Charter · Personal Science

Science equity.

Preface

This document says why this repo exists, what it does, and what it will never do.

It is short on purpose: every newcomer should be able to read it in under a minute.

Before the rules, there is a reason we set out: the manifesto.

Article 1 · Purpose

Science equity: people without a lab, a degree, or a grant should be able to run real experiments with their own hands.

Not "understand science" — do science. Not popular science — distributing the means of production.

Article 2 · Personal Science

Personal computers gave computing power to individuals. Personal agents gave one person the output of a team.

Personal science is the next cell:

personal agent: one person = one team personal science: one person = one lab

The barrier to doing research was never intelligence. It is four things:

equipment, vocabulary, method, and nobody telling you what to do next.

AI removes all four at once. So there is no reason to wait for permission.

One step further: research will go OPC.

A one-person company needs no headcount, no office, no investors. A one-person lab needs no institution, no grant, no advisor. When measurement, records, analysis, and write-up can all be carried by AI, the individual becomes the smallest unit of research.

This is not a downgrade. It is research being untied from its organizational form.

Article 3 · We believe

1. Evidence is equal before everyone. Not school, not title, not follower count — only "can this be repeated?".
2. Fun is the entrance, not the enemy. People start because it's fun. Seriousness grows on its own.
3. Failure counts. Refuted hypotheses, broken setups, wildly off numbers — all worth writing down, so the next person doesn't repeat the mistake.
4. Daring beats knowing. Someone who presses start is closer to science than someone who memorized the formulas and never touched the bench.
5. AI is a weapon, not a crutch. Use it to find methods, compute data, catch your own mistakes. But the hands must be yours.

Article 4 · This repo does four things

1. Collect experiments one person can finish at home
2. Write each one well enough to follow: what you need, how long, what counts as success, where it goes wrong
3. Let people post what they got, including failures
4. Stay readable by AI, so a model can tell an ordinary person which one to start with

To accept an experiment, check these five, in order:

1. Curiosity first — an ordinary person should want to try it at first glance, think "wait, that works?"
2. Doable at home — budget ≤ ¥200 (~$30), one weekend, no license, no danger
3. Produces a number — not just "fun to watch", but "you can write down what counts as success before you start"
4. Upgradable with AI — phone / ESP32 / open-source hardware / AI analysis instead of expensive instruments
5. Any era — a classic from 1801, a WWII measurement; if it can be redone today, it counts

This standard itself is open for change. If you think a rule is wrong or missing, open an issue or PR (see Article 7). The standard isn't dictated by the owner — it's settled by whoever argues well enough to convince everyone.

Nothing outside these four.

Article 5 · Five things this repo will never do

• No certification. No certificates, no scores, no verdict on what is "real science".
• No identity vetting. Anyone can open a PR. We don't ask who you are, where you're from, or what you studied.
• Not doing it for you. AI can guide you, not replace your hands — otherwise it becomes watching videos.
• No hype, no idols. There are no gurus here, only people who finished and people who haven't started.
• No dangerous or licensed work. High voltage, open flame, ingestion or inhalation of chemicals, live-animal work, anything requiring a permit.

These five are a lock on ourselves. If someone later tries to add scoring, certification, or gatekeeping, point at this article.

Article 6 · Equal right to evidence is not equality of conclusions

Science equity means: everyone has the right to submit evidence.

It does not mean: everyone is right.

That is why every experiment must state, before you start, what counts as success. Whatever comes out is what comes out.

You may contradict anyone — but with an experiment that can be repeated, not with a paragraph of feelings.

This is the line between this repo and pseudo-science.

We don't argue with authority. We only trust what can be repeated.

Article 7 · How to amend

This is not carved in stone. Changing it requires:

1. A pull request
2. A statement in the PR: which article blocks what, and why
3. At least one person who objected, and a response to them

Rarely changed, but changeable. Rules that outlive people are what make a constitution.

Appendix · Repo outline

Signature

Whether a marksman from nowhere can beat a champion should be decided by the target, not by the résumé.

2026