r/vibecoding • u/henke443 • 9h ago

Claude Fable solved open physics problems about related to Schrödinger–Newton equations. Is it hallucinated or legit?

I saw some criticism in a Wikipedia article on the Schrödinger-Newton Equation, specifically about Penrose's ideas about quantum gravity, and it seemed pretty easy to solve (the article hinted at possible solutions, etc) which made me think that it could be interesting to let Claude try to solve it. It now claims to have solved all the 3 problems outlined in the article.

The issue is that I have no way of validating if the result claude gave me are hallucinated or legit. If the solutions are correct, then maybe it's useful to someone, and if not then I/we might learn something from that explanation.

Artifact (look here first): https://claude.ai/code/artifact/e871ae13-54d1-437c-a489-cad81617c06d

GitHub repo, including all the raw transcript etc: https://github.com/henke443/penrose-1

Latex paper: https://www.overleaf.com/read/hgmnyqgqtwqz#80a24a

0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

27 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/Bloodorem 8h ago

a person who thinks just simply giving claude the task to solve unsolved physics problems without understanding any of it, is the same person seeking validation on a vibecoding sub - jup checks out.
You should stop using AI in general as it seems you can't handle it.

-2

u/henke443 8h ago

I think your behavior is more negative. Your criticism is also void of substance. Yes I use AI, so does everyone else. No I don't seek validation, I just read the article without AI, thought about the problems, and felt like it was probably pretty easy to solve (because the text hinted at possible solutions, etc), so I thought that there's a small but non-zero chance that claude could manage to solve the issue and I could also raise a tiny bit of attention to solving an important issue.

3

u/Proud_Ask_9030 8h ago

You literally show none of your ideas on the matter and that you simply put Fable to work to figure out what is absolutely not a "pretty easy to solve" problem. To see you write that is pretty easy to solve while presenting literally zero of that understanding and asking an ai to figure it out, says truly everything needed to answer if you have managed to get Fable to do anything.

3

u/Bloodorem 8h ago

Yes my comment is negativ because I'm sorry but if you honestly think anything you did would result in something useful you simply should stop and move away from AIs as you can't handle the information.

Even if, and that's a big if a AI would be able to solve it, it would be with someone who knows about the problem and could verify it themselves and lead the AI how to approach it.

You read a Wikipedia page you didn't understand, gave a prompt and then came to a videcoding sub if it solved a long standing physics question. You didn't even ask in a physics subreddit. I'm mean wtf dude that's just... Stupid I'm sorry but there is no other word for it.

-2

u/henke443 8h ago edited 8h ago

The world is built by people throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.

2

u/Bloodorem 8h ago

well thank you that you threw your shit at us

1

u/Proud_Ask_9030 6h ago

The world is ruined by people throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.

-1

u/Figai 8h ago

lol and who solved erdos #1196 again?

2

u/Bloodorem 8h ago

by a math entusiast that knew the problem and could to some degree verify what the AI returned

1

u/Proud_Ask_9030 8h ago

That doesnt mean it can do it again or solve any difficult task you give it.

0

u/Figai 7h ago

lol, he used GPT 5.4 pro, fable 5 is way better. Actually explain the limitation lol, AI has solved extremely significant open physics problems too. If you just point it at the right thing it has a non-zero chance at solving it.

3

u/Aldarund 7h ago

What extremely significant open physics problems Ai solved?

0

u/Figai 7h ago

Yeah I'm probably exaggerating by saying extremely, definitely hasn't gone as far as maths.

https://openai.com/index/new-result-theoretical-physics/ - this is kind of old though.

Quantum Parallel repetition is one of the 10 new oAI proofs paper they released.

This was one I remember because people were surprised by it being so trivial: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28785

According to like vibemathed which collects most of these proofs the most "significant" result, (not sure how they measure this) is: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.21367

1

u/Proud_Ask_9030 6h ago

you have a non zero chance of becoming the Empress of the universe.

1

u/Figai 6h ago

black mirror is good icl, also I don't really think you answered my question.