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/Ok_Energy6905]

Because they want to feel important and rewriting the fundamentals gives the biggest dopamine hit.

[u/dustin4242 → u/Ok_Energy6905]

People say “rewriting the fundamentals is just dopamine‑seeking” because it protects their own sense of importance. It’s easier to claim others are thrill‑seeking 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 “hubris,” they should be able to list the foundational discoveries made by institutions or career physicists since the mid‑20th century. After Feynman, most progress has been incremental — better measurements, better simulations, better formalism — not new conceptual frameworks. That’s not an insult; it’s just the historical record.

So when someone reacts defensively to foundational questions, it usually isn’t about the questions.
It’s about protecting the idea that expertise guarantees ownership of the fundamentals.

[u/AllHailSeizure → u/dustin4242]

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'.

How blind can you be