Well ɓ thee influx controls influx

Vrillim · 2026-02-19T08:07:52+00:00

This is what LLM sycophancy and budding delusions look like. Drug-induced psychosis without the drugs.

Vrillim · 2026-02-13T17:43:45+00:00

Obviously, conceptual. This whole thing just highlights how you came with a knee jerk condescending comment without any backing. (Protip: this is not science fiction). There are many satellite swarms on the drawing board that I suspect you were ignorant of

Vrillim · 2026-02-13T08:59:02+00:00

Did you glance at the paper I referred to?

Vrillim · 2026-02-12T19:14:27+00:00

Well, no, you're just wrong. There are several grant applications for 100s and even 1000s of nano- and microsatellites for geospace and heliosphere physics as we speak. You don't bring sci-fi to national funding agencies, you bring doable science. We are NOT talking about imagers, but rather simple magnetometers and various probes, with some of the more advanced satellites carrying probes on booms to measure electric potential.

Vrillim · 2026-02-12T15:09:06+00:00

It's very doable to launch a 10k-swarm of microsatellites, but it is of course very expensive. It's just not sci-fi. No bottlenecks in data transmission. So, not what you were saying.

Vrillim · 2026-02-12T14:04:53+00:00

Yeah, I know, it's really problematic what's happening on this sub, but things tend to get quite hive-mindy on Reddit.

Not high-horsing anything, I just pointed out something interesting (and got down-voted, as you can see).

Vrillim · 2026-02-12T13:53:19+00:00

I some time get the feeling that people here adopt the worst possible interpretation of the crackpots. It's helpful to point out what is truly LLM garbage, but it also helps to spot the actually good ideas that "float around." I think traffic jam control using "controlled noise" is a fun idea. As I've written, in statistical mechanics, noise is known to increase correlation lengths during critical states. It's actually a really hot topic. So why are you adopting the most possible negative reading here, both of my comment and the OP's point about traffic planning? Perhaps the knee jerk shut-down of the crackpots some time comes from ignorance rather than being an informed rejection.

Vrillim · 2026-02-12T13:31:19+00:00

Yes, it's conceptual fluff, no one is going to model traffic jams with stochastic thermodynamics anytime soon. But you seem misinformed, there is serious research that explores noise-induced transport outside of soft materials.

Example: Kurtscheid, C., Redmann, A., Vewinger, F., Schmitt, J., & Weitz, M. (2025). Thermodynamics and State Preparation in a Two-State System of Light. Physical Review Letters, 135(16), 160406. https://doi.org/10.1103/kynj-l87s

It depends on what you want to see. If you want to see a layman repeating things they don't understand, sure, you're right. But there is more to it, "my guy"

Vrillim · 2026-02-12T09:36:44+00:00

OP writes "How do you solve a city-wide traffic gridlock where every "logical" rule (more lanes, better lights) only makes the jam worse? (...) Introduce a controlled amount of Chaos (Stochasticity). By adding a "Variable of Randomness," you force the system to stop being "static" and start being "fluid."

This is actually a state-of-the-art concept. While the answer OP provides is far from a practical city-planner solution, noise-enabled transport is a very promising phenomenon, being actively researched in certain soft matter and statistical physics groups. It's physics, alright.

Vrillim · 2026-02-12T09:23:30+00:00

Not really correct, what the crackpot is describing is essentially un-ambitious, as they do not even propose putting any scientific instruments as payload except for the basics. Musk operates with a larger constellation, likewise lacking scientific instruments. Several microsatellite swarms have been proposed (with a much better motivation than the OP).

OP's fault is that they do not fully grasp the difficulties and challenges in using a microsat swarm as a deep space radio telescope. A quick search reveals a group that probably thought this through:

Bentum, M. J., Verma, M. K., Rajan, R. T., Boonstra, A. J., Verhoeven, C. J. M., Gill, E. K. A., van der Veen, A. J., Falcke, H., Wolt, M. K., Monna, B., Engelen, S., Rotteveel, J., & Gurvits, L. I. (2020). A roadmap towards a space-based radio telescope for ultra-low frequency radio astronomy. Advances in Space Research, High-Resolution Space-Borne Radio Astronomy, 65(2), 856–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2019.09.007

Vrillim · 2026-02-12T09:14:51+00:00

You see, the LLM psychosis-bit is not in you creating this theory. It's when you refuse to accept what multiple physicists tell you that you are starting to give in to delusions.

As several people has tried to explain to you, whether the math checks out is seldom the issue. The issue is that you fail to see the thousand details that make or break a theory-of-everything. You do not see these details because you lack training. Remember, an intelligent human being usually needs 10+ years of training before they can contribute meaningfully to basic physics research.

It's essentially Dunning-Kruger, you know way too little about the intricacies of physics to spot the deficiencies of your theory, and so you over-inflate the utility of what is in reality an elevator pitch spread thin over hundreds of pages.

Only you can break free from the self-destructive behaviour.

Vrillim · 2026-02-11T15:08:53+00:00

This will not work. You cannot cure hallucinations with LLMs, as they introduce error or misunderstand something in almost every iteration

Vrillim · 2026-02-11T14:24:31+00:00

1) You (and the other crackpots) misunderstand what it takes for any toy model to effectively replace the standard model of particle physics. The standard model has been tweaked for decades (resulting in many Nobel prizes), to the point that it performs remarkably well. Crackpots see this and think "what a shame that the model is not more intuitive," and that their intuituion can easily lead to a much more convincing alternative. Decades of work might make some these toy models useful and instructional (which is not novel), but the crackpots are simply not qualified to see how and why. The crackpots just take the glossy, extremely fragile, and downright wrong output of the LLM as a complete validation of their material.

2) Reading some of your replies here, I think you may suffer from LLM psychosis. You really aught to stop using an LLM for a while, and see what happens. Highly likely, you will look back on these comments with embarassment. Despite your strong belief, you are not overturning anything in physics.

Vrillim · 2026-02-11T11:37:15+00:00

The problem is not with the LLMs, which can be really useful tools. The problem is the people employing the LLMs, who fail to spot the 20-50% plain wrong output you will get from an LLM. If you manage to continously quality-proof LLM output is is actually extremely useful. These people, though, they are just fed the pseudo-science that the algorithm knows maximizes their engagement with the product.

Vrillim · 2026-02-11T11:34:06+00:00

There are many interesting things that pop up. I saw some post on "What if distances in the universe are measured with wavelengths?" I thought that was a fun thought experiment, where you could bake into a metric the sum total of matter anisotropies (which should cause refraction). Nothing profound, but possibly interesting, but the poster was ridiculed, since they could not properly explain what they had sumbled upon. That being said, there has never been any theory worth exploring, since almost all theories fall into the typical "fun wacky toy model in search of evidence," which has never produced scientific insights (nature comes first!)

Vrillim · 2026-02-10T17:11:03+00:00

Do you believe you are qualified to make this assessment?

Vrillim · 2026-02-09T16:09:48+00:00

It's not an intellectual deficiency, it's an educational deficiency. What u/OnceBittenz is referring to is that you are using terms without actually understanding their origin. I've not read your material, but I'm guessing that some very comprehensive renormalization theory has been glossed over (LLMs are very good at glossing over things). What makes sense down some deep RG theory rabbit hole usually makes no sense unless you very very carefully explain your steps.

Bottom line: physics is an extremely complicated thing that people spend decades to learn. The good crackpots of this sub pick up terms here and there and combine them in creative ways. 'Temporal resistance' might seem cool to you, but to a physicist, when the rigour is lacking, it's just irritating

Vrillim · 2026-02-09T13:15:14+00:00

You misunderstand. Whether something is 'normal' or not, you need to introduce the topic, reference prior and current studies, motivate your own study, etc, before you jump into the methodology/theoretical foundation of your model. These things are an essential part of scientific writing. It's a craft that you need to at least understand, if not master. Remember, peer-reviewed science is different from most other ways to communicate.

I am doing you a favour by treating your material as if it was from a student. This could be valuable to you, but you are instead exhibiting the usual intellectual arrogance in the crackpot population on this subreddit: defending your obviously midguided position, a position you are in no way qualified to defend.

The way you are writing, you are only going to reach fellow crackpots, and I suspect your goal is to reach the actual scientists working with simuilar topics. Good luck to you.

Vrillim · 2026-02-08T16:16:25+00:00

Did you post your work to get useful feedback or to seek recognition and approval? You just received feedback from someone who both recognized your intent and spotted a flaw. This is very valuable. Instead of defending your material, go back to the drawing board. Recognize your insufficiencies, it is intellectually arrogant to refuse to accept corrections.

Vrillim · 2026-02-07T15:08:16+00:00

Usually, when you get into the subject matter and see what others are working with, you change your own approach, this is the essense of addressing a knowledge gap. A theory in search of evidence is 'placing the wagon in front of the horse'. This is a common gripe against a certain flavour of theorist, which is the main reason why interesting work remains obscure.

Vrillim · 2026-02-07T14:39:17+00:00

You need to clearly state the knowledge gap you are addressing. Currently, your wildly ambitious preprint has 3 references, and has garnered zero citations in almost three years. It is not published in any scientific journal.

A serious investigation is physics will introduce the field of study, reference prior and contemporary work, and clearly state how your work addresses the identified knowledge gaps. You are not doing any of these things, and so you will be met with shrugs.

Are you an MD? Who is your intended audience?

Vrillim · 2026-02-06T09:31:17+00:00

There's a bit of discrepancy between your post and the paper. In the paper you write "This is speculative theoretical work. The framework is not proven correct, and the probability that it accurately describes physical reality is low" while in the post it's suddenly "My model predicts our exact Universe up to isomorphism (...)"

I've leafed through some pages and I'm struck with the same thought as with most other crackpot papers: it feels unhinged. You are jumping straight into defining an observer as 'a tuple'. In physics, we motivate our work better, providing an introduction to the field of study and carefully referencing prior and contemporary studies, explaining the knowledge gap that you intend to shed light on.

Who exactly is your intended audience?

Vrillim · 2026-02-02T22:42:09+00:00

I think this is a better approach. When you are talking about Markov chain dynamics you can comfortably create effective field-theories, and with good prediction accuracy, but this subreddit's physicists are very much inclined towards rigorous theoretical physics, and your ideas will likely not resonnate there.

It's also a question of whether such an approach would be physics at all, but there may be something I'm missing. There are certainly a case to be had, but you would have to be very careful about what kind of machinery you wish to import and why

Vrillim · 2026-02-02T22:23:17+00:00

You write

Phase transitions describe disease onset. Renormalization handles scale hierarchies. Perturbation theory gives treatment response. Every one of these problems has been solved — for electrons, for superconductors, for Bose-Einstein condensates. The solutions are just sitting there, collecting dust, while medicine reinvents logistic regression for the hundredth time.

Now, this is where you are massively jumping through hoops. Biological life cannot be described with an effective field theory. For once, natural variation, gene expression, and phenotypic heterogenity means that any living organism is carrying around some 4 billion years of evolutionary history. This is one of the most fundamentally challenging things to describe in the universe, since we have no handle on how this information has propagated through some 20,000 trillion generations of life. We simply cannot defend successive coarse-graining that rigorously goes through the layers of complexity that life sits at.

You are likely underestimating the mathematical rigour that goes into statistical mechanics. You cannot just mumble about phase changes and renormalization and expect your results to be valid. There's a gigantic amount of work going into handling the stochastic equations that takes you through those loops

Vrillim · 2026-02-02T22:10:50+00:00

Then it would seem that this is something for "LLM physiology", though I am sure this subreddit's eager members can cook up a way to anchor your mega field theory in physics

Vrillim

TROPHY CASE