Physicist here. Why is this crackpot paper on the front page of HN? (I'm guessing posted by the crackpot author himself) No, you can't reconstruct physics from

Physicist here. Why is this crackpot paper on the front page of HN? (I'm guessing posted by the crackpot author himself) No, you can't reconstruct physics from those 9 half-wrong statements that were pull out of thin air: entropy can very well be 0 (example: any microscopic system with 1 possible configuration, or any pure quantum state has 0 entropy), the minimum of action can be any number since the Lagrangian can be shifted by an arbitrary constant without changing the physics (and no you can't derive quantum mechanics or restrict possible Lagrangians just from the existence of \hbar), it is not possible to obtain the standard model Lagrangian just from the group structure U(1), SU(2), SU(3) and the number of particles and various constants, and the whole thing about maximum force (of which 1/3 of references are devoted) is a classical statement and is likely to be wrong in a quantum version of gravity. The rest appears to be random ramblings based on these 9 statements using middle school math. For non-physicists, this is not how physics papers look like (ie, mishmash of random statements pulled out of thin air with a sprinkle of real physics, followed by middle school math, and then wilder claims with additional assumptions out of thin air). Please try reading an actual physics paper from an open-access journal, for example PRX Quantum https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/ https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/ might be somewhat relevant to HN audience since there are a lot of papers connected to quantum computing