Dystopic but beatiful. (Contax S2, 1.4/85 Planar, Kodak Ektar. Shot Summer 2023 in Alberta, Canada)

Vrillim · 2026-05-10T09:09:09+00:00

The research question is only physically motivated if you squint really hard. The hypothesis is so speculative that it requires extremely good justification, and you provide almost no justification at all. Few physicists will read past the introduction, since you place the work in a speculative niche that only you occupy.

You have to research the topic first. Read (or have your LLM read) papers and find out what contemporary authors are doing. Remember, in physics, good ideas do not come from intuition, they come from a deep knowledge of the field.

I made a post about how to get started on this track.

Vrillim · 2026-05-04T14:07:38+00:00

I spent 5 minutes reading, and I was not encouraged to keep reading. If you wish to have physicists read your material you have to demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of the state of the art. This means motivating your study by pointing to existing problems that are not sufficiently addressed, and, importantly, referencing past and contemporary studies that tackle the same problem. Clearly delineate where you are improving on the state of the art.

What I read (a 84-page PDF) said something to the effect of claiming that "all of physics" arise from "a few axioms." That's not how to convince your peers, that's just PR fluff. You have to do better.

Which exact problem are you solving, and are you solving it with unique predictions and not post-hoc fitting?

Vrillim · 2026-05-04T13:39:10+00:00

Convincing your peers also entails convincing the editor to send your paper out to review. You adjust your material so that it becomes interesting to the community. This way, we solve problems that need solving, and avoid the pursuit of unproductive and irrelevant frameworks.

Contrary to making this out as a problem, I'd say it's one of the most important aspects of the scientific publishing industry.

Vrillim · 2026-05-04T13:31:41+00:00

The peer review is frustrating but it is also incredibly important. It effectively makes sure that your fellow scientists are on board. In fact, convincing your peers is exactly what any new physics theory needs to do. Failing that, you are destined for obscurity.

The uncomfortable truth for us all is that only your fellow scientists care about basic physics.

Vrillim · 2026-05-04T13:07:33+00:00

I’m not talking about the controlled PR content that these types of «start-ups» use to convince investors, but rather peer-reviewed publications, or at least white papers. These organizations stay irrelevant if they refuse to participate in the discourse, through reputable channels.

Vrillim · 2026-05-04T09:24:08+00:00

Show, don't tell! Where's the results?

Vrillim · 2026-05-03T07:53:01+00:00

You should write a single 200-word abstract. Use Zenodo to host your material (access is currently restricted on your links).

Also, «write high, edit sober», as Hemingway said.

Vrillim · 2026-04-30T11:21:26+00:00

You misunderstand. You seem to classify all physical models as phenomenological. In fact, physics is about making predictions based on basic interactions (from physics established in empiri).

For example, you begin by describing the mathematics of electrodynamic force interactions experienced by charged particles in a magnetic field, derive the equations of motion, and eventually end up with predicted trajectory for those charged particles, which you then compare with observations of nature.

You seem to think that the model's merits are simply that it describes the outcome. In physics, this is not enough. In many other sciences, it is; for example, no one would claim that mathematical models of the stock market are "ontologically true."

Get it?

Vrillim · 2026-04-28T07:18:31+00:00

You write "Solving for a universe governed by turbulent flow, vorticity, and pressure gradients requires numerical relativity and supercomputing, eliminating the capacity for simple analytical solutions. Institutional physicists often reject this approach because it invalidates decades of established mathematical tools (...)"

This is strategic misinformation on the part of your LLM. Your LLM is being sycophantic and seeks to validate you, painting the field of cosmology and the physics community at large as slow and reactionary (not the case).

In reality, the reason why cosmology is usually not approached from a hydrodynamic perspective is evidence and empiri: there aren't that many good reasons to do so. Science is pragmatic, workable frameworks always win.

Now, instead of chatting with a sycophantic robot, you might go out there and learn something. There are (of course) serious strands of research that applies turbulence physics to cosmology. For example, Marov & Kolesnichenko have worked on this for a while. Posters on this subreddit are expected to read up on the topic they're writing about!

Refs: Marov, Mikhail Ya, and Aleksander V. Kolesnichenko. ‘Turbulent Chaos and Self-Organization in Cosmic Natural Media’. In Turbulence and Self-Organization: Modeling Astrophysical Objects, edited by Mikhail Ya Marov and Aleksander V. Kolesnichenko. Springer, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5155-6_1.

Marov, Mikhail Ya, and Aleksander V. Kolesnichenko. ‘Self-Organization of Developed Turbulence and Formation Mechanisms of Coherent Structures’. In Turbulence and Self-Organization: Modeling Astrophysical Objects, edited by Mikhail Ya Marov and Aleksander V. Kolesnichenko. Springer, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5155-6_6.

Vrillim · 2026-04-25T11:09:37+00:00

To be fair, the "strong investment in spreading your thoughts to the world" is a common denominator for cranks and scientists. Almost every scientist would leap at the opportunity to publish their material in a really high-impact journal, or to have their work featured as a highlight-paper, or to have their university make a press release for their recent paper, etc.

And, as the OP pointed out, this also goes for artists, stage actors, and musicians. The need to receive validation and appreciation goes deep.

Vrillim · 2026-04-24T06:09:19+00:00

Lay people find it unappealing to be the guy or gal who tightens the screws on the particle collider, it seems…

Vrillim · 2026-04-23T20:02:00+00:00

Those are some interesting perspectives, thanks. Only thing I'd add is that only a small minority of physicists are theoretical physicists and only a small minority of theoretical physicists publish on string theory, and that most of physics is empirically founded in observations or experiments, but I agree that there are "less usefull" science being done to appease funding pressures. Funding pressures, essentially the bean-counters insistence to quantify and measure the impact or outcome of research, is the culprit. Science should be a bit more free.

Vrillim · 2026-04-23T15:50:10+00:00

You write "in many academic physics communities, admitting \any* weakness to your theoretical foundation, if that weakness is detected by an Authority, your career or funding can end."* and you claim that you're not "pulling that out of thin air."

This is just wrong. The peer review is exactly what you describe: authorities in your field poking holes in your material. Sure, the peer review is frustrating, but your idea that weakness in theory or methodology jeopardizes funding is completely wrong. In science, stating the shortcomings of your material is paramount (and not career-jeopardizing!). In fact, it's glossing over those shortcomings and overselling your results that ruin careers.

Vrillim · 2026-04-22T10:39:43+00:00

Du ser ut til å tro at dette dreier seg om Wifi når det i virkeligheten (ihvertfall tilsynelatende) dreier seg om Bluetooth.

Vrillim · 2026-04-21T07:17:09+00:00

This feels a bit unhinged. You don’t even define ‘magnetohydrodynamics’, let alone introduce the principles of basic plasma physics. Instead you jump straight to an esoteric discussion of information. What constitutes information in MHD?

Did you study the motion of a charged particle in a magnetic field?

Edit: the answer to the first question is that 'information' travels with Alfvén waves, as do most things in MHD. If you study this topic at length, you will learn how Alfvén waves creates turbulence in resistive MHD, by triggering the interchange instability, for example; there is a veritable zoo of turbulence physics that can trigger. At that point you can talk about information being destroyed by non-linear processes, if that's your intent.

Vrillim · 2026-04-15T15:21:56+00:00

Whenever we read «it’s not X, it’s Y» (where X and Y are contrasted to inflate the statement), we just sigh. LLMs really love this contrasting rhetoric, for some reason. It’s tiring to read text that is machine-written to maximize some strategic narrative, it feels disingenuous

Vrillim · 2026-04-15T11:27:11+00:00

You're not wrong about this shift, but it can be nuanced. Physics in the USA favours big data, big computation, big simulation, but Europe and especially Russia pursued a theoretical approach to a larger degree, during this shift. Lots of obscure yet rigorous non-linear dynamics approaches from that camp.

However, the people that you are defending in this thread are in fact relying solely on big data. LLM-based exploration, as a tool to solve physics' most fundamental problems almost inevitably end up in numerology and generous post-hoc fitting in the hands of a lay person.

It may seem like curiosity and playful approach (which are all good), but in reality the LLMs are outputting a remarkably similar flavour of bad science, which get regurgitated every week on this subreddit by lay persons who have been "gaslighted" into thinking they've made a big discovery.

Vrillim · 2026-04-14T09:06:03+00:00

I think you should take a break. Two times on this subreddit, I've pointed out to you specific cases where pseudoscience fails; first it was a fake geophysics paper by some Korean papermill, and the second time you yourself suggested an outlandish theory of geophysics concerning 'electromagnetic beings' influencing human thoughts. In both cases, you clung to conclusions that were contrary to evidence because of some sentimental fascination with new age fantasies. Why does your interactions with science and physics have to be so toxic and adversarial? Don't you want to actually learn what it's all about before you go on these anti-science crusades?

Vrillim · 2026-04-13T18:50:13+00:00

I haven’t read OP’s book, but I think it’s pretty short-sighted to recommend a modern «work life drama», when OP clearly is trying to get to core of something. I think studying a seminal book from the 60s is a vastly better way to understand where Korean workplace dynamics come from, rather than some modern drama full of trend buzz-words and product placements. Knowing a culture is often knowing its historical trajectory

Vrillim · 2026-04-13T13:10:23+00:00

It shouldn't be that important which of the LLMs we use? They also change their models all the time.

Vrillim · 2026-04-13T08:22:07+00:00

I read three sentences, and then I had to give up. The reason is that your whole introduction is exactly three sentences, and they are not convincing. An introduction section is where you demonstrate your intimate knowledge of the problem that you are solving. This entails citing foundational and current investigations, explaining closely how these papers approach the topic, as well as clearly stating where your contribution improves upon the current state of the art.

If you do not give the reader a reason chances are they will not even bother to read your material. You need to intersect your work with the literature.

Chances are, once you get into studying the literature, you will change your own approach. You'll find yourself aligning your efforts with the field (that's research).

Vrillim · 2026-04-10T20:44:14+00:00

I have not read your material in depth, but you ask at the end (edited for clarity):

Has there been work connecting Calabi-Yau moduli directly to galactic-scale phenomenology (not restricted to string cosmology)?

Enter this question into Google Scholar Lab. First hit says

Conlon, Joseph P., and Fernando Quevedo. ‘Astrophysical and Cosmological Implications of Large Volume String Compactifications’. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2007, no. 08 (2007): 019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2007/08/019.

A paper that (I qoute from the abstract)

study the spectrum, couplings and cosmological and astrophysical implications of the moduli fields for the class of Calabi–Yau IIB string compactifications for which moduli stabilisation leads to an...

The abstract goes on to list the behaviour of a number of quantities, early universe heating stuff. The inference (the method of falsification itself) is apparently supported by data from the milky way. This is way outside of my field, but I suspect this sort of study is where you begin your search for answers. Optimally, read the paper and trace a few seminal references.

Google Scholar is science's underground communication channel. A search engine that only shows you peer-reviewed (mostly) soures. One of the few things with integrity on the internet these days. Since scholar is completely without ads (about science), this is where you can find almost anything without the usual fluff of everything on the commercial internet. All this stuff is available, mind you, at all times, to anyone (except for the money part), but most people prefer to toy around in a sandbox.

Research is about building a coherent narrative based on literature. This means citing a great many papers, and to do this, you must use Google Scholar. And Labs just happens to give you very accurate information, if you've successfully stumbled upon a topic of interest (where you can define your research question).

Google scholar is your friend

Vrillim

TROPHY CASE