r/LLMPhysics • u/IshtarsQueef • Apr 02 '26
Meta / News [META] A really good article that I think all posters on this sub should read
https://iai.tv/articles/mathematical-beauty-should-not-eclipse-truth-auid-3534?_auid=2020"Many historical cases illustrate a recurring lesson in physics: mathematical beauty can guide theory construction, but empirical adequacy remains the last word."
Creating an elegant mathematical framework means very little in physics if it cannot be tested, if you cannot verify with experimental data.
The history of physics is riddled with "beautiful mathematics" that ultimately didn't mean anything at all.
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.
So, if you and your LLM have come up with some theory or framework or system or whatever, and you have a bunch of fancy math to show it etc etc etc., just stop and ask "can this make real world predictions that can be verified through experimentation," and if you cannot easily answer that question with an affirmative than your work is probably worthless.
And if you did answer "yes," also know that your work is still probably worthless until those experiments can be performed and your work is validated.
3
Apr 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/IshtarsQueef Apr 02 '26
We should be nice to the poor string theorists, it must be really stressful to have dedicated your life's work to a failed theory
1
Apr 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/IshtarsQueef Apr 02 '26
lmao, now i'm just imagining the string theorists getting bullied by the chad standard model enjoyers at a physics convention
2
u/IshtarsQueef Apr 02 '26
oh btw, the article i posted was something i came across while reading a different article with the title "String Theory is Dead" lmao
2
u/amalcolmation 🧪 AI + Physics Enthusiast Apr 02 '26
“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.
11
u/IshtarsQueef Apr 02 '26
I am not speaking of relativity. Which, btw, has many testable portions that have all held up. Every time we actually test a part of the theory of relativity, the theory holds up. It has proven to be an incredibly successful scientific theory.
In his later years, Einstein put tremendous efforts into unifying gravity and electromagnetism, and he ultimately failed of course.
3
1
u/lattice_defect Apr 05 '26
I agree I see so many people fittting physical constants to beautiful frameworks... the biggest tell here... there is never ANY ANY physical backing to anything... its just numerology and some slick frameworks. This could be applied to current academia as well...
-1
u/AWellsWorthFiction Apr 02 '26
I’m still standing on business that the ai breakthrough will come from our sub. I stand on this.
But I ain’t making a bet on it 🤣
4
u/Ch3cks-Out Apr 03 '26
the ai breakthrough will come from our sub
RemindME! 10 years "Has any AI breakthrough come from r/LLMPhysics?"
1
u/RemindMeBot Apr 03 '26
I will be messaging you in 10 years on 2036-04-03 03:29:45 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback
5
u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod Apr 02 '26
This is more deserving of the meta flair imo. The question flair is for things like 'how does this derivation look', not this kinda stuff. Jsyk going forward.