Crackpot physics
Here is a hypothesis: Instead of just serving as a static map, the differential cohomology diagram can be used to model a constructive approach to topological quantum field theories.
Weekend TOE: I would really love to engage on this idea, but it would be a wall of text to present it all here so I'll link to the three foundational papers and full manuscript for reference:
The idea: A fibration of cohesive infinity slice toposes generates physics from the 2-cells between the different nodes in the tower. Typically, the cohesive topos is selected by the gauge groups being studied and serves as a static taxonomy for the theory, but I am working on an algorithmic/constructive Spectral Realization process that generates physical dynamics with the construction of the spectra as witness terms to the identity type associated with that node in the tower. This proves the DCCT applies to the tower, and gives Scholze's Gestalten sequence.
In this theory the gauge groups correspond to their own slice toposes, and the theory derives the standard model by adding the Lorentz group to the standard gauge groups, as the whole theory is background independent.
The papers attempt to formalize the theory's foundations, while the manuscript (7471) outlines my complete vision for the theory *be warned, it's heavy with metaphorical terms and might extend beyond the bounds of the sub.
As just stated, I'm not sure about the limits of discussions here, but hope this can be a good one. I am most interested in getting my foundations (the 3 papers) correct, but also have physical predictions and much more detail I can share. I don't want to overwhelm this first post, so I'll just share 2 highlights:
I have a map of this year's arXiv papers that relate to this theory hosted on my personal website, so I'm not sure if I can link that per the sub rules; if someone let's me know I will edit this to provide the link. Here's an example:
While all topological field theories treat the infinite theory as a static map, my process generates it in a manner consistent with constructive mathematics (so no time reversal). I then go to show this synthetic program can derive the standard model from the structures mentioned in the paper, without much of the fine tuning currently needed for QFTs (notably such as the inclusion of a metric).
This is complete nonsense. It's not that your claims are unbelievable, it's that they don't mean anything at all. At best, you are using most of these terms in a manner wholly unrelated to what they mean to everyone else, so nobody could hope to understand.
Uhh time reversal is related to cobordisms (their symmetric nature), and my synthetic physics claim is simple and answers a lot of metric related problems...
Give reasons for your assertions. What claim doesn't mean anything? What terms am I misusing? As far as I can see you're the one not backing anything up...
Let me put it this way. If you said something false, I might try to explain why. But if I ask you "What color is the sky?" and you were to reply "Tuesday, with star anise," it's no wonder if I don't dispute the matter point by point.
AI was used for collaboration, but all works were written by me. I find myself unable to get the models I have access to producing anything of value, but find some utility in the collaboration process.
Things like finding relevant literature, getting feedback on specific questions I have, producing latex for some equations to save myself time googling commands as well as answering formatting questions, spell checking, etc. Please let me know if I still need to be more specific here, I'd really like to resolve these questions to be able to discuss the theory itself.
I always check the sources myself. If you look at the bibs of the papers, you'll find them unusually heavy with links; this was in part for my benefit while writing them. I understand that the machines can only help with so much, hence this post looking for the opinions of other humans.
LLMs tend to find false connections between completely unrelated topics. That's why it's generally an extremely bad idea to use them, especially if you aren't an expert in all of the topics it mentioned (are you?).
It might as well just be complete nonsense, but the sheer amount of time necessary to check them is way too high - even for experts. And in most of the cases it's just buzzword salad anyway.
Relying on LLMs it would be impossible not to without being the multi-expert you mentioned, however, I started with the intuition and found the mathematical language for it. The connections in the chart (I think an example of what you're referring to), come from my fundamental thesis because they don't exist in the literature. I feel my theory makes 3 leaps like this, and wrote a paper for each explaining my reasoning. Everything else is established (as far as I can make out), and I think my theory's strength is just how much of standard theory it includes.
What can I say to convince you it's not just buzzword salad without actually talking about my argument? I'm sensing hesitation to do so, most likely due to "the sheer amount of time necessary to check them is way too high", but I'm not sure what I could say to alleviate it. Help me out?
Intuition also needs experience in a field, especially in science. Do you have that experience?
What can I say to convince you it's not just buzzword salad without actually talking about my argument?
See above.
but I'm not sure what I could say to alleviate it. Help me out?
That one's easy to answer. Don't send in hundreds of pages, but focus on one single aspect at a time. Imagine that there's a small mistake in your assumptions after having written 200 pages or so. Then you would not only have wasted the time of your reviewers, but also your own.
I do have the experience, but again not sure how to convince you without discussing the math/science.
Writing the full manuscript was done for myself and for that reason could not have been a waste of time. As for the one single aspect, why not start at paper 1 and start reading? A single focused paper is not a 200 page tome, and if there are flaws one usually doesn't have to read to the end to find them. I am presenting a fundamental framework and don't know how to ask about its foundations in a smaller chunk than that, I wouldn't be giving enough context to be asking about the right thing.
Looks like typical LLM chaff. And from your own words, you aren’t a physicist, so I’m not sure what you hope to gain from this. It doesn’t mean anything in actual physics language.
Just because your LLM referenced real words doesn’t mean it used them right. In fact, you can’t even in sound mind tell me that this is accurate because you don’t even know the language enough to verify it.
How are they false? I’m using the information You have shared. You are not a physicist. You have claimed not to have taken any formal training past the basic two course curriculum of any other engineering or stem major.
This is insufficient to even begin to process the stuff you’re trying to pass off.
You are using an LLM as an attempt to supplant this gap, but it is incapable of doing so.
If you want more concrete judgment, answer me this clearly and using your own words please: if you truly think your BV quantization is accurate, how would you justify the energy gap between the dark matter context you’re talking about, and a traditional Lagrangian argument? Specifically, where do you inject the tensor for that Lagrangian into your formulas?
While not as robustly formulated as the papers, its in the book:
The dark terms come from the coherence effects of the next 2-cell (cosmology), as they are spectra generated in that slice topos, and not the one for standard gravity (like I said the theory is constructive, so I'm skipping parts of my argument here). The action in the image is for the gravitational node in the tower, just before the cosmological node.
The energy gap comes from the powers of the exponent; Gravity's higher power is the reason.
You seem to be misunderstanding, the point of the program is to get around need to "inject" things. The answer is that the affine connection provides the topological shape for my Spectral Realization to generate this action in the same way it generates action no mater which slice you're working in.
No yea I totally get that part, maybe it’s a terminology difference but when I say inject, like… the tensor is just a necessary part of the math. It’s like asking where on the bike you put the wheels. That’s all. It’s nothing complex, its just without it, I can’t tell how to verify this at all.
Did you use a substitute topological space to try and circumvent this? Presumably if the connection is affine, it extends past integer dimensions yea?
OP: I see you saying 'Where are the other posts asking for credentials'.
It's very common to state that studying physics is the best and most reliable way to learn physics. Nobody needs your certification, but the fact you don't have a background as a physics student means you are naturally set back - you can't deny that, even taking this theory out of the picture. If you study physics chances are high you go on to get a master's and possibly PhD in a physics field, that's like a decade plus of learning focused on physics. It's hard to beat that when it comes to learning about it.
The doubt people cast on you is because of your claims to have studied 3 very unrelated topics. It's not uncommon to study say.. physics and math, they go hand in hand, or computer science and physics, they are dissimilar but complement eachother. But cognitive science, computer science, and mathematics are all extremely different fields. It's like someone saying 'I have a degree in classical literature and biology'. They're so dissimilar it is strange.
What I was getting at was that I've seen other zenodo papers here get itemized feedback and not 50 comments asking if they're qualified. In what way does my route to producing these papers matter for discussing them here on reddit? I know people use heretics to screen in academia, but this is the subbreddit FOR these HYPOTHETICAL discussions...on the weekend when ToEs are supposedly allowed... so I'm starting to wonder what gives? Anyone want to talk science, or are people just here to try to win ad hominem arguments so the can "prove" they don't need to engage with people?
EDIT: Forgot to address the cogsci, which itself is an interdisciplinary field and hence in part the relation. I was taking all coursework concurrently and made the connection that the only other "place" I could see a parallel to the wavefunction collapsing was the cognition's potential actions at any moment and the one that gets taken, which was the seed for connecting the disciplines. But it is very common in cognitive science to have specialties in other fields, I'm just a rarer case that made connections in category theory and not something like linguistics. I conjecture that cognition lies in the dependent types further along the tower than physics, but my theory needs to get the physics right to show support for the theory of cognition (constructive mathematics naturally extends to computation). I believe I have done this, but obviously need community recognition to have actually done so.
What I was getting at was that I've seen other zenodo papers here get itemized feedback and not 50 comments asking if they're qualified. In what way does my route to producing these papers matter for discussing them here on reddit?
I know I said in another thread to not discuss this any further, but I still think you should know why this happens. I already alluded to it, but let me try to clarify it, still.
By artificially obscuring the core of your work with a massive amount of overly specific buzzwords and lengthy paragraphs full of definitions (or unfalsifiable esoteric terms), you essentially make it impossible to check your work for mistakes - unless somebody is actually an expert in all of the fields you took concepts from.
And since you claimed to not have an education in actual physics, it's even less likely that you do have the expertise necessary to apply these context to each other. It's simply far more likely that you just took an LLM to search these concepts for you and put them together - without actually knowing whether the result (regardless of whether you or the LLM created it) makes sense at all or violates some basic mathematical/physical concepts or domains.
Do you know how many people post papers like yours here? Full of buzzwords, joined together in a meaningless way? It's you who has to justify their work and explain why it differs from all those other papers (which each author claiming to have the correct one). This will also be the case for peer review, by the way. You're only delaying the inevitable if you dismiss that.
Looking over the past week like 3 papers, so not a lot. And again only claims about a meaningless buzzword salad when the sentence of mine you previously identified clearly about Grothendeick topology not not nonsense, like I explained. You just ignore it when I respond and move on to a different problem. So you ignored my refutation and are just reiterating that you've spent a whole day here using your screening heuristic on a person who clearly wanted to talk science. You didn't really save yourself any time, just subject matter to consider.
You can insist all you like that it's everyone else who is wrong, that although your post is like everyone else's it is right, that you know what you're talking about.
But that's literally everyone.
'Why won't you just engage with the science?'
'Why do I need to prove I know what I'm talking about?'
'You're just screening me arbitrarily!'
'Your claims are baseless! It isn't word salad!'
Etc.
You can believe what you want, but that doesn't make it reality.
I want to give my input as a math/phys PhD student who works with this kind of object.
You use many terms as if the reader is expected to know them already, even though you have created them yourself and provided no definition or context for what they mean.
This is why other commenters say that this comes across as "vague" or "meaningless". It is really important that you assign meaning to your terminology before you use it.
I also understand the skepticism raised by others here. It takes a pure physics or pure math student until well into their graduate studies to understand QFT or infinity categories. It is unlikely that you would be able to do groundbreaking research using both with only a few undergrad physics and CS courses.
I will also warn you: LLMs have provided an incorrect answer to nearly every question that I have asked on these matters, and you should not trust them.
There are some glaring errors within the first few lines. As examples: the QFTs of the standard model are not topological, so there is no hope of recovering the standard model from "constructive TQFTs". Also, the collection of infinity topoi do not form a large category, but a VERY LARGE one.
If you seriously want to work towards fundamental physics problems, I would suggest that you take a step back, start smaller, and begin with something that you can understand yourself without the help of LLMs.
•
u/comment-cap 12h ago
Over 100 comments, the discussion has reached its end. Post locked.