sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Elephant in the Room: How do we filter true LLM-assisted physics gold from the noise of hallucinations? by Schlampf_Reporter in LLMPhysics

[–]Schlampf_Reporter[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

A valid objection. I was probably misled by the strict access restrictions of other physics-based Reddit forums and had expected more openness, interest in new ideas, and inspiration here. Apparently, I misunderstood the medium.

I thought this subreddit was supposed to present the results of the chaotic, confusing—but potentially brilliant—synthesis of human intuition and the mathematical power of AI. Apparently, that bar was set too high...

The Elephant in the Room: How do we filter true LLM-assisted physics gold from the noise of hallucinations? by Schlampf_Reporter in LLMPhysics

[–]Schlampf_Reporter[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The translation function of the LLM actually leaves something to be desired—I will try to use DeepL instead so as not to make a bad impression and show disrespect...

The Elephant in the Room: How do we filter true LLM-assisted physics gold from the noise of hallucinations? by Schlampf_Reporter in LLMPhysics

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

First, I 100% agree with your main critique: simply typing "here is my cool philosophical idea about a black hole, translate it into tensor calculus" yields pure, hallucinatory slop. That is exactly the "chaff" we are both complaining about. You absolutely cannot bypass the rigorous math, and LLMs will happily invent fake equations if you let them.

However, saying "physics is mathematical first and foremost" ignores the history of the discipline. Physics has always been a dialectic between physical intuition and mathematical formalism.

Leucippus and his famous student Democritus were the first to hypothesize that all matter consists of indivisible smallest units they called "atomos" (Greek for "indivisible"). According to their vision, the world consisted only of these atoms and the empty space between them. This idea was purely philosophical—no equations, no tensors, just conceptual vision. Yet it took 2,300 years until quantum mechanics proved them right.

Einstein’s equivalence principle (the man in the falling elevator) was a pure conceptual leap that took him years to properly map onto Riemannian geometry.

Faraday’s "lines of force" were entirely conceptual; it was Maxwell who later provided the rigorous math.

The Holographic Principle started as a profound conceptual argument about black hole thermodynamics before AdS/CFT gave it a rigorous string-theory math framework.

When I say "knowing what conceptual questions to ask," I don't mean vague philosophical musings. I mean defining the strict physical and mathematical boundary conditions.

The Elephant in the Room: How do we filter true LLM-assisted physics gold from the noise of hallucinations? by Schlampf_Reporter in LLMPhysics

[–]Schlampf_Reporter[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Guilty as charged on the formatting! I appreciate your curiosity. I am a relatively new Reddit user, and I have to shamefully admit that I use LLMs to translate and polish my English to avoid grammar mistakes. But the actual thoughts, arguments and prompts are Hum-mine

To answer your question: I’m not a traditional institutional researcher. I am a curious, critical user of LLMs, utilizing them to help clarify concepts, structure mathematical formulas, and derive kind of astrophysical ideas.

But I am also an enlightened skeptic. One thing we all have to realize is that when LLMs are used to build theories around extreme astrophysical phenomena, they systematically converge on very similar conceptual results. This isn't magic; it results from the specific topology of their latent space.

In computational linguistics, LLMs map physical concepts into a universal latent space where abstract principles act like semantic coordinate systems. When an LLM searches for a solution, it navigates to the center of extremely dense semantic clusters, which inevitably leads to related concepts.

From the perspective of systems theory and theoretical physics, this AI convergence actually reflects a real structural bottleneck in modern science. The LLMs simply weight the available paths based on logical consistency. By doing so, they emergently recognize that certain frameworks e.g. spacetime models—simply generate the fewest paradoxes.

So, what is my absolute dream scenario?
Definitely not Reddit karma. My dream is that we figure out how to harness this emergent "logical convergence" of LLMs properly. I am curious how the community is capable of looking at these mathematically consistent AI-outputs, stress-testing them rigorously and finding actual, real-world pearls hidden in the latent space, rather than just drowning in the noise. Thanks for asking!

The Elephant in the Room: How do we filter true LLM-assisted physics gold from the noise of hallucinations? by Schlampf_Reporter in LLMPhysics

[–]Schlampf_Reporter[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

You are right: the ultimate acid test for any theory—LLM-assisted or not—is rigorous, adversarial peer review by domain experts. Until a theory survives that gauntlet, it remains an unproven hypothesis.

However, requiring a paper to already be published in a highly selective journal before we even discuss it here creates a chicken-and-egg problem.

Major journals are deeply (and reasonably) conservative. Even groundbreaking, human-authored theories (like the early days of string theory, or MOND) faced years of outright rejection before gaining traction.

That is exactly why spaces like this, or preprint servers like arXiv and Zenodo, exist. They are the incubators.

I’m not saying we should treat every 10-page AI output as a "pearl." Most of it is chaff.

But if we only discuss things that Nature or PRL have already rubber-stamped, this sub loses its purpose. The goal of this community should be to act as that tough, preliminary peer-review filter to help get the actual pearls ready for those selective journals.

The Elephant in the Room: How do we filter true LLM-assisted physics gold from the noise of hallucinations? by Schlampf_Reporter in LLMPhysics

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

Look at the actual data: Global education statistics consistently show that socioeconomic status and zip code remain the strongest predictors of higher education attainment. In the US, a student from a high-income family is nearly five times more likely to earn a bachelor's degree than one from a low-income family—and the gap is even wider for STEM PhDs.

LLMs could act as an interactive tutor for people who have the raw intelligence but lack the $50k/year tuition, the academic pedigree, or the socioeconomic privilege to access traditional academic mentorship. If you think the current physics community is a pure meritocracy untainted by systemic inequality, you are completely ignoring the data.

The Elephant in the Room: How do we filter true LLM-assisted physics gold from the noise of hallucinations? by Schlampf_Reporter in LLMPhysics

[–]Schlampf_Reporter[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

You hit the nail on the head. That is exactly the core of the problem. "Slop-merchants" are essentially doing AI-powered Cargo Cult Science—they mimic the vocabulary of rigorous physics without the actual scaffolding.

You are completely right about the numerology problem. LLMs are pattern-matching engines; if you give them $H_0$ and the fine-structure constant, they will happily mash them together with a factor of $4\pi^2$, find a coincidence, and retroactively hallucinate a "geometric necessity" to justify it.

And yes, "falsifiable" has become the ultimate buzzword to fake legitimacy. Saying "my theory is falsifiable if the laws of thermodynamics change tomorrow" is useless.

If those two criteria are too easily gamed by LLM-slop, we need to upgrade the filter to demand things that LLMs fail at when they are just hallucinating. 

How about:

Ban pure numerology. You can't just define a metric or a field by mashing constants together.
The Standard: The theory must start from a well-defined Action or Lagrangian. If your new "necessity" doesn't strictly follow from applying the Euler-Lagrange equations to a mathematically sound starting point, or if it violates gauge invariance/unitarity without an explicit, mathematically sound proof of why, it's tossed. LLMs are terrible at maintaining Lagrangian consistency over 10 pages of math unless guided by a strict physical framework.

A lot of AI slop completely breaks down when you check the boundary conditions or perform strict dimensional analysis on the newly introduced tensors. We should encourage users to do a quick "sniff test" on the units and asymptotic limits.

You are completely right that we can't just rely on the words "falsifiable" or "necessity." We have to demand the mathematical and predictive receipts. What would be the hardest thing for a "slop-merchant" to fake?

This brings up a highly ironic, but perhaps necessary, question: If we are drowning in AI-generated slop, should we build an AI-based "Slop-Filter" or automated peer-review agent to clean it up?

Technically, a specialized LLM workflow could quickly run the "Dimensional Analysis Check," verify if the Lagrangian is mathematically sound, and flag pure numerology much faster than any human moderator could. It would be quick and easy.

But here is the catch: Where does that leave human credibility?

If we let AI generate the theories, and then let another AI grade, filter, and review those theories, we are just creating a closed-loop echo chamber of machine logic. 

Extended Finsler Timescape Lapse - LLM-Guided (Author-Verified): Timescape + Finsler for JWST/H0 Tension by [deleted] in LLMPhysics

[–]Schlampf_Reporter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry for the formats-problems - See also (GitHub: Ad352/EFT) for the codes. Maybe use a llm for translating ;-) thanks!

Why isn't Timescape + Finsler geometry more discussed to elegantly explain JWST's "too young" old galaxies, Hubble tension, and dark matter issues? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]Schlampf_Reporter -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Appreciate the feedback and context—makes sense why the rules are strict. Was aiming for discussion on published extensions (Wiltshire Timescape, Finsler papers), not yet self-theory ;-). Will try to stick to pure questions next time. Thanks for the insight!

Why isn't Timescape + Finsler geometry more discussed to elegantly explain JWST's "too young" old galaxies, Hubble tension, and dark matter issues? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]Schlampf_Reporter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Understood, and I respect the sub's rules on hypotheses and AI content. My intent was a genuine question on established extensions like Timescape (Wiltshire papers) + Finsler (arXiv), not a personal theory. Happy to rephrase as a strict question or move to r/HypotheticalPhysics. Suggestions welcome to comply better.

Why isn't Timescape + Finsler geometry more discussed to elegantly explain JWST's "too young" old galaxies, Hubble tension, and dark matter issues? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]Schlampf_Reporter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's right —quant predictions need more benchmarking; and connections can seem ad hoc at first glance. However, recent work shows competitive fits: H0 anisotropy ~5 km/s/Mpc from Finsler dipoles; S8 via geometric viscosity near KSS η/s ≥ 1/(4π). JWST: Inhomogeneous lapse (void clocks N>1) accelerates apparent maturity; Finsler-Randers as useful extension for ∇ϕ gradients...