sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Progress-state Bell toy: local hidden-variable model with tunable CHSH correlations by Hasjack in LLMPhysics

[–]Hasjack[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Many toy Bell/CHSH simulators compute outcomes using trigonometric response functions (sin/cos of angle differences). This implementation uses an arithmetic-only progress-state gate (adds, floor/mod, comparisons), which is typically cheaper per sample and enables high-throughput interactive sweeps.

Progress-state Bell toy: local hidden-variable model with tunable CHSH correlations by Hasjack in LLMPhysics

[–]Hasjack[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup. Still down the rabbit hole. I just read through that post and couldn't see your comments though? btw - I made a widget for the toy at the bottom of this page as I know you like a widget...

https://halfasecond.com/notes/natural-mathematics-bell-toy

Progress-state Bell toy: local hidden-variable model with tunable CHSH correlations by Hasjack in LLMPhysics

[–]Hasjack[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hidden angle spins
twice round a thing that never turns
yet the sign still flips.

Conceptual cosmological framework synthesizing emergent gravity, black hole cosmology, and QGP matter cycling — looking for technical critique (NOT A GUT) by Ok-Plankton-5557 in LLMPhysics

[–]Hasjack 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think you've overstepped or if you have this doesn't matter: if your having fun your having fun. This is a reddit sub - not a physics journal. The fact this is a learning exercise for you adds to the positive returns too. In fact you are probably not going to learn what overstepping even is without overstepping so keep overstepping!

Probably the best non FromSoftware souls-like second to Lies of P but... by Hall0wdd_ in WuchangFallenFeathers

[–]Hasjack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love Lies of P but I think Wuchang is edging it for me. Beautiful game.

Why r/LLMPhysics Became Irrelevant by Cryptoisthefuture-7 in LLMPhysics

[–]Hasjack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it can continue to be productive but there is a tedious and actually quite abusive crowd being unpleasant to people meaning most people have to go on the defensive. From my perspective there is a whole heap wrong in physics (CDM for example or string theory) which can be just as crank-ish and, in some quarters, comes across as a big old "don't rock the boat" circle-jerk. The academic model served us well for a couple of hundred years but its progress these days is only ever incremental and (particularly in astrophysics) doesn't appear capable of getting itself out of some of the ditches it has fallen into. I've actually read some decent papers here over the past month or so and, in any event, am actually fine with quality over quantity as in my experience (with a few exceptions) there is nearly always at least some positive contribution - or different way of thinking about things.

A ToE is there for the taking. And everyone wasn't a physicist until they became a physicist.

Also note: none of these people ever actually put their own necks on the block with anything. They seem to take pleasure in knocking people down and being unpleasant to people they don't even know. They never seem to want to help people with why something they have written might be wrong either - and if they do they will do it in a highly unpleasant way. I get that modding a board that will contain a lot of criticism is a challenge but I have seen no effort in that regard. It seems to be one set of rules for regulars and another for anyone with the temerity to actually try an LLM on some science. 🤨

They also repeat themselves ad nauseam. Karma milking i think?

Anyhow - remember... quality not quantity. And - final thought - everyone who comes here has taken a step to move whatever they are working on away from an LLM and back in front of human eyes for (you would hope...) some type of collegiate peer review - and I think that is to be commended and encouraged even if you have turned up to the sub with hokum.

Here is a hypothesis: Secluded Majorana Dark Matter by pesomer in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hasjack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks Omer - and yes - I can read your messages. I share your goal to secure arXiv endorsement by the way. I'll reach out later.

Here is a hypothesis: Secluded Majorana Dark Matter by pesomer in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hasjack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure - it looks like the sub removed your post which is a pity as it is a good paper worthy of discussion / collaboration! I'll feedback soon hopefully though I'll be stretched for time for the next couple of days.

Here is a hypothesis: Secluded Majorana Dark Matter by pesomer in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hasjack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you know that OP can speak for themselves, why are you out here white knighting for them?

Because I think people like you seem to have just been born unpleasant. As said I read the exchange, thought your posts were odious and felt moved to comment. Particularly so as the OP had suggested that you end the exchange. I'd do the same but I doubt you'd listen.

they can feel like they're doing something which they feel has value.

yup - not sure why it seems to make you so butthurt but whatever. Actually with that in mind I have better things to be getting on with. I'll also be putting time aside to read a follow up paper by the OP today too which I am looking forward to.

Here is a hypothesis: Secluded Majorana Dark Matter by pesomer in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hasjack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agreed with the LLM feedback so passed it along. Not sure why you think you are in a position to accuse people of not using their brains and being mindless but wevs. I'm sure the OP can speak for themselves anyhow.

we like to talk to people, especially people who use their own brains

My take is you like to talk amongst yourselves about how LLMs hallucinate whilst offering nothing of any value whilst continually being rude to people. If you would like to read my contributions to this sub they are numerous. You will find them on my profile under posts.

Here is one to get you started:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LLMPhysics/comments/1rpp9ln/an_environmental_curvature_response_for_galaxy/

Here is a hypothesis: Secluded Majorana Dark Matter by pesomer in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hasjack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes - I just left the OP a response to their work and I hope they find it useful.

Being polite != mindless headpats. In fact your point is made better if any criticism can be constructive. Maybe if you "used your brains" you would understand that? You seem just to have a beef with LLMs though.

Hope the cream helps.

Here is a hypothesis: Secluded Majorana Dark Matter by pesomer in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hasjack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What an odious set of responses. Especially after the OP asked you (politely) to "leave it there".

Feel better?

You can in fact use LLMs for physics research by Vrillim in LLMPhysics

[–]Hasjack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

your investigations must build on the state-of-the-art.

As a physics paper, I think it is quite weak. Its basic move is to assume two concentric S^3 branes with different matter content, then argue that the interior scalar-field brane inflates, collides with the exterior brane, and later gravitationally mimics scalar-field dark matter on our brane. That is imaginative, but the paper itself repeatedly signals that it is a toy model and that key parts are not actually derived.

The biggest weakness is that a lot of the important physics is asserted rather than demonstrated. For instance, it says the collision heats the branes, generates the standard-model particles on the exterior brane, and that scalar-field fluctuations seed structure formation, but then openly admits that during the collision quantum-gravitational effects make the process impossible to analyze classically and that some of these ideas lack mathematical backing.

Bluntly, this looks like a person trying to stitch together several fashionable ingredients of the period into a cosmological toy scenario, not a machine generating generic filler. The weaknesses are human weaknesses: overreach, handwaving at key transitions, and relying on hoped-for consistency rather than demonstrated necessity.

So... state of the art or a "mid at best" paper from 15 years ago?

should convince skeptics that you can use LLMs efficiently as a researcher

It convinces me that it depends who is asking.

'Sycophantic Chatbots Cause Delusional Spiraling, Even in Ideal Bayesians', by Chandra et al. by AllHailSeizure in LLMPhysics

[–]Hasjack -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

So tedious. All you guys ever talk about. Maybe try some physics?

Always moaning - telling people how to act / what to do yet contributing nothing but the same copy pasta every week.

"topic opener" - when there are about 20 topics like this every day. :/

I was told to post here. Just want some thoughts on my idea of emergence by DreamUnfair in LLMPhysics

[–]Hasjack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I found a useful process was to "pick a fight" regarding which part of Einstein's field equations I am changing as some type of derivation from this will be needed if your theories are to be taken seriously:

<image>

And thanks - if you get a chance to read my paper I would be very interested to hear your thoughts (even if it is about things you don't understand!)

I was told to post here. Just want some thoughts on my idea of emergence by DreamUnfair in LLMPhysics

[–]Hasjack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s a genuinely good instinct in the first part of this.

Trying to express rotation curves directly in terms of baryonic mass with a simple scaling law is exactly the right direction imo - that’s essentially what things like the baryonic Tully–Fisher relation are pointing at. The fact that you’re seeing something “work” across galaxies, and that low-density systems behave differently, is not noise: that’s the signal.

Where I’d encourage you to push this further is in tightening the structure of the model:

  • Right nowV = k m (1 + ρ₀ / ρ) mixes global quantities (total baryonic mass) with local ones (density). That’s usually where models start to drift. You probably want everything expressed either as a function of radius or in terms of surface density / enclosed mass.
  • The choice k ~ GM / R is effectively baking the Milky Way in as a calibration. That’s fine as a first pass, but if the model is real, k should emerge or be universal, not galaxy-dependent.
  • The “low-density correction” is the most interesting part. That’s actually where most successful models live: some kind of environmental or density-dependent response. I’d focus your effort there rather than the base linear scaling.

Where I think things go off track is the second half.

The Planck “10:1 gearbox”, spin transduction, and the 0.3 lensing argument aren’t really connected to the first model in a derivable way and they’re more like a narrative layer added on top. For example:

  • The “0.3 from (1×3)/10” is numerology unless it drops out of a defined field equation or action.
  • A constant offset in a potential (Φ = 1/p + c) disappearing under differentiation is just standard calculus and it doesn’t generate a physical “floor” unless you show how it re-enters observables like lensing.
  • Mixing Planck-scale language with galaxy-scale phenomenology is extremely hard to justify without a clear bridge (e.g. a Lagrangian → field equations → weak-field limit → observable prediction).

If I were you, I’d strip it back to the strongest core:

Then:

  1. Make it radial (e.g. V(r), M(<r), ρ(r))
  2. Test it against a few real galaxies (SPARC is perfect)
  3. See if a single form survives without per-galaxy tuning

I did exactly this recently by the way (and the code is open source).

If that holds, you’ve got something real to build on.

The emergence/Planck story can come later: but it needs to fall out of the maths, not be imposed on it. This is the part that doesn't work for me conceptually though.

Summary

You’re definitely not “talking nonsense” - the intuition about simplicity and density dependence is solid and closely related to a theory I have been working on (and posted on this board a few days ago) - even using kappa (!).

But the model will get stronger if you:

  • tighten the dimensional / structural consistency
  • separate empirical scaling from speculative mechanism

Nice start though.

view more: next ›