{"id":575880,"date":"2026-08-05T20:40:14","date_gmt":"2026-08-05T20:40:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/575880\/"},"modified":"2026-08-05T20:40:14","modified_gmt":"2026-08-05T20:40:14","slug":"a-composer-published-a-paper-on-theoretical-physics-his-lack-of-credentials-drew-criticism-retraction-watch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/575880\/","title":{"rendered":"A composer published a paper on theoretical physics. His lack of credentials drew criticism. \u2013 Retraction Watch"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Some people compose music or make YouTube videos for a hobby. That\u2019s Brandon Yates\u2019 job \u2014 so in his spare time, he tries his hand at theoretical physics. But his only published paper was questioned because of his lack of professional training in the field \u2014 despite the physicist who inspired his work saying the work looks legitimate.<\/p>\n

Based in Las Vegas, Yates earns a living as a composer<\/a> for the animated series called \u201cDeath Battle<\/a>.\u201d He also has had an \u201cintuitive understanding of, and love for, General Relativity for as long as I can remember,\u201d he told Retraction Watch. But he has no formal training in physics and is self-taught, he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

After watching a video lecture series online<\/a> by Canadian physicist Eric Poisson, in January, Yates built a computer algebra program to look into rules in general relativity used to fuse two spacetimes across a thin shell, Yates said. By March, he had come across a conditional result he believed to be novel.<\/p>\n

He spent a few weeks trying to understand his finding, \u201cand then sat on it a couple more weeks for a literature search and to decide whether to submit a paper despite my station,\u201d Yates told us. He submitted his findings to the International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics and said the peer reviewers asked only for a few \u201cpresentational\u201d fixes, including that he hadn\u2019t used his key words enough.\u00a0<\/p>\n

While the paper was under review, Yates posted on X in March<\/a> asking for an endorsement so he could post a preprint on arXiv, which requires such backing for new authors.<\/p>\n

General relativity is a popular topic<\/a> for amateur physicists or people working outside their expertise. Regardless of his lack of formal training, Yates\u2019 paper<\/a> on vanishing surface density in generalized Vaidya spacetimes was published on June 20, listing him as an independent researcher.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Brandon Yates<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s probably worth making explicit that I have no incentive to fudge anything. I\u2019m successful in another field and already have a thriving career,\u201d Yates told us.<\/p>\n

The day after it was published, a physicist who declined to give us his full name because he \u201cwould like to focus quietly on my academic research without troubles,\u201d emailed the journal to express concern that Yates \u201cappears to have no formal education in any STEM-related field.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis lack of background, coupled with the highly technical nature of the work, strongly indicates that the manuscript was likely generated using an aggressive, AI-assisted workflow by someone outside the scientific community (specifically, a professional musician),\u201d the physicist wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Yates told us he used a generative AI tool, but within the confines of what is acceptable at the journal. The AI \u201cwas limited to assistance with phrasing in academic register, LaTeX formatting\/typesetting, and assistance preparing the Python verification script,\u201d he said. \u201cThe mathematical claims are supported by the exact symbolic verification materials and do not depend on AI output.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Francesco Bajardi, co-executive editor at the International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, told us the journal\u2019s review of the article \u201chas not identified evidence suggesting improper use of AI, though we cannot state this with certainty.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cHowever, the lack of affiliation and background are clearly suspicious,\u201d Bajardi said. He told us the journal was no longer investigating the article because \u201cthere is no certain proof that the manuscript has been entirely written by AI.\u201d<\/p>\n

Poisson, whose work inspired Yates, told us the paper \u201cdoesn\u2019t reveal any red flag that suggests to me a major AI involvement.\u201d He noted the work \u201cdescribes a rather straightforward exercise in applying junction conditions in general relativity, with no particular interest nor novelty, but I see nothing objectionable about it,\u201d he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Yates told us \u201cthere was never a grand plan here. I found a result I thought might be novel, did my best to turn it into a proper paper, and submitted it through the normal process.\u201d He is now taking online courses so he \u201ccan pursue proper accreditation,\u201d Yates said. \u201cA BA, and later if I\u2019m lucky, a PhD in mathematical or computational physics. I\u2019m also actively seeking out a mentor, though I\u2019ve had no luck so far.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI didn\u2019t expect that working without a degree would turn a refereed paper into news,\u201d he said. \u201cI\u2019m pursuing physics because it brings me joy, and submitted the paper when I\u2019d found something.\u201d<\/p>\n

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a\u00a0tax-deductible contribution to support our work<\/a>, follow us\u00a0on X<\/a> or Bluesky<\/a>, like us\u00a0on Facebook<\/a>, follow us on LinkedIn<\/a>, add us to your\u00a0RSS reader<\/a>, or subscribe to our\u00a0daily digest<\/a>. If you find a retraction that\u2019s\u00a0not in our database<\/a>, you can\u00a0let us know here<\/a>. For comments or feedback, email us at\u00a0[email\u00a0protected]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n\tRelated\n<\/p>\n

\t