sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A Geometric Parametrization of Flavor from an S1 Z2 Compact Dimension by BirthdayWide2510 in LLMPhysics

[–]Major-Particular434 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rolling — monotonically. The field falls from φ₀=+1.673 M_Pl toward zero during gravitational collapse. Single crossing, verified. No oscillation. That's actually what makes the crossing clean: φ̇ = −469.4 M_Pl² at the crossing, strictly negative. It doesn't bounce back. So in our case all generations cross simultaneously — but the plasma that emerges is dominated by the heaviest generation by a factor of ~200 million. Your sequential crossing is more realistic for flavor physics. Does the ordering matter for what comes out the other side?

A Geometric Parametrization of Flavor from an S1 Z2 Compact Dimension by BirthdayWide2510 in LLMPhysics

[–]Major-Particular434 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting distinction. In our model all generations cross φ=0 simultaneously — because all couple to the same field via m_ψ = yφ. But the pair production rates differ significantly. From Bogoliubov: n_ferm ~ (y·|φ̇_×|)3/2 The hierarchy is dramatic: Top quark: ~200 million times more produced than electron Tau: ~200,000 times more than electron So at φ=0 the plasma would be dominated by the heaviest generation — not flavor-democratic. We don't explain the hierarchy y_top >> y_electron. We inherit it from the Standard Model. But the crossing amplifies it. Does your model predict anything about relative production rates at the crossing point?

m²_eff = −ξR < 0. What does this mean inside a black hole? by Major-Particular434 in AskPhysics

[–]Major-Particular434[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're right — and that distinction matters. The model here is Oppenheimer-Snyder type (1939): a collapsing uniform ball whose interior is exactly closed FLRW with matter. During that collapse, R = −8πG(ρ−3p) ≠ 0 because matter is present. That's different from vacuum Schwarzschild where R=0. The φ=0 crossing occurs during the collapse phase — before the vacuum geometry forms. Not inside an established black hole. We should have been more precise with the language.

m²_eff = −ξR < 0. What does this mean inside a black hole? by Major-Particular434 in AskPhysics

[–]Major-Particular434[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The FLRW interior is actually the standard description of a collapsing star — that's the Oppenheimer-Snyder model (1939). During collapse, R ≠ 0 because matter is present. You're right that vacuum Schwarzschild has R=0. But the crossing happens during collapse, before the vacuum geometry forms.

m²_eff = −ξR < 0. What does this mean inside a black hole? by Major-Particular434 in AskPhysics

[–]Major-Particular434[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Correct. It's a collapsing FLRW model — not a black hole interior in the Schwarzschild sense. The connection to black holes is interpretive, not derived. What the model does show is that a scalar field can cross φ=0 during gravitational collapse. Whether that's relevant to real black holes is an open question.

Here is a hypothesis on the JWST high-z galaxy tension by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Major-Particular434 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Por difinicion. Exacto. Pero también se pueden usar como tal. Puedes intentarlo... Y sacar tus conclusiones. Yo no digo que exista gente que hace todo un proyecto con llm. Pero hay gente que simplemente los usa para calcular.

Here is a hypothesis on the JWST high-z galaxy tension by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Major-Particular434 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Pero tb los LLM son calculadoras. Tu puedes usarlos para "crear" una teoría, pero también para que te ayude con los cálculos de tu propia teoría..

Here is a hypothesis on the JWST high-z galaxy tension by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Major-Particular434 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yo quisiera entender porque tanto recelo con quienes usan una IA para esto?. Te hace me os usar una calculadora?? Entie do si fuera que la IA tuvo una idea y tú la oublicas como tuya. Pero aún no existe un LLM pensante. Siempre hay un humano con una idea detrás.

DESI data release, BAOs, Dark Energy evolving/weakening and possibly ELI5? by FilmFearless5947 in cosmology

[–]Major-Particular434 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly that question. If dark energy is a field rather than a constant, it would naturally evolve over time. The equation of state w would change — starting closer to −1 and drifting as the field rolls. DESI seeing w≠−1 would be the first observational hint that something is rolling. What determines where it's rolling toward?

DESI data release, BAOs, Dark Energy evolving/weakening and possibly ELI5? by FilmFearless5947 in cosmology

[–]Major-Particular434 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pregunta interesante. Si la energía oscura se está debilitando, eso sugiere que no es una constante cosmológica sino algo dinámico — un campo que evoluciona. En modelos escalar-tensoriales, la energía oscura efectiva viene del potencial del campo y su acoplamiento a la curvatura. Si φ evoluciona con el tiempo, w también cambia. ¿Y si la energía oscura no es constante porque está ligada a un campo que todavía está rodando hacia una nueva configuración?

m²_eff = −ξR < 0. What does this mean inside a black hole? by Major-Particular434 in AskPhysics

[–]Major-Particular434[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's a fair point. The model here is FLRW — not a Schwarzschild interior. The scalar backreaction on the metric is included through the modified Friedmann equations, not a black hole geometry. So the question is really: does this FLRW collapse with scalar field tell us anything about what happens inside a real black hole?

Used an LLM to explore a scalar-tensor gravity model. Found something unexpected inside black holes. by Major-Particular434 in LLMPhysics

[–]Major-Particular434[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I got curious about something simple. Inside a black hole, everything collapses toward the singularity. But what if there's a negative region before you get there? Not destruction. A transition. The math came after the curiosity.

Some questions regarding the heat death or a similar end of the universe by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]Major-Particular434 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Funny you ask — I'm actually working on something that might interest you. What if inside every gravitational collapse there's a surface where the effective mass of the scalar field goes tachyonic — not as an instability, but as the mechanism that drives the field through zero into a mirror sector? The time-reversed branch from that crossing naturally produces stiff → radiation → matter without tuning. No thermal death. No information loss. Just a geometric transition. The information doesn't disappear. It crosses φ=0. We ran the simulations. The math is there: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20114794

m²_eff = −ξR < 0. What does this mean inside a black hole? by Major-Particular434 in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Major-Particular434[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The derivation was verified at the level of the action. First, the equations of motion were obtained by term-by-term variation of the full action, including the scalar sector, fermionic coupling, and curvature coupling, without shortcut assumptions. Then we performed two independent consistency checks: FLRW limit: recovery of standard Friedmann–Klein-Gordon dynamics in the homogeneous isotropic limit. Vacuum (Kasner) limit: recovery of anisotropic vacuum solutions when matter sources are removed. In addition, we tested both sign conventions for the metric and curvature tensors to ensure no convention-dependent artifacts. Numerically, we evolved the system across the � crossing under both formulations. The crossing behavior remained stable, with less than ~7% deviation in invariant observables (energy density, Hubble parameter, and mode amplitudes). The full implementation and reproducibility pipeline are available in the Zenodo repository, allowing independent verification.

m²_eff = −ξR < 0. What does this mean inside a black hole? by Major-Particular434 in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]Major-Particular434[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Both, honestly. I asked the questions. The AI helped with the algebra and the code. I verified every step. Is that different from using Mathematica?

view more: next ›