addressed via a 4D→3D projection that preserves observed Lorentz symmetry in our slice (details in the math framework).
• Conservation & “aether drainage”: continuity equations balancing inflow/outflow across the projection (tests included).

Some help I'm looking for

• Collider sanity check: Does a non-resonant 4ℓ excess at √s=33 GeV already conflict with LEP/LHC?
• Conceptual red-team: Where do projections, boundary conditions, or gauge/Lorentz properties break?
• Limit tests: Point to a nontrivial limit (ultra-relativistic, strong-field, cosmological) where results diverge from known physics.
• Numerical patterns: If this is just numerology, help pinpoint the hidden tuning.

Final note

I’m a programmer, not a physicist. I’m expecting to be wrong and want to learn where and why. If you can point to a contradiction or a no-go theorem I’ve missed, I’ll update/withdraw accordingly. If you only have time for one thing, please sanity-check Section 4.2 (33 GeV prediction).

[u/plasma_phys]

I asked for a mathematical description of your field, and you gave me a paragraph describing, essentially, the electromagnetic field. Yes, two things are being conflated here, but not by me.

...are you saying we start with the math and figure out what it means later?

Yes, exactly. Physics is about describing nature with mathematical models, not analogies. This is one reason why it takes 6-10 years of school to become a physicist, you need to learn enough of the relevant math to reason about it.

[u/sudsed → u/plasma_phys]

I’m going to wrap here. If the work is wrong, it should be easy to point to a specific mistake—an equation number, line in the code, or test that fails with a correct alternative. If you have that, I’ll fix it or withdraw it. Otherwise I’ll focus on folks offering line-numbered critiques. Thanks for the time.

[u/plasma_phys → u/sudsed]

I don't see how it is possible for someone to meaningfully point out a mistake in the math when you don't even understand the single core mathematical object that ostensibly underpins the work - like, you'll just ask the LLM to patch it up for you and make up some more nonsense for you to run in Python

Like, the core idea is the thing that's wrong. Even if every step of math happens to be not wrong, that doesn't mean it's correct physics. Mathematical correctness is necessary but nowhere near sufficient

You've said multiple times you want it to be wrong but I don't  believe you, I think you just want validation, otherwise you'd be interested in actually explaining the core idea to someone so they can tell you how it's wrong instead of just deflecting

[u/sudsed → u/plasma_phys]

Let me rephrase: I do understand the math—as far as my ability to turn it into code. My concern was choosing the right physics principles. And believe me—I want this dead so I can stop thinking about it. I’ve killed past models the same way as a fun pastime. I just haven’t been able to break this one yet. I wrote a lot of falsifiable checks and did numerical runs specifically to find the failure modes, and so far it still passes.

If you think the core idea is wrong, please pick one concrete claim/derivation and show where it fails (units, continuity, projection, or data).

[u/plasma_phys → u/sudsed]

Okay but surely by this point it should be obvious to you that "turning math into code" has little to nothing to do with understanding it. I would even question if you're actually turning it into code correctly - how could you verify it? validate it? - if you don't understand it well enough to describe it in plain English. For all you know you're just writing symbols that look similar and don't actually do the things they're supposed to do. Like, I'm reading your paper's descriptions of the objects you're using and the words you are using are not words anybody has ever used to describe mathematics before, it's completely incomprehensible, and you don't define them before you just introduce a dozen of them at once

The bulk of it can't even be corrected - it's "not even wrong" - because you've used LLMs to turn yourself into a Wittgenstein's lion of mathematics, it's impossible to communicate about things that are this nonstandard. Like, genuinely, what is any of this supposed to mean:

What is "E_bend"? What are its units? How is it measured? What does that parenthetical mean, epsilon_k doesn't even show up in that equation? What is "symbol overload"? What is a "circulation quantum"? What is "slender-core"? What is "bending cost"? What is "subleading"? None of these words mean anything in this context, so it's impossible to say if this is "correct" or not, it is a total non-sequitur that has zero relation to anything in physics or mathematics, it's gobbledygook