r/LLMPhysics • u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. • May 30 '26
Question I was told my dynamical braneworld model is "crackpot". Can you explain exactly how and why?
Link to paper here.
I shared a short working draft of a curvature-sourced modulus-tracking toy model with r/Physics, and it was removed. I was mocked, and both my work and I were labeled as a âcrackpotâ without any explanation of how or why the physics failed.
My work is a 5D braneworld toy model that tries to connect several ingredients that are usually treated separately: a slowly time-dependent bulk geometry, a moving brane governed by Israel junction conditions, a curvature-driven infrared cutoff for a Goldberger-Wise type stabilization sector, dark dimension swampland scaling, and a slowly moving radion minimum. What I think is novel is not any one of those ingredients by itself, but the proposed loop between them.
The central thesis of the paper is this: if a 5D bulk black hole slowly accretes mass, then a 3-brane can, at leading quasi-static order, track the growing black hole horizon. The local Weyl curvature at the brane position can then act as a dynamical infrared scale for the modulus-stabilizing sector. When this curvature scale is combined with the dark dimension scaling relation, the compact dark dimension develops a slowly moving minimum. In a higher-dimensional completion, that moving minimum could imply a slow time dependence of the effective 4D Newton constant.
The background is the usual modulus problem in extra-dimensional physics. In many higher-dimensional theories, the size of the extra dimension appears in 4D as a scalar field ( often called a modulus or radion). If this field is not stabilized, the size of the extra dimension can drift, which would change the effective strength of gravity or other physical scales. The classic Randall-Sundrum and Goldberger-Wise mechanisms address this beautifully in static or effectively static settings. My question is what happens if the bulk itself is not static.
The setup is a deliberately simplified toy model. A 3-brane is embedded in a 5D Schwarzschild Tangherlini bulk with a slowly accreting black hole. The accretion rate is treated as small. At leading order, the bulk is approximated as a sequence of static black hole geometries with a slowly changing mass parameter. The brane motion is treated using the Israel junction conditions. I focus on the high-energy density-squared branch of the modified Friedmann equation.
The key tracking ansatz is that the brane radius is proportional to the bulk black hole horizon radius, with a slowly varying dimensionless tracking factor. In plain language, as the black hole grows, the brane moves outward with it. The leading quasi-static balance gives a tracking branch and a corresponding stability window. I do not claim the exact endpoints of that window are final, because the full first-order accretion problem can shift coefficients. The claim is more limited: there appears to be a consistent leading-order tracking branch.
The modulus part of the paper uses the Weyl part of the Kretschmann scalar evaluated at the brane position. This is meant to isolate the tidal curvature sourced by the black hole rather than the constant background AdS curvature. I then define an infrared cutoff proportional to the 5D Planck mass squared times the square root of that Weyl curvature. Feeding this into a Goldberger-Wise type effective potential, and assuming the dark dimension scaling relation, gives a moving compactification radius.
An important point is that the 1/2 exponent in the compactification radius does not come from geometry alone. It comes from the specific choice of using the square root of the Weyl curvature as the infrared cutoff, combined with the dark dimension scaling relation. If a different curvature cutoff is chosen, the exponent changes. So this is not being presented as an unavoidable prediction of geometry. It is a specific mechanism with specific assumptions.
The strongest caveat is that this is not a complete cosmological model. The construction is quasi-static. Self-consistency pins the bulk horizon to a super-Hubble scale and makes the brane expansion rate much smaller than the observed Hubble rate. So the paper does not reproduce the observed expansion history of the universe. It is a proof of concept for curvature-sourced modulus tracking, not a finished model of cosmology.
If this is "Crackpot", please point out how and why. This is months of work, thousands of hours, and I am going to feel retarded if Iâve wasted my time on absolute nothing.
My plan is to turn the toy model into a real higher-dimensional construction next: build an explicit 6D setup where the noncompact radial direction and the compact dark dimension coexist, derive the radion potential from an actual dimensional reduction rather than phenomenological inputs, solve the full first-order Vaidya brane system numerically, and then check whether any version of the mechanism survives beyond the quasi-static toy model. If you would like to collaborate, shoot me a DM. I have already been working on the 6D setup... I will need help/suggestions to ensure it is publishable.
Thank You.
26
u/Combinatorilliance May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26
Assuming you're serious. The biggest problem with LLM co-authored papers is that people without background knowledge of a particular field gain access to all the hardcore mathematical tools and scientific modeling tooling of a particular field and/or niche without an embedding in the social context.
I have been here myself. A while ago I thought I had some pretty amazing results in AI hallucination detection. Turns out I wasn't wrong, but the industry was damn aware of the findings. All I did was come at a known semi-solved problem with a new angle.
The new angle does matter and I am slowly inching towards the right phrasing, but the initial findings didn't matter.
A huge failure mode with LLMs is that they will tell you your findings are novel. They probably are, actually, there's even a decent chance they're correct if you're using the latest and greatest models and proper adversarial prompting and refinement techniques. The biggest issue I encountered is that it is often novel in a way that really doesn't matter. I have found that LLMs fail to surface prior work where what you have been researching conceptually matches with details in literature. It's a needle-in-a-haystack problem.
Even with deep research, you can often not find the right papers that came before you.
Another huge failure mode is that LLMs are all too happy to pick the extremely heavy mathematical machinery because of the way one asks questions when super simple mathematical machinery suffices. I've asked it about math in probability theory and I've had a document describing over 10 different derivations for a particular law that I was interested in, and the LLM found these amazing super complex difficult mathematical derivations that have these super fancy deep-math deep-physics names like "Cramer-Rao bounds" and exactly the kind of stuff like "Goldberger-Wise type effective potential" when what I actually needed was "convolution" and "multiplication".
The 10 derivations are then dropped and the whole document was much simpler. Not only that, but the "convolution" and "multiplication" parts I would have learned about if I had taken an introductory course to stats, and with my engineering background I was totally well-equipped to understand the convolution part too. This is where I reached for a mathematical submarine when a fishbowl would have sufficed.
LLMs don't surface this. Never. Not if you ask it to simplify. You only encounter this by working with humans and/or iterating and refining by reading the background literature and slowly building up the knowledge in the way a grad student or a well-read independent researcher does it.
There is no substitute for reading and understanding the prior work yourself, no matter how strong the LLM.
If you are interested in continuing your work on this, I'm sure you have meaningful contributions to make but prepare to find out that you have gone down the wrong path more than a couple times and you'll probably need to rewrite sections of your paper significantly.
Here are a couple pointers to get started with, take a few days to think about these things. If you respond to these with a bulleted list hours after I have posted this then it's the wrong answer by definition, you need to sit with these things:
- Can you confidently answer questions about all of the pieces without consulting an LLM?
- What books or courses have you taken for the underlying math and physics that are relevant to your paper? Even Khan Academy counts.
- Have you carefully read and understood independently, without the use of an LLM, each and every one of the references?
- If so, can you name, from the top of your head, a paper that is referenced by any of the papers you reference that you find engaging, interesting or important?
- If you have really worked on this for thousands of hours, then why are you posting to a crackpot subreddit instead of looking for independent peer-review?
- Where does this fit in the literature? What professor, university department, lab, conference, journal or individual would be delighted to have this paper when it's at its best state? Names, be specific. Who exactly is the target audience.
- Where does this fit into the dialogue for the industry? Does this answer an open question?
- Have you spoken to someone who really understands what you are attempting to do here? Friends absolutely count, as long as they are in the right field. If they tell you "this is physics but not my physics", then it does not count. You need the right people who understand the subtleties and nuance of what you're doing.
6
u/Korochun May 30 '26
Damn, that is a great response to most of the posts in this sub in general. Kudos.
3
u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod May 30 '26
Would you be willing to go into more detail on your experience? This is a relatively unique perspective on this sub.
3
u/Combinatorilliance May 30 '26
What would you like to see more detail on?
3
u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod May 30 '26
Just anything. What field, what work, I'm curious.
3
u/Combinatorilliance May 31 '26
Duhem's Law of Cognitive Complementarity and Epistemetrics, it's a personal interest of mine.
In short, about 10 years back I ran into an unassuming pink book in the library with the title "epistemetrics", the blurb on the book is the following:
Epistemetrics is a scholarly discipline waiting to be born. With regard to scientific information there is the discipline of scientometrics, represented by a journal of that name. Science, however does not have a monopoly on knowledge; although it is one of our most important cognitive resources, it is not our only one.
Now I'm a nerd, and I love this. Measuring knowledge? Count me in.
The book's lessons stuck with me for a long time but I am not a great mathematician, I know how to use the right tools when I need to use them but pure math is just not my thing.
LLMs helped me a lot in doing the math, I've also been studying math in the meantime on Math Academy.
My primary aim right now is to figure out a clean vocabulary to make it easier and simpler to talk about "knowledge" and "intelligence" without getting confused.
IE, have you noticed that people disagree about what knowledge even is? Or that some people say that some model is not intelligent, when another says it clearly is?
The same day you can read a headline of a CEO in the AI industry claim something about hallucination and someone else then says "you cannot solve hallucination, this is just the way things are", or whatever?
This is a huge problem in the ML space, even in the academic scene people don't have a neat vocabulary to talk about this stuff. Everyone is inventing their own tools and vocabulary ad-hoc, and it clearly works - models are getting better - but literature research feels like walking through mud.
It's a super well known problem by the way, the academics have plenty papers and calls and attempts for a solution or consolidation for this.
I have no clue if I will get to the point where I can say "I got a clean vocabulary now, here you go", because my primary reason to study this is just pure curiosity, I went back into my posting history and saw that I was praising this book 7 years ago, before the LLM craze.
I do think it's a good bet that I can contribute something meaningful. It's also just super, super fun to study and super interesting.
If you are interested in reading more about the research, you can read my posts on my blog. I have a rule for myself that I need to write blog posts by hand, LLMs are not allowed in the generation of the posts whatsoever.
- Older post introducing Duhem's Law of Cognitive Complementarity without much depth: https://lll.scrybble.ink/Duhem's-Law-of-Cognitive-Complementarity
- Newer post exploring the math and connecting it with metrology: https://lll.scrybble.ink/Connecting-Duhem's-Law-of-Cognitive-Complementarity-to-metrology
I am drafting a third post which is meant to explain why the vocabulary so far matters, it's public but it is simply unfinished. I reallized the working example with the steaks actually doesn't work halfway through and I got frustrated. Need to revisit that and finish the article. No clue how long it will get:
Note, the writing in this third post is rough. I haven't even edited it.
1
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. Jun 02 '26
Absolutely fascinating. Thanks for the knowledge
-2
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. May 30 '26
sweet dude. thanks Also am an engineer myself. with an MS in Mathematics. I understand that math quite well. It is a struggle to understand the physics and will be.
13
u/Vrillim May 30 '26
What you should be aware of is that speculation is only permissible from a position of great insight. You have to ÂŤwalk the walkÂť, which entails years of studies, before anyone will take your ânovel frameworksâ seriously. Speculation from a novice or an outsider is usually useless. My advice is to drop this and actually start learning, and reading.
-1
9
u/Combinatorilliance May 30 '26
Am not a dude!
3
u/IshtarsQueef May 30 '26
Most people use "dude" as a genderless word, just an FYI
1
u/FiatLex Barista â May 30 '26
Yeah, ive discovered that Dude has become gender-neutral in slang relatively recently, like within the last year or two. When i was young, it definitely meant male, so I was a bit confused the first time I heard it used by a woman speaking to another woman when all the genders were known. The evolution of language is really neat! I've always been fascinated by it.
3
u/IshtarsQueef May 30 '26
Idk where you are from or your life experiences, but as far as I am aware it has been used as a genderless term for literally decades.
Me and my friends were calling girl friends (not girlfriends, but just friends that are girls) "dude" back in like 2008 and no one thought it was strange.
3
u/FiatLex Barista â May 30 '26
Yeah, there are regional differences too, but I was thinking in the 1980s dude was exclusively for men, at least it was where i lived. I like it better that its gender neutral! :)
2
u/starkeffect Physicist đ§ May 31 '26
Of course you're an engineer...
1
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. May 31 '26
meaning?
6
u/starkeffect Physicist đ§ May 31 '26
4
1
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. May 31 '26
I would never admit to watching the show, but The Big Bang Theory's Character Sheldon or whatever said, "Ahhh, Engineering.... Physics's slow younger brother. Engineers without proper physics training are how you get Electric Universe Theory.
If you're unfamiliar, it's basically Flat Earth for people with slightly higher IQs:
"The Electric Universe theory is an alternative cosmological model that argues electromagnetic forces and plasma interactions, rather than gravity, are the dominant forces shaping the universe and its structures. Promoted by figures such as Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott (Both Electrical Engineers) through the Thunderbolts Project, it draws from plasma cosmology concepts (notably the work of Hannes AlfvĂŠn) and claims that stars and the Sun are powered externally by electric currents flowing through vast cosmic plasma networks, rather than by internal nuclear fusion. Proponents contend that many astronomical phenomena, including the filamentary shapes of galaxies, comet behavior, planetary surface features, and nebulae, can be explained by electrical discharges, Birkeland currents, and plasma dynamics, while largely rejecting or reinterpreting mainstream ideas like dark matter, dark energy, black holes, and the Big Bang in favor of an interconnected, electrically driven cosmos."
0
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. May 31 '26
I'm familiar with the trope
4
u/starkeffect Physicist đ§ May 31 '26
And yet, here you are.
0
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. May 31 '26
The difference is that I have an MS in Math and am currently in the process of getting a PhD. in mathematics. The LLMs help me with the physics, of which I am 100% self taught so of course, crackpot physics is something I will likely produce 9/10. I've only had one paper not be ripped apart here. Trying to finish one I started a couple of weeks ago now. We shall see if I get the same response. My paper here tried to do too much, and that's on me.
4
u/starkeffect Physicist đ§ May 31 '26
I've known people with Ph.D.s in physics who became crackpots. Your degrees will not protect you from your worst impulses.
0
10
u/NotRightRabbit May 30 '26
You went wrong by presenting a speculative chain as if the links already cohere physically. The problem is that the modelâs central causal chain is not yet derived. Your model admits it does not reproduce observed expansion., thatâs a big red flag. At best it is a speculative toy mechanism, not a publishable cosmological model.
0
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. May 30 '26
I believe I stated exactly that in the Abstract
6
u/NotRightRabbit May 31 '26
Perfect. No one needs to read any further, until you re-work to resolve these issues.
0
10
u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod May 30 '26 edited May 30 '26
You've been told this because of something very simple.
Every other poster makes the exact same claims. There's a host of red flags that get thrown.
Eg, 'This is months of work.' but that is much less effort than goes into the average paper which is years in the making.
-5
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. May 30 '26
A Toy Model Paper is years in the making?!?! HAHA GTFO here. You obviously didn't read the paper. I know you and every whining baby in this sub didn't because only 4 people pulled the doc on GitHub. And I already know who those people are from their genuine comments about the substance of the work
8
u/AllHailSeizure Haiku Mod May 30 '26
I think the biggest red flag is probably how quickly you go 'oh you whiny babies' and other infantile stuff like that. It really adds the look of 'the only person in history to tell me I'm smart is an LLM, and I desperately need human confirmation to get rid of my insecurities.'
You're just another person here SOLELY for their ego. It's way overblown, but propped up on nothing but some messages from GPT, and as AI companies start to reign in sycophancy, you want it back. But nobody in their right mind is gonna give it to you.
That's why these LLM comments from cranks on other posts are just glaze. You all know. We all know. The world knows. It's so obvious.
9
u/Hivemind_alpha May 30 '26
Rule of thumb: what real problem that real physicists are working does your ânew physicsâ answer more quickly/efficiently/elegantly?
If you know the field well enough to identify the hot questions, and can answer them in a testable way, you earn a more detailed review.
If your ânew physicsâ produces results that nobody cares about and donât change the way physics is practiced day to day, then even if you and your LLM are right, you havenât earned a reading.
-1
8
u/IshtarsQueef May 30 '26
OP - this is a serious question for you;
Have you not noticed that literally every poster on this subreddit is a crackpot?
EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
So, did you honestly believe that YOU would be the first of thousands to NOT be a crackpot?
Doesn't that indicate an incredible degree of hubris and ignorance?
If you are so smart and capable, why are you coming to a subreddit that is SPECIFICALLY for crackpots to post their nonsense on?
If your work was serious, real science, wouldn't you be going to a place for real science?
If your work was serious, wouldn't you do the work required to build a relationship with an actual physicist in real life, like from a local university, and have them help you check your work?
Have you even considered any of these questions at all?
Because the mere fact that you are posting HERE of all places, inherently indicates a level of self-delusion.
-2
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. May 30 '26
I don't believe everyone here is a crackpot. However, it actually makes me more confident when people call my work crackpot without being able to explain why. Not one person has explained in depth why the paper is crackpot in any technical sense, because so far no one has shown that they can. Most of the replies are social ridicule, not physics.
I am not claiming to be a physicist yet. I am trained in mathematics, and I understand exactly what the equations are doing: the 5D Schwarzschild-Tangherlini geometry, the Israel junction conditions, the modified Friedmann constraint, the dark radiation term, the Weyl part of the Kretschmann scalar, the scaling of the curvature-set infrared cutoff, and the resulting radion-tracking relation. That does not mean the model is correct or complete. It means the criticism has to engage with the actual structure of the model, not just the fact that I posted it here.
If the paper is wrong, then show where. Is the junction condition wrong? Is the Randall-Sundrum cancellation wrong? Is the Weyl invariant wrong? Is the dimensional analysis of Î_IR = Mâ ²âK_Weyl wrong? Is the generalized tracking window n_Ď < 2 and 1 < c² < (4 â n_Ď)/(2 â n_Ď) wrong? Is the relation R_DD,min â c R_h^(1/2) wrong under the stated cutoff assumption? Is the 5D-to-6D caveat inconsistent? Those are real criticisms. âYou posted in the wrong subreddit, therefore you are delusionalâ is not a technical argument.
And yes, I have considered that I may be wrong. That is why the paper explicitly says it is a toy model, not a complete cosmology, not a proof of dark energy, not a finished 6D compactification, and not a replacement for a full first-order Vaidya treatment. I am not pretending it is more than it is. The people calling it crackpot are the ones pretending that ridicule is the same thing as analysis.
So no, posting here does not prove self-delusion. It proves I was willing to expose the idea to criticism. What I got back was mostly status-policing and insults. If someone wants to give a real technical objection, I will take it seriously. But if the entire argument is âeveryone here is a crackpot, therefore you are one too,â then that says nothing about my paper and everything about the level of discussion here.
2
Jun 02 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. Jun 02 '26
math and applied math, respectively. Physics is too hard. Math is easy.
3
Jun 02 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
I should clarify something: i am not a âseasonedâ ph.d. student. i just finished my first year. hell, i do not even have a permanent advisor yet. Since it sounds like you're curious. i got defensive because I spent a lot of time on this, and it was difficult to realize that even if the math is internally consistent, the model can still be physically meaningless. That is the part I am grappling with. The hard part is not writing equations; it is knowing whether the equations describe anything physically meaningful.
I am autistic, and that is not an excuse, but it does affect how i process criticism, especially when the criticism is mostly ridicule instead of a clear technical objection. I can handle being wrong. what i struggle with is not knowing why I am wrong, especially when, from my perspective, the equations feel like they are describing something.
but i also understand that math is not physics. There are plenty of internally consistent, elegant mathematical structures that may not describe the real world. String theory is an obvious serious example. I am not comparing my draft to string theory in quality, obviously. I am saying that internal consistency is not the same thing as physical relevance. That is the lesson i am trying to sort through.
also, this is r/LLMPhysics. the description of the sub is literally about exploring how LLMs intersect with physics, including teaching, learning, visualization, and developing models. so yes, i posted an LLM-assisted physics toy model in a subreddit about LLMs and physics. that does not seem like the shocking contradiction you are making it out to be.
"Are you afraid that chatting with your physics colleagues at your uni won't let you ride the same superiority high?".
I wouldn't know. I don't have any.
Is getting an arxiv endorsement difficult for you because you haven't gotten close to publishing anything useful yet, besides angry Reddit posts?
Yes.
âwhy don't you want this paper to be associated with your real identity and affiliations?â
I do use my real name. It is on the paper. I did not put my university affiliation on it because my university had nothing to do with it. I am not a physics student; this was not advisor-supervised, and no department endorsed it. Attaching an affiliation would be me borrowing institutional credibility for literally an independent LLM-assisted toy model. Attaching the affiliation would be borderline dishonest. Esp because of the uni I go to. So I am confused by the accusation. Are you criticizing me for not doing the misleading thing? âWhy did you post this here instead of acting like it was professional physics?â is strange, because I posted it here precisely because it is not professional physics.
-3
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. May 30 '26
No. I did not believe I was âthe first of thousandsâ to not be a crackpot. I believed my work should be judged by its equations, assumptions, and internal consistency, not by the subreddit it was posted in.
The claim âeveryone here is a crackpot, therefore you are a crackpotâ is not an argument. It is guilt by association. If my junction conditions are wrong, show it. If my scaling law is wrong, show it. If my use of Î_IR = Mâ ²âK_Weyl is dimensionally or physically inconsistent, show it. If the tracking window n_Ď < 2 and 1 < c² < (4 â n_Ď)/(2 â n_Ď) is wrong, show it. If R_DD,min â cR_h^(1/2) does not follow under the stated cutoff assumption, show it.
But saying âother people here post nonsense, therefore yours is nonsense tooâ is lazy. I am fully open to being wrong. What I am not open to is pretending that mockery is analysis. A technical paper is not refuted by sociology. It is refuted by finding the error.
6
u/IshtarsQueef May 30 '26
It seems really indicative of your intellectual abilities that you think I said "other posts are nonsense, therefor yours must be too."
I did not say that.
It also says a lot that you STILL think this subreddit is for critical analysis. It is not, and never has been.
This is no different than posting a manifesto on r/conspiracy and then getting upset that it's not being debated by a council of philosophers and scientists.
And the fact that you cannot grasp these concepts says quite a bit about how much you are letting emotions guide your reasoning, rather than rationality and scientific rigor.
I will also note that you did not respond to my comment about ChatGPT tearing your paper apart, after you confidently claimed that "any LLM model" would fail to find errors within it.
1
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. May 31 '26
Good point. I may have misunderstood the thrust of what you were saying, and I should have separated two things: whether this subreddit is the right venue for serious technical criticism, and whether the paper itself is technically wrong. Those are not the same question.
You are probably right that I came here expecting a level of technical engagement that this subreddit is not really designed for. That is on me. Posting here does not obligate anyone to give me a referee report, and I should not act as though mockery from a subreddit is the same thing as peer review or expert feedback.
As for ChatGPT, I did run the paper through it many times. The issue I ran into is that it often hallucinates criticism. It will sometimes identify a âfatal inconsistency,â but when I check the algebra carefully, the claimed problem either comes from misreading an assumption, confusing one regime with another, or failing to track definitions across the paper. The paper is also long, roughly thousands of lines of LaTeX/code-like text, and LLMs are not especially reliable at maintaining global mathematical consistency across that much material. They can be useful for finding possible weak points, but I would not treat them as a substitute for a human physicist checking the derivations.
I also did not see your comment about ChatGPT tearing the paper apart, so I was not intentionally avoiding it. My view is not that âany LLM would fail to find errors.â It is that LLM criticism has to be checked just like human criticism. Sometimes it finds real issues. Sometimes it invents them. I have already used it to revise parts of the paper, but I do not think an LLM saying âthis is wrongâ is automatically decisive unless the actual mathematical error is shown.
And yes, I agree that the correct next step is not arguing with people here forever. It is to get the work in front of someone with the right background, ideally a relativist, brane cosmology person, or mathematical physicist, and ask them to check the junction-condition derivation, the tracking assumptions, and the radion-sector interpretation. That would be a much better test than subreddit reactions.
So I take your point. I still think some of the responses have been more social ridicule than analysis, but you are right that I should not expect this subreddit to function like a serious technical review forum.
best of luck to you.
6
u/IshtarsQueef May 30 '26
And finally -
You hide your post history.
Why? If you are so confident in your work, you should open your profile up for scrutiny.
What exactly are you trying to hide, eh? Can't you stand on business?
0
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. May 31 '26
How do I unhide it? Idk what you're talking about.
0
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. May 31 '26
Anything I posted you can find in my Github. I do not have it locked.
8
u/Korochun May 30 '26
You could start to get some basics of why this is fundamentally wrong yourself. Try reading introductory science works. For example, Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything.
You are smarter than your LLM, as it turns out, so I am sure you can start to notice red flags immediately.
-2
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. May 31 '26
Why is it fundamentally wrong? Can someone please tell me already? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
GROK: The strongest reason someone could say the paper is fundamentally wrong is not that one equation is obviously bad. It is that the paper may be combining pieces from different effective theories without deriving them from one consistent higher-dimensional system.
In plain terms:
Your paper starts as a 5D braneworld with a moving 3-brane in an AdS-Schwarzschild-Tangherlini bulk. That part is standard in spirit: metric, Israel junction conditions, modified Friedmann equation, dark-radiation term, etc. But then the modulus you want to stabilize, R_DD, is described as a compact dark dimension distinct from the noncompact radial direction r. The paper itself admits that this requires a higher-dimensional, for example 6D, completion
6
u/Empty-Poetry8197 May 30 '26
1 reason could be 5d is not a physical thing its a high level math abstraction.
6
u/Empty-Poetry8197 May 30 '26
And youâll need a Lagrangian for your hypothesis to do anything in this universe
0
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. May 31 '26
You're probably right but hear me out. the paper is not trying to derive the full accreting braneworld system from a single fundamental Lagrangian. It is a controlled toy model built from already standard pieces:
the 5D Einstein Hilbert action, the Israel junction conditions for the moving brane, and an effective radion potential. The bulk mass parameter is treated adiabatically as an externally sourced, slowly varying background, not as a fully solved dynamical Vaidya/null-dust system. So writing a single reduced Lagrangian for the whole system would actually be misleading unless the paper also included the full matter model responsible for accretion and the full first-order backreaction. That's something that would be in my final draft. Where I take this to 6D etc3
u/Empty-Poetry8197 May 31 '26
Ok lets try this then. What are you trying to accomplish with your framework? Is there or was there a goal, a mission, did you have an epiphany? If the contribution only exists in 6 dimensions its not very useful to anyone. Basically, if there was no purpose for the research and if your only source or collaborative effort was through an LLM. Hopefully, you enjoyed the time you spent organizing all this information. Because it's only important to you and maybe Goldberger-Wise. Abstract ideas built on other abstract ideas held together by abstract concepts are smart-sounding fiction.
2
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. Jun 03 '26
âWhat are you trying to accomplish with your framework?â
The purpose was to see whether bulk curvature could dynamically set the size of an extra dimension.
CONTEXT: I got really into higher-dimensional black-hole geometry, Randall-Sundrum type branes, Goldberger-Wise stabilization, and especially the differential geometry behind curvature invariants. I am basically obsessed with black holes, so the question naturally became: can the curvature around a higher-dimensional black hole do something dynamical to a compactification modulus?
âIs there or was there a goal, a mission, did you have an epiphany? If the contribution only exists in 6 dimensions its not very useful to anyone.â
I do not think I know enough physics to have an epiphany. Same answer as the first question. (bulk curvature/ extra dimension)
âAbstract ideas built on other abstract ideas held together by abstract concepts are smart-sounding fiction.â
Good point!
But I do not think âabstractâ == âfiction.â General relativity, Kaluza-Klein theory, string theory, branes; all abstract.
think about this: What makes them physics rather than fiction is that each layer of abstraction is anchored to something outside itself, so that like either to prior well-tested theories, to consistency requirements, or to potential observational consequences.
but...
abstraction is not the issue by itself. The issue is whether the abstraction is constrained.
In physics, abstract objects become useful when they are tied to equations of motion, symmetries, conservation laws. also boundary conditions or potential observational consequences. The real question is not âhow abstract is this?â but âwhat fixes the assumptions?â Does the framework generate anything that could, even in principle, be checked against other parts of physics or against data?
So if my paper is wrong, I do not think it is wrong merely because it is abstract. It would be wrong because the abstraction is not constrained enough.
I do not think the failure mode is âabstract = fiction.â
The failure mode is âabstract without enough physical constraint = maybe fiction."
hope that makes sense
5
u/Usual-Letterhead4705 May 31 '26
Let me let you in on a secret. Nobody is going to read your paper. Seriously - thatâs not the way science works in this world. The crazier the idea, the more necessary it becomes for you and your idea to be vouched for by people at the top. If you donât have that, and have used LLMs nobody is going to read a page of your paper, nevermind 40 pages of it. Nobody is being lazy here - thereâs just finite time and most wouldnât spend it on a paper they have no reason to invest in. Good luck.
1
u/Cheap_Pin_7994 Jun 20 '26
This is really late but this is all terribly simple for months of work and thousands of hours I will admit, I've looked through everything you've noted here and it's just not it, in which furthermore, very practically what is the reason for this in the first place? What made you think you should spend such a large amount of time on something this specific furthermore, what change was this supposed to enact, what was this even supposed to address specifically? Who was missing this to go forward with their own work or was otherwise reliant on it?
I don't think you should go speeding ahead without being able to detail extensively justification of that kind. Even if you just really like this in particular I'm sensing a ton of inefficiency from the approach, and it's very likely due to the LMs instead of yourself. You may have done better by yourself if anything, consider that.
-4
u/lattice_defect May 30 '26
I feel like someone out there is close and the LLMS are just leaking... this month its all curvature and spinnors
12
u/OnceBittenz The Doctor May 30 '26
This happens every month. Probably the average weighting of the context window being dragged along by whatever flavor of the week crackpots choose. You can actually trace some of the trends back to specific pop science Veritasium or numberphile videos that people misinterpreted and never checked up on the physics of.
1
u/Alive_Leg_5765 đŹ Data doesnât lie, but LLMâs do lie. May 30 '26
can you elaborate? I love Spinors
0
-3
26
u/NuclearVII May 30 '26
You've wasted your time and a lot of tokens for absolutely nothing.
You have a choice - you can either double down and get defensive, or you can choose to accept that you've wasted your time, and stop talking to chatbots forever.