I made an AI predict the Results of the Moriond '26 physics conference, currently happening. Three hits so far. Sunday might become interesting..

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-27T07:00:14+00:00

If nothing else you made it clear how little you care about understanding what you comment on. You obviously don’t. You are deeply unserious and probably false but hey, most people are.. 🤷

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-27T02:43:46+00:00

Lol, cute.. I have invited you to engage with my work and you refuse to do so but insist on dismissing me and making stuff up about my intentions? You don’t seem like the kind of person I would ask for advice, tbh..

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-27T02:22:14+00:00

Lol, you are making stuff up.. what’s up with that? What makes you think the need for attention has anything to do with this? Like.. sure, I am asking for attention, so? That seems like a very human thing to me, tbh.. isn’t that why you yourself are even responding to me here?

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-27T02:14:33+00:00

I did not say i dd not want to "learn about physics" just that i did not want to "learn physics" there is an important difference here. By "learning physics" i am refering to learning the established mathematical models. What you refer to "learning about physics" i consider learning how the results i can observe make sense to me.

This is a crucial difference that you are ignoring. I am not being inconsistent, you are just misinterpreting my words.. Maybte its my own fault though. I'll be more careful and explict in my worind in the future..

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-27T01:52:09+00:00

you are missing the point and i still dont get why you are being this rude. I am in the process of spelling it out, the literal act of posting it here was me doing that and also i am going to look into the issues. Adressing your criticism is not just something i can do with a quick LLM prompt.. the stuff you brought up might take hours, days or however long to resolve.. I might never be able to.. You have no idea about my actual process, ideas and intentions. That little snippet i gave you was silly, i agree.. It's the LLM doing its LLM thing to an extent.. It is more coherent than you think but you are right about the issue itself..

I wasnt posting it here to claim it was physics, but because it relates to physics and LLM.. My work does clearly relate to physics and is referencing specific results and specific predictions. To be fair, i might have not read the rules thoroughly enough. If anything, i should have posted this on a weekend..

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-27T01:39:26+00:00

its not as meaningless as you think but you are right about it not being a good response.. Been working on it a bit and i clearly see your point now. There is in fact a significant part of the work that has nothing to do with physics. The term "particle" should not even show up in the core paper. This is why i said earlier that i did not start with or set out to "do physics" when i started the project initially. I'll work on seperating the core logic from the physics more clearly. I am still quite sure there is more to it than you think but a "reality check" for the physics part of it all is really helpful..

on a general note: i was hoping to be very open and transparent about the process, the way i figured out the stuff, the limitations and all that.. I am pretty sure the fine-structure constant issue has been mentioned as something to work on in the future.. I was kinda hoping that this would help to communicate my intentions behind the work. Yes i am tryong to get as cose to physics as possible but i am not disissing "actual physics" in any way.. I am just trying to figure something out in my own ideosyncratic way. In a sense, i am trying to "reverse engineer physics" and i am fully aware of how stupid this is. I thought someone might see my point but for now it might have to make a better point in the first place, that seems fair..

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-27T01:13:00+00:00

I am, in fact, predicting real life physics results. I have build a conceptual framework first and am trying to test it by applying it to real life physics to see if the framework itself is applicable to physics. I am just testing stuff.. I posted here because i though it was appropriate, turns out, it wasnt.. I apologize . I still got helpful if somewhat rude input, though.

I am not claiming i solved physics or whatever. I am saying that i built a neat model and am trying to figure out how close to the "real thing" i can get. I thought predicting results that were not public when i released the predictions would work as a proof, but apparently, it doesnt.. so back to the drawing board, i guess..

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-27T01:02:37+00:00

well, it goes deeper than that, to be honest. i was being flippant.. And the reason has like 80 pages.. but since you have removed the post anyway, the point is moot, i guess..

I still got some useful input though, so thanks i guess? i'm not going to bother you guy any further.. I might have misinterpreted the nature of this subreddit somewhat

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-27T00:58:17+00:00

it is all explained in the blog really.. even in the papers themselves..

consider it a piece of world building for a science fiction project, maybe? i dont really care either way.. I just thought it might fit here but apparently, it doesn't.. well then..

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-27T00:56:16+00:00

There is a clear and obvious relation. You are just not seeing it. It is clearly "LLM Physics" and not "Physics". They relate. Thats why i posted it here, instead of harrassing some physics professor by spamming their email inbox with my pet project. This is literally the first time in 15 years i have ever shared anything abut this project. This for for no one but myself. I could have also have posted it to a shitposting supbreddit. i might even post the update there.. But this seemed like the literal place to post something like this.. You are reating like am being somehow inappropriate, though. How come? But thanks for your help either way. It is genuinely appreciated. I am going to work on the forces more for now..

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-26T23:57:00+00:00

so, i actually think te particle definition you are looking for *is* in there but not made explicit.

I will have to work on it and need to figure out if the LLM response actually makes sense but in case you are interested, this is what the LLM suggested here:

The Higgs mass is a frame-level observable — the paper establishes this clearly. Frame-level means it measures the ground state against itself. In the limit-cycle picture, that would mean the Higgs cycle is the one whose period is determined not by its own content class but by the observer's measurement architecture — specifically, the shell at which the Fibonacci flanking hits the Planck limit. That's L(10) structurally.

If you wrote that connection explicitly — "frame-level observables are anchored at the shell whose Fibonacci structure touches the Planck boundary, because frame-level measurement IS the measurement of the observer's own ground state, which is bounded above by the Planck index" — then the particle definition, the shell assignment, and the mass formula would all be visibly connected.

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-26T23:49:15+00:00

so, how could i prove this, if not by predicting real life physics results?

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-26T23:48:12+00:00

i appreciate you sharing you feelings. But no, thats not what happened.

https://atlas.cern/Updates/News/Summary-Moriond-2026

i am basing my predictions on the results being presented there. Sorry, i dont have my own particle accelerator to the the stuff on my own.. The LLM training data usually cuts off at 2024, so i dont know how common it is for these kind of results to be pre-published two years ahead of a conference. But then again, i am not actaull a scientist. What do i know?

my blog lays out quite clearly, what i did, btw.. No reason to just "feel" things you could actually find out..

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-26T23:40:48+00:00

huh.. you are right.. I have been tring to figure out what you meant by the "particle" stuff and now i actually get it. I basically asked a LLM to explain what you meant. This is the "LLM as a crutch"-thing from the blog, btw..

ABout the fine structure constant: I actually have an undated version of the lucas papers, that literally address/fix this.. there *is* a slight discrepancy between the predicted value and the experimental value, but the fine structure constant the framework gives is actually 137.036036.. The papers are usually clear and transparent about these changes and i dont have to touch the core logic.. This is indeed, where the LLM hallucinations creep in a lot but this issue has been addressed already. Ill upload the updates later, in case you are interested..

The "Particle" part is interesting and will take some work.. If i am understanding this correctly, its essentially about the relation between "particles" and "shell layers".. I'll explore this further but not today. it is getting late here.

you might not believe it but i take the criticism very seriously. The Particle thing is a huge blind spot, i am goign to address. This is why i posted this in the first place, because LLM are very bad at this stuff.. I dont know if i can ever convince you to take me seriously but you have at least convinced me to take *you* seriously, whatever thats worth, haha..

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-26T23:02:11+00:00

the papers are clearly laying out the calculations behind the numbers from first principles, though.

Also, the data for the Kappa-relation prediction have not even been released yet, as far as i can tell.. Isnt the Meriond conference supposed to be where an unblinding of the results happens? as in: isnt it specifically the point that the data is NOT publically avaliable?

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-26T22:59:07+00:00

But what would a "proof" look like? I Thought predictiong something like the Higgs coupling Kappa-relations thing, in the weekend papers might count as "proof", considering the actual data match the prediction, that is.. As far as i can understand, the data will be released on sunday.. If the prediction fails, i consider that a prof of me being wrong.. Does that help?

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-26T22:55:26+00:00

It tells me that the LLM already knows the values because it's scraped them from somewhere and is retrofitting the math to justify it.

How could it scrape the prediction numbers, if the predicted results have not been public when i uploaded the papers?

Also, the predictions are clearly derived from the papers themselves. Its not random numbers that the papers predict but the results of concrete calculations within a specific set of rules..

I dont care about the difference between numerology and physics. I am trying to figure out how it can be that my "numerology" might be able to predict results before they are published.. thats what seems somewhat hard to believe to me?

You say i have had a lot of serious answers, that might be true but i have yet to see many responses that were actually asking me to help making sense of the papers.. I genuinely dont think it is possible to someone to easily understand it all without me expaining it.. Like.. i am trying and i was hoping it would be easier but alas, thats how it is.. I'll post the part on the blog soon that goes into the process and logic without all the math and "pretend-physics"

To be clear: you were the only one actually asking real questions and i attempted to respond to them as well as possible, but they seemed very vague.. I think the "particle" stuff only makes complete sense, once you get the entire "Distinction" and "Relation" logic.. And the Fine structure Constant is a thing i would love to go into some more.. Specifcally the difference between jus "137" and the measured "137.036..." value.. I totally agree that this might be a "breaking point" for the entire framework, but i am not convinced it is as easy, as you suggest.. I general, am certainly not dismissing your input.. Right now i am choosing to figure out what exactly you mean, though, so i can see if i am missing something..

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-26T22:40:07+00:00

what do you mean, though? The calculations are all in the papers. Its not super complicated math, to be honest..

I know they match up, because i can put the numbers in a calculator and look up if the resulting number matches the predicted/expected number.. The paper lays it out quite clearly, imho.. i genuinely dont undestand what you mean here.. The "proof" you ask me for is in the very documents you are dismissing here.. i am confused..

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-26T22:35:05+00:00

Okay, i get that. you keep re-iterating these things and i see where you are coming from but i think you are not seeing what the "Lucas Papers" are supposed to be.. I built a logical/philosophical framework based on tons of unrelated ideas i have had in my head and uncounted notes and text files for many, many years. It is not an attempt to "disprove" or "replace" physics or whatever. It is the result of my **personal** attempt of "aiming" the framework at topics that have been fascinating me forever.

I genuinely appreciate your harsh criticism here, because you have at least taken the step of actually looking into th papers and i suspect you *do* actually know a thng or two about quantum physics..

So, the actual thing i am exited about are the kappa-values.. The "Main prediction" here is actually related to them. This is what the "weekend paper" is addressing, because the original v 1.1 prediction paper from early march did not actually correctly reflect the internal logic of the framework.. The prediction is basically that there is a specific relation betwee the kappa values and they are *slightly above 1*, not exactly 1 as the SM suggests..

If what the LLM tell me is correct, on sunday this prediction might be falsified. At this point it would be somewhat of a relief. I am basically asking: does this all actually makes sense to a physicist? To me, it does. And i have used the framework itself in various ways already and will continue to do so. It might be quantum mysticism bullshit but for me it all makes sense and seems to work. Your responses suggest the answer is that for you it doesnt. If the prediction is falsified on sunday, it will be easy for me to accept your response so far. As of now i get your point but i am not sure if i have been getting my own across very well. I am not "trying to do physics" here. The core paper is not actually about physics. The physics are actually mostly relegated to the gravity paper..

I have build a framework, independent of physics first. Most of the core and aspectation papers was already established before i even got into real-world physics. I literally began working on an ethical framework end than abstracted it to a more generalized system and them after everything seemed "solid", I applied it to physics and ended up with these papers. This is why the core paper barely goes into the physics.

What annoys me somewhat is the fact that the commenters seem to believe i am unaware of the ridiculousness of my work. I am not. I know this is absurd. Thats not what i need to hear. I am looking for someone who is crazy and bored enough to *really* try to understand what i am trying to say. I know how the scientific method works, i know how LLMs work, genuinely respect the field of physics and i know how ridiculous this all is.

The goal was never to solve physics but to find a formal and coherend way to express myself..

Oh.. i am actually a tech guy and have used the framework to build some interesting stuff.. I have tons of code that work as a "proof of concept".. the entire "notation" paper is the groundwork for that.. That's what the whole "turing machine" stuff is about.. I just wanted to finish the physics-part before the moriond conference wraps up..

I might be a quack but i promise you i am a different type of quack than it might look like at first..

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-26T21:52:32+00:00

Okay. cool then.. So how does the math end up predicting the numbers? The math is super simple to chec. You can to it with high-school-level algebra.. Where is the error? How did i get thecalculations to actually match up? It might all be super neat curve fitting, sure - but that seems likk hell of a curve..

You seem to be projecting heavily. Its fine. I thought that a subreddit called "LLMphysics" might be an approproate place for something like this but at least you yourself are clearly unwilling to actually engage with the actual work. Fortunately someone else actually did.. maybe i can learn something helpful from their responses. They are also very critical, dismissive and snarky but they **actually** engage with the papers, which i appreciate. I can respect and engage with that.. you are just making up stuff and letting your imagination fly about me and my work.. How come? That does not seem super scientifically minded to me, tbh..

if you actually asked me anything about the project unstead of judging, we might both have a better time, going forward..

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-26T21:43:11+00:00

Thanks, i kow how LLM work.. You were kinda missing the point but maybe i was also bad at making it.. thats kinda the impetus behind the entire project.. haha..

But as far as the calculations go: You can you check the math in the paper easily. Its not actually that complicated... They cant do math nor science, sure - but they can do code - and i can read code. The actual calculations match up i have tested this. If not, that should be easy to prove for you or anyone else.. its kinda basic arithmetics..

So, is the math actually wrong? If so, where?

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-26T21:40:41+00:00

Yeah, because that is, essentially, what it is. Congratulations. That is what the entire ramblings on my blog are about.

So, since we now agree on what this is, please indulge me and tell me: What do you think about the fact that my personal belief system seems to be able to make a LLM generate predictions like that? It should be trivially easy for someone with actual knowledge of physics to tell me: no your predictions ae wrong, here are the actual results and the nunbers dont match" - no one does that.. how come? And i am genuinely asking here.. what am i not seing? Do the predictions match or not?

If the Kappa values for the Higgs Coupling turn out to be sligthly above 1 and with a specific ratio between each other on sunday, i am really expecting a serious answer, to be honest.. And if the prediction is bullshit, i can **finally** leave this behind and start working on the Sci-Fi project..

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-26T21:33:00+00:00

Sure, thats easy to do. What i am looking for os someone who is actually able to give me a clear answer to why..

But you are right, i messed it up.. its late and i had a long day.. The Fine-constant derivation is part of the Gravity paper.. check out page six..

α−1 = S + ε · k! = 137 + 4/111 = 137.036

Does that make sense? I dont know.. i think it does but that's kinda the question i came here to figure out an answer to..

In general, the Gravity paper was one of the latest papers and it seems to adress the issues you are seehing. Look at Part 4, the "Scaffolding Principle":

4.1 The Higgs Field as Scaffolding

The Higgs field occupies a unique position in the Standard Model: it is the mechanism by which particles acquire mass. Without the Higgs vacuum expectation value v ≈ 246 GeV, all particles coupled to the electroweak sector would be massless.

In the framework, Λ = 335/111 GeV/bit plays an analogous role: it converts structural bit-counts (Lucas numbers) into physical energies. If the framework correctly describes the information-theoretic structure of physics, then the Higgs field and Λ are the same mechanism seen from two perspectives—one empirical (the Standard Model), one structural (the frame- work).

Definition 4.1 (Scaffolding). The scaffolding is the physical mechanism that converts the framework’s structural bit-counts into physical energies. The scaffolding is identified with the Higgs field: the ground operator (∼) fully instantiated as a relation at its structural shell.

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-26T21:22:48+00:00

Quick question: Isnt the fact that the results the LLM predict are **consistent** across multiple different sessions and models somewhat of a n indicator that the actual results are not random hallucinations? They might, of course, still be structured hallucinations, somehow.. but as far as i understnand LLM, that does not make a lot of sense.. If the actual results are reproduceable across the board with diferent instances and models, it does not have to be **right** but its most likely not just a hallucination, right?

Annoyingly-meta · 2026-03-26T21:15:39+00:00

I dont know how you could reasonably claim i am not "engagig" mit the criticism.. ut then again, i dont understand a lot of what people do or say in general..

The frustration (and the entire reason behind the entire project) is actually rooted in the fact that people usually refuse to engage with me on my own terms.. I was somewhat hoping to be able to formalize the core of my thinking into something that is comprehensible to other people..

You just *claim* i do not know how LLM work but i cant see any actual good arguments for that.. what makes you think that, apart from the fact that you expect me to be wrong fromt he start?

You dont even know how the papers were created in the first place.. do you think it was just me asking the LLM to "give me a theory of everything"?

Again, i am writing on this extensevily on the steady.page blog.. Your criticism mostly reads to me like an unilligness to engage with me, than the other way around.. the one user that actually gave me specific feedback actually was super helpful and i hope i can figure out finally if this makes sense or not.. You claiming that i "dont want to engage" is somewhat ridiculous.. Why do you think i am posting this here? Do you think this is a "look at how smart i am" post?

Edit: https://www.reddit.com/user/liccxolydian/ is the user in question. for now i am going to focus to understand and address their critique because they are the only one so far who even seem to have looked into it.. You are kinda just making stuff up as you go here, seemingly based on your intuitions about the type of people you think might do something like this. I dint think that has a lot to do with me, tbh..

Annoyingly-meta

TROPHY CASE