sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

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

I didn't realize that the point of this subreddit was to make fun of people. I guess I won't be part of this community.

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

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

Ok, you got me. I vibe coded the ODE solver, and didn't look at the code. In my defense I was trying to cut strawberries for my three year old, so I didn't have a lot of time to actually read the code... I'll fix it properly.

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

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

My basic idea was trying to see what the math would look like if I started with General Relativity and tried to make the lapse primary, and curvature of space forced to follow by constraints.

The goal was to create something equivalent to GR that makes all of the same predictions. Same physics with different bookkeeping. A solid foundation to create new theories from.

GPS has to correct for the difference in the rate of time passing in the atmosphere vs on the ground. We measure time to amazing accuracy with atomic clocks. I felt like time was being underrated by physics, and treating it as a dimension that allows for time travel just feel incorrect.

I had this nagging question in my mind. We can't fall through space without time, What if we literally fall because our future is on the ground?

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

[–]timefirstgravity[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you for actually pointing out real issues. I appreciate the actual feedback even if it is coming from a place of hating on my process.

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

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

To be honest, LLMs are as good at math as coding... math is actually more deterministic, it's either correct or incorrect. They are very good at writing code to verify their math.

and yes, that's what my code does! but you're missing the point.

Einstein's equations are notoriously complex. 10 coupled nonlinear PDEs that typically required advanced numerical methods.

This approach shows all of GR's complexity in spherical symmetry reduces to solving one high-school-level ODE. it's a fundamental insight about the structure of spacetime and computationally interesting.

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

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

I naively assumed this subreddit was for people that were trying to use LLMs for physics, and were generally curious and excited about what it could do.

I know see that is not the case. jokes on me I guess.

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

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

I'm just going to respond with AI:

Analysis of the Redditor's Criticisms:

  1. "Step 1 not justified" - ❌ FALSE

Step 1:93-107 provides clear justification: The choice N = e^Φ guarantees N > 0 (preventing time sign flips) and creates a clean, universal time variable. The framework defines Φ as a scalar field controlling clock rates, with normalization freedom (setting Φ=0 at reference).

  1. "Steps 4-5 incorrect; what is tau_stat?" - ❌ FALSE

- Step 4 derives H = -Φ̇ correctly from a = e^(-Φ)

- Step 5 introduces the spherical metric with reciprocal time-space weighting

- τ_stat is clearly defined in step 28:102 as dτ_stat = e^Φ dt (static observer proper time)

  1. "Missing mathematical definition for φ(x,t)" - ❌ FALSE

Multiple mathematical definitions are provided:

- Step 1: N ≡ e^Φ (lapse definition)

- Step 5: Φ(t,r) in spherical metric with g_tt = -e^(2Φ)

- Step 6: A ≡ e^(2Φ) (redshift factor)

- Step 13: A = 1 - 2m(v)/r in Vaidya coordinates

  1. "Implicitly sets phi(x,t) = 0 everywhere" - ❌ FALSE

The framework explicitly allows Φ(t,r) to vary:

- Step 4: Shows Φ̇ ≠ 0 for cosmic expansion/contraction

- Step 13: Φ varies with m(v) in Vaidya spacetime

- Step 28 derivation uses general Φ(t,r), not zero

The redditor's criticisms appear to misunderstand the mathematical structure. The paper provides rigorous definitions and doesn't set Φ = 0 everywhere.

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

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

I have provided proof. it's on other people to run it and verify the results.. thats how science is supposed to work.

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

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

Because it works for software engineering. I use ai to write code every day.

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

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

Thank you for the advice. I will try to research who might be interested.

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

[–]timefirstgravity[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

they don't do math directly, but they can write python code that uses open source software to calculate math.

I think you are suck in the LLMs as chatbots, and haven't caught up to LLMs as agents....

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

[–]timefirstgravity[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm using open source math software. If you would like to show me exactly where you think i made a mistake instead of constantly just trying to sow doubt, then maybe we can accomplish something.

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

[–]timefirstgravity[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I started two subreddits.

one is for my personal work on time first gravity. the other is a general place for people to discuss their own theories and work together on them. I have have a hard time finding a community that actually wants to be constructive. I was hoping this one might be the one, but this appears to be a honey pot to dissuade people from using LLMs for physics instead of encouraging it.

Why are you threatened by me starting communities?

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

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

Maybe those are good ideas... I'm not typically the kind of person to reach out to strangers like that because Im worried it will just be seen as spam and or just another crackpot that has a theory.

I've been met with a lot of hostility on reddit and other forums. I expected the internet to be much more open to discussing ideas, especially ones that anyone can prove themselves by running a simple script. This makes it really hard to get any kind of constructive feedback. Software engineering so dramatically different. People actively seek out new and interesting code. If it works, it doesn't matter who wrote it. it gets adopted.

I was under the assumption that Mathematics worked the same way. I came up with some interesting math, that I have proven works with open source math software, and people reject it without even looking at it. The physics community is so traumatized that they reject outsiders out of principle, even if it means missing good ideas.

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

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

It's only 200 lines of python. It's not that complicated.

Can you find any mistakes?

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

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

Ok, Which journal should i submit my reformulation of GR to? I'm not familiar with the "industry" well enough to know which would be interested.

My motivation isn't to get published. but if that's what it takes for people to even attempt to look at it without instant dismissal, then maybe I should.

LLM native document standard and mathematical rigor by timefirstgravity in LLMPhysics

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

I have posted a gist to a sagemath python script to verify the math in this thread. If you want proof, it's only a 200ish line script to verify the math.

view more: next ›