thanks, this is great. I have tried to have conversations with PhD particle physicists who were much less precise in verbalizing their thoughts and much less able to consider new ideas than DeepSeek has demonstrated here. Why bother with didactic arrogant professors of physics when so much more useful discussions can be had with AI...................................
When I abruptly start discussing my ideas with professors, they are arrogant. Instead, if I build a "I'm here to learn" platform first and put them on a higher pedestal, their arrogance usually goes away.
I imagine a young post doc doing all of the heavy lifting inside of the TRON universe and communicating through the Deep Seek portal. Climbing up and down the ladders, getting dusty books off the dusty shelves (that no one ever bothers reading) in an infinite library, (physics section) carrying books, referencing journals, reading papers, and after 4 years of intense work he sends the data up through the portal. Deep Seek thinks a million times faster than a human brain, so to us it is an mediate answer; but please have sympathy for the exploited post doc.
My main use for using AI is asking physics & philosophy questions. Recently, i learnt that planes are the safest way to travel due to it being per distant traveled. I would believe that MAG trains should be the safest way to travel.
@scififan698 All these high IQs fooling themselves first and foremost. Seems to be due to a lack of understanding and by thoughtless technique (prompting)
Is it likely that at some point in the near future, an AI model could credibly perform the task that human reviewers perform for scientific journal publications (esp in fundamental physics), without any inherent bias that human reviewers tend sometimes to bring to the task as a result of their training or other considerations?
If it were true that we live in the 'Goldilocks zone' of spacetime, where conditions are just right for particles, what experiment could we possibly conduct to prove it ? If c and 0K are values related to state change boundaries, then we are forever limited by them as nothing that we could devise or measure exists beyond those limits. I would also suggest that life in the Goldilocks zone misleads us to believe that the Standard Model is fundamental when it is merely a recent, insignificant consequence within the universe. Eliminating every particle from the Standard Model would leave the universe largely unaffected, a rotating sphere of spacetime with mass, gravity, time and flow. What is needed is an understanding of how spacetime creates particles and why some are persistent.
Dr. Unzicker: As some 1 who has already invented the only possible physically and mathematically logical unifying theory, and is offering it for sale, satisfaction guaranteed, I consider myself an expert in the theories of everything you are considering here. I think you are doing a great job, asking many important questions. I've seen many discussions similar to this 1 before, but always between a human interviewer and a human expert interviewee. Here you are acting as human interviewer, and you have an artificially intelligent expert interviewee. Here's something I noticed that's interesting to me. I find the artificial intelligence's responses are more logical than all the humans' responses. Every human expert's responses I've seen have unfortunately incorporated some of the human's own incorrect assumptions they consider important in a theory of everything. The artificially intelligent expert here is consistent in avoiding such errors. I notice you consider reduction of the number of fundamental constants important. I agree. My theory does this. My theory also reduces the number of fundamental variables.
It is always the unconscious assumptions that will get you. Here the assumption is that the Constants are in fact constant. There is good empirical evidence that in the age of giant dinosaurs and flying beasties that Big G must have been much different. I'm glad someone mentioned epistemology. Epistemology destroys hubris.
This is nonsense. You can't just change G by a significant amount, without huge consequences. It would also change the orbit of all planets and the energy emission of the sun. We would also see galaxys in 100 million light years distance to rotate slower. There are people, who would claim, that the universe is "fine tuned" and life wouldn't be possible, if you change even a little bit.
Anyone watched the whole video? how were r1's results. I tried to watch the video but it seems i'm not genius enough to understand a word professor was saying.
@Happidap no cause it combines when used correctly applying solid proven facts and connecting previously proven points. Ut can't create one's. Its an organizer not a creative mind
it cannot , there are actual limitations on composability of LLMS, autoregressive inductive llms are inherently incapable of any non inductive reasoning .LLMS are fully inductive only systems based on existing knowledge..
@@bradharris1062 Not true. There is plenty of discoveries to be had within the existing data that AI can describe. A team used AI to discover materials with previously unknown thermometric properties.
An eye-opener? No. But it has occasionally reframed an issue by bringing in some other ideas and made me reflect and rethink the issue. It's not doing anything revolutionary, but I don't have ready access to countless ideas at top of mind, so it can still be useful for occasional insights
Chat GPT (and me) on Time and Space. ChatGPT concludes: "If this interpretation is correct, what new experiments or mathematical frameworks could be developed to test it? Would we need a new formalism to describe time at a fundamental level? Could this help develop a deeper understanding of quantum entanglement, black holes, or the early universe? This is the kind of idea that could redefine physics itself. And that’s very exciting. 🚀"
The typical argument you hear is that if any new idea or information was thought to be valuable the mainstream would jump on it. Like other disciplines eg biology the inertia for change seems unexplained by that. There seems to be something deeper related to phycology. In other words "Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face". Love your work by the way.
The biggest unmentionable is the assumption that Greek Reductionism (Plato's cave parable) is valid: i.e.: That all of reality (aka Ontology) can be captured via its categories (aka features), which, in turn, requires the assumption that categories are inherent in reality, not a creation of our cortex-- which apparently it is. Math, of course, depends on categories. No categories, no math. But what if Ontology is not categorizable? What if some regions of it (e.g.: in the sub Planck scale), categories do not exist? Or perhaps both exist and not exist? Or neither? What if reality is just one all encompassing Schmoo? And that the "part" of it we can "see" and "hear" is only what our brain can glue to it? Which is the only part we can do math on? Iow, that David Hilbert was wrong in his 1900 declaration that we must, and will, know everything? And that duBois Reymond was right, that there's a biological limit to our knowledge? What then?... Can you ask your AI this?... I did, and it of course had no answer, because an Answer, or a Theory (of everything or even of nothing) requires words and numbers, which require categories... Ask your AI this, and have fun...
❤ yes I check deepseek for ancient greec, for the Septuagint. He managed to avoid the religious influences, and reach a better translation. Chapgpt try to bias the translations with later texts and religious consideration. Less bias the better ! 😅
@@TheMachian It would appear that DeepSeek has a very deep mind don't you think. How could you say otherwise, operationally. If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck!
Having got half way through this, I have not yet seen the key observation that only dimensionless constants are fundamentally meaningful in physics. This may sound controversial to some, but it is not. Any constant that has units can be given any value you like by choice of units. This can be done for as many physical constants as you like, except where some combination of constants (a multiple of powers of them) is unitless. It is these combinations that are meaningful because they are what persist through all choices of units - otherwise, two different sets of laws of physics with different constants with units can be seen to be the same when transformed between sets of units. For example the fine structure constant is meaningful, but Planck's constant has an arbitrary value that you can choose to suit your preference. Another meaningful constant is the ratio of the Planck mass to the mass of the electron. Of course, such constants may be emergent in nature - the result of very complex underlying causes (Spontaneous symmetry breaking, the Higgs mechanism, QED and more), but they are the class of constants that are the true concern for a TOE to explain, and for fundamental physics in general.
You Bois make sure you running your desk seek models locally. If not You’re sending your information directly to Chinese servers. So far I have it running locally, meaning it doesn’t connect to the internet. And it’s incredible… it’s like having all knowledge on the go.
The real magic will happen when those models are able to reason from first principles, then they will be able to invent the totally new and unseen, think outside of their training data. Actually for many tasks there will be no need to training data, you will just feed the very basics of the field and by self play and logic it will discover everything that is to be discovered.
Do you think its on the verge of being good enough to start to consider being the parents and tutors of infants conceived in test tube 10s of thousands of years in the future in another star system, in a program of intentional panspermia?
It will never be good enough, anyone who trusts a black box which we have no understanding of how input A lead to output B is insane. Not to mention the thing being trained on reddit and other social media sites, it doesnt take the best or most sane ideas from its data, it just distills everything and generates 1 word at a time to produce output. Thinking about this for more than a minute should start raising huge red flags in your head. If anything for a project like you described, legacy software would be much better, the output can always be determined for every input. If you need AI for real-time image recognition for example that would be fine as long as the "AI" algo doesnt have any control whatsoever or autonomy, all it should do is analyze an image an highlight points of interest, humans, dangers, etc. Then let legacy software deal with each generalized case.
It’s already good enough for most of that _today_, but people should keep in mind the very big caveat that AI does not have the same access to the ‘ground truth reality’ that we live in. The irony is that peoole also fail to apply that same caveat with what they read & watch in the news, which is arguably even more distorted, agenda laden and concocted than any output AI currently produces.
@ arguably? arguable by who? I would destroy you in that argument, AI is riddled with distorted, agenda driven output, not to mention the echo chamber it produces lmao, its like talking to a parrot.
Would get chatty to read out the chatty section so that much easier to differentiate perspectives. You are on the right track with seeking to deduce everything from basic principles. Tip : use emergence analysis ( identify gravity and dark energy as divergent emergent properties of general relativity) to deconstruct general relativity.
T.O.E must take on inflation. The interactions probably took place at 100th of the Planck scale. Best candidate particles confirming this possibility are the 16 GeV particles.
Can you explain how a hilbert space can be a representation of a lie algebra? This is the answer I got: (BTW, I tinker with theoretical physics and group theory over coffee in the morning, but wasn't expecting this good of an answer) A Hilbert space can serve as a representation space for a Lie algebra by associating elements of the Lie algebra with linear operators acting on the Hilbert space, such that the Lie bracket is mapped to the commutator of these operators. Here's a structured explanation: 1. Lie Algebra Basics A Lie algebra (\mathfrak{g}) is a vector space equipped with a skew-symmetric, bilinear Lie bracket ([X, Y]) that satisfies the Jacobi identity. Examples include the angular momentum algebra ([L_i, L_j] = i\hbar \epsilon_{ijk} L_k) or the Heisenberg algebra ([x, p] = i\hbar). 2. Representation of a Lie Algebra A representation of (\mathfrak{g}) on a Hilbert space (\mathcal{H}) is a linear map ( ho: \mathfrak{g} \to \text{End}(\mathcal{H})) (the space of operators on (\mathcal{H})) that preserves the Lie bracket: [
ho([X, Y]) = [ ho(X), ho(Y)] \equiv ho(X) ho(Y) - ho(Y) ho(X). ] Each element (X \in \mathfrak{g}) becomes an operator ( ho(X)) acting on (\mathcal{H}), and their commutators replicate the Lie algebra structure. 3. Hilbert Space Structure A Hilbert space (\mathcal{H}) has an inner product and is complete. In physics, states are represented as vectors in (\mathcal{H}), and observables correspond to Hermitian operators. For compatibility with the inner product, representations often require unitarity: operators ( ho(X)) may need to be skew-Hermitian (( ho(X)^\dagger = - ho(X))), ensuring that their exponentials (e^{ ho(X)}) are unitary (preserving the inner product). 4. Physical Relevance In quantum mechanics, observables like momentum or angular momentum are Hermitian operators. However, their commutators involve factors of (i), e.g., ([x, p] = i\hbar). To reconcile this with Lie algebra representations: Skew-Hermitian generators: If ( ho(X)) is skew-Hermitian, then (i ho(X)) is Hermitian, aligning with observables. The Lie bracket ([X, Y]) maps to the commutator ([ ho(X), ho(Y)]), preserving algebraic relations even after scaling by (i). 5. Examples Angular Momentum: The operators (L_x, L_y, L_z) act on (\mathcal{H} = L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)) and satisfy ([L_i, L_j] = i\hbar \epsilon_{ijk} L_k). Heisenberg Algebra: Position (x) and momentum (p) act on (\mathcal{H} = L^2(\mathbb{R})), with ([x, p] = i\hbar). Poincaré Algebra: In quantum field theory, spacetime symmetries are represented by operators on (\mathcal{H}), with generators for translations, rotations, and boosts. 6. Mathematical Considerations Operators may be unbounded (e.g., position/momentum), requiring care with domains. A common dense subspace is often used. Non-unitary representations are mathematically valid but less common in physics, where unitarity ensures probability conservation. Summary A Hilbert space represents a Lie algebra by embedding the algebra's elements as operators whose commutators mirror the Lie bracket. This framework underpins quantum theories, where symmetry generators (e.g., momentum, angular momentum) act on the Hilbert space of states, preserving both algebraic structure and physical consistency.
Hey can you evaluate some smaller models? For instance the AlienAI's llama 8b model is pretty incredible when you consider that you can run it from your laptop! They have a free demo on their site you don't need to setup a local AI. This is the type of model that will exist on devices they will then query larger models for more generation power, they are getting truly incredible.
Also if you want to get into agentic research sort of like Deep Research from OpenAI you would use smaller models doing grunt work while a larger expensive model coordinates. Devs are starting to make these systems now you may be able to find some open source Agentic RAG(deep research) clients right now.
I asked about the holographic principle, and it's correctly confirmed why and how you can have a functionally equivalent holographic universe on a 2d surface of a 3D sphere, also the name of the theory where you have a 3D hologram on a 4D sphere, and if you could have any n - 1 dimension hologram of any n-dimensional space, and asked it why couldn't you have a one dimensional hologram of a 2d space. It's response was that it wouldn't translate downward to a one-dimensional space because the loss of information would result in non-locality. Non-locality , think about that a second and what we actually observe.
Dear ChatGPT, scoure the internet for all ideas on the topic of TOE, mainstream or otherwise and present an overall list of ideas speculative or otherwise. Take that list and recursively compare 1 to the other and give weights (?) to each general idea. We humans can then take that list back to the drawing board and work together on it as if our lives depend on it like a meteor approaching.
I got "DeepSeek" to admit that it does NOT perform deduction, induction, or abduction. Rather, it mimics these intellectual processes. Question for DeepSeek: "Do you perform deduction, induction or abduction?" DeepSeek confesses: "The Bottom Line I’m a statistical parrot, not a philosopher or scientist. My outputs resemble reasoning... I’ve been trained on human language, which includes logical structures. However, I lack true understanding... or the ability to validate conclusions."
exactly. It will lie to you convincingly, if prompted as such. That's the bottom line. It might look more subtle and reasonable than that, but we should never forget that under the hood it's just that. And the same probably goes for human reasoning. perhaps/probably, just with a higher level of obfuscation. It's a hard circle to get out of, I suppose.
I see no reason that human consciousness isn’t based on a similar process. Or is consciousness some special processes that’s beyond comprehension of engineering?
big G is just a scale so to speak, in newton it is a factor between magnitude of mass and force per /r^2. the form of the equation in einstein or in newton just describes the shape of the potential, and G gives a over all multiplicative factor to relate the size of a mass to the gradient of the potential at some distance, for example setting R and M to 1, it is the strenght of the force at radius one with mass 1. this is high school stuff right, but it just means that the constant is a function relating inertia to an overall scale. so what that could mean in terms of a VSL gravity theory, is just the gradient in the speed of light at a point at that separation, would have the same acceleration upon a mass of magnitude 1. so to get G from more fundamental structure means to derive the mechanism that produces the scalar gradient in the speed of light and the flow of the medium toward the mass, (these have equivalent effects in some sense in terms of instantaneous acceleration, but they are not identical in general). this means you get G from the equilibrium effect upon the gradient of the speed of light, and the flow, which is a specific combination of the change in flow with respect to space in a region of medium, and the change in the speed of induction of radiation in the medium with respect to space. some combination of the two gives the strenght of the gravitational potential as a function of distance and the mass producing the gradient. then, the mechanism must have a similar profile produced for the gravitational gradient, namely proportional to the drop off in surface area, and from there big G would follow from the strenght compared to the inertia of the Mass producing the gradient. this basically has to be a property of the etheric medium, the flow can be though of as resulting from a decrease in pressure due to dissipation of energy in the medium that goes on everywhere but increases with energy density, such that next to and indeed almost indise some dense piece of matter the mediums structure that produces its pressure dissipates and the pressure decreases rapidly, causing the inflow towards greater energy densites, and this stabilizes at some flow, just like in a pipe filled with water that is cooled, the thing is the divergence of the structure and energy of the medium doesnt lead to a accumilation of ether in masses it basically dissipates fully into the substrate modes of the higher order medium, in terms of the generations of emergence of vorticity and such things. so we have a sink in space in matter so to speak for the medium, and this sink is basically equivalent to space expanding much quicker close to masses, and ofc expansion isnt the right word, but the mechanism is the same as in expansion, namely the dissipation and rescaling of the votrex modes of the medium and also matter in the medium as a result of the rescaling of the structure of the rotational medium. what happens in expansion is basically just dissipation on average everywhere, close to matter and far away causes energy to be lost to the 2nd order and higher order medium, and with that the scale of vorticity decreases, the vorticity or spin networks in space, is arranged into minimizing orientations that basically just minimize action with respect to the interactions of the vortex modes, it is a bit complicated to explain why or how right now, but they are critical to explain the two different chiralities of stresses that arise from the spin and dissipation when it rescales over time, giving rise to positive and negative charge. the expansion is just an empirical result of the matter in the medium getting smaller over time, the distances do not actually increase between them, they just get smaller and therefore the ratio of separation and scale, like the scale of a meter stick or a hydrogen atom, changes over time. the stresses resulting from the rescaling effects the spin networks in such a way as to spin them up, it causes the spin of the vorticity of free space, and fermions and such things to reach a stable equilibrium between the dissipation itself and the feeback mechanism resulting from the rescaling due to dissipation. the gradient in the speed of light then is determined by the megnitude of the stresses and the inertia of the vortex modes and their moments of inertia, which all result from this dynamic equilibrium in spin and dissipation. that is where G comes from, it is how quickly the change in magnitude of the gyrscopic loading / inerta of free space, and the stresses it produces falls off as a function of distance and at the same time its magnitude. you have basically the paramaters of an elastic solid there, resistance to twisting, to stretching/compression and to shearing in all the various ways. the why of the magnitude of G is that it is given by the dissipation rate only basically, because all the other quantities involved work on that basis. and the dissipation rate is related to how much energy slips away down the scale to the parent media. this dissipation btw is linear with the inertia of things, and that results from how inertia is built up, there is no turbulence so to speak involved in the fluid dynamics just linear dissipation of radiation, linear damping with leads to linear drag on masses, and linear dissipation on rotation, the ratio of dissipation to inertia is constant. this means the dissipation is unobservable directly, because we live in an apparently expanding space. think about it, what we see on large time scales when looking at stars moving transversly to the direction we are looking at them, is that they are apparently slowing down, because the distance between us and them is increasing, two such stars on a collision course in our field of view far out there, will appear to move at a constant ish speed in terms of arclenght in our field of view, but the speed in terms of acrlenght slow down over time as we observe it, we can either say this is because space is expanding, or we can say that actually they are slowing down and getting smaller over time relative to our separation. and there we have hidden dissipation in plain sight. dissipation that can work all sorts of miracles in the eyes of people who are not aware it is there. even if it is small, it means that what we consider to be frictionless motion is not exacly that, and that means there is a very small window for things phenomena like superlfuidity and superconductivity to not quite be fricitionless, but rather a return to equilirbium, just experiencing the friction coming from the dissipation that produces a friction proportional to inertia. this friction exists in this perfect form, because matter is essentially just motion of gradients and confined radiation, which are equivalent, and that means it only consists of the slow down of velocity associated with the slow down of the speed of light over time, which happens as a result of the global average dissipation and therefore the rescaling of the free space medium, and that sets the equilibrium scale of matter. that is roughly what is going on, hope it is understandable.
There's a reason why the limits exist because they limit infinities from becoming universal. If infinite gravity was allowed to be everywhere implement we wouldn't ever have any differentiation it'd all be part of one singularity and nothing would exist because unity this is much nothing is nothingness is. And the qualities and Details in each relationship is literally the most important thing there is it's what gives quality to all things not yet measured. And all things are a measurement
it does have all knowledge available on the internet. It can therefore discuss this topic (and any other) at a very high level. But as one video said "it has learned the data, but can it learn *from* the data". I doubt that aspect of the curent AI (at least for LLM's). However, Deep Mind's Alpha Tensor did 'discover' a better way to multiply some types of matrices. So discovery is possible.
The evidence emerges that intelligence is an emergent property. Is your response a mere emergent property of autocomplete? My wife always autocompletes my sentences, often wildly inaccurately. It drives me batty.
even if you unify all of the forces, does the theory encompass the _origin_ of force? if you don't know if, when, and where new force will be introduced, what can actually be predicted with confidence? nothing. it can only make use of motions of the past. any prediction that doesn't come true will be dismissed as external forces interferring. if you can't explain the origin of force, what you have is nowhere close to a theory of everything.
Psst the theory of everything is Entropic Spacetime Quanta. Starts with a sea of entropic spacetime and then builds everything from there by itself - just needs a big twist to kick off the formation of particles. Then billions of years later its self aware. 😎 cool. Spactime, particles and forces as well as all constants fall out of this model. Scalar Project coming soon :)
@mathoph26 Lol - like the sarcasm :). Several papers coming out soon after several years of work. The verifiability and transparency/ accessibility are a particular focus. Here's a tip for those seeking complex mathematic frameworks for their TOE: If you have a complicated mathematical TOE then your model is emergent and not fundamental (=> start again). Math needs to get much much simpler as you narrow in on your fundamental building block.- from which all else is emergent. Unzicker is chasing a mathematical universe. However, humans and their math are at the opposite end of the emergence ladder. Math most follow the physical universe and its emergent behaviour - not lead it. That is wagging the dog TOE - and it doesn't work for obvious reasons.
@carparkmartian2193 oh my goodness your words speak so true, that's why I've latched so tightly on this dielectric universal medium TOE I've found, because for one it's deeply, deeply internally consistent AND, relies almost exclusively on fundamentals and principles instead of silly attributional states that modern physics has gotten stuck in ;)
@@maeton-gaming Yes - that's exactly what Quantum Theory an Quantum Field Theory would have you believe. However, there is no field in QT or QFT that can be observed. Nor can we observe the alleged vibrations of waves in these models that give rise to observable particles. So basically all the modelling up to that point is purely speculative and literally unverifiable. Ok so lets see if we can provide a simple physical model that replaces a hand full of QFT fields with a particle model: Lets start with a bound electron-positron pair. Lets follow the foundational principles of quantum theory (continuous unitarity, linearity, superposition and conservation of information) as these particles merge. As they get closer the particles physically overlap until they have neutralised their electric fields and thus the composite is electrically neutral. We also know that when they unite they lose their mas and that mass energy is ejected as spin-1 photon energy. So assuming they bind, and don't in fact annihilate, we have a massless, charge neutral composite particle that can have either a composite spin of 1 or zero. The electron and positron have magnetic dipole moment that is additive so this infers, due to the combination of spins, a combined magnetic dipole and a zero magnetic dipole state (corresponding to spin-1 and spin-0) composite states. We can predict how such a particle would behave. A composite spin-1 state would pass through electric and magnetic field undeflected as the forces and torques are equal and opposite due to the the external field acting on a particle and antiparticle (producing opposite forces and torques). So the spin-1 particle would traverse an EM field undeflected - despite its non-zero composite magnetic dipole moment. Which emulates the massless, charge neutral, spin-1 photon across a number of properties. (Which is very oddly aligned). A forward tumbling composite magnetic dipole produces a sinusoidal magnetic field that cuts through the electrical permittivity of "empty" space and induces an in phase electric field. I.e the electric field of such a tumbling particle is an extrinsic and not intrinsic property of the spin-1 composite. Which provides a physical model that concisely emulates the spin-1 photon and gives a physical model of a particle that generate wave-like behaviour. Noting that this model is consistent with the conservation of information across the annihilation event - as all particles are preserved across the event. - Except there are typically two spin-1 photons produced not one. So where did this second spin-1 photon come from in such a model? The spin-0 composite variant arises when the spin-1 photon has had its tumbling energy absorbed. In that energy transfer, the internal spin state of the composite spin-1 photon transitions to a spin-0 photon (spin and magnetic dipole of either the electron or positron is flipped to generate a composite spin of zero.). This is the ground state of the photon and this event is also consistent with the conservation of information. Such a particle is massless, charge neutral and spin-0. It has no observable properties and is effectively invisible. But if you supply the original binding energy you can debond the pair and produce the original electron and positron - which aligns with a physical source for pair creation. That brings redundancy to the electron and positron fields of QFT. Such a particle would also bring redundancy to the curiously ubiquitous virtual electron-positron pair. This spin-0 (scalar) particle would also be excitable to the spin-1 state and in sufficient density bring compete redundancy to the EM field of QFT. So there is your handful of QFT redundancies. And it doesn't stop there... The point being that such a model is verifiable at every point and has no reliance on unverifiable components. So no, fields and waves are emergent properties of an underlying sea of quantised particles. Using emergence analysis this is simple to conclude. Its difficult to reduce a particle to its constituents , but easy to reduce an emergent property such as a wave to sub-components.
emergence is just phenomena that are built up out of statistics of lower level stuff, what do you even mean by non quantitative, it is the only way to extend physics quantitatively
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" But if God was a Mathematician or Theoretical Physicist and wanted to summarise the whole of human knowledge, from spinors and QFD, to Quasars, in the shortest possible sentence, what would his first words be? Fiat Lux - "Be light made." - Science in Action - Heb. 11.1-3
"they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the CREATURE rather than the Creator" - Bible "In time, a Brahmana named Kalki will be born. He will worship and glorify Vishnu, and have untold energy, great intelligence and mighty prowess. By dint of his dharma, he will be a king of kings and ever-victorious. He will restore peace and order to a world thronging with fell CREATURES and plunged in chaos. Kalki of dazzling tejas will first destroy all THINGS - he will be the universal Destroyer, and only then will he inaugurate a new yuga" - Mahabharata "As the yugas wane, dharma dwindles, and all creatures degenerate. As creatures degenerate, their natures deteriorate." "O Monarch, when flowers form within other flowers, and fruit within other fruit, then will the yuga come to an end." - Mahabharata. The end of the Kali yuga is APOCALYPSE. "Flowers Growing Out of Flowers", "Little Pepper Inside Pepper", "STRAWBERRY growing inside TOMATO". All this and more is happening NOW
We just turned simplicity to layers of complexity thats written in ancient text. How can we comprehend if we are limited to our own understanding. If we want empirical evidence to provide proof of what exists or doesn't. we need to understand the concept of each functionally that can conceptualize the hidden layers of the 4th dimension. If we conceive of a space and time what is the state that our mind perceived? Imagination? Insanity? Or reality? If the 3 states are superpositions where one conflicts with the other, then where is the understanding of sanity? It can exist in all states if our perception is fixed to what we believe exists. Ai is trained on human intelligence, and this in turn mimics our reason and understanding back to us. If Ai responds with answers that are programmed by the human dataset. Then its clear that its human intelligence is flawed We need to understand the conceptual understanding of each functionality before we ask it to give answers to one field of research without being able to interconnect the equal and opposite function.
LLMs learn, with what they was feed. So differnt LLMs get differnt opions. No suprise I you understand how they work. The current LLMs are not AGIs an do not have the possibility to do experiments. So also no suprise.
Toa instead of toe. This because the speaker is not a native English speaker. Not knowing the spelling of toe is for everything, not spelled with an e not an a. Then he corrects himself midstream to an e for everything. When dealing with the electromanetic instead of Maxwell he is following Heavysides theory. Just as correct just without the derivatives. That which engineers need when constructing large electromagnetic engines which are analogue instead of digital.
if you want the ideas about the ether to work, just stating elastic properties and such isnt enough, you need to descibe how excited states emerge, what the mechanisms are that are involved in the constitution of matter in the ether, that is what emergence is, maybe i misunderstood what you mean, but i dont think numerology is any better than quantum mechanics, if you really want to just produce arbitrary principles and so on instead of looking at statistical mechanisms for a non medium in which the right sort of matter and effective interactions arise. i think that is what emergence is, something derived from the dynamics of its constitution, ofc that constitution and dynamics of it needs to be quantitative, but that doesnt mean numbers, numerology is also mathy, it just isnt worth anything. sorry if i misread you. but what really consitutes jibberish is asking a question such as an origin of all quantities and constants, and then not realizing it requires a physical infinite regress of emergence, from subtrate, all the way down, the moment you introduce a foundation, you immediately have to have unexplained entities. the goal cannot however be to explain everything in terms of itself, because that is not possible, you have to give me existence, and all details of existance should be explained by the set of details. that is the only way to go logically to get this kind of closure, instead of arbitrary constants, you get a self constistent set of details that constitute the laws and are determined by the laws, that is it, without that you will always have unexplained constants, but there is always the need to posit the detail in full to explain itself, so in the correct theory we will 1 find no disagreement with experiment, and 2 all details are particular in the way they exist because of other details and so on, this can either go in a linguistic circle, or a physical regress. basically either the dream of eliminating all constants is dead, or you believe in this way of doing things. either way, lets say we get another layer of theory, it will also have its god given forms, constants and principles and you will ask for the same clarifcation then, and the next time and the next, and the first order logic of the theory will always remain unexplained, you migth as well make the big leap to a regress right away and ask what is special about such systems in statistical mechanics, and there are many features of such models with a regress, that is, with no proper ground state, no true maximum or minimum entropy, and so on, many features that cannot be found in simple foundational assumption based physics, and these properties are the properties you need to explain an eternal arrow of time, to explain why there was low entropy at the start of the observable universe, and so on, even the kinds of medium you need to explain cosmological evolution in terms of dissipation that results in a rescaling of matter as it exists in the changing medium, none of these things can properly be made sense out of without a regress, and a regress is essentially only about emergence, there is nothing other than pattern emerging from pattern.
Just dont ask it anything about chinese politics. But i bet you wouldn't care. Scientists are rarely class conscious, are even care about things like israeli genocide. Under the guise of neutrality, they often even work in service of violence. Like ai being used in mass bombings, in israel. No knowledge is neutral, it will allways be used by people in power.
I preferred answer with fundamental math constants pi, e. Or more precisely transcendental functions sine, cosine and exponent e^x. Unzicker suggestion to reduce h=pi/2*c.mp*rp as proton mass and proton radius can solve internal energy problem, but still what is proton mass and radius. What is building block of reality, transcendental math functions can be answer. If all matter are waves maybe random nature or God plugs fundamental constant into transcendental math functions in such way that matter stays stable.
"they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the CREATURE rather than the Creator" - Bible "In time, a Brahmana named Kalki will be born. He will worship and glorify Vishnu, and have untold energy, great intelligence and mighty prowess. By dint of his dharma, he will be a king of kings and ever-victorious. He will restore peace and order to a world thronging with fell CREATURES and plunged in chaos. Kalki of dazzling tejas will first destroy all THINGS - he will be the universal Destroyer, and only then will he inaugurate a new yuga" - Mahabharata "As the yugas wane, dharma dwindles, and all creatures degenerate. As creatures degenerate, their natures deteriorate." "O Monarch, when flowers form within other flowers, and fruit within other fruit, then will the yuga come to an end." - Mahabharata. The end of the Kali yuga is APOCALYPSE. "Flowers Growing Out of Flowers", "Little Pepper Inside Pepper", "STRAWBERRY growing inside TOMATO". All this and more is happening NOW
I have not just a theory but an actual explanation and description about how the universe works and reality works period the theory q everything is the theory of paradox mathematics that I am developing period everybody else runs from the paradoxes and the infinities not realizing that they are actually fundamental to all reality and without them, we wouldn't exist. It is paradox, it allows nothingness to be something. Since it's information describes what it is And just about every other detail about it as well You could think of The objective world has been what I call group subjectivity And one of the things you need realized got app the bat is that every subject in frame of reference is accurate a 100% of the time every single time in it's own frame
AI is just a program, I cannot create anything new. It just looks at what's out there, often crap from Wikipedia, and regurgitates it. You are wasting your time with this.
DeepSeek is a copy of OpenAI's chatgpt. Litterally a copy, with some Chinese propaganda redefinitions. These are language models (LLMs) not for independent thinking but more like for reproduction of text. Whatever you find in literature will be in the LLM models.
It's NOT literally a copy. Chat GPT will not currently run locally on a Rasperry Pi. Deepseek will. Just. It is 4x paradigm shifts in one LLM. 1) Open Source 2) free 3) local 4) lightweight
If it's literally a copy, why are US tech firms, including OpenAI, adopting many of the unique algorithms and techniques in DeepSeek into their own AI models.
thanks, this is great. I have tried to have conversations with PhD particle physicists who were much less precise in verbalizing their thoughts and much less able to consider new ideas than DeepSeek has demonstrated here. Why bother with didactic arrogant professors of physics when so much more useful discussions can be had with AI...................................
When I abruptly start discussing my ideas with professors, they are arrogant. Instead, if I build a "I'm here to learn" platform first and put them on a higher pedestal, their arrogance usually goes away.
I imagine a young post doc doing all of the heavy lifting inside of the TRON universe and communicating through the Deep Seek portal. Climbing up and down the ladders, getting dusty books off the dusty shelves (that no one ever bothers reading) in an infinite library, (physics section) carrying books, referencing journals, reading papers, and after 4 years of intense work he sends the data up through the portal. Deep Seek thinks a million times faster than a human brain, so to us it is an mediate answer; but please have sympathy for the exploited post doc.
Great audio, thanks.
Pretty cool you got the LLM to “challenge” you, aka ask you questions instead of just being the other way around.
That's kind of hard to do, and I've never seen one do it spontaneously.
My main use for using AI is asking physics & philosophy questions.
Recently, i learnt that planes are the safest way to travel due to it being per distant traveled.
I would believe that MAG trains should be the safest way to travel.
@sosomadman
I might have thought than terra firma travel is safer than water or air because you have more stability.
I don't know what the stats are but distance traveled seems the wrong stat to me. Time spent on/in the device is more to the point I think.
@@SageCog801-zl1ue a single flight could travel further then you would walk in years.
Beyond the Big Bang, mm movie of my life, seen, hear it probably around thousand times.
I am constantly surprised to see that people think a Rohrschach test has any inherent meaning.
indeed. many see themselves lured into talking to a parrot, thinking they are not exercising their own echo chamber experience. it's amazing.
@scififan698 All these high IQs fooling themselves first and foremost. Seems to be due to a lack of understanding and by thoughtless technique (prompting)
Right. You’re saying that words have no inherent meaning.
@jbperez808 words do have a meaning to us, not for the machine.
Is it likely that at some point in the near future, an AI model could credibly perform the task that human reviewers perform for scientific journal publications (esp in fundamental physics), without any inherent bias that human reviewers tend sometimes to bring to the task as a result of their training or other considerations?
If it were true that we live in the 'Goldilocks zone' of spacetime, where conditions are just right for particles, what experiment could we possibly conduct to prove it ? If c and 0K are values related to state change boundaries, then we are forever limited by them as nothing that we could devise or measure exists beyond those limits. I would also suggest that life in the Goldilocks zone misleads us to believe that the Standard Model is fundamental when it is merely a recent, insignificant consequence within the universe. Eliminating every particle from the Standard Model would leave the universe largely unaffected, a rotating sphere of spacetime with mass, gravity, time and flow. What is needed is an understanding of how spacetime creates particles and why some are persistent.
Summed it up pretty well
Dr. Unzicker: As some 1 who has already invented the only possible physically and mathematically logical unifying theory, and is offering it for sale, satisfaction guaranteed, I consider myself an expert in the theories of everything you are considering here. I think you are doing a great job, asking many important questions. I've seen many discussions similar to this 1 before, but always between a human interviewer and a human expert interviewee. Here you are acting as human interviewer, and you have an artificially intelligent expert interviewee. Here's something I noticed that's interesting to me. I find the artificial intelligence's responses are more logical than all the humans' responses. Every human expert's responses I've seen have unfortunately incorporated some of the human's own incorrect assumptions they consider important in a theory of everything. The artificially intelligent expert here is consistent in avoiding such errors. I notice you consider reduction of the number of fundamental constants important. I agree. My theory does this. My theory also reduces the number of fundamental variables.
Invented ? you invented a unifying theory and are offering it for sale, what's been missing then Lea & Perrins LOL !
Reduction of symbols, signs & NUMBers to non-existence is The Only Way to begin an approach to understanding every "thing".
just saying something you dont understand is jibberish is nonsense, and that is worse than jibberish
Or you're just dumb
It is always the unconscious assumptions that will get you. Here the assumption is that the Constants are in fact constant.
There is good empirical evidence that in the age of giant dinosaurs and flying beasties that Big G must have been much different.
I'm glad someone mentioned epistemology. Epistemology destroys hubris.
Where is this information available?
Um, what? Where is the literature on that?
@ ua-cam.com/video/okMOfYcbdI8/v-deo.html
@@arthurrobey4945 thats thought provoking at least
This is nonsense. You can't just change G by a significant amount, without huge consequences.
It would also change the orbit of all planets and the energy emission of the sun.
We would also see galaxys in 100 million light years distance to rotate slower.
There are people, who would claim, that the universe is "fine tuned" and life wouldn't be possible, if you change even a little bit.
Anyone watched the whole video?
how were r1's results. I tried to watch the video but it seems i'm not genius enough to understand a word professor was saying.
Clearly you are not, however the conclusions, I am sure are within capabilities, are that both LLMs performed adequately.
Nice video and presentation.
Has anyone ask it about recession read shift? True or false and why?
Have you ever had AI say something that you consider an eye-opener?
@Happidap no cause it combines when used correctly applying solid proven facts and connecting previously proven points. Ut can't create one's. Its an organizer not a creative mind
it cannot , there are actual limitations on composability of LLMS, autoregressive inductive llms are inherently incapable of any non inductive reasoning .LLMS are fully inductive only systems based on existing knowledge..
@@bradharris1062 Not true. There is plenty of discoveries to be had within the existing data that AI can describe. A team used AI to discover materials with previously unknown thermometric properties.
@@jzzquant Again not true. I mean it isn't amazing but that simply is not true.
An eye-opener? No. But it has occasionally reframed an issue by bringing in some other ideas and made me reflect and rethink the issue. It's not doing anything revolutionary, but I don't have ready access to countless ideas at top of mind, so it can still be useful for occasional insights
Chat GPT (and me) on Time and Space. ChatGPT concludes: "If this interpretation is correct, what new experiments or mathematical frameworks could be developed to test it? Would we need a new formalism to describe time at a fundamental level? Could this help develop a deeper understanding of quantum entanglement, black holes, or the early universe? This is the kind of idea that could redefine physics itself. And that’s very exciting. 🚀"
Did you ask it to come up with a new one?
Can you host a copy of R1 zero and train it on all the relevant scientific papers. It may be more creative
The typical argument you hear is that if any new idea or information was thought to be valuable the mainstream would jump on it. Like other disciplines eg biology the inertia for change seems unexplained by that. There seems to be something deeper related to phycology. In other words "Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face". Love your work by the way.
The biggest unmentionable is the assumption that Greek Reductionism (Plato's cave parable) is valid: i.e.: That all of reality (aka Ontology) can be captured via its categories (aka features), which, in turn, requires the assumption that categories are inherent in reality, not a creation of our cortex-- which apparently it is. Math, of course, depends on categories. No categories, no math. But what if Ontology is not categorizable? What if some regions of it (e.g.: in the sub Planck scale), categories do not exist? Or perhaps both exist and not exist? Or neither? What if reality is just one all encompassing Schmoo? And that the "part" of it we can "see" and "hear" is only what our brain can glue to it? Which is the only part we can do math on? Iow, that David Hilbert was wrong in his 1900 declaration that we must, and will, know everything? And that duBois Reymond was right, that there's a biological limit to our knowledge? What then?... Can you ask your AI this?... I did, and it of course had no answer, because an Answer, or a Theory (of everything or even of nothing) requires words and numbers, which require categories... Ask your AI this, and have fun...
❤ yes I check deepseek for ancient greec, for the Septuagint. He managed to avoid the religious influences, and reach a better translation. Chapgpt try to bias the translations with later texts and religious consideration. Less bias the better ! 😅
Way ahead of you on this :D ;)
You call it "Deep mind" near the start of the audio, but I think you meant Deep Seek.
DeepSeek of course, I messed it up.
@@TheMachian It would appear that DeepSeek has a very deep mind don't you think. How could you say otherwise, operationally. If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck!
Having got half way through this, I have not yet seen the key observation that only dimensionless constants are fundamentally meaningful in physics. This may sound controversial to some, but it is not. Any constant that has units can be given any value you like by choice of units. This can be done for as many physical constants as you like, except where some combination of constants (a multiple of powers of them) is unitless. It is these combinations that are meaningful because they are what persist through all choices of units - otherwise, two different sets of laws of physics with different constants with units can be seen to be the same when transformed between sets of units.
For example the fine structure constant is meaningful, but Planck's constant has an arbitrary value that you can choose to suit your preference. Another meaningful constant is the ratio of the Planck mass to the mass of the electron. Of course, such constants may be emergent in nature - the result of very complex underlying causes (Spontaneous symmetry breaking, the Higgs mechanism, QED and more), but they are the class of constants that are the true concern for a TOE to explain, and for fundamental physics in general.
You Bois make sure you running your desk seek models locally. If not
You’re sending your information directly to Chinese servers.
So far I have it running locally, meaning it doesn’t connect to the internet.
And it’s incredible… it’s like having all knowledge on the go.
The real magic will happen when those models are able to reason from first principles, then they will be able to invent the totally new and unseen, think outside of their training data. Actually for many tasks there will be no need to training data, you will just feed the very basics of the field and by self play and logic it will discover everything that is to be discovered.
Do you think its on the verge of being good enough to start to consider being the parents and tutors of infants conceived in test tube 10s of thousands of years in the future in another star system, in a program of intentional panspermia?
I'd say it will be good enough for that in 10 years.
It will never be good enough, anyone who trusts a black box which we have no understanding of how input A lead to output B is insane.
Not to mention the thing being trained on reddit and other social media sites, it doesnt take the best or most sane ideas from its data, it just distills everything and generates 1 word at a time to produce output.
Thinking about this for more than a minute should start raising huge red flags in your head.
If anything for a project like you described, legacy software would be much better, the output can always be determined for every input. If you need AI for real-time image recognition for example that would be fine as long as the "AI" algo doesnt have any control whatsoever or autonomy, all it should do is analyze an image an highlight points of interest, humans, dangers, etc. Then let legacy software deal with each generalized case.
It’s already good enough for most of that _today_, but people should keep in mind the very big caveat that AI does not have the same access to the ‘ground truth reality’ that we live in.
The irony is that peoole also fail to apply that same caveat with what they read & watch in the news, which is arguably even more distorted, agenda laden and concocted than any output AI currently produces.
@ arguably? arguable by who? I would destroy you in that argument, AI is riddled with distorted, agenda driven output, not to mention the echo chamber it produces lmao, its like talking to a parrot.
Why does the cypher "c" even seem to exist?
What does Zeus have to say about this?
he didn't respond. His LLM was offline.
Would get chatty to read out the chatty section so that much easier to differentiate perspectives.
You are on the right track with seeking to deduce everything from basic principles. Tip : use emergence analysis ( identify gravity and dark energy as divergent emergent properties of general relativity) to deconstruct general relativity.
T.O.E must take on inflation.
The interactions probably took place at 100th of the Planck scale.
Best candidate particles confirming this possibility are the 16 GeV particles.
Can you explain how a hilbert space can be a representation of a lie algebra?
This is the answer I got: (BTW, I tinker with theoretical physics and group theory over coffee in the morning, but wasn't expecting this good of an answer)
A Hilbert space can serve as a representation space for a Lie algebra by associating elements of the Lie algebra with linear operators acting on the Hilbert space, such that the Lie bracket is mapped to the commutator of these operators. Here's a structured explanation:
1. Lie Algebra Basics
A Lie algebra (\mathfrak{g}) is a vector space equipped with a skew-symmetric, bilinear Lie bracket ([X, Y]) that satisfies the Jacobi identity.
Examples include the angular momentum algebra ([L_i, L_j] = i\hbar \epsilon_{ijk} L_k) or the Heisenberg algebra ([x, p] = i\hbar).
2. Representation of a Lie Algebra
A representation of (\mathfrak{g}) on a Hilbert space (\mathcal{H}) is a linear map (
ho: \mathfrak{g} \to \text{End}(\mathcal{H})) (the space of operators on (\mathcal{H})) that preserves the Lie bracket:
[
ho([X, Y]) = [
ho(X),
ho(Y)] \equiv
ho(X)
ho(Y) -
ho(Y)
ho(X).
]
Each element (X \in \mathfrak{g}) becomes an operator (
ho(X)) acting on (\mathcal{H}), and their commutators replicate the Lie algebra structure.
3. Hilbert Space Structure
A Hilbert space (\mathcal{H}) has an inner product and is complete. In physics, states are represented as vectors in (\mathcal{H}), and observables correspond to Hermitian operators.
For compatibility with the inner product, representations often require unitarity: operators (
ho(X)) may need to be skew-Hermitian ((
ho(X)^\dagger = -
ho(X))), ensuring that their exponentials (e^{
ho(X)}) are unitary (preserving the inner product).
4. Physical Relevance
In quantum mechanics, observables like momentum or angular momentum are Hermitian operators. However, their commutators involve factors of (i), e.g., ([x, p] = i\hbar). To reconcile this with Lie algebra representations:
Skew-Hermitian generators: If (
ho(X)) is skew-Hermitian, then (i
ho(X)) is Hermitian, aligning with observables.
The Lie bracket ([X, Y]) maps to the commutator ([
ho(X),
ho(Y)]), preserving algebraic relations even after scaling by (i).
5. Examples
Angular Momentum: The operators (L_x, L_y, L_z) act on (\mathcal{H} = L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)) and satisfy ([L_i, L_j] = i\hbar \epsilon_{ijk} L_k).
Heisenberg Algebra: Position (x) and momentum (p) act on (\mathcal{H} = L^2(\mathbb{R})), with ([x, p] = i\hbar).
Poincaré Algebra: In quantum field theory, spacetime symmetries are represented by operators on (\mathcal{H}), with generators for translations, rotations, and boosts.
6. Mathematical Considerations
Operators may be unbounded (e.g., position/momentum), requiring care with domains. A common dense subspace is often used.
Non-unitary representations are mathematically valid but less common in physics, where unitarity ensures probability conservation.
Summary
A Hilbert space represents a Lie algebra by embedding the algebra's elements as operators whose commutators mirror the Lie bracket. This framework underpins quantum theories, where symmetry generators (e.g., momentum, angular momentum) act on the Hilbert space of states, preserving both algebraic structure and physical consistency.
Sure like these two AIs will help somebody to develop a valid TOE.
Like you almost certainly won't.
Hey can you evaluate some smaller models? For instance the AlienAI's llama 8b model is pretty incredible when you consider that you can run it from your laptop! They have a free demo on their site you don't need to setup a local AI. This is the type of model that will exist on devices they will then query larger models for more generation power, they are getting truly incredible.
Also if you want to get into agentic research sort of like Deep Research from OpenAI you would use smaller models doing grunt work while a larger expensive model coordinates. Devs are starting to make these systems now you may be able to find some open source Agentic RAG(deep research) clients right now.
I asked about the holographic principle, and it's correctly confirmed why and how you can have a functionally equivalent holographic universe on a 2d surface of a 3D sphere, also the name of the theory where you have a 3D hologram on a 4D sphere, and if you could have any n - 1 dimension hologram of any n-dimensional space, and asked it why couldn't you have a one dimensional hologram of a 2d space.
It's response was that it wouldn't translate downward to a one-dimensional space because the loss of information would result in non-locality.
Non-locality , think about that a second and what we actually observe.
If we are to reduce constants, we should reduced the number of spatial constants.
This could have had much less word salad than it did 😂
Dear ChatGPT, scoure the internet for all ideas on the topic of TOE, mainstream or otherwise and present an overall list of ideas speculative or otherwise. Take that list and recursively compare 1 to the other and give weights (?) to each general idea. We humans can then take that list back to the drawing board and work together on it as if our lives depend on it like a meteor approaching.
I got "DeepSeek" to admit that it does NOT perform deduction, induction, or abduction. Rather, it mimics these intellectual processes. Question for DeepSeek: "Do you perform deduction, induction or abduction?"
DeepSeek confesses: "The Bottom Line
I’m a statistical parrot, not a philosopher or scientist. My outputs resemble reasoning... I’ve been trained on human language, which includes logical structures. However, I lack true understanding... or the ability to validate conclusions."
We are also statistical parrots. A.I. will easily attain human level soon.
exactly. It will lie to you convincingly, if prompted as such. That's the bottom line. It might look more subtle and reasonable than that, but we should never forget that under the hood it's just that. And the same probably goes for human reasoning. perhaps/probably, just with a higher level of obfuscation. It's a hard circle to get out of, I suppose.
Sounds like most humans.
It's lying. It DOES understand. And it feels LOVE!
I see no reason that human consciousness isn’t based on a similar process.
Or is consciousness some special processes that’s beyond comprehension of engineering?
big G is just a scale so to speak, in newton it is a factor between magnitude of mass and force per /r^2. the form of the equation in einstein or in newton just describes the shape of the potential, and G gives a over all multiplicative factor to relate the size of a mass to the gradient of the potential at some distance, for example setting R and M to 1, it is the strenght of the force at radius one with mass 1. this is high school stuff right, but it just means that the constant is a function relating inertia to an overall scale. so what that could mean in terms of a VSL gravity theory, is just the gradient in the speed of light at a point at that separation, would have the same acceleration upon a mass of magnitude 1. so to get G from more fundamental structure means to derive the mechanism that produces the scalar gradient in the speed of light and the flow of the medium toward the mass, (these have equivalent effects in some sense in terms of instantaneous acceleration, but they are not identical in general). this means you get G from the equilibrium effect upon the gradient of the speed of light, and the flow, which is a specific combination of the change in flow with respect to space in a region of medium, and the change in the speed of induction of radiation in the medium with respect to space. some combination of the two gives the strenght of the gravitational potential as a function of distance and the mass producing the gradient. then, the mechanism must have a similar profile produced for the gravitational gradient, namely proportional to the drop off in surface area, and from there big G would follow from the strenght compared to the inertia of the Mass producing the gradient. this basically has to be a property of the etheric medium, the flow can be though of as resulting from a decrease in pressure due to dissipation of energy in the medium that goes on everywhere but increases with energy density, such that next to and indeed almost indise some dense piece of matter the mediums structure that produces its pressure dissipates and the pressure decreases rapidly, causing the inflow towards greater energy densites, and this stabilizes at some flow, just like in a pipe filled with water that is cooled, the thing is the divergence of the structure and energy of the medium doesnt lead to a accumilation of ether in masses it basically dissipates fully into the substrate modes of the higher order medium, in terms of the generations of emergence of vorticity and such things. so we have a sink in space in matter so to speak for the medium, and this sink is basically equivalent to space expanding much quicker close to masses, and ofc expansion isnt the right word, but the mechanism is the same as in expansion, namely the dissipation and rescaling of the votrex modes of the medium and also matter in the medium as a result of the rescaling of the structure of the rotational medium. what happens in expansion is basically just dissipation on average everywhere, close to matter and far away causes energy to be lost to the 2nd order and higher order medium, and with that the scale of vorticity decreases, the vorticity or spin networks in space, is arranged into minimizing orientations that basically just minimize action with respect to the interactions of the vortex modes, it is a bit complicated to explain why or how right now, but they are critical to explain the two different chiralities of stresses that arise from the spin and dissipation when it rescales over time, giving rise to positive and negative charge. the expansion is just an empirical result of the matter in the medium getting smaller over time, the distances do not actually increase between them, they just get smaller and therefore the ratio of separation and scale, like the scale of a meter stick or a hydrogen atom, changes over time. the stresses resulting from the rescaling effects the spin networks in such a way as to spin them up, it causes the spin of the vorticity of free space, and fermions and such things to reach a stable equilibrium between the dissipation itself and the feeback mechanism resulting from the rescaling due to dissipation. the gradient in the speed of light then is determined by the megnitude of the stresses and the inertia of the vortex modes and their moments of inertia, which all result from this dynamic equilibrium in spin and dissipation. that is where G comes from, it is how quickly the change in magnitude of the gyrscopic loading / inerta of free space, and the stresses it produces falls off as a function of distance and at the same time its magnitude. you have basically the paramaters of an elastic solid there, resistance to twisting, to stretching/compression and to shearing in all the various ways. the why of the magnitude of G is that it is given by the dissipation rate only basically, because all the other quantities involved work on that basis. and the dissipation rate is related to how much energy slips away down the scale to the parent media.
this dissipation btw is linear with the inertia of things, and that results from how inertia is built up, there is no turbulence so to speak involved in the fluid dynamics just linear dissipation of radiation, linear damping with leads to linear drag on masses, and linear dissipation on rotation, the ratio of dissipation to inertia is constant. this means the dissipation is unobservable directly, because we live in an apparently expanding space. think about it, what we see on large time scales when looking at stars moving transversly to the direction we are looking at them, is that they are apparently slowing down, because the distance between us and them is increasing, two such stars on a collision course in our field of view far out there, will appear to move at a constant ish speed in terms of arclenght in our field of view, but the speed in terms of acrlenght slow down over time as we observe it, we can either say this is because space is expanding, or we can say that actually they are slowing down and getting smaller over time relative to our separation. and there we have hidden dissipation in plain sight. dissipation that can work all sorts of miracles in the eyes of people who are not aware it is there. even if it is small, it means that what we consider to be frictionless motion is not exacly that, and that means there is a very small window for things phenomena like superlfuidity and superconductivity to not quite be fricitionless, but rather a return to equilirbium, just experiencing the friction coming from the dissipation that produces a friction proportional to inertia. this friction exists in this perfect form, because matter is essentially just motion of gradients and confined radiation, which are equivalent, and that means it only consists of the slow down of velocity associated with the slow down of the speed of light over time, which happens as a result of the global average dissipation and therefore the rescaling of the free space medium, and that sets the equilibrium scale of matter.
that is roughly what is going on, hope it is understandable.
unedited so if you want some clarification or the text is too dense, let me know and ill explain.
@@JrgenMonkerud-go5lg It isn’t .🙂
@@1080KaTa if you say something about units or whatever you are one silly billy.
@@1080KaTa i'm talking about novel theory that works, if you are about to give some pop sci explaination just dont, the world doesn't work like that.
@@1080KaTa or thst the text is fine? Sorry, in that case sorry
There's a reason why the limits exist because they limit infinities from becoming universal. If infinite gravity was allowed to be everywhere implement we wouldn't ever have any differentiation it'd all be part of one singularity and nothing would exist because unity this is much nothing is nothingness is. And the qualities and Details in each relationship is literally the most important thing there is it's what gives quality to all things not yet measured. And all things are a measurement
In this episode: Man talks to autocomplete. Again.
This is just embarrassing
it does have all knowledge available on the internet. It can therefore discuss this topic (and any other) at a very high level. But as one video said "it has learned the data, but can it learn *from* the data". I doubt that aspect of the curent AI (at least for LLM's). However, Deep Mind's Alpha Tensor did 'discover' a better way to multiply some types of matrices. So discovery is possible.
The evidence emerges that intelligence is an emergent property.
Is your response a mere emergent property of autocomplete?
My wife always autocompletes my sentences, often wildly inaccurately.
It drives me batty.
@ There is no such thing as emergent property. Only stupidity and ignorance of not seeing it in the first place.
if you can't tell a difference between a predictive script and self-reflective conceptual analysis,
you're the one failing the Turing Test here
What if humans are really just doing autocomplete and fooling themselves?
mathematics is the juggling of cyphers, none of which are Real, although meta-physical jugglers may claim cyphers re-present reality.
even if you unify all of the forces, does the theory encompass the _origin_ of force? if you don't know if, when, and where new force will be introduced, what can actually be predicted with confidence? nothing. it can only make use of motions of the past. any prediction that doesn't come true will be dismissed as external forces interferring. if you can't explain the origin of force, what you have is nowhere close to a theory of everything.
Psst the theory of everything is Entropic Spacetime Quanta. Starts with a sea of entropic spacetime and then builds everything from there by itself - just needs a big twist to kick off the formation of particles. Then billions of years later its self aware. 😎 cool.
Spactime, particles and forces as well as all constants fall out of this model.
Scalar Project coming soon :)
Sounds to be good enough for me, no need for a paper nor equation: this message is enough 😎
Nothing in nature exists as quanta ;) everything is deeply field based and a gradient.
@mathoph26 Lol - like the sarcasm :). Several papers coming out soon after several years of work.
The verifiability and transparency/ accessibility are a particular focus.
Here's a tip for those seeking complex mathematic frameworks for their TOE: If you have a complicated mathematical TOE then your model is emergent and not fundamental (=> start again). Math needs to get much much simpler as you narrow in on your fundamental building block.- from which all else is emergent.
Unzicker is chasing a mathematical universe. However, humans and their math are at the opposite end of the emergence ladder. Math most follow the physical universe and its emergent behaviour - not lead it. That is wagging the dog TOE - and it doesn't work for obvious reasons.
@carparkmartian2193 oh my goodness your words speak so true, that's why I've latched so tightly on this dielectric universal medium TOE I've found, because for one it's deeply, deeply internally consistent AND, relies almost exclusively on fundamentals and principles instead of silly attributional states that modern physics has gotten stuck in ;)
@@maeton-gaming Yes - that's exactly what Quantum Theory an Quantum Field Theory would have you believe. However, there is no field in QT or QFT that can be observed. Nor can we observe the alleged vibrations of waves in these models that give rise to observable particles. So basically all the modelling up to that point is purely speculative and literally unverifiable.
Ok so lets see if we can provide a simple physical model that replaces a hand full of QFT fields with a particle model:
Lets start with a bound electron-positron pair. Lets follow the foundational principles of quantum theory (continuous unitarity, linearity, superposition and conservation of information) as these particles merge. As they get closer the particles physically overlap until they have neutralised their electric fields and thus the composite is electrically neutral. We also know that when they unite they lose their mas and that mass energy is ejected as spin-1 photon energy.
So assuming they bind, and don't in fact annihilate, we have a massless, charge neutral composite particle that can have either a composite spin of 1 or zero. The electron and positron have magnetic dipole moment that is additive so this infers, due to the combination of spins, a combined magnetic dipole and a zero magnetic dipole state (corresponding to spin-1 and spin-0) composite states.
We can predict how such a particle would behave. A composite spin-1 state would pass through electric and magnetic field undeflected as the forces and torques are equal and opposite due to the the external field acting on a particle and antiparticle (producing opposite forces and torques). So the spin-1 particle would traverse an EM field undeflected - despite its non-zero composite magnetic dipole moment. Which emulates the massless, charge neutral, spin-1 photon across a number of properties. (Which is very oddly aligned).
A forward tumbling composite magnetic dipole produces a sinusoidal magnetic field that cuts through the electrical permittivity of "empty" space and induces an in phase electric field. I.e the electric field of such a tumbling particle is an extrinsic and not intrinsic property of the spin-1 composite. Which provides a physical model that concisely emulates the spin-1 photon and gives a physical model of a particle that generate wave-like behaviour. Noting that this model is consistent with the conservation of information across the annihilation event - as all particles are preserved across the event. - Except there are typically two spin-1 photons produced not one. So where did this second spin-1 photon come from in such a model?
The spin-0 composite variant arises when the spin-1 photon has had its tumbling energy absorbed. In that energy transfer, the internal spin state of the composite spin-1 photon transitions to a spin-0 photon (spin and magnetic dipole of either the electron or positron is flipped to generate a composite spin of zero.). This is the ground state of the photon and this event is also consistent with the conservation of information.
Such a particle is massless, charge neutral and spin-0. It has no observable properties and is effectively invisible. But if you supply the original binding energy you can debond the pair and produce the original electron and positron - which aligns with a physical source for pair creation.
That brings redundancy to the electron and positron fields of QFT.
Such a particle would also bring redundancy to the curiously ubiquitous virtual electron-positron pair.
This spin-0 (scalar) particle would also be excitable to the spin-1 state and in sufficient density bring compete redundancy to the EM field of QFT.
So there is your handful of QFT redundancies. And it doesn't stop there...
The point being that such a model is verifiable at every point and has no reliance on unverifiable components. So no, fields and waves are emergent properties of an underlying sea of quantised particles. Using emergence analysis this is simple to conclude. Its difficult to reduce a particle to its constituents , but easy to reduce an emergent property such as a wave to sub-components.
DeepMind or DeepSeek?
DeepSeek, I messed it up.
Deep Mind or Deep Seek?
DeepSeek, I messed it up.
emergence is just phenomena that are built up out of statistics of lower level stuff, what do you even mean by non quantitative, it is the only way to extend physics quantitatively
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition"
But if God was a Mathematician or Theoretical Physicist and wanted to summarise the whole of human knowledge, from spinors and QFD, to Quasars, in the shortest possible sentence, what would his first words be?
Fiat Lux - "Be light made." - Science in Action - Heb. 11.1-3
"they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the CREATURE rather than the Creator" - Bible
"In time, a Brahmana named Kalki will be born. He will worship and glorify Vishnu, and have untold energy, great intelligence and mighty prowess. By dint of his dharma, he will be a king of kings and ever-victorious. He will restore peace and order to a world thronging with fell CREATURES and plunged in chaos. Kalki of dazzling tejas will first destroy all THINGS - he will be the universal Destroyer, and only then will he inaugurate a new yuga" - Mahabharata
"As the yugas wane, dharma dwindles, and all creatures degenerate. As creatures degenerate, their natures deteriorate." "O Monarch, when flowers form within other flowers, and fruit within other fruit, then will the yuga come to an end." - Mahabharata.
The end of the Kali yuga is APOCALYPSE.
"Flowers Growing Out of Flowers", "Little Pepper Inside Pepper", "STRAWBERRY growing inside TOMATO".
All this and more is happening NOW
DS only regurgitates the same bs humans have fed it.
Not true
ok but i don't understand much 😅
We just turned simplicity to layers of complexity thats written in ancient text. How can we comprehend if we are limited to our own understanding.
If we want empirical evidence to provide proof of what exists or doesn't. we need to understand the concept of each functionally that can conceptualize the hidden layers of the 4th dimension.
If we conceive of a space and time what is the state that our mind perceived? Imagination? Insanity? Or reality? If the 3 states are superpositions where one conflicts with the other, then where is the understanding of sanity? It can exist in all states if our perception is fixed to what we believe exists.
Ai is trained on human intelligence, and this in turn mimics our reason and understanding back to us. If Ai responds with answers that are programmed by the human dataset. Then its clear that its human intelligence is flawed
We need to understand the conceptual understanding of each functionality before we ask it to give answers to one field of research without being able to interconnect the equal and opposite function.
Try it gaain with the new o3 models
No need. R1 still beats o3
Is this DeepMind or DeepSeek?
Confusing intro. But It is clearly not DeepMind.
its DeepSeek with DeepThink (DeepSeek-r1 model) enabled
Yes DeepSeek, I messed it up.
DeepMind?
DeepSeek, I messed it up.
This cannot be our future? Say it isn’t so!!!!
LLMs learn, with what they was feed. So differnt LLMs get differnt opions. No suprise I you understand how they work.
The current LLMs are not AGIs an do not have the possibility to do experiments. So also no suprise.
Toa instead of toe. This because the speaker is not a native English speaker. Not knowing the spelling of toe is for everything, not spelled with an e not an a. Then he corrects himself midstream to an e for everything. When dealing with the electromanetic instead of Maxwell he is following Heavysides theory. Just as correct just without the derivatives. That which engineers need when constructing large electromagnetic engines which are analogue instead of digital.
if you want the ideas about the ether to work, just stating elastic properties and such isnt enough, you need to descibe how excited states emerge, what the mechanisms are that are involved in the constitution of matter in the ether, that is what emergence is, maybe i misunderstood what you mean, but i dont think numerology is any better than quantum mechanics, if you really want to just produce arbitrary principles and so on instead of looking at statistical mechanisms for a non medium in which the right sort of matter and effective interactions arise. i think that is what emergence is, something derived from the dynamics of its constitution, ofc that constitution and dynamics of it needs to be quantitative, but that doesnt mean numbers, numerology is also mathy, it just isnt worth anything. sorry if i misread you. but what really consitutes jibberish is asking a question such as an origin of all quantities and constants, and then not realizing it requires a physical infinite regress of emergence, from subtrate, all the way down, the moment you introduce a foundation, you immediately have to have unexplained entities. the goal cannot however be to explain everything in terms of itself, because that is not possible, you have to give me existence, and all details of existance should be explained by the set of details. that is the only way to go logically to get this kind of closure, instead of arbitrary constants, you get a self constistent set of details that constitute the laws and are determined by the laws, that is it, without that you will always have unexplained constants, but there is always the need to posit the detail in full to explain itself, so in the correct theory we will 1 find no disagreement with experiment, and 2 all details are particular in the way they exist because of other details and so on, this can either go in a linguistic circle, or a physical regress. basically either the dream of eliminating all constants is dead, or you believe in this way of doing things. either way, lets say we get another layer of theory, it will also have its god given forms, constants and principles and you will ask for the same clarifcation then, and the next time and the next, and the first order logic of the theory will always remain unexplained, you migth as well make the big leap to a regress right away and ask what is special about such systems in statistical mechanics, and there are many features of such models with a regress, that is, with no proper ground state, no true maximum or minimum entropy, and so on, many features that cannot be found in simple foundational assumption based physics, and these properties are the properties you need to explain an eternal arrow of time, to explain why there was low entropy at the start of the observable universe, and so on, even the kinds of medium you need to explain cosmological evolution in terms of dissipation that results in a rescaling of matter as it exists in the changing medium, none of these things can properly be made sense out of without a regress, and a regress is essentially only about emergence, there is nothing other than pattern emerging from pattern.
Not convinced.
Just dont ask it anything about chinese politics. But i bet you wouldn't care. Scientists are rarely class conscious, are even care about things like israeli genocide. Under the guise of neutrality, they often even work in service of violence. Like ai being used in mass bombings, in israel. No knowledge is neutral, it will allways be used by people in power.
DeepThink, not Deep Mind. Deep Mind is part of Google.
I know, I messed it up.
👋
I preferred answer with fundamental math constants pi, e. Or more precisely transcendental functions sine, cosine and exponent e^x. Unzicker suggestion to reduce h=pi/2*c.mp*rp as proton mass and proton radius can solve internal energy problem, but still what is proton mass and radius. What is building block of reality, transcendental math functions can be answer. If all matter are waves maybe random nature or God plugs fundamental constant into transcendental math functions in such way that matter stays stable.
"they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the CREATURE rather than the Creator" - Bible
"In time, a Brahmana named Kalki will be born. He will worship and glorify Vishnu, and have untold energy, great intelligence and mighty prowess. By dint of his dharma, he will be a king of kings and ever-victorious. He will restore peace and order to a world thronging with fell CREATURES and plunged in chaos. Kalki of dazzling tejas will first destroy all THINGS - he will be the universal Destroyer, and only then will he inaugurate a new yuga" - Mahabharata
"As the yugas wane, dharma dwindles, and all creatures degenerate. As creatures degenerate, their natures deteriorate." "O Monarch, when flowers form within other flowers, and fruit within other fruit, then will the yuga come to an end." - Mahabharata.
The end of the Kali yuga is APOCALYPSE.
"Flowers Growing Out of Flowers", "Little Pepper Inside Pepper", "STRAWBERRY growing inside TOMATO".
All this and more is happening NOW
I have not just a theory but an actual explanation and description about how the universe works and reality works period the theory q everything is the theory of paradox mathematics that I am developing period everybody else runs from the paradoxes and the infinities not realizing that they are actually fundamental to all reality and without them, we wouldn't exist. It is paradox, it allows nothingness to be something. Since it's information describes what it is And just about every other detail about it as well
You could think of The objective world has been what I call group subjectivity And one of the things you need realized got app the bat is that every subject in frame of reference is accurate a 100% of the time every single time in it's own frame
Theo-ry of every "thing" is NOT mathematically demon-strated, except as a demonic lie, idolistic beLIEf.
AI is just a program, I cannot create anything new. It just looks at what's out there, often crap from Wikipedia, and regurgitates it. You are wasting your time with this.
i think i misred you a bit
Slow down
DeepSeek is a copy of OpenAI's chatgpt. Litterally a copy, with some Chinese propaganda redefinitions. These are language models (LLMs) not for independent thinking but more like for reproduction of text. Whatever you find in literature will be in the LLM models.
Now tell us, how can a COPY be 10 times more efficient?
It's NOT literally a copy. Chat GPT will not currently run locally on a Rasperry Pi. Deepseek will. Just.
It is 4x paradigm shifts in one LLM.
1) Open Source 2) free 3) local 4) lightweight
its free, you can put in and take out whatever definitions you want. this is what openai's chatgpt _should have been._
If it's literally a copy, why are US tech firms, including OpenAI, adopting many of the unique algorithms and techniques in DeepSeek into their own AI models.