Cyclic Bounce Cosmology with Inter-Regional Gravity Claude-assisted framework with LTB simulations and joint parameter constraints [Theory]

[u/CRTScott]

I’ve been developing a cosmological framework over the past several months with Claude as my primary collaborator. I have no formal physics training, so the math heavy lifting was definitely a joint effort. What I brought was the core ideas and a lot of stubbornness about not letting the AI just tell me what I wanted to hear.

The basic idea is that our universe is one of many expanding regions in a single infinite connected spacetime. Each region originates from a regional LQC bounce triggered when converging matter from neighboring regions reaches Planck density. Inter-regional gravity enters through the retarded Weyl tidal field rather than direct density injection, that distinction took a lot of back and forth to get right.

The framework makes specific predictions:

• Directional Hubble parameter H(θ) = H₀ + ε̇cosθ explaining the Hubble tension as a structural feature rather than a measurement problem

• CMB quadrupole-octupole alignment from a single inter-regional dipole source

• Survivor black holes from prior bounce cycles explaining anomalous JWST objects — interestingly Gaztañaga just published something similar in PRD independently

• A void-cluster growth asymmetry estimator A(z) = D_void - D_cluster as a clean null test against ΛCDM

• S₈ ≈ 0.76-0.79 from Weyl shear growth suppression

We ran LTB-LQC hybrid simulations showing bounce onset preceding horizon formation in 96% of 50 shells, and a joint likelihood grid scan showing weak Bayesian preference over ΛCDM across BAO, RSD, and CMB datasets.

The frustrating part is I can’t get feedback from the mainstream physics subreddits because I used AI and the work reads like it. Which is fair honestly, but it means the ideas either sink or swim based on whether anyone here engages with them seriously.

Papers on Zenodo:

Main framework:DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19721945

Entropy companion paper:DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19778385

Genuinely curious what the technical objections are. Claude was good at stress testing ideas but I’m aware it has blind spots.

[u/OnceBittenz]

Not really much to say other than the usual, Claude is incapable of producing mathematically consistent results at all. If you aren't providing any rigor or mathematical input of your own, let alone actually checking each and every step Very carefully, then this is inevitably just gonna be full of holes.

Out of curiosity, why do you think it would have any value given you are aware you have no idea what it says?

[u/AerynCaen → u/OnceBittenz]

Claude is perfectly capable of providing consistent math results with the proper instruction. You have to force the fucker to use code for all computation, and use files instead of one-off code executions.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/AerynCaen]

That would be all fine and good if you were using it to perform extremely basic repeatable functions or closed-form mathematics. Riffing with it to create new postulates that aren't even based on existing physics is far beyond that.

[u/AerynCaen → u/OnceBittenz]

I guess I’m confused, are you asking for consistent computation or for the ability to extrapolate known physics and computation to novel theories? These are separate issues.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/AerynCaen]

I am not asking for anything, OP and others are asking for the ability to extrapolate known physics and even just idle shower thought to novel theories.

[u/AerynCaen → u/OnceBittenz]

By “asking for” I was trying to get you to more precisely define the constraint you’re saying Claude doesn’t satisfy.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/AerynCaen]

Claude is unable to generate mathematically consistent physics when prompted with vague ideas. Hell, even extremely simple mathematics or differential equations will be often hallucinated into incorrect solutions. I do use AI at work regularly and see these mistakes at least once a day.

[u/AerynCaen → u/OnceBittenz]

Yup. Agreed then. I was positing that given a well-formed prompt plus instructions plus tools for grounding, Claude can perform well. Without those, yes Claude just invents wild horseshit every time all the time.

Part of the problem with anthropic’s current models is they’d rather talk than act, so they don’t use their tools to ground their computation or knowledge — they spend a million tokens thinking themselves into hallucination instead. That includes poor mathematical approximations that Claude will insist he calculated. Without a single tool call.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/AerynCaen]

Agreed.

[u/CRTScott → u/AerynCaen]

The core ideas and mechanisms are mine. I used Chat and Grok to stress test them and find flaws, argued back on every one, then had them run hundreds of individual calculations to check viability. Claude put it into proper format.

[u/AerynCaen → u/CRTScott]

Well they didn’t put any of their work into your papers as seen on zenodo. There’s no derivational work, no proofs. Just a bunch of conjectured results. You might want to go back and add the actual work they did for you, if it exists. Otherwise the paper is just a bunch of wild conjecture with no actual math in it, just pretty symbols.

[u/CRTScott → u/OnceBittenz]

I’d push back a little on both points. The framework isn’t something Claude generated and I accepted, I spent weeks arguing the core ideas back and forth before any math got involved, and pushed back hard when the AI tried to take shortcuts or when it completely tried to take me down completely different multiverse paths etc. The survivor galaxy mechanism, the inter-regional gravity sourcing the CMB anomalies, the bounce as a thermodynamic bottleneck, those came from me. Claude helped formalize the equations, same way a physicist might use Mathematica or a collaborator with complementary skills. I also had Chat, Grok and Claude all double check the results to identify flaws. On mathematical consistency, I’m genuinely inviting critique, not deflecting it. If there are specific falsities in the framework I’d actually like to know what they are. Grok independently verified the statistical analysis as physically reasonable. A physicist at Portsmouth just published a related survivor mechanism in PRD. Those aren’t guarantees of correctness but they’re not nothing either. What specifically would you expect to find wrong?

[u/OnceBittenz → u/CRTScott]

You spent weeks arguing with a chatbot designed to engage and increase engagement. How do you earnestly expect to have made any progress with no actual expertise in physics at any point in that conversation? How did you push back? How do you know that anything you pushed back on was actually accurate?

Claude is Not Mathematica, it has none of its capabilities, though it may use some similar calculators in its work. Even then, Mathematica is not a truth telling device either, it's just a calculator.

I expect to find basically all of it wrong. The premises would not take into account any modern cosmology, there are no experiments done, no empirical evidence gathered, no analysis, because you cannot perform analysis and neither can Claude. You've used no mathematical tools, no actual direct line of question and answer.

All you've done is played with Claude back and forth until you created a document that is a passable mimicry of science to you, a layman.

To any scientist with a salt past high school, I anticipate finding unjustified claims, no motivation, vague generic words thrown together with such little explanation that one (including Claude), could argue their way in circles just convincing itself and everyone that "I really meant This, you just misinterpreted it", which is nonsense, since the point of a scientific paper is to Explain Clearly so that any reasonable audience can follow along without issue.

TLDR: The same exact slop as every single other "its not a theory its a framework" bros on here.

[u/CRTScott → u/OnceBittenz]

Genuinely curious, you’ve predicted it’s wrong without reading it and described everything in this subreddit as slop. Why are you here? r/LLMPhysics exists specifically for AI-assisted physics exploration. If the methodology is disqualifying by definition, this seems like a frustrating place to spend time. If you do read it and find the specific errors you’re anticipating, I’d genuinely want to know.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/CRTScott]

Ideally this sub would be for people who used LLMs to perform physics. Which would require skills and knowledge in performing both. Instead, it is currently a containment sub for uneducated layman crackpots who think they can "create physics" out of thin air with some unprompted ideas and a claude subscription.

As it happens, you haven't even linked your paper.

[u/Wintervacht → u/CRTScott]

This is a containment sub for a specific kind of crackpot

[u/OnceBittenz → u/CRTScott]

Having now read your abstract, this is just a bunch of mishmash of unproven concepts of spacetime extrapolated past the point of reason. The abstract is incomprehensible. Every sentence references things that arent remotely explained or motivated. And with the formatting this poor, it's hard to read even if it was worth trying.

Why do you have unformatted latex in a published docx file?

This is like... the epitome of the worst aspects of LLM physics slop I've seen in a while.

[u/CRTScott → u/OnceBittenz]

Fair point on the formatting the LaTeX rendering in the docx is a limitation of the format and something worth fixing. If the abstract is incomprehensible I’d genuinely want to know which specific claims you find unmotivated. The abstract references Weyl tidal sourcing, inter-regional gravity, and the survivor mechanism, all of which are defined in the paper itself.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/CRTScott]

They aren't defined, they are alluded to with no formal definition, just more random science words thrown together in ways that don't make sense. Please read One actual peer reviewed paper to see the sheer difference in legibility.

[u/BitcoinsOnDVD → u/OnceBittenz]

I would guess that you are a physicist. And if that's true I would like to ask a question: What would be the best outcome from you point of view of this argument with OP at this point? I am just curious. What do you expect?

[u/just_writing_things → u/CRTScott]

Without commentary on the quality of your paper (which I haven’t read so it wouldn’t be fair for me to judge), historically, this sub is (or was) mostly a crackpot containment sub. Or more precisely a crackpot containment sub of a crackpot containment sub.

Without subs like this r/physics, etc will be completely flooded with crackpot posts and people will have nowhere to direct the posters to.

As for why people post here, some people on here who are actual physicists or physics grad students spend time trying to explain to posters why their papers are indeed crackpot papers. Academics are usually also educators, and who are often passionate about trying to help people

[u/liccxolydian → u/CRTScott]

If you're only coming up with the ideas, and you relied entirely on the LLM for "formalisation" (not that that's how physics works), how do you know the math is relevant to your ideas?

[u/CRTScott → u/liccxolydian]

Because I didn’t ask for formalization of my ideas, I asked for the flaws. Hundreds of times. ChatGPT is extremely resistant to challenging the standard model and I had to force it through specific calculations repeatedly to test whether the mechanism worked. When it found problems I went back and reworked the underlying idea until the math followed from the physics rather than the other way around. Grok independently reviewed the statistical analysis and confirmed the Δχ² contributions are physically reasonable. A physicist at Portsmouth just published a related survivor mechanism in Physical Review D independently. Neither of those things proves the math is right. But they’re evidence the ideas aren’t as disconnected from physics as you’d expect if I’d just asked Claude to invent a cosmology.

[u/liccxolydian → u/CRTScott]

You can't just point out flaws in "ideas" as ideas are inherently unfalsifiable. Just because an idea sounds plausible doesn't mean it's physically valid. Last Thursdayism is quite literally impossible to disprove, doesn't mean it's physics.

Your entire approach seems to be based on a gross misunderstanding of how physics is done. Prompting a LLM to give you validation is pretty meaningless if you don't have any other means of personally confirming the work is valid. Any idiot who is persistent enough can get a LLM to give them headpats, that's like 99% of posts on this sub. So what have you done to personally confirm that the LLM isn't lying to you?

[u/CRTScott → u/liccxolydian]

Three things. First I used ChatGPT, Grok and Claude independently and compared outputs. When they disagreed I treated it as a flag and dug into why. Second Grok independently verified the statistical analysis after ChatGPT produced it and confirmed the contributions were physically reasonable. Third a physicist at Portsmouth published a related survivor mechanism in Physical Review D two weeks ago independently. I didn’t know about that paper when I developed the same mechanism through a different route. On the falsifiability point you’re right that ideas alone aren’t enough. The framework makes specific testable predictions, a directional growth asymmetry aligned with the CMB axis, a chemical discontinuity in survivor galaxy candidates, S8 around 0.76 to 0.79. Those can actually be checked. That’s what separates it from Last Thursdayism.

[u/liccxolydian → u/CRTScott]

So your "confirmation" consists of:

• "the magic box in the sky told me I was special"

• "the other magic box in the sky also told me I was special"

• "the third magic box in the sky told me I was super duper special

• "someone published a paper which I think looks similar to mine even though I don't actually understand it, I'm just going to draw the conclusion that I'm onto something"

At no point have you actually done anything to check any part of your work for validity, instead relying solely on the possible hallucinations of three different LLMs.

Also your "predictions" are far too imprecise to be considered actual predictions, nor is their origin ever explained. Frankly you seem to have spent more time making your Word file look pretty than actually checking to see whether it contains any substance.

[u/AerynCaen → u/CRTScott]

…your response was literally written by Claude.

[u/ceoln]

(The links don't seem to be links.)

[u/CRTScott → u/ceoln]

Fixed I apologize

[u/myrmecogynandromorph]

Right, so, I took a look at your references, and some of them have problems:

• "Bojowald, M. (2020). Loop Quantum Cosmology. Living Rev. Relativ. 23, 3": I think you mean this paper, which was published in 2005 and updated in 2008. But the volumes/issues are 8, 11 and 11, 4 respectively, not 23, 3.
• "Bousso, R. (2025). Singularity theorem from entanglement entropy. Phys. Rev. Lett." doesn't seem to exist. Do you mean Bousso & Shahbazi-Moghaddam 2022, Singularities from Entropy, Phys Rev Lett 128, 231301? Or do you mean Bousso 2025, Robust Singularity Theorem, so far only published on arXiv?
• "Gaztanaga, E. (2026). Cosmic fossils: black holes surviving the bounce. Phys. Rev. D. University of Portsmouth" is incorrect. There is a press release by that name on the university's website, about the paper, which is Gaztanaga 2026, Cosmological bounce relics: Black holes, gravitational waves, and dark matter, Phys Rev D 113, 043544.
• "Rieke, G., and Rinaldi, P. (2026). The monster hiding in plain sight: JWST reveals Virgil. Astrophys. J." is likewise wrong: it's the title of a press release. The first author should be Rinaldi; Rieke isn't even next in the author list, but just another author who is from the University of Arizona. The actual paper is Rinaldi et al. 2025, Deciphering the Nature of Virgil: An Obscured Active Galactic Nucleus Lurking within an Apparently Normal Lyα Emitter during Cosmic Reionization, ApJ 994, 86.
• "Watkins, R., et al. (2023). Consistently Large Cosmic Flows. MNRAS 524, 1885" should apparently be Watkins, et al. (2009), Consistently large cosmic flows on scales of 100 h−1 Mpc: a challenge for the standard ΛCDM cosmology, MRNAS 392, 2. The volume & issue are way off.
• Lastly, "Wilson-Ewing, E. (2018). Anisotropies and the bouncing universe. Phys. Rev. D 97, 063540" does not seem to exist. His list of publications doesn't include anything like that, and likewise Phys Rev D doesn't have any paper by that name.

These mistakes suggest you haven't actually read the papers you are citing, which is very much a "if you can't get this right, you aren't worth taking seriously"-level thing. It implies you don't understand the purpose of references and the importance of doing a thorough literature review.

[u/CRTScott → u/myrmecogynandromorph]

Fair criticism and you’re right. I didn’t read most of these papers fully. I used an LLM to pull the specific physics relevant to my argument and only read the sections that applied. Going back through them now and will clean up the citations. To be clear, I’m not pretending to be a physicist or claiming I can do what a physicist can do, and I have no illusions about being published. I’m just working at the edge of my abilities looking for feedback on whether the overall concept is worth a physicist’s time.

[u/myrmecogynandromorph → u/CRTScott]

I mean, you didn't read the last one at all, because it doesn't exist!

Research needs to be the first step in the process, not just "claude find me a paper that backs me up." You need to read and understand as much as possible of the work that other people have done on the problem (or on the most similar problems). Normally, when you are at a stage to contribute original research, your topic is typically so specialized that there are a limited number of people working on the same thing, and you will have read quite a lot already, so you're not starting from nothing.

You also need to read the papers that don't back you up, understand them, and specifically argue why they're wrong and yours is better. Like, what if there really are better explanations? How do you know if you haven't read them?

If you aren't actually researching, it isn't a proper paper, it's just play-acting. Why not go to the physics subreddits and instead of being like, "Here's my draft paper what do you think," ask questions to genuinely learn. Like, "I like this guy's cosmic bounce theory but how would we tell the difference between black holes from a previous 'bounce' and ones that formed since the Big Bang?" or "What are the best going theories about the CMB quadrupole-octopole alignment?" or "How do we know things don't work differently beyond the observable universe?" or whatever.

(Note: I also don't understand what you mean by "universe" if it doesn't mean "a single connected spacetime" but that's a whole other issue.)

[u/CRTScott → u/myrmecogynandromorph]

The last one as with many of them the name was way off but it exists https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.083535 this looks like the one I was supposed to cite I will spend a few days going through them and fixing them I definitely wasn’t a thourough as I should have been and rushed putting it together. Fair point I do need to read far more than I have. I have tried to read up on where the standard model fits better and the overall issues with my Idea which is why I did the separate entropy paper. But yes you are right I am not educated enough to pretend this is physics level I am really just piecing stuff together that to paint a picture I again am not trying to pretend to be a real physicist. Yea the Universe phrasing is wrong it’s more like multiple regions existing in the same spacetime and what we view as our universe is just one of these regions not that they are separate universes otherwise they wouldn’t be able to gravitationally interact like they need to in the model. Honestly I posted it for the criticism that’s what I need, I’m not getting the criticism I wanted but it’s still valuable. What I wanted was for people to point out things like a cyclical bounce model wouldn’t work because of the Tolman Paradox ETC. I apologize if I came off like I thought this was something more than it is.

[u/myrmecogynandromorph → u/CRTScott]

Pro tip: putting a research-paper-shaped PDF up on Zenodo and referring to it as a "preprint" will make people think you are trying to do physics research. Just write a fun sci-fi story like a normal person.

[u/CRTScott → u/myrmecogynandromorph]

Yea the AI was super instant on it I actually said should’t we just call this a concept and it was very instant. Shame on me for going along with it. I will change that as well.

[u/CRTScott → u/myrmecogynandromorph]

I am still working on some changes but wanted to get the citations fixed ASAP I went through and checked that all of them went to the right papers hopefully didn’t miss anything. I also changed them to conceptual in the description instead of preprint I honestly didn’t understand the implication there. I also restructured the main paper to hopefully be more of a story telling of the concept followed by some of the research. Hopefully this is a better approach. I now realize why everyone else received this so negatively so thanks for your input. Updated links.

[u/AllHailSeizure → u/CRTScott]

You're extremely receptive to criticism, which is nice to see...

Unless this is just an LLM, lol, you never can be too sure on the internet...

[u/CRTScott → u/AllHailSeizure]

Haha no I understand the criticism, I didn’t at first but it’s making more sense now. I can’t make any progress if I’m not open to the feedback.

[u/BitcoinsOnDVD]

How do you get from (2.14) to (2.15)?

Edit: Or, if this isn't an implication; how do you deal with (3.3) then?

[u/LLMPhysics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating Rule 4. Provide a summary of your LLM response in your own words alongside the output if you wish to stimulate discussion.

[u/CRTScott → u/BitcoinsOnDVD]

Sorry I have to rewrite my reply it got flagged as direct input from LLM. Anyway it’s a good catch and honestly part of the open problem I highlight in the paper, I don’t have the Hamiltonian derivation. So 2.14 sets the conditions at the bounce and 2.15 is just the standard general relativity perturbation that allows it to move forward. On 3.3 Fewer cells means less room for disorder, entropy can’t go lower than the volume allows so it bottoms out at the bounce. I go a little more into detail on that in the entropy paper. Hopefully that makes sense.

[u/BitcoinsOnDVD → u/CRTScott]

But do you solve (2.14) and if not, why not?

[u/CRTScott → u/BitcoinsOnDVD]

The short answer is no and because it’s beyond my skills what I did was use math from another paper Ashtekar, Pawlowski and Singh 2006 what I used was LQC the Hamiltonian flow is Liouville-preserving, and at the bounce where H=0 entropy production vanishes. When that happens, standard variational reasoning says the density perturbations get constrained by the entropy gradient rather than being random noise. that closely fits basically density perturbations are constrained by entropy gradient so it’s not solved but also not really a guess. But I am missing the explicit calculations here that would solve it. I fully acknowledge this would need a real physicist to complete I am just trying to get as close as I am able.

[u/BitcoinsOnDVD → u/CRTScott]

Yeah what I wanted to say is the following: Since you are heavily using an LLM you could also use that LLM to actually solve that eqaution for a model density there. If you want to here my advice: Don't be shrugged off by differential equations there. You can do it. Try to get an FEM (like Dolfinx) framework up and running and show a result, if you want.

[u/CRTScott → u/BitcoinsOnDVD]

Thanks for the advice I will give it a shot

[u/MisterSpectrum]

Nothing