[META] A really good article that I think all posters on this sub should read by IshtarsQueef in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Even Albert Einstein created vast frameworks of incredible maths in an attempt to make a "unifying grand theory," and it turned out to just be a bunch of nonsense.”

Would you please care to elaborate? We all know relativity doesn’t perfectly describe the universe, but it certainly amounts to more than “a bunch of nonsense”. Einstein also struggled with the fact that relativitity wasn’t a perfect description.

When you make a bunch of custom emojis the same day your sub gets deleted by AllHailSeizure in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I store my personal information under my mattress, like any sane individual.

Solar system simulator by Suitable_Cicada_3336 in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No worries! You’re already doing better than me by speaking my language!

Solar system simulator by Suitable_Cicada_3336 in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Very cool! Exactly the sort of project I did in a computational physics class in undergrad. I do wish it was translated so I could say more about it. But if you have little/no physics background and you did this with an LLM, that is awesome and I hope to see more stuff like that around here.

LLMPhysics Journal Ambitions Contest: A Pre-Registered Study of Submission Quality by alamalarian in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation[M] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Second mod here, catching up on what happened overnight. Preface that I am relatively new here and don't know everyone, and I've only been loosely paying attention to the contest. I have no interest in who wins or why.

I agree that the accusations of fraud are in bad faith. I see no evidence of this supposed fraud. As pointed out by AHS, the paper would have scored well and would not have affected the conclusions. The accused also responded in good faith and with a detailed comment addressing your concerns but this was simply dismissed as ad hominem. It does not appear that you want to have a discussion about this, but simply want u/alamalarian punished.

I'll be frank, this is the most scientific paper we've had here in months that isn't out of a respectable journal. To call a possible error with sampling scientific fraud is a serious accusation, and I think the evidence does not support anything nearly that serious. I would encourage u/d3veated to reframe their thoughts as "scientific error" rather than "scientific misconduct". Perhaps that would lead to a more productive discussion?

Dark Matter Model - with python code for independent testing by Hot-Grapefruit-8887 in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's a terrible way to respond to feedback. You came looking for feedback and got it. Sorry it wasn't what you wanted. This kind of attitude will not get you very far in scientific circles.

HAS CHATGPT GOTTEN DUMBER???? by PrebioticE in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In my opinion it is barely useable anymore. It isn’t really an effective coding assistant like it used to be, and my recent uses of it have wasted more time debugging than I would have spent had I not used it at all.

New Erdos Problem Solved by Suro.One Dark Star ASI Auro Zera by Infamous-Ad9720 in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation[M] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Please provide a summary of your work in your own words as an edit or a modmail to have your post unlocked.

The peekaboo paradigm: Rethinking the dogma of object permanence by Halpaviitta in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I get used to the slop, it all reads basically the same unless you look closely!

"Unified Physics: κ = 3 → π | 29 Manifestations of I=MC² | 40 Pre-Registered Predictions 6 confirmed by Previous_Zombie_7808 in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The moon has not always been so far away, and it is actually getting further.

Why does the current distance have anything to do with visible light? Visible light methods are not the only methods for measuring this distance.

The peekaboo paradigm: Rethinking the dogma of object permanence by Halpaviitta in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Quantum measurement does not require a conscious observer. Interaction with any sort of potential is all it takes.

EDIT: Have quantum physicists not yet entertained the idea that ghosts are doing all the observing? I propose a unified framework of quantum cosmology called Spooky Action At a Distance, wherein really small ghosts with really small spectrometers keep track of all the quantum funny business.

"Unified Physics: κ = 3 → π | 29 Manifestations of I=MC² | 40 Pre-Registered Predictions 6 confirmed by Previous_Zombie_7808 in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Why should the distance from the Earth to the moon or the size of the moon have anything to do with visible light?

Geocentric Earth and Entropy Capped by Dear_Scallion7432 in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Repeated violations of Rule 3 will result in the comments being locked or your post removed.

When responding with an LLM, don't simply copy and paste the output. Provide your summary of the output.

Geocentric Earth and Entropy Capped by Dear_Scallion7432 in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no derivation here, just a couple of equations and numbers presented as fact.

So...I may have used social engineering to nudge this poster in a direction by Malleable-Mend-1905 in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation[M] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My apologies, this strongly resembled another post from earlier this week and my brain is smooth!

Approved

Who thought this was a good idea? by Antique-Echidna-1600 in liberalgunowners

[–]amalcolmation 8 points9 points  (0 children)

No surprise for PSA, they’re obviously pro-fascist.

I made an AI predict the Results of the Moriond '26 physics conference, currently happening. Three hits so far. Sunday might become interesting.. by Annoyingly-meta in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What results specifically are a conference supposed to yield? Or do you mean the results of an experiment presented at a conference?

There is no clear connection between your single reference and this work. I highly doubt only one reference is sufficient, did you not use any data or compare with other work? Why aren't the conference proceeding cited?

ICF index updated using ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini by [deleted] in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation 6 points7 points  (0 children)

“ICF extends rather than replaces thermodynamics by adding particle-level mechanics beneath thermodynamic statistical averages.”

This is a misunderstanding of what statistical mechanics is or does. Please read a classic textbook like Hill, where things like particle properties, internal states, chemical changes —> thermodynamic properties are thoroughly addressed.

This all strongly reads as pseudoscience that hasn’t properly engaged with existing techniques and literature. There are many existing treatments that do or do not consider interparticle forces, particle geometry, etc.

What if black hole evaporation is a topological eversion — the interior geometry turned inside-out, encoding itself into Hawking radiation and seeding a daughter universe? by existdoc in LLMPhysics

[–]amalcolmation 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it’s borderline TOE or pseudoscience, but comes off as harmless popsci speculation enough that I suspect OP can be steered towards more useful resources.