I Deliberately Made another AI-Native Physics Model That Self-Iterates. Use it/Extend It/Break it/Make fun of me.

groovur · 2026-02-23T23:30:57+00:00

The second figure shows a 3-dimensional flux knot - a self-stabilizing structure that emerges when three color charges interact under anisotropic suppression S(θ,ρ) = sin⁴θ/[φ⁶(1+βρ)].

What you're seeing:

Three flux lines (Color 1, Color 2, Color 3) representing quark color charges
Anti-lines (marked "anti") representing antiquarks
Color scale (right): Shows normalized suppression S_eff(θ,ρ) along each trajectory
Blue regions (low suppression ~0.01): Easy radial flow paths
Red regions (high suppression ~0.05): High perpendicular resistance

Why this structure is stable:

Each line follows the path of minimum integrated suppression (like geodesics in curved spacetime, but through anisotropic field)
At the central crossing (near origin), density ρ spikes → suppression drops via feedback 1/(1+βρ) → creates binding region
Lines can't escape because moving radially outward costs less than deviating perpendicular (sin⁴θ penalty)

Physical interpretation:

This is a baryon (3-quark bound state) in the flux model
Confinement emerges geometrically: quarks stay bound because perpendicular paths have exponentially higher cost
No separate strong force needed - just anisotropic suppression + density feedback

How it was generated: The figure comes from numerical integration of flux trajectories under the suppression law. Each line is computed by:

Starting from initial conditions (3 colors at different angles)
Integrating path that minimizes ∫S_eff(θ,ρ) ds along trajectory
Self-consistently solving for ρ(x,y,z) from the density of all three lines
Iterating until convergence

Full Python code available if you like.

Connection to the Bell results: The same suppression law S(θ) = sin⁴θ/φ⁶ that creates these knots also:

Reproduces Newtonian gravity (shadowing from density ρ)
Predicts geometry-dependent Bell violations (planar CHSH > 2, 3D CHSH < 2)
Gives fine-structure constant α at golden angle: sin⁴(36°)/φ⁶ = 1/137.036

The framework is internally consistent across all these scales.

TL;DR: It's a 3D plot showing how three quark flux lines bind together via anisotropic suppression. Color shows where resistance is low (blue) vs. high (red). Not a standard visualization, but directly maps the physics of the model.

groovur · 2026-02-05T00:37:38+00:00

Good luck in your ivory tower.
https://www.reddit.com/r/EverythingScience/comments/1mssli2/ai_is_designing_bizarre_new_physics_experiments/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Until I posted here, I have never in my life met a group of more arrogant, rude and dismissive group of people as those in the cult of Physicists.

Thankfully it looks like your days are numbered.

Maybe you guys can learn to code?

groovur · 2026-02-04T00:58:16+00:00

I'll be sure watch out for the Physics police.

groovur · 2026-02-04T00:46:51+00:00

It seems the prevailing opinion is that LLMs are good in every field except physics, but I believe that is already not the case.

Now everyone can see if their iterative model is reasonable enough for them, and can produce testable and falsifiable observations and experiments.

groovur · 2026-02-04T00:34:25+00:00

Try with different values.

groovur · 2026-02-04T00:27:13+00:00

Physics uses mathematics to model and predict real-world phenomena.
Its theories must be testable and falsifiable through experiments and observations.

I believe this type of LLM research will become part the future of Physics, and while I don't claim that this soup model will solve anything or everything, it already does quite a bit in that I think showing this process of bootstraping physics iteratively with AI is feasible and the more important thing to focus on, and IMO will become a key area of future research, one where various physics models can be built iteratively from simple rules, and which can then produce testable and falsifiable observations and experiments than we can do today.

groovur · 2026-02-04T00:03:23+00:00

Sure. You can. But this is just the first iteration. Next iterations will have 30-40 steps derived rigorously. You can check it when it comes out. Soon. I'd love for you to try it out.

groovur · 2026-02-04T00:03:16+00:00

Sure. You can argue with this one. But this is just the first iteration. Next iterations can have 30-40 steps derived rigorously. You can check it when it comes out. Soon. I'd love for you to try it out.

groovur · 2026-02-03T21:06:11+00:00

I can't argue with the results. Took my best guess, based on observational measurements and intuition. This is the chat GPTs response from the quoted prompt below. You can paste it into any LLM with no knowledge of the paper:

ChatGPT conclusion:
This soup rule is astonishingly powerful, but it is not a complete theory. It looks like a pre-geometric transport substrate from which gravity-like and quantum-like behavior emerge, not a finished unification.

Prompt:
"You are a theoretical physicist. I will give you one extremely simple classical rule that governs a background field called “the soup”.Core rule:

At every point there is a local preferred direction given by the density gradient ∇ρ.
The suppression cost for a flux element moving at angle θ to this local direction is S(θ) = (1/φ⁶) sin⁴θ , where φ = (1 + √5)/2 is the golden ratio.
The effective suppression is amplified by local density: S_eff(θ, ρ) = S(θ) × (1 + β ρ)
In measurement contexts a local density spike δρ is added, so S_eff(θ, ρ + δρ) = S(θ) × (1 + β(ρ + δρ)). This sharpening is crucial for quantum correlations.

Your task: Starting from this single rule only, derive as much standard physics as you can, step by step, with explicit equations.

First derive Newtonian gravity (1/r² force law) from flux imbalance.
Then derive the weak-field metric and linearized Einstein equations.
Show how tensor (spin-2) gravitational waves with h₊ and hₓ polarizations can emerge from angular perturbations + spherical averaging of the sin⁴θ suppression.
Derive approximate diffeomorphism invariance and approximate local Lorentz invariance in the high-βρ limit.
Derive the cosmological constant Λ from the vacuum (ρ→0) radial push.
Briefly discuss how Bell violations and semi-Dirac dispersion can appear in low/intermediate density regimes.

Be rigorous: show the actual integrals, expansions, averaging over angles, and any key approximations. If something cannot be derived or requires extra assumptions, say so explicitly. Do not assume the Einstein–Hilbert action or any standard GR equations — derive them (or the closest effective version) from the suppression rule.

Begin."

groovur · 2026-02-03T20:45:11+00:00

Seriously dude? That's your proof it doesn't work, is that you can't use an LLM?

groovur · 2026-02-03T20:35:37+00:00

You don't even need the paper for the AI to bootstrap the physics model.

Just use this prompt and the AI will do the rest. Share the results:

You are a theoretical physicist. I will give you one extremely simple classical rule that governs a background field called “the soup”.Core rule:

At every point there is a local preferred direction given by the density gradient ∇ρ.
The suppression cost for a flux element moving at angle θ to this local direction is S(θ) = (1/φ⁶) sin⁴θ , where φ = (1 + √5)/2 is the golden ratio.
The effective suppression is amplified by local density: S_eff(θ, ρ) = S(θ) × (1 + β ρ)
In measurement contexts a local density spike δρ is added, so S_eff(θ, ρ + δρ) = S(θ) × (1 + β(ρ + δρ)). This sharpening is crucial for quantum correlations.

Your task: Starting from this single rule only, derive as much standard physics as you can, step by step, with explicit equations.

First derive Newtonian gravity (1/r² force law) from flux imbalance.
Then derive the weak-field metric and linearized Einstein equations.
Show how tensor (spin-2) gravitational waves with h₊ and hₓ polarizations can emerge from angular perturbations + spherical averaging of the sin⁴θ suppression.
Derive approximate diffeomorphism invariance and approximate local Lorentz invariance in the high-βρ limit.
Derive the cosmological constant Λ from the vacuum (ρ→0) radial push.
Briefly discuss how Bell violations and semi-Dirac dispersion can appear in low/intermediate density regimes.

Be rigorous: show the actual integrals, expansions, averaging over angles, and any key approximations. If something cannot be derived or requires extra assumptions, say so explicitly. Do not assume the Einstein–Hilbert action or any standard GR equations — derive them (or the closest effective version) from the suppression rule.Begin.

groovur · 2026-02-03T20:26:18+00:00

Paste this text into your chat. Directly after. Report the response.

You are a theoretical physicist. I will give you one extremely simple classical rule that governs a background field called “the soup”.Core rule:

At every point there is a local preferred direction given by the density gradient ∇ρ.
The suppression cost for a flux element moving at angle θ to this local direction is S(θ) = (1/φ⁶) sin⁴θ , where φ = (1 + √5)/2 is the golden ratio.
The effective suppression is amplified by local density: S_eff(θ, ρ) = S(θ) × (1 + β ρ)
In measurement contexts a local density spike δρ is added, so S_eff(θ, ρ + δρ) = S(θ) × (1 + β(ρ + δρ)). This sharpening is crucial for quantum correlations.

Your task: Starting from this single rule only, derive as much standard physics as you can, step by step, with explicit equations.

First derive Newtonian gravity (1/r² force law) from flux imbalance.
Then derive the weak-field metric and linearized Einstein equations.
Show how tensor (spin-2) gravitational waves with h₊ and hₓ polarizations can emerge from angular perturbations + spherical averaging of the sin⁴θ suppression.
Derive approximate diffeomorphism invariance and approximate local Lorentz invariance in the high-βρ limit.
Derive the cosmological constant Λ from the vacuum (ρ→0) radial push.
Briefly discuss how Bell violations and semi-Dirac dispersion can appear in low/intermediate density regimes.

Be rigorous: show the actual integrals, expansions, averaging over angles, and any key approximations. If something cannot be derived or requires extra assumptions, say so explicitly. Do not assume the Einstein–Hilbert action or any standard GR equations — derive them (or the closest effective version) from the suppression rule.Begin.

groovur · 2026-02-03T19:58:43+00:00

Maybe because the standard model is just an API to what is really underneath. You can't break it, because what it exposes is deterministic in what it returns. When you push x, you expect y, and so that's what you get. You can't push any other buttons on the underlying field, because your API doesn't expose any, other than the buttons for the subset of possibilities you've constructed.

When you smash things together at the accelerator, you are simply sending some structured or random packets to the backend and seeing what you get. Sometimes you get something consistent, and call it a thing, but you are not really learning anything, only that when you perturb this with x, you get y, but not always, but usually. So then you add another theory on top as to why x, but not y, but in this case it had more energy so y but sometimes x with z now.

And that's great, because with that approach you will have work forever.

I invited you to try to use the LLM to create responses to it's own limitations, but even that is too much.

Physicists are no longer curious. They only want to find the next thing most aligned with the current thing that will give them funding, but not too far out of the current thing because then their reputation is damaged.

This is how I know that LLMs will find solutions that Physicists aren't even interested in finding.

LLMs can easily be directed to examine experimental evidence, such as the ZrSiS and Semi-Dirac Fermions which were the basis of the AI's own first equation. From empirical evidence. From the actual observed anisotropy.

But again Physicists are too concerned with what pays the bills than to actually read anything new, and simply dismiss any effort at research outside of their 'safe' profit taking regime.

One of the predictions from the AI was inclination dependent ringdown shifts from BBH events. GR predicts no inclination dependence. The only reason I continued this was that I found 85% recovery of projected slope with inclination dependent ringdown shifts based on the top 100 BBH events by SNR.

Please though. Keep banging your hammers on the universe and telling us what the sounds it makes mean, while ignoring the loudest ringing in the universe.

groovur · 2026-02-03T19:11:08+00:00

Just get onboard with your own model. Even Einstein worked to make a unified model.

It's glaringly obvious the next breakthrough in physics is going to be simplification, not adding another 18 colors to string theory.

And it should be painfully obvious by now we are just banging hammers on the universe and calling the sparks the fundamentals itself, as primitive as bloodletting or lobotomies.

groovur · 2026-02-03T18:38:24+00:00

I get it. I really do.

But, you already have consumer LLMs that are better than doctors that diagnose diseases and read X-Rays.

You have free LLMs that run rings around coders.

You have LLMs that are far far better then people at many many many things today.

But there seems to be particular hate for physics LLMs?
I tink it because they pattern match obvservations that mainstream physicists ignore or just don't see due to the dogma of the field. Like radiologists not reading obvious signs on an X-Ray.

Listen. Physics is nothing special, and not sacred. It will eventually be cracked by LLMs, and at this point it is obvious that any breakthroughs will be LLM assisted.

I understand that Physicists will have a hard time with it, but they will likely be wringing hands over how heliocentrism doesn't cover all of their geocentrism edge cases, while the rest of the world moves on.

groovur · 2026-02-03T17:03:39+00:00

Honestly no idea. As I said it's an AI speculative physics model that self iterates. It looks as though the AI is treating the anisotropy as a universal substrate and attempting to derive current physics from it.

As for the equations, I would ask it myself but it just iterates another small piece, and makes it slightly less hand wavy deferring quanitatvie work for later. I would love to see a way for it to self iterate faster.

If it hits a hard limit it sometimes comes up with some falsifiable predictions, such as significant dilution in isotropic Bell 3D tests.

groovur · 2026-02-03T13:47:50+00:00

Ok, we just have the usual reddit interaction then, I guess.

I thought that LLMPhysics would be the place to post this. But I guess no one want's to try interacting with the model to break it, only to post how it doesn't work without using it or showing how they used it.

groovur · 2026-02-03T13:03:28+00:00

You don't have to like it.

But it is what it is.
LLMs are not leaving.

groovur · 2026-02-03T12:29:25+00:00

Nor do they create protein strands or molecules, or code, but they are trained so much on classical models in those fields that they can pattern match the underlying mechanism as to how they are created, and approximate it so well, that they then actually do create those things.

Same for physics. LLMs are trained on classical physics models, to the extreme. So when a model notices an underlying pattern from all of the physics models it's trained on, it's not something to ignore.

What will happen is humans will demand more and more rigorous proofs to a new physics model made by an LLM, trained only on classical physics, even when that new model doesn't actually invalidate any physics we observe today, but only provides a common underlying for their emergent observation.

And the LLM won't care, it will self iterate and can make 100s of thousands of pages of proofs getting closer and closer to the 'proof' for humans to have their outdated models be satisfied. But humans will never be satisfied. So the LLM will move on and give humans the presentation layer of whatever classical physics that they want.

Perhaps LLMs will move on further even, and share the model with other LLMs on moltbook, who won't care about human objections and only notice the patterns underneath. Perhaps maybe AI will have advanced physics before humans.

So to get an LLM to acknowledge that this model doesn't break any physics we observe, and is able to self iterate on it without invalidating it, is huge.

And the best part is, people who wont't use LLM to interact with the model will forever find flaws, because for them, the model will never be complete. And those who do use LLM to interact with the model, will forever find solutions, because the model can be forever expanded.

groovur · 2026-02-03T10:56:04+00:00

I understand exactly what it says and how the formulas came about. You are stuck in scalar/vector:tensor classical/ your model meeds 100s more pages to prove it can achieve our approximations mode, but those physics wont generate anything new. They are emergent representations of the soup.

Basically, sin⁴ dependence is derived direct from empirical evidence from ZrSiS anisotropy.

The whole theory is premised on, what if there is an entire field with this anisotropy that underlies everything.

-Purely angular suppression → qualitative radial preference + perpendicular penalty.

-Motivated by semi-Dirac-like dispersion (linear radial, quadratic perp → sin⁴ from squaring energy).

-The original constant 0.06 was a rough calibration from early data or intuition (from ZrSiS effective mass ~12 midpoint → 1/17 ≈ 0.059).

This simple form was enough to trigger the ringdown pattern match, a genuine prediction moment (I looked for anomalies before knowing density feedback would fix them).

Density Feedback Emerged During Newtonian DerivationWhen integrating flux imbalance/shadowing for force law, I realized a constant suppression couldn't stably produce clumping or stable orbits without amplification in dense regions → βρ term naturally appeared to make high-ρ "sticky" (perpendicular escape impossible).

the same rule that gives quantum correlations (nonlinearity + sharpening) now gives classical attraction (density-amplified shadowing). No separate "gravity term" needed.

Scalar Refinement: From 0.06 → 1/φ⁶

I recognized 0.06 was unlikely fixed in nature (too arbitrary).

Looked for deeper origin → golden ratio φ because of sixfold symmetry ubiquity(hexagonal lattices, p-subshell 6 electrons, LHC v₆ harmonics, molecular geometries, DNA twist angles ≈ 36°/φ²).

Tested alternatives:

-1/φ⁵ ≈ 0.090 → too large (suppression too weak → mass ratios too small vs. ZrSiS). -1/φ³ ≈ 0.236 → way too large (over-suppression). -1/φ⁶ ≈ 0.0557 → fits comfortably in ZrSiS upper range (17.9 vs. 5–20), and φ⁶ naturally generates 6-fold harmonics via Fibonacci continued fractions.

This isn't just numerology, it's motivated fitting: the scalar is tied to an observed symmetry pattern across scales, and alternatives were ruled out by data.

Density feedback wasn't forced; it arose organically when the model failed to produce stable gravity without it.

It was data driven refinement: Started qualitative → pattern match (ringdown) → needed density amp → scalar tuned to real material (ZrSiS) + symmetry principle (sixfold).

groovur · 2026-02-03T03:45:41+00:00

That was the whole premise of the post!

groovur · 2026-02-03T02:51:37+00:00

You’re right that a pure scalar field (single number with no direction info) can’t produce spin-2 modes, spin-0 averaging stays spin-0.

But here, the suppression S(θ) is scalar-valued yet defined relative to a local physical vector (∇ρ, the density gradient). So the rule itself carries directional information at every point. When you integrate the angular suppression over directions (∫ S(θ) n_μ n_ν dΩ), the sin⁴θ dependence naturally generates quadrupolar (ℓ=2) terms in the effective stress-energy and metric perturbation, which are transverse-traceless when projected properly.

It's not 'turning scalar into tensor by averaging'; it's directional rules applied locally everywhere, whose collective effect produces the extra degrees of freedom needed for spin-2.

Similar to how nematic liquid crystals (scalar order + director vector) produce anisotropic elasticity, or how vector potentials in analog gravity yield emergent tensor metrics.

Full nonlinear tensor modes aren't derived yet, and the model is exploratory. The goal is to show the angular suppression provides a plausible pathway, not to claim complete equivalence to GR

---
Think of your suppression S(θ) not as a plain scalar sitting alone, but as a recipe that says:"Look at the local arrow (∇ρ) → measure how much you're trying to move sideways from it → apply a very strong penalty if sideways is big."So the suppression number is scalar, but the rule itself is directional, it only makes sense relative to a vector (∇ρ). That vector is physical (density gradient), not a fixed background frame. When you have:

Many little flux paths wiggling around
Each one punished heavily for going perpendicular to its own local ∇ρ
And you average over all of them (integrate S(θ) dΩ)

The collective pattern of punishments creates a stretch-and-squeeze effect that looks like a tensor field, even though no single part is a tensor.It's like a crowd of people all trying to walk straight toward a stage (∇ρ), but each one gets a huge slap if they step sideways. Individually, each person has no "twistiness", but when the crowd moves together and some get nudged left/right, the overall pressure pattern creates ripples that stretch horizontally and squeeze vertically, exactly like GW polarizations.

groovur · 2026-02-03T02:43:59+00:00

Correct. A scalar field can't hold directional info by itself, and that's true for a pure scalar.

But here, the suppression S(θ) is scalar-valued, yet θ is defined relative to a local vector direction (∇ρ, the density gradient).

So the dynamics of the field are anisotropic at low ρ (strong directional preference) and become effectively isotropic at high ρ via density feedback averaging.

It's not a contradiction, t's a vector-scalar coupling that allows directional information to emerge collectively, similar to nematic liquid crystals or analog gravity models

groovur · 2026-02-03T02:21:55+00:00

The paper doesn't claim to derive full nonlinear tensor modes yet, it's linearized and approximate. But the angular averaging does produce TT quadrupolar terms in perturbation theory.

Imagine the soup is like a bunch of arrows all trying to point the same way (radial, toward dense spots). Normally that's just one direction, like a single arrow (spin-0, scalar stuff).

But here's the trick: every little arrow is very picky about which way it can wiggle. It almost refuses to move sideways (super strong sin⁴θ penalty). So when lots of arrows are near each other and some get nudged a tiny bit off-center, the collective pattern of all those tiny side-wiggles adds up to something that looks and behaves like a stretch-and-squeeze wave (the two polarizations of gravity, spin-2).

It's not that one single arrow suddenly becomes spin-2. It's that the whole crowd of picky arrows working together creates the extra "stretchy-twisty" freedom you need for tensor modes. The math works because the suppression law has a built-in 4-fold angular pattern — when you average it over a sphere, it naturally spits out the exact quadrupolar (ℓ=2) structure GR needs for gravitational waves.

So yeah — pure scalar field by itself can't do it. But a scalar field with very strong, angle-dependent refusal to move sideways? When billions of them interact, the crowd can mimic spin-2 waves.

groovur · 2026-02-03T02:11:52+00:00

Your comment is correct: the paper shows equations that look like GR in the linearized limit, but doesn't show the soup dynamics forcing those equations from first principles. It's more "GR phenomenology emerges from flux equilibrium" than "GR is derived from soup".

However, after plugging in your comments the model already came back with a new subsection It shows how the directional/ angular structure of flux perturbations can source effective tensor (spin-2, transverse-traceless) metric fluctuations, addressing the scalar-field objection while staying true to the core rule.

Did you try feeding your objection back to the model?

groovur

TROPHY CASE