Mastodawn

@cazabon Oh yeah, I’ve always thought of the particle generations as being a geometric concept. He says the theory is a string theory but doesn’t seem to mention the particles themselves as strings. Possible I haven’t gone far enough down the rabbit hole. I sure hope Sabine gets this one!

I'm with you on hoping to hear Sabine opine on this.

I've read some more of the stuff in the repo - text and code. It's still just about all over my interested-layman's head. But I want it to be true, or at least true-ish enough to point the way to additional threads to pull on with other researchers.

I really hope that this isn't just a big joke, and the text isn't just LLM jibberish from a model trained on physics papers.

> I personally don’t think of an observer as a person but rather then entanglement
> of systems and how it spreads.

I've never liked the term "observer" or "observe" as used in theoretical physics (the waveform collapses when the observer looks at the result, etc), because it does seem to imply an intelligence or an id, though that might just be linguistic baggage.

I tend to think of it more like Einstein's relativity. An observer there can be thought of more as just a vantage point. There doesn't need to be a person there to do the looking, but if you happened to stand there, you would see a particular "view" of the universe. From another vantage point, a theoretical observer would "see" a different view of the same events. But what do I know, I'm no physicist.

@cazabon Lol, you seem to think like a physicist. Oh I sure hope it isn’t jibberish too. I’d be pretty impressed if an AI could actually come up with a viable theory though. (Gotta start training Skye and Sitara on how to use the AIs well)

That sparked a question in my mind: which of them is dark energy, and which is dark matter?

@cazabon Hmm, he doesn’t seem to mention dark energy much in the article. That one’s up in the air right now due to the DESI results which say it might be changing over time. Still waiting on more observations

#crank #cranks #relativity #nutter

I've spent the last hour-plus going through more of the "stuff" he links from the overview, and (a) I still have no way to tell if it makes sense or if it's just LLM-generated physics drivel, and (b) I get more and more concerned that "one self-educated non-physicist overturns all of modern physics and solves all outstanding problems", while hypothetically tenable, strains credulity.

I mean, a long history of cranks "disproving" Einstein (dunno why they all hated relativity so much) and Dirac and everything else just screams "This guy is a nutter". The alarm bells are ringing. I really want people who actually understand this stuff to read it and tell me whether I can write this guy off as such a crank.

But weirder things have happened. Einstein was just a clerk in a patent office who no one had heard of when he demonstrated the then-new and completely unsupported-by-evidence quantum theory, which had only been proposed to solve the (ultra)violet catastrophe, could actually explain the completely unrelated and then-unexplained photoelectric effect. He won the Nobel in physics for that - not relativity - and cemented quantum theory in place, even if he never liked it. A nobody who single-handedly stamped the dividing line between classical physics and modern physics.

<brain-exploding>

@cazabon Haven't done a super deep dive on it,but I hate to say it at first glance, it looks like slop :(

I was afraid of that.

@cazabon He says it's not though so there is that. Just something that seems off about it. Still keeping the paper though lol.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LLMPhysics/comments/1rfeqwq/removed_by_moderator/

There are a few comments visible about it. Sounds like the general opinion is pure AI slop.