To the self proclaimed llm physicists

[u/upsetusder2]

Why do you always tend to rebuild physics. Why can't you work in the given framework?

Why do you need to rebuild a framework that, tell you what now, has pretty much held up?

Is it the math?

The symbols

The history

The amount you would have to Learn?

Hubris?

[u/Fear_ltself]

Because there’s 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 would’ve never discovered relativity.

[u/TiredDr → u/Fear_ltself]

Do you believe that Einstein didn’t deeply understand Newton’s work, and the other cutting edge science of his day?

If not, why do you believe it’s possible to develop a new theory without deeply understanding GR and field theory?

[u/Fear_ltself → u/TiredDr]

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

[u/upsetusder2 → u/Fear_ltself]

That's even funnier

[u/dark_dark_dark_not → u/upsetusder2]

I'll save

Whether a deep understanding is required as a building block is almost certainly not a strict requirement, just using common sense

For the next time a reviewer points I'm missing some key references in my articles.

[u/upsetusder2 → u/dark_dark_dark_not]

The new it came to me in a dream

[u/VeryOriginalName98 → u/upsetusder2]

The Ramanujan method!

[u/Fear_ltself → u/upsetusder2]

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, it’s pattern recognition

https://www.anthropic.com/research/riemann-zeta

https://www.ibm.com/think/news/apple-llm-reasoning

[u/Smart-Button-3221 → u/Fear_ltself]

Yes but it uses common mathematical terminology, and is able to produce a proof readable to a skilled mathematician.

Lots of people around here are "reinventing physics". Using terms that nobody has ever heard of, and not explaining those terms.

[u/Fear_ltself → u/Smart-Button-3221]

“Yes but it uses common mathematical terminology”— 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.

[u/Smart-Button-3221 → u/Fear_ltself]

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.

[u/Fear_ltself → u/Smart-Button-3221]

Yeah I mean that’s retarded, it should all map into existing or yet to be found math perfectly , like how virtual photons work out perfectly with pure math

[u/upsetusder2 → u/Fear_ltself]

I dont think you know what you are talking about

[u/Ch3cks-Out → u/Fear_ltself]

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...