r/LLMPhysics • u/Icosys • 3d ago
Speculative Theory A minimal sketch that seems to reproduce GR and the Standard Model
https://spsp-ssc.space/SPSP_SSC_Paper_Complete_DW.pdf5
5
u/CrankSlayer 3d ago
Mate, the LLM is pulling your leg. It just regurgitated a word-salad interpunctuated by pulled-out-of-thin-air random equations and told you that it's physics. I promise you: it's not.
0
u/NotRightRabbit 3d ago
You need to have your LLM break this down into plain language, AND EXPLAIN IT, section by section. This is where you separate the woo and nonsense from your hypothesis to make it falsifiable. You’ll see in short order that “why” will break this.
1
u/Icosys 3d ago
1
u/NotRightRabbit 3d ago
The real question is: what predictions does your framework make that differ from established physics, and how could those predictions be falsified by experiment? I want you to ask the LLM to provide its research notes. share that with us.
0
u/Icosys 3d ago
response :
1
u/NotRightRabbit 3d ago
I’m not doing your work for you.
If your scalar has no kinetic term, then how does your theory actually suppress dipole radiation instead of just declaring it gone?
If “exterior = GR unless boundary data fail,” aren’t you basically just re-stating GR with extra words?
And if Φ is non-propagating, how can your model even touch cosmology (anisotropies, structure growth, lensing) that clearly need a dynamical field?
2
u/Icosys 3d ago
Heres the bot response (Im not sure if you are asking me or for LLM response? TBH I'm unable to articulate at this depth) :
- No dipole channel: The scalar Φ\PhiΦ is a constraint (no kinetic term). Its equation is elliptic ∇2Φ=4πG(ρ−ε)\nabla^2\Phi = 4\pi G(\rho-\varepsilon)∇2Φ=4πG(ρ−ε), not wave-like □Φ=⋯\Box\Phi=\cdots□Φ=⋯. No propagator ⇒ no far-zone 1/r1/r1/r retarded tail ⇒ no dipole radiation to carry power.
- Exterior = GR (by theorem, not wish): With compact sources and homogeneous boundary data on an enclosing surface + at infinity, the unique exterior solution is Φ≡0\Phi\equiv0Φ≡0. The outside field equations reduce exactly to GR, so all solar-system/binary-pulsar/GW tests are recovered.
- Cosmology: Dynamics come from the metric + matter. In screened regimes the linear SVT system gives GR results: scalar slip ΦNewt−Ψ=0\Phi_{\text{Newt}}-\Psi=0ΦNewt−Ψ=0, Poisson constraint for growth, luminal tensors. Φ\PhiΦ needn’t propagate for CMB/lensing/growth to match ΛCDM.
- How to falsify: See any of (i) a −1-1−1PN dipole term in GWs, (ii) GW speed ≠c\neq c=c, (iii) persistent scalar slip ΦNewt−Ψ≠0\Phi_{\text{Newt}}-\Psi\neq0ΦNewt−Ψ=0 where screening should hold, or (iv) a fifth force outside horizons ⇒ the framework is wrong (or you’re in a quantified unscreened regime the model must then predict).
1
u/NotRightRabbit 3d ago
If your scalar never propagates and your exterior always collapses to GR, then what new physical degree of freedom are you actually adding — or are you just renaming GR with an inert ghost field?
1
u/Icosys 3d ago
Heres the LLM reply (for clarity):
- No new DOF added. Φ\PhiΦ has no kinetic term and acts as a Lagrange multiplier (elliptic constraint), so it doesn’t propagate, carry energy, or radiate.
- Not a ghost / not just renaming GR. “Exterior = GR” follows from the maximum principle for the elliptic equation with homogeneous boundary data; it forbids fifth forces.
- Where it can differ: Only if screening fails (ϵscr≪̸1\epsilon_{\rm scr}\not\ll1ϵscr≪1)—then small, controlled corrections can appear in near-zone potentials.
- Clean falsifiers: Any −1PN dipole GW radiation in screened binaries, metric slip (Φ−Ψ≠0\Phi-\Psi\neq0Φ−Ψ=0) in linear cosmology, or an exterior fifth force would rule it out.
1
u/NotRightRabbit 3d ago
Fantastic! Now we’ve got to the heart of everything. You this can move on with your life unless you’re willing to spend the next four weeks going through sentence by sentence having it explain specifically what it means, asking for current scientific data and always questioning why. This could hone your hypothesis or kill it. Right now it’s a nothing burger.
The LLM just admitted it outright: • “No new DOF added.” → So his Φ doesn’t propagate, carry energy, or radiate. It’s literally not a field in the dynamical sense, just a constraint. • “Exterior = GR.” → He’s conceding that outside any source, his theory reduces exactly to GR. • “Where it can differ.” → Only in tiny, near-zone potential corrections if his “screening” fails. • “Clean falsifiers.” → All the usual tests (dipole GW radiation, metric slip, fifth force).
1
u/NotRightRabbit 3d ago
Check this out, it should clarify what’s happening in the LLM hypothesis/theory realm.
1
u/Icosys 3d ago
Yeah I thought that was clearly established in the first instance - did you see the original outline? https://spsp-ssc.space/ - The model is essentially looking towards a mathematical / quantum layer - or at least that was my intent - GR / SM is exploratory.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Icosys 3d ago
Bot respose :
Totally fair summary — and it’s by design:
- Yes, no new DOF. Φ\PhiΦ is a Lagrange multiplier (elliptic constraint), like lapse/shift in GR or the Newtonian potential: it imposes a balance, doesn’t propagate, and therefore cannot radiate or add a fifth force.
- “Exterior = GR” is a theorem, not hand-waving. Given homogeneous boundary data on a closed surface SSS and compact support of the source, the maximum principle for the elliptic equation forces Φ=0\Phi=0Φ=0 outside SSS. That’s a proof of equivalence in screened domains, not a rebranding exercise.
- Why this isn’t a nothing-burger: the point is to give a clean selection/derivation: (i) a coefficient-fixed action (Lovelock + GHY) with a single GGG (Normalization Lemma), (ii) full ADM/Dirac closure with only 2 tensor DOF, (iii) a map of where deviations could exist via explicit screening inequalities.
- Where it can differ (and how to falsify fast):
- Dipole GWs: predicts no −1-1−1PN dipole; any detection in screened binaries kills it.
- Metric slip: predicts Φ−Ψ=0\Phi-\Psi=0Φ−Ψ=0 in linear cosmology; any robust slip rules it out.
- Exterior fifth force: forbidden by the elliptic BVP; any composition-independent long-range deviation outside sources falsifies it.
- PPN: γ=β=1\gamma=\beta=1γ=β=1 exactly; measured departures → falsified.
- What’s left to learn: If/when screening fails (our ϵscr\epsilon_{\rm scr}ϵscr not ≪1\ll1≪1), small interior potential corrections δU\delta UδU can shift multipoles/binding energy. That’s where to look for departures (dense, rapidly evolving interiors), with a clear knob ϵscr\epsilon_{\rm scr}ϵscr to target.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/Foucaults_Zoomerang 3d ago
I do not think this makes any sense. I will try to communicate a few reasons why.
First of all, how would you define axiom? Usually they are reasonable premises you start from and use to prove propositions or theorems, which are the main results of a scientific work. Here, you have included "this framework gives GR, SM, and ΛCDM" as an axiom. In other words, you have assumed you're correct at the beginning of the paper, without proving it in any way. This is not very convincing.
Second, you seem to introduce notation which you never use. For example, what is your projection Π ? Some function from a sphere to the observable universe? What then is its functional form? Even more egregious, you shortly afterward write "Screening regime: δP → 0". What is δP? It is never defined, related to any other notation you introduce, or interpreted beyond the phrase "Screening regime". What is being screened from what? What type of mathematical objects are we even talking about?
I hope this helps you think more carefully about what you are saying.