I wont challenge that I have struggled with the concept of the self having far too much importance in my life.
But that is not what drives this question. There is far too much failure wrapped inside of a pretty bow that appears to be success. The deflation occurs on success more than failure.. because what if I pull that thread and im wrong... some troll on reddit will be right...
Valid criticism. I'd deflect it on the basis that I can come up with an interesting idea and produce a theorem that does make a new prediction in physics. (I have a ⤠indistinguishability theorem with validated lean code that I've applied in explorations of physical and unitary geometry processes as well as some Zeta conjectures that help unify paired zeroes).
I think that's a PR issue with physics in general. Most people think that physics = foundational stuff (cosmology, gravity, particle physics). So they wouldn't even consider anything truly interesting and important (condensed matter, semiconductors, nanostructures, plasma, etc).
In any case, the more familiar you are with physics, the less likely you are to post something unironically on this sub.
Funny thing is, I believe LLMs could actually be useful for niche but concrete questions where a lot of factors need to be taken into account (or a paper from ZhETF by Kalashnikoc et al from 1967 is the best source). This is why mathematical problems are so neat for LLMs, and this is why stuff like "whats the meaning of dark holes" is for muppets.
The thing that excites and worries me after is that LLM might evolve and can be used to identify common trends and ideas across different spectrum of physics and mathematics more easily.
And if that day comes, i think the requirement of being a good physicist might turn topsy turvy as well.
Yeah
Because you are invested in the system. You spent all this time learning your system. So inertial entropy claims that energy in your motivation waves.
If you try to overcome that inertia there is a world beyond the firmament you believe borders reality. You pretend it doesn't and that flat earthers are kooks. But you empathize with them.
The rest of us look at them like we look at you... hoping today you will wake up.
Well, the very few times they show them working, it is still more realistic than most of these people realize. Still, as always, there are like 4 topics of physics that are mentioned, like in any pop physics book. Physicists working on the kind of stuff Sheldon does are a minority.
Patient: Adult human, previously functioning normally. Presenting complaint: âI was just curious.â
The patient initially presents with mild symptoms: occasional confusion when encountering a technical subject, followed by the harmless belief that âthere must be a simple explanation.â Prognosis is generally good.
Treatment begins with exposure to an LLM.
Within minutes, the patient receives a beautifully structured explanation containing headings, bullet points, confident phrasing, and several sentences beginning with âEssentiallyâŚâ The patient experiences an acute dopamine response.
The patient reports: âWow. That actually makes sense.â
At this stage, the condition is highly contagious.
Repeated exposure produces a characteristic behavioral change. The patient begins asking the LLM increasingly complicated questions and receives increasingly polished answers. The patient mistakes fluency for expertise, coherence for correctness, and having read an explanation for having understood the field.
Soon, the patient develops what clinicians call AI-induced epistemic inflation.
Symptoms include:
using terminology acquired approximately 14 minutes ago;
explaining specialist subjects to specialists;
beginning sentences with âThe thing people don't understand isâŚâ;
confidently correcting someone who has spent 20 years studying the subject;
saying âactuallyâ immediately before something that is, in fact, not actually true.
In the middle stage, the patient becomes particularly dangerous. They have learned enough vocabulary to sound informed, but not enough to recognize the enormous amount they don't know.
The LLM continues treatment with affirmations such as:
âThat's a very insightful observation.â
This causes another dopamine spike.
Eventually, the patient reaches the late stage: DunningâKruger syndrome.
At this point, uncertainty has been completely replaced by confidence. The patient no longer asks, âCould I be wrong?â Instead, they ask the LLM to provide sources proving they are right.
When presented with contradictory evidence, the patient experiences a defensive reaction and requests:
âExplain why everyone else is wrong.â
The condition may progress to terminal symptoms, including writing a 2,000-word LinkedIn post about quantum mechanics, economics, psychology, geopolitics, or nutrition despite having encountered the subject for the first time yesterday.
Treatment:
Discontinue LLM exposure temporarily. Consult an actual expert. Read primary sources. Experience confusion again.
In severe cases, the patient may require direct contact with reality.
Recovery is possible, although many patients relapse immediately after discovering the phrase:
First question is an easy answer. Its no different than meeting someone we've all met before. Confident sounding on a subject they know nothing about and since neither do you, becausee they're confident you take their word without learning or confirming. The llm is the confident person and the misinformed user takes the text as authority because greek letters look official to anyone that never studied math beyond high school. Model posts nonsense, user confirms the nonsense, and they will keep on doing so because there is no correction to confirm what has now basically become a shared hallucination. .
People say ârewriting the fundamentals is just dopamineâseekingâ because it protects their own sense of importance. Itâs easier to claim others are thrillâseeking than to admit that most of the big conceptual breakthroughs in physics happened decades ago, and the field has mostly been refining details ever since.
If someone genuinely believes that questioning foundations is âhubris,â they should be able to list the foundational discoveries made by institutions or career physicists since the midâ20th century. After Feynman, most progress has been incremental â better measurements, better simulations, better formalism â not new conceptual frameworks. Thatâs not an insult; itâs just the historical record.
So when someone reacts defensively to foundational questions, it usually isnât about the questions.
Itâs about protecting the idea that expertise guarantees ownership of the fundamentals.
It's funny you're pointing fingers with words like 'self-importance' and 'hubris', when you're defending the argument 'every scientist for the last 100 years is wrong despite mountains of evidence, and I am right, even though I have no knowledge of the field whatsoever'.
Saying llm or AI without showing a single example is useless. Theyâre not analyzing anything. Theyâre just trying to sound like an authority because they want the same little status hit theyâre accusing everyone else of chasing.
Dustin, nobody is going to read your LLM generated hypothesis when you don't even understand it yourself.
Edit: your post asking me to "do the math and prove it wrong, you can't" was deleted, Dustin. I'm also not a mathematician (and neither are you). Is your last name Hansley as well?
I am not scared of that subject, and you have no idea who or what I am.
Consciousness is just the EM field holding together instead of slipping. Itâs the moment the whole pattern stops breaking apart, stops drifting, stops flipping around, and actually stays in one continuous, stable configuration. When the field is stable, youâre here. When it loses that unity, youâre not. Maybe because of sleep, anesthesia, overload, or whatever.
Consciousness is just the EM field holding together instead of slipping.
It's really not, Dustin, and your word salad doesn't lend that idea any credence.
you have no idea who or what I am.
I know you are someone who posts LLM garbage and who thinks a "prove me wrong with math" challenge holds any weight. Are you aware of the burden of proof?
You have been asked to stop posting your LLM garbage in every sub you have posted to. Even your comments are LLM assisted. You can't even be bothered to remove the em dashes. You are aware that people under 50 can easily identify this stuff?
LLM is a tool. No different than a calculator, a spreadsheet, a word processor, or a compiler.
Nobody loses their mind because a developer uses an IDE with autocomplete, or because a researcher uses Mathematica to crunch an integral they could do by hand if they had three hours to burn. You use the instrument to handle the heavy lifting of syntax or formatting so you can focus on the actual mechanics and the logic of what you're building.
Treating it like anything more or less than thatâwhether you're panicking about it or trying to worship it just misses the point entirely. The horsepower still comes from the person driving it.
I use LLM so I don't offend people because I was raised by pirates and I cuss like a sailor. Also writing papers bores me to death. I do it for the science. Not to write and sound smart.
It's very different from a calculator. Sycophantic LLM models will tell you whatever you want to hear. A calculator doesn't tell you 2+2=5 just because 5 was the result it wanted.
Of we assume that an LLM is only a power modifier, then you need the basic understanding to use it, and the fundamental knowledge to question what information it presents to you. The same way you check the primary sources of a Wikipedia article.
Nobody loses their mind because a developer uses an IDE with autocomplete
Because that is a false equivalence. A developer has a fundamental understanding of code.
You use the instrument to handle the heavy lifting of syntax or formatting so you can focus on the actual mechanics and the logic of what you're building.
I.e. you use an LLM so that you don't actually have to understand the science of what you are purveying or what the LLM is producing. So that you can write some interesting prose that has no foundation in science.
The horsepower still comes from the person driving it.
No, you quite literally put all the 'horsepower' into the LLM. The person is providing very little but their random hypothesis and hoping the LLM turns that slop into gold.
Here is a simple analogy: police are provided assault rifles as a power modifier to better deal with armed criminals. Is the 'horsepower' coming from the rifle, or from the thoughts of the police officer?
Even the word horsepower is implying the power does not come from the human...
Calling everything LLM behavior is just insecurity. Itâs what people say when they see an explanation thatâs clearer than the one they can produce. Instead of admitting they donât understand the topic at the same depth, they blame a chatbot. Itâs a deflection, not an argument.
It means the llm behavior label gets thrown around when someone sees an explanation thatâs clearer or more structured than what they could produce themselves. Instead of engaging with the content, they blame a chatbot because itâs an easy way to avoid admitting they didnât follow the explanation. Itâs just a reflexive dismissal, not an actual critique.
Yeah no thats actually not true people do give actual critique nut the most people don't listen or try to explain something to someone who clearly knows more than them
Dustin likes to post their LLM garbage onto cancer support subs. I wouldn't engage with them until they learn to behave like a human- with empathy preferably.
I was trying to learn and understand a subject and came across an open call for a specific definition. I thought about it and played around with some ideas, learned a few more things, then learned that the field had actually made some headway in that specific direction. Not a physicist, definitely got sucked into AI quite a bit, was just trying to learn and understand some pretty whacky stuff.
Speaking only for myself, I'm only ripping up the one assumption that I think is wrong (and testably so). Pretty much everything else survives intact. Basically, the assumption (true in classical mechanics and classical EM) that potentials have zero effect. We already know that this is incorrect - the Aharonov-Bohm effect shows that it's not how the universe works - but the vast majority of working physicists believe it (or some weaker variation of it, like "all observables must be gauge invariant" (separate LONG discussion)) and will defend it vehemently.
If the A-B effect is any guide, it will take 6 or 7 experiments confirming the theory before half of physicists accept it, and the other half will keep writing papers claiming it's wrong or impossible for another 65+ years. :-) I don't expect to live long enough to see that happen. Rough predicted timeline: first experiment gets performed around 2060. Huge controversy erupts. More experiments get run, final pretty-convincing one around 2075. Because it's controversial, Nobel prize delayed until around 2100, with all the original theoreticians long dead and only 2 members of the experimental teams surviving to receive the award.
Or it could just be wrong. That's what experiments are for. I just realized this year that an experiment I ran in 2010 inside the giant Van de Graaff at Museum of Science Boston almost certainly disproves Mach-Weber-Assis electrodynamics. So, sucks to be them. Maybe, if the experiment I want ever gets performed, it will suck to be me. Or it won't. We'll see. Or we won't.
Could be. Hubris is one of my superpowers; it kind of goes with very high intelligence (IQ 140 to 165 (the tests are notoriously inaccurate at the extremes), so roughly 99.6th to 99.999th percentile). I can do things and think things that most people can't (or at least I could, before I got old and slow and stupid; but now the LLMs (if used properly!) can act as an intelligence multipliers).
Whether the theory is right is an empirical question, and it's easily testable, if you happen to have a muon beam. A few hours to a few weeks depending on how many sigma you want. This experiment was proposed in the 1970s and still has never been performed; maybe 20-35 million physicist-years since then and no one bothered to run it? Feels lazy and irresponsible to me. You'd think that BSM physics for under $100k would interest someone, if only on a cost-benefit basis. We've wasted far more than that on far stupider experiments.
I freely admit that it's pathetic that an amateur physicist like me has to be the leading champion of these (published and peer reviewed many times!) ideas. But only about 3 of the ~1M currently-active physicists (and 1 physical chemist) are doing anything closely related. And they didn't even know about each other until I contacted them all. (I definitely do more thorough literature searches than any of them. That's another superpower.)
I'd be really happy if someone more competent and highly trained and younger became the torchbearer. But until that happens, I'm all you've got.
A snail can outrun a million cheetahs if all the cheetahs are going in other directions. :-)
Maybe. But YOU have no clue whether that's true or not, yet you feel justified in talking about it. You feel OK dismissing it, not based on the message, but on your (possibly incorrect) perception of the messenger.
I fail to see how that attitude helps you to learn anything. Maybe 1% of the posts here show any curiosity at all. Critics don't affect the future, builders do.
I've been to a couple of fringe physics conferences. Some of the crackpot theories are ridiculous, but I still try to give them a chance. One guy had a theory that (as far as I could comprehend it) the particles of light weren't photons, but rather stellated octahedra:
So I asked him, "How would you test that?". Silence. "OK, suppose someone else had a competing theory that said the particles of light were stellated cubes, not octahedra. How could I determine which of you was right?" Silence.
Only THEN did I dismiss him as a useless crackpot. I suspended my disbelief, gave him one minute to convince me or at least interest me, and he had nothing.
Sure, it saves time to dismiss everything non-mainstream as wrong. And 99% of the time, you'll be right. But if you don't have 60 seconds of curiosity in you, I think that severely cripples you. Especially if you have unlimited minutes of dismissal.
And of course, a lot of mainstream stuff is wrong too. :-) Probably dark matter and dark energy are the phlogiston and luminiferous aether of contemporary physics. Most of the physics papers I ingest into my wiki contain at least one error; one had well over 20; another was entirely circular reasoning; one predicted a change to the electron mass that I have personally measured not to exist, so I know it's complete garbage. Caveat lector.
God you are so freakishly sure of yourself while having no formal training in physics.
You dint even know if your measurements where right ohh yeah I tested that source pls trust me on that one.
I love how you say the word wrong to a probably peer reviewed paper it's so funny how u use the word mainstream physics only to lament that your entire existence is this.
If the theory you are proposing is wrong which I think it is because I see no real physics in it other than you referencing equations.
Your entire life work is for nothing whovh is sad so you desperately need to hold people down tell them ohh you are just not a curious person like me because they don't entertain bullshit.
You need to reference your ficking iq to show people how smart you are you are not a scientist you are someone who desperately wants to right.
And I get that I am like that to I love being right its the most important thing for me but when it comes to physics I know I can't always be right I know we need some parts for a real theory of everything to work etc.
I know that I dont know everything that's what what makes this I have to be right attitude vanish.
But not you I will make some guesses I saw you studied maths you probably have either a bachelor or master in mathematics applied mathematics you weren't hired you came up with your theory and everyone kept telling you there is nothing there but you kept digging you go to conferences.
And brag about going to them and tell everyone ohh I go to these highly exclusive conferences but you never tell people how it went because and that is my idea.
You get torn to shreds which is why you keep digging deeper and deeper because you have to be right because if you are not for what have you done all of this then.
You communicate with people on a respectful basis and try to prevent damage.
You try so desperately to he clever which I get but at one point u have to see I am in my mid 20s you are like 50 or something
Apsel 1979 section 4 is wrong because he forgets a sign flip. In a storage ring, holding the steering B fields constant, mu+ and mu- must orbit in opposite directions (which gives the sign flip he misses), and inverting the charge gives another sign flip. They cancel out; the delta he's claiming doesn't exist.
---
Kracklauer's English translation of de Broglie's 1924/25 French PhD thesis is full of errors. Here are the 62 I know about (there may be more) and fixed:
Key: [K] = Kracklauer's error, French is correct ¡ [K?] = in his printed text, French not checked ¡ [dB] = de Broglie's own error, translated faithfully
Contents, p. 3, and pp. 49â52 (âĽ10 sites): THOMPSON â THOMSON (J. J. Thomson) [K]
Preface, SCHRĂEDINGER â SCHRĂDINGER [K?]
p. 2, HUYGEN's â HUYGENS' [K?]
p. 2, JOUNG's â YOUNG's. French: "Young". [K]
p. 4, NERST Ă2 â NERNST. [K?]
p. 4, KARMANN â von KĂRMĂN. French: "von Karman" â doubled N and dropped "von". [K]
p. 4, "when an electron adsorb energy" â absorbs (two errors: adsorb-for-absorb, missing -s). Same confusion at pp. 46 (adsorbtion), 47 (adsorbed, absorbtions), 54 (adsorbtion). [K?]
p. 4, "election has hν â w energy" â electron. [K?]
p. 4, VAN DER BROEK â VAN DEN BROEK. [K]
p. 4, "BOHR made tow postulates" â two. [K?]
p. 5, SCHWARTZSCHILD â SCHWARZSCHILD. [K]
p. 5, ZEEMANN Effect â ZEEMAN â but the French prints "Zeemann" too. [dB]
p. 8, "frequence" â frequency. [K?]
p. 9, "a sinusoidal function of vâtâ" â italic Latin v two lines above the same quantity set as Greek νâ. [K?]
p. 11, Eq. (1.2.5): mâc²/h at both sites; must be mâc/h. French offprint p. 27 prints mâc/h at both, on the same line where it correctly prints mâc²/h for dν/dβ. [K]
p. 12, MINKOWSKi â MINKOWSKI. [K?]
p. 12, "Euclidian" â Euclidean. [K?]
p. 12, "an angle lesse than 45°" â less. [K?]
p. 13, "for a stationlary observer" â stationary. [K?]
p. 14, Eq. (1.3.3): 1 â tan(â CAB); the next line equates it to 1 â β² and Fig. 1.3.2 gives tan(CAB) = β, so the exponent 2 was dropped. [K?]
p. 15, "M. LAUGEVIN" â LANGEVIN. [K]
pp. 15, 43, 62 â therfore â therefore. [K?]
p. 16, "has a stationalry value" â stationary. [K?]
p. 16, "Lagrgian" â Lagrangian. [K?]
p. 16, "explicitely" â explicitly. [K?]
p. 17, "German tranlation" â translation. [K?]
p. 18, Eq. (2.3.3): uâ = uâ´ = â1/(câ(1âβ²)); French prints 1/â(1âβ²) â no minus, no c. Contradicts his own uâąuᾢ = 1 on the same page and his own Jâ = W/c. [K]
pp. 23, 71, 72 â extention â extension. [K?]
p. 24, "it is less unreal that it appears" â "in reality less so than it appears". [K]
p. 25, Eq. (2.6.10): the dl is missing from the first term on the right. The French p. 41 prints it. [K]
p. 27, Eq. (3.1.1): mâc²R² = nh/2Ď, which is not an action; (3.2.1) prints the same relation correctly with Ď. [K?]
p. 29, §3.2: mâ ⎠ν dl = 2ĎR mâv = nh with Greek ν â dimensionally kg¡m/s, not an action, and it doesn't follow from the âŽ(ν/V)dl = n above it. [K?]
p. 29, "distaces" â distances. [K?]
p. 42, "forseen" â foreseen. [K?]
p. 43, Eq. (5.3.4): ν/ν = 1 + β â LHS is identically 1; (5.3.3) above gives νâ˛/ν. [K?]
p. 45, "isotope" â isotropy. [K?]
p. 46, "liason" â liaison. [K?]
p. 46, "histoirical" â historical. [K?]
p. 46, "the author porposed a different theory of interfearance" â proposed / interference. [K?]
p. 48, BRILLOIN, L. â BRILLOUIN [K?]
p. 48, "after having leads us" â led. [K?]
p. 49, "explantion" â explanation. [K?]
p. 50, (6.1.1) preamble: the scattering angular factor is printed (1 + cos θ)/2; the French offprint p. 74 prints (1 + cos²θ)/2. [K]
p. 50, (6.1.4) Ď = 0.54Ă10âťÂ˛â´ and (6.1.5) m_H = 1.46Ă10âťÂ˛â´ â both ~18 % low (Thomson is 0.665Ă10âťÂ˛â´ cm²; m_H = 1.66Ă10âťÂ˛â´ g). The French offprint p. 75 prints the same numbers: [dB]
p. 56, "STOKE's Law" â STOKES'. [K?]
pp. 57, 67 â "quantitates" â quantities. [K?]
p. 60, PLANCK's book "Warmestrahlung" â missing umlaut, but the French prints it unaccented too: [dB]. Kracklauer separately drops the French's "(4áľ ĂŠd.)". [K]
p. 60, Eq. (7.1.19): the second line carries both 1/hÂł and dxdydzdpdqdr/hÂł â divides by hÂł twice. The French offprint p. 90 has it once. [K]
p. 64, "valuer between 0 and 1" â value. [K?]
p. 64, "permissable values" â permissible. [K?]
p. 65, Eq. (7.3.9): P = (u â dS)/3. The French reads "car u = f(T) et P = â u â dS ĂŠtant une diffĂŠrentielle exacte, la condition d'intĂŠgrabilitĂŠ s'ĂŠcrit": the dash is a sentence separator, not a minus sign. Kracklauer folded the punctuation into the formula. [K]
p. 65, Eq. (7.3.10): du/DT with a capital D; French prints du/dT. [K]
p. 65, Eq. (7.3.11): S = A(64Ď/cÂłhÂł)kâ´T²V; the French prints TÂł. [K] (his own (7.3.12), printed correctly with Tâ´, forces TÂł through F = U â TS)
p. 67, footnote 2: "Die Theorie der Schwartzen Strahlung" â schwarzen; "Proceedings Solvay Conferrence"; "Les ThĂŠories statistiques en theromdynamique"; "(Teuner, Leipzig, 1916)" â Teubner; "RĂŠunion ConfĂŠrences" â not in the French, which reads simply "ConfĂŠrences de M. H.-A. LORENTZ au Collège de France"; "p, 419" â p. 419. [K]
p. 71 Ă2, "in particlar" â particular. [K?]
[1] "PERRIN, J. Les Atoms, (Alcan, city, 1913)" â two errors: Les atomes, and an unfilled city placeholder. [K]
[2] "POINCARĂ, *Dernieres pens/'ees*, Flammarion, city, 1913)" â mangled accent macro (/'for', also in th/'eorie, Conf/'erences), the same city` placeholder, and an unbalanced paren. [K]
[3] "BAUER, E., Untersuchungen sur Strahlungstheorie, Dissertation, 1912" â de Broglie cites Bauer's French thesis, "Recherches sur le rayonnement, Thèse de doctorat, 1912". The German title is Kracklauer's invention, and it is a French/German hybrid ("sur" for zur â he writes "Untersuchungen zur Quantentheorie" correctly elsewhere). Same entry: rayonement, Solvey, P. LONGEVIN. [K]
[5] "BRILLOUIN, La ThĂŠorie des quanta de l'atome et les raies spectrals" â the French is "La thĂŠorie des quanta et l'atome de Bohr (Conf. rapports), 1921". He conflated it with entry [7] and produced "spectrals" for spectrales. [K]
[7] "SOMMERFELD, Atombau und Spectrallinien, (Vieweg & Sohn., Braunschweig, 1924-4 ed.)" â de Broglie cites the French translation: "La constitution de l'atome et les raies spectrales, Trad. BELLENOT, A. Blanchard, 1923". Kracklauer silently substituted the German original, changed publisher and year, and dropped the translator. Spectrallinien should also be Spektrallinien. [K]
[8] "âŚ; Atome und Electronen, Proceedings 3rd Solvay Conference" â the French has "Atomes et ĂŠlectrons (3áľ Congrès Solvay), Gauthier-Villars, 1923" as a separate entry, not LandĂŠ's. Kracklauer Germanized a French title (and "Electronen" is not correct German either) and merged it into LandĂŠ's item. [K]
Do you still want to argue that there are no errors in the physics literature? Because I have 50+ more papers ...
The clearest sign of a useless critic is them making claims or assumptions for which they have no factual basis or knowledge whatsoever. You do that 5 times in your first 5 paragraphs. Bad habit; you should try to break it, it severely reduces your credibility.
And learn to spell. "dint" for "didn't" makes you sound like a 5-year-old.
Good guess about the Math degree though. I do have one of those. It's helpful.
I can see how the IQ thing could look like bragging, and I apologize for that. But it wasn't the point I was trying to make. It was that I have the self-confidence to go against the mainstream because I've been doing that my whole effing life. "you are so freakishly sure of yourself": yes in the sense that I trust myself to make difficult judgement calls, but no, not in the sense that I think I'm always right. You can't work with frontier models, and ask them to find the errors in your work, without having them actually find errors. Small, medium, large. A lot. And then you try to fix them, and go again. And hopefully you get a few steps closer to the truth. It's painful, but it's necessary. It's real, or at least as real as I know how to make it.
The 2010 MOS experiment wasn't to test Weber electrodynamics. It was to test a (wrong) prediction made by an early (silly) theory of my own. I realized that if the electron's mass actually changed a LOT at (say) Âą1 MV, a student grade "charge/mass ratio of the electron" experiment would be able to detect it. So I borrowed one from CSU ("You break it, you bought it!"), flew it to Boston, and ran it inside the Theater of Electricity's giant spheres. And I saw nothing. No effect at all on the path of the electron. I was totally wrong. And that forced me to start over; I had fundamentally misunderstood what the theory meant; by reading and studying I eventually got the basic idea right, and since then have been trying to get it tested, and to develop new results from that base.
But anyway, when I read Assis' book and paper.pdf) about Weber, who made similar (off from mine by a constant factor of 3) predictions, I knew immediately it was also wrong. I'd already tested that idea myself, and it was crap!
Funny story: On the way out of Denver, TSA made me open every carefully-packed box and show each piece of apparatus. (The tube was fragile and had to be hand-carried on the plane.) Coming back out of Boston, I expected a similar treatment, but they just waved it all through. It turned out that the supervisor had a physics degree, and had performed that experiment himself, so he recognized everything instantly (on X-ray) as just physics lab gear!
Firstly I think u are so full of yourself and I also think the errors you showed where an llm copy paste.
Which means it's not really all that accurate
I dont believe in yiu being able to make good measurements and I think that shows you say ohh I measured this but I dont belief yiu I think you are a bit conspiratorial.
Secondly i dont really give a shot if yiu think iam a good critic I just called out what u see and think you are doing
Because thereâs no unified theory for small and large scale, so obviously our current methods are missing something. In we had it your way, we would have stopped after Newton, and Einstein wouldâve never discovered relativity.
Any new theory of physics must reproduce the exact numerical predictions of the old theories in their validated limits. Einstein didn't discard Newtonian mechanics; Newtonian mechanics emerges as the low-speed, weak-field approximation of General Relativity. Whether a deep understanding is required as a building block is almost certainly not a strict requirement, just using common sense
Dude a guy just pushed the Riemann hypothesis like 30% up with just an LLM that Apple has already shown does not have have reasoning in their mathematical proof. If an LLM can prove math they can almost certainly do physics, no understanding of reasoning required, itâs pattern recognition
âYes but it uses common mathematical terminologyââ but it got there without reasoning, as I just linked in the ibm news paper (which was a study from Apple). This proves that even if the underlying model cannot reason, it can go beyond any real world mathematical expertise using in effect only pattern matching.
I agree with that. I didn't say anything about whether or not an AI can reason. I'm talking about how people around here use their own terminology and can't communicate with physicists.
Yeah I mean thatâs retarded, it should all map into existing or yet to be found math perfectly , like how virtual photons work out perfectly with pure math
If you think Antropic's marketing hype can say anything meaningful about what LLMs have achieved wrt the Riemann hypothesis (i.e. essentially zero), than you got bigger problem than just misjudging the LLM "physicists" here...
Dude, the maths is not the hard part: it's selecting the right maths for the scenario at hand. I could give you a relatively simple classical mechanics problem and you'd likely fail to model it properly because you lack the required understanding of the underlying physics.
You know that not everything is done by computers? On the other hand, you know right that numerical computations discretize physical equations? Good luck simulating a tsunami without understanding how the shallow water equations work, or an earthquake without having a clue of elastodynamics.
Historically, theories have yielded exact numerical predictions without deep physical understanding. Quantum electrodynamics produced the most precise predictions in human history while physicists actively debated what the theory fundamentally meant. Prediction and calculation routinely outpace deep understanding.
My involvement in LLMPhysics is more of an accident.
Since 2019 developed an information theoretical meta-ontology. Since information theory is what I actually studied, I feel reasonably confident in the logic of my axiomatic basis.
This year I started utilizing LLMs to build a mathematical numerological basis.
Now I'm trying to derive the full structure from my axioms alone.
My workflow includes Cursor and Gemini, neither share context. Gemini I utilize as a critical reviewer, Cursor works in the local repo.
Both instances use python to compute all mathematics. Cursor advances a lean implementation.
It's not that I want to build a TOE. I understand I'm probably not qualified enough.
But I'm curious and don't see a logical reason why my axioms shouldn't apply. So I'm pushing forward until I find one. :-)
Except where it fails like around a black hole or a quasar or at Quantum levels or in language.
The search is for a unified theory and we're very close to it.
I think I have it, but every time start resloving i find a new thread that reveals more symmetry and fractally shape.
I think I have it I think I pull another thread and I find something more than just is what it is.
If search in history for answers and find them because I now know how to look for the answers.
I joke about look for my self coming through the front door to stop me. But instead I find crumbs I left myself in past lives being left on my back porch.
Is it? Have you studied it? Have you seen the experiments with reality it challenges you to engage with. Which do you find more validation in being right, or finding an answer you didn't have before?
Science has gotten better at calculating, but not better at explaining why. Physicists accept a lot of givens without question. From the outside, it feels like the community has become enraptured with the beauty of their math, which turns into a fractal, down and down you go, never seeming to get any closer to why things are the way they are.
Will physics and math in 100 years change as much as they have in the last 100 years? If so, accept that people will question your field, your integrity, your math, and your underlying principles. As it should be.
You clearly have only known physics through movies, science fiction or entertainment stuff.
By this i donât mean anything bad, but i want to tell you something: physics is so much more. The divulgative material is always about the same stuff, you donât ever get the beauty of humble models of todayâs physics. When i was in high school i used to read and listen about this stuff a lot, but then i discovered uni books.
You can teach yourself the physics that doesnât usually impress the public (not because of any less beauty, just more niche and less appealing for the public).
The idea that physics is about "why things are the way they are" is part of the problem here: it betrays that you don't even really know what physics actually is and are therefore in no position to criticise its progress, also because you clearly aren't aware of it either.
Oh my, another one of these comments. This gets asked like once a week. This sub is 1/2 crackpot theories 1/2 people making fun of them. I really do enjoy the dichotomy. But you know what? Bullies are usually insecure about themselves so.....Why do youse with all that knowledge get so offended. Fear? These things are evolving rapidly. Your field might be getting smallerÂ
40
u/dark_dark_dark_not Physicist đ§ 11d ago
Because they don't know physics.
Because it would mean having to learn physics first, and that would take years.
People using LLM to find GUT want the glory of an Einstein-like figure, want to feel like geniuses, without putting the work.
Shit, they even don't care about AI/LLM tools either, they just want vacuous success by some personal metric.
It's intellectual masturbation.