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.
Looks like a whole bunch of nonsense by and for people with no understanding of the purpose or even the structure of academic research. The author is a “Bachelor of Business Administration” with an apparent penchant for arcane scientific-sounding babble.
Read any proper publication, and you’ll see every word and thought thoroughly explained or reduced to common (if perhaps field-specific) knowledge. The abstract is short enough to give a cursory overview, and doesn’t dump a page’s worth of the author’s favourite sciency-sounding words and symbols.
Here’s an example (supposed to be without a paywall): https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3641399.3641443
Note the format, length, and wording of the abstract, the authors’ credentials (both field-relevant and at least graduate-level), the conciseness of the discussion, etc.
Compare this to Watanabe’s efforts to convince you (and whoever else reads his stuff) that he’s smart. Very, very smart. Way smarter than you. Way smarter than the people who don’t realise his smartness. The least he expects of you is unearned respect, but I’m willing to bet he’s monetising this.
If this was the 00s, he’d probably have one of these websites (PSA: don’t download or install anything):
Kryptochef: https://web.archive.org/web/20060613200332/http://kryptochef.net/index2e.htm
Timecube: https://web.archive.org/web/20100127184015/http://www.timecube.com/
Your point seems to be missing the actual subject of discussion.
What I am asking for—even if you disagree—is a rebuttal based on scientific reasoning and evidence regarding the content itself.
That is the minimum level of respect owed when an author presents a theory derived from experimental data.
As it stands, it looks like you’re unable to provide a convincing counterargument to the actual content, so instead you’re focusing on superficial points that are easy to attack just to pass the time.
this is garbage science and the video offers no specific information most likely on purpose
“The hypothesis in this video is derived from experimental data presented in the original paper. If you’d like, I can share it with you—I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts after you’ve had a chance to read it.
Is it some metaphysics? Then is sure makes sense, as much as any other metaphysics. It’s not physics then though, but that’s totally ok.
I think that perspective—that it makes sense as metaphysics—is certainly understandable.
However, this research does not remain within that framework. It is constructed within the framework of physics, as it formulates hypotheses based on experimental data and further validates them through reproducible experiments.
If you’re interested, I’ve shared the original paper below. I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the actual data and structure, and share your honest thoughts.
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.
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.
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…
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.
