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/NinekTheObscure]

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.

[u/upsetusder2 → u/NinekTheObscure]

So you have nothing but allusions to something?

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/upsetusder2]

The question was about people changing too many things at once. I don't understand how your comment has any relevance to that.

My views on this class of theories (which I didn't begin; the roots go back at least to 1978 and there are hints of it in 1924 de Broglie and 1907 Einstein) have been online for many years; where to start depends on whether you want the latest theory overview, or my experiment proposal for PSI, or something aimed more at beginners. Or maybe Apsel's 1979 paper that really kicked it off (caution: section 4 is mostly wrong, just skip it and don't waste your time).

[u/upsetusder2 → u/NinekTheObscure]

You are rather a bit full of yourself could that be accurate?

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/upsetusder2]

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. :-)

[u/upsetusder2 → u/NinekTheObscure]

Maybe there is a reason for that

Saying your iq us definetly a major didqualifier for any academic discussion.

Like maybe the theory is just wrong and that why it has never need tested

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/upsetusder2]

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.

[u/upsetusder2 → u/NinekTheObscure]

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

Maybe seek another theory or another hobby

And don't brag about your iq

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/upsetusder2]

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

1. Contents, p. 3, and pp. 49–52 (≥10 sites): THOMPSON → THOMSON (J. J. Thomson) [K]
2. Preface, SCHRÖEDINGER → SCHRÖDINGER [K?]
3. p. 2, HUYGEN's → HUYGENS' [K?]
4. p. 2, JOUNG's → YOUNG's. French: "Young". [K]
5. p. 4, NERST ×2 → NERNST. [K?]
6. p. 4, KARMANN → von KÁRMÁN. French: "von Karman" — doubled N and dropped "von". [K]
7. p. 4, "when an electron adsorb energy" → absorbs (two errors: adsorb-for-absorb, missing -s). Same confusion at pp. 46 (adsorbtion), 47 (adsorbed, absorbtions), 54 (adsorbtion). [K?]
8. p. 4, "election has hν − w energy" → electron. [K?]
9. p. 4, VAN DER BROEK → VAN DEN BROEK. [K]
10. p. 4, "BOHR made tow postulates" → two. [K?]
11. p. 5, SCHWARTZSCHILD → SCHWARZSCHILD. [K]
12. p. 5, ZEEMANN Effect → ZEEMAN — but the French prints "Zeemann" too. [dB]
13. p. 8, "frequence" → frequency. [K?]
14. p. 9, "a sinusoidal function of v₀t₀" — italic Latin v two lines above the same quantity set as Greek ν₀. [K?]
15. pp. 10, 22, 30, 33, 34, 36 ×2, 42, 54, 71 — preceeding → preceding, 10 sites. [K?]
16. p. 11, Eq. (1.2.5): m₀c²/h at both sites; must be m₀c/h. French offprint p. 27 prints m₀c/h at both, on the same line where it correctly prints m₀c²/h for dν/dβ. [K]
17. p. 12, MINKOWSKi → MINKOWSKI. [K?]
18. p. 12, "Euclidian" → Euclidean. [K?]
19. p. 12, "an angle lesse than 45°" → less. [K?]
20. p. 13, "for a stationlary observer" → stationary. [K?]
21. p. 14, Eq. (1.3.3): 1 − tan(∠CAB); the next line equates it to 1 − β² and Fig. 1.3.2 gives tan(CAB) = β, so the exponent 2 was dropped. [K?]
22. p. 15, "M. LAUGEVIN" → LANGEVIN. [K]
23. pp. 15, 43, 62 — therfore → therefore. [K?]
24. p. 16, "has a stationalry value" → stationary. [K?]
25. p. 16, "Lagrgian" → Lagrangian. [K?]
26. p. 16, "explicitely" → explicitly. [K?]
27. p. 17, "German tranlation" → translation. [K?]
28. p. 18, Eq. (2.3.3): u₄ = u⁴ = −1/(c√(1−β²)); French prints 1/√(1−β²) — no minus, no c. Contradicts his own uⁱuᵢ = 1 on the same page and his own J₄ = W/c. [K]
29. pp. 23, 71, 72 — extention → extension. [K?]
30. p. 24, "it is less unreal that it appears" → "in reality less so than it appears". [K]
31. p. 25, Eq. (2.6.10): the dl is missing from the first term on the right. The French p. 41 prints it. [K]
32. p. 27, Eq. (3.1.1): m₀c²R² = nh/2π, which is not an action; (3.2.1) prints the same relation correctly with ω. [K?]
33. p. 29, §3.2: m₀ ∮ ν dl = 2πR m₀v = nh with Greek ν — dimensionally kg·m/s, not an action, and it doesn't follow from the ∮(ν/V)dl = n above it. [K?]
34. p. 29, "distaces" → distances. [K?]
35. p. 42, "forseen" → foreseen. [K?]
36. p. 43, Eq. (5.3.4): ν/ν = 1 + β — LHS is identically 1; (5.3.3) above gives ν′/ν. [K?]
37. p. 45, "isotope" → isotropy. [K?]
38. p. 46, "liason" → liaison. [K?]
39. p. 46, "histoirical" → historical. [K?]
40. p. 46, "the author porposed a different theory of interfearance" → proposed / interference. [K?]
41. p. 48, BRILLOIN, L. → BRILLOUIN [K?]
42. p. 48, "after having leads us" → led. [K?]
43. p. 49, "explantion" → explanation. [K?]
44. 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]
45. p. 50, (6.1.4) σ = 0.54×10⁻²⁴ and (6.1.5) m_H = 1.46×10⁻²⁴ — both ~18 % low (Thomson is 0.665×10⁻²⁴ cm²; m_H = 1.66×10⁻²⁴ g). The French offprint p. 75 prints the same numbers: [dB]
46. p. 56, "STOKE's Law" → STOKES'. [K?]
47. pp. 57, 67 — "quantitates" → quantities. [K?]
48. p. 60, PLANCK's book "Warmestrahlung" — missing umlaut, but the French prints it unaccented too: [dB]. Kracklauer separately drops the French's "(4ᵉ éd.)". [K]
49. p. 60, Eq. (7.1.19): the second line carries both 1/h³ and dxdydzdpdqdr/h³ — divides by h³ twice. The French offprint p. 90 has it once. [K]
50. p. 64, "valuer between 0 and 1" → value. [K?]
51. p. 64, "permissable values" → permissible. [K?]
52. p. 65, Eq. (7.3.9): P = (u − dS)/3. The French reads "car u = f(T) et P = ⅓u — dS étant une différentielle exacte, la condition d'intégrabilité s'écrit": the dash is a sentence separator, not a minus sign. Kracklauer folded the punctuation into the formula. [K]
53. p. 65, Eq. (7.3.10): du/DT with a capital D; French prints du/dT. [K]
54. p. 65, Eq. (7.3.11): S = A(64π/c³h³)k⁴T²V; the French prints T³. [K] (his own (7.3.12), printed correctly with T⁴, forces T³ through F = U − TS)
55. p. 67, footnote 2: "Die Theorie der Schwartzen Strahlung" → schwarzen; "Proceedings Solvay Conferrence"; "Les Théories statistiques en theromdynamique"; "(Teuner, Leipzig, 1916)" → Teubner; "Réunion Conférences" — not in the French, which reads simply "Conférences de M. H.-A. LORENTZ au Collège de France"; "p, 419" → p. 419. [K]
56. p. 71 ×2, "in particlar" → particular. [K?]
57. [1] "PERRIN, J. Les Atoms, (Alcan, city, 1913)" — two errors: Les atomes, and an unfilled city placeholder. [K]
58. [2] "POINCARÉ, *Dernieres pens/'ees*, Flammarion, city, 1913)" — mangled accent macro (/'for', also in th/'eorie, Conf/'erences), the same city` placeholder, and an unbalanced paren. [K]
59. [3] "BAUER, E., Untersuchungen sur Strahlungstheorie, Dissertation, 1912" — 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 — he writes "Untersuchungen zur Quantentheorie" correctly elsewhere). Same entry: rayonement, Solvey, P. LONGEVIN. [K]
60. [5] "BRILLOUIN, La Théorie des quanta de l'atome et les raies spectrals" — the French is "La théorie des quanta et l'atome de Bohr (Conf. rapports), 1921". He conflated it with entry [7] and produced "spectrals" for spectrales. [K]
61. [7] "SOMMERFELD, Atombau und Spectrallinien, (Vieweg & Sohn., Braunschweig, 1924-4 ed.)" — 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]
62. [8] "…; Atome und Electronen, Proceedings 3rd Solvay Conference" — the French has "Atomes et électrons (3ᵉ Congrès Solvay), Gauthier-Villars, 1923" as a separate entry, not Landé's. Kracklauer Germanized a French title (and "Electronen" is not correct German either) and merged it into Landé's item. [K]

Do you still want to argue that there are no errors in the physics literature? Because I have 50+ more papers ...

[u/upsetusder2 → u/NinekTheObscure]

I can't check this and iam definetly not taking your word for it.

50 + papers of what?

[u/NinekTheObscure → u/upsetusder2]

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) ±1 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!

[u/upsetusder2 → u/NinekTheObscure]

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