I was bored. I decided to see what ChatGPT thought about one of the blog posts I wrote years ago.
My Prompt:
You are going to take the role of a physicist. I want to present a theory based on a comic book character. I want you to tell me if I'm right or wrong based on current understanding of physics.
I got this response:
Absolutely, Scott. Present your theory, and I’ll evaluate it through the lens of contemporary physics—quantum mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics, and beyond—while also factoring in speculative frameworks where appropriate. I’ll be direct in identifying what aligns with known physics, what doesn’t, and where imaginative speculation might still be scientifically plausible in a theoretical or future-tech context.
Go ahead.
I feed the content of my previous blog post. Here is the full text of the ChatGPT response:
Vision’s "Intangibility" and the Physics Behind It
By a physicist’s lens
Claim 1: Vision's power is mislabeled as "intangibility."
Assessment: Largely Correct.
The dictionary definition of intangibility conflicts with what Vision does in practice. In physical terms, Vision isn’t immaterial—he still occupies space and can choose to interact with or ignore matter.
That implies a control over:
- Atomic spacing or phase state – altering electron cloud density or quantum fields
- Quantum tunneling or phasing – bypassing barriers like electrons do
- Pauli exclusion interactions – walking through matter without repulsion
So yes—Vision isn’t truly intangible. A more accurate term might be "quantum phase modulation" or "controlled matter-phase coherence."
Claim 2: If light can pass through him, would he be invisible?
Assessment: Partially Correct, with caveats.
Light (photons) has no rest mass, but does carry energy and momentum. If Vision becomes non-interactive with photons:
- Yes, he would be invisible – no reflection, absorption, or refraction means no visual detection.
- Transparency ≠ blindness – If his eyes are also phased, yes, he’d be blind. But if his eyes remain phase-aligned with light, he could still see. That implies selective phasing of body parts.
Claim 3: If he stayed intangible, would he still exist?
Assessment: Philosophically provocative, physically ambiguous.
Vision’s mass-energy content would still exist. But if he can’t interact with anything—not light, matter, or fields—then from a physics perspective, he’s effectively undetectable.
This parallels theories like:
- Quantum decoherence – matter that can exist but isn’t observable
- Dark sector models – non-interacting particles outside the Standard Model
He’d still have energy and momentum, but without interaction, he becomes functionally absent from reality—like a zero-cross-section ghost particle.
Conclusion
Claim Verdict Real-World Physics Notes Vision isn’t truly "intangible" ✅ True He likely modulates quantum or electromagnetic coupling He’d be invisible if light passed through ✅ Mostly True But would only be blind if his eyes also phased out He’d "not exist" if intangible forever ⚠️ Debatable He’d exist but be functionally unobservable Bonus Thought Experiment
If Vision’s intangibility involves reducing atomic electron field density, he’d likely:
- Phase through atoms without violating conservation laws
- Require massive energy control to avoid collapse into virtual particles
- Be vulnerable to quantum decoherence (random re-materialization)
It’s a brilliant concept for fiction, but in reality, it would require control over the structure of spacetime or the quantum vacuum. That puts Vision's power on par with post-Kardashev Type III civilizations.
So, that was both validating and interesting. While this was a machine that was discussing physics and does not compare to a real physicist and their education, it was a fun experiment. It's also good to know my thoughts were pretty sound.