The fact that AI might be what finds a Unifing Theory is profound when you think about how many humans have spent their entire life searching only to be out done in decades by AI.
I love these conversations. Please keep them coming. I love the physics but am also fascinated how you are able to reason with an AI. You have completely changed my views on the utility of AI. As with all computer interfaces, the responsibility for meaningful interaction rests with the human, who must modify themself to make the interface work.
I'm an IT professional and became 10x more effective at my job overnight with ChatGPT. The utility was immediately apparent. I can now accomplish in four hours what would have used to take me a week.
There are almost no unknow "constants" left. incl 1/137 11:55 , that i have formula for, btw. All "constansts" are just geometry, modulation, gearbox, solution to blaah formula.
Unzicker, what you are brushing up against here is emergence analysis. Indeed you can use emergence analysis to identify if a model is an emergent behaviour or a fundamental behaviour. I'll give you a deep shortcut tip: use emergence analysis to deconstruct general relativity to work out if gravity is an emergent or fundamental property. Answer that and we can go to the next level.
Thank you for this fascinating discussion. I personally think that the popular pursuit of these so called "Theories of Everything" (i.e. Garrett Lisi, Sir Roger Penrose, Max Tegmark, Neil Turok, Eric Weinstein, Edward Witten, Stephen Wolfram, and Peter Woit), some of whom have appeared on the Institute of Art and Ideas panel discussions or PBS Space Time reflect a degree of over ambition and unrealistic promise in the light of more pragmatic goals. We don't have anything close to a _Unified Field Theory_ which describes all phenomena observed or inferred to exist in our Universe. This isn't a Theory of Everything which provides either a rationale for all fundamental constants so that there are no mysterious magic numbers required to get it to work, or some reassuring mathematical proof that no Theory of Everything can be defined due to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (or somesuch explanation which isn't an excuse to give up but an impossibility of an answer we are forced to accept). So, I would prefer if there was less hyperbole and talk of TOEs (the scope of which are very poorly defined), and a mathematical model could be found which explained our current Universe with one set of mathematics at all scales and including all phenomena. I don't even need (or expect) to know how the Universe came to be. That might not be a question which we can answer. I think what will happen is that people won't agree on what the scope of Everything is in their Theories of Everything and so some who make progress with a subset of Everything will be denigrated for lack of ambition and the goal posts will then move to their more ambitious scope of Everything, only when that is defined then the goal posts will move again as people will question where the axioms of the mathematics used to define the theory they have came from and postulate that there are alternative forms of mathematics and everything has to then include an infinity of metamathematics which gets generated out of some more primitive semantic structure. This recently led Dr Sabine Hossenfelder to commend Stephen Wolfram's TOE as the only one which was serious, but the problem I have with it is that it does not describe our Universe as it has yet to define solutions which operate in four dimensions. Witten also tends to work in "toy dimensions". I guess it makes the mathematics simpler. Here LLMs like ChatGPT may come to the rescue. I found Grok AI understood LaTeX typesetting as input and I was able to mess around with it and get a fake Lagrangian out of it which looks impressive on a T-shirt. This then raised a warning, which is that the ease with which an ordinary person without a PhD can cook up something which looks like a "TOE" is now so trivially easy (3 seconds of work) that this will create a terrible signal to noise ratio in which many papers are published which are this recycled nonsense. Journals will have to be much more careful about what they publish as a result of these LLMs empowering grandiose ideas whilst having certain weaknesses mathematically as they are more linguistically strong than they are numerate.
Sure, people shouldn't be tax-funded to search for a TOE but it is the most fundamental, purest pursuit in physics. The scope of 'Everything' in this context is that which explains FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS is a coherent model, using no undetected / undetectable fudge (ie. up and down Quarks). -- Wolfram's is one of the worst TOE attempts as it replaces a physical universe with a computed universe, and as a Computer Scientist myself this requires showing The Computer, like God believers have to show God (or God has to show itself). IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE. -- LLMs alone will never solve the mysteries of the universe. You're right they may come up with vaguely believable alternative models but they won't be able to prove them, but people will pass them off as their own to make money on UA-cam, if nothing else!
@@PrivateSi Stop calling that fkingsatan god. Ktnxbie. :) Akshjuli, what would you say if id show you that SRs (7,83..., ..., ...) are h-graphic basline code and SRs are NOT what they have been claiming for 70y. I try to bust lies, but hard on Monitored Era (TM).
Interesting conversation with GenAI -- and to your points -- here is one such i-TOE with only two parameters based CPT(α,Φ) function anchored i-TOE -- which s 100% complete, especially when it comes to the following 2 NOBEL WORTHY differentiators - 1. First TOE to predict the top 10 observational measures of GR & SM with 5σ precision 2. First TOE to be validated by the top 10 mathematical acid tests/theorems of String theory As it turns out, these two NOBEL WORTHY differentiators(at its root) stem from the power of another foundational differentiator - Gauss‘ AGM(1,√2) parameterized, ζ(1/2+it):β(1/2+it) dualized CPT(α,Φ) function foundation of our i-TOE - thanks to its capability to interplay the dynamic holographic duality existing between the “arithmetic ζ(1/2+it) unit-circled-α governed quantum universe” and “geometric β(1/2+it) unit-lemniscated-Φ governed classical universe”. Not to mention, this foundational differentiator, at its root more precisely stems from the conditional equivalence existing between the Dirichlet beta function and the Riemann zeta function (with an initial condition of S=1 constrained by 144 harmonic orbitals with a cohomology of tetrahedral symmetry S4xS3 with 5 subgroups) as explained in detail in this t i-TOE article/paper in preprint. This precisely is why, we have re-parameterized CPT(α,Φ) function using this “most reality accurate hybrid approach” with the following big idea Instead of parameterizing the unit arch length of harmonic wave of QVF (4π/L+L) using “π looped unit circle” for both quantum and classical universes, re-parameterize them with a hybrid approach i.e. use “π looped unit circle” (scaled using the arithmetic root of 1) to parameterize α governed symmetrical quantum universe and “L looped unit leminsicate” (scaled using the geometric root √2) to parameterize Φ governed asymmetrical classical universe by taking the iterative limit of both until they meet at a perfect ratio of 2π/L. The implication is that the Eigenvalues of ζ(1/2+it) on the unit-circle (representing α governed symmetrical quantum universe), ends up manifesting as the Eigen valued lattice points of β(1/2+it) on the unit-lemniscate (representing Φ governed asymmetrical classical universe), by simultaneously shifting itself into the next hodge lattice using our earlier multi-color shuttle pen/embroidery machine threading metaphorical logic in the exhibit- thus birthing the gravitational rotation like a Muybridge Horse in motion, as explained in Appendix E((lnkd.in/gnuNRu2j) Not to mention, this unit circle/unit leminscate interplay also ends up resolving all the error % discrepancies of RH & PNT theorem (including 10+ PNT related conjectures), thanks to its revised ln formula (based on the the lemniscate constant L=2.514601, that is re-calculated with a limit of 137)), as explained in Appendix F((lnkd.in/gnuNRu2j) When we think about it, this is yet another unequivocal proof of the Riemann hypothesis (over and beyond our 5 earlier proofs of RH including all $5MM+ prized problems of Clay institute) as well -- and I hope the experts are listening! With that prelude, check out this 100% complete i-TOE article/paper in preprint. for the details. (www.linkedin.com/pulse/unique-christmashanukah-day-announcing-our-itoe-wits-grsm5%CF%83-prabakar-imofc/?trackingId=p3Vd7ETMR2K9sm6ETSH3cw%3D%3D)
A TOE is much more than an equation or set of linked equations, especially if you believe most of the SM is fudge, as is the case at the moment (until properly evidenced). The paper seems like confirmation bias fudged to match fudge (although it does not even match any of the fudge precisely, although as the particles masses are in KG instead of electron volts I can't be bothered to check them all).
@@PrivateSi Appreciate the response -- and to your point(s) //A TOE is much more than an equation or set of linked equations I agree -- however, not sure if you have read the theory in full, as I have derived the equations all the way from the Turing Philosophy of Physics and then integrated them to TOE equations including 15+ disciplines. //Especially if you believe most of the SM is fudge, as is the case at the moment (until properly evidenced). The paper seems like confirmation bias fudged to match fudge Well, again, not sure, if you have read it in full. For example our theory has not confirmed the theory part of SM, as the theoretical underpinnings of ours is much different from SM, in the sense ours is a superset theory with a capability to predict all particles of regular matter(including yet to be discovered), dark matter and dark energy plus two more TBD spectrums. It just so happens that the values of regular matter predicted by our theory happens to align with the experimental values of SM (and not the theoretical predictions of SM). Hope the difference is very clear! //It does not even match any of the fudge precisely, although as the particle masses are in KG instead of electron volts I can't be bothered to check them all). Well, again, not sure, if you read the paper in full, as I have provided both in eV (in exhibit) and kgs in the details. The reason for kgs is that all the calculations are done in such a way that it can be aggregated to calculate/predict the mass of the universe. Hope it explains the reason and rationale! Once again , appreciate the response although I request you to read it in full --and then provide some constructive feedback. For example, it is possible that I might have genuinely overlooked some things, as I am just a simple "learn it all" industry practitioner and not a "know it all" scientist!
@@charlesprabakar .. I've read what was on the link. Anything that confirms undetected particles such as up and down quarks, or poorly detected particles such as neutrinos automatically rings alarms bells. Good Luck though... So what is the EM field made of?! What is the wave medium?
@@PrivateSi Thank you and to your point(s) I have faithfully reported what the theory has predicted. For example, our quark family come as a quadruple family and not a triplet family as theorized by SM(I will stay corrected if I have misunderstood it, as I am not an expert of SM). The implication is that there are 3 yet to be discovered elementary particles and 34 yet to be discovered composite particles. And to your question about what EM field is made of, under our theory, EM is just a manifestation of QVF only Similarly, assuming you mean a ether like wave medium, under our theory, there is no medium involved, as spacetime continues to emerge automatically from QVF as we speak! Hope it clarifies!
@@charlesprabakar .. OK, but up and down quarks are not detected, neutrino mass is unknown, Higgs boson is not corroborated. As long as you realise you're probably chasing red herrings. My model predicts a load of short lived EM field fluctuations that are useless junk to be ignored. Only electrons, muons, protons, neutrons (= proton+electron) and taus (that are not leptons) exist as baryonic matter, + their antiparticles. They are all composite. How do you explain the fact proton/neutron mass is almost exactly halfway between muon and tau? -- By EM Field I mean a matter-energy field made up of neutral field cells each joined to 12 neighbours as if they were close packed spheres (but it's a wireframe matrix of point particles). Cells consist of a +ve and -ve base particle that can be partially split (polarised) forming a magnetic field, or fully split into base particles that can clump to form baryonic matter. -- EM Waves are a transverse up-down cell movement wave, with sideways partial cell split (magnetic component). Gravity waves are a longitudinal wave. Cells may be equidistant or varying in (gap) size/density (I have a few variations).
@@michaelhamm6207 Can you imagine sitting down and watching a film with your 'companion'. Then you ask what it thought of the film, what are you going to get back ?
We need the mathematical constants from chaos theory to diminish the number of physical constants, that is my intuition. Many physics theory are too linear and can be extended to non-linear theories, perhaps this can lead to unification (for instance, explain the dimensionless fine structure constant as a combination of chaos theory constants, such that Planck constant 'h' can be expressed in terms of classical electrodynamics constants.
Dr. Unzicker: A unifying theory can not only simplify our understanding, but can increase our understanding, and can obsolete the illogic of other theories. I think you might be able to have a very insightful discussion with ChatGPT about illogic. Ask it what's illogical in various physics theories. An advancement in understanding exactly what is illogical in a theory can help a theorist improve that theory, or their own theory. My unifying theory, matter theory, is still for sale. After you've learned matter theory, you'll find you'll have little interest in discussing inventing a unifying theory. Instead your interest will become using and improving the unifying theory you have. Imagine the possibilities for explaining unexplained things, and also for reexplaining all the things currently illogically explained in other theories.
Sadly, I've found ChatGPT to be very agreeable, even when I tell it something wrong. Admittedly I've chatted to it about arcane things like Spatial 4D, which only appears to have a relatively small body of "knowledge", if imaginary things can have such, that seems to be trapped to varying degrees in 3D think. So, I'm a little under-impressed by ChatGPT at times when it comes to synthesising new ideas from old in logical ways. Sometimes I feel like I'm still chatting to the old Eliza, just with access to a human frail knowledge base...
The invariance of C implies a medium / quantised / pixelated field where light travels from field cell to field cell in a fixed Time (constant T) in a flat space (cells are all the same distance apart). If C does ABSOLUTELY vary with gravity it implies curved space (varying cell gap size/density) as measured time does vary with gravity. C always measures C LOCALLY in a vacuum either way. EM waves need a medium (EM field). What is the (average) cell (gap) size? What is T?!
@@LionKimbro .. Implies a FLAT (field cell centres are all equidistant) quantised field if C is absolutely the same everywhere. Obviously there must be a quantised matter-energy field because matter and energy if quantised and proper physical waves NEED a medium! Probability 'waves' are not proper waves, but EM waves are.
@ Why do they need a medium? It sounds like an article of faith, but I don't see why it would have to be like that -- I don't see why there couldn't just be a mathematical relationship upheld in the universe, regarding the relationship between the pieces of information in the universe, sans medium. And why would a hypothetical medium need to be quantized? In quantum field theory, fields are quantized, but space itself is continuous.
When Unzigger claimed the elimination of constants to be the goal of physics, I thought it was actually very clever that ChatGPT gave the discovery of "h" as a counter example.
I would suggest that all of the fundamental questions are answered by the physical properties of spacetime, everything else is a consequence. You can study crabs, fish, plankton, etc. all you like, but the essential truths are all in the water.
Whatever ChatGPT said to you, and no matter how impressive these results might seem as a conversation partner, you should NOT invest confidence in that 'as science'.
By your logic, the introduction of ε0 and μ0 were steps backwards, because two new constants were introduced. The introduction of Planck's constant permeated throughout physics, because it solved a fundamental problem and yielded correct answers in others. It was undeniably progress. It's understandable to look at the proliferation of constants under the Standard Model and believe we've entered the territory of epicycles, but that doesn't mean every constant introduced since 1900 is a crime against Science (tm). It's also dogmatic to insist that there can be no arbitrary numbers in fundamental physics at all. Do you seriously think there can be only one possible set of physical laws, and it just so happens to yield atoms that arrange themselves into humans?
One must take a closer look at history here. Interestingly however, this is why Lord Kelvin objected: he asked for a mechanical explanation of Maxwell's equations, not just a description.
@@TheMachian The question under consideration is progress in physics. Just because Lord Kelvin wanted a mechanical interpretation doesn't mean progress wasn't made.
Physics will never accomplish a Theory of Everything. It belongs to theology. Augustine has an excellent Theory of Everything-a Christian-Platonic one.
@@matswinther8991 Why does it belong to theology? The evidence seems to point towards mathematics instead. Why? Because math is invariant of opinions and universal, on which everything including theology builds upon.
@@joonasmakinen4807 Ultimate reality cannot be grasped through reason alone, while mathematics operates solely within the bounds of natural reason. Ultimate truth is personal (God), whereas mathematics is impersonal and abstract-and personal truth cannot be reduced to impersonal systems. Thus, mathematical and logical truths merely reflect, but do not constitute, the highest form of truth. They are subordinate to the eternal truth of God. The universe is a deeply personal creation. Unlike in the 19th century, contemporary physicists widely acknowledge this perspective.
@@matswinther8991 It is a wide misunderstanding that Mathematics is impersonal. Same goes for Truth, most believe like Pontius Pilatus that it is impersonal, asking What is Truth, when we should ask Who is Truth. Logos is personal. I don’t yet have evidence but I believe Logos = Applied Math, on which all things including life are constructed like Bible shows. Interestingly, latest findings on mathematics allow infinite (fractal-like) complexity even up to conciousness. Game of Life is the simplest proof of emergent complexity. Logos defines Truth, is Life, sets Way. Logos holds all things together like Book of Colossians shows. Logos is the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, who in himself showed us Father God.
@@matswinther8991 To be precise, did you mean man-made theology or God-made theology? Only the God’s matters, e.g., John 7:16-17, Luke 4:32, Matt 7:28, Matt 22:33, because only it gives Life. Bible shows God’s Theology is what Holy Spirit teaches us in Christ to Father’s Truth (John 16:13) and Father’s Word is Truth (John 17:17). I can’t wait till our Lord Jesus Christ will return in the clouds to Earth, and we all will be judged either to Eternal Life or Eternal Death, and to us in Christ are shown Father God! And we will eternally get to rejoice of knowing God!
This was more true for the previous generation of models: cutting edge models are starting to have sparks of Ah-ha moments. Soon to be released models have long term memory built in at a fundamental level which seems likely to drastically improve scope and depth of reasoning and intuition.
@ Clmasse, have you looked into the new self learning models capable of novel solutions (like the free and open source R1)? Also the new memory methods like; "Think-in-Memory": A framework where the LLM actively recalls relevant memories before generating a response and then updates its memory based on the post-thought process. "Larimar": A model designed to mimic the brain's hippocampus, allowing for short-term memory storage that can later be consolidated into long-term memory. "MemoryBank": A system that incorporates a memory updating mechanism inspired by the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve, allowing the LLM to selectively forget information over time? How are you so confident in your assertion?
@@shawns0762 omg, how horrible you are at "getting" the nature. Foreces are not basic things, they are sideefects at diferent scakes. EVERYTHINY IS JUST ONE PROCCES. If you think not, check int mental hospital.
personally the spaces ressistance as a main factor of finite c-speed is the most acceptable , proved by different values of permittivity of free space and permeability of free space c is finite because both ε₀ and μ₀ have nonzero, finite values. If either were infinite or zero, the speed of light would also be infinite or undefined.
The fact that AI might be what finds a Unifing Theory is profound when you think about how many humans have spent their entire life searching only to be out done in decades by AI.
I love these conversations. Please keep them coming. I love the physics but am also fascinated how you are able to reason with an AI. You have completely changed my views on the utility of AI. As with all computer interfaces, the responsibility for meaningful interaction rests with the human, who must modify themself to make the interface work.
I'm an IT professional and became 10x more effective at my job overnight with ChatGPT.
The utility was immediately apparent. I can now accomplish in four hours what would have used to take me a week.
Sweet! I got my ticket. I will see you there Alexander:) stoked!
Glad to see you there!
world class content
This was a very nice and interesting discussion.
There are almost no unknow "constants" left. incl 1/137 11:55 , that i have formula for, btw. All "constansts" are just geometry, modulation, gearbox, solution to blaah formula.
make me famous and i will show it
13:35 Thad Roberts has done a good job converting constants to knowstants. Idk why he is ignored so much. Unziker, wanna tell us why?
Interesting guy, yet I am skeptic about the claims.
Unzicker, what you are brushing up against here is emergence analysis. Indeed you can use emergence analysis to identify if a model is an emergent behaviour or a fundamental behaviour.
I'll give you a deep shortcut tip: use emergence analysis to deconstruct general relativity to work out if gravity is an emergent or fundamental property.
Answer that and we can go to the next level.
Thank you for this fascinating discussion.
I personally think that the popular pursuit of these so called "Theories of Everything" (i.e. Garrett Lisi, Sir Roger Penrose, Max Tegmark, Neil Turok, Eric Weinstein, Edward Witten, Stephen Wolfram, and Peter Woit), some of whom have appeared on the Institute of Art and Ideas panel discussions or PBS Space Time reflect a degree of over ambition and unrealistic promise in the light of more pragmatic goals. We don't have anything close to a _Unified Field Theory_ which describes all phenomena observed or inferred to exist in our Universe. This isn't a Theory of Everything which provides either a rationale for all fundamental constants so that there are no mysterious magic numbers required to get it to work, or some reassuring mathematical proof that no Theory of Everything can be defined due to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (or somesuch explanation which isn't an excuse to give up but an impossibility of an answer we are forced to accept). So, I would prefer if there was less hyperbole and talk of TOEs (the scope of which are very poorly defined), and a mathematical model could be found which explained our current Universe with one set of mathematics at all scales and including all phenomena. I don't even need (or expect) to know how the Universe came to be. That might not be a question which we can answer.
I think what will happen is that people won't agree on what the scope of Everything is in their Theories of Everything and so some who make progress with a subset of Everything will be denigrated for lack of ambition and the goal posts will then move to their more ambitious scope of Everything, only when that is defined then the goal posts will move again as people will question where the axioms of the mathematics used to define the theory they have came from and postulate that there are alternative forms of mathematics and everything has to then include an infinity of metamathematics which gets generated out of some more primitive semantic structure. This recently led Dr Sabine Hossenfelder to commend Stephen Wolfram's TOE as the only one which was serious, but the problem I have with it is that it does not describe our Universe as it has yet to define solutions which operate in four dimensions. Witten also tends to work in "toy dimensions". I guess it makes the mathematics simpler.
Here LLMs like ChatGPT may come to the rescue. I found Grok AI understood LaTeX typesetting as input and I was able to mess around with it and get a fake Lagrangian out of it which looks impressive on a T-shirt. This then raised a warning, which is that the ease with which an ordinary person without a PhD can cook up something which looks like a "TOE" is now so trivially easy (3 seconds of work) that this will create a terrible signal to noise ratio in which many papers are published which are this recycled nonsense. Journals will have to be much more careful about what they publish as a result of these LLMs empowering grandiose ideas whilst having certain weaknesses mathematically as they are more linguistically strong than they are numerate.
Sure, people shouldn't be tax-funded to search for a TOE but it is the most fundamental, purest pursuit in physics. The scope of 'Everything' in this context is that which explains FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS is a coherent model, using no undetected / undetectable fudge (ie. up and down Quarks).
--
Wolfram's is one of the worst TOE attempts as it replaces a physical universe with a computed universe, and as a Computer Scientist myself this requires showing The Computer, like God believers have to show God (or God has to show itself). IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE.
--
LLMs alone will never solve the mysteries of the universe. You're right they may come up with vaguely believable alternative models but they won't be able to prove them, but people will pass them off as their own to make money on UA-cam, if nothing else!
@@PrivateSi Stop calling that fkingsatan god. Ktnxbie. :) Akshjuli, what would you say if id show you that SRs (7,83..., ..., ...) are h-graphic basline code and SRs are NOT what they have been claiming for 70y. I try to bust lies, but hard on Monitored Era (TM).
Interesting conversation with GenAI -- and to your points -- here is one such i-TOE with only two parameters based CPT(α,Φ) function anchored i-TOE -- which s 100% complete, especially when it comes to the following 2 NOBEL WORTHY differentiators -
1. First TOE to predict the top 10 observational measures of GR & SM with 5σ precision
2. First TOE to be validated by the top 10 mathematical acid tests/theorems of String theory
As it turns out, these two NOBEL WORTHY differentiators(at its root) stem from the power of another foundational differentiator - Gauss‘ AGM(1,√2) parameterized, ζ(1/2+it):β(1/2+it) dualized CPT(α,Φ) function foundation of our i-TOE - thanks to its capability to interplay the dynamic holographic duality existing between the “arithmetic ζ(1/2+it) unit-circled-α governed quantum universe” and “geometric β(1/2+it) unit-lemniscated-Φ governed classical universe”.
Not to mention, this foundational differentiator, at its root more precisely stems from the conditional equivalence existing between the Dirichlet beta function and the Riemann zeta function (with an initial condition of S=1 constrained by 144 harmonic orbitals with a cohomology of tetrahedral symmetry S4xS3 with 5 subgroups) as explained in detail in this t i-TOE article/paper in preprint.
This precisely is why, we have re-parameterized CPT(α,Φ) function using this “most reality accurate hybrid approach” with the following big idea
Instead of parameterizing the unit arch length of harmonic wave of QVF (4π/L+L) using “π looped unit circle” for both quantum and classical universes, re-parameterize them with a hybrid approach i.e. use “π looped unit circle” (scaled using the arithmetic root of 1) to parameterize α governed symmetrical quantum universe and “L looped unit leminsicate” (scaled using the geometric root √2) to parameterize Φ governed asymmetrical classical universe by taking the iterative limit of both until they meet at a perfect ratio of 2π/L.
The implication is that the Eigenvalues of ζ(1/2+it) on the unit-circle (representing α governed symmetrical quantum universe), ends up manifesting as the Eigen valued lattice points of β(1/2+it) on the unit-lemniscate (representing Φ governed asymmetrical classical universe), by simultaneously shifting itself into the next hodge lattice using our earlier multi-color shuttle pen/embroidery machine threading metaphorical logic in the exhibit- thus birthing the gravitational rotation like a Muybridge Horse in motion, as explained in Appendix E((lnkd.in/gnuNRu2j)
Not to mention, this unit circle/unit leminscate interplay also ends up resolving all the error % discrepancies of RH & PNT theorem (including 10+ PNT related conjectures), thanks to its revised ln formula (based on the the lemniscate constant L=2.514601, that is re-calculated with a limit of 137)), as explained in Appendix F((lnkd.in/gnuNRu2j)
When we think about it, this is yet another unequivocal proof of the Riemann hypothesis (over and beyond our 5 earlier proofs of RH including all $5MM+ prized problems of Clay institute) as well -- and I hope the experts are listening!
With that prelude, check out this 100% complete i-TOE article/paper in preprint. for the details. (www.linkedin.com/pulse/unique-christmashanukah-day-announcing-our-itoe-wits-grsm5%CF%83-prabakar-imofc/?trackingId=p3Vd7ETMR2K9sm6ETSH3cw%3D%3D)
A TOE is much more than an equation or set of linked equations, especially if you believe most of the SM is fudge, as is the case at the moment (until properly evidenced). The paper seems like confirmation bias fudged to match fudge (although it does not even match any of the fudge precisely, although as the particles masses are in KG instead of electron volts I can't be bothered to check them all).
@@PrivateSi Appreciate the response -- and to your point(s)
//A TOE is much more than an equation or set of linked equations
I agree -- however, not sure if you have read the theory in full, as I have derived the equations all the way from the Turing Philosophy of Physics and then integrated them to TOE equations including 15+ disciplines.
//Especially if you believe most of the SM is fudge, as is the case at the moment (until properly evidenced). The paper seems like confirmation bias fudged to match fudge
Well, again, not sure, if you have read it in full. For example our theory has not confirmed the theory part of SM, as the theoretical underpinnings of ours is much different from SM, in the sense ours is a superset theory with a capability to predict all particles of regular matter(including yet to be discovered), dark matter and dark energy plus two more TBD spectrums. It just so happens that the values of regular matter predicted by our theory happens to align with the experimental values of SM (and not the theoretical predictions of SM). Hope the difference is very clear!
//It does not even match any of the fudge precisely, although as the particle masses are in KG instead of electron volts I can't be bothered to check them all).
Well, again, not sure, if you read the paper in full, as I have provided both in eV (in exhibit) and kgs in the details. The reason for kgs is that all the calculations are done in such a way that it can be aggregated to calculate/predict the mass of the universe. Hope it explains the reason and rationale!
Once again , appreciate the response although I request you to read it in full --and then provide some constructive feedback. For example, it is possible that I might have genuinely overlooked some things, as I am just a simple "learn it all" industry practitioner and not a "know it all" scientist!
@@charlesprabakar .. I've read what was on the link. Anything that confirms undetected particles such as up and down quarks, or poorly detected particles such as neutrinos automatically rings alarms bells. Good Luck though... So what is the EM field made of?! What is the wave medium?
@@PrivateSi Thank you and to your point(s)
I have faithfully reported what the theory has predicted. For example, our quark family come as a quadruple family and not a triplet family as theorized by SM(I will stay corrected if I have misunderstood it, as I am not an expert of SM). The implication is that there are 3 yet to be discovered elementary particles and 34 yet to be discovered composite particles.
And to your question about what EM field is made of, under our theory, EM is just a manifestation of QVF only
Similarly, assuming you mean a ether like wave medium, under our theory, there is no medium involved, as spacetime continues to emerge automatically from QVF as we speak!
Hope it clarifies!
@@charlesprabakar .. OK, but up and down quarks are not detected, neutrino mass is unknown, Higgs boson is not corroborated. As long as you realise you're probably chasing red herrings. My model predicts a load of short lived EM field fluctuations that are useless junk to be ignored. Only electrons, muons, protons, neutrons (= proton+electron) and taus (that are not leptons) exist as baryonic matter, + their antiparticles. They are all composite. How do you explain the fact proton/neutron mass is almost exactly halfway between muon and tau?
--
By EM Field I mean a matter-energy field made up of neutral field cells each joined to 12 neighbours as if they were close packed spheres (but it's a wireframe matrix of point particles). Cells consist of a +ve and -ve base particle that can be partially split (polarised) forming a magnetic field, or fully split into base particles that can clump to form baryonic matter.
--
EM Waves are a transverse up-down cell movement wave, with sideways partial cell split (magnetic component). Gravity waves are a longitudinal wave. Cells may be equidistant or varying in (gap) size/density (I have a few variations).
Can anyone show me any example of the standard model accurately predicting anything?
Some claim the mass of W and Z bosons, but it is still fiddling with parameters on closer inspection.
Just a random thought. Will the AI fitted to 'companion' robots need to be 'dumbed down' ?
They'll still be argumentative even if you make them dumb as rocks! 😂
@@michaelhamm6207 Can you imagine sitting down and watching a film with your 'companion'. Then you ask what it thought of the film, what are you going to get back ?
Imagine his reaction with deepseek R1
We need the mathematical constants from chaos theory to diminish the number of physical constants, that is my intuition. Many physics theory are too linear and can be extended to non-linear theories, perhaps this can lead to unification (for instance, explain the dimensionless fine structure constant as a combination of chaos theory constants, such that Planck constant 'h' can be expressed in terms of classical electrodynamics constants.
Dr. Unzicker: A unifying theory can not only simplify our understanding, but can increase our understanding, and can obsolete the illogic of other theories. I think you might be able to have a very insightful discussion with ChatGPT about illogic. Ask it what's illogical in various physics theories. An advancement in understanding exactly what is illogical in a theory can help a theorist improve that theory, or their own theory. My unifying theory, matter theory, is still for sale. After you've learned matter theory, you'll find you'll have little interest in discussing inventing a unifying theory. Instead your interest will become using and improving the unifying theory you have. Imagine the possibilities for explaining unexplained things, and also for reexplaining all the things currently illogically explained in other theories.
Sadly, I've found ChatGPT to be very agreeable, even when I tell it something wrong. Admittedly I've chatted to it about arcane things like Spatial 4D, which only appears to have a relatively small body of "knowledge", if imaginary things can have such, that seems to be trapped to varying degrees in 3D think. So, I'm a little under-impressed by ChatGPT at times when it comes to synthesising new ideas from old in logical ways. Sometimes I feel like I'm still chatting to the old Eliza, just with access to a human frail knowledge base...
There is some danger here, yet I believe Eliza has evolved :-)
Was this ChatGPT 4o or ChatGPT o1? The latter is MUCH smarter.
o1
The fabric of space-time
The invariance of C implies a medium / quantised / pixelated field where light travels from field cell to field cell in a fixed Time (constant T) in a flat space (cells are all the same distance apart). If C does ABSOLUTELY vary with gravity it implies curved space (varying cell gap size/density) as measured time does vary with gravity. C always measures C LOCALLY in a vacuum either way. EM waves need a medium (EM field). What is the (average) cell (gap) size? What is T?!
@@PrivateSi Why would C imply a quantized field?
@@LionKimbro .. Implies a FLAT (field cell centres are all equidistant) quantised field if C is absolutely the same everywhere. Obviously there must be a quantised matter-energy field because matter and energy if quantised and proper physical waves NEED a medium! Probability 'waves' are not proper waves, but EM waves are.
@ Why do they need a medium? It sounds like an article of faith, but I don't see why it would have to be like that -- I don't see why there couldn't just be a mathematical relationship upheld in the universe, regarding the relationship between the pieces of information in the universe, sans medium. And why would a hypothetical medium need to be quantized? In quantum field theory, fields are quantized, but space itself is continuous.
Physics bro, try deepseek r1 as well.
wouldn't that be something if AI actually starts eliminating constants
what "smart views" did it have? It's regurgitating what it's been trained on, nothing new at all.
It was smart to agree
When Unzigger claimed the elimination of constants to be the goal of physics, I thought it was actually very clever that ChatGPT gave the discovery of "h" as a counter example.
Try Deepseek R1
Will do.
Bruvva
I would suggest that all of the fundamental questions are answered by the physical properties of spacetime, everything else is a consequence. You can study crabs, fish, plankton, etc. all you like, but the essential truths are all in the water.
Whatever ChatGPT said to you, and no matter how impressive these results might seem as a conversation partner, you should NOT invest confidence in that 'as science'.
Who cares about ChatGPT? We would rather love to know what DeepSeek has to say.
The AI nor the human are giving any insightful principles in physics.
By your logic, the introduction of ε0 and μ0 were steps backwards, because two new constants were introduced.
The introduction of Planck's constant permeated throughout physics, because it solved a fundamental problem and yielded correct answers in others. It was undeniably progress.
It's understandable to look at the proliferation of constants under the Standard Model and believe we've entered the territory of epicycles, but that doesn't mean every constant introduced since 1900 is a crime against Science (tm).
It's also dogmatic to insist that there can be no arbitrary numbers in fundamental physics at all. Do you seriously think there can be only one possible set of physical laws, and it just so happens to yield atoms that arrange themselves into humans?
they knew about planck 6K years ago. (and then they flooded the ball.) open knowlage in plain sight.
One must take a closer look at history here. Interestingly however, this is why Lord Kelvin objected: he asked for a mechanical explanation of Maxwell's equations, not just a description.
@@TheMachian The question under consideration is progress in physics. Just because Lord Kelvin wanted a mechanical interpretation doesn't mean progress wasn't made.
I definitely believe A.I. will figure out physics completely, though I also think it's possible that we won't be able to understand it.
It's funny that the AI voice sounds like Neil deGrasse Tyson for authority. AI is a big Lookup table with a human Voice.
I'm amazed with your fascination with digital parrot of your colleagues in the field of modern fundamental physics... smh
All liquid metallic sun model theories need to be admitted by AI
Physics will never accomplish a Theory of Everything. It belongs to theology. Augustine has an excellent Theory of Everything-a Christian-Platonic one.
Interesting outlook.
@@matswinther8991 Why does it belong to theology? The evidence seems to point towards mathematics instead. Why? Because math is invariant of opinions and universal, on which everything including theology builds upon.
@@joonasmakinen4807 Ultimate reality cannot be grasped through reason alone, while mathematics operates solely within the bounds of natural reason. Ultimate truth is personal (God), whereas mathematics is impersonal and abstract-and personal truth cannot be reduced to impersonal systems. Thus, mathematical and logical truths merely reflect, but do not constitute, the highest form of truth. They are subordinate to the eternal truth of God. The universe is a deeply personal creation. Unlike in the 19th century, contemporary physicists widely acknowledge this perspective.
@@matswinther8991 It is a wide misunderstanding that Mathematics is impersonal. Same goes for Truth, most believe like Pontius Pilatus that it is impersonal, asking What is Truth, when we should ask Who is Truth. Logos is personal. I don’t yet have evidence but I believe Logos = Applied Math, on which all things including life are constructed like Bible shows. Interestingly, latest findings on mathematics allow infinite (fractal-like) complexity even up to conciousness. Game of Life is the simplest proof of emergent complexity. Logos defines Truth, is Life, sets Way. Logos holds all things together like Book of Colossians shows. Logos is the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, who in himself showed us Father God.
@@matswinther8991 To be precise, did you mean man-made theology or God-made theology? Only the God’s matters, e.g., John 7:16-17, Luke 4:32, Matt 7:28, Matt 22:33, because only it gives Life. Bible shows God’s Theology is what Holy Spirit teaches us in Christ to Father’s Truth (John 16:13) and Father’s Word is Truth (John 17:17). I can’t wait till our Lord Jesus Christ will return in the clouds to Earth, and we all will be judged either to Eternal Life or Eternal Death, and to us in Christ are shown Father God! And we will eternally get to rejoice of knowing God!
I think you have false hopes. AI can't challenge the established theories because it has been trained with them.
That is why I am providing extra training :-)
This was more true for the previous generation of models: cutting edge models are starting to have sparks of Ah-ha moments. Soon to be released models have long term memory built in at a fundamental level which seems likely to drastically improve scope and depth of reasoning and intuition.
@ This is a commercial.
@ Clmasse, have you looked into the new self learning models capable of novel solutions (like the free and open source R1)?
Also the new memory methods like;
"Think-in-Memory":
A framework where the LLM actively recalls relevant memories before generating a response and then updates its memory based on the post-thought process.
"Larimar":
A model designed to mimic the brain's hippocampus, allowing for short-term memory storage that can later be consolidated into long-term memory.
"MemoryBank":
A system that incorporates a memory updating mechanism inspired by the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve, allowing the LLM to selectively forget information over time?
How are you so confident in your assertion?
The pursuit of a TOE is illogical, nature at it's heart is 4 things, not 1
Which 4? What you just with 100% confidence goes under the definition of ToE: Fourness of X, Y, Z, and U.
What you say is illogical same way as saying ”There is no absolute truth”, which itself is what it itself tries to refute: Absolute truth.
Your logic is highly flawed. There must be a TOE or the universe wouldn't work!
@@joonasmakinen4807 Gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. No, they won't be unified
@@shawns0762 omg, how horrible you are at "getting" the nature. Foreces are not basic things, they are sideefects at diferent scakes. EVERYTHINY IS JUST ONE PROCCES. If you think not, check int mental hospital.
personally the spaces ressistance as a main factor of finite c-speed is the most acceptable , proved by different values of permittivity of free space and permeability of free space c is finite because both ε₀ and μ₀ have nonzero, finite values. If either were infinite or zero, the speed of light would also be infinite or undefined.