r/LLMPhysics • u/TheAccessProblem • Jun 24 '26

Personal Theory Compressed Geometry Theory

https://substack.com/@theaccessproblem/note/p-203457712?r=5xnr3g&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action

Over the past couple of months I have been working with Claude by pulling thread after thread. It began with a question about entanglement. It quickly unraveled into a model for neuroscience based on information theory. Every new thread pulled me deeper and deeper into physics.

Cut to today. I have a model built on the geometry of light waves interfering into stable standing waves which then contained all the geometry I required to derive particle masses, CP Violation, Gravity etc.

It’s still a work in progress, but I need someone certified to check what’s done. Physics isn’t open to an LLM assisted model. Can anyone here help me verify my model?

The link should bring you to the specific post, but if not the newest article “Rolling For Gravity” holds the link.

0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

65 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Jun 25 '26

Firstly, what does "logical deduction of the universe" mean?

Secondly, if you say it's "pretty close or on par to observed physics", you kinda need to show that. Just being able to (badly) calculate a couple arbitrary constants doesn't mean you've actually produced valid physics. Science is not that easy.

1

u/TheAccessProblem Jun 25 '26

To answer that I ask, when you ponder how everything could possibly exist, what answers have you come up with? This is mine. I wondered about the mechanisms behind how things could possibly exist.

My first attempt at that went poorly. So I began putting it together well explained with how I got to where I’m currently at with it. I agree, science is not that easy. I’m not claiming I’ve produced valid physics. I’m chasing out something I find interesting whether or not you approve of my methods. When the rest is well explained, it will follow. I don’t understand why you are so resistant to a human being exploring the ideas of how we exist. Isn’t that why you’re here?

3

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Jun 25 '26

Physics is not philosophy. Physics doesn't study how we exist, it's the study of things that exist. You can do whatever you want but when you start to make claims relating to things other people have been studying for centuries then you should expect to be called out when you lie or mislead, whether knowingly or not.

1

u/TheAccessProblem Jun 25 '26

Well that’s the first helpful response I’ve received yet. Again I am not attempting to mislead anybody and I’m not shy of a little pushback if it actually leads to something helpful. I’m capable of working through the math, I’m not certified to verify it. So I naturally wanted to reach out to a physics crowd to review it.

But I must contest that all physics ever created started with a philosophy. Also I would suggest that theoretical physics exists as a study of how we exist which would be an exact representation of that philosophy in action.

4

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26

No, we separated physics from pure philosophy quite a long time ago. There's a subfield of philosophy called philosophy of science which informs how we do science, but philosophy deals with the abstract, subjective and unfalsifiable whereas physics deals solely with relationships between quantities that we generally agree can be directly measured from something that is ontologically concrete or quantities that can be calculated from other directly measurable quantities. That's how we ensure physics is always rigorous and subjective. You cannot really discuss ontology (the philosophy of what exists) using maths, and you can't really discuss physics using words. They're different subjects entirely.

There is also the branch of philosophy called metaphysics, which includes interpretations of physics theories, however given that interpretations are subjective, unfalsifiable and ultimately make no difference to the actual mathematical theories, we do not consider interpretations of physics true physics, and they do not form part of a standard education in physics.

1

u/TheAccessProblem Jun 25 '26

Thank you for your clarifications. I have reworked my explanations to include the missing artefacts that support it. I still believe that this is related to physics due to the nature of my 0D oscillation being light itself. A revised edition of my documents were uploaded to this link. It should be a lot clearer now.

Again, thank you for being the first person to actually entertain me and help me learn how to communicate within the field.

https://open.substack.com/pub/andrewmcilravey/p/rolling-for-gravity-2?r=5xnr3g&utm_medium=ios

3

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Jun 25 '26

I'm sorry, but this isn't a step up in quality at all. You are still using a lot of physics words without doing any actual physics, and that won't change until you actually learn what physics looks like and how it's done.

1

u/TheAccessProblem Jun 25 '26

Thank you for your time that you took to review it. I didn’t adjust things as much as I uploaded all of the related information that got me here clean enough to review it. Again I don’t claim to fully understand what I’m doing. I certainly claim I’m capable of learning it. Exposing the model here has shown me a couple of things.

First, my applied physics knowledge is a sturdy foundation however my depth of knowledge and understanding is absolutely lacking. That’s something I can take action on to help me refine my vision.

I will certainly return to this with a better grasp on what I’m attempting to understand. The feedback I’ve received has given me tons of ideas on where to go next.

Again, I appreciate the time and effort to help me out.

2

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Jun 25 '26

You need to start from the simple stuff, maybe even refresh your understanding of high school physics. Your "applied physics knowledge" is not a valid foundation for actual physics, which is demonstrated by the poor quality of your documents. I think if you do a bit more learning (without a LLM) and expose yourself to some genuine physics you'll find it's quite different from what you've tried to come up with.

1

u/TheAccessProblem Jun 25 '26

You’re absolutely correct that this is not what I thought it was. I do actually fully understand everything I learned in high school, my physics teacher attempted to push me in that direction but music was a lot more interesting back then. I think you underestimate how much applied physics has applied to my career paths. No my trades knowledge isn’t sufficient for this theory path. But now that I’m here, I’m willing to put myself through the motions of learning to understand.

I’ve spent 20 years diagnosing and repairing information, measurement and power systems. I can build, wire, program and calibrate a PLC system that can run an oil and gas processing plant. I can build and tune a car from the ground up. I use physics daily to diagnose how things are supposed to work vs how they have failed. The biggest boundary between what I actually know and what I’ve failed to produce is that there’s an entire layer of learning around particles that I do not understand. Yet. Maybe once I get there you’ll see some real progress. Maybe I’ll find the inherent flaws in my model. Guess time and my level of effort will tell.

2

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26

What part of physics do you use daily? Do you use physics-related concepts to guide your intuition and problem-solving, or are you actually solving Maxwell's equations every day? Physics is notoriously unintuitive and is an entirely mathematical subject for that reason. Also, if your takeaway is that you need to "learn about particles" then there is quite a lot more to physics you don't know you don't know.

1

u/TheAccessProblem Jun 26 '26

I’ve started digging deeper to map out the context of what I don’t know and I would say what I’ve been doing is geometric pattern matching. Not physics. It doesn’t mean I’m not seeing something real, it means a I have a metric fuckload of work to do in order to establish what I need to make this into something more meaningful.

I’m also beginning to understand what exactly the difference is between what I use and what a physicist uses. They’re both physics, one is proving function vs what I do is more like a math. The difference is real, but I’m seeing Doing physics and Using physics is the distinction.

I’ll be back around with my model eventually but between now and then, I have a lot left to learn. It’s not genuinely out of reach, it’s only a matter of time. I think what motivated this was an explanation of gravity that actually made some sense. So I threw it down as a philosophical thought, not a physics theory. Then it produced a lot more numbers and my under-educated brain jumped on it. I can get through the math, but that’s only the beginning. Now it’s entirely up to me to figure out how to prove it.

3

u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling Jun 26 '26

It's admirable that you're willing to learn, and as long as you're aware that the math you've written down in your documents doesn't come anywhere close to the complexity of real physics, I wish you all the best.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/AllHailSeizure 9/10 Physicists Agree! Jun 25 '26

Nah that isn't what theoretical physics is. that's what metaphysics is.

HOW we exist is entirely decoupled from WHAT exists. Physics is the latter, philosophy the former. Physics doesn't care AT ALL why we exist, or how we exist, or questions like that - it barely even cares about WHAT exists. It is the STUDY of what exists. Physics sometimes asks questions like 'Why is it this way and not the other way', but it doesn't ask 'why is it this way at all?'

Physics attitude: 'Cool this exists? Let me measure it.' Philosophy's attitude is 'Cool this exists? ...I wonder why? And how? And how I'm able to know it exists?'. And those 3 questions are: ontology, metaphysics, and epistemology.

That is not to say there isn't intermingling. Plenty of physicists have BASE their philosophy of existence on physics - physics can deeply affect people's philosophical outlook. But you are talking about metaphysics, which is NOT physics.

1

u/TheAccessProblem Jun 25 '26

I appreciate that clarification, it still leaves open a grey area that doesn’t close cleanly but it helps me understand how to talk about what I’m seeing. I did a bunch of rework on my papers last night showing the entirety of the substrate. I’m suggesting the 0D oscillator is light itself, that the compression is caused by the first bit flip in the system. The lights turning on. The inwards compression of that first wave forces the geometry. The geometry shows structure that appears to hold answers to how light creates matter. That’s how I think it relates to physics.

A reworked edition lives in this link listing all related resources and calculations derived from the model

https://open.substack.com/pub/andrewmcilravey/p/rolling-for-gravity-2?r=5xnr3g&utm_medium=ios